Posted on 08/02/2010 3:13:20 AM PDT by markomalley
In the fall of 1999, I was a freshman at Gordon College, an evangelical liberal arts school in Massachusetts. There, fifteen years earlier, a professor named Thomas Howard resigned from the English department when he felt his beliefs were no longer in line with the college’s statement of faith. Despite all those intervening years, during my time at Gordon the specter of Thomas Howard loomed large on campus. The story of his resignation captured my imagination; it came about, ultimately, because he converted to Roman Catholicism.
Though his reasons for converting were unclear and perhaps unimaginable to me at the time (they are actually well-documented in his book Evangelical is Not Enough which, back then, I had not yet read), his reasons seemed less important than the knowledge that it could happen. I had never heard of such a thing.
I grew up outside of Boston in what could be described as an Irish-Catholic family, except for one minor detail: my parents had left the Church six years before I was born when they were swept up in the so-called “Jesus Movement” of the 1970s. So Catholicism was all around me, but it was not mine. I went to mass with my grandparents, grew up around the symbolism of rosary beads and Virgin Mary statues, attended a Catholic high school, and was present at baptisms, first communions, and confirmations for each of my Catholic family members and friends.
All throughout this time my parents never spoke ill of the Catholic Church; though the pastors and congregants of our non-denominational, charismatic church-that-met-in-a-warehouse, often did. Despite my firsthand experience with the Church, between the legend of my parents’ conversion (anything that happens in a child’s life before he is born is the stuff of legends) and the portrait of the Catholic Church as an oppressive institution that took all the fun out of being “saved,” I understood Catholicism as a religion that a person leaves when she becomes serious about her faith.
And yet, Thomas Howard is only the tip of the iceberg of a hastening trend of evangelicals converting to Catholicism. North Park University professor of religious studies Scot McKnight documented some of the reasons behind this trend in his important 2002 essay entitled “From Wheaton to Rome: Why Evangelicals become Roman Catholic.” The essay was originally published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, and was later included in a collection of conversion stories he co-edited with Hauna Ondrey entitled Finding Faith, Losing Faith: Stories of Conversion and Apostasy.
Thomas Howard comes in at number five on McKnight’s list of significant conversions, behind former Presbyterian pastor and author of Rome Sweet Home, Scott Hahn, and Marcus Grodi founder of The Coming Home Network International, an organization that provides “fellowship, encouragement and support for Protestant pastors and laymen who are somewhere along the journey or have already been received into the Catholic Church,” according to their Web site. Other featured converts include singer-songwriter John Michael Talbot and Patrick Madrid, editor of the Surprised by Truth books, which showcase conversion stories.
Would Saint Augustine Go to a Southern Baptist Church in Houston?
McKnight first identified these converts eight years ago, and the trend has continued to grow in the intervening years. It shows up in a variety of places, in the musings of the late Michael Spencer (the “Internet Monk”) about his wife’s conversion and his decision not to follow, as well as at the Evangelical Theological Society where the former President and Baylor University professor Francis J. Beckwith made a well-documented “return to Rome.” Additionally, the conversion trend is once again picking up steam as the Millennial generation, the first to be born and raised in the contemporary brand of evangelicalism, comes of age. Though perhaps an unlikely setting, The King’s College, an evangelical Christian college in New York City, provides an excellent case study for the way this phenomenon is manifesting itself among young evangelicals.
The King’s College campus is comprised of two floors in the Empire State Building and some office space in a neighboring building on Fifth Avenue. The approximately 300 students who attend King’s are thoughtful, considerate and serious. They are also intellectually curious. This combination of traits, it turns out, makes the college a ripe breeding ground for interest in Roman Catholicism. Among the traits of the Catholic Church that attract TKC students—and indeed many young evangelicals at large—are its history, emphasis on liturgy, and tradition of intellectualism.
Lucas Croslow was one such student to whom these and other attributes of Catholicism appealed. This past spring, graduating from The King’s College was not the only major change in Croslow’s life, he was also confirmed into the Catholic Church.
Croslow’s interest in Catholicism began over six years ago when he was a sophomore in high school. At the time, Croslow’s Midwestern evangelical church experienced a crisis that is all too common among evangelical churches: what he describes as “a crisis of spiritual authority.” As a result of experiencing disappointment in his pastor, Croslow began to question everything he had learned from him. This questioning led him to study the historical origins of scripture and then of the Christian church itself. Eventually he concluded that Catholicism in its current form is the closest iteration of the early church fathers’ intentions. He asks, “If Saint Augustine showed up today, could we seriously think that he’d attend a Southern Baptist church in Houston?” The answer, to Croslow, is a resounding “No.”
Croslow’s belief that the Catholic Church most accurately reflects the intentions of the early church fathers is echoed throughout the movement as other evangelicals seek a church whose roots run deeper than the Reformation. Further, due to the number of non-denominational churches that have proliferated since the Jesus Movement, many evangelicals’ knowledge of their history runs only as far back as the 1970s. These are the young believers who are attracted to a Church that sees itself as the direct descendent of the religion founded by Saint Peter and the apostles.
Another recent convert and current King’s sophomore, Nick Dunn, agrees with Croslow about the need for a historically grounded Christianity, however he emphasizes the liturgical aspects of Roman Catholicism as a motivation for converting. When he moved to New York City to attend The King’s College he had a difficult time finding a church that was similar to his home church in San Diego. The churches that he attended in New York, even the evangelical ones, often were a bit more structured and incorporated some liturgical elements into their services. In time, Dunn realized that these liturgical practices, which had been all but absent from his church life to that point, were quite rich.
When he asked his parents why their church didn’t have a benediction or a call to worship, they answered as many evangelicals would, saying that they don’t like “these ritualistic or religious kinds of things.” Eventually, after attending mass at St. Francis of Assisi in midtown Manhattan, Dunn became interested in learning more about Catholicism. It was living like a Catholic, Dunn says, that finally made him to decide to convert.
In much the same way that many evangelical churches have discarded Church history, so the liturgical structure of worship was left by the wayside as these churches made claims to the “freedom” that comes from forsaking the bounds of the Catholic Church and even mainline Protestant denominations. But for many young evangelicals and former evangelicals like Dunn, this move to be free of liturgical strictures came at the expense of religious practices that have been a part of Christianity for two millennia, and to these believers, the loss is too great. This is precisely why many evangelical churches have, as Dunn witnessed, made an effort to reintroduce those once forsaken elements into worship services.
Chris White, a 2009 King’s graduate, shares the concerns of Croslow and Dunn, while adding another of the main reasons why many evangelicals are converting to Catholicism: intellectual hunger.
White describes himself as a “victim of Church history classes that start in 1517,” the year Martin Luther posted his Ninety-Five Theses. That is, until he took a course entitled “Foundations of Judeo-Christian Thought” at TKC. It “raised certain questions within me,” he says of the course. White cites Boston College philosophy professor and TKC visiting faculty member Peter Kreeft’s Catholic Christianity as a factor in his conversion, but he also points to a number of other courses that he took at King’s that led him to the point of conversion. He says of the college’s curriculum that it is “not a ‘great books curriculum’ but it draws heavily on the liberal arts tradition.” He adds, “You can’t study the liberal arts without confronting the rich history of Catholicism.”
Indeed The King’s College is a microcosm of the larger community of young believers whose frustration with the lack of authority, structure, and intellectualism in many evangelical churches is leading them in great numbers to the Roman Catholic Church. This trend of “Crossing the Tiber” (a phrase that also served as the title of Stephen K. Ray’s 1997 book on the phenomenon), has been growing steadily for decades, but with the help of a solid foundation of literature, exemplar converts from previous generations, burgeoning traditional and new media outlets, and the coming of age of Millennial evangelicals, it is seeing its pace quicken dramatically.
Back in 1985, when many of the most recent converts were still singing Sunday School songs in evangelical churches, Thomas Howard wrote in the postscript to Evangelical is Not Enough that after completing the text in 1984, he formally converted to Catholicism at the Easter Vigil in 1985. Ultimately, Howard concluded that the question that matters most is “What is the Church?” His answer, like that of Hahn, Grodi and Talbot, and now of Croslow, Dunn, and White, is that the “one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church”—the historical, traditional Church—can only be the Roman Catholic Church.
The problem is that swimming the Bosphorus would actually land one in Üsküdar (on the Asian side). I would think that would be the wrong direction, wouldn't it?
Maybe swimming the Golden Horn...
;-)
Evangelicals like me who become Catholic tend to regard it as an advanced form of their previous Christian practice. Most conversion stories address this in some form - so now, I am Evangelical PLUS.
This is so consistent that there is now a whole internet body of literature by Evangelical converts saying, "OK, now I'm in the REAL Church - can we talk more about Jesus?"
I'm coming to the Catholic tradition late in life, from a basically Calvinist - Evangelical background.
I cannot imagine how a cradle Catholic with no religious education outside of CCD and the Mass can possibly have a proper Christian formation. I have 5 daughters, 4 of whom are in various levels of CCD, and the level of ignorance among their classmates on the most basic Christian doctrines is astonishing.
Catholicism makes sense to many Evangelicals, exactly as described in the article, as an "add-on" or upgrade to their already well-established faith.
But if my children didn't go to a Christian school and didn't get Bible study at home, despite receiving the sacraments, they wouldn't be Christians at all.
Hopefully this will get some discussion here.
"Reformed/Protestant" (16th century, those that trace denominational and creedal roots back to the Reformation),
"Evangelical" (17th century, like xzins' Wesleyans/Methodists or the Baptists, largely anabaptist, that arose after the Reformed groups);
"Restorationist" (19th century, independent "first century style" churches / denominations that can be traced back to the Stone/Campbell movement in NY's Hudson River valley); and
"Charismatic" (20th century, any "Spirit-led" but anti-creedal church or denomination that followed or appeared alongside the Restorationists, but especially those that originated with the "baby boomer" generation i.e. the Calvary Chapel/Vineyard churches).I'm honestly not sure where I'd place groups like the "emergent churches" or even the Warren / Osteen style megachurches. They lack the strong theological distinctives (Calvinism, creedalism) that characterizes the earlier groups, and the strong cultural distinctives (display of charismatic gifts, fierce cultural isolationism) that characterizes the later groups. I tend to think that they should get their own category, but I usually lump them under the "evangelical" label because they usually associate themselves with that group socially.
I think that the term "fundamentalist" could really fit in any of those categories, as it refers to a rather dogmatic, strict adherence to the teachings of a particular belief...rather than defining a specific belief in of itself.
Our parish in Tulsa had some high-profile converts, including Protestant ministers and professors. I think this was largely due to our deacon’s owning the Catholic bookstore in the city! In my current parish, the people I see going to RCIA tend to be married to Catholics already in the parish.
I think that is a marvelous way of looking at it.
I cannot imagine how a cradle Catholic with no religious education outside of CCD and the Mass can possibly have a proper Christian formation. I have 5 daughters, 4 of whom are in various levels of CCD, and the level of ignorance among their classmates on the most basic Christian doctrines is astonishing.
I would doubt that there would be a Catholic on FR who would disagree with you. The level of catechesis both through CCD and in Catholic schools is appalling.
The trouble is that this is the second, and, in some cases, the third generation who never have been educated in their own faith. And so parents have a hard time taking on their responsibilities as the primary educators of their children because they don't know either.
(In fact, I have been prayerfully considering taking on a seventh grade CCD/pre-confirmation class for just that reason)
As an evangelical who swam the Tiber 16 years ago, perhaps I shouldn't answer this, but I'm going to anyway. 4 of the 5 named either influenced my decision to plunge into the Tiber waters , or helped acquaint me with the new territory when I emerged on the Roman shore. To the list of 5 I would add one more, Father Richard John Neuhaus. John Michael Talbot's music introduced me to the strong scriptural base of Catholic thought while I was still a Lutheran. Father Neuhaus, a Lutheran scholar I admired for his "First Things" journal, challenged my locked in thought patterns when he went to Rome. Catholic friends loaned me Scott Hahn's conversion story on tape when I began to question my own path. Thomas Howard was there to offer clarification with his book "On Being Catholic" which I read shortly after my confirmation. Marcus Gordi's "Journey Home" has become the one "must watch" program on our weekly television schedule. None are "squishy" in my view.
I love the Protestant’s use of the phrase “crossing the Tiber.” Martin Luther lied about ever having gone to Rome, and all his slanders about the papacy were just that: slanders. The phrase “crossing the Tiber” echoes Martin’s misconception that the Vatican was in Rome, and therefore “crossing the Tiber” meant entering “the whore of Babylon.”
The truth is that the Vatican exists in perpetual exile from the city of Rome, across the Tiber. To cross the Tiber to enter into the Catholic Church, then, means to depart from Babylon and join Saint Peter in exile.
I’m cool with “Orthodox” as a denominational term. Orthodox churches are, in fact, catholic, and Catholic churches are, in fact, orthodox. Terms such as “Church of Christ,” “[Redacted] Bible Churches,” “Church of God in Christ,” “Disciples of Christ,” and even “Presbyterian,” and “Episcopalian,” bug me more, since the Catholic Church is presbyterian, episcopalian, reads the entire bible (and not just portions redacted by those who denied Christ, after his death), etc.
The lumping of evangelical and fundamentalist into Protestant is no Catholic invention! “Protestant” meant someone who “publicly declared” their differences from Catholicism, initially referring to their objections to the Diet of Speyer in 1529. Calvinist, Lutheran and Anglican movements all identified with the movement, as did successive groups emerging from those traditions, such as Methodists, etc.
Various non-Catholic groups do not fit, or may not fit, into the term, “Protestant”:
1. & 2. Orthodox and Oriental churches predate doctrinal separations from the Catholic church, and therefore are regarded by just about no-one as Protestant.
3. Anabaptist churches dubiously claim that they have existed since before the Nicene Council in the fourth century, representing “primitive” Christianity, and hence rejected the notion that their faiths are protesting against anything. Following them, several Baptists churches have rejected the “protestant” label, although most schemes of categorizing churches regard Baptists as Protestants.
4. Restorationist churches, such as Mormons and 7th-Day Adventists, while not insisting as Anabaptist churches do, that they persisted throughout the Christian era, nonetheless do claim that they represent a restoration of primitive Christianity.
5. Many Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox churches reject several religious movements, such as Mormons, as lacking critical elements of Christianity, such as Trinitiarianism. For this reason, they are counted as quasi-Christian, and therefore outside Protestantism. This is made still less controversial by the fact that many such churches are Restorationist, and reject the label “Protestant,” anway.
6. Lastly, two movements within the Anglican church have led it to be placed outside Protestantism by many, despite its historical and doctrinal similarities. Many Anglican apologists, confronted with a movement back towards Catholic sensibilities, differentiated themselves from Catholicism by maintaining that the papacy had only recently asserted authority over England (11th century) at the time of the 16th century schism. (This is ironic, since Canterbury was established precisely as a means for Rome to reign back in the Irish Religious Orders, who, like modern religious orders, answer to their own “ordinaries,” rather than the “secular” bishop.) Also, as their theological and ecclesiastical affililation to the Catholic/Orthodox churches grew, they saw themselves as neither Catholic, nor Protestant, but as the middle way, the “Via Media.”
What an interesting insight!
I converted to Protestantism (Baptist) in 1987 (then to Charismatic/pentecostal in 1992). I was raised Catholic. For me, Catholicism was dry and sterile. There was no relationship with God there was only follow the rules. Having a personal relationship with Christ was never, ever mentioned at any of the parishes I attended.
I was not actively proselytized by anyone at the first church I attended. My conversion came about from a Christmas gift that my fiance gave me. A bible.
"Hmmm" I thought, "What do I do with this?". We had a bible in our house when I was a kid. The big, choke-a-mule, left open on the bookstand and never ever moved sort. BUt this was different. This was a book. So what do you do with a book? You read it.
Somewhere between Genesis and Revelation I came to understand that God wanted more from us thanjust following the rules. God wanted to know each of us on a personal basis through His Son Jesus. This was a radical idea to me. Needless to say I listened to the call of the spirit and become saved.
(Please note that there are saved Catholics (and lost Protestants) I just had never met one to my knowledge at that time)
The trouble is that this is the second, and, in some cases, the third generation who never have been educated in their own faith.
Faith is not hereditary. If they haven't been taught, if they do not believe, then they are not a part of the faith no matter how many generations have been believers before them.
And so parents have a hard time taking on their responsibilities as the primary educators of their children because they don't know either.
This is true.
I know a lot of people who feel that way. I find it really to be a shame. But, again, that comes down to a really poor level of catechesis. Catechesis is not only learning the rules and regs. It is not only memorization. It is helping a person know how to establish that close personal relationship with the Triune God.
Sterile: just praying the Rosary prayers. Active, deep, and very rich: praying the Rosary prayers while actively meditating on the events of our salvation highlighted in the mysteries of the Rosary.
Sterile: going to Mass every Sunday and Holy Days and waiting until it is over with...so you can get on to softball practice.
Active, deep, and very rich: going to Mass every Sunday, Holy Days (and maybe even on weekdays)...praying beforehand...reading and pondering on the Scriptures presented in the Liturgy of the Word...and offering yourself as a living sacrifice to God (Rom 12:1) up on the altar with the Victim...
Sterile: going to confession when absolutely required and listing all the sins you commit, waiting for the priest to absolve you.
Active, deep, and very rich: valuing your relationship with God above all else and rushing to confession when your actions have wounded that relationship in order to establish it. Truly examining your conscience every day to see where you have fallen short of what God holds for you, feeling genuinely contrite at that point, and truly resolving to live the fullness of what God has given us. Truly recognizing that the priest, acting in persona Christi capitas, is ministering healing to your soul and being able to feel totally clean from the inside out when you walk out.
And so on.
I have seen SO MANY Catholics who fit inside the first category (what you called accurately sterile) that it breaks my heart.
I was not actively proselytized by anyone at the first church I attended. My conversion came about from a Christmas gift that my fiance gave me. A bible...The big, choke-a-mule, left open on the bookstand and never ever moved sort. BUt this was different. This was a book. So what do you do with a book? You read it.
And that is sort of a funny thing. Were you, before you left, aware that there are indulgences offered for daily Scripture reading and meditation on the Scriptures? If not, it wouldn't surprise me, as most Catholics are, in fact, unaware of that fact. And, again, it shocks me when I consider it. How many Catholics don't realize that their faith is founded in the words and deeds of Christ, given to the apostles, recorded in that book, and passed on from generation to generation? How can they possibly have a true understanding of their own faith without cracking open that book?
Needless to say I listened to the call of the spirit and become saved.
Well, I am very glad to hear that. I think it is a tragedy that you had to leave the Church in order to do so. It is a real indictment against those of us who are in the Church. Both in how you were taught as a youth and then how poorly you were shepherded as a young adult. And I think it is a real lesson that we should all take to heart. Not only one for the clergy, but one for the laity as well.
You wrote:
“Having a personal relationship with Christ was never, ever mentioned at any of the parishes I attended.”
Probably because that terminology was never used by Christians until a handful of years ago. It certainly was never used before 1850. The way evangelicals speak about “Having a personal relationship with Christ” has nothing to do with the Bible (the terminology is entirely foreign to scripture), has no place in tradition and seems to have been invented only recently in the last few decades. Maybe that’s why you never heard it discussed that way in a 2,000 year old Church.
I’m just sayin’...
I wouldn’t be good enough for any of the religions in existence today. I’d end up screwing up one or more of their “must do” lists. I can’t imagine trusting some human to “absolve” me when I could well find out later he was after the boys. I’d forget to do something or another or being human slip up on one of the rules. I’m just going to believe what Jesus said. He paid the price and all I have to do is trust him. He said when I go to the Father I should go in his name. Nothing more, nothing less.
Regardless of the words used, the concept has always been in the bible. Abraham and David were described as friends of God. A friend is more than just someone who obeys. A friend has a personal relationship. God desires us to be in personal communion with Him. This personal aspect was totally missing in Catholicism as I experienced it.
That is not to say that no others may have experienced it. Their mileage may vary.
legitimate evangelical scholars? Or were they squishy people who you are better rid of in the first place?
Being a "legitimate scholar" does not exclude an individual from being a "squishy person" whose departure does not surprise. Witness Richard Neuhaus.
What is an "evangelical"? Who isn't one?
That's the reason I'm asking the question. I see the claim made and, frankly, if both sides' claims were factual, I would imagine that 100% of Catholics would belong to something else within 10 years and 100% of non-Catholics would be Catholic within 10 years. So I was asking for actual reports from the ground rather than relying upon a magazine article.
Church attendance and membership numbers are as squishy as gun crime numbers from the Brady Campaign.
You wrote:
“Regardless of the words used, the concept has always been in the bible. Abraham and David were described as friends of God. A friend is more than just someone who obeys. A friend has a personal relationship. God desires us to be in personal communion with Him. This personal aspect was totally missing in Catholicism as I experienced it. That is not to say that no others may have experienced it. Their mileage may vary.”
I think it must. Old catechisms used to say:
“Q. How does the Sacrament of Penance remit sin, and restore to the soul the friendship of God ?”
Friendship with God.
and another:
“Surely then a very special grace, or gift, of God is necessary for us, in order that we may continue, persevere, faithfully in God’s friendship until the end.”
It wasn’t as if the idea was out there.
evangelical and fundamentalists together under the broad term of Protestant.
The use of the term "evangelical" has changed over time. It was once a synonym for Protestant. The modern use and modern distinction from "fundamentalist" is a 20th century American thing.
See Darryl Hart, Deconstructing Evangelicalism.
I think that's the point. If any of us were "good enough," we wouldn't need a savior, would we? I don't know about you all, but that's what's taught by the Church.
When somebody talks about "good enough," though...I hearken back to the words of St. Paul:
2 Cor 12:9 And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for you: for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 For which cause I please myself in my infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ. For when I am weak, then am I powerful.
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.