With my family: August 1999, on the field of old Tiger Stadium. Our daughter was born in November 2001.
This came about as a result of questions (in my comboxes) from Scott, a Lutheran. For background, to explain several of my comments: most of his friends that he hangs out with on his own Internet discussion board, are extremely hostile to me (for various reasons: none at all valid, as far as I am concerned), but he seems infinitely less so, if at all. In the past, however, he had expressed some very pointed criticisms of yours truly as well. That whole aspect was discussed further up in the initial conversation back and forth -- if anyone cares about it --, starting with his first comment on 2-21-09.
In any event, now he seems perfectly willing and able to talk to me in a normal fashion, and to hear my side of things, for which I am eternally grateful. In the process I have spontaneously composed perhaps the longest "apologia for apologetics" that I've ever written, that may possibly have some general value in helping people understand the proper motivations for doing (mostly Catholic) apologetics and committing one's life-work to it, as I have done. His words will be in blue.
To be updated (as of 2-25-09) as further questions and my replies are added . . .
* * * * *
One question for you. Is this the appropriate format to engage in questions about what it is you do and what drives you or is there a better way? I was wondering about a few things.
If you give me your word that a serious inquisitive discussion about my apostolate will not be mocked and dissected on your site for the purpose of yet more cynical psychoanalysis of me, I'd be happy to have a discussion. The Open Forum (where this is) is the appropriate place to do it on my blog. If I think an exchange has value for a larger readership, then the paper from the exchange would end up on my General Apologetics and/or Personal Page.
You have my word that my conversation will be sincere. However, I can only speak for myself, not the peanut gallery. Let me know if you can live with that.
Okay, Scott; I'm willing. I'd like to ask you a few initial things, too, if I may (then I'll be more than happy to answer any and all of your questions). Short answers are fine, as long as they give a substantive answer to what I am asking:
1) What is your own religious affiliation (and briefly, any different past affiliations)? I argue and answer a bit differently, according to who I am talking to, because presuppositions are different, and thus need to be approached differently.
Grew up Baptist. Have passed through a couple of denominations (probably because I've moved several times and aren't really interested in any particular denomination). Most notably, I've been Episcopalian and Orthodox. Currently, I'm Lutheran, but still like to wander a bit. Given I grew up a preacher's kid and pastored myself, I don't know if I will ever truly feel settled in one church. Something about knowing the politics too well makes me squirm. However, I love worshiping with others, so I don't just sit at home. Oh, and I lean towards Christian Universalism.
2) Are you at least less cynical about and hostile to me than many of your board comrades obviously are?
Much less hostile. Not necessarily less cynical. That's why I thought chatting with you about your activities might open my eyes a bit to why you do this.
3) Have your views in that regard changed in the last two years or so since you were quite critical, yourself?
I'm probably still as critical of those who engage in apologetics as I used to be. That's nothing personal with you. But, I'm willing to hold that criticism back for the opportunity to dialogue. . . . I just became more interested in the last couple of days in actually trying to understand you.
Question for you: When I read some of your material (and I will be very honest here - most theology bores me, so I really just kind of glance through it), I see lots of arguing. Arguing with fellow Christians, arguing with atheists, etc. Your arguments tend to be about the validity or rightness of the Catholic Church. My question is how does being Christian or being Catholic affect what you do daily? How does it affect how you view and treat others? In other words, when you aren't on here driving deep theological points home, what are you doing? What do you do for others? I'm hoping to dispel the perception you sit online 18 hours a day like a pointy headed intellectual arguing fine points of theology, but never actually live your faith. (That is a myth that exists in my head, by the way. No one has said that about you. I created it about epologists, in general, so you have to live with the generalization and now can destroy it with your answer). Appreciate you taking the time to respond. I really want to know, on a practical level, what it means to you to be Christian. Please don't quote any Saints. LOL
I'm willing to trust that you are sincere, just as you have said. You seem serious in your present questioning. I'll now answer your questions.
Thanks for filling in your religious background. And thanks for noting that you are "much less hostile." I hope you will be less cynical, too, after being willing to have a dialogue: something no other of your number has yet done. Bravo! I admire that willingness, especially if it means catching hell from your friends who may think I am completely untrustworthy and not worth anyone's time at all. First, let me answer your initial query as to "why you [I] do this."
I was called by God to do apologetics; to be an apologist. I knew this in 1981, as an evangelical Protestant. Prior to that time I had little idea of what I wanted to do with my life. Then I did know (as people experience in many walks of life: musicians do this; artists, writers; any occupation, really). This came in the year after I experienced a spiritual revival and read some more apologetics beyond C.S. Lewis, whom I had read and liked in the late 70s.
The purpose of apologetics is to explain and defend Christianity and (in my case) Catholicism in particular. When I am interacting with atheists and agnostics, I make my best effort to stick to general Christianity, and don't get into Catholic distinctives at all, because I think that is improper. First things first. My task is to convince the atheist to become a theist and then a Christian. If he or she wants to explore Catholicism eventually, that's fine, but it is not my initial task. Thus, two of my books don't mention let alone defend Catholic distinctives at all (Mere Christian Apologetics and Christian Worldview vs. Postmodernism). That's why I felt perfectly at ease giving copies of them to a cousin who is a Baptist, struggling with a daughter who is questioning some things in Christianity.
The motivation of apologetics is to remove roadblocks to faith and to the Catholic faith. The Holy Spirit leads as He wills. That's not my job. It is a fundamentally positive endeavor: to help the Christian become more confident in his faith and to understand that faith is harmonious with reason and stringent thought. The Christian need not fear reason or science or philosophy. They are all our allies and support our case far better than the atheist case.
In specifically Catholic apologetics, the aim, of course, is to provide answers to all the hundreds of criticisms that we hear from our Protestant and Orthodox brethren (especially the ones who don't even consider us Christians).
I love dialogue and I love debate. I'm a Socratic, and that skill (whatever I have of it) is put to good use in defending the Catholic perspective and critiquing other views that claim to be superior to it.
For our purposes, and for those of your friends reading this, I want to stress to the utmost that apologetics (properly understood) is not about ego or "kicking butt" or belittling how stupid people are, or those who believe differently. It's not about arrogance and superiority. I have tons of ecumenical papers on my site. My record is clear. I don't have to defend my ecumenical good faith.
The goal is exactly as I have stated: to defend Catholicism against honest criticisms (and sometimes grossly unfair ones). If someone is arrogant and thinks he knows all the answers to everything, he has no business being an apologist. Our field doesn't need that kind of person. They give us a bad name. Obviously, you must have met many such people for you to look so disdainfully upon my field. Apologists are human beings like anyone else. There are good ones and bad ones: hypocrites and smart asses and people who were never fit for doing it. But the endeavor ought to be judged by its best proponents (people like Pat Madrid, Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn, Peter Kreeft, Thomas Howard, John Martignoni, Marcus Grodi, the folks at Catholic Answers, historic figures like G.K. Chesterton and Ronald Knox, and many more), not its worst .
The thing itself doesn't rise and fall (anymore than Christianity itself) on the performance of folks who do their job poorly. Yet when it comes to Catholic apologetics, when I see criticisms of it, they always seem to actually distort what we do, or point to some wet-behind-the-ears Joe Q. Apologist on the Internet who has set up a blog and is not exactly the best example or witness of the Catholic cause.
This isn't fair. If I want to render a judgment of Protestant apologists, I don't go to Jack Chick or other anti-Catholics; I go to serious apologists like Norman Geisler and William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas and so forth, and to brilliant philosopher-apologists like Alvin Plantinga. It is judged by its best and most distinguished proponents, not by the least and least credentialed.
When I read some of your material (and I will be very honest here - most theology bores me, so I really just kind of glance through it), I see lots of arguing. Arguing with fellow Christians, arguing with atheists, etc. Your arguments tend to be about the validity or rightness of the Catholic Church.
Well, you need to step back and examine your assumed premise here. Why do you frown upon arguing? Disputation or discussion or dialogue (precisely as we are doing right now) is not mere "quarreling" or wrangling or squabbling. It is a search for truth, and a defense of truth, and willingness to follow it wherever it leads. That was Socrates' vision of the dialogue, and one that I studiously try to follow. Moreover, it is a quite biblical thing.
My conception of dialogue in the course of apologetics is most clearly laid out in my Introduction to my book, Bible Conversations, which anyone can read online. Here is a portion:
The word dialogue appears in the Bible. The Greek dialegomai occurs 13 times in the New Testament, and refers to reason, rational argument, discussion, discourse, debate, dispute and so forth. Particularly, we often see it applied to the Apostle Paul as he reasoned and argued with Jews in the synagogues (Acts 17:2,17, 18:4,19, 19:8 ) and Greeks and other Gentiles in the marketplaces and academies of the time, where the exchange of ideas took place (Acts 17:17, 18:4, 19:9-10).My question is how does being Christian or being Catholic affect what you do daily? How does it affect how you view and treat others?
St. Paul's evangelistic preaching wasn't simply thrilling oratory and edifying, "homiletic" exposition; it involved in-depth reasoning; even - at times, such as on Mars Hill (Acts 17:22-34) -, literally philosophical discourse.
Our Lord Jesus, too, often engaged in vigorous, rational, scriptural argument, especially with the Pharisees, much in the spirit of the ancient rabbis. One example of this among many occurs in Mark 12:18-27, where He is said to be "disputing" (Greek, suzeteo) with the Sadducees (cf. Acts 9:29, where the same word is used).
Rational argument, thinking, or open-minded discourse and dialogue is altogether permissible; indeed, required of all Christians who wish to have a robust, confident, reasonable faith amidst the competing ideas and faiths of the world and academia. Our Lord instructs us to love God with our minds as well as with all our hearts, souls, and strength (Luke 10:27). . . .
Apologia is also a biblical word, and appears much in the same sense as with Socrates, with regard to St. Paul's defense of himself during his lengthy trial (Acts 22:1, 25:16). It is also used with reference to Paul's defense and confirmation of the gospel (Philippians 1:7,16 - rendered defense in the RSV in all four instances).
It affects everything. First of all, I am to love all people and to approach them respectfully and with charity and the benefit of the doubt; to believe the best about them, not the worst. This is why I detest all the calumnies on the Internet, because it is the spirit of division and antichrist and of malice and suspicion. I condemn it wherever it appears, whether against me or not. Constructive, cordial criticism is fine; calumny, slander, and gratuitous insult is a serious sin. That is unarguable from a biblical perspective, and it is a matter of rudimentary ethics that all well-meaning, conscientious people, whether religious or not, can agree upon.
So my first task as an apologist, -- and how being a committed Christian affects what I do on a daily basis --, is to show forth the love of Christ.
Secondly, you seem to assume that doing apologetics is somehow inherently antithetical to helping or serving others. That's not how I see it at all. I spend thirty hours a week now at the Coming Home Network forum, where I am the head moderator. The express purpose of that forum is to help young Catholics and those considering Catholicism to better understand and apply their faith to real life situations.
This is service; it is love. Again, I try to help people to have a better understanding of their faith. This makes them happier people, not weighed down with doubts and conflicts. We help people through the annulment process and to deal with spouses who believe something differently: who may even be anti-Catholic.
We pray for each other daily, and give constant emotional support in life's struggles. My co-worker, who helps moderate, was recently unjustly fired from his job. I immediately made a post and pinned it to the top, asking for prayer, and he has received much emotional and prayer support. Another woman's husband was laid off yesterday, so we are praying for that.
We help people to answer co-workers or family members who are asking sincere questions about Catholicism. This is service; it is teaching; it's education. It's equipping the saints to go out and be witnesses to the world. I don't see why anyone would object to that. This is the very heart of apologetics and what motivates me. I want to see people happy, fulfilled, exercising their own vocations under God, whatever it might be, joyful, at peace, confident as a Christian and as a Catholic Christian: in love with God and loving towards their fellow human beings. And of course I want to see them saved in the end and in heaven.
Is there anything "bad" in any of that? If so, you need to enlighten me. I don't see it.
In other words, when you aren't on here driving deep theological points home, what are you doing? What do you do for others?
I already mentioned quite a bit that I do for others, in my work at CHNI (and, in doing apologetics in general). I vehemently deny that this is somehow not doing anything for others. Its completely trying to help and serve others. I think I am serving you right now in carefully, comprehensively answering your questions to the best of my ability. That is a service to you. I'm taking my time (a couple of hours) replying to you because I think good, honest questions deserve good, honest answers. It would be a lack of love to blow you off and ignore you. Is that not helping you in some fashion? I think it is. You may now understand apologetics better. You may understand what motivates at least this one full-time apologist to do what he does. Perhaps you will have more interest in apologetics and utilize it to spark more theological interest in your life. It has certainly had that effect on me. I never fail to become happy and excited in studying any theological matter, and especially the Bible. I wouldn't trade it for anything. It's pure joy.
But beyond apologetics, I've done a number of things. Recently, in the last three months I was the initiator and key planner of a high school reunion of music students (Cass Tech in Detroit). That sounds like a bunch of fun, and it certainly was -- this past Saturday -- but it also had a social, charitable component. We were part of a fundraising breakfast at the school which raised money for the school now, since Detroit public schools are in trouble. We were helping to promote the music program and the arts. It is also a pleasing endeavor in terms of race relations, because Cass was a racially mixed school (about 75% black when I attended). We all got together and the color of skin was absolutely irrelevant. And I love that; it is how it should be: a colorblind society.
I have been involved in rescues at abortion clinics in the past. I was arrested five times, blocked clinic doors about 25 times, stood trial (or at least the preliminary procedures) on three occasions, spent many hours in detention in jail and one night overnight. Babies are alive today because of what we did. Have you ever been arrested for radically living out your Christian beliefs? Does that count as "doing something"?
My wife and I have always been very concerned to take care of our aging parents, and we do that; first of all by not moving away from them. We are constantly helping my parents and my wife's mother, driving them places, shoveling snow, helping run errands, working on the house and yard, etc.
Our four children are our highest immediate priority. I work my tail off so that my wife Judy doesn't have to go out and get another job in addition to mine. That enables her to do what she feels her calling is: home-schooling our four children (two with special needs: autism and OCD and other conditions).
Our goal is to disciple them and develop four radically committed Catholic Christians to go out and help the world be a better place. We constantly drive them to their youth group activities, so they can be in wholesome Christian environments and meet their friends there. We have a backyard pool and basketball backboard and net for family fun. I'm with my 7 year-old daughter all day long off and on: whenever she comes upstairs to see me. We play chess; I play chess with my 12 year-old son. I play Scrabble with two of my sons. I play video game racing with all of them. We play Monopoly. We go hiking constantly; they learn about tapping for maple syrup and lots of other things in local woods (a program sponsored by U of M-Dearborn, near Henry Ford's mansion). We play basketball and baseball together. Sometimes we go on bicycle journeys, or rafting (last summer on the Detroit River). On Sunday I went bowling with my three sons and their youth group. We do readings as a family (because my two oldest are now writing books). We take marvelous family trips like the two western ones in 2006 and 2008 and Cape Cod and Mt. Washington (which I climbed with my three sons) in 2007. We visit up in northern Michigan, on Lake Huron (swimming, campfires, hiking the beach and woods), where my wife's mother owns a home. We watch TV almost every night together, as a family. We eat dinner as a family. We talk to each other and have lots of fun joking around. My wife and I go on regular dates.
Family comes first. If I had more expendable time and money I could see myself doing any number of additional social activities, serving others, but I don't have either. As it is, I feel I am serving others by putting in many hours writing. Time is money. If I spend time doing something where I have some ability, and that others consider to be of value (and they do, because they let me know that), then that is service. Spiritual things are as important as anything in life.
I'm hoping to dispel the perception you sit online 18 hours a day like a pointy headed intellectual arguing fine points of theology, but never actually live your faith.
But of course I don't do that. People think because I write a lot, that I am here 24 hours a day, as if I don't have a life. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think fast and I write very fast. But I'm not in bondage to my work at all. I had no problem leaving it for a three week vacation last year. I've taken entire Lents off without any writing, and didn't miss it a bit. I'm not obsessed with this. I'm simply a very fast writer, and extremely motivated to do what I do.
Much of this accusation is projection as well. People look at how fast they write, and look at my output and conclude that I couldn't possibly do this without neglecting my family. They're wrong. This is my gift because it is my vocation. I'm able to write (and fast, and with great volume) because that's what God wants me to do with my life.
So today, for example, I took an hour off to visit with my mother-in-law, who was here because my wife drove her to the hospital for an operation. I took two hours, from 7-9 PM, playing Scrabble with my 12 year-old son. Then I watched the State of the Union Address for two hours, then I talked to my 15 year-old son about the book he is writing, then for a while with my wife about our upcoming vacation. Then I came back here and typed all my replies to you, from about 11 PM to 1 AM, after my wife went to bed.
So my total time typing today was about eight hours. You see how much I have written here. I also made a few dozen replies on the CHNI board in my job there, including some research on "candles" or "lamps" in the Bible, in the context of worship, and some other job tasks.
There is nothing "extreme" or "fanatical" in any of that. I spent eight hours of working and six or so with my family. How is that any different from a typical workday that anyone would have, except that I have flexibility of schedule since I work at home and spend far more time with my children than the vast majority of fathers, according to all surveys on that subject?
Someone can sit there and speculate about my supposed neglect of my wife and children. It's a lie from the pit of hell: the very opposite of the truth. All our friends know how much time we spend with our kids. People on your board don't know the slightest thing about my personal life or marriage or family. They simply project and invent myths: apparently what they would like to be true, but don't have the slightest shred of evidence for. I don't pry into any of their private lives with no knowledge. It's none of my blasted business. Nor is my home life any of theirs. But you have asked in a normal fashion, and so I've told you.
(That is a myth that exists in my head, by the way. No one has said that about you. I created it about epologists, in general, so you have to live with the generalization and now can destroy it with your answer).
It is a false charge I have heard from many quarters. I've concluded that it can only be explained by:
1) prior hostility leading to ludicrous irrationality and groundless, rather silly claims,You highlight another possibility: you have assembled an image of online apologists, as a generalization, which is then applied to me, as one of that class. This whole nonsense of apologists being "religiopaths" is, of course, merely a variation of the hundreds-year-old charge of religion being some sort of mental illness or radical infantile insecurity. If I care too much about it and even defend it, I must be nuts.
2) projection,
3) inability to comprehend a fast writer,
4) their own insecurities.
That's weird and stupid enough coming from atheists. Coming from fellow Christians it is the height of absurdity and a magnificent victory of the devil, to get other Christians mocking someone who devotes his life to defending Christianity. How ingenious. What more could the devil ask for? It's like a basketball player mocking the roundness of a basketball or a painter ridiculing and trashing his own paintbrush. Does that make any sense?
Appreciate you taking the time to respond. I really want to know, on a practical level, what it means to you to be Christian.
My pleasure. Thank you very much for being a Christian gentleman and affording me the opportunity, and I hope I have expressed myself well and that my answer was agreeable to you, and that I can receive your Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval as a Good Christian.
It was all totally honest and from the heart.
Thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly. Your comments are both interesting and enlightening. It's nice to see a little bit of the person behind the persona.
You're welcome. Thanks for the opportunity. My perceived "persona" among those of my critics who have worked hard to make the real person a mere cardboard caricature, is a vastly different sort of person than the actual Dave Armstrong. I think you're beginning to see that. If so, maybe you can better understand why many of these criticisms are so utterly ridiculous and miss the mark entirely.
Being this is your field, I'm sure you are obviously aware that many of the issues that are argued between yourself and non-Catholics have been debated for nearly 2000 years.
Most of the things I debate have been issues for only 500 years.
Sometimes nearly 1000. Chances are, they will never be settled. Does that ever wear you out? Do you ever stop and think, "Man, this seems like a waste of time! I think I'll just stick to educating those within the ranks of Catholicism rather than continue to engage in debates that have existed long before I arrived on this earth and will continue to exist long after I'm gone."
Good question.
First of all, as I have noted, much of my efforts (especially now, with my work at CHNI) are already directed towards Catholics. So I am helping my own folks "in-house" much of the time. I do a lot fewer actual debates with non-Catholics than I used to, and that is because Protestants online seem (for whatever reason) to be less interested in debates with Catholics. That is excepting the anti-Catholic faction, who are as willing as ever, but too ignorant in their presuppositions and greatly mistaken in their conceptions of what Catholics believe, for any such debate to be worth anyone's trouble (thus I no longer try to debate or dialogue with them at all: having tried futilely to do so for 12 years or so before giving up).
Beyond the anti-Catholic hopeless cases, I get exasperated with individuals at times, if they are not interested in dialogue. There is a right way and a wrong way to do it and people either understand that and are willing to dialogue or not. It's a skill hardly even taught in schools anymore.
I don't get weary in a general sense because of the largeness and "stubbornness" of the usual Catholic-Protestant issues. This is for several reasons:
1) I'm not trying to end the entire divide (no one can: only God can bring that about, and even in His case, He can't overcome free will), but only trying to persuade the one person I am dialoguing with or the group of readers who is reading any particular writing of mine.And that is the motivation: it's not in a know-it-all, "you guys are all idiots because you don't know what I know, and what we Catholics know" stupid, arrogant sense, but in the sense of what we used to say in the evangelical world: "I'm just one beggar passing along to other beggars what I know, regarding where to get some food."
2) Trying to persuade people of one particular Christian position is like what Mother Teresa said about poverty: "we love them one at a time." So I try to persuade people one at a time. That's all anyone can reasonably shoot for as a goal.
3) If the person I am dialoguing with is unpersuaded, there is always a chance that other folks reading the paper at that time or years later may be. And so it was a success if it helped anyone at all. If we truly believe in the message we are spreading then we rejoice when anyone is convinced of it, because we think it will make them happier and more joyful and fulfilled in life.
4) I receive reports all the time of people wanting to become Catholic or returning to the Church of their youth, in some small measure because of what I have written about. That is, of course, fulfilling on a personal level, because it gives meaning and purpose to what I do. We all need that in our work, whatever it is. I'm not a Jeremiah type (see the next entry!).
5) "The Jeremiah Factor": truth is truth no matter how few (or how many) believe it. It is said that Jeremiah preached for 50-60 years and saw scarcely any fruit at all from his life's work. Yet what he preached was true. Any Catholic apologist or any Christian evangelist / apologist of any stripe seeks to convey and pass along what he believes is truth, which is a good thing (because truth always is). The name of my old Protestant campus missionary endeavor in the late 80s, was "True Truth Ministries" -- after a phrase in Francis Schaeffer.
For all these reasons I don't get weary, because I'm not trying to convert the world. Technically, I'm not trying to convert anyone personally, through my own efforts. I'm simply passing along the reasons I have come to believe, for why Catholicism is the fullness of Christian truth. If that helps someone else, great, but their (possible) conversion is not ultimately my responsibility at all. It is the Holy Spirit's and their own. I'm just trying to be a good steward of the gifts that God has given me; to play my role in the whole process, which is an extraordinary privilege: to be able to be used by God in any way whatsoever. I believe everyone has a vocation from God (including every occupation in the world); this is mine.
If someone compliments me for helping them become a Catholic, I'll accept it and say "thanks" but then I always try to remember to say "all glory to God" and "it's all by His grace." I absolutely believe those things. It all goes back to God. All of us are mere leaky vessels and greatly flawed messengers at best. But God uses us poor miserable sinners for His purposes, which is the amazing thing.
Also, I didn't mean to imply you do not engage in charitable work or Christian behavior when not behind a keyboard (or even that you do not engage in them while behind one). I was just asking for examples of what you do for my own interest, which you answered. I appreciate it.
Cool. But of course I am also answering for those on your board, who are, no doubt, following this, and who are hostile to me, so I wanted to highlight some things and blow away the myths and legends that seem to surround the imaginary person that they think I am. Facts is facts. They can either believe them or continue to believe that I am the lousiest husband and father in the universe and some sort of pathetic, super-arrogant nutcase. That only harms them. If my wife and children think I'm doing a pretty good job, and (hopefully) God, too, then why should I care what some nattering nabobs think, because they have nothing better to do?
Your attitude is clearly vastly different, which makes me wonder: why do you choose to hang around people who are so cynical about many aspects of Christianity, seemingly bitter, and disenchanted with Christianity? It's the furthest imaginable outlook from my own. From my interaction with you now, you don't seem to be the sort of person who would want to spend time in such pursuits, that seem to me to serve no constructive purpose.
You distinguished being Christian and being Catholic, which I appreciate (by Catholic, I'm assuming you mean formal Catholic in the sense of being in communion with the Pope).
Indeed.
Do you believe someone can honestly be in the Will of God and not be Catholic?
I think they can be, as far as what they themselves know. If they don't truly understand Catholicism, then what it is they reject, is not really Catholicism as it actually is, but some false impression of it. So they may be (usually are) completely sincere in their present beliefs, according to their state of knowledge. And most non-Catholic Christian beliefs are good and worthy and true. Some things are in error. I think many non-Catholic Christians are more in the will of God (considered as a whole: in the sense I am describing presently) than many many Catholics.
I'll take a committed, doctrinally and morally conservative evangelical Protestant any day over a nominal, theologically liberal, dissenting, non-serious Catholic. I feel that I have much more in common with them, as a brother in Christ. I'd say that the former probably has a much better shot (all things being equal) of making it to heaven, too.
That said, being as Catholic, obviously I believe that it is the fullness of Christian truth. All Christians used to believe that about their own brand of Christianity. Luther and Calvin and Zwingli thought that about themselves (i.e., their parties). But now in Protestantism there is often a sort of odd, curious relativism, where the person no longer believes that anyone can claim to have the entire "apostolic deposit" of Christian truth. One is always searching for the truth but never finds it. I've written several times about this.
It's considered arrogant for anyone to even make such a claim. I don't see how it is arrogant to believe that one can accept in faith a Christian Tradition that has been faithfully passed down through the centuries, from Jesus and the apostles, and protected by the Holy Spirit (based in large part on historical argumentation that this was, in fact, the case). That's what we believe. The truth is out there and can be known. And I believe this notion is quite evident in Scripture, which everywhere assumes without argument that there is one faith, one doctrine, one tradition, one gospel, one Church; not thousands of variations, as if that was ever God's will.
For example, could He lead some to be Baptist, Anglican, or Orthodox?
From my perspective, I think God could very well lead them in these paths, with the eventual goal of their winding up as Catholics. God meets people where they are at. I'm convinced that for me, my evangelical period (1977-1990) was the best possible place I could have been during that period (i.e., relative to my own needs as a spiritually seeking person), and given the spiritual and intellectual place I was at, and where I came from (nominal Methodism, secularism, strong occultic affinities, strong social liberalism, ignorance of Christian theology).
What I learned there has been of great value to me ever since. And that is because most of what I learned was profoundly true. So I was far better off being in those circles than if I had been in your usual liberal, nominalistic Catholic circles that can be found almost everywhere today because of the modernist crisis in the Church.
I learned those Christian truths in those circles and then I learned other more distinctively Catholic things, such as Sacred Tradition, an infallible Church, Mariology, sacramentology, high liturgy, the papacy, the communion of saints, penance, a more historically-grounded faith, etc.
To me these appeared to be deeper developments of what I already knew. I went from a relatively "skeletal" Christianity to a full-bodied version. This is the sense in which I believe that God could lead someone into a non-Catholic Christian communion. But from our perspective God's fullest will would be for all to become Catholic in due course, because that is where the fullness of apostolic Christianity resides, and there is but one Church, and we think it subsists in the Catholic Church, with non-Catholic Christians also imperfectly part of it by virtue of baptism in particular and many other truths held in common.
If someone never becomes a Catholic, I still greatly respect them as fellow Christians and rejoice at all that we have in common (which is my strong ecumenical interest that always coexists with my apologetics).
Let me tell you why I'm asking so it doesn't appear to be a set up question. I wonder if your debates with fellow Christians are an attempt to persuade them to come to Catholic faith.
That is always the best-case scenario. On the other hand, I am usually not trying to consciously persuade someone, because that is not my immediate goal, and it is the Holy Spirit's job, anyway. I just defend Catholic teachings as true, and let the chips fall where they may. If they are persuaded, great. But it is not in my hands. I simply try to make my best argument for my position, just as any scientist or philosopher would do. That's my responsibility. I am also responsible if I do a lousy job in conveying or defending Catholic truth, or am a poor example, charity-wise, etc. God holds me responsible for that, which is "my end" of the equation.
Other times, the discussion is primarily about the many things we have in common, or to simply educate others as to what Catholics believe. You'd have to search far and wide in my writings to find anywhere where I am directly putting pressure on individuals to convert, or making them squirm or feel uncomfortable or on the spot. That's not my style at all. It wasn't even my style when I was an evangelical and believed that people could be saved in an instant. I was already more Catholic twenty or 25 years ago than I realized.
In other words, are they evangelical in nature?
Of course I would like to see anyone become a Catholic. But I am usually not consciously thinking that while I am writing. I just explain and defend Catholic views. If the other person likes them and is convinced as a result, great. That is the Holy Spirit's work. Knowing that frees an apologist from all kinds of pressure. It ain't based on us or our great persuasiveness, but on the power of God. We remove roadblocks and obstacles.
God has His own timing, as He did in my own life. It may not be time right now for a person to become a Catholic. It may be that God knows (since He knows everything and is outside of time) they will require five more years before the time is right (based on all kinds of variables). He knows that; I do not. My job is to provide cogent reasoning, and to educate people according to what they already know (as Paul always tried to do: being "all things to all people"). Conversion is not based on psychological manipulation. I always believed that, as an evangelical, too. It comes from faith, and faith is a supernatural gift from God: not the conclusion of a brilliant syllogism.
One can't be persuaded of something they know little of, or of a thing they have been fed tons of misinformation about. I knew almost nothing of Catholicism for most of my life prior to age 32 (I'm now 50). God wouldn't and couldn't have expected me to become a Catholic in those days. I had to become educated. By various paths and circumstances (e.g., the pro-life rescue movement), I was led to become curious about Catholicism, started studying both sides of the Big Debate and was convinced. The more we know, the more we are responsible to act upon.
"To whom much is given, much is required."
Or are they merely an attempt to understand various perspectives and understand how others walk in their faith while also sharing yours?
If the immediate primary goal of the discussion is ecumenical, it is of this nature, yes. Practically speaking, I don't ever assume that I will persuade the person I am directly responding to. I rarely see that happen. What happens is that I hear from people later on, who were reading some or a lot of my writing, and became convinced that Catholicism is true. I never even knew that the process was taking place. They later communicate to me that this was the case.
That's fine with me. It is exactly my style to let someone read in the comfort of their couch and to be persuaded by reason, in faith, that Catholicism is true. It's mostly how I was converted myself, by reading Cardinal Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine and other works. It wasn't through human, emotional pressure, or the sentiment of "smells and bells" or suchlike. No; it came about by comparing the competing claims and concluding that Catholicism was far more plausible and coherent and factual in terms of Christian history (and -- most surprising and shocking of all -- the most biblical).
Oh, and in the interest of fairness, feel free to ask me any personal questions as well.
It's a great discussion. At this point, I am mainly interested (per my universal thrust in dialogue) in your response to what I have written. Do you feel that you better understand the goal, nature, and aim of (Catholic) apologetics, and are less hostile to it? Do I now seem to be a more normally-adjusted (hopefully halfway intelligent) human being, and not some abnormal, obsessed freak or infantile dolt, as many of your friends are firmly convinced without cause?
Have I succeeded in showing that to be a Catholic is not the equivalent of "triumphalistic" arrogance: that it is a perfectly sincere, self-consistent, coherent position that can be respected to a significant degree as a legitimate form of Christianity, even if one disagrees with it?
There are many more myths about me still "out there": that I am merely "self-anointed" or "self-appointed," that I have no credentials, or no institutional support from the Church (Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. wrote the Foreword to my first book; his cause is up for sainthood); that my books are merely self-published (four are not, and they are all bestsellers in their field); that my books have never received an Imprimatur (The New Catholic Answer Bible has one); that I irresponsibly quit a job, so I could neglect my familial responsibilities in order to argue with people on the Internet 23 hours a day (untrue: the delivery company I worked for went out of business in late 2001 through no fault of my own); that most of my income comes from donations (nope; maybe only 10% does, if even that); that I beg and plead and put pressure on people to contribute to my apostolate (never was true; only an occasional notice; never with any pressure or "crisis appeals"); that I don't sleep (I'd be in the hospital by now if I attempted that); that I neglect my family (LOL); that I am personally an arrogant jerk, who would be most miserable to meet in person (my many friends can speak to that); that I hate anyone (never have; never will); that I roam the Internet looking for people to belittle and embarrass (may God strike me down if so), that I jumped right into apologetics as soon as I converted (my first published article was over two years later; first time on the Internet as a Catholic over 5 years later, etc.), etc., etc. ad nauseum.
All this stuff is based on caricature, stereotype, and projection. It has no relation to reality or fact. People use all sorts of devices to dismiss and insult apologetics and apologists, just as they use them to dismiss Catholicism or general Christianity. If a person is concerned to seek truth, they won't approach anything in this fashion, but will study and actually talk to the people concerned, to see for themselves where the truth lies about individuals, endeavors like apologetics, and competing Christian claims.
You are doing that, and for that I highly commend you and offer many kudos.
Lastly, as to the amount that I write and how long it takes: all my responses to you today took me 90 minutes. You see how much it is. Most people, I suspect, could not write anywhere near that much in that time. So they project and assume that I must have been here 4-6 hours writing all this, consuming entire days. Nope. 90 minutes. If one has a gift of writing, they can do things like that. It only confirms that my vocation is exactly what I have always claimed it to be since 1981: apologetics and evangelism: mostly in writing form. Not all can do this. Some of those who can, God calls into full-time service.
And that's me. It's confirmed by the fruit of changed lives and by people being more fulfilled, confident Catholics or Christians of some stripe, in some small part by reading my writing. It's not just me making a claim, as if it is entirely subjective. There is objective fruit. And that is all by God's grace. To Him be ALL the glory.
.jpg)
.gif)
.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment