Unity latecomer

Sorry for posting this, instead of commenting, but it got kind of long and the links are easier this way. Well, I must say I'm really sorry to have missed this discussion. Now that I'm done grading tests I have had time to read the large number of comments here. One thought.

Unity of any kind requires a central, defining set of principles that is powerful enough to guide and control our lives and belief at one end, while avoiding the descent into theological discussions of angels and pins on the other. Discussions about when to baptize and when regeneration occurs are vitally important, but they are definitely trees, and not the forest. 

The only kind of unity that I can see as a realistic possibility between the many disparate forms of Christianity is a creedal one. The Apostles' and Nicene creeds are both statements of faith that a wide swath of Christians can affirm, even across the wide Catholic-Protestant divide. This, I have come to believe, is all someone has to affirm for me to call them brother. The Apostles' creed in particular evolved as a shorthand way to sum up what a Christian must believe (on the occasion of baptism, usually), but they are unfortunately underappreciated today.  

Catholics love the creeds because they are a nod to church tradition and the authority of councils such as the Council of Nicea. The creeds also do not affirm the innerrancy or centrality of scripture, which gives Catholics a giggle. However, Protestants can point out that the creeds do not affirm scripture because it is an a priori assumption: the creeds derive from it (what were the church fathers trying to summarize, after all?)  

We will never agree on the particulars, and denominations can be an sinful outworking of this division. But if we agree on the essentials and agree on spiritual unity, it makes it easier to work past spiritual unity to actual physical manifestations of that unity, even though we may never go back to Rome.  

I think that we are in a period of convergence between Christian traditions. I heard N.T. Wright here at Emory a month ago, and he reminded the audience that the Catholic Church has recently renounced the idea of purgatory as a place and instead now defines it as a "condition", something like the moment you stand before God and see the depth of your sin and the depth of his grace (although it's a long moment, evidently). The current Pope just published a book titled "Jesus of Nazareth," which affirms that at the heart of Christianity is not a set of doctrines, but a person. How very evangelical of him.

In Protestant circles, many Churches are turning back to liturgy and emphasizing the need to minister to the poor and needy worldwide, where they find the Catholics have usually beat them to the punch by a few hundred years. I think that most Christian people our age enjoy and appreciate a more liturgical style of worship than our parents do (or at least than a typical 40 year old). Christianity Today has run a series of articles on the explosive growth of churches in urban areas that are turning back to a liturgical style of worship (churches like Tim Keller's Redeeemer Pres in NYC).

Add to this the fact that both Protestant and Catholic commentators are worried about the increasing rate of cross-pollination between the two traditions (Presbyterians especially have been fretting lately about the supposed Catholicization of the church, while in Ireland people are jumping the Catholic ship in droves, leading to a thriving Protestant church there).  

There is hope for unity, I guess, is what I'm saying. It just depends how you define it. I think the best definition is a creedal one.