|
' |
|
Yo Ho Ho! A Papist's Life For Me? What are the odds that, before it's all over, I'll become a Catholic? by Michael Spencer It's Complicated
Ah...the sounds of minds boggling. Have I fallen to the wiles of Scott Hahn? Too much EWTN? Has my admiration for Peter Kreeft gotten completely out of hand? Are my monkish fantasies of being the next Thomas Merton in need of medication? Or did I just fall down the steps? No, I'm quite serious. There is a side of me, a part of my mind especially, that looks longingly at the road to Rome, and wonders if it's not the right road after all. On more than one occasion, I've voiced my wistful longing that I'd been born into Roman Catholicism. I read mail from friends and readers who have converted, and yes, I am slightly envious. Something about Rome does have the scent of home. I was brought up in a kind of Southern Baptist fundamentalism that taught me to despise and fear Roman Catholics. Catholic horror stories were a regular feature of home and church. But I never really caught on to the problem. Sure, they were baby-baptizing ritualists who drank beer and slavishly obeyed the pope, but the ones I knew were really good people. My buddy Joe's family was a lot healthier than my messed up family, and they were as Catholic as you could get. Their graciousness to me made an impression that's never left, and though my attempts to evangelize them at a Billy Graham movie were unsuccessful, it was hard to deny that these folks were as serious about their Christianity as my bunch was about Bible-thumping fundamentalism. It was different, but I couldn't deny that it was real. Later on I really pushed the envelope--dating a Roman Catholic girl and getting involved in a Catholic Charismatic prayer group on the sly. There was no doubt a lot of those Charismatic Catholics were saved. It was a regular revival down there on Tuesday night, with no prayers to Mary or statues allowed. And then I found the RC bookstore. Oh my. It was trouble right there in River City. Eventually, I discovered Merton, Chesterton, Monasteries, Kreeft, First Things, St. Francis, Mother Theresa, Brennan Manning, a dozen great Catholic writers and poets. It all gets very complicated. Just call it "my secret life of admiring people I'm supposed to believe are all going to hell." Good Reasons The fact is, there is much that I like about Roman Catholicism. The better I get to know it, the more I find to like. Some of it is personal and subjective. Some is mythical and ridiculous. Some are matters of perennial debate among Christians, and we are allowed to open our Bibles--and our minds--and take sides. I don't expect you to like my reasons for liking Catholicism, but at least check them out. As usual, I believe honesty is a virtue. Let's be clear on one thing. I am not talking about Roman Catholic theology about the Gospel and the sacraments. I'm talking about Roman Catholicism as I've experienced it in books and people. Your experience is probably much different. I know, I know, I KNOW that some of these positives have negative aspects, and some are the result of grievous RC errors. But I will admit that I am not impressed by the idea that the errors of Catholicism make it impossible to be a fan--or a Christian--within its confines. I'm not trying to repudiate the reformation. I'm just telling you what I like. I'm not trying to bug 'ya. But if I do, so be it. Forgive me. It's the Christian thing to do. I'm impressed by a very balanced view of Jesus and the Christian life. We often criticize Roman Catholics for not embracing the language of "personal Savior" when speaking of Jesus. That's precisely what I admire. Serious Roman Catholics aren't having a debate about evangelism versus missions versus social action versus devotion. The Catholic ministries I've worked with put all these things together in a more balanced way than my Baptist Christianity ever did. And where we had learned that sort of balance, we usually learned it from Catholics. Starting a ministry to the community would have been a big deal in most of the churches I've served. As soon as you started talking about food for the poor, the subject of evangelism had to be put forward as the more important counterpoint. The caricatures of poverty that populate middle class America usually turned it into a long business meeting. Maybe Father Maloney had the same headaches down at St. Joe and Paul, but it sure seemed that our Catholic friends did a lot more for the community than the Baptists did. In fact, it seemed that the whole subject of individually imitating Jesus in our concern for the poor and suffering just got expressed in Catholicism far better than it did in our tradition. I don't think it was just that we got burned by liberals espousing the social Gospel. I think the Catholics had a better grip on what it meant to be following Jesus. Roman Catholicism, in its system of designating saints, holds up a multi-dimensional portrait of the Christian life. Academics, evangelists, missionaries, monks, bishops, intercessors, warriors, servants of every kind--they all have a place in the Catholic approach to the Christian life. St.Thomas and St. Francis are both manifestations of the Spirit of Christ. Mother Theresa and Benedict are both living out the calling of following Jesus. Protestantism seems hampered in any effort to synthesize these gifts together into a coherent Christian life, except, as I said, in emulation of Roman Catholicism. It's remarkable how many good Protestants, when coming across an Augustine or Merton or Manning or O'Connor, feel like they are stepping from a tiny stream into a mighty river. Now streams are typically more cluttered than rivers, and even though rivers have more pollutants, they are also able to cleanse and dilute their waters. Even so, Catholicism's river, polluted as it may be, still impresses me as being "deep and wide" and containing, within itself, so much that other traditions have never been able to bring together. I will freely admit this appeals to me, and powerfully. I am impressed by the Catholic intellectual tradition. Where are the Notre Dames of evangelicalism? Liberty University? Evangelicals decry their own intellectual backwardness, and commendably, are trying to correct this deficit. But Roman Catholicism, a tradition that once condemned scientists, has also produced an intellectual tradition that embraces science and knowledge in a far healthier way than evangelicalism. Where is the creationist controversy in the RCC? Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that Catholicism has a vital involvement in almost every intellectual endeavor? Catholic Biblical Studies continue to impress me and many others. Raymond Brown may be the greatest New Testament scholar of our generation. His work on the Johannine literature, and the New Testament in general, was standard fare at my Baptist seminary, and I am more than glad of that today. Brown is critically astute, yet reverent to the text as a devoted Christian scholar. Despite the constant Protestant criticism of how Catholics use the Bible in theology, their own Biblical studies are highly respected. Just look at the current quest for the historical Jesus, and how John Meier's A Marginal Jew towers above everyone else because of detailed attention to the text New Testament. And if Roman Catholicism has any Bishop Spongs or Bishop Robinsons being openly ordained, I am missing them. I am very well aware of the problems, but I can also say that the Catholic church has created a "big tent" better than any church I know, and without allowing the extremes of right or left to dominate the middle. American Catholics, with their tendency toward individuality, often challenge the Vatican on issues like abortion and homosexuality, but the church doesn't budge. When I hear the liberal vanguards haranguing the church for not changing, I am always reminded that the RCC is far more sure of itself--right and wrong--than that amorphous blob known as Protestantism. I love the fact that Catholicism embraces art. While evangelicalism condemns most art as worldly and finds the pursuit of art distinctively unspiritual, Catholicism's artists multiply and prosper. I have been warned that the Catholic artistic tradition just served the purposes of idolatry. This from the Christians who brought you religious television and CCM. I'm fairly sold on the Catholic approach to the creation of our Bible. Don't read that as an endorsement of everything done in the name of tradition. I just find it undeniable that the church and the Bible had a synergistic relationship from the start, and to whatever extent I am a Biblical scholar, I really can't see the Bible separate from the church's involvement in canonization. I never feel more inadequate as a Protestant than in admitting that most of the good stuff happened in the first four centuries of the church, when the Catholic Church was the only game in town. I obviously love much about the worship of Roman Catholics. When I worship with the monks at Saint Meinrad, I actually feel I am worshipping with God's church, and not listening to an infomercial. The dignity, beauty and depth of the Catholic liturgy remains even after the ravages of Vatican II and decades of modernistic tinkering. Please, Catholic friends, don't become like the Protestants down the street. Somewhere, pop culture has to be checked before it turns all of Christianity into a stroll in the mall. I love the diversity of Catholicism, a diversity that does not take away the sense that there is one, worldwide church family. If unity matters to you, you already know the feeling you get when you watch Christmas mass from St. Peters, or catch even a glimpse of what it means to be a Catholic in a world of 1 billion Catholics. In a scattered and constantly sectarian Protestantism, it's sometimes a cold, cold world. (I will say that there are few things about Catholicism I like less than the constant "ecumenical dialogs" that are part of the life in mainlines. I hope evangelicals never try this. "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" wasn't the worst thing in the world, but I generally believe that Protestants and Catholics are at their best playing softball against each other, and not nuancing justification or grace into something we can all live with. I like the Pope, this one at least, because he is a brave and courageous voice for faith, and doesn't try to sell me anything. (I would buy some Pope gear if I could.) There are times that he expresses the faith better than anyone alive, and his faithfulness to the things that matter most is a bright light in a dark world of compromise. I like the idea that when it is wrong, the church actually hurts itself to make things right. That took courage, and even though it was an imperfect process, it was unprecedented. He's done a lot of that, and while some Protestants dislike it, I think it's brave and honest. I love monasticism, not for the reasons Catholics love monasticism, but because I see an attempt to live the whole Christian experience in community that deserves respect, and that inspires me. Not an experiment in Utopianism or some kind of ongoing revivalistic pietism, but a kind of life centered around the Word, work and worship. Sanctification through community. Again, when Protestants have succeeded in their communities, they owe far more to Catholicism than to anyone else. I love the
contemplative tradition, and the kind of seriousness about a life of
prayer that can't be expressed in bumper stickers and spiritual
awakening campaigns. I love
prayer retreats that aren't spiritual treadmills. I love an actual
respect for silence as a meaningful spiritual discipline. I
particularly admire that part of the contemplative tradition that
grasps how prayer and work come together into one life, and does not
separate work and worship into two things. What Protestantism grasped
in the Priesthood of the believer as it applied to ministry is
important. There aren't two kinds of Christians or vocations. But
oddly, it is Catholicism, in the contemplative tradition, that has the
most to say about truly seeing work and worship as one. (Perhaps this
is why Catholics are not coming to church to be entertained and
mesmerized and calling it worship.) I admire a tradition that sees the culture of the church in history as confident and defining on its own, without having to resort to endless envies and imitations of pop culture in order to feel relevant. I like the Catholics I know who are happy Catholics. Peggy Noonan. Kevin Black. Dr. Shroeder. My old BHT friend Ken. Rudy Gulliani. Mel Gibson (though he's not that happy.) Bob Hope. Brennan Manning. Richard J. Neuhaus. Michael Novak. John Michael Talbot. Father Pete in town. Yes, even Scott Hahn. The serious Catholics I know are happy to be Catholic. Even with the pain the church has been through, they aren't leaving their church for our church. Protestant converts from Catholicism are generally folks who never knew what being Catholic meant. I'm a fan. No doubt about it. And I seem to be more of a fan as the years go by. But will I ever convert to Catholicism? Serious Protestant converts to Catholicism seem to be of two kinds: People in search of authority, and those who are tired. Guess which one I am? Real Reasons I'm tired of Protestantism. I'm tired of every man with his Bible being a little Pope. I'm tired of churches being connected to nothing but the pastor's ego or the denomination's corporate plan for growth. I'm tired of doctrinal differentiation being a required course in every attempt at cooperation. I'm tired of the circus. Tired of the religious television networks and nutcase excesses of the Pentecostals. I'm tired of the church growth bandwagon, the megachurches and the Christian publishing empires. I'm tired of so darned much attention being paid to music, especially such bad music. I'm tired of evangelism turning everything into manipulation and every person into a trophy or a salesman.. I'm tired of approaching most of the goodness of culture with a loaded gun. I'm tired of the next new thing. I'm tired of arguing over scripture, Bible translations and big words for inspiration. I'm tired of every division creating a camp, a seminary, a publishing house and a cult of personality. I'm tired of treating other Christians like they were the enemy. I'm tired of hearing propositions as if propositions disconnected from life somehow present a better picture of Jesus. I'm tired of the church being belittled and personalities lifted up. I'm tired of gnosticism being passed off as Christianity, and the life management Jesus being bigger than the Savior on the cross. I'm tired of criticizing Catholics for their sacraments while we hang onto things like the public invitation and the sinner's prayer as if they were right there next to John 3:16. I'm tired of making fun of the spirituality of Catholics when we are worldly and think it's the best way to win the world. I'm tired of having no one to point my children to as saints because we are so enamored with equality and the cult of the contemporary. I'm not on a quest for authority. I'm not looking for a way to know I'm right. I'm not even lying awake wondering which denomination is the true church. I'm just fed up, and I'm increasingly emotional about it. I'd like to find a place for the amusement park that is evangelicalism to stop and let me off. When I look toward Rome, I feel a powerful attraction. It looks like home. With all its problems, Catholicism has produced something to which I would love to be able to say, "Yes!" But tell that oddsmaker the bad news: I'm not even close to becoming a Catholic. My weariness and disgust at evangelicalism is not--now or ever--going to be enough to bring me to Rome. I will always be a fan and an admirer, but that same knowledge of the greatness and legacy of the church shows me the reasons that will always mean I can never cross the bar. Unfortunate Reasons Every so often, I get a letter from a wonderful Catholic friend, and he will talk about some aspect of Catholicism that finally brought him to the point of conversion. Many recent Protestant converts, like Kreeft and Hahn, speak of slowly being brought to the point of rethinking Catholicism, and feeling their objections slowly falling away to the point that they became happy Catholics. They admit that there was a lot to swallow, but they believe the truths of the Church are enough to settle every matter. In all of these stories, there is a point of feeling the RCC alone is truly right when it says it is the keeper of the faith, and that whatever objections remain can be overcome by simply trusting that the church is, indeed, the church of Jesus, and it can be believed. It is like admitting whose child you are, even if you don't understand or agree with everything this new parent believes and represents. You can still come home, and be embraced. I can admit my attraction and my admiration, but the key objections are simply too significant. Rome may be the most impressive human institution to carry on the tradition of Christianity. In that legacy, it has much to commend it. They can say they are the one, true, holy, catholic and Apostolic Church and I won't laugh. I'll just quietly, and sadly disagree. The list is short, and the reasons are incontrovertible. 1. The Catholic Church has badly mangled the Gospel. Mangled it to the point that to become Catholic would be to forsake the Biblical Gospel, and I have read Galatians 1. I believe the church is in serious error on justification and all the doctrines that precede and flow from it. In two thousand years, Rome has gotten better in talking about the Gospel, but hasn't come one step from where Luther stepped back and called the church apostate on the Gospel. Yes, often Rome holds forth one of the jewels of the Gospel in its liturgy or tradition or in the voice of one its eloquent saints. But Rome has never come beyond Trent, and this is an uncrossable boundary. For example, Peter Kreeft now laughs at the reformation doctrine of imputed righteousness, and offers instead Rome's doctrine of actual infused righteousness through the sacraments. As much as I admire in Catholicism, I cannot believe its Gospel of salvation is the Biblical Gospel. Luther was right in recovering the Biblical Gospel, and Rome is wrong in holding to the sacramental system that, in the end, must rely on the church to fill in what scripture does not say. 2. The church has abused its role as the keeper of tradition. Like the Pharisees of the first century, Rome has taken the traditions of the church and constructed an edifice that goes far beyond scripture. In many Romish doctrines, the role of tradition has eclipsed scripture, putting mother church in the place of Holy Scripture. Rome may be right in much it says about tradition, but it is very wrong in how it has handled tradition. I can accept the church's role in the creation of scripture. I cannot accept its role in continuing to go miles beyond scripture to teach what scripture does not teach. Rome seems to think that error, once taught by Rome, is no longer error. I cannot agree. 3. In particular, the recently propagated doctrines associated with Mary are impossible to accept. The Church's defense of Marian theology is embarrassing. We can join our Catholic friends in honoring the mother of Jesus, but the inflated role of Mary in Catholicism demands an acceptance of the church's continuing pronouncements about Mary that challenge the Mormons for inventiveness and creativity. 4. The role of the Pope in Catholicism cannot be defended from scripture. It is a historical development that the church has chosen to impose upon scripture, and to divide Christians by their allegiance to the bishop of Rome as the "Vicar" of Christ. It appears to me that the entire Gospel of John was written to fend off the kind of veneration of Peter that the papacy is premised upon. Infallibility cannot be given to both the successors of Peter and to scripture and still be credible. Luther, again, was right. Popes have erred. Councils have erred. Scripture must be the final authority. 5. Transubstantiation. At no point am I more puzzled than when my friends write me notes in rapturous adoration of the Mass. For at no point in worship with my Catholic friends am I more saddened and offended than when the entire book of Hebrews is shredded in the words of the mass. Roman Catholic theology of the mass is a medieval leftover from a time when the church controlled the eternal salvation of its members by access to the wafer. It is borderline blasphemous to use the kind of language used in the mass about the once-for-all incarnation and the once-for-all sacrifice. I reveal myself as a Zwinglian, no doubt, but I am not debating physics. I am asking, can the book of Hebrews be true, and Christ be on the altars of Catholicism? I have a lot of minor quibbles. Purgatory. The Apocrypha. Celibacy. But they are no worse than similar evangelical errors. But the five issues I have listed are insurmountable. They prove, at least to me, that the credibility of Rome has diminished throughout history, as the RCC has continued to defend and define itself in ways that cannot be reconciled with scripture, and in ways that serve the self interest of the church more than the glory of Christ.. At the end of the day, I am an evangelical, reformational protestant. Tired, angry, kicking at the nonsense, but still reforming. I own the reformation for its recovery of Christ in the Gospel. It takes me to the place where I can, on the days when I am able to worship and exalt in the great, classical Christian traditions we Protestants share, imagine that we really are one church in Christ. A church divided, and hopefully a church debating. But still a church where I must choose, as Luther did, to remain with scripture and those Reformation doctrines, and with the great "Solas" that define my faith. I admire Rome, and I will spend much time with my Catholic books, travel to those monasteries and enjoy the wonders of its grand liturgy. I will own its saints and rejoice in what it has preserved for all Christians. I will learn from its doctors, martyrs and teachers. I hope to imitate its servants. Yet, the odds are I will never be a Catholic, despite any frequent bouts of longing. |
Somewhere in Nashville, that
evangelical Las Vegas, surely there is an oddsmaker who applies his
skills to
those particular situations that occur only in world of contemporary
Christianity. What are the odds Jim and Tammy will get back together?
What are the odds on Billy Graham's successor? What are the odds that
Paula White will turn out to really be a black woman? What are the odds
that George Barna is really a computer, and not a man? And what are the
odds that the iMonk will become a Roman Catholic?