Evangelicals, Catholics, and why some go back in order to go forward

Two summers ago, while attending the Chesterton Conference in Minnesota, I had the pleasure of meeting Chris Armstrong, who is associate professor of church history at Bethel Seminary. We talked about a number of things, ranging from Chesterton (of course), to jazz to Evangelicals and Catholics. Christianity Today has just posted a lengthy article by Chris titled, "The Future Lies in the Past", and subtitled, "Why evangelicals are connecting with the early church as they move into the 21st century." If ecumenical relations between Catholics and Evangelicals is of interest all, I recommend reading it. Here is an excerpt, highlighted for a couple of reasons (which I'll discuss below):

Ever since the 1960s and 1970s, one possible response to the evangelical "identity crisis" has been conversion to Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy. For example, about a half-dozen of the signers of the Chicago Call left Protestantism for other pastures. Most prominent among them were Thomas Howard, formerly of Gordon College and now Catholic, and Gillquist, formerly of Thomas Nelson Publishers and now Eastern Orthodox. By the late 1970s, evangelical Protestant ecumenism was growing. Observes historian Timothy Weber, "At the beginning of the 1970s, most rank-and-file evangelicals probably still viewed Catholicism in … negative terms; but a growing number was ready to reconsider."

Why the new ecumenical openness? Some Protestants and Catholics found a common experience in the charismatic movement. Others began looking at evangelical low-church (and at times anti-sacramental) worship styles in light of the early church, and found the former wanting. Still others found evangelical theology ungrounded in historic Christianity, and sought to reconnect doctrinally with "the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church"—which inevitably meant "examining the differences that still divided evangelicals and Catholics of various kinds."

Some regard the occasional conversions resulting from dissatisfactions with the evangelical church as historically naïve. Weber concludes this about Gillquist's "New Covenant Apostolic Order," a group led by ex-Campus Crusade folks who eventually left Protestantism altogether, joining themselves to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Weber derives from their story a moral about the dangers of the evangelical proclivity toward "primitivism" (the belief that one can discover and return to a mythical "golden age" of the church). Robert Webber himself fell into this naïveté at the beginning of his decades-long crusade to raise evangelicals' awareness of their heritage. In Common Roots, he seemed to be saying that we can return to the pristine, original church. He called for "a purging of our modernity and a return to Christianity in its historic form" and argued that "if evangelicalism as a movement is going to be more representative of the historic faith it must become more conscious … of … the aspects of the historic Christian faith which it has forgotten."

But some evangelical "deconversions" have been deeply considered. Take, for example, the reversion to Roman Catholicism last spring of Francis Beckwith, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society. There's no denying that sustained engagement with the historic church in its two major non-Protestant forms, Roman Catholic and Orthodox, reveals a "hole in evangelicalism" that must be filled by reengaging historic Christianity. Evangelicals can be pardoned for wondering whether Cardinal John Henry Newman, himself a famous convert from Anglicanism to Catholicism and no mean historian, had it right: that "to read deeply in history is to cease being Protestant."

The evangelical abandonment of historical liturgy, doctrinal understanding, and church discipline may seem to constitute, in the words of D. G. Hart, "the lost soul of American Protestantism," or to have resulted in what Nathan Hatch called "churches without walls." At least some evangelicals have concluded that therefore, the only option left is to jump ship.

First, about the statement: "Some regard the occasional conversions resulting from dissatisfactions with the evangelical church as historically naïve." Without a doubt there are some former Evangelicals who are now Eastern Orthodox or Catholic who left Evangelicalism with the hope of somehow gaining or returning to a "golden age" of Christianity. Part of that is simply human nature—we tend to romanticize the past and overlook or be ignorant about the difficulties contained therein. Part of it, undoubtedly, is the desire to somehow be in contact with the early Church in a concrete fashion, especially through liturgy and Tradition. That desire, of course, is a good one, and it is one that many Evangelicals are discovering and exploring, as the article details.

The irony, to me, is that my experience—and the experience of many former Evangelicals I know—is quite different from the description given by Weber. For example, I was raised in a Fundamentalist setting in which our group (initially meeting in homes) was formed for the simple reasons that we wished to emulate the New Testament church as closely as possible and to return to some form of first-century Christianity. This desire, however sincere and well-intentioned, was naive in many ways, especially since we tended to read the New Testament with little regard to the greater context of first-century Judaism or with scant attention given to the Old Testament. And we had no interest (or knowledge, from what I can recall; I was quite young at the founding of our "Bible chapel") of the Apostolic Fathers; even if we did, it wouldn't have mattered much, since we believed, in general, that the early church had apostasized within a few decades of Christ's Resurrection and Ascension. Put simply, this was "primitivism" in all of its 20th-century, American fundamentalist glory. And it was, in hindsight, a natural and even somewhat logical conclusion to Reformation principles, especially the basic notion that each believer in Christ has the right, even the responsibility, to follow Christ as best he can, as his conscience dictates, guided by his prayerful understanding of Scripture.

Secondly, as mentioned, I don't know of many (if any, really) Evangelicals who become Catholic so they can embrace the sort of "primitivism" mentioned by Weber. There are some who, in a certain sense, would like to return to, say, the 13th century. But that is bound up in their love for the philosophy and culture of that era, and their belief that Scholasticism and Thomism have much to offer the modern/post-modern world (a basic sentiment that I share in many ways). I think it is fair and safe to say that some of key issues for Evangelicals such as Francis Beckwith, Thomas Howard, Peter Kreeft, Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, Mark Brumley, and so many others are authority, ecclesiology, and soteriology. Foremost is the realization that one cannot simply pick and choose from the Church's doctrines and practices, viewing them as cans and boxes of theological produce handily arrayed on the shelves of the Christian Supermarket. Like marriage, it is an all or nothing proposition. For instance, consider this from my June 2007 interview with Dr. Beckwith:

IgnatiusInsight.com: You've mentioned, in past interviews, that Dr. Mark Noll's book, Is The Reformation Over? (Baker, 2005), was a helpful work for you to read. Do you agree with Noll's assessment that "the central difference that continues to separate evangelicals and Catholics is not Scripture, justification by faith, the pope, Mary, the sacraments, or clerical celibacy ... but the nature of the church"? How significant is the issue of ecclesiology in current and ongoing Catholic-Evangelical dialogue?

Dr. Beckwith: I partly agree with Noll. I think he is right that logically that once the authority question is answered, the other issues that he mentions fall into place. However, practically, the process is more organic, as it was in my case. Once I saw that the Catholic view of justification could be defended biblically and historically, and that the sacraments, including a non-symbolic understanding of the Eucharist, have their roots deep in Christian history prior to the fixation of the biblical canon, the authority issue fell into place.

Something else concerning authority factored into my internal deliberations as well. But I do not think I can conjure up the words to properly express it. So, I will just rely on an elegant insight offered in First Things by a recent Catholic convert, R. R. Reno, which perfectly echoes my own sentiments: "In the end, my decision to leave the Episcopal Church did not happen because I had changed my mind about any particular point of theology or ecclesiology. Nor did it represent a sudden realization that the arguments for staying put are specious. What changed was the way in which I had come to hold my ideas and use my arguments. In order to escape the insanity of my slide into self-guidance, I put myself up for reception into the Catholic Church as one might put oneself up for adoption. A man can no more guide his spiritual life by his own ideas than a child can raise himself on the strength of his native potential."

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Links/Articles:              

• Has The Reformation Ended? | An Interview with Dr. Mark Noll
• Evangelicals and Catholics in Conversation | An Interview with Dr. Brad Harper
• From Protestantism to Catholicism | Six Journeys to Rome
• Thomas Howard and the Kindly Light | IgnatiusInsight.com
• Objections, Obstacles, Acceptance: An Interview with J. Budziszewski | IgnatiusInsight.com
• Thomas Howard on the Meaning of Tradition | IgnatiusInsight.com
• Why Catholicism Makes Protestantism Tick | Mark Brumley
• Surprised by Conversion: The Patterns of Faith | Peter E. Martin
• Reformation 101: Who's Who in the Protestant Reformation | Geoffrey Saint-Clair
• The Tale of Trent: A Council and and Its Legacy | Martha Rasmussen
• "Kreeft On Apologetics" | An interview with Peter Kreeft  

Comments

[Blessed Karl]

This is excellent news! The 1st millenium was the century of unity...where the Church was one. The second, with the Protestant Revolt and Great Schism, was the millenium of disunity. May the 3rd Millenium be the Millenium of reunity. May all the Protestants find the truth that is Catholicism and come home to Rome. As our brothers and sisters in Christ it is the next logical step that since they know Christ they should join his church.

[Craig]

A nit here--why do Protestant Evangelicals so often use the phrase "Roman Catholicism" (which accurately stated would be Roman Rite Catholics) rather than the "Catholic Church", the actual name of the Church?

[Mary]

Because they wish to deny that the Catholic Church is, indeed, the universal church.

I note the irony: many of the first Protestants, and many Protestants since, left the Church, or whatever sect they had been raised in, precisely in search of that golden age.

[Carl Olson]

Because they wish to deny that the Catholic Church is, indeed, the universal church.

In some cases, yes, but I doubt that's the case here. Even many knowledgeable Catholics today use the term "Roman Catholic," and it has become (for better or worse) part of ordinary parlance. Personally, I don't care for it, but that may be because I attend a Byzantine Catholic parish.

[Laura Peratt]

Craig, I think they use the phrase "Roman Catholicism" because they think that that really is the name of the church. I don't think they (generally speaking) understand that the word "catholic" means "universal". I doubt that most Evangelicals would know what was meant by "Roman Rite" or "Eastern Rite" or whatever.

Carl, this is a great post and very interesting, especially since I just finished making another comment about the Evangelical/Catholic thing on your other post. This gives me a lot to think about. I was raised in the Lutheran church but after a "born again" experience joined the Church of the Nazarene. I remember some talk about getting back to the "authentic worship" of the "early Christians". Most of the people speaking that way, I'm sure, had no real idea what the early church was really like. For my husband and I, what propelled us into the Catholic church was a mixture of things, one of which was reading the early Christian writers and discovering that the early church was much more Catholic than Evangelicals realized. The rest was the discovery of what the Catholic church really teaches (as opposed to the typical Evangelical misunderstanding of Catholic teaching), especially about the Eucharist. Once we realized that the Real Presence was, well, real, our hunger for Jesus (and an unmistakable call from God) impelled us to leave the Nazarene church and the "symbolic" communion behind and enter the Catholic Church where we could receive Jesus in the Eucharist.

[Francis Beckwith]

The following is from a paper I delivered at the University of Notre Dame on December 1, 2007, Confessions of a Vain Philosopher: Reflections on My Return to the Catholic Church:

This is why I still consider myself an Evangelical, but just not a Protestant one. Surely it is true that contemporary Evangelicalism has its roots in conservative Protestantism, but it has also been shaped by the Catholic and Protestant charismatic and Pentecostal movements as well as the spirituality and apologetics of authors like C. S. Lewis, who, though an Anglican, produced works that were “Catholic” in their tone and substance. This is why Lewis is one of the most beloved writers among Catholics. Moreover, if one thinks of Evangelicalism as a renewal movement that stresses personal conversion and spiritual development, evangelism, a high view of Scripture, and fidelity to Christian orthodoxy, then one can certainly be an Evangelical Catholic, as I believe I am. If the term “Evangelical” is broad enough to include high-church Anglicans, low-church anti-creedal Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, the Evangelical Free Church, Arminians, Calvinists, Disciples of Christ, Pentecostals, Seventh-Day Adventists, open theists, atemporal theists, social Trinitarians, substantial Trinitarians, nominalists, realists, eternal security supporters and opponents, temporal theists, dispensationalists, theonomists, church-state separationists, cessationists, non-cessationists, kenotic theorists, covenant theologians, paedo-Baptists, and Dooweyerdians, there should be room for an Evangelical Catholic.

[MMajor Fan]

Carl, I'm one of those knowledgeable Catholics who uses the term Roman Catholic LOL. I do so for a reason. Here's the analogy.

When you listen to foreign diplomats they say, "We are going to talk to Washington about this problem." They don't say, "We are going to talk to the people of the United States of America about this problem." We as Catholics ourselves also tend to say "We are going to speak to Rome" or "We are going to speak to the Vatican," not "We are going to speak to the leadership body of the universal Catholic Church." It is the Seat of Peter in Rome that distinguishes us and is the first presentation and preservation of the walls of the Church (using the term "wall" in the positive sense it is used by Hatch).

Just as the Church liturgy and furnishings provide the "walls" in the essential places and the Church is working to restore that in its fullness, the term "Roman Catholic" is a term that conveys "Washington" rather than "the United States of America," a weight and structure that I think is a healthy reminder and accurate mental sketch in a simple expression. So I consciously use the term, especially when speaking to non-Catholics, when I introduce myself. I am trying to point out the gravitas and main walls that distinguish ourselves, rather than downplay it.

[Carl Olson]

MMajor Fan: I can understand such a use, and I think it is why many Catholics (and non-Catholics) do use the term. I'm fine with that. One of my concerns, however, is that it can give the impression, even indirectly, that Catholicism is Western only. And, of course, many folks—including far, far too many Catholics—do not know about or comprehend Eastern Catholicism, which is why I've written a few pieces about it.

[Mary]

In some cases, yes, but I doubt that's the case here.

Humm -- I was addressing "so often" question.

[Justin]

I am not Roman Catholic. I am a Vancouverine Washintonian Clark Countian American Catholic.

or... something like that. ;)

jn

[Carl Olson]

I am not Roman Catholic. I am a Vancouverine Washintonian Clark Countian American Catholic.

I suspect, Justin, that you are, like me, actually a Ressourcement, MicroBrew, Neo-Organic, Northwest is the Best, Ratzinger Rocks, Traditional Catholic. ;-)

[MMajor Fan]

Carl, if only Peter had stayed in Antioch we'd have had the Holy Antioch Empire and the Antioch Catholic Church ha ha. But that Peter had to go to Rome :-)

[Wolf N. Paul]

I consider myself a catholic Evangelical, and I frequently use the term "Roman Catholic" to refer to the earthly institution led by the Bishop of Rome. But I would prefer to phrase that positively: I believe that the catholic Church exists both within and beyond the confines of the institution led by the Bishop of Rome, certainly to varying extents.

Of course I am aware that most of you will probably reply that I cannot be catholic unless I recognize the jurisdiction of the Pope; on that we will just have to disagree.

But I would also caution you against too stringent an identification of the institution led by the Pope with the catholic Church, because then you can no longer claim that the various excesses committed by members of that institution throughout history were just the sins of individuals and don't reflect on the Church which is still "holy and spotless".

Christ said, "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst", and I believe that there is the Church.

[Carl Olson]

I believe that the catholic Church exists both within and beyond the confines of the institution led by the Bishop of Rome, certainly to varying extents.

For what it is worth (quite a bit, I believe), from Lumen Gentium (par 8):

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

[Craig]

Dr. Beckwith, thanks for your reply; I wholeheartedly agree with your explanation, which was also the basis for my reference to "Protestant Evangelicals" in my original post.

[Mark Brumley]

It's hard for some Catholics to accept the idea of a kind of dual association--with the Catholic Church as the fullness of Christianity and with "Evangelicalism" as a movement of reform within Christianity. The latter, because it originated in Protestantism and Protestantism did more than seek to reform evils within the Catholic Church--it broke full communion, seems incompatible with the former. It may be, in the sense that almost everyone who identifies himself as an Evangelical would say that a necessary but not sufficient element of that identity is Protestantism.

But Evangelicalism is, from the Catholic point of view, a human construct, a human association of Christians, not a divinely constituted community (even if one wants to hold, as Evangelicals do, that God was at work in Evangelicalism). As such, it is what its members determine it to be (much to the dissatisfaction of some Evangelicals, who decry the influx of ideas they regard as contrary either to Christianity as such or to what they consider Evangelical Christianity). If Evangelicalism decides it can include orthodox Catholics--that is if most of those who identify as Evangelical Christians decide to acknowledge Catholics as people who can be thought of as Evangelicals--then it can be so.

Just as a Catholic might see himself as belonging to the community of Christian writers or theologians or philosophers, without prejudice to his Catholic belief that the Catholic Church is the fullness of Christianity, so a Catholic might choose to associate with "Evangelicalism", assuming that others who identify themselves as such accept him, without prejudice to the proposition that fully Evangelical Christianity is Catholicism (even if so many Catholics, for a variety of reasons, don't see it as such or live as if it is).

I am not saying this sort of thing is easy but it can be done. Certainly, the folks at TOUCHSTONE, for example, seem to do this to some degree. Others have as well over the years. Theer are special challenges but it doesn't seem to be inherently unworkable.

[Mark Brumley]

What about Christopher Derrick's term, the Universal Petrine Church?