Ask a Minister

Question: I have a question that has me quite a bit perplexed. It concerns the recent "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" accord. Those that signed it are in agreement not to proselytize each others flock. This is very confusing to me as an ex-Catholic. It makes me feel like their was no reason to leave the Roman Catholic Church, and, according to the accord, I have no right to lead a Catholic to Christ. Of course, I am not going to abide by it. There is a question about what they believe, as opposed to the Bible. The present pope, who is very ecumenical, a Marianist (according to the August 1997 issue of Newsweek, there are rumblings in the church about making Mary a co-redemptrix with Christ and proclaiming her deity, with the pope leaning towards proclaiming it dogma), and he considers people like the Dalai Lama and Muslims as serving the same God. I am enclosing a picture of the pope receiving a blessing from a Shiva priestess.

As you can tell, I have issues with this. I consider the Roman Catholic church the biggest, most deceptive cult ever installed on the face of the earth. I love the Catholic people and I have met many that are genuine in their love of the Lord, but I know that as good Catholics, they will believe anything that is proclaimed "ex-cathedra" by the pope. I was brought up a "cradle Catholic," but praise the Lord, He has shown me the truth of His Word.

Can you see why I am concerned? What do you think of this accord? I really appreciated your previous letter, concerning the early church fathers. Please help me with this one.

Answer: Your question about Evangelicals & Catholics Together contains a good answer to itself. In the past I had heard and read several great, opposing critiques of the Accord, but in spite of all my efforts I was unable to locate them. Thus, I decided to do a hands-on critique myself--as limited as that might be. If you will indulge me the rambling of my observations, perhaps, it will confirm your convictions:

First, I saw the subtleness and the boldness of the fact the Accord immediately presupposes and declares that both Evangelicals and Catholics are "Christians" in the same sense of the word. Without discussion or concessions, it assumes for the readers that Catholics and Evangelicals are "brothers." Note this from the Introduction: "...divisions between Christians that obscure the one Christ."

From the remarks of the context of this statement, one could conclude that neo-Nazis that call themselves Christian and those who slaughter innocents in the Mideast but call themselves Christian are our "brothers" as well. It never addresses the fact to bear the name Christian is a far cry from having had the experience of being born-again a Christian and living as a Christian. Again, it just presupposes for the reader that both Catholics and Evangelicals are Christians in the same sense of the word and that we must heal this rift between "brothers."

Note later in the Accord, "Much more important, we thank God for the discovery of one another as brothers and sisters in Christ." Here I want to stress that I am talking of the beliefs of each, Catholics and Evangelicals, as a whole. The truth of the matter is that there are many Evangelicals in name who are not saved. Likewise, there must be some Catholics who have had a salvation experience. As a former pastor of mine used to say, "There are people whose hearts are right, but their heads are screwed on wrong." The point is, will devoted adherence to the teaching of both lead to a true Biblical experience of salvation? The answer is clear: To devote one's self to the teaching of the Catholic church in no way will lead to a Biblical experience of new birth. To devote one's self to evangelical teaching does in fact lead to new birth. (When I speak of devoting one's self to the teaching of evangelicals, I mean to accept the Gospel, which is only clear in a true evangelical witness.)

Let me make a general observation: Just because two people use the same words, that doesn"t mean they are each talking of the same thing. It is the content each would assign to the words that matter. For example, we, the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Hare Krishnas, all talk about Christ. But when we use the word "Christ" we talking about the Word made flesh, the God/Man and Man/God. When the Mormons use the word Christ (Jesus), they are talking about one of many gods, brother to Satan. To the Jehovah Witnesses, Christ (Jesus) is Michael the Archangel--and so forth.

It is easy to see just because two use the same words, they may not be talking about the same thing at all. Therefore, how can we have dialogue with Catholics, when in the end analysis they would assign totally different meanings to words such as justification, faith, church, born-again, etc.? (If not different definitions, different understandings of the definitions.)

Simply put, Evangelicals may use the same terminology as Catholics, but we are not talking about the same thing. To evangelicals, the Bible supplies the understanding. To the Catholic, the Church supplies the understanding. For example, in the Accord, both affirm "that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ." It is ignorance and naiveté to believe that Catholics and Evangelicals mean the same thing by these words.

Take also, "We affirm together that Christians are to teach and live in obedience to the divinely inspired Scriptures." As interpreted by whom? To Romanism, we should live according to Scripture as interpreted by the Roman Church. To an evangelical, one lives according to the Scripture as it is illuminated to him by the Holy Spirit. (Of course, the Spirit uses teachers in the church to help the individual.)

The Accord keeps calling attention to the conflict between Catholics and Evangelicals that needs healed. Forget specific exceptions. Generally throughout history, the conflict has been mainly this: Catholics view salvation as through the Church, the sacraments as administered by the Church, and Evangelicals view salvation as through an experience of conversion of individual faith in God"s grace through Christ"s blood. How can we just forget this difference and avoid this conflict?

"Because," would say the Accord, "we both have one Mission." Again, that is a big jump. The point is again quite simple: The Mission isn't the same for both. The Mission of the Catholic Church (as history easily verifies) is to spread the Church. Evangelicals' Mission is (if motives are right) to spread the Good News. A true evangelical would rejoice in a person's conversion and subsequent church attendance even if that person didn't begin to come to the witness"s particular brand of evangelical church.

This stress on the one Mission of both Catholics and Evangelicals misses something important, especially in the climate of United States: I believe it was Francis Shaeffer that introduced what puts it best. He said something to the effect that it is one thing to be a co-belligerent and another to be an ally. Two groups can be against the same things and yet be far from having world views close enough to even begin to be allies.

For example, NOW (National Organization of Women), if I'm correct, is against pornography which they'd say degrades women. I, as a Pentecostal evangelical, am also against pornography, for Biblical as well as other reasons, but I would never consider myself an ally with NOW. The U.S. in dealing with Saddam Hussein should realize this. There are Muslims who would love the irradication of Saddam, as the U.S. would, but they could never be considered allies in the real sense of the word.

Yes, the Catholics and Evangelicals admittedly are both as a whole against abortion, euthanasia, etc. But they are co-belligerents, not allies. Perhaps, they could cooperate on a political stage (which I believe that as a body a church shouldn't do) but certainly not on an ecclesiastical stage. If social concerns are adequate grounds for ecclesiastic unity, why not Evangelicals, Catholics, & Muslims Together? By the way, why Evangelicals and Catholics together? Are not there many nominal, orthodox, Protestants that are closer to Catholicism than Evangelicals? Why not work at healing the centuries' old rift with the Eastern Orthodox?

To me, some statements in the Accord must have been made knowingly, leaving out the real crux of the matter. Take for instance "Our communal and ecclesial separations are deep and long standing." This is in a context suggesting that it is these that separate us. What about theological separations? That is the real underlying matter. It is the theological, hermeneutical matters that result in the communal and ecclesial separations.

These well listed and then dismissed as nonconsequential in our unifying in the "mission of the Gospel." "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3). When all is defined, we agree on very little except some social concerns on which, as already we discussed, we are co-belligerent but far from allies.

To say that in search of Truth "we need one another," the question is "Why?" So the Catholic Church can help me interpret the meaning of Scripture? What if Martin Luther had relied on the help of the Catholic Church?

With the matter of proselytizing, we again face the matter of definition. Although the Accord tries to define it, in the end two things are still clear:

One can accept some of the distinctions made by the Accord between evangelizing and proselytizing: "Any form of coercion - physical, psychological, legal, economic - corrupts Christian witness." Although evangelicals are not totally spotless in this, evidences piles high that Catholics are/or have been. Also, one wonders if the Catholics" idea of evangelism isn"t dominated today, where coercion has not been possible, by syncretism. Thus, often to evangelize a people is to mix in the sacrament and papal authority with existing aboriginal pagan religions and practices. It is clear, even if we could agree on what proselytizing is, we cannot agree on what evangelizing is.

To relieve us of feeling the need to evangelize Catholics, the Accord tries to erase the evangelical's thinking that the Catholic needs evangelizing by saying, "there are different ways of being Christian." Yes, there are different ways of expressing our faith in style, culture, etc. There are different ways of expressing our experience. But there is but one way to become a Christian. There is only one means. And that is being born-again by putting one's faith in the blood of Jesus Christ. True belief will not just be mental assent. There will be an inward conversion and regeneration far removed from any ritualistic involvement of Church liturgy.

One must concede that the Accord is well written. It is well written literarily. It is also well written in that it is so couched in Biblical and spiritual sounding language; it makes one seem unspiritual to reject it. Also it very well appeals to one's sensibilities to atrocities and injustices in social matters, so that one could easily forget the theological and Biblical matters.

Chesterton once said something to the effect that a person can draw a giraffe any way one wants to, but if it was going to be a giraffe, it would still need to be drawn with a long neck. The long neck is the differentiating characteristic that makes one recognize a giraffe as a giraffe. The Catholic Church may have the four legs of Biblical terminology, the spots of lip service to Christ, but the fact remains; it does not have the long neck of the belief in the Biblical conversion experience of new birth.

Additional Resources