Product Description

For the last few decades, Catholics and Protestants have been working to heal the wounds caused by centuries of mistrust. This book, a Christianity Today 2006 Book Award winner, provides an evaluation of contemporary Roman Catholicism and the changing relationship between Catholics and evangelicals. The authors examine past tensions, post-Vatican II ecumenical dialogues, and social/political issues that have brought Catholics and evangelicals together. While not ignoring significant differences that remain, the authors call evangelicals to gain a new appreciation for the current character of the Catholic Church. Written by Mark Noll, one of the premier church historians of our day, and Carolyn Nystrom, this book will appeal to those interested in the relationship between evangelicals and the Catholic Church.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #203991 in Books
• Published on: 2008-04-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 272 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780801035753
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

From Publishers Weekly
The eminent evangelical historian Noll and journalist Nystrom offer a lucid and charitable account of the current state of evangelical-Catholic relations. Only scant decades ago, they point out, Protestants inveighed against "the formalism, the anthropocentric worship, the power mongering, and the egotism" of Rome. But now, they wryly observe, all those qualities "flourish on every hand within Protestant evangelicalism." This willingness to see the proverbial beam in one's own eye is one of the great strengths of this book, which has as much to say about the authors' own Christian tradition as about Rome. Surveying the changes in Catholicism since Vatican II, and documenting the numerous encounters that have ensued between Catholics and Protestants, Noll and Nystrom find "a dramatically altered terrain" that offers hope for further rapprochement. Catholics will appreciate the authors' focus on official teaching, especially their appreciative, though not uncritical, survey of the Church's Catechism. Not all readers will agree that on the crucial Reformation-era topic of justification, "Catholics and evangelicals now believe approximately the same thing," and Noll and Nystrom barely mention popular practices, like the cult of Guadalupe and the late Pope John Paul II's reinstatement of indulgences, that trouble evangelicals. Still, even if they never quite answer the question posed in their title, Noll and Nystrom certainly make the case that that question's time has come. (July)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From the Back Cover
Christianity Today 2006 Book Award Winner

"Here is superb theological journalism. The authors review Roman Catholic alterations of posture, if not of position, during the past half century; assess the overall shift as irreversible and transformational; and speculate provocatively on the significance of current Catholic/evangelical interaction in today's divided Christendom. Their thorough historical analysis will be a landmark resource for exploring the theological questions that Roman Catholic reconfiguration raises. This is an important book."--J. I. Packer, Regent College

"Noll and Nystrom have produced a volume remarkable for its intellectual maturity and depth. Not since Berkouwer's great works on Catholicism have we seen anything like this. Written with utter clarity and directness, undergirded by immense historical and theological scholarship, this volume is the best available statement of the relationship and by itself is a vital step in making informed conversation between the parties possible."--William M. Shea, College of the Holy Cross; author, The Lion and the Lamb: Evangelicals and Catholics in America

"To their credit, [the authors] examine deep and difficult matters with care and moderation. . . . Is the Reformation Over? is most successful as a systematic, historical documentation of a complicated and often contentious relationship. This is to be expected of Noll, whose outstanding works of church history are marked by careful research and well-measured opinions."--Carl E. Olson, Touchstone

"The Reformation is over only in the sense that to some extent it has succeeded. This book examines, with scholarly care and sensitivity, recent evangelical-Roman Catholic developments that lend credence to this possibility. This book will help all of us who are committed to exploring the common heritage, as well as the differences that still remain, between the two largest faith communities in the Christian world."--Timothy George, Beeson Divinity School; executive editor of Christianity Today

About the Author
Mark A. Noll (PhD,Vanderbilt University) is the Francis A. McAnaney Professor of History at the University of Notre Dame. He is the author of many books, including A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, and Turning Points. Carolyn Nystrom, a freelance writer, is based in St. Charles, Illinois.

Customer Reviews

I don't know of a better book on the history of Evangelical and Catholic relations
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.

Highly Recommended
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.

One is tempted to just say . . .
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.