According to an article in Religion Unplugged, Roman Catholic officials are considering the Augsburg Confession as a basis for Christian unity. For those not up on their Church history, this was written in 1530 by Philip Melanchthon as a joint statement for Protestant leaders in Germany. The confession was rejected by the Emperor Charles V and the Vatican hierarchy, but it remains the fundamental doctrinal statement for Lutherans around the world and serves as a template for other Protestant confessions in the last five centuries.

The Vatican praising Augsburg is kind of like Pepsi telling customers to go try a Coke. A Jesuit scholar quoted in the article even said this,

“Acknowledging the Reformation’s contributions and recognizing the Augsburg Confession as a paradigm for Christian unity would further the cause of mission and a unified Christian witness to a broken world that needs to hear the Gospel.”

Whether this move by the Vatican becomes more than just compliments, ecumenism has a complicated history. While most Christians recognize the need for greater unity, the devil is in the details. Bridge-building should never devolve into moral compromise or a denial of the Gospel.

A commitment to faithfulness can also, on the other hand, be corrupted by tribalism. When Christians reduce Christianity to only their own particular tradition, preference becomes dogma, non-essentials are made essential, and secondary, non-salvationary issues are reimagined as conditions of salvation. In practice, Christianity can become less about the truth of the Gospel or standing against heresy and instead becomes a group- or self-identity.

It’s even more dangerous and damaging when, in the name of unity, essential Christian doctrines are ignored. Chuck Colson called this “Mushy” or “Easy Going Ecumenism.” This happened with Mainline denominations in the twentieth century, when the quest for a nebulous unity ended in the denial of the importance of truth entirely. This has also happened in pop evangelical circles, when caring about truth and doctrine is slandered as not loving people.

Christians disagree, and those disagreements matter, whether about the mechanics of salvation, the substance and administration of the Lord’s Supper, or the style of worship and instruction. Not all disputes are as central to the faith as others are, but some are certainly worth dividing over.

As Chuck Colson put it back in 2011:

“Without creeds and dogmas, without reference to what [David] Brooks calls the accumulated wisdom of thousands of co-believers through the centuries, religion succumbs to irrelevance. And that can lead to an eternal destination that … many people are being told no longer exists.”

In practice, this will mean maintaining the tension of holding tightly onto truth while also committing ourselves to the Christian unity for which Christ prayed. One model is what Francis Schaeffer called “co-belligerency,” and Chuck Colson termed “the ecumenism of the trenches,” the pragmatic recognition that we don’t have to agree on everything to work together on something. This approach allows us to stand shoulder to shoulder on ethical and social issues, while standing back-to-back against the aggressions of the anti-Christian and hyper-secular attacks of the enemy.

To do this kind of ecumenism well and without compromise, even as we work together on causes about which we can agree, we must keep arguing in love for one another and for the truth. For example, Roman Catholics and Protestants cannot both be right about Mary. One of us is wrong. The truth matters, and it matters more than our tribe. A constructive ecumenism across Christianity’s traditions can only take place if we are, at the same time, struggling for the truth.

Some may recoil at the call for Christians to argue about anything, but not G.K. Chesterton. He did, however, note the difference between arguments, which are necessary parts of pursuing what is true, and quarrels, which get in the way of the truth:

“People generally quarrel because they cannot argue. And it is extraordinary to notice how few people in the modern world can argue. This is why there are so many quarrels, breaking out again and again, and never coming to any natural end.”

Theologically, C.S. Lewis compared the different denominations and Christian traditions to rooms in a house. Thus, as he wrote in Mere Christianity:

“… above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling. In plain language, the question should never be: “’ Do I like that kind of service?’” but “’ Are these doctrines true?’”

Indeed. And ecumenism that does not compromise will require both the confidence that truth is real and knowable, and the humility that God is at work in all of His people, not just us.

Source