The Nicene Creed talks about a “catholic”, meaning “universal”, church. While Protestants subscribe to the Creed, I propose that most American Protestants are not, in fact, part of the universal-catholic Church. (Just for the record, as of this writing, I am solidly Protestant, so this is not a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox polemic.) Now, Protestants will protest, “nonsense, we are part of the set of all believers.” Which is true, but I argue that the set of all believers and the universal Church are not the same thing. For instance, there is a tribe that lives off the coast of India that kills everyone that tries to contact them, so the government decided to leave them alone and made it illegal to contact them. Are they in the set of all humans? Yes. Are they part of “universal humanity”? Not really: none of the rest of us knows anything about them, and vice-versa, and they do not share in either our blessings or our hardships.

In the Baptist, Evangelical, and Charismatic churches and organizations with which I have interacted, I do not think I heard anyone reference someone between the Apostle Paul and 1850, with honorable mentions for Augustine and Martin Luther. Reformed and Presbyterian types talk about John Calvin (obviously), Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, and maybe Luther, but rarely anything before Luther. This means that between 1500 and 1800 years of Church thought is never mentioned. How can Protestants be universal and catholic if we ignore 75% - 90% of Christian thinking?

Quick exercise: name ten influential Christians before Luther, who were not in the Bible. (Many of these are also “saints”, in case that helps.) I did this exercise myself at the bottom.

 

The main reason why most American Protestants ignore most of Church history is that the most active group of Christians were the New England Puritans, who were Separatists. At the time, most Protestants, even Anglicans (the Church of England) saw the Pope as the Antichrist. Queen Elizabeth I wanted to adopt the more accurate Gregorian calendar so that Easter would be more correctly calculated, but the Anglican bishops refused, on the grounds that the Pope was the Antichrist and that therefore no partnership could be had with him. However, the Anglican Church had kept much of the liturgical practice from the Roman church. The Separatists thought it had kept too much, and that the Church of England was simply not reformable. Hence, they separated from it. Rejecting the historical Church as unreformable is essentially rejecting “universal, catholic” itself.

Baptists were in a similar camp as the Puritans, and in the US they had a populist mindset, ordaining ministers without the requirement of seminary. This was helpful for groups without easy access to seminary, such as the newly freed slaves and poor whites. However, it did have the consequence of limiting influence from the longer, “universal, catholic” tradition. Evangelicals were borne out of a similar milieu.

Not all Protestants completely rejected the long tradition. Anglicans, although they did think that the Pope was the Antichrist, did keep the connection to the “universal, catholic” faith. They still celebrate saints as Christian examples. Morning and Evening Prayers were developed by Thomas Cranmer to monasticize the laity (Henry VIII having laicized the monastics by dissolving the monasteries). s a result of keeping the connection to the longer tradition of thought, Anglicans can have a richer, less extreme Christianity. It is no accident that C.S. Lewis, who was Anglican, has had such a strong impact on conservative American Christianity. He is recognizably Protestant and orthodox, so he does not scare people off, and he offers a more nuanced, balanced, moderate approach to the faith to the more rigid, fundamentalist Baptists and Evangelicals . It might not be a stretch to say that C.S. Lewis is the connection to “universal, catholic” for much of American Christianity.

I am not very familiar with Lutherans, but I think they are also still connected. Luther never intended to break with the Catholic Church; he wanted to reform it. His primacy of the Bible as the spiritual authority was too much for them, and so he ended up on his own. But Lutherans kept a lot of the “universal, catholic” richness. For instance, Lutherans also celebrate the saints. And although it is not entirely relevant to this discussion, in 1999 Lutherans and Catholics issued a joint statement saying that after they had understood the very different language and assumptions of each side, they are in agreement that salvation is by grace alone. (Since then, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Reformed churches have also signed it, representing, in total, agreement among 75% of Christians [including Catholics])

I am not saying that all non-Catholics are not “universal, catholic”, I am not saying that Separatist-derived Protestants are not saved, nor am I arguing that we need to all come to some agreement (although that would be nice). For Protestants to return to being “universal, catholic” in my mind only requires incorporating the richness of the 1500 years of the Church before Luther. This is pretty easy for individuals on the practical level. One thing I have been doing the past year is that one meal at home on Sunday, look up the saints being celebrated this week on the ACNA’s (a conservative Anglican denomination) liturgical calendar, and read the hagiography of one of the saints that I am unfamiliar with. I read the longer hagiography (or auto-biography, in the case of St. Patrick) when I can find one. While I disagree with some of the assumptions of monastic holiness (many saints were monastics), the major saints inevitably inspire me in some aspect of their testimony.

The Church Fathers are a great resource, and give many well-argued and different perspectives that will enhance the very narrow and limited perspectives held by many American denominations. I mean, if God is infinite, how can one denomination, or even an entire time period, have anything besides a tiny picture? If the Church is Christ’s body, hanging out with only one denomination’s thinking is like the arm being unaware that the heart, stomach, legs, fingers, and shoulders exist. Additionally, the Church Fathers do not always agree with each other, so reading them also develops a culture of thoughtful investigation rather than dogmatic agreement. (In the 1100s, Peter Abelard compiled a list of questions that the Fathers disagreed on, or appeared to disagree on, as an aid to theological study.)

The universal, catholic tradition is a wealth of resources, and we are starving ourselves spiritually if we ignore or reject it.

Here is my list of saints, in roughly chronological order, that I could think of off the top of my head. (The dates I verified afterwards for correctness.)

St. Ireneaus of Lyon	(100s)	Wrote initial formulations of theology, listed the first canon
Eusebius	(300s)	Compiled the definitive history of the early church
St. Basil the Great	(300s)	Bishop of Constantinople, known for helping the poor
St. Macrina	(300s)	Sister of Basil, went to the trash heaps to find and adopt abandoned babies
St. Gregory of Nyssa	(300s)	Brother of Basil and Macrina, bishop, wrote “The Life of Moses”
Gregory of Nazianus	(300s)	Theologian; his works were considered next to scripture
St. Anthony the Great	(300s)	Hermit in the Egyptian desert, considered the founder of monasticism
Athanasius	(300s)	Bishop of Alexandria, wrote a biography of Anthony, said “God became Man that Man might become God” (meaning, as Peter says, “sharing in the divine nature”)
John Cassian	(400s)	Wrote down interviews with Egyptian hermits, brought monasticism to France
St. Augustine of Hippo	(400s)	Bishop of Hippo in N. Africa, developed doctrine of original sin, wrote Confessions and City of God among his many other works.
St. Patrick	(500s)	Abducted from West Britain as a child and enslaved in Ireland, escaped, and returned to convert the Irish.
St. Benedict of Nursia	(500s)	From Cassian and his own experiences, developed a monastic Rule from which all Western monasticism derives (the Benedictines).
St. Gregory the Great	(500s)	Roman administrator, turned monk and elected Pope. Ably administered Rome in troubled times, credited with integrating Gregorian chant, wrote widely, sent the other St. Augustine as a missionary to England
St. Augustine of Canterbury	(500s)	Missionary to Britain. First converts in the London area.
St. Maximus the Confessor	(600s)	Bishop, known (particularly in Orthodoxy) for his theology of Christ
St. Columba	(500s)	Irish, founded many monasteries in Ireland, Britain, France, and Switzerland. Responsible for a resurgence in holiness.
St. Cuthbert	(600s)	Bishop-monk in Lindisfarne, known for his humility and concern for the common people.
Venerable Bede	(700s)	Monk, wrote The Ecclesiastical History of Britain, first to popularize dating from the year of Christ’s birth (anno domini)
Pope Gregory VII	(1000s)	Created sacred/secular divide, asserted papal supremacy over secular rulers; created Christendom
Bernard of Clairvaux	(1100s)	Monk at Cluny, widely respected, developed devotion to Mary
Peter Abelard	(1100s)	Academic turned monk, widely acclaimed for his thinking. He believed that investigating contradictions was essential in finding God.
St. Francis	(1300s)	Lived a humble, itinerate life bringing Jesus to the common people, in an age where the Church hierarchy was widely seen as corrupt.