I Took a Baptist to Church - Catholics & Anglicans Help Me Out

[CopticChristian]

My (name removed by moderator)ut might be too defensive to be useful as an immediate response unless the fellow is a blunt spoken oaf (like me!).

If the question is one of “How can you find meaning in such empty rituals?” my response would be “because I have learned the difference between spiritual meaning and enthusiasm /entertainment.”

Evangelical “praise and worship” services are heavy on the praise songs and even sometimes spontaneous exclamations of praise. But they tend to ignore the ‘worship’ aspect. In my (admittedly limited) experience, they seem to think that ‘praise’ is the fast paced tunes that make you excited and ‘worship’ is the slow paced tunes that make you teary. It’s all about us and how we feel. Doesn’t that get old? Don’t you ever yearn to participate in worship where the focus is on God, on His revelation, on His Incarnation as Christ and on the amazing gift He has given us? One which is not dependent on emotional manipulation techniques and group-feel experiences? That’s what mass is. You don’t come away feeling wowwed and entertained because that’s not the PURPOSE. The purpose is to BRING yourself and offer yourself in worship and sacrifice in union with the sacrifice Christ made at Calvary. To be remade and transformed by that participation. It’s NOT entertaining. It’s worship. Sacrifice is never fun, but it is the basis of actual love. Entertainment is not.

Manual,

My experience with Baptist services, Evangelical services are that they are one sided. A long prolonged liturgy of the word. Many of the liturgies of the word are actually extended Bible studies reinforcing and teaching the Protestant theology. Many times whenever the Bible says word it is reinforced as Bible and many times the notion of “your Faith”, “walking by Faith” etc reinforces "Faith alone’. I never had a worship experience at a Baptist or Evangelical service. I saw smiles, hands raised, agreement from the audience, preaching, music that rivalled a rock concert, and after 1-2 hours leaving shaking hands looking to be asked to another service or potluck.

The idea of having a worship service while I attended left me wondering. I never saw any of these experiences as satisfying my notion of worship. Worship is defined and experienced differently and I was never able to grasp the completeness or what was experienced by those that believed it was a worship service.

My understanding of where the Baptists roots are and the Evangelical roots and the understanding of Dispensationalism and the theology behind these services as you may understand jaded my view.

On the other hand the Mass and an Eastern service caused me to reflect and compare and contrast what I saw and believed was worship as compared to what others saw and experienced. There are two sides to every coin.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

I much prefer the beauty of the Liturgy to the “worship” of evangelical services.

 

[ladylove]

Having spent 20 years across the Tiber, and more than a few of those years in a pulpit in many types of Baptist/evangelical churches, I feel I am more than qualified to critique non-liturgical services. When I critique I am speaking as a person who also once believed as they do.
Set words, prayers and responses are exercises that require my attention. They’re not entertaining and give me goosebumps. Boredom sets in because it requires concentration and effort. Worship is something I do, not something I*** watch***. Even in a traditional Latin Mass the congregation are not passive observers.
Worship is not “fun”, the purpose is not to give me a tingley emotional high and make my toe tap to the music. It is an encounter with the living God. I do not go into His Sacred Presence like a cookout on a neighbor’s back yard.
Since you think we are being hurtful, maybe if I made it a little more personal.
This form of worship fed into MY lazy nature. Nothing was required of me, just sit and stare. What I was doing could be achieved by simply popping in a music or preaching CD or watching a service in the privicy of my home. The emotional high is great, but it doesn’t last long. It wasn’t until I stood in a pulpit that I realized this.
If that is hurtful, then the truth is hurtful. I wish someone had told me this years ago, I wouldn’t have wasted 20 years across the Tiber endlessly searching for real worship.

Yeah, but that’s your truth - not THE truth. If all you did was watch and not do in an evangelical church, then yeah, your feelings are completely justified. But if it was the other way around, it could come off as hurtful.

 

[CopticChristian]

Having spent 20 years across the Tiber, and more than a few of those years in a pulpit in many types of Baptist/evangelical churches, I feel I am more than qualified to critique non-liturgical services. When I critique I am speaking as a person who also once believed as they do.
Set words, prayers and responses are exercises that require my attention. They’re not entertaining and give me goosebumps. Boredom sets in because it requires concentration and effort. Worship is something I do, not something I*** watch***. Even in a traditional Latin Mass the congregation are not passive observers.
Worship is not “fun”, the purpose is not to give me a tingley emotional high and make my toe tap to the music. It is an encounter with the living God. I do not go into His Sacred Presence like a cookout on a neighbor’s back yard.
Since you think we are being hurtful, maybe if I made it a little more personal.
This form of worship fed into MY lazy nature. Nothing was required of me, just sit and stare. What I was doing could be achieved by simply popping in a music or preaching CD or watching a service in the privicy of my home. The emotional high is great, but it doesn’t last long. It wasn’t until I stood in a pulpit that I realized this.
If that is hurtful, then the truth is hurtful. I wish someone had told me this years ago, I wouldn’t have wasted 20 years across the Tiber endlessly searching for real worship.

Just,

I believe that what you are saying is that there is active and passive worship. Following along with a hymn book is somewhat ritualistic. Much of the services you are talking and I have experienced require you getting there, having a book, being able to listen, sing, clap, use your arms and body to move and in a sense is passive.

The Mass is active, requires concentration to listen to the passages as they are read. I usually close my eyes as the passages are read and reflect on the meaning in the context of the following passages that are read. The recognition and celebration of the death and resurrection are culminated in the liturgy of the Eucharist. I have often found myself in tears as we approach that time. I have heard some in our Parish tell our Priest that coming to Church is so wonderful because of him and he corrects them…you are coming for Jesus…not me…

I have been told to listen, take notes, recall what part of the Bible is being read, listent to instructive directed preaching and admonition, listened to some OK music, watch everyone walk out and say "hey wasn’t that great music and preaching, Pastor so and so is so…is wonderful…I love Pastor so and so…and that is what I experienced.

 

[manualman]

Dear Manualman----Way too much generalization and mischaracterization of Evangelicals here. It seems to me you’re almost doing in return/reverse what the OP’s friend did.

Perhaps. In my experience, there are two mistakes made about generalizations.

1. Lump everyone into the generalization and refuse to look at individuals and specific circumstances.
2. Proclaim generalizations to be evil and thus, refuse to see broad trends that need to be seen to be either appreciated or corrected.

I don’t claim to be an expert on evangelicalism. I only lived 3/4 of the way into that world for 4 years or so. But in my experience, the evangelical philosophy sees the sacrifice of Christ on the cross as something in the past that is done with and that today no sacrifice is required. They explicitly reject the idea of the Eucharist as a sacrifice via a misinterpreting of Hebrews “once for all” as having the meaning of the American idiom “once and for all.” They find repugnant our understanding that we offer God at every mass (once for ALL) the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. THIS is worship! To offer God the perfect sacrifice which He willingly provided for us and to offer ourselves in union with that sacrifice. The emotional highs of music and fiery preaching are just spices, not the real food. Evangelicals mostly not only don’t agree, they find the idea repulsive.

Once again, I’m generalizing. But it is a widely (if not universally) true generalization. And having experienced that rejection from a large number of believers who sincerely believed they were doing the ‘right’ thing by walking away from the church Christ established, the one where He makes Himself physically present to join a ‘fired up’ protestant community, I do get a bit too defensive about it. That’s what happens when you care. You get worked up when people describe beauty as ugliness and good as bad.

 

[CopticChristian]

Perhaps. In my experience, there are two mistakes made about generalizations.

1. Lump everyone into the generalization and refuse to look at individuals and specific circumstances.
2. Proclaim generalizations to be evil and thus, refuse to see broad trends that need to be seen to be either appreciated or corrected.

I don’t claim to be an expert on evangelicalism. I only lived 3/4 of the way into that world for 4 years or so. But in my experience, the evangelical philosophy sees the sacrifice of Christ on the cross as something in the past that is done with and that today no sacrifice is required. They explicitly reject the idea of the Eucharist as a sacrifice via a misinterpreting of Hebrews “once for all” as having the meaning of the American idiom “once and for all.” They find repugnant our understanding that we offer God at every mass (once for ALL) the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. THIS is worship! To offer God the perfect sacrifice which He willingly provided for us and to offer ourselves in union with that sacrifice. The emotional highs of music and fiery preaching are just spices, not the real food. Evangelicals mostly not only don’t agree, they find the idea repulsive.

Once again, I’m generalizing. But it is a widely (if not universally) true generalization. And having experienced that rejection from a large number of believers who sincerely believed they were doing the ‘right’ thing by walking away from the church Christ established, the one where He makes Himself physically present to join a ‘fired up’ protestant community, I do get a bit too defensive about it. That’s what happens when you care. You get worked up when people describe beauty as ugliness and good as bad.

Manual,

Good thoughts. In the Byzantine tradition it is common to greet those attending mass on entrance “Christ is risen” and the respons "Indeed He has’…now this is said in Slavik…but then the Mass happens and on exit all greet each other on the way out with “Christ is risen”…“Indeed He has”…Easter is celebrated every Sunday.

I muse at my local Parish priest that greets the congregation throughout the year, every Sunday…"How is everybody doing today…great “Happy Easter”…

 

[stewstew03]

Having spent 20 years across the Tiber, and more than a few of those years in a pulpit in many types of Baptist/evangelical churches, I feel I am more than qualified to critique non-liturgical services. When I critique I am speaking as a person who also once believed as they do.
Set words, prayers and responses are exercises that require my attention. They’re not entertaining and give me goosebumps. Boredom sets in because it requires concentration and effort. Worship is something I do, not something I*** watch***. Even in a traditional Latin Mass the congregation are not passive observers.
Worship is not “fun”, the purpose is not to give me a tingley emotional high and make my toe tap to the music. It is an encounter with the living God. I do not go into His Sacred Presence like a cookout on a neighbor’s back yard.
Since you think we are being hurtful, maybe if I made it a little more personal.
This form of worship fed into MY lazy nature. Nothing was required of me, just sit and stare. What I was doing could be achieved by simply popping in a music or preaching CD or watching a service in the privicy of my home. The emotional high is great, but it doesn’t last long. It wasn’t until I stood in a pulpit that I realized this.
If that is hurtful, then the truth is hurtful. I wish someone had told me this years ago, I wouldn’t have wasted 20 years across the Tiber endlessly searching for real worship.

I agree with this sentiment.

Evangelical churches (including “non-denominational” churches and those affiliated with the SBC) are moving toward an info-tainment style of worship. My wife is a southern baptist, and I still occasionally attend church with her. Their form of “worship” has become akin to a “concert” complete with lighting effects and even (at one time) a fog machine (it was removed after people complained)! The masses are demanding that their churches provide them with entertainment on Sundays, and will settle for nothing less. It has become a mentality of "What can you do for me and why should I attend this church? Will the music move me? Is the pastor charismatic? Can he promise me “riches” (Joel Osteen) or healing (Benny Hinn)?

It’s dangerous, and it’s a slippery slope.

Side note: the youth pastor of this same baptist church used to target Catholic teens for conversion, based on the false assumption that Catholic teens were not Christians. When my church learned this, the priest sent over two cases of the Catholic Catechism so that they could understand that Catholics do indeed profess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior - just not our own “personal” Lord and Savior.

 

[Nicea325]

Having spent 20 years across the Tiber, and more than a few of those years in a pulpit in many types of Baptist/evangelical churches, I feel I am more than qualified to critique non-liturgical services. When I critique I am speaking as a person who also once believed as they do.
Set words, prayers and responses are exercises that require my attention. They’re not entertaining and give me goosebumps. Boredom sets in because it requires concentration and effort. Worship is something I do, not something I*** watch***. Even in a traditional Latin Mass the congregation are not passive observers.
Worship is not “fun”, the purpose is not to give me a tingley emotional high and make my toe tap to the music. It is an encounter with the living God. I do not go into His Sacred Presence like a cookout on a neighbor’s back yard.
Since you think we are being hurtful, maybe if I made it a little more personal.
This form of worship fed into MY lazy nature. Nothing was required of me, just sit and stare. What I was doing could be achieved by simply popping in a music or preaching CD or watching a service in the privicy of my home. The emotional high is great, but it doesn’t last long. It wasn’t until I stood in a pulpit that I realized this.
If that is hurtful, then the truth is hurtful. I wish someone had told me this years ago, I wouldn’t have wasted 20 years across the Tiber endlessly searching for real worship.

That is one thing I have noticed about many Protestant services,one really does not have to do much. As Catholics we are not just to “attend” but also participate in the Liturgy.

 

[JonNC]

That is one thing I have noticed about many Protestant services,one really does not have to do much. As Catholics we are not just to “attend” but also participate in the Liturgy.

I think this is true of any liturgical communion.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

I think this is true of any liturgical communion.

Jon

Indeed! I attended a Lutheran wedding last year and did acknowledge the similar traits as a Catholic mass. The bride is Lutheran the groom was Presbyterian. But I did notice many at the wedding seemed a bit lost…

 

[JonNC]

Indeed! I attended a Lutheran wedding last year and did the similar traits as a Catholic mass. The bride is Lutheran the groom was Presbyterian. But I did notice many at the wedding seemed a bit lost…

They were the Presbyterians.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

They were the Presbyterians.

Jon

I would not doubt it at all. But hey…at least they attended unlike so many today who show up at the reception only…

 

[AbideWithMe]

I’m sorry that happened to you. Someone should have noticed. I would encourage you, should you ever decide to attend a Lutheran divine worship again, to speak to an usher, or an Elder, about assisting you with the liturgy.

Jon

Jon—

Yes, in retrospect I’d either read up on what to expect or ask an usher to sit me next to a friendly, helpful person. At the time–two decades ago–I had been in a good number of other semi-liturgical Lutheran churches but didn’t know more “High Church” Lutheran churches existed, so I think I was as much surprised as anything else.

I’d visited numerous churches, both mainline and Evangelical, before this particular Lutheran one, and always someone noticed I was a young woman guest and they politely took me under their wing, so to speak, without being overly “in my space”. I guess I was expecting that sort of quiet friendliness, or at least some smiles, and it would have gone a long way towards creating a sense of strangers being welcome to join in worship. Of course, that was just one church and I don’t equate highly liturgical services with coldness. But, from the viewpoint of a curious low church person or even a non-Christian walking into a church service, a combination of unfamiliar liturgy, no explanations, and no smiles or friendliness can be intimidating.

 

[Patavium]

I think @CopticChristian is right that the first thing you should have done, and this is a global rule, is get clarification. So much of what we do is based on misunderstandings or incomplete knowledge. Getting your friend to express more fully what he meant would help you to address his specific concerns.

Others have pointed this out but understanding what is going on is very important to getting meaning out of the experience. In sports the more you understand the more you can appreciate. I’ve heard a lot of people complain that baseball is boring due to the lack of action. But the more you understand the subtleties the more you can appreciate the game.

Regarding the perceived emptiness I think a lot of that can be cured by having understanding of what is going on. But it is also important to realize that we don’t worship God to get a feeling. I think a lot of people have that expectation. One thing I’ve found being around some Baptists is they are on fire for the Lord in a way that I am not. I don’t have that same feeling they do. It can make you question whether you are a true believer. But I don’t think I’m lacking. I think there are just different personalities and I also think that there is a danger in basing your faith on strong emotions. A real test of faith is doing God’s will when you don’t feel like doing God’s will. A real act of love is being loving even when you don’t feel loving. It is easy to do things you are inclined to do by emotion.

Even though I have some appreciation for the enthusiastic attitude towards God I know that is not the only way to have faith and likely not even the best since it is far more temperamental and easily threatened. In fact I would say one of the reasons we have a marriage crisis in America is because marriage has become something based merely on a feeling. If marriage was based on a commitment to love regardless of feelings it would be much stronger and more stable. I think there is a great danger in applying the same approach to God that has done so much damage to marriage.

During several months, I used to think the other way, and I was impressed with the Baptists strong motivation towards God. This post is very helpful to me. It is not about personal high on Jesus, but more on loving Jesus as He said:

[BIBLEDRB]John 14:15[/BIBLEDRB]

We must follow Him regardless if we are persecuted, hated, or worse. It is worth it. God is worth it.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Having spent 20 years across the Tiber, and more than a few of those years in a pulpit in many types of Baptist/evangelical churches, I feel I am more than qualified to critique non-liturgical services. When I critique I am speaking as a person who also once believed as they do.
Set words, prayers and responses are exercises that require my attention. They’re not entertaining and give me goosebumps. Boredom sets in because it requires concentration and effort. Worship is something I do, not something I*** watch***. Even in a traditional Latin Mass the congregation are not passive observers.
Worship is not “fun”, the purpose is not to give me a tingley emotional high and make my toe tap to the music. It is an encounter with the living God. I do not go into His Sacred Presence like a cookout on a neighbor’s back yard.
Since you think we are being hurtful, maybe if I made it a little more personal.
This form of worship fed into MY lazy nature. Nothing was required of me, just sit and stare. What I was doing could be achieved by simply popping in a music or preaching CD or watching a service in the privicy of my home. The emotional high is great, but it doesn’t last long. It wasn’t until I stood in a pulpit that I realized this.
If that is hurtful, then the truth is hurtful. I wish someone had told me this years ago, I wouldn’t have wasted 20 years across the Tiber endlessly searching for real worship.

JustaServant—

Can you clarify what kind of Baptist churches you were in? I remember you’ve said they were pretty fundamentalist. And you said they didn’t sing any hymns older than 100 years, not even “Amazing Grace” or any by John and Charles Wesley. That makes it hard for me to consider them representative of a decent range of Evangelical churches. Were they Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches?

I don’t mean to come across as though I consider myself an expert on Evangelical churches by any means. And I’m not dismissing your experience or your insights about your experience. But, I have been in a good range of Evangelical churches, in different states, over the past 45 years, and I do see Evangelicals painted (or tarred and feathered sometimes, it feels like) with much too broad a brush here at CAF.

I have limited experience in mega-churches, though I’ve visited a few. I can see many of the criticisms spoken of here likely be applicable in those cases. But, many, many Evangelical churches are semi-liturgical, such as the ones I’ve grown up with and stayed with; more than a few which dropped some liturgy are re-incorporating more; but here at CAF, that hardly ever gets acknowledged. Instead, we get blasted and blamed for one thing or another.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Could you explain for us what that generalization is?

Does my above post to you help to answer your question?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Perhaps. In my experience, there are two mistakes made about generalizations.

1. Lump everyone into the generalization and refuse to look at individuals and specific circumstances.
2. Proclaim generalizations to be evil and thus, refuse to see broad trends that need to be seen to be either appreciated or corrected.

I don’t claim to be an expert on evangelicalism. I only lived 3/4 of the way into that world for 4 years or so. But in my experience, the evangelical philosophy sees the sacrifice of Christ on the cross as something in the past that is done with and that today no sacrifice is required. They explicitly reject the idea of the Eucharist as a sacrifice via a misinterpreting of Hebrews “once for all” as having the meaning of the American idiom “once and for all.” They find repugnant our understanding that we offer God at every mass (once for ALL) the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, perfect sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. THIS is worship! To offer God the perfect sacrifice which He willingly provided for us and to offer ourselves in union with that sacrifice. The emotional highs of music and fiery preaching are just spices, not the real food. Evangelicals mostly not only don’t agree, they find the idea repulsive.

Once again, I’m generalizing. But it is a widely (if not universally) true generalization. And having experienced that rejection from a large number of believers who sincerely believed they were doing the ‘right’ thing by walking away from the church Christ established, the one where He makes Himself physically present to join a ‘fired up’ protestant community, I do get a bit too defensive about it. That’s what happens when you care. You get worked up when people describe beauty as ugliness and good as bad.

Manualman—

You’ve made a good point about generalizations sometimes being useful. However, it seems to me that rather than taking a large sampling of Evangelicals to help you form your judgment, you’re noting the problems of a portion (perhaps the loudest and pushiest portion) and judging it as though it was representative of the whole or the majority. Meanwhile, as one of the many Evangelicals for whom your critique is inaccurate, I read this “Evangelical as whipping boy for Christianity” stuff here at CAF and I’m annoyed. Why? Because I know that many, many Evangelical churches contain very much good, as Cat noted in her quote from the Catechism, and like you, it bothers me to see something I know to be good slammed around by others who have less experience of their subject than I do.

Regarding your previous post about Evangelicals and emotions, yes, I learned as a teenager in an Evangelical church that emotions are not necessarily true love. That’s a basic teaching among Evangelicals. I learned in my teens that when my emotional attachment to God waned, that was the time to stick around and learn to love Him, not just love how my religion made me feel. I’ve had to learn that lesson over and over. However, I think God often lets us learn that lesson but ultimately returns us to knowing ourselves to be the emotional creatures He designed. I’m deeply emotional, though I’m also introverted and quiet about it. Apart from an illness or perhaps a “dark night if the soul” experience, my normal “base self” is to feel things deeply. Hmmm…Jesus wept, and got angry, and was filled with joy; David danced before the Lord with all his might, but Michel was cursed for rebuking him for that.

 

[JustaServant]

JustaServant—

Can you clarify what kind of Baptist churches you were in? I remember you’ve said they were pretty fundamentalist. And you said they didn’t sing any hymns older than 100 years, not even “Amazing Grace” or any by John and Charles Wesley. That makes it hard for me to consider them representative of a decent range of Evangelical churches. Were they Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches?

I don’t mean to come across as though I consider myself an expert on Evangelical churches by any means. And I’m not dismissing your experience or your insights about your experience. But, I have been in a good range of Evangelical churches, in different states, over the past 45 years, and I do see Evangelicals painted (or tarred and feathered sometimes, it feels like) with much too broad a brush here at CAF.

I have limited experience in mega-churches, though I’ve visited a few. I can see many of the criticisms spoken of here likely be applicable in those cases. But, many, many Evangelical churches are semi-liturgical, such as the ones I’ve grown up with and stayed with; more than a few which dropped some liturgy are re-incorporating more; but here at CAF, that hardly ever gets acknowledged. Instead, we get blasted and blamed for one thing or another.

I’m not going to put a resume on a public forum because I value my privacy. They were Independent. Southern, American, and Reformed Baptist.

Now, as to the question of generalization. I really don’t feel that is what is being done (at least not by me). I have been in many mainline Protestant denominations, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Disciples of Christ, all but Lutheran (I’ve already threatened to pop in on Jon’s church in NC someday. ) In those mainline Protestant churches I never saw the caos I knew in Baptist and evangelical churches.
When people don’t have an experience with something they can, yes, generalize. I have been in a few Catholic parishes that I would hate a non-Catholic to visit and think all Catholic churches are like that one.
However, when someone HAS had experience in many, many churches, as I have, of the same type (non-liturgical churches), one can deduce pretty quickly what the pattern is.
Now, I am not even lumping all Baptist churches into this category. I have been in a few small Baptist churches that still retain at least a skeleton of liturgy. There actually is a sense of seriousness and respect in the service. Even though I disagree theologically with these churches, they have my utmost respect for doing so.
They are unfortunetly in a minority, and are fast dying off.
The mega-church model is spreading like wildfire even among mainline Protestants. It is replacing a fixed order of worship (something you do) with worshiptainment (something I watch). If I would transport Charles Haddon Spurgeon, one of the most famous of Baptists, into a time machine to the local Baptist mega-church wannabe, the poor guy would have a heart attack and die.
I guess in some ways its to be expected. We live in a short-attention span society now. Even preaching in these churches is like a postscript to the music on stage.
It is a problem that cannot be easily dodged.

 

[JustaServant]

Jon—

Yes, in retrospect I’d either read up on what to expect or ask an usher to sit me next to a friendly, helpful person. At the time–two decades ago–I had been in a good number of other semi-liturgical Lutheran churches but didn’t know more “High Church” Lutheran churches existed, so I think I was as much surprised as anything else.

I’d visited numerous churches, both mainline and Evangelical, before this particular Lutheran one, and always someone noticed I was a young woman guest and they politely took me under their wing, so to speak, without being overly “in my space”. I guess I was expecting that sort of quiet friendliness, or at least some smiles, and it would have gone a long way towards creating a sense of strangers being welcome to join in worship. Of course, that was just one church and I don’t equate highly liturgical services with coldness. But, from the viewpoint of a curious low church person or even a non-Christian walking into a church service, a combination of unfamiliar liturgy, no explanations, and no smiles or friendliness can be intimidating.

Just make sure you are not generalizing about Lutherans.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Thank you for pointing this out in a gentle way.

I agree, way too many generalizations about evangelical Protestants on this thread. I find certain comments from certain posters just plain hurtful.

We will never be a good witness of Catholicism to our evangelical Protestant friends and relatives until we are willing to acknowledge that they are indeed our separated brothers and sisters, and recognize what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says–“Many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church.” (Para. 819)

We also have to be able to get into the evangelical Protestant’s head and try to understand why they feel the way they do about “liturgy” and “ritual.” I tried to explain those feelings in an earlier post, but it apparently didn’t make it into this thread, so I’ll just let it rest.

But I will say this: one of the best things we could do with our “Baptist” friends is listen to what they have to say and try to understand their mind and heart without attempting to refute them, at least not right away. We Catholics should try to live a life of righteousness and love, and then others will see that our faith in Christ is real and vibrant, and long to have what we have.

That entire section of the Catechism is worth a re-read: Paragraphs 813-822.

Thank you, Cat, for your understanding post.

It would be nice to read from the many knowledgeable posters at CAF in order to learn more about Catholicism, without having to read inaccurate generalizations about Evangelicals by Catholics. Being human, I get annoyed and sometimes hurt by things I read here, and that makes it harder to be open to listening to what Catholics have to say about Catholicism.

Evangelicals do a nice job of critiquing themselves. They understand the subject best, and, like most people, for several reasons we give more credence to “in-house” critiques.