What do you think?
Rate this book
Evangelical Is Not Enough: Worship of God in Liturgy and Sacrament
In this deeply moving narrative, Thomas Howard describes his pilgrimage from Evangelicalism (which he loves and reveres as the religion of his youth) to liturgical Christianity. He soon afterward became a Roman Catholic. He describes Evangelicalism with great sympathy and then examines more formal, liturgical worship with the freshness of someone discovering for the first time what his soul had always hungered for. This is a book of apologetics without polemics. Non-Catholics will gain an appreciation of the formal and liturgical side of Catholicism. Catholics will see with fresh eyes the beauty of their tradition. Worship, prayer, the Blessed Virgin, the Mass, and the liturgical year are taken one after the other, and what may have seemed routine and repetitive suddenly comes to life under the enchanting wand of Howard's beautiful prose. Howard unfolds for us just what occurs in the vision and imagination of a Christian who, nurtured in the earnestness of Protestant Evangelicalism, finds himself yearning for whatever-it-is that has been there in the Church for 2000 years. It traces Howard's soul-searching and shows why he believes the practices of the liturgical Church are an invaluable aid for any Christian's spiritual life. Reminiscent of the style and scope of Newman, Lewis and Knox, this book is destined to be a classic. "The question, What is the Church? becomes, finally, intractable; and one finds oneself unable to offer any very telling reasons why the phrase 'one, holy, catholic, and apostolic', is to be understood in any other than the way in which it was understood for 1500 years."
-- Thomas Howard
-- Thomas Howard
170 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
69 people are currently reading
653 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Howard
57 books76 followersThomas Howard (b. 1935) is a highly acclaimed writer and scholar.
He was raised in a prominent Evangelical home (his sister is well-known author and former missionary Elisabeth Elliot), became Episcopalian in his mid-twenties, then entered the Catholic Church in 1985, at the age of fifty. At the time, his conversion shocked many in evangelical circles, and was the subject of a feature article in the leading evangelical periodical Christianity Today.
Dave Armstrong writes of Howard: "He cites the influence of great Catholic writers such as Newman, Knox, Chesterton, Guardini, Ratzinger, Karl Adam, Louis Bouyer, and St. Augustine on his final decision. Howard's always stylistically-excellent prose is especially noteworthy for its emphasis on the sacramental, incarnational and ‘transcendent’ aspects of Christianity."
Like C.S. Lewis, who he greatly admires and has written about often, Howard is an English professor (recently retired, after nearly forty years of teaching), who taught at Gordon College and then at St. John's Seminary. He is a highly acclaimed writer and scholar, noted for his studies of Inklings C.S. Lewis Narnia Beyond: A Guide to the Fiction of C.S. Lewis (2006, 1987) and Charles Williams The Novels of Charles Williams (1991), as well as books including Christ the Tiger (1967), Chance or the Dance (1969), Hallowed be This House (1976), Evangelical is Not Enough (1984), If Your Mind Wanders at Mass (1995), On Being Catholic (1997), and The Secret of New York Revealed.
He was raised in a prominent Evangelical home (his sister is well-known author and former missionary Elisabeth Elliot), became Episcopalian in his mid-twenties, then entered the Catholic Church in 1985, at the age of fifty. At the time, his conversion shocked many in evangelical circles, and was the subject of a feature article in the leading evangelical periodical Christianity Today.
Dave Armstrong writes of Howard: "He cites the influence of great Catholic writers such as Newman, Knox, Chesterton, Guardini, Ratzinger, Karl Adam, Louis Bouyer, and St. Augustine on his final decision. Howard's always stylistically-excellent prose is especially noteworthy for its emphasis on the sacramental, incarnational and ‘transcendent’ aspects of Christianity."
Like C.S. Lewis, who he greatly admires and has written about often, Howard is an English professor (recently retired, after nearly forty years of teaching), who taught at Gordon College and then at St. John's Seminary. He is a highly acclaimed writer and scholar, noted for his studies of Inklings C.S. Lewis Narnia Beyond: A Guide to the Fiction of C.S. Lewis (2006, 1987) and Charles Williams The Novels of Charles Williams (1991), as well as books including Christ the Tiger (1967), Chance or the Dance (1969), Hallowed be This House (1976), Evangelical is Not Enough (1984), If Your Mind Wanders at Mass (1995), On Being Catholic (1997), and The Secret of New York Revealed.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews
August 2, 2011
Evangelical Is Not Enough is the most powerful, challenging and thought provoking read I've come across in a very long time. The premise is fairly straightforward: for all of evangelicalism's many wonderful qualities, it's approach to things such as worship, prayer, sacrament and church structure is shallow and incomplete when compared to what's found in a liturgical tradition.
Howard points out that evangelicals have an inherit mistrust of anything too ritualistic or liturgical in worship. In the 25 years since the book was written that trend has only increased. In recent years, religion has become a dirty word among many evangelicals. It's becoming increasingly common (perhaps to the point of being cliche) to hear evangelicals pit religious practices against relationship with God, as though the two were at odds with each other. One popular slogan reads "it's against my relationship to have a religion." Clever but also, Howard would argue, tragic and naive.
The book touches on several topics. I'll cover just a couple to give you an idea of Howard's argument. Discussing prayer he points out (accurately, I believe) that evangelicals are suspicious of almost any prewritten prayer. The only prayer that is acceptable to evangelicals is spontaneous prayer where every thought and idea is conceived on the spot.
That approach, Howard argues, hurts us in a couple of key ways. First, it forces us to constantly do the hard work of inventing new prayers. If we want God to hear us, we better make up some good stuff immediately. If we're unable to, we're more or less out of luck. Second, it divides us from the Church as it stands throughout time and space. It makes our faith hugely individualistic, rather than allowing us to stand alongside those who have come before us, coming to God with their words so that our prayers and petitions are made as a single body.
That doesn't mean spontaneous prayers are wrong. The argument Howard makes is not that we need to help God by having prewritten prayers, God of course can discern even our most pathetic mumblings, but that we need to help ourselves and each other.
One of the other big areas he touches on is worship. Evangelicals stress personal experience BIG TIME in worship. We want people to experience God and feel his presence. Howard argues that while those are certainly good things, they aren't the point of worship. He writes, "The phrase worship experience missed the point. Worship, in the ancient tradition, was not thought of as an experience at all; it was an act."
He goes on to describe how a worship service out to feel tangible and participatory. Things such as kneeling and set responses from the congregation help accomplish that. He also argues that, because worship is an act, the Eucharist should be at the center of every worship service. Not as an add on and not just once a month, but on a weekly basis, where we are constantly being brought face to face with Christ's death and Resurrection.
His argument on worship goes on and is more complex than can be summarized here, but you can see the distinction he's drawing between a liturgical worship service and what's found in a typical evangelical church on a Sunday morning.
The book touches on several other points as well. He talks about the value of tradition and how we shouldn't let our belief in Scripture as the ultimate authority cause us to disregard the tradition found in the countless Believers who have come before us. He argues for the value of symbolism and for greater respect for the Saints, especially Mary.
I found myself challenged and stretched by almost every page, in part because I found his arguments pretty convincing. I've been an evangelical my entire life, but I could see his points on everything in the book and found myself agreeing with him more often than not. I'm not sure what that means for me, but I know it deserves more thought and prayer.
Whether you find yourself agreeing with Howard, as I did, or coming down completely against him, this is a book that evangelicals need to read. At the very least, it will challenge us and force us to ask questions that need to be asked.
But in my opinion it needs to go further than that. I believe evangelicalism is in need of some correction. I mentioned the way that many evangelicals regard religion, and I find that tragic. Ditto on our complete disregard for the 2,000 years of faith that's preceded us. I believe that areas like this are representative of an unhealthy trend in evangelicalism. One that, if left uncorrected, will bring us down. We need to be reminded that religion is not a dirty word nor something that prevents us from finding true life in Christ. Rather it is a structure to help us in our journey. We need to get over our rabid individualism that causes us to believe our faith is independent of everyone else's and stand together with the Church as it exists throughout space and time.
I don't know what the answer should be or if Howard's right that we should be moving in a more liturgical direction. I suspect that he very well might be, but I'm not ready to fully commit to that yet. What I am convinced of is that Howard's basic is correct. Being evangelical is not enough. Something more is needed. Now it's up to us to pray hard and seek God's will so we can figure out what that is.
Howard points out that evangelicals have an inherit mistrust of anything too ritualistic or liturgical in worship. In the 25 years since the book was written that trend has only increased. In recent years, religion has become a dirty word among many evangelicals. It's becoming increasingly common (perhaps to the point of being cliche) to hear evangelicals pit religious practices against relationship with God, as though the two were at odds with each other. One popular slogan reads "it's against my relationship to have a religion." Clever but also, Howard would argue, tragic and naive.
The book touches on several topics. I'll cover just a couple to give you an idea of Howard's argument. Discussing prayer he points out (accurately, I believe) that evangelicals are suspicious of almost any prewritten prayer. The only prayer that is acceptable to evangelicals is spontaneous prayer where every thought and idea is conceived on the spot.
That approach, Howard argues, hurts us in a couple of key ways. First, it forces us to constantly do the hard work of inventing new prayers. If we want God to hear us, we better make up some good stuff immediately. If we're unable to, we're more or less out of luck. Second, it divides us from the Church as it stands throughout time and space. It makes our faith hugely individualistic, rather than allowing us to stand alongside those who have come before us, coming to God with their words so that our prayers and petitions are made as a single body.
That doesn't mean spontaneous prayers are wrong. The argument Howard makes is not that we need to help God by having prewritten prayers, God of course can discern even our most pathetic mumblings, but that we need to help ourselves and each other.
One of the other big areas he touches on is worship. Evangelicals stress personal experience BIG TIME in worship. We want people to experience God and feel his presence. Howard argues that while those are certainly good things, they aren't the point of worship. He writes, "The phrase worship experience missed the point. Worship, in the ancient tradition, was not thought of as an experience at all; it was an act."
He goes on to describe how a worship service out to feel tangible and participatory. Things such as kneeling and set responses from the congregation help accomplish that. He also argues that, because worship is an act, the Eucharist should be at the center of every worship service. Not as an add on and not just once a month, but on a weekly basis, where we are constantly being brought face to face with Christ's death and Resurrection.
His argument on worship goes on and is more complex than can be summarized here, but you can see the distinction he's drawing between a liturgical worship service and what's found in a typical evangelical church on a Sunday morning.
The book touches on several other points as well. He talks about the value of tradition and how we shouldn't let our belief in Scripture as the ultimate authority cause us to disregard the tradition found in the countless Believers who have come before us. He argues for the value of symbolism and for greater respect for the Saints, especially Mary.
I found myself challenged and stretched by almost every page, in part because I found his arguments pretty convincing. I've been an evangelical my entire life, but I could see his points on everything in the book and found myself agreeing with him more often than not. I'm not sure what that means for me, but I know it deserves more thought and prayer.
Whether you find yourself agreeing with Howard, as I did, or coming down completely against him, this is a book that evangelicals need to read. At the very least, it will challenge us and force us to ask questions that need to be asked.
But in my opinion it needs to go further than that. I believe evangelicalism is in need of some correction. I mentioned the way that many evangelicals regard religion, and I find that tragic. Ditto on our complete disregard for the 2,000 years of faith that's preceded us. I believe that areas like this are representative of an unhealthy trend in evangelicalism. One that, if left uncorrected, will bring us down. We need to be reminded that religion is not a dirty word nor something that prevents us from finding true life in Christ. Rather it is a structure to help us in our journey. We need to get over our rabid individualism that causes us to believe our faith is independent of everyone else's and stand together with the Church as it exists throughout space and time.
I don't know what the answer should be or if Howard's right that we should be moving in a more liturgical direction. I suspect that he very well might be, but I'm not ready to fully commit to that yet. What I am convinced of is that Howard's basic is correct. Being evangelical is not enough. Something more is needed. Now it's up to us to pray hard and seek God's will so we can figure out what that is.
July 23, 2019
What happens when you ask deeper questions than your faith tradition has answers for? Thomas Howard was on such a journey looking beyond into Christian traditions outside his own. I was struck by how thoughtful, how thorough, and how kind his deliberations are.
August 16, 2022
Review on my blog if you are interested:
http://www.littledropsofwater.net/boo...
http://www.littledropsofwater.net/boo...
September 21, 2020
Howard provides an interesting and irenic approach to liturgy and sacramentality, mainly for evangelicals. His discussion of evangelicalism is actually very touching, even if the title does not suggest that's the case.
Much of his liturgical examples come from High Anglicanism, so Catholics expecting a Roman Catholic book may find it surprising (Howard crossed the Tiber a year after publishing this).
Much of his liturgical examples come from High Anglicanism, so Catholics expecting a Roman Catholic book may find it surprising (Howard crossed the Tiber a year after publishing this).
August 13, 2016
Thomas Howard's "Evangelical Is Not Enough", is an introspective look at the author's spiritual pilgrimage from a sparse evangelical (and I think one could also detect hints of fundamentalism) background to one that has been richly rewarded through liturgy.
Howard makes a compelling case for liturgy. He explains how we are "embodied beings" (a term very vociferously bandied about these days, as if it's taken us thousands of years to realize we are phyiscal) and that we depend upon and are enriched by, textures, colours, scents, etc...I think that he and James K.A. Smith would be in much agreement.
However, on pg. 26, Howard admits that the gospel tells us that "no matters of taste, wealth, geography, pedigree, or intelligence are laid down as prerequistites for any man's approach to God." This is crucial to his thesis.
Howard informs to the reader that to think of our lives as divided between the "sacred" and the "secular" is wrong, that our whole life should be woven through and through with Christ.I thoroughly applaud and agree with this proclamation. Yet it would be wrong to suggest that non-liturgical churches don't do this. Indeed, many of the "young, restless, Reformed" churches that eschew high church ornamentation, ritual and ceremony commonly found in liturgical churches echo Calvinist Abraham Kuyper's bold declaration that “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, 'Mine!'". One thinks of Mars Hill in Seattle, a church that lacks extensive decoration (at least at the campus I visited; at least one of the campuses is now located in an actual church) but who's pastor compels his congregation to bring God into all facets of their daily lives.
I also believes that we have to keep two things in proper relationship - truth and aesthetics.This rings true in Howard's discussion of the chant. Certainly, it is beautiful and pleasing to the ear and has deep roots in the ancient church, but it is not something mandated in the Bible; as Protestants (or Christians in general), we are not ordered to chant. Howard laments that the Protestant vision does not join in with "Benedicite, omnia opera Domini", where the singers ask the frost, winds, wells, and dew to join together to worship God. Howard claims that evangelicals do not believe these things, this material, worships God if we simply accept this as "Hebew poetic convention" (pg. 54). But of course, this is metaphor for nature (flowers, rivers, etc...) do not have the capacity TO worship. Is it not entirely plausible to think that the Biblical writers were aware of poetic motifs and employed them? Should we take this literally anymore than we take the Genesis story literally? Perhaps the Biblical writers DID think that the elements had some mystical capacity to worship God but would we not fault the Biblical writers if they thought Creation took place in six literal days?
In an age where anyone can go on YouTube and become an Internet sensation overnight, appeals to "high art" strike us as priggish and arrogant. I myself would much rather listen to U2 over Mozart and watch "Mr. Bean's Vacation" over "Tree of Life". I believe Howard would prefer the reverse. He is swept up in artistic aesthetics, sneering that "Only a sorry provincialism actually insists on camp-meeting songs, folk songs, or songs of personal testimony over the 'Te Deum' because these songs are somehow more 'relevant." (pg. 56). It might not be relevance at all that causes someone to prefer a more modern song to a hymn; it might be simply aesthetics, a subjective preference, that causes someone to prefer one work of art over another. I myself believe the hymns of Charles Wesley and Robert Lowry are superior to the modern worship of Hillsong United, but both must have their proper place in the panoply of praise. Just as Howard admits, "I find it hard to suppose, however, that God would assign lower marks to my childhood church than He would to St. Andrews" (pg. 52-53), so too would God accept one form of praise as higher than another (with the caveat that both worshippers have an equal level of personal and sincere devotion; if there is a wide discrepancy, like Cain and Abel, then God will know the heart of the worshipper). If the object of worship is to praise God, then all works of worship are worthy. A strong case can be made that artistic tastes are subjective and if so, it truly is priggish to insist and privilege "Te Deum" as being inherently superior to "Hand Me Down My Walking Cane". One might also raise the question - is the form or product the source of the beauty, or does the beauty come from what the honour is directed towards? Is a wilted bouquet of daffodils offered by a beggar child to Christ less beautiful than a blooming bouquet of roses offered to Satan?
There are times too, when in his criticism of mere evangelicalism, Howard conjures up a straw man. Referring to evangelical Protestantism and its sparseness in worship, he asks "But is protest enough? Can the heart of man feed on protest? Is it enough for our piety to say that because an idolator bows we will refuse to do so? On this account, prayer itself would have to go, since idolators pray" (pg. 37). Obviously the term "Protestant" stems from the reformers protest against Rome, but to suggest that Protestantism is now solely defined by its disagreement with Catholicism is a very flawed assertion. The Protestants sought to reclaim what they believed had been obscured by the Church of Rome (which, it must be admitted, had had its fair share of corrupt popes by then, such as Alexander VI). While both traditions have much to learn from one another, there are serious theological divisions that will not be negotiated in the near future.
Howard is an apologist for a liturgical church. While some of his arguments are convincing and compelling, others are not. Sometimes it seems as if Howard is more in love with the aesthetics of Christian tradition rather than truth itself. It is certainly true that many Protestant churches have quietly ignored Mary and the significance of her role in the Incarnation; however, that is because Protestant churches do not see a command to honour her in the Bible. Howard ends his chapter on Mary by declaring "A Christian devotion afraid to join the angel of God in hailing the Virgin as highly exalted is a devotion cramped either by ignorance or fear." (pg. 89). This is a rather smug statement to make. Catholics (and Howard would join Rome one year after this book was first released) believe some things fundamentally different about Mary than Protestants, particularly that she was conceived without original sin. Certainly, it is good to honour those exemplary Christians who have left a powerful impression upon the faith - Peter, Paul, Mary, St. Augustine, Martin Luther - but to venerate them as reverently as the Catholics honour Mary is not ordained by Scripture and something that can easily be distorted. With all due respect to Howard, the reason Mary is not highly venerated is because Protestants believe there is very little theological, doctrinal or scriptural basis for this veneration. It is NOT about "ignorance" or "fear".
Additionally, Howard writes about how feast days honour the exemplars of faith who have gone before. He writes "Why, why will we most gladly set days aside to honour the fathers of our nation - Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson - but draw back in dismay from giving honor to the Fathers of our Faith?" (pg. 148). A few things must be stated here. First, a Protestant who rests their faith upon sola scriptura will not be convinced that celebrating Paul, Polycarp or Publius is mandated by the Bible (I must stress, this does not mean a Christian should be FORBIDDEN from participating in a feast day, rather, I believe it is not NECESSARY to participate in a feast day). Second, perhaps the issue should be whether or not we actually SHOULD celebrate past presidents with a holiday. Being Canadian, this seems entirely normal to me (we do not really celebrate our prime ministers; when was the last time you celebrated Sir John A. MacDonald Day on Jan 11?). Indeed, it might be a good idea to forgo George Washington's birthday as it is commonly held that America has often been guility of conflating patriotism with religion.
Despite what is an extensive criticism, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Howard writes thoughtfully and he makes a good case for embracing the liturgical tradition. I do not believe the liturgical tradition is NECESSARY in worship, but I do not resent it either. I think God might call us to different forms of worship; the black slaves may have found themselves closer to God singing their spirituals than they would have taking part in Eucharistic adoration; evidently Thomas Howard feels closer to God through the Catholic Mass than through the evangelical worship of his youth. But I think Howard can be faulted for relying too much on the aesthetics of worship as opposed to the Bible itself and that is a critique that must be stressed. There is much to reflect upon after reading this book and I believe many Christians will be encouraged to rethink how they worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
Howard makes a compelling case for liturgy. He explains how we are "embodied beings" (a term very vociferously bandied about these days, as if it's taken us thousands of years to realize we are phyiscal) and that we depend upon and are enriched by, textures, colours, scents, etc...I think that he and James K.A. Smith would be in much agreement.
However, on pg. 26, Howard admits that the gospel tells us that "no matters of taste, wealth, geography, pedigree, or intelligence are laid down as prerequistites for any man's approach to God." This is crucial to his thesis.
Howard informs to the reader that to think of our lives as divided between the "sacred" and the "secular" is wrong, that our whole life should be woven through and through with Christ.I thoroughly applaud and agree with this proclamation. Yet it would be wrong to suggest that non-liturgical churches don't do this. Indeed, many of the "young, restless, Reformed" churches that eschew high church ornamentation, ritual and ceremony commonly found in liturgical churches echo Calvinist Abraham Kuyper's bold declaration that “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, 'Mine!'". One thinks of Mars Hill in Seattle, a church that lacks extensive decoration (at least at the campus I visited; at least one of the campuses is now located in an actual church) but who's pastor compels his congregation to bring God into all facets of their daily lives.
I also believes that we have to keep two things in proper relationship - truth and aesthetics.This rings true in Howard's discussion of the chant. Certainly, it is beautiful and pleasing to the ear and has deep roots in the ancient church, but it is not something mandated in the Bible; as Protestants (or Christians in general), we are not ordered to chant. Howard laments that the Protestant vision does not join in with "Benedicite, omnia opera Domini", where the singers ask the frost, winds, wells, and dew to join together to worship God. Howard claims that evangelicals do not believe these things, this material, worships God if we simply accept this as "Hebew poetic convention" (pg. 54). But of course, this is metaphor for nature (flowers, rivers, etc...) do not have the capacity TO worship. Is it not entirely plausible to think that the Biblical writers were aware of poetic motifs and employed them? Should we take this literally anymore than we take the Genesis story literally? Perhaps the Biblical writers DID think that the elements had some mystical capacity to worship God but would we not fault the Biblical writers if they thought Creation took place in six literal days?
In an age where anyone can go on YouTube and become an Internet sensation overnight, appeals to "high art" strike us as priggish and arrogant. I myself would much rather listen to U2 over Mozart and watch "Mr. Bean's Vacation" over "Tree of Life". I believe Howard would prefer the reverse. He is swept up in artistic aesthetics, sneering that "Only a sorry provincialism actually insists on camp-meeting songs, folk songs, or songs of personal testimony over the 'Te Deum' because these songs are somehow more 'relevant." (pg. 56). It might not be relevance at all that causes someone to prefer a more modern song to a hymn; it might be simply aesthetics, a subjective preference, that causes someone to prefer one work of art over another. I myself believe the hymns of Charles Wesley and Robert Lowry are superior to the modern worship of Hillsong United, but both must have their proper place in the panoply of praise. Just as Howard admits, "I find it hard to suppose, however, that God would assign lower marks to my childhood church than He would to St. Andrews" (pg. 52-53), so too would God accept one form of praise as higher than another (with the caveat that both worshippers have an equal level of personal and sincere devotion; if there is a wide discrepancy, like Cain and Abel, then God will know the heart of the worshipper). If the object of worship is to praise God, then all works of worship are worthy. A strong case can be made that artistic tastes are subjective and if so, it truly is priggish to insist and privilege "Te Deum" as being inherently superior to "Hand Me Down My Walking Cane". One might also raise the question - is the form or product the source of the beauty, or does the beauty come from what the honour is directed towards? Is a wilted bouquet of daffodils offered by a beggar child to Christ less beautiful than a blooming bouquet of roses offered to Satan?
There are times too, when in his criticism of mere evangelicalism, Howard conjures up a straw man. Referring to evangelical Protestantism and its sparseness in worship, he asks "But is protest enough? Can the heart of man feed on protest? Is it enough for our piety to say that because an idolator bows we will refuse to do so? On this account, prayer itself would have to go, since idolators pray" (pg. 37). Obviously the term "Protestant" stems from the reformers protest against Rome, but to suggest that Protestantism is now solely defined by its disagreement with Catholicism is a very flawed assertion. The Protestants sought to reclaim what they believed had been obscured by the Church of Rome (which, it must be admitted, had had its fair share of corrupt popes by then, such as Alexander VI). While both traditions have much to learn from one another, there are serious theological divisions that will not be negotiated in the near future.
Howard is an apologist for a liturgical church. While some of his arguments are convincing and compelling, others are not. Sometimes it seems as if Howard is more in love with the aesthetics of Christian tradition rather than truth itself. It is certainly true that many Protestant churches have quietly ignored Mary and the significance of her role in the Incarnation; however, that is because Protestant churches do not see a command to honour her in the Bible. Howard ends his chapter on Mary by declaring "A Christian devotion afraid to join the angel of God in hailing the Virgin as highly exalted is a devotion cramped either by ignorance or fear." (pg. 89). This is a rather smug statement to make. Catholics (and Howard would join Rome one year after this book was first released) believe some things fundamentally different about Mary than Protestants, particularly that she was conceived without original sin. Certainly, it is good to honour those exemplary Christians who have left a powerful impression upon the faith - Peter, Paul, Mary, St. Augustine, Martin Luther - but to venerate them as reverently as the Catholics honour Mary is not ordained by Scripture and something that can easily be distorted. With all due respect to Howard, the reason Mary is not highly venerated is because Protestants believe there is very little theological, doctrinal or scriptural basis for this veneration. It is NOT about "ignorance" or "fear".
Additionally, Howard writes about how feast days honour the exemplars of faith who have gone before. He writes "Why, why will we most gladly set days aside to honour the fathers of our nation - Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson - but draw back in dismay from giving honor to the Fathers of our Faith?" (pg. 148). A few things must be stated here. First, a Protestant who rests their faith upon sola scriptura will not be convinced that celebrating Paul, Polycarp or Publius is mandated by the Bible (I must stress, this does not mean a Christian should be FORBIDDEN from participating in a feast day, rather, I believe it is not NECESSARY to participate in a feast day). Second, perhaps the issue should be whether or not we actually SHOULD celebrate past presidents with a holiday. Being Canadian, this seems entirely normal to me (we do not really celebrate our prime ministers; when was the last time you celebrated Sir John A. MacDonald Day on Jan 11?). Indeed, it might be a good idea to forgo George Washington's birthday as it is commonly held that America has often been guility of conflating patriotism with religion.
Despite what is an extensive criticism, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Howard writes thoughtfully and he makes a good case for embracing the liturgical tradition. I do not believe the liturgical tradition is NECESSARY in worship, but I do not resent it either. I think God might call us to different forms of worship; the black slaves may have found themselves closer to God singing their spirituals than they would have taking part in Eucharistic adoration; evidently Thomas Howard feels closer to God through the Catholic Mass than through the evangelical worship of his youth. But I think Howard can be faulted for relying too much on the aesthetics of worship as opposed to the Bible itself and that is a critique that must be stressed. There is much to reflect upon after reading this book and I believe many Christians will be encouraged to rethink how they worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
January 5, 2025
"Evangelical Is Not Enough" is the ur-text of every "why I became Catholic" and every "here's what makes Anglicanism special" and not a few deconstructionist books. What makes Howard's so spectacular is how *not lazy* it is when contrasted with most of its sequels.
Howard is well written and shows his clear mind and education. His sarcasm and superficiality, when surfacing, are subtle.
This is the sort of book that exposes the true weaknesses of Evangelicalism apart from historic--and I don't mean American "confessional"--Protestantism.
Yet what struck me reading this 1984 reprint of a 1978 book was how few of his eventual positions he takes. While his criticisms are often biting and highly accurate, they dont actually seal the deal. His own positions are a bit like floating columns in a defensive position. They might show strength through numbers, but a knowledgeable tactician knows they aren't grounded and can pound him to kingdom come. He occupies indefensible ground.
In this case, his indefensable position is his evangelical-appreciative Anglo-catholicism. Vatican 2 will sweep his positions off the map in a matter of time, but they will also mute his offensive position.
His criticisms "I know this isn't what Evas mean but it often sounds like" and "I kinda think the Virgin Mary is important even if some get it wrong, yanno?" (He's a more interesting writer than that fwiw) are thus much like Eliot's classic description of liberalism: a starting political disposition rather than a goal or vision for his spiritual vision actualized.
Unfortunately, he found in Anglicanism desires it could not fulfill--crucially in his conclusion, he splits of Anglicanism from the rest of Protestantism, as "one of the three streams of the apostolic church" as if apostolic were a title bestowed when you hold achieve a certain level of bureaucratic ineptitude.
TL;DR: Thomas Howard is the Last Man of Evangelicalism and doesn't believe his own book's arguments. Why should you?
Howard is well written and shows his clear mind and education. His sarcasm and superficiality, when surfacing, are subtle.
This is the sort of book that exposes the true weaknesses of Evangelicalism apart from historic--and I don't mean American "confessional"--Protestantism.
Yet what struck me reading this 1984 reprint of a 1978 book was how few of his eventual positions he takes. While his criticisms are often biting and highly accurate, they dont actually seal the deal. His own positions are a bit like floating columns in a defensive position. They might show strength through numbers, but a knowledgeable tactician knows they aren't grounded and can pound him to kingdom come. He occupies indefensible ground.
In this case, his indefensable position is his evangelical-appreciative Anglo-catholicism. Vatican 2 will sweep his positions off the map in a matter of time, but they will also mute his offensive position.
His criticisms "I know this isn't what Evas mean but it often sounds like" and "I kinda think the Virgin Mary is important even if some get it wrong, yanno?" (He's a more interesting writer than that fwiw) are thus much like Eliot's classic description of liberalism: a starting political disposition rather than a goal or vision for his spiritual vision actualized.
Unfortunately, he found in Anglicanism desires it could not fulfill--crucially in his conclusion, he splits of Anglicanism from the rest of Protestantism, as "one of the three streams of the apostolic church" as if apostolic were a title bestowed when you hold achieve a certain level of bureaucratic ineptitude.
TL;DR: Thomas Howard is the Last Man of Evangelicalism and doesn't believe his own book's arguments. Why should you?
January 25, 2014
Simple. Beautiful. Simply beautiful. The book that, years ago, spoke to my Evangelical soul and started my Journey Home.
January 28, 2025
The first half is indispensable for evangelical Protestants to understand that we rely as much on history or culture as other traditions do, and it's foolish to pretend otherwise. But the second half got a little too into the weeds that the news of his conversion post-book publication was unsurprising, and colors the content.
April 15, 2019
Well met, Mr. Howard. See below for a summary of the book. The thesis is the evangelicalism is valid, but incomplete. Howard makes a good case that liturgy is useful as a way to unite the spiritual with the physical. Some of his points were stronger (eg for praying set prayers), some weaker (eg Mary), but all interesting and challenging. For me, I'm interested in liturgical worship, and I would agree that's it valid, but not sure yet that it's necessary. Not sure where I land in overall doctrinally at this point; I guess I'm in some weird in-between spot right now. I guess I'll keep seeking truth and see where I end up.
Chapter 1
Howard praises evangelicals for stressing the importance of scripture, atonement, the Second Coming, final judgment, witnessing and missions, the will of God, personal holiness, personal devotions, testimonies, and hymns.
Chapter 2
Even evangelicals use symbols: flannel graphs; ornamental Bibles; crosses; decorative communion trays; removing hats, bowing, folding hands for prayer; manger scenes. Secular symbols: wedding rings, diplomas, flags, birthday candles, school colors. People are physical and use symbols. Symbols join the physical and the spiritual. The second commandment doesn't forbid graven images, or we couldn't have stuffed animals, pictures, or the Lincoln memorial. The Incarnation redeemed the physical. The separation between sacred and secular is wrong, including for occupations. When Paul said "spiritual" he didn't mean "disembodied", and when he said "flesh" he meant "fallen human nature". The spiritual man does not love Mozart less; he doesn't demand physical goods but receives them with thanks. You shouldn't avoid crucifixes by pitting the Crucifixion against the Resurrection (and if a manger scene is OK, so should a crucifix). Buddhism, Platonism, and Manicheanism believe the physical is evil, not historical Christianity.
Chapter 3
Outward posture helps create inner attitude. We should kneel to pray like we smile, cry, clench our fists. Kneeling is not required but it is significant. Worship is an act, not an experience. Church should not be just a meeting, sharing, or getting a blessing. God is orderly; our worship can use set forms. Extempore prayers become stock phrases strung together because we cannot always be spontaneous. God doesn't judge our prayers for being set or spontaneous. Hymns are set rather than spontaneous. Only God can forgive sins; the priest only reminds us that God can and has forgiven our sins. Personal worship can be intimate and informal but public worship should not be. In the act of worship the church draws back the curtain between earth and heaven and joins the angels and saints. Sola Scriptura pits the Bible against the Church. The priests garments remove his individuality to bring focus to God.
Chapter 4
All buildings are icons. We shouldn't pit beauty against faith, good works, or humility. Routine church services don't have to become dry in the same way that marriage does not; love keeps it fresh. Routine and discipline bring peace and freedom. You are not the first person to read the Bible. Prayer is often drab duty, but if we make it a habit we'll continue when we don't feel like it.
Chapter 5
Mary is preeminent among saints. Dante liked her. The Christians who place Mary above Jesus are wrong, but those who avoid honoring her completely are "cramped either by ignorance or fear".
Chapter 6
Liturgy means "the work of the people". The Eucharistic liturgy has been used by Christians since the disciples of the apostles. The rite Jesus invoked at the Last Supper was the Berakoth (Greek "Eucharist"). Ceremony dramatizes the truth. It goes beyond verbal and intellectual to the truth. Pomp and solemnity are good.
Chapter 7
The Eucharistic sacrament is the heart of liturgy. Anamnesis, the Greek word translated "remembrance" ("this do in remembrance of me"), means remembering and making present. The early church understood the Eucharist was a mystery. Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Augustine, Chrysostom, Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, Calvin, etc. said the bread and wine were more than just a symbol, they became Christ's flesh and blood. Arguing that Jesus was not a door even though he said "I am the door" doesn't dispel 2000 years of Christian practice.
"In the simple act of taking bread, and of blessing, breaking, and giving it to His disciples, the Lord gathered up all the mystery of the gospel: that the Word must become flesh, and that this flesh must be broken for the life of the world, and that unless and until we, His followers, participate in this mystery we have no life in us. Nothing less than this is intimated at the Last Supper, and nothing more than this is celebrated in the liturgy."
Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament as the perfect sacrifice. The altar is united with the table. And he invites us to participate in the mystery.
Chapter 8
There are many forms of liturgy. A simpler one has no less meaning or validity. The sequence of the liturgy: greeting, collect (set prayer), hymns, collect for the day, scripture reading, preaching, intercessory prayer, confession, kiss of peace, offertory, Eucharistic prayer. Prayer is not logical; how can we change God's eternal will? Prayer touches things beyond our reach, so why not pray for the dead? "The notion that a man's whole story is finished at the precise point of physical death and his destiny fixed and sealed is not made clear in the Bible." Hebrews 9:27 only tells us we die once and are then judged. Prayers for the dead are for believers, that God's work of grace will finish (how do we know that the work of grace stops or finishes right at death?). "We must not confuse time with eternity." Abel will not be dead longer than someone who dies in this century. Prayers are also for the unbelieving dead: we don't know what God is doing with them, so we commend them to God's mercy. As priests, we offer prayer for all people. The priest does not forgive sins or mediate between us and God: he declares sins forgiven based on Christ's work. It is helpful as physical creatures to hear words spoken to reflect a spiritual reality.
Chapter 9
The Resurrection happened once, but Paul said "I am crucified with Christ" and "I die daily". We celebrate the Resurrection every Sunday. It is good to also celebrate other events throughout the year, hence the liturgical calendar. The Church "walks through" the gospel every year. The main events are Advent, Epiphany (magi visit Jesus), Presentation of Christ (Candlemas), Great Lent and Holy Week, Pentecost. Christians are more than mere followers: we are his Body and are somehow drawn into his sufferings and crucified with him. Fasting is encouraged in the Bible; why not at Lent? Other events are Annunciation (Jesus' conception), Transfiguration, Saints' days. If we celebrate days for presidents and Martin Luther King, Jr., why not celebrate the saints?
Chapter 10
The church has a sordid history, with many wars and persecutions. We have forgiven secular historical enemies (the United States, Britain, and Japan are allies today), why do the Protestants not forgive the Catholics?
Three suggested actions to evangelicals:
1. Return to church hierarchy - for unity and accountability; pastors need pastors; churches were not independent in the New Testament; heretics believed the Bible but interpreted it wrong, how do we root out except the Church hierarchy?;
2. Return to the Eucharist as the center of worship - it's a new idea that once a week is too frequent
3. Return to the Christian calendar year
Look into how the liturgy emerged early in Church history, ask questions, read books.
Chapter 1
Howard praises evangelicals for stressing the importance of scripture, atonement, the Second Coming, final judgment, witnessing and missions, the will of God, personal holiness, personal devotions, testimonies, and hymns.
Chapter 2
Even evangelicals use symbols: flannel graphs; ornamental Bibles; crosses; decorative communion trays; removing hats, bowing, folding hands for prayer; manger scenes. Secular symbols: wedding rings, diplomas, flags, birthday candles, school colors. People are physical and use symbols. Symbols join the physical and the spiritual. The second commandment doesn't forbid graven images, or we couldn't have stuffed animals, pictures, or the Lincoln memorial. The Incarnation redeemed the physical. The separation between sacred and secular is wrong, including for occupations. When Paul said "spiritual" he didn't mean "disembodied", and when he said "flesh" he meant "fallen human nature". The spiritual man does not love Mozart less; he doesn't demand physical goods but receives them with thanks. You shouldn't avoid crucifixes by pitting the Crucifixion against the Resurrection (and if a manger scene is OK, so should a crucifix). Buddhism, Platonism, and Manicheanism believe the physical is evil, not historical Christianity.
Chapter 3
Outward posture helps create inner attitude. We should kneel to pray like we smile, cry, clench our fists. Kneeling is not required but it is significant. Worship is an act, not an experience. Church should not be just a meeting, sharing, or getting a blessing. God is orderly; our worship can use set forms. Extempore prayers become stock phrases strung together because we cannot always be spontaneous. God doesn't judge our prayers for being set or spontaneous. Hymns are set rather than spontaneous. Only God can forgive sins; the priest only reminds us that God can and has forgiven our sins. Personal worship can be intimate and informal but public worship should not be. In the act of worship the church draws back the curtain between earth and heaven and joins the angels and saints. Sola Scriptura pits the Bible against the Church. The priests garments remove his individuality to bring focus to God.
Chapter 4
All buildings are icons. We shouldn't pit beauty against faith, good works, or humility. Routine church services don't have to become dry in the same way that marriage does not; love keeps it fresh. Routine and discipline bring peace and freedom. You are not the first person to read the Bible. Prayer is often drab duty, but if we make it a habit we'll continue when we don't feel like it.
Chapter 5
Mary is preeminent among saints. Dante liked her. The Christians who place Mary above Jesus are wrong, but those who avoid honoring her completely are "cramped either by ignorance or fear".
Chapter 6
Liturgy means "the work of the people". The Eucharistic liturgy has been used by Christians since the disciples of the apostles. The rite Jesus invoked at the Last Supper was the Berakoth (Greek "Eucharist"). Ceremony dramatizes the truth. It goes beyond verbal and intellectual to the truth. Pomp and solemnity are good.
Chapter 7
The Eucharistic sacrament is the heart of liturgy. Anamnesis, the Greek word translated "remembrance" ("this do in remembrance of me"), means remembering and making present. The early church understood the Eucharist was a mystery. Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Augustine, Chrysostom, Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, Calvin, etc. said the bread and wine were more than just a symbol, they became Christ's flesh and blood. Arguing that Jesus was not a door even though he said "I am the door" doesn't dispel 2000 years of Christian practice.
"In the simple act of taking bread, and of blessing, breaking, and giving it to His disciples, the Lord gathered up all the mystery of the gospel: that the Word must become flesh, and that this flesh must be broken for the life of the world, and that unless and until we, His followers, participate in this mystery we have no life in us. Nothing less than this is intimated at the Last Supper, and nothing more than this is celebrated in the liturgy."
Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament as the perfect sacrifice. The altar is united with the table. And he invites us to participate in the mystery.
Chapter 8
There are many forms of liturgy. A simpler one has no less meaning or validity. The sequence of the liturgy: greeting, collect (set prayer), hymns, collect for the day, scripture reading, preaching, intercessory prayer, confession, kiss of peace, offertory, Eucharistic prayer. Prayer is not logical; how can we change God's eternal will? Prayer touches things beyond our reach, so why not pray for the dead? "The notion that a man's whole story is finished at the precise point of physical death and his destiny fixed and sealed is not made clear in the Bible." Hebrews 9:27 only tells us we die once and are then judged. Prayers for the dead are for believers, that God's work of grace will finish (how do we know that the work of grace stops or finishes right at death?). "We must not confuse time with eternity." Abel will not be dead longer than someone who dies in this century. Prayers are also for the unbelieving dead: we don't know what God is doing with them, so we commend them to God's mercy. As priests, we offer prayer for all people. The priest does not forgive sins or mediate between us and God: he declares sins forgiven based on Christ's work. It is helpful as physical creatures to hear words spoken to reflect a spiritual reality.
Chapter 9
The Resurrection happened once, but Paul said "I am crucified with Christ" and "I die daily". We celebrate the Resurrection every Sunday. It is good to also celebrate other events throughout the year, hence the liturgical calendar. The Church "walks through" the gospel every year. The main events are Advent, Epiphany (magi visit Jesus), Presentation of Christ (Candlemas), Great Lent and Holy Week, Pentecost. Christians are more than mere followers: we are his Body and are somehow drawn into his sufferings and crucified with him. Fasting is encouraged in the Bible; why not at Lent? Other events are Annunciation (Jesus' conception), Transfiguration, Saints' days. If we celebrate days for presidents and Martin Luther King, Jr., why not celebrate the saints?
Chapter 10
The church has a sordid history, with many wars and persecutions. We have forgiven secular historical enemies (the United States, Britain, and Japan are allies today), why do the Protestants not forgive the Catholics?
Three suggested actions to evangelicals:
1. Return to church hierarchy - for unity and accountability; pastors need pastors; churches were not independent in the New Testament; heretics believed the Bible but interpreted it wrong, how do we root out except the Church hierarchy?;
2. Return to the Eucharist as the center of worship - it's a new idea that once a week is too frequent
3. Return to the Christian calendar year
Look into how the liturgy emerged early in Church history, ask questions, read books.
March 30, 2014
I read this a few years ago, when I first began exploring high church tradition. I remember liking it the first time, but upon re-reading it this week, I have to say it was even better than I remembered. Great explanations, very helpful in answering the common objections raised by evangelicals. I wish all my evangelical friends would read this book and learn more about the liturgy and church traditions. I was taught to fear and/or despise these traditions in my youth; in adulthood I have discovered that they are beautiful and a great help in ordering my worship and guiding my prayers.
June 23, 2017
This book articulated so much of what I feel as an evangelical who wants to go deeper. The author has a lot of love for his evangelical upbringing (as do I) but goes on to show why the ancient Church and liturgy offer the fullness of the faith.
February 11, 2026
Such a charitable book. While the title might sound a bit harsh to use in the current day, this book was published in 1984 - I can imagine the title fit in better then. Nonetheless, it is an accurate title, let me explain… Howard walks you through the beauty of his Evangelical upbringing and at no points strikes down the understandings of Evangelical Christians. I grew in appreciation for the pure desires of my Protestant brothers and sisters while reading this. Howard proceeds to explain how history, specifically the ancient liturgy found in Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox churches is so important and necessary for us as humans to worship our Lord. As he learns more and more about liturgical and worship, Howard beautifully explains that this only builds on his Evangelical nature of his faith. He proudly claims at the end of the book to still be an Evangelical! This book can be so powerful for Protestants, especially as Thomas Howard was an Episcopalian while writing this book. It was not til after finishing and publishing this book did he become Catholic.
October 23, 2017
Inspired by James K. A. Smith's "You Are What You Love" to explore the benefits of a more liturgical mode of prayer and worship, I read this wonderful book by Howard, whose "Chance or the Dance" is a favorite of mine. He grew up in a typically non-liturgical evangelical church in the US, but discovered and appreciated the spiritual depth of his "high-church" experience while in England, and then transitioned to the Orthodox Church. He lucidly explains the reasons and meaning behind the rituals and ceremony in the Orthodox Church that evangelicals have tended to write off as mere empty formality. He makes some excellent points about the importance of ritual and the participation of our physical bodies when we are feeding our souls. I gained a newfound respect for his outlook, although I'd better be careful now that I know Howard became Catholic shortly after writing this book. ;)
June 30, 2020
Well worth the time. This will either turn you into a Catholic or make you shake your head and maybe your fist at Rome.
June 12, 2025
Warm with charity and balance, rich with love for Christ and his Church, and exactly describing the frustrations and desires that have led me towards more traditional patterns of worship.
June 18, 2018
Most of the book offered important challenges to the minimalist approach to worship in many evangelical churches; some of the arguments were incomplete, posed false dilemmas, etc. Overall, worth reading.
July 21, 2022
I cannot believe that I left this on my bookshelf unread for so long that I had forgotten about it. The author comes from an evangelical background which he describes in chapter 1. I recognized and identified with practically everything he brought up from Sola Scriptura to the terror that the average evangelical feels at the thought of witnessing to someone.
The author discovered the church year or liturgical year at some point in his life, similar to my own discovery. And he basically feels that, little by little, light bulbs were clicking on in his faith. So many of the beliefs that he had held for years became more real somehow through the rituals and disciplines of other denominations such as the Anglican and Catholic traditions. I do agree with him that worship is an act, something we do or that we offer, and not an experience, something we feel. It has been liberating to hear this author and a couple of others argue for preset forms of prayer vs the extemporaneous prayers of evangelicals, although he doesn't rule them out either. It's a relief to have some of the work done for you and a comfort at the same time to hear the same prayers again and again, similar to the comfort of hymns.
The chapter on the Virgin Mary was pretty thin but he does differentiate between exalting Mary (as in honoring her) vs worshipping her which is reserved for God alone. The chapter on the Eucharist, or as I know it The Lord's Supper, was reverential but I remain unconvinced on transubstantiation.
He gives a very basic overview of the church year and why it's important to observe it - to keep the gospel fresh in our hearts and minds.
So, if evangelical is not enough, what should we do then? He suggests 3 main things:
1) a return to the episcopate bc pastors need pastors and autonomous churches are not a thing in the New Testament. Can't argue with that.
2)a return to the Eucharist as a central focus of worship- at least weekly and not just at Christmas and Easter.
3) a return to the observance of the liturgical year.
Yes, he's now a Catholic. No I don't plan on leaving my Southern Baptist church. But he makes some very good points that have been simmering in the back of my mind for a while. This book was exactly what I needed at this point in my life and I highly recommend.
The author discovered the church year or liturgical year at some point in his life, similar to my own discovery. And he basically feels that, little by little, light bulbs were clicking on in his faith. So many of the beliefs that he had held for years became more real somehow through the rituals and disciplines of other denominations such as the Anglican and Catholic traditions. I do agree with him that worship is an act, something we do or that we offer, and not an experience, something we feel. It has been liberating to hear this author and a couple of others argue for preset forms of prayer vs the extemporaneous prayers of evangelicals, although he doesn't rule them out either. It's a relief to have some of the work done for you and a comfort at the same time to hear the same prayers again and again, similar to the comfort of hymns.
The chapter on the Virgin Mary was pretty thin but he does differentiate between exalting Mary (as in honoring her) vs worshipping her which is reserved for God alone. The chapter on the Eucharist, or as I know it The Lord's Supper, was reverential but I remain unconvinced on transubstantiation.
He gives a very basic overview of the church year and why it's important to observe it - to keep the gospel fresh in our hearts and minds.
So, if evangelical is not enough, what should we do then? He suggests 3 main things:
1) a return to the episcopate bc pastors need pastors and autonomous churches are not a thing in the New Testament. Can't argue with that.
2)a return to the Eucharist as a central focus of worship- at least weekly and not just at Christmas and Easter.
3) a return to the observance of the liturgical year.
Yes, he's now a Catholic. No I don't plan on leaving my Southern Baptist church. But he makes some very good points that have been simmering in the back of my mind for a while. This book was exactly what I needed at this point in my life and I highly recommend.
October 7, 2011
Howard presents a warm and engaging "walk-through" of Christian worship in the historic, traditional liturgical way. While I don't hail from the same strong evangelical background that Howard does, I recognized some elements from the southern Presbyterian congregations in which I was raised, particularly the emphasis on personal Bible reading and prayer and the distrust of liturgy, ritual, and "pomp" (a word Howard here reclaims and defends in wonderful fashion). I would think many Protestants, not only evangelical but also "mainline," could understand and appreciate Howard's experience of liturgical worship, which he offers in a faithful and friendly spirit, arguing not that it is necessary or essential (which, I agree, it is not) but that it is certainly benefical and in continuity with most of Western Christianity for most of its history (which, I agree, it is).
He is at his best when he discusses the issues in the framework of his personal "conversion" from evangelicalism to Anglicanism. I wish he had continued the story to detail his subsequent move "from Canterbury to Rome," but I understand he feels doing so would have detracted from his larger purpose.
My Reformed-Presbyterian commitments mean I was suspicious of the attention Howard pays to Marian devotion (even though I would argue my tradition has room to rediscover such feasts as the Annunciation, the Visitation, and the Presentation in the Temple, since these are biblical events; and we do affirm Mary as theotokos, although not very often and not very loudly); on the other hand, Howard's grounding of the practice of prayer for the dead in a robust doctrine of the communion of the saints is perusasive ("Don't confuse time with eternity").
Most of the book is a very welcome "apology" (in the classic, best sense of that word) for why liturgical worship is as it is (especially Howard's discussion of public prayers, including eucharistic prayers).
He is at his best when he discusses the issues in the framework of his personal "conversion" from evangelicalism to Anglicanism. I wish he had continued the story to detail his subsequent move "from Canterbury to Rome," but I understand he feels doing so would have detracted from his larger purpose.
My Reformed-Presbyterian commitments mean I was suspicious of the attention Howard pays to Marian devotion (even though I would argue my tradition has room to rediscover such feasts as the Annunciation, the Visitation, and the Presentation in the Temple, since these are biblical events; and we do affirm Mary as theotokos, although not very often and not very loudly); on the other hand, Howard's grounding of the practice of prayer for the dead in a robust doctrine of the communion of the saints is perusasive ("Don't confuse time with eternity").
Most of the book is a very welcome "apology" (in the classic, best sense of that word) for why liturgical worship is as it is (especially Howard's discussion of public prayers, including eucharistic prayers).
September 28, 2013
It is an important historical document because it is the first to definitively note a new moment in Evangelical theology. Instead of defaulting to the original Romanist polemics, Howard (and others) argue for something like Romanism on the lines that "God created stuff good; therefore, we need an embodied, sensory liturgy and faith." The first premise is true enough, but the latter either doesn't follow, or it needs to be explicated more.
Again, it's an interesting read and he tries to buttress his arguments with quotes from Ignatius and Irenaeus. Studious Reformed folk, however, have answered these claims and have demonstrated how any appeal to these fathers is problematic.
Again, it's an interesting read and he tries to buttress his arguments with quotes from Ignatius and Irenaeus. Studious Reformed folk, however, have answered these claims and have demonstrated how any appeal to these fathers is problematic.
December 30, 2010
This is what it's all about. This is why liturgy, history, and comprehensive spirituality are so vitally important. Thomas Howard is a former evangelical who converted to liturgical Christianity. He's now Catholic, but his main aim isn't to get you join his team. This is a great complement to Robbert Webber's work. Highly recommended.
July 1, 2012
I really enjoyed reading this book. He explains his move from Protestantism to Catholicism without any negative attitudes. He appreciates the gifts of his former faith and gently explains to the reader why he found an increase of appreciation for the faith in the Catholic Church. His explanation of the liturgy and other Catholic practices is both clear and, at times, poetically profound.
September 27, 2019
A Conversion to Catholicism
This book is for Evangelicals. Especially those who still feel empty. Remember, Christ formed one church, 2000 years ago. Not 3000 churches since the Reformation. Those 3000 churches have formed because of all the many people who have read the Bible, appointed themselves pope and started their own church.
This book is for Evangelicals. Especially those who still feel empty. Remember, Christ formed one church, 2000 years ago. Not 3000 churches since the Reformation. Those 3000 churches have formed because of all the many people who have read the Bible, appointed themselves pope and started their own church.
July 30, 2011
He said, with good words and good humor, what I strain to communicate to those who've known my journey. Well done, Dr. Howard.
July 13, 2022
My introduction to Thomas Howard. Absolutely phenomenal. I was addicted to reading this book. Worth it even just for the prose alone.
Admittedly, I expected the book to discuss only surface level points that are so commonly found in Catholic apologetic material - “beginner-friendly” pamphlet statements, with historical citations from Church Fathers and everything I’d already heard before, as a “recent” convert. But Howard thoroughly explores the ideas and contrasts the underlying worldviews of these very different threads of Christianity.
”My debt to Protestantism is incalculable.”
Howard walked a path familiar to many American Christians, marked by names such as Billy Graham, Scofield, Moody, Wycliffe, Tyndale, and groups such as Intervarsity Christian Fellowship and Campus Crusade for Christ.
His high praise and appreciation for his Evangelical upbringing was welcome. More than just a passing praise, Howard brings the reader to such a point as to make him wonder, why? ”…If home base was that good, what is there to seek? If the Reformation may be credited with fostering this sort of Christian earnestness, zeal, and fidelity, where else would anyone want to turn?”
Every Catholic should read this for its beginning chapter alone; the importance of and reverence for Scripture, while it is certainly present in the Church, could do to be enkindled more particularly! Howard’s gratitude towards and defense of evangelicalism also opened my eyes to some prejudices I have unknowingly held onto concerning our Protestant friends. The bit about a hillbilly “pleading the blood of Jesus” not being so very different from our own devotion towards Our Lord’s Most Precious Blood was a check on my own pride.
His stance is that evangelicalism truly taught him orthodox doctrine - but was incomplete.
Howard seeks a balance between the all-too-true Protestant argument of avoiding self-delusion and superstition, and the all-too-true Catholic argument of avoiding self-delusion and gnostic heresy.
”But it is one thing to see dangers; it is another to be true to the Faith in all of its amplitude. By avoiding the dangers of magic and idolatry on the one hand, evangelicalism runs itself very near the shoals of Manichaeanism on the other. … To correct a flood, one does not want a drought.”
An argument in favor of ceremony, of ritual, of liturgy, and of sacrament, drawn from the viscerally real and Incarnate drama of the Gospel.
Life is mystical - this is the truth. Reality is more glorious and mysterious than we can imagine.
The gnostic decries the material world as evil, cleaving it entirely from the “spiritual world”, unknowable but by their secret rites. The creation that we know to be formed by the hands of God and declared by His mouth as *good* - to them it is an abomination and a hindrance to “true” good.
How ridiculous! Reality is Incarnational. The fact and paradox of God’s becoming man is the most real thing of all existence.
”The Incarnation took all that properly belongs to our humanity and delivered it back to us, redeemed.”
”Is it objected that this [worship by bowing “with kneebones and neck muscles… with our feet, singing great hymns with our tongues, our nostrils full of the smoke of incense”] is too physical, too low down on the scale for the gospel? Noses indeed! If the objection carries the day, then we must jettison the stable and the manger, and the winepots at Cana, and the tired feet anointed with nard, and the splinters of the cross, not to say the womb of the mother who bore God when He came to us. Too physical? What do we celebrate in our worship? It is Buddhism and Platonism and Manichaeanism that tell us to disavow our flesh and expunge everything but thoughts. The gospel brings back all of our faculties with a rush.”
I need to prevent myself from quotemining to the point of reproducing the entire book - so just go ahead and read it!
Admittedly, I expected the book to discuss only surface level points that are so commonly found in Catholic apologetic material - “beginner-friendly” pamphlet statements, with historical citations from Church Fathers and everything I’d already heard before, as a “recent” convert. But Howard thoroughly explores the ideas and contrasts the underlying worldviews of these very different threads of Christianity.
”My debt to Protestantism is incalculable.”
Howard walked a path familiar to many American Christians, marked by names such as Billy Graham, Scofield, Moody, Wycliffe, Tyndale, and groups such as Intervarsity Christian Fellowship and Campus Crusade for Christ.
His high praise and appreciation for his Evangelical upbringing was welcome. More than just a passing praise, Howard brings the reader to such a point as to make him wonder, why? ”…If home base was that good, what is there to seek? If the Reformation may be credited with fostering this sort of Christian earnestness, zeal, and fidelity, where else would anyone want to turn?”
Every Catholic should read this for its beginning chapter alone; the importance of and reverence for Scripture, while it is certainly present in the Church, could do to be enkindled more particularly! Howard’s gratitude towards and defense of evangelicalism also opened my eyes to some prejudices I have unknowingly held onto concerning our Protestant friends. The bit about a hillbilly “pleading the blood of Jesus” not being so very different from our own devotion towards Our Lord’s Most Precious Blood was a check on my own pride.
His stance is that evangelicalism truly taught him orthodox doctrine - but was incomplete.
Howard seeks a balance between the all-too-true Protestant argument of avoiding self-delusion and superstition, and the all-too-true Catholic argument of avoiding self-delusion and gnostic heresy.
”But it is one thing to see dangers; it is another to be true to the Faith in all of its amplitude. By avoiding the dangers of magic and idolatry on the one hand, evangelicalism runs itself very near the shoals of Manichaeanism on the other. … To correct a flood, one does not want a drought.”
An argument in favor of ceremony, of ritual, of liturgy, and of sacrament, drawn from the viscerally real and Incarnate drama of the Gospel.
Life is mystical - this is the truth. Reality is more glorious and mysterious than we can imagine.
The gnostic decries the material world as evil, cleaving it entirely from the “spiritual world”, unknowable but by their secret rites. The creation that we know to be formed by the hands of God and declared by His mouth as *good* - to them it is an abomination and a hindrance to “true” good.
How ridiculous! Reality is Incarnational. The fact and paradox of God’s becoming man is the most real thing of all existence.
”The Incarnation took all that properly belongs to our humanity and delivered it back to us, redeemed.”
”Is it objected that this [worship by bowing “with kneebones and neck muscles… with our feet, singing great hymns with our tongues, our nostrils full of the smoke of incense”] is too physical, too low down on the scale for the gospel? Noses indeed! If the objection carries the day, then we must jettison the stable and the manger, and the winepots at Cana, and the tired feet anointed with nard, and the splinters of the cross, not to say the womb of the mother who bore God when He came to us. Too physical? What do we celebrate in our worship? It is Buddhism and Platonism and Manichaeanism that tell us to disavow our flesh and expunge everything but thoughts. The gospel brings back all of our faculties with a rush.”
I need to prevent myself from quotemining to the point of reproducing the entire book - so just go ahead and read it!
September 13, 2024
A FORMER PROTESTANT DESCRIBES HIS JOURNEY TO CATHOLICISM
Thomas Howard is a professor of English at St. John's Seminary; he has also written books such as 'Lead, Kindly Light: My Journey to Rome,' 'On Being Catholic,' 'Chance or the Dance: A Critique of Modern Secularism,' etc.
Of his first experience attending a Church of England service, he recalls, "At St. Andrew's the people had come together to make the act of worship. They had come to DO something, not to get something. They had not come to a meeting. Several things testified to this. For a start, no one spoke of the church 'auditorium,' as though it were a place one went to hear something. It was not an auditorium. Meetings did not occur here; an act occurred here." (Pg. 45)
He states, "The distrust of beauty that lay near the sources of my vision and piety betrayed a flaw. To put beauty against faith, or beauty against good works, or beauty against humility and simplicity was to erect false distinctions. It was to imagine that the cathedrals, for example, were monuments to overweening pride, whereas many of them were dedicated to the Virgin, who is the very image of humility. Anyone who genuinely honors the Virgin is going to have simplicity and purity always before his eyes." (Pg. 64-65)
He points out, "The Bible does not exist in a vacuum... But the sense in which all that doctrine and correction and instruction will take root in the Church and bear fruit in wise disciplines did not present itself to me. It was as though the Church had never really existed. It was as though the Bible had been written yesterday and I were the first man to open it. Evangelicalism had never actually claimed this, of course. But somehow the set of assumptions at work in its handling of the Bible left me with an impression like this." (Pg. 67-68)
He suggests, "Ceremony assists us to cope with the otherwise unmanageable... It dramatizes the truth for us. Ceremony does what words alone can never do. It carries us beyond the merely explicit, the expository, the verbal, the propositional, the cerebral, to the center where the Dance goes on." (Pg. 98)
This book, in conjunction with his "Lead, Kindly Light," will be of keen interest not only to Catholics, but to those interested in Catholic/Protestant dialogue.
Thomas Howard is a professor of English at St. John's Seminary; he has also written books such as 'Lead, Kindly Light: My Journey to Rome,' 'On Being Catholic,' 'Chance or the Dance: A Critique of Modern Secularism,' etc.
Of his first experience attending a Church of England service, he recalls, "At St. Andrew's the people had come together to make the act of worship. They had come to DO something, not to get something. They had not come to a meeting. Several things testified to this. For a start, no one spoke of the church 'auditorium,' as though it were a place one went to hear something. It was not an auditorium. Meetings did not occur here; an act occurred here." (Pg. 45)
He states, "The distrust of beauty that lay near the sources of my vision and piety betrayed a flaw. To put beauty against faith, or beauty against good works, or beauty against humility and simplicity was to erect false distinctions. It was to imagine that the cathedrals, for example, were monuments to overweening pride, whereas many of them were dedicated to the Virgin, who is the very image of humility. Anyone who genuinely honors the Virgin is going to have simplicity and purity always before his eyes." (Pg. 64-65)
He points out, "The Bible does not exist in a vacuum... But the sense in which all that doctrine and correction and instruction will take root in the Church and bear fruit in wise disciplines did not present itself to me. It was as though the Church had never really existed. It was as though the Bible had been written yesterday and I were the first man to open it. Evangelicalism had never actually claimed this, of course. But somehow the set of assumptions at work in its handling of the Bible left me with an impression like this." (Pg. 67-68)
He suggests, "Ceremony assists us to cope with the otherwise unmanageable... It dramatizes the truth for us. Ceremony does what words alone can never do. It carries us beyond the merely explicit, the expository, the verbal, the propositional, the cerebral, to the center where the Dance goes on." (Pg. 98)
This book, in conjunction with his "Lead, Kindly Light," will be of keen interest not only to Catholics, but to those interested in Catholic/Protestant dialogue.
July 15, 2017
Thomas Howard first paints a beautiful picture of the evangelical tradition of his youth and background. Surely there is much to be praised in the practices he relates, such as daily prayerful reading of the Scriptures together during family meals.
While Mr. Howard is living in England, he finds an evangelical Anglican parish that is in line with his own beliefs. It speaks his language. Yet, its worship took place in a Medieval church building and its liturgy was rooted in history. In this experience, he came to see that "evangelical is not enough." Drawn into a closer study of the historical church, he finds that when Evangelicals rejected real or perceived superstition, his tradition threw out the baby with the bathwater.
By eschewing all or nearly all "human" elements, it bordered on Manichaeism which exulted the spirit too far over the flesh. He points out that man was embodied before the fall and Jesus Christ came in the flesh to save us and that we will be embodied after the resurrection.
The book is told mostly through the lens of practice, describing the liturgy and prayers he experienced and explored. It also touches on belief and teaching as they tie into practice. Ultimately he argues that the right belief is made evident through right practice.
The book was a compelling narrative that weaves personal testimony in with theoretical arguments. At times there were some repetitions, but overall I really enjoyed listening to this book.
While Mr. Howard is living in England, he finds an evangelical Anglican parish that is in line with his own beliefs. It speaks his language. Yet, its worship took place in a Medieval church building and its liturgy was rooted in history. In this experience, he came to see that "evangelical is not enough." Drawn into a closer study of the historical church, he finds that when Evangelicals rejected real or perceived superstition, his tradition threw out the baby with the bathwater.
By eschewing all or nearly all "human" elements, it bordered on Manichaeism which exulted the spirit too far over the flesh. He points out that man was embodied before the fall and Jesus Christ came in the flesh to save us and that we will be embodied after the resurrection.
The book is told mostly through the lens of practice, describing the liturgy and prayers he experienced and explored. It also touches on belief and teaching as they tie into practice. Ultimately he argues that the right belief is made evident through right practice.
The book was a compelling narrative that weaves personal testimony in with theoretical arguments. At times there were some repetitions, but overall I really enjoyed listening to this book.
February 25, 2024
”Evangelicalism taught me all the major points taught by traditional orthodoxy. Against this stand all heresies, cults, and all forms of theological liberalism. And yet the flavor of evangelicalism is very different from that of the traditional Church, which I have come to understand as being one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.”
EVANGELICALISM
-individualism—“…the Bible alone as the touchstone for our doctrine, piety, and order. We distrusted the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox emphasis on the Church as the guardian and teacher of Scripture, and even the Anglican formula of Scripture, tradition, and reason.”
-Stress on the Atonement attracts huge numbers of converts
-the Second Coming
-the Judgement
-witnessing and missions
-the will of God
-conscious and piety
CATHOLICISM
-symbols—“…all Christian imagination attaches importance to symbols. Whether it is a matter of lowering one's voice in the building where the church meets, or of refusing to use make-up, or of wearing or not wearing a crucifix, or of kneeling, or bowing one's head to say grace or bowing at the holy name, or folding one's hands or crossing oneself, all Christian piety and worship is shot through with the symbolism of either gesture or objects or both. We see the unseen in the seen.”
-wisdom of the church (vs. individualism)
-ritual and ceremony (liturgy, Eucharist)
-episcopate (authority, structure)
-Christian year
EVANGELICALISM
-individualism—“…the Bible alone as the touchstone for our doctrine, piety, and order. We distrusted the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox emphasis on the Church as the guardian and teacher of Scripture, and even the Anglican formula of Scripture, tradition, and reason.”
-Stress on the Atonement attracts huge numbers of converts
-the Second Coming
-the Judgement
-witnessing and missions
-the will of God
-conscious and piety
CATHOLICISM
-symbols—“…all Christian imagination attaches importance to symbols. Whether it is a matter of lowering one's voice in the building where the church meets, or of refusing to use make-up, or of wearing or not wearing a crucifix, or of kneeling, or bowing one's head to say grace or bowing at the holy name, or folding one's hands or crossing oneself, all Christian piety and worship is shot through with the symbolism of either gesture or objects or both. We see the unseen in the seen.”
-wisdom of the church (vs. individualism)
-ritual and ceremony (liturgy, Eucharist)
-episcopate (authority, structure)
-Christian year
July 25, 2025
When my husband and I made our journey from evangelicalism to the Catholic Church, we have often struggled with what books we would recommend to people who are curious as to why we aren’t evangelical anymore. Every other book seemed to paint evangelicals in a bad light, and while my husband and I related a lot to that, we also didn’t want our evangelical friends and family to read that and feel like we were judging them.
What Howard does in this book is beautiful. He is grateful for his evangelical upbringing and says nothing bad about it at all. The way he presents history and traditionalism to evangelicals is more beautiful and gracious than I could ever do.
Thank you for this wonderful book which I will now be recommending to family and friends!
What Howard does in this book is beautiful. He is grateful for his evangelical upbringing and says nothing bad about it at all. The way he presents history and traditionalism to evangelicals is more beautiful and gracious than I could ever do.
Thank you for this wonderful book which I will now be recommending to family and friends!
December 19, 2019
The author of the book writes clearly from his desire for unity in the church. He gives a respectful plea to evangelicals to consider what the ancient church has been doing for so long. He speaks from experience, and history, and from a deep knowledge of scripture (although you won’t find proof texts here). It is intelligent, but also an easy and compelling read. A must read if you have questions about the ancient church and for those who are in the ancient church but have many Protestants/evangelicals in their lives. It gives you the words to explain your journey and what you have discovered.
December 30, 2021
Mr. Howard's journey started with a feeling that he was missing something in the way God was praised and remembered in his church, what? He wasn't certain. Eventually what he felt, saw and heard during church services, first Anglican and then Catholic, gave him pause. Eventually he became Catholic. In this book Mr. Howard explains the many differences between Catholicism, its rituals and liturgy and the evangelical worship why those differences brought over to Rome. The liturgy, the Catholic calendar, the feast days are explained, not in great detail but more to answer the misgivings of those outside looking in.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews