Why Do Christians Believe…?

July 30, 2009

The other day, I got into a little conversation on Facebook that really illustrates the way many Americans view religion. Basically, a friend of mine, an agnostic, posted a question on his profile about why Christians believe the earth is only a few thousand years old. It was a good question, and he was genuinely curious and wanting to learn; he didn’t do it to start trouble. I immediately posted that I would guess that most Christians throughout the world today do not believe the earth is a few thousand years old, and interpret Genesis in a less than literal fashion. I even mentioned St. Augustine who admitted that the science of the day should help us understand creation.

Immediately another friend jumped on, and claimed that not taking the creation account literally shows a lack of faith in the Bible, indirectly accusing me of this. At this point, in the interest of ending what I knew would end up as a fruitless conversation, I posted a few links explaining multiple sides in the issue (I am not on Facebook to have heated religious discussions; I barely like them in other settings).

This conversation shows the dominance of Christian fundamentalism and some forms of evangelicalism in shaping the understanding many Americans have of Christianity. For Catholics, Orthodox, and mainline Protestants, things like the big bang and some type of evolution are usually taken for granted, although not always. Sure, the Church speaks on the morality of scientific research and procedures (abortion, embryonic stem cells, etc), but the Church is hardly alone in this, as animal rights activists and others do the same thing. I am sure very few would agree that science should proceed without any ethical checks and balances.

The conversation did not end there. Soon another person jumped in, an atheist. Despite the presence of an atheist, agnostic, Catholic, and evangelical Christians, besides me, every person in the conversation (atheist and agnostic included) could not move beyond a fundamentalist perspective on Christianity. “How so,” you ask?

Well, my agnostic friend eventually quoted a verse in Jeremiah that some fundamentalists use to discredit Christmas trees (Jeremiah 10:2-4). He used that as a way of showing Christians are inconsistent. The Bible condemns Christmas trees so Christians using them means they don’t really follow the Bible. But…who says the Bible condemns Christmas trees? Not Catholics, not Orthodox, not mainline Protestants. So, my agnostic friend, who wasn’t raised Christian, was in essence using fundamentalist reasoning. It is hard to make progress in a real discussion when someone who is agnostic is basically approaching the Bible, and Christianity, as a fundamentalist.

The atheist in the discussion took some offense at the zeal of the evangelicals in the conversation (and for good reason). Then he went on about how Christmas is just Saturnalia dressed up, and how Jesus really wasn’t born in December, so Christians are inconsistent. First, I think the Saturnalia argument is outdated, which shows to me he was relying on skeptical apologetics material. If Christians “stole” the date, it makes more sense to me that it was from the festival of the Birth of the Unconquered Sun (Sol Invictus), not Saturnalia.  Second, early Christians speculated about the birth of Jesus on Dec. 25th based on the date of the vernal equinox and the date of creation prior to the 4th century, when the celebration of Christmas is clearly recorded. Third, do very many Christians, even evangelicals, really insist that Jesus was actually born on December 25th? Once again in our conversation, our atheist was approaching Christianity as…you guessed it, a fundamentalist.

I found the discussion very enlightening, and even humorous, because in essence both Augustine and I were called liberals because of our views on Genesis. In the circles where I hang out, both Augustine and I would be considered pretty conservative! Nonetheless, I think we can’t assume that those who “reject” Christianity are rejecting anything remotely close to Catholicism or what might be called “mere Christianity,” but instead, are rejecting a form of Christianity that most of us rejected as well.

6 Comments | Evangelical | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by David Bennett

Faith and Football

January 28, 2009

Cardinals Camp Football
Well, these are two of my favorite things, so I thought I would link to an interesting article from Fox Dallas, entitled Faith Mixes With Football for the Big Game. The article highlights the faith of many of the players on the Steelers and Cardinals teams, particularly Kurt Warner.

It is interesting that some areas of American life seem almost anti-religious, or at least ashamed of miraculous religion (The Academy comes to mind), but it seems that in sports, people aren’t ashamed to be faithful, and talk about their faith. While I may not approach my faith in the same way as these evangelical athletes do, and I would probably not carry a Bible with me to press conferences, I admire these men for living out their faith in Christ. Oh, and for the record, I haven’t ever held a press conference, but there is always hope!

1 Comment | Evangelical, Popular Culture | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Bennett

Pro-Life Warren to Give Invocation at Inauguration

December 17, 2008

Rick Warren will give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. While I don’t agree with Warren on a lot of issues, and I think he should have been tougher on Obama when Warren hosted his forum with the candidates, I still think having a pro-life pastor give the invocation is good. Perhaps Warren can positively influence the president-elect on this issue. If those of us praying for Obama to have a change of heart about abortion truly mean those prayers, then we should be glad possible opportunities for this change exist!

5 Comments | Abortion, Evangelical, Politics | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by David Bennett

Misconceptions About the Apostolic Churches

September 18, 2008

Dave Hartline and others have linked to an interesting article written by a Protestant who is seriously considering Orthodoxy. The post is almost a year old, so maybe he already is Orthodox.  The post is entitled 3 Myths and Misconceptions about the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. It is worth a read.

There really are a lot of misconceptions out there about Catholics and Orthodox. I don’t know if most people intentionally distort what we believe or not (I am sure some do), but generally I think human nature is the reason why our beliefs are constantly distorted (and why some Catholics distort Protestant beliefs in a similar fashion). It is far easier to think you know what somebody believes based on your own initial impression, than to actually look into someone else’s beliefs more deeply over time. So when a Protestant hears a Catholic pray to Mary, the reasoning goes something like this: “I pray to God as a part of my worship, Catholics pray to Mary, therefore they must worship her like a god.” Since this individual may not care for Catholics anyway, he is content to let this “logic” stand, and will even defend it when presented with evidence by Catholics (who, he is likely convinced, are ignorant of their faith anyway). Of course, this reasoning ignores the Apostolic Churches’ distinction between worship and veneration, but also shows ignorance of the Catholic understanding of “praying to the saints.” When Catholics pray to saints, we are asking them for their prayers, joining our prayers to God, with theirs, which are also directed to God. You really have to have at least a basic understanding of the communion of the saints to begin to appreciate it. But understanding this belief of ours is something that requires a little research and effort, and many people just don’t want to put that sort of effort in to learn about a church they are suspicious of.

I think W.E. Messamore (the author of the post linked above) does a good job explaining and understanding some of the common myths surrounding Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and this is because he a) is open to them, and b) has done careful research so as to know what we actually believe, rather than presenting strawman assertions.

Leave a Comment » | Catholic, General, Evangelical, Orthodoxy | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by David Bennett

Give Your Trend 10 Years, and Then Get Back to Me

September 6, 2008

When I look at old yearbooks, I always can tell who probably had a cutting edge haircut and outfit during his or her time. How? Because often it looks ridiculously dated now, and what was probably viewed as the height of fashion and culture at the time, now seems more like a silly phase. I was thinking of this as I was looking into an event a friend of mine on facebook is attending at a local church. Basically this is a meeting of evangelicals who are fed up with “the American church” and, unlike anybody in the past, are finally going to do something “real.” They proudly avoid things like tradition or religion (showing that they actually misunderstand the definition of these terms, since I guarantee they are handing down information). So the name of the first meeting is something like “Are You Tired of all the Bull&^&*??”

When I went to this new church’s webpage, it was trendy all the way, with close-up black and white face shots of all the ministers. The main pastor, with a little patch of facial hair below his lip, on his profile mentions his smoking hot wife, his love of a trendy rock band (that I happen to like), and his hatred of PCs.

Do I agree that certain elements of contemporary evangelicalism are problematic? Yes. Will these meetings be interesting and even entertaining? Probably. Are these guys’ hearts in the right place? Likely (as if I could ever judge that!). However, if “re-inventing” the American church (whatever “church” means here) means ditching an older, outdated, trend for a newer, hotter, one, then I lack sympathy for their mission, because in 10 years this church will look just as out-of-date as the churches they are trying to move past. Moving from trendy development to trendy development is not the way Apostolic Christianity works; if anything, new “trends,” that depart from Apostolic Teaching, are what causes problems. I can say that these folks are probably going to do some positive things for the gospel, but I find it really hard to get past these trendy, and in retrospect, hokey, efforts at “doing church.” Also, I find claims of avoiding tradition to be naive, knowing the basic definition of the term.

10 Comments | Evangelical | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by David Bennett

My Conversion Story on the Radio

August 27, 2008

Chad here.

The good folks at the Catholic Channel and the Seize the Day program invited me to tell my conversion story live on the radio. It was a great time and the host, Gus LLoyd, was very professional.

I’m obviously not a pro at this, but if you’re interested in listening the mp3 can be downloaded here.

cross-posted at CINE.

1 Comment | Anglican and Episcopal, Catholic, General, Converts and Conversion, Evangelical, Growth, Liturgy and Worship | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Chad T.

Maybe We Don’t Want to Worship That Way!

August 24, 2008

A local Catholic chiropractor buys magazines for YMCA, and one that he buys is Christianity Today. I tend to read it while Jennifer is finishing up her shower. The other day I read a letter from the July 2008 issue that claimed that Christianity Today was overemphasizing liturgical worship. The writer was convinced (and probably right) that most evangelicals are not particularly interested in liturgical worship, and that Christianity Today is devoting way too much time to this type of worship. However, what I found interesting was the way in which the letter was worded. It said something to the effect that “maybe we don’t want to worship the way the early Church did.”

I guess this demonstrates why I am Catholic. Notice that this reader is quite willing to affirm that the ancient Church didn’t worship the way his church does. However, this doesn’t bother him. Basically it looks like this: the early Church worshiped one way, but we worship our new way. This is where I am much different from this writer. When I was reading the Fathers as an evangelical, and studying ancient languages and worship, I was bothered by the fact that what I believed and the way I worshiped was so removed from what the early Church believed and the way they worshiped. I could not say “the early church did it this way, but we do it this way” as if it was a good, or even acceptable, thing. In fact, I did utter those words from time-to-time, but it was to encourage my fellow evangelicals to examine our beliefs and worship in light of early Christian worship.

I honestly believe that evangelicals that believe that proudly going against the early Church is wrong will eventually either be Catholic or Orthodox, or perhaps Anglican or Lutheran. It is very difficult to immerse yourself in reading about ancient Christian worship, and then attend a church that knowingly and proudly worships much differently.

9 Comments | Anglican and Episcopal, Evangelical, Liturgy and Worship | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by David Bennett

I Kissed Dating Good-Bye

August 2, 2008

Anybody remember this book, I Kissed Dating Goodbye? I remember it very well. It was a very trendy evangelical book when I was in the Navigators and Campus Crusade back in 1998 and 1999. The basic thesis of the book is that dating is wrong, and that you shouldn’t even be alone with a member of the opposite sex until you are married. Thus, the author Joshua Harris distinguishes between dating, which is bad, and “courting,” which is good. The problem is that he doesn’t do a very good job of distinguishing between the two, and apparently he didn’t even follow his own advice, going on a “date” for bagels with the woman he is now married to.  I wrote a fairly negative review of the book for Amazon.com, a review which just happens to be the first review most people see when they visit the book’s page on Amazon. I tried to be balanced in my review of the book, which I found superficial, and largely based on the personal negative dating experiences of the author.

My negative impression of the book developed because of what I witnessed before I ever read the book myself. It was all the rage in the evangelical circles I was a part of. You couldn’t go to any retreat, meeting, or whatever, without hearing about this book, and its philosophy, as if it really was the gospel. New converts to Christianity I knew often owned multiple copies of the book and would pass it out to anyone and everyone they met. People would go to dinner and a movie with someone of the opposite sex, but bend over backwards to call it anything but a “date,” because they had been taught, and believed, that “dating” is sinful. Of course, these new converts couldn’t tell you much about who Jesus was, or what he did for us, and hadn’t even begun to read the Bible, but they had the details of this book memorized. Perhaps I was cynical, but I often wondered how some people I knew could claim such sure knowledge of “biblical” love, without ever having opened a Bible.

My review on Amazon.com doesn’t mention this, but Harris’ attitude toward love strikes me as rather Gnostic-like. Even something as mild as holding hands was seen as violating “biblical” principles of courtship, so people I knew literally were getting married within months of meeting, because they craved any type of physical contact with that person (and I am not talking about sinful contacts, but simply holding hands or being alone outside of a group). It created an environment that essentially said “before marriage, no contact, after marriage, do whatever you want,” or at least that is how I heard it presented. I certainly agree that physical contact before marriage must be kept within certain boundaries of chastity, but to suggest that an unmarried couple cannot even spend time alone denies people important bonding time, including time to pray together.

My biggest gripe with the book, and the movement that followed, is not the basic underlying point, which is that the way secular society goes about finding love is very, very, screwed up. I can agree with this. My biggest complaint is the way that this book and movement dominated people’s lives, far surpassing virtually any other aspect of Christianity, including the Bible, basic doctrine, and social justice. New converts I knew learned nothing of the Trinity, helping the poor, Church history, the Bible, the person of Christ, etc, but became fully immersed in one 21-year old’s interpretation of “biblical” love, which was in reality based on a few proof-texts taken outside of any cultural context. “The Trinity? That’s boring. Let’s get back to Joshua Harris.” In other words, this method was the evangelical “flavor-of-the-day,” like the Prayer of Jabez was awhile back. I think following Harris’ principles is spiritually healthier than finding love the secular way, that is for sure, but the movement certainly had a “flavor-of-the-day” feel to it.

No matter what your opinion of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, we have a long and thoughtful tradition that is suspicious of flavor-of-the-day type movements. This is one thing that drew me to both of these Traditions. What I read of Catholic and Orthodox authors (including the Fathers) was far more deep, thoughtful, and enduring than the “flavor-of-the-day” stuff I was often exposed to as an evangelical. Granted, many evangelicals themselves criticize this tendency among some of their brethren, so I am not saying that evangelical=flavor-of-the-day, but many secondhand stores are littered with yesterdays’ “flashes-in-the-pan.”

17 Comments | Catholic, General, Evangelical | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by David Bennett

The Unmentioned Trinity

May 12, 2008

I was thinking the other day about the reasons I became Catholic. I have been Catholic for almost four years now, and have been interested in liturgical Christianity since about 1999. One thing that attracted me to liturgical Christianity and Catholicism is how Trinitarian our life, worship, and theology really is.

Growing up, I was fascinated with the Trinity and took it upon myself to defend the deity of Christ against its critics (like Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc). When I returned to my faith in college, I once again became interested in the Trinity. However, in both evangelical settings I found that the Trinity was usually only mentioned when we started talking about apologetics or Christian distinctives. Our everyday worship and education was not overly Trinitarian, although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were all mentioned, although not really in an orthodox Trinitarian framework. It wasn’t that the references to the Father, Son, and Spirit were purposefully heretical, it is just that often the three persons were not connected in any meaningful fashion. The Trinity was especially absent at the “contemporary” church I attended in college. There was no Trinitarian Creed, no Trinitarian hymns, no Church Year, no real catechesis about the Trinity beyond what may have come up in Bible Study, and no prayers that ended with …”who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God…” Perhaps a sermon or two throughout the year might mention the Trinity, but you couldn’t even count on that. Had you asked the leaders of that church if the Trinity was important, they would have said, “Oh, of course!” However, you wouldn’t have known it from the worship.

When I began studying Catholicism and Orthodoxy I found two Churches that were immersed in Trinitarian theology, that not only helped formulate the doctrine at Nicaea, but that also looked to the Trinity to shape their ethics and practices. Even the most basic Catholic/Orthodox prayer, the sign of the cross, was deeply Trinitarian. Upon attending liturgical services for the first time, I remember thinking, “wow, this is very Trinitarian!”

8 Comments | Evangelical, Liturgical Year | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Bennett

Trish Reels in a Big One

April 7, 2008

You may be familiar with the television and radio ministry of evangelist Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron (aka “Mike Sever” from Growing Pains) called Way of the Master [warning: here there be loud audio , busy flash and dubious theology.] I usually refer to it as “Way of the Ambush” because it’s built around walking up to unsuspecting folks on the street and letting them know how sinful they are and, if they haven’t followed the “Roman’s Road”/Sinner’s Prayer version of conversion, that they are on their way to Hell.

Because there are a lot of Catholics (practicing and non) on this planet, they are often targets for this treatment…all the better if they are poorly catechized or lapsed.

One feature they have on their radio show is “Fish with Trish” where a lady named Trish Ramos goes around with a cellphone finding non-Christians or people who “think they’re good” who will agree to talk on the air with Ray, Kirk and/or radio host Todd Friel to find out how wrong and lost they are.

This time, I think Trish reeled in a fish that wouldn’t fit in their live-well: Fr. Jim McGhee.

Fr. Jim McGhee

Fr. Jim McGhee is a convert to the Catholic faith AND a Catholic priest at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton parish in Forth Worth, Texas. He was raised as a Methodist and was a Methodist minister for about seven years before becaming Episcopalian and serving as a priest in that communion for about 20 years. He entered full-communion with the Catholic Church in 1992. He’s also married (which amazed Trish and caused her to wonder out loud if it was “some sort of liberal thing.”)

Well, Fr. Jim can quote scripture as well as they can and he knows their language. He presents the Catholic faith in way that I think they could understand, even if it wasn’t in a way that they liked. Here’s an excerpt:

Comfort: But, if I’m a Roman Catholic, I’ve been sprinkled as a baby, I’m adult and I’m Catholic by name but I haven’t repented and my faith is not in Jesus am I going to heaven?

McGhee: No.

Comfort: So I’m going to Hell?

McGhee: Because you have to cooperate with the grace of God in knowing the faith, living in hope according to your will and learning how to love the good by presence of the Holy Spirit. There has to be a sanctification, a growing up in the Faith.

Download an mp3 of the Program here
(Fr. Jim’s segment starts at 37 mins and 56 seconds into the mp3*)

Anyway, I think Fr. Jim did a great job of presenting the Catholic faith and traditional, sacramental Christianity in a winsome way to a hostile audience that espouses a more novel version of the Christian faith. He really contrasts the nuances of the Apostolic Faith with the “fits on business card” presentation that seems to be par for the course at Way of the Master.

Trish also posted photos and her account of the encounter on her blog as well this video:

*Note: There are some other Catholic-related jewels earlier in the episode: a recording from a 60 Minutes interview with a Catholic former-hitman talking about confession and an incredibly shallow and ham-fisted review of the statement by Avery Cardinal Dulles about the universal scope of the plan of salvation that gets brought up in Fr. Jim’s segement. That’s why Todd Friel says “it’s not beat up on Catholics hour.” There’s also a clip from a sermon by Reformed Baptist pastor John Piper about making sure Christ is first in your life that I thought was well stated.

51 Comments | Apologetics, Converts and Conversion, Evangelical | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Jason S

Thoughts on Making the Journey

April 5, 2008

One of my favorite blogs as of late is Retractiones, the journey of an evangelical who is considering Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I haven’t commented there much, simply for lack of time, but I read it regularly with great joy and interest. I am probably so interested in the thoughts and journey of “Irenaeus,” because I was once where he was. His thoughts have got me thinking a little bit about how I went from evangelical to Catholic.

Every evangelical who becomes Catholic (or Orthodox even) has something that starts the process, i.e. sparks the interest in ancient and catholic things. For me, it was the Church Fathers and Church history, both which I first discovered in 1999. At the time, I was an evangelical, active in the Navigators and Campus Crusade for Christ, but having issues with the theology and practices I encountered in both groups. One extreme example of the problems was when a Campus Crusade leader spoke on John 1:1, and was glad to read that the Bible was called “God!!” An Early Christianity class I took with a devoted and scholarly Orthodox professor opened my eyes to the treasure that is ancient Christianity. I was shocked that I had never heard of the Church Fathers before, let alone their thoughts and ideas. I became increasingly more concerned that the evangelical Christianity I knew so well seemed so different from the Christianity of those who lived immediately after Christ. Soon after the class ended, I went out and bought the entire 38 volume set of Fathers put out by Hendrickson Publishing. But nonetheless, like our friend “Irenaeus,” I moved slowly and incrementally, not able to make the leap immediately into Catholicism or Orthodoxy, for theological, social, and other reasons. I did find evangelicals and other Protestants that seemed to appreciate the Fathers. When I saw that the Episcopal church embraced (at least in theory) a lot of what the Fathers seemed to teach, like baptismal regeneration, Eucharistic Real Presence, liturgical worship, hierarchy within the Church, etc. I became Anglican, which having grown up as an evangelical, was itself a major step, but since I could point to popular Anglican evangelical authors, friends and family weren’t as shocked as had I become Catholic or Orthodox. I just could not make the leap to Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

As I mentioned above, even though I read many Catholic and Orthodox authors (including many Patristic and Medieval writers both privately and later in grad school), I was also influenced by catholic-leaning evangelicals like Robert Webber and Thomas Oden. In fact, I owe the late Robert Webber a debt of gratitude. Even though I have come to disagree with many of his conclusions, Webber helped me become Catholic. In fact, some anti-Catholic websites cited Webber’s influence on me as proof that the newest generation of evangelicals (which includes Webber) is corrupting people into Catholicism!

When I eventually realized that the Anglican Communion did not possess Catholic authority, and had no real “core” beliefs, I knew I finally had to make the jump to either Orthodoxy or Catholicism. Mind you, this is 5 years after I initially discovered the Fathers…5 years! Like Irenaeus, at this point, I seriously explored Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Even though most people who knew me probably would have guessed that I would become Orthodox at some point, I became convinced of the claims of the Catholic Church for a variety of reasons, which I have outlined in my conversion story, which saves me from typing them out here (whew!).

When I think back to the twists and turns my journey into the Catholic Church took, and how much time and energy it would have saved me to just jump in and become Catholic back in 2000, I also remind myself that it is never that easy to simply “jump in” without being emotionally and socially ready, although once we become convinced of the Truth of the Catholic Church, it is imperative that we join as soon as possible. Becoming Catholic organically and naturally, rather than jumping in without proper study and prayer, has likely made me a stronger and more faithful Catholic today than had I just jumped in. I look back and fear that had I become Catholic while at grad school, I would have gotten a warped sense of Catholicism from some of the Catholics there (one Catholic student there wrote in my graduate school’s newsletter that a nun patting a woman’s head was a lesbian “sexual experience”).

For Irenaeus: know that many of us here have been where you all, and are praying for you on your journey, and wherever you end up, and however long it takes you to get there, we will continue to enjoy your reflections and insights.

5 Comments | Converts and Conversion, Evangelical | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Bennett

Why Do Evangelicals Celebrate Easter When They Do?

March 25, 2008

Ok, I grant that a number of non-Catholics go out of the way to call the holiday “Resurrection Sunday“  a few seem to have gravitated towards calling it “Pascha” like Eastern Christians do…  Some of them dislike the term “Easter” wrongly thinking it connotes paganism. (Taylor Marshall has the 411 on that with today’s entry Why is the festival of Christ’s Resurrection called Easter? – it is about as “pagan” to use the term “Easter” as it is “Thursday” or “January” or “Sunday“[!] for that matter!)

Read the rest of this entry »

33 Comments | Apologetics, Easter, Evangelical, Liturgical Year | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by asimplesinner

Biblical Confessions

March 12, 2008

This post should provide plenty of interesting data for those wishing to psychoanalyze my conversion to Catholicism, as I could’ve written this at probably any point as an Evangelical from age 16 on, if I had had the courage.

Most times, I don’t love the Bible.

When I try to read it, which isn’t often, I can’t seem to relax. It’s like my brain has to go into doctrine mode or something, systematizing what I read and matching it to beliefs of mine or others. Then I start analyzing my analyzing…

I read a passage or two and can easily come up with a couple hundred questions. Who’s supposed to answer these? Ever since I was introduced to the “Study Bible”, I’ve found its notes and outlines and essays much more interesting. At least it explains concepts, “compares scripture with scripture”, establishes historical context, etc.

If I think I understand something, I remember the myriad of times I’ve heard sermons or read explanations that helpfully contradict (often using other scripture) what seemed so obvious before.

Very little of it appeals to me stylistically. If I want some Jesus, I’m more likely to pick up Benedict, Guardini, Sheed, or even Rice. If I want some OT action, I’d much rather read something like Buechner’s Son of Laughter about Jacob.

I can say I do love to hear the Scriptures read in the context of the liturgy. My brain doesn’t have time to get bogged down in all that chaotic interpretation. I can relax. Simply listening can be an act of worship.

Some online articles concerning the Bible that I’ve enjoyed:

Pontficator.
Enloe On the O vs. the A.
Papist.
Our Own David Bennett the Eisegete.

cross-posted at cine

13 Comments | Evangelical, Scripture | Permalink
Posted by Chad T.

Y’all Have Church At Lunch?

March 7, 2008

Most Evangelicals and other Protestants I know of are a bit mystified that Catholics can “have church every day” – if they are even aware that we do…

When I worked downtown sometimes I attended the “lunchtime low” at the Cathedral during the weekdays – well attended by business folk on their lunch hour.

A somewhat curious co-worker of Southern extraction was surprised:

“Y’all have church at lunch?”

“Yup. We have church at lunch.”

“Every day?”

“Yup. Every day.”

In turn most Catholics in America are likely largely unaware of the daily prayers of the Roman Church in praying the Divine Office… We will save that for another post.

More mystifying still to some who think about it, is that when I speak of “my Church” I mean the Catholic Church – throughout the world, in all parishes (though I admit, some I would be more hesitant to claim!) – not just my particular parish. For many non-Catholics this sense of “availability” of multiple locations seems odd on the face of it. “Their church” is often meant to mean “my congregation” – levels of comfort in finding another congregation they could worship with when traveling (for example) seems to vary widely.

But I am curious to ask our readership who are converts: How have opportunities to participate in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church outside of Sunday (& maybe Wednesday night) services affected your prayer life?

Non-Catholics, have you been involved with congregations that had daily opportunities to gather for prayer? If you don’t belong to a mainline denomination, how do you assess places of worship when away from your congregation?

6 Comments | Evangelical, Mainline Protestant, Sacraments | Permalink
Posted by asimplesinner

« Previous Entries