I once said that if I were to ever go back to graduate school, (which isn’t going to happen), my PhD dissertation would be on post Vatican II transitions – perhaps focusing on one diocese or one cluster of parishes. An alternative fantasy dissertation is evolving, though – a look at transitioning styles of mission, worship and doing church among evangelical Protestants (do remember that my MA was on women in 19th century Protestantism). Okay, big topic, but I continue to be fascinated.
I read and think about it out of an informal academic interest, but also because it gives my thinking about Catholicism something to bounce up against. Because, of course, the big question for Catholics is – and should be – how do we spread the Gospel in the 21st century? (Note the difference between this and what some say is the real big question for Catholics – how do we keep our institutions afloat? See the difference?)
As I’ve said before, we have much to learn from evangelicals (still), although it has to be measured, qualified learning. The reason for the caution is threefold: First, Catholicism has its own rich mode of evangelization, which may have faltered in some respects – as in at times and places being minimalistic and institution-focused, but still has had its own power to be bring people to Christ. Secondly, Catholicism is not evangelical Protestantism and does not envision “salvation” and what sustains the life of faith and what characterizes the disciple in exactly the same way. The temptation is strong, for example, to sometimes minimize the importance of the sacramental life, an aspect of Catholicism that is not an “extra” or something that overlays a “Mere Christianity” that is really all we need. The sacramental life of the Church is a gift from Christ, through which we meet Him and are nourished by Him.
Third, the very strength of evangelical Protestantism – its flexibility, rapid response and emphasis on every individual’s responsibility to evangelize – is its weakness, as well, something that any close observer of the scene can see very clearly these days.
In other words, the mode and methods used these days, that seem to “grow” communities in explosive ways, can have dramatically unintended consequences and long-term effects which range from mildly alienating to destructive of the truth and fullness of the Gospel.
In still other words, don’t jump on the bandwagon, because you’re never quite sure where the bandwagon is going.
And lest you think this is just academic pondering – it’s not. Every Catholic in pastoral leadership who takes that leadership seriously has grappled with this, and probably still is, in some form or another. A couple of years ago, I was invited to do a presentation on DVC before a semi-annual gathering of priests, deacons and professional lay ministers in a diocese. They ended up cancelling because they were changing the topic of the day – to the challenge presented by megachurches in their area.
Anyone who’s paying attention sees and feels the pressure and the challenge. Of course, being Catholic, it takes us a long time to get it. Exit polling can tell us time and time again that a major reason people leave the Church for one of these other groups is that they never really felt that what they experienced in the Catholic Church was pointing them to a personal relationship with Christ or equipping them to live that out in the daily grind of work and family – and we respond, time and time again with vague programs centered mostly on “getting people involved with the parish” but for no discernible reason but that the parish is probably a nice place to be and “Catholic identity” is nice.
(Of course there are many other reasons people leave. Family issues. Divorce/remarriage situations. Contraception. Hurt. Disillusionment. And do consider that many people who “leave” the Catholic Church for evangelical Protestantism are nominal, non-practicing Catholics, which makes sense since the major target audience for evanglicals are the unchurched. They were baptized, maybe received First Communion, and then that was it. I read somewhere once that the second-largest religious group in the US was non-practicing Catholics. Someone correct me on that, or clarify.)
I also want to head off at the pass any comments like, “Well, then, if they were more serious about their Catholic faith, they’d have gotten it and would understand how they can have a personal relationship with Christ through the Church, etc., etc., etc….They should study on their own, etc….”
Maybe. But in the real world, most people’s only encounter with “Church” is on Sunday for that 45 minutes to an hour. If folks are inadequately catechized, if they don’t have a full sense of the richness of Catholic spirituality, I maintain that it’s not all their fault.
I also think that a large part of the Catholic unease and discombobulation on the whole evangelization thing is all about the gradual collapse of Catholic culture, the shifting relationship between Church and culture over the past two centuries, and a real puzzlement about how to spread the Gospel in:
1) the great Supercenter Market of Religion that is the 21st century West
2) a world in which the former major players in Catholic evangelization – religious orders – barely exist.
3) a world in which the former life of many, many Catholics was formed and defined by a culture – a ghetto, if you want to see it negatively.
4) insert Obligatory Post-Vatican II Uncertainty, Loss of Energy, Obsession with Internal Matters Reference here.
As usual, I really didn’t start out intending to write all that. I actually only meant to point out some interesting things I’ve seen in the “be careful what you wish for” and “be careful of that bandwagon” category.
For example, let’s consider evangelization – the first question, it seems, of evangelizers is, “How do we get their attention?” or “How do we get them in the door?”
Sometimes this involves going out and sort of adapting to a subculture and tailoring the message to that subculture – anything from women to Skater culture to business people. Sometimes it involves attractional techniques.
All of that is a hot topic of conversation these days, and assumptions of what was absolutely necessary for evangelization five years ago are being constantly called into question today.
So, for example, we have Halo:
Hundreds of churches use Halo games to connect with young people, said Lane Palmer, the youth ministry specialist at the Dare 2 Share Ministry, a nonprofit organization in Arvada, Colo., that helps churches on youth issues.
“It’s very pervasive,” Mr. Palmer said, more widespread on the coasts, less so in the South, where the Southern Baptist denomination takes a more cautious approach. The organization recently sent e-mail messages to 50,000 young people about how to share their faith using Halo 3. Among the tips: use the game’s themes as the basis for a discussion about good and evil.
At Sweetwater Baptist Church in Lawrenceville, Ga., Austin Brown, 16, said, “We play Halo, take a break and have something to eat, and have a lesson,” explaining that the pastor tried to draw parallels “between God and the devil.”
Players of Halo 3 control the fate of Master Chief, a tough marine armed to the teeth who battles opponents with missiles, lasers, guns that fire spikes, energy blasters and other fantastical weapons. They can also play in teams, something the churches say allows communication and fellowship opportunities.
Complicating the debate over the appropriateness of the game as a church recruiting tool are the plot’s apocalyptic and religious overtones. The hero’s chief antagonists belong to the Covenant, a fervent religious group that welcomes the destruction of Earth as the path to their ascension.
Microsoft said Halo 3 was a “space epic” that was not intended to make specific religious references or be more broadly allegorical. Advocates of using the game as a church recruiting tool say the religious overtones are sufficiently cartoonish and largely overlooked by players.
Martial images in literature or movies popular with religious people are not new. The popular “Left Behind” series of books — it also spawned a video game — dealt with the conflict preceding the second coming of Christ. Playing Halo is “no different than going on a camping trip,” said Kedrick Kenerly, founder of Christian Gamers Online, an Internet site whose central themes are video games and religion. “It’s a way to fellowship.”
Mr. Kenerly said the idea that Halo is inappropriately violent too strictly interpreted the commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” “I’m not walking up to someone with a pistol and shooting them,” he said. “I’m shooting pixels on a screen.”
Mr. Kenerly’s brother, Ken Kenerly, 43, is a pastor who recently started a church in Atlanta and previously started the Family Church in Albuquerque, N.M., where quarterly Halo nights were such a big social event that he had to rent additional big-screen TVs.
Ken Kenerly said he believed that the game could be useful in connecting to young people he once might have reached in more traditional ways, like playing sports. “There aren’t as many kids outdoors as indoors,” he said. “With gamers, how else can you get into their lives?”
John Robison, the current associate pastor at the 300-member Albuquerque church, said parents approached him and were concerned about the Halo games’ M rating. “We explain we’re using it as a tool to be relatable and relevant,” he said, “and most people get over it pretty quick.”
David Drexler, youth director at the 200-member nondenominational Country Bible Church in Ashby, Minn., said using Halo to recruit was “the most effective thing we’ve done.”
In rural Minnesota, Mr. Drexler said, the church needs something powerful to compete against the lure of less healthy behaviors. “We have to find something that these kids are interested in doing that doesn’t involve drugs or alcohol or premarital sex.” His congregation plans to double to eight its number of TVs, which would allow 32 players to compete at one time.
I met some former classmates of mine from seminary today at Starbucks. We had a great talk about working in a church, church planting and what we had been doing up to this point. One of the guys was interested in Oak Leaf’s Family Pastor Job, which I’ll update everyone later. So we chatted and I asked questions and we had a great conversation catching up.
At one point in the conversation the told a very disturbing and revealing story about a trend in the Southern Baptist World. Maybe it’s a mega-church thing, maybe it’s arrogance, maybe it’s political pressure, but a summary of the story is as follows.
Both of these guys work for a semi-famous church in the Atlanta area. Their supervisor called a meeting of all of his direct reports and gave them their quota/mission for the month. They needed to get 100 baptisms by the end of the month or there would be no financial rewards. In addition, they needed to use the following tactic to make it happen. They were to use Ipods and other gadgets to coax people into being baptized. The goal, as it was conveyed, was to get 100 people baptized by whatever means necessary.
And this from this Michigan church:
(Click on image for a larger version. Or go to the link)
The message series is called “I Love the 80′s,” with topics being “Trivial Pursuits,” “Back to the Future,” and so on.
This Georgia church is currently running a series called Pirates: Reclaiming your Lost Treasure. And the thing is, when I f
irst saw that title, I thought, “Oh, okay. The treasure of faith or something. That could work.” But no. Here’s the description:
Tird of living paycheck to paycheck? Tired of never having money in the bank? Tired of worrying about your future? If so, you are not alone. Financial pressure is overwhelming in today’s culture. Join Revolution Church now through Nov 4th as we continue our teaching series called “Pirates: Reclaiming your lost treasure.” No matter how much debt you have, no matter how many bills you have to pay, no matter how much or little money you make, you can acheive financial freedom. You simply have to learn to take back what Satan has stolen from you. Join us as we learn how to take practical steps, spend smarter, make personalized goals, and learn how to reclaim what is rightfully yours – your money!
And you can read the pastor’s blog to check out the “set” for the series and his own thoughts:
This week we are launching a new series called Pirates: Reclaiming YOUR lost treasure. It is about handling your personal finances in a way that will enable you to do what you feel called to do with your life. It is going to be a fun series and it is going to be VERY eye opening for people who have never taken a look at what the Bible has to say about personal finances.
I can’t wait for you to see the creative elements we have planned.
The thing that I think is the coolest is all the people leaving church on Sunday who wanted to know if they could come to church dressed like pirates this Sunday!!!! If you are crazy enough to do that, then I ain’t going to stop you. Matter of fact, I think it is awesome!
Of course, I’m thinking…do these people realize that pirates were, like…murderous, thieving criminals?
Never mind.
The argument is that these types of message, or sermon series do actually contain solid material when you get down to it, and the packaging is just that – to get people in the door and get them excited, and so on. That’s the argument.
By the way, a great many of these message series are pre-packaged and for sale. If you google “I Love the 80′s”, you’ll get a couple of other churches doing that series in the past few years. The basic concept is to take what’s current in pop culture or in the popular mind and use it as a hook – like this series from an Indiana church called Grace Anatomy. This same church is famous for this technique as you can see from the archives, in which message series have been structured around “Making Mayberry Moments,” “Creating Cosby Character” and “Pirates of the Caribbean: Navigating Life’s Adventure.”
Some are a bit more serious in presentation, but still are clearly hooked in the present. This, from a fairly traditional-looking church – Second Baptist in Houston – struck me as quite bizarre, based as it is on 10-business-centered books.
The thing that always strikes me about these efforts is how narrow they end up being, raising all kinds of questions about “church.” What if you’re 80 and are not into Pirates or business books or, you know, the other 80′s? What if, for whatever reason, financial issues are not high on your list? Why would you even go?
It seems to me that sometimes what’s happening is that these efforts to reach out, to be inclusive, to welcome everyone, end up being, like so much in our culture, pure niche efforts, appealling to only a portion of the population.
Just a side thought, before I wrap this up:
I read a lot of these pastors’ blogs and such, and my amazement at the centrality of personality in these evangelical efforts continues to grow by the day. I think I wrote about My Naked Pastor - the guy in Florida who is putting a camera on himself and his activities basically 24/7 (with some breaks, I assume). The purpose, I guess was to make sure everyone knows that pastors are human and give them some way to identify, etc. In a way, an extraodinary number of these leaders are, even if they don’t go this far, emulating the naked pastor. It’s their creativity, their leadership, their personalities, their preaching that are at the center of the energy – continuing in the tradition of American evangelicalism from the 19th century on, of course – and I continually puzzle how this dependence on the personality of pastors fits in with the whole insistence that Christianity is all about Jesus/the Bible n’ me, and so get out of the way, nasty church structures.
(I’m also intrigued by the gender issues here, and this is something I have no insight in. The charismatic/pentecostal movement is filled with female preachers. As is the Word Faith movement. But these emergent/missional churches are all, to my knowledge led by males, and female leadership seems to be absent. When you read enough of these blogs and websites, you come out with a very coolguysingoateesanduntuckedshirtsbeingallmanly kind of vibe. Any insight on that would be appreciated. Is there a principle involved? Is it just the way it’s happening right now?)
Now:
The answer to this cannot be “Sniff. They don’t have the True Faith. Can’t last anyway. How amusing.”
For, as these pastors will tell you, their churches are filled with former Catholics. One pastor’s blog I read – and I can’t remember which one – I think he’s the pastor of a church in Aurora, IL – said outright that they were going to start a Saturday night service because so many of their new members came from Catholic backgrounds and they were used to that.
Nor, can it be slavish imitation. Besides the basic reasons that I”ve outlined above (plus others you can think of), there are real questions growing about whether any of this really “works” in the long run. Yes, there’s all kinds of assurances that under the pop culture and pastor-love, there’s solid stuff. People’s lives are changing, their real needs are being met. There are, we’re told, basically two levels of involvement in these churches – those who come and dip in the services, and then the “members” who must take classes and make a deeper commitment.
But even with that, folks are worried. All of the questions that I’ve read about these techniques come from Protestant sources – they are discussing this in hot and heavy and sometimes vitrolic ways. There is absolutely no agreement that this mode of operating is actually consistent with authentic Gospel preaching (as they would put it) or produces really committed disciples.
So my point is to once again throw out the challenge, for it is a challenge.
People need Christ. People of all ages, interests and walks of life need Christ and are searching for meaning – the meaning that we know can only be found in Christ.
As Catholics, as followers of Jesus, as part of his Body, it is our responsibility to bring that Body, Jesus Christ himself, into the world. So much of who we are seems to go counter to what current thinking on evangelization tells us that seekers are seeking. All are welcome to a Catholic Mass – but only up to a point, right? What does that mean? How can we communicate the fullness of this: that Jesus is here, he wants you to be here too, your needs, wants and questions are answered here, it is here in Him, you will find salvation, and we want you to come now – within the far more complicated structure of Catholicism?
(Hint – this is where, among many other things, the Corporal Works of Mercy come in)
I have some ideas, but I also have other things to do…
I know that this has been said many times before, but I think the problem is with the whole “me-centered” approach to Christianity. Whatever problems the Church may have (and they are certainly numerous), the fundamental message of the Church is that people need the Sacraments. In other words, it’s not about us — it’s about God and what He does. Am I wrong to think that all of the evangelical “chatter” about relevancy and numbers seems to be filling up the emptiness of realizing that the Eucharistic Jesus simply is not in their churches? It is the Eucharist that is both the heart of the Church and the heart of evangelization — otherwise preaching is absolutely vacuous.
Marketing is such a powerful form of recruitment that it is clear why even Catholics would be tempted to resort to it, but you are right—if I am reading you correctly—it is through the Corporal Works of Mercy that our faith raises its most fervent “brand” and underlying that and informing that is the social teaching itself, the most wonderful marketing for Catholics, besides the Pope, we have.
I think the protestant marketing clearly scratches a societal itch. People want their needs met and they want community. That former Catholics couldn’t detect the presence of Christ in the Church and His people-whose fault is that? I’m thinking it’s ours. Catholic churches are notoriously, snobbishly unfriendly. It isn’t enough to shake someone’s hand at the door and smile at them. If the old lady next to them in the pew glares at their wiggly kids and no one notices or cares that they’re there, and there isn’t any particular ‘group for people of their age will they stick around? In a large church, how will you know if someone is new? Not long ago, someone asked me if I was new in a parish I’ve belonged to nearly all my life.
I’m a revert and I’m here to stay, but I do sometimes look at the interesting programs that other churches do, particularly for women, and think ‘why couldn’t we do something like that?’ Because, it just isn’t done here. My Catholic friends go to local protestant churches’ groups to get those needs met. They go hear Joel Osteen or whoever and then they complain vehemently that we don’t have any community in a church of 1000+ families.
Amy:
As usual, you’ve given me a lot to think about.
As a cradle Catholic who has spent his entire life in the Protestant South (except for a couple years in central Florida), I understand the lure of evangelical Protestantism.
Most of the Catholics I’ve known over my 46 years are still tied in some way (well, some in name only) to the Church. I think our fortress mentality had its effects.
The Catholics who seem most vulnerable to the seeker-sensitive, megachurch tug typically are recent transplants from the North and Midwest, young married couples and mostly professional types who are seeking a faith that’s “relevant” to their day-to-day lives.
They grew up “riding the escalator of Church life” — a phrase I first heard from Marcus Grodi — and never have had to make an adult decision to follow Jesus.
But that question gets asked every Sunday and Wednesday night at hundreds of churches big and small in my suburban Charlotte county.
I’m not sure how we cope. We can’t reduce Catholicism to least-common denominator “mere Christianity” where all that’s needed to accept Jesus as personal Savior.
But I’d rather see “mere Christianity” than no Christianity.
Chip Wilson
Belmont, North Carolina
These marketing efforts sound like Vacation Bible School for adults! Our parish has used these canned formats for VBS in the past (sometimes Protestant, more lately Catholic) with a fun theme–this year’s was sort of a “Finding Nemo”–lots of bright colors and underwater stuff.
Why should the kiddies have all the fun?
Your post puts me in mind of something that our parish has been using for the past two years–a program for adults called “Christ Renews His Parish,” fondly known as “CRHP” (pronounced “chirp”). It involves a single-sex weekend retreat at the parish that is led by participants in previous retreats. You listen to numerous testimonies and participate in small-group sharing sessions, etc. There is Mass and opportunity for Eucharistic Adoration. Most of the participants seem to love it, and it has caused many of the men who have gone through it to become more active in the parish.
What troubles me about it, however, is that it stresses the “transforming” power of this “CRHP Weekend,” as though this program/experience is almost a second baptism. The weekend experience has some uncanny resemblances to the Landmark Forum workshops, though to be fair, the CRHP process is also supposed to involve weekly meetings with your team as you prepare to give the next session.
Some say, Judge the tree by its fruits–these men are involved in the parish now, and they weren’t before the CRHP weekend. OK, but will it last? I hope so, but I wonder.
Amy,
The bigger issue is the disconnect between people in general. There were some studies conducted within the past few years – and one that made news in 2006 – essentially concluding that many people don’t have any close confidants. In other words, a lot of Americans are friendless and isolated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship#Decline_of_friendship
Churches could fill that role to some extent, as could social clubs such as the Masons and Knights of Columbus. They used to! But what is filling the gap today is Myspace, Facebook, etc. However, the relationships formed at these sites – for many – do not really constitute friendships in any real sense since few Myspace users ever actually meet the people on their “friends lists”.
So how does one reach out to those who have no connections to anyone?
I propose the idea that churches will grow only if their laity are (a) actual believers and (b) engage people through “friendster-esque” websites where anyone younger than 30 is going to have a profile. But if it’s done as a “campaign” then you’re just treating the unchurched as objects. And that’s why the unchurched find proselytizers irritating. Spam is not cool.
Faith is spread through friendship, not church groups or web-games.
I believe that the marketing of Christianity is very much wrapped up into what Jess called the “me-centered Christianity”. When we accept that Christianity is a commodity, then we shop for it to fit our needs, not change ourselves to fit Christ, which is the way that it should be.
The thing that always blows me away is “40 days of purpose” I always find myself yelling “Isn’t that called LENT??????”
Amy:
Thanks for asking these questions – they are great ones and crucial. And thanks for reminding us that “Sniff. They don’t have the True Faith. Can’t last anyway. How amusing.” isn’t an answer.
Jess:
Christianity is a relationship between human beings and God and we are always, Catholic or no, in a “need” relationship with God. When Jesus Christ lived on earth in the first century, people were always coming to him with their needs “heal me, heal my child, cast out my demons, feed me, answer my questions, etc. If that’s “me-centered”, all of us are there and will never cease to be. The whole drama of subjective redemption is *about us* – our sin, our fallenness, our redemption, our salvation, our eternal destiny. Jesus become a man *for us*, he suffered and died and rose again *for us* and our salvation.
Catholics-turned-evangelicals tell us over and over “I never knew Jesus until now”. There is, apparently, a huge gap for many between receiving the Eucharistic Christ and knowing and following Jesus as Lord. One can do the first without any clues about the second. That gap has led many former Catholics to the conclusion that the Eucharist is not really Christ and that they have not left anything significant behind in comparison to what they believe they have found – an encounter with Christ that revolutionized their life.
And *truly* preaching Christ is *never* vacuous even if it does not led to the Eucharist. It is not complete but it is not empty of meaning or fruit. If it was, we would not be having this discussion. And David, if we start with marketing our “brand” rather than Christ, we have failed already. The Church’s primary purpose to preach *Christ* first and foremost and to bring all human beings into relationship with him in communion with his Body on earth.
We cannot and must not assume a fervently believing Catholic insider’s perspective: that when we say “Church”, our listeners hear “Body and Bride of Christ who is Lord, Savior, Lover, and center of all”. They don’t. Many hear “ancient, huge, authoritarian human organization that has done a lot of bad stuff over the years. You know, crusades, witch-burning, the inquisition. Ughh!”
To all:
The gap that Amy describes is the one we desperately need to explore. But I’d like to suggest that if we are simply marveling at the most bizarre and marginal attempts, we are wasting our time. The major evangelical leaders in this area don’t take this stuff seriously. Why should we?
We should be looking seriously at the most fruitful initiatives to see what we can learn: like the Alpha course, the socratic inquiry groups of Willowcreek, or the how-to-reach-post-modern-students of a brilliant and seasoned evangelistic practioner like Doug Schaup at UCLA.
Not to adapt them wholesale or without *really* serious critiques by any means – but to be challenged by their impact, to ask new questions, have our eyes opened to what it takes to help *this* generation – our post-modern, 21st century generation – gradually trust, then seek, then surrender themselves to Christ and the Gospel. And then to turn to the fullness of the apostolic tradition and see how it speaks to all of that.
And yes, we should be looking at our own Catholic past and unearthing and retrieving the insights of the great evangelists of our past. Very little of this work has been done because our academics been asking dogmatic and institutionally oriented questions of our past rather than evangelical questions.
Naturally, the evangelicals are doing it for us. (I know, I studied Catholic evangelistic practice as a normal part of my course work at Fuller). They are reading our books. They are reading our past and incorporating those insights into their practice.
All of this is what we are attempting in a small way at the Catherine of Siena Institute and through our Making Disciples seminars. If you are interested, come join the conversation.
My parish recently had an assistant pastor hold a basic “Q & A” night. Lots of interaction with people, lots of opportunity for getting to know others. It was well-attended, perhaps seventy people. There were not many parishioners below forty, though it is an aging suburb far from younger parts of town.
I also recall one anecdote from a friend who was at a college campus in the early nineties. The Catholic parish tried an “appealing” event called “Cooking with Christ.” My friend sarcastically called up the parish office and told them he’d be attending “Baking with Buddha” instead. These kinds of events are competing with billions of dollars in advertising and media. I doubt they can win consumerist fights.
Amy:
Yes, you are right. Non-practicing Catholics are the second largest Christian group in the US – at least 17 million of em – and that figure is somewhat dated and the reality is probably larger.
Re: Christ Renews His Parish:
CHIRP has revolutionized the lives of many lay people that I’ve spoken to and been a big source of renewal for many parishes in the US.
Renewing the personal faith of an adult is a kind of second baptism in Catholic understanding (indeed, confession, which is one of the components of all retreat based evangelization processes like CHIRP is explicitly understood as the renewal of baptismal grace). Baptism without personal faith (fides formata) is not justifying or salvific in Catholic understanding as was so clearly outlined in the section on justification from the Council of Trent.
Programs like CHIRP address the human part – faith, love, assent – that must be present for the reception of the acraments to ultimately result in our salvation. Since many baptized as infants have never responded in personal faith even though they may attend Mass – this is critical. CHIRP-like processes (and there are at least 6 different ones that are most commonly used in parishes in the US) have awakened the personal faith of millions resulting in long-term, life-long disciples of Christ. I’ve talked to hundreds of em myself and been most impressed by the fruit.
And if our spiritual journey is a series of conversations, why should we be so anxious about a conversation experience that stands out or is a major or memorable turning point? Sometimes it will happen during Adoration or the liturgy, sometimes during a retreat like CHIRP. Some turning points in a long journey are like that, some are less so. All are necessary.
As to the question “will it last?”, I wish we were asking a burning related question much more frequently and uniformly instead of just about anything that reminds us of Protestantism:
When my child is baptized “Will it bear fruit in a lifetime of living faith and salvation?”
When my child is catechized “Will it bear fruit in a lifetime of living faith and salvation?”
When my child receives first communion or confirmation “Will it bear fruit in a lifetime of living faith and salvation?”
When adults enter the Church through RCIA “Will it bear fruit in a lifetime of living faith and salvation?”
All the evidence is that in a large minority or even a majority of cases, the answer is “no”
Which is why we are having this conversation.
Preaching.
We need good strong effective captivating and vital preaching. Listen to a good preacher like Chuck Swindoll on your local Protestant radio station. THen contrast it with the Caspar Milquetoast dry homily you get at Mass. There’s no comparison!
People need to be invigorated, challenged, uplifted, taught, and shown how this Jesus person they are about to receive is relevant to their life and their problems.
They don’t get it from the lacklust homilies they hear at Mass. C’mon, priests and deacons, preach it like you believe it and that you are going to show people how it’s going to change their lives!
The lapsed Catholics I know are people whose parents made them go to church every week when they were at home. Then they got to college, stayed up late Saturday night, got sloppy about going to church Sunday morning. After awhile, they started to ask themselves, “Why should I feel guilty, none of my friends are religious, who’s to say religion is more than a psychological epiphenominon…” etc etc, and rationalize themselves out of their faith.
I don’t see how the Corporal Works of Mercy are going to change this dynamic. College kids by and large don’t have Corporal needs; even if the local parish had the greatest soup kitchen in the world, how would they even hear about it? I suppose the parish might get their attention with an STD clinic…
I am currently in RCIA in a Fort Wayne parish. I heard a “small voice” tell me to go back to church and go to Mass around Easter. (and coincidentally, one of the books I picked up to learn more was your husband’s book about the Mass) And I firmly believe the reason I am still on this journey is the priest of the neighborhood parish I happened into. His homilies are relevant, thought provoking, and well delivered. That is what kept me going back and wanting to be able to participate more fully in the parish. NOW that we’re working through RCIA, I’m learning more, coming to a greater understanding, etc, but the first thing for me was the priest.
“Then they got to college, stayed up late Saturday night, got sloppy about going to church Sunday morning.”
Worse, college kids are less likely to stop practicing their faith than their non-college going peers. I worry that catering to the “most educated laity in history” leaves out the less intellectual, who are then easy pickings for consumerism or the megachurch.
Lately I’ve been thinking about how the loss of Catholic culture has been a very significant factor with people leaving the Church.
This is certainly not to say we should retreat to the ghetto; even if that were possible, it would not be desirable. But it’s undeniable that religion needs the support of culture if it is going to attract — and keep– large numbers of people.
The downside of the cultural aspect is that people can practice the faith in a culture of faith simply out of conformity, not real conviction. In a secular culture, people who practice the faith are going against the current, and that takes a lot of courage and faith.
That’s why support is so important. It’s also why we’re losing so many Catholics, because the support isn’t there.
Add in a massive amount of religious ignorance, compounded by the distractions of modern life which make it very difficult to think, and you have a recipe for disaster.
There is a very interesting article at:
http://tantumdicverbo.blogspot.com/2007/10/i-believe.html
that gives a useful foreign perspective which, I think, relates to the cultural issues which Amy raises.
I don’t know what the situation is in the US, but in Austria the Alpha Course is a predominantly Roman Catholic project. Of course, Evangelicals and Charismatics also use it, but the driving force behind it is people from the Catholic “movimenti”, the renewal movements.
Again, can’t comment on the US situation (because while in the US I moved exclusively in Evangelical circles), but having grown up Catholic here in Austria, in a VERY Catholic family, I can confirm Sherry Weddell’s comment about many (most?) Catholics not hearing anything in church about a relationship with God and Jesus.
When I grew up the only people I ever heard talking about religion in terms of relationship were those who focused their piety on the BVM or some other saint– they talked about having a relationship with that saint. Jesus and God were considered far too remote and lofty to have a relationship with.
Now the renewal movements talk about having a relationship with Jesus, but the vast majority of parishes are wary of these movements because they rock the boat and can polarize the parish.
“There is, apparently, a huge gap for many between receiving the Eucharistic Christ and knowing and following Jesus as Lord. One can do the first without any clues about the second.”
Does this presume a difference between “the Eucharistic Christ” and “Jesus as Lord”?
“I can confirm Sherry Weddell’s comment about many (most?) Catholics not hearing anything in church about a relationship with God and Jesus.”
As a convert of several years, I can’t confirm Sherry’s comment. I’ve been to Mass all over the country, heard homily’s ( sometimes in very broken english ), from Seattle to New York City, and I always hear something that’s relevant to my relationship with God and Jesus. It’s typically not about my feelings, and maybe that’s the problem for some.
I’m the all too common story: baptized Catholic, post Vatican II parents (i.e. attended church on Christmas eve and sometimes Easter), and I was never confirmed, let alone catechized. Here’s a few observations from someone targeted by evangelicals for evangelization:
Generally, people convert to Catholicism after reading history, apologetics or the early church fathers. Their conversion is of the mind first, then heart. In contrast, people convert to evangelicalism because it makes them feel good. Evangelicals are capturing the need to feel a religion, not just practice it. This is evidenced by their rock concert like sermons, with people putting their hands in the air and being “moved by the Spirit.” However, unlike Catholicism, Evangelicalism could not survive a “dark night of the soul.”
When an Evangelical feels good at an Evangelical service, he believes his feelings are the guidance of the Holy Spirit. These feelings tell him what is true, and what is false. This reliance on “feelings” is why modern Evangelicalism is more about personalities, marketing, and motivational speakers, than substantive sermons. The preachers must keep finding new ways to inspire people (i.e. give them the “feeling” that the are being “moved by the Spirit”) to keep them coming back. If the feeling leaves, the reason for believing leaves with it.
Therefore, Catholic evangelism has two problems: First, how to convince people that reason plays an important role in religion; and Second, how to spread the Gospel without giving the impression that the sacraments are just “the Catholic version” of Christianity.
Currently, I’m non-denominational. I see myself as a free agent, looking for the right team to draft me. But I’m not impressed with substance free “feel good” gimmicks. If you want to win converts, keep blogs like this one going. I like what I’ve read so far.
Just a word of defense for homilists –
I’ve heard some great ones recently from recently ordained deacons and priests. Many are “late vocations.” (There are also some priests and deacons who blog who post some too.)
The most common criticism I hear about homilies from other Catholics that I know is that homilies are too long now. It is as if they are trying to turn them into Protestant sermons. In my opinion, the brief homilies at the daily Mass are often the best ones as they do away with needless repetition and get to the heart of the message.
I’m fascinated by the dichotomy that comes up again and again in these discussions between “thinking” and “feeling” with thinking assumed to be the province of Catholics and feelings somehow comprising the whole spiritual life of evangelicals.
I’m sorry but that is just nonsense. Catholics and Protestants are made of the same human stuff and both feeling and thinking are part of *all* our attempts to follow Christ.
”
I’ve known innumerable heroic evangelicals who have endured dark nights of the soul, spirit, heart, and body that would crush most of us and they didn’t do it on the basis of transitory emotions but upon their bedrock trust in Christ and the revelation of his nature and purposes available to us through Scripture. It is simply *not true* – it is the Catholic equivalent of an urban legend – that evangelicals’ faith, as a whole, is based upon nothing but emotion.
And it is certainly not true that Catholic faith is based upon nothing but a austere, firmly rational assent to proposed truths. As if most of us haven’t seen enough passionate emotion, rage, and pain on Catholic blogs. Those 200 comment flame-fest discussions of the liturgy aren’t being fueled by serene reason.
There are certainly a different emphasis upon the role of the intellect in the Catholic world than in the evangelical world as a whole (although there are some very rigorously intellectual evangelical circles) but as long as we are all human beings, we will continue to encounter God and walk with God with our whole selves – mind and heart.
Tim:
“As a convert of several years, I can’t confirm Sherry’s comment. I’ve been to Mass all over the country, heard homily’s ( sometimes in very broken english ), from Seattle to New York City, and I always hear something that’s relevant to my relationship with God and Jesus. It’s typically not about my feelings, and maybe that’s the problem for some.”
Of course, if you are already a disciple, you can derive something relevant to your relationship with Christ from nearly anything. My question is: if you are not yet a disciple of Christ, will our current Catholic cultural climate of “don’t ask, don’t tell” enable you to become aware that you are not?
A pastoral leader who attended Making Disciples with three of his leaders told me recently that his leaders came home simply personally stunned by the paradigm shifts they had absorbed in the course of only 4 days. It was his opinion that for two of them, it was a highly personal matter because the issue of whether or not they were intentional disciples had never been made clear to them before.
“Of course, if you are already a disciple, you can derive something relevant to your relationship with Christ from nearly anything.”
This may seem like a dumb question, but what exactly do you mean by “disciple”? I go to Mass, I pray daily, I give to the Church, inluding special drives for Catholic Charities, I go to confession ( I confess, not as often as I should ) and I’m currently working with a spiritual director ( struggling really ). So, am I a disciple? If so, why and if not, why not?
Also, I still don’t understand your distinction between the “eucharistic Christ” and “following Jesus as Lord”. Wasn’t one of his final commands to receive his body and blood?
Tim:
I meant by disciple what you meant when you said “I always hear something that’s relevant to my relationship with God and Jesus. ” Clearly you are not going through the motions but engaged in seeking to grow spiritually in relationship to Christ.
The Church has always understood and formally taught (as in the Council of Trent) that without fides formata (personal faith that includes hope and incipient love) simply receiving the sacraments are not salvific. Even dogmatic faith (i.e., mental assent to dogma that does not go beyond mental assent) is not salvific. One who follows Jesus will naturally seek to do as he commanded and receive his body and blood.
But receiving the Eucharist or any other sacrament like baptism is not a kind of magic that zaps us regardless of our faith and disposition. Catholics do not believe in salvation by ritual gesture. Both are normative- personal faith, hope and love and the sacraments – and in extremis, personal faith, hope, and love can substitute for lack of sacraments (as in the baptism of desire).
“But receiving the Eucharist or any other sacrament like baptism is not a kind of magic that zaps us regardless of our faith and disposition. Catholics do not believe in salvation by ritual gesture.”
Here is a question for Sherry regarding the quote above:
What is the relationship between being baptized and being a disciple? Why receive baptism if what really matters is “being a disciple”? Why receive any of the sacraments at all for that matter?
Scriblerus:
What is the relationship between being baptized and being a disciple? Why receive baptism if what really matters is “being a disciple”? Why receive any of the sacraments at all for that matter?
You are asking wonderful questions which I wish more Catholics were asking.
Of course, St. Peter’s answer when asked on the first Pentecost “what must we do to be saved?” was wholistic: believe, repent, be baptized, be filled with the Holy Spirit. One of the long term fruits of schism is, I think, that we de facto assume that the first two and the last two are somehow at odds and that if we focus on one twosome, we do so at the expense of the other.
I think it is important that we grasp that it does matter whether we are simply talking about being Catholic or about salvation – that is, reaching the Beatific Vision (heaven). For infants or young children, who are incapable of personal sin or resisting sacramental grace, baptism *alone* does suffice for both. Until they are capable of personal sin when the situation changes pretty dramatically.
The Church clearly teaches that for older children (who have reached the admittedly vague “age of accountability”) and for adults, personal faith, hope, love, and repentance are absolute necessities if the end we are talking about is not just becoming Catholic or becoming a Christian but our eternal salvation. As St. Augustine noted: God made us without our consent but he does not save us without our consent.
“ . . .the “good news” is directed to stirring a person to a conversion of heart and life and a clinging to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior; to disposing a person to receive Baptism and the Eucharist and to strengthen a person in the prospect and realization of new life according to the Spirit”
Catechesis in Our Time, 6
The ideal outlined in the section on justification in the Council of Trent is that *adults* are disciples before baptism – because in the absence of personal faith and repentance, baptism confers a baptismal character without baptismal grace. As the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia puts it:
““The character imparted by these sacraments is something distinct from the grace imparted by them…it may even happen, in the reception of these sacraments, that the character is imparted and the grace withheld; the lack of proper dispositions which is sufficient to prevent the reception of the grace may not prevent the reception of the character.
Thus, an adult who receives baptism without right faith and repentance but with a real intention of receiving the sacrament, obtains the character without the grace.”
And not obtaining the grace means that we have not received sanctifying grace which gives human beings the capacity to participate in God’s own life. Without sanctifying grace, we cannot be saved.
That is why Trent outlined what is required of adults *before* baptism:
Move to initial faith by hearing the kerygma
Move freely toward God
Believe revelation
- Especially that we are justified by God’s grace through the redemption in Jesus Christ
Know ourselves to be a sinner
Trust in the mercy and love of God for Christ’s sake
Repent of our sins
Resolve to receive baptism
Begin a new life
Obey the commandments of God (the obedience of faith)
Which sounds like pretty serious discipleship as a pre-requisite to baptism. For those of us who were baptized as infants, our personal faith and repentance becomes an issue when we are older and the faith of our parents, god parents, and the whole Church may no longer be substituted for our own response to grace as it could when we were infants.
Sometime before death, we must make our own response.
Sherry,
Why aren’t you using the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
“However, unlike Catholicism, Evangelicalism could not survive a “dark night of the soul.”
I admit, the above quote went to far. There are Evangelical apologists, just like there are Catholic ones. And many Catholics have left the Catholic Church because of Biblical arguments. Heck, if I thought Catholicism was it, I’d be Catholic.
My point was that modern evangelicalism is more and more turning to personality, marketing and motivational speaking to fill the pews. This is part because people want to feel their religion, and part because people are starting to place less emphasis on reason in religion. Evangelicalism is a big tent, and not all churches do this, but I see it most in the evangelical movement.
Reverent Catholics, on the other hand, are moved by even by the most boring mass. They will continue to attend Church because they believe that the Priest can turn bread and wine into the body and blood. Thus, it is an argument, not a gimmick, that makes them attend.
Ideally, we would get both faith and reason; feelings and arguments that support those feelings.
Kerry:
Because the catechism doesn’t deal with this specific issue in detail and the Council of Trent does because these issues (the interplay of faith/grace and the sacraments) were burning ones at the time of the Reformation.
I’m using the teaching of an ecumenical council and papal encyclicals which are at a much higher level of authority than the catechism. The catechism is an authorized (and trustworthy) compendium or summary of Church teaching – but is not Church teaching in and of itself and not at all at the same level of authority.
Our parish (actually, I think, our whole diocese) has been using the Why Catholic? series by Renew International for the past 2 years in small group format. It has really filled a niche for people who were not well catechized to learn what the Church really teaches, who have been looking for fellowship and community in their parish, and for converts or reverts hoping to keep the fire alive from their conversion.
My husband and I have also hosted various (women’s, men’s, couple’s and family scripture studies series) within our parish. We actually used your book Here and Now with the youth group! These have been excellent evangelization opportunities for people and typically last throughout the year (as opposed to the Why Catholic? which is six sessions/two times per year).
I think this is a great conversation and one that truly warrants the discussion and action of the faithful.
God Bless!
Sherry
“I meant by disciple what you meant when you said “I always hear something that’s relevant to my relationship with God and Jesus. ” Clearly you are not going through the motions but engaged in seeking to grow spiritually in relationship to Christ.”
Thanks for telling me what you mean by disciple, altho I think this definition fits a lot of people who we might otherwise dismiss as going through the motions
I still haven’t seen an answer as to the two Christ’s you mentioned in your first post
Hi Amy,
thanks for a great blog. I made a journey from the Catholic church to pentecostal/evangelical church following 3 years of reading the bible on my own. As this was rural Catholic Ireland the consequences were severe. I was disowned by my family, none of my family or childhood friends came to the wedding as it wasn’t a catholic ceremony. I was married 18 months with an 6 month old son before my family met my son or husband, they were swayed by the fact my son was seriously ill at that time.Several friends had the same experiences, now the Catholic church in Ireland is trying to find its feet again following damaging scandals.
There are things I like about the Catholic church especially writers like G.K. Chesterton, St. John of the Cross, etc. I feel the hegemonic control it had here in Ireland ultimately damaged the church, I guess it’s reshaping itself now. My experiences in the past were painful, I’m glad to say I’ve rebuilt my relationship with my family however I remain the “black sheep”.I love God, my desire is to be a true follower of Christ.
God bless