Scot McKnight on why he is not Catholic or Orthodox
Scot Mcknight has written an important summary on why he is not Catholic or Orthodox. This is a helpful addition to my post “Why I am Proud to be Protestant.” I think we are saying the same thing as Scot talks about the “Wiki” Christianity.
I found his statements about the “new birth” to be very helpful for those who are considering converting to Catholicism or Orthodox.
“Sixth, now I want to bring something up that is perhaps even more important than my reflections on the “wiki” nature of God’s revelation and God’s ongoing speaking through the Spirit in the Church: new birth. I’ve been around enough Cat’licks (as Flannery O’Connor, herself a Catholic, called her fellow faithful) and Orthodox to believe that neither communion, regardless of what it says in theology or in catechesis, preaches the new birth clearly enough nor does either institutionalize the need for personal decision enough. Hence, we have articulate spokespersons in each communion who say things like this: “We have sacramentalized our congregations; but we have not evangelized them.” “We have baptized and catechized but not evangelized.”
I believe deeply in the need for personal rebirth, for the new birth, and I don’t think either communion emphasizes this enough. The sparks of change I do see aren’t creating blazes of revival. When they do you’ll see me jumping for joy.
Once a month I get a letter from someone who asks me to talk them out of converting to Rome or to Constantinople (et al), and one thing I say to each of them is this: In three generations it is quite likely that your great grandchildren will be “in” the Church but will not experience the new birth. Not as a matter of rule or principle but as a matter of course. All because of the lack of focus on new birth.”
Read the whole thing. The entire article is very good.
Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Why Eastern Orthodoxy? Part 3: A Gospel Critique of Eastern Orthodoxy
- Finally a Catholic who is Not Afraid to Condemn Me?
- Calling someone a heretic—thoughtfully!
- Where I stand on all things 3
- For Those Considering Suicide . . . (2)
Alden on 01 Oct 2008 at 4:12 pm #
I found Scot McKnight’s post interesting, and I agree with much of it (while never tempted to become RC, I did consider the EO, and am still drawn to the Lutheran & Episcopalian churches). I wonder if one of the reasons people are drawn to the EO and RC churches, besides being a reaction to the lack of historicity of most evangelical churches, is that is seems to be the only way to escape the modernism that has permeated evangelicalism?
My other thought was on the emphasis on “new birth.” In more traditional churches, there is definitely a lesser emphasis on an individualized new birth, but at the same time a greater emphasis on all things becoming new, and our part in the renewing of Creation, looking to the New Heaven and New Earth (especially in the EO). Again, this would seem to related to the shift to a modern worldview from within evangelicalism.
Thoughts?
Peter on 01 Oct 2008 at 10:32 pm #
Since you’re a Calvinist, and you therefore believe in monergism - that the new birth has nothing to do with our personal decision, but is a unilateral act of God, I’m extremely curious to know why you think a new birth needs to be emphasised more.
Since under Calvinism, rebirth preceeds personal decision, why do we need to “institutionalize personal decision”? Surely under Calvinism, all we need is to state the Gospel, and it’s God’s institution to force an individual decision.
As for those supposedly sacramentalized but not evangelized, what church doesn’t have these people?
britphil on 02 Oct 2008 at 7:30 am #
I don’t mean to appear pedantic, but we often use the phrase “Catholic” when what is actually being referred to is “Roman Catholic” and there is a significant difference.
Every week I gladly proclaim, and when I am leading worship encourage others to also boldly proclaim the credal statement that “I /we believe in the holy catholic church”, as in the worldwide universal church of believers. So if you ask me if I believe in the catholicity of the church I would respond with a resounding “yes”. If you ask me do I believe or wsh to belong to the Roman Catholic Church I would say no, primarily for the reason outlined below
“Once a month I get a letter from someone who asks me to talk them out of converting to Rome or to Constantinople (et al), and one thing I say to each of them is this: In three generations it is quite likely that your great grandchildren will be “in” the Church but will not experience the new birth. Not as a matter of rule or principle but as a matter of course. All because of the lack of focus on new birth.”
However I would be very wary about proclaiming that God is not present or at work in, amongst and through the Roman Catholic Church.
I have not long returned from a brilliant short city break in Prague, the capital city of the Czech Republic. It is a city of many churches, which was initially greatly influenced by the Czech reformer Jan Hus (a contemporary of John Wycliffe). However, it then also fell under the influence of the Counter-Reformation and the end result is that the Counter-Reformationists largely prevailed and it is now a city comprised of largely Baroque and Gothic chuches (mostly devoutly Roman Catholic) with a smattering of Hussite/Reformed churches which are more understated in their statuary/fresco work etc though not entirely. The main Hussite Church surprisingly describes its weekly Sunday 10am service as The Hussite Mass.
Whilst exploring one of the more Baroque Catholic Basilicas, there were a group of Roman Catholic pilgrims visiting the church. They suddeny formed a semicircle and sang acapella a hymn. It was not a Roman Catholic hymn that I had heard before and I do not know what the words were or meant. However, I do know what I would call a “holy hush” when I hear one and it descended upon that Basilica for quite some time after the song had ended and was profoundly moving.
No, I am not a Roman Catholic but I do think that they have much to teach us about a reverent and awe-filled approach to our worship.
Daily linkathon 10/3 « BrianD blog on 03 Oct 2008 at 11:57 am #
[...] Scot McKnight on why he is evangelical, not Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. Michael Patton comments. [...]
Bryan Cross on 08 Oct 2008 at 8:55 am #
Michael,
I addressed Scott’s reasons from a Catholic point of view here, and I’d be interested in your thoughts.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
britphil on 09 Oct 2008 at 10:28 am #
“Whether or not one should become Catholic does not depend on whether one has been “tempted” to become Catholic, but rather on whether the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded.”
Hi Bryan
Part of the problem.for me anyway.. starts at the very beginning!! I find it difficult to accept that the Roman Catholic Church is the church that Christ founded…or more accuratelly the Roman Catholic Church as it has developed over the centuries has become less and less like the church He intended to found.
Just out of interest, if pushed to give an opinion, would you contend that those who are not part of the “One True Church” which is what I would term as classical Roman Catholic doctrine teaches?
For me surely the logical extension of such doctrine is that heaven/eternity will consist of committed Roman Catholics, maybe purgatory will consist of lapsed Catholics and those of us who have chosen to belong to different churches to the Roman Catholic church ,where we are allowed to repent of the error of our ways, whereas confirmed unbelievers are consigned to hell, whatever form that may take.
I am an Anglican (a denomination I notice you belonged to for a short spell), but I could not think of any place worse than a heaven that was made up solely of Anglicans. You would have me hammering on the door trying to escape at least to to purgatory in no time!
I know there are many Roman Catholics at the coal face who do not subscribe to the classical view of Roman Catholicism, but the strict interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church as being the True Church is one I find very hard to swallow uncritically.
Bryan Cross on 11 Oct 2008 at 11:43 am #
britphil,
I understand that this claim that the Catholic Church “is the Church Christ founded” is controversial. But that is what the Catholic Church claims about herself. And it seems to me that the Catholic Church has to be considered (when one is evaluating her) on her own terms, not just as another denomination. (That would be merely to look at the Catholic Church through Protestant lenses.) From a Catholic point of view, to be baptized and yet to refuse to be in communion with the successor of Peter, is necessarily to be in schism of some sort. That condition is only culpable, however, if one knows the Catholic Church to be what she claims to be. And so the stakes go up when it is seen in this way. As for your question about whether from a Catholic point of view baptized non-Catholics are not part of the “One True Church”, see my most recent post here. What other institution claims to be the one Christ founded? The only other possible candidate are the Orthodox [particular] Churches, but they are not one Church, but many Churches.
I don’t think “hard to swallow” is a good refutation of the Catholic Church’s claim about herself. We live in a time when schism has become so commonplace that the very notion that there is such a thing has become offensive. But that may show something more about our own time than about the error of the Catholic self-understanding.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
britphil on 13 Oct 2008 at 10:18 am #
Hi Bryan
Many thanks for your careful, respectful and considered comments.
Thank you especially for the link to explaining the Catholic Church’s stance on those who are baptised outside of the Catholic tradition, yet who are considered saved but in imperfect communion with the Catholic Church. I found it very helpful.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of the situation is that because non-Catholics were born into an ecclesial community outside of the Cathiolic church, and as such are are not aware that such “schism” is a sin they are therefore accepted as brothers or sisters, albeit not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
However, what puzzles me is this. What happens when that same person who was baptised into a Protestant church becomes fully aware of the implications of this and still chooses not to be in full communion with the Roman Catholic church . For example I was baptised as an infant in an Anglican church, but I am now fully grown up and I choose to still be part of a church which is not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Is there some point at which I ceased to be accepted as a brother, ie presumably the time when I consciously choose to remain in my own Church tradition. If this is the case, and I don’t see any other way round this, at some point, each and every person has a choice to make, and if they consciously choose not to come into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, they must surely at that point cease to be accepted as a brother or sister because the choice not to join or belong to the Catholic Church has become a conscious one.
I find this somewhat unsatisfactory ,as it would assume that those who may have been baptised as an infant in a non-Catholic tradition, yet have since had very little exposure to church life may still be “safe” because they have not consciously chosen to refuse to join the Catholic church, whereas those who faith is more sincere and deeper are considered to be unsaved because they have not chosen to “cross the Rubicon” as it were and fully join the Roman Catholic Church.
As an aside, you may be very interested to hear that my six year old daughter came to me last Saturday afternoon and asked me if, in her words “she could go to church” with one of her best friends who lives near to us and with whom she plays with regularly. The friend in question is a Roman Catholic and the Church in question was the local Roman Catholic church. My initial hasty reaction was to do the usual good evangelical thing and say “no” but thankfully I stopped and asked myself whether I wanted my daughter growing up afraid or ignorant of a constituent part of the Christian Church. I also did not fancy explaining to a six year old the fine nuances as to why she could not go and the inherent prejudices such a tale would contain. To cut a long story short, I eventually said she could go with her friend and her friend’s father. I could not go with her as, I thought about doing, as I had a prior engagement. There was even a part of me that was looking forward to asking her what she felt about the service and what she thought about it.
You do realise Bryan, at this juncture, there are sharp intakes of breath being taken by various Parchment and Pen contributors of a more conservative Protestant stance at my decision to say she could go. Rather than try to placate them, I am actually about to douse further fuel onto the flames by stating that just as she was about to go, who should come the other way down the street than another friend of my daughter, accompanied by her Dad, who are members of the Protestant Orange Order, a straunchly Protestant denomination with fairly strong anti-Catholic leanings. I quickly muttered to my daughter not to tell this friend that she was “going to church” with her other friend for fear that she would not be allowed to play with her Protestant friend ever again! As it happened she did not end up going to church with her Catholic friend as her friend’s father got the times mixed up and arrived an hour late to find the church locked up and everyone had gone home!
However, what I did discover was something quite strange. A sudden thought struck me, and it was this. I was actually more comfortable with my daughter going with her friend to the local Roman Catholic Church, than I would have been if she had been going to attend a service at the Protestant Orange Order church (Free Presbyterian by denomination, although I remain to be convinced as to how how “free” they truly are”) with her other friend. I live in a city (Liverpool, UK) which until about 25 years ago had been polarised, some would argue poisoned even, along sectarian lines, and I still have deep reservations about the anti-Catholic rhetoric emanating from much of the Orange Order.
Please do not get me wrong. I consider myself an evangelical Christian, and am not advocating that I would permit my daughter to jump ship! I just want her to have a respect for, and to learn about, those who may not think or believe the same as she/we do.
With regard to your comment about non-Catholics not receiving communion in a Catholic Church, this saddens me deeply. You will not like this but I already have on a couple of very rare occasions! My wife’s mother hails from a large Irish Catholic family, and while attending a couple of family Requiem funerals, after much soul searching beforehand, both my wife and I decided to receive communion. I also assist in the administration of communion in my own church, and we are of the view that all who love the Lord Jesus are welcome at the Lord’s table, and state as such prior to serving communion. I am fairly sure that on certain occasions we have given communion to Roman Catholics who may occasionally be in the congregation, and who have come up indicating that they wish to receive communion and not just a prayer/blessing. I actually think this also highlights some of the differences between what the Catholic church officially teaches and some of the practices of its members at the grass roots level.
Controversial stuff I know, which is bound to get me in yet more hot water all around but it is something I feel quite strongly, even passionately about, in that I would not refuse to serve communion on the basis that someone was not a Protestant/evangelical.
With this post I have probably managed to achieve achieved two things simultaneously. I have consciously placed myself outside of communion with the Catholic Church (hence i cannot be considered a “brother” any longer,) while paradoxically probably incensing many within my own evangelical fold for too relaxed a view to my Roman Catholic brothers and sister.
Finally with regard to your comment on “viewing the Catholic Church through a Protestant lens” I hear what you are saying. I don’t think I do view it as “another denomination” but prefer to view it rather as part of the wider, universal, catholic (with a small “c”) part of God’s church.
I have a real aversion to anyone (and Anglicans do it just much as Roman Catholics do) describing themselves as “the Church” as I feel it offends many deeply, equally as committed Christians who are neither Anglican or Roman Catholic.
Yours respectfully and peacefully in Christ
Phil
Bryan Cross on 14 Oct 2008 at 11:32 am #
Phil,
Thanks so much for your cordial reply. It is a pleasure to discuss such issues with a person so amiable. I especially appreciated your account of your daughter, and your thoughts about trust and Christian brotherhood.
Let me address one of your concerns. You write:
What happens when that same person who was baptised into a Protestant church becomes fully aware of the implications of this and still chooses not to be in full communion with the Roman Catholic church . For example I was baptised as an infant in an Anglican church, but I am now fully grown up and I choose to still be part of a church which is not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Is there some point at which I ceased to be accepted as a brother, ie presumably the time when I consciously choose to remain in my own Church tradition.
At no point do we (Catholics) presume to know whether the person who is rejecting the Catholic Church truly knows that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ. We understand that the person’s choice is conscious and reflectively deliberate. But, on account of the principle of charity (i.e. thinking the best of a person, giving him or her the benefit of the doubt) we leave open the possibility that the person you have described is not yet truly aware of the identity and necessity of the Catholic Church, and that his action is therefore not one of willful or conscious rebellion against Christ. So, for that reason, such persons remain for us brothers and sisters in Christ.
Concerning the question of Protestants receiving the Eucharist at a Catholic Church, I understand that you may feel that you are sufficiently in union with the Catholic Church that you may receive the Eucharist with Catholics. But the Catholic Church does not agree. (Kenneth Howell explains why here.) I think that if you respect the Catholic Church (even if you don’t agree with her), you will not take the Eucharist against her beliefs and canon law, so long as you are not a Catholic. I would do the same if I were visiting a Protestant community that fenced the table from Catholics, even if no other reason restricted me.
…Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life and worship, members of those Churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (Canon 844, 4). [source]
Finally, regarding your claim that you prefer to view the Catholic Church “as part of the wider, universal, catholic (with a small “c”) part of God’s church”, may I offer you a gentle challenge. What if there was no such thing as a “universal, catholic [with a small 'c'] Church”, but only various institutions and individual Christians — how would the situation be any different from what it is right now? I have discussed this in more detail here.
Again, many thanks for your gracious and respectful letter. May Christ help us find true unity in Him.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Dudley Davis on 29 Nov 2008 at 10:21 pm #
I am a convert from roman catholic to Protestant. I would agree with Scott Mc Knight. I began a study of the Protestant Reformation about 3 years ago, however in the process I began to believe in the principles of the Protestant reformers and when I began studying John Calvin and the Reformed theology I experienced as what Calvin called of his own conversion “a true Protestant Conversion” “The reformers and the Protestant Reformation, particularly John Calvin and the Reformed Theology returned the church to its true foundation. They rescued the Gospel from the pagan corruption of “papist traditions and heresies.” I became a Reformed Presbyterian Protestant in February 2007. I am no longer a roman catholic because I believe the reformed Protestant faith is the church that was intended by Christ. It is why I am thankful I am now a Reformed Presbyterian Protestant. I was fortunate to be elected by the grace of God to the truth and the true faith “The Reformed Protestant faith.”
In grace,
Dudley