Are Our Baptist Friends Becoming More Catholic?

[twopekinguys]

I just ran across this article regarding some Baptists who seem to be reviving Apostolic succession, Titles, and Vestments.

Is it possible the gap between Baptists, and Catholics is getting smaller?

boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/07/19/more_baptist_pastors_adopt_bishop_title/?page=1

 

[Ridgerunner]

One thing that needs to be remembered about Baptists is that there is very little in the way of doctrinal or structural requirements in their churches. Consequently, there are big variations among their congregations, and very little in the way of constraint in their doing so.

The entire doctrinal statement of the Southern Baptist Convention, for example, can be written on one page.

Whether these particular ministers or their congregations are getting closer to Catholicism is something I would not know. It might be noted in passing, however, that Flannery O’Connor, who knew both Catholicism and Southern Fundamentalism very well, claimed that Southern Fundamentalists would be greatly surprised to learn that they generally share more in the way of belief with Catholicism than they do with classic protestantism.

But (and this is not her statement, it’s mine) much, if not most, of what they believe is more or less “absorbed” from loosely held western cultural convictions than from their particular denominations. Despite our rightly lamenting the rebellions from Catholic belief in the culture, it is still largely derived from a Catholic heritage. And it still has (name removed by moderator)uts from that heritage.

Ed Koch, former mayor of NYC, and Jew himself, said, in the aftermath of 911: “You always know where the Catholic Church is…” He went on to say one always knows what it believes, what it will do, how it will react, and how you can rely on it for certain things. As little as it might seem so at times, it’s still the Pole Star. People might head south or east or west, but they can, with little or no effort, know where north is. And knowing where north is, is the only way they can know how to head south or east or west or north.

It was Ms. O’Connor’s opinion as well that, in the future, the greatest source of converts in the U.S. would be among Southern Fundamentalists. I’m inclined to believe that, based on my own (bible belt) parish’s conversions.

One of my favorite things to do, when engaging in religious “disputes” (I keep them friendly) with a protestant is to hand him a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and ask him to look at it at his leisure, then come back and tell me how much of it he disagrees with.

They invariably disagree with the heirarchical parts and some few other things, but actually very little, and it surprises them that they disagree so little. The reason they disagree so little is because most of what they believe actually came from the Catholic Church to begin with, not from their own denominations’ teachings.

 

[Izdaari]

Whether these particular ministers or their congregations are getting closer to Catholicism is something I would not know. It might be noted in passing, however, that Flannery O’Connor, who knew both Catholicism and Southern Fundamentalism very well, claimed that Southern Fundamentalists would be greatly surprised to learn that they generally share more in the way of belief with Catholicism than they do with classic protestantism.

But (and this is not her statement, it’s mine) much, if not most, of what they believe is more or less “absorbed” from loosely held western cultural convictions than from their particular denominations. Despite our rightly lamenting the rebellions from Catholic belief in the culture, it is still largely derived from a Catholic heritage. And it still has (name removed by moderator)uts from that heritage.

So true! I don’t know much of Flannery O’Connor, but it seems she is quite perceptive.

One of my favorite things to do, when engaging in religious “disputes” (I keep them friendly) with a protestant is to hand him a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and ask him to look at it at his leisure, then come back and tell me how much of it he disagrees with.

They invariably disagree with the heirarchical parts and some few other things, but actually very little, and it surprises them that they disagree so little. The reason they disagree so little is because most of what they believe actually came from the Catholic Church to begin with, not from their own denominations’ teachings.

I have looked through the Catholic Catechism, and I agree with probably about 90%. Chiefly it’s the hierarchical stuff and sexual morality (much too conservative for me, an “emerging” Pentecostal and political libertarian) where I disagree. This comes as no surprise to me. I wasn’t raised Christian, so I didn’t grow up in any particular church or with any prejudices against any particular church. I think Augustine and C.S. Lewis were the first Christian writers who made a big impression on me.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

They’d never want to admit it in a million years, but many protestants ranging from non-denoms to Methodists to these mega church types around my town are moving more toward Catholic trappings (not theology). Many are having their own versions of the Stations of the Cross, Maundy Thursday services (in these parts the only groups to do that have always been Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans), Via Dolorosa re-enactments, blessings with water, etc. They’re also doing more ecumenical stuff with the Catholic parishes. I noticed all this kicked in, and perhaps it’s just coincidence, when the Passion of the Christ came out. Remember those days? Mel Gibson actually had an ounce of religion and didn’t knock women’s teeth out back then!

 

[Contarini]

I just ran across this article regarding some Baptists who seem to be reviving Apostolic succession, Titles, and Vestments.

Is it possible the gap between Baptists, and Catholics is getting smaller?

boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/07/19/more_baptist_pastors_adopt_bishop_title/?page=1

A few points:

1. It is nothing new for Baptists to claim that the pastor of a local church is filling the role of a “bishop” or “overseer” as described in the Pastoral Epistles, and even (according to some Baptists) as described in the early post-apostolic Church (other Baptists, of course, think that the Church started falling away very soon). After all, Ignatius’s letters seem to describe a bishop as basically a local pastor, and really that’s always been the core idea in the Catholic tradition.
2. The article seems to be talking exclusively about African-American Baptists–it hints that white Baptists are doing this too, but doesn’t give examples. African-American Protestants generally, including Baptists, tend to be less afraid of sounding “Catholic” than their white counterparts. There are a number of African-American Baptist churches named after saints, for instance.
3. Black Pentecostals and “Holiness” pastors have been calling themselves bishops for about as long as they have been around, I believe. (In fact this isn’t just confined to African Americans. A Holiness leader named Alma White in the early 20th century got a Methodist bishop to lay hands on her, and then claimed to be the Church’s first female bishop.) And in my experience the relationship between black Baptists and black Pentecostals is quite close. I knew one young pastor who was from a group that explicitly called itself “Bapticostal,” and a professor at Duke Divinity School identified himself as a Pentecostal while serving as pastor of a Baptist church. I would expect that the title is coming into use among black Baptists because of Pentecostal influence.

Edwin

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Good post Ridgerunner.

I was an independent Baptist preacher for seven years.

As for calling yourself bishop, it is a tenet of all Baptist ecclesiology that the local pastor is head of the church. If they are calling him bishop instead of pastor, it isn’t because he has authority over any other local churches. The bunch that I come from, has its roots in the South. Most independent Baptists find the origins from the 40’s and 50’s through a movement in the SBC when churches elected leave the Convention when they were scandalized at some of their money going to increasingly liberal and secular schools like Baylor and Wake Forest through the “Cooperative Program”. The local church is truly independent. The Convention couldn’t stop them the way a real bishop could. If a Catholic parish tried to “secede” after such a fashion, they would discover that they do not own the very property on which they worship and would have to find their own.

I don’t think the fundamentalists that I ever hung with are now donning robes. We preached against what we called “formalism”, which would condemn set liturgical prayers in favor of ad libbed prayers (which always took on the same form, hehe), and robes. That was for Catholics and Catholic wannabees, which we were not!
So anyway…I don’t think you’ll be seeing the fundamentalist, Bible Belt Baptists following this apparent trend taking place in Boston.

But don’t let that fool you into thinking they are further from the Catholic Church than these pastors of local churches calling themselves bishops. The fundamentalists believe in supernatural truth, right and wrong, inerrant Scriptures, and the biggest thing they lack is continuity. Even my training included a crazy but certain attempt at proving continuity to the Apostles. It failed, and that left me wondering. I had never heard that Flannery O’Connor had this opinion about the fundamental Protestants, (yeah the same ones who say the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon!), but I retain the same conviction. In my opinion, they are closer to Catholic tradition and culture than “Baptist bishops” playing around in robes.

Rory

 

[Jesus_Buddha]

Sounds like they’re becoming more Anglican, going back to their Anglican roots.

Anglicanism is the Heart of Christianity.

 

[Contarini]

Sounds like they’re becoming more Anglican, going back to their Anglican roots.

Anglicanism is the Heart of Christianity.

Hmmph! I sure hope you are wrong. Better just be a Buddhist if that’s true!

Edwin

 

[Ridgerunner]

They’d never want to admit it in a million years, but many protestants ranging from non-denoms to Methodists to these mega church types around my town are moving more toward Catholic trappings (not theology). Many are having their own versions of the Stations of the Cross, Maundy Thursday services (in these parts the only groups to do that have always been Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans), Via Dolorosa re-enactments, blessings with water, etc. They’re also doing more ecumenical stuff with the Catholic parishes. I noticed all this kicked in, and perhaps it’s just coincidence, when the Passion of the Christ came out. Remember those days? Mel Gibson actually had an ounce of religion and didn’t knock women’s teeth out back then!

Gibson has his problems, but lack of talent is not one of them. I was amused, (and I think it somewhat demonstrates my point made earlier) in talking to protestants about the film, that they accepted everything in it as Gospel truth, not realizing of course, that much of it was not “biblical” in the sense they usually require things to be, but very obviously based on Catholic tradition. Those protestants had simply absorbed it previously from the cultural background, and didn’t question it.

 

[Jesus_Buddha]

Hmmph! I sure hope you are wrong. Better just be a Buddhist if that’s true!

Edwin

By “Anglicanism”, I refer to the Anglicanism of Old, which may not actually exist any longer – at least in its “English” form.

 

[twopekinguys]

Personally, I think we are getting closer together theologically than many people give credit.

My parish is seeing more and more Baptists coming to the Catholic Church, and I think things like this are helping.

 

[Cairisti]

when they were scandalized at some of their money going to increasingly liberal and secular schools like Baylor and Wake Forest through the “Cooperative Program”.
Rory

Baylor??? Liberal??? Don’t think so! ( I went there. It’s not known as the Baylor Bubble for nothing! They are very conservative. WF, I’m not sure about.)

I have been noticing more Baptists joining RCIA in the last few years. And from speaking to my Baptist parents, their church has been adding a few “Catholic” things. For instance, a couple of months ago I saw on their church on tv and they had the couple of children who were about going to have their first “Lord’s Supper” kneel ! That would never have happened 20 years ago! (Then the pastor went and explained that it was just symbolic. )

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Baylor??? Liberal??? Don’t think so! ( I went there. It’s not known as the Baylor Bubble for nothing! They are very conservative. WF, I’m not sure about.)

I have been noticing more Baptists joining RCIA in the last few years. And from speaking to my Baptist parents, their church has been adding a few “Catholic” things. For instance, a couple of months ago I saw on their church on tv and they had the couple of children who were about going to have their first “Lord’s Supper” kneel ! That would never have happened 20 years ago! (Then the pastor went and explained that it was just symbolic. )

Hi Cairisti, I don’t know what “WF” means.

If I am mistaken I apologize, but my recollection is that this was what we were told as to one of the justifications for why our own college president and pastor supported breaking away from the Convention. If Baylor is as fundamentalist as the independent Baptists, I was told lies. I got the impression that there were non-Baptists on the religious faculty and that some of them denied inerrancy in the 40’s and 50’s and permitted women to wear pants (very telling, heh). I also got the impression that the movement of which I spoke had what would be considered a positive effect on later developments at the schools in question. I don’t know when you went to Baylor, and I had no intention of attacking your school, just reporting what we were told, and illustrating that Baptists are not bishops, the Convention has no power over local churches, and that if local Baptists decide they want to dump the Convention they can, in a way that Catholics could never do.

Rory

 

[GKC]

Sounds like they’re becoming more Anglican, going back to their Anglican roots.

Anglicanism is the Heart of Christianity.

I see us more like an upset stomach.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus *

 

[Cairisti]

Hi Cairisti, I don’t know what “WF” means.

If I am mistaken I apologize, but my recollection is that this was what we were told as to one of the justifications for why our own college president and pastor supported breaking away from the Convention. If Baylor is as fundamentalist as the independent Baptists, I was told lies. I got the impression that there were non-Baptists on the religious faculty and that some of them denied inerrancy in the 40’s and 50’s and permitted women to wear pants (very telling, heh). I also got the impression that the movement of which I spoke had what would be considered a positive effect on later developments at the schools in question. I don’t know when you went to Baylor, and I had no intention of attacking your school, just reporting what we were told, and illustrating that Baptists are not bishops, the Convention has no power over local churches, and that if local Baptists decide they want to dump the Convention they can, in a way that Catholics could never do.

Rory

: No need to apologize. I just thought it funny someone would call Baylor “liberal & secular”.
WF = Wake Forest, btw.
I went to Baylor in the 1980’s and yes, we had a fundamentatist group there, but were able to break from them. Baylor was at the time run by the Texas General Baptist Convention, not the SBC like most think. Probably why Baylor got a “reputation”. I know we had non-Baptists as faculty, but I think most of those in the Religion dept were all Baptists. (Not sure though) .

But you’re right, local Baptists are all autonumous. (Probably why there are more than “57 flavors”. )

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I felt the same way! When I was growing up I thought that all Protestants were Bible experts! I thought they all knew the Scriptures through and through and only we Catholics were un-learned in the Bible. As I got older, boy did I find out that stereotype was wrong! And when the Passion came out, you’re right, they thought it was all in the Gospels LOL…and what’s even funnier is that they’re not just Catholic ‘traditions’ but a heap of the scenes in that flick came out of Sister Anne Catherine Emerich’s visions that were put to writing…Gibson was a big fan of her visions and threw a lot of them in.

I am amazed at how Gibson has gotten a free pass for so long because of his “talent.” Growing up a fan of Mad Max, Road Warrior, the Lethal Weapon films, Braveheart, etc. I adored the guy. When Passion came out, even moreso. But boy that guy is a nut. He’s troubled, deeply. He’s abusive, an adulterer, a supposed orthodox hardcore Catholic who judges everyone else and yet has divorced and shacked up a kid out of wedlock, has huge amounts of loathing for Jews and black folks, and generally has a trash mouth as well as a drinking problem. The laundry list of issues is big. If it were anyone else, he’d have been discredited and cast off long ago. Amazing what making a few good movies does to wipe away culpability and give you a stay of execution…

Gibson has his problems, but lack of talent is not one of them. I was amused, (and I think it somewhat demonstrates my point made earlier) in talking to protestants about the film, that they accepted everything in it as Gospel truth, not realizing of course, that much of it was not “biblical” in the sense they usually require things to be, but very obviously based on Catholic tradition. Those protestants had simply absorbed it previously from the cultural background, and didn’t question it.

 

[Soldier_X]

I see us more like an upset stomach.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus *

That one was good!

 

[Soldier_X]

I felt the same way! When I was growing up I thought that all Protestants were Bible experts! I thought they all knew the Scriptures through and through and only we Catholics were un-learned in the Bible.

They just want you to think that. It’s simply part of the game plan.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I felt the same way! When I was growing up I thought that all Protestants were Bible experts! I thought they all knew the Scriptures through and through and only we Catholics were un-learned in the Bible. As I got older, boy did I find out that stereotype was wrong!

Catholics are at least as familiar with the bible; likely more so due to the cycle of readings at Mass. But we know it in a different way. For most protestants (not all…mostly fundamentalists), it’s more a matter of having memorized argument points; sort of like a high school debater’s quote cards. With Catholics, it’s more of a mosaic, without all that much emphasis on a particular snippet. Catholics can rarely tell you chapter and verse for a particular passage, and don’t have them mentally arranged as argument points. But there is almost none of the New Testament with which Catholics are unfamiliar. The Old Testament is a bit different for the same reason. The readings don’t contain all that much of it, and they’re read more as an additional exposition of the New Testament readings.

 

[Contarini]

Catholics are at least as familiar with the bible; likely more so due to the cycle of readings at Mass.

I question that. For one thing, I’ve had a lot of Catholics *tell *me that they aren’t familiar with the Bible. For another, it’s unfortunately not true that liturgical reading of Scripture ensures familiarity. At least, it isn’t true in the Episcopal Church, and my somewhat more limited experience leads me to think that it isn’t true in your Church either.

Edwin