For the evangelical, the most exciting change in Roman Catholicism is the new freedom for the gospel.
Recent Protestant attitudes toward Roman Catholicism have become cautiously tolerant. We are attracted to the church’s moral agenda, yet confused by its dogma. And arising from this ambivalence is a genuine desire to dialogue with Catholics. The question is, which Catholics?
For example, the Roman Catholics I met in the mountains of Colombia believe in magic more than in the Trinity. Their religion is a form of animism with a faint gloss of traditional medieval Catholicism.
With an appropriate adjustment for a different culture, my university friends were hardly any better Catholics. Though they expected to be baptized, married, and buried in a Roman Catholic church, they seldom darkened its door on other occasions.
The theologians at Saint Mary’s Seminary with whom I attend professional meetings present another kind of Catholicism. They believe all the traditional doctrines, but interpret them so that they sound strangely new and different—quite different from what I read in the classic statements on Roman Catholic dogma.
And none of these Catholics is remotely like the charismatic Roman Catholics I have met who talk, pray, and live like, well—evangelicals.
The Catholic Montage
I find it helpful to see contemporary Roman Catholicism falling into five categories: (1) popular religiosity, (2) nominal Catholicism of the uncommitted, (3) traditional Roman Catholicism—the kind most Protestant theologians have discussed until very recently, (4) liberal Roman Catholicism, and (5) charismatic Roman Catholicism. Even as I name these groups, I realize the labels are just that: convenient handles for discussion. In reality, the distinctions among these categories blur into one another.
The popular religiosity of the Colombian peasant and the worldly minded nominal Catholic dominating the North American church pose no special confusion to evangelicals. Neither is Christian. We are to love them, befriend them, serve them, and, most important, share with them the good news about Jesus Christ. In short, we view nominal Roman Catholics just as we view nominal Protestants who neither understand biblical Christianity nor have committed themselves to Jesus Christ.
Traditional Roman Catholics are a different matter altogether. They retain much of biblical Christianity and possess qualities that I admire and wish to imitate. For example, I treasure their reverence before God, the dignity of their worship, their faithful attendance at church, their frequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper, their loyalty to the Bible, their willingness to stand up and be counted for their faith, their skill in the arts and literature, their educational system, their emphasis on sexual purity, and their stand against divorce, abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality.
Yet, in spite of all the sound Christian elements defended by traditional Roman Catholics, their understanding of salvation places works over faith. The apostle Paul’s warning to the legalistic Jews of Galatia applies here: “A man is not justified by observing the law but by faith in Jesus Christ … by observing the law no one will be justified” (Gal. 2:16, NIV). Salvation is always a gift of God and is received only on the condition of faith or personal trust in Jesus Christ. No religion—no matter how many Christian and biblical elements are to be found in it—is Christian in the biblical sense if it lacks this gospel.
Of course, as an evangelical, I have additional objections to traditional Roman Catholic doctrine: the infallible teaching and ecclesiastical authority of the pope, the doctrine of transubstantiation (which maintains the essence of the bread and wine are miraculously transformed into the true body and blood of Christ in the Mass), the immaculate conception, bodily assumption, and worship of the Virgin Mary, the invocation of the saints, purgatory, and prayers for the dead. But these are peripheral in contrast to the gospel. Long experience proves that attacking these secondary doctrines will not lead traditional Roman Catholics to a personal relationship with Christ. Instead, evangelicals must point the way to faith in Christ alone.
Still another type of Roman Catholic is the liberal theologian who sits loosely on the ancient doctrines of the church. Avery Dulles, for example, represents a moderate liberal who is still trying to remain within the framework of historic Roman Catholicism. He reads in their creeds that “If anyone shall say that … works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase—let him be anathema” (Denzinger, 1574). But he also knows the Bible teaches that being good in no way earns salvation. Therefore, he reinterprets the creed so it may somehow be brought into closer harmony with what the Scripture teaches. To most of us, his reinterpretation neither squares with the clear teaching of Scripture nor means what the original “infallible teaching” of the church taught in its modern creeds.
Roman Catholic theologian Hans Küng is more forthright. He has written against the infallibility of the pope, of the bishops, of the church, and of the Bible, and he calls for the creation of a new Catholic theology based on the revelation of Jesus Christ as set forth in the Bible. Other liberals go much further. Gregory Baum flatly denies the miracles of Christ and rejects the creeds of the ancient as well as the modern Roman Catholic church.
A growing cadre of South American Roman Catholic theologians has forged a “liberation theology” that has caught on in Europe and North America as well. These theologians display an amazing indifference to doctrinal issues. To them, the Christian gospel must deliver all humanity from poverty by reconstructing society (often along Marxist lines).
For the evangelical, the most exciting change in Roman Catholicism is the new freedom for the gospel. In scholarly circles, the “new biblical theology” movement has profited most from this freedom. Bible study groups have spread across almost every parish. To a considerable degree they have identified with the charismatic movement, although Roman Pentecostalism is by no means uniform. Some, like Kevin and Dorothy Ranaghan, have focused upon charismatic piety, with scant concern for doctrine. A few continue to defend traditional Roman Catholic doctrine. Yet the gospel is central to most Catholic charismatics. They have become true evangelicals with varying degrees of concern about bringing their new-found faith into harmony with the church’s teaching.
A Church On The Move
Where, then, is the Roman Catholic church today, and where is it going? Part of it is rigorously defending its traditions, changing only enough to survive. Other segments, particularly its lay members, are becoming evangelical. Much of its leadership is moving in the direction of liberal Protestantism. Pope John Paul II has noticed his theologians’ leaning toward liberalism and has firmly asked them to stand by the content of the traditional faith. His own ecumenical efforts have turned toward the Eastern Orthodox churches. At the same time, he has fostered dialogue with the World Council of Churches.
How does all this affect the evangelical? First, we should continue to dialogue. To refuse to dialogue would be to say two things no evangelical wants to say: (1) We are not interested in our Lord’s desire to have a united church, and (2) We evangelicals have nothing to learn from anyone. Dialogue need not be compromise. It can be an effective means of evangelism, and it can be a great source of humble learning on the part of those who are willing to listen.
Second, we can rejoice with the new-found evangelicals in the Roman Catholic church. We can encourage them. We can learn from them. We need not attack what we deem to be holdovers from Roman Catholic doctrine, but we can exalt the Lord with them and urge them to join us in testing faith by Holy Scripture.
Third, we should take advantage of the freedom newly allowed in the Roman church. We should encourage this freedom in the direction of a saving faith in Jesus Christ and in the authority of Scripture. We should remind those who are sitting uneasily on traditional Roman Catholic doctrine and are attracted by rampant liberalism that true freedom is not freedom from all authority or freedom from truth. Rather, it provides for a voluntary acceptance of truth and leads us to obey the holy and all-wise God of the universe.
Common Goals
Finally, we can work together on those political and social issues where we are in such strong agreement: Human freedom is crucial to the well-being of society. Justice is worth battling for. Democracy cannot save humankind, but it is the form of government most likely to protect human liberty and to bring justice to all. We are all responsible to care for the poor and the downtrodden. We are opposed to war, but in an evil world we know that strength enables us to be our brother’s keeper. And our shared belief in the sacredness of human life demands opposition to free abortions, euthanasia, homosexual practice, and complete sexual freedom. Our united efforts in these areas will do much to influence our world to the good.
We must continue our conversations with Roman Catholics. We do not wish to unite at the expense of truth. But we need to learn from each other and examine our common heritage under the light of Scripture. In spite of basic differences, we can use our common Judeo-Christian value system to forge moral leadership that will advance the cause of justice and peace through a stable society in our nation and around the world.
By Kenneth S. Kantzer.
