Dear Protestant, if you have grasped the reorienting significance of John 17, and if you understand the stakes of failing to achieve unity, as Jesus outlines within it, here is what I would recommend you consider doing from the outset.
Begin building unity into your approach to everything. If we are to be the type of Christian who conforms himself or herself to the tactics of the self-giving, missionary God, we need to suspend for the moment whatever great stakes we currently attach to all “secondary” and most “primary” theological issues and then approach everything from the standpoint of what will best serve the Church’s unity.
Humility
The very first recommendation would be to more accurately assess your theological positioning. For example, although many Protestants would consider justification by faith to be a primary theological issue of the greatest importance, most who give the question the attention it deserves will recognize and admit that the evidence can be construed in multiple ways. One may find the evidence more compelling for one position, another for another. This means that there is no slam dunk position, despite claims to the contrary.
Given that equally reasonable Protestants (and Catholics) can variously construe the biblical testimony (e.g., “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” [Phil. 2:12]; “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” [James 2:24]), and given that Protestants do not admit of any infallible interpretive authority, the Protestant should be characterized by a much larger dose of interpretive humility.
I was within Protestantism world for quite some time, and it is very common to see an interpretive confidence that far outstripped its theological underpinning. Despite no allowances for an infallible interpretive authority (and often despite an eschewal of tradition), it is not uncommon to see individuals as confident in their personal interpretations as any Catholic’s confidence in their magisterium. But not all confidences are created equal. While it should be obvious that no single individual can compete with the carefully curated repository of collective wisdom from two millennia of communal reflection, Protestants rely upon a single individual in their schism. Luther. Calvin. Zwingli. Sure, to Luther was added Melanchthon, but he was after the schism was in full effect. The Protestant must acknowledge that the only way to really know for sure among competing plausible doctrinal options, according to their own theological commitment to no infallible interpreter, is if the correct tradition informs them.
Now, I am not here making a case that tradition indeed contains this answer–only that it is the only possible arbiter. Nor am I making the case that it’s easy to choose from among competing traditions. Indeed, these are considerable challenges. In light of them, Protestants ought to possess far more interpretive humility. And so my next recommendation is that Protestants begin to consider other ways to assess our differences.
Assessment of Fruit
The first way we might navigate our differences is to begin to evaluate the truth or falsity of a doctrine less on the basis of their textual (biblical) grounding, interpretations which are often multivocal or ambiguous, and more on the basis of its fruit. To do so is to re-consider a doctrine’s spiritual ramifications or fruits.
Take the doctrine of salvation as considered by Reformed Christians and Catholics. At risk of oversimplification (for all sides), the Reformed understanding may be characterized by putting the puzzle pieces together thus:
faith = salvation + good works
Again, at risk of oversimplification, Catholicism may be characterized by this pattern:
faith + good works = salvation
To argue that these (admitted) oversimplifications are not ideal because the situation is much more nuanced, while true, only supports my point. Greater nuance reflects attempts to accommodate and integrate a fuller set of the biblical and theological data. It is to hold more truths in balance. And the key point here is this: the more nuanced each position becomes, the closer it will resemble its neighbor. So the oversimplifications above only exaggerate our difference. Thus, whatever conclusions I next make are magnified by the fact that our differences are actually smaller.
To the matter, when a Reformed Christian says that the proper equation “makes all the difference in the world”, they are not appealing to truth. Doubtless they believe that what they are saying is true, but what type of “difference” is meant? The intended difference lies in the realm of psychology. They are saying that this great theological truth makes all the difference because we don’t have to worry about our performance when it comes to our salvation. We are therefore, psychologically, freed from guilt and empowered to do good works with gratitude (as if guilt is always bad and as if gratitude is missing from the other paradigm).
The problem is: most objective observers would concede that removing the necessity for good works is less likely to produce good works than upholding that necessity. Duty has always been a better and more reliable motivator than whimsy (whether based upon gratitude or any other temporary emotional state). And gratitude is no stranger to duty under a good master.
So when our dilemma is approached by asking “Which equation produces more saints?”, rather than by asking, “Which produces less psychological anxiety?”, we can begin to appreciate the shift that has taken place in the American Christian consciousness.
The equation I claim will produce more saints (the Catholic equation), even if it is wrong, happens to be commended by far more Christians in the world than its competitor. Thus, to hold it is to be in greater unity with a greater number of Christians. Moreover, isn’t it at least a tolerable (if not praiseworthy) error if its natural fruit is riper and sweeter than what the Protestant equation produces?
Patience
I would, however, ask a more radical question. Let’s grant that the Protestant equation is a better reflection of the truth. In such a case, how important is it that someone who loves Jesus not hold to the wrong equation? If Catholic doctrine indeed produces equal or more saints, what has the Protestant to worry about?
Despite some claims, there is no biblical evidence that holding the Catholic equation is damning. There isn’t even biblical evidence that it is harmful. As N. T. Wright (not a Roman Catholic) points out in critique of making the Protestant equation an epistemological requirement for salvation (i.e., one is saved by faith in Christ only if one knows that it is only be faith in Christ that one is saved), if the proper response to the gospel is essentially faith in Christ, it cannot simultaneously be “faith in faith in Christ”. It cannot be faith in a paradigm, the paradigm of “faith in Christ”—only one’s actual faith in Christ matters.
Once we realize this, we can appreciate that to not hold this precise understanding of the relationship between faith and works is not an abnegation of the gospel. That is to say, a very refined understanding of this faith-works relationship is not a necessary precondition for being a Christian or for accomplishing God’s will. Whatever negatives the Protestant might attribute to this (perceived) misunderstanding, it’s important to ask: is it more important than the cost of disunity–than the gospel’s credibility?
In view of the interpretive humility the Protestant ought to possess (especially and doubly if one does not hold to an infallible interpretive authority), it would be warranted for him to adopt a more grace-filled perspective. It doesn’t require sacrificing every truth he holds, but it would require the recognition that one might be wrong and therefore should not make most truths a barrier to unity.
I think a Protestant may take this approach in good conscience (1) by recognizing the relative (i.e., diminished) importance of various errors when compared to the consequences of disunity; and (2) by patiently tolerating our brethren’s respective theological development. Accepting those with different (potentially lesser, potentially greater) levels of clarity and understanding starts with a rejection of false confidence and superiority and refusing to use any doctrines that are less important than the gospel’s credibility as a barrier to participation in a community exemplifying real gains to Christian unity.
What misunderstandings are we willing to accept from each other for the sake of unity and the gospel’s credibility? If your answer does not reflect a wide canopy of graciousness, then do not claim you are representing the missionary heart of God.
It may be objected: “You hypocrite! Why don’t you practice your own recommendations?” But it is different for the Catholic. Let’s say I were to adopt these strategies and join your church (as I might be amenable to doing from one angle). The problem would be that such a move, while consistent with these strategies, would be inconsistent with the very principle that gives them life, that is, the principle of unifying the church. Were I to do so, chances are that I would not be unifying with a worldwide communion. Even if I was, I would be leaving a much larger and more-defined unity for a much smaller and less-defined unity. How is there gain in that?
Second, it is unlikely that your church will be the type of institution with the structure that could support such a movement made in mass. Even if it were, I would be leaving a structure with a much more practiced ability to establish and maintain unity.
Third, chances are that my move would be away from unity with the majority of my Christian brothers and sisters down through history. We mustn’t forget the greater Christian community which has passed from this world but not from resurrected life or our memory.
The point I’m making is that the strategies must serve the principle, and the principle is always more important and fundamental. That principle deserves restatement: we should engage in strategies that draw from humility, assessment of fruits, and patience with one another’s growth, in order to achieve a net gain to worldwide unity. If me moving in your direction will not provide any net gain to unity, what if you were to move in mine?