For many people, Evangelicalism is synonymous with the Religious Right, at least in its U.S. forms. People like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Oral Roberts represent the public persona of the 1980s hegemony of right-wing politics in the Evangelical world. Numerous studies have shown the influence of Evangelicals in the presidential elections of Ronald Reagan, George Bush, sr., and George W. Bush, as well as numerous senators, members of Congress, and even local judges. In Canada, Evangelical involvement in party policy has been more controversial. Stockwell Day's electoral prospects were seriously diminished by public suspicions of his religious faith. Stephen Harper has carefully proscribed discussion of his personal faith in order to avoid similar suspicions. In both the U.S. and Canada, right wing political causes have corresponded closely with the social issues discussed and addressed in many churches of an Evangelical persuasion. The continued influence of this constituency is undeniable, but it is now being challenged by other Evangelical voices.

Since the 1960s the Sojourners Community, led by the Rev. Jim Wallis, and numerous other groups have been the voice of the Evangelical social conscience. Some of these groups have experienced increasing attention from the media in the past few years. During the 2004 U.S. election, Call to Renewal promoted an active media campaign in the press, on tv and radio, and over the internet that declared "God is not a Republican or a Democrat!" Also in 2004, Ronald Sider published a book entitled "The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience." This book called Evangelicals to be more vocal in their commitment for social concerns.

Since 2003 Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), has been promoting what he calls "creation care." This theologically articulated form of environmentalism has not been without controversy in the NAE constituency, but Cizik has stood his ground. He has insisted that Evangelicals take global warming seriously, and as a result has been challenged to resign by James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Although the NAE has not taken an official stance on global warming, other Evangelical leaders have established the Evangelical Climate Initiative in order to address these question in the Evangelical community.

Under the heading "A Call to Kingdom Living", the Philadelphia Statement states:

"there are important areas common to most societies where followers of Jesus Christ must pray and work for the kingdom, such as seeking human rights and religious liberty, working against corruption, violence and war, alleviating poverty, protecting the family and the sanctity of life, and caring for creation...

The church, as the primary community in which the kingdom of God is manifested, ought to embody the graceful principles of that kingdom and bear witness in life, word and action to the power of the gospel to transform lives and societies...

The church must not use political power merely as a means of self-protection, but should seek the benefit of the community in which it lives with humility repentance, and in a spirit of unity."

This new report is called an "agreed statement" which places it in the same category as the work of ARCIC. One important distinction is that IARCCUM has a very practical purpose, while ARCIC has focussed on resolving the theological issues that divide the two communions. Another important distinction is that IARCCUM is an "episcopal commission", that is, its members are primarily bishops. Like other agreed statements, this document has not yet been formally approved by the two communions. It is sent to the churches for their study and consideration.

The practical focus and the episcopal character of the IARCCUM process means that the suggestions offered by this statement are frequently directed towards the bishops and other clergy of the two communions. The report calls for tangible means of expressing the unity given in Christ, but then it makes practical suggestions towards expressing this unity.

If the document's title sounds familiar to you, then you have been paying attention. The document was leaked last spring. Today's public release of the document includes the definitive text along with two commentaries, by Bishop Paul Richardson of Newcastle and Bishop Bernard Longley of Westminster. The commentaries are as interesting as the document itself. There is also a further text that was not released today. One of the Catholic consultants, Paul McPartlan, gave a preview of the document last January at the US's National Workshop on Christian Unity. McPartlan's paper has been published in "Ecumenical Trends".

"Ecumenism in Canada" has been given permission to post the IARCCUM document. Thus, you will find the texts here in a few days.

Much of the criticism of the CDF's document has come from within the Catholic community, although notable critiques have also been issued by ecumenical partners. The criticism has addressed the exclusivity with which the new CDF document interprets the word "subsists", and the insistence of the CDF that other churches are thereby deficient. The responses to the document were more careful and nuanced than those made in 2000 to Dominus Iesus, but many observers connected the two documents, seeing the new text as little more than a re-articulation of the earlier problematic statements.

I have to admit that there is nothing in the document that Benedict XVI had not said before as cardinal prefect of the CDF or as an academic theologian. It is problematic, and it is a shame that Cardinal Levada felt that he needed to say it again at this time, but it is nothing new. The point that I think we can emphasize is that because it isn't new, it does not end the long debate over the meaning of "subsistit." What was an open question last spring will remain an open question. An important clarification should be made here: the responsa is issued by the CDF under Levada's signature. It expresses the authority vested in the CDF, this is not a papal statement.

It is well known that Benedict XVI has long expressed the view that "subsistit" has an exclusive sense. Some scholars have suggested that this might be due to the translation into German where it does have such a connotation. In Latin and English, however it doesn't. A point that I made in my MA thesis and again in a paper in my first year of doctoral work, is that the term "subsistit" is also used in reference to the eucharist and the incarnation. We speak about the substance of the body and blood of Christ subsisting in the accidens of bread and wine. This is exclusive in the sense that it is only Jesus who subsists in this manner. However, Jesus subsists in the eucharist on this altar and that altar, at the same time. It is not part of Jesus that is found here, while another part is found there. There is only one Jesus, and there is only one eucharist, and each eucharist is a full and complete subsistence of Jesus' body and blood. Now consider the incarnation. The divine nature of the Son is incarnate in the person of Jesus. This is exclusive in the sense that there is only one Jesus, a Palestinian Jew from the 1st century. Both Jesus' divine and human human natures subsist in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. However, this subsistence transcends the exclusive particularity of Jesus in that he represents all human nature. Thus there is a complex interplay of exclusive and inclusive particularity in every subsistence.

In this new document, Levada argues that the full subsistence of the Church of Christ (that which we confess as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic) subsists in the Catholic Church. We still acknowledge the elements of sanctification and truth that are found in other Christian communities. Where Levada diverts from the basic position of many ecumenically-minded Catholics is that he says that these elements cannot properly be called a subsistence of the church. Yes, they are elements of the true Church of Christ. However, he insists that the term "subsists" is reserved for the fullness of the Church of Christ. They can have some -- or even very many (as Vatican II said) -- of the elements of sanctification and truth that make up the church of Christ (i.e the essence of the church). However, since unity is an essential element of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, unity (or communion) with the Catholic Church is essential. This is where all other churches are deficient.

The crux of this argument is the Catholic conviction that the full subsistence of the church of Christ is found in itself. That means that the Catholic Church enjoys all of the elements of the church of Christ, including unity. Thus, those who are not united (i.e. in communion) with the Catholic Church lack this one essential element. As the commentary points out, to suggest that other churches also possess this element of the church of Christ without being in communion with all others who possess this element would introduce division into the unity of the church. What Levada does not acknowledge is that this is based on a certain Thomistic notion about absolute predicates. In this philosophical context, unity would not be perfect if it did not encompass all. In order to be perfect, to be an absolute, it must be exclusive. Thus there is only one subsistence of the true church of Christ. All other elements of sanctification and truth impel these churches towards full communion with the Catholic Church.

The document also insists that Protestant churches lack the apostolic succession and therefore the sacrament of orders. Once again this is nothing new. Nor, in fact, is the Catholic Church the only one to take this position. The Anglican Communion is committed to the Lambeth Quadrilateral, which asserts that the historic episcopate (and thus the apostolic succession) is an essential element of the church. The Anglican-Lutheran full communion agreements were predicated on the ability of Anglicans to recognize in the Lutheran forms of governance a vestigial form of the historic episcopate. This was not a foregone conclusion however, and many Anglicans still consider it a bit of a stretch.

As difficult as this new document is, I would like to be a glass half-full kind of guy. I want to point out that the statement says (or implies) that the only deficiency in Orthodox churches is communion with Rome. The only two deficiencies in Protestant and Anglican churches is communion with Rome and the historic episcopate. This is a far cry from the positions of the past. Of course, the genre of the document does not actually allow these kind of interpretations. It only answers the issues raised in the questions. Its omissions are not as significant as omissions in other documents.

I also want to invoke the Thumper principle. At one point in the movie "Bambi," Thumper the rabbit says "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." That would have been good advice for Ratzinger seven years ago when Dominus Iesus came out, and it remains good advice to Levada today. Too bad they didn't ask my advice.