Hmm, I've been thinking about this since I read it yesterday, and I understand where you're headed. As a Catholic-curious Protestant, it seems like you may have oversimplified this drive towards certainty. I can only speak for myself, but I think that the idea of a magisterium and pope is as off putting as it is appealing. However, what I see in many converts is not as much a desire for certainty, as a willingness to submit to something larger than them. Having been through several disastrous church contexts at this point, I have no illusions that there is any perfect church. Abuse and people exist in all corners of the church, in all denominations. What I continue to grapple with, is wondering where I might find enough depth so that when the people of the church fail, as they so often will, there is something outside of them to hold fast to. I'm not sure I'm articulating this well -- we're currently members of a confessional Lutheran church, and so one could argue that we have all the aspects of Catholicism that cause people to convert. And yet, I find myself frustrated. And I am truly trying to discern what is causing that frustration. But, if speaking only for myself, I think that to try to reduce it to a need for certainty is to miss much of the point. I actually find that I am much more constricted by the certainty that I have been presented with in many Protestant denominations, that at times has felt like a legalistic chokehold.
It's interesting, because in conversations with family members who left the Catholic church as a child, their account of the legalistic chokehold is almost identical to my upbringing in a Reformed Baptist context. So then, are we grappling with a poor theology of grace in whichever context? And could this swing back and forth be reactionary? Quite possibly. But I don't think it's always reactionary.
In terms of a "structure" or center that will hold, even in crisis- well, you told take a minimalist stance or a maximalist one on this. Minimalist being- where two or three are gathered, maximalist being- a church structure (bureaucracy? hierarchy?) that will sift through the mess. Keeping in mind that it is hierarchies that can also protect evil actors, it is not clear to me that there is a "fix" to the problem of sin within the church.
I think we have structured the church in a way that follows our culture; specifically, in a 'hierarchy' of authority...
There is true 'community' whenever 2 or 3 are gathered 'in the Name of Jesus'; I've experienced 'community' with people who had the unity of mind, heart, s/Spirit and purpose Paul describes (and commands) in Phil 2; but I've seen it lost, several different ways (some horrifically tragic...others-sadly 'by default').
Yes. Love these thoughts Annelise and agree. I can see what’s being said here, but truthfully have found way more of a desire for certainty among Protestants and way more holding of uncertainty in Catholicism. I too appreciate this piece though (and especially the generous, seeking spirit in which it was written). If I have time I’d like to submit a response!
So a good part of my argument was that it is a desire for certainty that sends Protestants toward Rome- indeed this is not to say that *all Catholics* experience such a desire for certainty in exactly this way.
Sure. I was just commenting macro-level on the desire for and feeling of certainty in faith. What I've observed is Protestants desiring certainty, especially around theology, and often feeling they have it; Catholics being more comfortable with mystery, and more focused on their own spiritual life rather than certainty (which seems to manifest as a desire to tell everyone else how wrong they've got it). So to me it doesn't follow that Protestants would convert to Catholicism for the reason you've described.
I am an ex Reformed Baptist who is now Catholic curious and attending Mass most Sundays. I grew up with confessional Protestantism and what attracts me to Catholicism is not certainty. I appreciate that Catholicism actually accommodates many different “streams”, and leaves more space for mysticism and questions than the very doctrine and purity focused Reformed Baptist church I grew up in.
Okay, I’ve finally read this! And I genuinely don’t have a lot of time right now (we’ve got our small town’s annual weekend festival starting in a few hours, plus a bajillion other things on the calendar this weekend!), but I didn’t want this to pass along without at least my $.02. In short…
Thanks for being so gracious and charitable with your thoughts here, and thanks for recognizing my ongoing series as what it is: a story, and not an apologetic treatise. Definitely the memoir genre vs. academic theology!
Second, let me just say that I’ve had your *exact* thoughts relayed here in your essay for the better part of a decade (roughly from when we return from the mission field in Turkey to our move from evangelicalism to Anglicanism). I get your perspective on a personal level, very much.
Because my recent essay is part of an ongoing story told in serial format, I’m definitely not done — which means the stuff mentioned in Part 4 (my latest) isn’t the end of it. The idea of a Catechism wasn’t the main reason I converted. But, all of it really did come down to the idea of authority — meaning, the answer to the question, “Says who?” about every single part of the Christian life (including what goes in the Bible and how to read it as intended), which is what I mean rather tongue-in-cheek by the phrase “I’m not my own pope.” It’s more than just wanting to be told what to do. It really does come down to a conviction about whether Jesus really *did* institute one united Church when he gave Peter the keys, and whether he really did mean for it to be One, Holy, Catholic (meaning united), and Apostolic. I truly, truly believe he did, and this is where my research led me. It wasn’t about whether I *wanted* it to be true. I just came to the conclusion that it… is. I had to follow through with that conviction. And I think, in tandem, that any Protestant who is genuinely convicted that that is not what Jesus meant nor how Jesus set things up should be able to defend their reasons why.
I’m genuinely SO GLAD the Holy Spirit isn’t confined to our earthly human frailties, and that He brings people to Himself in all sorts of ways, both inside and outside the Church. I truly do believe God is at work in all sorts of Protestant movements and that He’s used our own finite, flawed endeavors for His good (Gen. 50:20). I’m very grateful for my decades as a Protestant, and I believe the Church can learn so much from many good Protestant traditions!
With all that in mind, though, I truly don’t believe that, with Jesus’ twin admonishments to his disciplines to 1. Teach truth and 2. Be unified, that he meant for us to follow our own convictions and Scriptural interpretations, wherever they may lead. Otherwise, we’d have to pick one of those two commands and violate the other. Furthermore, if functional man-made institutions are hierarchical — i.e., CEOs of businesses, principals of schools, etc., and if functional God-made institutions are hierarchical — i.e., families, …Wouldn’t it make sense that God would also have his Church, for whom He desires unity above all else in tandem with teaching truth, also best function with a hierarchy? It’s historically never gone well when people follow their own convictions and hope it all goes well and that we all get along, especially when my neighbor’s conviction might be the opposite of mine.
Anyway… These are my thoughts, admittedly somewhat convoluted (I need my next cup of coffee). I hope to unpack them more in the next installment of my story, which I’ll hopefully publish sooner than later (we’ll see… this month is insanely full). Thanks for sharing your perspective, and I’m grateful for our shared sisterhood in Christ!
I tried to be very delicate in my response, but I do think there were some logical errors in your "I don't need to be my own Pope" piece. You rely throughout on your own desire to understand how the pieces fit together- and though you are more comfortable framing this as a need for authority, it is at least twinned with certainty.
In terms of Jesus' "twin admonishments", I do not think the only choices are to have a Pope or "follow your own convictions, wherever they may lead". That's quite a thin view of how interpretation works. And the argument from hierarchy is simply an argument from human observation- your assumption that human collectives work best in a hierarchical frame, applied to the church. I am actually not anti-hierarchy, but this is not a good argument- it is simply taking something that "works" (does it?) in the human realm and assuming that is what God does, too.
Further, you say "any Protestant who is genuinely convicted that that is not what Jesus meant nor how Jesus set things up should be able to defend their reasons why"; which is a strong argument for a form of certainty- in the shape of a defense. It is clear in the framing of your piece that it was such a desire, if not for certainty alone than also for authority, that motivated much of your journey to Rome. My query is regarding how certainty might, or might not, necessarily function in relation to such things.
This provides a fascinating foil to the deconstruction crowd who have left evangelical Protestantism altogether because they feel it insists too much on certainty concerning secondary and tertiary theological issues. Thank you for writing it!
I think that the more chaotic the world becomes, the more people are seeking clarity and a structure based on truth. I write a substack called "It's Funny to be Catholic". I am seeing this trend in our Catholic churches. More and more converts are "coming to Rome". Most years we have only 3 to 7 converts. Last year we had 20. This year we had 32. Definitely many people are searching for the One Tru Church, and are finding it.
You do have some really good readers! The comments your posts elicit are very helpful.
i think the 'certainty' being sought, is meant for us to find, in 'the communion of the saints', which we are meant to cultivate... but it's 'dynamic' and always 'requires care and attention'...
And that's, i think, your point.. at least in part.
As a former Baptist, now-Catholic, what drove my conversion was not a desire for certainty. It was a desire to receive Jesus in a more intimate way and to be a member of his visible body. The Catholic Church has its banal liturgies, just like Protestants have out of tune guitars. If I wanted pure beauty, I would have likely become Orthodox. But I wanted truth most of all, and it lives in Jesus’ Body, the Church.
In response to this: “He does this not by convincing us of what is true but by showing himself faithful,” why can it not be both? Yes, Jesus showed me that He was faithful by putting the right people in my life and leading me to Him always, but part of that journey was reading about Him and about proofs for his existence. God did not “convince me” — that would require an overwhelming of my will — but he gently coaxed me to Him through apologetics.
With that being said, I have known others who have converted without the need of much apologetics. However, if Jesus is Truth, Beauty, and Goodness Itself, we need to have Truth to have Him.
Protestant family members of mine would always wave away my mother and I’s conversion by saying “oh well, maybe you just needed a little more structure.” I think that’s a disingenuous way to look at our desire to fulfill a personal relationship with Jesus.
As a last note, the Catholic Church has not defined everything with certainty. She is very conservative on making sweeping claims when the Bible and Scared Tradition do not support them. For example, did Jesus have step brothers or were they cousins? We don’t know and the Church hasn’t said.
Thanks for responding Kirsten! I totally agree with you, in a spiritual sense. But I wanted to receive Jesus physically and be a part of his physical body. I should have clarified that; thank you for pointing it out.
Interesting! I agree with you, and I had this thought when reading Tsh's article, that the quest for certainty is not a good reason in and of itself to convert. However, conversion to Orthodoxy does not entail the same certainty. In fact, Tsh pointed to this as a reason why she did not choose Orthodoxy. I won't go into too much detail, but that is one of the key differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church has never adopted scholasticism or another purely rational/intellectual approach to theology, in contrast to the Catholic, and later Protestant, West. Rather, the Orthodox Church points to all these theological developments as a departure from the authentic, apostolic tradition, which has always been preserved in the Christian East. I believe that is the main reason, or it should be, which drives Protestants to convert: to reunite with that one, authentic, apostolic tradition which has been lost in the West ever since the Great Schism.
Yes, I agree re the scholasticism of the West. The East, however, takes Tradition as its analogue to Roman Catholic Certainty- both of them, in my mind, taking on more space in the religious frame than they ought.
I had a similar reaction while reading. I really appreciate so much of this article (and actually agree with almost all of it!). But the description of desires for certainty, having a set catechism that tells you what to believe, and being made to go to church don't jive at all with my experience of the Orthodox faith and way of life. If anything, protestantism and Catholicism seem more closely related than Catholicism/Orthodoxy. But I'm definitely no expert. That's just my own experience.
I wrote about how I have found confidence to be a much better category than certainty, and framing it that way also helped me remain Protestant, in my methodist tradition. Wonderful article! I feel very similarly--and I also do think it is a tragedy than anyone is in a position to "choose" a church to fellowship with.
In my more fiery moments I am tempted to say one should die the form of Christian one was baptised as. I am not, however, feeling very fiery at the moment.
"If the answer is right, who cares if the question is wrong?” -The Dodecahedron (from The Phantom Tollbooth)
Of course answers matter. But there are some questions that stick with you, that you wrestle with, that change depending on how you look at them. You sit at their feet. They teach you as much or more than "answers."
I'm not waving my hands around trying to dispel the possibility of an answer. I'm observing that when people change traditions, they're exchanging one set of questions for another (or one way of looking at the questions for another). The epistemic problem remains, like you say. There's also another epistemic problem of trust, which is closely related. Can we trust that this tradition's way of living into these questions is the way in which I want to live? Because it *is* about living, not just about cognitive resonance.
If someone with a longing for deeper certainty about faith is considering either leaving the church entirely, or giving up on evangelicalism and becoming catholic, I think I'd prefer the latter.
That being said, I'm glad to be in this ugly mess with you. I have at times longed for the grounded-ness and rooted-ness of the catholic or orthodox traditions, which from the outside appear less influenced by the trends consumerism places on the protestant church, but God seems to have me placed right in the messy middle of evangelical protestantism. I'll be here as long as God has me here.
Straw man though! These are not the only two options, of course. And I am not clear that grounded-ness and rooted-ness are the domain of Catholic and Orthodox traditions, alone. Protestants have- liturgical forms, a catechism (Heidelberg and Lutheran catechisms both predate the Catholic one), etc. That some Protestants have deviated from these forms does not mean we do not have them; just as some Catholics have also deviated.
Thank you for such a thoughtful piece, handled with kindness and grace. This so relatable for me because my daughter is looking toward Catholicism. I hear this… “we don’t want many (mini) popes, we just need one” from her friends. The very foundation of the popehood is shaky at best and totally wrong at worst. When Christ said He would built his church on this rock, He was not referring to Peter as the rock. He used a different word (petros - little stone) for Peter but used Petra (a cornerstone that is solid and immovable) for the rock on which He would build his church. The Rock being himself and the fact that he was the Son of God, the Messiah! (Note the context of the conversation between Peter and Christ). The Church is built on that confession. Thank goodness it is not built on a fallible man, who just denied Christ three times. It is the certainty of that confession that we must seek not the certainty of a system, traditions, or man.
If you’re sincerely open to learning from other believers, no matter where that leads you, I’d love to recommend the book Pope Peter, by Joe Heschmeyer. It’s short, easy to read, and very gracious towards the Protestant point of view. …If not, perhaps just looking him up on YouTube and hearing some of his unpacking of the Petrine papacy. It’s very interesting.
Interesting. I've written and re-written something much longer to send separately, but I know I'll never be happy with it. In short, my own move toward traditional Christianity likely started with some desire for certainty (I blame Calvin) but ultimately had more to do with authority. Not so much the ecclesial authorities of the present moment (though I do think that is important) but the authority of tradition as it speaks on down through the centuries. The authority of tradition over the church hierarchy, or the authority of saints who have challenged those enmeshed in the hierarchy for their own ends. The certainty I do find solace in now has more to do with the certainty of the sacraments, of the graces imparted through them, the “what God is doing for His people” certainty that tradition maintains over the certainty that in, many (most?) protestant contexts, depends too much on me trying ever so hard to get what I can out of a Sunday service.
Never blame Calvin, it is almost never his fault but the fault of his stepchildren. There are a few instincts here that are interesting. tradition over hierarchy, true piety over hierarchy (which is such a Protestant instinct), and the dilemma of trying to "get something out" of a sermon. That, indeed, is an error we might address.
Blaming Calvin is shorthand, but I do blame him for some things. So many reformers act surprised when their followers take their ideas to certain conclusions, logical or otherwise. But maybe I'm looking more at Luther there.
I found myself - by accident - following a number of writers who are Catholic converts, and many of them voiced similar reasons for their conversion. I find those types of stories really interesting, but I'm a lifelong Protestant and don't intend to change that, and I really appreciate your thoughtful engagement with the topic in a way that echoes many of my same thoughts. I've found myself staying Protestant precisely because of that opportunity for uncertainty, because it allows room for faith to grow rather than settling into what's "known" (an oversimplification, but that's the shortest version of where I've landed).
I do see similar themes among some Protestant to Catholic converts that look deeply Protestant, even evangelical, in their instincts. I am trying to delineate these in as delicate a way as possible. Thanks for reading.
Kirsten, thank you for the opportunity to respond to your article. I am a Protestant convert to Catholicism, so I have read Tsh Oxenreider’s series--- and your response to it---with great interest. Tsh is also a personal friend of mine, just to be fully transparent. I have a few thoughts that I would like to share, if I may. Some of them reflect what Tsh’s article says, and some reflect my own experience as a convert.
There appears to be a fundamental difference between the way George Lindbeck thinks about doctrine and the way Catholics, like Tsh and Thomas Aquinas, think about it. I’m not extremely familiar with Lindbeck, but it seems to me that you consider him something of an authority on religious/doctrinal frameworks. I understand that Lindbeck was primarily concerned with how religion functions in communities, and not so much whether it captures what is real. This notion echoes something of “the-journey-rather-than-the-destination” sentiment of your essay--the idea that what is important is not that we have certainty, but that we are being formed into a people of God. Lindbeck’s idea also makes a lot of sense from a Protestant worldview where certainty of doctrine is nearly impossible because scripture is left to individual interpretation. To illustrate this dilemma, I once had my own salvific understanding of “the Gospel” questioned by a Baptist friend when he found out I had become an Anglican. He and I had a different understanding of the most basic, most important of all Christian beliefs: the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus. How can there be certainty about anything in Protestantism when Protestants can’t even agree on what is meant by “the Gospel?” Did Jesus intend to leave the Church in such confusion? The Historical Catholic Church says, “No.” She maintains that Petrine succession prevents confusion. She also maintains that this isn’t a mere human idea to be accepted or rejected as one desires. Jesus Himself established Peter as a rock---a solid, unmovable foundation on which to build one Church, not several shaky versions of her. See John 17: 20-23.
Right authority produces doctrinal certainty. This is where I think you have misunderstood Tsh. No Protestant (that I am aware of) goes looking for certainty and ends up in the Catholic Church. The all-important issue is actually authority for the convert. It’s about asking who has the right to tell me how to live; it’s not about wanting someone to tell me how to live. The convert’s journey across the Tiber invariably starts with reading the Early Church Fathers. Why is that? Because we wanted certainty? No, it’s because we wanted to know what the men closest to the disciples taught. Why do we want to know that? Because we want the truth, dang it. We want the truth directly from Jesus to his apostles, and through the men they ordained, on and on, world without end, amen. We became weary of hearing Protestant friends and pastors say that their personal interpretation of the Bible was the correct one. Reason tells us that they can’t all be right simultaneously.
Finally, Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” Somehow being “free” involves knowing truth. That sounds an awful lot like certainty to me. How is that possible from a Protestant mindset? I don’t believe it is. Certainty of truth is possible because the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has authority from the Truth to speak in His Name.
Yes, I was aware of Lindbeck's involvement with Vatican II. I'm sure you're right that he understood Catholicism. However, we might debate on how well he understood it if he remained Lutheran (ha!). Many brilliant Protestants remain Protestant until they die. C.S..Lewis was one. Just because they are brilliant doesn't mean they have taken the correct ecclesial stance. G.K Chesterton was also brilliant. He accepted the claims of the Catholic Church.
Thanks for the article. I love First Things, and I look forward to reading it.
That’s kind of catty—you don’t get to be an official denominational observer unless you’re qualified and know what you’re observing. Maybe it’s possible that there are valid disagreements about important things?
Hmm, I've been thinking about this since I read it yesterday, and I understand where you're headed. As a Catholic-curious Protestant, it seems like you may have oversimplified this drive towards certainty. I can only speak for myself, but I think that the idea of a magisterium and pope is as off putting as it is appealing. However, what I see in many converts is not as much a desire for certainty, as a willingness to submit to something larger than them. Having been through several disastrous church contexts at this point, I have no illusions that there is any perfect church. Abuse and people exist in all corners of the church, in all denominations. What I continue to grapple with, is wondering where I might find enough depth so that when the people of the church fail, as they so often will, there is something outside of them to hold fast to. I'm not sure I'm articulating this well -- we're currently members of a confessional Lutheran church, and so one could argue that we have all the aspects of Catholicism that cause people to convert. And yet, I find myself frustrated. And I am truly trying to discern what is causing that frustration. But, if speaking only for myself, I think that to try to reduce it to a need for certainty is to miss much of the point. I actually find that I am much more constricted by the certainty that I have been presented with in many Protestant denominations, that at times has felt like a legalistic chokehold.
It's interesting, because in conversations with family members who left the Catholic church as a child, their account of the legalistic chokehold is almost identical to my upbringing in a Reformed Baptist context. So then, are we grappling with a poor theology of grace in whichever context? And could this swing back and forth be reactionary? Quite possibly. But I don't think it's always reactionary.
In terms of a "structure" or center that will hold, even in crisis- well, you told take a minimalist stance or a maximalist one on this. Minimalist being- where two or three are gathered, maximalist being- a church structure (bureaucracy? hierarchy?) that will sift through the mess. Keeping in mind that it is hierarchies that can also protect evil actors, it is not clear to me that there is a "fix" to the problem of sin within the church.
I think we have structured the church in a way that follows our culture; specifically, in a 'hierarchy' of authority...
There is true 'community' whenever 2 or 3 are gathered 'in the Name of Jesus'; I've experienced 'community' with people who had the unity of mind, heart, s/Spirit and purpose Paul describes (and commands) in Phil 2; but I've seen it lost, several different ways (some horrifically tragic...others-sadly 'by default').
it really is worth cultivating 'koinonia'....
Yes. Love these thoughts Annelise and agree. I can see what’s being said here, but truthfully have found way more of a desire for certainty among Protestants and way more holding of uncertainty in Catholicism. I too appreciate this piece though (and especially the generous, seeking spirit in which it was written). If I have time I’d like to submit a response!
So a good part of my argument was that it is a desire for certainty that sends Protestants toward Rome- indeed this is not to say that *all Catholics* experience such a desire for certainty in exactly this way.
Sure. I was just commenting macro-level on the desire for and feeling of certainty in faith. What I've observed is Protestants desiring certainty, especially around theology, and often feeling they have it; Catholics being more comfortable with mystery, and more focused on their own spiritual life rather than certainty (which seems to manifest as a desire to tell everyone else how wrong they've got it). So to me it doesn't follow that Protestants would convert to Catholicism for the reason you've described.
I am an ex Reformed Baptist who is now Catholic curious and attending Mass most Sundays. I grew up with confessional Protestantism and what attracts me to Catholicism is not certainty. I appreciate that Catholicism actually accommodates many different “streams”, and leaves more space for mysticism and questions than the very doctrine and purity focused Reformed Baptist church I grew up in.
Agreed. That frustration for me as a former Baptist was not due to vagaries and uncertainties.
Okay, I’ve finally read this! And I genuinely don’t have a lot of time right now (we’ve got our small town’s annual weekend festival starting in a few hours, plus a bajillion other things on the calendar this weekend!), but I didn’t want this to pass along without at least my $.02. In short…
Thanks for being so gracious and charitable with your thoughts here, and thanks for recognizing my ongoing series as what it is: a story, and not an apologetic treatise. Definitely the memoir genre vs. academic theology!
Second, let me just say that I’ve had your *exact* thoughts relayed here in your essay for the better part of a decade (roughly from when we return from the mission field in Turkey to our move from evangelicalism to Anglicanism). I get your perspective on a personal level, very much.
Because my recent essay is part of an ongoing story told in serial format, I’m definitely not done — which means the stuff mentioned in Part 4 (my latest) isn’t the end of it. The idea of a Catechism wasn’t the main reason I converted. But, all of it really did come down to the idea of authority — meaning, the answer to the question, “Says who?” about every single part of the Christian life (including what goes in the Bible and how to read it as intended), which is what I mean rather tongue-in-cheek by the phrase “I’m not my own pope.” It’s more than just wanting to be told what to do. It really does come down to a conviction about whether Jesus really *did* institute one united Church when he gave Peter the keys, and whether he really did mean for it to be One, Holy, Catholic (meaning united), and Apostolic. I truly, truly believe he did, and this is where my research led me. It wasn’t about whether I *wanted* it to be true. I just came to the conclusion that it… is. I had to follow through with that conviction. And I think, in tandem, that any Protestant who is genuinely convicted that that is not what Jesus meant nor how Jesus set things up should be able to defend their reasons why.
I’m genuinely SO GLAD the Holy Spirit isn’t confined to our earthly human frailties, and that He brings people to Himself in all sorts of ways, both inside and outside the Church. I truly do believe God is at work in all sorts of Protestant movements and that He’s used our own finite, flawed endeavors for His good (Gen. 50:20). I’m very grateful for my decades as a Protestant, and I believe the Church can learn so much from many good Protestant traditions!
With all that in mind, though, I truly don’t believe that, with Jesus’ twin admonishments to his disciplines to 1. Teach truth and 2. Be unified, that he meant for us to follow our own convictions and Scriptural interpretations, wherever they may lead. Otherwise, we’d have to pick one of those two commands and violate the other. Furthermore, if functional man-made institutions are hierarchical — i.e., CEOs of businesses, principals of schools, etc., and if functional God-made institutions are hierarchical — i.e., families, …Wouldn’t it make sense that God would also have his Church, for whom He desires unity above all else in tandem with teaching truth, also best function with a hierarchy? It’s historically never gone well when people follow their own convictions and hope it all goes well and that we all get along, especially when my neighbor’s conviction might be the opposite of mine.
Anyway… These are my thoughts, admittedly somewhat convoluted (I need my next cup of coffee). I hope to unpack them more in the next installment of my story, which I’ll hopefully publish sooner than later (we’ll see… this month is insanely full). Thanks for sharing your perspective, and I’m grateful for our shared sisterhood in Christ!
I tried to be very delicate in my response, but I do think there were some logical errors in your "I don't need to be my own Pope" piece. You rely throughout on your own desire to understand how the pieces fit together- and though you are more comfortable framing this as a need for authority, it is at least twinned with certainty.
In terms of Jesus' "twin admonishments", I do not think the only choices are to have a Pope or "follow your own convictions, wherever they may lead". That's quite a thin view of how interpretation works. And the argument from hierarchy is simply an argument from human observation- your assumption that human collectives work best in a hierarchical frame, applied to the church. I am actually not anti-hierarchy, but this is not a good argument- it is simply taking something that "works" (does it?) in the human realm and assuming that is what God does, too.
Further, you say "any Protestant who is genuinely convicted that that is not what Jesus meant nor how Jesus set things up should be able to defend their reasons why"; which is a strong argument for a form of certainty- in the shape of a defense. It is clear in the framing of your piece that it was such a desire, if not for certainty alone than also for authority, that motivated much of your journey to Rome. My query is regarding how certainty might, or might not, necessarily function in relation to such things.
cheers- Khs
Please read the comment below by Bobbie Wilkerson - exactly what I have learned and believe.
Interesting! I came to the complete opposite conclusion in my research on Peter being the Rock. Thanks for pointing out his comment, though!
A very thoughtful read, and I appreciate the care you took to write it
This provides a fascinating foil to the deconstruction crowd who have left evangelical Protestantism altogether because they feel it insists too much on certainty concerning secondary and tertiary theological issues. Thank you for writing it!
Thanks for linking me to this! I look forward to reading.
I think that the more chaotic the world becomes, the more people are seeking clarity and a structure based on truth. I write a substack called "It's Funny to be Catholic". I am seeing this trend in our Catholic churches. More and more converts are "coming to Rome". Most years we have only 3 to 7 converts. Last year we had 20. This year we had 32. Definitely many people are searching for the One Tru Church, and are finding it.
You do have some really good readers! The comments your posts elicit are very helpful.
i think the 'certainty' being sought, is meant for us to find, in 'the communion of the saints', which we are meant to cultivate... but it's 'dynamic' and always 'requires care and attention'...
And that's, i think, your point.. at least in part.
As a former Baptist, now-Catholic, what drove my conversion was not a desire for certainty. It was a desire to receive Jesus in a more intimate way and to be a member of his visible body. The Catholic Church has its banal liturgies, just like Protestants have out of tune guitars. If I wanted pure beauty, I would have likely become Orthodox. But I wanted truth most of all, and it lives in Jesus’ Body, the Church.
In response to this: “He does this not by convincing us of what is true but by showing himself faithful,” why can it not be both? Yes, Jesus showed me that He was faithful by putting the right people in my life and leading me to Him always, but part of that journey was reading about Him and about proofs for his existence. God did not “convince me” — that would require an overwhelming of my will — but he gently coaxed me to Him through apologetics.
With that being said, I have known others who have converted without the need of much apologetics. However, if Jesus is Truth, Beauty, and Goodness Itself, we need to have Truth to have Him.
Protestant family members of mine would always wave away my mother and I’s conversion by saying “oh well, maybe you just needed a little more structure.” I think that’s a disingenuous way to look at our desire to fulfill a personal relationship with Jesus.
As a last note, the Catholic Church has not defined everything with certainty. She is very conservative on making sweeping claims when the Bible and Scared Tradition do not support them. For example, did Jesus have step brothers or were they cousins? We don’t know and the Church hasn’t said.
All of what you say about receiving Jesus and being a member of his visible body could apply to Protestant churches, as well.
Thanks for responding Kirsten! I totally agree with you, in a spiritual sense. But I wanted to receive Jesus physically and be a part of his physical body. I should have clarified that; thank you for pointing it out.
Agree these things COULD be found in a Protestant church but it is becoming increasingly impossible to do so!
Interesting! I agree with you, and I had this thought when reading Tsh's article, that the quest for certainty is not a good reason in and of itself to convert. However, conversion to Orthodoxy does not entail the same certainty. In fact, Tsh pointed to this as a reason why she did not choose Orthodoxy. I won't go into too much detail, but that is one of the key differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church has never adopted scholasticism or another purely rational/intellectual approach to theology, in contrast to the Catholic, and later Protestant, West. Rather, the Orthodox Church points to all these theological developments as a departure from the authentic, apostolic tradition, which has always been preserved in the Christian East. I believe that is the main reason, or it should be, which drives Protestants to convert: to reunite with that one, authentic, apostolic tradition which has been lost in the West ever since the Great Schism.
Yes, I agree re the scholasticism of the West. The East, however, takes Tradition as its analogue to Roman Catholic Certainty- both of them, in my mind, taking on more space in the religious frame than they ought.
I had a similar reaction while reading. I really appreciate so much of this article (and actually agree with almost all of it!). But the description of desires for certainty, having a set catechism that tells you what to believe, and being made to go to church don't jive at all with my experience of the Orthodox faith and way of life. If anything, protestantism and Catholicism seem more closely related than Catholicism/Orthodoxy. But I'm definitely no expert. That's just my own experience.
Yes, and there are also reasons I am not Orthodox! Perhaps a story for another day.
"to reunite with that one, authentic, apostolic tradition which has been lost in the West ever since the Great Schism."
This strikes me as the same mistake Kirsten is talking about just phrased a different way.
Yes, I would agree.
I wrote about how I have found confidence to be a much better category than certainty, and framing it that way also helped me remain Protestant, in my methodist tradition. Wonderful article! I feel very similarly--and I also do think it is a tragedy than anyone is in a position to "choose" a church to fellowship with.
https://cambron.substack.com/p/confidence-is-better-than-certainty
In my more fiery moments I am tempted to say one should die the form of Christian one was baptised as. I am not, however, feeling very fiery at the moment.
What a great read. Thank you @Cambron Wright. Confidence and peace, graces from above.
"If the answer is right, who cares if the question is wrong?” -The Dodecahedron (from The Phantom Tollbooth)
Of course answers matter. But there are some questions that stick with you, that you wrestle with, that change depending on how you look at them. You sit at their feet. They teach you as much or more than "answers."
I'm not waving my hands around trying to dispel the possibility of an answer. I'm observing that when people change traditions, they're exchanging one set of questions for another (or one way of looking at the questions for another). The epistemic problem remains, like you say. There's also another epistemic problem of trust, which is closely related. Can we trust that this tradition's way of living into these questions is the way in which I want to live? Because it *is* about living, not just about cognitive resonance.
Yes, and as Roman Catholics will tell you, parish life is every bit as messy as Protestant life!
If someone with a longing for deeper certainty about faith is considering either leaving the church entirely, or giving up on evangelicalism and becoming catholic, I think I'd prefer the latter.
That being said, I'm glad to be in this ugly mess with you. I have at times longed for the grounded-ness and rooted-ness of the catholic or orthodox traditions, which from the outside appear less influenced by the trends consumerism places on the protestant church, but God seems to have me placed right in the messy middle of evangelical protestantism. I'll be here as long as God has me here.
Straw man though! These are not the only two options, of course. And I am not clear that grounded-ness and rooted-ness are the domain of Catholic and Orthodox traditions, alone. Protestants have- liturgical forms, a catechism (Heidelberg and Lutheran catechisms both predate the Catholic one), etc. That some Protestants have deviated from these forms does not mean we do not have them; just as some Catholics have also deviated.
Thank you for such a thoughtful piece, handled with kindness and grace. This so relatable for me because my daughter is looking toward Catholicism. I hear this… “we don’t want many (mini) popes, we just need one” from her friends. The very foundation of the popehood is shaky at best and totally wrong at worst. When Christ said He would built his church on this rock, He was not referring to Peter as the rock. He used a different word (petros - little stone) for Peter but used Petra (a cornerstone that is solid and immovable) for the rock on which He would build his church. The Rock being himself and the fact that he was the Son of God, the Messiah! (Note the context of the conversation between Peter and Christ). The Church is built on that confession. Thank goodness it is not built on a fallible man, who just denied Christ three times. It is the certainty of that confession that we must seek not the certainty of a system, traditions, or man.
If you’re sincerely open to learning from other believers, no matter where that leads you, I’d love to recommend the book Pope Peter, by Joe Heschmeyer. It’s short, easy to read, and very gracious towards the Protestant point of view. …If not, perhaps just looking him up on YouTube and hearing some of his unpacking of the Petrine papacy. It’s very interesting.
Blessings!
Yes, I absolutely am. Thank you for that recommendation, Tsh! I will check it out.
Interesting. I've written and re-written something much longer to send separately, but I know I'll never be happy with it. In short, my own move toward traditional Christianity likely started with some desire for certainty (I blame Calvin) but ultimately had more to do with authority. Not so much the ecclesial authorities of the present moment (though I do think that is important) but the authority of tradition as it speaks on down through the centuries. The authority of tradition over the church hierarchy, or the authority of saints who have challenged those enmeshed in the hierarchy for their own ends. The certainty I do find solace in now has more to do with the certainty of the sacraments, of the graces imparted through them, the “what God is doing for His people” certainty that tradition maintains over the certainty that in, many (most?) protestant contexts, depends too much on me trying ever so hard to get what I can out of a Sunday service.
Never blame Calvin, it is almost never his fault but the fault of his stepchildren. There are a few instincts here that are interesting. tradition over hierarchy, true piety over hierarchy (which is such a Protestant instinct), and the dilemma of trying to "get something out" of a sermon. That, indeed, is an error we might address.
Blaming Calvin is shorthand, but I do blame him for some things. So many reformers act surprised when their followers take their ideas to certain conclusions, logical or otherwise. But maybe I'm looking more at Luther there.
I found myself - by accident - following a number of writers who are Catholic converts, and many of them voiced similar reasons for their conversion. I find those types of stories really interesting, but I'm a lifelong Protestant and don't intend to change that, and I really appreciate your thoughtful engagement with the topic in a way that echoes many of my same thoughts. I've found myself staying Protestant precisely because of that opportunity for uncertainty, because it allows room for faith to grow rather than settling into what's "known" (an oversimplification, but that's the shortest version of where I've landed).
I do see similar themes among some Protestant to Catholic converts that look deeply Protestant, even evangelical, in their instincts. I am trying to delineate these in as delicate a way as possible. Thanks for reading.
Kirsten, thank you for the opportunity to respond to your article. I am a Protestant convert to Catholicism, so I have read Tsh Oxenreider’s series--- and your response to it---with great interest. Tsh is also a personal friend of mine, just to be fully transparent. I have a few thoughts that I would like to share, if I may. Some of them reflect what Tsh’s article says, and some reflect my own experience as a convert.
There appears to be a fundamental difference between the way George Lindbeck thinks about doctrine and the way Catholics, like Tsh and Thomas Aquinas, think about it. I’m not extremely familiar with Lindbeck, but it seems to me that you consider him something of an authority on religious/doctrinal frameworks. I understand that Lindbeck was primarily concerned with how religion functions in communities, and not so much whether it captures what is real. This notion echoes something of “the-journey-rather-than-the-destination” sentiment of your essay--the idea that what is important is not that we have certainty, but that we are being formed into a people of God. Lindbeck’s idea also makes a lot of sense from a Protestant worldview where certainty of doctrine is nearly impossible because scripture is left to individual interpretation. To illustrate this dilemma, I once had my own salvific understanding of “the Gospel” questioned by a Baptist friend when he found out I had become an Anglican. He and I had a different understanding of the most basic, most important of all Christian beliefs: the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus. How can there be certainty about anything in Protestantism when Protestants can’t even agree on what is meant by “the Gospel?” Did Jesus intend to leave the Church in such confusion? The Historical Catholic Church says, “No.” She maintains that Petrine succession prevents confusion. She also maintains that this isn’t a mere human idea to be accepted or rejected as one desires. Jesus Himself established Peter as a rock---a solid, unmovable foundation on which to build one Church, not several shaky versions of her. See John 17: 20-23.
Right authority produces doctrinal certainty. This is where I think you have misunderstood Tsh. No Protestant (that I am aware of) goes looking for certainty and ends up in the Catholic Church. The all-important issue is actually authority for the convert. It’s about asking who has the right to tell me how to live; it’s not about wanting someone to tell me how to live. The convert’s journey across the Tiber invariably starts with reading the Early Church Fathers. Why is that? Because we wanted certainty? No, it’s because we wanted to know what the men closest to the disciples taught. Why do we want to know that? Because we want the truth, dang it. We want the truth directly from Jesus to his apostles, and through the men they ordained, on and on, world without end, amen. We became weary of hearing Protestant friends and pastors say that their personal interpretation of the Bible was the correct one. Reason tells us that they can’t all be right simultaneously.
Finally, Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” Somehow being “free” involves knowing truth. That sounds an awful lot like certainty to me. How is that possible from a Protestant mindset? I don’t believe it is. Certainty of truth is possible because the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has authority from the Truth to speak in His Name.
Interestingly enough, Lindbeck was an observer at Vatican II. I suspect he understood Catholicism quite well. https://www.firstthings.com/article/1994/12/re-viewing-vatican-ii
Yes, I was aware of Lindbeck's involvement with Vatican II. I'm sure you're right that he understood Catholicism. However, we might debate on how well he understood it if he remained Lutheran (ha!). Many brilliant Protestants remain Protestant until they die. C.S..Lewis was one. Just because they are brilliant doesn't mean they have taken the correct ecclesial stance. G.K Chesterton was also brilliant. He accepted the claims of the Catholic Church.
Thanks for the article. I love First Things, and I look forward to reading it.
That’s kind of catty—you don’t get to be an official denominational observer unless you’re qualified and know what you’re observing. Maybe it’s possible that there are valid disagreements about important things?
I wasn't intending to be spiteful. My point is that knowledge doesn't always equal wisdom.