Getting back to
ecumenism , and my promise to give some details of early efforts under that name, let me start with a plain statement that William Carey, prominent Baptist missionary and evangelist was a supporter of ecumenism - not neccessarily as it has been co-opted by the WCC, but as the word itself intends. For those not familiar with Carey, see:
http://www.williamcarey.org/ which includes a list of churches in the Carey Baptist Association of Churches (I think I got the title right).
The following, though long, is a bit of history about ecumenical efforts from 1910 through 1947. This is prior to the WCC, the policies of which is what most who oppose "ecumenism" truly oppose. I apologize in advance for the length.
Councils of Unity and for Mission, 1910-1947
The Edinburgh meeting of 1910 was described as an “outgrowth and climax of” earlier gathering including meetings in New York and London in 1854, London in 1888, and the Ecumenical Missionary Conference of 1900 in New York. It is clearly at least a follow-on to those meetings. William Carey had even suggested such a meeting as early as 1810 in Capetown, although there is no direct evidence that Edinburgh was a result of that call.
John R. Mott, a Methodist layman, headed the first of the preparatory commissions and presided at most of the sessions at Edinburgh. He was, in his lifetime, well known as a plain-spoken leader in ecumenism. He was active in the student movement, recruiting students not only into the Christian faith, but also for the work of spreading the Gospel of Christ, moreover for active service in the interdenominational Christian movements.
Joseph H. Oldham was the Executive Secretary of Edinburgh and shared with Mott the major creative thinking of the conference. He later became the Secretary of the Continuation Committee and the first Secretary of the IMC. He had been involved in the Student Christian Movement of Great Britain and Ireland, and the YMCA in India, as a secretary. His commitment to ecumenical Christian missionary movements, especially with students, is well established.
The leadership of Edinburgh 1910 was hence built on a foundation of (multi-denominational - including lots of Baptists - ed. 11/5/02) student volunteer missionary movement and the ecumenism inherent in that task. The two primary figures were strong in their missionary movement activity both before and after the Edinburgh Conference. In fact, the conference itself was composed of delegates from missionary societies, but not all missionary societies - only those which were operating among non-Christians. Those which were actively recruiting converts from other Christian denominations or forms of the Faith were not included. Thus there was not only an air of missionary zeal in the leadership, but also a marked absence of denominational ‘competition’ for existing parishioners.
Three of the eight commissions of this missionary conference were decidedly ecumenical in function. They were: Carrying the Gospel to all the Non-Christian World, the Church in the Mission Field, and Co-operation and the Promotion of Unity. These emphasized the growth of ecumenism in practice in successful missionary fields.
Edinburgh 1910 made a special effort to include younger Churches such as Indian and Chinese Churches. Although still primarily an overwhelmingly Anglo-American conference, others were consciously included as full participants. Perhaps the greatest claim against this being a truly ecumenical conference was the exclusion of Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches.
...Based on Edinburgh alone, we find ecumenism recognized as a fact of successful mission work and emphasized, or rather publicly recognized as such. Further, by intentionally not inviting those groups which hinder and even fight against ecumenism, one may easily infer from the negative that ecumenism was stressed not only as a positive, but also as an imperative for evangelism of the non-Christian world.
After the Edinburgh Conference, ecumenical developments occurred more quickly in younger Churches and institutions. This is a natural result of their having less traditional resistance to overcome than established institutions.
But co-operation was indeed growing on a global scale, beginning with a series of eighteen regional conferences held in Asia in 1912-13.
Although interrupted by the Great War (the First World War) and the restrictions on German missions placed by the Treaty of Versailles, ecumenism continued to grow especially through the mission fields of India, China, and Korea. John R. Stott, however, makes a statement, without presenting facts to back up what he apparently considers obvious, that World War One “and all its bitter results in wasted lives, lost opportunities, strained relationships and tragic misunderstandings...” rendered a tremendous blow to missions, claiming the “setback to the fulfillment of Edinburgh’s vision was incalculable.
A meeting of the International Missionary Council (IMC) took place in October 1921 at Lake Mohonk, NY, with Mott and Oldham presiding. The key result of this meeting was to formally constitute an international body with a purpose of emphasizing co-operation in missions. It was to meet every two years, or as needed, to promote ecumenical fellowship in missions. This body met in Jerusalem, on the Mount of Olives in 1928, and at Tambaram, on the outskirts of Madras, in 1938.
The Jerusalem meeting included the presentation of studies including such topics as: religious education, missions and race conflict, missions and industrialism, and missions and rural problems. From this came the coordinated efforts of Kenyon Butterfield, who gave counsel to missions and churches in many countries. Further emphasis was placed on providing help all these areas as well as economics. Another result of the Jerusalem Conference was the creation of the International Committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews. Finally, Jerusalem was well represented by increased numbers from younger, non-western churches. This, and the Christian message, gave rise to increased evangelism especially in the Far-East, with the Kingdom of God Movement in Japan and the Five Year Forward Movement in China.
The meeting at Tambaram in December of 1938 was indeed larger than the Jerusalem meeting Younger churches represented slightly more than half of the delegates and the emphasis was on the Church and the increased role of these younger churches in evangelism. The title of the meeting was: The Authority of the Faith, and an emphasis was on the achievement of unity. Indeed, a sense of Christian unity that held hard against the strain of the Second World War was a major product of Tambaram.
A major concern in Tambaram was the “rise of so-called ‘new paganism’ like the atheistic communism of Russia and the narrow aggressive nationalism of Germany, Italy, and Japan, not to mention the resurgence of eastern religions....”
It is clear that these conferences arose from the missionary movement and built upon the missionary successes found in ecumenism. They each continue(d) to have at (their) heart world-wide evangelism, especially in their focus on the practicable aspects on ecumenism. So, “does the evidence from the missionary conferences (from) Edinburgh to Tambaram support the conclusion that the ecumenical movement arose from the missionary movement and continues to have at its heart world-wide evangelism?’ The answer to both parts of this question is clearly and unequivocally yes, at least through the conference at Tambaram; beyond that conference, I am not prepared to take such a firm stand. The next landmark year, it seems, is 1948, and several changes had taken place by then which had shaken the foundations of ecumenism in mission.
