Apologia Pro Libro

At the beginning of some older books, you will sometimes find a brief apology in which the author explains his reason for writing. This apology is, of course, not a confession indicating sorrow over the writing but rather a justification for the writing. That is the original meaning of apology—from the Greek apologia, which means something like an explanation offered in defense (as one might hear from a defendant in a court of law). It is the word the apostle Peter used in his first epistle when he commanded Christians, “[A]lways be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for your faith” (1 Pet 3:15, ESV; emphasis added).

This word apology is especially relevant to the authors of this book, as all are alumni of Southern Evangelical Seminary—a conservative EvangelicalThe term Evangelical is capitalized in this book to set it off as a reference to Evangelicalism and not merely a description. Confusion can enter in here because the suffix ism usually implies a system, just as ist denotes one of its members. Evangelicalist, however, is not used. To be “evangelical” simply means to believe in the need for personal conversion to Christianity according to the gospel. Evangelicalism comprises nondenominational Christians of many kinds, often united more by a common culture than by a particular set of theological beliefs. Hence, just as a person can be rational without being a rationalist, or admire science without embracing scientism, a person can be evangelical without being an Evangelical or part of Evangelicalism. school whose mission is to “evangelize the world and to defend the historic Christian Faith”.See “Purpose and Philosophy of Education”, Southern Evangelical Seminary website, accessed August 6, 2014, http://ses.edu/about-us/purpose-and-philosophy-of-education. Thus, it is doubly appropriate to begin this book with an explanation of the seminary’s existence.

While many of us were discerning converting to the Catholic Church, we were helped immensely by reading religious conversion stories.When people become Catholic they often describe it as “coming into full communion with the Catholic Church”. This might sound like an obtuse description of the event, but it is actually both accurate and important in its details. This is because Catholics consider all validly baptized Christians to be “in the Church” even if they are not members of the Catholic Church. In fact, to whatever degree a given Christian group affirms the truths of the faith, to that degree it can be considered “in communion” with the Catholic Church. Thus, a validly baptized Christian who becomes Catholic is actually moving from partial to full communion—not converting (talk of conversion should technically be reserved for non-Christians becoming Catholics). However, due to the popular usage of the term convert, the awkwardness of the more precise terminology, and the fact that becoming Catholic is, for an Evangelical, nearly as dramatic as that of a pagan, it will be used throughout this book. Notable converts who have published their stories of coming into full communion with the Catholic Church include John Henry Newman, Scott Hahn, David Currie, Thomas Howard, Francis Beckwith, and Patrick Madrid.Apologia pro Vita Sua; Rome Sweet Home; Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic; Evangelical Is Not Enough; Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic; and Surprised by Truth, respectively. Conversion stories always garner interest, and that is one justification for adding another conversion book to the mix.

What makes this book unique is that although it is a collection of different stories by different authors, the stories all serve to tell something of a single story—why many seminary-educated Evangelicals are coming home to Rome. This, then, is a second reason to make these stories known. A third and final reason is that it may serve as a needed corrective to much of the spurious speculation that some of our friends, colleagues, and students have been exposed to (and, sometimes, engaged in) over the years.See, for example, Norman L. Geisler, “Why Roman Catholics Are Leaving the Church in Mass”, Dr. Normal L. Geisler, January 6, 2011, accessed May 28, 2015, http://www.normgeisler.com/. This movement from conservative Evangelicalism to Catholicism is not limited to this school; in fact, some refer to the phenomenon as an exodus.E.g., “The last part of the twentieth century has seen thousands of Catholics convert to Protestant Evangelicalism. Conversely, of late, a number of Evangelical intellectuals have gone the other way, deciding that ‘Rome is home.’ We will investigate this ecclesiastical relocation and suggest some reasons why. . . . There are Roman Catholic leaders, both lay and clergy, who view this exodus as an indication of a lack of emphasis on evangelism in Catholic catechesis.” Ralph E. MacKenzie, “Why Some Evangelicals Become Roman Catholic”, Christian Apologetics Journal 4 (Spring 2005): 1-2.

Southern Evangelical Seminary’s Catholic Connection

Southern Evangelical Seminary was cofounded in 1992 by Ross Rhoads and Norman Geisler. Rhoads was an evangelist and (then) pastor of Calvary Church in Charlotte, North Carolina—SES’ first home. Geisler was a longtime seminary professor and popular Christian apologist. The two concerns for evangelism and apologetics were to be combined into a single twofold vision for the seminary. SES’ mission statement was “to evangelize the world and to defend the historic Christian Faith”.“History of Southern Evangelical Seminary”, Southern Evangelical Seminary website, accessed August 6, 2014, http://ses.edu/about-us/history-of-ses. Rhoads was to serve as the first president, and Norman Geisler the first dean. Some of Geisler’s colleagues and previous students were brought on as faculty, and Geisler eventually took over as seminary president. In 1997 SES relocated to McKee Road Baptist Church in Matthews, North Carolina, and really began to grow.

In 2003 SES moved into its own building on a piece of donated property just down the road in Matthews. At that time SES also started its own church, which met on the seminary grounds. It was during these years that most of the authors of this book were enrolling in, graduating from, and even working for SES. We came to SES for various reasons. Some of us “early adopters” left jobs, ministries, and our families and friends thousands of miles away to come to a school that was housed in two trailers in the gravel parking lot of a small church. That SES gathered hundreds of students in such a state is a testimony to the dedication of these students to the kind of academic apologetics training that was, at the time, not available anywhere else.

That SES is an unusual seminary is clear. First, it is completely independent of any university, denomination, or church. Second, SES’ doctrine is a mix of generic Protestant affirmations combined with nineteenth-century Dispensationalism and twentieth-century innovations such as Free Grace theology. In addition to this already eclectic theological mix is the school’s commitment to classical apologetics and medieval philosophy (specifically that of Saint Thomas Aquinas) and its inclusion of several faculty over the years who have studied at Catholic universities. The works of Aquinas and his (mostly Catholic) commentators are assigned as readings far more frequently than those of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, or any number of modern Evangelical Protestant writers.

These latter considerations have led some to be suspicious of SES’ Evangelical commitments—a suspicion that may appear vindicated by the growing number of SES’ previous associates who no longer hold to the seminary’s distinctive teachings. In the decade spanning 2004 through 2014 alone, over two dozen of SES’ faculty, students, or alumni have entered the Catholic Church.This book thus represents a small sample and should not be taken to be representative of others associated with the seminary. It should also be noted that several students became Eastern or Oriental Orthodox in this period. These conversions were rarely made public due to fears of losing academic recommendations and to other predictable issues commonly associated with such moves. The question many Evangelicals ask is: How can a school cofounded by an Evangelical theologian-apologist who has written two books and several articles critical of Roman Catholics produce so many of them?Two dozen might not sound like very many over a decade, but when one considers that SES typically graduated only a few dozen students per year, the numbers (which may be higher than this, given that over half of SES’ students do not attend the school in person) become more relevant. And what can be done about it?In the summer of 2014, after years of requests, SES began offering a class in Roman Catholicism, taught by Geisler. One might wonder what the effect of this will be, given that Geisler’s coauthor of his second book on Catholicism (Is Rome the True Church?) became Catholic within months of its publication (see Joshua Betancourt’s chapter in this book).

Conversion Considerations

The issue of Evangelicals converting to Roman Catholicism is currently a hot topic that has recently been addressed in books and online lectures. Most of the authors of this book have friends with Evangelical backgrounds who have converted (or are considering converting) to Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and even Armenian Orthodoxy.

Secondhand explanations for these conversions range from the realistic to the ridiculous, and it is partly because of the latter that this book was written. We were taught at SES that we did not have the right to criticize someone’s view until we could state that criticism to his satisfaction, and we have provided these stories to help those who really want to know the truth.

One important facet of these stories is that the questions one asks often determine the sorts of answers he will receive (or accept), and the questions converts ask during their journeys are often not the same as those of an Evangelical who is simply looking for a new church to attend. It is important, therefore, that when trying to understand a convert’s reasoning, one must begin with the questions the convert is asking (or has asked and had answered). Once these questions are clarified, the answers provided should make sense whether one agrees with them or not.

A second important consideration is that the move from being an Evangelical to a Catholic is a much larger one than that of going from Evangelical to Baptist or one of the more traditional Protestant denominations. Such a move is the result of much more than a mere change of mind (or heart). In fact, whether one is a Christian or not, becoming Catholic is more properly likened to a paradigm shift.See Christian Smith, How to Go from Being a Good Evangelical to a Committed Catholic in Ninety-Five Difficult Steps (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 2011).

This terminology is borrowed from Thomas Kuhn, who popularized the phrase paradigm shift in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962). Kuhn argued that scientific theories do not arise from a slow, linear development but rather in a series of violent revolutions that overthrow entire worldviews all at once. These paradigm shifts are preceded by a time of peace, when one sits comfortably in his given worldview despite some minor difficulties (“anomalies”) for which it does not seem to account adequately. Over time, if these anomalies grow in number or importance, they can cause a crisis for the current paradigm. Eventually one will have to look outside his paradigm for another that has the elements of his current paradigm and can also deal with its anomalies. When this new paradigm is discovered, the only consistent reaction is to adopt it.

When it comes to religious paradigm shifts, several difficulties arise. First, comparing paradigms is often fraught with misunderstandings. We have only so many words in our language, so different paradigms often use the same words in different ways. Until both paradigms‘ “lexicons” are understood, miscommunication is inevitable. It takes great effort (more than many are willing to exert) to get to a place of common understanding to overcome this difficulty.

Second, moving from one paradigm to another can cause severe personal stress. In many cases one faces the loss of, or serious strain in, many relationships. Often family, friends, coworkers, colleagues, and other acquaintances simply will not understand the motives of a paradigm shift because they either do not see, or do not appreciate, the role the anomalies have played in pushing the convert to look outside their previously shared paradigm. Many religious converts face rejection from their current ministries, ministry partners, places of employment, and even family and friends. Every author in this book has faced at least some of these difficulties—and some have experienced them all.

Third, once the paradigm shift has occurred, the reverse of the first problem can occur. As one embraces and begins living in the new paradigm, its influences become simultaneously stronger and less noticeable. New vocabulary, cultural references, group activities, and many other experiences contribute to potential alienation, and it becomes easy to forget what life was like in the previous paradigm. And this all results in an amplification of the second problem.

Thus, in the end, although becoming Catholic might not seem to be much more than joining any Christian denomination, the authors of this book can agree with Flannery O’Connor, who said, “I am a Catholic not like someone else would be a Baptist or a Methodist, but like someone else would be an atheist.”Flannery O’Connor, Collected Works (New York: Library of America, 1988), 930.

As stated above, in the past decade, dozens of students, alumni, and professors from Southern Evangelical Seminary have converted to Catholicism. Each time, speculation arose, and often the phenomenon was simply written off as a quirk of the convert’s psychology. At times, though, even the convert’s basic Christian commitment was questioned. Sometimes his salvation was doubted. The true stories behind the conversion of these seminary-trained Evangelicals will thus be a beneficial corrective to both sides, as well as those watching from the sidelines.

Closing Remarks

In closing, all of us contributors would like to affirm our love for our SES colleagues and associates. Although, of necessity, SES’ theology will often be the subject of discussion in these pages, criticism is not to be construed as personal disparagement or mockery.Interaction with SES’ theology will—of necessity—largely involve the writings of Norman Geisler, the professor who taught (or whose material was used to teach) most of the subjects relevant to this book. He is also one of the only SES professors who has published relevant materials that can be cited in support of SES’ teachings. Moving from other Christian communions to Catholicism might feel as dramatic as accepting the gospel in the first place, but it has a very different effect. People converting from atheism or paganism to Christianity might wish to denounce completely their former anti-Christian paradigm, but, for an Evangelical, becoming Catholic does not engender such negativity. The Catholic sees his conversion as a reception of the fullness of the faith rather than a rejection of what brought him to it.

Further, it will be useful to answer a common question up front: What do we think of the faith of our Evangelical friends now—in particular, are they saved? The answer requires a nuance not found in the Evangelical paradigm and so is difficult to communicate simply. While in Evangelicalism, salvation is strictly binary (one is saved or one is not, and that is all there is to the story), in Catholicism salvation is seen as more of a process. In both, however, the answer can never be given as more than a hypothetical (You are saved if. . .; you are damned if. . .), for only God knows all. Thus, the best answer is that we cannot know for sure, because we do not know either their hearts or the future.Many Evangelicals will point to 1 Jn 5:13 (“I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life”) as indicating that we can indeed know whether we are saved. First, this is a subjective assessment (“so that you may know that you have eternal life”) and thus does not help when assessing others’ salvation. Second, the “things” John writes of are not limited to belief alone—there are also commands to walk with God, love God, obey God’s commandments, abide in God, love our brothers and not the world, keep from being deceived, practice righteousness, and cease sinning. Very few of these are open to easy assessment, whether subjective or objective.

On the other hand, we have a clear answer as to whether our Evangelical brothers are part of Christ’s Church. So long as one is validly baptized, he is part of this one Church (Eph 4:5), even if he is not in perfect communion with her, because the Church is Christ’s body (1 Cor 12:27)—not a bunch of body parts—and Christ cannot be divided (1 Cor 1:13). This unity, however, does not stop Christians from making licit in-house distinctions (Rom 14:2-3). Unfortunately, it also does not keep them from causing illicit divisions (1 Cor 1:12). The latter occur when one departs from the faith (apostasy—1 Jn 2:19), knowingly commits to serious doctrinal error (heresy—2 Pet 2:1), refuses to submit to the authority of the Church (schism—1 Cor 1:10), or breaks unity over secondary issues (disputes—Tit 3:10). Depending on which of these wounds to unity are at work, the resultant communion relationship is altered. For the Catholic, only total apostasy breaks one off from the Church completely.

These distinctions also help explain the Catholic Church’s view of salvation. Because the Catholic Church distinguishes between full and partial communion, non-Catholics are not automatically “outside the Church”. Thus, the fearsome statement that “outside the Church there is no salvation” does not simply apply across the board to all non-Catholics. Salvation is not limited to members of the Catholic Church, nor even to those in communion with her, because God is not limited in his abilities to reach people, even when they lie outside his normative means.The anathemas pronounced at the Council of Trent against Protestants must also be understood according to the above distinctions. Trent was dealing with Catholics who were protesting Catholic doctrine (as heretics or schismatics)—not people who were simply raised Protestant. The anathemas pronounced declared that Catholics who rejected Catholic dogma were no longer Catholic. This obviously would not apply to a Protestant today unless he was a Catholic who had become Protestant by knowingly rejecting the Catholic Church. In other words, it requires an informed will, not just circumstances.

Thus, the authors, along with the Catholic Church, embrace our Evangelical professors, mentors, students, colleagues, and friends “as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”Second Vatican Council, Decree on Ecumenism, November 21, 1964, no. 3.

We hope that the stories in this book will be of benefit to anyone considering Catholicism (whether he wishes to discern it from the outside as a friend or an enemy) as well as those who are Catholic and simply like to know why others are drawn to the faith.