I Am the Ten Percent

Cruised the Fox News homepage a while ago and found this little gem- Is religion making a comeback in American popular culture?, a segment from The Five news/commentary show.

Based upon the success of The Bible TV miniseries, the pending theatrical release of Noah and growing church attendance, The Five unanimously believe that the trend is toward deep religious commitment in America. They don't do much to rationally argue their case, you understand. They simply posit that based on a few media factors and interpretation of statistics, religious adherence in general and Christian affiliation are growing in America.

I am skeptical.

Why? Well, for starters, the Protestant mainline is absolute smithereens. While a few may be true believers, those denominations have been engulfed by liberalism to the point where their churches are predominantly occupied by pot-smoking hippies and transgender "clergy".

Evangelical Christianity, specifically the Southern Baptist denomination, appears to be growing. According to the American Religious Identification Survey, there were approximately 33 million adult Southern Baptists in America in 1990 and 2001. That number rose to 36 million adults in 2008 (the most recent year for which we have data).

As for the Catholic Church, there's been a steady up-tick in numbers there as well. 46 million adults in 1990, 50 million in 2001 and 57 million in 2008.

The number of non-denominational Christians have risen as well. 194,000 in 1990, 2.4 million in 2001 and 8 million in 2008.

However, I submit to you that the numbers are incredibly misleading.

Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has been quoted as saying that only about 10% of Southern Baptist churchgoers are truly committed to the gospel.

Oddly enough (or not) that number is echoed by Fr. John McCloskey, who has reported that only about 10% of Catholics are "with the program". That is to say only that number will attend Mass on a regular basis, participate in confession at least once a year and other activities.

Those remarks tally fairly well with a 2008 Barna Research Group poll, which indicated that only 9% of those polled identify their relationship with God as the most important thing in their lives. To put that in perspective, 45% said family matters most while 17% said their money and career was most important.

So how do we account for the disparity between committed believers both among the Southern Baptist and the Catholic Church and the people who apparently are checking their bank accounts during the homily?

Rather easily.

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. ... Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
-- St. Matthew 7:14, 21 (KJV)

Incidentally, mainliners/non-Catholics/non-SB's may be bothered by the fact that they were virtually ignored through this entire discourse. But the reason for that is, as per the above, the Protestant mainline hasn't so much declined as completely atrophied. The Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians/Anglicans and others are simply not viable denominations anymore.

Not saying they'll disappear tomorrow. Even now America has a memory of what those denominations have meant to the country over the years. But the days of them being a real force in American life have come and gone. Soon the denominations themselves will be too small to even measure in most polls. They're simply not relevant anymore. They will only be less relevant as time goes on.

In fact, the obvious conclusion here is that Christianity in America is becoming increasingly polarized between the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention. Children born today probably won't considering mainline churches as viable options for church attendance when they come of age. In point of fact, the Protestant mainline may well be consigned to the history books by that point.

Nature abhors a vacuum. The mainline long ago negotiated away Truth and Authority to accommodate the culture. The dwindling numbers are their just desserts.

Also, consider the breakdown of numbers. 76% of those polled by the American Religious Identification Survey identified as "Christian". Of those, 25% identified as Catholic. 51% identified as non-Catholic Christian.

However, the Southern Baptist Convention's contribution to that 51% figure is 16%. Subtract their number and you're left with 35%. These are all other denominations most of which either don't even have churches in your local area or won't in ten years.

The Catholic Church is not only the largest single Christian tradition in the United States, it's the only one experiencing any type of growth. We may all be Catholics before this is over.

Considering Phil Robertson

Wow, lack of updates lately. The reason for that is because I've been sick with some crud and that sacked me out for the better part of a week. Combine that with the Christmas holiday and there's your delay right there.

So anyway. Facebook has absolutely blown up goings on related to Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty. I shall not recap his comments. If you don't know what he said, Google is your friend.

It's been interesting reading the reactions people have had though. And I'm not talking about the media, Hollywood, politicians and so forth. I mean reactions from the rank and file. Specifically I refer to people on the conservative/Republican/Christian side of the argument.

For the first time it really feels like lines are being drawn about this issue. For the first time it feels like there are fractures in the opposition to "same-sex marriage". But I'll come back to this in a moment.

Earlier tonight I saw a friend-of-a-friend had posted a link to some crowd-source financing web page. The page is intended to collect funds so that a same-sex couple can leave the very deeply red state we live in and drive to California to get married.

This isn't a simple matter of challenging the law in the Texas Supreme Court in the hopes they find it unconstitutional. It would be pointless. The state's Supreme Court would have to rule against them because Texas didn't ban "gay marriage" with a bill signed in to law. Rather, the Texas Constitution was itself amended specifically to prevent not only "gay marriage" ceremonies from occurring within the state but also to prevent Texas from recognizing such unions performed in other states.

In other words there's simply no wiggle room here. If you reside in the state of Texas, there's simply no way for same-sex couples to get "married". There's no state law you can pass in Texas that will ever change that. Even if 100% of all citizens in Texas changed their minds tomorrow about "gay marriage" and decided to pass a law, it wouldn't do any good. The state's constitution would have to be modified. And that's a procedural pain in the neck.

I say all of that to draw an analogy. There's an entire segment of the supposed Christian community who are finally willing to "compromise" (ie, sell out) on this issue. This whole chimichanga related to Phil Robertson has brought at least that much into focus. There are craploads of people supposedly on my side of the aisle who have finally had enough. They're at their breaking points now.

Everybody? No, of course not. But a considerable number. I use the term "supposed Christians" up there (A) because these people are okay with their Protestant/evangelical churches officiating or in some way blessing same-sex unions, which is a patently anti-Christian attitude to have and (B) this even includes some Mormons I know. Mormons in general and these Mormons in particular may be good people but Mormons cannot be called Christians unless we either redefine the word "Mormon", the word "Christian" or both.

To be sure, Catholics far and wide may support "same-sex marriage" too but the difference is that the Church doesn't. And that I guess is the sum and substance of my point here.

Much like the Texas state constitution, the Catholic Church has taught infallibly that marriage can only be the union of one man and one woman. Period, end of discussion. Even if every single Catholic in the entire world up to and including any given Pope were to decide "same-sex marriage" is cool and totally onboard with God's plan, the Church's prior teachings on the subject are impossible to change.

The Catholic Church can't compromise on this. Can't. Cannot. Even if individual Catholics are more than willing to kowtow to the left about this issue, the Church herself can't.

But non-Catholic institutions lack the Church's authority and leadership. As with states which forbid "same-sex marriage" by law rather than Constitutional amendment, their own bylaws may forbid anything even remotely resembling "same-sex marriage" today but who knows what those bylaws might say tomorrow? Apply enough pressure and who knows? Maybe the Mormons and the Southern Baptists will accept "gay marriage" after all.

But the Catholic Church can't.

As a side note, let me say that in many ways I consider myself to be a sexual libertarian. In many ways, I don't care what people do or with whom they do it as long as (A) it's consensual and (B) it doesn't become my problem.

The issue with "gay marriage" is that any legal recognition of it will eventually become my problem in the form of my church being forced to recognize or perform "gay weddings". The gay lobby and its advocates can say anything they like to the contrary but let's cut the crap. Their movement isn't about "equality". If that's all they wanted, laws regarding civil unions could be modified as necessary to confer whatever legal benefits are conferred by marriage.

That isn't the issue. It's never been the issue. Ultimately the gay lobby wants society's blessing for that immoral lifestyle. Anything less is unacceptable. We've all seen the Internet meme of a picture of a "gay marriage" advocate holding a sign that says "I civil union you". The nonsensical sentiment is designed to illustrate the supposed absurdity and inequality inherent to civil unions over and against marriage.

It isn't about equality. It's about forcing everybody everywhere to accept the proposition of "gay marriage" simply because they desperately yearn for wholesale societal endorsement.

Not just "acceptance". Not just "tolerance". Endorsement.

Do you seriously think they'll draw the line at religious freedom? How's that working out so far? We've all heard the stories about Christian business owners being forced to participate in "gay weddings" in spite of the fact that theirs is a clear cut case of religious conscience.

The same gay lobby which has eaten those business owners alive in court will somehow spare churches and other religious groups? Fat chance!

When I express unequivocal opposition to "gay marriage", bear in mind that this is what I have in mind. When it comes to the "gay agenda", remember that I couldn't care less about the "gay" part. It's the "agenda" part that bothers me.

Lack of Church Discussion

This where developing content in advance pays off. I'm sick as hell right now but can still continue posting because I always stay a few entries ahead.

Anyway. Perhaps you've noticed the lack of discussion about anything related to Catholicism. And perhaps you thought that was odd considering this blog is supposed to track my development, training and eventual confirmation in the church started by Jesus Christ.

Or maybe you've been completely oblivious. There's no accounting for attention span.

The reason I've not written a whole lot about it is because there hasn't been much to say. In the first place, My Catholic Year technically doesn't start until January 1, 2014. I can't really write much about My Catholic Year until, y'know, My Catholic Year actually starts.

Second, I thought it would be helpful to use the time leading up to My Catholic Year establishing my cred in other areas so that when the thing actually starts, you'll have a better frame of reference.

Still, I suppose there are a few things I could mention. For example, last Thursday I met with a director of my local Catholic parish's Faith Formation team to discuss RCIA. Wasn't sure what to expect. I mean, yeah, I've done a fair bit of research about what RCIA is all about weeks ago but what's listed as common practice on some blog or Wikipedia page and what's actually done could be two very different things.

The woman was very knowledgeable, friendly and helpful. She said that my timing is pretty good since the next RCIA class to start ends registration sometime this week. Mine will be the final group which completes everything before Easter. Since confirmation and acceptance into the Church seem to mostly happen in conjunction with Easter, this is rather convenient for me.

Basically it all starts on January 9, 2014. I'm comfortable with everything they're talking about as far as RCIA goes. Apparently the people who run the program are equipped to handle basically any question you might throw at them. As useful as that might be, I've already resolved all or most of the questions and reservations I had about the Catholic faith weeks ago.

Baptism could be an issue though. I explained to the Faith Formation director that, yes, I was baptized into the Church of Christ when I was 17. The problem though is that it was done at a church; not really by a church. Long story but the short version is that the way it worked out means I have no documentation on the matter. If I had to prove in a court of law that I've been baptized, it'd be hard to do without eyewitness testimony... from my family, which isn't worth much in most courts.

And this doesn't touch the suspicion I've had that the Church of Christ is a cult, which further calls the legitimacy of my baptism into question.

Bottom line? Seems to me like the safest path is to be baptized "again" by the Catholics to make sure the job gets done right. If in the end it all proves to have been unnecessary, eh, whatever. I'd rather err on the side of caution.

I'm a little excited about all this. Joining up with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church is a big deal for me. Feels like the culmination of something I've been searching for my entire life. And here it is.

The Religion of Secularism

I can't be the first one to notice the similarities between secularism and organized religion. In point of fact, I believe religion is the only way to explain the zealotry of the left. As I say though, I can't be the first. Still, I doubt there's as extensive a list comparing how much secularism resembles Christianity.

-- The Religion of Secularism
- Tithe
Taxes

- House of Worship
Cable News Networks
Internet Blogs/Facebook Groups

- Seminaries
College Universities

- Clergy
News Journalists
Supreme Court Justices
School Teachers/College Professors

- Sacred Scripture
Darwin's Origin of Species
Roe v. Wade

- Catechism
School textbooks

- Sacraments
Voting
Abortion
Pre-Marital Sex
Divorce

- Messiah
Barack Obama

- Mother Mary
Jane Roe/Norma McCorvey

- Prophets
Charles Darwin
Richard Dawkins
Christopher Hitchens
Bill Clinton

- Saints
Franklin Roosevelt
Celebrity Activists/Atheists

- Martyrs
John F. Kennedy
Matthew Shepard
Murdered Abortion Providers

- Representative of All Evil
President George W. Bush

- Religious Congregations
Congressional Black Caucus
National Organization of Women
ACORN
ACLU
Organized Labor

- Magisterium
Scientific Methods

- Religious Jargon
Separation of Church and State
Political Correctness

- Curia
US President
US Congress
Supreme Court

- Creation Myth
Evolution

- Eschatology/End Times
Global Warming

- Virtues
Taxing "the rich"
Universal Healthcare
Gay Marriage
Social Justice

- Holy Days
Earth Day
Labor Day

- Political Expression/Affiliation
Liberalism (Democrat Party)

- Apostates
Jane Roe/Norma McCorvey
Dennis Miller

So how exactly is secularism not a religion? And how is governmental implementation of secularism not establishing a religion?

Of Prayers and Vain Repetitions

"Catholics pray in vain repetitions. The Lord said to never do that!" -- Uninformed Non-Catholic

This is likely a reference to:

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
-- Matthew 6:7 (KJV)

Apparently formalized prayer such as the Catholic Church prescribes is the vain repetition that has been prohibited. But did our Lord truly prohibit the practice?

And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.
-- Matthew 26:44 (KJV)

Apparently our Lord has no problem with it when He offers the same prayer more than once. But is that His privilege? Maybe the rest of us are not permitted to offer repeated, formalized prayer?

Did our Lord possibly forbid that?

And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
-- Luke 11:3-4 (KJV)

So our Lord said not to offer vain repetition as prayer. But He prayed repetitiously on at least one occasion and also instructed His apostles to do the same thing with the Our Father prayer. So either our Lord violated His own instructions or else a bunch of Protestants misunderstood His instructions.

Which of those seems more likely to you?

Mind you, the Protestants haven't kept their noses clean about this themselves. I assume they pray the "Our Father" once in a while. Plus, ultimately prayer is praise. So is singing the same song in praise a vain repetition?

"O sing unto the LORD a new song: sing unto the LORD, all the earth."
-- Psalm 96:1 (KJV)

How many times have Protestants sung Amazing Grace?

To the Protestants: There is no need for a double standard; one will do nicely.

Glossary

The words "catholic" and "evangelical" and whatnot can get thrown around so carelessly that I thought it might help to have some kind of glossary to specify at least how I use the terms. So I put one together.

With the understanding that these all fit under the larger banner of Christianity, I wanted to organize the groups/sub-groups in a logical and coherent way. When I use these terms, this organizational structure is what I have in mind. However, there are a few caveats here.

Disclaimer #1- I make no claim as to the list below being exhaustively complete. The intention was to address some of the most common groups.

Disclaimer #2- Related to that, I can't list every single associated group or order or society or fraternity or whatever else that's related to/split off from/in protest of every other group or else the big picture flavor I'm trying to achieve with this glossary is effectively moot. That and, let's face it, I'm lazy and don't want to spend all day perfecting this thing. It's supposed to be true in the big picture.

Disclaimer #3- I organized the list based upon the groups practices, beliefs and (where relevant) liturgy. On that basis, I can imagine some faithful Catholics may deeply resent being put into the same class as members of the SSPX. For that matter, the reverse is possibly true as well. Understand that no offense is intended. However, the customs, histories and practices of each group warrant their inclusion side by side with one another. Again, no offense is intended but in my opinion the two groups are variations on one another. They belong in the list in this way and since it's my list, I get to make the rules.

Besides, if you're a torqued off faithful Catholic (or SSPX'er), just think how angry the Protestants are that I barely acknowledge any of their zillions of splits, schisms and other drama. There's always somebody who has it worse.

Disclaimer #4- If you have a suggestion for an improvement or correction, try recommending it to me before calling for my blood or labeling me a rebellious, spite-filled heretic. I promise to consider thinking about the possibility of potentially modifying the list accordingly someday. And that's a promise!

Disclaimer #5- If the list seems a bit biased towards North America, there's a reason for that. I live in North America. Again, I'm not trying to be all-encompassing with this list. I'm merely attempting to apply helpful labels to groups many of you may or may not have heard of or completely understand. This isn't an attempt to be religiously imperialistic. If you want to see religious imperialism, check out some of my posts about evangelicalism. All I'm trying to do here is be accurate but brief.

Disclaimer #6- Intentionally incomplete or not, I intentionally skipped groups that I don't consider Christian. That includes Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and even many within the Emerging Church. If that bothers you, remember that this is my list and I get to make the rules. It's good to be king. Now piss off. Besides, nobody is stopping you from making your own list.

Disclaimer #7- Another obvious group that got skipped is the non-denominational. By definition they're hard to fit in anywhere. You see, non-denominational types want to be able to criticize anybody at any time without being subject to criticism themselves. The only way to do that is to avoid denominations altogether. That lets you bash on everybody but, as non-denominationalism by definition has no specific creed, catechism or "statement of faith", nobody can really come after you about it. All that's fine and dandy, Mr. Non-Denominationalist. Just don't tell me that I'm the one being divisive here, mmkay?

---- Christianity
--- Catholicism/Apostolic Succession
-- Roman Catholic
- Holy Roman Catholic Church
- Society of St. Pius X
- Utrecht/Old Catholics
- Miscellaneous sedevacantist groups
-- Eastern Orthodox
-- Anglican
- Anglican Communion
- Anglican Church in North America
- Reformed Episcopal Church

--- Protestantism
-- Mainline Protestant
- Methodists
- Lutherans
- Presbyterians
- Churches of/Disciples of Christ
-- Evangelical
- Southern Baptist
- Charismatics/Pentacostals

Advent (or "More Evangelical Goofiness")

Following a bizarre series of events, I found myself in a Southern Baptist church on Sunday morning. There's a story behind all this related to a car breaking down but nobody would find that in the least compelling so I shall skip it except to say that there was a very good reason for me to do this.

In any event, I attended a Southern Baptist church this past Sunday. In fact, it was Southern Baptist Church #2 (last mentioned here). And as obvious as this may be for some of you, I was once again struck by how evangelicalism really is a stripped down, unglued, incoherent photocopy of the catholic faith (which I use in the broad sense rather than specifically Roman Catholicism, although obviously that's the best application here).

For example, most catholic (lowercase "c") churches, particularly Roman Catholic and Anglican, have some sort of choir. And generally the choir members will wear traditional choir dress.

Well, obviously tradition (selectively) has no truck with the evangelicals so they usually skip that. Except that on some level, they still understand the value of a type of uniform for the choir, oops, sorry, the "worship leaders" so they generally try to dress them similarly to one another. Usually it's a dark color (blacks, dark grays, etc.) off-set by another color. Anybody care to guess which color it was this past Sunday?

Anyway, such was the case with SBC #2, and on zillions of previous occasions. So once again they claim they're skipping tradition ("that's not 'biblical'!") but then they attempt to sneak a watered down version of it in anyway. There's a very strange effort from evangelicals to replace tradition and liturgy with things that serve effectively the same aesthetic and practical functions but without the "burden" of centuries of observance behind it. Apparently the guiding philosophy is to change the names and a few particulars of traditional religious practice and hope nobody notices.

This is one of those things I never really paid much attention to when I was lost in evangelicaldom myself but which sticks out like a sore thumb now.

Apart from that silliness though, I've noticed a trend lately where evangelicals have started attempting to hijack the liturgical calendar. Selectively and piecemeal, of course, because that's how they do everything.

Case in point: Advent. SBC #2, which is as evangelical as the day is long, has started using the word the same way the catholics do. I'll cut the Presbyterians and Methodists some slack on this one since some type of Advent observance isn't a new thing for them. But it is foreign to the Southern Baptists; this I do affirm.

Of course, the "observance" of it is primarily confined to throwing the word itself around a lot. There was no real talk about penitence, of course. No, no, you have to call it "serious reflection". Same thing, more or less, just different words without centuries of authority and tradition behind it.

They also made sure to dress the choir, oops, "worship leaders" in black suits and violet dress shirts. The lead pastor got in on the fun too with a violet necktie. Big coincidences all, I'm sure.

When I was an evangelical, I was confused by how annoyed the Catholics could get about our Easter and Christmas services. It just didn't make any sense to me. Their attitude seemed to be that we were co-opting some of their traditions, customs and beliefs for our own use but without putting ourselves under any sort of real church authority. I found it absolutely baffling back then.

Suffice it to say, their outrage makes a hell of a lot more sense now.

Top Five Annoying Church Terms

Topic- Top Five Churchy Terms/Jargon I'd Thank Our Lord To Never Hear Again

Qualifiers- I'm sick to crap of hearing them; I'm starting to think half of these are actually code for something else; These make me thankful to have left evangelicaldom behind;
Sequence- unranked;

* Christ-Follower. You're a Christian, you pretentious jerk! There's nothing wrong with saying so!

* Christian Courting/Courtship. Admittedly, I'm annoyed as much at the concept as I am sick of hearing the term. Nevertheless it sucks. Unless the father of the bride has a dowry ready, this idiotic word and practice both need to go. NOW!

* Testimony. I'm sorry, but is there something wrong with calling it "beginning of faith", "my origin", "my road to Damascus", "my meandering and almost offensively pointless story" or something else? ANYTHING else?

* Seeker/Seeking. I swear to think there was a time when such folks were called "undecideds" or "visitors". But when Rick Warren writes some idiotic book, the terminology has to change.

* Unity. Some idiot says "unity" but what I hear is "forget whatever you believe, let's do things *MY* way". Speaking only as a catechumen (as opposed to a confirmed Catholic), it's especially offensive to me when Protestants hurl this label at me. Yeah, because the Catholics are KNOWN for being divisive. Idiots...

-- The Epic List of Runners Up
* Stumbling block. In the Scriptural sense, this is a barrier to faith. John 6:53-58 caused some people to walk away from the faith. That was a stumbling block for them. If you're already a believer, something that simply "confuses" you isn't a "stumbling block". If you're confused, that's your cue to read your Bible or talk to your priest. But for crying out loud, don't call it a "stumbling block". Because it isn't. This didn't make the list because it's overused only by a minority. When EVERYONE starts using it incorrectly, I'll add it to the top five.

* Non-denominational. EVERYbody has a denomination; some merely lack the courage, conviction or IQ to realize it. But this isn't on the list because I only have five slots.

* Legalistic (and derivatives). Going any further into this would require breaking a confidence I promised to keep forever. Still, trust me, this word is *WAY* past its prime. But this hasn't been abused quite enough yet to warrant inclusion in the top five.

* Judgmental. St. Matthew 7 says not to judge hypocritically. It *NEVER* says not to judge. When your peers or your priest call you out on the carpet for acting a fool, damn right they're being "judgmental" and it's their job! This didn't make the list because the word itself is legit; it's the usage that's off-kilter. And by the way? There's only one "e" in "judgmental".

* Christian Spirituality. I don't know who dreamed up this pretentious idiocy. Donald Miller maybe? But it sounds like the beginning of either a cult or heresy. Maybe both. Wait, am I being judgmental here?

* Fellowship. Next time, just say "hang out with". It's what you meant and it's what you did. Just say so.

* Relevant. This one is Authentic's less attractive younger sister (which is really saying something). I taught a small group at a Southern Baptist church for about two years. By the end, I'd decided I would sell my house and join up with the Amish if just one more person said the word "relevant". Because, hey, even if the Amish use this idiotic word, at least it'd be in German! So that's something! So why isn't this one in the top five? Good question, actually...

Answering Evangelicalism, vol. 01

I am currently engaging in a doctrinal discussion via e-mail with a fairly cookie-cutter evangelical with fairly cookie-cutter evangelical points of view.

Really, this shouldn't have come as too big a surprise. For whatever reason, I'm not permitted to make a major change in my spiritual life for free. Sooner or later (usually sooner), someone will have a problem with my choices. And then I have to justify my decision.

You might question, and with good reason, why I comply with the process. Well, first of all, it happens whether I want it or not. But second, my opinion has long been that if you can't marshal an intellectual defense for something as important as your religion, either (A) you're pathetically ignorant about what you claim to believe in or else (B) maybe you just suck.

In any case, getting challenged about something means finding answers or else conceding the point, if not the entire discussion. And I'd rather not do that if the facts are available. I'll deal with this more in a minute.

But what this entire exchange has put into very sharp focus is how empty the evangelical side of the equation truly is. For example, they don't confess sins to a priest; they confess them to an accountability partner.

Let that sink in for a moment.

The evangelicals are willingly substituting the very reliable, very biblically-ordained sacrament of reconciliation for a very flawed, very limited and very glorified therapy session. But then again, a real therapist is bound by confidentiality ethics to never discuss you or your conversations with anybody. A Catholic priest has a sacred obligation to do likewise.

Neither of them can talk about you or your problems even if they're put under oath.

An accountability partner? Your best hope is they never blab your secrets to anybody. After all, the only thing stopping them is their own sense of honesty.

I wouldn't have been able to adequately answer that particular question had I never been challenged on it. But having been challenged, I sought out some resources and, in so doing, realized not only how essential confession is but how pathetically the evangelicals try to copy it with their little accountability partners while criticizing the sacrament itself.

So that's my side of it. But watching this person bumble around and try to justify the Protestant viewpoint of any given doctrine is kind of sad too. Catholics are often criticized for not being able to defend any of the Church's doctrines.

But, putting aside the arrogance of a johnny come lately organization like the evangelicals who demand their millennia-old predecessor justify itself, too often evangelicals in general and the evangelical with whom I was trading e-mails in particular are similarly unable to defend their doctrines. Or, ironically enough, recognize that many evangelical ideas are (recently) contrived, pale imitations of Catholic Church sacraments and doctrines.

Now, the last thing I would want is to give the impression that I'm bashing on the evangelicals. I'm not. And I wouldn't because I used to be one of them. My point through this entire thing has been the realization that evangelicalism mostly consists of butchered and watered down Catholic doctrines.

Visiting Canterbury

In my second post, I talked a bit about my experiences with Anglicanism. However several aspects of that had to be cut short because that entry was fast becoming a tome as it was. So I thought it might be useful to revisit it.

In short, it comes down to The Social Issues. I do not believe that homosexual relationships should be treated equally to heterosexual ones if we base that equality on the proposition that they should have valid, legally-recognized, church-blessed "marriage". I do not believe in abortion or other pro-death issues. I do not believe women have been given the same teaching and pastoral authority as men.

Those things effectively meant I could never really find a home within the Episcopal Church.

Still, I'd long been fascinated by Anglicanism. And superficially, what was there for a cradle Protestant not to like? All the ritual, half the guilt, none of the Popes. Where do I sign up?

In 2006 I found myself faced with the decision to choose a church home. I'd never really bothered looking for one in my adult life because for a goodly portion thereof, I hadn't been much of a Christian. I was briefly attracted to TEC though because I'd come to understand a bit about the history of Anglicanism and how similar (in some ways) it is to Catholicism. Seemed like it would be worth checking out.

Given my rubric above concerning The Social Issues, obviously I concluded that TEC was no place for anybody who beleived in Biblical authority. Not finding a much better alternative in near proximity to my home, I just figured I'd play it safe, visit a Southern Baptist church and resume Church Search 2006 later.

As it happened, "later" never really came because I quickly fell in with the Southern Baptists. It wasn't very long before I found myself teaching a small group of 20/30-something single adults like myself. That ended in a very unpleasant way but not before I began confronting some uncomfortable passages in the Bible.

I've since come to understand that an inactive, disengaged Southern Baptist church member can claim a belief in Sola Scriptura without much trouble. Speaking from experience, I can tell you that it isn't difficult.

However, it takes a little bit of hard work and a lot of self-deception to maintain Sola Scriptura if you are in any type of leadership or pastoral role.

As I was in the former, chapters such as John 6 and John 21 were an incredible pain in the neck to teach from. And when it comes to church authority, Matthew 16 was no picnic either. To an evangelical, someone who professes to take the Bible literally, "These things must happen soon" means "These things will happen much later", "Behold, I am coming quickly" means "Chill out, I'll come slowly" and "eat my flesh and drink my blood" means "Do this as a commemorative metaphor".

That, I guess, is taking the Bible "literally". And somewhere, David Cross is shaking his head in frustration.

In any case, those troublesome bits of doctrine were sore points for me. On the one hand, I wanted to believe that the Catholics, Anglicans and others who interpreted those passages more literally than I wanted to were wrong. And not because the preponderence of the facts didn't support their argument. But because I'd been taught my whole life the standard nonsense evangelical interpretation of those passages... but had found them pathetically wanting.

After absenting myself from Southern Baptist Church #1 (or being forcibly shown the door depending on how you look at it), I soon started up at Southern Baptist Church #2. Even though SBC #2 was a much more pleasant environment compared to the back-biting sharktank that was (and probably still is) SBC #1, I never completely settled in. Partly that's because some old faces from SBC #1 would occasionally show up at SBC #2. But partly it was due to my growing distrust of reform theology.

To avoid my enemies and to start dealing with my growing disregard for most of the reformers, I left SBC #2 (on good terms, I can assure you) and began studying Anglican doctrine. As some of you may know, Anglicanism is an interesting, bewildering, thrashing hydra. You've got low church borderline evangelicals, high church Anglo-Catholics and broad church moderates. Each, any or all can be theologically conservative and politically liberal, theologically liberal and politically conservative or any combination you can think of.

Because of that, it's exceedingly difficult to make firm judgments about Anglicanism in general because the almost unprecedented amount of leeway and flexibility the movement allows.

I'd heard about the Anglican Church in North America not long after it had formed. I had been briefly tempted to visit an ACNA parish even when I was happily (and even not-so-happily) attending SBC #1 but at the time there really was no rational justification to leave. But then an irrational justification was forced upon me. So in short order I found a small ACNA parish near my house and began attending services there each week.

In fact, I'd begun visiting not long before Holy Week in 2013 so I was able to get what I think is the full Anglican experience pretty early on. And I loved it!

But what interested me most was Anglo-Catholicism: Essentially Roman Catholicism with no Popes and fewer pointy hats. Were you to seat an Anglo-Catholic next to a Roman Catholic and tell them not to talk about bishops of Rome, they'd probably get along famously. And there's even a sub-group of Anglo-Papists who love the Pope but not quite enough to join his church to be in communion with him.

A good example is the letter St. Ignatius wrote to the Smyrneans. He identified as heretics anybody who didn't believe that the Eucharist is not the body and blood of our Lord. Considering that St. Ignatius had been taught and trained by St. John, um, wouldn't he know what he was talking about when it comes to as crucial an issue as the Eucharist?

In any case, I found myself embracing a lot of the Anglo-Catholic theology I researched. And in effect, "Anglo-Catholic theology" is basically Roman theology. What I found was a world of theology and history that I never suspected even existed! Gone were the questions and confusion over key passages of Scripture. It felt like these were the answers I'd always been looking for.

After that, the wheels started turning. If the Catholics were correct about those Bible passages and other doctrines (and I am convinced that they are), might they also be able to justify other peculiarly Roman issues such as Marianology, the Papacy and other things? Possibly.

More research. And more answers! Every questionable doctrine, every sketchy belief, every misconception, every misunderstanding, all of it was clarified when I found trained, qualified, authoritative sources to deal with my questions.

I'd always said that I'd join the Catholic Church if they could ever find a way to address my main concerns about their beliefs. Well, it sure looked like God had put me on a path to find all the answers I needed. The Catholic Church is the one our Lord started.

What justification is there anymore to not join?

The other consideration is the future of Anglicanism. As I have said before, ACNA hasn't caught on the way I think most people in ACNA expected it to. But simply put, the numbers were never great to begin with and they're only dwindling. Is ACNA or any representation of Anglicanism even going to be viable in the United States twenty years from now? Maybe. But maybe not.

Now, true, we can't base our spiritual and church-going judgments on popularity. But given as I'd come to the realization that although the Anglicans are right, the Catholics are righter insofar as doctrines and beliefs are concerned, there was simply no rational, spiritual or any other argument for staying in the Anglican church.

I should mention that in the middle of all this, I spoke to my priest from my Anglican parish. I explained what I was going through and he offered some very helpful advice. He said I should press on with my search for as long as it takes. And if my final destination is to stay at his church, fine by him. But if it takes me to Rome, so be it.

That remains the long major encouragement I've gotten in this process so I value it, him and his counsel dearly.

So that's basically how I found my way into and subsequently out of Canterbury. In the final analysis, I believe that Rome didn't leave Canterbury. Rather, Canterbury left Rome. As an Anglo-Catholic, the split from Rome bothered me. Still does, in fact. I pray for reunification someday.

But until then, the split from Canterbury bothers me less as a Roman Catholic than the split from Rome did as an Anglican.

Rome's Teaching Authority

If you'd have told me four years ago that someday I'd make the switch to Catholicism, I wouldn't have said you were crazy (because I've always had my share of Catholic sympathies) but I would have said that one major problem, a potential deal-breaker even, would've been the Magisterium.

What I have since come to believe though is that evangelical Christianity is mostly an attempt to recreate the Catholic church but almost always using different terminology and frequently without the instruments that make the Catholic church work.

A good example of that is one's own strengths and aptitudes. The Catholics call that "charism". The Protestants call it "spiritual gifts". Same essential concept; different names.

An even better example though is church discipline. If you cross the line at a Protestant church, if you do something you're simply not supposed to do, there are circumstances where you will eventually be called out on the carpet by the church's pastor or, more likely, one of his subordinates.

That's the ideal, at any rate, Lord knows I had a very different experience. But I digress.

However, and this is key, there's a limit to what the pastor will do. Oh sure, he might go so far as to disfellowship you from the congregation... which means you only need to find some other church and place membership there. Nothing that pastor does is especially binding.

The Catholic church, however, has a significantly higher amount of authority that it can bring to bear in such cases. And that's the crux of my entire argument here. The top-down management style of the Catholic church ensures that true oversight and discipline can take place when it's needed. The church is structured so that it can lead a parishioner back into a restored relationship. In the worst case scenario, there is ex-communication.

And that follows you.

The same basic thing can be said of the church's teaching authority. The Catholic church as an institution has had centuries to review and refine their interpretation of the Bible. Some of the finest, sharpest minds in human history, some of whom were Popes, have written commentaries for the church. From the time of the apostles going right up to today, the church has been there to guide the faithful in a true understanding of God's word.

Compare that to some guy who graduated from Bible college specializing in doctrines that didn't even exist a century ago.

As a Protestant, it was very hard to even consider these possibilities. And not because they're all that hard to accept but because they ran counter to everything I'd been taught my entire life. But think about it. Who has the more legitimate claim to truthful biblical interpetation: The group that has existed for 2,000 years or the movement that only came into existence a few centuries ago?

Apaprently we're supposed to believe that people didn't have proper understandings of baptism, communion, the nature of salvation or any number of other key Christian doctrines until a few busy-body rebels made a mess of doctrine just a few centuries ago. Think about the arrogance it takes to believe that.

The other issue though is that the Bible itself clearly gives the church a much higher degree of authority than Protestants usually accept. St. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 5 that Corinth's church should take some pretty freaking drastic measures to restore someone into proper fellowship. If the best the church can do is kicking someone off their membership roles, you can't really say they have very much binding authority.

But St. Paul instructs the Corinthian church to turn the guilty part over to Satan. He doesn't do that himself, you'll note. He instructs the church leadership in Corinth to do and he clearly believes it's possible for them to do.

Show me a Protestant church willing to take measures this drastic.

I mentioned charism/spiritual gifts before. One of mine has always been discernment. And so when I had to teach from 1 Corinthians 5 as a Southern Baptist, I was always struck by the authority that St. Paul wielded and also by the authority he expected the Corinthian leaders to wield as well. It just didn't fit with my evangelical sensibilities. I knew there was a conflict there but I didn't close the loop and consider that the Catholic church has claimed this authority from their inception.

Mea culpa.

All of this is to say that the Magisterium, far from being the divisive stumbling block I'd originally expected it to be, ended up being the easiest church teaching for me to accept. If what the church binds on Earth is bound in heaven and looses on Earth is loosed in heaven then the logical conclusion is (1) the church has absolute authority to teach and guide believers in the faith and (2) the church's pronouncements regarding faith and morals are infallible by virtue of the authority vested in them by our Lord.

This was all absurdly easy to convince myself of. Trust me, people, I've had bigger struggles over some of the doctrines pertaining to Mary than the Magisterium.

As to the Mary doctrines... More to follow.

The Backstory (or What A Long, Strange Journey It's Been)

-- Who I Am; How I Came To Be
I was raised in a Christian home. Specifically it was the Church of Christ. When I was a kid, I thought of the Church of Christ as religion. That's simply what "church" meant to me. When I was in my 20's, I thought of the Church of Christ as evangelical Christianity. And a not especially good version thereof.

These days I think of it as a cult. But that's a bit of a long story (which is a polite way of saying I'll deal with the full story some other time).

In any case, I left the Church of Christ when I was 18. I stuck around long enough to get baptized but that was about it. I eventually came back to Christianity when I was 24 in November 2004. But that too is a bit of a long story (which is a polite way of saying I may very well never deal with the full story). When I came back, I eventually joined up with a fairly big Southern Baptist church nearby in March 2006. They're quite prolific in my area and seemed like a good fit with my views of Christianity as filtered through the evangelicals. If you believe in alternate universes, surely there's one out there where I happily lived the rest of my days in the Southern Baptist denomination, and possibly that particular SB church.

But that's not this universe. In this universe I had a horrible experience a few years after joining. The short version is that I made enemies with some of the wrong people in a small group of 20- and 30-something singles I had begun teaching. These enemies complained about me to a ignorant, busy-body church "pastor" of the church who never even attempted to listen to my side of the story before firing me as the teacher of the small group and sending out an e-mail to my mini-flock which virtually destroyed my credibility with them.

On the one hand, I have to cop to a certain amount of blame for what happened. Fair is fair. But on the other hand, NOTHING I did merited the treatment I received. I have to believe that in the hands of a less incompetent pastor, the situation might've been handled more fairly. But that isn't what happened. What happened is that this Pastorus Ignoramus blindly accepted the word of people with an obvious axe to grind simply to illustrate an unrelated point to his colleagues about "how to deal with problems". No kidding. Quote, unquote. He needed to show his subordinates how to handle these things. I was just a pawn in that church's politics. My termination took place in November 2010.

As a side note, I should say that I know for a fact that the church has now and has always had problems finding lay-members to host Bible studies, lead/teach small groups, volunteer and do other things. With respect to my experience, my hunch is that they haven't figured out why they're having such problems.

It does amuse me though that Pastorus Ignoramus seemed genuinely surprised when, after all the above took place, I was reluctant to return his phone calls and flat-out refused to meet with him to "discuss the problem". What would've been the point? Even IF I had somehow convinced the nitwit of anything, it was already too late to do anything about it because his ready, fire, aim approach had already ruined my reputation and ministry beyond "restoration", as the SB's are so fond of saying. I don't know but I'm willing to bet that the colossal prick still doesn't see what he did was so ineptly handled that a retarded monkey could have handled the task more competently.

As a postscript to this part of the story, it came to my attention that he was fired less than a year after his dust up with me because he had gotten far too big for his britches and the senior pastor at this SB church had taken enough crap from him. Then as now, I understood that it's wrong to take pleasure in other people's misfortunes... but I'd be lying if I didn't feel an extraordinary amount of schadenfreude at this bit of news.

-- Where To Go From Here; Wandering the Wilderness
Obviously there was no way I could continue at that SB church. Nobody would accept me there ever again. And to be honest, SB doctrine (to the extent they even know what such a thing is) had become less and less comfortable a fit over the years. It's harder to understand that when you all you do is sit in the pew every Sunday. But when you have to teach Bible lessons to a group of your peers, you start seeing holes in some evangelical doctrines.

Still, the Southern Baptist denomination was all I really knew so that's what I attempted to stick to. Again, if you believe in alternate universes, there's one out there where things worked out for me at SB Church #2. And honestly, that was very nearly the case here. The members I met were uniformly cool, I joined up with a new singles group and they were all great. No static whatsoever.

And then some familiar faces from SB Church #1 started showing up. Basically the Young Singles group I'd been fired from had fairly well disintegrated after I was terminated. It was so bad at one point (and may be still) that they didn't have even have a regular teacher anymore so they just stopped meeting except for occasional get-togethers at somebody's house. Some people might call that an unfortunate turn of events. Me, I see it as poetic justice.

Schadenfreude, remember?

Now, I didn't like very many of those people back when I thought I had a God-ordained calling to teach them. So what do you think the odds were of me sticking around when I had the option to leave at any time for any reason or for no reason? So I sent the group's teacher an e-mail telling him that I thought he was cool, the "natives" of SB Church #2 were all cool too but I'm sick of my bad reputation, I'm sick of being "infamous" and I just want to be left the hell alone from now on... and I realized then that there was no hope of that ever happening at his church so, in spite of the fact that it wasn't personal at all, I would not be attending his group or the larger church in the future.

Among small group teachers, you see, I figured this amounted to "professional" courtesy. If someone had walked away from my group at SB Church #1 way back when, I'd have liked to know why. In my misguided idealism, I would've tried to "restore" everything so that we could all superficially continue as One Big Happy Southern Baptist Family.

And to his credit, the small group teacher said he understood but wished things could be otherwise because he liked me on a personal basis and would've liked me to continue coming to the group. He added though that I was welcome back any time I want. This was February of 2013.

That, of course, raised the question of just what I would do from then on. The incestuous nature of SB churches meant that there was a statistical possibility of seeing one of my enemies at any other SB church I chose to attend. It was possible.

Incidentally, right about now, some of you might be saying to yourselves "but Magnus, but Magnus, our Lord said we shouldn't have enemies!" Um, no. He didn't. What our Lord said was that we should love our enemies and do good to those that hate us. At no time did he ever say we can't have enemies. Primarily that's because it's not entirely up to us whether we have enemies or not.

As I say though, I had to figure something out. While I was driving around one night, inspiration struck. Back in 2006 when I had first been casting about for a denomination to join, the main thing that kept me away from the Episcopal church was their abject incompetence when it comes to matters of Biblical authority vis a vis ordaining women and open homosexuals.

Yes, I believe both are unbiblical. If that disturbs you, there are more PC blogs you can find if you try really hard.

To be sure, that confusion didn't affect the entire denomination but at the same time I didn't want to have to worry about my soul in a church struggling over matters that were settled long ago. So, as per the above, I skipped the Episcopal church entirely and instead stayed with a fairly traditional brand of evangelical Christianity. As low as my opinion about the SB's might be today, at least they're right on matters of women and homosexuals. You have to give them that much.

But that was 2006. By 2013 the situation had changed substantially and there is now an alternative Anglican body in this country called the Anglican Church of North America. A parish thereof was located near my house and so I resolved to check it out. Over time, I had become more friendly to the idea of liturgical worship. The reason for that is because all Christianity has liturgy. As someone else once said, the issue comes down to what you're willing to put in writing. The main difference between evangelical Christians and the "liturgical denominations" is that one group was willing to write their liturgy down while the other one isn't.

-- All Roads Lead to Canterbury (or Nigeria)
When I say that my first Anglican worship service was culture shock from beginning to end, bear in mind that this was coming from the perspective of an entire lifetime spent in the Church of Christ and Southern Baptist denominations. At the same time though, there was an inescapable feeling that I'd experienced something ancient and powerful.

That has been my pattern for this past year. I've been attending worship services at this ACNA parish and loving it. I'd reached a point when I had begun considering myself an Anglo-Catholic. I recited the Rosary from time to time, experimented with various prayers from the Book of Common Prayer, developed a friendship with the rector of the parish and had generally begun settling in with the Anglicans.

However, I said I'd become Anglo-Catholic. I'll probably tackle it more in future posts but suffice it to say that I'd start having severe problems with the Reform theology I'd been taught (and had taught myself) all my life. But basically I couldn't get my head around certain obvious Catholic doctrines. So I compromised by calling myself an Anglo-Catholic. To people who asked, I said I was as Catholic as the Catholic church would let me be.

However, after some study on my part, I made two major conclusions. The first is that for as useful as ACNA may be, Anglicanism in America may well be doomed. The Episcopal church seems determined to embrace irrelevance while ACNA is not in communion with Canterbury and, in any case, doesn't seem to have caught on. Anglicanism may have been what Christianity was in America for decades but things change. And not always for the better. The second thing was that Catholics have been here all along, likely weren't going anywhere and had a structure which made the heresy that has engulfed the Episcopal church virtually impossible.

-- All Roads Lead to Rome
However, I did more research into Catholic doctrine and found that many of the doctrines I had problems with were either explained to me by ignorant Protestants/Evangelicals or else in an incomplete way by Catholic laity. When a qualified Catholic teacher or writer explains the doctrines, they become a lot more believable. Their relative stability combined with doctrinal and liturgical consistency made them an attractive choice.

This impression was only strengthened after recently attending a Catholic wedding, where the priest explained the value and purpose of marriage and thus how the only valid manifestation of that must be traditional man/woman unions. He spoke with conviction mixed with a generous helping of warmth and compassion. He wasn't malicious in his statements nor is the Catholic church in their policy. They have simply had 2,000 years to mull their policies over while most of their detractors are barely old enough to drink.

The other factor was a careful review of the writings of the early church fathers. An honest reading of their letters and private musings indicates that their religion was obviously Roman Catholicism. That is the church. The church. The one founded by our Lord.

Thus was born the idea for My Catholic Year. As the name should indicate, and as I said in my previous post, that entails living as a Catholic through the year of 2014. On some level, I'm reasonably confident this will result in full conversion and so I'll begin RCIA right away. Why delay the inevitable, right?

More to follow.

Introducing...

Greetings. This is the first post of what I intend to be a chronicle of a project which I'm calling My Catholic Year. Ideally feedback from you will help me along the way but what I plan to do during 2014 is to live as a Catholic. The intention is to live as one of them. Specifically I will:

• Fully submit to their authority
• Join their RCIA
• Pray their prayers
• Attend their Mass
• Study their Missal
• Learn their liturgies (Latin, Novus Ordo and whatever else is available in my area)
• Read and understand their catechism
• Converse with their priests
• Partake of their sacraments (those I'm eligible for anyway)

What caused this? That's a bit of a long story (which is a polite way of saying I'll deal with the full story some other time) but the short version is that after about a year in the Anglican Church of North America, I have become intrigued by the Catholic Church to the extent that I am quite convinced by many of their doctrines.

However, this is not a decision to be made lightly so I intend to spend the upcoming year living the faith as the Church intends it to be lived. No shortcuts, no excuses, no apologies, no regrets.

If you have any thoughts you wish to share, feel free. But understand that ultimately your opinion is worth less than nothing to me. If one person telling me I'm wrong was enough to change my mind about anything, it would've happened long ago. If I am defying friends and family with My Catholic Year (and I assure you I am), what chance do you think you have of changing my mind because you disapprove?

Otherwise, feel free to join in.