December 3, 2007 6:12 AM
Evangelical to Catholic: my journey #9
[Note: this is part of a continuing series chronicling my journey from evangelicalism to Catholicism. This series is not meant to cause division, but to reveal division already there - and to spark honest discussion. As an evangelical I've heard and continue to hear lots of criticism of the Catholic church but little self-examination on the Protestant side. So if my comments seem more directed towards questioning nonCatholic believers, that is why. Please, if you are new to this discussion, realize that a lot of ground has already been covered in the comments and read through those on previous entries before rehashing old news. I am receiving a lot of feedback that this has been an eye-opening and thought-provoking series for many believers on either side. If that is the case, then I consider my call as a writer fulfilled. I can only hope that each of us is examining his/her conscience for areas of stubbornness, presumption and pride.]
Just a short thought from a conversation Tripp and I had about Martin Luther:
One of my readers suggested I read more about Martin Luther and the Reformation. What she didn't know was that Martin Luther used to be one of my heroes - right up there with Joan of Arc and Mother Teresa. Odd combo, huh?
But I think they reflect different parts of me, different parts of my journey. I loved Martin Luther for what I saw as his courage. Now I see that by finding a movement based on protest, he modeled for all his followers that when they found fault in their church they were free to move on. Tripp told me there are now 55,000 denominations in the United States alone. Not to mention home churches.
I can't believe that this was God's intention, since Jesus clearly told Peter
And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
I truly believe church unity matters. I believe that it matters that we have a Catechism which clearly explains every belief of the Catholic Church. I urge anyone who has opinions based on the Catholic Church because of what they have heard from Protestants or read in anti-Catholic writings of Protestant authors, to do the truly intelligent and open-minded thing and go to the source BEFORE arguing about what you think Catholics believe.
It's impossible to get a fair hearing from someone who asks what you think and then proceeds to tell you why you are wrong based on a false template. I frankly am offended/amused by those who think I'm suddenly stupid.
I no longer subscribe the concept of protest, which leads not only to a broken church family, but to broken families. You don't like something, you're outta here. The divorce rate among Protestants is the same as the divorce rate of the general population. Children feel free to abandon their families. What I'm seeing is that the Protestant ethic permeates our stance toward all the gifts God has given us in the inherited legacy of our church family.
Is the Church perfect? By no means. Was any leadership appointed by God in the Old Testament perfect? No. Only God is perfect, our leadership can only strive to reflect that.
What about the guilt of the church when leaders pursued/justified crimes against humanity? Is that a permanent stain that makes it okay to abandon the church God gave us? Does the fact that America once had slavery and did not allow women to vote mean I should abandon my country? No, I look to the founding principles and I see that they are godly and I know it is through those godly principles that we even recognized and overcame the wrongs wrought by ignorance.
Why do we point to the wrongs of a very tiny percentage of Catholic priests when time after time evangelical leaders have fallen in a spectacular way themselves. What about removing the mote in your own eye?
And there is another trap for Protestants: pride. Each leader thinking he’s got it all figured out. And if his interpretation of the scripture differs with some else’s, well guess who’s right? For all the railing/accusations against the concept of priests as intermediaries, it’s been very interesting to me that in trying to correct my error in turning toward Catholicism, some place themselves in the position of being intermediaries, as though I could not possibly be hearing from God myself.
Anyway, the point of this was that I no longer think of Martin Luther as a hero. I think instead of Saint Francis as portrayed in Brother Sun, Sister Moon – a follower of God who responded to the corruption of the church with humility and grace, by trying to draw closer to God and to serve others sacrificially. While Luther’s personality (he must have been an ENTJ like me!) would not take him down this path – and God’s plan for someone with his kind of gifts would obviously produce a different model than St. Francis’s – I think he should have stayed within the church to do his work of reformation. As I understand it, the church corrected 91 of his 95 Theses.
But his legacy is division, division and more division. Spending LOTS of time focusing on what sets each Christian belief system apart from others and defending that belief system when anyone steps out of line. This process has revealed things to me that I never saw before about my evangelical faith. I can’t imagine that this is what God wanted for his holy church.
Posted in Evangelical to Catholic, My life | Permalink
Comments
Barbara,
It is my understanding that Martin Luther did not leave the church under protest, but that he went to church leadership with problems that he saw within the church's teaching and he was excommunicated.
Is my understanding incorrect?
Reading, thinking, and praying,
Kathy
Posted by: Kathy | December 3, 2007 7:57 AM
"...some place themselves in the position of being intermediaries, as though I could not possibly be hearing from God myself."
This is so true. I have never thought of the Catholic church in such a positive light, and I am so thankful for your eye-opening posts (I hesitate to say "mind" opening, because I wouldn't want people accusing me of the broad road ;-).
The church we left was much like the cultish church you left, and they were so anti-catholic I think the pastor preached on it every Sunday. But of course I was a woman and even the men were only men, so it didn't matter that we came to different Biblical conclusions. The pastor was the only one who knew the *truth* (and acted as our intermediary when it came to interpretation). Of course they don't see themselves in this way. It's just a little bit of pride grown way too big.
I am very pleased where God has placed us after such a long and drawn out learning experience we went through at that unhealthy church. Our home church is a "Covenant" church, which began in Sweden, and seems more popular here in the West (CA & AZ & WA). But their affirmations state that they are intent on focusing on our common ground- the great Commission and Callings from Jesus like Matthew 25: 33-46. Without a Head church that decides how scripture is to be interpreted (as in Catholicism), pastors have to give up the right of thinking they are the only ones who can interpret the Bible correctly. Otherwise they step into acting as an intermediary, which is what you mentioned.
I'm not anti any church if God is the Head, and He is obviously moving and working and renewing His people. God can even work in unhealthy churches like the one I was in, when the members are willing to listen and follow.
Posted by: bonnie | December 3, 2007 10:57 AM
We have to be so, so careful talking about the Reformation because it was not only a theological movement. In fact, some would argue that it wasn't even primarily a theological movement, and the more I learn, the more I agree. It was heavily, deeply political, fueled by secular leaders' resentment against Rome - the German princes, in particular, saw the opportunity afforded them by Luther and grabbed it, using it to their own advantage to affect separation from Rome - to set up their own churches, by the way. Which is another factor that makes talking about the Reformation so tricky. We associate it with "freedom of conscience" but in fact it was no such thing. It was about the establishing of other state churches to replace the old state churches. If you were in Lutheran territory or Calvinist territory or Anglican territory, you didn't have the "freedom" to be anything else but what the leader of that area determined all churches should be.
Posted by: Elaine | December 3, 2007 10:57 AM
Since you mentioned Luther I wanted to add that the Church has canonized many Saints (not just St Francis) who were considered in rebellion in their time, because they worked to change corruption within the Church. When the Church suffers God raises great Saints.
I believe JPII was one of the great Saints that God raised to counter the difficulties that occurred after Vatican II. Because of his efforts there were millions upon millions of converts, especially amongst the youth because of his outreach to them. His encyclicals are (IMHO) amongst the greatest Christian writings ever written and I can totally see him being put on the same level as St Augustine or Thomas Aquinas 100 years from now when his works are more widely read.
I had investigated Eastern Orthodoxy for a while and in doing so learned a lot more about Catholicism as well as Orthodoxy. I struggled to decide which path to pursue, and I have to say I have absolutely nothing negative to say about Orthodoxy but research into that faith helped clarify for me why God led me to Catholicism. There are many differences but I am comforted by the many similarities between the two faiths. Despite the many years of separation I can see that God is protecting both of our faiths through Apostolic Succession. We still center our faiths around the Sacraments just like Christ originally intended.
Posted by: Paigeu | December 3, 2007 6:41 PM
In 1520, Pope Leo X excommunicated Martin Luther. An excommunication arrives like a summons: an official document delivered personally into the hands of the recipient. From that moment on, the one excommunicated is outside the Church. No Christian is to share bread with him. He may not attend Mass and may not confess his sins. Should he die, he may not be buried in consecrated ground.
Posted by: Marie | December 3, 2007 11:15 PM
Of course Marie, if someone has chosen to remain excommunicated they probably couldn't care less if they were buried in a Catholic cemetery or not!
Here is the actual wording from the official Catechism of the Catholic Church. Please note that before death, there most certainly is the opportunity for confession and the lifting of excommunication if the person chooses it.
1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.69
Posted by: Elena | December 4, 2007 9:17 AM
Barbara,
A passage from Andrew Greeley's Why Catholic quoted in William Buckley's Nearer, My God:
The reader can make up his own litany of injuries the Catholic Church has done to him. I do not care how horrendous that litany may be, it does not provide a valid excuse for disengaging from the Catholic Christian heritage. Indeed, it is irrelevant. I attempt no justification and offer no excuse for what the Church may have done to you: I simply assert that the failures of Christians and the failures of Christian leadership have nothing to do with the validity of the Catholic Christian heritage. If you use those failures as an excuse for not facing the essential religious demands of the Catholic Christian heritage, you are engaged in an intellectually dishonest cop-out. The question is not whether the Catholic leadership is enlightened but whether Catholicism is true. A whole College of Cardinals filled with psychopathic tyrants provides no answer one way or another to that question. Search for the perfect church if you will; when you find it, join it, and realize that on that day it becomes something less than perfect.
Thought you might like this. I am inspired by your story and look forward to reading more.
Peace of Christ,
Angela
Posted by: Angela | December 4, 2007 11:27 PM
In 1520, Pope Leo X excommunicated Martin Luther. An excommunication arrives like a summons: an official document delivered personally into the hands of the recipient. From that moment on, the one excommunicated is outside the Church.
Actually, Luther was given 60 days to recant before the excommunication was valid.
And no, Kathy, Luther didn't bring up concerns and was immediately excommunicated. Luther brought up concerns, they were discussed, they came to resolutions, Luther brought up more issues, they were discussed some more, and so on . . .
Eventually, after a lot of back and forth, and after Luther was given several chances to reconcile, 41 of his points were condemned and he was excommunicated . . . if he didn't recant within 60 days.
Even after that, the Diet of Worms was held, where he was given one more, one last chance, and he held tight there, and so he was excommunicated.
Luther is not a simple subject. It covers not only religion, but lots of politics, Luther's personality, and many other aspects.
Posted by: Kelly | December 5, 2007 7:45 PM
