Conversion

I've been thinking about this for a long time, and a good number of recent blog posts (and not-so-recent) tie into this. I'm coming to the point where I just can't defend Protestantism anymore. Unless someone can help me out of the problems which I have, conversion is imminent; I'll talk about Roman Catholicism here, but Eastern Orthodoxy hasn't been ruled out yet.

In the following arguments, I would like to note that there may be some false dichotomies. I am not perfectly happy with the way things are laid out; however, I'm dealing with a crisis of conscience concerning a murky area, where nothing comes out either clear or certain. To ignore my conscience now would be wrong, whether or not following it would be right, as I would be purposefully choosing against what I see to be good and true for my own comfort. Given that, the following is only meant to be a way of sorting through the issues, and not as a knock-down drag-out argument.

(1) With that said, the first position which I have to take is on the issue of orthodoxy: how much does it really matter? Should I advocate a position of orthopraxy instead (to one degree or another), a position which allows for competing "conversations" (such as the emergent church or Anglicanism), or is there a specific truth to which I need to hold and to which I should be encouraging others to hold?

If I am to avoid RC, then this is where I need to get off; either at orthopraxy or conversation. Neither of these options really satisfy me, however. Orthopraxy seems to require beliefs as much as orthodoxy, both about what to do and why we should do it. So I'm not sure concerning the extent to which the two can be separated; they are different in degree, maybe, but not in kind. The emergent church could be a possibility, given our present circumstances and the difficulty in coming to any sort of conclusion, but who are the conversation partners? If one person thinks that Jesus is God and another that Jesus was just a good person, is it ok to simply disagree and move on within a church setting? And I'm not sure that Anglicanism can get away with glancing at the church tradition selectively. It's probably the best option of the above if I want to preserve some sense of orthodoxy, but whether or not the Via Media can hold up rationally (I think it might be able to), it's tearing me apart existentially.

In addition to this, there is the position of those like Paul and John within the church. They may not have had complete theologies, but they preached what they had as if it were important to believe those specific things. They treated the specific points in theology as important, and so churches which back off of the orthodoxy issue don't seem to line up with the NT. It was important for Paul that churches hold onto the tradition which he gave to them, and not "merely" love each other (though the latter was rather important as well).

However, given all of this, I will still have to do more work on this area. These are just my preliminary thoughts on the matter.

(2) So, we've decided on orthodoxy; that is, a church that takes a clear stance on the relevant issues. Within this, we have Catholicism and Protestantism for now; we can throw in Orthodoxy to the Catholic side for this discussion. My problem is that I can't see how Protestantism has any legitimate authority.

Protestantism rests on the ability of people to read the Scripture on its own; failing that, we could have a priesthood of scholars deciding theology. But, this was the position that Germany took, with the results that followed. So, we must look at the interpretation of Scripture by everyone. Why should we assume that this is possible? I don't see this being affirmed in Scripture anywhere; in no place does it affirm its own perspicuity, or that individual interpretation is valid. I don't see this being carried out empirically; churches split, and everyone reads what is right in her own eyes. I don't see this being possible linguistically; texts are read in interpretative communities, as the early church could tell us (this doesn't need to come from postmodern literary criticism). It may be, despite all of this, that perspicuity of Scripture is possible, but I want to see some reason for thinking it true.

It may here be argued that I am making a straw man for myself, that Protestantism can hold to some tradition; it cries "sola scriptura," not "scriptura nuda." This is all well and good, but where does the interpretation of Scripture come from which critiques its own reading? We can decide to have another interpretive community, but why think that it got things right? If the Reformers actually did hit on the correct interpretation, then we could be all well and good, but the point of the posts De fide and De operibus were precisely to show that the Reformers got their categories wrong, and were not trustworthy interpreters.

Next, I would like the see that Scripture itself were complete enough to critique any interpretive community which had been reading it. However, everything in the NT is occasional. Yes, I even take Romans to be a letter addressing a specific issue, albeit more systematically than Paul's other letters. These are letters written to the churches which have already received the truth through the preaching and sharing of the various missionaries. The texts then are complements; they might touch on every relevant point of faith, but I can see places in them where there are issues which are not discussed in sufficient detail (baptism and the laying on of hands, for example, seem to have more behind them then is mentioned; and Paul himself tells people to hold to the traditions which he had handed down, presumably before the letter itself). Given all of this, I find it hard to believe that we have the whole story completely in written form. If this is true, though, then where do we go for the rest? Is it honest to plunder tradition for a couple nuggets as needed, but ignore it when it stresses things like the unity of the church?

Finally, what makes Protestants so different from, say, the Arians? The Arians thought that they had the Scriptural high ground in their own interpretation. They believed this as much as and Protestant does. They probably weren't any worse it their reading. But, in the end, we all want to deny their view, Protestant as well as Catholic. How can I affirm this, though, and then turn around and allow the private interpretation of Scripture for the Protestant? If I allow for the early ecumenical councils, though, at what point do I stop and say, "This tradition is now invalid?" Would this be any different?

(3) So, if Protestantism is having problems, what can I say about Catholicism? It's not that I completely agree with RC, but my initial problems are melting away as I learn what their real beliefs are.

As far as the concept of tradition goes, despite the language used at the council of Trent which suggests that tradition and Scripture are two sources of revelation, the general view which I have seen through RC history and most recently in Vatican II is that tradition, church, and Scripture cannot be completely taken apart. There was a deposit given from Christ to the apostles, who in turn passed it on to the church through their appointed successors. This consisted both of writings and the apostles' teaching; not as if there were some additional, secret teaching given beyond what was written, but as stated before the writings are occasional and building off of the initial preaching and building up. The Scriptures are sufficient for salvation, but this does not entail that they can be read by themselves; they must be read as the deposit given the church by the apostles, in light of the meaning given through the community.

So, the next question becomes: why did this not become one vast game of telephone? And, naturally speaking, there is no reason to think that it has not. However, if God has not guided his people in one form or another throughout the years, then what can we hope for in matters of doctrine? The Protestant answer I find to be lacking, and quite honestly it appears to by a mere rationalism to allow for the Protestant way of life. I am somewhat skeptical of the Catholic answer, but I will allow that it has a greater potential to be true.

The next question becomes, are there any doctrines which I find to be especially pernicious? That is, that not only do I disagree with them, but that I find them downright dangerous? The more I look into matters, the less I find this to be the case. The pope may be infallible, but this is through the power of God and not simply as a human being; in addition, such infallibility does not lead to the right to give new revelation, but only to draw out of what has already been given. The immaculate conception may still be a stumbling point, but at least Mary was cleaned of the taint of original sin only through the work of Christ, and so is a type, an exemplar of the church rather than a naturally perfect human being. And as given in my posts De fide and De operibus, I think that Scripture is actually more coherent with a stronger interpretation of "works" than what many Protestants allow.

So, with all of this, I would not choose RC completely on its own. However, I see the following situation: There is an A, Christianity, which I believe to be true. Further, A comes in two forms: P and C, where P entails not-C and C entails not-P. As far as my open options go, these are the only two forms available to me. I am not sure about either P or C, but I think that P is beset with innumerable, intractable problems, while C is at least possible (whether or not it is probable). There is a possible line of transmission for the beliefs in question for C, and this breaks down in P. In addition, C doesn't seem to contain any doctrines that break down A, and so is a valid form of A. Therefore, even if I don't prima facie see how C is true, as long as I think that A is true, P is most likely false, and C is possible, than I have to go with C.

(4) The above have mainly been my rational inclinations. I will now jot down a few existential considerations, things which have been bugging me continually and which make me want to make the change.

First, I am tired of the disunity within Protestantism. It may not be quite as bad as RC makes it out to be, and I myself even used to argue that it was only on the surface, but I'm really doubting that now. Churches split, different theologies are everywhere, and there is sometimes little common ground, even within evangelicalism. Theological views are coined to justify different positions, rather than with any real plausibility. For someone who has become subjectively convinced of a view, this may not be an issue, but I'm forever on the outside, never able to take the (to my mind) intellectually dishonest moves which settle the arguments.

Second, the anti-intellectual trends in evangelicalism. I go to a school with pastors, who simply want to go out and "preach Jesus." They don't really want to understand their views, they don't want to know why what the teach is true, they just want to get out there with a pre-packaged view and hand that off to others. And this is at one of the top evangelical seminaries in the country. In no other job would I want a candidate who cared so little about understanding the prerequisites! Another generation of churches will be fed poor views about Scripture, about faith, about God, and so on, because some people can't be bothered to wrestle through the issues. And in all of this, I am again left out on the side. I'm told that doctrine matters, but that those who really try to understand will get it wrong unless they say what everyone else is saying. It has come to the point where "sola scriptura" and "sola fide" are more important than whether the bible teaches these things. The impact of all of this is that people really don't seem to work well without some sort of tradition, and will manufacture one for themselves (without acknowledging it) if it is denied them (again, I realize that a proper Protestant view of tradition is better than this, but I think the problem remains even once details are worked out). I simply say that the traditions which I see around me are illegitimate at their core.

Third, the flip side of the previous point is that I feel a debt of gratitude toward RC, as being the place where I actually find some intellectual (and therefore, for me, part of my spiritual) sustenance. I have been offered thin gruel within Protestantism, with a single loaf of bread being regarded as a feast. Some new movements, which pull from modern thoughts on hermeneutics (such as with Treier and Vanhoozer) and which don't shove everything into a shallow system of logic, are doing something about this, but I feel that it is too late for me to really jump back in. Too many uninsightful arguments for inerrancy, too many proof-texts which treat the Bible like a text of science or philosophy, have had their toll.

(5) With all of the above said, I now open this post up to comments. I've seen what happens to posts like this, so I am establishing some ground rules. Ignore these, and face deletion. Forgive me for being a trifle blunt, but some of these issues have really rankled me in the past, so humor me if nothing else:

1. The words "fallen from grace" will not appear in any posts. If you wish to make this point, go back and read the posts under the "Bible" label and comment on those. I will still disagree with it, but at least then we can discuss what Scripture actually says about grace, faith, and works, and not what some have pulled from a single verse.
2. If you haven't heard about what Catholicism teaches from a Catholic source (preferably either an official source or an educated Catholic), then you don't know what Catholicism teaches. Ask questions, but don't assume that you've got it down.
3. Any Bible passage needs to be exegeted and placed in context if it is to make a substantial point. Yes, you may think that your passage says one thing, but many other people who have read the Bible at least as much as you have thought differently. Make a case.
4. Similarly, no Bible passage has a clear meaning when it comes to this topic. If you think it does, it's nice to have an opinion, but the clarity of the verse isn't particularly clear. See the previous point.