I was at dinner last night with a fellow Orthodox Christian, a believer who came to Orthodoxy from Evangelicalism. He mentioned that it's striking to him how much residual anti-Catholicism still exists within some Orthodox converts from Evangelicalism. I thought about what he said when I read this excellent blog post from Sherry Weddell sent to me by a reader. Sherry's a Catholic convert from Evangelicalism who, in the post, discusses how strange it is that so many Evangelicals have skewed views of Catholics, assuming that they're all "dead" in the faith. Sherry talks about how misguided that is.
But the part she said about how many Catholics view Evangelicals through prejudiced lenses hit a lot closer to home for me. I'm probably guilty of a lot of this too. Excerpt:
From the Catholic side, how many times have I heard intelligent Catholics casually dismiss evangelical worship as merely "entertainment"? It happened again last month when I was working with a group of pastors and pastoral leaders at a seminar on evangelization. I asked them "What have the lapsed Catholics that you know personally told you about why they left"?The obvious goal of that particular discussion was to hear what people who have left the Church have to tell us. There was a broad spectrum of familiar answers: people didn't agree with certain teachings, didn't believe anymore, looking for community, the desire to be "fed", etc.
Then one woman said "mega church services are entertainment". "They just want entertainment", and a number of heads nodded in agreement.
I had to ask. " Is that the language that your friends actually used? Did they say that wanted to be "entertained"? Did they actually use the word "entertainment"? Since our goal is to understand what motivates lapsed Catholics, we need to actually listen to the language they actually use."
The women looked puzzled by my question. I had to repeat the question to the whole group. "Have you actually heard former Catholics tell you that they have started attending evangelical churches in order to be "entertained"?
Slowly it dawned upon us all. The "entertainment" thesis reflected our Catholic insider judgements about what must have motivated them. But none of us had ever heard an actual, living former Catholic use that language.
Certainly I never have. No former Catholic that I have met in the evangelical world ever talks about a desire for "entertainment" as a motivation for ceasing to attend Mass. In fact, the gap between the dominant "storyline" that you hear from former Catholics whom you meet in the evangelical world (which is usually some variation on "I never met Jesus in a living way as a Catholic") and the judgment that so many Catholic pastoral leaders blithely make about why they left in the first place is staggering.
When we casually dismiss mega-church worship in general as "entertainment", we mean that we regard it as shallow, emotionally-driven, ephemeral, and without spiritual or theological substance or seriousness. The spiritual equivalent of a crude, popular sit-com. That it is, essentially, spiritually "stupid".
Read the whole post. It's easy to write off megachurch Evangelicals as "stupid" because then we in the liturgical churches who have lost members to them don't have to confront the possibility that maybe they had good reason to leave us. I'm not saying a lot of what goes on in megachurch culture isn't stupid (I have had several Evangelical friends say as much to me). I'm saying that if we decide from the outset that the only reason anybody would go to those churches is because of some spiritual or intellectual deficiency, we're closing our eyes to things we might well need to change in how we do things.
It should go without saying that Evangelicals who falsely believe that the old liturgical churches are full of spiritually dead Christians who have nothing to teach us about faith are in the same boat.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
It's time to bury ridiculous myths and recognize that Catholics and Protestants are BROTHERS AND SISTERS who share almost 99% of the same values. We all believe in Jesus and try to follow Him. It's ridiculous to be fighting about the 1% of disagreement, particularly when we are surrounded by powerful and evil forces trying to destroy us and our values.
Our common enemies include Islamic extremists who believe we should all be converted or killed, and people who seek to control the U.S., people like George Soros.
Soros, an enemy of Catholics and Christians in general, as well as en enemy of the U.S., has invested billions to manipulate and confuse Catholics to sell them anti-Catholic ideas and candidates.
Soros invested billions to support Obama’s campaign, funding “Catholic” groups, for example, the Catholic Left, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Catholics United and Catholics for Choice (the pro-abortion group that has twice been condemned as a fraud by Catholic bishops).
Those organizations funded by Soros worked hard to make Obama seem almost pro-life on abortion and then to push the Obamacare SCAM as a “Christian” bill.
We Catholics and Protestants need to unite to defend ourselves, our children and our values from destructive lies, manipulation and influence. We need to realize that U.S. enemies like Soros are advancing and promoting evil not only in the U.S. but all over the world.
More on discipleship (see my earlier message).
I suspect that the rise of women as clergy has coincided with, and perhaps has contributed to, the loss of discipleship. I don’t think anyone will be able to find one culture in which men have often been disciples of woman religious masters. One of the factors militating against a recovery of Christian discipleship is the entrenched professionalism of the clergy – and of course if clergy is a profession, it must be open equally to women as well as men.
I’m an adherent of the Lutheran Confessions. However, it is my impression that here and there the discipleship arrangement survives in Old World Orthodoxy, e.g. Mt. Athos (which goodness knows is a place with its problems). But such places are decidedly rare patches anywhere on earth today.
I take it that monks and nuns are generally not really available for discipleship scenarios.
Thus, again, I think the modern seeking Christian is probably forced to yearn for discipleship (and in some circles there certainly is much talk of “discipleship” – but there is no master) without having access to it. Of course this doesn’t mean one can’t live a Christian life. I myself have a fine pastor – a man who takes very seriously his calling as preacher, his responsibility for catechesis, etc. God bless him! But this is not a master-disciple relationship, such as (e.g.) that of Polycarp and St. John, I take it, was. We must do the best we can, with God’s help.
Lastly – if it isn’t clear – by “discipleship” I mean to recognize various arrangements that were, I suggest, widely available in pre-modern times but not now. I don’t mean only the very close and very extended relationships that we think of, I expect, when we think of Jesus and His disciples. But I do mean a relationship in which the disciple learned a trade by watching the master and/or by “sitting at his feet” and hearing the oral instruction. I also acknowledge that there were good masters and bad, exploitative, ignorant ones. I’m just saying that this relationship seems to me a natural, in itself wholesome one – and that it is basically not available any more; and so we seek it, going from denomination to denomination, etc.
I just basically want to say a hearty "Amen" to Sherry's thoughts and to most of what Gerard Nadal said, as a former Roman Catholic now Presbyterian. Except, not to toot my own horn, I would include myself in a list of people who left the Roman Catholic Church who DID know their doctrine well.
Just another reminder to be careful of how you (and I mean the collective you, not just Rod) characterize Protestants/Evangelicals. Those terms are not synonymous. In fact, as time goes on I become more and more unsure of what "Evangelicals" actually are, it is such a nebulous term. The choices are not simply limited to Catholic or non-liturgical megachurch, with nothing in between.
I was guilty of unfounded prejudices and dismissal of Protestants when I was a faithful Catholic, totally out of pure ignorance and a lack of interest in being corrected.
To be fair, I don't believe one can paint those who leave the Catholic Church with a broad brush.
I left the Roman Church in the mid 90's, not because I didn't understand the theology, but rather because I no longer believed it. Furthermore, I reasoned that if the theology were true, its alleged adherents should live in a radically different way. While some may assert that evangelical Protestants may adhere to a watered down version of Christianity, by and large, they live out what they believe.
In the end, I understand that my reasons for leaving the Roman Church (and I do not use this term as a pejorative) are statistically in the minority compared to others. Others have posted valuable comments on this thread as to why people leave. I won't rehash these here.
But I think Rod is mistaken about the entertainment value. One does not need to use the phrase to imply its meaning. Among reasons others have given for conversion to an evangelical church have been associated with the music and motivational sermons. When the music sounds like a rock concert and Joel Olsteen is considered one of the most influential evangelicals in America, its not difficult to understand the kitsch effect the pop church culture has. It is the blending of the church with the world, to the point of blurring to the two together. I'll let you conclude what the outcome of this will be.
Ultimately, with hesitation, I did return to the Roman Church. Rather than the Church embracing the culture, what is most needed in our time is radical discipleship. But I do question if its too little, too late for the bulk of us.
Matthew
The level of Catholic prejudice against Evangelicals (and Protestants in general) is staggering. On the one hand, a Pope who is the ideological successor of John Paul II encourages dissatsified Anglicans to come into the Church. On the other, this Pope's immediate predecessor condemns missionary activity by Evangelicals and Charismatics in South America as "soul stealing." Praytell, what is the difference, other than the nature of the targeted parties and the "predators" (for lack of a better term)?
I would love to see Rome enter into dialogue with Evangelicals as enthusiastically as it does with Muslims. Unfortunately, old habits and traditions die hard -- regardless of what Christ said about them.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.