An Open Letter to George Butterfield (Part 2)

Four Charges

Just prior to you providing a rationale for becoming Catholic, George, you and the host of the program made four charges against the churches of Christ.

1. "If you were not a member of the church of Christ, you were lost." Of course, you know that sounds like a partisan statement. Furthermore, it is devoid of any context. But, while we're on the subject, has there ever been a time when the Catholic Church taught that you had to be a Catholic to be saved? Did the Catholic Church consider Lutherans "brethren"? Have you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? Concerning your charge, however, did not Paul teach that Jesus was the Savior of the body, referring to the church (Eph 5:23)? And did not the Lord add to the church those who were being saved (Acts 2:47)? And weren't those on Pentecost saved by being "baptized for the remission of their sins" (Acts 2:38)? The charge made against us should be viewed in light of what the Scriptures teach.

2. "Everybody else was going to hell." Some obey the gospel, as the 3,000 did on Pentecost (Acts 2:41), and some refuse to do so. Which ones are likely to go to heaven?

3. "The church of Christ believes the Scriptures authorize things. If it doesn't say, you can't do it. So, there's no instrumental music." Bingo. Groti got it right. And, George, you didn't object to the principle or explain in what way it might be wrong. We all know why you failed to do so. The principle in question was not invented by us; it's in the Scriptures. As you know, Colossians 3:17 states: "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him." So, how can we teach that instrumental music is acceptable, or how can we use it when it is not authorized? We can scarcely do something in Christ's name when He never gave permission to do it. But you have had to give up this principle, George, because the Catholic Church does a multitude of things that Jesus never authorized. By the way, have you forgotten Nadab and Abihu, who offered unauthorized worship (Lev. 10:1-2)?

4. Allegedly, we are anti-Catholic. If we were, then how do you explain the fact that we have nine former Catholics in our congregation here? We have all known many devout Catholics; we have nothing against any of them—including you, George. But we do object to some of their teachings, which are not in harmony with the New Testament. If Jesus exposed the invalid traditions of the Pharisees and Paul vigorously opposed various errors, why cannot we follow their lead?

Your Claims

You give an account of taking in graduate school an Ancient Church History class. You mentioned that our view was that, when Jesus established the church, it was pristine and pure, but it eventually apostatized. Hmm. That's a bit of an oversimplification. The church did deal with Judaizing teachers early on (Acts 15; Gal. 5:1-4) as well as other problems (see 1 Cor.), but it continued to follow the apostles' doctrine (Acts 2:42).

So, you asked your "wonderful professor" that if the church apostatized, what was the date. He told you correctly, "No one can put a date on that." The reason is that it was a gradual process. It took more than 300 years for the doctrine of "original sin" to develop. Departures in church organization came well before that. But we do know this. When Boniface III declared himself universal bishop (or pope) in A.D. 606, the church was thoroughly apostate.

You should not be surprised at this, George, since Paul himself affirmed that the second coming would not occur "unless the falling away comes first…" (2 Thess. 2:3). Notice that Paul did not tie it to a date, either. But then you make one of the most astounding assertions that church members have ever heard.

I read church history and the church fathers and the apostolic fathers and the saints. I read a lot. "I gave up the search when I got to John Paul II. He's still preaching the gospel…." "If the church apostatized, I don't see it. I don't see it in her teachings."

I can't think of a kind way to say this George. You must be more dense than osmium (which is twice as dense as lead). You don't see that a separate priesthood between God and man is not in the New Testament—that all Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5)? You can't see the papacy as an invention of man not found in the Scriptures? You can't see that the New Testament does not teach seven sacraments? You can't tell the difference between sprinkling and immersion? Where does the Bible speak of a rosary? Do you now believe in the doctrine of purgatory? Hello!

You don't see apostasy in any of these teachings? It strains people's credulity, George. And when did John Paul II ever preach the gospel? Can you find one manuscript of him preaching what the apostle Peter did on the Day of Pentecost? As you know, Paul defines the gospel (in its basic sense) as the death of Christ on the cross for our sins, His burial, and His being raised up on the third day (1 Cor. 15:1-4). We obey that a form of that (Rom. 6:17-18) by dying to our sins, being buried with Christ in baptism, and being raised up (Rom. 6:3-5). That is obeying the gospel. When did John Paul II (or any pope) preach this message?

Later, you say, "In fact, I read a book that tied all the Mary-an [sic] teachings to the teachings of the New Testament." "After reading that book on Mary and the New Testament, I said, 'O my land! All of those dogmas come out of the Scriptures, and I was totally convinced.'" Really? I can see dozens of Catholics who have become Christians bending over to bring their jaws back up from where they fell to the floor. Can you tell us what Scripture teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin—and that she and Joseph never had intimate relations? Can you point to the passage that teaches that Mary's conception was immaculate—so that she would not have original sin to pass on to Jesus? And where can I find in the pages of the New Testament where Mary ascended into heaven? Really, George, these claims are way to lavish.

Conversion

"Eventually," you say, "it becomes clear to me that there are several wonderful Catholics who are Christians. They were teaching me how to pray. They were teaching me how to fast. Catholics can be Christians, too." Has anyone ever told you that you sound like Max Lucado? I'm guessing you had a few of his books in your library. Why is it that you're surprised that religious people know how to pray? One would think you discovered America when you hadn't even left Italy.

What other factors led to your "conversion"? You say that you and 40 Protestant "pastors" had been studying at Fuller Seminary (in Dallas) when you went to a retreat that turned out to be held at St. Andrew's Priory (now Abbey). You were amazed because at the Liturgy of the Hours, a man blew a pitch pipe. "I felt totally at home," you observed. That blew you away? One can only imagine what you would have done if he used one of our songbooks! According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Liturgy of the Hours is "a meditative dialogue on the mystery of Christ, using scripture and prayer." It further explains:

The two most important or hinge Hours are Morning and Evening Prayer. These each include a Gospel canticle: the Canticle of Zechariah from Luke 1:68-79 for Morning Prayer (known as the Benedictus), and the Canticle of Mary from Luke 1:46-55 for Evening Prayer (known as the Magnificat).

The website adds one more element to this practice: "In the Hours, the royal priesthood of the baptized is exercised, and this sacrifice of praise is thus connected to the sacrifice of the Eucharist, both preparing for and flowing from the Mass." I'm sure that readers of this open letter will take note that we had to go to a source outside the Scriptures to understand what you were talking about, George. We wonder, "Were all the Protestant pastors with you as enamored as you were with the 'Mass' you all participated in?" You confessed that, while at Denton, you participated in the Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours every morning before you went to your office at Singing Oaks. Interesting.

"Friendliness"

The main reasons you present for your "conversion" to Catholicism, George, are: 1) friendliness on the part of Catholics; 2) writings outside the Scriptures; and 3) feelings. Remarkably, you don't cite any passages of Scripture and say, "When I studied these verses, I learned I was practicing Christianity wrongly and that I needed to change." How conspicuously absent are the Scriptures in your conversion process. None of the three reasons cited for the change are Biblical. You said, for example:

I have found Catholics to be very welcoming, very open. I have not found the kind of negative, "What's wrong with you?" spirit that I sometimes saw growing up.

Catholics who met me as a Protestant minister "showed me so much love and respect, and they were so joyful around me that it totally drew me in."

You added that you had met live Catholics (as opposed to the ones you had read about from previous generations)—on-fire Catholics. You mention how that your wife, more than five years later, "got to where she loved the people, and the people that God led her to got to her." George, God did not lead you or her to friendly Catholics. You, in particular, went on your own accord. You received a reception that any religious group would have greeted you with. Do you know any group that acts grumpy toward a convert from anywhere else? Probably Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, or Baptists would have been happy for your presence, also.

You may remember the Restoration Leadership Ministry headed by Robert Shank and Marvin Bryant. They taught and baptized more than 50 denominational preachers. If I'm not mistaken, there was even a Catholic priest in the mix. My brother-in-law and I joined these two men in a Bible study with a Nazarene lay preacher and his wife. We all rejoiced when they were baptized about midnight, and we welcomed them into the body of Christ. They (and all the others who obeyed the gospel) were warmly welcomed. Many of them began preaching for us. Hopefully, we welcome all people who worship with us. The point is that Catholics do not have a unique contract with Friendliness. This, then, is not a legitimate reason to become a Catholic.

Reading

Neither is the fact that you read Catholic materials. You say, "The writings of St. Francis and St. Clare really got to me." [For those who don't know, Clare was a follower of Francis of Assisi and was the first woman who wrote rules for the monastic life.] We all read the writings of various religious groups; some of them do prove to be quite interesting, but they are not inspired of God. For that reason, we read the Bible first and foremost. We would only leave the churches of Christ if the Scriptures convicted us to do so. George, you have not pointed out any errors in what we believe and practice.