This is a response to an article on Compelling Truth about ecumenism titled Should a Christian be involved in the ecumenical movement?

The article is written as advice to Christians, specifically Protestants, whether they can engage in ecumenical movements. Like the author, I think that Christians need to proceed with a healthy dose of caution. Ecumenism has a history of over-promising and under-delivering. Additionally, there is a strong trend in the ecumenical movement to push people to give up on their convictions. I would argue instead that convictions are perfectly fine so long as they are held with humility.

The author makes a few comments that are worth exploring in more detail.

Protestants are All About the Doctrine

The first statement is near the end of the article. He states, “Christians are called to unity, but not at all costs. Doctrine is paramount, especially when it concerns the person and work of Christ.” On the surface, this is true enough. However, it lacks important qualifications.

This statement reflects that Protestants are all about the doctrine. Protestants tie themselves into knots about doctrine. They argue about it, fight about it, and split over it. And some of those fights run deep. For Protestants, the Christian experience is defined first and foremost by doctrine, and then secondarily by how the doctrine is lived out in everyday life. For a Protestant, it is not possible to worship correctly or believe correctly without proper doctrine. Doctrine is the sine qua non of Protestantism. Is it any wonder that one of the rallying cries of Protestantism is Sola Scriptura, Scripture is the final source of authority for all matters of faith and practice? As a Protestant myself, I have a lot of sympathy for both Sola Scriptura and the importance of doctrine.

Catholics, however, are not all about the unity of the church. They filter their Christian experience not through doctrine but through ecclesiology. For them, it is impossible to be a well-rounded Christian outside of God’s one true church. Jesus’ call to unity (John 17:21; Eph 4:3) is paramount. It is the church that determined which books were included in the Bible, and it is the church that provides the correct interpretation of Scripture. Is it any wonder that one of the core positions of the church is Dual Source, that the traditions of the church are equally authoritative as the Bible? Catholics also focus on sacraments, but this is secondary to the issue of church unity.

Orthodox focus on proper worship. The first and foremost responsibility a Christian has is to worship God. One cannot function correctly as a Christian without proper worship. Protestants believe that proper doctrine leads to proper worship. A common saying in Protestant circles is orthodoxy leads to orthopraxy, or right doctrine leads to right practice where worship is part of Christian practice. However, Orthodoxy rejects this as the wrong starting point. All creation worship God (Psa 19:1), and it does so without proper doctrine or a sermon or Bible study or anything like that. Thus, worship is a proper starting point for Christians. For Orthodox Christians, without proper worship one cannot have proper doctrine. Or, more accurately, right worship leads to right doctrine, and right doctrine points right back to right worship. Worship is shot through the totality of Orthodoxy. Secondarily Orthodoxy is also about the sacraments, though they differ in important aspects from Catholicism.

Why, then, am I Protestant? Because I think that making ecclesiology (doctrine of the church) or worship the starting point is simply take one aspect of doctrine as the starting point. Christianity is a confessional religion, and confession requires content. That content is doctrine. However, although I hold this as a conviction, I hold it with humility. I recognize that there are many more Catholics and Orthodox than Protestants in the world. I might be wrong. I don’t think I am, but humility requires me to be ever vigilant to not let convictions turn me into a strident doctrinarian.

Broad Gospel vs. Narrow Gospel

The second statement should be read in conjunction with the first one, above. The second statement is, “A desire for ecumenicalism cannot ignore the Bible’s commands to maintain the purity of the gospel (Galatians 1:6-9; 2 Peter 2:1; Jude 1:3-4).”

My question is simple: which gospel? One can understand the gospel either broadly or narrowly. Broadly, the gospel is that God was in Christ who came into the world to save sinners. The broad gospel is about the person and work of Christ. If you re-read the article quote at the top of the article, that is what the author has in mind. However, in this second quote, I don’t think he does. I think he has a narrow view of the gospel. Narrowly, the gospel for Protestants is justification through faith alone in Christ alone. Protestants often conflate these, and given their view of justification it’s understandable. However, the distinction is important. When Catholics and Orthodox say they believe in the gospel, they typically mean the broad gospel. The narrow gospel is a Protestant distinctive.

For my Protestant friends, here’s a fun exercise. Go through the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and look for the phrases good news and gospel (both are used to translate the Greek euangelion). Read them in context and ask yourself whether what is meant is the broad gospel, the narrow gospel, or both. Catholics and Orthodox argue that it is only the broad gospel that is in view. Protestants argue that it is both since the epistles were written first, the Gospel writers would have had the epistles in mind already. It’s a fun little debate.

In the ecumenical space, it is important to keep the distinction between the broad gospel and the narrow gospel in mind. Protestants tend to conflate the two without realizing it.

Essentials, Non-Essentials, and Charity

The third quote from the article is the closing statement. “As 17th-century Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius said, ‘In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.'” Meldenius’ statement expresses good intentions, but let’s be careful how far we take it. It has a few problems.

First, who defines what is essential and what is non-essential? Whoever gets to define what is essential will essentially win the debate. Whoever decides what is essential will win the debate at the level of definition.

Second, the entire fight between Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants is precisely over what is most essential in Christianity. So long as we disagree about that, unity is simply not possible.

Third, and this is the most important thing, in all things show charity. In my experience, this is the most difficult part. As fallen sinners, we are not well-disposed to show charity to the people we disagree with. Most people are, unfortunately, less concerned with charity and more concerned with having God, church, worship, and their entire Christian experience conform to their preconceived notions. As Christians pigeon-hold themselves into echo chambers of like-minded people, it is difficult to show charity to Christians who understand Christianity differently.

I believe that the correct answer is hold our convictions with humility. That requires us to be willing to admit we could be wrong. Have convictions, but don’t be doctrinaire about them.

The Yoga Ball

What does this look like in practice to hold convictions with humility? Let me use an analogy to describe it.

Some people sit on a yoga ball rather than a chair. A yoga ball is never completely still, it is always moving. And as it moves, it requires the person to use their core muscles to stay upright. The idea is that rather than sitting in a chair with strong back support (or reclined back in the near Lay-Z-Boy position in which I am as I write this!), one must sit up straight and always work at balancing himself. Over time, this burns extra calories and builds up core muscles.

Ecumenism is like sitting on a yoga ball. You can never kick out your feet and comfortably lean back. You must always be balancing what you believe in such a way that you don’t roll off one side or the other. This isn’t easy, but if you are willing to let God blow your mind with what an amazing God he really is, you will find it’s totally worth it!

This is a response to an article on Compelling Truth about ecumenism titled Should a Christian be involved in the ecumenical movement?

The article is written as advice to Christians, specifically Protestants, whether they can engage in ecumenical movements. Like the author, I think that Christians need to proceed with a healthy dose of caution. Ecumenism has a history of over-promising and under-delivering. Additionally, there is a strong trend in the ecumenical movement to push people to give up on their convictions. I would argue instead that convictions are perfectly fine so long as they are held with humility.