Ecumenical Movement

I think it depends on what we mean by Ecumenical. I personaly will not attend say a Ecumenical Easter service or a ministerial alliance made up of Modalists, Roman Catholics, liberal protestants in that there is no common unity in theology.

On the other hand, a Reformed theology group such as the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals that is made up of Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans and others who hold a common faith I have no problem in attending and participating in because of a common theology.

Of course if you are Landmark Baptist in theology that will be a problem.

 

I for one like cooperating with other Christian groups in local missions like soup kitchens, battered women's shelters, etc., and in theological education. I don't think Baptists have a monopoly on the gospel, although we'd like to think so.

 

I am far from ecumentical, but many Baptists seperate over every little thing. There are other Christians (of course, none as good) lol

 

If I were to ask how many would decline to help those fellows that were trapped in the flooded mine a couple of weeks ago because your fellow rescuers were of a different faith or non-believers, I doubt I would have any takers. But ask some to stand beside a methodist in a soup kitchen serving line and there would be many declining. I am not condeming your views, just trying to understand them. Justified has brought this subject up many times and I am glad to see a thread on it, as it is new to me. My questions is--if you would have no problem working with someone who has a more liberal outlook on their theology than you to save their life, why wouldnt God use you to work with them to save their soul? I know it's more complicated than this. Just random thoughts. Thanks.

 

I do not agree with ecumenicism in churches nor on the mission field. Baptist theology did not occur by accident. It is a New Testament faith backed by a guiding belief in the sole sufficiency of Scripture for salvation and the governing of a church. Though this principle may not be unique to Baptist, it is certainly embraced by them.

Soup kitchens? Community relief efforts? Sure. These are a Christian's responsibility. I see no problems with that.

However, I am unwilling to allow Presyterian church polity into my church that threatens my church's autonomy. I am unwilling to allow infants to be baptized with a message that this is equal to believer's baptism. I am also not willing to allow my children to believe in a concept of a real eucharist that has some type of mystical salvific properties. These concepts are not Scriptural and are thus not Baptist.

Ecumenicism waters down a church's doctrine. It threatens the purity of the belief system that men were jailed and beaten to preserve in the early days of this denomination. It is a real danger to the preperation of the Bride awaiting Christ's return. It also potentialy thratens the very salvation of the individual believer.

Too many folks look at the church as a numbers game. If we allow "looser" doctrine we will attract more people. Nonesense! Christ told us that narrow is the gate and few will enter through it. He also told us that not all who cry Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom. These are the very words of Christ! Paul also added this:

Do a search on the word "doctrine" in the Epistles and you will see that Paul was very concerned about the preservation of Scriptural principles in the early churches. This is nothing new.

 

Longshot and Cook jr are both correct, of course. But working in a soup kitchen, or pulling miners out of a mine, is not what the ecumenical business is all about. Clint explained the situation very well and I agree with much of Clint’s comments.

Ecumenical gatherings are when “church leaders” from differing backgrounds, all come together in a sort of quasi- Ecclesiastical conference. The idea is to gather a better understanding of each other (a bizarre form of male bonding among the church elite).

In reality, Ecumenical gatherings are the result of bored church leaders with too much time on their hands. So, they form buddy groups and call it an ecumenical “conference” or “gathering” or whatever else they want to call it. It is basically a sad effort to find significance.

Ecumenical pandering gives meaning and purpose to church leaders who would rather hob-nob with their ilk, rather than visit the sick in the hospital, tend to the needs of the church community, reach out to women in crisis, assist men in trouble, or aide the suffering among us all. All of these MEANINGFUL things take time and effort - something too many church leaders sadly reject. They prefer to leave that “boring” stuff for the “membership and outreach committee” to deal with.

Finally: show me some examples in the Bible where Jesus engaged in “Ecumenical” nonsense. I can’t find it.

latterrain77

 

I think it is important to recognise that what passes for "ecumenism these days has little in common with the Ecumenical movement of the last century.

For myself, I espouse co-operation in areas of agreement. So for instance I would work with a presbyterian in an evangelism program.

I do not affirm participating in services with multidenominational participation (let alone inter-faith) without the understanding that each participant gets to espouse their views without restriction.

 

I generaly agree with latterain and Clint if you are referring to your typical ecumenical gathering. I would not participate in such because of lack of any doctrinal unity.

There is however a group such as the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals http://www.alliancenet.org/intro/intro.html that seeks to bring Churches of various denominations who hold to the basic principles of the Reformation to have fellowship and Bible conferances together. This is not a quasi- Ecclesiastical conference but rather a loose alliance.

In my area we have a monthly fellowship of Reformed (Calvinist) churches in my area. I believe it is 3 Reformed Baptist churches, 1 Presbyterian church, 1 Reformed Episcopal church and 1 Calvinist Methodist. There is a meal and fellowship before the meeting and then a speaker from one of the churches gives a message. Issues such a baptism, church government and issues of division are avoided since the purpose is to have a time of fellowship and encourage one another on the essential truths of the Reformation.

latterrain77 asked,

The problem with the question is that there were no denominations in Jesus day but Christ did pray that we be one (John 17). There is a danger of viewing Baptist churches as the only Christian churches if we take an extreme anti Ecumenical position and on the other hand there is a danger of compromising Baptist principles by engaging in your typical liberal Ecumenical setting. That does not mean that churches that have some like minded beliefs however cannot cross denominational boundaries and celebrate our oneness in Christ.

 

Forget bringing denominations together. There's no such thing in the Bible. What we need in a Holy Spirit movement.

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

If people were honest and true with themselves, not letting pride, fear, or tradition guide them, you'd see the Lord cut off a lot of stupid doctrines.

 

There are to sides to ecumenicism. Some are trying to unify doctrine. This is wrong. But the other side is about unity *despite* difference in doctrine: in other words, keep your "distinctives" distinct, but work together anyway for the common good of Christ's kingdom. Unity in diversity sort of thing. This is very very good in my opinion.

 

What does "ecumenical" mean primarily in today's culture: Christians working with other Christians, or Christians working with adherents of other religions?

 

Interesting hypothetical, Justified. And I understand where you're coming from with this. Example; Many of my in-laws are Pentacostal. Do I want my kids exposed to that? Yes. As Clint said, the Baptist faith did'nt happen by accident, and I did'nt become one and have my children taught in one by accident. If they come home and ask why we do this or dont do that, I do what Baptists do...show em in the Bible. Another example; They have been trained, on the range, in the use of firearms. If they go into a FRIENDS house and their irresponsible father left a pistol on the TV they would know what to do and what not to do. My question to you Justified, (and please dont think I'm fronting you, just trying to see where you're coming from), is your ralley against the ecumenicalism of today strictly church related or does it carry over to public life and into separatism? Thanks.

 

This corrects some presumptions I had made (and probably had no right to make). Thank you for your response.

 

I don't have a bible right in front of me, but I seem to recall an incident where Jesus rebuked his disciples after they told a man to stop driving out demons in Jesus' name because "he was not one of us". Seems like Jesus thinks the tent of faith is bigger than we do.

 

Hi David! Thank you for the comments. I think you are referring to Mark 9: 37-39;

"Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me. And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me" (Mark 9: 37-39).

I don't believe these verses promote the "ecumenical" church at all. It does the exact opposite, which I shall illustrate in a moment. Most ecumenical stuff today is simply church corporate work. Pastors puffing up other pastors, cracking jokes with each other, trying to feel important, feigning religious thought, pretending the weightier things of "religious thinking," all of it a pretense – in other words – a priestly party!

Mark 9:37-39 is speaking about a man who TRULY believed, who did GOD’s work, yet did NOT engage in the congregational ecumenical pow-wow that John was so concerned about. Here is why:

Notice the important words “he follow not US” in verse 38. TWICE in verse 38, John used the word “US.” This indicates that John was more concerned that this man was not following the corporate ecumenical “US," than he was in the man following JESUS.

What did the man in Mark 9 do? He cast out devils in CHRIST’s name (he did not do this in the name of the corporate church “US”). This man did NOT follow or join the ecumencial “US” church and this is what bothered John, causing him to complain about it.

Yet, Jesus said forbid him not! (v39). Meaning that the LORD endorsed this man, because the man was doing the LORD’s work - though not the ecumenical CHURCH work that John craved.

Notice how the LORD rejects John’s ecumenical plea. The LORD said that NO true believer can speak evil of JESUS (again, no reference to the church). Furthermore, in v37, the LORD refers only to HIMSELF (me, my). FIVE times in this verse alone, the LORD says ME/MY. Not ONCE does the LORD ever say "US." John says "US" because John, not JESUS, is concerned about ecumenical things.

So, you see David, the verse you cite actually illustrates the Lord’s REJECTION of the ecumenical corporate garbage that John was so flustered over, and which the LORD rejected. These verses illustrate the feebleness of the ecumenical concept. The LORD only cares about men following HIM!

How lucky we are David. We can focus on JESUS (like the man in Mark 9: 37-39 did). We can let the “pastors” focus on their ecumenical “tea parties.”

latterrain77

[ August 29, 2002, 06:13 AM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

latterrain77,
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the Mark passage, as I think it was intended to illustrate how Jesus decides who's a part of his church, not us. I also think we have a basic difference in our concept of "ecumenical". I am not in favor of combining with non-baptist churches with "top-down" leadership as it would sacrifice local church autonomy. Niether do I envision a bunch of country club meetings of rich preachers. I'm talking about a cooperative movement to pool resources to better spread the gospel and help the sick and needy. I also like an ecumenical approach to theological education, although for Baptist pastors I prefer that the school at least have a Baptist pastor "track" or "emphasis" if it is not a traditional Baptist seminary.