Evangelicals Love the Catholic Church

Man, am I nailing multiple updates this week or what?

Anyway, so something that's captured my interest ever since I first started the process of joining the Catholic Church is the concept of Protestants making the switch. I think this is rather natural inasmuch as I was a Protestant. And I was making the switch.

Incidentally, I'm not a big fan of the term "convert" because I'm not switching from one brand name to another. In my mind, I've embraced the fullness of the Christian faith as expressed in and revealed through the Catholic Church. I'm filling in gaps that were always present in my religious acumen. Such an act isn't a "conversion"; it's a "completion".

What I've noticed though is a tendency to assume that "young people" joining the Church do so for the liturgy. I have no particular expertise on that subject. First, these are the same "young people" who support same-sex marriage in numbers approaching the ridiculous. So clearly they can't be too overly concerned with the Church's teachings. Second, I can't quite shake the suspicion of their fixation for liturgy as strictly novelty.

To wit: to whatever extent they're churched, they're predominantly familiar with worship services that are similar to U2 concerts. Any type of liturgy might be interesting to them because of the novelty factor. That doesn't necessarily make for an enduring conversion

In any case though, I came across an article less about the all-important Millennials and more about joining the Church point blank, particularly as it concerns older people in leadership positions within evangelicalism.

We dare not underplay the importance of that.

Do clergy leave the Church? Sure. Happens fairly regularly, I'm sure. But what's interesting to me is the concept of married evangelical pastors switching to Catholicism. In most cases, Catholic priests cannot be married. It's already costly for an evangelical to "convert" to Catholicism because implicit in that is the acknowledge that his previous affiliation was in error.

But the deeper issue is that many evangelical leaders and pastors and teachers who convert do so in the full knowledge that they'll have to find a new career, different ways to service in the Church and very probably live in a higher level of poverty than they might be accustomed to as relatively well to do evangelical ministers.

The importance of this is not to be underestimated. True, it may not be as flashy and impressive as refusing to recant the faith on pain of martyrdom. But I think we should bear in mind the prospects of a loss professional prestige, reduced income, unemployment and possible harassment when we consider what some evangelical leaders face in joining with the Church.

The other thing the article makes a special point of mentioning though is the intellectual reasons many converts to the faith have. I'd be the last one to deplore liturgy since I've written about it on many occasions. But at the end of the day, my reasons for joining the Church are because of history, reason and logic.

This is the Church founded by Christ. You can trace today's bishops in an unbroken line back to Our Lord Himself. The Church Fathers were CLEARLY Catholic. Catholicism offers the only intellectually coherent and logical case for salvation. Numerous other reasons too.

However, the same is not true in the inverse. Sure, evangelicals may join the Church for intellectual reasons. But Catholics leave the Church for evangelicalism for emotional reasons. It has nothing to do with the Protestants making a better case or presenting a stronger argument. In fact, you could reasonably guess that perhaps Protestantism itself isn't even the issue. Many Catholics leaving has more to do with the Church itself than it does evangelicalism.

So, to put it another way, evangelicals join the Catholic Church because of the Catholic Church. Catholics leave the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church.

I find this very fascinating.

More to follow.

Sola Scriptura? Sola Fide?

"If you forgive others their failings, your heavenly Father will forgive you yours; but if you do not forgive others, your Father will not forgive your failings either."
- Matthew 6:14-15

"Then the master sent for the man and said to him, "You wicked servant, I cancelled all that debt of yours when you appealed to me. Were you not bound, then, to have pity on your fellow-servant just as I had pity on you?" And in his anger the master handed him over to the torturers till he should pay all his debt. And that is how my heavenly Father will deal with you unless you each forgive your brother from your heart.'"
- Matthew 18:32-35

By faith alone, huh?

Let's see what those who profess Sola Scriptura had to say.

"God forgives freely and without condition, out of pure grace."
- Martin Luther

"The forgiveness, which we ask that God would give us, does not depend on the forgiveness which we grant to others."
- John Calvin

The Bible is the only authority, huh?

Some reformation...

Reconsidering Novus Ordo

As I near the end of my journey through RCIA and begin to ramp up toward Easter, I've tried harder to make it to Mass at least Sunday (or Saturday). Soon this will be a requirement for me. So I'm trying to make it more of a priority now.

In pursuit of that goal, I went to Mass at a Novus Ordo parish near my apartment. Up to now, I've somewhat looked down my nose at the Novus Order because I wasn't overly impressed with it at a different parish at which I attempted RCIA.

Not to question the validity of Novus Ordo, you understand, but I didn't think the language of it was as poetic as the Anglican Book of Common Prayer Rite I or as beautiful as the Latin Mass. And to a degree, that remains the case now.

However, the Low Masses I attended at the other Novus Ordo parish were blown out of the water by tonight's High Mass Novus Ordo. What I've come to understand is that I can overlook the mediocre English of Novus Ordo so long as the Mass itself is sufficiently High.

In the case of this past Sunday, the Celebrant chanted parts and the incense spread through the entire sanctuary. The only thing missing was a ringing bell, really.

Now, my inner evangelical (what's left of him) is cringing at all of this because it's supposed to be ALL ABOUT YOUR HEART. The specifics of worship don't (or at least shouldn't) make a difference.

Fact is though they do. It's only natural. We're sensory-based creatures. We see, smell, touch, taste and hear. It's how we as people engage the world. So to me it's appropriate then that Mass should encompass all those things. And the issue is that Low Mass doesn't. In my opinion, it just lacks the more solemn atmosphere of High Mass. It's not a matter of substance; it's completely style.

I guess the point is that I don't think that's a shallow difference anymore.

This is a break with how I used to think though in that when I was an evangelical, I generally held people who church-hopped over matters related to music styles or the like in almost open contempt. And in my defense, from Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide standpoints, those ARE vapid reasons for switching churches.

But in a more holistic faith like Catholicism, I think people should attend whatever style of Mass lines up best with their sensibilities.

I just don't have much use for Low Mass Novus Ordo, that's all.

Of Commissions and Synods

The end of RCIA draws ever nearer. I've only got just a bit more to work through with Father, not least of which is a one-on-one meeting to, I assume, work out the finer details of my baptism. True, I've been baptized before but (A) I can't prove that as I don't have a certificate and (B) I truly can't remember if it was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So a conditional baptism it is!

There have been a few teachable moments in recent months though. I haven't had much chance to write about it but it's interesting to me to compare the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission conference on the LGBT movement over and against the Church's Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops.

In the case of the SBC, many people have interpreted comments made by a lot of their high muckety-mucks as a new direction in SBC policy. Change comes from the top and comes slowly but, so the expectation goes, in ten years, we might be looking at a very different SBC. This is based on remarks such as these by Dr. Albert Mohler:

"Early in this controversy, I felt it quite necessary, in order to make clear the gospel, to deny anything like a sexual orientation I repent of that."

And why not, the SBC is losing tens of thousands of members every year. These are predominantly those under the age of 35, for whom "LGBT rights" border on a sacrament. Push comes to shove, they're perfectly willing to turn their backs on Christianity in solidarity with their LGBT friends.

Compare this to the Church's Synod, where some bishops might've wanted to open the door a bit more for the LGBT community but the Church's Magisterium asserted itself and, in the end, the most you could say is that the Church repeated the existing policy of treating LGBT's with dignity and respect but not even coming close to "accepting" them in the ways that Protestant denominations have.

To be sure, this approach isn't necessarily winning the Catholic Church admirers in that same under-35 demographic either. But the difference is that the Church won't change their policy to fit the climate of the times. Homosexuality is a sin and, rise or fall, the Church will stand by her historic teachings in this regard. Nothing has changed. Indeed, nothing can change.

Think of this as another in a long list of things that Protestants have compromised to keep the lights on. For as big a deal as they make over it, it seems that scriptural authority is capable of being overruled by popular demand.

Who knew?