Posted on 03/16/2009 1:36:46 PM PDT by NYer
Many cradle Catholics I know look at the moral conflicts tearing apart the mainline denominations with sadness, but as a convert from one of them (the Episcopal Church, the most notoriously divided one of them all), I think this is not quite the right response.
We will feel sad at the sight of beloved Christian friends suffering as their churches divide, but we might be heartened to see that because these conflicts express flaws in the original design, they will encourage some to greater friendship, if not full reconciliation, with the Catholic Church.
The sadness we feel will be like the sadness you feel on seeing a pretty old house finally falling down because it was badly built in the first place — built on sand, say — and has been coming apart for most of its life. You’re sad, even when you know it will be replaced by a much better house.
You know your neighbors will miss their old home, but you also know they’ll be happier in a house whose basement doesn’t flood, whose roof doesn’t leak, whose windows don’t let out the heat in the winter, whose pipes don’t clog every other day.
You also know they wouldn’t move into the new house until the old one collapsed. The house held too many memories, was too comfortable, even if damp, and leaving it was too hard.
Unfudgeable Differences
My own former tradition, for example, developed its own rebellion against the Church by a series of compromises and fudges and mutual agreements to look the other way. It was a house built on sand, but it has stood for a long time. At last, real, unfudgeable differences are forcing their various parties apart.
The question of authority, for one, was never really settled. The Anglican founders declared their belief in the supremacy of Scripture but left unanswered the question of who was to decide what Scripture actually taught. The founders thought this would be obvious. This arrangement worked all right when good, middle-class Englishmen and Americans agreed on the practical matters, until a few decades ago, when they started disagreeing about them and asserting contradictory views of what Scripture taught.
No Anglican authority could convincingly declare who was right.
Some found in the Scriptures the traditional view that ministers must be male, while others found in them a new view (which they claimed to have been the original view, long suppressed): that ministers could also be female. Both sides offered substantial biblical arguments for their position. Many conservatives came to approve the innovation, while a shrinking minority held out. Revealingly, perhaps, the evangelical wing, the one loudest in its declarations of belief in Scripture, has largely accepted the innovation.
In this case, Anglicans came, as they always had done, to an uncomfortable practical accommodation, with the few who couldn’t accept it, leaving — some for Rome, some for “Continuing Anglican” churches. But in the last few years, even that has come apart, with members of the shrunken minority denied ordination or pastorates because their view is “discriminatory.”
With the rise of arguments for homosexuality, they seem to have come to an innovation a large number of conservatives will never approve and, thus, a matter they can’t settle with a theological fudge or practical accommodation. Conservatives who accepted the Rev. Jane Doe won’t accept Mr. and Mr. John Doe.
Breaking Up
This is what happens when your body doesn’t have a magisterium. You might get along without one for a long time, as Anglicanism has, for a host of reasons. (One of which, not often noticed, is having the Catholic Church to hold the line for you.)
But when the disagreements finally become too great and too practical to avoid, you will see your church break up as painfully as we are now seeing world Anglicanism break up, into bodies each holding a particular reading of Scripture’s teaching in the controverted matter.
Even here you see problems, as the conservatives are deeply divided on the ordination of women, leading to the possibility of there being at least two conservative bodies separated from mainstream Anglicanism — and also from each other.
This is, as I said, reason to be heartened. Many of our mainline brothers will see that their churches should not have wound up as they have, and many of those will wonder whether the fault is in their founding, if their traditions were flawed from the beginning. Almost all of them will look at the Catholic Church with more sympathy than they had before, and some may begin to ask if she is indeed who she has said she is.
This has been true, at least, of Anglicanism. As a result of their inevitable conflict over the teaching of Scripture, one portion of conservative Anglicans are looking to Rome, some converting by themselves, but many (the Anglo-Catholic party) hoping for corporate reunion.
And other Anglicans, including many of the evangelicals, look at Rome with new respect and sympathy.
I have had evangelical friends say to me privately that for the first time in their lives they see the value of a magisterium and now wonder if the Catholic Church knows something about the nature of church they don’t. Few of them are likely to convert, but they like and will listen to the Church in a way they did not before.
Catholics who see where mainline conflicts can lead will anticipate a new fellowship with our separated brethren and the entrance of a number of them into full communion with the Church and, therefore, with us.
This explains why I think Catholics should be encouraged by the mainline churches’ problems. I know this seems cold-hearted or triumphalistic, but it isn’t. We are not interested in saying, “See, we were right!” — but excited by the possibility of finally being able to say, “Welcome home, good friend.”
For Catholics, it is so obvious that our Lord would not abandon His sheep but give us a shepherd to guide the Church through good times and bad. How truly blessed are we.
Heard dozens say just the opposite. “Finally free from the chains of the Catholic Church.” Guess we know different folks.
Personally, I know a lot of former Catholics who are now Baptists, so I guess it’s all a matter of who you talk to. I also know a lot of former Protestants who are now Baptists, as well.
For Protestants, it is not so obvious. Ephesians 4:11-12, “God gave some...as pastor-teachers...”
Don’t worry, a time will come when all the faiths of the world will be united under one Shepard.
“so that they all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you..”
My sister went to a church that split over whether to continue organ music during services.
/sarcasm
FYI
There is a dynamic that seems to happen a lot to people who find God, or rededicate themselves after years of being aimless or disconnected or lukewarm. It seems to be necessary in many cases to get up from where you are and move to another pew. Get up from whatever group you are in, and go where God leads you.
I don’t think its just about doctrinal differences; as you say there are protestants joining the catholics, and catholics joining especially the evangelical churches. There is a huge cross-fertilization going on among people who suddenly find themselves drawn into a more real walk with God.
Two things are going on, in my view. God leads you where you need to be, where you can be led and nurtured at the level you are at. And God at some point leads you to where you are needed for what you can contribute.
These days most Catholics, even “practising” ones, may worship in a Catholic church, but they live, think and behave much like mainline Protestants. The only reason there hasn’t been a schism with Rome is because most American Catholics are happy to be “Cafeteriaists.”
Yes, as the article states, some may come to appreciate the Catholic Church or even seek communion with it.
The other “half” though will take the traditional antipathy to the Catholic Church, and put it on steriods by combining it with rabid secular views (now held in many “mainline” Protestant Churches) on abortion, homosexuality, etc...
Jews and Christians have different views of history.
The Jewish view is that history is like a sine wave. When times are bad, people return to their faith, which brings about good times. But when times are good, people stray from their faith, which brings about bad times. Thus Jews rejoice when times are bad, because they are looking up.
The Christian view is that history is like a sawtooth wave. Left to their own devices, people over time go bad. But then a patriarch, prophet, or Jesus comes along and spiritually uplifts people to a much higher moral state. Once they are gone, however, people again start going bad.
These two very different outlooks of history are reflected throughout Jewish and Christian cultures.
But that being said, Christians should now look at Christianity itself. Especially in the 20th Century, a lot of Christianity has strayed from its faith, by embracing trendy social ideas, and emphasizing relativism over longstanding values and beliefs. And it would be the easiest thing to assume that this is part of the moral decay of man, when left unattended.
However, look also to those parts of Christianity that are trying to reform and rebuild their spiritual values. Who are rejecting efforts to make their churches trendy, in favor of embracing the core values that are the reason for their churches in the first place.
The Catholic church reexamines “Vatican II”, and the Anglican church is willing to schism by those who want to protect their faith, even at a high price. Other prominent denominations putting their foot down in favor of traditional values.
As long as this is done, perhaps man hasn’t fallen too far.
I quite frankly see no Protestant Meltdown. I have lots of Catholic friends and we get along fine.
As far as envying their hiearchy, I do not. If a Church leader commands authority, by his knowledge or actions, I respect him regardless of where he is from.
If they do not take scripture seriously, I don’t waste my time with them.
The modern adapters of faith, who do it out of touchy-feely air, or those who preach believe-and-prosper faiths cool my interest in them.
In the end, there will not be Baptist, Methodists, Catholics, or other denominations. Only Christians.
And of course the Jews. Like it or not from either side we are joined together forever.
Evangelical Protestants do fine numerically. I don’t think the mainline Protestant collapse affects them at all.
“unfudgeable”
As a former Episcopalian, I find the use of this word to be hilarious. It sums up the argument quite succinctly.
Thank you for making that distinction.
The magisterium a two edged sword. If headed by a Godly man it is a blessing. If the enemy captures the top post, God help all his followers.
There fixed it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.