Why Catholic? Part I

When we left for seminary we were certain (as many others were) that the beginning of the rest of our lives was in clear focus. 3 years of intense study coupled with loads of hands-on practical ministry experience and not a little prayer would culminate in my being ordained into the Episcopal Church, set apart for leadership in the priestly ministry. So what happened?

Over the next few posts I will try to unpack this. I'll be as brief as I can. Hopefully a good conversation will ensue.

Oxford was an amazing place, magical even. Not a day went by that Allison and I didn't pinch ourselves as we walked the majestic and historically rich streets of that unique city. The friends we made, the things we learned, the things we saw, all made for what is likely to be the only time in Allison's and my life where we didn't take a single moment for granted. In many ways it was perfect.

At the same time it was filled with intense theological and philosophical struggle. It was my intention upon entering Oxford to pursue every lead, undergo every possible critique, and question everything I had hitherto simply assumed without having ever probed. I tried my best to stay true to this intention.

I began where any curious evangelical might, with Biblical authority and its cousin, hermeneutics (how we interpret).

There has been a great deal of "conversation" among "emerging" evangelicals in the States as well as Great Britain about the role postmodern thought should play in shaping the 21st century church. A dear friend of mine, Mitchell Moore (he and his family left for Covenant seminary in St. Louis the same time we left for England) and I used to discuss these things as youth ministers a few years ago in San Antonio. We even attended an "Emerging Church Conference" in Nashville at one time. Back then I remember both of us had a strong aversion to much of what these emergent church types were putting forward, though I think we were both excited about some of its nuance and liturgical novelty.

Once in Oxford I decided it was time to actually read the "original" postmodern philosophers and see what all the fuss was about. I started with Jacques Derrida.

An English friend (Rod Green) lent me a text by John Caputo (a Derrida Scholar) which I went through as a preliminary attempt to get acquainted with the [in]famous Frenchman. I also read a few things by one of his understudies, James K.A. Smith who wrote a great little book called Who's Afraid of Postmodernism: Taking Derrida, Foucault, and Lyotard to Church. The book was--to my mind--a wonderful summary of these thinkers and their influence in the areas of theology and epistemology. After that I read two short pieces by Derrida; On Cosmopolitanism and On Forgiveness and dipped in an out of his Writing and Difference and Of Grammatology.

In Derrida I encountered something special; the ubiquity of presupposition. It had never before occurred to me (even as it is the most obvious of things) that one always reads with a bias. I know this may sound like an underwhelming revelation, but for me it had huge implications for my understanding of how I approached Scripture. Prior to this I had worked--very blindly in fact--under the assumption that the Bible was perfectly perspicuous (or clear) and any reading of its texts led to good and true understanding.

Now I still have many friends (and mentors) who hold to the perspicuity of Scripture. The main reason often given is trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The thinking here is that the Holy Spirit guides, establishes, and protects proper interpretation and true understanding. This is, no doubt, true.

However, as I surveyed the Protestant landscape one frightening conclusion seemed certain; the Spirit is hopelessly divided. Good and true interpretation is said to be guided by the Holy Spirit, though in Protestantism interpretations have grown to the tune of 33,000 denominations, each reading a clear Bible.

For a high Anglican, John 6 quite clearly supports Christ's real presence in the Eucharist, while a Baptist sees nothing of the sort. A traditional Lutheran finds no support for female ordination, while a non-denom community may thrive on its female leader. The Church of Christ disallows instruments in its worship, while a Pentecostal community might give 70% of its Sunday morning to "rockin' worship." The list can go on and on. The point is that each of these communities structure themselves around what they see as consistent with the Biblical witness. And each of them would appeal to the Spirit's guidance as their starting place.

In my beginning exploration of postmodern thought I was forced to chew on a hermeneutics of suspicion that shattered much of my long held assumptions. Protestantism was beginning to look more like a loose confederation of disparate ideas than a universal body united in Christ. I didn't know who or what to trust. I certainly didn't trust my own reading of Scripture any longer. It wasn't long before I gave up on everything but a bare bones Jesus, one I was incapable of giving much flesh...