Theatre of the Absurd

A Review of Evangelical Catholics, by Keith Fournier (Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN, ©1990)

In 1990 Keith Fournier, then General Counsel and Dean of Evangelism at Franciscan University of Steubenville, wrote a book that has had some impact on the Christian and Roman Catholic community. The book, entitled Evangelical Catholics, created a bit of a stir simply for its oxymoronic title. The words Evangelical and Catholic normally are thought to fit together only in ancient history, before the advent of the Roman Catholic religion codified by the Council of Trent in 1545. In his book, Mr. Fournier, with a healthy endorsement by the confessed evangelical, Mr. Charles Colson, attempts to prove that one can be a (Roman) Catholic and an Evangelical at the same time with no contradictions.

But as we shall see, saying something and affirming something are altogether different. One may talk about square circles and flying elephants, but affirming the reality of such entities is another matter entirely. We believe Mr. Fournier, in attempting to be both evangelical and Roman Catholic, has built a boat which will not float. It is dead in the water, listing heavily toward Rome, trying in vain to catch the winds of evangelical Christianity.

What is a Christian?

Essentially, we have the same problem with Mr. Fournier that we have with a number of outspoken Romanists and some confessing evangelicals. It barrels down to the question, "What is a Christian?" Mr. Fournier determines that he is a Christian based upon the testimony of his own beliefs:

"I am a Christian. As I will explain in more detail in Chapters 2 and 3, I have personally placed my trust in Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord; I have committed my life to following Him. I do not follow perfectly. Like all disciples, I am a learner, and I am lesser than my Master. But I am still a Christian, a Christ follower."(pg. 13)

Mr. Fournier goes on to say that he is rooted in the doctrinal essentials of the Christian faith. After citing the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed, Mr. Fournier confesses:

"I embrace these creeds as accurate statements of the historic Christian faith. I believe them not only in my mind but also in my heart. They set forth what the Scriptures reveal and what the church proclaims. They plant me squarely in the rich soil of two thousand years of Christian belief."(pg. 15)

Now to those not familiar with Christianity, this sounds very good. However, upon reflection and sober observation we begin to see through this apparent evangelical confession. In the first place, Christianity cannot be adequately defined by either the Apostle's creed or the Nicene creed. Why? Because neither creed treats the issue of what one must believe to become a Christian. To illustrate, both creeds have vague language on the way sin is forgiven.[1]

"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen." (Apostle's Creed)

"Acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and life in the world to come. Amen." (Nicene Creed)

Given these statements, from these two creeds, we are left with nothing as to the meaning of how sins are forgiven.[2] Is it through faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone? Or are sins forgiven through any number of sacramental systems? The creeds quoted here do not say. They are not intent on answering the question of how one becomes a Christian. Someone, like Mr. Fournier, could embrace these creeds and substitute his own ideas of how one becomes a Christian. We notice there is not a word about the Gospel in anything that Mr. Fournier confesses. Believing in an historic creed is not the same as believing in the Gospel, unless the Gospel is in the historic creed. We also note that all Christians believe in historic creeds but not all who believe in historic creeds are Christian. This will become apparent in the case of Mr. Fournier.

"Why I am a Catholic Christian"

Having said nothing to convince us that Mr. Fournier understands the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we wade into his defense of Catholicism (Roman Catholicism). Mr. Fournier thinks he can be a Christian while believing the following:

1. "All those justified by faith through baptism are incorporated into Christ. They therefore have a right to be honored by the title Christian and are properly regarded as brothers in the Lord by the Sons of the Catholic Church."
2. "I Believe the Bible is the Book of the church, not that the church is the church of the Book."
3. "I believe that Jesus literally meant what He said about the consecrated bread and wine of the Eucharist..."
4. "I am a sacramentalist. I believe that God reveals Himself in sign and symbol, spirit and mud."(pp. 16-18, emphases added)

In proclaiming these beliefs, Mr. Fournier tips his hand. What he is saying is that he really does believe in baptismal regeneration, the Roman Catholic religion standing over the Word of God, the Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ in a transubstantiated piece of bread, and the Roman sacramental system which dispenses grace for a progressive salvation. This is hardly evangelical, let alone Christian! We marvel at Fournier's delusional conclusions about himself, Roman Catholicism, and Christianity:

"So in the truest sense of the term, I am an evangelical Christian. And since I am also Catholic, I am an evangelical Catholic Christian--without contradiction in terms, logic, theology, or history."(pg. 21)

The square circles are on parade and the elephants are flying! Having read this, we have to pinch ourselves to believe our eyes. All this would be silly were it not being taken quite seriously by some in the evangelical world. And herein lies the danger. How is it that any Christian can swallow such nonsense? And yet, sad to say, there appears to be a following for this sort of thing. Let us look carefully at what Mr. Fournier is saying. He says there is not a theological or logical contradiction between the Roman Catholic religion and the evangelical faith. This outlandish statement gives veracity to the axiom that when we lack the will to see things as they really are, there is nothing so mysterious as the obvious. The truth is just the opposite of what Mr. Fournier claims. Christians are members of the Body of Christ by virtue of faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone. Anything added to the Gospel of Christ overthrows it and must be classified another gospel. The Gospel of Christ will not oblige another gospel dressed in ecumenical clothing and paraded around as an alternative worshipping community. There is only one Gospel, and Rome does not have it. Christians are of God's elect throughout the ages. We have never believed in the dogmas of Roman Catholicism. We state boldly and clearly that baptismal regeneration is not of Christ. We reject as well the Romish doctrines of sacramentalism. They are fatal to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Christians believe all who embrace the beliefs and practices of Rome are not Christian. We cannot embrace Rome without contradicting the Gospel once delivered to the saints. We cannot embrace Rome without giving up all logic, Christian theology, and our history. We are united vicariously with those in Christ martyred by the Romanist religion whose testimony yet rings true to this day.

Finally, we believe that Mr. Fournier, like all Roman Catholics, is looking for a way to find acceptance for Romanism as part of the bonafide Christian community. Using the social issues of our day, which enhance the reputation of Romanism as an active conservative agent in the social arena, Fournier promotes ecumenism the Roman way. The ecumenical approach, as fostered by Rome, is a top down strategy in which Rome has seized the initiative. Rome wants the title "Christianity" granted to it by Christians. A clever way of demanding it is in legitimizing some who are outside of Rome as Christians. In so doing, Rome assumes the seat of authority. Fournier has not missed a beat in this strategy. If Rome keeps telling us long enough that we are, in fact, Christian, then how can we but recognize them as the same? Or so goes the strategy. We say, "No. Not now and not ever." Christians neither seek nor desire validation from Romanists. Nor can we give it to them. Romanism is simply another sorry example of a man-made dogma looking for Christian validation. Mr. Fournier thinks he can merge the two. But as we shall see, eventually the fangs of Rome will show even from those who, like Mr. Fournier, beguile with ecumenical rhetoric.

We catch a glimpse of this in Mr. Fournier's closing remarks. First the soft sell. We might call this absorption by assumption:

"For instance, as Christians we embrace a common belief that the Father sent Jesus Christ who died for us as the Savior of the world. Christians also agree that the Word of God was inspired by Him; that Jesus will one day return; that the Holy Spirit makes possible godly living; that the virtues of faith, hope and love are foundational to the Christian life. We can love one another as fellow believers in these shared truths... Ecumenism cannot be approached with the attitude of 'I have the truth and you don't, so listen to me.' That attitude has already failed miserably for hundreds of years."(pg. 179)

We believe Mr. Fournier gives us here a very subtle approach to a well known agenda. Even though Mr. Fournier clouds his words in nonsense about opposites being equal, and opposite worshipping communities (possessing radically different gospels) being equal before God, Mr. Fournier is nevertheless a Romanist.

When all the ecumenical promotion has been exhausted and nonsense theology has reached its nadir of convolution, we find cyanide capsules in the shower head at the end of Mr. Fournier's folly:

"I believe there are practical ways we can express this kind of true, grassroots ecumenism. One way is through common evangelical efforts. It is important that I explain what I mean here. As a Catholic I understand evangelization to be a process involving both the proclamation of the faith and the eventual implantation of believers into the church. It is not my intention, at this point, to explain more fully the Catholic concept of conversion as a continual process that necessarily takes place within the church."(pg. 183, emphasis added)

We are not surprised that any Roman Catholic is unwilling to discuss the Roman Catholic concept of conversion while trying to convince us he is an evangelical! Mr. Fournier is no exception. The reason is perfectly clear. The Gospel of Christ simply eliminates the need for the Roman Catholic religion. Mr. Fournier cannot have it both ways. All Christians understand this. We think ultimately Mr. Fournier knows this as well. He has made his choice as to where he really wants to be. No amount of ecumenical coaxing will convince us to leave the Gospel of Jesus Christ at the doorstep in order to join Mr. Fournier at his home in Rome.

[1] Missing from Fournier's statement is the heart of the matter. He does not care to discuss justification by faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone. The glass house of Rome is shattered by the twin blows of the Protestant Reformation, i.e., Sola Fide (faith only) and Sola Scriptura (Bible only). Neither does Fournier wish to discuss the Gospel message.

[2] Most all religions believe in some sort of forgiveness of sins. In the case of the Nicene Creed, doesn't it appear, when taken out of context, to give credence to the heresy of baptismal regeneration as championed by the Campbellites, among others?