by Rev. Fraser Macdonald, M.A., Portree*
* This paper was given at the Church’s Theological Conference in 1967.
—Editor.
Scores of books on the Ecumenical Movement have already been published, so that whatever may be said regarding the merits or demerits of the movement, their leaders cannot complain of lack of publicity for their views.
Of the authors of these publications it may be said that relatively few are critical of the movement; most of them indeed are not only interested in, but in favour of this trend towards what they call Christian Unity. Drawn from the ranks of Anglicans — Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Congregationalists and Roman Catholics, these pro Ecumenical writers look at the Ecumenical “phenomenon” mainly in the light of their own distinctive characters, principles and attitudes. Some of them are no doubt concerned with even wider issues — but write primarily as Anglicans, Presbyterians or Baptists. Much of what they have to say is interesting, revealing, and even thought provoking, and without some knowledge and consideration of their convictions, aims, and arguments, we could hardly be said to write fairly on the subject. At the same time most of what we have read is characterised by a spirit of blind optimism, in which we cannot share, and is vitiated, if not rendered altogether useless by an evident refusal to consider the inspired and infallible account of the original unity and Apostolic purity of the New Testament Church. Surely any worthwhile honest discussion of Ecumenism must begin with the examination and acceptance of the original pattern of the Apostolic church, and then proceed to trace the real cause of any subsequent division. Should the advocates of the Ecumenical movement do this, with an open mind and the conviction (which alas they have lost) that the Bible is the divinely inspired and infallible Word of God, they would discover the true source of the divisions they so widely deplore. They would not then be so disposed to listen to the plausible words of Pope John 23 when he said “We do not wish to put anyone in history on trial; we shall not seek to establish who was right and who was wrong. Responsibility is divided. We only want to say: Let is come together, let us make an end of our divisions.”
But surely we should have the courage and the honesty to say who was right and who was wrong, particularly at the beginning; otherwise we are forced to reflect primarily and seriously on the Lord Himself, and on His holy and faithful apostles to whom the faith was delivered once for all. If original responsibility for divisions in the Church is to be shared, it must be between the heretics and the faithful, between the Gnostics, the Docetists, the Antinomians, etc., and the true followers and Apostles of the Lamb. Such a conclusion we cannot accept, according to the account given by holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. If it be argued here, that in the record of Truth, we have merely the opinions of the Apostles, over against that of the liberal heretics, then we have no infallible standard to judge anything by, and so the argument ends. But we accept the Word of God in its entirety as final and authoritative in ALL matters of faith and practice, and therefore do not hesitate to affirm that the blame for the earliest divisions in the Church of Christ, lies altogether at the door, not of the faithful, but of the disloyal and unfaithful. If this point is overlooked there can be no true confession of our sins respecting divisions nor any lasting basis for a Unity based upon, and promoted by Truth. We sometimes think that the history and presence of divisions in the Church is in its own way a fulfilment of Scripture, and a tribute to the faithful remnant in every age and generation. If the cry for Union which is now heard (mainly from the camp of the unfaithful) indicates a guilt complex on their part, little wonder that it should be so. If the clamour for the healing of all our divisions is heard most loudly and most frequently from the ranks of those who do not accept the sole and final authority of the Scripture concerning faith and order in the Church, it is already suspect. For all that, because this movement constitutes a grave menace and peril to ourselves and our children, we as believers, and as Free Presbyterians are doubly obliged to expose and oppose it with all our might. To help us do this we may
- First of all, comment briefly and critically on the ORIGIN and the supposed AIMS of the movement.
- Secondly, we may examine critically some of the main ARGUMENTS advanced by the Ecumenists.
- Thirdly, we may do the same with the METHODS employed to achieve their ideal unity.
- Lastly, we may state very briefly what we think OUR ATTITUDE and reaction should be.
I The Origin and Aims of Ecumenism
It is generally agreed that the modern Ecumenical Movement owes its origin to the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910, which arose, we are informed, out of the concern of Protestant leaders who were dismayed in the presence of more than three hundred and fifty different denominations. At this gathering of one thousand three hundred and fifty-five delegates, there were representative not only of Protestant missionary societies, but also of Anglo Catholic ones. “Apparently (Prof. Henderson — page 7) it was the latter who were quick to see the new possibilities for activity in the field of ecclesiastical politics, and to develop the situation.” Only four months after the Edinburgh Conference, the Anglican communion in the United States, the Protestant Episcopal Church, passed a resolution in its House of Deputies and House of Bishops which ran as follows “That a joint commission be appointed to bring about a Conference for the consideration of questions touching Faith and Order, and that all Christian communions throughout the whole world which confess our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour be asked to unite with us in arranging for, and conducting such a conference.” The American Anglicans had their setbacks in bringing about such a conference. There was the First World War for one thing and there were what Mr John Lawrence, the Anglican, who gives a readable account of the history of the Movement in the “Hard Facts of Unity” — calls “misconceptions.” For all that, the American Anglicans went doggedly on, and by 1920, they were able to call a meeting in Geneva of the representatives of about seventy churches, to decide “what subjects should be prepared for the World Conference.” The conference, when it finally took place at Lausanne was by all accounts something of a shambles (footnote page 7, Professor Henderson), but it passed a Call to Unity. The first sentence of this call runs as follows:— “God wills our unity. Our presence in this conference bears testimony to our desires to bend our wills to His. However, we may justify the beginnings of disunion, we lament its continuance, and henceforth must labour in penitence and faith to build up our broken walls.” (Bell, Documents on Christian Unity, page 159). The conference also passed a section on the ministry of the Church of which the following passage is an extract: “In view of (1) the place which the Episcopate, the Councils of Presbyters and the congregation of the faithful respectively, had in the constitution of the early Church, and (2) the fact that Episcopal, Presbyterian, and congregational systems of government are each today, and have been for centuries, accepted by great communions in Christendom, (3) the fact that Episcopal presbyterial and congregational systems are each believed by many to be essential to the good order of the Church, we therefore recognise that these several elements must all, under conditions which require further study, have an appropriate place in the order of life of a re-united Church, and that each separate communion, recalling the abundant blessing of God vouchsafed to its ministry in the past, should gladly bring to the common life of the united church, it own spiritual treasures.”
These two passages from the Lausanne Declaration form a fascinating introduction to the language of the Ecumenical Movement, and the double think and double talk it inevitably entails. For as one points out — if anything brought them there the dogged and determined will of the Anglican Church was a prime factor. In the words of John L. Lawrence (Hard Facts of Unity, p. 31), Christendom’s debt to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the early stages of the Faith and Order Movement is beyond calculation. The idea of the Faith and Order Conference, the promotion of the idea on a world wide scale, and the money that made it possible, all came from that Church. But there is no mention of that in the Declaration which coyly attributes the occurrence of the Conference to the agency of the Almighty.
Now, the growing desire for a still greater measure of unity between the churches eventually led to the inauguration of the World Council of Churches in Amsterdam in 1948. A loose Federation that now includes 201 Protestant and orthodox bodies (“A new Era,” O’Brien, p. 20), in some fifty countries representing about three hundred million members. The authority of the World Council of Churches lies in the Assembly which meets every five years. Seats in its Assembly are given to official representatives of the member churches, that is to say, that they are hardly likely to come the way of those who are not in favour with the establishments of their respective churches. Amsterdam was followed by the second assembly of the World Council of Churches in Evanston in 1954 and by a third in New Delhi in 1961. In its Evanston Report the World Council of Churches by speaking of disunity and disobedience and sin, has committed itself to a bitter and ruthless attack on denominations. In singling out denominations for attack, says Professor Henderson, the World Council has too easily assumed that a desire for love and unity are the same thing. Nothing is more amusing, he adds, than to hear an Ecumenical enthusiast thank God for the fact that he no longer harbours acrimonious feelings towards Catholics or Protestants, and without realising that, he now feels that way about those in his own communion who cannot conscientiously become Anglicans. A resonant sounding board of Protestant opinion, the World Council of Churches, continues to sponsor extensive studies of the nature of church unity and the means to attain to it.
The Report prepared by the Faith and Order Conference at Oberlin in 1957 presented no definite concept of the nature of Christian Unity. (A “New Era” — John O’Brien, p. 21). It declared, however, that Protestant Unity of Spirit is seeking organisational expression in a fellowship of good works and inter communion, rather than in unity of belief, worship, and structure, language, which however vague, at least makes it clear that agreement on doctrine is neither essential or paramount.
The only other remark I wish to make regarding the origin of this movement is, that clearly it did not originate from the Holy Spirit of Truth. Rather, it bears the stamp of men in error — some of them sincere no doubt, and profoundly interested in the realisation of their dream, but nevertheless being unregenerate; enemies to God, and to His Truth. Indeed, we may go further and say that they are traitors to the Truth as it is in Jesus. Because of their proud and irreverent attitude to the holy, God inspired scriptures, we need not speak of them with caution as Gamaliel did of the early disciples of Christ. With all their flippant readiness to attribute this Movement to the undoubted work and power of the Holy Spirit, it is clear to all who truly love the Lord, that many of them are still like Simon Magus, in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh.” (John 3: 6).
With that I now pass on to examine the AIMS of the Movement. It has been clearly and trenchantly demonstrated by Professor Henderson that the sponsors and advocates of Ecumenism aim at the attaining of power rather than unity.
Leaving that aside for the moment, I will give you first of all their own professed objective, which is Christian Unity or one great church. According to the Report on Unity of the New Delhi Assembly “Christian Unity has been the primary concern of the Faith and Order Movement from the beginning and the vision of the one church has become the inspiration of our Ecumenical endeavour.” (New Delhi Report, p. 117).
Rev. Kenneth Slack, the General Secretary of the British Council of Churches says of the conception of unity formulated at New Delhi, “It departs wholly from any idea that Christian Unity is a wholly spiritual idea, not needing in any way to be made visible to men. It departs as firmly upon any idea, that bodies like the World Council of Churches itself or a National Council of Churches provide, through co-operation, an adequate conception of unity. A visible and comprehensive unity is the ideal, and the goal, though some Ecumenical leaders would deny that the World Council aims at becoming a world or super church. Dr Fisher is reported as having said “We should like to see the Church of England, the Church of Scotland and the U.S.A. bound together in one body and if the Pope would come in as Chairman, we would all welcome him.” (Church Times 31/5/61). Union with Rome, the mother of the great harlot, is at least for some, the ultimate goal. Already the Ecumenical movement is mustering its forces to give the world the impression of unity and power.
The unity envisaged is even now taking shape, and looks very much like a political unity, making a strong bid for political power; ready to compromise its faith, and all that constitutes historic Christianity in the effort. This visible organic unity is a false objective, and it is patently clear to those who have any spiritual understanding, that in the view of the Vatican, whatever double talk may be used, only a return of penitent heretics can be a prelude to union.
Further, as we shall see when we duly come to examine the methods used by the Ecumenists, their zeal for unity must be closely identified with their desire for power. Fallen man is the easy victim of many evil passions, and not least among these is this lust for power. Even where the grace of God is planted there is evidence of this monster sin which must be mourned over and mortified by those who know their own hearts. How much more may we expect to encounter this ugly monster among those who are destitute of the grace of God. Of course, this desire for power may be so closely identified with the desire for unity, and the will of God, that it may be mistaken for such. This indeed has happened, and a great sin is committed when we call our greed for power, zeal for unity and the will of God. So much then for the origin and objectives of the Ecumenical Movement.
Of the many arguments put forward by the Ecumenical enthusiasts, the most convincing one is, that church unity is the Will of God. They appeal to the Word of God, and cite among other passages the words of Christ in His great intercessory prayer in John, chapter 17. “That they all may be one as thou Father art in me.” In this connection it has been asked — What is the source of the efforts for Christian Unity? — and this is their answer. “It is undoubtedly the clear teaching of Jesus Christ, that there should be one fold and one Shepherd. So fundamental and important was the unity of His followers that our Lord refers to this on the night before He died, in His prayer to the Father recorded in John 17:21.
The writer from which we quote goes on to say of these words “Their meaning is so clear as to allow no ground for dispute. They are a basic and integral part of the teaching of our divine Redeemer. They are woven into the consciousness of every Christian and are an inescapable part of the message of every herald of the Gospel.” (“Steps to Unity,” O’Brien, p. 9). Running like threads of gold through the warp and woof of the New Testament, this teaching of our Lord regarding the paramount importance and necessity of unity of faith among His followers is echoed and re-echoed by the great Apostle of the Gentiles. Thus in his letter to the Ephesians (1-3), Paul says, “I beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation where with you are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.”
This then is the teaching of Jesus which provides the incentive and motive power for the world wide movement for Christian unity. Now, “The modern ecumenist states dogmatically that the meaning of Christ’s words in John 17:21 is so clear as to allow of no dispute. We would respectfully remind him of another possible, and far more scriptural interpretation of the passage referred to.
It is clear to us that the prayer of Christ for unity between His disciples, and all those who should believe on Him through their word, is a spiritual unity, and NOT a visible unity belonging to the Church in any one age. Moreover, the unity of the churches is something quite different from the unity of Christians. The nature of the unity prayed for by Christ is most ably expounded and expressed by the late Rev. D. Beaton, Oban (in Vol. 27 of the F.P. Magazine, pp. 163, 164) Among other things he points out that the unity referred to in John 17:21 is a unity analogous to that of the Father and the Son, and as such is a unity fitted to impress the world that Christ has been sent by the Father. It is a unity of purpose, of life, and of love. The Father and the Son are one in love. It is out of this fulness of love treasured up in the Son, that all believers receive. It is this holy, spiritual love that pervades the whole church of the living God, and where it is not, in spite of impressive outward unity, Christ’s prayer is not realised. This love, continues the writer, imperfect here in the best, binds the Lord’s people of different denominations together (though they cannot agree in many points) in a way that no outward unity could ever accomplish. This love is not originated by themselves, nor is it a mere higher development of a benevolent nature. It is the gift of God imparted to His people, and to them alone. The unity for which Christ prays then, may be fully realised by believers belonging to different denominations, and is infinitely better than any apparent unity of expediency or policy.” The fact is, that all the larger churches in modern times are becoming more and more secularised — many of their members — sometimes the vast majority, are worldly minded. Most of them have very little Christian knowledge, and they have no Christian experience. It is evident that any unity between such churches would have little in common with the unity of true believers. It is also clear to us that this great text is altogether misused and misapplied when applied to the modern Ecumenical movement. Indeed, many ecumenical theologians who use the text in the context of ecumenism, do not believe that Christ really spoke these words. Often they maintain that the Gospel of John (especially the discourses of Christ in its Gospel) has little historical value, and many of them do not believe that Jesus Christ is one with the Father as He Himself claims in John 17:32 (Prof. Hardegard on Ecumenism, p. 29).
We have remarked at some length on this first argument invariably used by Ecumenists for two reasons. Firstly, because it is their strongest and most plausible plea. Secondly, because the Church of Rome arrogantly claims to approximate, if not to possess the unity for which Christ prayed.
The second main argument put forward by the Ecumenical leaders is one with which we are all familiar. They have the audacity to speak of the scandal of a divided Christendom, and of our sinful divisions, as though the lack of a visible, shallow, God dishonouring unity was the only sin to be exposed and deplored. To our minds, the absence of such unity as they envisage, is a blessing rather than a scandal. The real sin, the crying scandal is NOT denominationalism, but rather the blindness, the pride, the treachery, the infidelity of the vast majority of church leaders, who have imbibed and preached the God provoking, soul ruining heresies of Modernism and Higher Criticism ranging from the blasphemous filth that flows freely from the pen of the Bishop of Woolwich (whose sources by the way are mainly Tillich, Barth, and Boeffner) — to the subtle neo-orthodoxy of Barth. Here are sins — here are scandals indeed by which evil is increased and evildoers strengthened. And, what of the utter lack of reverence for the Word of God, the undue emphasis on the feelings and thoughts of men, the absence of church discipline, the connivance of the church (by and large) at almost every violation, of the moral law, and the growing fashion of sympathising with, and protecting those who are guilty of sins which it is a shame to speak of.
These are but a few of the sins and scandals which call for immediate action on the part of the professed church of Christ. The continued and increasing appearance of such evils in the churches renders their talk about the scandal and sin of division, utterly ridiculous, if not altogether blasphemous. If the Ecumenists would turn their thoughts and devote their energies to calling upon themselves and their hearers to seek to be savingly united to Christ, they would then be acting according to the will of God. If they would confess and forsake the sins we have already referred to, and cry mightily to the Lord for mercy, instead of dissipating their energies to achieve an objective that reminds one of the builders of the tower of Babel, they would find little time or need to make such noise about the scandal of our divisions. Let them remember that the appearance of unity is not the only way of convincing the world that Christ was sent by the Father! Who can tell how many have been turned away from the Church, not because of denominationalism, but because they were thoroughly disgusted with the hollow profession of graceless Christians — so called.
A third argument urged by the Ecumenicals is that a united church would present a united front, and would be strong enough to combat and challenge Communism, atheism, and other systems of evil. This plea stems from the false premise that strength and power lie in numbers. In very recent times the falsity of this argument has been clearly demonstrated by the course of the Jewish-Arab war. A few devoted men really and closely knit together, can scatter forces by whom they are greatly outnumbered. The lesson which the Lord taught Gideon needs to be re-learned. We never read that the people were too few for the Lord to use, but we do read that they were too many. The proponents of ecclesiastical mergers go on to point out that the present wasteful duplication of church structures, organisational machinery, and personnel, mean that church expenditures are multiplied tenfold. They decry the mushrooming of denominational churches in places where one or two would amply suffice. In the same strain, Dr Martin E. Marty (“Steps of Unity,” p. 22), associate editor of the “Christian Century,” castigates denominationalism as a self seeking enterprise. Our comment here is that we as a church (and as a rule, Evangelical churches) owing to the liberality of our people, are not unduly worried about expenditure, nor are those who fear the Lord likely to be influenced in any degree by such carnal and utilitarian arguments, or such mercenary considerations. What many may well understand the writer to be saying is: Unite and then you can reduce your pittance by way of supporting the church still further. Undoubtedly there are many in the modernistic circles with whom this argument will have considerable weight.
(to be continued in May issue)