There is an interesting aspect to the story of my conversion to the Roman Catholic Church that most people do not know. It is widely known that I was once a member of the RPCUS, a small Presbyterian denomination, and that after years of study, reflection, and prayer, I finally found myself in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.
What is not widely known is how exactly I became interested in studying the things that would cause me to question my previously unfailing devotion to Jean Chauvin. Before the Federal Vision controversy ever got started, there was a young man in a small Protestant mission in west Tennessee who had an insatiable love for the Bible and the Church. The pastor of that mission claimed to have the same love, but found himself hotly disagreeing with the young man on more than one occasion. But instead of having open and honest dialogue about the issues that separated the two, the pastor always cut the conversations short, accused the young man of impertinence, and demanded that the young man change his reading habits.
Probably one of the more frustrating aspects of this whole conflict was that, by all accounts, the young man had read more and knew more than the pastor did. But rather than do any reading himself, the pastor merely insisted he was right but could never make a compelling case of his own. The young man had been reading James Jordan, Douglas Wilson, and Peter Leithart. His voracious reading was starting to cause problems in the little mission, and the pastor phoned home for some help.
This started the RPCUS’ investigation into what would later be called “The Federal Vision”. After a brief (and I mean very brief) “investigation” into the movement, a list of resolutions was released condemning the teachings of the speakers at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastors’ Conference. When I saw this list of resolutions, it got me thinking about what I really believed. After much reading on both sides of the controversy, I was suddenly made aware of a whole litany of people and events that I never knew about, primarily because they existed or occurred prior to 1517. When I was opened up to a whole new world, about which I knew nothing prior, I was forced to do some serious reading and studying. And as you might imagine, this same thing led the young man at the Protestant mission to do the same. His search for something to satisfy his thirst for knowledge continued elsewhere. And when he found a deeper well in the Catholic Church, his story was hailed as proof of the errors of the Federal Vision.
His story became my story. The young man was Jay Dyer, who inadvertently became the cause for my conversion. Without his experience, I would not have ever been exposed to anything beyond my little sect in north Georgia. For this reason, should I make it to heaven, I will be indebted to him for all eternity.
Recently, after a long bout of studying and soul-searching, he now has left the Roman Church to seek communion with the œcumenical patriarchate of Constantinople. Whilst I am saddened to lose a Catholic friend, I refuse to condemn him or his motives. I remember all too vividly condemning a friend of mine for even looking into the Catholic Church some years back. How foolish it is to condemn without first hearing the whole story.
To-day, Jay remains a very large influence on me. When he left the Roman Church, I saw the criticisms flying. I saw the accusations of bad motives and instability. None of these will I give. Jay has, over the last year, exposed me to more than I could have ever expected to learn from all the traditionalist Catholics in the world. He has opened my eyes to the theology of the East, and more importantly, has shown me why it is such a critical issue for the Church to-day.
For years, I had been content with the arguments of Boëthius and St. Thomas de Aquin for absolute divine simplicity, but when I was presented with the Eastern view, I not only saw the differences between the two views, but also why the Cappadocian Fathers were so insistent upon the distinctions they were making. Since Jay recently announced his decision, discussions have been popping up literally all over the place, and I would like to make a few observations.
Firstly, I remain and am likely to remain a Roman Catholic until my death. But I also recognise that both the eastern and the western patriarchs are pushing for unity. Unity cannot happen and will not happen until the West takes the necessary steps to understand Eastern Theology.
Secondly, traditionalist Roman Catholics who base their entire theology on Ss. Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas without consulting Ss. Athanasius, Maximus, Basil, and Gregory are not really qualified to enter into this discussion. Without doing the requisite reading, you simply cannot claim to have dealt with the force of the Eastern arguments.
Thirdly, though Thomistic philosophy is normative in the West, neither St. Thomas nor his beliefs are infallible. I appreciate heavily the contributions made by St. Thomas to Christian philosophy, but I am not of the deluded opinion that he was above error in his philosophies or works.
Fourthly, if you don’t even know the terminology in which the entire debate is framed, I really do not think that you are competent to have an opinion – pro or con – on the issue. Whilst I would not claim that I understand the issues completely, I understand enough to know that for me to rely exclusively on a few of the Scholastic philosophers is absurd if I am going to engage the Eastern arguments.
Finally, I will always count Jay as the best of friends, regardless of whether he stays with the oriental churches or if he returns to the Roman Church one day. In the numerous battles in which we are currently engaged in this country alone, I count him as an invaluable soldier to have by my side. So whilst I cannot follow him in his decision to leave the Catholic Church, I cannot and will not question his motives or attribute to him anything other than a desire to know and experience God more fully.
