What is an appropriate response to one who left the church?

[cooterhein]

I converted to the Catholic Church from a fundamentalist background. My family and friends had no problem asking me why I switched. After I converted, I dated a girl who belonged to a fundamentalist sect. None of her family or church members had an issue with asking me why I switched.

So yeah, I guess I’m confused. Even more so now.

I agree with this. I’m still trying to figure out exactly why this is, but I’ve noticed a difference between…maybe not most, but many Catholics, and most if not all non-Catholics. Among those Catholics, there’s more of a tendency to view overt signs of religiosity (ie., whether or not you’re attending Mass, keeping the sacraments, etc.) as the only type of religiosity that is anyone’s business. Other aspects of religious life- for which the best name I can come up with is your “private religion”- is no one else’s business, and on top of that, it’s believed to be of less importance than the success you have in consistently displaying the overt signs of your faithfulness to the Church. Again, I don’t know if this is true of most Catholics, but it’s true of many.

By way of contrast, there’s very few non-Catholics who feel this way about…“private religion,” or at least what I mean by the term. (Probably not the best choice of words, but it’s the best I can come up with right now). For the non-Catholic, overt signs of religiosity are of practically no importance- in fact, they only mean something insofar as they actually lead to (or proceed from) personal change and growth that is brought about by God. One of the huge differences between this point of view and the first one is that from the first perspective, matters of “private religion” (again, probably not the best term) are none of your business and if you make it your business, it doesn’t do anyone a whole lot of good. From our perspective, though, people should feel free to talk about these things with people they trust and they need to do it because it’s the only thing that matters. When you do talk about it and work through these things in a healthy manner, it’s well worth it and it does a whole lot of good that can’t be done any other way.

Generally speaking, that’s what we’re looking at. I’m still working on a better descriptor than “private religion” and I’m still trying to find out exactly why this happens, but I do think that’s an ok description of what you’re working with.

Oh, one little quibble point on terminology. Fundamentalist Christians generally belong to a non-denominational church or some kind of Free church. As such, it’s not accurate to describe these groups as sects. They aren’t sectarian in the formal sense or in any of the less technical ways that the word can be used.

 

[Bluegoat]

I agree with this. I’m still trying to figure out exactly why this is, but I’ve noticed a difference between…maybe not most, but many Catholics, and most if not all non-Catholics. Among those Catholics, there’s more of a tendency to view overt signs of religiosity (ie., whether or not you’re attending Mass, keeping the sacraments, etc.) as the only type of religiosity that is anyone’s business. Other aspects of religious life- for which the best name I can come up with is your “private religion”- is no one else’s business, and on top of that, it’s believed to be of less importance than the success you have in consistently displaying the overt signs of your faithfulness to the Church. Again, I don’t know if this is true of most Catholics, but it’s true of many.

By way of contrast, there’s very few non-Catholics who feel this way about…“private religion,” or at least what I mean by the term. (Probably not the best choice of words, but it’s the best I can come up with right now). For the non-Catholic, overt signs of religiosity are of practically no importance- in fact, they only mean something insofar as they actually lead to (or proceed from) personal change and growth that is brought about by God. One of the huge differences between this point of view and the first one is that from the first perspective, matters of “private religion” (again, probably not the best term) are none of your business and if you make it your business, it doesn’t do anyone a whole lot of good. From our perspective, though, people should feel free to talk about these things with people they trust and they need to do it because it’s the only thing that matters. When you do talk about it and work through these things in a healthy manner, it’s well worth it and it does a whole lot of good that can’t be done any other way.

Generally speaking, that’s what we’re looking at. I’m still working on a better descriptor than “private religion” and I’m still trying to find out exactly why this happens, but I do think that’s an ok description of what you’re working with.

Oh, one little quibble point on terminology. Fundamentalist Christians generally belong to a non-denominational church or some kind of Free church. As such, it’s not accurate to describe these groups as sects. They aren’t sectarian in the formal sense or in any of the less technical ways that the word can be used.

maybe the term interior religious life and exterior religious life would work? In my experience the two are connected, but I do agree that Catholics (and Anglicans) are often hesitant to talk with people about the interior aspects unless they are close. With Anglicans I think it relates to a kind of diffidence, but I’m not sure that is true so much of Catholics.

 

[hizstory]

Oh, one little quibble point on terminology. Fundamentalist Christians generally belong to a non-denominational church or some kind of Free church. As such, it’s not accurate to describe these groups as sects. They aren’t sectarian in the formal sense or in any of the less technical ways that the word can be used.

The girl I dated did belong to a “non-denominational” church. In fact, they despised all protestant denominations as much as they did the Catholic Church. However, in my neanderthal way of thinking, “non-denominational” churches are simply a denomination unto themselves.

 

[cooterhein]

The girl I dated did belong to a “non-denominational” church. In fact, they despised all protestant denominations as much as they did the Catholic Church. However, in my neanderthal way of thinking, “non-denominational” churches are simply a denomination unto themselves.

The chief mark of a denomination is a central headquarters that (at the very least) is responsible for creating and, as necessary, updating a doctrinal statement that every church in the denomination must adhere to. Non-denominational churches have no central headquarters, and while they often do belong to an association of non-denom churches that must adhere to certain guidelines in order to be a part of that organization, each individual church is responsible for creating and abiding by their own doctrinal statement.

Remember back when there was a cold war? There was the eastern bloc and the western bloc. There was (and actually still is) a third group of countries that was called the Non-Allied Movement, or NAM. Broadly speaking, all three of these are groupings of countries that are cooperating toward some common goal. More specifically, though, a bloc is characterized by a certain kind of organization that goes about meeting its goals in a certain kind of way. NAM was (and still is) a different kind of organization that goes about its business within a structure that isn’t appropriately called a “bloc” and their MO is distinctly non-bloc in nature. The countries that belong to NAM (which is almost every country in Africa, most of those in Central and South America, all the countries in the MidEast except one or two, and most of the Pacific Islands) do not constitute a bloc- they are specifically designated as non-bloc countries, and that’s why they joined NAM in the first place.

Of course, the eastern and western blocs no longer exist, but NAM still does and it’s had a little bit of work to do in terms of redefining its identity and its goals as they continue to move forward. That’s probably a little more detail than necessary, though. The main idea is that non-denominational churches are like NAM in a lot of ways. There are some things about them that, taken together, make them look a little bit like a denomination unto itself. Most of these things could be described as necessary for a denomination to be called a denomination. But a number of key characteristics are always missing from that description, such that they’re not sufficient for non-denominational to be a misnomer.

As for the particular church that your friend belonged to, I’m sorry to hear about people who do that. There are some non-denom churches that are headed up by people who behave that way. I would guess that on paper, they’re more opposed to meaningful interaction with Catholics than they are with Protestants of other denominations. But in practice, people at a church like this certainly can have a lot of hate for all kinds of people. In my own experience with a fundamentalist church, it was sort of the opposite- we were probably about the same on paper, but from the leadership on down, we practiced a more ecumenical approach to ancient religions than you’d probably expect. I guess the silver lining to this kind of situation is that even when people in this kind of setting act in a way that’s dogmatic, their church doesn’t have any actual dogma that’s causing them to act that way. The problem’s with the people and the way they behave, and sometimes that can change over time. It really helps when that kind of leadership finds that their approach doesn’t allow them to have much of a church, so we can hope that one thing or another will cause them to make a bit of a change.

I will admit, however, that I am taking this with a grain of salt. Let me put it this way- if the shoe was on the other foot and your ex was telling me about the Catholic parish you attend, I wouldn’t necessarily take that description at face value, either. So when you describe their level of hatred for other Christians in this way, I tend to think this is probably a non-denom church that does answer to some aspects of sectarianism, but I also don’t think it’s realistic for me to expect the same kind of treatment that you got- which is kind of what you told me I should expect if I ever go there. Of the two of us, you are the only one who’s actually gone there, but I can’t help but be a little skeptical when I hear that they hate on Methodists and Presbyterians just as much as they hate on Catholics. I have to admit that I feel like my credulity is being stretched a little.

 

[mortonsam]

I think it depends on both individuals. Some people can be persuasive long-term and some cannot manage it. It has to be recognized, too, that some protestant groups put their “converts” through a very intense proselytizing, and give them all the “talking points” about why they should be whatever instead of Catholic. It has seemed to me that when those “converts” are all fired up by recent proselytization, it doesn’t do a lot of good to argue with them. Very frequently, though, that “fired up” thing fades with time.

Regardless, it has always seemed to me the best “answer” is to be faithful in one’s own life and to exemplify it. It has always seemed to me that one should never, ever endorse one’s change of faith. If I don’t believe in John’s new religion, why should I pretend that I consider it valid? Possibly I’m a jerk, but I always make it plain that I do not agree with the other’s decision. I don’t dwell on it, but I don’t just let it go.

I realize some Catholics go to other religions because their own catechesis was deficient. But in my experience, there is almost always some other thing going on. Let’s face it, most protestant sects require less of a person than does Catholicism properly lived, and “personal interpretation” is central to it. Sometimes a person wants to divorce and remarry. Sometimes a person doesn’t want to give up a particular sin. Sometimes a person wants more socialization for whatever reasons he wants it. Sometimes (and I have certainly heard this) he “doesn’t want to be told what to believe”. Well, that’s the very nature of protestantism, and some people just don’t think anybody else has any right to tell them what they should and should not think or do.

I tend not to agree with what you said. Firstly, I have found it tougher and more challenging to be a Protestant than what it was when I was Catholic. My church encourages us to seek out answers and historical knowledge and to ask the “why” questions. It was easier to be a Catholic when so many times it was only required to believe and have faith in what the Catholic church taught. It didn’t work for me though and it has gotten to be quite evident in my life as to why. Even St. Paul tells us in Scripture to wrestle with our faith. Heck, even Moses argued with God and even got him to change his mind.

 

[cooterhein]

maybe the term interior religious life and exterior religious life would work? In my experience the two are connected, but I do agree that Catholics (and Anglicans) are often hesitant to talk with people about the interior aspects unless they are close. With Anglicans I think it relates to a kind of diffidence, but I’m not sure that is true so much of Catholics.

Yeah, I think interior and exterior could work pretty well. Like with almost anything, I’d want to be careful that I don’t use it to imply something that causes unintentional offense. I think I have a book that works through this kind of thing in a way that’s pretty well thought out, and it’s specifically geared for Evangelical-Catholic kinds of dialogue. I’ll see if I can find that.

I don’t think I’ve ever talked about this with an Anglican, though. As an Anglican, why do you think there’s a kind of diffidence? Does it have something to do with epistemology and levels of knowledge, or does it have more to do with assigning it a lesser degree of importance? If it has more to do with the second thing, why is it less important?

 

[hizstory]

The chief mark of a denomination is a central headquarters that (at the very least) is responsible for creating and, as necessary, updating a doctrinal statement that every church in the denomination must adhere to. Non-denominational churches have no central headquarters, and while they often do belong to an association of non-denom churches that must adhere to certain guidelines in order to be a part of that organization, each individual church is responsible for creating and abiding by their own doctrinal statement.

I think you’re reading a little too much into my posts. Unlike a lot of posters on here, I don’t split hairs, I’m a simple person. When you talk about a non-denominational church not having a central headquarters, I disagree. As far as my simple mind is concerned, in a non-denominational church there is a central headquarters. It could be the pastor alone, or it could be the pastor joined with the deacons/elders/trustees or whatever offices they have. These people constitute the church authority that write the church bylaws, doctrines, etc. that the lay people are supposed to abide by. This is what I mean by a “denomination unto themselves.”

 

[Apryl]

Apryl,

Firstly, pray for him DAILY. When you get a good chance,** tell him that there is NO REASON to jump out of the arms of Holy Mother Church, because Catholicism encompasses the FULLNESS OF CHRISTIAN FAITH.** He has probably joined a protestant church because he has had his faith challenged by protestants who speak erroneously about what they think are Catholic beliefs and practices. You know the drill: “Why do Catholics worship Mary?” and “How come Catholics pray to statues?” and weird questions like these. If he was more grounded in his Catholic roots he would have no trouble answering these false accusations. Truth is, many Catholics are ignorant of the teachings of the Church…and these innocent lambs become the victims of skewed attacks by protestants who think they know better!

By the way, you might want to hook him up with a convert to Catholicism, like yours truly. My ancestors were all Baptists, but through the apologetics of such great Catholic scholars as Dr. Robert Sungenis, Jimmy Akin and Patrick Madrid (to name but a few), I have become a firmly-convinced and confirmed Catholic! I recommend that you purchase one of their books and wrap it up as a gift to your friend at Christmas!

Thank you! I think you understand what I’ve been saying (and was unable to make it clear.)

That line about ‘the Church includes the fullness of the faith’, I think, is the kernal I was looking for.

I’ll keep this.

What I really want to do, rather than address HIM, but make sure that should any one else tell me, I have a ready response!

 

[hizstory]

Cooterhein,

How do you classify Southern Baptists? Do you consider them protestant, evangelical, fundamentalist, or a combination of these? This is the group my parents now belong to.

Also, the girl I dated belonged to a “Christ Church”, which she said was non-denominational, but “loosely affiliated” with the Churches of Christ. I researched this group back to the Campbellite restoration movement of the 1800’s.

As a child, I was baptized in both a baptist church and a Church of Christ. In my teenage years I attended a United Methodist church and in my late teens/early twenties was a very active member in a Church of Christ in Christian Union. So, I have been exposed to a variety of non-Catholic worldviews.

 

[Apryl]

I don’t think it hurts to ask someone why they decide to make the switch…if you have a healthy, open relationship with him, why not ask? It shows you are interested in his life. But the key here is to LISTEN to what he has to say and not to argue him out of it.

That’s an excellent point that the conversation must be two sided. IF I were to ask, ‘why’, which I don’t expect to ask that question, it’s very important. If not for this person, for the next one who is still in the Church.

I’m just amazed that I, who have parents who barely could spot the priest if they saw him on the street and couldn’t even be called CME Catholics, am in with both feet. My contemporaries, whose parents I have hung out with doing the Church-Thing, they have gone to other churches.

I just don’t get it.

 

[hizstory]

…I can’t help but be a little skeptical when I hear that they hate on Methodists and Presbyterians just as much as they hate on Catholics. I have to admit that I feel like my credulity is being stretched a little.

It’s kinda funny that you ended your post this way. When we were having our break-up talk, she told me that she had to be with someone that was going to Heaven. So, I asked her if it would make a difference if I were Methodist instead of Catholic and she said no.

My personal opinion was that this church was more of a “cult” than a church, but I’m sure the word “cult” probably isn’t technically correct.

 

[Sherry_G]

If this person is a good friend of yours, it makes sense to find out more details, certainly. I once had a similar situation and my question was “Don’t you miss receiving Jesus in the Eucharist?” We’ve had many, many talks since then, attended a Bible study on our lunch hour from work together, and continue to grow in our faith and share that freely. She recently told me “This may sound silly to you, but I can see myself coming back to the Catholic Church but not right now”. “When I am older and don’t need to worry about birth control”. So, each person has to make their own decisions but it doesn’t need to happen in a vacuum. We are all in this life together. I pray for my friends’ return home to the Catholic church and am always ready to discuss it with her if she wants to do so. She has asked me for a rosary, and a “how-to” booklet that includes the “new” luminous mysteries, etc and I have provided these things. Be kind and loving and supportive is my advice.

 

[Miriam1947]

I understand that ideal of ‘spiritual journey’. What does fascinate me, though, is some of the most devout, most staunch Catholics I know, their children grow up and RUN from the church. I would love to tap into that and say, ‘what need is it that you felt the Catholic Church wasn’t meeting? And why do you think it’s being met at your new place?’… but I can’t get that kind of dialogue in a 5 second blurb.

Which is what I’m looking for

When I first became Catholic I ran into the same sort of issue. Customers would come into my Catholic store to buy gifts for First Holy Communion or Confirmation and then tell me that they had left the church.

Why? I would ask. This is often the answer. I went to mass every Sunday since I was little and I don’t want to go anymore. It’s as if they went so often that that was enough. I had no answer for them. I guess we pray and leave it in God’s hands.

But I must say that bothers me as well.

Then again who am I? I put off RCIA for a whole year because I knew that if I became Catholic I would have to go to church every single Sunday. That is pretty much all I knew about the Catholic Church. And I wasn’t ready to give God ONE WHOLE HOUR a week. Why God didn’t just strike me down is beyond me.

So what do I do now? I go to daily mass as well as every Sunday. And I thank God everyday that He made me Catholic.

Who knew?

 

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, I think interior and exterior could work pretty well. Like with almost anything, I’d want to be careful that I don’t use it to imply something that causes unintentional offense. I think I have a book that works through this kind of thing in a way that’s pretty well thought out, and it’s specifically geared for Evangelical-Catholic kinds of dialogue. I’ll see if I can find that.

I don’t think I’ve ever talked about this with an Anglican, though. As an Anglican, why do you think there’s a kind of diffidence? Does it have something to do with epistemology and levels of knowledge, or does it have more to do with assigning it a lesser degree of importance? If it has more to do with the second thing, why is it less important?

No, I don’t think it is either. First, I will say that it is no longer true everywhere, and my explanation is related to this. Essentially, I think it is about emotional reserve which seems to be more characteristic of more Northern peoples. Not only do we not talk about spirituality with others easily, we don’t talk about our emotions, our sex life, or many other interior subjects. They are understood to be private. I suppose most Anglicans would think both interior and exterior parts are important, with the evangelical factions would emphasize the interior ones.

Now, these days, the majority of Anglicans are not in the North, they are in places like Africa, and they tend often tend toward a more evangelical perspective. I don’t know if they are more inclined to talk about the interior spiritual life.

 

[Apryl]

If this person is a good friend of yours, it makes sense to find out more details, certainly. I once had a similar situation and my question was “Don’t you miss receiving Jesus in the Eucharist?” We’ve had many, many talks since then, attended a Bible study on our lunch hour from work together, and continue to grow in our faith and share that freely.

 

[Apryl]

“When I am older and don’t need to worry about birth control”.

This annoys me. Natural Family Planning is very effective. At least as effective as the hormonal birth control.