Peter and I have engaged each other on the subject of church unity a number of times over the last few years, to the point where it is arguably something of a personal tradition. It is always a pleasure so to do and, as the saying goes – here we go again.
Peter’s argument that catholic Christian unity must be visible unity is impossible to reject at the level of theory. On that point there is no disagreement between us. But asking someone if they think visible church unity is a good thing is a little akin to asking them whether they think that poverty or child abuse should be abolished: the abstract answer is obvious; but the concrete questions of what this might look like and how it might be accomplished are not so straightforward and often highly contested.
Thus, as I read Peter’s article, there was much that I would affirm. Yes, real Christian unity should be visible unity. Yes, the distinction between the invisible and the visible church has too often been used as an excuse to justify the fragmented nature of the status quo or the fissiparous pathology of modern conservative Protestantism. And yes, these matters should vex those of us who disagree with Peter as much as they do him. Too many of us are complacent in our denominationalism which is often incoherent even according to our own criteria.
Take, for example, the number of conservative, confessional Presbyterian denominations in the USA alone. The lack of visible unity there cannot be explained along strictly doctrinal lines, because each affirms the Westminster Standards. The reality is that it is more often cultural aesthetics or minor differences in the implementation of Presbyterian church government, which keep us apart.
And yet I find Peter’s arguments problematic in a number of ways. First, there is the question of the nature of the divisions within the church. If those between the OPC and the PCA are arguably more cultural than theological, that is not the case for those between the OPC and the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. Those divisions reflect serious doctrinal differences on everything from authority to sacraments to salvation.
Peter seems to imply that an acknowledgment that church unity is visible is the foundation of identifying points of disagreement among its various branches and thus a first step to true ecumenism. But this is where a problem arises: The faith is dogmatic – a point on which both Martin Luther and Cardinal Newman would agree. Athanasius was willing to endure repeated exile precisely because there were those in the visible church whose Christology was not consistent with the New Testament and whose faith was thus not truly Christian. Church divisions have always arisen out of a chronologically prior greater unity which has then been disrupted because the dogmatic points at issue pertain precisely to where the limits of common confession and credible claims to membership of the Christian community should be set. When Peter therefore speaks of ‘our common baptism’ and ‘our common confession’ he seems to be speaking of that which binds all Christians together and thus provides a context for this constructive ecumenism. But the nature of that common confession is the origin of the most fundamental divisions within the visible church – those between Roman, Eastern, and Protestant. Can we solve the problem simply by relativizing at the outset all that feeds into these divisions?
This is where I want to press Peter. The New Testament letters contain stern warning about those who have crept into the church unnoticed (and presumably been baptized) who yet do not belong and who are to be expelled therefrom. Sometimes this is because of their behavior, sometimes their doctrine, sometimes both. And Paul makes it clear that those who depart from true doctrine are by that act the ones who are being divisive and shattering the unity of the church.
Two questions therefore suggest themselves: First, what is the content and nature of the common confession which Peter sees as providing underlying unity? Is it, for example, the Chalcedonian consensus (and therefore one that excludes the Armenian Orthodox and the Coptic Churches)? Is it the Apostles’ Creed (and therefore one which potentially allows those excluded by Nicene Orthodoxy? This is a serious matter because one cannot talk of a common confession as a foundation for ecumenical discussion without deciding which doctrines are essential for the church and which are of secondary or tertiary importance. I sympathize very much with Peter’s obvious desire to read other Christian traditions as charitably as possible; But I cannot see how this might work in practice in a manner different to the lowest-common-denominator ecumenism that has proved so pointless and even destructive in the past.
Second, when we understand the history of major church divisions – and I do not mean the trivial disputes which so often divide churches but rather major moments such as the Reformation – can we really say that they are the result of different traditions of reading the Bible and leave it at that? While Peter does not explicitly say that, he leaves the matter hanging in mid-air, so to speak, in a manner which appears to relativize the differences in a manner which belies the history and also seems to obscure how we might move forward. While it is true that credobaptists and pedobaptists do represent different traditions of reading scripture, surely it is still the case that one must be right and the other wrong? And if so, what does a move towards visible church unity look like between such groups? It surely looks to me as if baptists would need to become paedopaptists or vice versa. The problem of the doctrinal nature of Christianity in a divided church landscape is that church unity in the New Testament is doctrinal unity, and we do not solve the problem of fragmentation by dogmatic downgrade, whether through diluting particular doctrines or simply sidelining doctrinal questions as a whole.
Having said this, I want to return again to my point of agreement with Peter: church unity should be visible unity. So how do we achieve that? Peter, as I have implied, is long on vision and relatively short on practical suggestions. I would suggest we can start in a modest way and see where it leads: denominations which share a common confession should start voting themselves out of existence at their General Assemblies (or equivalents) and joining one of the alternatives which holds the same confessional standards. I am realistic enough to know that will likely never happen; and the reasons why will be the Poker tells as to why church divisions are so bad and often have little or nothing to do with serious doctrinal differences. On such trivial divisions, Peter and I have, I think, no disagreement.
Carl Trueman (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is professor of biblical and religious studies at Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania.
Peter and I have engaged each other on the subject of church unity a number of times over the last few years, to the point where it is arguably something of a personal tradition. It is always a pleasure so to do and, as the saying goes – here we go again.
Peter’s argument that catholic Christian unity must be visible unity is impossible to reject at the level of theory. On that point there is no disagreement between us. But asking someone if they think visible church unity is a good thing is a little akin to asking them whether they think that poverty or child abuse should be abolished: the abstract answer is obvious; but the concrete questions of what this might look like and how it might be accomplished are not so straightforward and often highly contested.
Thus, as I read Peter’s article, there was much that I would affirm. Yes, real Christian unity should be visible unity. Yes, the distinction between the invisible and the visible church has too often been used as an excuse to justify the fragmented nature of the status quo or the fissiparous pathology of modern conservative Protestantism. And yes, these matters should vex those of us who disagree with Peter as much as they do him. Too many of us are complacent in our denominationalism which is often incoherent even according to our own criteria.
Take, for example, the number of conservative, confessional Presbyterian denominations in the USA alone. The lack of visible unity there cannot be explained along strictly doctrinal lines, because each affirms the Westminster Standards. The reality is that it is more often cultural aesthetics or minor differences in the implementation of Presbyterian church government, which keep us apart.
And yet I find Peter’s arguments problematic in a number of ways. First, there is the question of the nature of the divisions within the church. If those between the OPC and the PCA are arguably more cultural than theological, that is not the case for those between the OPC and the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. Those divisions reflect serious doctrinal differences on everything from authority to sacraments to salvation.
Peter seems to imply that an acknowledgment that church unity is visible is the foundation of identifying points of disagreement among its various branches and thus a first step to true ecumenism. But this is where a problem arises: The faith is dogmatic – a point on which both Martin Luther and Cardinal Newman would agree. Athanasius was willing to endure repeated exile precisely because there were those in the visible church whose Christology was not consistent with the New Testament and whose faith was thus not truly Christian. Church divisions have always arisen out of a chronologically prior greater unity which has then been disrupted because the dogmatic points at issue pertain precisely to where the limits of common confession and credible claims to membership of the Christian community should be set. When Peter therefore speaks of ‘our common baptism’ and ‘our common confession’ he seems to be speaking of that which binds all Christians together and thus provides a context for this constructive ecumenism. But the nature of that common confession is the origin of the most fundamental divisions within the visible church – those between Roman, Eastern, and Protestant. Can we solve the problem simply by relativizing at the outset all that feeds into these divisions?
This is where I want to press Peter. The New Testament letters contain stern warning about those who have crept into the church unnoticed (and presumably been baptized) who yet do not belong and who are to be expelled therefrom. Sometimes this is because of their behavior, sometimes their doctrine, sometimes both. And Paul makes it clear that those who depart from true doctrine are by that act the ones who are being divisive and shattering the unity of the church.
Two questions therefore suggest themselves: First, what is the content and nature of the common confession which Peter sees as providing underlying unity? Is it, for example, the Chalcedonian consensus (and therefore one that excludes the Armenian Orthodox and the Coptic Churches)? Is it the Apostles’ Creed (and therefore one which potentially allows those excluded by Nicene Orthodoxy? This is a serious matter because one cannot talk of a common confession as a foundation for ecumenical discussion without deciding which doctrines are essential for the church and which are of secondary or tertiary importance. I sympathize very much with Peter’s obvious desire to read other Christian traditions as charitably as possible; But I cannot see how this might work in practice in a manner different to the lowest-common-denominator ecumenism that has proved so pointless and even destructive in the past.
Second, when we understand the history of major church divisions – and I do not mean the trivial disputes which so often divide churches but rather major moments such as the Reformation – can we really say that they are the result of different traditions of reading the Bible and leave it at that? While Peter does not explicitly say that, he leaves the matter hanging in mid-air, so to speak, in a manner which appears to relativize the differences in a manner which belies the history and also seems to obscure how we might move forward. While it is true that credobaptists and pedobaptists do represent different traditions of reading scripture, surely it is still the case that one must be right and the other wrong? And if so, what does a move towards visible church unity look like between such groups? It surely looks to me as if baptists would need to become paedopaptists or vice versa. The problem of the doctrinal nature of Christianity in a divided church landscape is that church unity in the New Testament is doctrinal unity, and we do not solve the problem of fragmentation by dogmatic downgrade, whether through diluting particular doctrines or simply sidelining doctrinal questions as a whole.
Having said this, I want to return again to my point of agreement with Peter: church unity should be visible unity. So how do we achieve that? Peter, as I have implied, is long on vision and relatively short on practical suggestions. I would suggest we can start in a modest way and see where it leads: denominations which share a common confession should start voting themselves out of existence at their General Assemblies (or equivalents) and joining one of the alternatives which holds the same confessional standards. I am realistic enough to know that will likely never happen; and the reasons why will be the Poker tells as to why church divisions are so bad and often have little or nothing to do with serious doctrinal differences. On such trivial divisions, Peter and I have, I think, no disagreement.
Carl Trueman (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is professor of biblical and religious studies at Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania.
-->