×

Ecumenism.

Depending on your background and your experiences, that word may cause your heart to beat faster with hope at what possibilities for unity in the Christian Church might exist. Or it may cause your beat faster because of the alarm bells going off in your mind.

Recently, Charles Colson, in promoting his new book The Faith, answered a probing question by Tim Challies regarding his involvement with Evangelicals and Catholics Together and the importance of “justification by faith alone” as integral to the gospel. Challies pointed out that the doctrine is considered anathema by official Roman Catholic teaching.

Colson defended his work with Evangelicals and Catholics Together, claiming that his ecumenical pursuits reveal how many Catholic leaders align closely with the Protestant position. Colson asked for patience as the structure of the Roman Church eventually came to reflect the beliefs of some of its prominent spokespersons.

I put a similar question to N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham in November of last year. Bishop Wright answered similarly to Colson, claiming that it is difficult to perceive just what Catholics actually teach on this issue. He related his own experience of a Catholic theologian articulating his position in such a way that any Protestant would have been satisfied.

Can evangelicals and Catholics truly be together?

Is there any kind of consensus on the doctrine of justification by faith alone?

What kind of unity can evangelicals and Catholics share?

It seems to me that there are three ways to answer this question, and we evangelicals need to recognize each of these avenues in order that we might talk to each other instead of past each other.

  1. Evangelical Christians can set aside the ecumenical task completely, arguing that even if the Roman Church were to change its official teaching on justification, there are too many other hurdles to overcome. For this group, ecumenism is equal to compromise. Therefore, it should not be pursued.
  2. Evangelical Christians can only pursue unity with Roman Catholics once the official teaching of the church reflects the truth about the doctrine of justification. Tim Challies and R. Scott Clark (in his thoughts on Colson’s answer to Challies) take this road. Official teaching is binding on all Roman Catholics. Therefore, because the Protestant position is anathema in the eyes of Rome, there can be no unity, however much we might try to pursue it. The catechism says it all.
  3. Evangelical Christians at the local level can actively pursue unity with Roman Catholics because of the variety of beliefs within the Catholic Church. This seems to be the road that Colson, J.I. Packer, Richard Land, and N.T. Wright are advocating and seeking to represent with their various documents. Regardless of the doctrinal stance pronounced at the Council of Trent, there are many Catholics who believe and can articulate well the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Anathemas aside, some unity (at the grassroots level) can exist and we ought to work for more.

Here are my thoughts on each position.

The first position is untenable to me. Jesus’ prayer for unity in the Body obligates me to see the ecumenical task as important for Christianity. Christians are not given a choice here. Of course, the first position rightly observes the common pitfalls of ecumenism, namely: reducing Christianity to the “lowest common denominator,” compromising Christian essentials on the altar of “false peace,” and acting as if major doctrinal disagreements are really no disagreements at all. Evangelical Christians should heed the warnings of those in Camp #1, even if we don’t wind up in this camp.

Camp #2 also makes good points. If we compare the official teaching of Protestant confessions and Roman Catholic dogma and see these confessions as binding on our ecumenical task, there can be no unity. R. Scott Clark, Tim Challies, and others are right to see that the divide is, at least officially, “unbridgeable” at this point. The Protestant understanding of salvation has been anathematized by the Roman Church. We should not take this lightly.

Yet, I see a mysterious double standard here. Can we share Christian fellowship with our Lutheran brothers and sisters? What about Reformed with Baptist? Presbyterian with Lutheran?

Those in Camp #2 would, no doubt, say “yes.” But consider this:

  • The Lutheran Book of Concord (1580), a doctrinally normative book of confessions that pastors and church workers must pledge allegiance to, contains the Augsburg Confession. Here, Lutherans strongly “condemn” those who “reject the baptism of children and say that children are saved without baptism.” So much for us Baptists.
  • The “Epitome of the Formula of Concord” consigns to the “just judgment of God” the Reformed understanding of the Lord’s Supper.
  • The Scots Confession of Faith from 1560, still authoritative for the Scottish Reformed Church “utterly condemns” those who affirm the sacraments to be “naked and bare signs.”
  • The Belgic Confession of the Netherlands in 1566 (another Reformed Church) calls down “a solemn curse” on those who “not only have not been content in receiving Baptism once and for all, but who also damn the Baptism of the children from the faithful.” Ouch! Do my Scottish Reformed brothers believe that I, as a Baptist, am under God’s curse?

The gentlemen who make up the panel of the White Horse Inn radio program have confessions in their history that anathematize one another. And yet, there is great unity among the panel.

How is this so? It seems that there is a disconnect between what the confessions say and what people actually believe. 

Although a Lutheran believes infant baptism to be correct, most Lutherans today would not agree with the curses from heaven on Baptists. Though a Reformed pastor believes his view of the Lord’s Supper to be true, most Reformed men would not condemn their memorialist brothers and sisters to God’s just judgment.

The people who occupy Camp #2 believe that Roman Catholics and evangelicals can have no unity because of the official teachings of the churches. Yet, most in Camp #2 have no trouble pursuing unity with those within Protestantism, whose churches have officially condemned one another.

This pushes me into Camp #3, although I am somewhat more reserved in my enthusiasm than Colson, Wright, Packer and others. The signers of Evangelicals and Catholics Together tend to overstate the importance of their ecumenical documents, investing them with significance that does not translate into actual change. (I also wonder what sort of true unity comes about by signing joint statements.) I am, however, grateful to these men for taking up the difficult task of trying to bring about unity.

Perhaps evangelicals can also learn from the editors of Touchstone magazine. These are men who hold tightly to their own doctrinal commitments and viewpoints. And yet, their collaboration and ecumenical efforts have resulted in commentary that is highly beneficial to thoughtful, conservative Christians everywhere.

Can evangelicals and Catholics be together?

It depends on which evangelicals and which Catholics.

One day, God’s Kingdom won’t be divided up into denominations. We should be thankful for those whose ecumenical work is anticipating that Day.

written by Trevin Wax. copyright © 2008 Kingdom People Blog.

LOAD MORE
Loading