Conversion to Catholicism: Is It Usually Essentially Reactionary & Emotional, or Proactive & Rational?, Part II
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
See Part One. Kevin Johnson's words will be in blue; Travis's in green.
I really think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Not at all. I am merely dealing with one particular aspect of Schlissel's article. What's wrong with that? Why do you have a problem with it? Are you saying that no one can comment on portions of an article, simply because they are not the main point of it? I find that rather odd.
Pastor Schlissel's comments are not "writing about Catholicism", they are addressing a problem that is inherent in certain current Reformed circles.
Thats irrelevant to my concerns. He made certain statements in the context of dealing with this other issue of endless Reformed fighting and lack of charity. The statements stand on their own. He is talking about how Reformed bickering causes people to convert. I can readily agree that it is a contributing factor. But the problem is that he goes beyond that to assert or strongly imply that there are no good positive reasons to convert to Catholicism, only negative reasons to "deconvert" from some form of Protestantism.
At best, he allows for only a very few who convert for other reasons. I have already "produced" two: myself, and Thomas McKinney, who commented above. I can easily produce many more, with documentation, if you wish to press this point. But if that was not Pastor Schlissel's intent, he is welcome to defend his remarks or give them their proper elaboration. Or (best of all) he can retract them.
If you want to see what Pastor Schlissel has written about Rome recently, you should review his other article I posted on the Reformed Catholicism website entitled "What Thinkest Thou?" but again it is written to the Reformed community and not to Roman Catholics.
I responded to that already. If you go to the link you give above, you'll see my lengthy comments there.
Not all of us are going to always write in a way that satisfies all parties.
That's why criticism is so crucial, so we don't all stay in our little bubbles and fail to realize how we are being perceived by "outsiders" or how insular our reasoning may increasingly be.
I think you ought to be glad that such articles are being written though and that attention is being paid to these things even if we in the Reformed world don't always see it the way you or other Roman Catholics might.
As I've stated 100 times, I am delighted that internal criticisms are being made and that the wacko, fringe anti-Catholics are being opposed. But what do you expect me to do: shut up because there are some good things, when I see some things that I think are worthy of criticism? That's not in my nature. Remember, I am a Socratic. I will always challenge and get people to examine their own beliefs more closely. And I know, Socrates became very unpopular and was eventually killed. I am well aware that not a lot of people appreciate this methodology. :-)
You seem to have difficulty accepting the concept that one can largely like, admire, and respect something, yet have big problems with parts of it. This is one such case. It is wonderful, fantastic, that one Reformed is speaking out against Reformed errors and excess and lack of love. That's great. That's what it is all about. I used to speak up against charismatic excesses when I moved in those circles. I rebuked my own pastor in a letter once and he, in turn, rebuked me unfairly from the pulpit and virtually "excommunicated" me. So I appreciate such internal protests. I've lived them in my own life, and paid a price on more than one occasion for doing so.
But that doesn't mean that I will not criticize what I feel needs to be criticized. The same goes for "Reformed Catholicism" as a whole. If you guys want to hear my opinion, I will be happy to give it. I think a lot of this trend or movement or whatever you wish to call it, as I have repeatedly stated, but I think it has some glaring errors and inconsistencies, just as I think all forms of Protestsntism do. This is some big surprise?
What bothers me the most, though, is how somehow many of you guys in your camp seemingly have this perception that I am your "enemy" or have some personal thing against some of you, simply because I make some criticisms. I think there is a great deal of oversensitivity. You should be thankful that you have a guy like me around who respects you and wishes to become as friendly as you will allow me to, but who will also honestly speak his mind within a context of overall respect. "Faithful are the wounds of a friend."
But instead, the usual response when I have replied has been abruptness or offense and an effort to get away from the discussion as soon as possible. In a few cases such as your own and "Josh," you have promised to respond to something we have discussed (Calvin and the Eucharist compared to the Fathers' views) but have taken months to do so. But at least you have the desire. Good for you.
But if you don't want that, I can split. I want to be in places where free discussion and critique and close examination of competing ideas is not only allowed, but positively encouraged and accepted as good things, not something to be avoided or dreaded. Your blog is one of the last Reformed locations where I have felt welcome and have been treated with cordiality. For that I thank you.
*****
I think we can make a distinction between solid, rational, self-consistent reasons that we may disagree with, but which are still rational criteria, as opposed to mere emotionalism or disgust or reactionary impulses.
As I see it, the rationales for conversions might be consistent and even quite respectable, relatively speaking, but (now I speak as a Catholic partisan) can be attacked on the presuppositional level. This is why I write so often about sola Scriptura and the Church and the crucial role of Tradition. Every Christian must grapple with those issues one way or another.
So if the roles were reversed and I was analyzing a non anti-Catholic conversion to Protestantism, I could surely grant that a person sincerely believed that sola Scriptura were true over against the three-legged stool of Bible, Church, Tradition, or that he could not accept Catholic Mariology, for whatever reason, or the papacy, or insisted on adult, believer's baptism only, for what he felt were compelling biblical reasons. Etc., etc. I can disagree without denying that the person sincerely thought through the issues.
I can acknowledge that the person is consciously basing his decision on his biblical or historical reasoning and making his choice in good conscience, based on what he knows. I don't have to doubt his self-report, or question his reasoning abilities. I don't have to make out that it must always or almost always be the case that he is merely going on emotion and a disgust at Catholic nominalism or lousy homilies, or mechanical-appearing worship in individuals, or biblical illiteracy, or catechetical ignorance, or Bingo or swearing or excessive drinking, or sexual laxity, or any number of faults that we have in our circles, just as every Christian group has.
It is about granting some respect and dignity to a very serious thing: a conversion. I don't deny that there are also many who convert for much less serious reasons (including the famous "convert to get married" scenario). I am opposing the degree to which Pastor Schlissel says these factors cause conversion to Catholicism. One expects this kind of talk in Protestant circles, concerning Catholic conversion. But I would hope us Catholics are also accorded the right to protest against it on factual grounds, as we see fit.
I went through conversion myself, twice, and I have observed dozens of conversion processes firsthand, sometimes being closely involved (including that a few very sharp Reformed people). And they were not as Pastor Schlissel portrays them. He has his own pastoral experience, which I don't deny, and I have my own long apologetic, and evangelistic experience. Somehow we must collect all this conflicting data together and present a coherent picture of what generally happens in a conversion.
If one was in an environment where people were bitching and fighting and backbiting and gossiping all the time, and majoring on the minors, and quarreling about trifles, then I would fully expect there to be an observation of many people becoming fed up with that and wanting to get out, because of the clear conflict with the Christian ideal of charity.
But then again, that is one environment, and doesn't represent all of Protestantism. And the people who left will have, I guarantee it, many reasons for doing so. Some may have been former Catholics, and so decided to go back after having discovered what one form of Protestantism in one place was like.
A big part of my objection, too, is my intense dislike for single causal explanations of almost anything. I find that intuitively, common-sensically false. This is one valuable thing I received from my studies in sociology and psychology (where I learned little of usefulness, unfortunately). Reality is always more complex than one simple explanation. Conversion is all the more so. It's an extraordinarily complex and painful process and simply can't be explained as primarily or solely due to being sick and tired of in-fighting, in almost all cases.
We may be in a postmodernist age, but people aren't that stupid. At least not in the high numbers that Pastor Schlissel claims.
*****
Speaking of conversion is one type of apologetics among many. There is not simply one type, whereby doctrine is upheld through various rational, biblical, historical means, etc. I do that in bundles, and I assume that you are aware of that, if you know anything about me.
The conversion story is not so much "straight" apologetics as it is a variant of the call to "bear witness" about what God has done in one's life, and the spiritual odyssey one has taken. It is valid in its own right.
Secondly, you neglect to see that we are human beings in communities, with experiences, emotions, stories, influences, psychological, personal, familial, temperamental, and many other factors all having an effect on both our beliefs and actions. The Schlissel piece did understand this aspect very well, because it is true that some (probably many) people do change beliefs largely based on experience in particular communities. These help to further form their perceptions and conceptions of theological truth and the human elements of ecclesiology. As I wrote, I disagreed with the extent to which he thought that one thing was the leading factor in conversions of Presbyterians to Catholicism.
Thirdly, this particular debate was a dispute about factual matters: "what in fact was the reason that such converts gave as their own rationale for conversion, and what was their actual motivation?" That has validity as a discussion in and of itself also. You say apologists should be interested in truth. That was precisely what interested me here: the particular truth concerning why people converted to Rome. I think that has the utmost relevance to both the truth of Catholicism and apologetics, albeit somewhat indirectly.
If, e.g., someone in the course of their conversion story tells me that doctrines x, y, and z all helped him become a Catholic, this is worth looking into, because if it worked that way with him, chances are it would with others. This is apologetically relevant, because apologetics asks: "WHY do we (Christians of a certain stripe) believe what we do?" So if a person is saying this was WHY he became a Catholic, that has apologetic relevance one step removed. This was the concept behind Surprised by Truth, the bestseller, to which I was privileged to be a contributor. It combined the conversion story and straight apologetics quite directly, because the folks in it all gave lots of "apologetic" reasons for why they converted.
Now, I fully agree; let everyone examine each factor that someone claimed was important in convincing them. My biggest three reasons were: contraception, development of doctrine, and a study of the "Reformation" period. I have since written tons of stuff about each area: major portions of books for the first and third topic, and an entire book on the second.
But why should I discount conversion stories simply because I also deal with each theological topic at length? It doesn't follow. People's lives present a story. The Bible is filled with stories. People resonate with them. They love testimonies and progressions from one lower plane to a higher one. It gives them hope; it challenges them, and helps persuade them that perhaps their life could be better than it is.
Lastly, I commented on this article because I thought it illustrated also a certain prejudice or tunnel vision (one might say condescension) that many Protestants have towards Catholics. it came out in this case by means of what I thought were quite naive and simplistic theories as to what Presbyterians converted. There was virtually no theology posited as a factor. And that was my beef: this has not been my experience or that of many converts that I know, so I felt it important to challenge the factuality of this assertion. In so doing, I am upholding the importance of theology, just as you urge — far from minimizing it.
Etc., etc., etc. So I couldn't disagree more. But thanks much for your thoughts. They were very stimulating.
*****
I'm as much in favor of emotions and intuition and so forth, in the context of Christianity as anyone, I think. I remain a "moderately" charismatic Catholic; I have had many spiritual experiences and have experienced supernatural gifts, even healings. My conversion to evangelical Protestantism in 1977 was very much along these lines, as were aspects even of my Catholic conversion.
Correctly understood, I would class these sorts of less "rational" or "doctrinal" — more "mystical" reasons, among those which are proactive reasons for conversion. This is distinct from mere "smells and bells" (as if choosing a religion were akin to picking an ice cream flavor or a carpet) or an aversion to Protestant bickering, I think you would agree.
That said, I would like to also note, however, that an overly experiential, non-doctrinal approach can readily lend itself to a sort of postmodernist mush of individualistic subjectivism. I find that the Bible generally puts experience and doctrine or some concrete objective criterion hand in hand. It excludes neither. I appreciate your mentioning of these factors, and I accept them (perhaps my title was thus a bit misleading; and I am happy to clarify), but I think the safest spiritual course is to combine them with objective "external" criteria: if not right away then at least eventually.
And we see that this is exactly what the Apostle Paul did, now that I think of it. He had the great mystical experience, but then he verified it later by checking in with the apostles and elders of the early Church (who provided "objective" witness of the genuineness of his conversion).
*****
Hi Travis,
I thought your response was excellent. Thanks, and here is my counter-reply. I don't think we disagree as much as you might imagine. I see it as mainly a dispute about categorization or what I often term "the [excessive] departmentalization of knowledge."
Well, let's define what it is we are talking about first. A standard dictionary definition of apologetics, which says (per www.dictionary.com) that it is either 1) "The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines." or 2) "Formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system."
Sure; no problem there.
Now if speaking of conversion, what role does conversion stories play in defending the truth or formal argumentation of your Christian tradition?
What they do is precisely to provide a sort of moral support or what I have called a "plausibility structure" for the belief-system that was thus adopted. This gets back to the notion: "human beings don't live in a rational, logically-airtight vacuum". Conversion stories provide indirect rationales for viewpoints because of the nature of the process itself and those who undertake it.
The people reading them see folks working through issues and ultimately adopting a position (in this instance, Catholicism). The stories in their detail show that the reasons were not frivolous or insubstantial; they have merit. They are usually mentioned in passing or simply identified, rather than elaborated upon at length (especially in oral presentations). I have three different versions of my story which differ in various ways. One of them was specifically designed to actually give explicit apologetic rationale for why I changed my mind. I think this one would meet even your criterion of what is to be properly deemed as "apologetics":
How Newman Convinced me of the Apostolicity of the Catholic Church
But this was a very "heavy," dense piece, not for everyone's taste. The nature of "story" means that extensive flights into hard reasoning for positions must take a back seat to the sense of narrative and development and the personal struggles. I'm not that great of a storyteller myself, and tend to always drift into more intellectual, philosophical concerns. Like I said, conversion stories are more along the lines of witness, rather than apolgetics per se.
But plausibility is a fascinating subject in its own right. Why do people find one thing persuasive and another not? What factors into that? Why do two people see the same set of data and one feels one way and the other the total opposite? Conversion stories to Catholicism mainly make Catholicism a more plausible, even (in hard cases) "thinkable" option. Now, this is not apologetics; it is not in itself the "reasons" for converting, or why Catholicism is true. It is, rather, the reasons leading to one person's decision to become a Catholic.
This is not altogether divorced from apologetics itself, as I have argued. We see analogies in other areas, notably science. Note the following analysis:
1. The Big Bang theory is regarded as true because of compelling evidences in many fields.
2. The Big Bang theory is regarded as true by virtually all astronomers and physicists today.
3. When the consensus was changing from Steady State and other theories to the Big Bang theory, various astronomers wrote in the academic literature as to why they changed their mind.
Now, if we compare this to apologetics and theology, #1 is the actual data, facts, hard arguments for the position. You and I would both readily agree on that.
#2 is simply stating a fact about present consensus. It is not an argument; merely a "demographic" or "sociological" or "poll-like" observation.
#3 is the equivalent of the conversion story. In writing such accounts, the scientists would give reasons from category #1. Likewise, when writing conversion accounts to Catholicism, most stories I have seen offer some sort of reasoning from apologetics itself. Not always, but often. But remember, "[the rational reasons] why I changed my mind" is a distinct proposition from "why what I changed my mind concerning, and adopted, is true."
There are a host of factors leading to conversion and they are not all apologetic. This is where your thesis is weak, I think. There are mystical and intuitive reasons, there is the moral argument (which has even been developed by philosophers in great detail, but need not be philosophical in a given individual), there is experiential and miraculous evidence (philosopher William Alston has developed this line in great depth), there are pragmatic and psychological and relevant emotional and highly personal considerations.
One might, e.g., read of accounts of miracles at Lourdes and Fatima, or about the Incorruptibles, or people being raised from the dead or healed in extraordinary ways, about the bi-location of saints like Padre Pio, or exorcisms, etc. They may witness some miracle themselves or be so moved by an act of love by some Catholic that this convinces them that Catholicism is the True Way.
This is eyewitness, legal-type testimony similar to that found in the Bible accounts of miracles. One may read of these and become convinced that Catholicism is true. Is this apologetics? I think so (of a sort). But you may not. Certainly the early Church thought miracles were highly important in their testimony and evangelization. They highlighted the Resurrection, and Jesus Himself came back to let Thomas put his hand in His wounds, etc.
I could go on and on (sorry, folks; this has stimulated my mind), but I will respond to more of your words . . .
That is, say you have some brilliant mind-numbing argument X, which successfully completes your apologetic. What does the addition of "here's person A's background story of coming to believe X" serve about the argument X's validity and soundness? Nothing much I don't think; I see no entailment relation between a fallible and subjective persuasion and the validity and soundness of an argument.
Me, neither. I agree. It simply creates more plausibility structure and makes it more likely that someone will be persuaded. It breaks down barriers and prejudices, especially if the person giving their story was highly-regarded in their former circles, or an esteemed thinker or academic.
In areas where there is great certainty that something is true or untrue, people don't care about conversion stories, and there are none. There is no flourishing market for conversion stories to a flat earth cosmology or belief that the moon is made of green cheese (except maybe in The National Enquirer or at CBS News, where facts and truth mean little).
There is no flurry of books telling about how someone was convinced of the Law of Gravitation. No one disputes it. But where Catholicism is concerned, lots of people wonder about it: the anti-Catholics, ecumenical Protestants who find it a curious phenomenon that won't go away (my own former category), insecure, poorly-educated Catholics who need a boost of confidence.
If people learn that there is a large movement of people all concluding the same thing, that itself is an indication that that thing may be true; it is (again) a matter of plausibility and believability, which is not itself an argument per se, but more of a bolster or support for the arguments, in the sense of "testimony". In other words, it is reasonable to believe: "IF indeed A is true (we grant this for the sake of argument), then we would expect to find reasonable, sensible people adopting it in substantial numbers." It's not true because people adopt it, but rather, truly reasonable, inquiring, open-minded people will adopt it if in fact it is true. See the difference?
Perhaps you would like to bring such an entailment relation to my attention if I am missing it?
I'm doing my best.
You are correct in your assumption that I am aware of other areas from your website and blog where you have offered apologetic accounts for your tradition; whether a rational, biblical, historical, or whatever route. That's why I had that conditional "these types" at the beginning of my response. I just don't see what role this kind of argument plays into that.
I hope my comments have helped explain it better, agree or disagree.
That is, I recognize the grouping of rational, biblical and historical means of argumentation as a part of a successful apologetic; but that doesn't mean that subjective and fallible "guitar acoustics" (as it were) are part of an apologetic as well. When it comes to apologetics, giving those reasons for the hope within, substance over style and not the other way around, correct?
I don't think conversion stories are irrelevant simply because they may not be devoted solely to rational reasons for faith, as explained.
In response to your second
I understand human beings have their experiences, emotions, etc. But remember that my comment was about apologetics and the formal defense of one's Christian tradition. So I neglected it then because I didn't, and still don't, see the relevance since my topical concern was apologetics.
That's fine, but my immediate concern was Schlissel's analysis of Catholic conversion. So whether that is classified as "apologetics" or not matters little to me. It is an important issue that affects my readers and Christians of all stripes, and thus worthy of attention and analysis. In any event, I think it is closely related to apologetics, as a "half-sister," if you will, just as I think something like philosophy of religion is.
The only way I can see how such things are relevant to a formal defense would be say, you give that brilliant apologetic argument X again, but now person A thinks X is unsound because it doesn't match up with their subjective experiences, emotions, stories, etc. If it helps your apologetic to bring up those stories, then it should cut both ways. If not then it seems you are guilty of committing the informal fallacy of special pleading, and it seems to be able to cut both ways.
Not at all, because I have agreed with you that it is not apologetics in your sense. This has become largely a matter of semantics, and I find that wearisome after a certain point. I'm much more interested in Christian-related issues than how they can be categorized and classified. You say it isn't apologetics; I say it is a half-sister to it and relevant. However we classify it, it interests me, and so I write about it. And it helps people to convert or become more confident in their Catholic faith, which is my job as an apologist after all.
And then that bring us to a logical disjunction. Either it such conditional as these experiences, emotions, etc are a part of a formal defense or it isn't, and I see no reason to think it is; and you're in some logical quicksand if you think it is.
I don't. But I don't think it is either irrelevant or irrational in terms of the overall context of "reasons for faith" or a "thinking man's faith" — which themselves transcend apologetic reasons.
In response to your third
That's fine and dandy that you corrected factual mistakes, but that only goes so far as the facts are relevant to a Catholic apologetic.
I think I have shown that there is some relevance.
The type of factual mistakes doesn't directly tie into an apologetic for one's tradition. That is, those categories that such examples fall into are a red herring from any rational debate on the truth of your tradition. I would mostly be repeating myself here why I think that is the case; the above should be sufficient.
And I think my answer is sufficient. When I replied to Schlissel, I agree: I wasn't doing apologetics strictly-speaking. But I never said that all I do is apologetics, either. I happen to be a professional apologist, but I write about a great many subjects, even things like politics, poetry, music and movie reviews, cultural analysis, romanticism, vegetarianism, ethical issues, etc.
I was responding to the factuality of his claims. This was more sociology than apologetics: "why did converts to Rome convert? What were their own reasons?" I disagreed with him on how to break that down. My main point was to assert that the process is far more proactive than reactionary and "negative": why someone joined place B (the Catholic Church) rather than left place A.
In short though, either way those facts pan out, is Catholicism false because of it? I don't see how that would follow.
You're right, and I have never disagreed with this. The "case" itself has to be made on other grounds. When someone is in process of possible conversion, I direct them to the various arguments I have on my site, and they can make up their own minds as to the relative strengths of competing claims.
Now what I said just right there about how such is a red herring would however work just fine as a response to Schlissel, would it not? I think that at the very least it would be useful to include it as a response, more so than following Schlissel down his bunny trails.
I'm happy for you to make your observations in this comments section, which is a continuation of my paper. I have no objection to it. In fact, I am delighted to have the opportunity to clarify in much greater depth. This is why I love dialogue so much.
Why bother making such a chase, when the chase itself is futile even if you catch what it is you’re after going down such a trail.
It is only "futile" if one assumes that I was arguing in circular fashion, or that I was confined to apologetics. As I was doing neither, I disagree that it is a futile exercise. I think ALL of these things help people make up their minds one way or another. If nothing else, at least people see Catholics and their non-Catholic brethren in Christ working through issues, and thinking, using their noggins. And that is always good, because Christians continue to labor under the stereotype of being dummies and simpletons.
It would be much more direct and proficient as an apologetic to simply point out the logical errors of such thinking.
You should do that! LOL
There might be some sense that we can agree. Your note about some apologist who gives doctrine x, y and z; and that this is worth looking into is fine. I’m just saying that x, y and z aren’t made any better as arguments by the addition of fallible/subjective persuasion.
The arguments themselves are not, but the "case" is, in terms of plausibility and persuasiveness. Now, of course, if there are logical fallacies in a given conversion story, those should be pointed out. Apart from that, it helps the case if someone make a persuasive conversion story that others find worthy of emulation in part or wholly.
So I’m not saying to completely discount conversion stories, etc either, that doesn’t even follow from what I said implicitly nor was it explicitly stated. My desire is to simply put them in their place.
Perhaps we don't disagree as much as you thought?
I have found anthologies like Thomas Morris’ collection via OUP God and the Philosophers useful in finding some arguments to look into further. The nice thing about such works is that they usually are a collection of the more intellectual types from a certain tradition, and the arguments are worth checking out that you might not otherwise hear about (especially if you are a neophyte).
Exactly. I have that book. This is a great example. Here are a bunch of good philosophers giving their story as to why they believe in God. They are not always (perhaps usually not) doing strict philosophy in these stories. This is something different. But does it help others, too, to believe in God? Absolutely! Because they (atheists or insecure, wavering theists) will say, "gee, van Inwagen and Alston and Adams and Mavrodes [et al] are no dummies; I am curious why they think they have rational reasons to adopt theism."
Look at what it says on the back cover:
"I am a philosopher because I am a Christian," writes Brian Leftow. "To many intellectuals, this probably sounds like saying that I am a dog because I am a cat."
We might make an analogy to Catholic conversion:
"I am a Catholic because I am a Christian," writes Dave Armstrong. "To many anti-Catholic Protestants and even ecumenical Protestants, this probably sounds like saying that I am a dog because I am a cat."
And so, the Catholic convert, like the theist philosopher, provides a great service by explaining how he can do this weird, odd, inexplicable thing. People are wondering about it, so they read it, and it has an influence.
But still, it is only the first baby step towards looking into such issues, and a bit hasty if you just came to a conclusion after reading one considering the usual lack of depth in addressing complex issues in the amount of space they write in..
I agree that one should do so, and that would be my suggestion as well, but it doesn't follow that we disdain the baby steps. You know: "a journey of a 1000 miles begins with the first step." You're throwing the "baby steps" out with the bathwater. :-)
But, the success of any argument one looks into is still not contingent on any of their fallible/subjective. They are useful granted you put them into the right context.
Good! Have I brought up anything that you didn't consider before about all this stuff?
Anyhow, I’ve said my piece and I don’t see this going anywhere very interesting.
I think it is a very interesting discussion; hence my long response. A lot can be said on this.
For what it is worth, I actually am a former OPC/PCA guy and am very aware of poor arguments, misconceptions and bias many in those camps dish out on Catholic theology;
Does that mean you are a Catholic convert yourself?
I just don’t think returning the favor in kind makes for an interesting apologetic discourse.
I don't see how I have done so.
Thanks for the great food for thought. I enjoyed writing about these things a lot. And I hope others receive some benefit from my ramblings.
I agree that we actually seem to be agreeing more I originally thought. Much of this could be accounted for in my more narrow definition of apologetics, so I think those comments are right now. A lot of what you include in your definition is what I classify as pyschological, which I draw a line between that and logical argumentation. But sinse you like subjective stories that are pyschologically comforting; I suppose it would be polite for me to answer your question.
Does that mean you are a Catholic convert yourself?
It could, but as of now; no, at least not yet. I'm a young 24 years old, and started reading a lot of philosophy/theology about 3-4 years ago after I realized how little I knew. I suppose you could say I got "the bug" and started reading a lot after realizing that. Long story short: I ran into tons of problems as I began to read works outside of the presbyterian/calvinist tradition I was raised in, so I rejected that largly for having a defficient authority structure and it's historical discontinuity with the Church Jesus founded. So, as you would image, those churches that have claims to some type of an apostolic succession is what i've been aiming at sinse then. Over the past 2+ years I've been toying with converting to EOC or RCC. So, I've been studying a lot on that. I've made a lot of progress getting the details of RC and EO theology down (a difficult task when they define many terms differently, and aren't always answering the same questions, etc). I also would like for when I make a move to one of the other to be certain enough that I probably won't jump ship soon after officially converting one way the other or anything like that. So, I still have a couple more years left before I officially "take a dive" into one or the other. Besides theology-related books, well actually by reading theology related books, I've quickly gained an interest in philosophy and how it relates to all this, etc. So I read an occational book there on that as well.
Not quite Surprised by Truth material, but that's me in a nutshell. I hope all the former protestants who read it are feeling all pyschologically warm and fuzzy now after reading it.
Just joshing with you. ;)
Thanks for sharing that. I wish you the best as you work through the issues on your continuing spiritual odyssey. Of course you know where I would prefer you to end up, but I am delighted at conversion to Orthodoxy also, because they possess all the sacraments and apostolic succession and most of the apostolic tradition.
I hope you will hang around here and make lots of comments. This was a great exchange, I thought.
