What Is an Evangelical Roman Catholic?
March 26, 2007
John H. Armstrong
Many conservative evangelicals would consider the question this article poses as the pursuit of fool's gold. There simply cannot be such a thing as an "evangelical Roman Catholic." The two are mutually exclusive, at least in theory. No true Catholic can be a true evangelical and no true evangelical, could ever become a true Roman Catholic. I would have numbered myself among those who believe this way about ten to fifteen years ago. I have changed my thinking, and this has caused considerable interest and opposition. I want to explain, in a rather succinct way, why I believe that there are evangelicals who are Roman Catholics and why I think this question matters. I can still hope more and more evangelicals will agree with me.
The Heat Is Sometimes Intense
The level of heat associated with this question is intense, especially on the Protestant side. Catholics have no vested interest in the name evangelical. They will use the word evangel (and the word evangelism, but more likely evangelization) quite freely, referring of course to the gospel of Jesus Christ and the spread of his gospel. Evangelicals, especially in America, have a more defined social construct in view when they use the word evangelical as either a noun or an adjective. (The simple fact is this—it seems that no two evangelicals can agree with each other over what the word means these days.)
I have heard countless debates about the meaning of the word evangelical, even taking sides in these debates in the past. One group wants to retain the word but only if it is clearly, and quite specifically, connected to Martin Luther's rediscovery of the gospel in the sixteenth century. (This, by the way, is why you see the word evangelical in the names of Lutheran churches that have little or nothing to do with the evangelical movement in America, at least directly.) Others want to use the term to refer to those forms of Protestantism that flow out of the awakenings since the Reformation, including both the Reformed and the Arminian churches. Southern Baptists, among whom I grew up as a child, often rejected the term completely. Most historians agree that evangelicalism has a particular connection to the Protestant gospel emphasis of the sixteenth century. But then the term evolved, especially in America, into the revival traditions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Eventually these traditions became a part of militant fundamentalism in the 1920s and then broke away into various strands of what is now known as modern American evangelicalism. Evangelicalism "became the most influential religious and social movement in American history" (Randall Balmer, ed., Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, 204).
So, when I ask if Catholics can be evangelicals the very question is ludicrous on the one hand, but interesting and important in an entirely different sense. It is this interesting, and presently still developing, sense that I want to address.
My Personal Relationship with Roman Catholics
I would have argued, at one time in the past, that some Roman Catholics might be real Christians but this would be true in spite of the fact that they were still Catholics. They could be real Christians, I reasoned, because they believed in Jesus properly and thus they were really "bad Catholics" at best, or in need of help to get out of the great apostate church. The best thing for such Catholics to do would be to come to the point where they saw the gross errors of Catholic dogma and leave their church for a sound Bible-believing evangelical church. This is pretty standard "conservative evangelical" thinking on this point. Other evangelicals thought differently. People like the late Bill Bright, as well as Billy Graham and Chuck Colson, spoke of Catholics in a different way. This disturbed me at times but puzzled me generally. (They had to be wrong about their approach. I reasoned, rather arrogantly I now believe, what could you expect from two non-seminary trained evangelists?)
In the 1980s I began to collect and read Catholic books and Catholic theology. I met people who had left the Catholic Church, usually after experiencing a rather pronounced conversion experience in a non-Catholic context, and I met evangelicals who were going "into" the Catholic Church. To say this confused me would be an understatement. I sided with the anti-Catholic view and wrote against those who entered the Catholic Church. But, and this always gnawed at me on the inside, "Who did I know personally in any of this debate?" It was easy to take shots at ideas and people I did not know. When I began to develop close personal friendships with Roman Catholics, the story began to change in my life. And when I confessed the Apostle's Creed one day, saying "I believe in one, holy, catholic church," I realized that there could only be one church. This required me to take seriously the divisions in the worldwide church for the first time. More importantly it forced me, rather uncomfortably, to take seriously my own personal contributions to this sad division.
Catholics and Personal Faith in Jesus Christ
The more I got to know "real" Roman Catholics, both lay people and priests, the more I understood what I was reading and thinking about. Thinkers like C. S. Lewis, and his classic Mere Christianity, had an immense influence, as did J. I. Packer, Donald G. Bloesch and Charles Colson. But please understand, to think that I was simply led where I did not want to go, and by human forces that swayed me against my better judgment, would be a foolish conclusion. I saw faith—living, vital and deeply personal faith in Jesus Christ, among the Catholics I was getting to know. (Some will say "I've never seen this personally." I do not doubt your claim but you should not make this a universal claim, since you do not know the people I know nor have you prayed and served with these folks as I have.)
I am now convinced that there are millions of Roman Catholics who know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. To use our evangelical terms "they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." This sentence will astound some and anger others. But I stand by it. These Catholics are evangelicals, not because they are in our particular movements, but rather because they have been brought by the Holy Spirit into the grace of God in Jesus Christ through explicit faith in the Savior. Some have great assurance of forgiveness and great joy; others still lack assurance and need to grow much more deeply in their faith.
But you may say to me, "I know many Catholics who are lost and believe in salvation by good works." So do I. Some of these may be your own parents or brothers and sisters. This grieves you, as it should. But I also know many evangelicals who are lost and believe that they too are saved by a one-time decision that has done nothing to transform their lives in a deeply spiritual and formative way. This argument will lead us nowhere. And if you are an ex-Catholic, and make this argument with your family, you will do nothing to help them come to know Christ. You are likely to drive them further away by your attacks, which they take as personal. Remember, if you are baptized a Catholic it is part of who you are; it is a family name, a deeply ingrained social and religious construct. When someone leaves that family and then attacks it then why are we surprised that they defend themselves against such attacks?
Evangelical Catholics love the Scripture and read it. They believe in the power of the Holy Spirit and the new birth. They also gladly affirm that other non-Catholic evangelicals are real Christians too. There are many terms that can be used to describe such Catholics. Here are only a few, and these are variously used by Catholics themselves—deeply committed Christians, charismatic Catholics, born-again Catholics, or Catholics who love the Lord deeply and personally. If these expressions are true, and I am convinced that they are in many cases, then these Catholics are necessarily my brothers and sisters as much as any other Christian who takes the name of Christ and follows him in discipleship.
Honestly, my problem in this whole development has not been with Catholics, though I meet liberal Catholics, and even some traditional (culturally) Catholics, who want nothing to do with me and my love for the Scriptures and a church that is not Roman Catholic. My problem has been with extremely conservative evangelicals who think I have left the faith, denied the gospel, and committed serious sin for finding rich and loving fellowship with many Catholics.
Why Should Catholics Embrace the Word Evangelical?
The word evangelical has been variously misunderstood and disowned by Roman Catholics. The reason for this is not hard to understand. Catholics remember the reactions of fundamentalists and they watch evangelical Christian television and find it most unattractive and, at times, anti-Catholic. But the word originates from the Greek word for gospel in the New Testament (euangelion). It has always been a word that described those whose lives were transformed by the good news. This is why the Protestant revivals produced new "evangelicals." (By the way, there have been real Catholic revivals as well, as scholar Jay P. Dolan has made abundantly clear!)
I believe Catholics should help us reclaim the right use of the term evangelical. This word can be reclaimed, in a new time and with new meaning, if we both recognize it as a way to express the transformation that is brought about by believing the gospel of Jesus Christ. And if we are committed to proclaiming this message, in word and deed, then we have a common basis for a true ecumenism in a world that needs a strong Christian witness from all churches.
Pope Paul VI urged a strong emphasis on the proclamation of the "Good News." This was highlighted by the famous Vatican Council II in the 1960s. There are those who argue that this council did absolutely nothing to change the Roman Catholic Church. It only modernized the same old errors of the past. I also once argued this same point. But I have studied Vatican II extensively and have discussed theology in depth with serious Catholic theologians. I think the problem is actually not too difficult, but I am quite sure those who disagree with me will not hear what I am about to say. Rome does not change the way we expect it to change. It will never "attack" a former teaching but it will move and shift, over much time, away from that emphasis. Many evangelicals will cite articles of the Council of Trent, articles that are very bad in my judgment, and say, "There, this is what Catholics believe and they have not changed an iota."
My answer to this is quite simple. Rome changes in ways that are much like the way common law changes. We have old laws on our books that are still there to this day. But these laws are now understood differently and relate to new contexts. Further developments have (in effect) changed how we now understand the past in terms of the present and the future. The Catholic Church, because it has a living magisterium, also works this way.
Let me use one example and then I will pick up my argument in other ways in the next ACT 3 Weekly, April 2.
I have asked several serious Catholic theologians if the anathemas of Trent apply to me since I teach "sola fide," or faith alone. They will answer me by asking a question: "Do you believe that we will be saved, in the final day before Christ, on the basis of faith without any works at all? Will bare faith alone save you?" When I answer, I explain that I believe faith is a gift and we are rightly united to Christ through that gift, and not by any works we do. I also assure my friend that I believe the judgment will reveal that those who had real faith also had works which demonstrated their real faith. The response I get, every single time, is this: "This anathema does not apply if that is what you believe." There is generally an acknowledgement that the rhetoric and heat of the 16th century forced conclusions that do not apply in precisely the same polemical way in our time.
The late Pope John Paul II and the present Pope, Benedict XVI, both ardently promote evangelization. And both openly welcomed the use of the word evangelical and the input of evangelical and Roman Catholic dialogue. The result of this has been a lessening of tensions in places like Latin America. John Paul II, for example, welcomed Campus Crusade for Christ into his native Poland so they could reach university students with the good news. This could not have happened twenty-five years ago. It is happening now. I welcome it and openly embrace this as evidence of the Spirit's sovereign power to work as he pleases, where he pleases, and with whom he pleases. This, in my worldview, is good theology.
This is a wonderful article--thank you for articulating what I've been unable to say. I have many Catholic friends, and I think this really help me in my conversations with them.
We have defined Christianity as Evangelical or Catholic, and have largely ignored the Orthodox. I know of one who went from Pentecostal to Anglican to Orthodox, and we have the interesting development in Jaroslav Pelikan, who also ended up Orthodox.
I would hope that a serious dialoge could be developed among all three traditions.
Great stuff John. True catholicity is what will show the world that we belong to Jesus. (John 13:34-35)
One of the reasons conservatives have a hard time believing there is change in Rome is that are so opposed to change themselves. A friend that followed me in my first Church in Akron OH said, after a Bachelors and Masters degree in theology, that he had not changed one bit of his theology since the day he was saved. It is the same reason we have the problems we now have in reformed circles, thinking beyond what we have been is not allowed.
My earnest prayer is that we will see true catholicity is the generations to come so the world will see Christ's love in us. A true Passion and Easter prayer.
Keep up the good work John and I pray for your courage and strength.
I thought I would shoot this short response to you for what ever it is worth.
Great stuff John. True catholicity is what will show the world that we belong to Jesus. (John 13:34-35)
One of the reasons conservatives have a hard time believing there is change in Rome is that are so opposed to change themselves. A friend that followed me in my first Church in Akron OH said, after a Bachelors and Masters degree in theology, that he had not changed one bit of his theology since the day he was saved. It is the same reason we have the problems we now have in reformed circles, thinking beyond what we have been is not allowed.
My earnest prayer is that we will see true catholicity is the generations to come so the world will see Christ's love in us. A true Passion and Easter prayer.
Keep up the good work John and I pray for your courage and strength.
In Christ,
Ralph
Rev. Ralph Selin
8535 Lodi Center Rd.
Lodi NY 14860
Phone: 607-227-3779
Reformed Community Church of Ithaca
Logos Bible Software Reseller
John,
In my opinion, this another one of the best articles you have ever written. As a truly "Evangelical Roman Catholic", I thank you for writing this, even though I know there are many Protestant and Catholic brothers and sisters who will not understand what you have written. You have encouraged and influenced me in so many positive ways. Keep doing the good work that God has called and enabled you to do. God bless you my brother!
Dear John,
Last time I wrote to you we dialogued on my questioning your ascribing to Roman Catholicism the designation as a Christian religion. I appreciated your response, though in retrospect I realized you responded with some preconceived ideas concerning my interactions with family members who remain R.C. You stated then that it is not helpful to hold to the belief that R.C. is not a Christian tradition. In this week's article: "But you may say to me, "I know many Catholics who are lost and believe in salvation by good works." So do I. Some of these may be your own parents or brothers and sisters. This grieves you, as it should. But I also know many evangelicals who are lost and believe that they too are saved by a one-time decision that has done nothing to transform their lives in a deeply spiritual and formative way. This argument will lead us nowhere. And if you are an ex-Catholic, and make this argument with your family, you will do nothing to help them come to know Christ. You are likely to drive them further away by your attacks, which they take as personal." Why the use of "attacks"? On the same level wherein you are frustrated with conservative Christians who speak uncharitably about the R.C.C., I am frustrated with your seemingly blindness (I do not mean, brother, to be condescending or uncharitable - I search for non-offensive words because I seek not to offend you)to the genuine burden of those like myself, who mourn for the lost condition of family and friends and want nothing less than for our witness to be to the God-ordained end of the salvation of souls. I believe you esteem the role of logic in healthy debate, and yet your comparison of the lost R.C. trusting in works to the church-going 'evangelical' who never lives never bore witness of transformation. The major, life or death question, difference in these two cases is what gospel is preached from each church pulpit? Let me get out of the way the reality of the absence of the Cross saturated Gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone on account of Christ alone, that is unfortunately and lamentable the majority report of evangelical pulpits. My point is that the R.C. is not deficient in what they teach, they teach Roman Catholicism. The fact that there are nominal Christians in some of the healthiest churches was spoken of by Christ himself, wheat and tares. But a religion that by no means points its adherents to sufficiency of Christ alone can (apart from the sovereign grace of God alone) produce only tares. You speak of the evolution of the R.C. church since Trent as changing but not recanting (my words). I trust that your research is accurate, yet this does nothing for my heart. Where is the integrity for what has been taught historically, where is the encyclical testifying of the new teaching? I purchased for my mother the lastest Catholic catechisms wherein the anathema for sola fide still stands. I wrote to previously and made mention of your continual part in my pilgrimage (this has not changed, I am thankful for your ministry), I read as time allows the Journal. So I am confused by the your note concerning R.C. revivals (Jay P. Dolan). As I read some of the articles on the Great Awakenings, I think I recall reading from one author that the R.C. churches were notably without visitation during these seasons of refreshing. To which I at the time thought was perfectly understandable. Whitfield, Edwards, Nettleton, preaching Pauline doctrines of grace. Again, I confess ignorance of Jay P. Dolan, but for me the idea of the Holy Spirit blessing teaching that at best is deficient in Biblical fidelity and at it worst heretical in its denial of the finished work of Christ, is mystifying to me. Millions of Romans Catholics are truly Christians? Praise the Lord! Oh may it be so. But I am still wary and saddened when R.C. is given validity which will keep the lost from hearing the Good News. "Attacking" those who are a part of R.C. church and validating the authenicity of the R.C. church will have the same unfortunate result. I appreciate your love of brothers and sisters in Christ. Perhaps I am overly sensitive when comes to this issue (not perhaps, I am). Nevertheless, I desire and hope that the light of the Gospel would shine so brightly, so clearly, (as I know you do too)to the end that many would look to the Savior and be saved (Isa. 45:22). Grace and peace, John Keegan.
