1
What We Have in Common

Despite what our title may suggest, we intend this to be a deeply ecumenical book that will ultimately serve the cause of Christian unity. True ecumenism requires forthright and respectful acknowledgment of differences, but even more important, it proceeds from a hearty recognition and appreciation of the more important common ground we share by virtue of our common commitment to classic creedal Christianity. While this book is concerned primarily with exploring honest differences, we never want to lose sight of that common ground. So although this will be the shortest chapter in the book, it is only so because there is no need to belabor points where we agree. Still, we want not only to recognize but also to celebrate the profound fellowship that unites all persons whose hearts and minds have been captured by the incomparably beautiful truth definitively revealed through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Creeds and the Hierarchy of Christian Truth

Let us begin by declaring that we share a commitment to the classic creeds: the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian. The core doctrines summarized in these classic creeds provide the fundamental framework for the Christian faith as professed by Eastern Orthodox churches, Roman Catholic churches, and the churches of the Protestant Reformation.1

Our agreement with the classic creeds is only one aspect of our shared heritage of classic patristic theology. With Roman Catholics, we look to the early centuries of the church and the fathers for seminal theology and doctrinal guidance. Indeed, we also find much to agree about in classic medieval philosophers and theologians, to whom we also look for inspiration and Christian wisdom.

The pivotal role of the creeds is reflected in part 1 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which deals with “the profession of faith” and articulates that profession by expounding the Apostles’ Creed, supplemented by numerous references to the Nicene Creed. As the Catechism states, “Communion in faith needs a common language of faith, normative for all and uniting all in the same confession of faith.”2

The exposition of the Apostles’ Creed in the Catechism is powerful, demonstrating the fact that orthodox Christians of all traditions are indeed united “in the same confession of faith.” This is hardly to suggest that evangelicals and other Christians in the Reformation tradition will agree entirely with part 1 of the Catechism. They surely will not, and Protestants who read through it will likely find it an ambivalent experience, for they will disagree at a number of points while profoundly resonating at many others.

Indeed, where they disagree, they will often judge that points of dispute represent instances where the Church of Rome has overreached and made claims that have greatly harmed the cause of Christian unity. For instance, when it expounds the Nicene affirmation “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church,” the Catechism advances claims for the Church of Rome that are at the heart of some of the most fundamental differences separating Rome not only from Reformation Christians but also from Eastern Orthodox Christians. Moreover, the modest, clearly biblical, and creedal claim that Christ was “conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary” occasions in the Catechism a statement and defense of Marian doctrines that Reformation Christians typically reject because they see no support for them in Scripture. Protestants will be similarly skeptical of the attempt to situate within the affirmation “I believe in the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints” the doctrine of Mary’s bodily assumption. Most will find it extravagant, to say the least, to claim that she has been “exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords, and conqueror of sin and death.”3

These and many other issues and points of disagreement will be taken up in more detail below, but for now they are not our concern. Here is what we want to emphasize now. Despite these differences, which indeed are significant, as we shall argue, the common ground we share is far more important than any disagreements that distinguish and even divide us. As C. S. Lewis observed, the convictions we share are so profound and far reaching that they divide us “from all non-Christian beliefs by a chasm to which the worst divisions inside Christendom are not really comparable at all.”4 Indeed, compared to the chasm that separates us from non-Christians, we might even say that our differences are a mere gully. To be sure, some gullies are fairly wide and difficult to cross, but they are nothing compared to the chasm that separates orthodox Christians from non-Christians.

Consider the core of beliefs we share and how these beliefs are radically at odds with various non-Christian beliefs, starting with the fundamental confession “We believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.” The notion that we and our world are creatures, that we owe our very existence to an almighty God who sovereignly chose to give us life and being, separates us profoundly from various atheistic and secular views contending that we are the product of entirely accidental, natural causes that did not intend for us to be here. The conviction that God almighty is a Father, not merely a powerful Lord, is an immediate indication that the purpose for which we exist is full of meaning and positive significance.

So the difference between belief in such a God and unbelief is far from a merely theoretical issue. Rather, it is deeply practical and has enormous existential implications. The Catechism summarizes these implications in a series of pithy statements: “It means coming to know God’s greatness and majesty. . . . It means living in thanksgiving. . . . It means knowing the unity and true dignity of all men. . . . It means making good use of created things. . . . It means trusting God in every circumstance, even in adversity.”5

We can hardly exaggerate the difference in worldview between believing that all existing things are here by virtue of the purposeful actions of a Father almighty and believing that the blind forces of nature somehow generated us. This fundamental difference of conviction, moreover, is at the heart of many national as well as global conflicts in our world today. Protestants stand firmly united with Roman Catholics in sharing a worldview that starts with belief in God the Father almighty.

But much more is involved in the fact that the creeds call God “Father,” and this brings us to the very heart of distinctively Christian doctrine. The doctrine that God is the creator of all that exists besides himself is shared by Jews and Muslims and many other theists. But for Christian theists, the Father is the First Person of the Trinity, and this extraordinary doctrine divides them from other theistic believers. The Catechism comments on the absolutely pivotal nature of this doctrine as follows: “The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and life. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the ‘hierarchy of the truths of faith.’ The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men and ‘reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin.’”6 The doctrine of the Trinity is singled out as “the most fundamental and essential teaching” in a hierarchy of truths. That some doctrines have this status is significant in terms of highlighting common ground between Roman Catholics and Reformation Christians. It is particularly these doctrines that are essential to Christian identity, and it is these doctrines that ground genuine fellowship.

The shared commitment to the doctrine of the Trinity is a common faith in the story of human salvation. Again, certain differences of understanding cannot be ignored, but more important is this central fact: we agree that Jesus Christ is the incarnate Son of God who was born of the virgin Mary and who died and rose again to provide salvation for the human race.

So agreement that God is a Trinity is far more than a matter of agreeing on a speculative theological claim. It is agreement on the fact that human beings are sinners estranged from their Creator, who stand desperately in need of salvation. It is agreement that faith in Christ is necessary for our sins to be forgiven, but that we cannot exercise that faith by our own power. Here we rely on the Third Person of the Trinity, the last of the three to be revealed in the history of salvation, yet the one whose saving action in another sense is first. “Through his grace, the Holy Spirit is the first to awaken faith in us and to communicate to us the new life, which is to ‘know the Father and the one whom he has sent, Jesus Christ.’”7

We share, moreover, a common hope for the ultimate end of the human story. We anticipate the resurrection of all persons and the final judgment, after which all persons will either enter eternal joy in the presence of God along with others who have been redeemed or experience eternal separation from God if they have rejected his offer of salvation.

In short, we share convictions that profoundly unite us in heart and mind against the secular worldview that predominates in much contemporary culture. We share a distinctive version of the human story, and we agree that the central events that illumine the story are found in the self-revelation of the Triune God and his acts to provide salvation to his fallen children through the death and resurrection of his Son. And we anticipate a future that will bring the story to a glorious end.

It would be incomplete, if not misleading, however, to leave the impression that what Reformation Christians and Roman Catholics share is only theological or doctrinal. We also share important moral and social commitments, many of which are under pressure in contemporary culture from the forces of secularism. Roman Catholics have consistently been outspoken advocates for justice issues, the right to life, and traditional views of marriage, and we deeply appreciate the important role they have played in these matters. Evangelicals and many other Protestants gratefully join hands with Roman Catholics in support of these vital spiritual and moral values.

Mere Christianity and the Center We Share

Many evangelicals and other Reformation Christians will instinctively respond positively to these lines of thinking in no small part because they have been schooled to think of ecumenical relationships in terms of what C. S. Lewis famously called “mere Christianity.” Lewis was likely the most influential Christian writer of the twentieth century, and his appeal shows no sign of waning as we move well into the twenty-first century. Lewis, of course, was a Protestant from Northern Ireland and a loyal member of the Church of England, but his influence is hardly confined to his fellow Protestants. Certainly he has been, and remains, especially popular in evangelical circles, but he also has a wide following among Roman Catholics.

We think the enormous ecumenical appeal of Lewis is another telling way to see the fundamental core of agreement between Protestants and Roman Catholics.8 Indeed, it is not uncommon for Roman Catholics and Protestants to come together and work on various projects under the banner of “mere Christianity,” and both of us have participated in such efforts.

Lewis clearly wrote his classic book with the goal of articulating an account of the faith that Roman Catholics could identify with, even though the book does not in any way affirm a Roman account of authority, the sacraments, Marian dogmas, and the like. In the preface Lewis reports that he sent the original manuscript of book 2, What Christians Believe, to four clergymen, one of whom was a Roman Catholic. (The other three were Anglican, Methodist, and Presbyterian.) Although it is obvious that no single ordinary clergyman can claim to speak for his entire church, Lewis took it as evidence that he had succeeded in his goal when only two of the clergymen had minor quibbles. The Methodist thought he had not paid enough attention to faith, and the Roman Catholic thought he had gone a bit too far in playing down the importance of particular theories of the atonement. Still, what is remarkable is the fact that millions of Christians of various traditions have recognized in Lewis’s pages a faithful account of the heart of the faith they confess.

Although Lewis is by far the most famous person to use the term “mere Christianity” to refer to the heart of the faith, he did not invent the term. As he states in his preface, he borrowed the language from Richard Baxter, a Puritan theologian who lived in the seventeenth century (1615–91). In the eighteenth century, one of Lewis’s earlier Anglican compatriots attempted to spell out common ground with Roman Catholics, namely, John Wesley, in “A Letter to a Roman Catholic.”9 But the more important point here is not merely who coined the term but rather that the notion of a core of common ground that is the very essence of the faith is something Christians have recognized for generations. Indeed, Lewis emphasizes that it long antedated him and that there is something objective about it, explaining, “For I am not writing to expound something I could call ‘my religion,’ but to expound ‘mere’ Christianity, which is what it is and what it was long before I was born and whether I like it or not.”10

We can also see this reality in the often-observed fact that orthodox Christians of different denominations and theological traditions recognize more real fellowship and unity with each other than they do with liberal members of their own churches. Conservative Presbyterians and Roman Catholics, say, have much more in common with each other than they do with members of their own churches who play fast and loose with the creedal doctrines. Again to cite Lewis: “It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each there is a something, or a Someone, who against all the divergencies of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with the same voice.”11

Notice particularly Lewis’s point that the center of Christian faith is recognized and defined by a “Someone” who is at the heart of true faith, namely, the trinitarian God whose Son became incarnate to save us from our sins. Those who have faith in Christ discern the essential truth of their faith because they have encountered him and have learned how to recognize him. As Jesus said, “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27). Those who know Christ because they are known by him instinctively gravitate to the center where his voice is most distinctly heard.

By now it will be apparent that we reject the attitude of some evangelicals who do not consider Roman Catholics true Christians or doubt that they have genuine faith. We forthrightly affirm our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters as full members of the body of Christ, and we celebrate our common convictions that unite us as the family of God. While “the memories of mutual persecution” that Lewis references can hardly be swept under the rug or ignored, we rejoice in the fact that believers in our respective churches have repented of many of these sins of the past and seek to move forward in love as fellow believers whose agreements matter far more than our disagreements.

To be sure, this “mutual persecution” of the past has even included mutual anathemas. Official Roman Catholic teaching in the past has taught that Protestants cannot be saved, and many Protestants have returned the favor. In contrast with this unhappy history, official Roman Catholic teaching today takes a more ecumenical stance toward Christians in other traditions. While lamenting and condemning schism, that teaching now recognizes Protestants as brothers and sisters in Christ.

However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.13

While Reformation Christians may regret that this acknowledgment is still qualified, the fact remains that the recent changes in Roman Catholic thought have helped to engender much true ecumenism and mutual respect among believers in these different traditions.

The Catechism goes on to acknowledge: “‘Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth’ are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: ‘the written Word of God, the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.’”14 Again, these “elements of sanctification and of truth” are the telltale signs that one has encountered true Christianity. When these are present, those who follow Christ will distinctly hear his voice.

In short, then, whether we talk in terms of beliefs that are “most fundamental and essential” in the hierarchy of truth, or whether we talk about a core of doctrines popularly called “mere Christianity,” believers on both sides of the Reformation divide properly discern a common faith that unites them around a common center. Protestants who read part 1 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church will discern in those pages the essence of the faith they profess for the same reason that many Roman Catholics who read Mere Christianity see in those pages a true account of the heart of their faith. While Protestants will see things in the Catechism that they think are unbiblical, and Roman Catholics will see things missing in Mere Christianity that are important to them,15 it is nevertheless remarkable that members of each group discern a common faith that transcends disagreements.

So Why Did We Write This Book, and for Whom?

Given what we have written in this chapter, some readers may think there is something ironic, perhaps even inconsistent, in our writing a book spelling out where we think Roman Catholicism goes wrong. Is this book not inevitably an assault on the very ecumenism and unity we profess? We recognize the potential danger here. In a letter to one of his Roman Catholic correspondents, C. S. Lewis wrote: “The question for me (naturally) is not, ‘Why should I not become a Roman Catholic?’ but ‘Why should I?’ But I don’t like discussing such matters, because it emphasizes differences and endangers charity. By the time I had really explained my objections to certain doctrines which differentiate you from us (and also in my opinion from the Apostolic and even Medieval Church), you would like me less.”16

In our introduction, we gave some reasons why we thought this book needed to be written, despite the potential hazards Lewis identified. As we commented there, the most basic reason is that many people are concerned with these issues and are struggling with them. A number of evangelicals have converted to Rome, and many Roman Catholics have converted to evangelicalism and other Protestant traditions, including Pentecostalism.17 Part of this is due to aggressive apologists on both sides who have taken as their mission the “conversion” of fellow Christians to their church. They unsettle the faith of fellow Christians, and frankly, many people seem to be confused and are pressured to “convert” because of claims that their faith is deficient, or somehow inconsistent or lacking in full integrity, unless they join a particular church or denomination. To be sure, many who have “converted” have done so only after careful study, consultation, and prayer for discernment. But many others, we suspect, have done so under the pressure of dubious reasons, spurious arguments, and misinformation. And some of these persons who have “converted” are having serious second thoughts about their decision.

We have written this book for all persons grappling with these issues who want to think about them honestly and carefully, as well as for those who minister to such persons. Our concern in this book is as much pastoral as it is theological.

So this book is not aimed at faithful Roman Catholics. We do not write to unsettle the faith of fellow believers, and we say to all our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters with whom we share an active faith in Christ as described above, there are probably other books you should be reading. We recognize you as full members of the body of Christ, as affirmed above, and we have no interest in converting you to our church.18 Your time would likely be better spent reading a book by C. S. Lewis or G. K. Chesterton rather than this one.

But if you have an interest in the issues that divide evangelicals and other orthodox Protestants from Rome, and particularly if you are struggling with whether you need to cross the Tiber to practice your faith with full integrity (or if you have already done so but are rethinking the matter), we have written this book to explain why you need not do so. The chapters that follow are straightforwardly critical, sometimes pointedly so. Still, we emphasize that we are dealing with family issues. Sometimes families are divided and face conflict. We do not shy away from that reality even as we aim to speak the truth in love. And ultimately, we aim to serve the cause of true Christian unity in the common faith we profess.

1. The filioque clause of the Nicene Creed is not accepted by Eastern Orthodox churches.

2. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1994), par. 185.

3. Ibid., par. 966.

4. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), xi.

5. Catechism, pars. 223–27. Each statement is supported by a passage from Scripture or a quote from a classic theological source.

6. Ibid., par. 234, quoting General Catechetical Directory, pars. 43, 47.

7. Catechism, par. 684.

8. We could have made the same point by examining any of the classic Protestant confessions of faith and highlighting the fundamental doctrines they all share. We chose to look at Lewis because of the wide familiarity with his book among Roman Catholics as well as Protestants.

9. The Works of John Wesley, 3rd ed. (1872; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 10:80–86.

10. Lewis, Mere Christianity, ix.

11. Ibid., xii.

12. Lewis, Yours, Jack: Spiritual Direction from C. S. Lewis, ed. Paul F. Ford (New York: HarperOne, 2008), 190.

13. Catechism, par. 818. This paragraph comes from the 1964 Vatican II document titled Unitatis Redintegratio: Decree on Ecumenism.

14. Catechism, par. 819.

15. This is also true for most Protestants. Lewis intended not to spell out the fully developed faith of any Christian tradition or denomination but only to present what he thought was common to all.

16. Lewis, Letters of C. S. Lewis, ed. W. H. Lewis (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975), 230. For a detailed exploration of why Lewis was not a Roman Catholic, see Stewart Goetz, A Philosophical Walking Tour with C. S. Lewis: Why It Did Not Include Rome (New York: Bloomsbury, 2015).

17. Indeed, Pentecostalism has grown dramatically in many traditionally Roman Catholic countries, especially in the Global South.

18. There are many nominal Christians in all traditions. There is certainly a viable ministry of introducing such persons to a vital faith in Christ. That, we believe, should be our focus, not getting them to join our particular church.

1 What We Have in Common

1
What We Have in Common