by Rev. Fraser Macdonald, M.A., Portree
(continued from page 10)
As we already said, the effect of reducing any basis or major disagreement to — just looking at the subject from another angle — is subtle and disastrous, and vitiates our judgment before we enter their idolatrous places of worship.
It is easy enough to speak of real differences of doctrine and worship in terms of different emphasis or cultures, but the Lord makes it very clear in His word that those who teach for doctrines the commandments of men, worship Him in vain. However numerous the worshippers, however solemn and imposing the ritual, if tradition is put on a par with the Word of God, their worship is mere mockery and idolatry. Thus, if getting to know one another entails worshipping in the midst of God dishonouring idolatry it may be a step to unity, but it is also a step towards eternal ruin.
Observers too readily become participants. Now, the Ecumenical leaders know very well, that unless the rank and file of the Church are interested in the movement, it will not succeed. Therefore they argue, that although union may be legislated in world Ecumenical councils and assemblies, true unity must be born and nurtured in the local parishes and communities. This attempt to rouse interest at every level is essential to the success of the movement. In good common sense every effort is being made to influence the minds of ordinary church members in the drive for Unity. Such action seems to us to indicate two things (i) That the movement for unity is the fond idea of a few top brassmen and not that of the rank and file. (ii) That the ordinary church member is either apathetic, disgusted, or perplexed as far as Church Unity is concerned.
Respect for the sincerity of others and for their religious beliefs, no matter how monstrous or idolatrous they may be — is another method by which Ecumenism is to succeed. For such an attitude towards error, we have yet to find Scriptural and Biblical authority. What respect, it may well be asked, had the Apostle for the Pharisees? What of His holy advice to the disciples when they told him that the Pharisees were offended at what He had said? “Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind.” (Matthew 15:14).
I wonder what the Ecumenical hermeneutists would say on this passage of Truth, because these are the words of the same Lord as prayed for the unity of His people? Does the Lord indeed command men to respect evil or idolatry? The respect that Isaiah had for the sincerity of the idolators of his own day may be seen from Isaiah chapter 44.
The respect for sincerity and error commended by the Ecumenical leaders is probably proportionate to their lack of respect for Truth and loyalty to the evangelical faith. But the time would fail us to enumerate the subtle, and specious methods applauded and employed by the Ecumenical leaders, in their devotion to their man made image of Unity. Dialogue at every level — respect for sincerity — the removal of ignorance — to these add the practice of love, humility, concord, and goodwill, and you have then all but one — one which the Ecumenical does not mention, but which has been most trenchantly and devastatingly exposed by Professor Henderson who has first hand experience and information of Ecumenical activities and tactics within the pale of his own church.
To illustrate what I refer to — I shall let Professor Henderson speak for himself. Here I quote :
“Any criticism of the Ecumenical Movement in this book is to the effect that its projected solution of the contradiction of Christian lovelessness by means of a series of ecclesiastical mergers is so grotesquely superficial that in the end it can only exacerbate the problem, and has indeed already begun to do so. This is because the Ecumenical Movement refuses to face up to the fact of power. In the ‘Observer’ of 1st January 1967 there is a very moving article by Dr Charles Davis entitled, ‘Why I left the Roman Catholic Church’. In the course of it he writes, ‘As for papal documents, I sometimes think there is need for a new science of Vaticanology, in order to discover which pressure groups have succeeded in getting their way and to interpret in the light of the current Roman background the more cryptic references to opinions vaguely reprobated’. Only those with first hand knowledge of Catholic ecclesiastical politics could meet the need indicated by Dr Davis and produce his new science of Vaticanology. And this book, apart from the present introductory sector, was written before Dr Davis’ article was published. But I wonder if ‘mutatis mutandis’, his sentence does not describe what I have tried, however inexpertly to do in connection with a field of ecclesiastical politics familiar to me, the relations between my own church, the Church of Scotland and the Church of England. Perhaps, however, the most important thing about the ecclesiastical corridors of power is not where they are located, but whether the activity that goes on in them coheres with the demand for love and truth in the inward parts, which is basic to the ecclesiastic’s religion.”
Professor Henderson continues, “In the ecclesiastical sphere the adherents of the Movement engage in intense political activity and incessant propaganda to bring about oneness. It never occurs to them to analyse the term ‘oneness’ and to look at the more discredible as well as the more creditable drives which lie behind any movement toward oneness. Once this were done it would certainly be more difficult to describe, as is frequently done, the whole movement as an activity of the Holy Spirit (with the convenient implication that anyone critical of it is opposing the Holy Spirit). But it would be conducive to clarity.
Ecumenicals have never had any inhibitions in querying the motives of their opponents. C. H. Dodd’s work on non-theological obstacles to union has had a lot of success. Is it too much to ask them to search their own?
Apparently they are reluctant to, or should I say unwilling and afraid to do this. In dealing with the infamous Bishops’ Report of 1957 the Professor proceeds to help them to do this. He says that “The first serious attempt of Anglican imperialism to take over the Church of Scotland came to a head in 1957 with the publication of a Joint Report. This report, later to be called in Scotland the Bishops’ Report, was signed by twelve representatives of the Church of England, twelve of the Church of Scotland, three of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, and four of the Presbyterian Church of England. The Report, as one of the Scottish signatories accurately predicted a few months before its publication, came as a bombshell in the Church of Scotland. The reason for this was that that Church had not realised what a stranglehold the Ecumenical party had gained over its diplomacy. Nor had it realised just how far that party was prepared to go in signing a Report which can only be called an ecclesiastical Munich. On the other side of the border the document was admirably calculated not to cause the slightest ripple at a vicarage tea party. The only approach to a concession which the Anglicans made in the Report, a vague promise to introduce something like the eldership into their system, they subsequently never ever bothered to discuss among themselves. It is hard to believe that they ever had the slightest intention to implement it.
There was nothing vague about the concession the Kirk was to have to make. Bishops, duly consecrated into the apostolic succession, were to be set up a permanent moderators of presbyteries. This was quite a drastic alteration of the power structure of the Church of Scotland. The Moderator of a Presbytery was to be changed from being a mere temporary chairman into someone whom it would be injudicious to disagree with, if one valued one’s professional future. This is a matter where it is foolish to shut one’s eyes to the naked reality of power. A chairman who can affect the professional futures of his committee members, adversely or otherwise, is much more likely to get his way with them than one who cannot.
Professor Henderson proceeds to show that the propaganda of the Ecumenical Movement had already brought about within the Church of Scotland a formidable group of Anglicans, whose practical skill enable them to gain control of such vital committees as the Inter Church Relations Committee, and the Panel and Doctrine Committee. Because of their ability to seize power and to keep it these Ecumenists were well able to appoint the conveners and personnel they desired, and thus secure a majority on all negotiating committees with other churches. The creation of a monopoly power structure was their ultimate aim, where the individual believer who disagreed with them would inevitably be denied the ordinances of the church. “With the possibility,” says Dr Henderson, “of an Anglican take-over bid being successful, it is obvious that for the non-Ecumenist the time could be fairly near when he would have to decide whether he should leave a church which had departed from the principles he held when he entered it.”
These are ominous words coming from a leading theologian in the Church of Scotland — “If the Reid Committee,” he continues, “brings on a third successor to the Bishops’ Report and the Grey document, and is successful, then he must allow the Ecumenists to construct their one Church which is closed to all who cannot accept the over-beliefs of fifty-six thousands Scottish Episcopalians.” Further, in connection with press reports of the Grey document with its proposal for Episcopal ordination of all Church of Scotland ministers, the methods of the Ecumenists are again exposed to view. Evidently they made serious charges against the press, which they could not substantiate, and which in truth applied more to themselves than to the press reporters which they attacked so abusively. A work of darkness if it is to thrive, usually requires its native element of deceit, and we are therefore not surprised to discover that the enthusiasts of this movement had recourse to high handed and dishonest action in seeking to attain their objective.
Ecumenical ambiguous language is framed to conceal, rather than describe events, and we are strongly inclined to agree with Professor Henderson that the idea of the ONE church is the worst that ever influenced the minds of Christians. To be taken over by Anglicanism means having to accept Bishops and the myth by which Bishops justify their power — the so called doctrine of the Apostolic succession.
To sum up then, the motives, arguments and methods of the leaders of the Ecumenical movement cannot stand the light of man’s scrutiny, not to speak of the blaze of the Divine omniscience. Party politics, the power lust, and the covering of one sin by another are tactics which are evidently being used by the Ecumenists.
In the light of the facts that we have stated, and the observations we have made regarding this Movement, most of you may well have anticipated what we have to say by way of conclusion. The progress of the Ecumenical Movement may continue to capture the headlines; the leaders of most churches may speak with one consent, and view the Movement as an unexpected and unprecedented step forward in the religious field, but WE must, like Micaiah of old, be prepared to differ from them. Although we have endeavoured to state clearly the scriptural and conscientious grounds for this attitude of mind, our judgment will no doubt be condemned by many as uncharitable. As far as we can see, however, the only foreseeable advantage, if the Unionists gain their objective, would be that the line between those who adhere to the Bible and the Reformed Faith, and those who do not, would be more clearly drawn. Our study of the Movement has deepened our conviction that it is a Romeward and Hellward movement. We were oppressed, rather than impressed by much of what we read of Ecumenical activity, and feel deeply thankful to the Lord, that in spite of such prevailing darkness and blindness, there is still a remnant who take the same stand with regard to the Bible as the Reformers did. Our study has also opened our eyes to the tremendous gulf between Evangelicals and Modernists.
In our view, the Movement is not only a grave peril and menace, but constitutes a challenge to our spiritual liberties, and a rejection of our dearly bought Protestant heritage. If ever there was a call to PRAYER on the part of the true followers of Christ, it is now. If ever David’s words in Psalm 119 were fitting it is now
“Tis time thou work Lord
For they have, made void
Thy law divine.”
and having prayed for Divine intervention, let us take action, by seeking the anointing of the Spirit, whereby we shall know the saving, sanctifying, emboldening power of the Truth. More precious than fine gold should be the heritage we enjoy, the plain preaching of the pure Gospel, the exercise of Presbyterian discipline, and the administration of the Sacraments in simplicity and purity. Let us strive then, to understand and appreciate the Scriptural basis of all we enjoy, in Church government, doctrine and practice. Let us expose and oppose this movement with all the means at our disposal, and at the same time let us pray for a spiritual awakening throughout the land — for only thus will the respective powers of Rome and Modernism begin to wane. Let us pity, and pray for poor blinded Roman Catholics, and the millions of so called Christians, who are obviously led astray by their leaders. May the Lord hasten the day, when men will join hands to “Earnestly contend for the faith, which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude, verse 3).