Unity Before Agreement?

The County Ecumenical Officer reflects on why some of the most important advances in Christian unity began with Christians learning how to remain in relationship despite disagreement

 14-Minute Read

Recently, I was reading about some of the pioneers of the modern ecumenical movement. What surprised me was not their commitment to Christian unity, that much I expected, what I had not expected was how often they disagreed with one another!
 
Reading some of their correspondence and reflections, I am amazed by how familiar many of the arguments they put forward sounds. Some worried that ecumenical engagement was moving too quickly. Others feared that excessive caution would prevent meaningful progress. Consequently, different priorities appeared, strong personalities occasionally collided, and frustrations were expressed quite openly.

In my own tradition, for example, one of the most influential Catholic theologians of the twentieth century, Yves Congar, attended a meeting at Grottaferrata in 1950 convened to explore how the Catholic Church might organise its growing engagement with the ecumenical movement. The primary purpose of the conference was to manage the independent, and sometimes unorthodox, initiatives of Catholic ecumenists. The Vatican wanted to ensure ecumenical work aligned with strict Roman directives and to caution against “false irenicism” - irenicism is the effort that seeks to minimise doctrinal differences and promote unity, reconciliation, and peace.

Far from producing immediate consensus, however, the discussions exposed differing views about authority, coordination, and the future direction of ecumenical work. Congar later complained that the meeting had left him with “a very vexing impression”. A few years later, commenting on proposals for a new international ecumenical body, he reportedly warned at the conference that “if the thing comes to Rome, it’s death!”  Whatever one makes of the remarks themselves, they reveal that the pioneers of ecumenism were not all marching in step. They often disagreed about priorities, methods, and the best way forward.

None of this is particularly surprising to me. It is not too unkind to say that Christians have always found ways to disagree. Despite this, the meeting in the Abbey at Grottaferrata fostered vital networking among forward-thinking theologians. The work, dialogues, and networks built there laid much of the theological groundwork for the creation of the Secretariat (now Dicastery) for Promoting Christian Unity, as well as the landmark Vatican II decree Unitatis Redintegratio.

What I take from this, is that the disagreements never brought the ecumenical conversation to an end. And the same pattern appears elsewhere in the history of the ecumenical movement. One of the most significant examples is the Faith and Order movement, which was established in the early twentieth century to bring Christians from different traditions into sustained theological conversation about the questions that divided them. 

These were not minor disagreements as they concerned matters of ministry, sacraments, authority, and the nature of the Church itself. Despite the subsequent resistance and lack of progress in some important areas, it is clear that the participants were determined to continue the conversation. Rather than waiting for agreement before engaging with one another, they committed themselves to the patient and hard task of thinking, praying, and reflecting together amid difference and divergence.

Over time, that patient work helped produce one of the most important ecumenical documents of the twentieth century: Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (1982). Often referred to as the Lima text, it addressed three areas that had long divided Christians and sought to identify where genuine convergence had emerged. What makes the document so interesting, is not that it solved every problem but that it demonstrated that Christians who stay in conversation long enough, often discover a greater degree of common ground than they originally thought possible.

Reflecting on its significance, the World Council of Churches described the document as identifying both “growing agreement” and “remaining differences”. I find that description illuminating because it captures something important about Christian unity that is often overlooked; namely, that progress does not necessarily require every disagreement to disappear. Christians can move closer together while continuing to wrestle honestly with questions that are still unresolved.

The story behind Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry reinforces this point. The document emerged from more than fifty years of theological conversation. Many of those who helped begin the discussions never lived to see the final text. They contributed because they believed the work itself mattered, even if the fruits would only become visible much later. In an age that often expects immediate results, I believe there is something inspiring about that level of patience and perseverance.

Nor is this pattern unique to Faith and Order. Similar themes appear elsewhere in the ecumenical movement. For example, the work of the Anglican and Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) has unfolded across decades against the backdrop of centuries of division. Even though questions concerning authority, ministry and ecclesiology have hardly disappeared, what has changed, is not the existence of disagreement, but the willingness to continue exploring those disagreements together. 

The significance of this becomes clearer when we consider the Catholic church’s later assessment of ARCIC, which recognised “points of convergence and even of agreement which many would not have thought possible before the Commission began its work”. Such a statement would have been difficult to imagine at the outset. It speaks not only of theological progress, but also of what can happen when Christians spend extended periods working through tough questions together, and remain committed to one another and to the conversation, even when agreement appears distant and beyond reach.

We can also see this when it comes to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Few issues were more central to the divisions of the sixteenth century than justification. Catholics and Protestants spent centuries disagreeing about matters that touched the very heart of the Christian faith. For generations, many regarded these disagreements as effectively impossible to bridge. Seen in that light, the declaration signed in 1999 between Lutherans and Catholics is remarkable. Although it represented a truly amazing step forward on the doctrine of justification, importantly, it did not claim that every difference had vanished, nor did it suggest that the traditions had become identical. What it did show, was that sustained dialogue could uncover substantial agreement in places where generations of Christians had assumed agreement was simply beyond reach.

The story did not end there, however, as the declaration was later affirmed by the World Methodist Council, the Anglican Communion and the World Communion of Reformed Churches. A conversation that began between two traditions gradually became a gift to a much wider section of the Christian family. Once again, agreement was not the starting point, but was the fruit of decades of dialogue, scholarship, prayer, and encounter.

Looking back across the history of the ecumenical movement, I am amazed by how easy it is to underestimate the importance of simply staying in conversation. Many of the advances we now celebrate grew out of relationships that survived disagreement and conversations that continued when progress appeared slow. I have seen something similar during my time as County Ecumenical Officer for Churches Together in Norfolk and Waveney.

My role has brought me into contact with Christians from many different traditions. We do not all worship in the same way, nor do we always approach theology from the same starting point. Differences concerning ministry, authority, sacraments, and ecclesiology remain - nobody pretends otherwise. What I have experienced, however, is how rarely those differences are the defining feature of an ecumenical relationship once people spend time together. Sure, it is fair to say that if we stay distant presumptions regarding others become amplified, with historical recollections and denominational classifications sometimes assuming disproportionate significance. But as I have seen, once Christians begin praying, serving and talking honestly together, the picture becomes more complex and, I think, more hopeful - differences may remain but they are no longer the only thing that can be seen.

The more I reflect on this, the more I wonder whether one of the great achievements of the ecumenical movement has been teaching Christians how to remain in relationship when agreement is still incomplete. For some, that may sound like a modest achievement. In reality, I think it is anything but. For much of Christian history, disagreement often resulted in separation, suspicion and, at times, mutual condemnation and violence. The modern ecumenical movement, especially in the twentieth century, showed that Christians could continue speaking, listening, praying, and learning together while differences remained.

This is one reason I am convinced that many of the most important developments in Christian unity will happen when trust begins to grow, suspicions begin to weaken, and we discover that those in other traditions are not obstacles to unity but fellow disciples looking to follow Christ faithfully. A shared act of service, community project, prayer gathering and, especially, a conversation over coffee after a meeting, such moments may seem unremarkable, but history suggests otherwise.

It is clear to me that many of the pioneers whose names appear in ecumenical histories spent years doing similarly ordinary things. They wrote letters, they attended conferences, met for discussions, and most of all built relationships. Most of them could not have predicted where their efforts would eventually lead. 

This should serve as genuine encouragement for those striving for Christian unity, whether on an international, national, or even at the local level throughout Norfolk and Waveney. The most profound lesson offered by the founders of ecumenism is that, although we often equate Christian unity with major agreements, declarations, and milestones - which are important and worthy of celebration - they stand for just the visible aspects of a much broader journey. What truly matters, is the quiet, persistent work of building relationships, practicing patience, and showing perseverance. Before any agreement is reached or breakthroughs happen, individuals must learn to stay engaged in conversation to keep dialogue going. 

This is what the pioneers of ecumenism appear to have understood so well. Indeed, reading their accounts, I am reminded that Christian unity is not simply a human project to be managed or an institutional problem to be solved. The pioneers certainly worked hard, they organised meetings, exchanged letters, authored reports, and wrestled with difficult questions. Even so, their story feels incomplete if it is reduced to human effort alone and if we do not see the spiritual dimension in their efforts. 

Over the decades, unexpected relationships formed, old suspicions faded, and new possibilities arose that previous generations couldn't have imagined. I find it difficult not to see the work of the Holy Spirit in these developments. The Spirit of God does not magically end disagreement or simply remove every obstacle. More often, the Spirit appears to work patiently within ordinary encounters, gradually drawing Christians closer to one another while staying faithful to the truth they have received.

Looking at the history of the ecumenical movement and reflecting upon my own experience of ecumenical life across our great county, I find that an encouraging and hopeful lesson. The future of Christian unity depends upon learning how to bear disagreement faithfully, while continuing to walk together under the guidance of the Spirit of truth.

References and Further Reading

• Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) (1982) The Final Report. London: CTS/SPCK.
• Catholic Church (1991) Response of the Catholic Church to the Final Report of ARCIC I. Vatican City: Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
• De Mey, P. and Marotta, S. (2024) ‘The Catholic Conference for Ecumenical Questions’, in Ferracci, L. (ed.) A History of the Desire for Christian Unity: Ecumenism in the Churches (19th–21st Century), Volume II: Paths towards Communion. Leiden and Boston: Brill, pp. 505–573.
• Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999). Vatican City and Geneva: Catholic Church and Lutheran World Federation.
• World Council of Churches (1982) Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (Faith and Order Paper No. 111).  Geneva: World Council of Churches.

Concept and Article by Dr Ian Watson, County Ecumenical Officer for Norfolk and Waveney, whose lay views expressed are his alone.

Image generated with the help of OpenAI
 

(Author: )

---