Participating in Evangelization with Protestants

[StuartW]

Brief background: I was confirmed Catholic in high school. Unfortunately in college, not appreciating the immeasurable Grace I had in the Church, I fell away from the Catholic Church in favor of protestant tradition. While at school I joined InterVarsity (intervarsity.org), a non-denominational para-church evangelical Campus mission group. Eventually I was placed on leadership, but not too long after that I was brought safely home to the Catholic Church by the grace of God. After coming home to the Church I resigned my position of leadership, because I could not in good conscience send people to non-Catholic churches, among other reasons that I’m sure you can imagine. A question posed by John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint also helps summarize my thoughts:

“When non-believers meet missionaries who do not agree among themselves, even though they all appeal to Christ, will they be in a position to receive the true message? Will they not think that the Gospel is a cause of division, despite the fact that it is presented as the fundamental law of love?”

So now that I’ve given you a little background on where this question is coming from, my question is this: in the light of the ecumenism that is emphasized via Vatican II, is it morally licit to evangelize with non-Catholics?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts, if possible please provide official Church documents and doctrine in reference to your opinions. I’ve taken some heat, in the name of ecumenism, for leaving InterVarsity from a fellow Catholics who are involved with InterVarsity. I would appreciate some solid teaching in this area so that I can either correct my own errors or help instruct our brothers and sisters who may be in error.

Thank you.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I don’t have the time to look up that quote in context, but it would almost seem to decry the mixed evangelization that you seem to say it supports.

This is a tricky subject, and I will merely give my thoughts, as at the moment I don’t have the time or access to official Church teaching on the subject. I think it’s a mistake. I think ecumenism is fine for defining the differences between us, as in the case of the Lutheran-Catholic dialogues, but when approaching non-believers it confuses the issue as you have to explain the basic tenets as well as the differences between your version vs the protestant’s.

Then you find yourself in the situation of having to deal with which dogmas you consider “key.” We believe baptism saves, he most likely will not, barring Lutheran and a couple other denominations. If he is reformed even more difficulties arise, and a “power struggle” WILL ensue, because each side obviously wants the convert to be on the side he deems more true. Baptism, to use the same example, either saves or it doesn’t. Now is not the time to convert the un-believer with your mad argumentative skillz. He will see the division, be more confused and likely turned off.

I think a major problem with the more recent ecumenical movements is that it confuses people as to what the purpose of ecumenism actually is. I believe it is for mutual respect, understanding, and continued dialogue. I do NOT believe, however, that it is compatible with joint evangelization, and the reasons should be somewhat obvious. They don’t have the whole truth. And a gospel compatible with Protestantism is a watered down gospel. We are to preach the truth, and in the process dialogue with others on our points of commonality. Anything more would seem to miss the point and endanger souls. These are merely my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Tietjen]

I don’t have the time to look up that quote in context, but it would almost seem to decry the mixed evangelization that you seem to say it supports.

This is a tricky subject, and I will merely give my thoughts, as at the moment I don’t have the time or access to official Church teaching on the subject. I think it’s a mistake. I think ecumenism is fine for defining the differences between us, as in the case of the Lutheran-Catholic dialogues, but when approaching non-believers it confuses the issue as you have to explain the basic tenets as well as the differences between your version vs the protestant’s.

Then you find yourself in the situation of having to deal with which dogmas you consider “key.” We believe baptism saves, he most likely will not, barring Lutheran and a couple other denominations. If he is reformed even more difficulties arise, and a “power struggle” WILL ensue, because each side obviously wants the convert to be on the side he deems more true. Baptism, to use the same example, either saves or it doesn’t. Now is not the time to convert the un-believer with your mad argumentative skillz. He will see the division, be more confused and likely turned off.

I think a major problem with the more recent ecumenical movements is that it confuses people as to what the purpose of ecumenism actually is. I believe it is for mutual respect, understanding, and continued dialogue. I do NOT believe, however, that it is compatible with joint evangelization, and the reasons should be somewhat obvious. They don’t have the whole truth. And a gospel compatible with Protestantism is a watered down gospel. We are to preach the truth, and in the process dialogue with others on our points of commonality. Anything more would seem to miss the point and endanger souls. These are merely my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Holly3278]

I don’t think I would. I mean, Protestants have some very fundamental and severe differences with Catholics.

 

[Petergee]

Our bishops in Australia obvoisly believe that evangelizing **with **non-Catholics is not necessarily morally illicit. They have co-sponsored and co-funded many campaigns in the mass media promoting “mere” Christianity and urging people to go to church (by implication hinting at the church that each one of them is nominally a member of).

Of course the bishops no doubt carefully vet the wording of each ad to make sure there is nothing contrary to Catholicism in it.

Being part of a face-to face “mission group” would be a lot more tricky. If you were evangelising people one-on-one it might be OK - as you say it would be wrong for you to tell people to go to a non-Catholic church. But if you were doing it in pairs with a non-Catholic buddy, obviously you couldn’t rely on him not to say something contrary to Catholicism, so JP2’s warning would kick in.

And especially when I see the word “non-denominational”, alarm bells go off. Whilst putatively meaning "whatever

 

[StuartW]

I don’t have the time to look up that quote in context, but it would almost seem to decry the mixed evangelization that you seem to say it supports.

This is a tricky subject, and I will merely give my thoughts, as at the moment I don’t have the time or access to official Church teaching on the subject. I think it’s a mistake. I think ecumenism is fine for defining the differences between us, as in the case of the Lutheran-Catholic dialogues, but when approaching non-believers it confuses the issue as you have to explain the basic tenets as well as the differences between your version vs the protestant’s.

Then you find yourself in the situation of having to deal with which dogmas you consider “key.” We believe baptism saves, he most likely will not, barring Lutheran and a couple other denominations. If he is reformed even more difficulties arise, and a “power struggle” WILL ensue, because each side obviously wants the convert to be on the side he deems more true. Baptism, to use the same example, either saves or it doesn’t. Now is not the time to convert the un-believer with your mad argumentative skillz. He will see the division, be more confused and likely turned off.

I think a major problem with the more recent ecumenical movements is that it confuses people as to what the purpose of ecumenism actually is. I believe it is for mutual respect, understanding, and continued dialogue. I do NOT believe, however, that it is compatible with joint evangelization, and the reasons should be somewhat obvious. They don’t have the whole truth. And a gospel compatible with Protestantism is a watered down gospel. We are to preach the truth, and in the process dialogue with others on our points of commonality. Anything more would seem to miss the point and endanger souls. These are merely my thoughts on the matter.

I agree with you. I must have misrepresented my thoughts, but I was using that quote to support my decision to leave InterVarsity, not as a reason to continue evangelizing with non-Catholics.

My personal moral dilemma is that there are still a few of our Catholic brothers and sisters on leadership roles that assume an endorsement of the conduct and teaching of InterVarsity. So as I’m sure you can imagine that makes for some interesting conversations and a lot of questions about where the line is, and I’d like some concrete Church teaching on the subject if there is any to be found.

 

[Petergee]

And especially when I see the word “non-denominational”, alarm bells go off. Whilst putatively meaning “whatever we do and say is approved by all Christians”, in practice it means, “we don’t care what type of Christian you were before, join us and we’ll make you into OUR typoe of Christian which we’re too embarrassed to tell you the name of”. Though i this case they let slip the word “evangelical”, again an inniocent meaning in itself but in practice meaning “hardcore protestant - we oppose all Catholic doctrines except insofar as they agree with extreme protestant views.” Steer away from this group. They may be basically good people whom as a Ctholic you can cooperate wuith in some way but not in joint evangelisation. As far as they’re concened Catholcisim is not an acceptable option.

 

[NHInsider]

Wasn’t it IVCF that had a recent dust-up because some local chapters were allowing Catholic members to make slight alterations to the statement of faith so they could sign it in good conscience, and the national organization said “no way”?