Jay Richards is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute and the director of the Institute’s Center on Wealth, Poverty, and Morality.
In addition to editing the award-winning God & Evolution: Protestants, Catholics and Jews Explore Darwin’s Challenge to Faith, Richards has authored several books, including the best-selling Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family and Freedom Before It’s Too Late.
Richards holds a master of Divinity degree, a master of theology degree and a Ph.D. in philosophy and theology from Princeton Theological Seminary. A convert to the faith, Richards and his family entered the Church three years ago at the Easter Vigil. The experience has been, he said, “an enormous blessing” for his family.
While you were a student at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Mich., you made an unsettling discovery. What was it?
I came to the conclusion that the Reformed and Lutheran understanding of justification was imbalanced. It simply failed to take account of the full biblical witness.
Later, I encountered real Catholics with plausible explanations for their beliefs. Through these encounters, I came to realize that the Protestant and Reformed descriptions of Catholic beliefs were invariably different from actual Catholic beliefs.
Were these experiences the impetus behind your conversion?
No. Actually, as recently as five years ago, I never could have imagined becoming Catholic. But my wife, Ginny, had been drawn to Catholicism for years. She read books and talked to intelligent Catholics and was able to find satisfactory answers. Ginny reminds me now that she once asked me why we weren’t considering the Catholic Church, and I dismissed it without giving much of an answer. Looking back, it’s clear that I had more intellectual impediments and misconceptions than she did.
How did you overcome these impediments?
A few years ago, I decided to work my way through the issues, simply so I would understand the real disputes. This would require that I read actual Catholic explanations of Catholic doctrines, as well as the best Protestant critiques I could find. So I made a list of doctrines/practices, called “Impediments to Becoming Catholic,” and put the big issues at the top: canonization/source of authority, Real Presence, claim to papal authority, and so on. I put the Marian dogmas at the bottom and figured I’d never get to them. I already suspected the Catholic view of contraceptives —which until the 1930s was simply the Christian view — was correct.
What there a particular issue that troubled you?
The coherence of sola scriptura (Bible alone) had worried me for years, since it seemed that the most thoughtful evangelicals had a sort of de facto magisterium that they relied on. For instance, no passage of Scripture says what books are supposed to be in the New Testament, so there’s an implicit trust in the judgment of the early Church. There’s also an implicit trust in the judgment of the early councils that established the Trinity and the two natures of Christ, and so on. Moreover, the fact that the New Testament wasn’t even canonized until the end of the fourth century meant that there must have been some deposit of faith given to the Church that it preserved for centuries without a fully established canon.
This led to the question of the Protestant justification for not recognizing the Deuterocanonical books in the Old Testament [Judith, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch and Ecclesiasticus]. These had been treated as authoritative until the Reformation, but Luther demoted/removed them. (He also wanted to remove James, Hebrews and Revelation, but the other Reformers disagreed).
So I read the best Protestant and Catholic articles on the subject and concluded (to my dismay at the time) that the Protestant arguments didn’t hold up. Essentially, Luther demoted the books that contained kernels of doctrines that he disagreed with — which is not an especially promising procedure.
I recall one argument by a prominent Protestant theologian whom I respect. His presumably knock-down-drag-out argument against these books was that they contained unbiblical doctrines. But since the question was: “What books should be in the Bible?” his reasoning was obviously circular.
You mentioned that the doctrine of the Real Presence played a large part in your conversion.
The Real Presence was a huge deal. Even a cursory glance at the early Christian writings establishes that everyone understood that, in some mysterious way, the bread and wine, while remaining under the appearance of bread and wine, really become the body and blood of the glorified Jesus.
As early as 110, Ignatius of Antioch taught this, and it was treated as one of the touchstones of orthodoxy until 1517. I also studied the central biblical texts at issue, such as the Last Supper narratives and John 6. Although I had seminary degrees, I had never really done that. I found that the typical Protestant ways of explaining these texts away didn’t hold up to scrutiny.
I went through a few more doctrinal issues, such as the papal claims to authority, and the pattern started falling into place. Although I had been treating the issues as independent, it began to become clear that many of them actually hang together and mutually illumine and reinforce on another.
In fact, things I believed as an evangelical made more sense in the wider Catholic context. I found myself thinking inside a Catholic context and anticipating answers to questions that had before eluded me.
What was happening in your personal life at this time?
Alongside this intellectual journey were a number of powerful spiritual experiences of the healing power of the Holy Spirit, made available by the graces the Church has. In fact, Ginny and I credit God’s work through the Catholic Church with healing our marriage. But that’s another long story.
In your book Indivisible, you mention that you make a long drive over a bridge to get your family to church. Imagine that drive as your journey of faith. How was your trip?
The journey from evangelical to Catholic has been less “inconvenient” than I had imagined it would be, although there is no doubt that evangelicals and Catholics tend to occupy mostly separate subcultures. If I’ve had an easier time, I think it’s because I had tried to write and speak as a “mere Christian” for years, that is, in a way that would resonate with Christians in different traditions. And since becoming Catholic, I’ve become even more passionate about bringing Christians together on those issues we share. That is one of the main purposes of my book.
Register correspondent Celeste Behe writes from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Her husband, Michael, is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
Comments
Post a Comment
“She (his wife) read books”.
Recommend not only to Catholics, but non-Catholics as well that they read the “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition”.
“ ….the Catechism has raised throughout the world, even among non-Christians, and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life. ” – Pope John Paul II (CCC pg xiv)
CHRISTMAS GIFT idea - the CCC for anyone over age 16;
The YOUCAT or Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church for teens age 16 and under.
The article omits an important piece of information - the Discovery Institute is a Christian group dedicated to teaching creationism to our children. Shame on the Register for promoting this religious zealot simply because he now claims to share Catholic beliefs.
From a fellow convert; Jay, Welcome! Welcome! Welcome!. Isn’t it wonderful to read Scripture without all those intellectual gymnastics (of"Scripture doesn’t mean what it says”)required of Protestants when dealing with John 6 or the “sheep and goats” narrative, or the “least of these my brethren narrative”. God bless you and your family.
Well, if you think some one who denies the theories of evolution and global warming will be a credit to Catholicism, I don’t need anything to add to it.
I am a new convert and am confused about something in these comments. Is a belief in six day creation against the teachings of the Catholic Church? I know that the Church teaches that science and faith are not mutually exclusive but I was not aware that it prohibits a belief in creationism. If so, I have some serious thinking to do.
Posted by Susan on Thursday, Oct 25, 2012 3:15 PM (EST):
“Is a belief in six day creation against the teachings of the Catholic Church?”
Well Pope Benedict probably wouldn’t think much of Richard’s intelligence. Pope Benedict: “. . . there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” However the pope cautions that Catholics have to believe that God toppled the first domino. Catholics are free to believe in a short or long chain of dominos but I get the impression that if the pope were a southerner he would say of creationist Catholics: Bless their hearts.
The pope is defintely not on the same page aas the Discovery Institute. He also says “We all see that today man can destroy the foundation of his existence, his Earth. . . . . We cannot simply do what we want with this Earth of ours, with what has been entrusted to us.”
As far as I know, Catholicism does not prohibit belief in Creationism. Catholics can believe anything on faith.
.
Catholics also don’t forbid belief in astrology, homeopathy, the Bermuda Triangle, conversion “therapy,” psychics, colonics, crystal healing, and faith healing. Those are just a few of the pseudoscience concepts acceptable to the Catholic Church.
.
All of these hypotheses—which are testable and so qualify to be hypotheses—have been debunked by scientific method. Still, there are many people who reject science because they prefer the faith that “comforts” them.
.
So, yes it’s acceptable to Catholics that a creationist (don’t give me that crap about “intelligent design”) to join the faith. It just shows that Catholicism does not deal with reality.
.
I don’t think my comment will be published, but at least the editors might read it.
Well, maybe I haven’t let enough time pass for my previous comment to be screened. In any case, I really didn’t need to reply—Jay Richards’ endorsement of the Catholic faith does not need comment.
@Susan: No, there’s nothing in the teaching of the Church that prohibits belief in a six-day creation. I’m confused about the comments as well, but they’re not representative of official Church teaching. We are free to believe that God created in six days or over the course of years and years. The only requirement is that we acknowledge that God created. As to the comment about global warming…well, that’s not church teaching either. Not sure where it’s coming from, but it’s not the Church.
@ Zeke, @ True Democrat
The Catholic church does not require belief in Creationism. It allows for belief in Evolution. That this fellow may not does not in anyway impugn the Catholic church anymore than whatever you write as “True Democrat” will necessarily reflect on all people who believe in democracy or the Democratic Party.
Susan,
I can see how you could be confused. The Church has no issue with evolution (how could they and still be taken seriously) yet has some pretty substantial caveats that essentially claim “yes, but humans are special and that God guided the whole process”. Translation: Darwin was wrong, since it contradicts the vile notion of original sin.
The DI is an anti-science organization that pushes its stupid ,intelligent design theory’ as science To push christian theocracy into american science education. They do not, and have sponsored a single piece of scientific research. In fact they have never even stated a single falsifiable hypothesis for ID. They are nothing more then a lobbies ans supporter of pointless creationism in school litigation.
The fact they have recruited a theologian reinforces the fact they the cannot be view as having a scientific cred.
Discovery Institute teaches intelligent design NOT young earth creationism. Check your facts! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGFWH6Okgl8
dch says, “The DI is an anti-science organization that pushes its stupid ,intelligent design theory’”.
While I do not know the specific intelligent design (ID) theory being criticized, it sounds as if you are rejecting intelligent design entirely. Doing so is not consistent with Catholic teaching. Are you claiming God is not intelligent?
Susan, the Catholic Church established the first universities and has always supported scientific research because all truth is God’s truth. There is no doctrinal requirement to hold to a literal six day creation and certainly no requirement reject a special creation, nor is it necessary to hold to all that has become modern, atheistic Darwinian theory. The Church holds that the human soul (but not necessarily the human body, until science demonstrates differently; which it has certainly not done except in the minds of atheistic scientists) is uniquely created by God and is not a product of evolution (see http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-out-of-nothing
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/if-god-finished-the-work-of-creation-then-why-are-new-stars-and-species-still-coming-
The Catholic Church does not require the faithful to know how to solve advanced calculus. The Church does not require people to understand the scientific theories supporting evolution. The Church does not even require its faithful to be literate.
While some may believe that a poor person in an isolated village in a third world country should not be allowed to fully enter the faith until they can pass some test about western world science and math, I think such a mandate would be ridiculous.
Welcome to the Catholic Church, and it’s good to see you took the time and effort to research the religious issues rather than take the arguments against Catholicism at face value. Much of them are “straw man” arguments. For example, I have been Catholic all my life, and never was I taught or did I believe that saints or statues were to be “worshipped” as god. If it’s wrong to ask a saint to pray for me, then it’s wrong for me to ask someone here on earth to pray for me. One could then say that’s contacting the dead, but no, they are more alive than we are, if one truly believes following Christ leads to eternal life, and that person will not die, according to Jesus’ words, but passes into eternal life. As for statues, anyone with half a brain knows theys simply represent a religious figure or idea, and are not gods or idols. That’s a bit like taking a statue of George Washington to be George Washington. It behooves Protestants to not give us credit where credit is due to fill their churches, unfortunately. Anyways, glad you saw the light!
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.