Book Review: Confessions of a Mega Church Pastor

I was visiting my local Catholic bookstore here in Omaha, Nebraska to look for some reading on a subject for one of my papers this semester. As I was checking out I found Confessions of a Mega Church Pastor by Allen Hunt and immediately recognized the Dynamic Catholic logo. It was reasonably priced so I added it to my purchase and went home.

What interested me about this book immediately is that I am a convert from the mega church scene as well. It is a topic I have written and blogged about before as well. In my conversion the problems in the mega church scene permeated my convictions and added to the need to find something different. I might have discovered reasons against baseline Protestantism, but the rising mega church scene added to my level of discomfort and disconnect in my faith at the time. You can ask my wife, I swore to the idea of finding a small church, even going so far as to provoke the thought of starting my own house-church. Well, it’s funny how things happen when you say “I will never” to God; I ended up joining the biggest Church there is – the Catholic Church.

That’s a story from another day but it fits well with this review. Adam Hunt is the former pastor of one of the largest Methodist congregations in the U.S. His story is inviting and personal, but also one of teaching and examination of the real treasures and genius found in the Catholic Church. Allen opens the book in an interesting way – he builds a picture, chapter by chapter, of a house. Each with different rooms and scenes, from the kitchen to the front porch, Allen takes the reader on a narrative journey through his conversion process. Throughout this house the narrative pastorally browses the challenges he faced personally and doctrinally while providing lively ways he was convinced of the Catholic faith. He tells of personal trial in details that only friends give to each other. In detail, he tells of his struggle with colitis while at the same time takes on a study for his PhD. with Yale University. Incidentally to that, Allen befriends a Catholic priest who aids him in prayer and the friendship blossoms.

He confesses his main fears and ignorance about the Catholic Church as well. Meeting a group of nuns for the first time, he was assigned to teach them but ended up learning about the tougher teachings of the Real Presence in the Holy Communion and how our devotion to Mary or other Saints is not cultic and idolatrous. Of seemingly most important to his conversion story was the moral ground the Catholic Church stands on. In his “Family Cemetery” chapter he drives by an abortion cemetery and begins to question the moral relativity that his Methodist faith stands in. He might personally stand against abortion but his denomination could say otherwise. He discusses the inner workings of the democratic system his church uses to determine its position, relative to the stalwart and steadfast moral philosophy of the Catholic Church, whose position on life and social issues is immutable and unchanged.

The read is easy and can be finished quite quickly for the avid reader. At about 150 pages, the chapters are a breeze and I finished it going one chapter a day for a week. At the end he provides an appendix with challenges and choices for the lay Catholic and the non-Catholic as well. Overall, I really suggest this book to all. I do not easily give that sort of recommendation for a book, but this one makes the cut. It is thoughtful and engaging with an added dose of apologetics. I would compare it with Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home but slightly less rigorous apologetic explanations. It truly captures the pastoral love of Allen’s previous experience, and his thoughtful conversion to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.   

Confession, is it biblical?

A frequent objection to the Catholic faith is objection to the need to confess sins to a priest in order to be forgiven. Many objectors will call it an “invention”. I myself used to object to this citing the church’s medieval need to know the private lives of each of their adherents. I would give silly reasons like that but there exist good objections. An objection might be that it doesn’t say anywhere in the bible that we need to confess to a priest.  Let me give my praise to this objection for wanting evidence in the scriptures to back up the practice of confession. So let me quickly comment on this objection, and note, this is not the only objection but perhaps the most common.

Objection: It’s not biblical.

Defense: First, we need to understand that as human persons we are subject to imminent and sometimes frequent sin. Paul tells us in Romans 3:23, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” and in that assumes the need for forgiveness and reconciliation. This need is not arguable. So the question is: do we need to confess to God the Father period? Yes. Jesus, when asked how to pray includes “forgive us our debts (sins), as we forgive our debtors” (Matt 6:12). If that’s not enough, John said “if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9) which in unmistakable proof that the scriptures require confession of sins.

The plurality of our sins implies the plurality of confessing. Indeed one won’t argue the value in confession to God the Father. But we also know from scripture that Jesus, a separate person of the Trinity has the authority to forgive sins, “but so that you may know that the Son of Man has AUTHORITY ON EARTH to forgive sins” (Matt 9:6). This is a HUGE part of Jesus ministry. Right after the baptism and his temptation, he immediately is doing three things: forgiving sins, healing, and teaching. These are the highlights of his ministry and they did not die with him. Right after his Resurrection he appears to the 11 and says:

“As the father has sent me, so I am sending you … receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained”. (John 20:21-23)

Was Jesus talking about general forgiveness in social interaction or a real authority? The answer is in the words of Jesus. The apostles get there name from this verse which is in “sending” which is apostello, so they are sent from Jesus himself as a commission. Next, we see that Jesus is sending the chosen apostles “as the father has sent [me]” meaning ‘with the same authority.’ The reader also has to understand the difference in “like” and “as” where like shows likeness (similarity) and as shows sameness. I know, SAT/ACT studying nightmares are coming back to haunt me trying to understand analogy and comparison. Not enough on the authority part? I think Jesus makes it quite clear when he says “whoever listens to you, listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me” (Luke 10:16). And that’s not out of context because there Jesus is talking about the unrepentant towns. There is a clear link between repentance and the authority of the Apostles!

But Jesus died and left us a church to continue his ministry. Remember, that ministry consists of healing and teaching (Matt 9:35), as well as forgiveness of sin (Matt 9:6). So as the church is his body, truly, he must have left a way in which the ministry can be continued for our ultimate salvation. Remember, he had the authority to forgive sins “on earth” and so as the church continues there is an ongoing need to forgive sins, on earth. Paul clearly tells us, “all this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION” (2 Cor 5:18), and still later “we are ambassadors of Christ” (5:20). Ambassadors are officials SENT WITH THE AUTHORITY of their higher official.

There is no mistake to be made here. Jesus gave the power to forgive sins to his church, through confession to an apostolic office, generation to generation.   

There is much to discuss further, yes. Further, many see the confession as a sort of punishment. Nothing could be further from the truth! Each time I confess there is an enormous weight lifted and a great encouragement comes forth from the priest. They too confess and are such gentle souls when you come to them to confess.

Thank you for reading, God bless.

The "Extra" Stuff

The Extra “Stuff”

Recently I had a conversation with my close friend who is not Catholic, although a sure Christian. So we get to talking about his family’s history in which denomination and such, and I find out that some of his relatives/ancestors were Catholic. On a side note, I like to think that, if Christian at all before the 1540’s, all of our ancestors were Catholic. I ask him plainly, “and why aren’t you Catholic, what made you decide otherwise?”

I got a great answer out of him. A very truthful and sincere “I don’t need all the extra stuff.  Some of my friends are Catholics, and they are happy with that but none of it matters for my salvation. What matters is the work of Jesus Christ on the cross and I can add nothing to that.” A fine reply. We had some people over to our house and I did not want to start on a long drawn out conversation. I chose prudence; saying what needs to be said, only when it needs to be said, and otherwise letting people have their say. Sometimes I do really want to reply. Heck, I might even have a fantastic reply but my words don’t always need to be heard. Even if I never discuss this with this person again, there are times where people need to be listened to and not spoken at.  So I said nothing other than acknowledging his sentiment, and I do sincerely identify with his words, but not all of them.

The “extra stuff” in Catholicism might seem extra to one who is not of the faith, but to a Catholic they are vital. Likewise, take a step further; imagine this conversation taking place with a non-Christian. They might see Christmas, Easter, other holy days, going to retreats, participating in communion, and tithing as the stuff of religiosity, or otherwise “extra.” And seriously, do Christmas, Easter, and going on retreats do anything for our salvation? Do they add to the work of the cross? No, and no. But – Don’t they strengthen our faith? Don’t they have usefulness and obligation? All Christians participate in these but are they required for our ultimate salvation? No.

As a Protestant I was objecting to the same topics: if they are not required for salvation then why confess to a priest, believe in the Real Presence, and the other Catholic dogma. What I was thinking is that they were just dissimilar beliefs, like the way you and me believe or don’t believe that pepperoni is better than sausage on a pizza. What I started to consider though, is the consequences, not of the belief, but of the possible truth. I started to think, “what if that bread is really Jesus, what if it is true?” I would even tell myself, “if it is, then aren’t I consuming it no matter what, and therefore, I am not missing out or doing anything wrong.” I thought that was pretty slick, but then I read 1 Corinthians 11:29, “whoever eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” I asked myself, if it is just a symbol, how again am I drinking judgment upon myself? Is there any other parallels instance where God judges us for metaphors and symbolism?

So again I implore the consequences. One might not believe in confessing to a priest, but if they really can and are supposed to forgive sins why am I not doing that? Leading on, if they are supposed to forgive sins then that means one is expected to confess, right? As a protestant I believed I was “ever forgiven;” that once Jesus forgave my sins he forgave them all future, present, past – an idea that is hardly biblical first of all. But even if I was right, the logic and scripture do not match up. James tells us to confess our sins to one another (5:16), 1 John 1:9 says “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Why confess if you are already forgiven? Protestant websites filled me with other hope that the confession was relinquishing God’s judgment on me (see “gotquestions” website) or other illogical arguments. The fact is: the bible says we need to confess. And just for the non-Catholic, the Church does not teach that a man forgives sins. We believe God, and only God will forgive sins. The Priest is participating in the High Priests authority (see Hebrews) as an ambassador, literally, as Paul tells in Ephesians 6:20, Philemon 1:9, and an ambassador carries the will of the King with him. For more on Jesus giving the power to forgive sins check out the Gospel of John 20:19-23.

Even Jesus, God Himself was Baptized for purposes John did not fully comprehend.

There remain many other examples to pull from. Do we need to pray to saints? Do we need to pray the Our Father? I would argue the only “extra” in the Christian faith is the practice of something harmful to ourselves and others. The Catholic faith is purported to be as old as Pentecost, circa 29AD. A priest said to me, “Satan has tried to destroy us, we have tried to destroy ourselves, but it cannot be done.”

If we are really the body of Jesus Christ, not just a metaphor, how can anything we teach be extra?