We see so much of the problem of American Christianity™ in this thread with every single person who posts as though because they have a Bible and can read, they know what it's really about, even though their interpretations all contradict each other, and more importantly, contradict the 2,000 years of consistent Christian witness as found in the fathers and mothers of the faith across the world as to what was, is, and always will be normative in the Christian life. This results in a situation where, even though everyone can read and can say that they're "just following the Bible" or whatever, most of the people who take this approach to Christianity don't actually know what they're doing, because it's not based on anything greater than their own private, idiosyncratic interpretation of what a book that was not even meant for them (as it's not meant for any individual to own as their own personal object to use like a dang divining rod in figuring out what's 'really' a part of the religion) says or does not say. Do any of you honestly think that whatever disjunction you're positing between the gospel of this person or that, or that Christianity is disconnected from confession and communion -- even though the scriptures explicitly tell us to participate in both ("Confess your sins to one another", "Unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood, you have no life in you") -- have anything close to a theology let alone praxis that would be in any way recognizable to Christians anywhere in the world before the radical Reformation (not the original reformation, since Luther sought to keep many things that he saw as true in what the RCC of his day practiced and affirmed that later generations of Protestants would throw out for being 'too catholic', like the belief in the real presence of Christ in the sacraments, the affirmation that St. Mary is Theotokos, etc.)?
Put another way: American Christianity (not "Christianity in America") fails because it is absolutely rootless, and there's nothing holding it together or preserving it as being connected to the history of Christianity in any way whatsoever, and the American Christians who continue on in this puddle-deep approach to their own faith actually see that as some kind of asset, somehow....well, not really "somehow", as though we can't know how, but because this is what marks it as the most American of religions, with its "nobody can tell ME what to do with MY Bible and MY interpretation of what Christianity REALLY means" spirit, which is definitely not a spirit of obedience to authority as the believer is to show, but fits in perfectly with the American self-conception of all of us as rugged individualists who are pioneering our own ways of life, and throwing off the shackles of _________ (anything that gets in the way of our self-centered, pseudo-enlightened nonsense). You all remember that from the scripture, right? How Philip encouraged the Ethiopian to read whatever he wanted into the scriptures, because it is his sacred right to believe in whatever nonsense he wants to and brand that as Christianity, if it seems to be so to him, regardless of how whatever he would come up with stacks up against what the actual Christian community teaches, believes, and practices?
And to anyone who might feel the need to respond to this as though I have just personally attacked them, two things: (1) If the shoe fits, you ought to wear it, and (2) "I do said, not know" is perhaps the greatest single statement ever made outside of the scriptures themselves regarding how to read and understand the scriptures in our daily lives. Abba Anthony praised Abba Joseph for coming to that conclusion, and we ought to as well, and more than that, we ought to do the same. It is amazing how much time and energy you can free up to actually do things when you embrace that your intellect and ego is not the center of the gosh-danged universe. American Christianity's™ fatal flaw is that because it is in theory 'Bible-only' (though there are enough best-selling Evangelical-authored commentaries of various sorts to show that it is not so in practice), the reply to all this is more likely to be "Abba who? What does a Swedish disco group from the 70s have to do with Christianity?" (or probably some complaint about how the post is too long to read) than actually considering that anything from before they were alive could in any way be instructive in the normative belief and practice of the Christian faith. (With certain exceptions possibly made for things like a favorite reference Bible from the 1800s or a radio preacher from the 1940s or whatever they feel ought to be the exception to not listening to anyone about anything.)
I don't have a robust or fully fleshed out way to talk about what I'm about to talk about, but I'm going to try and talk about this anyway.
Over the past, oh, decade or so-ish there's something I've observed. Traditionally, or classically, the way we talk about Christianity in broad terms tends to follow what I'll call the Trichotomist Model; we tend to organize Christianity under three broad headings: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. There are caveats to this, because "Orthodoxy" can be sub-divided into the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox; so we might instead speak of four, rather than three; and sometimes Anglicanism is split off from Protestantism. But that's mostly beside the point. Generally this is how we categorize, organize, and classify the big umbrellas of Christianity. Protestantism being the most complicated, convoluted, and mixed bag because we are talking about tens of dozens of denominations and/or traditions. Lutheranism isn't Methodism, for example; but both are Protestant.
In a lot of ways, this is helpful. But in a lot of ways, it isn't.
I've observed that, in many ways--and this has been put into the spotlight for me many times on places like Christian Forums where things get especially highlighted--that we can talk of a Dichotomist Model of Christianity.
In this Dichotomist Model I'd argue that we can talk about Historic Christianity; that Christianity that is concerned with the historic norms of the Christian religion; a strong belief in the Historic Creeds/Confessions, with historic theology and maintaining a continuance with the faith as it has been practiced down through the centuries. While Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, et al will all have highly diverse views on lots of things; there is nevertheless a sense that all have about continuing within established Christian norms. There is no attempt to re-invent the wheel. The Nicene Creed says what it says, and we believe it. We consider the teachings of our fathers as important, therefore we insist (as an example) that the Virgin Mary is the mother of God because we understand that the theological controversies surrounding Nestorius are already settled, and that our Christology (even though Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians use different words) is established and settled.
On the other side, and I'm not sure of what term to use here to describe it, is that form of Christianity that is what you describe above. A highly individualistic "me and the Bible" approach to religion. Tradition is regarded as a purely ugly and negative concept (even though there is tradition at work here too, even if it is a different kind of tradition). Religion is an individualistic activity of me forming my own doctrines by my private reading and interpretation of the Bible.
Now, the caveat I'm going to give here is that what I outlined above is a broad generalization that is often hyperbolic (but not always). As I would also argue that there is what could be described as a modern "Theological Canon"--a set of standards that is rooted in that kind of indivudalistic religiosity but which is more cohesive. Rooted in 18th and especially 19th and early 20th century religious movements and traditions; such as Revivalism and American Pietism (which could be considered highly distinct from
Historic Pietism). But within this Theological Canon we can talk about the "fathers" of this form of Christianity. Charles Finney, Billy Sunday, Bill Bright, and even Billy Graham.
I do not wish to treat this as exclusive to Neo-Evangelicalism; I think it is broader than that and deeper than that. It's not even exclusively American. The Plymouth Brethren, for example, I'd argue are part of this--but they emerged in the British Isles. I do think that, though not distinctively American, it is something that seems peculiar to the Anglosphere. And it is not exclusively super-modern, I think a lot of the ideas I'm talking about are religious expressions and sentiments that have some of their origins in the Radical Reformation of the 16th century, and given the Anglo-specific nature of it (at least from my vantage point) can also go back to the Nonconformist movements of the 17th century in Great Britain.
Perhaps, at least for the time being, I'll refer to this distinction as "Old Church" and "New Church"; though that may not be helpful either.
As I said, I'm still trying to figure out my own thoughts--and I want to keep studying and doing more homework on this subject matter. But I do think this is a very real division that exists within the state of Christianity: There is that form of Christianity that is concerned with the past to shape its present; and there is that form of Christianity that, in general, sees the past as either unimportant or even seen as a hindrance. And in a lot of ways, that division/distinction is far more important and functionally relevant than the classical models of dividing/categorizing Christianity. As a Lutheran, for example, I feel like I have a lot more in common with Catholics and Orthodox than I do with Baptists or Pentecostals (as just an example); even though Lutherans, Baptists, and Pentecostals are all "Protestant".
-CryptoLutheran