Church still attracting converts: CHN at record levels

A personal note: The phone rang the other day and the gentleman on the other end identified himself as Jim Anderson from the Coming Home Network. He said he had a message from an old high school friend. Who might that be, I asked, and he gave the name: Dion Berlowitz.

Anderson told me the Coming Home Network, with which I was not familiar, helped Protestants come into the Church, and that Dion was on his way in.

I hadn’t heard from Dion in more than a decade, even though we were best friends at Williamsville South High School, outside Buffalo, sharing several interests, including cartooning and comic books. Raised Jewish, Dion became a born-again Christian in his junior year of high school as his parents’ marriage broke up, and spent hours, days, weeks, and months trying to convert me into a Bible-believing Christian.

In 1971, Dion went on to the University of Buffalo to study literature and I went on to Eisenhower College to study history, and our paths never crossed again until a call out of the blue came from him around 1990, when he told me he was a Presbyterian. We have had no further contact since, though I suspect and hope that will change.

In this initial conversation, Anderson told me that so far, this year, the Coming Home Network has helped 94 Protestant ministers of various denominations, along with many other Protestants, come into the Church. Some, like Dion, are on their way in. This is the largest annual crop since the CHNetwork was founded nine years ago.

Here, in a year in which the Catholic Church in the United States and around the world has been wracked by scandals, we do have good news indeed.

What would prompt a Protestant, especially a minister with a wife and family, to leave his tradition and often his livelihood to come into the Catholic Church, especially when there are so many broken-hearted Catholics embarrassed by the past ten months of sordid revelations involving clerical sexual abuse, bishops’ resignations, episcopal cover-ups and pay-outs? Not to mention the ongoing abuse of authority by bishops to hammer the lay faithful who object to dissidents and heretics speaking in parishes and education conferences.

"For Protestants," says Jim Anderson, "the scandals are a non-issue. Among the hundreds of people I have talked to who are thinking of coming into the Church, the scandals just aren’t an issue. Of all the people who have contacted me, only three or four have mentioned them, and that was only at my prompting.

"To a man, these men are intellectually convinced that the Church is a divine institution established by Christ, and bishops are only human — and, besides, they say, ‘These things are going on in our own denominations — only in our denomination they are not being addressed.’

"They see this as the Holy Spirit cleaning house. The judgment of the Lord begins with the family of God. They view the present scandals as a terrible tragedy; they want justice like everybody else. But as far as the truth of the Catholic faith is concerned, it is a non-issue. It’s sin; it needs to be addressed. And that’s it.

"These men," he continued, "are educated people. Most have master of divinity degrees and doctorates. They are aware of the problems, but once their hearts are converted and they see the Church as Jesus Christ’s, they know Christ will keep His promise. They have experienced troubles in their own denominations, but they know that when they are in the Church, God will prevail."

On average — based on the first ten months of this year — Anderson hears from a Protestant minister every three days who has made the decision to become Catholic.

Most, he says, are drawn to the Church for two reasons. Either they have come to understand the dead end to which the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura leads, and they want to settle, in their own minds, the issue of authority in the Church; or they have been led to the Church by its doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and they want to receive Jesus.

What many Protestants are coming to understand, even at a time when many Catholics and non-Catholics lament the apparent breakdown of authority in the Church, Anderson explained, is that the Church’s authority "is set by God."

"Those who take their faith and Scripture and God seriously," he said, "see the Catholic Church as being the answer to the chaos of the Protestant condition: Sola scriptura is a dead end, is unhistorical and unworkable. They understand this and so they have a crisis of faith and they enter the Catholic Church. And this is occurring across the Protestant spectrum. A lot of people contacting the Coming Home Network are ‘higher church’ Episcopalians or Lutherans, but we do get calls also from ‘low-end’ Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and Assembly of God ministers.

"To speak, as some Catholics do, about a ‘crisis of authority’ in the Church doesn’t make a lot of sense," Anderson said. "There is a ‘crisis of obedience to authority,’ but that has always been the case, just as there has always been a ‘crisis of obedience to the authority of God’ on the part of many men and women. The authority is there, and it is working; it is just not obeyed."

The Coming Home Network was founded in 1993 out of the experiences of several Protestant clergy and their spouses. Upon leaving their pastorates to enter the Catholic Church, these clergy and their families discovered they were not alone. To help others come into the Church — and to deal with some of the tremendous personal and professional obstacles they faced — they began the organization as a support network.

Catholics, Anderson suggested, should understand some of the challenges these ministers face once they have made the intellectual decision to "cross over" to Rome.

"They go through tremendous struggles. They think, ‘I’m losing my friends, my family, my community, my church, and people think I’m crazy and I’m apostatizing from Christianity.’ Often the most serious conflict is with spouses, who not only have to deal with the change of religion, but have practical problems as well, such as, ‘What about me and the children?’ ‘How are we going to survive?’ ‘What will our friends think?’ ‘Have I been following the wrong religion all my life?’

"Most of these people have M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees, and so they are not employable in the world. It’s a difficult decision for these men to give up their work, their careers, and their livelihoods. Nevertheless, 94 this year have entered, or are on their way into, the Church."

One former minister, Anderson recalled, gave up his role as a prominent, prestigious minister for his community to work as a greeter at WalMart. For him, the blessing of being able to receive the Eucharist more than compensated for what he had to give up.

Anderson is well-prepared for his work helping Protestants come into the Church. Reared as a Methodist, the 47-year-old Anderson became a Lutheran at 19. As a history major specializing in medieval Europe at Ohio University in Athens, he knew he was on his way into the Church.

Three years after graduating, he entered evangelical Ashland Seminary in 1980, interested in pursuing studies in ecumenical dialog. In his freshman year, he made the decision to join the Catholic Church, and on July 25, 1981, the Feast of St. James, he was confirmed. His wife, Lynn, who entered the Church in 1983, now teaches in a Catholic school.

Contrary to popular stereotypes, he said, the biggest roadblocks would-be converts confront are not such "hot-button" issues as contraception, papal infallibility, or women’s rights, but the Church’s doctrines concerning Mary.

Many Protestants, he said, "are scandalized by the liturgical craziness. They try to get around it by seeking out a Byzantine rite, or seeking out orthodox parishes. And usually, if they come into the Church, having been good Protestants, they have church-hopped enough to have found a parish where they don’t have to deal with abuses."

But, he added, many look beyond the abuses, because "they are attracted to Christ in the liturgy. For a lot of the converts, there are many who have intellectually convinced themselves already that they must join the Church before they ever attended Mass. And when they finally start going to Mass, often there is a culture shock, especially if they come from a small, intimate, loving Baptist church, and go into a parish of 2,000 people who aren’t particularly friendly. So there is this bit of culture shock — and that doesn’t include the shock of liturgy."

Asked to name the leading intellectual sources Protestants are reading to find their way into the Church, Anderson named familiar names.

"The intellectual sources are, certainly, Cardinal Newman, G.K. Chesterton, Bishop Fulton Sheen, Scott Hahn, and Catholic Answers.

"But most often, it is the fathers of the Church. When Protestant ministers encounter the fathers, they realize they were lied to and betrayed, because they were taught the Protestant Reformation cleansed Christianity of the barnacles on the Barque of Peter and the Reformers recovered ancient Christianity. Then they go back and read the apostolic fathers, especially Ignatius of Antioch who is preaching the Real Presence, the authority of bishops, and all these many Catholic things, and the conclusion is the words of Jesus, who says: ‘I will be with you always.’

"Either Jesus kept His promise, or the Church went to Hell in a hand basket after the death of St. John.

"When they start studying the early Church fathers, they are blown out of the water."

The Coming Home Network’s executive director is former Presbyterian minister Marcus Grodi, who, captured the feeling and beliefs of many fellow Protestants who came into the Church in his book, Journeys Home (Queenship Publishing 1997).

"[T]he biggest thing that opened my heart to the truth of the Catholic faith was not all the apologetic arguments that convinced me of the trustworthiness of Catholic truth, but the realization that the Catholic Church, with all of her saints and sinners, was exactly what Christ had promised.

"The majority of complaints against the Catholic Church over the centuries have been aimed at the decisions and actions of bad Popes, or immoral clergy, or ignorant laity, or corrupt Catholic nobility, and the correct answer to this is, ‘But, of course! The Church is made up of wheat and tares, from the bottom to the top, sinners in need of grace! This is no reason to leave and form a new church, for any church made up of human beings is made up of sinners.’

"All true conversions to the Catholic faith from any other starting point carry with them complications, primarily because this conversion must be rooted in and thereby an extension of one’s conversion and surrender to Christ. If becoming a Catholic does not involve this, I don’t believe it is a true conversion. It might be a change of convenience or even possibly for some sort of personal gain or aggrandizement.

"But only when one recognizes or painfully discovers that to be fully a follower of Jesus Christ, and thereby have the full potential of growing in union with Him, one must also be in union with the Church He established in and through His Apostles, can one be truly converted.

"These conversions by definition must involve some extent of leaving behind and rejecting part of what a person once held very dear. Some things can be joyfully brought along, others can be cautiously tolerated, but yet there are ideas, practices, and sometimes even relationships which must be severed.

"It of course never means that we cease to love those we may need to leave behind, or who choose to turn their backs on us. In fact, we are called all the more to shower our now confused or indignant friends and family with the all-forgiving, all-accepting love of Christ. However, we must not let the emotional trajectories of our loving glances turn our attention off of the fullness of truth found only in union with the Catholic Church."

For more information about the Coming Home Network, go to its web site, www.chnetwork.org, or call 740-450-1175.

"Where would you place "the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?" I think the testimony of scripture and the church is certain on this one. It gets a 10.

Where would you place "the full inspiration of scripture by God?" I would give it a 10."

I would agree with you wholeheartedly on these points, however, many Christians would dispute them with a conviction that would be sincere in their own eyes. Not to mention the fact that the majority of my and probably your countrymen would be certain on neither.

You can give them a 10 because it fits your belief (as it does mine), but this is not a certainty apparent to everyone.

I would suggest that what you define as "certainty" has less to do with "proof" and more to do with "faith".

"Out of curiosity where would you place "the trinity?""

I would give Them a 10. How about you?

Doctrinal "fact" is a different animal than space/time fact and than "facts of faith." Doctrinal fact is a virtual synonym for "biblical fact."

Doctrinal facts are determined by a specific body of literature called the bible. (Sometimes, it is also commended by natural revelation.) My "faith" is not what makes it a fact. It is made a doctrinal fact by it's appearing in the scriptures in a clear, consistent presentation. (For example: it is a "doctrinal fact" that Moses led the Children of Israel out of Egypt. I cannot say that Noah did it and be correct.)

There is no Christian who can dispute the resurrection. The resurrection is the touchstone of Christianity and to leave it is to identify oneself as not being Christian. (Romans 10:9-10; 1 Co 15)

It is difficult to deny the full inspiration of scripture because that is told us in the bible. Some might quibble over the meaning of "words" but they should be toward the 10 end of the continuum.

"Their testimony precedes the Church and was the accepted rule over the church."

Why do you see such a contradistinction between the Apostles and the Church? The Apostles ARE the Church, THEY are the rule over the Church. Their writings are only a part of their rule and testimony. (Albeit highly authoritative.)

Do you really think that they lived in close communion with the rest of the believers for 30 - 40 years, and those believers only had their scanty scraps of writings as their abiding testimony?

The NT can be read from cover to cover in a few hours. How can 30 years of teaching, living, exhorting, worshipping, laughing, crying all be compressed into a few pages?

Let 10 be a certain fact. Let 0 be a wild, totally unsupportable assumption.
Where would you place "the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?" I think the testimony of scripture and the church is certain on this one. It gets a 10.
Out of curiosity where would you place "the trinity?"

Where would you put it, xzins?

I too would give "the bodily resurrection of Christ" a 10, but in so doing, would have to give the Trinity a 0.

The two doctrines are incompatible in my mind. Christ did not de-resurrect in order to join the amorphous Trinity. Jesus is still a resurrected being.

I would give the trinity a 10.

It is CERTAINLY taught in the bible. Wai-ming, I'm not talking about an opinion of the rational-logical mind of humans.

I'm asking the simple question: Is the teaching of the trinity a clear, continuing, consistent teaching of the bible (OT & NT)?

Whether I understand it or not has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether that is what the text of the bible teaches over and over again at various places and in various ways.

Do you see what I'm saying?

It's like the question: What is the story-line name of Spiderman in the new Spiderman movie? The answer is Peter Parker. My understanding how he becomes Spiderman has absolutely nothing to do with the fact of his story-line name.

"Doctrinal "fact" is a different animal than space/time fact"

Does that then place it on the same level as fairy-tale fact?

"My "faith" is not what makes it a fact."

I would suggest that it is your faith that determines how you understand, interpret and relate to that "fact", and what degree of importance that you attach to that fact.

"It is made a doctrinal fact by it's appearing in the scriptures in a clear, consistent presentation."

This is YOUR faith speaking a definition of what a doctrinal fact IS. There are many who would disagree with this yet still claim to be Christian. There are many who would disagree that anything appears in Scripture in a clear consistent manner; especially after the butchers of historical, form and redaction criticism have had their way with it!!

(For example: it is a "doctrinal fact" that Moses led the Children of Israel out of Egypt. I cannot say that Noah did it and be correct.)

If you are a pastor then you must know that there are historico-critical scholars out there who deny that Moses even existed and that this story was simply a myth created by the suffering exiles in Babylon to give encouragement to their people in adversity.

"There is no Christian who can dispute the resurrection."

There are certainly people who interpret the resurrection accounts in a none space/time/historical manner, and yet still claim to be Christians.

Where do you get your authority to deny this title to them or assert that their interpretation of the Bible is any less authentic than yours?

After all, they make their claims on the basis of the scriptural testimony, and so do you. How are the rest of us to know who is speaking with authority and truth?

"And what that comes from the apostles do you have that still remains?"

The Divine Liturgy and the rest of the sacraments come from the Apostles and all pre-date the writing down of their testimony.

We have the teachings and writings, the prayers and the insights of those who lived and learned at the feet of the Apostles. They were able to understand the teaching in the context it was given. A bit like the way you may have received traditions from your family - traditions that may seem incomprehensible to outsiders!

But more than any of that we still "have" the Apostles with us. They are the twelve foundation stones of the Catholic Church - we are still in communion with them. We have fellowship with them in the communion of saints. The same Spirit who guided them is the same guide and soul of the Church which Christ founded on them.

That Church is a living, breathing, growing entity and it will remain so until the end of time.

"They will find themselves questioning how the Church that claims to be the Church instituted by Christ could have such abysmal leadership. One would think that Christ would protect his own if they truly are his own. "

Excellent point. It was one of the many reasons I left Catholicism.

I fellowshipped at Calvary Chapel, a non-denominational nationwide church. A good deal of the Pastors came from the Catholic and mainline liberal denominations. The one I attended had over 1000 who attended and of those more than half were x-catholics. I have to chuckle when I read articles like this.

""Most of these people have M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees, and so they are not employable in the world. It’s a difficult decision for these men to give up their work, their careers, and their livelihoods. Nevertheless, 94 this year have entered, or are on their way into, the Church." "

The RC likes to parade around their Scott Hanhs like it it was some victory badge. The above quote from the article shines the light on these so called conversions.

As the article states most do have degrees and are giving up their "careers". I would bet that most of these converts are seminary trained. They chose this as a career. You don't choose to lead the flock, God chooses you. They have been taught by man, not lead by the Holy Spirit. Mans work always fails.

The Catholic church is the logical next step. When you're not led by the Spirit of truth you look to whatever doctrine of man tickles your ears. They look to man for the answers. What better place than the RC for a church based on the traditions of man. Any honest Catholic here can't debate that statement. We have numerous Catholics on here that will tell you you can't use the Bible to validate tradition. Sola Scriptura is foolish they say. You go to the church to validate the tradition of the church. Make sense? How can you loose?

To get back to your point on the leadership. You would think from reading in here that the problems with leadership is something caused by the modern age. Truth is that leadership in the RC has a long list of human debris as it's leaders. A study of the Popery will show that there were those in leadership who belonged in a chair with a skull cap wired to 20,000 volts, not the chair of Peter. When you question the RC on this they tell you that man is fallible. On the same breath they tell you that the church is led by the Holy Spirit, has all truth, and can't be questioned. Even though the priest that is putting the wafer in your mouth could have raped your 14 year old son the day before, Jesus has to overlook this and come down as this priest calls him. Sorry I'm not buying it.

If I have to stand before God and claim that I believed in His word only and not the traditions of man that perverted and contradicted it, so be it. I'll take my chances.

If you are a pastor then you must know that there are historico-critical scholars out there who deny that Moses even existed and that this story was simply a myth created by the suffering exiles in Babylon to give encouragement to their people in adversity

There certainly are critics.

But even they would admit that the fact of the Bible story is that "Moses" leads the children out of Israel. They would agree that the fact of the bible story is that Jesus actually, bodily resurrected.

What they would deny is that those things actually happened in space/time.

Now does your church teach that the "resurrection" is a bible story that didn't actually happen? Or does it teach that it is a bible story (fact) and that it actually happened (faith.)

That's all fine stuff for you to believe, but none of it is stuff you can demonstrate to me.

The scriptures (apostolic writings), on the other hand, have independent histories that can be traced.

I can demonstrate to you the histories of the apostle's writings.

To me, it's a "which came first, chicken or egg" thing....the apostles' proclamation or the church. Me -- I think people responded to the proclamation. (How can they hear without a preacher?) And then it's a matter of who should be in charge: the apostles' proclamation or the people who interpret the apostles' proclamation. I choose the scripture.

You are free to believe what you want. I'm just not convinced of your case.

" 2 Tim 3:15-17 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
" 1822 exartizo- to complete, to finish a) to furnish perfectly b) to finish, to accomplish (as it were, to render the days complete)"

There's the verse and also the meaning of the word "Thouroughly" in verse 17

Maybe you can explain it to me. This verse says that scripture makes me perfectly complete. What is the next level after that?

there is no PROOF

As a late comer here, and reading both your exchanges, I'd like to add an important point from the Catholic point of view to the above:

The proof comes from the Divine Grace of God working through Divine Faith. Otherwise there would be no reason for Divine "Faith".

Take this line from your (xzins) Post 70:

Where would you place "the full inspiration of scripture by God?" I would give it a 10.

I would give it a 10 too, except the proof comes from the Grace of God working through Faith in me. From the Holy Scriptures themselves, read by an individual separated from the Church, it's not possible to consider giving it a 10. The Scriptures themselves, particularly the New Testament, don't give me the information on just what Books are supposed to be there and which are not. It is the living, Divinely instituted Church, led by the Holy Spirit which authoritatively, the Authority of Christ no less, can tell me and others which Books are the Canon of Holy Scripture.

A non-Christian not open to Faith would just consider your "proofs" of the Bible being the Word of God as being "rationalizations".

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.