Conversion to Catholicism: Is It Usually Essentially Reactionary & Emotional, or Proactive & Rational?

The following exchange occurred on Reformed Protestant Kevin Johnson's whirlwind blog. He cited the article, "Got Love? A Big Reason Presbyterians Convert to Rome," by Rev. Steve M. Schlissel (his words below will be in red). I made the first comment:

I replied to this piece six months ago (3-6-04). No counter-reply was provided by Pastor Schlissel (as so often the case with Reformed folks, for some reason). Perhaps you would like to do so, Kevin? We got plenty of comments in my feedback section, though, from Catholics, protesting the caricatured treatment that us convert-types received in this article. See: "Is This Why You Converted (to Catholicism)?"

Kevin (words in blue hereafter) responded:

I think the point of the piece was not directed at all to Roman Catholics. It is a piece that speaks to the activity of those in the Reformed churches who act without love and drive others away.

And John (apparently Reformed also), who likes Van Morrison (my favorite male singer), U2 (my favorite post-Beatles band), The Band, and Mark Knopfler, so is alright with me and obviously a cool guy (his words will be in green), added:

Caricature? I don't get it. Schlissel speaks of being fed up with Reformed infighting - I've known a few people who were driven to Rome by a church split. Sure, they backed themselves up with (seemingly) good theological reasons, but discontentment has to start somewhere. I can understand the desire for more stability - I don't think this degrades the other reasons for converting to Rome. Kevin, that article is right on - Schlissel understands Christian faith as life versus simply doctrine.

I then felt compelled to explain myself in more depth (as is my wont):

I understand that the piece had different aspects to it, but Protestants need to realize that a Catholic like myself will react differently and notice certain things more than a Protestant would, just as a black person would be far more sensitive to things said about him or (especially) at his expense. Women take far less kindly to generalizing, put-down remarks about them than men do, etc.

Pastor Schlissel tried to make out that conversion to Catholicism "is rarely the result of doctrinal consideration." Those are his words, not my slant on them. Pretty straightforward and clear . . .

Catholics (especially converts) are well familiar with this sort of argumentation. It is a subtle variation of the old "smells and bells" routine. The Catholic could never be what he is because of a sound comparison of systems, or a studied analysis of theology, history, or the Bible. It has to be some extraneous factor that made him take such an absurd leap.

People can differ in good faith. I don't challenge the good faith reasoning of Protestants. I object to anti-Catholic bilge, but if someone actually produces some solid reasoning for why they converted to whatever they are, I may strongly disagree and argue with them, based on the merits of their "case," but I don't question the sincerity and felt-reasonableness of that and resort to speculations about how they were fed up with their former group, etc. as the "be-all" explanation of their move. One ought to accept people's reports of their own spiritual odysseys. It is a deeply personal, oftentimes, painful and sacrificial road.

For example, Protestant pastors (oftentimes, Reformed or Anglican) who convert to Catholicism do not make such a decision lightly or for frivolous, inadequate "sole" reasons like being disgusted at division. I find that to be an absurdly naive, simplistic analysis. These people gave up their entire livelihood, way of life, oftentimes entire circle of friends (if those "friends" decide to be hostile about it, rather than respect a fellow Christian's decision, and remain a friend, as they should).

This is, of course, highly insulting. Why is it so hard to grant that we can indeed produce positive reasons for why we converted, not just negative ones? It is psychologically naive, too, I think, because people generally don't make such serious life-decisions based on the "negatives" of what they are leaving. Generally-speaking, folks don't get married to person y because person x was such a scoundrel. It is because of what they see in person y.

So when one converts to Catholicism it is usually because of what we see there that we find to be true or a better expression of apostolic faith than what we found in Protestantism: proactive rather than reactionary. Speaking for myself, I have always viewed Protestantism as a very good thing. I simply think Catholicism is better. "Good and better," or "very good and best" rather than "bad and good." But of course, many who leave Catholicism for Protestantism see the former as an evil, bad thing. Perhaps, then, Pastor Schlissel is projecting that mentality onto the Catholic convert?

Virtually all converts I know do not feel this way at all. We criticize aspects of Protestantism, of course (especially apologists like me), but we don't run it down as some essentially terrible, evil, monstrous thing. We simply believe it is an inadequate, skeletal version of the full, apostolic Christianity that we have found in the Catholic Church. "Better and best." A chicken leg with a little bit of meat on it is a good thing. But a chicken leg right from the oven with all the meat is a much better thing. We don't say the lesser version is "bad." It just ain't "enough" and a person wants more than that.

I agree with Schlissel that the divisions and all the nonsense to be found in Protestantism is certainly one fairly important factor leading to disenchantment and the urge to explore other avenues. But it can't account for conversion in and of itself. That is my point. It is no "grand explanation," as he tries to make out.

I was a pretty "happy, satisfied" committed evangelical Protestant for 13 years. I knew there were a host of problems in Protestant ranks, and wrote about them (e.g., critiquing the "name-it-claim-it" errors as early as 1982, nine years before my conversion). This didn't make me want to convert. I gave that very little thought at all until 1990, the very year of my conversion.

Rather, it was the positive things I saw in Catholicism which drew me to it: particularly the sublime moral theology that I saw preserved nowhere in Protestantism. Also, development of doctrine was persuasive to me, because it made a great deal of sense of Church history. I had dealt with development in the early 80s also, in defending the Trinity against the Jehovah's Witnesses. We used to write about how the early Church had developed its thinking on the theology of God, etc. So this resonated with me later on, in working through various other issues.

Now you may say I am an exception; that most other converts did it because they are fed up with "Reformed coldness" or in-fighting, or whatever else it is. I suppose former Reformed might have more of that aspect in their story (judging by how y'all talk about your own sphere and what goes on there). I wasn't Reformed, though; I was an Arminian, who had a great deal of respect for many Reformed thinkers (especially Francis Schaeffer and J.I. Packer) but didn't worship in those circles. Our problems had more to do with apathy, hypocrisy, and silly, insubstantial fights (such as over who should be pastor) than doctrinal issues. I accepted these as a necessary evil, and refused to participate in them. But again, this didn't cause me to convert.

Beyond this, the usual insulting language such as the following, is naturally offensive to a Catholic:

When some young Presbyterian "studies" patristic literature, he has no way to absorb it. He reads it as though it were pro-Romish. If he had been properly taught, if he had been instructed in the truth about early church history, about the precise, developed errors of Rome, all 7,856 of them . . .

Those of you who are Reformed, and who converted to it from some other Protestant tradition, or from Catholicism, try to imagine Catholics writing such an analysis of your change of mind. Would you appreciate someone speculating that your sincere, deliberate change of mind and heart had little to do with reasoning or doctrine, and everything to do with how disgusted you were with your former affiliation? Of course not. Chances are you would either resent such an implication or laugh at it. So try to put yourself in our shoes, for just one moment, and understand why I reacted as I did, and why many folks on my blog did also.

I wish Pastor Schlissel would come on out and have a dialogue; talk to some real live Catholics. What is he scared of? If he is confident in his position, just as we are of ours, why is he so reluctant to do so? Oh, he's too busy (the usual answer, if any is given at all)? Well, then, I respectfully submit that he should stop writing about Catholicism if he won't even trouble himself to talk to a few of us weird "Romish" types. First things first . . .

Kevin responded again:

I don't remember anyone saying that one couldn't convert to Rome for positive reasons--but you are definitely smart enough to understand why most Reformed folks would have a problem with 'going to Rome'. I'm quite sure many of those who have come out of other communions to Rome did so as a result of a decided and deliberate move. You have to understand that the piece was written to a very specific part of the Reformed community and I doubt it was ever meant to be seen by Roman Catholic eyes. I mentioned it on my blog in the last day or so not to slight any 'conversion' that may have taken place but to address certain pompous and extremely hateful comments that came my way not by Catholics but by Reformed people. We are the ones that need to repent for our unloving spirit, not those who go to Rome because such behavior may or may not have affected them in doing so.

Also, regarding Pastor Schlissel. He has a phone number like anyone else. You should call him. His website is www.messiahnyc.org and his contact info is there. I have never known him to be anything other than open and accessible.

And me again:

I understand your reason for posting the piece, and its main thrust. I have no beef with that. As I explained, I was dealing with one aspect of it: one that would naturally be noticed more readily by a Catholic. Here are his first three paragraphs. Now, try to imagine yourself being a Catholic (and/or a convert like me) and reading this:

Who should be surprised if there are a huge number of Protestant conversions to Rome, and that soon? Who should be shocked in light of the animosity, the hatred, that Presbyterians (not to mention others) can express for other Presbyterians?

The sentiment that "the doctrine of justification by faith" is somehow that which will tilt stragglers toward Rome is purely ignorant. It may have animated Europe in 1602, but it draws a universal yawn 400 years afterward. Such an assessment — that people are going to Rome because of their doctrine of justification — can only be advanced by people who won’t look up from their books and out at the world. It ignores our real, postmodern circumstances. People are not becoming Christian, or leaving Christianity, because of fine-tuned abstract theological propositions.

Sure, it will happen once in a while that a guy will, after serious consideration, go Eastern or Roman, but I insist that such movement is rarely the result of doctrinal consideration. It is, in my experience and according to my observation, a result of people getting fed up and sick and tired of the egos, the lawlessness, the lovelessness, the endless hairsplitting, the bickering, the in-fighting, the splintering. Too, it is sometimes a response to the irreverent "worship" encountered in oh-so-many American houses of "worship."

Note that he says people convert for doctrinal reasons only rarely, "once in a while." And those who think that any appreciable numbers do do that "won’t look up from their books and out at the world."

I have answered this. It was not the case for me and I don't find it in many other convert stories, either. You may find them often complaining about various errors and faults in Protestantism and Protestant circles, but when it gets down to brass tacks, the reason they give for their conversion will almost always be a positive one: the Eucharist, the papacy, Tradition, Mary and the saints (often things that are neglected altogether in many Protestant circles).

The error here lies in the relative weight placed on the complaints vs. the espousal of new Catholic distinctives. I contend that the latter is far more influential in the decision to convert than the former.

You write: "I don't remember anyone saying that one couldn't convert to Rome for positive reasons." But we're not talking about "anyone"; we're talking about one article by one man at the moment, and he did not give a single positive reason that I can find. He did give a dozen or so negative reasons why someone would leave one thing, but not why they would go to another (in this case, Catholicism). If you think there obviously are such positive reasons, then you clearly differ with Pastor Schlissel and agree with me to that extent.

Also, whether it was "meant" to be seen by Catholics is irrelevant. It shows how one person thinks about Catholics, and that is of interest to me as a Catholic apologist and former Protestant, who considers himself a passionate ecumenist and advocate of Christian unity also. Whatever is public will be read by people with different views. I understand the internal conversations that take place. I'm not all that interested in the endless internecine Reformed bickering, but when a Reformed starts talking about Catholicism (even indirectly), then I am immediately interested. This is human nature. And you are "definitely smart enough" to understand that!

As for me calling Pastor Schlissel, I would never do that first because of the baggage surrounding Catholic apologists. I assume that it would be considered pushy and aggressive and I would never want to place someone in the spot where they would likely perceive that this was the motivation. But if he expressed an interest in talking to me, I would be absolutely delighted and willing to do so. I have expressed such an interest twice now on my blog and/or yours, and that is as far as I will go, out of respect for how such a further move might be perceived. If Catholic apologist "PR" (not helped at all by the endless condemnations and caricatures by some in your own circle) and Catholic-Protestant relations were not both in such poor shape, I might not feel that way, but there it is.