Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Magazine: Growing Trend--Evangelicals ‘Crossing the Tiber’ to Catholicism
TheSacredPage.com ^ | August 6, 2010 | Michael Barber

Posted on 08/07/2010 3:38:50 PM PDT by Salvation

Friday, August 06, 2010

Magazine: Growing Trend--Evangelicals ‘Crossing the Tiber’ to Catholicism

The magazine Religion Dispatches has a new piece up by Jonathan Fitzgerald, entitled, "Evangelicals ‘Crossing the Tiber’ to Catholicism: Under the radar of most observers a trend is emerging of evangelicals converting to Catholicism."


As he points out, there are an increasing number Evangelicals coming into the Catholic Church. In fact, while my wife and I were at Fuller we witnessed this phenomenon firsthand. Indeed, students would come up and ask us if they could follow us to daily Mass (which was celebrated at a Catholic Church down the street). I went to Mass with many fellow students who had never experienced a Eucharistic liturgy. . . and, for many of them, once they started attending they couldn't stop.

Here's the story as Fitzgerald reports it:
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. . .

. . . [M]y 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.”
 
. . .

You can read the rest here.



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholiclist; converts; evangelical; freformed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,081-1,1001,101-1,1201,121-1,140 ... 2,881-2,887 next last
To: Iscool

THEY HAVE ASSERTED publicly that they will attack pre-emptively vs waiting to be attacked.

And, they reportedly have 30,000 sleeper agents in the USA already who’s sole task is to assassinate Christian pastors, ministers.

I think our usher guard types need to start carrying guns, myself.


1,101 posted on 08/10/2010 11:45:37 AM PDT by Quix (C THE PLAN of the Bosses: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2519352/posts?page=2#2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1099 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; Amityschild; Brad's Gramma; Captain Beyond; Cvengr; DvdMom; firebrand; GiovannaNicoletta; ..

You want us to know what your religion teaches, just tell us...Unless you don’t know yourself...

- - -

First, they’d have to consult the erratic rubbery clock in the

VATICAN’S ALICE IN WONDERLAND SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY AND REALITY MANGLING . . .

And try and pin down exactly when a given variation/version was to be considered some pseudo-stable flash of “rubbery truth.”

Then they’d have to publish that before it ceased to be ‘truth.”

No small task, indeed.

We should have compassion on the poor dears.


1,102 posted on 08/10/2010 11:48:15 AM PDT by Quix (C THE PLAN of the Bosses: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2519352/posts?page=2#2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1100 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
You need to debate intelligently not utilizing non-sequiturs and bible verses which don't relate to the points being discussed. Else nobody outside of your like minded friends will take your positions seriously
Learn to read your bible and for the Spirit to provide you with comprehension of same. It is your only hope for eternal salvation.
1,103 posted on 08/10/2010 11:58:30 AM PDT by bronx2 (while Jesus is the Alpha /Omega He has given us rituals which you reject to obtain the graces as to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1091 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; Alamo-Girl; Cronos; Natural Law; Campion; narses
Now if your catechism has another section which contradicts this one, one that claims Peter is the rock (and Jesus is the stone), your problem lies with your catechsim and your religion...Not us...

Looks as tho you guys have some 'splainin' to do...But instead, you will just bow out and blame us for posting part of your catechism that you either didn't know was there, or didn't want us to find...


Where have you been? I've already posted this at least twice. We have no "'splainin" to do. Peter is not a physical rock. It's a metaphor that was used several times in the Scriptures, Old and New Testaments. Alamo-Girl had a great post outlining some of the usages of the word. There's nothing strange about Peter's faith being described as a "rock". That doesn't discount Our Lord's calling him personally the rock "on which I will build My Church". Not at all. It doesn't disprove or contradict anything the Church says about Peter personally being the "rock". There can be more than one usage of the word in Scripture. It's a metaphor!

We knew that the excerpt you posted was there in the Catechism. Catholics have nothing to hide, since they are graced with the Truth, the whole Truth. It was interesting, however, that you and your cohorts failed to post the other, RELEVANT excerpts that state plainly that Peter himself is also the rock on which the Church was built. You just want to score a cheap debating point with the snippet that compares Peter's faith with a rock, as if that in any way contradicts Church teaching on Peter's unique mission. Balderdash! Cheap tricks which we learned about in high school debating class.

But, to satisfy you once again, here are the other RELEVANT sections of the Catechism:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p3.htm

552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve;283 Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."284 Christ, the "living Stone",285 thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.286

553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."287 The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep."288 The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.


1,104 posted on 08/10/2010 11:58:59 AM PDT by Deo volente (God willing, America will survive this Obamination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1093 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Your post is absolutely ludicrous, It’s not what you know that is the problem, it is what you know that is dead wrong.


1,105 posted on 08/10/2010 12:03:54 PM PDT by verga (I am not an apologist, I just play one on Television)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1072 | View Replies]

To: Quix

And supported by Augustine


1,106 posted on 08/10/2010 12:09:31 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 978 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente; Iscool
We knew that the excerpt you posted was there in the Catechism. Catholics have nothing to hide, since they are graced with the Truth, the whole Truth.

So, what's the truth then? Is it that Peter is the rock on which Christ built His church or not? Your catechism isn't clear because you can use it to play both sides against the middle. Both positions can be supported from the Catechism so no matter what a non-Catholic says and posts, Catholics can tell them that they're wrong and that they don't *really * know or understand Catholic teaching.

How convenient.

1,107 posted on 08/10/2010 12:10:16 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1104 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

Interesting isn't it?

if catholics really looked at their catechism they might find out it is say one thing and teach another

1,108 posted on 08/10/2010 12:10:57 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 913 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; Cronos; Natural Law; don-o; narses; Campion
Every one of your links is an encyclopedia sized document.

Not true. The vast majority of the links I've posted on this and the other threads are article-length, not "encyclopedia sized". That charge is simply FALSE.

You want us to know what your religion teaches, just tell us...Unless you don't know yourself...

Non sequitur. High school debating trick. Transparent to all but the most doltish readers.

I've been told on this and other threads NOT to post links, but rather the entire text. In other posts, I've been chided for posting text ("it's too long", "too much to read", etc) and asked to post only the link.

Darned if we do and darned if we don't. You can't win here when the other side is in permanent "disruptor mode". I don't sense any real interest in learning what the Church teaches. None at all.
1,109 posted on 08/10/2010 12:16:44 PM PDT by Deo volente (God willing, America will survive this Obamination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1100 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente
Darned if we do and darned if we don't. You can't win here when the other side is in permanent "disruptor mode". I don't sense any real interest in learning what the Church teaches. None at all.

************************

Perhaps for a few extremely vocal types, yes. Think of how many may read and learn, but never post a response, possibly for concern of being ridiculed or bullied. Those are the ones who may well be out there listening to our every word, friend. :)

1,110 posted on 08/10/2010 12:21:53 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1109 | View Replies]

To: metmom; RnMomof7; Iscool; Cronos; bronx2; Campion

You don’t understand the use of metaphor in the Bible. You take a “surface literalist” approach to everything, and decide arbitrarily that if Peter’s faith is compared to a “rock”, that excludes him from also being the “rock” on which the Church was built.

It’s hopeless to argue this point, because there’s no common ground on which to discuss matters.

I believe we spent several hundred posts on the other thread talking across each other on this same point. To what avail? Nothing.


1,111 posted on 08/10/2010 12:25:50 PM PDT by Deo volente (God willing, America will survive this Obamination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1107 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek; vladimir998; Quix; Dutchboy88; RnMomof7; bkaycee; count-your-change; metmom; ...
ANOTHERUNIXGEEK: “Do Catholics believe that evangelicals (who are surely as earnest in their faith in Christ’s salvation as any other denomination) will go to heaven without switching to Catholicism?”

VLADIMIR998: This is possible.

Ask him how this is possible - for a Protestant to be saved who does not eventually believe the RCC is the one true church.

Because many RCs tend to say whatever is expedient to the conversation at hand, even going so far as to contradict their own catechism, if that is what it takes to win the point. And the RCC catechism teaches that outside the church (of Rome) there is no salvation.

RC apologists usually get around this detail by further explaining that any Protestant who really wants to be saved will spend some time in purgatory where he will change his mind about his Evangelical faith and acknowledge the papacy as the "one true church" and thus he can be saved.

Therefore the correct question to ask a Roman Catholic is "can an Evangelical Protestant go to heaven if he never accepts the papacy and its church in Rome as the one true church?"

1,112 posted on 08/10/2010 12:33:14 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente
"It’s hopeless to argue this point, because there’s no common ground on which to discuss matters."

Protestantism is an ignorance of choice. When one has chosen go ignore or pervert the revealed Word of God ignoring you is ease.

1,113 posted on 08/10/2010 12:34:00 PM PDT by Natural Law (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1111 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

ping to 1112. I’m way behind lately. 8~)


1,114 posted on 08/10/2010 12:34:54 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1112 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente
You don’t understand the use of metaphor in the Bible.

lol. More selective criticism.

"This is my body."

1,115 posted on 08/10/2010 12:36:44 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1111 | View Replies]

To: bronx2
Christ told us to in Jn 6 52:58 to eat His flesh and drink His blood but many left Him because of this. ..... What is ironic is their alleged adherence to Scripture but only that scripture they can pervert and quote out of context. These wicked ones will be liable to the judgment, unless they lack capacity which I know some do.

There was no communion when He fed the thousands, so He could not have been talking about your eucharist.. so what was He talking about?

If you study the "I am" statements you will find Jesus was teaching the jews how he was the centerpiece of the OT..It was prophetic of Him

In this case he was teaching that The manna was a type of Christ

Did they leave jesus because of this teaching ?Lets look at the scripture

A faulty reading of scripture can lead to faulty doctrine.

Lets see just what it was that caused some to walk away.

The discussion on the bread WAS FINISHED in verse 59.

Jesus continued with a harder teaching

60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"

61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?

62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?

THIS IS A CLAIM OF DIVINITY, that was blasphemy to the Jews Now see their reaction to this as Jesus continues

63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; [the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

64 But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.

65 ]And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.

The message was one that the legalist Jews did not want to hear.] Men can not save themselves GOD has to grant it to them

NOW they LEFT

66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

It was not the discourse on bread (manna) that made them leave , that they understood that as an analogy, Jesus was saying He was like the manna that fed their ancestors.
But then He made it clear that He had come from the Father and would return there. that was a claim of divinity and blasphemy to observant Jews

THEN

68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;

69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

Now does Peter talk about the bread?

NO, He addresses what the others left over, the divinity of Christ,
Peter heard the message that one would be saved by BELIEVING in Christ as He had taught in this discourse

This episode opened because the crowd wanted PROOF, a SIGN, and so they asked for food. They wanted their needs met ..

Jesus made the transition to the manna because of the demand of the crowd for food to prove what he said. This discourse is on faith without signs , it is on being saved by faith.

Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent
Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

PETER HEARD WHAT CHRIST WAS TEACHING. HE MADE A PROFESSION OF FAITH, HE DID NOT ASK FOR BREAD Reading scripture in proper context is important.

Hear Peter one more time 1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed,[u] but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever

1,116 posted on 08/10/2010 12:38:18 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 914 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ, and thank you for your encouragements!
1,117 posted on 08/10/2010 12:43:56 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1104 | View Replies]

To: bronx2
Can you imagine judgment day and the anger of God vented on them for their obvious mendacity and duplicity in distorting sacred scripture. Not a pleasant occasion for these wicked souls.

I guess I would ask how a catholic knows if scripture iis being distorted??

1)They do not read it

2)They are told even if they did they can not say what it means

3)The magisterium has never written a systematic theology or "official" inspired commentary of the entire bible.

Other than the proof texting in the catechism, scripture's teachings and meanings is undefined by the catholic church

1,118 posted on 08/10/2010 12:50:28 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 922 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Cronos; bronx2; Natural Law; don-o; Campion
Another non sequitur. This thread is littered with fallacies coming from the non-Catholic side. Y'all would have received big red “F's” from my high school debate teacher.

The use of metaphor in certain parts of Scripture does not necessarily preclude the use of literal concepts in other parts of Scripture.

In passing, I find it ironic that anti-Catholics will pounce on a metaphor in an instant and claim instead it was meant literally, in an attempt to “disprove” Church dogma, while fiercely maintaining that what Catholics believe on the plain meaning of the words (”This is My Body”) was only meant metaphorically or symbolically.

LOL. The ultimate in “selective criticism”!

1,119 posted on 08/10/2010 12:51:27 PM PDT by Deo volente (God willing, America will survive this Obamination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1115 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

I think that means she does not have an answer :)


1,120 posted on 08/10/2010 12:52:50 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 928 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,081-1,1001,101-1,1201,121-1,140 ... 2,881-2,887 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson