Scriptorium Daily
It’s ironic that the words “evangelicalism” and “ecumenism” are seen as diametrically opposed, because Christians really need both. The former camp majors on truth, while the latter on unity. Why is this?
Evangelicals hold to the evangel, i.e. the Gospel, which is often interpreted as doctrine (though I would argue that those are slightly different despite there being tremendous overlap). The problem is, “truth” is often seen as one’s own interpretation of Truth. There is a difference. So evangelicals will even argue with one another, for example infant baptism vs. believers’ baptism, and they will bash each other as “heretics” and “sinners” (even over nonessential issues), forsaking unity and fellowship for the sake of “truth.” The irony is, despite their avowed claim on absolute truth, it really becomes each person’s own relativistic version of the Truth. I think that on the things that the Bible is absolutely clear on (e.g. the Trinity, the exclusivity of Christ, the authority of Scripture, the necessity of the death & resurrection of Jesus), we also need to be absolutely clear. On things the Bible is unclear about (e.g. mode of baptism, view of eschatology, role of women, God’s sovereignty and human responsibility), we need to have an educated opinion but also be open and willing to hear the other side as possibly viable, lest we become dogmatic and presume we know for sure, when really it’s just one’s own interpretation of Scripture.
On the other side, Ecumenists hold so strongly to unity, but often that unity is put at such a primary importance that doctrine is secondary. It really doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as we are all in harmony. So when the World Council of Churches, the ultimate ecumenical organization, tries to unite all Christian denominations in the world, they sweep all differences under the rug and the only thing that everyone can agree on is “Jesus is Lord”! And I’m not even sure what that even means to them. It seems nonsensical to unite when there’s no basis for unity. Unity implies commonality, and when it is relegated to the lowest common denominator, then the next logical step seems to be universalism, where all we believe in is “God,” and not even in Christ. Another detrimental side effect to this is that “mission” becomes solely social justice instead of involving any kind of faith or evangelism. What happens when theological differences become relegated to the periphery is that everyone can only agree that we ought to love our neighbor (but even non-Christians can affirm that to some degree, so I don’t know what makes that distinctively Christian)! So it just becomes love of neighbor without love of God; or, if there is any sense of love of God, it is a vague universalist god.
The Bible, though, is pretty clear that truth and unity must go hand-in-hand. In Jesus’ high priestly prayer in John 17, he says: “that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me…. I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.” Unity is for the sake of witness to the exclusivity of Christ! Rather than being diametrically opposed, they must go together. We must be both evangelical and ecumenical.
I was encouraged to hear that Olav Fykse Tveit of Norway, the new General Secretary of the World Council of Churches (as of January 1, 2010), yesterday made a pronouncement:
To be one, the Church must go back to its common basis. Nothing except Jesus Christ, and him crucified… Seen in the perspective of the resurrection, the cross becomes the sign of God’s victory over sin and evil and of God’s unconditional love to all human beings. We are one as Christians because we receive the same gift of God’s being with us and for us… It doesn’t sound like very diplomatic language, [but the cross is] the symbol of what the churches have to give to the world… nothing except Jesus Christ, and him crucified… [The cross offers] substance and direction to the ecumenical movement… How shall we, then, best give shape to the ecumenical movement of the cross in our time? And how can the ecumenical movement be a movement of the cross – the tree of life?
I would say that the cross is the most inclusive thing in the world because it shows that: 1) everyone is sinful and is in need of a Savior; and 2) that anyone who comes to faith in Christ can be saved, it is not a matter of our own works or our own righteousness.
I do hope that Olav Tveit is signaling the start of a new era for the WCC. Vague universalism doesn’t appeal to the majority of people in this world. Churches who believe that are dying empty churches. People want a foundation to stand on. I’d rather deal with a Muslim who believes in absolute truth (though it be a different “absolute truth” than what I believe), because at least we can dialogue. It is near impossible to dialogue with someone who thinks that all ways lead to God and there is no need to articulate what you believe. But it is also nigh impossible to dialogue with someone who has drawn their boundaries so tightly that they have no room for ideas outside of their own, that arrogant dogmatism is the only mode they know how to operate in.
May we have both truth and unity in proper proportion to each other!
