Never Surrender

Written by

In a heart-touching essay, a physician and former Episcopalian, who goes by the nom de blog The Clueless Christian, explains why she "swam the Tiber" and became a Roman Catholic. She apparently sought constancy and certainty; to get them, she consciously subordinated her "mind and reason" to the Magisterium of the Roman church:

A parent needs religious education while her children are young, not at
some time in the future. … I needed a church that would be an anchor in whatever
storm the world sent. It seemed to me that the Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists,
Continuing Anglican and others all had the same problem that the Episcopal
church faced.

There was no central authority to hold the church to the gospel
once received by the Apostles, should a slim majority of the politically adept,
seize leadership of the church either at the parish, diocesan or national level,
and decide that they had been told by the Holy Spirit to abandon the authority
of Scripture. It seemed to me that all the Protestant churches were vulnerable
to schism and heresy.

* * *

[L]ooking honestly into my own heart (and I speak for nobody other
than myself) the main reason that I refused to acknowledge the
authority of the Magisterium was because I was no better than the
modern “gnostics” that I railed against in the Anglican church.

They
wished to submit themselves to Christ but to retain control over their
hearts and loves. They did not wish Christ to transform their hearts or
their sexuality.

I wished to submit to Christ but to retain command of
my mind and reason. I did not wish Christ to transform my mind.

Like
Eve before me, I preferred to have control over my knowledge of good
and evil, rather than to trust in God’s provenance for me. Looking at it from this point of view, I could come up with no honest reason to remain Protestant. So I became Catholic.

(Emphasis and bullets added, paragraphing slightly edited.)

I sympathize with her desire for stability, authority, and certainty. It seems to me, however, that in this life we don’t always have that luxury — and surrendering one’s mind and reason is a terrible, almost-despairing way to seek it.

Please note what I am not saying here. I’m not arguing for relativism. I’m not arguing that "you have your truth, and I have mine." It’s always sensible to consider what others think, and what others in the past have thought.

Heck, in many, many situations the smartest move may well be to defer to the judgment of another. If I’m riding in an airplane, I’m not about to try to second-guess the pilot. But the decision to defer to someone else’s judgment is itself is a judgment, one for which we must bear our own individual responsibility.

Deferring to the judgment of another is one thing. To consciously abdicate our gifts of mind and reason is another thing entirely. It’s not being a good steward of those gifts, which many of us believe were given by God. It strikes me as a sin.

(Hat tip to Pontificator, who asked the not-so-Clueless Christian to write her essay.)

Comments

14 responses to “Never Surrender”

2005-02-18

bls

Ironically, she will find that over 80% of American Catholics don’t agree with the Church on the matter of birth control, and many simply ignore the Church’s stance. This has been true for years.
On another front, many (most?) Catholics think that women’s ordination would be a great and good thing, and hope for the day it comes. And many now also believe that enforced celibacy for the clergy is wrong.
So apparently it’s only the homosexuality thing that’s set in stone for all time, then. Of course.

Reply
2005-02-18

Joseph

bls; I think you have highlighed exactly one of the reasons she found Catholicism so appealling. It is not an ‘american brand’ of religion: whether 50% +1 of americans oppose or support a belief is not the determinant of its truth. From what I have read, that seems to be (for her at least) an important distinction.

Reply
2005-02-19

Pontifications

Hell is Eternal Blogging

One of my favorite books is C. S. Lewis’s The Great Divorce, and one of my favorite characters in that book is the apostate bishop who refuses to acknowledge the existence of Hell despite his residence in it. Here’s a snippet of conversation with one …

Reply
2005-02-19

Anonymous

Deferring to the judgment of another is one thing. To consciously abdicate our gifts of mind and reason is another thing entirely.
Of course this makes perfect sense, as far as it goes. If my doctor tell me to take a certain medication, I will follow his advice, even though I may have read something on the Internet criticizing that medication. And I may disregard my neighbor’s advice about the best route to the mall, if I have driven there many times and know my route is faster.
The question is, how often will the Church be more like my misguided neighbor than my trusted doctor? In how many areas where the Church speaks can I reasonably think that I am more competent?
Honestly, it seems to me that most people engaged in questioning more traditional ideas of Christianity are not drawing so much on their own private knowledge and expeience as on the authority of teachers whose learning lends credibility to their ideas. I don’t see how one who choses to follow Frank Griswold’s teaching rather than Augustine’s is a more independent thinker than one who makes the opposite choice.
If your point is merely that, in the end, it is up to each individual to choose what to believe, I would have to agree; but no one really denys that.

Reply
2005-02-19

David Huff

I would counter the arguments of “|” above by asking just where does he/she suppose that the traditions of those who came before us originated ? They, of course, came from people who make decisions pretty much just as we do. And why does he/she assume that these people created traditions that were also more correct than we might, or more motivated by pure intentions ? I suspect that our ancestors were liable to the same foibles of greed, bigotry, selfishness, etc…that we are.
The church may be a bit more like your trusted doctor vs. your misguided neighbor, but the “church” was created by, and continues to consist of, fallible human beings. So to attribute more reliable spiritual insight to Augustine instead of +Griswold simply because he is a figure of distant history seems a fallacious stance.
Traditions are fine and valuable things. But neither the hoariest, most ancient of them nor, for that matter, the latest modernity, abrogates us from our responsibility as Christians to use reason and prayerful conscience to guide our moral behavior.

Reply
2005-02-21

MarkG

I did not mean to leave my comment anonymously.
I suppose that the traditions of those who came before originated when God became a man, and spoke publicly in human language; and when those who walked with him recorded what he taught them. Of course a reasonable person can deny that supposition; but if one holds that the Gospels do not provide reliable information about God, then ISTM that he must further concede that such relaible information is simply nowhere to be found.
Without doubt, people have always been plagued by biases arising from their own particular era and culture; we no less than our ancestors. An important strategy for transcending cultural biases is to consider what has been held in common by believers in very different eras and cultures. This is the essence of the idea of tradition.
And again, as I said before, I do not deny for a minute that each of us has the individual responsibility to choose what we will believe. My only point is that, in choosing, we must inevitably be influenced — usually decisively — by some ‘tradition.’ The idea that each of us is a tabula rasa, forming conclusions independent of teachers, history and culture, is a myth.
Mark Galliher

Reply
2005-02-21

bls

Actually, it’s not only American Catholics that don’t agree with the Church on birth control – it’s a worldwide phenomenon. Almost exactly the same numbers obtained in surveys of Catholics in Mexico, Colombia and Bolivia.
In a world of six billion people, and in which infant mortality rates are falling rapidly, did you really think this wasn’t going to happen? In a world in which women have some individual rights, and go to work, did you really think they wouldn’t want more out of life than to bear ten and twelve children? The article talks about the “sensus fidelium, the “sense of the faithful,” which is quite obviously correct in this case. The problem, of course, is that this phenomenon will in fact destroy the last barrier to acceptance of gay people, since it necessarily means that sexual relations are not each and every time about procreation (as if this fact weren’t already obvious!). This is why everybody’s still clinging fast to this idea, which I’m afraid is rapidly going the way of the dinosaur.
I am curious, though, about why this discussion always somehow becomes about Americans, and about “cafeteria religion.” This is about the Church. It’s been wrong in the past – as if this weren’t obvious, also! – and it will continue to be wrong, as it is a human institution and necessarily imperfect. If people are not satisfied with organized religion anymore, it could just possibly be that organized religion is failing them, and not the other way around.

Reply
2005-02-21

bls

I should add that a friend of mine – an Episcopal nun (who’s also a priest, BTW, since you can have that in our church!) – thinks that “This present time is a transition as great as the Protestant Reformation.”
So I guess we shouldn’t be at all surprised about what we’re seeing all around us, painful though it seems to be for everyone.

Reply
2005-02-21

David Huff

I suppose that the traditions of those who came before originated when God became a man, and spoke publicly in human language; and when those who walked with him recorded what he taught them.
It may have well happened in somewhat that way. But even if you concede this, the “recorders” were std issue, fallible human beings. If God came and spoke to you, do you think you’d be able to pass along what He said as perfectly as He did to you ?
As an aside, I believe that the Scriptures and traditions we have today did not arise in quite that simple a fashion. After all, it wasn’t until what ? the early Middle Ages ? that church councils even decided what was to be included in the Bible and in church “traditions.”
but if one holds that the Gospels do not provide reliable information about God, then ISTM that he must further concede that such relaible information is simply nowhere to be found.
No, I can’t buy that. That’s the fallacy of the False Dilemma.
And yes, I certainly don’t buy the “blank slate” thing either. Didn’t mean to imply I did, just that “traditions” are grist for the mill, the same as reason and our interpretations of Scripture.

Reply
2005-02-22

Joseph

I wonder if part of the point is that for those who choose the route of Rome a la Clueless Christian, one of the key factors is that democratic vote and popular opinion are not the arbiters of truth. I don’t think the comments are about Americans per se (“I’ll bet you think this song is about you…:)”; but rather about how one puts oneself under any kind of authority. There are court cases which are tried by jury, and there are court cases which are tried by judge alone. Is one “better” than the other? In the case of faith, CC has, I submit, opted to have the case heard by judge (the magisterium), rather than determined by a jury of peers.

Reply
2005-02-22

bls

William F. Buckley once said that “I am obliged to confess that I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the first two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.”
And I’m afraid I see the Magisterium as just a bigger, more biased, and more highly educated “jury of peers” – one I personally wouldn’t want to be governed by. In addition, any group that excludes, by fiat, half of the human race right at the start has got some serious credibility problems, I think. And of course in the case of birth control, women – who are the individuals directly affected – have no say in the matter at all. Why in the world would anyone view it as authoritative, I have to wonder?

Reply
2005-02-22

bls

Here’s another thought, though: I’ve been an A.A. member for over 20 years now; I lived when I should have died. I asked, and it was given to me. This happened because I put myself under the authority of God. All human beings, I came to understand, have feet of clay – without exception.
And A.A. operates with almost no doctrine at all. So I think maybe we’re complicating the whole thing unnecessarily?

Reply
2005-02-22

Joseph

bls: Why in the world does anyone do anything in the name of God? At the end of the day (or maybe at the beginning would be better) CC is doing what CC believes she is called to do. And from wherever one looks, there will always be foolish people over there or over here who are doing ridiculous things because they believe a God has called them to do it. I dare say you and I look the same from someone else’s vantage point. We strain to hear God’s voice, we respond as best we know how, by grace and by moving our clay feet in the direction of the call.
blessings,

Reply
2005-02-22

bls

Well, that was just a rhetorical question; I was trying to express my befuddlement at the idea by using extreme language.
I totally agree that we’re all fools, doing foolish things, trying to understand what God wants. I do tire of being referred to as a “modern gnostic,” and other such epithets, rather than simply as a Christian who sees things differently. Why do people continue to feel the need to say things like that?
I suppose this sort of thing is never going to end, but I sometimes feel my real adversaries are other Christians.

Reply