Posted on 11/18/2002 8:34:02 AM PST by pseudo-justin
Church Is Still Attracting Converts
By PAUL LIKOUDIS
A personal note: The phone rang the other day and the gentleman on the other end identified himself as Jim Anderson from the Coming Home Network. He said he had a message from an old high school friend. Who might that be, I asked, and he gave the name: Dion Berlowitz.
Anderson told me the Coming Home Network, with which I was not familiar, helped Protestants come into the Church, and that Dion was on his way in.
I hadn’t heard from Dion in more than a decade, even though we were best friends at Williamsville South High School, outside Buffalo, sharing several interests, including cartooning and comic books. Raised Jewish, Dion became a born-again Christian in his junior year of high school as his parents’ marriage broke up, and spent hours, days, weeks, and months trying to convert me into a Bible-believing Christian.
In 1971, Dion went on to the University of Buffalo to study literature and I went on to Eisenhower College to study history, and our paths never crossed again until a call out of the blue came from him around 1990, when he told me he was a Presbyterian. We have had no further contact since, though I suspect and hope that will change.
In this initial conversation, Anderson told me that so far, this year, the Coming Home Network has helped 94 Protestant ministers of various denominations, along with many other Protestants, come into the Church. Some, like Dion, are on their way in. This is the largest annual crop since the CHNetwork was founded nine years ago.
Here, in a year in which the Catholic Church in the United States and around the world has been wracked by scandals, we do have good news indeed.
+ + +
What would prompt a Protestant, especially a minister with a wife and family, to leave his tradition and often his livelihood to come into the Catholic Church, especially when there are so many broken-hearted Catholics embarrassed by the past ten months of sordid revelations involving clerical sexual abuse, bishops’ resignations, episcopal cover-ups and pay-outs? Not to mention the ongoing abuse of authority by bishops to hammer the lay faithful who object to dissidents and heretics speaking in parishes and education conferences.
"For Protestants," says Jim Anderson, "the scandals are a non-issue. Among the hundreds of people I have talked to who are thinking of coming into the Church, the scandals just aren’t an issue. Of all the people who have contacted me, only three or four have mentioned them, and that was only at my prompting.
"To a man, these men are intellectually convinced that the Church is a divine institution established by Christ, and bishops are only human — and, besides, they say, ‘These things are going on in our own denominations — only in our denomination they are not being addressed.’
"They see this as the Holy Spirit cleaning house. The judgment of the Lord begins with the family of God. They view the present scandals as a terrible tragedy; they want justice like everybody else. But as far as the truth of the Catholic faith is concerned, it is a non-issue. It’s sin; it needs to be addressed. And that’s it.
"These men," he continued, "are educated people. Most have master of divinity degrees and doctorates. They are aware of the problems, but once their hearts are converted and they see the Church as Jesus Christ’s, they know Christ will keep His promise. They have experienced troubles in their own denominations, but they know that when they are in the Church, God will prevail."
On average — based on the first ten months of this year — Anderson hears from a Protestant minister every three days who has made the decision to become Catholic.
Most, he says, are drawn to the Church for two reasons. Either they have come to understand the dead end to which the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura leads, and they want to settle, in their own minds, the issue of authority in the Church; or they have been led to the Church by its doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and they want to receive Jesus.
What many Protestants are coming to understand, even at a time when many Catholics and non-Catholics lament the apparent breakdown of authority in the Church, Anderson explained, is that the Church’s authority "is set by God."
"Those who take their faith and Scripture and God seriously," he said, "see the Catholic Church as being the answer to the chaos of the Protestant condition: Sola scriptura is a dead end, is unhistorical and unworkable. They understand this and so they have a crisis of faith and they enter the Catholic Church. And this is occurring across the Protestant spectrum. A lot of people contacting the Coming Home Network are ‘higher church’ Episcopalians or Lutherans, but we do get calls also from ‘low-end’ Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and Assembly of God ministers.
"To speak, as some Catholics do, about a ‘crisis of authority’ in the Church doesn’t make a lot of sense," Anderson said. "There is a ‘crisis of obedience to authority,’ but that has always been the case, just as there has always been a ‘crisis of obedience to the authority of God’ on the part of many men and women. The authority is there, and it is working; it is just not obeyed."
The Coming Home Support Network
The Coming Home Network was founded in 1993 out of the experiences of several Protestant clergy and their spouses. Upon leaving their pastorates to enter the Catholic Church, these clergy and their families discovered they were not alone. To help others come into the Church — and to deal with some of the tremendous personal and professional obstacles they faced — they began the organization as a support network.
Catholics, Anderson suggested, should understand some of the challenges these ministers face once they have made the intellectual decision to "cross over" to Rome.
"They go through tremendous struggles. They think, ‘I’m losing my friends, my family, my community, my church, and people think I’m crazy and I’m apostatizing from Christianity.’ Often the most serious conflict is with spouses, who not only have to deal with the change of religion, but have practical problems as well, such as, ‘What about me and the children?’ ‘How are we going to survive?’ ‘What will our friends think?’ ‘Have I been following the wrong religion all my life?’
"Most of these people have M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees, and so they are not employable in the world. It’s a difficult decision for these men to give up their work, their careers, and their livelihoods. Nevertheless, 94 this year have entered, or are on their way into, the Church."
One former minister, Anderson recalled, gave up his role as a prominent, prestigious minister for his community to work as a greeter at WalMart. For him, the blessing of being able to receive the Eucharist more than compensated for what he had to give up.
Anderson is well-prepared for his work helping Protestants come into the Church. Reared as a Methodist, the 47-year-old Anderson became a Lutheran at 19. As a history major specializing in medieval Europe at Ohio University in Athens, he knew he was on his way into the Church.
Three years after graduating, he entered evangelical Ashland Seminary in 1980, interested in pursuing studies in ecumenical dialog. In his freshman year, he made the decision to join the Catholic Church, and on July 25, 1981, the Feast of St. James, he was confirmed. His wife, Lynn, who entered the Church in 1983, now teaches in a Catholic school.
Contrary to popular stereotypes, he said, the biggest roadblocks would-be converts confront are not such "hot-button" issues as contraception, papal infallibility, or women’s rights, but the Church’s doctrines concerning Mary.
But another obstacle, he said, is "liturgical craziness."
Many Protestants, he said, "are scandalized by the liturgical craziness. They try to get around it by seeking out a Byzantine rite, or seeking out orthodox parishes. And usually, if they come into the Church, having been good Protestants, they have church-hopped enough to have found a parish where they don’t have to deal with abuses."
But, he added, many look beyond the abuses, because "they are attracted to Christ in the liturgy. For a lot of the converts, there are many who have intellectually convinced themselves already that they must join the Church before they ever attended Mass. And when they finally start going to Mass, often there is a culture shock, especially if they come from a small, intimate, loving Baptist church, and go into a parish of 2,000 people who aren’t particularly friendly. So there is this bit of culture shock — and that doesn’t include the shock of liturgy."
Asked to name the leading intellectual sources Protestants are reading to find their way into the Church, Anderson named familiar names.
"The intellectual sources are, certainly, Cardinal Newman, G.K. Chesterton, Bishop Fulton Sheen, Scott Hahn, and Catholic Answers.
"But most often, it is the fathers of the Church. When Protestant ministers encounter the fathers, they realize they were lied to and betrayed, because they were taught the Protestant Reformation cleansed Christianity of the barnacles on the Barque of Peter and the Reformers recovered ancient Christianity. Then they go back and read the apostolic fathers, especially Ignatius of Antioch who is preaching the Real Presence, the authority of bishops, and all these many Catholic things, and the conclusion is the words of Jesus, who says: ‘I will be with you always.’
"Either Jesus kept His promise, or the Church went to Hell in a hand basket after the death of St. John.
"When they start studying the early Church fathers, they are blown out of the water."
Solid Apologetics
The Coming Home Network’s executive director is former Presbyterian minister Marcus Grodi, who, captured the feeling and beliefs of many fellow Protestants who came into the Church in his book, Journeys Home (Queenship Publishing 1997).
"[T]he biggest thing that opened my heart to the truth of the Catholic faith was not all the apologetic arguments that convinced me of the trustworthiness of Catholic truth, but the realization that the Catholic Church, with all of her saints and sinners, was exactly what Christ had promised.
"The majority of complaints against the Catholic Church over the centuries have been aimed at the decisions and actions of bad Popes, or immoral clergy, or ignorant laity, or corrupt Catholic nobility, and the correct answer to this is, ‘But, of course! The Church is made up of wheat and tares, from the bottom to the top, sinners in need of grace! This is no reason to leave and form a new church, for any church made up of human beings is made up of sinners.’
"All true conversions to the Catholic faith from any other starting point carry with them complications, primarily because this conversion must be rooted in and thereby an extension of one’s conversion and surrender to Christ. If becoming a Catholic does not involve this, I don’t believe it is a true conversion. It might be a change of convenience or even possibly for some sort of personal gain or aggrandizement.
"But only when one recognizes or painfully discovers that to be fully a follower of Jesus Christ, and thereby have the full potential of growing in union with Him, one must also be in union with the Church He established in and through His Apostles, can one be truly converted.
"These conversions by definition must involve some extent of leaving behind and rejecting part of what a person once held very dear. Some things can be joyfully brought along, others can be cautiously tolerated, but yet there are ideas, practices, and sometimes even relationships which must be severed.
"It of course never means that we cease to love those we may need to leave behind, or who choose to turn their backs on us. In fact, we are called all the more to shower our now confused or indignant friends and family with the all-forgiving, all-accepting love of Christ. However, we must not let the emotional trajectories of our loving glances turn our attention off of the fullness of truth found only in union with the Catholic Church."
For more information about the Coming Home Network, go to its web site, www.chnetwork.org, or call 740-450-1175.
I would suggest the very opposite. They were already not doing their duty, and so Jesus made provision for John to care for her.
Ok, I think I see your general strategy. Scripture is treated as a litmus test against which you check any teaching put forward. Maybe you could answer these questions. I am not attacking you, just curious.
First, what do you use to check your understanding of what a Scriptural passage means? Is there a similar litmus test by which you scrutinize whether you are understanding a passage correctly. For example, you read "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Lk 1:43 and ask what it means. Does this mean that Mary is the Mother of God or not? One pastor says yes, another says no. What litmus test do you have for testing their respective interpretations of the passage? What litmus test do you have for testing whether what you think the word of God means really is what the word of God means?
Second, where in Scripture does it say that we are to take what our pastors say with a grain of salt? Where does it say that we are to hold them in suspicion. I see passages where it says to watch out for those teaching false doctrines, to be on guard, and I see other passages where it says to "be subject to those who are over you in the Lord" I Thess. 5:12, but it seems that Scripture clearly is presupposing that I already know the difference between these two parties--the parties who I need to be on guard from, and those who I need to subject myself to. How am I supposed to know which party is which? Please do not simply respond that I should read the word of God, figure out what it means, and then find the parties that fit the resulting criteria. For what I am seeking in the first place is a party that can help me to undestand what the word of God really means at its deepest levels. Even the word of God itself says about the writings of Paul, which we now count as the word of God: In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability." 2 Peter 3:16-17 Now I count myself as among the people who, if I am not careful, can twist the words of Scripture to my own destruction and lose the stability (which apparently, I have from some other source, namely, whoever gave me the forewarning). So, SCRIPTURE WARNS ME AGAINST MYSELF as well as against others. How am I to test both others and myself against the text, when my understanding of the words of Scripture is counted among the tings that need to be tested?
I find myself with the following vicious circle, how would you help me get out of it? The circle goes like this: In order to become an intelligent reader of the Scriptures, to grasp their deepest meaning for what they truly say, I need to be be someone who walks in the way of the Lord, is not unstable, ignorant, proud, and carrying on in works of the flesh. But in order to become someone who is stable, not ignorant, humble, and not carrying on in works of the flesh, but lives by the Spirit, I need to understand what the Scriptures really mean at their deepest level. I need to be shaped by a right reading of Scripture into the sort of person who is a disposed to find and have a right reading of the text. It is only the self-as-transformed-by-a-right-reading-of-the-Scriptures that is able to understand the Scriptures aright. So where should I begin? How can I begin? The text itself cannot get me out of the vicious circle.
Could you please answer these questions.
I don't think that can be shown from the text itself. Either way. So we have a stalemate.
(Mary not being the other children's biological mother would not, I imagine, relieve them from their duty.)
SD
1. How do we check our understanding of scripture?
2. Where does it say in scripture that our pastor's opinion is worth a grain of salt?
1. I will answer this for me. I check myself my comparing my interpretations with (a) other scripture, (b) other interpretations. If my interpretation is seriously different, then I need some clear and compelling reason for disagreeing.
2. This is the easier question. One is supposed to show respect for one's pastor. Elders are to be held in esteem. That's not to say they are infallible.....they certainly are still human. However, everything defaults to scripture.
SD
So your theology is based upon best guess and opinion? Do you believe it is possible to know the Truth rather than guess about it? Would you agree this is the reason Christ left us the Church , which scripture clearly tells us is the pillar and foundation of Truth?
If I found myself consistently teaching that catholic viewpoints were overwhelmingly the strongest, then I'd have to reconsider my denominational affiliation.
Do you ever consider the Catholic position when you are comparing opinions?
There is no way, however, that the assumption of Mary and the immaculate conception could ever approach even 50/50 in my estimation. They have a case, but it simply isn't a strong one.
As you’ve stated, this is just your opinion. And as I have stated, Christ left us the Church so you don’t have to guess about these things.
I had this bookmarked... seems like a good time to share it.
Why I Believe in the Perspicuity of the Bible
E. L. Core The Perspicuity of the Holy Bible
The Bible is “Perspicuous”: that means it is “clearly expressed or presented” and “easy to understand”.
That the Bible is clearly expressed and easy to understand is... well, it’s quite clear that the Bible is perspicuous.
And easy to understand.
Some Christians, however, actually believe the Bible is not clear and easy to understand. Yes, though it is clearly difficult to fathom, it is true: there are people who say they are Christians and yet believe the Bible is not Perspicuous. Most of them are mind-enslaved Roman Catholics, who are probably not Christians anyway, but they say they are because they don’t know any better.
For their sake, and to support the faith of true Christians, I will now clearly demonstrate the Perspicuity of the Bible.
Proof One of the Perspicuity of the Bible
The Bible itself clearly teaches the Perspicuity of the Bible:
2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
Amen! The Bible clearly teaches the Perspicuity of the Bible!
What more needs to be said to a true Christian? However, as we all know, Roman Catholics are not satisfied if you quote from the Bible. Unlike real Chrisitians, they need other proofs that really are useless, from history and the like. But they are easy to provide, so I shall do so.
Proof Two of the Perspicuity of the Bible There is no evidence whatever from the true Christians in the early centuries that they believed in the Perspicuity of the Bible. But they must have, because the Bible clearly teaches it (see Proof One). So, the wicked, evil, diabolical, satanic Roman Catholic Church obviously destroyed every shred of a trace of evidence of their belief in Biblical Perspicuity.
And that proves that.
Proof Three of the Perspicuity of the Bible Martin Luther taught the Perspicuity of the Bible. After the Bible, his word ought to be enough. But we have more than that: we have volume after volume after volume of Martin Luther’s commentary on book after book after book of the Bible. If the Bible were not Perspicuous, we would have no need of biblical commentary from Luther. Right?
Another easy proof.
Proof Four of the Perspicuity of the Bible John Calvin taught the Perspicuity of the Bible. After the Bible and Luther, his word ought to be enough. But we have more than that: we have reams of Bible commentary from John Calvin. If the Bible were not Perspicuous, we would have no need of biblical commentary from Calvin. Right?
This is a snap.
Proof Five of the Perspicuity of the Bible Martin Luther and John Calvin taught the Perspicuity of the Bible. They both wrote voluminous biblical commentaries. They each taught doctrines that no Christians had ever dreamed of before, and they disagreed on what the Bible taught about justification, Holy Communion, eternal security, and many other doctrines.
Clearly, then, the Bible is Perspicuous.
Proof Six of the Perspicuity of the Bible Many different groups prove contradictory doctrines from the Bible:
1. God is a Holy Trinity — God is not a Holy Trinity.
2. Jesus was and is truly God — Jesus was not truly God.
3. Baptism forgives sins — baptism does not forgive sins.
4. Infants should (or may) be baptized — infants may not be baptized.
5. Christ is actually received in Holy Communion — Christ is not received in Holy Communion.
6. Once Saved, Always Saved — Once Saved Not Always Saved.Et cetera — ad infinitum.
If the Bible were not Perspicuous, they could not prove contradictory doctrines from it. Right?
Conclusion: That is why I believe in the Perspicuity of the Bible. ;-)
At least you’re consistent with your use of the words I think . Actually you are not correct as it is not my opinion. The teachings on Mary are dogmas of the Catholic Church. Which BTW, is the one founded by Christ. I also notice you fail to capitalize Catholic, which shows a lack of respect on your part.
My opinion on premillennial is a valid Christian opinion since it's a topic directly addressed by scripture. It's the answer that's fuzzy.
As usual you avoided all my questions. You seem to be fleeing from the Truth and its staring right at you. I know this will be in vain but I’ll try one more time. My questions aren’t that hard.
1. Do you believe it is possible to know the Truth rather than guess about it?
2. Would you agree this is the reason Christ left us the Church , which scripture clearly tells us is the pillar and foundation of Truth?
3. Do you ever consider the Catholic position when you are comparing opinions?
Thanks
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.