V.) Ecumenism -- What Is It?
“Ecumenism” is derived from the word "ecumenical". This word comes from the Greek oikoumene, which may be translated as "the entire inhabited earth." (Strong 1996)
According to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ecumenism is "the organized attempt to bring about the cooperation and unity of all believers in Christ" (Weber 1984). These two ideas have been fused in the official definition which was coined by the World Council of Churches in 1951:
It is important to insist that the word [ecumenical], which comes from the Greek word for the whole inhabited earth [oikoumene], is properly used to describe everything that relates to the whole task of the
whole church to bring the gospel to the whole world (World Council 1998).
A.) Who Started the Ecumenical Movement?
The movement itself was started at the beginning of this century by Protestant missionaries of different sects. The founders’ main reason for joining forces, was to cultivate a climate of cooperation, in order to evangelize the non-believers. By combining their energies and overlooking small doctrinal differences, these men and women were able to focus on the single purpose of bringing the Gospel of Christ to the entire world [58].
While this movement was originally designed to evangelize [59], the group’s impetus began to change. Soon after its inception, people such as Charles Brent began to invite the RCC to join, in spite of the fact that many of the doctrines and dogmas were in direct opposition to the beliefs of the Christian community [60].
Ironically, in the early days of the ecumenical movement, the Catholic Church did not desire to participate at all. [61] It was not until much later that ecumenism was considered by the RCC. In the IHSV article reproduced from “Voice Crying in The Wilderness”, the traditional Roman Catholic perspective of these events are discussed:
“It was during this time [62] that Charles Brent, an American Episcopal Bishop of the Philippines conceived the idea of assembling a great conference of delegates from all Christian confessions. A second conference was formed shortly after by Brent called the ‘Conference on Faith and Order.’ In 1919, the Holy See being invited to send delegates, politely declined. Pope Benedict XV explained that although his earnest desire was one fold and one shepherd, it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to join with others in search of unity. As for the Church of Christ, it is already one and could not give the appearance of searching for itself or for its own unity. It is reported that the Holy Father did not disapprove of the movement as something outside the Catholic Church, but by his own words it is obvious he knew it was not only futile, but dangerous and even scandalous to the Catholic Faithful to participate in seeking unity in such a manner” (IHSV 1997) [my emphasis].
This has traditionally been the stance of the RCC, when it came to collaborating with anyone who did not affirm all of the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.
For hundreds of years, adherents of the Roman Catholic belief system have been in bitter dispute with those who have chosen to follow in the footsteps of men such as John Huss, John Knox and Martin Luther, when it came to matters of doctrine.[63] The desire for the Catholic Church to reform its beliefs, remained strong among the followers of these and other men.
B.) Proponents of Ecumenism
1.) Christendom
Recently, however, the wind has changed. Literally millions of Christians have decided to begin to ally themselves with the Roman Catholic Church, through the vehicle of the ecumenical movement. Evangelical ‘giants’ and ‘midgets’ alike have jumped on the ecumenical bandwagon and have either joined or are in the process of joining forces with the Roman Catholic Church, even though the bulk of these individuals and groups are not fully comprised of the Catholic Church’s official stance on many issues.
a.) Lutherans
Although not necessarily at the forefront of this movement, even the Lutherans -- those who have traditionally agreed with the teachings of Martin Luther -- have chosen to wade into the uncertain waters of an ecumenically based unity.
Intriguingly, this change of heart has not come about for the reasons which Luther would have wanted them to. Martin Luther would have desired to have the Catholic Church recognize that Jesus is Lord and that justification is through faith alone, not only in theory, but in reality. Alas, this has not occurred.
While many are mouthing the ‘right words’, the doctrines which have traditionally set Catholics and Protestants at odds, remain canon within the Roman Catholic Church itself. Indeed, in the document, “Final Proposal Of The Joint Declaration On The Doctrine Of Justification”, the Lutheran World Federation declared that there was now a “consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification” and have said that this consensus “shows that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations” (Akin Lutheran - Catholic Joint Declaration” 1997). [64]
These statements stand alone, however. While the Catholic Church readily agrees that they have the beginnings of a basis for consensus and even venture to say that salvation is sola fide (by faith alone), they also state that there are still some issues which separate them from the Lutheran Church. These differences were the essence of Luther’s argument to begin with. In their official response to the “Final Proposal”, the Roman Catholic Church said this:
The Catholic Church maintains . . . that the good works of the justified are always the fruit of grace. But at the same time, and without in any way diminishing the totally divine initiative, they are also the fruit of man, justified and interiorly transformed. We can therefore say that eternal life is, at one and the same time, grace and the reward given by God for good works and merits. (Akins “Response of The Catholic Church” 1997).
The issue which divided Luther from the Roman Catholics, is still tenaciously defended by the Catholic Church. In spite of this, the Lutheran World Federation has chosen to continue across the threshold, towards unity.
This is far from the type of unity pictured by Christ and His followers within the pages of the Bible. While the Body of Christ must exhibit love at all times, that love must be based on the Truth. Anything less is not love at all, but simple deception, designed to destroy, rather than unite the people who purport to believe in God and want to live their lives out in a manner which will be glorifying to Him.
b.) The Heavyweights
Even the most influential among Christ’s body have decided to unite with the RCC. Among the list are Evangelist Billy Graham and Chuck Colson, not to mention the leaders of the highly acclaimed movement, known as the Promise Keepers. These men are looked upon by believers today, with the same faith and conviction as the members of the Catholic Church look toward the Pope. Although sola scriptura (by the scriptures alone) has been touted among non-Catholics as the measuring stick by which they conduct themselves, often the utterances of these men are taken over those of God’s Word.
In any case, although one cannot deny that these men have each made a sizable impact in the world for Christ, their choice of allegiance with the Roman Catholic Church must be questioned, in light of the information
brought forth previously in this paper. [65]
Undoubtedly looked upon as the Evangelistic giant of our time, Billy Graham has managed to use pulpits, television stations, the radio, and even newspapers and periodicals to disseminate the message of the Gospel to millions. With the notable exception of Pope John Paul II, Billy has, without a doubt, become the most recognized and respected religious leader of the world.
However, for the past 40 years or so, he has also advocated a joint ministry with both the traditional and not so traditional [66] elements of the Roman Catholic Church. This has not always been the case. In the forties, when he first made an appearance on the scene, young Graham sported a doctrinal stance which agreed without question, with even the most ‘fundamental’ denominations. His beliefs were, in the truest sense of the word, ‘orthodox’ (Ashbrook 1992).
In addition to his conviction that Scripture was inerrant and his belief that that all men were in need of Jesus’ saving Blood to rescue them from their profound condition of being lost, Billy Graham was known for his stand against the Roman Catholic Church, even in 1950. It was in this year, that Dr. Robert Ketcham from the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, happened across an article which implied that Graham was in favor of both Jewish and Roman Catholic participation in a revival in Oregon. This article also mentioned that Billy had apparently allowed a Roman Catholic Church to deal with some of the response cards turned in at a crusade. In reply to the report, Dr. Ketcham wrote Mr. Graham’s executive secretary, Jerry Bevan. What follows, is an excerpt from the response Dr. Ketcham received, regarding his concerns:
For example, you asked if Billy Graham had invited Roman Catholics and Jews to cooperate in the evangelistic meetings. Such a thought, even if the reporter did suggest it as having come from Mr. Graham, seems ridiculous to me. Surely you must know that it is not true... Further that you should give any credence to the idea that Mr. Graham would ever turn over any decision cards to the Roman Catholic Church seems inconceivable (Ashbrook 1992).
Today, an entirely different picture of this man may be seen. Not only has he praised the current pope . . . "He'll go down in history as the greatest of our modern Popes," says the Rev. Billy Graham. "He's been the strong conscience of the whole Christian world" (Gray 1994) . . . but he has even encouraged people who have just professed Christ, to be discipled by the Roman Catholic Church.
In his book, The New Neutralism II, John Ashbrook investigates the man, Graham. What he has come across, is truly astounding. In his words:
In September of 1979, The Christian Courier of Milwaukee, Wisconsin published the following report on the recent Milwaukee Crusade:
Sister Maureen Hopkins, Director of the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission of the Milwaukee Roman Catholic Archdiocese, and a liaison member of the Crusade committee, reported that 120 people have volunteered within the Catholic community to help her with the task of contacting each of the 3,500 inquiries. Sr. Maureen received the names and telephone numbers from the Crusade Committee, based upon the inquirers indication of leaving a Catholic background on his inquiry card... All 7,500 were immediately invited to a Eucharistic celebration which was held on August 16 at St. Theresa's Church in Milwaukee. The mass was attended by more than 400 people. The primary purpose for the mass was to remind the inquirers that their commitments to Christ should be nurtured within the sacramental framework of the church.
Christianity Today’s September 7, 1979 edition pointed out that Graham had sent a team member almost a year before the Crusade to conduct a seminar on the working of the Crusade for Milwaukee priests and lay workers. It is a tragedy that 3500 decision cards were turned over to the Roman Catholic Church, but, it is a worse tragedy when you realize that it did not "happen," It was planned by the world's best-known evangelist (Ashbrook 1992).
Without a doubt, this man has become an avid proponent of the Pope and The Catholic Church. He has, by virtue of his actions, been able to convince many Christians that it is all right to ally themselves with Rome and its Pope, in spite of the fact that it has not appeared to even change its essential stance on justification, let alone any other major error.
However, Billy Graham is not the only one who has managed to convey this message to the masses, by virtue of his words and actions. In his book, The Body, Chuck Colson recounts a story which may reveal his own lack of knowledge about the true doctrine to be found in the Roman Catholic Church:
A few years ago an international group of evangelical leaders met to prepare for a large conference in a country which happened to be predominantly Catholic. Since the conference was on a universal subject -- evangelism -- I urged that Catholic evangelicals [67] be invited (Colson 1992).
This man, who is looked upon by many as the epitome of Christianity, clearly believes that evangelism is a burden which should be shared without reserve with the Roman Catholic Church. Either Colson is willing to simply ignore the many colossal differences between traditional Catholicism and Christianity, in favor of unity, or he has not taken the time out to fully investigate this entity before making such a bold statement.
One is wise to note that this is not an isolated incident, either. Two years prior to having The Body published, Charles Colson promoted Evangelical Catholics, a book which was penned by Keith Fournier, a noted Catholic ‘Evangelical’ and avid proponent of ecumenism. In the forward to the text of the book itself, Colson admonishes,
“It is high time that all of us who are Christians come together, regardless of the difference of our confessions and our traditions and make [it our] common cause to bring Christian values to bear in our society. . . . Keith Fournier stands in the breach -- truly orthodox in his adherence to Catholic doctrine and fully evangelical in his relationship to Christ and His creation. . . . Without compromising or diluting his faith, without any false ecumenism, he calls all of us as Christians to our common heritage and mission” [68] (Colson for Fournier 1990).
The fact that Colson mentions that Fournier is ‘truly orthodox’ in his Catholic belief and uncompromising in his Catholic faith, disqualifies Fournier as being ‘truly Christian’, as the Bible defines it, at least.
Further, while Colson’s statement appears to uphold the essence of Christian love, he glosses over the real doctrinal divergences between Catholics and non-Catholics, in order to win both camps over to his belief that we need to ‘make it our common cause to bring Christian values to bear in our society’. Because of this, he actually nullifies love, because true love ‘rejoices in the truth’.
The same may be said about Mr. Fournier, the man whose book Colson foreworded. Although both men assert without reserve that they are indeed brothers in the Lord, neither one tackles the reality which remains clear in the light of the doctrine of infallibility; the fact that all of the anathemas (curses) mentioned in the Council of Trent[69] still stand officially (it is affirmed in the Vatican Council II and referenced many times in the 1994 edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church). These ‘traditions’ which have separated us have never been recanted, nor could they really ever be, since the doctrine of infallibility prevents this document from being ever perceived as ‘wrong’.
Sadly, many continue to believe that Colson is one of the many truly ‘progressive’ Christian believers who are doing the work of God. He does this ‘work’, however, by ignoring the glaring doctrinal faults within the Roman Catholic Church, in favor of completing evangelism a few years ahead of schedule.
Here, in the closing days of the millennium, a force which has apparently taken the world by storm, is that of the internationally acclaimed movement, the Promise Keepers. The founder of this movement, Bill McCartney, has made it very clear that he is in agreement with the assertions of the Billy Grahams and the Chuck Colsons of the Christian world. During the 1994 National Conference, he stated to the entire world what his intentions are, with respect to unity of the Church, even at the expense of the Truth. Jim Kirksey, a Denver Post Staff writer quoted McCartney recently:
‘It has become clear to me what God has in mind for Promise Keepers’, McCartney said. The answer, he said, was found in the Sermon on the Mount: ‘Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they are the sons of God.’ A peace-maker is one who brings warring factions together, he said. The reason there isn't a Catholic men's group filling stadiums around the country ‘is because God wants us together,’ he suggested. . . . In his talk, McCartney said Promise Keepers has set Jan. l, 2000, as the date for ’men of God...across the United States to stand up for Jesus Christ.’ He said he envisions 650,000 men in every state capitol gathering at the same time (Kirksey 1998).
These overtures have not only been observed by outsiders, either. Many within the Roman Catholic Church recognize this movement’s move toward unity with it, as well. On their web page, the New England Catholic Men’s Conference answered some key questions with respect to the relationship it had with the Promise Keepers movement:
What does the NECMC think of the Promise Keeper's movement? Of course, as Catholic Christians we are always happy to see other Christians growing in faith and building unity among other Christians. The US Bishops released in statement called "A Perspective on Promise Keepers" in June of 1996 which expressed cautious optimism, especially where we may have doctrinal differences (i.e. a greater emphasis on the literal sense of the Bible, uncertainty about the role of women, and a different understanding of ecclesiology -- the structure of the Christian church). At that time there was also some concern that PK was emphasizing Christian unity, but they had not involved any Catholics as speakers or board members. However, in 1997 they added a Catholic board member and had Catholic speakers at their events.
Are the Promise Keepers supportive of what you are doing? Yes. Promise Keepers has consistently affirmed efforts of individual churches or denominations to start men's ministry. Brian Doyle, the New England Promise Keeper's field representative, has continually offered help to Catholics, and any other denominational group throughout New England. He has also offered to promote our conference to the Catholic men he works with and has told us that he will avoid planning any events around the time of our conference. (NECMC n.d.). [my emphasis]
There is little need to delve further in this instance because it is clear that the new evangelism -- ecumenism -- is on the menu within the Promise Keepers organization.
c.) Other Notable Evangelicals
In addition to these ‘heavyweights’, there are a host of others who have jumped on the ecumenical bandwagon. Of these, many have chosen to reveal their alliance through their approval of the notorious document now commonly referred to as ECT. Included among the Evangelicals who have signed or have participated in the making of the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document, are men such as Bill Bright (Campus Crusade For Christ), as well as Mr. Charles Colson (Prison Fellowship), Pat Robertson (President of CBN), Dr. Os Guinness (Trinity Forum), Rev. Max Lucado (Oak Hills Church of Christ ), Dr. James J. I. Packer (Regent College, British Columbia), Dr. Robert A. Seiple (World Vision U.S.), and of course, Dr. John Woodbridge (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School), to name but a few. (“Evangelicals and Catholics Together” 1994).
Other proponents of the new ecumenism are men like Dr. Jack Van Impe and James Dobson, both highly acclaimed in the Christian world.
Again, while this author does not want to take away the contributions made to the cause of Christ by any of the men mentioned in the previous pages, nor does this writer desire to paint a picture which does not include this major error of judgment they have made. By virtue of agreeing with the ECT document or by stating in some way that they approve of ‘Evangelicals’ and ‘Catholics’ coming together, each of these men are guilty of leading many others astray.
2.) The Roman Catholic Church and Ecumenism
One must remember that this is not, however, a one sided romance. The Pope and the organization he represents are looking for a renewal in their church which would bring about a renewed unity with the non-Catholic world. However, neither he, nor the RCC is willing to recant their position on justification, Mariology, purgatory, or any other dogma to accomplish this. Instead, some small adjustments have been made within the church itself, in order to have it appear more palatable to most people [70].
In chapter 22 of his book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II speaks candidly about the RCC’s plans, ecumenically speaking:
Before speaking about disappointments it is appropriate to speak briefly on the Second Vatican Council's initiative once more to set the Church on the path of ecumenism. This path is very dear to me. . . .
Good will is needed in order to realize how various interpretations and ways of practicing the faith can come together and complement each other. There is also the need to determine where genuine divisions start, the point beyond which the faith is compromised. It is legitimate to affirm that the gap between the Catholic and the Orthodox Church is not very wide. On the other hand, with regard to the Churches and the communities originating in the Reformation, we must recognize that the gap is considerably wider, since several fundamental elements established by Christ were not respected [71].
Clearly, the disappointments to which you referred were bound to arise in the case of individuals or groups that viewed the problem of Christian unity in too casual and superficial a way. Many enthusiastic people, sustained by great optimism, were ready to believe that the Second Vatican Council had already resolved the problem. But the Council only opened the road to unity, committing first of all the Catholic Church; but that road itself is a process, which must gradually overcome many obstacles-whether of a doctrinal or a cultural or a social nature-that have accumulated over the course of centuries. It is necessary, therefore, to rid ourselves of stereotypes, of old habits. And above all, it is necessary to recognize the unity that already exists.
Taking all this into consideration, it is difficult not to acknowledge that the Catholic Church has enthusiastically embraced ecumenism in all its complexity and carries it out day after day with great seriousness. Naturally, real unity is not and cannot be the fruit of human forces alone.
By the year 2000 we need to be more united, more willing to advance along the path toward the unity for which Christ prayed on the eve of His Passion. This unity is enormously precious. In a certain sense, the future of the world is at stake. The future of the Kingdom of God in the world is at stake. Human weaknesses and prejudices cannot destroy God's plan for the world and for humanity. If we appreciate this, we can look to the future with a certain optimism. We can trust that "the one who began this good work in us will bring it to completion" (cf. Phil 1:6) (Pope John Paul II 1994). [his emphasis]
While Pope John Paul II is undoubtedly passionate about the idea of reuniting for ‘the cause of Christ’, in reality, the fundamental differences make it very difficult, at best, to truly spread the whole counsel of God. One would have to relegate oneself to preaching nothing more than a watered-down version of the Truth, which is not Truth at all.
What is very interesting, is the fact that the Pope is unwilling to relinquish even an iota of power, in order to accomplish his task. In myriads of documents, the Pontiff agrees with and upholds the doctrine of Papal Primacy within the Church. One such document, is the latest release from the Vatican itself on the subject. In it, Cardinal Ratzinger says this about the future of Christendom, should the RCC and the non-Catholics unite under one banner:
[I]t is only the Pope-- or the Pope with an ecumenical council-- who can make a final judgment on how the papal ministry should be exercised. On the other hand, it notes that the papal primacy is not a matter of absolute power, since the Pope, like Peter, makes his decisions in a collegial setting, after consulting with the bishops of the world. Against that background, the document suggests that all Christians should pray for a favorable resolution of the discussion on papal primacy-- a resolution that would allow Church unity and the exercise of papal primacy as Christ intended it (ETWNews 1998). [my emphasis]
The path is clear, as far as the RCC is concerned. Should the non-Catholic churches ever fully rejoin forces with the RCC, it is almost certain that they would be forced to accept the Headship of the Pope, rather than remaining under the Headship of Christ, where they belong. This would be a tragedy of the nth degree, were it ever to occur.
C. Is Ecumenism A Valid Avenue For Evangelism, Then?
Without hesitation, based on all of the evidence compiled, this author would answer, “No, it is not a valid avenue to effect the Great Commission, given to us by our Master. On the contrary. It would be better to remain
utterly SILENT to the world than to be like the people to whom this warning was addressed:
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. (Matthew 23: 15 ) [my emphasis]
By continuing to participate in the lie of the ‘new evangelism’, ecumenism, the Body of Christ is choosing to sacrifice doctrinal purity for the sake of numbers and appearances. Anything less than the whole Gospel is not the Gospel at all but is a lie from the pit of hell. As such, then, it ought not to be spread, lest the converts of this half-truth end up becoming sons of hell in the process. The stakes are just too high. Souls hang in the balance and this author is one who is not willing to take that kind of a chance with someone else’s eternal destiny.
APPENDICES | INDEX| BACK | PART VI | CEPHAS FILES
Please tell your friends about our website: http://www.cephasministry.com