What is your opinion of this article about Evangelicals vs. Roman Catholics? Please read before responding. God bless!🙏

  • Thread starter Thread starter glencor63
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The “contributor” to the article says a lot of things that make sense to me. At first I thought I’d discount him as another non-Catholic critic, but as I read more I realized that I agree with him on a lot of what he wrote.

The primary author didn’t seem to have a whole lot to say that was particularly interesting to me.
 
I think there’s certainly a lot of truth to what he says. His comments on Catholic schools and Catholic education are most striking.

But I do think he overestimates the resilience of the evangelical movement. The Church has been around for 2000 years. Evangelicalism has really sprung up as a force in Christendom over the last 50 or 60 years. Movements that grow quickly are also susceptible to fading away quickly. But time will tell.
 
You are correct. Montanism, for instance, grew strong quickly but then faded away within about 100 years.
 
Having gone the other way, I think one has to do a bit of selection bias to really get at what the guy is saying. Granted, he acknowledges that some of it is possibly region-specific, and I do at least agree with him that Catholicism seems a bit lazier than Evangelicalism when it comes to fostering community and providing faith formation.

However, the idea that Evangelicalism is somehow more resistant to liberalism is a bit odd considering that:
  1. The Church itself hasn’t given into liberalism. In fact, Catholicism is arguably more socially conservative than Evangelicalism, though Evangelicalism is so broad that there might be some that match Catholicism.
  2. His complaints about the Church being slow and Evangelicalism being quick to respond can also go the other way and bring in more liberal elements, so long as people respond to it well.
Furthermore, Evangelicalism has not remained immune to liberalism. There are Evangelicals who have embraced nestorianism, modalism, and other Christological heresies. There are Evangelicals who support gay marriage, and in fact Justin Lee, arguably the most prominent proponent of pro-LGBT Christianity, is a self-proclaimed Evangelical. I’ve known many Evangelicals who would support sex outside marriage under certain circumstances and abortion under certain circumstances. On the flip side, some will openly support neo-Nazism and attempt to justify hatred of certain groups and people.

And of course, none of this accounts for Evangelical groups that are so desperate to appease a large audience that they’ve effectively watered down Christianity into nothing more than feel-good, Christian-inspired spirituality, which is a darker side to the “fill a need” culture the guy touts. This gets extended into rather relativistic, semi-universalistic ways of thinking that is incredibly rampant in Evangelicalism from what I’ve seen. There’s also matters like contraception where many, in my experience most, Evangelicals seemed to have just embraced the culture.

Now, this isn’t to say Evangelicalism is in total shambles and is already given into the culture. Yes, certain Evangelicals have absolutely thrown themselves into the arms of the culture, whatever part of it that may be, but Evangelicalism’s relatively libertarian approach has also allowed many…less desirable…elements to creep in while still waving the Evangelical flag. And if I were to take a guess, Evangelicalism’s “appeal to people” approach the guy mentioned will likely be its downfall by appealing to people’s unrighteous desires. The movement may remain, but it will continue to change in unfortunate ways.
 
My main impression is that at looking at the strengths and weaknesses of both Evangelicals and Catholics, nothing was mentioned about which ones are true. Is truth determined by numbers in the seats? The collection plate?

And Evangelical numbers are decreasing as well. Perhaps not as dramatically as Catholisim but they also didn’t see decreases until recently so there may be catching up going on.

The comments were betterhan the article in my opinion. Both sides chimed in and had some interesting points. If Evangelicals continue to water down the theology in order to fill the pews, what does that mean for Christianity? Does evangelical faiths have a reckoning coming? If everyone just ups and moves on when they don’t like the theology in their current church, how long before you have many churches with one member?

Also, I have a question about this: “Additionally, if you wanted to start a ministry or a program or something to combat secularism or people leaving the church, you have to go through the magisterium. I can’t imagine how many efforts at creating great Catholic responses to the problems of post-modernity have been stymied by the church hierarchy.” Is this true? Thanks.
 
I think Evangelical Protestants and Catholics are closer than ever to uniting, and I pray fervently for this to happen in my lifetime.

One of my favorite Evangelicals, John Ortberg (who grew up with me! we were in the same church for our entire childhood and teen years) writes books that include quotes and stories from and about Catholics and Catholic saints. His attitude is delightful, and I think a lot of Evangelicals share his view of Catholicism–totally Christian! That wasn’t the way things were when I was growing up and Catholics were “anti-Christ” and “whore of Babylon.”

But the abortion issue has forced Catholics and Evangelicals to work together to defeat the great evil of killing children. Each group has strengths and together, they are able to make inroads against the horror of abortion. In our city, the local Crisis Pregnancy Center was founded by Evangelical Protestants, but the current Executive of this Center is a Catholic woman. And our local Rescue Mission was founded decades ago by Evangelicals, and for years, Catholics were not allowed to serve on the Executive Board–but now they are on the Board.

Music is another example of Evangelicals and Catholics getting together. For years, Catholics have been coming to Christian rock concerts by Evangelical Protestant groups and soloists, but now, Evangelicals are coming to Christian rock concerts by CATHOLIC groups and soloists!

I play piano in an Evangelical Protestant church (that would never have happened when I was growing up!) and there is a respectable number of hymns in their latest hymnal by Catholics, including ancient hymns in Latin! Several of the Evangelical Protestant churches in our city have incorporated “Lectio Divina” , incense, candles, confessions, etc. into their worship services and practices–it’s really amazing to hear about!

It’s coming! I pray for it to come soon!
 
Last edited:
“Also, I have a question about this: “Additionally, if you wanted to start a ministry or a program or something to combat secularism or people leaving the church, you have to go through the magisterium. I can’t imagine how many efforts at creating great Catholic responses to the problems of post-modernity have been stymied by the church hierarchy.” Is this true”?

Yes, I believe that this is true. It’s why I insist that Reverend Billy Graham could not have fulfilled his vocation as a Roman Catholic. I won’t repeat all that I wrote on a previous question, but the structure of the Catholic Church and hierarchy (especially in 1947 when Reverend Graham started) favors priests and religious in ministry. It does not allow married clergy in the Latin rite. Ruth was his soulmate and ministry partner. I think too many people in the hierarchy allow adherence to tradition (which isn’t necessarily bad) to stifle the Holy Spirit when it wants to strengthen the Church in areas where she is weak.
 
Last edited:
CTBcin said:
I think there’s certainly a lot of truth to what he says. His comments on Catholic schools and Catholic education are most striking.

But I do think he overestimates the resilience of the evangelical movement. The Church has been around for 2000 years. Evangelicalism has really sprung up as a force in Christendom over the last 50 or 60 years. Movements that grow quickly are also susceptible to fading away quickly. But time will tell.
Click to expand...
I agree about over emphasizing the resilience.

You can find Evangelical ministries in a given year doing good work, and solidly orthodox in doctrine and moral teaching. But go back 40 years, you can also find churches, schools, ministries that were equally solid then, that are for one reason or another shaky now.

The Baptist Church near me flip flopped on abortion and same sex marriage. The Assemblies of God church had been a regional leader in evangelism, prolife, opposing porn, and cooperation with Catholics. The former pastor was a powerful teacher who often presented “mere Christianity”, the common core of Christian doctrine.

But he retired, and the church has morphed into a non denomination congregation, with little doctrine.

I heavily supported James Dobson and his Focus on the Family. But now that drifted, and he started something else.

In Catholicism there are boundaries. We have lots of dissenting individuals and institutions, but there is a solid core that they are dissenting from.

Evangelicalism doesn’t have that solid core. There’s no one who can authoritatively say “you have crossed the border into mainline, or into a cult, or into whatever.”

Evangelical means whatever a plurality of people want it to mean, at this moment. It has no permanent shape.
 
Last edited:
I felt like I was reading and advertisement. There is a difference between feeling the spirit and experiencing The Spirit. Having access to the fullness of truth doesn’t make me smarter than my bothers and sisters in other faiths. It’s a blessing that I need because I’m a sinner, who, if allowed the slightest leeway for selfishness because it “feels good” or “seems right” will stray into mortal sin very quickly. I love the passion of Evangelicals, but I need a single source of Truth, regardless how it makes me feel.

Most of the article pointed out imperfections on the Church. But also seemed to argue that those imperfections were due to laziness or some malicious intent versus human weakness. The author seems to be lacking in Charity, the Queen of Virtues.

He didn’t feel his parish offered much to support raising children in the faith, yet he didn’t mention any attempts to start such a program on his own. He just left. I can appreciate such a feeling because I’ve been guilty of doing the same thing many times in my life when I was unhappy with something. But I’ve come to realize it’s a shortcoming in me, even if there are areas for improvement in others in the situation too.

Sin leads to separation, and separation leads to sin. And there seems to me to be a separating, accusatory tone to his article that isn’t warranted.
 
So I read the article. I didn’t like it.

It implied that in the United States only with Catholicism does ethnic background seem to predispose somebody to a specific religion. This is nonsense. The person who said this should travel to more places in the US. For example in Minnesota with loads of Scandinavian influence and heritage, Lutheran churches will have far more resources than Catholic churches. This has nothing to do with the Catholics being lazy. This list can go on for people in the US. People who are of a Slavic background in the US (aside from the Polish of course) tend to be orthodox, people who are of an English background tend to Anglican in the US, etc. etc. In many parts of the US this is still a reality. In different regions of the US, different Christian denominations have more resources depending on the background of the people who live there.

I agree with other posters, the person who said these things lacks charity. Religions should not just be another service where you find a the best deal for you and your family. In certain regions of the US, the Catholics will not have the most resources. This is not because they are lazy. It shouldn’t mean you drop your faith to find the church with the most resources in town.
 
Last edited:
My first thought…
I’m someone who made the switch from Catholicism to Evangelicalism principally based on my wife and I deciding that the Catholic Church wasn’t going to do anything to support us in raising our children in the faith.
Click to expand...
This, what’s in it for me approach to “church” is a very worldly way of looking at our relationship with God.
So Catholics were basically naked out in the world, poorly formed in faith and very easy to pick off with seductive secular ideas
Click to expand...
Reminds me about a story… God, His children, garden, serpent. Ring any bells?
But in my experience, the evangelical kids are still miles ahead of Catholic kids most of whom couldn’t give you a clear Christology to save their lives.
Click to expand...
Again, I think he’s missing the point. The intellectual part is fine & needed. But it’s about genuine love that comes from the heart.

A man has two sons. He tells them to go tend to his garden. The older son says he will not, preferring to spend time with his friends. The other says he will.

Moral, it’s not about what we say, but what we do.
 
C. S. Lewis is certainly the most respected scholar for evangelicals. His classic Mere Christianity is written to help bring people into the overall Christian Faith.

He doesn’t try to steer people to a specific denomination, but does say that eventually you should choose one.

He says your choice should not be based on where you you like the service, or services, but specifically, where is the fullest measure of truth.
 
What if you feel God is calling you beyond being Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox and that he is using you as a bridge of healing between the separated branches?
 
Last edited:
glencor63 said:
What if you feel God is calling you beyond being Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox and that he is using you as a bridge of healing between the separated branches?
Click to expand...
I’m itching to respond to this, but I don’t want to be late for Mass. Later!
 
glencor63 said:
What if you feel God is calling you beyond being Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox and that he is using you as a bridge of healing between the separated branches?
Click to expand...
When we say “the fullness of the faith” I believe there is no “beyond.” I believe if you are being called to heal the separation you are called to bring souls to the Catholic Church.

I believe there is one body of Christ & that is the Catholic faithful. All the other denominations present false bodies of Christ, anti-christ if you will. We must look beyond what is false, recognize the true Christ & follow Him.

It was the same in Jesus’ day. False messiahs every where & people would choose which messiah to follow or not choose at all.

When Pilate offered to release a prisoner for the Passover the people were to choose between a worldly messiah in Barabbas who preached liberation through violence & a different kind of messiah who preached liberation from what truly binds us. They chose the worldly messiah.

Same is happening today.
 
He didn’t think the preparation in his parish for the sacraments was sufficient.

So he left to join a church with only 2 sacraments (baptism and matrimony).
 
Other denominations don’t have a false concept of Jesus. An incomplete concept of Jesus might be more accurate to say.

All Christian faiths have some elements of truth. Some more than others.
 
glencor63 said:
What if you feel God is calling you beyond being Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox and that he is using you as a bridge of healing between the separated branches?
Click to expand...
C. S. Lewis was Anglican, but today read and cited by evangelicals. If you haven’t read him, I urge you to read Mere Christianity, and so much else.

Besides bringing people into the Christian faith, he also did serve as a bridge of healing among those of different denominations that still accepted the common dogmas of Christianity, and their own denominational doctrines.

He tried to unite the High Church Anglicans and Catholics, and the Low Church Anglicans and evangelicals in a common cause (“Deep Church”), but each person committing to a specific Church.

He was opposed to the Broad Church movement. This pushed what he considered fake Ecumenism, by minimizing doctrine, making the Church a social advocacy agency, with some spirituality thrown in, for spice.

He accurately predicted what became mainline Protestantism. As a Catholic I feel more supported by someone in the Anglican Continuum or LCMS, who really believes doctrine, than by the liberal Catholic or Protestant, who rejects dogmas, but loves “Ecumenism” (Broad Church variety).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top