Customer Reviews

Is the Reformation Over?: An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

As an evangelical Protestant I have often wondered what to make of Catholicism. How am I to view it? Am I to side with those who are virulent in their denunciations of it, or should I join with those who try to build bridges to those they see as their brothers and sisters in Christ?

The authors admit that those who tend toward the extremes will not be satisfied with this book, since the authors seem to favor the approach of those who choose dialogue and understanding rather than hostility.

Right from the start the book makes the contention and provides ample evidence "that both in the Roman Catholic Church and in relations between evangelicals and Catholics things are `not the way they used to be.'" Billy Graham is an example. During the 1950's Catholics were discouraged and in some countries even forbidden by their leaders to attend his meetings. Graham was just as strong in his stance against Catholics. By the 1980's Catholic leaders were participating in Crusades, and Graham even began to send decision cards of professed Catholics to the local Catholic archdiocese. In the year 2000, 15 Catholic delegates were officially sanctioned by the Vatican to attend Graham's Amsterdam conference to promote world evangelism.

This is one of many examples in the book given to support the idea that much has changed since the Second Vatican Council. That's not to say that significant differences between the two groups don't remain. The book looks at areas of agreement and differences primarily from a historical point of view. My guess is that you won't find a better book on the history of evangelical and Catholic relations. Other books probe doctrinal differences more fully, but none that I have read give such a broad and detailed overview of how things have changed.

If this book has a weakness, it may be that some of the historical analysis will probably be too much for the average reader, especially the section dealing with dialogues between the Catholic Church and individual denominations. Discussions that most of us probably were unaware of have been going on for years.

One of the most fascinating sections for me was the chapter devoted to the Catholic Catechism. I did not realize that if I want to know the official Catholic Church teaching on a subject, I can consult the updated Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was published in English in 1994. Interestingly, the authors estimate that evangelicals can embrace at least two-thirds of this 756-page book. They state that the theology is presented in such a worshipful manner that "Christians of all stripes will find paragraph after paragraph leading to worship and prayer." Amazingly enough, right about the time I was reading this section I found a good copy of the Catechism in a thrift store, which will make an excellent reference book.

Another excellent chapter examines the four joint statements produced by Evangelicals and Catholics Together. It goes into considerable detail on how individuals on both sides wrote about long-standing differences.

The Chapter titled "Reactions From Antagonism To Conversion" takes a fascinating look at the wide variety of evangelical response which ranges from outright rejection through theological criticism to acceptance and partnership. Jack Chick is mentioned among the more extreme responses but no mention is made of Dave Hunt, a well-known outspoken critic of the Catholic Church. Particularly fascinating are the abbreviated stories and reasons why some have converted to the Catholic Church. The list includes: Thomas Howard, Dennis Martin, Peter Kreeft, Scott and Kimberly Hahn and John Michael Talbot.

Is the reformation over? The authors early in the book conclude that on the basis of ecumenical dialogues the answer is "probably not." However, near the end of the book they provide the following viewpoint. "On the substance of what is actually taught about God's saving work in the world, if not always on the exact terminology used to describe that saving work, many evangelicals and Catholics believe something close to the same thing. If it is true, as once was repeated frequently by Protestants conscious of their anchorage in Martin Luther or John Calvin that iustificatio articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae (justification is the article on which the church stands or falls), then the Reformation is over."

They do acknowledge however that an important difference remains over the means through which God provides his grace for justification. They also point out that serious disagreements remain over questions of the church. Differences over the papacy and magisterium, Mary, the sacraments and mandatory celibacy for priests are in some ways all church-related issues.

The authors display a mastery of the material - broadly covering a wide variety of issues with great detail. This is must reading for those who want to seriously study Evangelical and Catholic relations.

Noll and Nystrom's analysis of Catholic-Evangelical relations is one of the best such works currently available, in that it is both scholarly and charitable. (Other authors on this subject could stand to learn a good deal from Noll and Nystrom's advice about incorporating the three theological virtues in study of Catholic-Protestant differences.) The tone is balanced and fair. The authors are not afraid to offer criticism of Roman Catholicism, but they are strong enough to point out problems within Evangelicalism as well. At times they take quite literally the Biblical injunction to remove the log from one's own eye before pointing out the specks in others.

One caveat to the readers who may be looking for something different: the subtitle may be something of a misnomer. The authors are not so much assessing Roman Catholicism as they are assessing the relationship between Catholics and Evangelicals. This is not a book focused on theological analysis of the remaining doctrinal differences, and it may disappoint readers who are looking for such analysis. Some such analysis does occur in chapters 5 and 9, but as it is brief, it doesn't do justice to many of the issues. (Catholics, for example, will be confused to find so much emphasis put on clerical celibacy, which is not even a matter of doctrine, while the description of the Catholic view of sacraments seems inadequate in several respects. Evangelicals, for their part, may wonder why issues that seem serious are simply passed over briefly.)

What the book does best is offer a history of the changing relationship between the two religious campus and a thorough analysis of how the situation now stands. Noll and Nystrom are also interested in how political views have shaped Evangelical responses to Catholicism, and they do a good job of gesturing towards some of the past history which may be unknown to today's Christians. The book is focused largely on American history and American strands of religion. On the one hand, this allows Noll and Nystrom to be very specific about the historical forces which have shaped Catholic-Protestant relations; on the other, it may leave readers wondering what the situation looks like outside of the United States.

On the positive side of the ledger, one of the greatest strengths of the book is the authors' awareness that Evangelicalism itself is not a uniform whole. Whereas many Evangelicals critique Catholicism solely from the vantage point of their own tradition, Noll and Nystrom indicate the breadth of different Evangelical opinions on such subjects as the nature of the church, the role of sacraments, and soteriology. As they astutely point out, the truth is that different groups of Evangelicals will find themselves in agreement with different aspects of Catholicism. Arminian Evangelicals will not react to the Catholic view of salvation in the same way that Calvinists would, for example. This may seem obvious, but I suspect that there are many Catholics out there who are not aware of the degree to which Evangelicals themselves disagree about many of the issues which divide Protestants and Catholics. This aspect of the book is one which may be very helpful to Catholic readers.

Catholic readers may also be intrigued by the chapter outlining recent ecumenical dialogues. The results of these dialogues, while limited, are still impressive, and I suspect that the average Catholic reader may be ignorant of much of this progress. Noll and Nystrom deserve credit for bringing concise but thorough summaries of official dialogues to a wider range of readers.

Overall, I highly recommend this book to either Catholic or Protestant readers interested in learning about the current state of Catholic-Evangelical affairs. Readers who are interested in doctrinal issues will likely want to read more, but fortunately, Noll and Nystrom include a strong guide to further reading from both Protestant and Catholic perspectives.

In the spirit of Unitatis Redintegratio, these authors have embarked on a search of Christian history since the Reformation and how the evangelical Protestant view of Catholics has transformed through three major events: The election of John Paul II and his role in the collapse of communism, the Second Vatican Council, and the 1973 Roe v Wade decision that placed Catholics and Evangicals in America on the same team praying and working towards and end to the horrors of abortion.

The book does not serve to be overly biased towards Protestants or Catholics, but remains very fair in its assessment of the history of both groups and where we stand today. I believe it should take its place on any bookshelf of readers who have a concern for ecumenical dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. Two thumbs up!

Yes.

That's the simple, if too glib, answer. And the authors, who have taken a good deal of time and care to carefully examine the question, deserve a better response than that. Still, as a former Protestant Evangelical who entered the Catholic Church on the Easter Vigil of 2005, that's the conclusion I came to.

I came to the Catholic Church because I arrived at the point where I could affirm her self-understanding. This came about through a thirty-year process where I looked at the questions dividing Evangelicalism and Catholicism from the point of view of history, theology, and practice. Since Mark Noll is a historian, he seems especially attuned to the strength of the Catholic position, and the weakness of the Evangelical position, vis-a-vis history. Anyone who looks closely at the history of the Church in the first few centuries following Christ's resurrection will see clearly that it very early on takes on a Catholic appearance. From Clement of Rome through Ignatius of Antioch through Polycarp through Justin Martyr through Iranaeus--that is, from about the end of the first century through the end of the second century--the Church increasingly comes to resemble its present shape, in its structure, ecclesiology, liturgy, theology, and sacramental understanding. This is so clearly established that no one, except Protestant liberals like Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman, questions it anymore. The difficulty for Protestant Evangelicals is that they accept the theological developments but not the structural, ecclesiological, liturgical, and sacramental developments. The question arises, why accept the one and reject the others? How is it that the same Church that is developing proper Trinitarian and Christological understandings, as well as determining the canon of Scripture, can be right in the one area and wrong in the other areas? What principal is at work here? The problem with Protestantism is that there are no historical antecedents for it. That is, it can't be shown to have existed before the 16th century. The question then arises, If Protestantism is true, why did it take the Church 1500 years to find it out? For some strange reason, Protestants seem to have seldom asked themselves this question. Indeed, as recently as 1953 we have the noted Protestant theologian and historian Oscar Cullman writing: "We, on the Protestant side, are beginning to understand the immense wealth that is contained in the writing of the Church Fathers and are beginning to rid ourselves of that strange conception of the Church's history that claims that, with the exception of a few sects, there was a total eclipse of the Gospel between the second and sixteenth centuries." The remarkable thing to me about this quote is that it acknowledges that it took Protestantism 400 years to discover it had no heritage, except the writings of the Catholic Church, which it initially rejected.

On the theological side, N. T. Wright (along with Ed Sanders and Ben Meyer) has definitively shown in What St. Paul Really Said and in The Climax of the Covenant that Paul can't be made to have said what the Reformers said he said, namely, that Justification should primarily be understood as the divine imputation of Christ's righteousness to the sinner, taking place under some heavenly juridical circumstances. Indeed, as Noll acknowledges, Protestants are coming to understand the difficulties in sustaining a Reformed understanding of Justification, just as they are coming to realize that Catholics have always affirmed that it is God who Justifies sinners. The dispute really hasn't been about Justification as much as it has been about what Faith means. For Protestants, Faith has traditionally meant assent to the Gospel message; for Catholics, Faith has meant not only assent to the Gospel message but also entrance into the Body of Christ and faithfulness to it and its Head, Jesus Christ. From a Catholic perspective, it appears that the authors have a fairly adequate understanding both of the Catholic position and what still prevents full acceptance of it by Evangelicals, but they seem insufficiently aware of the erosion to the classic Protestant position that has occurred as a consequence of the work of Wright and as a result of a better formulation of the Catholic position by its theologians.

The authors do seem to have grasped the idea that what most deeply and significantly divides Protestant Evangelicals and Catholics is a different concept of the Church. But even here, I'm not sure they've really put their finger on it. For a Catholic, the unvarying record of Scripture and early Church writings establishes beyond a doubt that Jesus Christ intended not only to establish the Church as a visible, institutional continuation of his ministry, but passed on to it some of the divine prerogatives of his ministry (always, it must be remembered, acting in His name, He Himself being the Real Minister), such as the keys, the forgiveness of sins, and the consecration of the Eucharistic gifts. Protestants do not believe the Church has been given such prerogatives, nor do they believe it was established by Christ, despite the fact that Catholic understandings about the Church, its structure, sacraments, and ministry arose very early and without dispute within the Church itself. For a Protestant the Church is a consequence of the believer's Justification by God by divine decree. It is the fellowship of all those who share this experience of Justification. The problem with this position is that it reduces Christianity to a theory of how Atonement works. The Catholic position, on the other hand, is rooted in an understanding that Christianity is the coming to fruition of God's eternal plan worked out in history in the person of Jesus Christ and continued in his divine/historical Body, the Church.

"Is the Reformation Over" has as its subtitle "An Evangelical Assessment of Roman Catholicism". Readers should keep in mind that it is a historical assessment and not primarily a theological one. And as a historical assessment, it is a worthy read.

No doubt most laypeople in both the evangelical and Roman Catholic traditions are largely unaware of the long dialog that has been occurring between the Vatican and representatives of various Protestant traditions, usually initiated by Rome. Noll does a service to all by providing a brief synopsis of those dialogs, including the points of agreement and disagreement. This is the most helpful portion of the book in simply raising awareness of how committed John Paul II was to seeking Christian unity and how much progress has been made since Vatican II in at least discussing the issues that have separated Western Christians for four hundred years.

The section on the history of Protestant and Catholic relations in the United States are also very helpful in understanding why acrimony has long existed and why the political climate has aided recent dialog and built alliances.

Many reviewers have pointed to the statement of early reformers that the reformation stands or falls on justification by faith, a point Noll himself makes. And in light of the Joint Declaration on Justification worked through with Lutheran representatives as well as other Protestant/Catholic discussions and documents, it would appear Rome has moved significantly toward the Protestant view, and that Protestants better understand the Catholic position. Though Catholics define both grace and faith somewhat differently from Protestants, the fact that there is agreement on the words themselves is a tremendous milestone.

But if theology of salvation is no longer a significant obstacle to fellowship, Noll's view is that the main remaining hurdle is ecclesiology. While many Protestants believe Catholic doctrines about Mary and the saints, Purgatory and the Papacy are the prime objects of contention, Noll's point is that those doctrines remain a result of differing views of the nature of the church. To Catholics, it is the church that is the source of truth and the church that defines essential doctrine, even though Catholics today place even the teaching magisterium of the church under scripture in theory. As long as Rome sees itself as the official interpreter of scripture and the key defender of apostolic tradition, it will be difficult to have a ground for discussion of those particular topics.

Protestant ecclesiology is admitted by many Protestants to be thin, still it is unlikely Protestants will ever accept doctrines as essential which have little clear Biblical support merely on the word of certain bishops, and even if the worst fears about some Catholic doctrines are the result of misunderstanding and misinterpretation, the implications of many Catholic doctrines trouble Protestants still. But Noll's point is well taken, that the central issue is the nature of the church and the question "who defines essential doctrine?" must come before the discussion of the doctrines themselves.

Noll does not conclude that the Reformation is over, but considering the significant, though not perfect, agreement on justification and the place of scripture, it is certainly the case that the Reformers' pleas have at least been heard in Rome.

From the very beginning of the book, you get the feeling its subtitle should be "Has the Roman Catholic Church Seen the Errors of Its Ways and Become Protestant Yet?" The book's expressed purpose is to discuss perceived changes in Catholicism and see if those changes are significant enough that we can say Christian unity is achieved. Its intention is not to discuss changes in Protestantism that might lead it toward the Catholic position. As such, it sets up Protestantism as the judge of Catholic correction.

When considering the query posed in the book's title, keep in mind that Mark Noll was an evangelical Protestant before writing the book, and was so after writing it; and Baker Academic, the publisher, also remains an evangelical enterprise. I won't give away the answer, but don't be too surprised when you read it for yourself.

I must say that the charity and general tone in this book dealing with delicate issues is quite commendable. The authors do a good and fair job of explaining the history and current condition of tensions between Protestants and Catholics, and especially its evolution in the United States. Without descending into argumentativeness, the book fairly expresses positions of both sides on a wide range of issues. The major thrust of the book is to highlight those beliefs that Protestants and Catholics hold in common, while not neglecting issues that still divide. A good summary is found on pages 230-1: "Although agreement on foundational Christian teachings has always been present, at least to some degree, since the origins of Protestantism in the sixteenth century, only in recent decades have the depth and significance of these common doctrinal affirmations been visible." This really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, least of all the authors, as Protestantism wasn't a new religion, but based (however loosely one wishes to view it) on existing Christianity of the time. In their review of the Catholic Catechism, this common basis seems to be news to the authors.

Despite a perhaps honest attempt to be even-handed throughout the book, once in a while the authors do betray their own perspectives. For example, the statement "In Latin America ... evangelical entry into Catholic territory still can lead to church-sanctioned violence." (p. 188) There is no citation or reference to a specific event, and no presentation of an official church document that "sanctions violence" of any kind, here or anywhere else.

Unfortunately, the book reflects an attitude of carelessness on many levels. Carelessness in vocabulary and editing, carelessness in research, and carelessness in conclusion.

* Twice on page 130 they use the word "venal" to describe minor sins. The word should be "venial."

* On pages 30-31 we're told about the document "Evangelicals and Catholics in Ireland" in text and footnotes. It was difficult as a reader wishing to find the source, because the actual title is "Evangelicals and Catholics Together in Ireland."

* On page 28 the authors say that Catholic World Youth Day is an annual event. In fact, it's once every 2-3 years.

* On page 92 they find "These statements seem to represent a softening of traditional Catholic teaching on transubstantiation." The authors' view here might be too clouded by hope.

* In a weak interpretation of the encyclical _Ut Unum Sint_, the authors claim (p. 28) that "this encyclical specified in particular that distinctly Catholic doctrines such as the supremacy of the pope should be debated openly in future dialogue between Catholics and other Christians." Well, not quite. If we look at the actual document (para. 88-96), it does not call for debate, but rather calls for "fraternal dialogue" on how Christian unity can be realized under the pope. While recognizing new situations, the encyclical says of the papacy that it is "in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission."

* Chapter 4 summarizes the results of official dialogs between Catholics and many different Protestant denominations. It includes 178 footnotes. 168 of these are cross-references to a mere two books, taken as the sources of the dialogue pronouncements. The original primary documents are readily available, so the authors should not quote secondary sources, but rather should cite the originals themselves.

In all these cases, a little bit more research, direct quoting of primary rather than secondary sources, and learning a little bit more about Catholic teaching and practice would have gone a long way to making this book a more serious piece of work. Similar treatment is given to the documents of Vatican 2, where they quote someone else's views on these documents instead of their own views or quoting the primary documents themselves (e.g., p. 60). All this just reflects bad or lazy scholarship, or unhealthy reliance on only certain secondary sources. Perhaps this last possibility explains their recommendation (p. 256) of Loraine Boettner's _Roman Catholicism_ as paying "close attention to official Catholic statements." Boettner's rabid and baseless anti-Catholicism is something of a joke, eschewed even by most Protestants.

I could go on citing more errors throughout, but I ran across this one paragraph so mistake-riddled that it blatantly shows the authors' carelessness in research and expression. It is surprising when the authors so highly commend both sides of the debate for striving to better understand each other, that they can express so little understanding of the central form of Catholic worship. I quote the paragraph in its entirety and comment afterward:

"What makes a sacrament valid? For Catholics, valid sacraments always retain a connection to ordination,[1] which leads back eventually to the pope.[2] Catholics currently observe[3] seven sacraments, including ordination. Most Protestants observe only two sacraments (and some call them ordinances). These Protestant sacraments or ordinances are usually administered by an ordained pastor, but most Protestants do not see the need for connecting the administration of the sacraments to higher church authority, such as the Catholic pope. For this reason, Protestants are often willing to have Catholics participate in their celebrations of the Lord's Supper. Informed Catholics, however, do not regard a protestant Communion or Eucharist as valid because it is not administered by an ordained priest in fellowship with their church and the pope.[4] Catholics cannot welcome non-Catholics to their Eucharist because participating in the Catholic Eucharist entails recognition of papal authority[5], which Protestants by definition do not accept. Since only a Catholic priest ordained by a bishop can validly administer Catholic sacraments, mutual celebration of the sacraments remains a far distant possibility." (pp. 113-4)

1. Not all sacraments require ordained ministers. For example, baptism. This is why Catholics recognize the baptism of Protestants, and do not "rebaptize" converts to the Church who have been baptized in most other Protestant denominations. Marriage is also a sacrament in which the ordained minister (bishop, priest, or deacon) is a witness and provides a blessing, but the actual ministers of the sacrament are the husband and wife themselves.

2. This connection to the pope is not explained. For those sacraments requiring a priest (let's say Eucharist), the "connection" is not geographically through the bishop to the pope, but chronologically through the bishops as successors to the Apostles.

3. "Observe" is an odd word choice for this phrase. In another spot, the authors use the phrase "assume seven sacraments" (p. 91). I'm not sure what they mean by assumption. It might be better to say that Catholics recognize, practice, or administer seven sacraments.

4. Again, fellowship of the pope has nothing to do with the communion. The issue is recognition of valid ordination (through time), and proper form and matter of the sacrament. In fact, non-Catholics are permitted to take communion in Catholic Mass. Canon Law 844, §3 states "Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church..." This extends to members of Eastern Orthodox churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and Polish National Catholic Church (an American denomination), none of which recognize the pope as leader of the universal church.

5. People participating in Catholic communion services recognize the body and blood of Christ, not papal authority.

In several places, the authors express hope in the shared faith elements agreed to by "many Catholics and Protestants." The problem with this is that "many Catholics" do not define or represent the official teaching of the Catholic Church. A good case in point is the quote from "Evangelicals and Catholics Together in Ireland" on page 30: "Salvation is by grace, received by faith, with no help needed from good works or religious observances done to improve our chances of being saved." Now really, no official Catholic document is going to say that participation in the sacraments is of "no help" in salvation. The authors carefully point out the richness of faith explained by the Catechism and the encyclicals of John Paul II, so they should heed their own advice in holding these as higher authority than they do the opinions of "many Catholics."

In conclusion, this book is actually a good resource for learning about the dialogues and rapprochement between some Catholics and some Protestants. But the substratum message hinted at by the authors through their lazy research, careless writing, and unwillingness to learn and convey basic Catholic teachings says, "some Protestants, but not us."

I am a Catholic theologically, artistically and culturally; and though I love my Evangelical brothers and sisters, I am sometimes confused by them. This book has been wonderfully helpful to me in seeking to understand them. Christian unity is of the deepest importance to me. I'm amazed by the scope of our common ground. All Mark Noll's books are eloquent and informative and enlightening. This book, written with Carolyn Nystrom, has given me a new perspective on religious controversy, especially in America. Let me also recommend the works of Walter Cardinal Kasper on ecumenism. The works of Noll, and the works of Kasper, strike me as reflecting an authentic Christian voice, a voice that is patient, a voice that is kind.

This book's title is misleading: it seems to suggest that the authors answer in the affirmative and suggest everyone return to Father Pope and Mother Mary. That is not what they argue, however. They trace American evangelicalism's opinion and political reaction to Roman Catholicism from the Puritan era until the present day. Much attention is given to Vatican II, the Catholic Catechism, and the various Evangelical and Catholics Together (ECT) statements. Some final thoughts will be why evangelicals "convert" to Roman Catholicism.

Not surprisingly, America's reaction to Roman Catholicism in the early days was hostile, given the quasi-Puritan foundation of the Republic. The reasons why early Americans were hostile to Catholicism is far more interesting. American religious thinkers perceived a connection between democratic government and Protestant theology (here the terms "democracy," "republic," and "liberal democracy" are being used interchangeably. I understand the nuances but for ease of the review will ignore them). A corollary to this is a connection between monarchy and Catholicism. The final conclusion all American protestants drew was that Catholics could not be good republicans (Noll and Nystrom 2005: 45). The most famous example of this concerns President Kennedy's election. Many feared he would take orders directly from the Pope. This is just one example, but it illustrates a very real tension in American politics.
Attitudes changed in the twentieth century as evangelicals and Catholics realized they had more to fear from the power state and secularism than they did from one another. Another change is that each benefited from the other's strengths. Catholics began to study the bible in earnest and Evangelicals began reading authors who could actually write (e.g., Tolkien and Chesterton).

Noll and Nystrom have a good chapter outlining the major theology of the Catholic Catechism. This demonstrates what evangelicals and catholics do have in common, what Catholics actually believe, and why any actual "reunion" will not take place in the near future. Noll and Nystrom argue (correctly) that the differences between Catholics and Evangelicals is not simply that one worships Mary and bones and holy places, while the other simply worships the simple Jesus. Rather, it is a fundamental difference in how the church is perceived. As they note, "It is a different conception of how God fashions the body of Christ" (233).
The authors spend several chapters on the various ECT documents spanning from the early 1990s until the mid 2000s. Originally, it was conceived as a way for Catholics and Evangelicals to live together in the public sphere without tension and animosity. The earlier documents dealt with social ethics and political morality. The documents then shifted to key Reformation distinctives. Many Calvinists soon took aim at these documents with R.C. Sproul wailing that Evangelicalism is "tottering on collapse" and the light of the gospel will soon vanish forever (this kind of stuff is the reason nobody takes Reformed theologians seriously anymore). While the critics of ECT were correct that any real union between Rome and Wheaton is impossible because the issues are mutually exclusive, the critics of the critics were able to seriously rebut every theological point aimed at them.

What makes a life-long evangelical leave "the faith of his fathers" to convert to Roman Catholicism? What does he or she gain, and what does he or she lose? Noll and Nystrom survey several popular evangelical and catholic authors who made the switch: Peter Kreeft, Scott Hahn, and a few others. Noll and Nystrom, following the work of Scott McKnight (2002) identify several key issues: certainty, history, unity, and authority (Noll and Nystrom, 205). Evangelicals convert because they want a certain faith, and this is understandable. If the bible alone is the ground of my certainty, then how does one steer out of the numerous contradictory interpretations? To say it another way: how can I be sure of my faith when the ground of theology is subject to several hundred thousand interpretations?

Other evangelicals are drawn to the ancient history. The Holy Spirit is not a light flashing on and off in history: flashes on during the apostles, flashes off at Constantine, flashes back on at Nicea, flashes off for the next 1200 years, flashes back on during the Reformers, flashes off again, flashes back on during the Kentucky revivals. Some evangelicals want a historically recognizable faith that takes seriously the claim that the "faith was once for all delivered to the saints" and that Jesus wouldn't leave his church. The test is quite simple: go into a liturgical church and also visit an evangelical church. Which liturgy is closer to the ancient church?

Other evangelicals want unity. Many bemoan the fact that the unified church is actually 300,000 denominations, with each pastor a pope. As one evangelical wag put it, "it is one long line of protestors protesting against their fellow protestors" (qtd. in Noll and Nystrom, 206). The final principle is authority. While this seems to some as simply "turning one's brain off and accepting everything the Pope says," it does reveal a sane and understandable impulse: the Christian faith is not simply a set of propositions of which one is absolutely forced to know all things about them. The world is not going to end if one cannot figure out everything about Scripture.

This book is a barometer of where Evangelicalism is at the moment. Most of these analyses of Evangelicalism are not pretty. Noll and Nystrom are frank about the situation, but the sky is not falling. Evangelicals and Catholics can continue to work together and learn more about one another. The book has its limitations, though. The authors dealt only with one subsection of American culture and Catholicism as it relates to that culture.

The authors, Mark A. Noll and Carolyn Nystrom, do a good job of giving an overview of Protestant/Roman Catholic relations since Vatican II. That being said, the book, at times was a tedious read, because it tended to repeat itself. A quick look at the book's references to ECT, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, bears that out. To the books credit it does show that when it comes down to individual believers you see a lot of cross over and confusion when it comes to orthodoxy in each faith tradition. The authors also show that a lot of the distrust on the part of both parties is rooted in historical prejudices and outright misstatements on what the other side believes. I would have liked to see more on how Protestantism, in all forms, never really agreed, vis-a-vis, the Reformed, Arminian, and Anabaptist camps of what became known as the Protestant Churches. And, how all forms of Protestantism kept the parts of Roman Catholic thought and theology that suited their purposes. The book is a good reference, but in its case, less would have been more in what the authors did present.

Mr. Noll does a good job of explaining both sides with little bias of the communications that are currently going on between the Catholic Church and evangelicals. This is the greatest social concern of our era, division in the Church, so I certainly look forward to seeing more works like this, as well as more dialogue between Christian faiths. I didn't agree with all of his assertions, but the actual logs of dialogue are good for any to hear, Protestant or Catholic.