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
![](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NLydHsxn-mw/TFw-AnYOMVI/AAAAAAAABQ0/LfHW7UTRsYs/s400/st.+peter+basilica.jpg)
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 colleges 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 childs 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 McKnights 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 wifes 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 Kings 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 Kings 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 Kings 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 studentsand indeed many young evangelicals at largeare 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 Kings College was not the only major change in Croslows life, he was also confirmed into the Catholic Church.
Croslows interest in Catholicism began over six years ago when he was a sophomore in high school. At the time, Croslows 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 hed 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 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 2,881-2,887 next last
To: fish hawk
Hard to believe that some who already have a ticket to Heaven want to get off the train Where does it state in Scripture "once saved, always saved, unless you become Catholic"?
To: hinckley buzzard; vladimir998
hinckley -- did you read the article? The very article disproves your statement as all of those mentioned are those that READ their way into The Church. They came in with eyes wide open. All of the Catholic posters on this thread are pretty well informed and read and have read their Bibles regularly and also know history, secular and Church history and a few languages to boot.
All of these are very, very well informed on the history of The Church and also many on the history of the denominations (of course, not all denominations as it is difficult to know about the exact history of the "Western United Reformed Method branch of PresbyLutheranism Bapti-Science that is there in Springfield" or the OrthodoxPresbyterian group (membership in 1980 26,000 and dwindling) but the mainstream denoms, yes, we know.
242
posted on
08/08/2010 12:18:48 AM PDT
by
Cronos
(Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Allah": Satan's current status)
To: fish hawk
Here in Poland, the Poles call their priest "Ksiąz" which does not translate as father in any way.
243
posted on
08/08/2010 12:25:12 AM PDT
by
Cronos
(Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Allah": Satan's current status)
To: fish hawk
Here in Poland, the Poles call their priest "Ksiąz" which does not translate as father in any way.
The whole passage reads, "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:810).
Rabbi = teacher. And yet Paul says "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11).
And, when you call someone Teacher -- are you incorrect? When you call some a PhD or Doctor in Theology, are you incorrect? Doctor (gen.: doctoris) means teacher in Latin and is an agent noun derived from the verb docere ('teach').
244
posted on
08/08/2010 12:31:22 AM PDT
by
Cronos
(Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Allah": Satan's current status)
To: fish hawk
Here in Poland, the Poles call their priest "Ksiąz" which does not translate as father in any way.
The whole passage reads, "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:810).
Rabbi = teacher. And yet Paul says "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11).
And, when you call someone Teacher -- are you incorrect? When you call some a PhD or Doctor in Theology, are you incorrect? Doctor (gen.: doctoris) means teacher in Latin and is an agent noun derived from the verb docere ('teach').
245
posted on
08/08/2010 12:31:23 AM PDT
by
Cronos
(Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Allah": Satan's current status)
To: Cronos
Here in America, “Evangelical” is not a religion or denomination, some Catholics are Evangelical, some Lutherans are and Methodists etc.
246
posted on
08/08/2010 12:33:02 AM PDT
by
ansel12
(Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")
To: ansel12
Interesting. Btw, I am from Delaware, just moved to Poland. So, I'm using the term "Evangelicals" for all the Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Fundamentalist and Baptist groupings and sub-groupings. This term, in America does not include Lutherans or Anglicans or main-stream Methodists or Mennonites.
Ewangelico in Europe of course means the opposite, primarily used for Lutherans
Anyway, back to my point -- in Polish we use the term "Książ" for priests. That does not mean father (which is ojciec or tatusz).
That was to answer fish hawk who mistakenly used the English term for priests and extrapolated it to the entire non-English speaking world.
247
posted on
08/08/2010 12:47:00 AM PDT
by
Cronos
(Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Allah": Satan's current status)
To: Cronos
Finally, do note that this article is specifically about Evangelicals getting baptised into Church The Catholic church accepts an Evangelical convert's original Baptism.
248
posted on
08/08/2010 12:49:55 AM PDT
by
ansel12
(Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")
To: Al Hitan
your question “Where does it state...” — evidently you have not read the excerpted bible as used by some groupings. You probably know that Luther removed a few books from the Bible and added the word “alone” to fide. But the sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-denominations since then have gone much further. You now have the OPC which has a 14 page booklet bible that has just excerpts (why have all the nasty stuff like the letter of James or the Gospels or the OT). And, it is probably edited so that the verse you cited is there.
249
posted on
08/08/2010 12:50:12 AM PDT
by
Cronos
(Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Allah": Satan's current status)
To: ansel12
Many of the Pentecostals, Presbyterians etc (all non-"mainstream Protestants") are tired of the 4 points I cited above. Hence they are coming to the fullness of Christian teaching as found in The Church.
That being said, many Catholics left The Church because we neglected to teach our youth adequately, to get them involved more. This is something we can learn from Baptists, yes -- you are good at that, and I admire you for that.
Furthermore, I've seen Baptists converting people in Asia (non-Christians) to Christ and I think they are doing a splendid job. I would like these people to come to the fullness of orthodoxy, but then even a little Christ is better than none at all, so I applaud your efforts
Whenever an orthodox Baptist or Pentecostal reaches out to Muslims, Hindus, Buddists, etc. I applaud and encourage just as much as I do so when the Apostolic Church (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, Assyrian) does the same. I do hesitate for those preaching a hyper-Calvinist ideology as to my mind that is not Christian thought (with the idea of a vengeful god that cherry picks people for damnation before birth)
250
posted on
08/08/2010 12:55:29 AM PDT
by
Cronos
(Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Allah": Satan's current status)
To: metmom
the poor needed to be helped Well the poor do need to be helped... and for anyone to use that as an excuse to vote for a democrat is just mind-boggling. I hope you realize those people are idiots, religious affiliation not-withstanding.
I also hope everyone in this thread realizes the problems with the Catholic vote are somewhat more complex than some of the talking points being fired back and forth. I hope everyone learned about the way the democrats successfully captured those waves of Catholic immigrants and demonized the Republicans in high school so I won't go into that here.
As to those who are saying "Once a Catholic always a Catholic", in a sense that is correct. Anyone who leaves the Church by heresy or schism may return at any time usually by entering a confessional and putting things right with God and His Holy Church. There may be a required public statement depending on the situation.
There are two types of excommunication; automatic and declared. The procurement, facilitation or act of abortion is a sin considered so scandalous that it incurs automatic excommunication. The guilty party has to know about it though. Unlike in secular cases, in ecclesiastical law, ignorance of the law is sometimes an excuse.
Now I'd like to think that all Catholics, or even all practicing Catholics at least in the United States are fully aware of what the Church teaches about abortion... I'd also like to think that my plans to purchase a thousand shares of Apple stock 14 years ago had come to fruition, but that didn't happen either. Unfortunately Catholics in the United States have been so poorly taught for the last 40 years that I'd be surprised if the majority could name the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity.
In one way of understanding this though, a person puts himself outside of the communion of the Church through any grave sin, in a sense that person has excommunicated himself through sin because he has turned away from God. Normally, the Church teaches, because of human weakness a penitent sinner requires the "medicine" available in the Sacrament of Penance (confession) although a perfectly contrite person is forgiven by God at the moment of repentance.
Then there's the whole issue of "cultural Catholics". In a similar way we also find ourselves living in a sea of "cultural Americans", people who grew up here, enjoy the benefits of our society but who nevertheless have no particular allegiance to our form of government or our common heritage.
We cringe (or at least we should) at the idea of people across the world identifying most of our politicians and entertainers as Americans. I believe Barney Frank is supposed to be a Jew, would anyone here think he's a GOOD Jew? Bill Clinton is or was supposedly a Southern Baptist, on what planet? Do we want either one of those guys popping into the mind of some Frenchman whenever he thinks of Americans? No of course not! We want that Frenchman to think of the Americans who stood up for freedom and liberty, who fought and died so the people of France could be free of foreign oppression. Instead of course, they think of Jerry Lewis, which is probably better than thinking of Barney Frank or Bill Clinton all things considered.
My dog is a better Catholic than Nancy Pelosi and he's never set paw in a church. Why isn't she formally excommunicated? Because almost 50 years ago Pope John XXIII said this: "Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She consider that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations. Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against and dissipated. But these are so obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them, particularly those ways of life which despise God and His law..."
And all the people said: Reverend Dude! What the heck have you been smoking and where can we get some?
I don't know, I'm baffled. But yes, he really thought everyone was just as holy as he was and the Catholic Church has been suffering under that delusion for two generations. I think though, that we are very close to sobering up.
251
posted on
08/08/2010 12:56:32 AM PDT
by
Legatus
To: Cronos
“So, I’m using the term “Evangelicals” for all the Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Fundamentalist and Baptist groupings and sub-groupings. This term, in America does not include Lutherans or Anglicans or main-stream Methodists or Mennonites.”
“The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is a mainline Protestant denomination headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. The ELCA officially came into existence on January 1, 1988, by the merging of three churches and currently has about 4,633,887 baptized members. It is the seventh-largest religious body and the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_in_America
252
posted on
08/08/2010 1:00:12 AM PDT
by
ansel12
(Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")
To: ansel12
I'm sorry, but that is not completely accurate. The Church accepts a "valid" baptism -- to give the clearest example of what is NOT a valid Christian baptism, I give you the example of Mormon baptism. That is not a valid Christian baptism as they do not believe in the same idea of God as we do.
You are correct that most Evangelicals do not fit this group defined so well by Mormons and for those they would only need to be confirmed into The Church if they have a valid Trinitarian baptism. However, since there are so many different groups that call themselves Evanglical, I would not make a blanket statement about which have or have not a valid baptism.
253
posted on
08/08/2010 1:04:23 AM PDT
by
Cronos
(Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Allah": Satan's current status)
To: Legatus
Bill Clinton is or was supposedly a Southern Baptist, on what planet? Bill Clinton has been mentioned a lot on this thread as a Protestant which he was or is, but Protestants voted against him being President of the United States, Catholic voters voted for him, they also voted for Gore in 2000.
In 1996 when Clinton was picking up 41% of the Protestant vote, he received 53% of the Catholic vote.
254
posted on
08/08/2010 1:09:43 AM PDT
by
ansel12
(Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")
To: Legatus
We cringe (or at least we should) at the idea of people across the world identifying most of our politicians and entertainers as Americans. I believe Barney Frank is supposed to be a Jew, would anyone here think he's a GOOD Jew? Bill Clinton is or was supposedly a Southern Baptist, on what planet? Do we want either one of those guys popping into the mind of some Frenchman whenever he thinks of Americans? No of course not!
very, very well put. Bill Clintoon or peanut Carter as model Baptists? ha ha ha!
255
posted on
08/08/2010 1:10:39 AM PDT
by
Cronos
(Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Allah": Satan's current status)
To: ansel12
good catch and I should have remembered that, but would you call the ELCA “Evangelicals”. I use the term as the middle ground between the theological liberalism of the mainline denominations and the cultural separatism of fundamentalism.
256
posted on
08/08/2010 1:13:24 AM PDT
by
Cronos
(Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Allah": Satan's current status)
To: ansel12
good catch and I should have remembered that, but would you call the ELCA “Evangelicals”. I use the term as the middle ground between the theological liberalism of the mainline denominations and the cultural separatism of fundamentalism.
257
posted on
08/08/2010 1:13:26 AM PDT
by
Cronos
(Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Allah": Satan's current status)
To: Cronos
What an odd post, just about any Evangelical Baptism that you and I can think of is of course accepted by the Catholic church and how did Mormons get in there?
Mormons are not Christian so of course the Catholic church has them be Baptized Christian, just like all the other Christian churches do.
258
posted on
08/08/2010 1:19:56 AM PDT
by
ansel12
(Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")
To: Cronos
good catch and I should have remembered that, but would you call the ELCA Evangelicals. LOL, of course, the "Evangelical Lutheran Church in America" named themselves in 1988.
259
posted on
08/08/2010 1:22:32 AM PDT
by
ansel12
(Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")
To: ansel12
Interesting. For historical reasons (from the Know-nothing days), the Catholic vote went to the party which supposedly "cared for them" -- the Democrats. I use the term "supposedly" because the Dims did a good job of pretending to do so.
CATHOLICS WERE NOT a notable presence on the U.S. political scene until the 1830s and 1840s, when the Germans and Irish began arriving in large numbers. These immigrants faced strong opposition from the Know-Nothings and other nativist groups who feared that the immigrant hordes represented a papist invasion. Catholics opted to join the Democratic Party because it was friendlier to minority groups than the Protestant-dominated Whigs and the Republicans, who were seen as too accommodating to nativists.
The partnership between Catholics and Democrats was not always amiable. At the turn of the century, divisions erupted in the party between Catholics and party leaders in the South and West. Among the forces that drove them apart was the candidacy of William Jennings Bryan in 1896. Bryan supported Prohibition and opposed parochial schools, which did not sit well with Irish Catholics. Irish Americans were also upset when, 20 years later, Democrat Woodrow Wilson decided to enter the Great War on the side of the hated British.
Catholic support for the Democrats continued strong throughout World War II and afterward. Many Catholics switched parties in 1952 to support the moderate Republican Dwight Eisenhower, and a majority voted for his re-election in 1956. But Catholics returned in force to support Kennedy, who would be the first Catholic to win the presidency. Close to 80 percent of Catholics cast their votes for Kennedy, an unprecedented show of support that would not be repeated.
The election of 1972 proved to be crucial in the Catholic-Democratic partnership. Dissatisfied by the liberal social views of George McGovern, a majority of Catholics voted for Nixon. That year also saw a change in Democratic strategic alliances that would have long-term effects on the influence of Catholics within the party. The primary architect of the new strategy was Fred Dutton, who argued in a 1971 book Changing Sources of Power: American Politics in the 1970s that the Democrats should break with Catholics
The fallout from these changes was evident eight years later, when Ronald Reagan handily won the Catholic vote. During both terms of the Reagan presidency, there was much hand-wringing about the Reagan Catholics and why they had been won over by the Republican Party.
Clinton used language that appealed to Catholics who wanted to vote Democrat but had qualms about what they perceived to be the partys lax attitude on moral issues. Clintons pledge to make abortion safe, legal, and rare won the support of many Catholics, who felt that was a good compromise in a country where a complete prohibition was unlikely. Clintons endorsement of traditionally conservative issuessuch as school uniforms for children in public school and the V-chipalso appealed to many Catholics.
George W Bush also did very well with Catholics. He hired a special adviser on Catholic issues, and his endorsement of faith-based initiatives and school vouchers won him points among the Catholic electorate. Bush won 47 percent of the Catholic vote in 2000, and then 52 percent in 2004. Conservative pundits have pointed out that he did even better among Catholics who attend Mass at least once a week.
Today, it is often said that Catholics are politically homelessdriven away from the Democratic Party by the polarizing issue of abortion, yet uncomfortable with Republican stances on the free market and the death penalty. no political party has a platform in line with Catholic social teaching.
George W Bush made significant inroads among Catholic voters because he used languageand chosen issuesthat appeal to Catholics. Compassionate conservative, after all, is a term that could describe many Catholics, who are conservative on social issues yet favor government programs for the poor.
Why did 48% not vote Democrat at the last election? I think they were the church-going ones and were the ones who actually THOUGHT and didn't get caught up in the entire "CHANGE" chants.
The thing is that in most elections there are multiple variables -- as a good Catholic, I cannot vote for anyone who supports abortion, but then that limits the pool and I may have to choose someone who supports other things that I find intolerable -- this is more the case in Europe than America, I agree, but I'm just giving an example.
Secondly, I would like to see the numbers of below 30 and above 30s who voted for Ohbummer and the number of those who attended service/mass at least once a week versus those who didn't
I feel sure that the majority of those who went for a Protestant service or a Catholic/Orthodox mass at least once a week did NOT vote for ohbummer. I also feel sure (and I think I read it somewhere after the Pres election) that the majority of the +30 (or was it +40) year olds did NOT vote for Ohbummer.
260
posted on
08/08/2010 1:28:56 AM PDT
by
Cronos
(Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Allah": Satan's current status)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson