Chapter 6
We come now to a brief consideration of the document entitled,
"Evangelicals and Catholics Together" (ECT).[1] The
largest section of the document, under the heading of "We Contend
Together," urges cooperation between Romanists and evangelicals on a wide
range of social and political issues, dealing with religious freedom, abortion,[2] pornography, parental choice in education, a market
economy, and appreciation of Western culture. Collaboration on these issues is
obviously what has built support for the document among both Roman Catholics
and evangelicals.
Interwoven with the social and political issues, however, the ECT document
contains false theological presuppositions and blatant compromises with Romish
doctrine. Protestants who sign this document for political purposes will find
that they have given away the store.
The introduction of ECT enunciates a basic premise underlying the document:
"As Christ is one, so the Christian mission is one. That one mission can
be and should be advanced in diverse ways." Later, the authors assert,
"We are called and we are therefore resolved to explore patterns of
working and witnessing together in order to advance the mission of
Christ."[3] Can Protestants have a common mission with
Romanists, when they are still disagreed over the content of the gospel? The issue
of justification by faith has not been resolved (something acknowledged within
the ECT document itself). Moreover, there are a myriad of other issues related
to the gospel, such as the nature of faith and divine sovereignty in the
conversion of sinners. If these are not spelled out clearly, how can there be
any talk of a common effort in fulfilling the great commission? In this case,
the allusion to "diverse ways" seems to be a veiled reference to
diverse gospels. The attitude is quite different from that of the apostle Paul
in Galatians 1.[4]
The document affirms "that we are justified by grace through faith
because of Christ."[5] The important term that is
missing in that sentence is the word alone,
as in the historic Protestant affirmation of justification by faith alone. In
fact, when the document later provides a lists of unresolved issues between
Romanists and evangelicals, the subject of justification is made conspicuous
precisely because it is absent from that list.
Speaking of missionary zeal, the document makes one of its rare allusions to
scripture, "How shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they
preach, except they are sent?" (Rom. 10:14-15). In the case of ECT, we are
constrained to ask further, "And what
will they believe if a Papist is sent?"
The authors state, "All who accept Christ as Lord and Saviour are
brothers and sisters in Christ."[6] Wrong!
Evangelicals often use such lingo, saying that someone has "accepted
Christ as Saviour;" but biblical language is more precise. One suspects
that the term accept was employed here
precisely because of its widespread currency in evangelical circles; and
because it is language acceptable to Papists.[7] The word
accept here smacks of Pelagian evangelism,
where a man's destiny is thought to rest with his own free will, if he will
only "accept Christ." By contrast the scriptures speak of
saving faith as trusting in Christ
alone as he is offered in the gospel.[8]
Now, having provided a faulty description of faith, the ECT document uses this flawed premise to arrive
at its definition of "brothers and sisters in Christ."[9]
ECT says, "As Evangelicals and Catholics, we dare not by needless and
loveless conflict between ourselves give aid and comfort to enemies of the
cause of Christ."[10] That remark overlooks the fact
that Papistry is an enemy to the cause of Christ, and must be opposed. This
truth was a fundamental principle of the Reformation, and evangelicals who sign
a peace pact with Rome are aiding and abetting the Romish enemy of Christ.
The document expresses dismay over conflicts between evangelicals and
Romanists in Latin American and Eastern Europe.[11] What is
often the case, however, is that people in these regions are leaving Popery for
other church affiliations; and that action might be a positive step, if they
are doing so out of an expression of genuine faith and repentance.
The subject of worship finds its way into the document only through the back
door. ECT lists differences that are "frequently thought to divide
us."[12] The list includes the following points:
"Sacraments and ordinances as symbols of grace or as means of grace,"
"the Lord's Supper as eucharistic sacrifice or memorial meal,"
"remembrance of Mary and the saints or devotion to Mary and the
saints," and "baptism as sacrament of regeneration or testimony to
regeneration."[13] Here are clear allusions to Romish
sacerdotalism, superstition, and the blasphemy of the Mass. Nevertheless, the
presence of idolatry in Romish worship does not prevent the evangelical
signatories from owning Rome as a true church, and Romish idolaters as
brethren. By contrast, historic Protestants regularly exposed the corruptions
and superstition of Romish worship, calling upon the practitioners of such idolatry
to repent.[14]
Indeed, in view of the length of the ECT document, the subject of worship
receives short shrift. Perhaps that's because evangelicals and Romanists are
both attached to numerous man -made forms of worship. Since they share common
presuppositions about the lawfulness of human innovations in worship, their
dispute is merely over which outward forms of will worship are preferred. In
other words, this is one area where the dispute really is a family feud.
Historic Protestants find any form of extra-biblical worship unacceptable,
regardless of whether it emanates from Rome or from American democratic
impulses.
The language of ECT is clear; its signatories regard evangelicals and Roman
Catholics as "broth ers and sisters in Christ." They "affirm
that opportunity and means for growth in Christian discipleship are available
in our several communities."[15]
They go further: "The one Christ and one mission includes many other
Christians, notably the Eastern Orthodox and those Protestants not commonly
identified as Evangelical."[16] Are they talking about
liberal Protestants here? If so, this is about the broadest definition of the
church (and Christianity) one could devise. There is no discrimination between
true and false churches, just as there is no discrimination between true and
false gospels. All who merely profess some breed of nominal Trinitarianism are
included in this ecumenical vision.
This concept is made painfully apparent by the inclusion of the Apostles'
Creed as the only confessional formulation broad enough to encompass everyone
they have invited to the ecumenical party.[17] It is true
that during the Reformation both Protestants and Romanists affirmed their
acceptance of the Apostles' Creed. Yet, writers on both sides contended over
the proper meaning of the creed (for example, the expression "the holy
catholic church"), just as they did so many other issues.[18]
To include this creed, with no further explanation, is to render its use
virtually meaningless.[19] Thirty years ago this kind of
broad-church ecumenism would have been cried down among evangelicals as gross
liberalism.
The ecumenical refrain builds as the document says, "Existing patterns
of distrustful polemic and conflict are not the way [to unity]. We do know that
God who has brought us into communion with himself through Christ intends that
we also be in communion with one another."[20] Well,
of course it follows that if Papists are in communion with God, and ought to be
in communion with Protestants, there is an inescapable conclusion: why bother
to evangelize Roman Catholics? Wouldn't that be a waste of time?[21]
Of course it would: "it is neither theologically legitimate nor a prudent
use of resources for one Christian community to proselytize among active
adherents of another Christian community."[22]
Extending this line of thinking, the document espouses a doctrine of
individual sovereignty which serves as a further barrier against legitimate
evangelism. "Those converted whether understood as having received the
new birth for the first time or as having experienced the reawakening of the
new birth originally bestowed in the sacrament of baptism must be given full
freedom and respect as they discern and decide the community in which they will
live their new life in Christ. In such discernment and decision, they are
ultimately responsible to God and we dare not interfere with the exercise of
that responsibility."[23] From the viewpoint of the
ECT signatories, calling a Romanist to repentance would have to be considered
undue interfer ence.[24]
After quoting from 2 Corinthians 5:19, the document asserts: "To
proclaim this Gospel and to sustain the community of the faith, worship, and
discipleship that is gathered by this Gospel is the first and chief
responsibility of the church."[25] But this assertion
begs the question: Which gospel will be preached? Which community of faith?
Which means of worship?
The document lists among the unresolved differences between evangelicals and
Roman Catholics, "the church as visible communion or invisible fellowship
of true believers."[26] This is an interesting
dilemma. The Reformers spoke of the church both in terms of a body not always
visible to the eyes of men (i.e., the elect), as well as the true visible
church; they made necessary distinctions when describing the relationships
between these two perspectives. But in the ECT document we are given a choice
of one or the other. Of course, Papists have often held that the identity of
the church is equivalent to the institutional church of Rome; and perhaps some
evangelicals (out of Anabaptist roots) see the church only in terms of an
invisible spiritual body. But we stand firm with the formulations of the
Protestant creeds and confessions (which mirror scriptures), sometimes speaking
of the church as obscure to the eyes of men (the body of the elect), but at
other times referring to the church in its institutional sense as an outward
community of those professing the true religion (and their children).
Among the list of unresolved differences between evangelicals and Romanists
is "the sole authority of Scripture (sola scriptura) or Scripture as authoritatively interpreted in the
church."[27] This disagreement is the most fundamental
issue of authority. Without agreement on this principle, all the talk of
evangelistic zeal for the Christian mission is hollow.
ECT speaks of the obligation to contend "against all that opposes
Christ and his cause."[28] Shouldn't that duty include
contending against Roman Catholicism, since Rome promulgates a false gospel and
idolatry? If "earnestly contending for the faith" means anything (cf.
Jude 3), surely it means that true believers must oppose those who corrupt the gospel
and worship.
Nowhere in the document is the term evangelical defined. We are told,
however, that "the two communities in world Christianity that are most
evangelistically assertive and most rapidly growing are Evangelicals and Catholics."[29] Apparently it's the assertiveness that's the essence of the evangelical spirit in view
because, here again, we are not told which evangel is being promulgated.
Indeed, it doesn't seem to matter which gospel is preached, as long as it is
done earnestly.
The apostle Paul has warned us that there is "a zeal of God, but not
according to knowledge" (Rom. 10:2). Based on the ECT document, one may
easily perceive that there are both evangelicals and Roman Catholics who possess
this unholy zeal.
Notes for Chapter 6
1. This document has been reproduced in numerous places. In
our quotations from ECT, refer ences to the document include the section title,
followed by sequential numbering of paragraphs within the section.
2. Evangelicals are right to denounce abortion as murder
and to call abortionists to repentance. Since pro-life evangelicals oppose
those who murder the body, why do they not equally abhor those who seek to
murder the soul (such as the exponents of popish religion)?
3. "Introduction," 3rd and 10th paragraphs.
4. In a schizophrenic moment, the authors say, "The
achievement of good will and cooperation between Evangelicals and Catholics
must not be at the price of the urgency and clarity of the Christian witness to
the gospel" ("We Witness Together," paragraph 1). Keep in mind
that the authors previously provided a list of unresolved differences between
Romanists and Evangelicals, and the list touched some very significant issues:
differences pertaining to sola scriptura,
the nature of the church, worship, and baptismal regeneration. In spite of
these unresolved differences, they press on with the assertion that their
alliance to "witness together" must not come at the price of the
"urgency and clarity of the Christian witness to the gospel." Such
reckless statements are mind boggling (or mind numbing) when one begins to
reflect on their ramifications. Apparently the authors do not believe that such
issues as scriptural authority, worship, and regeneration form the essence of
the unalterable gospel of Christ.
5. "We Affirm Together," 2nd paragraph.
6. "We Affirm Together," 3rd paragraph.
7. The language also provides comfort for nominal
church-goers, who consider historic faith
sufficient unto salvation.
8. See chapter 1 above.
9. "We Affirm Together," 3rd paragraph; "We
Contend Together," 4th paragraph.
10. "Introduction," 9th paragraph.
11. "Introduction," 6th paragraph.
12. With this kind of language, perhaps the authors really
believe that the Reformation was simply one giant misunderstanding. After all, are the issues enunciated really
substantive? Are they issues that actually do divide, or are they simply issues merely
thought to divide? Perhaps the Reformers
were mistaken when they thought
Papists were corrupting the gospel and resorting to idolatry, etc.
13. "We Search Together," 3rd paragraph.
14. See chapter 3 above.
15. "We Affirm Together," 3rd paragraph; "We
Contend Together," 4th paragraph; "We Witness Together, 5th
paragraph.
16. "Introduction," 4th paragraph.
17. "We Affirm Together," 4th paragraph.
18. For example, Calvin follows the order of the Apostles'
Creed in the Institutes; and the
Confession of the English congregation at Geneva is structured upon the
articles of the creed. Both Calvin and the Confession explain the creed, as a
means of exposing Rome's departure from the ancient faith of the church.
19. William Cunningham illustrates the inadequacy of the
Apostles' Creed to serve as a sufficient guard against heresy; see Historical
Theology (1862; rpt. Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth, 1979), vol. 1, pp. 79-93.The ECT document is not itself a creed (or
confession), in the classic sense of the term. A creed is an expression of
doctrinal propositions, generally used to bear testimony to the truth, while
excluding contrary doctrines and heretics from the community of the faithful.
Creeds are founded upon the exposition of scripture. The ECT document
studiously avoids making overt doctrinal statements, and does not even attempt
any kind of systematic exposition of scripture from which to derive doctrinal
propositions. After all, expounding the Bible might prove too divisive for
their ecumenical efforts. There are a few scattered citations from scripture,
along with the reference to the Apostles' Creed and quotations from the pope.
While quotations by the pope may suffice for Romanists, it hardly commends the
document to Protestants. Regarding ECT's use of the scriptures and the
Apostles' Creed, perhaps ECT signatories hope to use them as a kind of
incantation, which, if merely recited (without explanation), will mystically
produce a grand reunion.
20. "We Hope Together," 4th paragraph.
21. Did our Protestant forefathers really waste a lot of
time and effort and some spill their blood trying to reach Europe for
Christ? The ECT document condemns the practice of proselytizing, or
"sheep-stealing," which is defined as "recruiting people from
another community for purposes of denominational or institutional aggrandizement"
("We Witness Together," 4th paragraph). It doesn't seem to occur to
the authors that sectarian bias is not the only motivation for trying to
persuade people to sever their ecclesiastical ties. It is a Christian duty to
call men to repentance, exhorting them, for the sake of the gospel, to leave
corrupt ecclesiastical communions.
22. A few lines later, the document adds: "Also to be
rejected is the practice of comparing the strengths and ideals of one community
with the weaknesses and failures of another" ("We Witness
Together," 5th and 6th paragraphs).
In a related vein, the document says, "The decision of the committed
Christian with respect to his communal allegiance and participation must be
assiduously respected"("We Witness Together, 5th paragraph).
23. "We Witness Together," 8th paragraph.
24. Earlier the document states, "the decision of the
committed Christian with respect to his communal allegiance must be assiduously
respected." "Any form of coercion physical, psychological, legal,
economic corrupts Christian witness and is to be unqualifiedly rejected"
("We Witness Together," 5th and 6th paragraphs). This is an
interesting statement, since the Roman Catholic church has historically
utilized the physical and legal persecution of Protestants, a trend which
continues to this day in countries dominated by Popery. We are also curious:
Would it be considered inappropriate to speak of hell, when exhorting a
Romanist to repent or would that fall under the prohibition against
psychological manipulation?
25. "We Contend Together," 2nd paragraph.
26. "We Search Together," 3rd paragraph.
27. "We Search Together," 3rd paragraph. The ECT
affirmation of the inspiration and infallibility of the scriptures is
disingenuous, since Romanists and evangelicals do not hold to the same canon of
scripture ("We Affirm together, 4th paragraph).
28. "We Contend Together," 1st paragraph.
29. "Introduction," 6th paragraph.
Copyright ©1995 by Kevin Reed