Comments on Craig Higgins' section in "Plausible Ecumenicism"

June 8, 2007
Bryan Cross

There are many positive things I can say about Craig Higgins' section of the Touchstone article titled "Plausible Ecumenicism". I am encouraged simply to see his desire for visible unity, and his willingness to dialogue. In my opinion Christ's prayer in John 17 should lead us to commit ourselves to long-term dialogue with those outside our particular faith-community, a dialogue that does not end until we have achieved full visible unity or died trying. So I rejoice over every ecumenical dialogue, even those in which no tangible advance in unity is evident.

Here I am going to focus only on four of Higgins' statements. These four statements, in my opinion, reveal the fundamental obstacles to reconciliation between Higgins (and those who think like him) and the Catholic Church.

(1) "While rejecting the claim that only those in the historic episcopate may legitimately convey Holy Orders, the churches of the Reformed tradition have held that episkope whether exercised by a single bishop or by the corporate episcopate of a church council is a biblical necessity and of vital importance."

Higgins' reason for rejecting the Catholic doctrine that only bishops may legitimately confer holy orders is apparently based on the assumption of sola scriptura. So in order to come to agreement concerning who can confer Holy Orders, we should discuss whether sola scriptura is true. (I recommend Not By Scripture Alone, edited by Robert Sungenis. See also my critique of Keith Mathison's defense of sola scriptura in Modern Reformation.) If Higgins has some other reasons for rejecting this Catholic doctrine, then it would be helpful for him to present those. One of the essential methodological keys for ecumenical dialogue is not to debate matters that are themselves based on more fundamental disagreements. The discussion should focus specifically on the fundamental disagreements upon which the other points of disagreement depend.

(2) "The idea that the pope has an authority that exceeds even that of an ecumenical council must be rejected."

Higgins does not give a reason here; he simply stipulates this. Why "must" this idea be rejected? What is the authority behind this "must"? By what authority does he insist that the pope's authority cannot exceed that of an ecumenical council? What reasons does he have for thinking this? In order to make progress toward unity here, we need to be exchanging reasons, evidence, and arguments, not stipulations, imperatives or ultimatums. What is more, we have to take the discussion to the meta-level questions, particularly the methodological questions for reconciliation. Is the Catholic Church such that each person gets to insist on what it must change in order to accommodate him or her? Is the Church such that non-Catholics get to dictate how much authority the Catholic magisterium has? A more open way of approaching this disagreement would be to say that he does not see the ground or basis for a pope having more authority than an ecumenical council. That sort of approach would allow for a dialogue regarding this matter.

(3) [W]e must humbly but firmly insist that the dogma of papal infallibility is not only foreign to the holy Scriptures but also is not a catholic doctrine at all, but a sectarian one."

By what authority does Higgins challenge this Catholic dogma? What is the authority of his "must"? Is it his conscience? His own interpretation of Scripture? If he is basing his claim on sola scriptura, then see my response to quotation (1) above. What exactly does he mean by 'sectarian' here? And whose determination of whether or not a dogma is 'sectarian' is authoritative? It seems that the Arians could have said the same thing about homoousious in the Nicene Creed.

(4) "In the words of Eugene Peterson, we must recognize that the church militant is, and will be until our Lord returns, roughly equal parts mystery and mess."

Why "must" we recognize this? What authority does Eugene Peterson have that we all "must" recognize the truth of his predictions about the future state of the Church until Christ comes? Ecumenical dialogue cannot make headway by way of table-pounding stipulations and dictatorial demands. If Higgins truly believes that until Christ returns, the Church militant will always be, as it is now, "equal parts mystery and mess", then is he truly sincere in his ecumenical efforts? Doesn't one have to believe that it is at least possible for a mess to be cleaned up, in order to work sincerely toward that end? I hope that he does not truly believe that the mess of disunity in the church militant will remain unchanged until Christ returns. If he doesn't truly believe Peterson's prediction, then I hope he will no longer repeat it. We need people at the ecumenical table who genuinely believe that we can (with the help of the Holy Spirit) restore full visible unity to all of Christ's followers.