Related articles and links |  1 of 3

Third: do we recognize that in our time mission ventures that involve evangelicals and Catholics side by side, not only in social witness but in evangelism and nurture as well, have already emerged? We ought to recognize this, for it is a fact.

From the many available examples, I take three. Among them, they illustrate the point sufficiently. The late Francis Schaeffer focused the concept of co-belligerence, that is, joint action for agreed objectives by people who disagree on other things, and then implemented it by leading evangelicals into battle alongside Roman Catholics on the abortion front, where - thank God! - they remain. Billy Graham's cooperative evangelism, in which all the churches in an area, of whatever stripe, are invited to share, is well established on today's Christian scene. And so are charismatic get-togethers, some of them one-off, some of them regular, and some of them huge, where the distinction between Protestant and Catholic vanishes in a Christ-centered unity of experience. So the togetherness that ECT pleads for has already begun.

ECT, then, must be viewed as fuel for a fire that is already alight. The grassroots coalition at which the document aims is already growing. It can be argued that, so far from running ahead of God, as some fear, ECT is playing catch-up to the Holy Spirit, formulating at the level of principle a commitment into which many have already entered at the level of practice; and certainly, the burden of proof must rest on any who wish to deny that this is so.

I conclude, then, on grounds of biblical principle, reinforced by current pressures and precedents, that ECT's modeling of an evangelical-Roman Catholic commitment to partnership in mission within set limits and without convictional compromise is essentially right, and I remain glad to endorse it. In the days when Rome seemed to aim at political control of all Christendom and the death of Protestant churches, such partnership was not possible. But those days are past and after Vatican II can hardly return. Whatever God's future may be for the official Roman Catholic system, present evangelical partnership with spiritually alive Roman Catholics in communicating Christ to unbelievers and upholding Christian order in a post-Christian world needs to grow everywhere, as ECT maintains. This should be beyond question.

Concerning ECT itself, however, questions remain, and it is time to turn to them. Whether it was wisest to write this document in a flowing, rhetorical, open-textured way, so that it reads like a political speech; whether it would have helped to have professional evangelical theologians involved in the drafting process (there were none); and whether any particular rearrangements, additions, and tightenings up would make ECT more persuasive to its suspicious critics - all are questions we may leave on one side. ECT's tone and thrust are right, and anyone who has learned not to rip phrases out of their context will see well enough what is intended.

Some, however, denounce ECT as a sellout of evangelical Protestantism and conclude that the evangelical team was incompetent, irresponsible, and outmaneuvered. The difficulties these critics feel raise issues of importance.

First: Does it not always put you in a false position to work with people with whom you do not totally agree? Not if you agree on the specific truths and goals the proposed collaboration involves, and if the points of nonagreement and therefore the limits of togetherness in action are well understood. Here, I judge, ECT, fairly read, passes muster.

next page... |  1 of 3

December 12 1994, Vol. 38, No. 14