Three years after the ground-breaking initiative “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” (1994), another Evangelical-Catholic joint statement, “The Gift of Salvation,” appeared in Christianity Today. This happened within weeks of the hullabaloo sparked by Newsweek’s irresponsible feature speculating that the Pope was preparing to declare Mary Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces. The near coincidence of these events got me thinking about the ecumenical concerns at issue in each of them. Both involve matters of intense sensitivity and concern to Evangelical Protestants and Catholics, issues that evoke tenacious loyalties and have proven historically divisive—questions which ecumenically minded members of both traditions are eager to see settled in the interest of Christian unity. The question of justification and the question of Mary pose similar challenges and rewards to ecumenical progress and mutual understanding—and fates that could turn out to be as much alike as their concerns are different.
“The Gift of Salvation” was seen as a necessary follow-up to ECT after it was determined that further Evangelical-Catholic rapprochement depended upon a firm agreement on the meaning of salvation and especially justification. In many ways the statement is a remarkably ambitious undertaking, aiming to cut through to the essentials and resolve in a few short paragraphs the theological conflicts of several centuries. A key passage is one in which the authors define faith as “not merely intellectual assent but an act of the whole person, involving the mind, the will, and the affections, issuing in a changed life.” This is immediately followed by the assertion: “We understand that what we here affirm is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by justification by faith alone (sola fide).”
The document quite naturally garners Protestant support, not only by its notable affirmation (for Catholics) of ” sola fide,” but by clearly and repeatedly affirming the basic Reformation principle that justification, like salvation itself, is from first to last a work of God’s grace—an affirmation, by the way, that should surprise no one who recalls the Council of Trent’s own statement that “nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification.” Furthermore, the document recalls an observation made in the “Common Statement” that emerged from the joint Lutheran/Catholic dialogues on justification by faith (1978–1983): “The Tridentine decree on justification, with its own way of insisting on the primacy of grace . . . is not necessarily incompatible with the Lutheran doctrine of sola fide, even though Trent excluded this phrase.”
But what is really exceptional about “The Gift of Salvation” is that it avoids the chief traditional Catholic objection to sola fide by defining “faith alone” in such a way that it is not “alone” in the sense of being “merely intellectual assent.” Neither is it the faith that is without works and therefore dead (Jas. 2:17), nor the faith of demons who “believe and shudder” (Jas. 2:19), nor the faith that is just one of the three theological virtues, to which hope and charity may be added (1 Cor. 13:13). The concept of “justification by faith alone” does not here mean what it means in the canons of Trent, for example, where it is declared anathema. Rather it the faith that Paul links with justification, involving not “merely intellectual assent,” but also repentance, faith, hope, and charity—or what he calls “faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6).
In short, this brief document—the product of much study, discussion, and prayer—is a model of ecumenical goodwill and imagination, a tremendous gift to Evangelical Protestants and Catholics sincerely seeking healing and unity in our day, and an invitation to reconsider the historically sensitive issues involved in the doctrine of justification in a new, kinder, gentler light. Against this background, it will be illuminating to see what may be learned from examining the recent controversy surrounding the role of Mary, before revisiting the question of justification with a further analysis.
Turning to the question of Mary, the near-panic created by Newsweek’s big splash about the possibility of new Marian dogmas was caused as much (for Catholics) by the misinformation and misunderstanding fostered by the media’s rumor-mongering and theologically misinformed speculations, as (for Evangelicals) by the apparent scandal of the very suggestion of calling Mary “Co-Redemptrix,” “Advocate,” or “Mediatrix of all graces.”
While certain of these titles may be of relatively late invention, such as “Co-Redemptrix,” which seems to have first appeared, in print anyway, in the fourteenth century, any well-informed student of Mariology would be hard-pressed to deny that the ideas behind the titles are well-grounded in Catholic tradition, with precedents going back even to the patristic period. Various Mariologists have also noted that magisterial support for this understanding of Mary’s roles has been on-going. Popes such as Pius XI and John Paul II have used the title “Co-Redemptrix” repeatedly during their pontificates, and that the Second Vatican Council used the titles and roles of “Mediatrix” and “Advocate” in referring to Mary. Indeed, anyone following the current Pope’s Wednesday audience addresses over the past year will have noticed that he devoted considerable time to clarifying the Church’s understanding of Mary’s cooperative, mediative role, not only as mother of the Redeemer, but in her spiritual maternity as intercessor and mother of the Church.
Yet significant concerns have also been voiced, even by those who acknowledge that the proposed definitions are not heterodoxy. Richard J. Neuhaus wrote last fall, in First Things, “I believe a theological case can be made for the appropriateness of such Marian titles.” He then added: “As Cardinal Newman and others said of another definition of dogma in the nineteenth century, however, I also believe such a step would be ‘inopportune,’ in the extreme.”
What do Catholics see as the problem? Some have expressed the concern that Catholics themselves could be confused by a dogmatic definition of the titles at this time. It is true, certainly, that the Catholic press has done very little to educate and offer them a balanced and objective presentation of the theological discussion. But “confused Catholics” are nothing new. Many are confused about Church teaching on contraception, abortion, women priests, and the like. A dogmatic definition would seem to offer an occasion for clarifying rather than confusing the issue. More likely is the claim that certain persisting ambiguities in the titles themselves might be confusing. Avery Dulles, for example, who has been reported widely as voicing his opposition to calls for new Marian dogmas, points out that it remains unclear whether declaring Mary “Mediatrix of all graces” would mean all prayers must be channeled through Mary. Yet even Dulles admits that denying Mary the title of “Advocate” altogether would mean rejecting the well-established doctrine of the intercession of the saints.
In any case, the existence of ambiguities and possibilities of misunderstanding has not prevented reputable Church leaders, including Cardinal John O’Connor of New York and Archbishop Christoph Schönborn of Vienna (general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church), from endorsing the call for a new dogmatic definition—along with more than five hundred other bishops, including four dozen cardinals, and 4.5 million Catholics from over 155 countries. The persistence of popular support, even after the Vatican commission’s recommendation against dogmatic definition, indicates the special fervor with which many Catholics adhere to the body of traditional beliefs signified by the Marian titles.
The most serious problem seems to be, rather, that giving Mary these titles by dogmatic definition would provoke, in Dulles’s words, “great ecumenical dismay.” Since the Second Vatican Council, of course, ecumenism has become a major item on the Church’s agenda. In fact, one of the pronounced and defining undercurrents of the Vatican Council II documents is precisely the desire to promote ecumenical unity and reconciliation.
A significant purpose of the liturgical renewal mandated by the Council, for example, was “to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ,” so that the liturgy might be “a sign under which the scattered children of God may be gathered together until there is one fold and one shepherd” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 1, 2). This same intention animates the Council’s treatment of Mary, which stressed that the proper course of Marian devotion is not to heap up additional privileges and exemptions that distinguish her from other Christians but to incorporate our understanding of Mary ever more fully as the icon of the Church.
Even the composition of the theological commission called to discuss the proposed titles during the Twelfth International Mariological Congress in Czestochowa, Poland (1996), underlined the Vatican’s concern with ecumenism. The panel of fifteen theologians included an Anglican, a Lutheran, and three Orthodox members. The commission stated, among other things, that its members, “especially the non-Catholics, were sensitive to the ecumenical difficulties which would be involved in such a definition.”
In short, a major problem with these Marian titles is that they scandalize most Protestants. Calling Mary “Co-Redemptrix” sounds as if Mary is being put on equal footing with Christ, usurping his exclusive title as Redeemer. Calling her “Advocate” or “Mediatrix” looks like a direct contradiction of the verse that declares, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5), or the one that says, “We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ” (1 John 2 1).
Never mind that no such confusion is intended by the Marian titles. Never mind that Jesus is never envisioned as a “co-redeemer” alongside Mary, since he alone is the Redeemer (and herRedeemer), whereas she merely participates in his work to the extent that God allows his whole plan of redemption to hinge upon her willing cooperation. Never mind that none of these titles signifies more than a highly elevated sense of such cooperation as we, too, may exercise by participating in Christ’s redemptive work, by sharing in his ministry of healing, reconciliation, evangelism, and intercessory prayer, by leading others to Christ, by praying for them, serving as mediators of God’s grace in their lives as God’s “co-workers” (1 Cor. 3:9). Despite all of this, the problem is that the Marian language remains confusing for the vast majority of Protestants. It simply sounds wrong to them. And in light of the ecumenical progress made on various other fronts since the Second Vatican Council, the prospect of a dogmatic definition of the titles seems, as Neuhaus says, borrowing Cardinal Newman’s term, “inopportune.”
By way of summary, the following may be noted. On the one hand, despite opposition, reputable Church leaders and groups of lay proponents have rallied in support of the proposed definition of Marian titles, often with considerable fervor. Even Catholic theologians who are opposed to a definition admit that a theological case can be made for the appropriateness of the titles. On the other hand, the proposal has provoked the opposition not only of Protestants, but of Catholics, because of alleged ambiguities, possible confusions, and especially the “great ecumenical dismay” that the titles would engender because of their prima facie offensiveness to Protestants. With these observations in view, it will be instructive to revisit the question of justification, focusing particularly on the language of “faith alone” (sola fide) agreed upon in “The Gift of Salvation.”
Returning to that document, it is apparent that the Catholic signers believed that, whatever the difficulties involved, a theological case could be made for affirming justification in the language of “faith alone.” As we have seen, the “Common Statement” from the Lutheran/Catholic dialogues on justification provides an important precedent in terms of a Catholic concession that Trent’s decree on justification “is not necessarily incompatible with the Lutheran doctrine of sola fide.” So whatever problems may be found in the “faith alone” formula, it is evidently capable of being understood in a manner compatible with traditional Catholic teaching. This was affirmed, at least implicitly, in the joint declaration on the doctrine of justification drafted in Geneva in 1995 between the Lutheran World Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and in the similar Lutheran/Catholic statements of 1997 and since, as well as in the mutual assertion that differences on justification by faith are not “church-dividing.”
The breakthrough represented by “The Gift of Salvation” doubtless came as a considerable relief and cause for rejoicing among ecumenically-minded Evangelicals for whom sola fide remained the chief sticking point in discussions with Catholics. Accordingly, when “The Gift of Salvation” was published in Christianity Today, it appeared together with an introduction written for the magazine’s Evangelical readership by its senior advisor, Timothy George, which included the words: “We rejoice that our Roman Catholic interlocutors have been able to agree with us that the doctrine of justification set forth in this document agrees with what the Reformers meant by justification by faith alone (sola fide).”
“Faith alone,” of course, was one of the three rallying points of the Protestant Reformation—along with “scripture alone” (sola scriptura) and “grace alone” (sola gratia). Even today, religious leaders and theologians within the Evangelical Protestant community will rally in defense of the “faith alone” language if they perceive that their Reformation principles are being jeopardized, either by external incursion or internal erosion. One of the chief reasons for the initiative behind “The Gift of Salvation” was precisely the jeopardy perceived by some Evangelicals to lie in the lack of a clear affirmation of sola fide in the ECT statement of 1994. A prominent Evangelical, R. C. Sproul, went so far as to contact one of the signers of ECT, noted Reformed theologian, J. I. Packer, to try to change his decision about signing the statement. Packer later defended his decision in an article, “Why I Signed It.” Sproul says he also contacted Charles Colson. In his editorial column in Tabletalk, he concludes about the matter: “The Colson-Neuhaus document did not cause disunity but exposed a serious rift within Evangelicalism.” There are, of course, even more tenacious opponents of ECT in Fundamentalist circles. Dave Hunt, for example, writing in Voice: Journal of the Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America, declares that “the document represents the most devastating blow against the gospel in at least 1,000 years.” None of this should surprise us when we remember that it was not in the theological backwaters of Fundamentalism but the mainstream of the Protestant Reformation that sola fide was declared to be the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls.
Yet the theology of sola fide has provoked controversy within the ranks of the Protestant tradition itself. Lutheran theologian Carl Braaten, citing the milestone work Iustitia Dei by Anglican Alister McGrath, writes, “McGrath’s discussion of the history of the doctrine of justification in the periods of the Reformation, orthodoxy, and pietism makes it clear that those who have adhered to the formula ‘justification by faith alone’ have sometimes understood opposite things by it. It seems ironic and even embarrassing that the very theological tradition which has affirmed the article by which the church stands or falls has been so confused and void of inner harmony on this doctrine . . . It is no wonder that, weary of all such controversies, theologians sought formulae of concord that only served to conceal a fatal flaw lurking in the understanding of justification.”
Protestant discord over the meaning of “faith alone” is by no means a merely historical matter. The latest incarnation of the conflict among Evangelicals is the “Lordship salvation” controversy ignited by Dallas Theological Seminary professor Zane Hodges’ book The Gospel Under Siege (1981), which claimed that the pure gospel of justification by faith alone was under siege by fellow Evangelicals who insisted that justification requires accepting Christ as Lord and not merely as Savior. Writing from the Dispensational, Arminian tradition popularized by Lewis Sperry Chafer, Charles Ryrie, and the Scofield Reference Bible, Hodges argued that justification is unconditionally free, involving “no spiritual commitment whatsoever,” and that any insistence upon repentance, discipleship, change of life, or growth in sanctification as necessary for salvation results in the gospel getting lost in legalism.
This provoked a sharp Calvinist response from John MacArthur Jr. in The Gospel According to Jesus (1988). A strongly-worded book with forewords by James Montgomery Boice of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia and J. I. Packer, it attacked Hodges’ view as antinomian, dangerous, and heretical. It insisted that faith that is “alone”—in the sense of a faith that doesn’t “work,” a faith without repentance, discipleship, or sanctification—cannot be considered justifying faith. Hodges fired back a response in another book, Absolutely Free! (1989), attacking the “Lordship salvation” of MacArthur and his Calvinist associates for its “legalism” and “works-righteousness.” This in turn called forth further rebuttals by Packer, MacArthur, and Boice.
In some ways, the language of “faith alone” seems prone to misunderstandings and conflicting interpretations, as does the language of the Marian titles. The difficulty here, though, is not only that of formulating a theological rationale so as to avoid historical misunderstandings by Catholics, but that of lacking any clear consensus among Protestants themselves.
One problem, to be sure, is that the language superficially does seem to suggest that the only decisive thing in our being accepted by God is our belief in him and that repentance and a life of obedience are of secondary or negligible importance. It may be no accident that Dietrich Bonhoeffer felt pressed during the Nazi era to caution his fellow Lutherans about the cost of discipleship and the dangers of “cheap grace.”
In our own day, the antinomian temptation tugs at us from every side, not only in the sophistical subjectivizing of the faith in many mainline Protestant institutions, but also in the pedestrian libertinism of fraternity boys heading off for weekends of naughtiness with bravado cries, echoing Luther’s behest to “sin boldly.”
But even where Protestantism avoids such egregious abuses in the name of retrieving the gospel of grace from the shackles of abusive sixteenth-century legalism, there is far from being any clear consensus even as to the importance of “justification by faith alone.” In a 1995 article Neuhaus responded to a complaint by Alister McGrath concerning the new catechism’s silence about this central tenet of the Reformation. Neuhaus said, “The claim that ‘justification by faith alone’ is the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae (the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls) is a distinctly minority position among Protestants who call themselves Evangelicals.” Evangelicals in the various Holiness, Wesleyan, and Arminian traditions are, he suggested, much closer to the Catholic understanding of the relationship between justification and sanctification than they are to “the relatively small number” of Lutheran and Calvinist theologians “who are exercised by a sixteenthcentury dispute over ‘justification by faith alone.” In other words, the concept of sola fide registers almost no significance whatsoever in the lives and theology of the vast majority of Christians throughout the world. C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, for example, never once refers to the “faith alone” formula. Catholic tradition hardly takes notice of it. Neuhaus noted: “The fact is that—historically and theologically—the dispute with Lutherans, Calvinists, Zwinglians, and others in the sixteenth century is far from being the most formative experience in the Church’s understanding of her faith, life, and worship.” While the sixteenth century may be the defining moment in the identity of Lutherans and Calvinists as Protestants, to be a Catholic is not not to be a Protestant. Furthermore, he noted, “formulations such as ‘justification by faith alone’ are no part of Orthodox experience”—that is, of the experience of the second-largest configuration of Christians in the world today.
In summary, the following may be noted concerning the sola fide formulation of “The Gift of Salvation.” On the one hand, it is now a matter of public record that at least some Catholics—those who subscribed their names to the document—believe sola fide is capable of being interpreted in a manner compatible with Catholic teaching.
On the other hand, it is also a matter of public record that Protestants have no clear consensus as to what they mean by it, have sometimes understood conflicting and even contradictory things by it, and are divided even as to its doctrinal importance. Finally, it plays a negligible role in the history of Catholic and Orthodox Christianity.
This leads to a number of concluding observations. First, if it turns out that Rome continues to find persistent reasons against the proposed dogmatic definition of Marian titles, it should come as no surprise that Rome may find little warrant for ever considering a dogmatic definition of sola fide. Whatever “ecumenical dismay” the Marian titles may engender, at least they are comparatively unproblematic for Catholics in that they are grounded in a relatively coherent Catholic tradition of Marian theology by means of which Protestant misunderstandings can be explained and confusions corrected—and the Catholic Church has an authoritative magisterium for that purpose. The same cannot be said for the checkered past of sola fide in the history of Protestant interpretation. Second, there is a tremendous irony in the Catholic posture toward the two issues in question. Just as the desire to avoid causing “great ecumenical dismay” appears to be the strongest motive behind Catholic opposition to the Marian titles, so it also seems to be the chief motive behind Catholic willingness to accommodate the Protestant formula of sola fide. In each case, the motive in question has led Catholics to seek a broader common ground with Evangelical Protestants, at the cost of holding in abeyance or reformulating uniquely and traditionally Catholic theological positions. Catholics may think this laudable in one respect: Ecumenical progress sometimes seems possible only when each side is willing to risk some uprooting and reconfiguring of its own traditional formulations.
It is not clear what is gained by such accommodations. If a joint statement such as “The Gift of Salvation” brings each side to see that the other does not deny but affirms a definite article of faith that it holds to be essential, this represents a considerable breakthrough. One positive result is the fraternal good will and unanimity of at least those ecumenically-minded participants in the joint endeavor and their supporters and constituents. Yet no group of Protestants can, by the very nature of the case, speak for the whole of Protestantism, and not even all Evangelicals are agreed upon what sola fide means. Hence, the positive result of securing unanimity with one group of Evangelical Protestants may be achieved at the cost of alienating others.
Still another danger is that such accommodations may have the unintended effect of paperingover unresolved historical differences in the minds of various constituencies. The Evangelical readers of Christianity Today, for example, were introduced to “The Gift of Salvation” by Timothy George’s remark, “We rejoice that our Roman Catholic interlocutors have been able to agree with us that the doctrine of justification set forth in this document agrees with what the Reformers meant by justification by faith alone (sola fide).” One wonders what this means to the readers of Christianity Today. They could conclude that the Catholics finally had seen the light and come around to the Protestant view. This supposition would be relatively harmless, even if not quite accurate, were it only a matter of the breakthrough in understanding that evidently had been achieved. After all, the Catholics had agreed with them on certain basic Evangelical truths. But they would be under a serious misapprehension and possibly in for a rude awakening if they assumed that the Catholics, in assenting to this statement, had abandoned their Church’s traditional teaching on the subject, including the importance of the “obedience of faith’’ and of “works” in justification (Jas. 2:24). The prospect of such misunderstanding presents serious difficulties because there is probably no disappointment so profound as that of the party which believes, even mistakenly, that it has been precipitously romanced into an ecumenical relationship under false pretenses.
Evidence of Catholic good will and eagerness to be accommodating for the sake of ecumenical unity must be accompanied by evidence of Catholic concern for complete candor and truthfulness. This is not merely a matter of avoiding compromise. All will agree that truth must never be sacrificed for unity. Evangelicals are in dead earnest about this, as is Pope John Paul II, who wrote in Ut Unum Sint (That They May Be One): “In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God, who is Truth.” But the problem involves more than avoiding compromise, because those involved in ecumenical dialogue can avoid compromise, strictly speaking, and still leave the impression that they are being less than forthright by brushing aside controversial details and settling on agreeable generalities. Presbyterian theologian Cornelius Van Til used to tell his students at Westminster Theological Seminary, genuine progress in doctrinal development comes only with movement in the direction of greater detail and refinement, not in the direction of greater generalization and condensation. The same is no less true in ecumenical discussion. Even without intending to do so, it is possible to mislead by settling for oversimplifying generalities.
Addressing the question of Marian doctrine, the Vatican II fathers warned theologians to refrain from whatever might “lead the separated brethren or any others whatsoever into error about the true doctrine of the Church” (Lumen Gentium, 67). The same warning is well-taken in consideration of every.aspect and every theme of ecumenical discussion. For symbolic unanimity to grow into substantial unanimity over time, it will be necessary for those concerned with the theological substance of the discussions to probe beneath the amalgamations of the latest joint-declarations and to sift through the implications and work out the details. To assert this is not to throw a damper on the enthusiasm of the ecumenical avant-garde. Rather, it is to remind ourselves that the promise of our Lord was that his Holy Spirit would guide us into “all truth” and that submitting to that guidance requires humility, patience, discernment, and a lot of hard work.