A central task of Conciliar Post involves the gathering together of Christians from various traditions in order to reflect upon important issues. As author Stephen Sutherland reminded us in a post a few weeks ago, however, we must understand the purpose and appropriate use of ecumenism: “If good rules make for good neighbors and housemates, maybe a clearer understanding of what it means to be ecumenical can do the same here.”
The topic of this Round Table is Christian Unity, and to stimulate this discussion we asked our contributors to respond to the following question: It is possible for Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Churches to achieve meaningful unity, and what will that unity look like? Represented in this Round Table are Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Reformed, and Lutheran perspectives on true Christian unity. Each author has offered their own answer to this question, as well as offering some reflections upon their fellow participant’s views.
Below each article you will see three links that will unfold to reveal each authors’ response to the varying contributions. If you “Click to see the response” the response will appear.
George Aldhizer
Reformed Perspective
As a Reformed Protestant, I believe this question needs to be taken down two different routes. The first is to ask whether or not I, and the Protestant tradition, still have something to protest about. If not, then “meaningful unity” would require assimilation. If yes, then what would “meaningful unity” look like as Protestants continue to protest? The second question, the more embarrassing one to ask, is what meaningful unity should look like amongst Protestants, who form new denominations (and non-denominations) by the day. My answers to these questions are indebted to the work Peter J. Leithart has done both here and here.
Going down the first route, do Protestants still have something to protest about? It seems to me that they do on crucial theological/liturgical/ecclesiological issues. These would include, though not limited to, issues of sola scriptura, salvation by faith alone, papal authority, purgatory, veneration of the Host, and Mariology. These are not trivial issues, and both Protestants and Catholics would recognize these as extremely important disagreements that are cause for both disagreement and separation.
Now, what would ecumenism, or in this roundtable’s terms, “meaningful unity” look like, given that there is legitimate reason for disagreement and separation? Leithart argues that the best ecumenism would both lessen and heighten friction within the Church. As for the lessening of tension, Leithart envisions Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox praying for each other (this requires being aware of each other), local congregational leaders meeting with one another, the problems of one church (i.e. sexual abuse within the Catholic Church) recognized as a problem of the whole, and recognizing the commonalities of the traditions prior to recognizing the differences. I think this emphasis from Leithart is most poignant for the local city and local churches, in which congregations are called to meet, understand, pray, and work for the common good together. This also has to be enacted both across traditions and across socioeconomic/racial groups. As for the heightening of the tension, the best ecumenism (like I believe we work to do here on this blog) would require recognizing the serious differences between the traditions, and having open dialogue about them. These dialogues, I believe, would greatly lessen the ignorance that occurs throughout such as when Protestants are denied the Eucharist in Catholic churches and when Protestants denounce Catholics as not being brothers and sisters in Christ.
As for the second route, how might Protestants achieve meaningful unity? Certainly there is great reason for assimilation, given the widespread theological/liturgical/ecclesiological agreement. I am envisioning a few Presbyterian denominations, a few Methodist denominations, a few Pentecostal denominations, etc. etc. The fact, as Leithart points out, that tiny Presbyterian denominations appear each month that each adhere to the Westminster Standards is inexcusable.
To conclude, the best ecumenism between the traditions and amongst Protestants must mean both lessening and heightening of tensions. This should result in greater unity in awareness, understanding, meeting for prayer, working for the common good, and assimilation amongst Protestants.
George Aldhizer
Authors’ response to Reformed perspective
Click each link below to reveal the responses
[wpex more=”Catholic Response” less=”Hide Catholic Response”]
Do Protestants still have something to protest about? Some do, and that is why new denominations form every year. That is why what was once simply Lutheranism is now LCMS, ELCA, WELS, why Methodism has so many churches, and the like. Many still do protest, and define their beliefs as what is not Catholic. You indicate that issues such as Mariology are points of protest. The historical reality is that many original Protestants – Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc – all venerated Mary and incorporated her deeply into their theologies on topics such as the Incarnation. It is as Protestantism has become defined against Catholicism that our Blessed Mother has been left out in the cold (another First Things article provides reference). You are right to point out that these are not trivial disagreements. I believe that study of Church History for people of all denominations, indeed the study of Church History as an ecumenical venture, can lessen ignorance and increase potential for unity. Is there great discomfort for a Protestant to learn their denomination’s founder venerated Mary, upheld the practice of private confession, and prayed for the intercession of the saints? Yes there is. Yet when I learned this about Martin Luther, I now perceive less distance, in both theology and practice, between myself and my Lutheran brothers and sisters. Finally, I greatly value your remark about the importance of collaboration for meaningful unity. So much denominational differences can be lessened when we imitate Christ through the giving ourselves to the least of our brothers and sisters.
-Laura Ehlen
[/wpex]
[wpex more=”Lutheran Response” less=”Hide Lutheran Response”]
What is the primary purpose or intent behind protest? I believe when we approach significant variations among church bodies, our goal should be to move toward reform of those issues we disagree on rather than pure protest and separation. Luther’s goal, for example, was not to create a separate church body but to try and amend errors he saw in the established church at the time. Obviously the reformation did lead to plenty of splits, but while there are certainly issues of contention between denominations that should not be ignored or undermined, there is already a greater sense of unity than can come from an approach geared toward reform over separation. As believers in the Christian faith, we should wish for unity among our various denominations even if a perfect unity is impossible. Consequently, we should clearly define our beliefs and acknowledge where we believe others are wrong, but we should then approach our brothers and sisters of differing beliefs with loving and compassionate dialogue to try and aid them in seeing their errors.
-Nicholai Stuckwisch
[/wpex]
[wpex more=”Orthodox Response” less=”Hide Orthodox Response”]
From what I can tell, you are effectively calling for a cease-fire on all sides of inter-Christian hostility; I completely agree this way of thinking. The entirety of Christendom needs to lay down their arms and seek “edifying dialogue” (also to put it in Conciliar Post terms). But not just dialogue—union through friendships, prayer, charity, etc. When we are talking about the reunion of the Church as a whole, however, what it ultimately comes down to is the Eucharist—for by it and through it are we are one body: the body of Christ.
“Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.” (1 Cor 10:16-17, NASB)
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” (John 6:53, NASB)
What does this mean for the Evangelical churches who do not confess the presence of Christ in the Eucharist? God is merciful. You definitely have it right, though—we should love one another, develop friendships, and seek to serve with one another. Far too long have varying Christian’s of different traditions maintained a hostility toward one another. Thanks for your contribution, George.
-Ben Cabe
[/wpex]
Ben Cabe
Orthodox Perspective
The fragmentation of the Christian Church, and subsequently of the Christian witness, is a travesty. The East (Eastern Orthodox) and West (Roman Catholics) have been engaged in serious dialogue over the past several decades about the reunion of our Churches. But what would this unity look like and how would it be achieved? I believe it worth noting that reunion, or unity, would effectively consist of the ability to participate together in the Eucharist. This is because:
“The unity of the Church is created by the Eucharist. The Church is held together, not from the outside by power of jurisdiction, but from within. Through communion in the Lord’s body and blood.” [1]
With this in mind, it must be acknowledged that the unity of the Church is vastly more complicated when the Protestant / Evangelical churches (spanning nearly 41,000 varying denominations) are thrown in. First and foremost, the belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not even shared between many of us (or even between Evangelicals for that matter—depending on who we include in this label). For this reason, I believe that, if the Evangelical churches desire to be included in this reunion, they would first have to fold back into either the Eastern or Western Churches. The Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, however, share a rich history. Though certain dogma’s have prevented the two Churches from reuniting as of yet, I am extremely hopeful that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches will be able to reunite around the Lord’s table. His Eminence Metropolitan Kallistos Ware notes that,
“Christian unity does not mean uniformity. In a reunited Christian Church there could be room for many forms of worships, for many patterns of theological thinking, for many different forms of Church governments. We do not have to agree over details. What we are seeking is agreement in the faith. And the faith is not the same as theological opinions.” [2]
But this does not mean the lowest common denominator—as, perhaps, an Evangelical would suggest—for “we are to agree on a maximum not a minimum.” [3] This is “union in legitimate diversity” [4] —a diversity, however, that is tempered by the longstanding tradition of the Church and Her sacraments: by the very nature of this, Protestantism would be excluded unless they reform, revert, back to the original Christian Tradition. In the meantime, I believe we, Orthodox and Catholic alike, should pray for this reunion and seek friendship with one another in anticipation of what may come—for the unity of the Church, as Met. Kallistos says and as is clear in John 17, is the desire of our Lord. [5]
[wpex more=”View Sources” less=”Hide Sources”]
[1] Pope and Patriarch in Rome: Future Opportunities –Lecture by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
http://www.ancientfaith.com/specials/lectures_by_metropolitan_kallistos_ware He goes on to say that, “This is very clear from what St. Paul says in 1. Cor. 10:16-17: one of the most important texts in the New Testament.”
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid
[5] John 17
[/wpex]
Ben Cabe
Editor-in-Chief at Conciliar Post
Author at BenCabe
Authors’ response to Orthodox perspective
Click each link below to reveal the responses
[wpex more=”Catholic Response” less=”Hide Catholic Response”]
You articulate so concisely and so powerfully what meaningful unity would and should look like: the Eucharist. The dripping blood and the broken flesh of Christ serve to unify us in Him, so without incorporation into Christ through the Eucharist, how can we be members of the same body? Because of the utmost importance of this and the other sacraments, I agree with you that Evangelical churches must return to communion with the Eastern and Western Churches. As you indicate, this communion demands a high degree of doctrinal unity, but also allows for significant diversity. An excellent example of this is the reincorporation of the Eastern Catholic churches into full communion with Rome. They maintained their liturgies, their languages, their saints, and certain aspects of their theologies, yet they are still part of the Catholic Church and thus part of its hierarchy, doctrine, and practice.
-Laura Ehlen
[/wpex]
[wpex more=”Lutheran Response” less=”Hide Lutheran Response”]
The Lord’s Supper is definitely the pinnacle of Christian unity. As the very body and blood of our Lord and Savior, Holy Communion should be treated with the uppermost reverence, and to participate in the Eucharist with others is an affirmation of your shared faith and united beliefs. Consequently, it seems the Lord’s Supper should be the final frontier in trying to achieve church unity, and two denominations should not come together to participate in the Eucharist unless they agree not only on the significance and substance of that sacrament, but in the great majority of religious confessions. I am not at all suggesting that Ben is undermining the importance and seriousness of the Lord’s Supper, but I believe that Holy Communion should serve as the capstone of Church unity to be shared only when agreement and consistency have been established on the means of salvation, the importance of baptism, the relationship between law and gospel, and other significant matters.
-Nicholai Stuchwisch
[/wpex]
[wpex more=”Reformed Response” less=”Hide Reformed Response”]
Ben’s post, very rightly I believe, explains that Christian unity should not be understood as of the lowest common denominator, neither as uniformity, but as “union in legitimate diversity.” I think it is worth emphasizing that I believe all three branches of Christendom (with some exceptions) do believe and practice “in the maximum and not the minimum.” The more I interact with Catholics and Orthodox, the more I find we have in common. It confuses me when he then centers the unity of Christians on a particular theology of the Eucharist, which then excludes Protestants from union with the other two branches of Christendom. Given that we all believe each other to be brothers and sisters in Christ (all three branches), why would we not want each other to be nourished in the sacrament of the Eucharist together? Personally, I don’t see a compelling reason for us not to share in the Eucharist together (contra Nicholai), even given our differing understandings of what the Eucharist entails (why wouldn’t Eastern Orthodox and Catholics want Protestants to be nourished by the body and blood of Christ?). In fact, it would seem to me the most powerful symbol of local ecumenism, if all three branches of Christendom were able to share in the Eucharist together (either at respective parishes or in community gatherings), alongside of prayer, worship, and working for the common good. (I do want to apologize for using the word “ignorance” in my first post, I don’t think that was a gracious word choice).
[/wpex]
Laura Ehlen
Catholic Perspective
The Second Vatican Council proclaimed in its Declaration on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), “The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council.” [1] Division is nothing new in the Church: many of the Eastern Catholic Churches, now reunited, broke off in the very early centuries of the Church, when Alexandria and Antioch were as important as Rome. Rome and Constantinople split in 1054 after years of slow chips and fractures in unity. When the Protestant Reformation happened in the 16th century, numerous new churches arose, divided from both Rome and each other (let us not think for a moment that Henry VIII’s break from Rome had anything to do with an agreement with Luther – quite on the contrary). Early America saw a dramatic increase in new churches, as has the rise of Pentecostalism in the twentieth century. If the Church is the Body of Christ, then we have rendered Christ divided. Catholics pray for unity, fast for unity, weep for unity. That is in part why we acknowledge one Baptism, regardless of denomination.
Initially, when I think of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant unity, it does not seem too impossible. Yet this is because, until my later years of college, my understanding of Protestantism was limited to traditional, sacramental, and liturgical strands of Lutheranism and Anglicanism. My jaw dropped in a graduate school when I learned that some Protestant/Evangelical groups do not practice Holy Communion. I can now see the possibility of unity between Rome and the East (although, as an Eastern Orthodox priest said to me once, just because one Patriarch wants unity does not mean they all do, especially since some Orthodox Churches, such as Russia, are now so steeped in politics and national boundaries). I can see the possibility of unity with Rome and Lutheranism (and there are already steps down this road), and with Rome and England. However, it is unity between different groups of Protestants poses the greatest difficulty. The question groups Protestant as if it was a church with doctrinal and liturgical unity, as the Catholics and the Orthodox respectively posses, but the reality is quite different. In my personal experience, it is easier to LCMS Lutherans and Catholics to worship together and discuss doctrine than it is for LCMS and ELCA Lutherans.
Any meaningful unity must be based in the Gospel, and this demands that unity must therefore be based in charity. Christ commanded us to love God above all things, and to love our neighbors as ourselves – this is the mandate of charity. This charity calls us to love one another, regardless of whether we label ourselves Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or Evangelical. We cannot heal the divisions in the Body of Christ if we do not treat each other as Christ commands. If we cannot love each other across denominational boundaries, then how can we really practice love to those outside of the Church? If we cannot obey Christ through our love of other Christians, then how are we to witness to the Gospel for non-believers? In John 13:35, Jesus speaks of the importance of charity for Christian unity and witness: “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” [2]
[wpex more=”View Sources” less=”Hide Sources”]
[1] Unitatis Redintegratio.” 1. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html.
[2] John 13:35, NRSV
[/wpex]
Laura Ehlen
Senior Editor at Conciliar Post
Authors’ response to Catholic perspective
Click each link below to reveal the responses
[wpex more=”Lutheran Response” less=”Hide Lutheran Response”]
I appreciate the distinction made here between ELCA and LCMS churches not mainly because I’m Lutheran and like to see the difference acknowledged, but because it leads into the point that when looking for unity and solidarity among Christians, our primary objective should be to find unity in faith and beliefs over unity in name. I do indeed feel more united with some of the writers here on the Conciliar Post belonging to various denominations than I do with certain members of the LCMS (and definitely the ELCA) church bodies. I have Lutheran friends who, upon moving to a new location for school where the LCMS churches around were not faithful, ended up attending churches of other beliefs in name but who were more aligned with the Lutheran church’s confessions than the Lutheran churches around. Thankfully I have never been in this situation myself, but I think it is important for us to look for where the Word of God is taught in faith and purity over where we can find individuals using the same name as ourselves. In our search for meaningful unity, we should seek unity in teaching and understanding rather than specifically looking for unity within or across denominations.
-Nicholai Stuchwisch
[/wpex]
[wpex more=”Orthodox Response” less=”Hide Orthodox Response”]
Thank you, Laura, for your well balanced approach to this delicate issue. I believe you hit the nail on the head when you said we must love one another—even across denominational lines. After all, if we cannot do this, how are we to think we could love one another if we were united? What a wonderful insight! Ultimately the goal is love. This specific issue of Christian unity—and dogma!—often brings with it much prejudice and emotional energy. Love can span across all of this without sacrificing dogma. Love will shed light where facts fail.
-Ben Cabe
[/wpex]
[wpex more=”Reformed Response” less=”Hide Reformed Response”]
I’m all about Laura’s post in many respects. Her emphasis on charity (such a cool term, we Protestants only have “love”) is right on. Meaningful unity cannot exist unless, as Laura points out, we (1) have charity, (2) acknowledge one Baptism, and (3) weep for unity. Also, I think she is rightfully upset over the absurd disunity among Protestants. That said, my question for Laura and Ben would be (and I’m very excited for the dialogue to occur in the comment section), “What does meaningful unity look like outside of assimilation?” Given that assimilation is unlikely to occur (on a massive scale) anytime soon, how can we practice what I’m calling “local ecumenism?” In fact, I think local ecumenism is the necessary precondition for assimilation-what I believe should occur within Protestantism.
[/wpex]
Nicholai Stuckwisch
Lutheran Perspective
There are times and places when Christianity across denominations can and should unite together as believers in the Apostles’, Athenasian, Nicene Creeds. Likewise, there are times and places where varying denominations, separated by their significant and distinct beliefs, must draw a line and not waver or compromise their beliefs for the sake of earthly harmony. We should always remain resolute and firmly grounded in our beliefs, but against the tyranny and oppression of unbelievers, it is helpful and healthy for the Christian church to stand united, especially in situations where they are persecuted as one.
Right now the Christians of the Middle East are facing extreme persecution from Islamic extremists, and in the United States where pro-abortion movements are attempting to infringe upon our freedom of religion, faithful and believing Christians should absolutely stand united against the forces of the devil, the world, and sinful human nature. When outside forces seek to do bodily harm to mankind, born and unborn as well as Christian and non Christian, those who believe and trust in God’s Word and the Commandments should oppose such evil acts in the name of Christianity and refusing to cooperate together in protest weakens our cause and gives the adversary the opportunity to act without obstacle.
Additionally, we should most certainly pray for all people regardless of their beliefs, and there is absolutely no reason why we should not pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ even if there are many differences within the details of our faiths. When it comes to praying with people of other denominations, we have prayers (the Creeds) dating back to early church that we should confidently be able to pray with other Christians, and Jesus himself gave us the Our Father. I think the Conciliar Post is an excellent example of a way that Christians of various beliefs can come together, share in their common faith to extent that there is common ground, and work to understand each other better and strength the Church here on earth.
On the other hand, there are noticeable and profound differences between most denominations, and these differences should not be disregarded or undervalued. Differences especially related to the means of salvation, the substance of Holy Communion, and the purpose and effect of Baptism are so incredibly important and are the source of extreme differences in belief among various denominations. When two sets of Christians cannot agree of what Communion is, than they absolutely should not communion together. If you honestly believe that Communion is Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior then in no way should you consider communing at a church where they believe otherwise.
In summary, we should stand together behind our common beliefs whenever possible, but when it comes to sacraments like Communion, a line must be drawn and never should your confession and beliefs for the sake appeasing others or soothing disagreements.
Nicholai Stuckwisch
Authors’ response to Lutheran perspective
Click each link below to reveal the responses
[wpex more=”Catholic Response” less=”Hide Catholic Response”]
I wholeheartedly agree with your emphasis that some degree of unity between all Christian denominations, especially with the dire situations facing Christianity across the world. The question then emerges of how we maintain this united front to the public eye when we ourselves are divided on certain hot-button issues. Take, for example, the Nye-Ham debate from earlier this year: some evangelicals are vehemently opposed to evolution, and it is part of their beliefs therefore to defend strict creationism, while other denominations such as Catholics accept both evolution and creation and so felt the debate did not demand protest. Even on the issue of birth control and the HHS Mandate, Christians do not present a united front (Hobby Lobby did not oppose contraceptives, only abortifacients, while Catholic groups like Little Sisters). Clearly, this united public front cannot appear in the political sphere; as you emphasize, a united front does not appear in the how we worship (sacraments) or what we believe and preach (doctrine and dogma). Is prayer then the answer to this united front? If so, what would inter-Christian prayer look like, when you gather together Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, Pentecostals, charismatics, Evangelicals, and so on?
-Laura Ehlen
[/wpex]
[wpex more=”Orthodox Response” less=”Hide Orthodox Response”]
When you mentioned the Christians in the Middle East my mind raced to the unity being displayed among Christians and Muslims. If anything we should be loving and respectful because we are all human beings made in the image and likeness of God. You are absolutely right that we must stand with one another—and yet, boundaries do need to be drawn. This is quite important and often misunderstood by those who are confounded by the practice of closed communion. Thanks for your contribution, Nicholai.
-Ben Cabe
[/wpex]
[wpex more=”Reformed Response” less=”Hide Reformed Response”]
I find it fascinating that both Nicholai and I, as Protestants, latched onto the question differently than Laura and Ben. Due to our Protestant background, we view “unity” not necessarily as a question of assimilation, but as one of local community between traditions. I think his emphases on both common creeds and the fight for religious freedoms are right on. I think Nicholai’s post raises a fascinating question, namely, “Should/How should Christians have unity in the public sphere?” That is one huge and multifaceted question that I hope gets some discussion in the comment section. I think this is one arena in which Protestants can learn from Catholics, who, it seems to me, have a consistent public ethic (Pro-Life, Pro-Family, preferential option for the poor, Catholic social thought on the economy, etc.) without wanting to ally the church with a political party.
[/wpex]
Leave a Reply