In a syndicated New York Times article Mark Oppenheimer reports on questions of religious identity raised by, among others, Florida’s senator-elect Mario Rubio. Apparently he attends both Roman Catholic masses (his heritage) and services at an evangelical (Southern Baptist) megachurch. The majority of his Hispanic constituents find nothing wrong with this.
The article concludes this way: “It may never be clear whether Rubio is more Catholic or Protestant. The question itself reduces a complex experience, human religiosity, to simple terms. What may be clear from this story–call it ‘The Case of the First Catholic Protestant Senator”–is that in America, religious distinctions matter less all the time.”
As an aside, like most articles about religion in the mass media, this one contains some confusion. For one thing, the writer claims that evangelicals believe in “adult baptism.” Not all do, of course, and even those who do (like the Southern Baptist related church Rubio attends) would prefer to call it “believer baptism.” (One can hardly attend a Southern Baptist church very long without knowing that “adult baptism” is the wrong term for what they do in many cases!) Also, according to the writer, the evangelical church Rubio attends believes that the bread and the wine of the communion are “merely ‘symbolic’.” Of course, no educated, self-respecting Protestant would say that the Lord’s Supper is “merely” symbolic. Symbolic, yes. But not “merely.” That addition of the adjective implies that somehow a symbolic (Zwinglian) view of the Lord’s Supper is below or less than some other view(s) in terms of importance.
The significance of the story, however, far transcends those quibbles. The “big story” within the story is that increasingly American Christians (to say nothing of non-Christians!) do not care about doctrine. We are faced with a sea change, a paradigm shift, in religious consciousness and identity. Some will blame it on Pietism, but as I have shown in earlier posts, the true, historical Pietists prized doctrine very highly even as they elevated conversional piety above it.
Can one person be both Roman Catholic (not just “catholic” with a small “c”) and evangelical Protestant? (I add the “Protestant” to the question because “evangelical” is an essentially contested concept with many meanings and I want to make clear I’m talking about the evangelical movement that has existed within Protestantism since at least the Great Awakenings.) What do “Catholic” and “Protestant” mean if one can be both at the same time?
Recent dialogues between Catholic and Protestant theologians in Germany and the U.S. have brought about great agreement between the two sides. But there are certain crucial sticking points that get in the way of intercommunion. (Lutherans and Catholics are certainly closer to that than, say, Baptists and Catholics! But even Lutherans and Catholics have been unable to overcome certain remaining obstacles to intercommunion.) From the Catholic side, “good Catholics” are not supposed to take communion in Protestant “ecclesial communities” and Protestants are not allowed to participate in the Eucharist at Catholic services. From the Protestant side, the issue is unclear. Only a few Protestant denominations forbid their members from partaking of the Eucharist. (I think the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod is one of those.) Among nondenominational Protestant churches (of which the number is increasingly daily!) being both Roman Catholic and a full member of the Protestant church is not always a problem. I have belonged to charismatic churches, for example, that would never even think to ask or care about a member’s other affiliations.
One would think, however, that IF an evangelical Protestant really cared about doctrine he or she would suffer such cognitive dissonance that belonging fully to a Roman Catholic parish and an evangelical church and participating in both churches’ rituals would be a problem. What to do with the children? Baptism should be an issue inside the person if not between the person and his or her churches.
But more importantly, what about salvation? Catholic soteriology and evangelical Protestant soteriology (in spite of diversity) are diametrically opposed–at least if one is talking about what’s written on paper and considered official. But increasingly the people are ignoring those niceties and doing whatever they want to do–whatever feels good or is spiritually pleasing and satisfying. And many clergy are going along with that for whatever reasons.
Recently I spoke at a large church of a Pentecostal denomination that officially affirms Arminian theology. It has a history of being strongly opposed to Calvinism. The pastor and youth pastor–both very dynamic, educated, bright, articulate and deeply spiritual men–are both Calvinists! Who’s watching the store?
More egregiously, in high school my daughter dated a young man whose father was a deacon and member of the board of a large Methodist church even though he was a self-professed atheist.
I predict that, with the exception of a few rather minor backlashes among elites, American Christianity is headed into unchartered waters–a time and context in which beliefs do not matter. So what will matter? For evangelical Protestants it will be (and to a large extent already is) affinity with the ethos of the church. Does one “feel in accord” with the worship and preaching (usually non-doctrinal) and programing of the church? In such a situation whether a person is also Roman Catholic does not matter. But what if the person strongly affirms Catholic doctrine but feels affinity for the evangelical church? Probably not a problem.
On the Catholic side. What if a person wants to be Catholic because he or she feels some affinity for the church’s ethos (ancient, hierarchical, ritualistic) but does not agree with its written doctrines? I have had students who converted from Protestant to Roman Catholic primarily for that reason–affinity with the church’s ethos rather than full and heartfelt agreement (and I’m not even talking about agreement without mental reservation) with its doctrines.
Where can one find a church that takes doctrines such as justification by grace through faith alone seriously such that a Roman Catholic could not join (or actively participate in the sense of teaching or leading) without (!) being fundamentalistic about it? (By that I mean without being separatistic to the point of refusing fellowship and cooperation with other churches.)
It seems to me a middle ground is increasingly eroding. On the one hand we have non-doctrinal Christianity that focuses on affinity as the only test for membership and participation. These churches tend to be inclusive even if they are not historically “liberal.” They may reserve leadership for people who adhere to a set of doctrines, but the average members are not expected to believe anything in particular (beyond a few common denominator Christian beliefs such as Jesus is God). Because the Trinity is so mysterious, these churches have largely given up on it as any requirement for membership. Even the leaders are free to express disdain for its historic expressions as “mind boggling” (and therefore unnecessary).
On the other hand are churches that are highly creedal and confessional to the point that they will not engage in union worship (e.g., an ecumenical Thanksgiving Service) (to say nothing of intercommunion or pulpit exchange) with churches of other denominations.
Both extremes seem to be growing and thriving. What would the middle ground look like? How about churches that follow the pattern increasingly promoted by so-called “emerging churches”: belong, believe, behave? That doesn’t have to mean playing down belief to the point that it doesn’t matter. People could belong in every sense regardless of beliefs, but the leadership team would consist only of people who share basic Christian beliefs and doctrinal distinctives of the church’s denominational heritage. Everyone would be exposed to the leadership team’s beliefs which would by no means be hidden or held in some background realm. Anyone who wanted to move from pew-sitting and enjoying fellowship to any kind of leadership (including teaching) would have to affirm the church’s beliefs and be conversant in them. And those beliefs would not be minimal; they would be a robust set of basic Christian and denominational/confessional beliefs.
I think this is a middle ground that is also increasing, but it is still relatively small. Some churches think they are doing this, but either they are actually using secondary doctrines as litmus tests for membership or keeping the church’s full doctrinal beliefs in the background “for staff only.”
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In