From Operation Rescue to Operation Convert [Randall Terry now Catholic]

National Catholic registar ^ | 5/17/06 | TIM DRAKE

[Full Court]

font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="4" color="#990000">From Operation Rescue to Operation Convert

May 21-27, 2006

by TIM DRAKE

Also in the Register:

Randal Terry, CatholicRandall Terry has become Catholic.
Between 1987 and 1994, Randall Terry led Operation Rescue, the country’s largest peaceful civil disobedience movement. He now serves as president of the Society for Truth and Justice, and is running for a Florida Senate seat. One of the leading evangelical pro-life leaders in the country, Terry quietly entered the Catholic Church on Holy Thursday with his wife Andrea and three sons. Register senior writer Tim Drake spoke with Terry about his conversion at his home in Florida.

 Where are you from originally?
I grew up in upstate New York, in West Henrietta. We grew up in the country.

 Tell me about your family.
I was conceived out of wedlock in 1958. Within three months my parents were married, and I was born six months later. I’ve always had an affinity with babies born out of wedlock who are in danger of perishing. Had Roe v. Wade been the law of the land in 1958, I might not have been here, although I’m certain that my mother would have chosen life.
I have one brother who is four years younger. My parents were both career school teachers.

 What was your faith background?
I was baptized in the United Church of Christ in New York, but grew up in a nominal Christian home. We were barely Christmas and Easter Christians. From the time I was a little boy until I was 17, I was anything but devout. At times, I was a verifiable agnostic.

 How did you come to know Christ?
As a teenager, I had lived a life immersed in the rock ’n’ roll culture, away from the paths of God, but I had a real yearning in my heart to know ultimate truth and ultimate reality. That set my heart seeking after God in prayer and reading Scriptures and talking to people who were devout in their faith. On Sept. 6, 1976, I made an evangelical commitment to Christ as a 17-year-old.
In conjunction with my teenage rebellion, I was seeking to know if God existed, if heaven and hell and demons and angels existed. My prayer, journey, discussions and reading brought me to the point where I asked Christ to come into my life and be my Lord and savior. That brought an immediate change in my lifestyle, my speech, my relationships and my church attendance. I went from rarely going to church to going three times a week. I began to evangelize all of my former rock ’n’ roll buddies, many of whom became devout Christians. Some of them went into ministry as missionaries and pastors. Once I was convinced that Jesus was the Son of God and that he suffered and died for us, I was thrilled with the Good News and wanted to tell everyone that I knew — family, friends and foes.
It defined my life from that moment on. Two years later I enrolled in a Bible College in New York.

 How did you first get started in pro-life work?
While at a prayer meeting in the fall of 1983, a woman came into the meeting weeping. She said she had just seen a special on Christian television on abortion. She said, “We’ve got to pray that God ends this killing.”
Whenever I thought about abortion, I got a sick feeling in my stomach, yet my evangelical sociology did not allow me to be in the political and social battles of the day. I had very little historical and theological framework from which one could launch and sustain a socio-political movement.
I would think about abortion and pray, “Oh, God, please do something,” but wouldn’t know what to do.
Eventually, on May 1, 1984, I took a position in front of a Binghamton, N.Y., abortion business. I had no literature. I just stood there committed to talking to women who were entering, to beg for the life of their babies. From that grew Project Life — a crisis pregnancy center, and Operation Rescue.

 What led to the founding of Operation Rescue?
I met John Ryan, who was doing sit-ins in St. Louis, and my heart was stirred to participate in direct action. While sitting in jail in 1986, I had another epiphany about how to recruit masses of people. We recruited tens of thousands of people. Between 1987 and 1994, 75,000 arrests were made. That is 10 times the size of the arrests made during the years of protest for civil rights.

 How many times were you arrested?
More than 40 times, always for peaceful protest, like praying in front of an abortion business.

 When did you first take an interest in the Catholic Church?
It was during my work in Operation Rescue that I first became interested in the Roman Catholic Church. My training and experience were in evangelical Christianity with an evangelical framework theologically, but the Roman Catholic communion had a much better sociology and better stability, coupled with a phenomenal theology of suffering.
I would look at my evangelical friends, who would come and go from the pro-life movement. They would proclaim undying devotion for pro-life activism and then later disappear. Then I would look at my Roman Catholic friends who would never swerve. That had a tremendous magnetism for me.
I also found myself defending Catholics against ignorance and bigotry, and defending evangelicals against ignorance and bigotry.
What took me so long was that I was a cultural Protestant, trained in Protestant theology. I had to look at the parts of my training that were inaccurate or deficient. For the past six years, I have been in the Charismatic Episcopal Church. My conversion began with my friendships with clergy in this Church. They told me that the farther you go in Reformation theology, the more you end up in Catholicism and liturgy.

 Which theological hurdles were the most difficult for you to jump?
They boiled down to papal infallibility, Marian dogma, and purgatory. For years I have craved to be in the Catholic Church, but couldn’t figure a way to get around these hurdles. They became resolved this Lent.
On Ash Wednesday, I started a 40-day fast. I have been in conversation with a priest, Father John Mikalajunas, in Binghamton for over 20 years. To my amazement, during Lent, I sensed that it was the plan of the Holy Spirit to bring us into the Catholic Church. After some further conversations with Father Mikalajunas as well as with other evangelicals who had come into the Church, those theological issues evaporated. Once I realized the Truth, I had to go in. I couldn’t wait.

 I understand that you are awaiting word on the annulment of your first marriage. Can you tell me why you chose to be received into the Church (without being able to receive the Eucharist), before the resolution of your annulment?
This has been a journey for 18 years. I knew when I came in that I would have to deal with my annulment. I couldn’t bear not being in Rome any longer. So, I decided I would rather come in and wait to receive the Eucharist, rather than not be in the Church. I felt that I needed to come in, and that it was something I needed to do during Lent. Thus far it has been wonderful — I’m glad I didn’t wait.

 Tell me how your reception into the Church came about.
In my conversations with Father Mikalajunas, he would tell me that I belonged in Rome, and I would jokingly tell him that he would make a great Baptist preacher. I knew I was being pulled into Rome. At the beginning of Lent, he told me something that made a lightbulb go on. He said that he would receive me into the Church. He knew what I knew — he knew that I knew the dogmas of the Church. He was offering to receive us in the event that I could say, “Yes, I believe.”
I thought, “Oh my goodness,” and felt like the Holy Spirit was showing us a plan for our lives. Father Mikalajunas concurred.
Over Holy Thursday we were received and confirmed at St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church in Binghamton. Father Mikalajunas brought in two witnesses.
When I was confirmed, I had this overwhelming sense that I had just walked into a cathedral that was packed with people — namely, the heroes and martyrs and saints who had gone before us. I felt they were rejoicing and calling us on in our journey. I felt as if I was with these people.
There was a tremendous sense of joy realizing that it was the end of my ongoing struggles.

 What was your greatest fear?
That I would wake up and say there was no change in me. That has not been the case. Being in the Church has brought a wonderful sense of belonging. I am part of 2,000 years of Christian history that is glorious, that has warts, and heroes and villains, but that is nonetheless the Church founded by Jesus upon Peter.

 How do you expect your evangelical colleagues will react to news of your conversion?
My journey is so personal, and yet so public. An important part of my journey is that as a pro-life leader I have had the honor of leading tens of thousands of evangelicals and Catholics in pro-life activism. I pray that I am able to continue that leadership in both communities. We have a unity of purpose. We unite around the Apostles’ Creed and our common love of life and justice.
My mission as a man is to unite as many in the Christian community as possible to stand for the Christian ethic of life and justice as defined by our historical and common Christian faith.

 Do you anticipate that your conversion could hurt you in your Senate race in a predominantly Protestant state?
I hope it won’t. I believe that the unity of purpose that has helped me as an evangelical to work with Catholics will help me as a Catholic to work with evangelicals. My wife says that I am bilingual — I can speak both languages. What I would bring to the table as a state senator is standing up for the underdog for justice and freedom. Whether you’re Baptist or Episcopalian or Catholic, you can appreciate that.
We see that kind of working together in the example of a Presbyterian president [Ronald Reagan] working with a Polish priest [Pope John Paul II] to free Poland from communism. I am convinced that the two can work together in our common missions. If we don’t work together, we cannot win.

 

[Dr. Eckleburg]

An infant baptized into a covenant, Bible-believing Christian family is considered part of the covenant community. The parallels between circumcision and baptism (now circumcision of the heart) are clear. It's all part of the Old Testament folding over into the New Testament where God gives greater clarity to His purpose through Jesus Christ.

No one knows the names of the elect except God, who ordained every one of them for His good pleasure. We, as Christian parents, believe that God will watch over our children, protect them and give them the same faith He has given us. Life is difficult enough without thinking our children are not firmly in His grasp, just like we are.

Re: unbelievers. Why would an unbeliever want to be baptized anyway?

I think Baptists balk at infant baptism as being a somewhat paltry sacrament compared to a Believer's Baptism. But for us baby-dousers, we see the insistence on adult baptism as some kind of an oath, a pledge, a work, a conscious decision to be saved, a requirement for salvation, when the truth is that the only requirement for salvation is the shed blood of Christ.

I think that last line is worth guarding with our lives. We preach Christ crucified. Nothing saves but Christ's payment for our sins, ordained by God from before the foundation of the world.

"I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else." -- Isaiah 45:5-6

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." -- Psalm 139:13-16

[Dr. Eckleburg]

There's no "hole" in Reformation theology. Just miles and miles between Reformation theology and today's churches.

We're gonna need more tape.

[WKB]

Sacred tradition IS "The Infallible Word of God"


Just because you believe that doesn't make it
true nor does it mean I have to believe it.
As I said I will stick with the Bible
you can stay with man's traditions if you like.
I would prefer not discuss this subject with you any further.

[WKB]

Go here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1634169/posts?page=123#123

[Pyro7480]

No, but God made sure that the spirit filled translators got it right.(Ps.12:6-7)

So all translators/translations are valid?

[Full Court]

I think that last line is worth guarding with our lives. We preach Christ crucified. Nothing saves but Christ's payment for our sins, ordained by God from before the foundation of the world.

Then why follow the Romanist example of unbiblical infant baptism and not the Biblical example of believers baptism?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

WILLIAM TYNDALE -- "The Death of The Great Reformer of England And the Spread of the Word of God from 1535 TO October 1536," excerpted from "HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN THE TIME OF CALVIN" by J.H. Merle d'Aubigne

"The authority of Jesus Christ is independent of the authority of the Church...Holy Scripture is the first of the Apostles, and the ruler in the kingdom of Chrst."

"Scripture derives its authority from Him who sent it. Would you know the reason why men believe in Scripture? It is Scripture. — It is itself the instrument which outwardly leads men to believe, whilst inwardly, the spirit of God Himself, speaking through Scripture, gives faith to His children." 

"The man who throws off the worldly existence which he has lived far from God, and receives by a living faith the complete remission of his sins, which the death of Christ has purchased for him, is introduced by a glorious adoption into the very family of God."

Sola fide.

~~~THE 'CRIMES' OF WILLIAM TYNDALE~~~

First:  He maintains that faith alone justifies.

Second:  He maintains that to believe in the forgiveness of sins and to embrace the mercy offered in the Gospel, is enough for salvation.

Third:  He avers that human traditions cannot bind the conscience, except where their neglect might occasion scandal.

Fourth: He denies the freedom of the will.

Fifth:  He denies that there is any purgatory.

Sixth:  He affirms that neither the Virgin nor the Saints pray for us in their own person.

Seventh: He asserts that neither the Virgin nor the Saints should be invoked by us.

[vladimir998]

I have Sungenis' book, NOT BY BREAD ALONE.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

"Why even bother with the Bible then??"

Simple. Because everything in it is true and from God.

The thing to do is not confuse that with everything that is true and from God is in the Bible.

Those are two different ideas. I don't confuse one with the other. You apparently do.

[WKB]

Go here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1634169/posts?page=123#123

[AlaninSA]

You're defending Calvinism?

:::snicker:::

[Dr. Eckleburg]

...why follow the Romanist example

Because we're not following the Romanist example. They believe baptism into their church is irrevocable and confers salvation.

The Reformed believe that God's decree is irrevocable and that only God's grace by faith in Christ's redemption of us confers salvation.

The fact that infants cannot intentionally embrace faith is righteousy emblematic of the fact that none of us can. Instead, if God has decreed that we are one of His sheep, then the Holy Spirit will work salvation in us. Through nothing in ourselves.

"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13

Infant baptism doesn't "insure" anything. Only God's grace insures salvation. We hope that all who are baptized into the congregation are saved, but only God knows. We hope and believe.

Here's a good link...

"Covenant Baptism: I Will Be Your God and Your Children's God"

And this one looks interesting, too...

"Candid Reasons for Renouncing the Principles of Anti-Paedobaptism"

But there are plenty of Reformed Baptists who are solid in their understanding of God's will. Our disagreement is small compared to our shared understanding of Scripture. Charles Spurgeon is one of my favorites. God blessed him abundantly and his sermons include us in that blessing.

"When you go through a trial, the sovereignty of God is the pillow upon which you lay your head." -- Spurgeon

[Full Court]

Infant baptism doesn't "insure" anything. Only God's grace insures salvation.

Then why do it and rob the child of a true Biblical baptism if he later becomes a Believer?

[Corin Stormhands]

Then why follow the Romanist example of unbiblical infant baptism and not the Biblical example of believers baptism?

Full Court, I don't believe in/practice infant baptism either. But it's simply not correct to call it a "Romanist example."

Many, if not most, mainstream Protestant churches baptize infants.

[vladimir998]

What you care to discuss is irrelevant. You asked me a question. I answered it. The only rejoinder you can muster is a link to somewhere else where you say you won't discuss it. Irrelevant. You asked. I answered. Any comment from you after that is immaterial since there is nothing of any substance you can counter my comment with anyway.

Have a nice night!

[Full Court]

Amen, but as a fellow Baptist we have our problems. See what is going on in the Southern Baptist Convention!

That's why you all need to find a good independent Baptist church to call home!!

[WKB]

Are you through now?

[Full Court]

Because we're not following the Romanist example.

But you really are.

There is no Scripture for baptizing an unbeliever of any age, only believers.

Only Rome introduced the practice of baptizing unbelieving babies.

[vladimir998]

You were through before you started.