Kristine L. Franklin
She has her own web site: KRISTINE FRANKLIN
Posted on 06/29/2007 5:51:31 AM PDT by NYer
PART 1
Guatemala is at a turning point. Historically it's been a 100% Catholic country - but that's changing - rapidly. Demographers predict that early in the next century Guatemala will become the first mostly-Protestant Latin American country.
The jet made a careful descent between the three volcanoes that ring the sprawl of Guatemala City. It was April 19th, 1992. My husband, Marty, and I had reached the end of eight years of preparation to be Evangelical Protestant missionaries.
We were finally here, excited and eager to settle in Guatemala. We knew our faith would be challenged and stretched, but we were more than ready for it because above all else, we desired to serve God with everything we could offer. Our new life as missionaries had just begun.
I didn't feel even a twinge of regret over what we'd left behind in the States: family, friends, a familiar language and culture, and amenities like clean water and good roads we Americans so often take for granted. In spite of the unknowns ahead, I knew we were being obedient, regardless of the cost. We were living smack in the middle of God's will, and it gave us a great feeling of security. We had given ourselves fully to bringing Christ's light to the darkness of this impoverished, Catholic country.
As the jet touched down onto the bumpy runway, tears welled in my eyes. "Thank you, Jesus," I whispered as I reached over to squeeze my husband's hand. Marty and I had come to the end of a long journey, but we were also beginning a new one. "Some day, Lord," I prayed silently, "I hope this foreign place will feel like home."
I was elated as we walked down the exit ramp from the plane and began the long-awaited adventure of being Protestant missionaries - missionaries sent to "rescue" Catholics from the darkness of their religion's superstition and man-made traditions and bring them into the light of Protestantism.
There's no way I could have known that three years later, almost to the day, my husband and my two children and I would stand holding hands again, elated again, waiting to be received into the Catholic Church. Let me explain what happened that led me, a staunch Evangelical, to become Catholic.
In the Beginning
I was raised in a devout Fundamentalist home. When I was 5 years old I asked Jesus to be my Savior. I was watching cartoons and it was time for a commercial. I figured that was as good a time as any to get saved. I'd been told many times by my folks that all I had to do was "open up a little door in my heart and let Jesus come in, and I would be a true Christian."
That was it. Once Jesus was in, He would never go away. And when I died, I would go to heaven. It was a sure thing, the best deal in life, the free gift of eternal life. I couldn't earn it, I could only ask for it, and as soon as I asked (if I really meant it), then it was a done deal! One minute I was a little sinner on the way to hell, the next minute I was a Christian.
When I told my mom I'd become a Christian, she wept for joy. I didn't feel any different, but I knew my black heart was now as white as snow. No matter how bad I was, no matter what naughty things I did, when God looked at my heart from now on, all He would see was white, because Jesus was my personal Savior. As I grew up and found myself involved in sins of one kind or another, I doubted the sincerity of my "conversion" at age 5 and, just in case, I got "born-again" at least on two other occasions (just to be sure).
This is the Catch-22 of the typical "born-again" theology taught by many Evangelical and Fundamentalist denominations: Although we were taught that "faith alone" saved a person, the assumption was that right away the convert would exhibit a changed life and would continue growing in holiness out of sheer gratefulness to God for the gift of salvation. Under this system, the whole conversion event was completely subjective and valid only with the right measure of sincerity and true repentance - what Evangelicals call "saving faith."
On the other hand, if a person known to be "born again" falls away from Christ, it's said that he had "never really been born again." In other words, the possibility always exists that you might not actually be a Christian, though you might be completely convinced that you are. (Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants would never say it that way, nor do they even like to think about it, but they do recognize that this is so.)
The "Catholic Problem"...
Just as I knew for certain I was a Christian at 5 years old, I knew with equal certainty that there were others who were not Christians. I had been taught that some of these non-Christian people lived in places like Africa and Asia. Missionaries were frequent visitors at our little church and we listened with awe to their stories. Once some missionaries came from Mexico, where, tragically enough, the people thought they were Christians, even though they weren't. The Mexicans, we were reminded, were a lot worse off than the heathens in Africa. At least the heathens knew they worshipped demons and false gods. But the poor Mexicans were Catholics. They had been deceived into thinking they were real Christians, and this made them a lot harder to convert.
But it wasn't just the Mexicans we worried about and prayed for.
Most of our neighbors weren't Christian either. Most were Roman Catholics. Their kids went to Sacred Heart school, where nuns and priests taught them to worship statues and pray to Mary whom - we were repeatedly warned - Catholics thought was more powerful than God Himself. I was taught to feel sorry for Catholics, because they were members of a cult, and they didn't even know it. They were like Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, who had been deceived into thinking that their good works would get them to heaven.
All of my father's relatives were Catholic. I remember when one of them died, my mother cried bitterly because he was in hell, not because he was a great sinner, but because he was Catholic. And there was no way a Catholic could be a "born again" Christian. In fact, as far as we were concerned, being Catholic was far worse than being simply unchurched. Being Catholic was to live a lie, a lie which would only be exposed at death, when the unsuspecting person ended up in hell for believing he could work himself to heaven by good deeds. This was the way Catholics and their theology was explained to me.
I was not allowed to go to the funerals of any of my Catholic relatives. It was too sad, my Mom told me. Funerals were supposed to be happy because the person who had died (if he had been "born again") was with Jesus, free from suffering and pain. Catholic funerals weren't happy at all. A lot of people cried because they didn't know for sure if their loved one was in heaven. But we would know, Mom assured us. That was the great thing about being real Christians.
These prejudices and misconceptions about Catholicism were reinforced continually throughout my childhood. Not only did I hear strong opinions against Catholicism, but also against most other Protestants, those in other denominations.
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. ---Catechism of the Catholic Church (Paragraph 1257)
Wow, that part choked me up when I got to it.
Awesome testimony!
The one thing that seems common is that a great deal of the time when someone swims the Tiber as it were, the departure from non-Catholicism is often met with hostility. More times than not the convert holds no ill will toward their bretheren.
OTOH, for the person leaving Rome, the going away party is much less hostile and usually the Catholic response is “I hope you find what you are looking for”. (I suppose secretly we think they will come back... more flies with honey and all that). The people leaving tend to be hostile toward their Catholic bretheren in ways that are unbecoming their new calling.
It boggles the mind.
Great story! She gives a wonderful analysis of their gradual arrival at the truth.
One of the remarkable things about Catholic theology is that it still leaves room for “God to be God,” so to speak. There are many definitions, many detailed doctrinal formulations, and many things that can be known. But you will notice that Catholic theology always acknowledges the mystery and still leaves space for things that can perhaps not be known or not formulated by us as we are now.
A good example of that is the predestination controversy which divides Protestantism. The Church has defined the bounds of permissible belief, and has left it at that, at least for now.
I believe that it is this appeal to pride which gives Luther's doctrine its strength.
Our beliefs had always been stated, "I believe Scripture teaches," and now, in exploring Catholicism, we realized we were heading toward a Faith that would require us to state and believe, "The Church teaches . . ."
This change in orientation requires humility.
According to the UN, Guataemala had a 61% adult literacy rate in 1990. In 2003 the rate had become 69.1%. Youth rate in 1990 was 73.4% & in 2003 82.2%.
I wonder when the Catholic Chruch got into the business of schooling for the general Catholic population.
I think its greatest strength was recognition of the need to teach followers to read.
According to the UN the earth is flat and Saddam and Fidel are misunderstood but nice guys. What is your point?
I noticed that sentence, too. I thought it was an excellent summation of the Protestant attitude. "We had always been in charge of what we believed..."
-A8
Luther came along just art the time when printing gave people the opportunity to read. Before that time, reading was confined to about 10% of the population. Paradoxically, there was less literacy in England at the end of the 16th Century than 100 years before, because the Henrician Reformation had destroyed the religious orders who provided schooling for large numbers of people. It took a while for the concept of the “public” school to gather momentum. Protestantism was strong in the City and in other urban centers, among merchants and tradesmen and craftsmen, who could already read and who were pleased by the ease of learning to read in English. Out in the countryside, most people who became Baptists, for instance, were converted by preaching, not by handing out Bibles. That kind of thing didn’t happen until Wesley’s time.
Yes. On another thread, one of the posters commented that he did not agree with the Catholic Church's interpretation of the scriptural quote I posted. It is precisely that YOPIOS attitude that has resulted in the proliferation of Christian Churches here and around the world. Our Lord established one Church, not many.
From what I understand, before he died, Luther realized the error in Sola Scriptura. He saw how anyone, including the lowly milkmaid, was now emboldened to interpret Scripture to suit themselves.
< /sarc >
If you have a better source for stats, love to see them.
What is your point?
The Church put resources into literacy in some countries & did a very good job in the places where it did, but it did not put the same kind of resources into others. For all I know, the rising literacy rates in South & Central America could be wholly due to work by the Catholic Church there.
The "illiterate population" rationalization out of literate Catholics ring hollow.
OTOH, reading is a practically useless skill when books are virtually non-existent, as they are today for poor people throughout the world, and as they were for the first 1500 years of Christianity, prior to the invention of the printing press.
Gutenburg made Luther's doctrine practically possible.
A bible, prior to the invention of the printing press, cost the equivalent of several years wages, perhaps comparable to the sum of $100,000 today. So bibles were scarce, and valuable, which is why they were often chained to church pulpits.
Literacy isn't just reading. It includes writing. If more of the population had been educated, there would have been more scribes. If the intent was to educate the population, it could have been done before the printing press. Velum was expensive & rare, but paper was created out of a need after literacy became more common.
Paradoxically, there was less literacy in England at the end of the 16th Century than 100 years before, because the Henrician Reformation had destroyed the religious orders who provided schooling for large numbers of people.
I don't think that drop was noticeable by the end of the 17th, though I'm guessing by what I've seen from the population on this side of the pond.
It took a while for the concept of the “public” school to gather momentum.
I got news for ya, many of my literate ancestors learned how to read through their churches or from family, not "public" schools, cuz there weren't many schools. My ancestors include some who helped built communities, including schools that later became "public" schools.
Protestantism was strong in the City and in other urban centers, among merchants and tradesmen and craftsmen, who could already read and who were pleased by the ease of learning to read in English.
Most of my people lived in backwaters, not urban centers. Many were farmers, though there were also some in various trades, specially among my English ancestors.
Out in the countryside, most people who became Baptists, for instance, were converted by preaching, not by handing out Bibles. That kind of thing didn’t happen until Wesley’s time.
I've yet to come across any single Baptist ancestor. Most were Lutheran, which would be expected with the Germans, Norwegians & Swedes. Most of them were literate before landing on these shores in the mid 19th century. I say most, because one may not have been, but she was before she died.
The English branch were mostly Puritans, specially if you include the Separatists (Pilgrims) & they came from all over England. I believe most of my English were middle class & better educated than was the average, but I don't know.
Meanwhile, south of the border we're rationalizing low literacy rates in the late 20th century.
It is never a useless skill!
Gutenburg made Luther's doctrine practically possible.
As I said in my previous post, more people educated, more scribes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.