"Mere
Christianity"
Professor James
Hitchcock
On the Historic Christian Faith
I don't think there is any position that
today would bring in all people who call
themselves Christians because I think
that, broadly speaking, what we call
liberal Christianity has given up most
of the historical teachings of
Christianity, except for a few vague
ethical principles. So there's no point
that would bring them into the picture.
But if we take Christians who wish to
remain faithful to Christian tradition I
would say that the idea that we have a
fallen nature, that we have sinned,
therefore we need redemption, that
Christ came to redeem, as the Son of
God, that He did redeem us through His
death on the cross, that He rose again
from the dead, triumphant over sin and
death, and that He offers to us the same
promise of resurrection and eternal life
if we believe in Him, that, while we are
saved primarily through our faith in
Christ and acceptance of His promises,
this also involves an attempt to live
His life also as best we can, so that it
involves a certain type of moral
doctrine. Broadly speaking, of course,
it means: love God with your whole
heart, your whole soul, your whole mind,
love your neighbor as yourself. As
Christians see particular moral
teachings under attack, if they are
authentic Christians, they will realize
"This is a place where I must take a
stand." This is why, I think, abortion
becomes very important, not because the
doctrine pertaining to abortion is
central to Christianity in the same way
that the divinity of Christ is central
but that, once it has been assaulted,
sensitive Christians have to realize
there is something essential here.
What I've been saying implies belief in
divine revelation. By that I mean that
God really has revealed Himself to man.
He has done this primarily through the
Scriptures. This the Word of God; it
doesn't just represent human beings
searching for truth which does represent
the Word of God. Ultimately, we have to
have doctrinal statements. And, I would
hope, the Nicean Creed perhaps and the
Apostles' Creed would be a basis for
common belief. I know there are
Christians in some traditions who do not
put a lot of stock in doctrinal
formulas, what you might call low church
traditions, the Baptists, etc. But, in a
sophisticated age we are constantly
being asked: "What is it exactly you
believe?" and "What does it mean that
you believe?" So simply to say that we
believe in Jesus or we believe in the
Resurrection is often not enough. You're
going to have to be more precise. That's
why I think doctrinal statements like
the Apostles' Creed or the Nicean Creed
are essential. I would think that even
the very low church traditions could
subscribe to those creeds if they
understand them adequately. There's
nothing contrary to what they
believe.
On "Mere Christians" Working
Together
I think there may be a series of what
you might call concentric circles. The
outer circle, maybe because it's the one
that's most obvious and creates the
least problems of understanding, is just
practical moral and social issues.
Abortion, again, is an excellent
example. The whole abortion issue has
done more to bring Catholics and
Evangelicals together than just about
anything else. We don't need to even
address the question of beliefs on
something like that: we can even
cooperate with an atheist if we
recognize that there is a moral evil.
However, I think that people who are
alert recognize that abortion is a
symptom: it's not an isolated thing that
just happened to pop up: it's a symptom
of deep-rooted secularization, a
deep-rooted attack on basic Christian
principles. So, therefore, Catholics and
Evangelicals then have to go on to the
next concentric circle which is, what is
our common core of ethical beliefs, why
do we think abortion is wrong? What do
we think of other related moral issues
which keep coming up? Of course
contraception is a sensitive one. I find
that some Evangelicals, at least, are
becoming more open on the question of
contraception: maybe there's something
to the Catholic condemnation. In any
case, we will have to arrive at a common
ethical understanding because we're
going to continue to be confronted with
all sorts of issues. When we recognize
that our beliefs are under assault in
the moral area we also begin to realize
how they are assaulted, either directly
or indirectly, in very fundamental
things as well. I think that
Evangelicals and Catholics both
recognize the devastating effects of
liberalism within their own
denominations. So they will come
together again to affirm the basic
truths I was talking about before,
namely the divinity of Christ, the
Resurrection, the need for Redemption,
the reality of sin, the reality of
divine revelation. These will sometimes
be understood in different ways, but I
do think there is a common core. All of
this so far has been, in a sense,
negative because it has risen from a
response to an attack or a crisis. I
think what is going to come out of this
eventually, maybe it has already begun,
is to penetrate to the next circle,
which would be an exploration of what we
believe but without necessarily the
urgency of a cause or an attack which
must be repulsed. There hasn't been a
lot of this so far, but there has been
some. This is going to be, obviously,
the most knotty part. I'm not talking
about a denominational reunion. A
certain amount of unity of belief and a
certain amount of unity of worship. I
don't think there is any reason we can't
participate in prayer services. There's
certainly no reason we can't pray
together. In my opinion the ecumenical
movement is just beginning because the
real ecumenical movement is going to be
along these lines and not along the
lines of liberals dialoging with
liberals.
On Lutheran-Catholic Dialogs on
Faith and Works
I think that it's probably true that if
it is properly understood there is no
necessary conflict between the Lutheran
doctrine of faith and the Catholic
doctrine of works. There was a great
deal of misunderstanding. In my opinion
the crucial issue in the 16th century
was not that; rather the crucial issue
in the 16th century was the Church
itself and parts of the Church: the
Papacy, the Episcopacy, the Sacraments,
the Mass. That's where the real breach
occurred and not really the doctrine of
faith and works.