I just finished yet another Catholic apologetics book, Home Sweet Rome. In my oponion, it is very well-written and has some excellent insights into Catholic doctrine. It poses challenging questions to Protestants, and it is indeed a book that will benefit many who desire to know the truth of Catholicism.
In reading this book I have noticed several similiarities with other Catholic apologetic works that I alo have recently read, such as Four Witnesses, Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic and Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism. While the similiarities I list are not necessarily bad, I do have some concerns, at least concerning what is portrayed, how it is portrayed, and what is omitted.
- Protestant beliefs simplified and not fully represented.
It is understandable that a Catholic apologetics book should explain Catholic belief more than Protestant belief. However, when the books mention Protestant beliefs they seem to do so only in a cursory way–and often use generalizations to which I would imagine many evangelicals object. Oftentimes I read about a past conversation between the Catholic author and an heavy-weight evangelical scholar; and would you know it, the evangelical scholar is always presented as acknowledgly being on the losing side of the argument, or is left speechless by his Catholic adversary. Somehow I think that arguments are presented a little too simplistically, and that there really is more basis for (however ultimately unfounded) and thought put into, evangelical beliefs.
- Roman Catholic **v. Orthodox not covered well enough. **
I can understand that a Catholic apologetics book has two primary audiences: Catholics and those non-Catholics who might come to better understand Catholicism and possibly convert to it by reading the book. Since a large portion of the people who become Roman Catholics by choice are evangelicals, the focus of the average apologetics work is on the relationships and differences between evangelical churches and the Roman Catholic Church.