|
|
|
KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER
TOPICS:
FUNDAMENTALIST VS. EVANGELICAL VS. PROTESTANT
DR. JOHNSON ON IDLENESS AND KNOWLEDGE
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
Last week's announcement that Catholic Answers is working on a Voter's Guide for
distribution during the 2004 primary and general elections has struck a loud chord. I
knew I would get responses, but I did not anticipate getting so many. My in-box
runneth over. Most of the e-mails can be reduced to one word: "Huzzah!"
I mentioned that the Voter's Guide will not name names. How could it, since it is
intended for general use throughout the country and at all levels of electioneering,
from national and state races to county and municipal ones? This means that one man
who wrote to me will be dissatisfied with the Voter's Guide. He desperately wants us
to name names. Sorry, but this publication will be pamphlet size, not phonebook size.
The methodology will be simple and "negative": We will outline a few non-negotiable
principles, and the voter will apply them against each candidate. Candidates who fail
to live up to one or more principles will be struck from consideration. The voter then
will mark his ballot for one of the remaining names, after taking into account
whatever other issues are important to him. The Voter's Guide will not tell you whom
to vote for but whom not to vote for.
Despite the enthusiasm of many E-Letter readers for this project, I sense that some
will be unhappy with the final product because it will not explain Catholic principles
as they (incorrectly) understand them.
For example, a few correspondents said they hoped the Voter's Guide would note that a
good Catholic can't vote for a candidate who supports capital punishment because
capital punishment is condemned by the Church. These correspondents apparently do not
know that this is not Catholic teaching and that a Catholic is not barred from voting
for a candidate who favors the death penalty.
Such confusion may arise from a misunderstanding (a) of traditional Catholic teaching
on capital punishment, (b) of the authority of the American bishops' statements about
the issue, and (c) of the meaning of the teaching on capital punishment in the
"Catechism of the Catholic Church." There is no blanket condemnation of capital
punishment now, just as there never was a blanket affirmation of it before. Whether
capital punishment should be employed is a prudential determination. One can be a good
Catholic and oppose all applications of capital punishment, and one can be a good
Catholic and endorse the use of the penalty.
THIS IS NOT A JOKE!
Reader Heidi Anderson asks, "What's the difference between an Evangelical, a
Protestant, and a Fundamentalist? This sounds like a joke, but I really want to know."
This is the way I explain it when I give my most popular lecture, which is on
Fundamentalism:
If you take the whole spectrum of Protestantism, on one side you have what are called
the mainline churches: Episcopal, United Methodist, Presbyterian Church in the USA,
many Lutherans, and so on. These are the churches that have been losing members
steadily over the last three or four decades. They adhere to positions that are termed
theologically liberal.
On the other side of the spectrum you have Evangelicalism. As the name implies, these
Protestants put an emphasis on spreading the Good News (they evangelize). They
consider the Bible to be accurate and trustworthy (many mainline Protestants have
doubts about the Bible). They are theologically conservative. While they may be less
liturgical than most of the mainline Protestants, their doctrinal and moral beliefs
are closer to those of the Catholic Church.
The more conservative or traditional wing of Evangelicalism is called Fundamentalism.
The name began as something of a slur, used by a liberal Protestant preacher who
complained about inroads made by those who took the Bible (in his estimation) all too
literally. But the label stuck, and most Fundamentalists use it proudly to describe
themselves.
What is the difference between an Evangelical and a Fundamentalist? Often it's hard to
tell. You can find Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who believe exactly the same
things, but they express themselves somewhat differently and prefer different labels.
Here's one way to differentiate between the two. An Evangelical will ask, "Have you
accepted Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?" A Fundamentalist will put it this
way: "Are you saved?" There is a bit of an edge in the Fundamentalist's formulation,
but both believe in "once saved, always saved."
Another point of distinction is that Evangelicals tend to be willing to associate with
non-Evangelicals, including Catholics, in certain social, political, and even
religious activities. Fundamentalists draw the line at religion. To them, the Catholic
Church is hopelessly in error, so it makes no sense to have, say, a common prayer
meeting with "Papists."
Evangelicals also think Catholics are wrong but not hopelessly so, and many of them
welcome opportunities for common prayer. Most Evangelicals acknowledge that Catholics
are Christians; most Fundamentalists doubt Catholics deserve the title.
All of this is an oversimplification, of course. You will find Fundamentalists who
happily pray with Catholics and who say we're members of Christ's Church, and you will
find Evangelicals who won't do the first and don't think the second. You will find
mainline Protestants who subscribe to traditional Christian beliefs and who won't
truck with any of the novelties of the last generation.
But these are exceptional cases, sort of like pro-life Democratic politicians. They
exist, but they don't determine the overall nature of their organizations.
So keep all that in mind when you read my shorthand descriptions. I'm not trying to
give a thorough and well-nuanced answer to Miss Anderson's question. I'm just trying
to give something that works in the rough-and-tumble of everyday life.
BOSWELL, JOHNSON, AND BORES
I have about a hundred pages left to read of Adam Sisman's book "Boswell's
Presumptuous Task: The Making of the Life of Dr. Johnson." The book was published
three years ago, but I only recently came across it. The title comes from the first
paragraph of the "Life": "To write the life of him who excelled all mankind in writing
the lives of others ... may be reckoned in me a presumptuous task."
While Samuel Johnson impresses me no end, I don't find James Boswell to be a
particularly attractive figure. I can empathize, though, with his dilatoriness in
finishing his great work. It took years longer than he had hoped chiefly because, to
use a phrase from T.S. Eliot, Boswell was "distracted from distraction by
distraction." For much the same reason I am years behind in several books I have been
working on (not one of which, alas, will be remotely as good as Boswell's).
In 1763 Johnson made this remark: "Idleness is a disease which must be combated; but I
would not advise a rigid adherence to a particular plan of study. I myself have never
persisted in any plan for two days together. [I know what he means!--KK] A man ought
to read just as inclination leads him; for what he reads as a task will do him little
good. A young man should read five hours in a day [You students, as you paying
attention?--KK], and so may acquire a great deal of knowledge."
Of course, not all "knowledge" is useful or true. Johnson said "of a dull tiresome
fellow," "That fellow seems to me to possess one idea, and that is a wrong one." We
all know such people, and we all have to be on guard against becoming one of them,
which can happen if we do read five hours a day but read the wrong stuff.
Let me leave you with an unrelated comment by Johnson. I feel free to share this one
because I used to practice law: "Much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman,
who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at
last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back,
but he believed the gentleman was an attorney.'"
|
|
|
[TOP]
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
of
Index
Prior issue
Next issue
Sign up