The fractured nature of the Body of Christ should grieve us all. However, the pursuit of unity can lead to the downplaying of central truths. In theory, all Christians agree there are lines that cannot be crossed. But where exactly are those lines? Here is what those who are pursuing unity need to answer. Where are the brakes? What is out of bounds? What makes a church not a church? What makes a worship service out of bounds? Can I take the Roman Catholic Mass? Can I worship at an Eastern Orthodox Church? Can I worship with lesbian pastor? Why would a lesbian minister be worse than a celibate priest who thinks the bread is really, truly the Body of Christ? Why would Joel Osteen be worse than someone who believes that the Pope is the vicar of Christ? The drive for unity tends towards fuzzy lines. And of course, there are some fuzzy lines. But there are also some lines in bold.
By unity here, I mean at the very least, an agreement that we could worship at the other denomination’s service and that the doctrinal beliefs of a denomination are not an obstacle to me considering them brothers in Christ if that doctrine was held consistently. That last phrase is important. It is possible for someone to be part of a wayward church and yet not be apostate. How? They do not hold the church’s doctrines consistently. If we would not or should not worship with them, then there is not true Christian unity.
I am going to use Roman Catholicism’s view of Mary as a foil, but this can be applied to lots of different denominations, doctrines, and practices. Rome’s view of Mary is thoroughly woven into the Roman Catholic Catechism, university life, and into the life of the average Roman Catholic. The veneration of Mary is not a tangential doctrine in Roman Catholicism. There are three options for Protestants:
1. Rome is wrong, but it doesn’t matter. What Rome believes about Mary is not a threat to orthodoxy or an obstacle to unity. They may believe and live out that Mary was a perpetual virgin, was born sinless, pray to her, etc. and we can still be united to them. We can worship at a Roman Catholic church where they pray to Mary and not worry that we are compromising. We may not think it wise or best, but we would not condemn it.
2. Protestants are wrong about Mary and we need to adjust our view of her and those doctrines and practices which are affected by our view of her in order for there to be unity. In other words, we are wrong enough that we need to change.
3. Roman Catholics are wrong about Mary and need to adjust their view of her and those doctrines and practices which are affected by their view of her in order for there to be unity.
There is a fourth option for Roman Catholics, which is #1 in reverse. Protestants are wrong, but it doesn’t matter.
We could do the same thing with justification, the authority of the Bible, the Mass, the nature of baptism, the celibate priesthood, purgatory, the Pope, etc. In all these areas movement must happen for there to be meaningful unity. One group must either renounce their position or minimize it for there to be unity.
We could use this paradigm with other denominations as well. For example, we may agree in doctrine with a denomination, but they ordain women. There may a denomination that renounces God’s sovereignty, thinks the Bible is not infallible, believes in baptismal regeneration, or theistic evolution, as well as broad range of other issues that denominations disagree on. The above process would have to be used to determine whether the doctrine or practice was important enough to separate over.
Meaningful unity requires movement away from certain doctrines and practices and towards others. We are separate for a reason. Unity does not require agreement on every issue. But it does require agreement on what doctrines and practices are central, secondary, and which ones can be ignored. If one denomination considers a doctrine essential and another does not there cannot be unity. It is my impression that many young Christians are not sure where the lines are. In their longing to repair breaches they have forgotten that many (not all) breaches exist for a good reason.
Singing & Slaying 
Pr. Peter,
You wrote, “By unity here, I mean at the very least, an agreement that we could worship at the other denomination’s service and that the doctrinal beliefs of a denomination are not an obstacle to me considering them brothers in Christ if that doctrine was held consistently.”
This is a tad fuzzy, because “we could worship” needs a bit of unpacking. “We could worship” could be parsed as equivalent to (A) “we have the other church’s permission to worship with them and to participate in their worship.” Or, “we could worship” could mean (B) “our conscience is free to participate in the other church’s worship, including all of its forms and actions.”
Many churches – Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman – would reject as a full-fledged participant in the congregational worship a person who showed up at their worship services with option (B) in mind. I’m thinking here expressly of participation in the Communion. Many Protestant congregations fence out participants who do not share that church’s sacramental theology. Or, they may fence out all who are not bona fide members of that congregation (i.e. visitors cannot participate). And other criteria may come into play.
The point: participation in a worship service in any given congregation has ~two~ factors to consider: (1) the convictions of the worshiper with respect to the congregation’s doctrinal commitments, and (2) the regulation of that worship by the congregation’s legitimate leadership.
My son-in-law (and godson) and his wife (my daughter) “worshiped” for a number of years while in university in a Roman and also in an Orthodox congregation. I put the word “worshiped” in quotes because both the Roman and the Orthodox congregation excluded them as licit recipients of Communion because they were not bona fide members of those congregations. As Anglican Christians they were free to attend, to sing, to join in the proper responses from the congregation during the liturgy. They were even permitted to join in approaching the priest as all the bona fide members approached the altar to receive the sacrament. But, while the priest gladly bestowed his blessing on them, they were not allowed to commune in the sacrament of that altar.
As to Mary, Rome’s posture toward her is not an all or nothing thing from the Protestant angle. There is quite a bit of room for Protestants to provide express honor to Mary without mimicking every jot and tittle of Roman piety. Looking back at my Southern Baptist boyhood, I see that we honored Annie Armstrong and Lottie Moon vastly more than the Virgin Mary! Poor Mary was effectively shunned so that no one would ever think we were Roman! Of course, I’m speaking here of changes in attitude/actions toward Mary ~within~ Protestantism, not across the Protestant/Roman divide.
“If one denomination considers a doctrine essential and another does not there cannot be unity.”
True ‘dat. And, this is why unity on any institutional level is impossible until the Day of the Lord. Many young Christians are not sure where the lines are because their congregations (if they have one!) have never catechized them sufficiently.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fr. Bill, those are good thoughts and helpful. I had this post in the gun for months and decided to fire. It is not as clear I would like. The worship aspect you mention is fuzzy. You are right that it goes both ways, the worshiper and the regulation of worship by the leadership. I was thinking primarily of the “B” option, that is the conscience of the worshiper as he participates in the actions. At what point do we say, “I will not worship with you?”
There is a proper Protestant view of Mary that is too often neglected. You are right on that point. I remember the Lottie Moon offerings, etc as well. I was thinking mainly of liturgical and devotional practices that are part of the RC’s veneration of Mary.
Thanks again. The comment helped.
LikeLike