Evangelical, catholic, orthodox...

When I was at Wheaton I had witnessed the exodus of students from low-church settings into less evangelical, more high-church type of settings. Many “go Catholic.” What I have seen is somewhat of a liberalizing path that leads to Rome. I’ve written about this before, wondering if it is possible to overcome Noll’s scandal of the evangelical mind and remain evangelical, but a recent article in The Christian Century explored this issue.

In the past year, six Protestant theologians have converted to Catholicism, and of the six, three are Lutheran, two Anglican, and one Mennonite:

“They more or less fit the description ‘postliberal’ in that they accept such mainline practices as historical criticism and women's ordination while wanting the church to exhibit more robust dogmatic commitments. All of them embrace what Mattox describes as an ‘evangelical, catholic and orthodox’ vision of the church. They could not see a way to be all those things within mainline denominations.”

Rusty Reno, one of the converts, had at one time held that those who are disgruntled with their faith traditions should not leave. Instead, the correct path, according to Scripture, is to follow Nehemiah, who committed to living in a devastated city. Reno maintained that “to flee institutions in search of something supposedly better elsewhere would be to simply replicate the modern tendency to favor a posture of ironic distance over one of dogged commitment.”

Reno eventually left his original faith tradition. He shares, “I may have wanted to return to the ruins of the Church with Nehemiah's devotion, but in reality I was thinking bitter thoughts as I sat in my pew.” To another convert, a Lutheran, “the pull” of the Catholic faith grew stronger than “the push” away from Lutheranism.

Gerald Schlabach, the Mennonite convert, criticizes the Protestant church for becoming an end in itself instead of being a proponent of reform. He views the Catholic Church as

“the best hope for a reunion of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative,’ ‘protestant’ and ‘catholic’ visions of the church: ‘Imagine a church . . . that could not sing without feeding the poor, nor feed the poor without nourishment from the Eucharist, nor pass the peace without living peaceably in the world, nor be peacemakers without depending on prayer, nor pray without joining in robust song.’”

The article does include arguments for staying within one’s tradition. One Episcopal priest argues that it is crucial to remain inside what he considers a tradition ridden with flaws: “God has allowed us to come to faith and to practice our faith within divided Christian communities so that, forced to follow Jesus where we have been placed, we might learn repentance.” He points to Scripture’s narrative of the Jews, who didn’t leave their community when they became disgruntled: “rather they stayed where they were and tried to help the people be more faithful to the law of the Lord.” Israel is not only a model, but Jesus is too, since he stayed put and died for his enemies.

One of the converts’ colleagues happens to be Stanley Hauerwas. He has prodded his students to explore Catholic theology. When it comes to converting to Catholicism, however, his preference is loyalty to the dissenter’s church of origin, remarking, “I feel like you need to stay with the people that harmed you.” And to those who feel the urge to make the move to Catholicism, Hauerwas says, “Don’t do it. We need you!” No matter who is converting to what or choosing to stay, I’m sure this issue will cause a stir on all sides.

Comments

[Natalie]

Wow I never knew that about Hauerwas, but it makes sense considering he's supposedly pretty cantankerous! ;)

I agree, there are no easy answers when it comes to this. I guess we have to pick our battles...

[Paulicus]

Hey Natalie, can I ask you your personal thoughts on the matter? As someone who, at least it seems to me, is right in the middle of this issue, have you thought of moving away and if so what has kept you here (I guess here being your Baptist heritage, maybe more specifically SBC)? For me personally I can't really give a well-reasoned argument as to why I would choose to stay. It basically just comes back to the realization that this is where I've always been and I have to believe there is a purpose for that. Why not believe it is to be used to help bring about reform? Although I can certainly relate to sitting in a pew thinking my bitter thoughts.

[Natalie]

Paul to tell you the truth, if it weren’t for Snowhill, I don’t think I would have involvement in the SBC. In fact, when I was attending college in Tulsa and in Wheaton, I did not go to an SBC church. Sure, there were those types of churches in the area, but instead I opted for Presbyterian and Anglican churches. If I ever were to involve myself in the ministry in such a way that would be against the beliefs of the SBC, I really don’t know what I would do. So locally, I have no issues, because I like my church community that happens to be SBC. When it comes to labels, though, sometimes I struggle with feeling comfortable taking on "Southern Baptist" and "evangelical" labels, considering the negative connotations that they have...

[Nicole]

Natalie, I think you've hit on something huge. All of my friends at Wheaton that are most like me and K in our histories have jumped ship to the Anglican church, and I quite understand the appeal.

I find it quite interesting that the majority of the department where I am based is Episcopal, but most also consider themselves evangelical.

I never say never, but the odds are great that I will not be a member of the SBC in any capacity ever again. One part because my beliefs are so far removed from the extraneous conditions placed on Christians by the SBC. The other part because the way that I cringe when someone asks me my affiliation and I have to start, "Well...I grew up Southern Baptist, but I'm not anymore...now I go to a loosely affiliated Christian Church, but I wouldn't say I'm Christian Church either." It just seems all too muddied.

Still, I'm not going to switch to Anglicanism, because I'm not a high church believer.

It's still ultimately fascinating that one of the premier Evangelical institutions produces so many High Church converts.

I'm ready to chuck it all and just say, I'm a follower of Christ. And that's about all I know for sure.

[Natalie]

Nicole, I'm glad you can vouch for me here!

I think what may be happening is that some students tend to move in the opposite direction from the tradition in which they grew up. I was attracted to the high church, while one of my good friends who grew up in the high church setting just loves the low church. Most people at Wheaton grew up in a tradition like mine, I would think. At least, when they organized chapel seating one year by denomination, we Baptists were the largest group by far...

I definitely agree with you in that it IS very fascinating that a place like Wheaton has so many high church fans!

[Nicole]

Natalie,

I also think some of it might be finding things out for themselves. If many of them grew up like I did..which seems likely (and similar to you), they were taught high church folk are misguided and sure aren't Christian folk.

So, how better to convince yourself that's a misbelief than to go join with such a group?