Authority. Protestantism often encourages a church-shopping mindset, and one thing that converts are seeking is escape from life as one vast intellectual choose-your-own-adventure novel.
I was raised as an atheist, sometimes going to UU church, and converted to Catholicism two years ago at the age of 48. McCardle is correct. Your choices as a (white) Protestant in the U.S. are basically (1) evangelical churches that have mostly become very political Trump supporters, or (2) "mainline" churches that are mostly liberal and about social activism. I appreciate what liberal churches are doing - many of my loved ones are liberal Christians and I love them dearly - but it's not what I want. I don't go to church for politics, I don't want to know the politics of people at church, I don't want to go to another place every week that is like Facebook. I don't want to think about leaving a church because they got a new pastor and he's a Republican, or she's a Marxist. I don't want to go to a church where the religion part is just a metaphor we use to help us be social justice warriors.
Catholicism has a nice intellectual tradition that I appreciate, but mostly I just fell in love with it. But I like not shopping. I don't know if my priest is liberal or conservative (if he even fits on that axis; he's not a citizen here anyway). We do God stuff at church. It's very literal. Obviously there are some political issues that the Catholic Church has positions on (like abortion or immigration) but they cut both ways and are not 100% aligned with one party or the other. And everywhere I go, there's a church I can go to that is like my home parish. And there's just one ideology so even though I am not fully aligned with every part of it, I don't need to shop around about it.
This was a big thing in Heavens To Betsy, one of the Betsy-Tacy books set around 1900. Betsy's older sister, who was gifted musically, was expected to choose her preferred branch of Protestantism when she came of age. I think Betsy's parents were Baptist, but they sang, danced, played cards and drank alcohol, so I'm not sure exactly how Baptist they were. Betsy's older sister chose a branch that incorporated music in its services as music was her gift from God.
Church shopping is not a new thing in Protestantism. Those stories were set around the start of the 20th century. In one book, Betsy's father buys a motor-car, and, in another, Betsy works on an essay about the recently annexed Phillipines. I got the impression that Protestantism in all its forms was seen as the background, and, so, nearly invisible. I don't remember any Catholic or Jewish characters in those books. The only religious oddball was a lone atheist who was proud, as a matter of civic pride, that his small town finally had its own church.
That form of Protestantism is a lot like Judaism. All Jews agree on the god count, but it diverges from there. I can understand the lure of a totalitarian, centralized religion, one that presents no choices but simply requires submission.Sometimes the menu is overwhelming, and the table d'hote beckons. Of course, accepting such a religion is yet another choice.
Is it the case that atheists are more likely to be secular-Protestant than anything else and so the successful absorption of Protestantism into mainstream culture makes it less marginally appealing to converts?
But shouldn't Protestantism's similarities to culture make it *more* appealing in lots of ways? Convert to Protestantism and keep many of your baseline assumptions about the world, or convert to Catholicism and believe in strange things like transubstantiation, confession, prayers to Mary?
If you are already believing in the divinity of Jesus and the authority of scripture, transubstantiation isn't much of an ask at all. Jesus did say some things to that effect, most reckon.
Anyone who is OK with quantum superposition ought to be able to handle transubstantiation. [No they are NOT the same thing and the former does not "explain" the latter.]
I understand what you are getting at in that they are similarly "weird" claims. However, we should not target "OKness of claims" but "OKness of reasons." The inductive process by which one arrives at these claims is totally different. Superposition goes through a series of experiments that seem to contradict our "common sense physics", and the conclusion of that chain of induction we call quantum superposition.
The transubstantiation claim comes from a particular reading of Gospels and commentary of early church leaders which leads to that philosophical conclusion which catholics call transubstantiation (which also contradicts "common sense physics"). There is a key inductive difference. The type of evidence in these two cases are not isomorphic. One is repeatable experiment, the other is textual induction from a range of authorities.
However, in another way there is isomorphism.
If you take standard Christian theology evidence standards and apply them to the eucharist, you are likely to arrive at transubstantiation or some Lutherany or Anglicanny variant. If you take standard physics evidence standards you will arrive at QS and one of its interpretations.
I think you are right it is a mystery to me the way religion is so lumpy... You might expect with the diffusion of ideas and populations for there to be a smooth curve from the mainstream to far out religious practices, and every person could find their spot somewhere on that continuum... Instead the network effects and local attractors are very strong, making the landscape lumpy.
None of these things are strange to Christians living in 200AD. And so even if they are strange today, for most of Christian history they were not strange at all. And I think that is part of the appeal. Connecting to some mode of Christian faith that is historically normal, perennial even, and you expect to go on with or without you. Whereas if you are part of a protestant church it is usually a more particular take on Christianity that seems more historically contingent.
I think you're on the right track here. People are looking for a change, especially intellectuals looking for novel stimulation, and I think this goes doubly so for public intellectuals also looking to burnish their image and make their branding more distinct, even if they won't admit that in public or even to themselves.
That said, I might lean in an especially cynical direction here since any time I've come close to officially joining any religion, but especially Catholicism, I've found myself more and more devoid of any genuine religious belief. But still I don't think the novelty factor should be overlooked.
I was secular for a long time, reverted to Catholicism.
Whenever I looked into Protestant sects, I couldn’t get over the fact that each one of them was just sort of… “invented.” Like, a guy came up with it in every case. Often for very cynical reasons (most famously, like wanting to divorce your wife). So if I were to veer into the world of Protestantism, I’d have to “go shopping.” Which one to choose? How to determine which is true? And how to square my selection of one over the other with 1 Corinthians 1:10? It all seemed to me like a bizarre cultural phenomenon more than anything religious.
I feel similarly about Orthodoxy, too. Copts? Ethiopians? Serbs? Russians? No telling why I would pick one over the other. And it seems fairly clear to see that we are to be as unified in Christ as possible — Catholicism does the absolute best of that of any expression of the Christian faith.
I am a convert to orthodoxy, was an atheist (frankly anti theist) for most of my life and when i got caught by Christ- like a fish in a net-- not for a moment did I consider Protestantism and thought of Catholicism for a hot minute before deciding that the eastern orthodox church was the right choice, in fact the only choice.
I think that for intellectuals and anyone intelligent in general- when they read the history of Christianity (which an intellectual will probably do when coming to Christ) will conclude that the sacramental and traditional churches are truer to real organic Christianity and that much of Protestantism in ahistorical and false.
Catholicism has a lot going for it- it is ancient and sacramental, and I feel nothing but respect for Catholics but in my opinion contemporary Catholicism is too compromised, too modern and that the current pope is a living argument against Catholicism. that is in addition to doctrinal issues that I believe the orthodox have correct and the RC is in error about.
besides knowing Christian history another factor for intellectuals going toward sacramental churches is that they have more rigor (i abstain from animal products for a third of the year as the church asks), Protestantism asks little from its adherents and often is just a set of propositions one adheres too, in my church Christianity is lived it is something you do and not merely something you believe, perhaps intellectuals do not want to live in their heads all the time, getting on your knees and putting your forehead to the floor can be a powerful antidote to passive intellectual navel-gazing.
I invite anyone interested in Christianity as an adherent or merely curious to come to an orthodox service- the protestants have a lot of truth and none of the beauty, Catholicism has even more truth and much beauty- eastern orthodoxy has all the truth and all the beauty.
truth and beauty are what the current culture needs.
I didn't really make a distinction between different parts of Protestantism, but healthy Reformed churches do expect spiritual change on the part of their adherents. Calvin: 'It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone'. Obviously many ignore this
Amen! I said something similar above about my (planned) conversion to Orthodoxy, but you've put it in much more eloquent terms than myself. The Orthodox Church has beauty, strong cultural roots, and overall the best historical case for being the true church as far as I can tell.
I've been to a couple of Orthodox services, one Greek, one Russian. I gather there are others what with the Ukraine in the news. Since I don't speak Greek or Russian, I could only pick up so much. Are they basically the same but in different languages? Which did you choose?
OCA - I live in the USA and attend an OCA church (Orthodox church in america) I've been to Antiochian churches and several Greek as well, and while there were some Greek and Arabic elements in both services, they were 90% in English. the OCA has Russian roots but is quite American. I know that it is certainly different in Europe- I live in the northeast and i while orthodox churches are not as common as protestant and catholic, they are certainly not rare. in other parts of the US people drive one to two hours to attend an orthodox church.
i wish you well-.
(bty- they are basically the same liturgy- but for me the differences are often wonderful.
I think there's still a certain vogue for high Anglicanism among conservative intellectual converts to Christianity in England, for reasons ultimately connected with its establishment in (a) the State and (b) the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Depending on your point of view that might or might not constitute conversion to Protestantism…
Atheism. Maybe I shouldn't have said "converted" but I was super strict about it instead of a passive sort of atheist so it is kind of fitting. What are your stories of finding God @Fergus and @Daniel?
"Converted" definitely does make sense in that case!
I was raised in a Catholic home in Ireland (mass most weekends, a family member was a priest, I was an alter server as a child, etc). Religion just faded from my life over time -- it's not something I think about often and I just tend to ignore any and all labels associated with it now. I have no doubt that aspects of Catholicism/Christianity are deeply rooted in my life given my upbringing but otherwise I just have little interest in it. Also, seeing how much crap religion has caused (growing up at the tail-end of the Troubles and the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals), I personally struggle to view religion as something other than dividing and interfering.
I understand that religion serves a meaningful purpose for many people and have no issues with that at all; I'll never be the one to try push someone in one direction or the other. What sparked your atheism to Protestantism conversion?
Very perceptive. I think Protestantism doesn’t draw intellectuals is because it is unrealistic. You rightly see the deficit in sensuality and in the culture. Protestantism to me is a lot like communism, completely devoid of joy. There is a joy in being human. The dignity in humanity is a cause and reason for joy. The freedom of realistic expression is also a Catholic strength. Aquinas has the key: Faith builds up on nature. Protestantism tries to do away with nature; it is actually Manichaeism. The constant repetition of things like “only faith, only grace, only scripture” is terribly tedious. What about normal happenings. What about Art? What about culinary delights? God does not want us to be miserable and reduced to a mantra. Was it St. Irenaeus who said : “ the glory of God, is man fully alive”? This is true. Catholic Culture is a Bavarian Beerfest. Protestant Culture is a Prussian military platoon
I initially wrote out a whole line by line response to this, but I think things can be summed up this way:
None of what you said about Protestants or Protestant churches is even remotely true, and most of it is comically false. Before you make more claims that are as unfounded as these, please visit a Protestant church.
Sorry I grew up with Protestants, went to a Protestant school, attended the church services and prayer services daily for 20 years. And then you look at the Protestant cultures around the world 🥱
What I wrote there made a lot of sense : “ And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward “Mt 10:42
You’re either lying or you have the least representative sample of all time. I’ll assume it’s the latter.
Protestant churches do not make people chant the five solas, nor do they repeat them, nor does “saved through faith alone” mean you can’t eat good food.
Protestants are, on average, vastly less strict and structured, making all your comments utterly bizarre.
No Caleb , I know exactly what I’m talking about. Saved by faith alone means there is nothing I can do to influence my fate. It is a fait accompli ( excuse the pun) Therefore everything we do loses any deeper meaning. We just go on living but it makes no difference. In Catholicism however , saved through faith and good works, our works take on a redemptive quality. We can do things with love and enthusiasm, for the love of God and our fellow man and these deeds will not be lost but rather help us on our way to heaven . That is why Catholic culture is much more beautiful than the protest culture
A cradle Catholic; fell away from the Church (and far too much else) when in college. Decided (as many of a certain age do) that a god with whom I wanted any part of would not permit the world as it was. Won't bore you with my discovery of God, but I perceived Catholicism as Christianity with training wheels. Glossing over a lifetime of revelation, I've learned that churches are of men, and that the respected denominations of my youth have, since at least the '60s, executed a dive to a sort of lowest common denominator of being all things to all people. The result has been a lot of moldering edifices that have become not much of anything to anybody. (And the Catholic Church, at least at the Vatican level, is struggling to follow in those footsteps; but that's another story.) "Interpret" scripture? It's pretty clear. I tend toward churches that offer decent music (I'm a choral tenor, that rarest of beasts), intellectually supportable preaching, a minimum of wokeist weirdness (and/or other clear departures from scripture), and (as long as I have children in any way under my wing) a decent Christian Education program. I can well understand a seeker walking into many protestant churches and being unsure what they're about. (Although doing its best to debauch it) the Catholic Church at least maintains a recognizable brand.
(Not sure that's what you were wondering; my best guess.)
As a Catholic convert from the new age/pagan, I felt that Catholicism was the truest expression of the faith. The Mass changed my heart immediately, there is a depth of theology and tradition that constantly affirms my love of Jesus and the Holy Family. I didn’t want to be pandered to, I wanted the truth and the consistent dogma of the Church felt and still feels like solid ground, unlike the many Protestant denominations I’ve encountered. I agree that aesthetics and beauty is an essential evangelical tool and many denominations could do with avoiding warehouses as Churches.
Coming very late to this article but one possibility not considered here is that they’re embracing Catholicism because they think that it’s true. Which I would argue is an important possibility.
I converted to Protestant after spending 12 years agnostic. Before that, I was multi-generational Mormon. My ancestors helped found the Mormon church--an ancestor worked closely with Brigham Young and as a nurse/midwife/surgeon, she saved the life of the John Taylor, the third LDS President who was shot in jail alongside Joseph Smith. I chose Episcopalian though I mostly now attend a non-denom evangelical church with Anglican roots. I disagree on the iconography totally lacking in Protestant--Episcopalian musical and architecture is gorgeous and the church I was baptized in--St. Thomas on Fifth Ave.--has all the "smells and bells" you could want--very high church. I chose Protestant b/c I don't believe in papal infallibility, praying to Mary/Saints or Transubstantiation. The Solas of Martin Luther rang true for me. I was heavily influenced by Tim Keller and did attend his Redeemer church and some affiliated Bible study groups. I do agree the broader Protestant movement should be more infused with intellectual inquiry--but if you do want it, you'll absolutely be able to find it. I got baptized in part after studying metaphysics and realized it 100% it takes more faith to be an atheist than believer in a Creator. Dr. Michael Guillen is a Protestant with 3 science Phds from Cornell and is a former Harvard physics professor and former atheist. His ministry Science + God explains how science + God are fully compatible: https://michaelguillen.com/ I'm a Harvard grad and involved with Harvard Christian Alumni Society, whose membership spans Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox, but I'd say it leans Protestant in practice. Christian Union is an Ivy League-wide group that spans the 3 major Christian branches also but its leadership is basically Protestant.
I was in Christian Union at Yale! The leadership is heavily charismatic. It definitely influenced how charismatic I became in college. I was a skeptic on speaking in tongues and deliverance, but definitely shifted in that stance because of CU.
Agree, but there is lots of scaffolding and hierarchy in some parts of Protestantism! So perhaps there are other reasons why those parts get overlooked.
I'd like to start by apologising for commenting on an old article. It came across my feed, and after reading it and all the comments, I feel it is my obligation to add one other factor that is partially covered in your article by you section on secularism and politics.
For context, I was raised as an atheist in the UK to native Brits, and converted to Catholicism at the age of 22 after attending a protestant church briefly.
As Dave Greene has commented, modern-day progressivism or liberalism is a protestant heresy. In the history of the Church, when a heresy/rival doctrinal belief becomes predominant, it hollows out and replaces the original church, as seen briefly with Arianism and with the First and Second Byzantine Iconoclast periods. Liberalism has so thoroughly hollowed out the protestant churches I visited in the UK, it offered nothing except the currently dominant ideology of the world.
It's not arguments, but the 'vibe', that initially draws people to a sect/church. If I was seeking transcendental truth, and the church I attended was offering worldly platitudes based on a paradigm that has now failed in the West, how could I believe that said church could elevate my soul to the transcendental? This is why I was drawn to Catholicism and Orthodoxy instead.
Catholicism has an astoundingly rich tradition of uniting philosophy, theology, history and other disciplines. What emerges is a integrated and coherent understanding of reality. Once one begins to study, the richness and wholeness of Catholic teaching is mesmerizing. Protestants are just getting around to working out philosophical and ethical questions which Catholics figured out centuries ago. This is why intellectuals go Catholic. It's all already there.
As an American Protestant, I think your three factors hit on something I see frequently among peers and intellectuals. Mark Noll's 1994 book on "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" continues to be relevant. I also think two of the big appeals of Catholicism to intellectuals are:
1) There is something to the sense that the Catholic church, by virtue of being old, has a stability and sense that it has stood the test of time that many Evangelical protestant church, by virtue of the entrepreneurial nature of those churches, have not. Intellectuals often distrust things that feel like a marketplace with alot of sale pitches and gimmicky innovations, but I think this is especially in their faith - where they probably feel social stigma for diverging from the secular baseline that many of their peers adhere to
2) I think the Catholic reservoir of teaching specifically on social teaching and culture is appealing. As someone with strong reformed/Presbyterian roots, I would be remiss to say that this exists within protestantism, but the majority of churches in evangelical Protestantism have much more of a folk approach to social and political issues, that is much more easily captured by entrepreneurial political figures (see the rise of a certain entrepreneurial political figure's status among American evangelicals between 2015 and the present)
Because Protestant denominations are heresy and the whole thing defines itself by what it is not: a Protestant Baptist has nothing in common with a Lutheran in anything but they know damn well they aren’t Catholic and condemn Catholicism.
That’s all Protestantism amounts to: a denial of tradition and by extension its most extreme form is an anti religion that denies Christianity itself(secular progressivism)
Authority. Protestantism often encourages a church-shopping mindset, and one thing that converts are seeking is escape from life as one vast intellectual choose-your-own-adventure novel.
Yeah, church shopping is much less prevalent in the UK, and that's often a good thing.
I was raised as an atheist, sometimes going to UU church, and converted to Catholicism two years ago at the age of 48. McCardle is correct. Your choices as a (white) Protestant in the U.S. are basically (1) evangelical churches that have mostly become very political Trump supporters, or (2) "mainline" churches that are mostly liberal and about social activism. I appreciate what liberal churches are doing - many of my loved ones are liberal Christians and I love them dearly - but it's not what I want. I don't go to church for politics, I don't want to know the politics of people at church, I don't want to go to another place every week that is like Facebook. I don't want to think about leaving a church because they got a new pastor and he's a Republican, or she's a Marxist. I don't want to go to a church where the religion part is just a metaphor we use to help us be social justice warriors.
Catholicism has a nice intellectual tradition that I appreciate, but mostly I just fell in love with it. But I like not shopping. I don't know if my priest is liberal or conservative (if he even fits on that axis; he's not a citizen here anyway). We do God stuff at church. It's very literal. Obviously there are some political issues that the Catholic Church has positions on (like abortion or immigration) but they cut both ways and are not 100% aligned with one party or the other. And everywhere I go, there's a church I can go to that is like my home parish. And there's just one ideology so even though I am not fully aligned with every part of it, I don't need to shop around about it.
This was a big thing in Heavens To Betsy, one of the Betsy-Tacy books set around 1900. Betsy's older sister, who was gifted musically, was expected to choose her preferred branch of Protestantism when she came of age. I think Betsy's parents were Baptist, but they sang, danced, played cards and drank alcohol, so I'm not sure exactly how Baptist they were. Betsy's older sister chose a branch that incorporated music in its services as music was her gift from God.
Church shopping is not a new thing in Protestantism. Those stories were set around the start of the 20th century. In one book, Betsy's father buys a motor-car, and, in another, Betsy works on an essay about the recently annexed Phillipines. I got the impression that Protestantism in all its forms was seen as the background, and, so, nearly invisible. I don't remember any Catholic or Jewish characters in those books. The only religious oddball was a lone atheist who was proud, as a matter of civic pride, that his small town finally had its own church.
That form of Protestantism is a lot like Judaism. All Jews agree on the god count, but it diverges from there. I can understand the lure of a totalitarian, centralized religion, one that presents no choices but simply requires submission.Sometimes the menu is overwhelming, and the table d'hote beckons. Of course, accepting such a religion is yet another choice.
Is it the case that atheists are more likely to be secular-Protestant than anything else and so the successful absorption of Protestantism into mainstream culture makes it less marginally appealing to converts?
But shouldn't Protestantism's similarities to culture make it *more* appealing in lots of ways? Convert to Protestantism and keep many of your baseline assumptions about the world, or convert to Catholicism and believe in strange things like transubstantiation, confession, prayers to Mary?
Why convert if not to change?
If you are already believing in the divinity of Jesus and the authority of scripture, transubstantiation isn't much of an ask at all. Jesus did say some things to that effect, most reckon.
Anyone who is OK with quantum superposition ought to be able to handle transubstantiation. [No they are NOT the same thing and the former does not "explain" the latter.]
I understand what you are getting at in that they are similarly "weird" claims. However, we should not target "OKness of claims" but "OKness of reasons." The inductive process by which one arrives at these claims is totally different. Superposition goes through a series of experiments that seem to contradict our "common sense physics", and the conclusion of that chain of induction we call quantum superposition.
The transubstantiation claim comes from a particular reading of Gospels and commentary of early church leaders which leads to that philosophical conclusion which catholics call transubstantiation (which also contradicts "common sense physics"). There is a key inductive difference. The type of evidence in these two cases are not isomorphic. One is repeatable experiment, the other is textual induction from a range of authorities.
However, in another way there is isomorphism.
If you take standard Christian theology evidence standards and apply them to the eucharist, you are likely to arrive at transubstantiation or some Lutherany or Anglicanny variant. If you take standard physics evidence standards you will arrive at QS and one of its interpretations.
I think you are right it is a mystery to me the way religion is so lumpy... You might expect with the diffusion of ideas and populations for there to be a smooth curve from the mainstream to far out religious practices, and every person could find their spot somewhere on that continuum... Instead the network effects and local attractors are very strong, making the landscape lumpy.
None of these things are strange to Christians living in 200AD. And so even if they are strange today, for most of Christian history they were not strange at all. And I think that is part of the appeal. Connecting to some mode of Christian faith that is historically normal, perennial even, and you expect to go on with or without you. Whereas if you are part of a protestant church it is usually a more particular take on Christianity that seems more historically contingent.
I think you're on the right track here. People are looking for a change, especially intellectuals looking for novel stimulation, and I think this goes doubly so for public intellectuals also looking to burnish their image and make their branding more distinct, even if they won't admit that in public or even to themselves.
That said, I might lean in an especially cynical direction here since any time I've come close to officially joining any religion, but especially Catholicism, I've found myself more and more devoid of any genuine religious belief. But still I don't think the novelty factor should be overlooked.
I was secular for a long time, reverted to Catholicism.
Whenever I looked into Protestant sects, I couldn’t get over the fact that each one of them was just sort of… “invented.” Like, a guy came up with it in every case. Often for very cynical reasons (most famously, like wanting to divorce your wife). So if I were to veer into the world of Protestantism, I’d have to “go shopping.” Which one to choose? How to determine which is true? And how to square my selection of one over the other with 1 Corinthians 1:10? It all seemed to me like a bizarre cultural phenomenon more than anything religious.
I feel similarly about Orthodoxy, too. Copts? Ethiopians? Serbs? Russians? No telling why I would pick one over the other. And it seems fairly clear to see that we are to be as unified in Christ as possible — Catholicism does the absolute best of that of any expression of the Christian faith.
I am a convert to orthodoxy, was an atheist (frankly anti theist) for most of my life and when i got caught by Christ- like a fish in a net-- not for a moment did I consider Protestantism and thought of Catholicism for a hot minute before deciding that the eastern orthodox church was the right choice, in fact the only choice.
I think that for intellectuals and anyone intelligent in general- when they read the history of Christianity (which an intellectual will probably do when coming to Christ) will conclude that the sacramental and traditional churches are truer to real organic Christianity and that much of Protestantism in ahistorical and false.
Catholicism has a lot going for it- it is ancient and sacramental, and I feel nothing but respect for Catholics but in my opinion contemporary Catholicism is too compromised, too modern and that the current pope is a living argument against Catholicism. that is in addition to doctrinal issues that I believe the orthodox have correct and the RC is in error about.
besides knowing Christian history another factor for intellectuals going toward sacramental churches is that they have more rigor (i abstain from animal products for a third of the year as the church asks), Protestantism asks little from its adherents and often is just a set of propositions one adheres too, in my church Christianity is lived it is something you do and not merely something you believe, perhaps intellectuals do not want to live in their heads all the time, getting on your knees and putting your forehead to the floor can be a powerful antidote to passive intellectual navel-gazing.
I invite anyone interested in Christianity as an adherent or merely curious to come to an orthodox service- the protestants have a lot of truth and none of the beauty, Catholicism has even more truth and much beauty- eastern orthodoxy has all the truth and all the beauty.
truth and beauty are what the current culture needs.
I didn't really make a distinction between different parts of Protestantism, but healthy Reformed churches do expect spiritual change on the part of their adherents. Calvin: 'It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone'. Obviously many ignore this
Amen! I said something similar above about my (planned) conversion to Orthodoxy, but you've put it in much more eloquent terms than myself. The Orthodox Church has beauty, strong cultural roots, and overall the best historical case for being the true church as far as I can tell.
I've been to a couple of Orthodox services, one Greek, one Russian. I gather there are others what with the Ukraine in the news. Since I don't speak Greek or Russian, I could only pick up so much. Are they basically the same but in different languages? Which did you choose?
OCA - I live in the USA and attend an OCA church (Orthodox church in america) I've been to Antiochian churches and several Greek as well, and while there were some Greek and Arabic elements in both services, they were 90% in English. the OCA has Russian roots but is quite American. I know that it is certainly different in Europe- I live in the northeast and i while orthodox churches are not as common as protestant and catholic, they are certainly not rare. in other parts of the US people drive one to two hours to attend an orthodox church.
i wish you well-.
(bty- they are basically the same liturgy- but for me the differences are often wonderful.
I'll give you the filoque, but the culture never attracted me.
I think there's still a certain vogue for high Anglicanism among conservative intellectual converts to Christianity in England, for reasons ultimately connected with its establishment in (a) the State and (b) the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Depending on your point of view that might or might not constitute conversion to Protestantism…
I converted to Protestantism at age 30 (I became Presbyterian, specifically) so was especially glad to read this. Great post Fergus!
Thanks Alexander, that's great to hear!
What did you convert from, Alexander, if you're open to sharing?
Atheism. Maybe I shouldn't have said "converted" but I was super strict about it instead of a passive sort of atheist so it is kind of fitting. What are your stories of finding God @Fergus and @Daniel?
"Converted" definitely does make sense in that case!
I was raised in a Catholic home in Ireland (mass most weekends, a family member was a priest, I was an alter server as a child, etc). Religion just faded from my life over time -- it's not something I think about often and I just tend to ignore any and all labels associated with it now. I have no doubt that aspects of Catholicism/Christianity are deeply rooted in my life given my upbringing but otherwise I just have little interest in it. Also, seeing how much crap religion has caused (growing up at the tail-end of the Troubles and the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals), I personally struggle to view religion as something other than dividing and interfering.
I understand that religion serves a meaningful purpose for many people and have no issues with that at all; I'll never be the one to try push someone in one direction or the other. What sparked your atheism to Protestantism conversion?
Very perceptive. I think Protestantism doesn’t draw intellectuals is because it is unrealistic. You rightly see the deficit in sensuality and in the culture. Protestantism to me is a lot like communism, completely devoid of joy. There is a joy in being human. The dignity in humanity is a cause and reason for joy. The freedom of realistic expression is also a Catholic strength. Aquinas has the key: Faith builds up on nature. Protestantism tries to do away with nature; it is actually Manichaeism. The constant repetition of things like “only faith, only grace, only scripture” is terribly tedious. What about normal happenings. What about Art? What about culinary delights? God does not want us to be miserable and reduced to a mantra. Was it St. Irenaeus who said : “ the glory of God, is man fully alive”? This is true. Catholic Culture is a Bavarian Beerfest. Protestant Culture is a Prussian military platoon
I initially wrote out a whole line by line response to this, but I think things can be summed up this way:
None of what you said about Protestants or Protestant churches is even remotely true, and most of it is comically false. Before you make more claims that are as unfounded as these, please visit a Protestant church.
Sorry I grew up with Protestants, went to a Protestant school, attended the church services and prayer services daily for 20 years. And then you look at the Protestant cultures around the world 🥱
What I wrote there made a lot of sense : “ And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward “Mt 10:42
You’re either lying or you have the least representative sample of all time. I’ll assume it’s the latter.
Protestant churches do not make people chant the five solas, nor do they repeat them, nor does “saved through faith alone” mean you can’t eat good food.
Protestants are, on average, vastly less strict and structured, making all your comments utterly bizarre.
No Caleb , I know exactly what I’m talking about. Saved by faith alone means there is nothing I can do to influence my fate. It is a fait accompli ( excuse the pun) Therefore everything we do loses any deeper meaning. We just go on living but it makes no difference. In Catholicism however , saved through faith and good works, our works take on a redemptive quality. We can do things with love and enthusiasm, for the love of God and our fellow man and these deeds will not be lost but rather help us on our way to heaven . That is why Catholic culture is much more beautiful than the protest culture
In other words, you prefer Catholicism because it tells you you save yourself. That sounds like an issue with Catholicism, not a bonus.
🤣
I’m not alone in my assessment: watch this link
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-4IletJ7-Tw
A cradle Catholic; fell away from the Church (and far too much else) when in college. Decided (as many of a certain age do) that a god with whom I wanted any part of would not permit the world as it was. Won't bore you with my discovery of God, but I perceived Catholicism as Christianity with training wheels. Glossing over a lifetime of revelation, I've learned that churches are of men, and that the respected denominations of my youth have, since at least the '60s, executed a dive to a sort of lowest common denominator of being all things to all people. The result has been a lot of moldering edifices that have become not much of anything to anybody. (And the Catholic Church, at least at the Vatican level, is struggling to follow in those footsteps; but that's another story.) "Interpret" scripture? It's pretty clear. I tend toward churches that offer decent music (I'm a choral tenor, that rarest of beasts), intellectually supportable preaching, a minimum of wokeist weirdness (and/or other clear departures from scripture), and (as long as I have children in any way under my wing) a decent Christian Education program. I can well understand a seeker walking into many protestant churches and being unsure what they're about. (Although doing its best to debauch it) the Catholic Church at least maintains a recognizable brand.
(Not sure that's what you were wondering; my best guess.)
No conversion story is boring!
As a Catholic convert from the new age/pagan, I felt that Catholicism was the truest expression of the faith. The Mass changed my heart immediately, there is a depth of theology and tradition that constantly affirms my love of Jesus and the Holy Family. I didn’t want to be pandered to, I wanted the truth and the consistent dogma of the Church felt and still feels like solid ground, unlike the many Protestant denominations I’ve encountered. I agree that aesthetics and beauty is an essential evangelical tool and many denominations could do with avoiding warehouses as Churches.
Coming very late to this article but one possibility not considered here is that they’re embracing Catholicism because they think that it’s true. Which I would argue is an important possibility.
I converted to Protestant after spending 12 years agnostic. Before that, I was multi-generational Mormon. My ancestors helped found the Mormon church--an ancestor worked closely with Brigham Young and as a nurse/midwife/surgeon, she saved the life of the John Taylor, the third LDS President who was shot in jail alongside Joseph Smith. I chose Episcopalian though I mostly now attend a non-denom evangelical church with Anglican roots. I disagree on the iconography totally lacking in Protestant--Episcopalian musical and architecture is gorgeous and the church I was baptized in--St. Thomas on Fifth Ave.--has all the "smells and bells" you could want--very high church. I chose Protestant b/c I don't believe in papal infallibility, praying to Mary/Saints or Transubstantiation. The Solas of Martin Luther rang true for me. I was heavily influenced by Tim Keller and did attend his Redeemer church and some affiliated Bible study groups. I do agree the broader Protestant movement should be more infused with intellectual inquiry--but if you do want it, you'll absolutely be able to find it. I got baptized in part after studying metaphysics and realized it 100% it takes more faith to be an atheist than believer in a Creator. Dr. Michael Guillen is a Protestant with 3 science Phds from Cornell and is a former Harvard physics professor and former atheist. His ministry Science + God explains how science + God are fully compatible: https://michaelguillen.com/ I'm a Harvard grad and involved with Harvard Christian Alumni Society, whose membership spans Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox, but I'd say it leans Protestant in practice. Christian Union is an Ivy League-wide group that spans the 3 major Christian branches also but its leadership is basically Protestant.
I was in Christian Union at Yale! The leadership is heavily charismatic. It definitely influenced how charismatic I became in college. I was a skeptic on speaking in tongues and deliverance, but definitely shifted in that stance because of CU.
Intellectuals like scaffolding and hierarchy.
Agree, but there is lots of scaffolding and hierarchy in some parts of Protestantism! So perhaps there are other reasons why those parts get overlooked.
Sir,
I'd like to start by apologising for commenting on an old article. It came across my feed, and after reading it and all the comments, I feel it is my obligation to add one other factor that is partially covered in your article by you section on secularism and politics.
For context, I was raised as an atheist in the UK to native Brits, and converted to Catholicism at the age of 22 after attending a protestant church briefly.
As Dave Greene has commented, modern-day progressivism or liberalism is a protestant heresy. In the history of the Church, when a heresy/rival doctrinal belief becomes predominant, it hollows out and replaces the original church, as seen briefly with Arianism and with the First and Second Byzantine Iconoclast periods. Liberalism has so thoroughly hollowed out the protestant churches I visited in the UK, it offered nothing except the currently dominant ideology of the world.
It's not arguments, but the 'vibe', that initially draws people to a sect/church. If I was seeking transcendental truth, and the church I attended was offering worldly platitudes based on a paradigm that has now failed in the West, how could I believe that said church could elevate my soul to the transcendental? This is why I was drawn to Catholicism and Orthodoxy instead.
Yours sincerely,
Bede
Catholicism has an astoundingly rich tradition of uniting philosophy, theology, history and other disciplines. What emerges is a integrated and coherent understanding of reality. Once one begins to study, the richness and wholeness of Catholic teaching is mesmerizing. Protestants are just getting around to working out philosophical and ethical questions which Catholics figured out centuries ago. This is why intellectuals go Catholic. It's all already there.
As an American Protestant, I think your three factors hit on something I see frequently among peers and intellectuals. Mark Noll's 1994 book on "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind" continues to be relevant. I also think two of the big appeals of Catholicism to intellectuals are:
1) There is something to the sense that the Catholic church, by virtue of being old, has a stability and sense that it has stood the test of time that many Evangelical protestant church, by virtue of the entrepreneurial nature of those churches, have not. Intellectuals often distrust things that feel like a marketplace with alot of sale pitches and gimmicky innovations, but I think this is especially in their faith - where they probably feel social stigma for diverging from the secular baseline that many of their peers adhere to
2) I think the Catholic reservoir of teaching specifically on social teaching and culture is appealing. As someone with strong reformed/Presbyterian roots, I would be remiss to say that this exists within protestantism, but the majority of churches in evangelical Protestantism have much more of a folk approach to social and political issues, that is much more easily captured by entrepreneurial political figures (see the rise of a certain entrepreneurial political figure's status among American evangelicals between 2015 and the present)
Because Protestant denominations are heresy and the whole thing defines itself by what it is not: a Protestant Baptist has nothing in common with a Lutheran in anything but they know damn well they aren’t Catholic and condemn Catholicism.
That’s all Protestantism amounts to: a denial of tradition and by extension its most extreme form is an anti religion that denies Christianity itself(secular progressivism)