The Touchstone Evangelical

Ruminating on Touchstone’s difficulty in appealing to certain kinds of Evangelical, a long-time friend of the magazine reminded the editors about a group that is dissatisfied with where Evangelicalism is going, but nervous about anything smacking too much of Catholicism. We agreed, I think, that the cure for this is in simply reading the magazine, not because we tend to avoid publishing much on disputed subjects (we have never viewed reconciliation on these matters, at least by direct argumentation, as part of our mission), but because the fundamental question troubling these traditional Evangelicals—whether Catholics, especially perhaps the unapologetically Catholic Catholics such as write for Touchstone, can be heard as Christians—will very likely be answered in the reading.  I expect there to come a point at which this kind of reader either abandons us, deciding there is some subtle deceit at work here, or remains, feeling it absurd for him to question the Christianity of at least “this kind of Catholic.”

The conservative Evangelical church of my youth, full of converts from Catholicism, tried for years to convince me that Catholics would go to hell if we did not convert them because they believed they could buy their way into heaven with good works and didn't believe in being born again.  But I lived in a pre-Vatican II Catholic neighborhood, had many Catholic friends--most of them girls who were interested in converting me, too--and intuited there was something wrong with what my church was trying to teach me here long before I could articulate the reasons. 

Fundamentally what I noticed was that the Catholics I knew were like the Baptists I knew, rather than the caricatures and worst-cases I was given by my ministers (and my Catholics friends were evidently given by some of their priests and nuns) who occasionally seemed at war with a Bible which, to its everlasting credit, my church made sure even its children knew very well.

There were some Catholics in whom Charity dwelt, and whose confession, which included their manner of life, was the same as the holy ones among the Baptists. The language they used was often very different; the faith seemed the same.  Their devotion to Mary seemed reasonable and proportionate--they made it very clear to me that they did not "worship" her as they did Jesus and God the Father--and did not distort their devotion to the Lord, whom they seemed to treat with more respect than we did.  Which was worse, I wondered: being somewhat afraid of the Lord, as the Catholics seemed to be, or treating him as your “buddy,” as we were encouraged to do? I saw Jesus pretty much as I saw my father. While I was confident of his love, he was certainly not my chum. He was a friend, but not of that sort, for a friend and The Friend seemed to me categorically different. Old buddies are not terrors to evil deeds. Jesus and my father, however, were. I had no criticisms of the Catholics on that account, whereas my church, where salvation was not recognized apart from the profession of friendly or even quasi-romantic intimacy with Jesus, did.

The few Catholic fanatics I encountered, including the Marian ones, looked very much like Protestant fanatics I knew--just with different objects for their fanaticism. A lot of the Catholic nuts clustered around Mary just like the Protestant nuts (in my church, anyway) clustered around end-times prophecy—but a nut is a nut, wherever you find him.  The Catholics who hated Protestants suffered from the same personality flaws as their Protestant counterparts.  As far as earning their salvation by good works was concerned, I knew no official Catholic doctrine, but did notice that Catholic legalists and bean-counters, who really thought they could, were the kind of people who you would expect to: either obsessive types or people who relied on their baptisms for salvation because they preferred this to walking with God.  They were a lot like the Baptists who thought their souls were eternally secure because at some time in their lives a preacher got them whupped up enough to get saved.  Neither of them seemed to be trusting in the God of the Bible, who clearly was not the kind of salvation machine they took him for. 

When I got a little older, my curiosity about why priests and ministers said what they did to keep us apart—and here I am talking men with orthodox sensibilities and dutiful, soldierly hearts—led to the belief, which I retain, that they belonged to religious parties that demanded it of them as a condition of belonging, and hence of their lives, livelihoods, and personal identities. Strong allegiance to, strong, if not avowed, personal investment in these parties, was secured when the clerics were young and relatively inexperienced men. When more mature reflection brought them not to denials of its basic faith or practice, but doubt of the distinctive party—the “denominational”--line, a deep melancholy, if not cynicism and a crisis of faith, often claimed them in their later years.

The divisive preaching and teaching, the deliberate ignorance and lack of sympathy, was a sign first of the dogmatism of youth, or perhaps of the convert reveling in the convert’s exultations, but later of a growing insecurity that sought to deny itself by beating back steadily encroaching doubt. Party activity toward this end intensified in mid-career, and thus came to mark the largest part of an orthodox clerical life which refused to collapse into easy liberalism on one hand, but on the other was forbidden by a church that still retained the truth of the faith to step outside the walls it had built on its own initiative to enhance and defend it. In this way the life of a faithful, orthodox presbyter became that of not only of a defender of the Christian faith against heresy and error, but at the same time, against his deeper will and desire, the life of a sectarian bigot creating other sectarian bigots in his image.

Although I knew none of this as a boy, I did recognize that the effect of this kind of clerical life was to separate us from Christian friends on what seemed to me dubious and insufficient grounds, even though I recognized, as I still do, that the kind of separation that was urged is under certain conditions good, necessary, and demanded by the Lord and his apostles. For this reason there are members of the Catholic and Protestant parties with whom I (by default, a Protestant) cannot maintain ecumenical relationships. This very separation, however, has thrown me into the company of people like the Touchstone Catholics.  I think it possible a good many Evangelicals, aroused in the course of their own tribal wars, may find the same happening to them. 

 

Comments

[Doug Smith]

I am an Evangelical of the variety that is often critisized in Touchstone, but I also have had the opportunity to fellowship and even minister with people from many differrent denominations. I enjoy the straight talk about matters we disagree on while still being able to affirm that what we share in common. Many of the critiques of our movment that I have seen posted on this site are true, and therefore valuable. I feel quite certain we are ultimately on the same side.

[James A. Altena]

Bravo, Dr. Hutchens!

[Bill R]

"I think it possible a good many Evangelicals, aroused in the course of their own tribal wars, may find the same happening to them."

(Hand raised.) What you relate here, Steve, is very nearly my own story as well. What has preserved me, so to speak, is the avoidance of "party," and a willingness to listen to those with whom I'm inclined to disagree. I've rarely found a Christian (of any tradition) who cannot point to some Biblical passage, or to some strong historical support, for any party issue. But it is the insistence that this point be the litmus test of the "true faith" that causes me to pause and reflect. The point of my reflection is usually: do I sense that the professed Christian against whom the polemicist speaks is nevertheless one of His? If, given the benefit of the doubt (which I hope is also extended to me), I think it is possible, then I question the party line, not the faith of the person spoken against. I hear a voice in the back of my head saying: "What is that to you? Follow me." (John 21:22)

[The Rev'd Michael Philliber]

SMH wrote: "The few Catholic fanatics I encountered, including the Marian ones, looked very much like Protestant fanatics I knew-- [...]with different objects for their fanaticism.[...] —but a nut is a nut, wherever you find him."

My nutty Protestant reply: ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! ho ho ho ho ha ha ha ho ho ha ha! I know those nuts...I might even be one! ha ha ha ha! Thanks for the tear-creating laugh!

[Pr. Dave Poedel]

I was a child during the 50's and very Roman Catholic. I flirted with Opus Dei while attending parochial school, made frequent retreats, and knew at age 7 I was called to the pastoral ministry. I managed to remain faithfully Roman Catholic through Vatican II, and was convinced by my role model priests that my sense of Call was better to be ignored. The sacrifice was not worth it while the Church was changing, by which they meant that the celibacy would soon go away and I could fulfil my vocation as both priest and spouse/parent.

Now, as an Evangelical Catholic (LCMS Lutheran) pastor, I enjoy the vocation of my youth and marriage, parenting and grandparenting.

The longer I serve the Church, the more I realize that we Lutherans have become the Catholics of my youth, Rome is largely drifting with all of the appearances of old and Evangelicals are trying to reconnect with the Church of the Fathers.

I figure if we Evangelical Catholic types just stay where we are, we will be come the center where both Roman and Protestant paries will converge.

Hey, stranger things have happened.

[Mairnéalach]

For this evangelical catholic, the turning point came when I realized that anytime a fellow protestant invoked "sola scriptura", they actually meant "sola my tradition's preferred approach to the scripture".

[David Gray]

>the turning point came when I realized that anytime a fellow protestant invoked "sola scriptura", they actually meant "sola my tradition's preferred approach to the scripture".

You're asserting that everyone who asserts that means what you said?

[robert p]

When I hear someone saying "sola scriptura" I take it to mean,
a) MY narrow interpretation of Scripture is the correct and only one
b) MY faith is in a book and my reading thereof, not in the grace of God, the testimony of the saints, or the presence of the Holy Spirit
c) MY worldview is contorted to fit a particular narrow interpretation of Scripture. Ecclesiology, history, biology, physics, psychology must not allow annoying facts and evidence to moderate MY interpretation of Scripture.

[Bill R]

"When I hear someone saying "sola scriptura" I take it to mean,
a) MY narrow interpretation of Scripture is the correct and only one
b) MY faith is in a book and my reading thereof, not in the grace of God, the testimony of the saints, or the presence of the Holy Spirit
c) MY worldview is contorted to fit a particular narrow interpretation of Scripture. Ecclesiology, history, biology, physics, psychology must not allow annoying facts and evidence to moderate MY interpretation of Scripture."

Robert, may I respectfully submit that you're engaging in the very stereotypes that SMH has asked us to overcome in looking at other Christians? What you take sola Scriptura to mean is not, in fact, what intelligent evangelicals believe it means. I don't doubt that some have such a mistaken understanding. That doesn't relieve you from perpetrating such misunderstandings yourself.

[David Gray]

>What you take sola Scriptura to mean is not, in fact, what intelligent evangelicals believe it means.

Actually I don't think I've ever met an evangelical who believes it means what "Robert P." said.

[robert p]

Sorry for the stereotyping, I do not live in a scholarly environment like the writers here, and am frustrated by the common misconceptions of the average evangelical that I meet weekly at Church. I am evangelical also, but have a subversive habit of reading beyond the "approved" Christian media.

[David Gray]

>I am evangelical also, but have a subversive habit of reading beyond the "approved" Christian media.

Don't wrench your shoulder patting yourself on the back.

[robert p]

After re-reading the article I am reminded that despite my frustration, these are good folk trying their best to be faithful to the Lord.

[robert p]

Hi David, I take it your are frightened by my masculine display of intellectual prowess, not to mention enormous pectoral muscles ;o)

I was not back-patting, just venting

[Mairnéalach]

David and Bill:

I do not like it any more than you do, but it is a fact: most evangelicals understand "sola scriptura" as a mere device with which to reinforce their own particular views on scripture. I know some smart ones who don't, but frankly, their impact is not being felt. It is an intellectual scandal.

Robust ecumenism demands that we be able to criticize our own communions frankly and honestly. If I were a Roman or Orthodox Christian making these comments, it would go against the spirit of Mr. Hutchens' comments; as it stands, I think it is in accord with them.

[James A. Altena]

"Actually I don't think I've ever met an evangelical who believes it means what "Robert P." said."

Of course no evangelicals consciously think this. The issue is whether that is in fact how they actually think, whether they are consciously aware of it or not. While it would be grossly unfair to tag all evangelicals in this manner, the fact is that there are plenty who do operate in precisely this fashion -- just as there are plenty of RCs, Orthodox, Anglicans, and even confessional Protestants who mindlesslly assert their own private prejudices and habits as being the Tradition.

I knew one evangelical who, when any point of Scriptural interpretation was brought up, would routinely open his response with: "The way *I* read the Bible, *I* . . ." It never occurred to him that one was *not* supposed to have one's own way of reading the Bible.

On another occasion, an evangelical aggressively asserted his adherence to "sola scriptura" to me. When I suggested that his understanding of Scripture might profit from reading the Fathers, he practically spat his response in my face: "*I* don't need the fathers! *I've* got the Bible!"

And then there is the bumper sticker I've frequently seen: "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." Note that it takes "*I* believe it" to "settle" it.

Such instances could easily be multiplied, and with counter-examples on the other side of the fence as well for RCs, EOs, etc..

So Robert P. and Mairnealach are not just engaging in hyperbole. With all due respect to my good friend Bill R., this is a stereotype that has a substantial grounding in fact.

[David Gray]

>So Robert P. and Mairnealach are not just engaging in hyperbole. With all due respect to my good friend Bill R., this is a stereotype that has a substantial grounding in fact.

They certainly are engaged in hyperbole as your own statements makes clear. Generally stereotypes all have some grounding in fact. Some stereotypes make us more displeased than others. There is some basis for their hyperbole but it remains hyperbole. You are wisely more circumspect in your statements.

[Mairnéalach]

This kind of thing inspires me to add Lee Podles to my Christmas card list.

[Finrod]

I do not know, but do suspect, that the acrimonious tone in some of the comments must pain or at least frustrate Dr Hutchens, who here has written what I believe to be one of the most profitable, tender,and irenic posts I've yet to read in three+ years of surfing.

We need grace in the real, physical world we inhabit and in the pseudo, cyber world we imagine. I am not suggesting that we should all simply learn to "play nice," but that we should try to treat one another with respect and love.

As Tolkien (a Catholic, which I am not) said, the enemy laughs when we fight amongst ourselves.

[Don]

I couldn't agree more with you that there are Catholic and Protestant congregations in which the Holy Spirit is active, and believers are clearly engaged in worship and prayer and the Word of God. I left each of these with new brothers/sisters in Christ. We've all probably also been in Catholic/Protestant churches where a lot of religiosity was going on, but the Holy Spirit was no where to be found.

At the risk of hijacking your post, Doc, I've always wondered something: Was Paul's cry for Christian unity in the opening page of his first letter to the Cornithians a nod to the brewing conflict between "followers of Peter, Paul and Apollos?" Is this something to which we should pay attention today? Just guessing, but is the "Church of Peter" the nascent Roman Catholic church, Paul the Orthodox church, etc (no idea about Apollos), and we're still wrestling as Paul did with these divisions?

If that's the case, Paul's admonishment is probably apropos for Christians today: Christ is the head of the Church, and the Holy Spirit works in us to bind the Body in fellowship.

Is it too simplistic to say Christians can enjoy our inter-varsity wrestling matches, but our divisions are overcome when our main focus is on Christ and Him crucified?

[Bill R]

James, my friend, I acknowledged that some evangelicals share the misunderstanding of sola Scriptura that Robert (and you) outlined. But this post by Dr. Hutchens is not on that topic; indeed, the post is not meant to invite criticisms of fellow Christians or their beliefs, but rather to show how we come to acknowledge the genuineness of Christian faith in those outside our own particular camps. So I leave sola Scriptura to one side (I know we'll return to the subject), and ask one and all to re-read Dr. Hutchens' post. The better question for many of us to address is: why are we often so anxious to read others out of the church for their failure to share our own perspective when they acknowledge a common Lord and Savior?

[Grace]

I'm inclined to hope that we will all, one day, be united in one Church. I've left the ELCA of my youth (angry over its inability to stand up to the culture) to go, with my husband, to an evangelical (albeit still mainline), Bible-teaching Presbyterian church, and now miss the beauty of the liturgy. A bit ironic, since it took a much more biblically-oriented church to make me appreciate the beauties of Lutheranism. Touchstone has been inexpressibly valuable to me in articulating classical, real, Christianity as I raise children, lead an ecumenical prayer group, and otherwise interact with those around me.

[smh]

Alas, so often the heretics whom we, in caring for the Lord's flock, are commanded to rebuke and put down, claim the protection of being fellow believers who worship the same Lord, and to whom we therefore owe fraternal kindness--that is, we are obliged for charity's sake to allow them to continue teaching their doctrines unhindered. This we cannot do: they must be treated as wolves, for the fundamental problem with the heretic is always, ultimately, a faulty Christology: he does not "worship the same Lord."

The question in which Touchstone has begun its work by answering, "not necessarily," is whether we are dealing with that kind of situation in dealing with each other.

[Pr. Dave Poedel]

Grace:

There are LCMS parishes out there that are most Biblical and Liturgical. While some have become Willow Creek wannabe's, there is a healthy respect for Tradition and Scripture in many of our congregations.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Bill,

I quite agree. But since Dr. Hutchens' post did use Evangelicals as the primary example (since he came from associated ranks), and sola scriptura came up in relation to it, I thought I would address it -- and as David Gray most graciously noted, in so doing I deliberately sought to restore some balance by making it clear (as did Dr. Hutchens) that a comparable phenomenon exists throughout the Christian spectrum -- just in different modes of expression.

I think where the citation of sola scriptura is relevant is that -- per the implication in both Dr. Hutchens' original and follow-up posts -- many (not just some) evangelicals have used subscription to it as their criterion for whether someone else is or is not a "true" Christian. On the other side of the spectrum are similar litmus tests -- fidelity to the Magisterium for certain RCs, veneration of ikons or adherence to particular canons for certain EOs, adherence to every jot and tittle of Confession X for certain classical Protestants -- and of course observance of every nuance of Fortescue and Emily Post for certain Anglicans. [:-)] The common thread behind all these is the refusal (or inability) to concede that intelligent, educated, principled, and conscientious people can honestly err; instead, they are written off as ignorant, stupid, dishonest, or evil.

At the other pole is the backlash against such judgmentalism -- the laxists who say that doctrine doesn't matter, and that you just have to have some (vague and undefined) belief in Jesus, etc. Here one witnesses the abandonment of the necessary office of discernment, and of self-discipline and self-denial in willingness to forfeit worldly acceptance by standing up for truth as important. If the former error wrongly seeks to judge persons, the latter error wrongly fails to judge truth from falsehood, right from wrong.

I presume that all of us here are endeavoring here to walk the narrow middle path between Schylla and Charybdis -- to defend doctrine as important without becoming so rigid as to think that salvation occurs by right doctrine rather than faith and grace; to practice charity without becoming so flaccid as to think that right doctrine and conduct has no relation to working out our own salvation with fear and trembling; and to have the wisdom rightly to distinguish the essentials from the non-essentials, rather than erecting idols to the one side or the other. Our disagreements over sola scriptura and other such issues then can be conducted in humility as debates to mutual edification, rather than as battles for self-justification.

[David Gray]

One problem is that most evangelicals don't understand how the reformers understood sola scriptura. As a consequence many of them wind up with a understanding that has, at best, a tenuous relationship to the reformational understanding of sola scriptura. Part of the difficulty lies (and SMH hit on this) in the attitude that ensuring that you are not Roman Catholic in practice is more important than being faithful, or at least the two are viewed as being nearly synonymous. Despite the bitterness of the Reformation there was an immense ammount of common ground between Rome and the reformers. In certain respects many of the confessions and catechisms tended to focus more on the areas where there were differences. Consequently these areas received less than their due oftentimes down the road and people assumed common ground with Rome to be bad ground. How else do you explain the change in ecclesiology that we see? The Westminster Confession spends less time on it than many issues but we still see the statement:

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Now to a large number of evangelicals that sounds very Roman Catholic. And it isn't because modern evangelicals are more committed to sola scriptura than were those who authored the WCF. Rather they have cut themselves loose from their patrimony, both church fathers and reformers, and consequently drift with the tides. These folk aren't to be despised, particularly those who are laymen, but are to be encouraged and called back to a richer understanding of church and scripture which a true understanding of sola scriptura requires.

[Bill R]

James Altena and David Gray--very well put. No disagreement here.

I am, however, puzzled by SMH's comment about "faulty Christology," which I did not see to be the issue here. I assumed by his original post that he was calling the orthodox (not the heretical) out of their crabbed little closets set off from the great hall of Mere Christianity (to run with Lewis's illustration)--end-times prophecy, hyper-Marianism, etc.--to see that those they may have feared or villified by false stereotypes may nevertheless be true Christians.

[Puzzled]

The LC-MS does have congregations with beautiful, ancient, (ad orientum, even) Divine Service. But will there be an LCMS in 15 years? It seems divided between those who see the BoC as "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" and those who don't hold all that much by the first one.

[James A. Altena]

Excellent post, David.

Dear Bill,

I think that SMH's mention of "faulty Christology" was swtiching tracks, away from his original philippic against the hard-line polemicists to what I noted in my post about the laxists as the corresponding heretical counter-reaction.

[Tony Esolen]

Here's one Touchstone Catholic who thanks God every day for the support and encouragement and, occasionally, friendly fisticuffs of Touchstone Evangelicals and Touchstone Anglicans and Touchstone Orthodox and all others who visit here, who confess Christ, and Him crucified.

Last year somebody asked me to scrutinize some difficult orthography in a Renaissance manuscript, written in English by an Irish Dominican priest, on the subject of justification. Gosh, I wish I still had that text; I was too busy to copy it, and maybe that would have been illegal, anyway. The point is, you could hardly distinguish Father's theology, which followed Thomas very closely in the matter of predestination and the relationship between the divine will and human will, from Calvin's; the distinction WAS there to be made, and it was crucial, but Thomism, like Calvinism, is a whole universe away from Pelagianism or Semipelagianism. Would that the typical Catholic could get through his head what Trent really says about our ability, outside of grace, to do anything but sin! Similarly, if people in the Reformed tradition read Calvin, they'd stop acting as if the Church were a kind of nice add-on, as if sola scriptura could mean, as a matter of practical Christianity, anything outside the teaching authority of the church. Calvin insisted upon that authority, as I remember; and the radical Protestant left gave him cause.

[David Gray]

>Similarly, if people in the Reformed tradition read Calvin, they'd stop acting as if the Church were a kind of nice add-on, as if sola scriptura could mean, as a matter of practical Christianity, anything outside the teaching authority of the church.

Amen. I suspect Calvin would have immense difficulties with many self-described Calvinists.

[Bill R]

"Amen. I suspect Calvin would have immense difficulties with many self-described Calvinists."

Amen and amen, David and Tony. Off-line GL and I have discussed how close Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange is to Calvin on election and sovereignity. Are there differences? Of course--but you really have to dig to find them. Calvin and Luther were immersed in the Fathers, and saw themselves renewing, not defying, tradition, as least if tradition is the church seeking to understand the Scriptures in community, which is what I believe to be one acceptable contemporary Roman Catholic definition.

[coco]

It's such a contentious issue that hyperbole and tempers are both likely to flare. believers with divergent opinions here are likely to say "how could ("they") be so stupid??".

How do we sort this one out, guys?

Not that I don't think the Good Lord has it in hand...

[coco]

Woops. That comment was added to an old version of the thread where it might have been seen in context. Hyperbole etc. Apoogies.

[GL]

Similarly, if people in the Reformed tradition read Calvin, they'd stop acting as if the Church were a kind of nice add-on, as if sola scriptura could mean, as a matter of practical Christianity, anything outside the teaching authority of the church. Calvin insisted upon that authority, as I remember; and the radical Protestant left gave him cause.

Calvin and Luther would be apalled at the current state of Protestantism. The current state of Protestantism is often used by Catholics to condemn the Reformation and wag their heads knowingly. However, the Catholic Church has its own very serious problems, which Tony Esolen and Lee Podles honestly expose. My Orthodox friends also look at the present state of Orthodoxy and shake their heads. The early Church fathers would be as apalled with Catholicsm and Orthodoxy as Calvin and Luther would be with Protestantism.

The fact is that men have corrupted all Christian traditions, just a men are wont to do with anything we touch. What brings us all together as Touchstone Evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox is our shared concern over this corruption and our shared commitment to the orthodoxy of Mere Christianity. While we each seek to remain true to orthodoxy within the peculiar tradition in which we worship God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in what matters most, we have much more in common with each other than we do with those within our own sects who have corrupted and are corrupting the essentials of our common Faith.

And the sad fact is that, if the Lord tarries and Touchstone is still being published 100 years from now, it is highly likely that none of us would want anything to do with it. For by then, it too will have lost its way and a new group of Mere Christians will be voices crying in the wilderness calling it and all who deny the essentials of orthodoxy to repent and return to the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

[Brian John Schuettler]

Amen to all the above comments in regard to Luther and Calvin being misunderstood or misread by so many, both Catholic and Protestant. As a Catholic who is doing research for a book about the Reformation period, especially in light of the doctrinal and philosophical antecedents of 16th Century events, I am literaly stunned by the subtle reality of Luther's articulation of legitimate Catholic theological thought as being within the context of the development of Christian doctrine. As noted above, he was steeped in the writings of the Church Fathers, specifically Augustine, and was heavily influenced by Barnard of Clairvaux. I firmly believe that if we study these men within the historical context of their pivotal times we can all come to appreciate, as followers of Christ, how little originally divided us.

[LMR]

Your recent comments regarding Catholic and Protestants has been a breath of fresh air to me.
I too have been drawn accidently to the Touchstone magazine. I am Catholic, but have always felt so at home within the Protestant church. I have always mourned this because I seem to fit in both, and yet was ridiculed for this. I feel better knowing others have felt the same struggle. I do love the liturgical way of worship, but I also love the worship in the Protestant church. I have seen extremes in both churches which I have found very uncomfortable. I see Christ and his people in both churches.

[Matt]

Something that will be pulled the moderator in minutes :) (Due to it hitting too close to home)

Here is a challenge--

--Does Dr. Russ Moore of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary(where he is Dean of the School of Theology)believe that good Catholics(in the Catholic sense of the word good) go to heaven(by remaining faithful Catholics)???

I doubt this and know that this is NOT what is taught at his School of Theology. And if he does believe this, why not share this publicly/privately with his faculty? If anyone thinks the Dr. R. Albert Mohler hired someone who thinks Catholics can be saved(as Catholics) to run his Theology Dept, then he has got another thing coming....

The Gauntlet has been thrown down so to speak. Let the light shine in the darker places.

Sincerely,

Matt

[David Gray]

>Does Dr. Russ Moore of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary(where he is Dean of the School of Theology)believe that good Catholics(in the Catholic sense of the word good) go to heaven(by remaining faithful Catholics)???

Well I don't go to heaven by remaining a "faithful" Presbyterian but rather by trusting and abiding in the finished work of Christ. One of the ways I do this is by putting myself (or remaining) under the authority of Christ's church, where I find it most rightly ordered as I understand it with God's grace. People here will vary in their judgement as to where that rightly is.

[dirk van glabeke]

I don't want to detract you from this discussion but, just a question from an interested outsider: what are >Mere Christians<
it s a term completely alien to me

[Anonymous]

The term 'mere Christians' comes from the title of one of CS Lewis' books, 'Mere Christianity.'

[Judy Warner]

Dirk, Mere Christianity does more to explain Christianity in understandable language than practically anything ever written. It has the great benefit of explaining Christianity as well to non-Christians as to Christians, not assuming prior knowledge.

[Judy Warner]

Dirk, Mere Christianity does more to explain Christianity in understandable language than practically anything ever written. It has the great benefit of explaining Christianity as well to non-Christians as to Christians, not assuming prior knowledge.

[dirk van glabeke]

thanks,
I also found an entry in wikipedia which links the posts of anonymous and Judy

I must say that the discussions and concerns on this forum are far removed from my catholic european background

[Judy Warner]

That's very interesting, Dirk. Can you expand on that?

[James A. Altena]

Dear Matt,

Obviously your comment was not pulled. The moderators of this site are quite free about allowing controversy to run, so long as it doesn't descend into ad hominem invective or obscenity. The very question you raise came up (in a slightly different form) a few months ago in a previous blog. Try searching this site using "Moore" "Mohler" and "Sproul" as search terms.

I won't presume to speak for either Moore or Mohler. (It would be best if they spoke for themselves here, and I hope that they will.) But as a general rule, folks on that end of the hard-line anti-RC end of the Protestant spectrum distinguish Rome as a "false" church in an institutional sense from all those who are within it as members, and to hold that in God's mysterious Providence some RCs (even "good" ones in Rome's sense) are saved. Obviously this depends on a highly individualistic outlook that has a decidedly diminished sense of the Church.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>My Orthodox friends also look at the present state of Orthodoxy and shake their heads.<<<

Alexander Schmemann's lament, "The right Church with the wrong people" could probably apply to just about any Christian confession.

[Tony Esolen]

I believe -- but I could be wrong -- that my colleague Dr. Moore would agree with Norman Geisler on this issue, and say that the Catholic Church is a true church that teaches some false doctrine, rather than that it is a false church that teaches some true doctrine. And Geisler is by no means lenient with the Roman Catholic church.

Exactly what Dr. Mohler (who apparently is regaining his health, after a very scary episode in the hospital, God be praised) believes, right now, about the Catholic Church is not clear to me. He did write a piece a few years ago, published in Touchstone as part of a symposium on our denominational differences, that was pretty blunt, but he was taken to task for it, too, by our editor, David Mills. Since then it seems he has drawn much closer to the Touchstone project, and we count him among our friends. Or so at least this Roman Catholic does. I suspect that there remains considerable room for rapprochement, and cosiderable hope for it, too, because what I see in Dr. Mohler is a man committed to understanding and preaching the person and divinity of Christ. If he sees the same in a few prominent Roman Catholics, then there's hope that we'll sort out what each of us really does believe from what we really don't believe, and that goes a long way toward true comradeship in the fight before us.

[Bill R]

"Since then it seems he has drawn much closer to the Touchstone project, and we count him among our friends."

I read Dr. Mohler's blog faithfully, and I think you are right, Tony. We rarely say much in favor of our modern age, but I do give credit where due: the wonderful state of communications and travel today go a long way to prevent many of the misunderstandings that arose in earlier times, such as the Reformation. Would that the 16th century had blogs! ;-)

Do pray for Dr. Mohler: all faithful Christians benefit from his witness.

[David Palmer]

I thought the exchange between Mohler and Mills was great. As a conservative Presbyterian I was right with Mohler, but admired Mill's response, though I question whether he really took Mohler to task.

I think there are intractable differences between Catholicism and Reformed theology over things like justification, the doctrine of the Mass, Mariology that will not be sorted out this side of glory.

What we can do is love one another and learn from one another in the types of things that appear in Touchstone. I always read what Tony and David have to say with great interest.

I also have experienced the benefit of working with conservative (true) Catholic and Orthodox colleagues/friends/brothers and sisters in Christ who I value greatly in presenting common positions on ethical issues to Governments and their agencies. And yes we can and do pray together as well as affirm the Nicene Creed together. Thank you Jesus.

[Matt]

David G wrote--"Well I don't go to heaven by remaining a "faithful" Presbyterian but rather by trusting and abiding in the finished work of Christ".

David G, I think you may have misunderstood me.

Of course I didn't mean to suggest that simply because someone was a faithful X or Y type of Christian that they would be saved.

The point I was trying to make was one of the ones made by JI Packer in his "Why I Signed It" article in CT regarding his signing the agreement Evangelicals and Catholics Together(ECT.) I am wondering, questioning whether or not Russ Moore would consider me as someone he needs to share the Gospel with/evangelize if I am(or am trying to be :) a good Catholic(following the teachings of my mother Church). Certainly he would try and correct my thinking on some "minor points", but would he also try and get me "saved"?

This argument, of course, has larger ramifications for missionary work in developing nations that are often Catholic. Are Russ Moore's students taught that they need to evangelize practicing Catholics? If so, why?

Dr Esolen-

Thanks be to God that Dr. Mohler is recovering. I wish him a speedy recovery and will pray for him.

Regarding Mohler and RCs--someone can perhaps correct me, but I seem to remember Al Mohler on Larry King a few years ago explaining that since the Pope did not hold to the correct or real or saving Gospel, he would not be saved. What applies to the Pope should apply to the rest of us RC's as well.

In this light I can't see Mohler and Geisler together with the true church/false doctrines unless one of the doctrines the RC church gets wrong is the Gospel itself. :)

I await Dr. Moore's reply.

Sincerely,

Matt

P.S. If anyone has a link to JI Packer's "Why I Signed It", could they post it?

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>I must say that the discussions and concerns on this forum are far removed from my catholic european background<<<

Judy: >>>That's very interesting, Dirk. Can you expand on that?<<<

First of all, I have to say that I find this forum and the oecumenical discussions on it very positive. I am a firm believer in the positive power of communication.

But for someone with my background (raised as a catholic in a, on the religious plane, predominantly catholic country) these discussions between all these different groups give the impression of a very divided christianity.
And it doesn't help if seemingly some groups seem to be convinced that the others are damned for eternity.
The view overhere is that God is forgiving and filled with love. Some of you seem to live in constant fear for their eternal soul. That's quite a different way of looking at things.
Not to say that catholics are not concerned by their souls but they tend to take a more positive way of standing in the world.
Also the constant use of the archfathers and the scriptures is very remote from the way catholicism is practiced here. The archfathers are never mentioned. They are seen as a thing of a past that has been superseded by present day theology. And the scriptures are used but not to be taken literally but as influenced by social circumstances.

[Gene Godbold]

Dear Matt,
I've known some folks raised Catholics who were evangelized by Protestants (usually in college). They were only nominally Catholic before and they were really converted. Some of them went back to Rome (later) and they were better for their sojourn amongst the evangelicals. I've also known many evangelicals (raised evangelicals) who went to Rome.

I understand from the perspective of a Catholic (I was one for the first 19 years of my life), that it is a bad thing to "leave the Church". But sometimes, in the providence of the Father, one finds the Son in leaving the institution. And sometimes the Holy Spirit brings you back to the institution and you find it really is the Church after all and you see that there is a lot of room to convert (evangelize) your fellow Catholics.

I'm a deacon in one of the fissiparous continuing Anglican churches and I don't think I have a great gift for evangelizing folks outside the Church (like Dirk--hey Dirk! :-) but I do feel God has given me a role to play in converting folks inside the Church (strengthening the saints in doctrine and suchlike). The Latin Church has a crying need for good laymen and deacons to do the same. Catechesis was awful in the diocese (SC) in which I was raised (it's a little better now, I think).

I know that "sheep stealing" is generally viewed as a bad thing, but sometimes, you're stealing a goat and, in the process, making him a sheep. Then sometimes the sheep is led back to his original fold (and sometimes not). What's more important, earthly or heavenly allegiances? (Okay, that's a tendentious bit of rhetoric.)

[Gene Godbold]

Dear Dirk,
When I take a gander at the world, I agree with God that the vast majority of it is "very good". I'm very grateful I get to live in it and (as a scientist) to study the molecular wonders of life. I also agree with John that "God is love" and that He wills the salvation of everyone.

And yet...God also willed us to be free to choose Him. We also can't forget that, within creation, we aren't the only rational creatures. We share that feature with the incomparably more powerful angels. The Christian account of the universe holds that Satan and his minions rejected the Lordship of God and influenced the first humans in rebelling as well. As a result, the good creation was cursed. (I could go into why this is necessary, if you care, but I'm going to skip this now.) The good news is that the Father is in the process of fixing that through the work of Jesus, the Son and the mysterious entity known as the Holy Spirit. But if you concentrate on only the love of God for his creation, it can lead you to overlook the righteous anger He has for those who deface that good creation and try to destroy his creatures. If you notice in the gospels, Jesus gets angry with the Pharisees and such for being blind and hard-hearted, but he identifies the real enemy as being Satan and not some human flunky.

I've got to admit that I (for one) don't feel responsibility for the souls of most people. I am very small and can only productively influence a small number of people. Truth be told, if I could lead my seven children to Jesus and help a few members of my church be stronger Christians, I'd be satisfied.

About how you see the fathers and scripture used in Europe, I'd have to agree that your diagnosis. I think that is one reason (perhaps the main one) why Christianity is in trouble in Europe. Europeans seem to cherry pick certain things from the tree of Christian tradition and stare blankly at the rest, wondering how they could possibly be relevant today in the age of (as Bultmann put it) the electric lightbulb. For folks that can't answer that question, Christianity will not have much traction.

[Bill R]

"...these discussions between all these different groups give the impression of a very divided christianity."

Perhaps at first, Dirk. But do stick around. You may come to the opposite impression: for a group of people with so many different backgrounds, we actually have a great deal of unity (in the ways that count). Maybe that comes from taking our Christian point of view very, very seriously.

[Dirk Van Glabeke]

>>>About how you see the fathers and scripture used in Europe, I'd have to agree that your diagnosis. I think that is one reason (perhaps the main one) why Christianity is in trouble in Europe<<<

personally, and I think that much social research backs this up, I have the impression that the main reason lies not in the way tradition is handled but in the way our modern society is organized. In earlier times society was made up out of close knit groups but now the majority of the people live the largest part of their lives in organisations that force them to act and think in an individualised instrumental and rationalised way about reality, relationships and themselves. This is very much in opposition to the kind of environment religion needs to flourish. There are of course a number of other mediating psychological
and social factors, but I think this is the main one.
A number of the individuals produced by such modern societies will feel the need for meaning and connection, but because of the instrumental thinking they will tend to go for 'patchwork' kind of religion.
So you will get people who will call themselves catholics but who will also believe in reincarnation.
The Amish seem like a good example of the attempt to remain a close knit society.

Bill R,

Yes, but you form a group within a group. You are separate from the more 'liberal' christians, thereby confirming dividedness.

[Bill R]

"Yes, but you form a group within a group. You are separate from the more 'liberal' christians, thereby confirming dividedness."

Ah, the liberals. Yes, you're right about that, Dirk. But it's not so much division as it is exclusion. If by liberal you mean those who ultimately deny the reality of the supernatural and seek to recast religion in a natural or immanent mode, then all we who are supernaturalists are closer to one another (whether we are Protestants, Catholics, or Eastern Orthodox) than any of us are to the liberals in our own communions.

[JRM]

"If by liberal you mean those who ultimately deny the reality of the supernatural and seek to recast religion in a natural or immanent mode>

I doubt that he does. I suspect he means, by "liberal," individuals such as Gene Robinson, John Shelby Spong and Katherine Jefferts Schori. These individuals cannot be fairly characterized as denying the reality of the supernatural. I suspect they still would be "separated" as Dirk notes.

[Judy Warner]

Dirk,

If God is just someone who forgives, and the meaning of the Scriptures changes with the times, I can see why Europeans have fallen away from Christianity. There isn't much point to being Christian if it simply reflects the fads of society.

One of the things that attracted me to Christianity was that it makes demands on you. Among other writings that influenced me, one thing was the chapter in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader where Eustace became a dragon, and couldn't get un-dragoned until he faced up to what he was really like. And then Aslan peeled away his tough scales to reveal the tender boy beneath. It gave me a fearful feeling: you mean I really have to face up to everything? Well, yes, you do, and it's hard. But it's much better than saying, Oh well, it doesn't matter what I do or what I'm like because God forgives it anyway.

[Ethan Cordray]

Dirk, as you no doubt remember from my previous posts on another thread, I would be one of those who might seem fearful concerning my eternal soul. Yet for me, this fearfulness is not something that keeps me from believing that God is loving and forgiving. In fact, it is this very regard for God's love and for the price I believe He has payed for me that touches me with fear. For if He loved me enough to die for me, then what right have I to keep on sinning? He loves me so much; how can I then ignore His laws, which are really His desperate pleadings for me to be the person I would be most happy being?

As to the divisions among Christians revealed on this site, I think others have spoken well concerning that. I think I would add that our willingness to accept such things may have some relation to the American cultural value of holding different groups together upon a basic common foundation. I don't ask an Italian to embrace my Anglo-Celtic heritage, just to respect my having it as I respect his. I might possibly be more suspicious of an Arab, but only if it becomes evident that his larger cultural identity threatens the basic tenets that hold American society together, such as impartial law and popular sovereignty. Otherwise, he is as welcome here as any other. In the same way, I as a Protestant can accept Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as brothers in Christ, because the specifics of their religious belief do not alter their basic commitment to the Gospel. Mormons, for example, and many "liberals," do not share that basic commitment, and so I cannot extend to them the same hand, though I still wish give them the benefit of the doubt.

The very project of Touchstone's "Mere Christianity," as I understand it, is to discover more clearly where this fundamental boundary is. Due to the legacy of our historical suspicions, most of that work is comprised of pushing the boundaries to encompass more of our brothers and sisters together within the basic Gospel. Yet some of it is pointing out ways in which certain groups or movements should still be excluded, such as the egalitarians and materialists that are threatening to corrupt certain parts of our community (especially Evangelicals and Catholics, it seems). Both of these elements are important, and while the inclusive side is certainly more pleasant work, both must be balanced and developed for us to make real progress toward meaningful Christian unity.

[Gene Godbold]

In regards to liberals and the separation of conservatives from them. Historically, it is not the folks who cling to the "faith of the fathers" that changed their viewpoint. As one can see in the Episcopal Church in the United States, once the liberal clergy were "allowed" to hold their views, they accumulated power and then made it increasingly difficult for the traditional folks to hold *their* views and still function in the church. In other words, the liberals effectively outlawed orthodoxy once they got into power, ramming through their "reforms" over the conscience of the traditionalists. What's the proverb? "Where orthodoxy is optional, it will soon be proscribed" (I might have mangled that a bit.)

[Brian John Schuettler]

I'll presume to call it Neuhaus' Law, or at least one of his several laws: Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed. Some otherwise bright people have indicated their puzzlement with that axiom but it seems to me, well, axiomatic. Orthodoxy, no matter how politely expressed, suggests that there is a right and a wrong, a true and a false, about things. When orthodoxy is optional, it is admitted under a rule of liberal tolerance that cannot help but be intolerant of talk about right and wrong, true and false. It is therefore a conditional admission, depending upon orthodoxy's good behavior. The orthodox may be permitted to believe this or that and to do this or that as a matter of sufferance, allowing them to indulge their inclination, preference, or personal taste. But it is an intolerable violation of the etiquette by which one is tolerated if one has the effrontery to propose that this or that is normative for others.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I'll presume to call it Neuhaus' Law, or at least one of his several laws: Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.<<<

Fr. Neuhaus was in fact quoting G.K. Chesterton.

[Brian John Schuettler]

Then it should be called Chesterton's Law...I was obviously quoting from comments that Father Neuhaus made at First Things.

[Brian John Schuettler]

In “The Unhappy Fate of Optional Orthodoxy” (First Things, January 1997), Richard John Neuhaus proposes “Neuhaus’ Law” concerning the life of religious institutions: “Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.”

[Brian John Schuettler]

It seems Wikipedia needs to be corrected as well:

He is the originator of "Neuhaus's Law"[1] which states that "Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed".
(From article on Richar John Neuhaus)

[Ethan Cordray]

Ok, Stuart, it looks like the burden's on you: what's the Chesterton quote, and from where?

[Brian John Schuettler]

Actually, Stuart encouraged me to research this further and, sure enough, Chesterton did indeed write this line in his book Orthodoxy. It is erroneously attributed to Neuhaus in a great many places on the net as the "Neuhaus Law". I have no idea if he ever attempted to correct it.
Thanks, Stuart!

[Matt]

I am still waiting for Dr. Moore to reply :) ....

I am wondering, questioning whether or not Russ Moore would consider me as someone he needs to share the Gospel with/evangelize if I am(or am trying to be :) a good Catholic(following the teachings of my mother Church). Certainly he would try and correct my thinking on some "minor points", but would he also try and get me "saved"?

This argument, of course, has larger ramifications for missionary work in developing nations that are often Catholic. Are Russ Moore's students taught that they need to evangelize practicing Catholics? If so, why?

Sincerely,

Matt

[David Gray]

>I am wondering, questioning whether or not Russ Moore would consider me as someone he needs to share the Gospel with/evangelize if I am(or am trying to be :) a good Catholic(following the teachings of my mother Church).

My pastor taught me I need the gospel every week...

>Are Russ Moore's students taught that they need to evangelize practicing Catholics? If so, why?

Does Rome accept Protestant converts? If so, why?

[James A. Altena]

David's second response is a fair counter-proposition to Matt's second question. As for the first, however, I think that Matt's question is whether Russ Moore would regard a Roman Catholic as being in the same category as a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. -- i.e., as someone who is a non-Christian and does not know the Gospel at all, as opposed to knowing it imperfectly or with some admixture of truth and error.

[craig]

Yes, but Rome does not baptize them as she does Mormons, for instance. Protestant converts are considered Christians already.

Rome certainly believes she preserves the apostolic faith in its fullness and that other communions have not, to varying degrees -- see Dominus Iesus for a thorough treatment of this subject -- but while Rome has always taught that "outside the Church there is no salvation", she has always made provision for the mystical inclusion of those who do not knowingly belong to her but who cooperate with the graces God has given them. All who come to the Father come by way of the Son through His bride the Church -- whether they know it in this life or not.

[David Gray]

>As for the first, however, I think that Matt's question is whether Russ Moore would regard a Roman Catholic as being in the same category as a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. -- i.e., as someone who is a non-Christian and does not know the Gospel at all, as opposed to knowing it imperfectly or with some admixture of truth and error.

Well Charles Hodge would say no.

>Yes, but Rome does not baptize them as she does Mormons, for instance. Protestant converts are considered Christians already.

Well we don't baptize Catholic converts.

[coco]

Anybody baptised with water and the invocation of the Holy Trinity is not to be rebaptised, being a Christian already.

Even an unbaptised person may validly baptise, provided he has intent to do so.

That, AFAIK, is the RC position. And of course, IMHO, the correct one! :)