Catholic, not Roman
Every Christian, the world over, agrees with the teaching set forth in the Apostles Creed. The Gospel’s perspicuity and the creed’s simplicity allow such an authoritative statement as I just wrote to be made without a thousand qualifications. The Scriptures teach us that one cannot be a Christian and deny the resurrection of Christ, His divinity, His coming again, etc. Even some of the most controversial moments of the creed, like the use of the word catholic, at least as far as evangelicals are concerned, merely require a 30 second etymological explanation in order to be quelled . . . at least for a moment.
Catholicity is controversial at first blush because of its regular conflation with the term Roman Catholic. As soon as it is explained that the word merely means “universal”, most people newly learning this fact breath a sigh of relief. “That’s fine then,” they may say. Give it a minute. It will most likely produce a second wave of controversy that is brought about because of the visible lack of catholicity which exists in the Church today. According to Gordon-Conwell’s statistics, there are 45,000 Christian denominations in the world. The National Catholic Register, however, acknowledges that, as far as Protestantism is concerned, we are only dealing with 200 major denominations and the theological streams are fewer still.
It’s important to note that a call for catholicity is not, by necessity, the same thing as a call for the end of denominationalism. Clear water is better than muddy water in many ways and a lucid explanation of a congregation’s doctrine and polity is usually helpful. That’s not to say that fine hair-splitting is synonymous with rightly dividing.
Twice, in John, we see our Lord tying successful evangelism and the identifying mark of a Christian to loving unity in the Body of Christ. Christian unity is correlative to the unity of the Trinity.
John 13:34-35 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
So, back to the creed.
We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
Wait a minute. What are we saying? Are we saying that the visible church is fractured but the invisible church is unified? Yes? Then do we have a responsibility to repair the outward division in order to comply with what is the heavenly pattern? Are we saying that the spiritual reality supersedes the visible divisions? How is it possible that many of the divisions exist because of our attempt to defend what the Bible teaches, in our understanding? Quickly, more questions can rush in than answers.
Recently, the podcast All of Christ for all of Life re-aired a short debate from a few years ago between Peter Leithart and Doug Wilson on this very issue. Leithart had just released his controversially-titled book, The End of Protestantism. In it he uses the concept of “the end” in two different ways, both as telos and terminus. Throughout the book he acknowledges the ways in which sometimes the end of Protestantism is meant terminally and sometimes it is meant in the sense of fulfillment. The debate centered on the question of whether or not Christians have an obligation to practice bridge-building where there is, at presence, chasm. Both men acknowledged the necessity of rejecting heresy, of practicing church discipline, and of acknowledging the existence of Godly men and women who belong to “other teams.” Despite that, Doug Wilson inclined himself toward the nays while Peter Leithart signed his name with large letters in favor of the yeas.
If Evangelical Protestants were to acknowledge that there was, on average, at least one “real” Christian in every Roman Catholic congregation in the United States, that would give you something like two million Roman Catholics that Protestants would describe as being true believers . . . in the US alone. This is a significant representation of a universally agreed upon communion. Now, of course, there will be varying perspectives on the kinds and degrees of error one can hold to and not have the error cross a line into damnable error, or heresy. But, the issue at present isn’t the degree of discrepancy but the presence of universality and communion.
This, in no way, is to suggest that doctrine should be ignored for the sake of unity or that errors which border on or cross the line into heresy should be overlooked for the sake of unity. Not at all. My point is not to defend Roman Catholicism as being characteristically catholic. On the contrary. I happen to share Peter Leithart’s perspective that, I’m too catholic to be Roman Catholic.
The issue being worked on by many is the elusive “way forward”. Peter Leithart argues for a willingness on the part of Christian tribes to work on building unity. Doug Wilson argues that if God wants that kind of unity, He’ll have to bring it about Himself. Sure. But when we are asked why we are Christians, we have to respond with a two-fold answer: because of God’s electing work before the foundations of the world . . . and . . . because my mom spanked me. This shouldn’t be any different. Why will true catholicity ever exist in the Church? Because it is stated in Scripture as being the desire of the inviolable, secret council of the Trinity . . . and . . . we’re willing to have lunch with people not like us.
In a blog post from around this time, Doug Wilson says, “There is a great danger in trying to understand intra-Trinitarian perichoretic relationships (which we understand about as well as the family dog staring at your son’s calculus textbook) in order that we might try to figure out the right applications to our horizontal relationships down here. This why Jesus asked the Father to do it. He didn’t ask us to do it. It will be revealed in us, but we will not be the architects of it.”
No doubt. The secret things belong to the Lord. But, I’m not sure that this addresses the issue Leithart is raising. As someone who deeply admires Doug Wilson and continues to greatly appreciate his work, I still can’t help but point out that this logic is the same kind of argumentation that silenced William Carey in the 1700s. "Young man, sit down! You are an enthusiast. When God pleases to convert the heathen, he'll do it without consulting you or me.” Praise God Carey didn’t listen. There is now more of the unified Body because of the division created by Carey’s actions. Leithart would most likely agree because, if I understand him correctly, he is arguing that God’s primary means are often accomplished through our secondary means. Wilson would most likely agree because he could point to Carey’s resistance and say, “See, division worked out just fine.” Or, perhaps he would say, “Knit one; pearl one.”
There is an exemplary note that rings out, especially in the middle of the New Saint Andrews debate: both of these men belong to the CREC (Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches). One of the most controversial things about this denomination is their stated attempt to pull the tent stakes back and allow people who have historically not seen themselves as camping together to have an acknowledged intramural relationship. I’ve heard people disparage these men for attempting to bite off more unity than they can chew. Unfortunately for these naysayers, the Bible tells us that the future is catholic.
I’m reminded of something James Jordan has said over the years. Not every era is a cathedral-building era. Perhaps we aren’t at a place to have the next ecumenical council. Perhaps, if we tried it right now, we would be guilty of eschewing the warning about immanentizing the eschaton. Theopolis, however, does have Pentecostal scholars engaging Protestant liturgists . . . and Doug Wilson will regularly defend Chesterton’s justification. And the CREC does allow churches to subscribe to any of the following creeds and confessions: The Westminster Confession of Faith, The American Westminster Confession of Faith, The Three Forms of Unity, The 1689 London Baptist Confession, The Savoy Declaration, The Reformed Evangelical Confession, The Second Helvetic Confession, or The 39 Articles of Christian Religion.
The fraternal spirit modeled by Leithart and Wilson as they discuss their differences as brothers on an issue as important as unity is an example of fruitful dialectic. Perhaps the work of the hour is more gracious conversation, like this, about catholicity. This is not a start because this kind of work has always been taking place. God is interested in unity in the Church and so He will move hearts in every generation to not merely yearn for it, but to plant and water. This is work that will inevitably feed into what will someday be the next ecumenical council . . . or even better, a more Christ-like imaging of complex unity in His Body.
