Shared views on the traditional family and sexual ethics have led to alliances between otherwise very different Churches. But the dialogue is faltering between Catholics and Anglicans over these same ethical issues. Where does this leave the goal of Christian unity?

Some while ago I gave a lecture at the annual convention of the Association for Church Renewal, a high-church movement within the Church of Sweden. I have to admit that I was astonished when I realised that one of my fellow speakers came from the charismatic and predominantly low-church Oasis movement. And my astonishment rose to confusion when I spotted the leader of an extremist - and rather loud - neo-charismatic group among the listeners in the plenary hall. Since this incident I have been asking myself: do such striking alliances represent an ecumenical problem?

In many parts of the world low-church neo-evangelicals and charismatic Christians are establishing alliances with conservative Catholics, including a substantial number of Roman Catholics. These alliances have assumed, particularly in the United States, a candidly political role that contributes to the neo-conservative rhetoric of the Bush presidency. The key aim seems to be to mobilise against what those involved consider to be unacceptable "liberalism", both within different established Churches and society at large.

Cooperation between low-church and high-church groups, or between evangelicals and Catholics, is anchored in traditional family values, sexual ethics and occasionally on a critical attitude towards the increasingly multicultural character of our societies. When we move beyond these issues, however, the theological - let alone ecclesiological - basis of the alliances is both vague and modestly developed. Possibly the chief link here is provided by the identification of a common enemy, namely "liberalism" and "modernism".

Lately, "political ecumenism" even seems to have had implicit repercussions on an official level. One example of this is that the most promising dialogue - theologically speaking - between Anglicans and Roman Catholics has been put on hold because of problems within the Anglican Communion. Yet surely the best response when sisters and brothers argue would be more dialogue, not less.

The agenda of the coalitions between evangelicals and Catholics appears to be strongly influenced by the evangelical partner. However, conservative converts play a vital role here too. This observation is meant in a self-critical way. I am myself a fairly recent convert to Catholicism. I can appreciate that there is a certain reluctance to enter into close cooperation with the Church one has just decided to leave. Still, it would be regrettable if we allow such sentiments to develop into militant "convert sectarianism", which easily occurs if a conversion is motivated primarily by criticism and not by the desire for something new. In my case, the longing to live a full sacramental life was the key factor rather than a desperate urge to get away from the Church I was born into and from which I received the precious gift of baptism.

It should not be dismissed as ecumenically insignificant when representatives of different traditions develop a mutual understanding of Christian life and many of the ethical questions that are involved. And I share many of the concerns regarding recent developments in the established Churches' approach to ethical challenges. Yet I would argue that these challenges require more of us than a shallow and premature rejection of "political correctness". In increasingly intolerant and unjust societies, such "correctness" constitutes a central part of the Church's witness. Additionally, one might wish that the ethical basis of the evangelical-Catholic alliance would transcend the confines of individual ethics and contribute to our reflection on social ethics.

My main concern in this connection, however, is that these coalitions are established between currents that theologically come from different planets. Frequently, the evangelical partner even has a zealously anti-Catholic past. Furthermore, the key problems in this field relate to concerns that are absolutely indispensable to all forms of Catholicism - namely the ecclesiological framework and the sacramental dimension of our life in Christ.

Here one might add that the Trinitarian and Christological approximation between evangelicals and Catholics also can be questioned. The rather one-sided focus on Christ in parts of evangelical theology can appear as deceptively pious while not being doctrinally sufficient. Accordingly, it would be clearly misleading to present the alliances at hand as a new form of evangelical Catholicity. These problems don't appear to have been taken seriously enough in statements following evangelical-Catholic conversations.

The lack of a sustainable theological foundation becomes even more obvious in regard to neo-charismatic groups - within the older and often quite noisy as well as the new and far more posh versions of the present current. The sacraments play at best a marginal role in the theological reflection and the worship life of these groups. I am tempted to interpret their new concern for rites and "mystery" as yet another, if fairly surprising, turn of the screw of religious experience.  Yet the distance from any conceivable form of Catholicity is as evident as ever.

In spite of obvious theological discrepancies, there are also signs that evangelical practices have entered the Roman Catholic Church, through, for example, music and lyrics that are marked by an unmistakably neo-pietistic or neo-charismatic spirit.

The new "political ecumenism" opens up a diversity bordering on confusion in the field of ecclesiology and sacramental theology while applying a far more uniformistic approach to ethical challenges. Here diversity is seen as a threat to our society and not as a gift. At the same time, one tends to forget that the Catholic vision requires inclusiveness, the beauty of the open mind and solidarity.

Seen against this background, my characterisation of notable parts of the approximation between evangelicals and Catholics as a superficial political alliance may be justified. It is a coalition based on an odd mixture of good-old-days values and neo-conservative ideological beliefs. As already pointed out, the common enemy is "liberalism" and "modernism" - ironically ignoring the wildly liberal economic policy of neo-conservatism and its total surrender to what may be labelled as market-fundamentalism. But the theological worth of such alliances is meagre.

When it comes to ecumenism today, there is little doubt that the Anglican tradition - particularly as this tradition has been developed over the past 150 years - is the "Western" church family that stands theologically closest to the Roman Catholic Church. Our theological consensus is obscured by the fact that our Churches have chosen different paths in their responses to ethical challenges. However, these challenges are more complicated than they may appear when they are observed through spectacles provided by the neo-conservative value-rhetorics. And discrepancies in this area do not overrule either our agreement on crucial doctrinal issues or our common goal of visible unity.

The situation is similar - if a bit different - in the Lutheran tradition. Contemporary Lutheranism often appears to be an expression of "liberal-pietism". Here the "evangelical Catholicity" of the Reformation has been substituted by blunt Protestantism. But once more, the theological rationale of doctrinal convergence remains - despite differences on ethical questions.

In the view of the evangelical movement - and possibly also the neo-charismatic groups, the so-called "independent" Churches or "mega-churches" - there is an approximation on several individual-ethical questions and the framework of our life in Christ. However, this agreement requires further theological exploration. In saying this, I am not disputing that ethics is theologically crucial. But traditions that deviate to the point of being totally contrary in their approaches to ecclesiology, sacramental theology and to some extent also in their account of salvation, desperately need a doctrinal dialogue. And this requirement cannot be met by building political alliances.

There are three elementary concerns in the current ecumenical situation. First, in the dialogue between the established Churches of the Reformation and the Roman Catholic Church, more attention must be paid to ethical challenges of all types. Secondly, in the conversations between evangelicals and Catholics of different observations there must be a far stronger emphasis on specific doctrinal and ecclesiological issues. Thirdly, all ecumenical efforts must be evaluated with a view to their potential in realising a visible and structured Communion.

All this implies that the dialogues between the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformation or post-Reformation Churches may have something to learn from the exchange between evangelicals and Catholics in the field of ethics, while the "new political ecumenism" needs to take the challenges from theological ecumenism far more seriously. Such mutual learning is at the core of all ecumenical ventures. It also means that unity is not primarily a question of sharing the same opinions, but aims at a full, sacramentally anchored and eschatologically directed life. When I stress the visibility of our fellowship, the point is simply that our divided and wounded world shall be able to see our unity in Christ and thus believe. In the middle of an "ecumenical winter" there are no shortcuts. Doctrinal ecumenism is indispensable - at least when full visible unity is at stake.