Choose the Narrow Path

Introduction: Calling the churches to account

The prevailing wisdom says that ecumenism is frozen, in a winter that does not seem to end, as if we are in C. S. Lewis’ Narnia during the reign of the Snow Queen. The Christian churches of the world seem doomed to remain separate, with conflicting claims to be the “true,” the “right,” the “original,” the “New Testament” church, etc.

At the same time, there have never been more dialogues, conferences, documents, reports:

The churches are in fact awash with ecumenical reports. There have been so many conversations, so many wise heads, so much sheer scholarship, so much money spent, so much prayer offered earnestly, in the hope that if we are seen to be one, the world might believe!¹

Kurt Cardinal Koch, president of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity (formerly the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity) sent a note decrying an “ecumenical emergency” to the 2022 Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops entitled “What Unity Do We Christians Seek? Reflections on the goal of the ecumenical movement from a Catholic perspective.”² The note significantly opened by quoting from the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Unity Commission of 1980: “We need a ‘common vision’ because we shall grow further apart if we do not aim towards a common goal. If we have conflicting views of this goal, we shall, if we are consistent, move in opposite directions.”³ The cardinal states that “the basic questions of what, who and where the Church is, and what absolutely pertains to its unity, [are] the main items on the present and future ecumenical agenda.”

Now is a propitious time to take stock of the accomplishments of the ecumenical movement, therefore, specifically in identifying so far what the churches in dialogue have in common, in order to return to the central question of how unity must be practiced. One major challenge is the general ignorance of those accomplishments among Christians, beyond the members of those dialogues and interested clergy and laity. The great bulk of the faithful, including local clergy, simply do not connect with the work of their churches’ ecumenists. For instance, even after 57 years of official dialogues and significant agreements with the Roman Catholic Church, including the establishment of the Anglican Centre in Rome⁴ and the joint bishops’ commission known as the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission (IARCCUM),⁵ I still have conversations with Roman Catholics—even bishops—who continue to insist that King Henry VIII started his own church in order to procure a divorce.⁶

And yet it remains true, as Margaret O’Gara wrote, that ecumenists

speak easily of the mutual recognition of our baptism, of the real and unique presence of Christ in the Eucharist, of justification by faith through grace, of the church as a communion, of a universal ministry by the bishop of Rome as something desirable for all the churches to recover, and diverse forms of devotion to Mary as an authentic inculturation of the Gospel.⁷

Ecumenists have worked hard, but by and large their efforts, impressive as they are, remain unknown by the vast majority of the faithful. This ignorance should not be mistaken for indifference, however, for most believers have at least some awareness that our disunity gives the lie to our proclamation of the Gospel entrusted to us. If some are unaware of that, nonbelievers and members of other faiths will quickly make it plain.

Another major challenge is the actual work of moving forward toward visible unity. Cardinal Koch argues that many people have given up on this goal as undesirable in the wake of postmodernism’s dismissal of unity in favor of plurality. “It is therefore characteristic of postmodernism to abandon unitary thinking on principle, which means not only tolerating and accepting pluralism but fundamentally opting for it. With this postmodern mindset, any quest for unity seems premodern and antiquated” (“What unity?” §5).

Be that as it may. The clearest sign of disunity we Christians give to one another is barring from Holy Communion other Christians belonging to churches different from our own. While among many Anglicans and most Reformed churches some practice of intercommunion obtains, for the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches such “laxity” is an exception. The scandal of disunity begins at home.

This assertion may seem reasonable to those who would point to continuing discord among the churches, exemplified by the unwillingness to share Holy Communion together, or even to admit the validity of another church. Compared to where the churches were even 50 years ago, we have all come to a very different place, and this gives hope for further growth together. Nevertheless:

Surely the supreme irony within Christian theology and practice is the situation that the churches find themselves in with regard to the Eucharist. On the one hand, all those churches which make the Eucharist a central part of their preaching and practice emphasize unity—in practice, this is a multivalent notion in preaching—within their celebrations. While on the other hand, not only are the divisions between churches rarely so raw and vicious as when the Eucharist, as part of Christian praxis, is involved but, even between churches who are today willing to take part in ecumenical dialogues, the issue of intercommunion seems an insurmountable difficulty.⁸

This book aims to identify and highlight the common theology that the ecumenical dialogues have developed. This material points to a gate and a Narrow Path for all the churches to walk in together (cf. Matthew 7:13–14). What I mean by “a common theology” is in fact a reasoned statement of faith we all can make together that can be unearthed from these dialogues. It also lays bare the deep disagreement in ecclesiologies as a challenge to any one church’s assertion of its apostolicity. In order to further the goal toward real unity—and the hard demanding work of getting there—we must not only recognize each other’s Baptism as valid but also acknowledge that all the baptized need the Holy Communion as part of the way of life that following Jesus entails: “this do in memory of me.” To praise God together, even praying together, cannot be simply talk: “not only with our lips but in our lives” is what God demands of us. A vital sign of walking the Narrow Path will be for all its churches to admit to communion those Christians who are prevented by geography from attending a church of their own—exceptionally, of course. Such a practice will facilitate the discovery of that unity which is God’s gift to us all—it will grow fuller and more visible.

As we shall see, unity in Christ is not just “so that the world may believe,” it is also so that we may believe that we too are beloved as he is, beloved in him, not just for our sake but for the sake of the whole of humanity, indeed, the creation itself.

1 “Into All the World: Being and Becoming Apostolic Churches”: A Report of the Anglican-Methodist International Commission for Unity in Mission (2014), ix. See https://www.anglic​anco​mmun​ion.org/media/102​827/Into-All-The-World-AMI​CUM-Rep​ort-2014.pdf.

2 http://www.chr​isti​anun​ity.va/cont​ent/uni​tacr​isti​ani/en/cardi​nal-koch/2022/sal​uts--messa​ges--aut​res/addr​ess-at-lamb​eth-con​fere​nce.html#1.

3 In Roman Catholic–Lutheran Joint Commission, “Ways to Community,” see: Harding Meyer and Lukas Vischer, eds., Growth in Agreement: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level (New York/Geneva, 1984), 215–40, cit. n. 2.