What Has Mercersburg to Do with Azusa?

Pentecostalism and Mercersburg theology may appear to have little in common with one another. Pentecostalism primarily started as a grassroots movement among underprivileged Christians within the Holiness tradition, while Mercersburg theology was a cosmopolitan school of thought that emerged from within the ivory tower of Reform academia. These two movements possess strong socioeconomic, theological, and practical differences, and some may answer that they have little common ground. After all, until now Pentecostalism and Mercersburg theology have existed and thrived in relative seclusion from each other. This essay, however, initiates a dialogue between these two movements. I propose that numerous similarities exist between Pentecostalism and Mercersburg theology. Furthermore, a consideration of their theological distinctives may act as a catalyst for fruitful interaction.

The “Catholic Tradition” of Christianity and the “Religion of the Republic”

This essay explores the theology of the Religion of the Republic (what Robert N. Bellah called civil religion in America) in order to compare it with elements in the catholic tradition of Christianity. The assumption is that the Religion of the Republic has much in common with the consensual religiosity of American evangelicalism.Using John Williamson Nevin's “Catholicism” of the Mercersburg theology, the author provides a critique of the theology of the Republic and suggests a principle of radical catholicity which offers a profound role for the church in the destiny of the American Republic.

Schaff and Nevin, Colleagues at Mercersburg: The Church Question

For both Schaff and Nevin, while they were colleagues at Mercersburg, the issue of issues in mid-nineteenth century America as well as in Continental Europe and in England, was “the church question.” This subject has already been provided a seminal treatment by James H. Nichols to which all later students of Mercersburg Theology are deeply indebted. The purpose of this article is to attempt to shed new light on this question by focusing upon what was for both of them a critical ecclesiological issue, one upon which they in part agreed and in part disagreed—namely, the question of historical development. It is this issue which I believe especially provoked Nevin's theological crisis. This essay will also seek to describe Schaff's role in this crisis.