My faith (2)

Tension with Catholicism (2)

I ended the previous post by saying that I had taken Religious Studies for GCSE. The real GCSE exams were at the end of two years after commencing the GCSE subjects. I became a Christian around halfway during this 2-year period.

The two components of GCSE RS between them managed to put me in a salvation crisis (perhaps something like that experienced by Martin Luther and countless other Christians who see something of their story in his own).

We worked through Luke’s Gospel chapter by chapter, so it wasn’t long before I came across John the Baptist. This figure terrified me, with his fire and brimstone preaching, and his exhortation to repent and bear fruit worthy of repentance. Not only was his talk of the Last Judgment / Day of the LORD terrifying, but the moral standard he put forth seemed impossibly beyond my grasp.

The ethics side of the course reinforced this fear. My teacher was someone who had spent part of his life caring for people (I recall a story he told that involved hypodermic syringes being in somebody’s sink). Confronted with life’s big social problems – poverty, terminal illness, abortion, war – I felt small and sinful. What had I done to relieve the suffering of others? When I looked at Jesus’ call to sell all we have and follow Him, I felt worse. I felt what I think many would call “middle class guilt”.

In this context, I also did not really know who Jesus was. This question kept returning in our study of Luke’s Gospel. I understood that Jesus was called Son of God and Son of Man and that the latter title was taken from Daniel and that the words God spoke over Christ at the Baptism were taken from Isaiah (and the Psalms?). I could see that the God in heaven was the Father and that this Jesus figure walking around Galilee was His Son – but I had no grasp of Trinitarian theology.

I was also studying Ancient Greek and Latin at the time. I had long loved the classical world and its myths. This was the framework in which I understood Jesus – for me, He was analogous to Heracles or Dionysus, sons of Zeus. How much time in the early days of RS I really spent on this question I do not remember. I do know I was unclear and essentially and Arian, I suppose. Still, the question troubled me.

I do recall that many years prior to that I had asked my father about this “Son of God” business. I believe this was during my primary school days in the UK, perhaps as a consequence of my Sunday school-style education. My father told me that Christians believed Jesus was the Son of God (for so he had been taught at school), but he could not explain any more than this – so I was left with Arianism, thinking that Jesus had been somehow created or something.

To make matters worse, in those primary school days, when we were taught about Easter, I believe the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost was mentioned as being given to the Disciples after the resurrection. This was hard for a little boy to understand, so I came away thinking that the Holy Spirit/Ghost was the resurrected Jesus – that Jesus had been raised from the dead as a ghost.

Returning to the GCSE years, Luke’s Gospel was making me miserable – wretched one might say. I became a Christian in a mood of crisis, promising God that I would attend church. My feelings towards God were mixed.

On the one hand, God appeared as a frightening Judge, whom I had no hope in the world of pleasing. Images of hell from “Homer vs Lisa and the 8th Commandment” lurked in my imagination. On the other hand, I could not change the fact that this same God had answered my prayers on various occasions. To Him, I attributed my present safety and well-being.

In this context I was wrestling with Romans in my spare time. Parts of it seemed to offer hope to me in my wretchedness, but other parts were terrifying. The mentor I then had recommended a particular website to me, which, though non-denominational, tended to write from a fairly Lutheran perspective regarding salvation.

This writer (who has since gone to be with the Lord) would quote from the Bible and give references to support his arguments. This meant that, between reading the website and hearing the Bible at church (and reading from my Good News version) I was now gaining some basic Bible literacy.

I noticed that the writer often quoted from John’s Gospel. So, struggling with Luke, I decided to have a look at the beginning of John. It was at this time that some pieces began to fall into place and my past misconceptions were corrected. I began to have some conception of the Trinity closer to the truth. I saw that Jesus was God (but not the Father) and that He had risen bodily from the grave (perhaps our lessons on the end of Luke helped in that regard and/or Paul’s description of the resurrection in Corinthians). I saw that the Holy Spirit was a person in His own right.

This, combined with the Lutheran-style blog posts on justification, allowed me peace and helped me to love God. If I could love Jesus, who had died for me, I could love the Father who sent Him and whose character was the same as His. No doubt my pastor was also helpful in this regard. He preached the love of God and his sermons used accessible language.

Somewhere in all of this I also asked to be baptised. Looking back on it, I cannot say what exactly was my thinking in every respect, but I know that one of the motivations was essentially obedience. I knew I had not been christened as a child and I understood Christian baptism as a kind of commandment. Accordingly, I asked to be baptised in order to obey the commandment. My pastor baptised me and I gave a short testimony.

As time went on, I continued to be drawn to Catholicism. But I had doubts. I wanted to be Catholic, but I questioned my own motivations. I also questioned the safety of the Catholic Church and its purity. My family had some bad experiences with clergy in the past and my father questioned the ritual (which seemed superstitious) that he had observed in Catholic liturgy. On top of this, the website I was reading understood the Whore of Babylon in Revelation as the Catholic Church, leading a one-world religion in the last days. It also believed that one of the Letters to the Seven Churches was about how Christianity had been corrupted in the days of Constantine and following. In this model, Catholicism was a Christianity that had strayed from the purity of the Early Church.

So, amidst these doubts, though I thought at one time that God said I could become a Catholic, I felt I did not really have his blessing. I did not pursue that line. But, I did become evangelical. I wanted to share my faith in those early years after my conversion, and I believed that I had a duty to, because Jesus was the only way to escape the fires of hell.

I was part of the Christian Union at school, which reinforced this evangelical thinking. As far as I was aware, there were no Catholics in this group. So, though I explained I wanted to become a Catholic, there was no real move to help me in this direction.

I went to university and here I met actual practicing Catholics. I made friends with some, but generally tried to persuade them to become Protestant. I joined my college’s Christian Union, and took part in various evangelical activities. I sometimes attended services in my college’s chapel, but this was Anglo-Catholic, not Roman Catholic.

As time went on and I grew increasingly uncomfortable with the Christian Union and started to abandon the Revived Roman Empire paradigm for the end times, Catholicism seemed less of a threat. I decided I would attend mass at the Catholic Church popular with the students to see for myself and show some solidarity with people I recognised as Christians. I did not go up for communion as I understood that Protestants were not supposed to take part.

Following my BA I stayed on for an MPhil. This was a hard year for me as some of my closest friends had now left. As time went on, I was also increasingly sad that I would have to leave at the end of the year. I did not have an idea for a PhD and thus could not secure funding to stay on. Academia was dear to me and I could not envision myself out there in the “real world”. Naturally, I was anxious.

In this context one of my friends who had now left was converting to Catholicism. We chatted online and I saw his journey. I also came across AATW in that MPhil year.

At first I was supportive. I had become essentially non-denominational by that point and thought that God knew what place was best for every Christian at every step of his life. If Catholicism was what the doctor ordered for my friend for this part of his life, then I was not going to dispute it.

I think, also, because my mentor had been raised Catholic before he went in a Pentecostal / Charismatic direction, he had fondness for it still. This tenderness on his part may have had something to do with my own change of attitude.

I also noticed that Joel Richardson and Walid Shoebat, from whom I was taking my cue in eschatology, were ministering to Christians in the Middle East, suffering under Islamic oppresion. These Christians were very often Catholic or Orthodox. I also heard Canon Andrew White speak at the church I was attending at university.

This brought home a hard truth – the Devil does not care about our denominational differences (except as a ploy to divide us). A Christian is a Christian is a Christian. They were suffering: I was supposed to love them and pray for them.

But I became concerned. My friend was becoming traditionalist in his Catholicism. I saw the kind of fire that I now associated with the early days of conversion. This traditionalism scared me. It was harsh; it appeared Pharisaical, unloving. It brought up all those old emotions I experienced in the days of my salvation crisis. I was already in a dark place – the place darkened.

I left university eventually and initially spent my time volunteering until I could find a job and work out what I thought God’s will for my life might be. In order to keep my mind active and perhaps help me discern God’s will, I asked Jessica if I could become a contributor at AATW.

AATW allowed me to meet more Christians from different backgrounds. In its own way, it was a kind of baptism of fire. It gave me intellectual engagement, but it also gave me sleepless nights.

Initially, I was keen to argue against the Catholic viewpoint. My friend’s traditionalism worried me, and I decided that, if it was a true reflection of what Catholicism is, I did not like it. However, I met non-traditionalist Catholics, who were kind to me. I softened again and I decided (though not all the time) to ignore traditionalism.

I grew increasingly convinced of two things:

(1) Maintaining fellowship was more important. The Catholics were always going to try and make me one of them, but that was not a justification for being nasty. I knew that my intellectualism was a source of pride, and that I had to learn love and humility. Would I succeed – who knew? But the aim must be to preserve fellowship so far as it depended on me. Agree with everyone – don’t make waves.

(2) The Catholics were right about some things and they knew the sources that mattered to them better than I did. I could not compete on that playingfield – not really – and at times they almost persuaded me.

Indeed, there have been times since joining AATW that I have come close to starting catechism class and joining the Roman Catholic Church. I have seen a number of prominent people become Catholics, and I can understand their reasons – some of those reasons carry weight with me.

But fundamentally, my outlook is not Roman Catholic. For all the things we have in common, I view Roman Catholics as belonging to a different worldview from my own.

When I was considering going into the missionfield with Wycliffe Bible Translators, I was called to their UK headquarters for a day of interviews. The “theological” interview left me deciding to revisit Calvinism (which I had previously rejected).

For a time I thought I was a Calvinist – but I eventually left that path. However, a consequence of that time was that I read an apologetics website written from a Calvinist perspective, and a lot of its material was (and is) anti-Catholic. This material was well-argued, using informal logic. It permanently put a dent in my pro-Catholic aspirations. Since then, even at times when I consider converting, there usually follows a thought that draws from the Calvinist material.

6 thoughts on “My faith (2)

  1. Jock McSporran

    Nicholas – there’s something seriously wrong here on several levels.

    One (serious) question is how you expected to get anything out of AATW.

    That sort of forum can help to sharpen up views you already have when you’re in discussion with someone with a different view – but I’m convinced it isn’t a good place for anyone in the process of coming to faith. I liked it for the `creative mayhem’ and the absurdity – but it was the wrong place for someone in the position that you are describing.

    In your case I always had a feeling that all your study and writing and thinking was some sort of substitute for a death you were refusing to die. It shouldn’t really be that hard.

    Could you send me a one-liner? (wordpress gives you the email of the commenter underneath the comment)

    Like

    1. Nicholas

      Although there were many things wrong with it and my being there (I took time off AATW at various points), I do think it was good for me intellectually in some ways. A later post in this series will explore how I left certain kinds of literalism to take a more contextual-based approach to reading the Bible. AATW was valuable for me in that regard because I had no one else I could talk to about those things.

      Like

      1. Jock McSporran

        I’d agree that AATW may have given you company and people to discuss with. I think there are some key books that might help better with this. One of my favourites is Martin Hengel `The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ’

        https://www.amazon.com/Four-Gospels-Gospel-Jesus-Christ/dp/1563383004

        I remember recommending this one on AATW – and Geoffrey RS Sales responded thanking me for the recommend – but I do remember that there wasn’t so much of this. I also remember one point where I found myself in agreement with Chalcedon `The Priority of John’ by JAT Robinson (who, although theologically liberal was very conservative about Scripture).

        These two books gave me a good idea of how to read Scripture. I didn’t get them from AATW though – and I didn’t get anything useful in this direction from AATW.

        If you haven’t read these two, I’d advise you to get hold of them and read them.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Nicholas

        I like Martin Hengel (I came across him during my research). Thanks for the recommendations. It will be interesting to see what this place becomes. Generally work keeps me busy, so I do not anticipate being around here much in the future – but we shall see.

        Like

  2. Jock McSporran

    Nicholas – one other `recommend’ (if you are interested): I liked Emil Brunner’s `The Mediator’ a lot.

    But what worries me about your post is that perhaps there is far too much reading and far too much in the way of philosophies (`the empty philosophies of men’).

    My grandfather was a Christian. He was a fisherman – and I remember that there was exactly one book in his house; the bible (in extra large letters because he was already quite old when I was born and he had difficulties with his eye sight). He didn’t need Hengel or JAT Robinson or Emil Brunner or, indeed, anybody else. He probably never heard of John Calvin or Martin Luther. His background was Salvation Army and the Fishermen’s meeting halls in town.

    With every book and every idea it’s essential to bring it back to base – does it help me to understand that I am a sinner, why Christ had to die for my sins, that in the resurrection I see forgiveness of my sins and my salvation.

    When you say, `I thought I was a Calvinist’ – does that mean that you enjoy burning heretics at the stake (as Calvin did with Servetus)? He may have had some good theological ideas and he may have had a good and clear way of expressing these ideas, but he was quite repulsive as a human being.

    With things you have written in the past I do think you have a tendency to take the eye off the ball in a dangerous way. If you are within the number of the Saviour’s family, that does not mean that you have to take sides in every issue – for example all this pre-millenialist, post-millenialist or a-millenialist business. There are some things that will be made completely clear to us when we pass from this life to the next and you simply add a huge layer of confusion to your own faith by getting involved.

    One important issue is that of the State of Israel, where many `Christians’ seem to turn a blind eye to the fact that the campaign of 1947/48 was ethnic cleansing pure and simple and that the Palestinian side may have a point. They turn a blind eye to this point because they see promises made by God in Scripture and they feel that they have to give the Good Lord a helping hand in bringing them about by conveniently overlooking some seriously unethical behaviour.

    In your case, I’d strongly suggest that you try to simplify things.

    Like

  3. Jock McSporran

    Nicholas – well, I think this may be the wrong forum. You put up a rather personal post about your faith – but nobody seems to want to discuss it with you. Surprising – and also disappointing.

    Keep well.

    Like

Leave a Reply to Jock McSporran Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s