# Ecumenism



## Osage Bluestem (Nov 23, 2009)

What are your thoughts on Ecumenism? Are we to work towards Christian unity?

Ecumenically, what is biblically correct and what is not, in regards to current efforts and ideas?

How ecumenical is the reformed community?


----------



## buggy (Nov 23, 2009)

Christian unity is only to be limited by the doctrinal differences. I believe that the closer the beliefs of two church bodies, the more cooperation there should be. 

Ecumenism is correct only if it promotes Christian unity within the truth - when two churches are close enough in doctrinal unity, pooling its resources together for Christ's work - which is good. 

Which is why in my opinion Reformed Presbyterians and Baptists can work together more closely with each other, than say, with an Arminian or a fundamentalist denomination since both RPs/RBs are more or less similar in most beliefs (sotreiology, covenant theology) except the areas of infant baptism and maybe church governance. 

But if you're talking about the common-day ecumenism today, where mainstream and even some evangelical churches are involved in interchurch dialogue with those who do not preach the gospel - such as the RCC, or even inter-faith ecumenism, no way - this is compromise of biblical truths.


----------



## jwithnell (Nov 23, 2009)

In the second half of the 20th century, ecumenism came to be a blur-all-distinctions, all-paths-lead-to heaven viewpoint. If you have no (to use Mr. Schaeffer's term) "true truth" then you can unite around warm fuzzies like universal brotherhood.

In theory, we could unite around the truth of scripture. We should certainly embrace as brothers those who hold to the dogmas of Christianity -- salvation through Christ alone, the authority of scripture and so forth. And I believe that we should particularly embrace those in the reformed community. But I am pessimistic about fallen man, even those saved in Christ, being able to form a single church across all boundaries.


----------



## buggy (Nov 23, 2009)

There are already quite a few international reformed groups or "alliances", such as the ICRC. I think these bodies should be able to take up the role of "ecumenism" rather than attempting to form that "single church".


----------



## Oecolampadius (Nov 23, 2009)

Is NAPARC considered an ecumenical effort or does it have to be transdenominational in order to be considered ecumenical?


----------



## steadfast7 (Nov 23, 2009)

buggy said:


> Christian unity is only to be limited by the doctrinal differences. I believe that the closer the beliefs of two church bodies, the more cooperation there should be.
> 
> Ecumenism is correct only if it promotes Christian unity within the truth - when two churches are close enough in doctrinal unity, pooling its resources together for Christ's work - which is good.
> 
> ...



Hi LTL,

some questions for you to get an understanding of where you're coming from:

1. What about interdenominational cooperation on matters not directly involving doctrine, such as social outreach projects?

2. Why do you feel it's healthy to dialogue with different branches of Christianity, or those of other faiths? 

thanks. 

(btw, are you from Shalom RBC in Singapore? I lived in SG for 5 years, graduated from SBC!) 

cheers.


----------



## Wayne (Nov 23, 2009)

NAPARC is an ecumenical organization. It's purpose is in part to work toward greater unity among the participating denominations.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Nov 23, 2009)

Wayne said:


> NAPARC is an ecumenical organization. It's purpose is in part to work toward greater unity among the participating denominations.



Are there any Reformed Denominations that are in Pulipt and Altar fellowship with one another?


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Nov 23, 2009)

Ecumenism is good if it aims at the unity of the church with biblical confession, worship and government. The Westminster Assembly was an ecumenical gathering seeking to unify the churches of the three kingdoms (England, Scotland and Ireland) in these matters. The Westminster Standards are ecumenical documents. The problem is with lowest common denominator ecumenism, where doctrinal, liturgical and polity issues are ignored for the sake of some false, feel-good unity. However, there is nothing wrong with maintaining ongoing conversations with those who differ with us; as long as we don’t water down the truth. Such conversations can be evangelistic.


----------



## buggy (Nov 23, 2009)

steadfast7 said:


> buggy said:
> 
> 
> > Christian unity is only to be limited by the doctrinal differences. I believe that the closer the beliefs of two church bodies, the more cooperation there should be.
> ...



Hi dennis...

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I do not believe that there should ecumenical cooperation with other faiths or churches that don't preach the gospel. But with those that do...

I think that the level of cooperation should be proportional to how much agreement there is between two bodies. More agreement, more cooperation. Not so sure about whether inter-denom work concerning non-doctrinal matters though.

And yes, I am worshipping at shalom RBC - I'm quite new actually - only been there a few months. 

cheers, LTL


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Nov 23, 2009)

DD2009 said:


> Wayne said:
> 
> 
> > NAPARC is an ecumenical organization. It's purpose is in part to work toward greater unity among the participating denominations.
> ...



Reformed churches don't have altars. We might speak of pulpit and table fellowship. NAPARC functions in this manner. Ministers and members may transfer from one to the other, or function temporarily in another member body.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Nov 23, 2009)

Glenn Ferrell said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> > Wayne said:
> ...



So a Pastor from an OPC Church could become a pastor at a PCA Church and if a deacon in a PCA church moved to a town with only an OPC church he could simply transfer in?


----------



## Wayne (Nov 23, 2009)

DD2009 said:


> So a Pastor from an OPC Church could become a pastor at a PCA Church and if a deacon in a PCA church moved to a town with only an OPC church he could simply transfer in?



Pastors can transfer their credentials from one NAPARC denomination to another, though they will be examined by the receiving presbytery in each case. Transfer normally also implies a call to serve a specific congregation or ministry. So a man might transfer his credentials from the PCA to the ARP in order to take a pulpit in an ARP church. He would be examined by the receiving ARP presbytery and upon their concurrence, could then take up the post at the new church.

But for ruling elders and deacons, even within their current denomination, transfer to another congregation does not mean you will be received as an active officer in the new setting. The ordination stands, but the congregation must vote to call the man to serve in that congregation. You can't just show up in a new church and say, "Here I am, when's the next Session meeting?"


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Nov 23, 2009)

DD2009 said:


> So a Pastor from an OPC Church could become a pastor at a PCA Church and if a deacon in a PCA church moved to a town with only an OPC church he could simply transfer in?



It is not uncommon for ministers to move from PCA to OPC to URC to RCUS congregations. Also, they regularly fill each other’s pulpits. We routinely transfer members between our churches, and invite them to the Lord’s table when visiting. One ordained as an elder or deacon transferring to another congregation does not assume the function of an active elder or deacon in the new congregation. He remains an elder or deacon by office, but has no jurisdiction in the new congregation unless and until he is called as an elder or deacon by the latter. However, it is likely an experienced and ordained man will eventually be called to exercise his previous office in his new setting. In such a case, he would be installed but not re-ordained.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Nov 23, 2009)

How is a Pastor's annuity paid when he is old and has to retire if he has moved between these denominations. Does the NAPARC have a common pool for retired pastors?


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Nov 23, 2009)

QUOTE=DD2009;721563]How is a Pastor's annuity paid when he is old and has to retire if he has moved between these denominations. Does the NAPARC have a common pool for retired pastors?[/QUOTE]

There is no common NAPARC retirement plan. My guess is that most denominational retirement plans vest the minister from the beginning. Thus, when one changes denominations, the funds still belong to him. He might roll them over to a new plan or leave them until retirement. Many denominational plans are optional and the minister may have his own individual plan.


----------



## jawyman (Nov 23, 2009)

Please forgive the length, but I found this to be a good answer to the question of whether ecumenism is biblical or not:

Question: "Is ecumenism Biblical? Should a Christian be involved in the ecumenical movement?"

Answer: Walter A. Elwell, in The Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, defines ecumenism as “The organized attempt to bring about the cooperation and unity among Christians.” On an international level, the World Council of Churches represents ecumenism when it states its purpose this way (as taken from its website: www.wcc-coe.org): “The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Savior according to the scriptures, and therefore seek to fulfill together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is a community of churches on the way to visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship, expressed in worship and in common life in Christ. It seeks to advance towards this unity, as Jesus prayed for his followers, ‘so that the world may believe’ (John 17:21).” On a national level, a document called Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium, published in 1994 and endorsed by some rather prominent representatives of Evangelical Christianity and Roman Catholicism, is another example of ecumenism.

The important question is this: Are ecumenical ventures right and biblical? Should we be involved with other “Christians” in joint ventures, either locally, nationally or internationally? The answer to this question is not black and white. As is almost always the case, one must weigh out the answer in each situation specifically. However, there are a couple of biblical guidelines which will help us make God-honoring decisions regarding ecumenism.

First of all, Are those we are joining with truly Christians in the biblical sense of the word? Many people and organizations in America and the world “name the Name of Jesus Christ” and even state He is Lord and Savior and yet clearly reject what the Bible says about Him. Obvious examples of this are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. They will say they are followers of Jesus Christ and are Christian and yet deny with vehemence what the Bible declares concerning Christ’s nature and work. A not-so-obvious example comes in the form of liberal Christianity. Liberal Christianity is found in almost every denomination in the United States and, although it may seem very Christian, usually liberal Christians reject several essential biblical truths such as the inspiration and authority of the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16), Jesus as the only Savior of the entire world (John 14:6, 1 Timothy 2:5), and salvation as God’s free gift to those who believe apart from good works (Romans 3:24, 28; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9).

As seen with the publication of Evangelicals and Catholics Together, there is a major emphasis in our day on ecumenical unity among Evangelicals and Roman Catholics. Those who promote such unity state that both are Christian and both are viable, God-honoring systems of faith. But clearly the substantial differences between the two groups render ECT a ridiculous document. Biblical Christianity and Roman Catholicism are two different religions that practice and believe different things about how one is saved, the authority of the Bible, the priesthood of believers, the nature of man, the work of Christ on the cross, etc. The list of irreconcilable differences between what the Bible says and what the Roman Catholic Church says makes any joint mission between the two absolutely impossible. Those who deny this are not being true to what they say they believe, no matter which side they are on. Any Catholic who is serious about his faith will deny what a serious evangelical Christian believes and vice-versa.

The difficulty with ecumenism is that often the above listed groups are passionately like-minded with biblical Christians regarding a given issue. Biblical Christians are usually marked by a strong pro-life belief, a strong traditional view of the family, a strong emphasis on compassion for the homeless and sick, and a strong desire to see justice in the world. The above groups are often marked by the same desires. Thus, the temptation to “pool resources” in pursuit of a common cause is sometimes great. This leads to the next guideline.

Second, what is the ultimate goal of this ecumenical venture? The Scriptures give clear guidance as to how Bible-believing Christians are to live their lives. Colossians 3:17 states our purpose this way, “Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.” Regarding our interactions with the lost, unbelieving world, Jesus states this in Matthew 5:16, “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” Some familiar verses are Matthew 28:18-20, also known as the Great Commission, “And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’” In summary, all that we do is to bring glory and honor to God. Regarding the lost of this world, Christians bring glory to God when God uses the believer to further His kingdom through evangelism and discipleship. This is to be the motivation of the Bible-believing Christian’s interaction with the world.

Regarding ecumenical ventures, we need to ask ourselves whether or not these goals are being pursued. Often, in our day, the political and/or social desires of the participants are the driving motivators behind an ecumenical venture. A prime example of this is the current drive to pass a constitutional amendment declaring that the only marriage that will be recognized in the United States is the traditional, man/woman union. If our churches ecumenically join together in pursuit of this goal (passing out fliers, hosting a rally, etc), how are we striving for the above stated biblical purposes? Are we not simply striving for political and social achievement? How will the practicing, unbelieving homosexual view our Savior and Lord if all he sees in us is political activism and no compassion and no outreach? The ultimate goal of our actions should be the salvation of lost sinners, which we once were (Ephesians 2:1-3). The Bible tells us that the angels of heaven rejoice over one sinner who repents (Luke 15:10). There is no passage that declares that the angels rejoice when a law is passed. This applies to homosexuality, abortion, drug-abuse, etc. God is glorified when we demonstrate Christlikeness to the lost. As we contemplate ecumenical ventures within our society, we need to make sure the venture is one in which God’s kingdom is expanded through pursuing the lost with the gospel, be they practicing immorality, abortion-rights activists, homeless, drug-abusers, criminals, etc.

In conclusion, should we be involved in ecumenical cooperation with other Christians and churches? If the above conditions are met in a God-honoring way, we may freely and joyfully join with other believers in pursuit of God’s kingdom. The ultimate goal is God’s glory and the evangelism and discipleship of the lost. The ecumenical venture must be structured in this way. Thus, those we join with must believe the biblical definition of the gospel and they must also be about seeking the same goal of God’s glory and the salvation of the lost.

Reference: Bible Questions Answered


----------



## steadfast7 (Nov 23, 2009)

Probably what needs to happen is some definition of "ecumenical cooperation" and what this looks like concretely.

There are some non-profit organizations with Christian founders that invite cooperation from people of various faith groups to work towards a common good to meet practical needs, such as Habitat for Humanity. I doubt anyone here would be opposed to that, and there would not be any need for theological congruency for this type of cooperation to happen.

There are also dialogues going between Evangelicals and Eastern Orthodox, let's say, which help to bring clarity and appreciation for the different traditions. This also seems productive and good.

Even dialogues occurring between faiths are healthy and beneficial to some extent, as long as there are established ground rules and the purpose is clear. This provides evangelicals to become involved in the world sphere and academia as a means of gospel proclamation and apologetics. 

What I suspect however is that none of these things are included in the definition of ecumenical cooperation. 

Let me pose this question: let's say there was an opportunity for the church to become formally and spiritually catholic once again, and it simply meant coming back to a Nicene faith and confession and holding other doctrines with an open hand. Would you guys be willing to sign up?


----------

