Roman Catholic Evangelicals & Catholics

By: Dr. John Ankerberg; ©1999
The following statement is the product of consultation, beginning in September 1992, between Evangelical Protestant and Roman Catholic Christians. Appended to the text is a list of participants in the consultation and of others who have given their support to this declaration.


Evangelicals & Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium

(Reprinted by the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute by permission of The Institute on Religion and Public Life, New York, NY 10010)


We are Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics who have been led through prayer, study, and discussion to common convictions about Christian faith and mission. This statement cannot speak officially for our communities. It does intend to speak respon­sibly from our communities and to our commu­nities. In this statement we address what we have discovered both about our unity and about our differences. We are aware that our experience reflects the distinctive circum­stances and opportunities of Evangelicals and Catholics living together in North America. At the same time we believe that what we have discovered and resolved is pertinent to the relationship between Evangelicals and Catho­lics in other parts of the world. We therefore commend this statement to their prayerful consideration.

As the Second Millennium draws to a close, the Christian mission in world history faces a moment of daunting opportunity and responsibility. If in the merciful and mysterious ways of God the Second Coming is delayed, we enter upon a Third Millennium that could be in the words of John Paul II “a springtime of world missions.” (Redemptoris Missio)

As Christ is one, so the Christian mission is one. That one mission can be and should be advanced in diverse ways. Legitimate diversity, however, should not be confused with existing divisions between Christians that obscure the one Christ and hinder the one mission. There is a necessary connec­tion between the visible unity of Christians and the mission of the one Christ. We to­gether pray for the fulfillment of the prayer of Our Lord: “May they all be one; as you, Father, are in me and I in you, so also may they be in us that the world may believe that you sent me.” (John 17) We together, Evangelicals and Catholics, confess our sins against the unity that Christ intends for all his disciples.

The one Christ and one mission includes many other Christian, notably the Eastern Orthodox and those Protestants not com­monly identified as Evangelical. All Chris­tians are encompassed in the prayer, “May they all be one.” Our present statement attends to the specific problems and oppor­tunities in the relationship between Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants.

As we near the Third Millennium, there are approximately 1.7 billion Christians in the world. About a billion of these are Catholics and more than 300 million are Evangelical Protestants. The century now drawing to a close has been the greatest century of missionary expansion in Christian history. We pray and we believe that this expansion has prepared the way for yet greater missionary endeavor in the first century of the Third Millennium.

The two communities in world Christian­ity that are most evangelistically assertive and most rapidly growing are Evangelicals and Catholics. In many parts of the world, the relationship between these communities is marked more by conflict than by coopera­tion, more by animosity than by love, more by suspicion than by trust, more by propa­ganda and ignorance than by respect for the truth. This is alarmingly the case in Latin America, increasingly the case in Eastern Europe, and too often the case in our own country.

Without ignoring conflicts between and within other Christian communities, we address ourselves to the relationship be­tween Evangelicals and Catholics who constitute the growing edge of missionary expansion at present and, most likely, in the century ahead. In doing so, we hope that what we have discovered and resolved may be of help in other situations of conflict, such as that among Orthodox, Evangelicals, and Catholics in Eastern Europe. While we are gratefully aware of ongoing efforts to ad­dress tensions among these communities, the shameful reality is that, in many places around the world, the scandal of conflict between Christians obscures the scandal of the cross, thus crippling the one mission of the one Christ.

As in times past, so also today and in the future, the Christian mission, which is di­rected to the entire human community, must be advanced against formidable opposition. In some cultures, that mission encounters resurgent spiritualities and religions that are explicitly hostile to the claims of the Christ. Islam, which in many instances denies the freedom to witness to the Gospel, must be of increasing concern to those who care about religious freedom and the Christian mission. Mutually respectful conversation between Muslims and Christians should be encouraged in the hope that more of the world will, in the oft-repeated words of John Paul II, “open the door to Christ.” At the same time, in our so-called developed societies, a widespread secularization increasingly descends into a moral, intellec­tual, and spiritual nihilism that denies not only the One who is the Truth but the very idea of truth itself.

We enter the twenty-first century without illusions. With Paul and the Christians of the first century, we know that “we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the pow­ers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 6) As Evangelicals and Catho­lics, we dare not by needless and loveless conflict between ourselves give aid and comfort to the enemies of the cause of Christ.

The love of Christ compels us and we are therefore resolved to avoid such conflict between our communities and, where such conflict exists, to do what we can to reduce and eliminate it. Beyond that, we are called and we are therefore resolved to explore patterns of working and witnessing together in order to advance the one mission of Christ. Our common resolve is not based merely on a desire for harmony. We reject any appearance of harmony that is pur­chased at the price of truth. Our common resolve is made imperative by obedience to the truth of God revealed in the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures, and by trust in the promise of the Holy Spirit’s guidance until Our Lord returns in glory to judge the living and the dead.

The mission that we embrace together is the necessary consequence of the faith that we affirm together.


Jesus Christ is Lord. That is the first and final affirmation that Christians make about all of reality. He is the One sent by God to be Lord and Savior of all, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4) Chris­tians are people ahead of time, those who proclaim now what will one day be acknowl­edged by all, that Jesus Christ is Lord. (Philippians 2)

We affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ. Living faith is active in love that is nothing less than the love of Christ, for we together say with Paul: “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” (Galatians 2)

All who accept Christ as Lord and Savior are brothers and sisters in Christ. Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ. We have not chosen one another, just as we have not chosen Christ. He has chosen us, and he has chosen us to be his together. (John 15) However imper­fect our communion with one another, however deep our disagreements with one another, we recognize that there is but one church of Christ. There is one church be­cause there is one Christ and the church is his body. However difficult the way, we recognize that we are called by God to a fuller realization of our unity in the body of Christ. The only unity to which we would give expression is unity in the truth, and the truth is this: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4)

We affirm together that Christians are to teach and live in obedience to the divinely inspired Scriptures, which are the infallible Word of God. We further affirm together that Christ has promised to his church the gift of the Holy Spirit who will lead us into all truth in discerning and declaring the teaching of Scripture. (John 16) We recognize together that the Holy Spirit has so guided his church in the past. In, for instance, the formation of the canon of the Scriptures, and in the orthodox response to the great Christological and Trinitarian controversies of the early centuries, we confidently ac­knowledge the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In faithful response to the Spirit’s leading, the church formulated the Apostles’ Creed, which we can and hereby do affirm together as an accurate statement of scriptural truth:

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He de­scended into hell. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life ever-lasting. Amen.


We hope together that all people will come to faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. This hope makes necessary the church’s missionary zeal. “But how are they to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent?” (Romans 10) The church is by na­ture, in all places and at all times, in mis­sion. Our missionary hope is inspired by the revealed desire of God that “all should be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2)

The church lives by and for the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make dis­ciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matthew 28)

Unity and love among Christians is an integral part of our missionary witness to the Lord whom we serve. “A new command­ment I give to you, that you love one an­other; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13) If we do not love one another, we disobey his command and contradict the Gospel we declare.

As Evangelicals and Catholics, we pray that our unity in the love of Christ will be­come ever more evident as a sign to the world of God’s reconciling power. Our com­munal and ecclesial separations are deep and long standing. We acknowledge that we do not know the schedule nor do we know the way to the greater visible unity for which we hope. We do know that existing patterns of distrustful polemic and conflict are not the way. We do know that God who has brought us into communion with himself through Christ intends that we also be in communion with one another. We do know that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14) and as we are drawn closer to him—walking in that way, obeying that truth, living that life— we are drawn closer to one another.

Whatever may be the future form of the relationship between our communities, we can, we must, and we will begin now the work required to remedy what we know to be wrong in that relationship. Such work requires trust and understanding, and trust and understand­ing require an assiduous attention to truth. We do not deny but clearly assert that there are disagreements between us. Misunderstand­ings, misrepresentations, and caricatures of one another, however, are not disagreements. These distortions must be cleared away if we are to search through our honest differences in a manner consistent with what we affirm and hope together on the basis of God’s Word.


Together we search for a fuller and clearer understanding of God’s revelation in Christ and his will for his disciples. Because of the limitations of human reason and language, which limitations are com­pounded by sin, we cannot understand completely the transcendent reality of God and his ways. Only in the End Time will we see face to face and know as we are known. (I Corinthians 13) We now search together in confident reliance upon God’s self-revela­tion in Jesus Christ, the sure testimony of Holy Scripture, and the promise of the Spirit to his church. In this search to understand the truth more fully and clearly, we need one another. We are both informed and limited by the histories of our communities and by our own experiences. Across the divides of communities and experiences, we need to challenge one another, always speaking the truth in love, and in order to build up the Body. (Ephesians 4)

We do not presume to suggest that we can resolve the deep and long-standing differences between Evangelicals and Catholics. Indeed these differences may never be resolved short of the Kingdom Come. Nonetheless, we are not permitted simply to resign ourselves to differences that divide us from one another. Not all differences are authentic disagreements, nor need all disagreements divide. Differ­ences and disagreements must be tested in disciplined and sustained conversation. In this connection we warmly commend and encourage the formal theological dialogues of recent years between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals.

We note some of the differences and disagreements that must be addressed more fully and candidly in order to strengthen between us a relationship of trust in obedience to truth. Among points of difference in doctrine, worship, practice, and piety that are frequently thought to divide us are these:

  • The church as an integral part of the Gospel or the church as a communal conse­quence of the Gospel of true believers.
  • The sole authority of Scripture (sola Scriptura) or Scripture as authoritatively interpreted in the church.
  • The soul freedom of the individual Christian or the Magisterium (teaching

authority) of the community.

  • The church as local congregation or universal communion.
  • Ministry ordered in apostolic succes­sion or the priesthood of all believers.
  • Sacraments and ordinances as sym­bols of grace or means of grace.
  • The Lord’s Supper as eucharistic sacri­fice or memorial meal.
  • Remembrance of Mary and the saints or devotion to Mary and the saints.
  • Baptism as sacrament of regeneration or testimony to regeneration.

This account of differences is by no means complete. Nor is the disparity be­tween positions always so sharp as to warrant the “or” in the above formulations. Moreover, among those recognized as Evangelical Protestants there are significant differences between, for example, Baptists, Pentecostals, and Calvinists on these ques­tions. But the differences mentioned above reflect disputes that are deep and long standing. In at least some instances, they reflect authentic disagreements that have been in the past and are at present barriers to full communion between Christians.

On these questions, and other questions implied by them, Evangelicals hold that the Catholic Church has gone beyond Scripture, adding teachings and practices that detract from or compromise the Gospel of God’s saving grace in Christ. Catholics, in turn, hold that such teachings and practices are grounded in Scripture and belong to the fullness of God’s revelation. Their rejection, Catholics say, resuIts in a truncated and reduced understanding of the Christian reality.

Again, we cannot resolve these disputes here. We can and do affirm together that the entirety of Christian faith, life, and mission finds its source, center, and end in the crucified and risen Lord. We can and do pledge that we will continue to search to­gether—through study, discussion, and prayer—for a better understanding of one another’s convictions and a more adequate comprehension of the truth of God in Christ. We can testify now that in our searching together we have discovered what we can affirm together and what we can hope together and, therefore, how we can con­tend together.


As we are bound together by Christ and his cause, so we are bound together in contending against all that opposes Christ and his cause. We are emboldened not by illusions of easy triumph but by faith in his certain triumph. Our Lord wept over Jerusa­lem, and he now weeps over a world that does not know the time of its visitation. The raging of the principalities and powers may increase as the End Time nears, but the outcome of the contest is assured.

The cause of Christ is the cause and mission of the church, which is, first of all, to proclaim the Good News that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconcilia­tion.” (2 Corinthians 5) To proclaim this Gospel and to sustain the community of faith, worship, and discipleship that is gath­ered by this Gospel is the first and chief responsibility of the church. All other tasks and responsibilities of the church are de­rived from and directed toward the mission of the Gospel.

Christians individually and the church corporately also have a responsibility for the right ordering of civil society. We embrace this task soberly; knowing the consequences of human sinfulness, we resist the utopian conceit that it is within our powers to build the Kingdom of God on earth. We embrace this task hopefully; knowing that God has called us to love our neighbor, we seek to secure for all a greater measure of civil righteousness and justice, confident that he will crown our efforts when he rightly orders all things in the coming of his Kingdom. In the exercise of these public responsi­bilities there has been in recent years a growing convergence and cooperation between Evangelicals and Catholics. We thank God for the discovery of one another in contending for a common cause. Much more important, we thank God for the dis­covery of one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. Our cooperation as citizens is animated by our convergence as Chris­tians. We promise one another that we will work to deepen, build upon, and expand this pattern of convergence and cooperation.

Together we contend for the truth that politics, law, and culture must be secured by moral truth. With the Founders of the Ameri­can experiment, we declare, “We hold these truths.” With them, we hold that this consti­tutional order is composed not just of rules and procedures but is most essentially a moral experiment. With them, we hold that only a virtuous people can be free and just, and that virtue is secured by religion. To propose that securing civil virtue is the purpose of religion is blasphemous. To deny that securing civil virtue is a benefit of reli­gion is blindness.

Americans are drifting away from, are often explicitly defying, the constituting truths of this experiment in ordered liberty. Influential sectors of the culture are laid waste by relativism, anti-intellectualism, and nihilism that deny the very idea of truth. Against such influences in both the elite and popular culture, we appeal to reason and religion in contending for the foundational truths of our constitutional order.

More specifically, we contend together for religious freedom. We do so for the sake of religion, but also because religious free­dom is the first freedom, the source and shield of all human freedoms. In their rela­tionship to God, persons have a dignity and responsibility that transcends, and thereby limits, the authority of the state and of every other merely human institution.

Religious freedom is itself grounded in and is a product of religious faith, as is evident in the history of Baptists and others in this country. Today we rejoice together that the Roman Catholic Church—as af­firmed by the Second Vatican Council and boldly exemplified in the ministry of John Paul Il—is strongly committed to religious freedom and, consequently, to the defense of all human rights. Where Evangelicals and Catholics are in severe and sometimes violent conflict, such as parts of Latin America, we urge Christians to embrace and act upon the imperative of religious freedom. Religious freedom will not be respected by the state if it is not respected by Christians or, even worse, if Christians attempt to recruit the state in repressing religious freedom.

In this country, too, freedom of religion cannot be taken for granted but requires constant attention. We strongly affirm the separation of church and state, and just as strongly protest the distortion of that prin­ciple to mean the separation of religion from public life. We are deeply concerned by the courts’ narrowing of the protections provided by the “free exercise” provision of the First Amendment and by an obsession with “no establishment” that stifles the necessary role of religion in American life. As a conse­quence of such distortions, it is increasingly the case that wherever government goes religion must retreat, and government in­creasingly goes almost everywhere. Reli­gion, which was privileged and foundational in our legal order, has in recent years been penalized and made marginal. We contend together for a renewal of the constituting vision of the place of religion in the Ameri­can experiment.

Religion and religiously grounded moral conviction is not an alien or threatening force in our public life. For the great majority of Americans, morality is derived, however variously and confusedly, from religion. The argument, increasingly voiced in sectors of our political culture, that religion should be excluded from the public square must be recognized as an assault upon the most elementary principles of democratic gover­nance. That argument needs to be exposed and countered by leaders, religious and other, who care about the integrity of our constitutional order.

The pattern of convergence and coop­eration between Evangelicals and Catholics is, in large part, a result of common effort to protect human life, especially the lives of the most vulnerable among us. With the Founders, we hold that all human beings are endowed by their Creator with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The statement that the unborn child is a human life that—barring natural misfortune or lethal intervention—will become what everyone recognizes as a human baby is not a religious assertion. It is a statement of simple biological fact. That the unborn child has a right to protection, including the pro­tection of law, is a moral statement sup­ported by moral reason and Biblical truth.

We, therefore, will persist in contend-ing—we will not be discouraged but will multiply every effort—in order to secure the legal protection of the unborn. Our goals are: to secure due process of law for the unborn, to enact the most protective laws and public policies that are politically pos­sible, and to reduce dramatically the inci­dence of abortion. We warmly commend those who have established thousands of crisis pregnancy and postnatal care centers across the country, and urge that such efforts be multiplied. As the unborn must be protected, so also must women be protected from their current rampant exploitation by the abortion industry and by fathers who refuse to accept responsibility for mothers and children. Abortion on demand, which is the current rule in America, must be recog­nized as a massive attack on the dignity, rights, and needs of women.

Abortion is the leading edge of an en­croaching culture of death. The helpless old, the radically handicapped, and others who cannot effectively assert their rights are increasingly treated as though they have no rights. These are the powerless who are exposed to the will and whim of those who have power over them. We will do all in our power to resist proposals for euthanasia, eugenics, and population control that exploit the vulnerable, corrupt the integrity of medi­cine, deprave our culture, and betray the moral truths of our constitutional order.

In public education, we contend together for schools that transmit to coming genera­tions our cultural heritage, which is insepa­rable from the formative influence of reli­gion, especially Judaism and Christianity. Education for responsible citizenship and social behavior is inescapably moral educa­tion. Every effort must be made to cultivate the morality of honesty, law observance, work, caring, chastity, mutual respect be­tween the sexes, and readiness for mar­riage, parenthood, and family. We reject the claim that, in any or all of these areas, “tolerance” requires the promotion of moral equivalence between the normative and the deviant. In a democratic society that recog­nizes that parents have the primary respon­sibility for the formation of their children, schools are to assist and support, not op­pose and undermine, parents in the exer­cise of their responsibility.

We contend together for a comprehen­sive policy of parental choice in education. This is a moral question of simple justice. Parents are the primary educators of their children; the state and other institutions should be supportive of their exercise of that responsibility. We affirm policies that enable parents to effectively exercise their right and responsibility to choose the schooling that they consider best for their children.

We contend together against the wide­spread pornography in our society, along with the celebration of violence, sexual depravity, and anti-religious bigotry in the entertainment media. In resisting such cultural and moral debasement, we recog­nize the legitimacy of boycotts and other consumer actions, and urge the enforce­ment of existing laws against obscenity. We reject the self-serving claim of the peddlers of depravity that this constitutes illegitimate censorship. We reject the assertion of the unimaginative that artistic creativity is to be measured by the capacity to shock or out­rage. A people incapable of defending decency invites the rule of viciousness, both public and personal.

We contend for a renewed spirit of acceptance, understanding, and coopera­tion across lines of religion, race, ethnicity, sex, and class. We are all created in the image of God and are accountable to him. That truth is the basis of individual responsi­bility and equality before the law. The aban­donment of that truth has resulted in a society at war with itself, pitting citizens against one another in bitter conflicts of group grievances and claims to entitlement. Justice and social amity require a redirec­tion of public attitudes and policies so that rights are joined to duties and people are rewarded according to their character and competence.

We contend for a free society, including a vibrant market economy. A free society re­quires a careful balancing between econom­ics, politics, and culture. Christianity is not an ideology and therefore does not prescribe precisely how that balance is to be achieved in every circumstance. We affirm the importance of a free economy not only because it is more efficient but because it accords with a Chris­tian understanding of human freedom. Eco­nomic freedom, while subject to grave abuse, makes possible the patterns of creativity, cooperation, and accountability that contribute to the common good.

We contend together for a renewed appreciation of Western culture. In its his­tory and missionary reach, Christianity engages all cultures while being captive to none. We are keenly aware of, and grateful for, the role of Christianity in shaping and sustaining the Western culture of which we are part. As with all of history, that culture is marred by human sinfulness. Alone among world cultures, however, the West has cultivated an attitude of self-criticism and of eagerness to learn from other cultures. What is called multiculturalism can mean respectful attention to human differences. More commonly today, however, multiculturalism means affirming all cultures but our own. Welcoming the contributions of other cultures and being ever alert to the limitations of our own, we receive Western culture as our legacy and embrace it as our task in order to transmit it as a gift to future generations.

We contend for public policies that demonstrate renewed respect for the irre­placeable role of mediating structures in society—notably the family, churches, and myriad voluntary associations. The state is not the society, and many of the most im­portant functions of society are best ad­dressed in independence from the state. The role of churches in responding to a wide variety of human needs, especially among the poor and marginal, needs to be pro­tected and strengthened. Moreover, society is not the aggregate of isolated individuals bearing rights but is composed of communi­ties that inculcate responsibility, sustain shared memory, provide mutual aid, and nurture the habits that contribute to both personal well-being and the common good. Most basic among such communities is the community of the family. Laws and social policies should be designed with particular care for the stability and flourishing of fami­lies. While the crisis of the family in America is by no means limited to the poor or to the underclass, heightened attention must be paid those who have become, as a result of well intended but misguided Statist policies, virtual wards of the government.

Finally, we contend for a realistic and responsible understanding of America’s part in world affairs. Realism and responsibility require that we avoid both the illusions of unlimited power and righteousness, on the one hand, and the timidity and selfishness of isolationism, on the other. U.S. foreign policy should reflect a concern for the de­fense of democracy and, wherever prudent and possible, the protection and advance­ment of human rights, including religious freedom.

The above is a partial list of public re­sponsibilities on which we believe there is a pattern of convergence and co-operation between Evangelicals and Catholics. We reject the notion that this constitutes a partisan “religious agenda” in American politics. Rather, this is a set of directions oriented to the common good and discuss­able on the basis of public reason. While our sense of civic responsibility is informed and motivated by Christian faith, our intention is to elevate the level of political and moral discourse in a manner that excludes no one and invites the participation of all people of good will. To that end, Evangelicals and Catholics have made an inestimable contri­bution in the past and, it is our hope, will contribute even more effectively in the future.

We are profoundly aware that the Ameri­can experiment has been, all in all, a bless­ing to the world and a blessing to us as Evangelical and Catholic Christians. We are determined to assume our full share of responsibility for this “one nation under God,” believing it to be a nation under the judgment, mercy, and providential care of the Lord of the nations to whom alone we render unqualified allegiance.


The question of Christian witness un­avoidably returns us to points of serious tension between Evangelicals and Catho­lics. Bearing witness to the saving power of Jesus Christ and his will for our lives is an integral part of Christian discipleship. The achievement of good will and cooperation between Evangelicals and Catholics must not be at the price of the urgency and clarity of Christian witness to the Gospel. At the same time, and as noted earlier, Our Lord has made clear that the evidence of love among his disciples is an integral part of that Christian witness.

Today, in this country and elsewhere, Evangelicals and Catholics attempt to win “converts” from one another’s folds. In some ways, this is perfectly understandable and perhaps inevitable. In many instances, however, such efforts at recruitment under­mine the Christian mission by which we are bound by God’s Word and to which we have recommitted ourselves in this statement. It should be clearly understood between Catholics and Evangelicals that Christian witness is of necessity aimed at conversion. Authentic conversion is—in its beginning, in its end, and all along the way—conversion to God in Christ by the power of the Spirit. In this connection, we embrace as our own the explanation of the Baptist-Roman Catholic International Conversation (1988):

Conversion is turning away from all that is opposed to God, contrary to Christ’s teaching, and turning to God, to Christ, the Son, through the work of the Holy Spirit. It entails a turning from the self-centeredness of sin to faith in Christ as Lord and Savior. Conversion is a passing from one way of life to another new one, marked with the new­ness of Christ. It is a continuing process so that the whole life of a Christian should be a passage from death to life, from error to truth, from sin to grace. Our life in Christ demands continual growth in God’s grace. Conversion is personal but not private. Individuals respond in faith to God’s call but faith comes from hearing the proclamation of the word of God and is to be expressed in the life together in Christ that is the Church.

By preaching, teaching, and life ex­ample, Christians witness to Christians and non-Christians alike. We seek and pray for the conversion of others, even as we recog­nize our own continuing need to be fully converted. As we strive to make Christian faith and life—our own and that of others— ever more intentional rather than nominal, ever more committed rather than apathetic, we also recognize the different forms that authentic discipleship can take. As is evi­dent in the two thousand year history of the church, and in our contemporary experi­ence, there are different ways of being Christian, and some of these ways are distinctively marked by communal patterns of worship, piety, and catechesis. That we are all to be one does not mean that we are all to be identical in our way of following the one Christ. Such distinctive patterns of discipleship, it should be noted, are amply evident within the communion of the Catho­lic Church as well as within the many worlds of Evangelical Protestantism.

It is understandable that Christians who bear witness to the Gospel try to persuade others that their communities and traditions are more fully in accord with the Gospel. There is a necessary distinction between evangelizing and what is today commonly called proselytizing or “sheep stealing.” We condemn the practice of recruiting people from another community for purposes of denominational or institutional aggrandize­ment. At the same time, our commit ment to full religious freedom compels us to defend the legal freedom to proselytize even as we call upon Christians to refrain from such activity.

Three observations are in order in con­nection with proselytizing. First, as much as we might believe one community is more fully in accord with the Gospel than another, we as Evangelicals and Catholics affirm that opportunity and means for growth in Chris­tian discipleship are available in our several communities. Second, the decision of the committed Christian with respect to his communal allegiance and participation must be assiduously respected. Third, in view of the large number of non-Christians in the world and the enormous challenge of our common evangelistic task, it is neither theologically legitimate nor a prudent use of resources for one Christian community to proselytize among active adherents of another Christian community.

Christian witness must always be made in a spirit of love and humility. It must not deny but must readily accord to everyone the full freedom to discern and decide what is God’s will for his life. Witness that is in service to the truth is in service to such freedom. Any form of coercion—physical, psychological, legal, economic—corrupts Christian witness and is to be unqualifiedly rejected. Similarly, bearing false witness against other persons and communities, or casting unjust and uncharitable suspicions upon them, is incompatible with the Gospel. Also to be rejected is the practice of com­paring the strengths and ideals of one community with the weaknesses and fail­ures of another. In describing the teaching and practices of other Christians, we must strive to do so in a way that they would recognize as fair and accurate.

In considering the many corruptions of Christian witness, we, Evangelicals and Catholics, confess that we have sinned against one another and against God. We most earnestly ask the forgiveness of God and one another, and pray for the grace to amend our own lives and that of our com­munities.

Repentance and amendment of life do not dissolve remaining differences between us. In the context of evangelization and “reevangelization,” we encounter a major difference in our understanding of the rela­tionship between baptism and the new birth in Christ. For Catholics, all who are validly baptized are born again and are truly, how­ever imperfectly, in communion with Christ. That baptismal grace is to be continuingly reawakened and revivified through conver­sion. For most Evangelicals, but not all, the experience of conversion is to be followed by baptism as a sign of new birth. For Catholics, all the baptized are already mem­bers of the church, however dormant their faith and life; for many Evangelicals, the new birth requires baptismal initiation into the community of the born again. These differing beliefs about the relationship be­tween baptism, new birth, and membership in the church should be honestly presented to the Christian who has undergone conver­sion. But again, his decision regarding communal allegiance and participation must be assiduously respected.

There are, then, differences between us that cannot be resolved here. But on this we are resolved: All authentic witness must be aimed at conversion to God in Christ by the power of the Spirit. Those converted— whether understood as having received the new birth for the first time or as having experienced the reawakening of the new birth originally bestowed in the sacrament of baptism—must be given full freedom and respect as they discern and decide the community in which they will live their new life in Christ. In such discernment and deci­sion, they are ultimately responsible to God, and we dare not interfere with the exercise that responsibility. Also in our differences and disagreements, we Evangelicals and Catholics commend one another to God “who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think.” (Ephesians 3)

In this discussion of witnessing together we have touched on difficult and long-standing problems. The difficulties must not be permitted to overshadow the truths on which we are, by the grace of God, in firm agreement. As we grow in mutual under­standing and trust, it is our hope that our efforts to evangelize will not jeopardize but will reinforce our devotion to the common tasks to which we have pledged ourselves in this statement.



Nearly two thousand years after it be­gan, and nearly five hundred years after the divisions of the Reformation era, the Chris­tian mission to the world is vibrantly alive and assertive. We do not know, we cannot know, what the Lord of history has in store for the Third Millennium. It may be the springtime of world missions and great Christian expansion. It may be the way of the cross marked by persecution and appar­ent marginalization. In different places and times, it will likely be both. Or it may be that Our Lord will return tomorrow.

We do know that his promise is sure, that we are enlisted for the duration, and that we are in this together. We do know that we must affirm and hope and search and contend and witness together, for we belong not to ourselves but to him who has purchased us by the blood of the cross. We do know that this is a time of opportunity— and, if of opportunity, then of responsibil­ity—for Evangelicals and Catholics to be Christians together in a way that helps prepare the world for the coming of him to whom belongs the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever. Amen.


Mr. Charles Colson, Prison Fellowship
Fr. Juan Diaz-Vilar, SJ., Catholic Hispanic Ministries
Fr. Avery Dulles, SJ., Fordham University
Bishop Francis George, OMI, Diocese of Yakima (Washington)
Dr. Kent Hill, Eastern Nazarene College
Dr. Richard Land, Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention
Dr. Larry Lewis, Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention
Dr. Jesse Miranda, Assemblies of God
Msgr. William Murphy, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Boston
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Institute on Religion and Public Life
Mr. Brian O’Connell, World Evangelical Fellowship
Mr. Herbert Schlossberg, Fieldstead Foundation
Archbishop Francis Stafford, Archdiocese of Denver
Mr. George Weigel, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Dr. John White, Geneva College and the National Association of Evangelicals.
Dr. William Abraham, Perkins School of Theology
Dr. Elizabeth Achtemeier, Union Theological Seminary (Virginia)
Mr. William Bentley Ball, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Dr. Bill Bright, Campus Crusade for Christ
Professor Robert Destro, Catholic University of America
Fr. Augustine DiNoia, O.P., Dominican House of Studies
Fr. Joseph P. Fitzpatrick, S.J., Fordham University
Mr. Keith Fournier, American Center for Law and Justice
Bishop William Frey, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry
Professor Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law School
Dr. Os Guinness, Trinity Forum
Dr. Nathan Hatch, University of Notre Dame
Dr. James Hitchcock, St. Louis University Boston College
Fr. Matthew Lamb, Boston College
Mr. Ralph Martin, Renewal Ministries
Dr. Richard Mouw, Fuller Theological Seminary
Dr. Mark Noll, Wheaton College
Mr. Michael Novak, American Enterprise Institute
John Cardinal O’Connor, Archdiocese of New York
Dr. Thomas Oden, Drew University
Dr. J.I. Packer, Regent College (British Columbia)
The Rev. Pat Robertson, Regent University
Dr. John Rodgers, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry
Bishop Carlos A. Sevilla, S.J., Archdiocese of San Francisco.

On January 19, 1995, a private meeting with ten Evangelical Christian leaders was held. Among those at the meeting were individuals who had signed the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) statement in 1994, which declared that “Evangelicals and Catho­lics are brothers and sisters in Christ.” It also stated, “We promise one another that we will work to deepen, build upon, and expand this pattern of convergence and cooperation.”

In light of these and other proclamations made in the ECT statement, four Evangelical leaders believed it was necessary to meet with some of the signers for clarification.

During our meeting, God graciously brought us all to agreement and reconciliation on the definition and nature of the gospel, as well as a full commitment to justification by faith alone in Jesus Christ as central to the gospel.

At the conclusion, we agreed to issue the following doctrinal statement which clarifies the intent of the Protestant leaders who signed the ECT statement:

Doctrinal Statement

We Protestants, who signed ECT, took this action to advance Christian

fellowship, cooperation, and mutual trust among true Christians in the North American cultural crisis and in the worldwide task of evangelism. The same concern leads us now to elucidate our ECT commitment by stating:

  1. Our para-church cooperation with evangelically committed Roman Catholics for the pursuit of agreed objectives does not imply acceptance of Roman Catholic doctrinal distinctives or endorsement of the Roman Catholic church system.
  2. We understand the statement that “we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ,” in terms of the substitutionary atonement and imputed righteousness of Christ, leading to full assurance of eternal salvation; we seek to testify in all circumstances and contexts to this, the historic Protestant understanding of salvation by faith alone (sola fide).
  3. While we view all who profess to be Christian—Protestant and Catholic and Orthodox— with charity and hope, our confidence that anyone is truly a brother or sister in Christ depends not only on the content of his or her confession, but on our perceiving signs of regeneration in his or her life.
  4. Though we reject proselytizing as ECT defines it (that is, “sheepstealing” for denomina­tional aggrandizement), we hold that evangelism and church planting are always legiti­mate, whatever forms of church life are present already.
  5. We think that the further theological discussions that ECT promised should begin as soon as possible.

We make these applicatory clarifications of our commitment as supporters of ECT in order to prevent divisive misunderstandings of our beliefs and purposes.[[Category:Roman Catholic, Evangelicals & Catholics]

Leave a Comment