Rome Bitter Rome: The Real Reason Why Scott and Kimberly Hahn Converted to Catholicism

Rome Bitter Rome: The Real Reason Why Scott and Kimberly Hahn Converted to Catholicism

October 8, 2012, 10:59 am
Filed under: Roman Catholicism

by David Bishop

A blurb from the Bishop of Lincoln on the back cover of Scott and Kimberly Hahn’s book, “Rome Sweet Rome: Our Journey to Catholicism”, reads in part as follows:  “The story of the Hahns’ journey of faith into the Catholic  Church is the story of sincerity, integrity, and profound human interest.” It certainly is that.  It is in every sense of the word the story of a couple who sincerely worship in the flesh and place full confidence in their humanism. In fact, Kimberly Hahn reports very early on in her book:

“I heard the gospel in a way that convicted my heart: God loved me and had a desire for me to live with and for Him, but my own sins separated me from Him and those sins had to be forgiven for me to be close to God.  That was why Jesus had come.   I had to acknowledge my own need.  I had to ask specifically for forgiveness for those sins – saying, ‘Jesus, be my Savior.’  And I had to say to Him, ‘I want you on the throne of my life – Jesus, be my Lord.’  No longer held by the hand of my parents, I needed to be grasped firmly by the hand of my heavenly Father.” (Rome Sweet Rome, pg 9)

The cross that Kimberly saw that day was not a death that accomplished its purpose (which was to save all those for whom it was suffered), but rather a death that made the accomplishment of its purpose possible.  It was a death that may have been righteous in its own right, but it was powerless to effect Kimberly’s justification without Kimberly adding the “righteousness” of her acknowledgement of need, the “righteousness” of her request for the forgiveness of sins, and the “righteousness” of her decision to make Jesus the Lord of her life.

What Kimberly heard that day was not the gospel.   What she heard that day was instead a humanistic, self help message designed to teach its listeners how to quickly leapfrog their way up to shared Godhood and thereby prove the serpent right; “you shall be as God.”  Kimberly took the bait, because she believed the serpent’s lie.   She continues to believe the serpent’s lie.  And she does so, because God has not imputed her righteous.

God has not imputed her husband Scott righteous either.  His journey to Catholicism, however, was a bit different.   Scott explains that his journey began with a study of covenants in the Bible as taught by a Papal author.  He goes on to explain that in his study of covenants he began to learn that God’s grace was more than divine favor; that it was in fact, “the actual gift of God’s life in divine sonship.”  Scott writes:

“Luther and Calvin explained this exclusively in terms of courtroom language.  But I was beginning to see that, far more than simply being a judge, God was our Father.  Far more than simply being criminals, we were runaways.  Far more than the New Covenant being made in a courtroom, it was fashioned by God in a family room.  Saint Paul (whom I had thought of as the first Luther) taught in Romans, Galatians and elsewhere that justification was more than a legal decree; it established us in Christ as God’s children by grace alone.  In fact, I discovered that nowhere did Saint Paul ever teach that we were justified by faith alone!  Sola fide was unscriptural!” (Rome Sweet Rome, pg 31)

Setting aside for a moment the ridiculous notion that Paul never taught justification by faith alone, I draw attention first to the fact that Scott believes a work of the Spirit performed inside of a person is the grounds for that person’s justification.  In other words, in his view, God does not declare a person innocent because He has charged Christ’s righteousness to them, but rather because the Spirit has caused them to feel close to God and to want to acknowledge their need of Him to accept them as His child.  Much like Kimberly, Scott believes that although the death of Christ may in and of itself be righteous, it is nevertheless powerless to accomplish its purpose until, with the help of the Spirit, Scott has added the “righteousness” of his feelings of closeness and the “righteousness” of his fatherly need to the death.

What Scott believed was not the gospel.   What Scott believed instead, was an idolatrous, humanistic, self help message designed to teach its listeners how to quickly leapfrog their way up to shared Godhood and thereby prove the serpent right.

It should be noted at this point that both Scott and Kimberly grew up in Reformed households.  Both were Presbyterian, both were well versed in the Westminster Confession, and both were attending Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary when they converted to Catholicism.  Scott notes that after arriving at his conclusion concerning justification by faith and works, “I was so excited about this discovery, I shared it with some friends, who were amazed at how much sense it made.” This does not surprise me.  Nor does it surprise me that he was directed to contact Norman Shepherd, who was at that time teaching at Westminster Seminary.   After all, it is my experience that most Presbyterians and Reformed people do not believe the gospel.  It is my experience that most who rely upon the confessions do not believe the gospel.  They know the doctrines of grace.  They can argue the doctrines of predestination and justification by faith alone with the best of anyone, but they couldn’t say first thing about the righteousness.

Romans 8:10 states the Spirit is life because of righteousness.  Paul states quite clearly in Romans 4:5 “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.”  If that is not justification by faith alone, then nothing is.

Scott and Kimberly report that they chose to attend Gordon-Conwell because they had been “searching the Scriptures to discover clues as to the whereabouts of real Christianity: Where was the Bible being faithfully taught and lived out?”

To Scott and Kimberly’s way of thinking, a community of authentic Christians meant a community of people who had committed themselves to behave a certain way; to acknowledge their need, to seek to feel close to God, to turn from sin, and to make Jesus the Lord of their life.  They sought a place where behavior modification was in daily practice.  In other words, they sought a community of people who worshiped the flesh and placed full confidence in their self righteousness.

A careful study of the Scriptures however, presents an entirely different picture of what an authentic Christian community is like.  It consists of a community of people who place no confidence in their flesh, for they believe their righteousness is found in Christ Jesus alone.  They are not always the nicest people.  They can sometimes be quite smug and arrogant (Corinthians), flippant and uncaring (James), depressing and emotional (Ephesians, Philippians).  Some are grossly immoral (Corinthians), while others are morally gross (Colossians).   Some are almost cultic in their fascination with eschatology (Thessalonians), while others almost cultic in their fascination with stories of spirits and angels (Colossians).  And yet every one of them are a gospel community, every one of them an authentic, local body of Christ.

But this isn’t what Scott and Kimberly believe.  No, they believe an authentic Christian is someone who proves the righteousness of their flesh by behaving a certain way.   The truth is that Scott and Kimberly never believed the gospel to begin with.  They have always been of the world.  They still are.

31 Comments

31 Comments so far
Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI