| Highlights of Dawn | February 1965 |
The Ecumenical Movement
IN RELIGIOUS circles generally, the word “ecumenical” means world-wide in influence. An ecumenical council is one which represents an entire church. Such was the Vatican-sponsored council, the third session of which closed last November. This Ecumenical Council was motivated by the desire to make the Roman Catholic Church more acceptable to the Christian world as a whole, and notably to the Greek Catholic and Protestant segments of that world. The ecumenical movement among non-Catholics envisions the working together of at least all the Protestant churches, and perhaps a closer relationship to the two great Catholic ecclesiastical organizations, the Greek and the Roman.
Protestant observers at the last session of the Vatican Ecumenical Council have expressed disappointment over the meager progress that was made toward making the Catholic Church less distasteful to the general body of Protestants. It became clear that the Catholic Church had no intention of giving up its traditional and dogmatic viewpoint that she is the one and only true church, and that Protestants could be looked upon at best as separated brethren, who, in order to have the full favor of God, and the blessings of Papacy, must return to the fold of Catholicism.
A majority of the more than 2,000 bishops and cardinals who assembled for the Vatican Council were also disappointed with the results of their efforts. This majority represented the liberal and progressive delegates, while a minority were conservatives who fought against essentially all changes which were proposed. One of the internal issues brought before the council pertained to whether or not the Pope should continue to exercise the complete and unchallengeable control over the church which he has in the past, or whether this control should be shared by the bishops, particularly with respect to matters of local concern.
This suggested new arrangement was described by the word “collegiality.” And while a great majority of the bishops voted for collegiality, arbitrary decisions by the Pope during the closing days of the council led them to believe that the Pope would continue to have his own way, regardless of their viewpoints. One of these decisions was the postponing of a vote on the question of religious liberty. It became apparent from the discussions on this topic by the delegates that heretofore the Catholic Church has not believed in Christian liberty, except for herself.
By force of circumstances this viewpoint of the Catholic Church had to be somewhat modified in practice in countries where Catholics are in the minority, such as in the United States. But this does not reflect a change of viewpoint. It is simply a necessary accommodation to circumstances. The progressive bishops at the council wanted the church to go on record as being in favor of Christian liberty in all countries, even in countries where she had the power to prevent the religious activities of non-Catholics. But they failed to accomplish this, at least for the present. The Pope has called the fourth and what will probably be the last session of the Ecumenical Council to convene in September of this year. He has promised that the question of religious liberty will be the first to be considered. Shortly before the close of the last session of the Council, Paul Johnson, a Catholic writer in the New Statesman (England) wrote:
“The great Vatican Council, hailed as the dawn of a new era in the history of Roman Catholicism, is tottering to the end of its third session. It is now difficult to believe that anything can be saved from the wreckage of this expensive and over publicized fiasco. The council’s object, in the words of the man who summoned it, was to bring the Church up to date. All that has been demonstrated is that the Church, as at presently constituted, is totally incapable of dealing with the modern world.
“The council has caused some erratic movements in the theological stock exchange. Shares in the Virgin Mary—always in the past a sound investment—have fallen sharply. The Devil is out, and so was hell-fire until it crept back in again. The Jews are to be half forgiven for killing Christ—released on probation, as it were—provided they don’t do it again. … I have often thought that religion is too serious a business to be left to the clergy.”
Jewish leaders express mixed sentiments on the value of the action taken by the Vatican Council to absolve the Jews from guilt in the crucifixion of Jesus. Leo Pfeffer, addressing the American Jewish Congress, is reported in the New York Daily News as saying,
“The world of tomorrow will not accept a church which forbids effective population control, denies the right of expression to the dogmas of other faiths, and requires of its adherents an unquestioning belief in the infallibility of one human being. The schema on the Jews, when it is finally promulgated, will be an act of self-interest on the part of the church; enlightened self-interest, but self-interest nonetheless.”
What It Means
The fact that the late Pope John deemed it important to change the appearance of the Catholic Church in the eyes of the world was an admission that Catholicism was becoming less popular in a changing world, particularly since one of the changes taking place is reflected in a growing attitude of tolerance among religionists of essentially all faiths. And while the schema on religious liberty was not adopted, the mere holding of the council has brought about a greater degree of tolerance toward Protestants than has ever before existed.
Since the vast majority of the bishops who attended the Vatican Council were enthusiastically on the side of religious liberty for all faiths, and in every country, lesser lights in the church will probably be influenced somewhat by this viewpoint of the majority of their leaders. On the other hand, thwarting of the desires of the majority by a small minority backed up by the Pope has dealt a damaging blow to the prestige of the Catholic Church in many circles. So, while the Church endeavored to put on a better appearance in the eyes of the world, she has succeeded merely in exposing her outmoded garments of despotism and intolerance.
Protestants Also
As all know, the ecumenical movement is not limited to the efforts of the Catholic Church to reach her “separated brethren,” for most denominations throughout the Protestant world are moving toward a better understanding and increased co-operation which will make them a more powerful influence in a world which is becoming more and more irreligious. But not all Protestant leaders are enthusiastic over the ecumenical efforts which are being made. Henry A. Buchanan and Bob W. Brow, both ministers, and graduates of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, say that they are in fear of a superchurch. In a syndicated article they write:
“Suppose that the ecumenical movement should succeed. Suppose that all the churches unite into one, and that this one church becomes the sole repository of religious doctrine, the sole arbiter of man’s spiritual destiny. Where will the dissenter, the nonconformist, the individualist go? Where will a man go if he finds himself at variance with a doctrine or, worse still, the governing authority of that one church? The ultimate theological implications of the one-church concept are obvious. There would be only one place for the dissenter. The one church would say he must go to hell.”
This view is based on the supposition that the ecumenical spirit will ultimately prevail so completely throughout the professed Christian world that all the Protestant denominations will one day be willing to accept the leadership of the Catholic Church, and be ruled by the Vatican. Such a situation is not a pleasant one to contemplate, especially in view of the Catholic Church’s record of performance during the Dark Ages, when she was the undisputed religious ruler of the old Roman world.
Another View
But those who are fostering the ecumenical movement do not have in mind what our Southern Baptist friends speak of as a superchurch, certainly not a church which would dictate to its people what they must believe, and how they must conduct their religious lives. Their objective is the very reverse of this, for they are promoting the idea that doctrines are not important anyway, and that all religious groups should be able to work together in a common cause of moral uplift while retaining their own individual views and creeds. Coercion and persecution could hardly fit into an arrangement of this kind.
However, the fear on the part of some is that while a large measure of tolerance is now envisioned by those who are working toward a united churchianity, if and when this is accomplished the temptation will rise to force the few standouts into the organization, and, failing in this, the spirit of intolerance will quickly develop, and we will be back in the Dark Ages.
Meanwhile, however, the spirit of tolerance being engendered by the ecumenical ideology creates an atmosphere in which the Gospel of the kingdom can be promulgated with little interference. Those enlightened by present truth should take advantage of this situation, and make the fullest possible use of this favorable opportunity to let their light shine out for the benefit of those who may have the “hearing ear.”
Wrong Objective
Soon after the apostles fell asleep in death the professed followers of the Master lost sight of the true objective of their efforts. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel as a witness as Jesus instructed, they developed the erroneous notion that their commission from God was to convert the whole world and make everyone a member of the church. They theorized that to accomplish this a great and imposing organization was needed. The view developed, and later was put into practice, that the church needed to join with the state in governing the people, and thus to impose churchianity upon them. Indeed, it was by this means that so-called Christianity was forced upon one European state after another, and thus it was the whole populace of each of these states in turn became “Christian” in name.
And even with the advent of Protestantism this viewpoint continued to prevail. Protestant leaders joined hands with the state, and the church-state system of government continued to prevail, the only difference being that the church arm of a number of the European governments was now Protestant instead of Catholic. The Protestant denominations also believed it was their commission to convert the world, hence their supposed need of imposing and powerful organizations. This is how the word “Christendom” developed. It means Christ’s kingdom, and Catholic and Protestant denominations alike claimed that the whole church-state system of which they were a part was Christ’s kingdom.
Not in This Age
The Scriptures reveal clearly that it was not the divine plan for the kingdom of Christ to rule the world during the present Gospel Age. Instead, the work of the Lord, accomplished through the self-sacrificing services of faithful followers of the Master, has been to bear witness to the kingdom truth. This Gospel of the kingdom invites believers to forsake all and follow Jesus in suffering and death. On the whole, few have responded to this invitation. Even a smaller number have proved loyal to their vows of consecration. But the loyal and faithful ones are assured that they will be brought forth in the “first resurrection” to live and reign with Christ in a world-wide government which will truly convert the world, and establish righteousness and peace throughout the earth.
Having in mind this scriptural commission to Jesus’ followers of the present time, it can be seen that no imposing and powerful organization is needed. The organization of the church as outlined in the New Testament is a very simple one. There are no popes, no cardinals, no D.D’s. The word “bishop” is used, but with an entirely different connotation than that which is given to this title today. A bishop in the Early Church was an elected servant of the local congregation with which he was associated; one who was mature in Christian conduct, had some ability to teach, and took an unselfish interest in the spiritual welfare of his brethren in Christ.
But simple and unimposing as it was, the Lord’s arrangement under which his people were to conduct the work he had given them to do was quite adequate, and the Gospel flourished. It was only when outside influences were brought into the church, and selfish men from within arose to draw away disciples after themselves, that the simplicity of organization began to change. But despite these changes, and regardless of all the efforts which have been made to rule and convert the world, denominationalism has failed.
The church-state systems of Europe—Christendom—have been largely destroyed. Unbelief is spreading throughout the world faster than belief. A smaller minority of the people than ever are believers, and only lukewarm believers at that; and we venture to say that even if the vast majority of the churches find a way to work together, this situation will not radically be changed.
We are at the very threshold of the day in which Christ’s kingdom is to manifest itself in power and great glory. The work of the Gospel Age is nearing completion. And when it is completed, and the messianic kingdom is fully established, then the desire of all nations will come, and peace, happiness, health, and everlasting life will become available to all the willing and obedient of mankind.