AP

One hears a number of recent stories of Protestants jumping ship to either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. I don’t know the statistics, but I do hear anecdotally that this is on the rise. How shall we respond to this growing trend?

This is far too broad a topic to be covering in one article, so I will touch on only two areas. A few reasons why Christians are drawn to Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and 2 reasons why they ought not convert!

Why are people drawn to Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

1. The appearance of antiquity. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy claim that their faith goes back to the first century, while they claim the Reformed heritage only goes back 500 years.
2. Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are generally more conservative in their practices in line with their understanding of Sacred Tradition. They generally don’t change their practice because it isn’t “hip” with the culture. Protestants, generally, have been too ready to change practices because we think we need to “be a Jew to win the Jews” (1 Cor.9:19-23); or we jettison practices because they are not “necessary for salvation”; or we are seeker-sensitive to the point of being market-driven. The constant churn over in practice can result is some looking for a brand that doesn’t change.
3. A worship that involves more of the whole self. Orthodoxy in particular generally embraces monastic asceticism and more of the body in worship than Protestants are used to. People are attracted to traditions that seem to be more “holistic”.
4. A stronger emphasis on aesthetics. Similar to the last point, Protestant churches tend to be simpler and more unadorned compared to the icons in Orthodoxy and statues found in Catholic churches. People are often drawn to the aesthetics and ceremony of Catholic and Orthodox worship.
5. A stronger emphasis on sanctification, particularly in Orthodoxy. Not that all Protestant churches play down the importance of holiness, or that all Orthodox churches encourage growth in holiness, but there is a general perception that Protestant churches too readily accept lower standards because “faith is enough”.

      Some are attracted to the additional rigour of Orthodoxy.

Given these points, it might be pertinent to ask whether conversion to Orthodoxy or Catholicism is always bad. I can imagine that there may be a limited number of cases where conversion may prove to be of some benefit, particularly if the quality of local Protestant churches is very poor!

But I want to touch on a couple of reasons why conversion overall is a bad idea

1. To embrace true Protestant, that is Reformed, Christianity is to embrace what is truly “catholic” and “orthodox”

Let us remember the idea of “catholicity” is older than the papacy, and the idea of “orthodoxy” is older than the church fathers. Being catholic is about recognising that Jesus only established one church, one faith etc, so the true faith / church is universal, and being orthodox is about getting our doctrine, worship and practice right.

The Reformation is to be understood as the period of history where the church made its most sustained attempts to conform the church back to its Scriptural roots in harmony (as much as possible) with the church fathers. That is true catholicity and orthodoxy. When the Reformers did this, they found much of doctrine and practice found in Roman Catholic doctrine consisted of later additions with little Scriptural or even patristic support. The same can be said of much of Eastern Orthodoxy, despite its claims to antiquity. This is how Sola Scriptura (“Scripture Alone”) became a rallying cry of the Reformation.

In saying this, I have not found one Catholic and Orthodox believer who has adequately understood what Sola Scriptura really means. Sola Scriptura did not mean “Solo Scriptura” – that is “naked” Scripture or mere biblicism – the notion that people have the right to determine truth by appeal to a personal interpretation of Scripture apart from any help from tradition. On the contrary, Sola Scriptura treats tradition and the fathers with great esteem. But when it comes to the final court of appeal, especially when there were disagreements among the fathers and contradictions between tradition and Scripture, Scripture was to be the supreme authority, the final voice, the norming norm.

Catholics and Orthodox respond with the charge that Sola Scriptura only ever leads to chaos. But this is a bit like making the argument that free thinking only ever leads to regression and confusion. OK then, shall we bind our minds to what we know is a smaller error in the name of not allowing a greater one? Sure, in a sinful world some confusion is inevitable because sinners sin, but this free thinking has produced a remarkable degree of unity among those that have stayed confessionally Reformed.

Sola Scriptura may mean that Reformed churches will disagree at points, but one only needs to read the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort (Continental Reformed), Westminster Confession (Presbyterian), Augsburg Confession (Lutheran) 39 Articles (Anglican), Savoy Declaration (Congregationalist), London Baptist Confession and the other great confessions to recognise that there is much agreement to be found. I personally enjoy much fellowship with ministers of other traditions who have stayed confessionally Reformed when I attend to the biennial Banner of Truth conference.

On a related point, Catholics and Orthodox believe that Protestants have a poor understanding of church history, and if the Reformers knew anything much about the church fathers they would never have separated from the church.

Any serious study of church history would put that notion to bed. Calvin’s Institutes are replete with hundreds of quotations from the church fathers (Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Jerome, Athanasius to name a few). In fact, Calvin’s encyclopaedic knowledge of the fathers put to open shame the level of knowledge held by Catholic theologians.

Furthermore, the Reformers of the sixteenth century repeatedly sought to engage the Catholic church in dialogue in the hope that Rome would see and repent from her errors. What they found in the end was that it was not they who were the separatists, but Rome.

On another related point, those who turn to Catholicism or Orthodoxy do so mostly because they are anxious about joining the one “true” church … with the only options being the institutions of Rome or the Orthodox Churches because they have been there since the beginning.

I find the words of the Westminster Confession chapter 25 to be helpful here:

This catholic (i.e. universal) Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.

This reminds us that catholicity and orthodoxy are not to be found in institutionalism. Institutions will always fail as they are made up of sinners. Catholicity and orthodoxy are spiritual qualities that come to visible realisation here-and-there throughout history, as God wills by his Holy Spirit. There is a great danger is trying to find in in any single human institution something that God has not promised.

2. Sacred Tradition is not only wrong it is dangerous

Let’s again come back to the fact that the whole point of the Reformation was to try and return the church to its true catholic and orthodox roots. What should be considered true doctrine and practice? What did the apostles really want to pass down?

A key question arises: what should we do when a close study of history reveals that a tradition has come up with little Scriptural support?

Catholics and Orthodox appeal to the notion of Sacred Tradition: that is, that tradition in itself is sacred. Tradition and Scripture cannot be separated from one another, because they both arise, as it were, from one fountainhead of Sacredness that keeps the church from error.

This is a very serious error. To claim that the Holy Spirit keeps the church from error, i.e. makes her infallible (whether through the pope or church councils) is really to elevate the church and her decisions above Holy Scripture, in a way that is not Scriptural.

Catholics and Orthodox will reply to this and appeal to verses such as 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6 where Paul commends the churches for adhering to the traditions that were added down by him. But one can easily see that is not a case for every tradition of the church to be held onto, but only the traditions that should be considered apostolic.

Further appeal will be made to the church fathers and how they defended the church from heresy using the principle of “regula fidei” (the rule of faith) that guarded the church from beliefs that deviated from faith as taught and passed down through the church.

One can easily see that this is of course fine for maintaining orthodoxy where the prevailing doctrine and practice is still pure (because you are not very distant from the apostles) but what happens when hundreds of years have passed and beliefs and practices have crept in in the guise of being authoritative and with the appearance of antiquity?

When this occurs, principles such as Sacred Tradition no longer become an asset but rather a liability. Tradition being considered sacred means it is cordoned off from what can be questioned.

Think about this: both the Orthodox and Catholic churches have traditions that disagree with one another e.g. the degree to which they venerate Mary. What are they to do? They cannot reconcile because by very definition their own traditions are “sacred” so the other must be incorrect. Reconciliation with the other “incorrect” tradition is impossible.

At least with the Reformed commitment to Sola Scriptura, we have the freedom of adopting or rejecting a tradition depending on scriptural warrant. Catholics and Orthodox do not have this freedom. Their consciences are bound to something outside Scripture. They need to come to the very unscriptural conclusion that just because things happened in church history, that that must have been approved by God.

Now that takes me to the most dangerous aspect in all this. Catholicism and Orthodoxy, in my estimation, obscure the way of salvation because of the role of tradition.

Don’t get me wrong: there are undoubtedly saved Catholics and saved Orthodox. But for me, they are saved despite their traditions rather than because of them.

I’ve met many Catholics or Orthodox who lack a basic understanding of the gospel precisely because of what happens within their worship service. Because of the church’s commitment to Sacred Tradition this means that the eucharist is the climax of worship and what is stressed is mystery (as opposed to clarity) by means of symbol and ceremony. The result is that people are unclear about what is necessary for salvation and people are just as likely to hold on to superstitious beliefs e.g. they are safe from hell because of their faithful attendance at the Eucharist.

This is in marked contrast to Reformed churches. It was the Reformation that brought back the emphasis on the preached word in worship, and with it the clarity of the gospel, the importance of the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone, and thus our utter need for Christ and dependent faith in him.

Not all Catholics and Orthodox are confused or unsaved, and Reformed churches have not always provided biblical clarity in their worship services. If you’re a Protestant reading this, and you’re not being provided clarity about what the Bible teaches in your own church – you should go find one that is! But the fact that so many Catholics and Orthodox lack even a basic grasp of what is of primary importance in the faith points to something very seriously wrong with Catholic and Orthodox doctrine and practice.

As I get older, the more I come back to the big questions: what does God require of me? Where has God truly spoken? I know with each passing day that I am nearing the judgement seat of Christ. This leads me to hold on tighter to the things that can be trusted in. The Reformers have done me a great favour by pointing me back to the finality and trustworthiness of the word. Catholicism and Orthodoxy, on the other hand, point back to themselves … and does not seem like safety to me.

Further reading

– Bryan Kim