Can We Get Together on Ecumenism?

In this regular feature Dave and Tom respond to questions from listeners and readers of The Berean Call.  Here is this week’s question: Dear Tom and Dave, I hear you guys use the term ecumenism from time to time and sometimes you relate it to a coming one world religion.What exactly is ecumenism?

Tom:

Well Dave let me go to the dictionary.I checked my Funk & Wagnall’s which is a little more English or British, but this is what they say:“The beliefs, principles or practices of those who desire or work for world-wide unity and cooperation among all Christian churches.”I also checked the Webster’s Dictionary and they broaden it a little bit.Webster’s definition of ecumenism refers to cooperation and unity among religious groups.So they’ve sort of widened the area as it were.

Dave:

Well you have two slightly different definitions.The first one talks about agreement, the next one about cooperation.Agreement- well now we’ve got a dozen groups let’s say, and they disagree.On what basis will they begin to agree?Well either we will agree to disagree, and pretend we all believe the same thing, or some of us will have to change our beliefs.Now which direction—

Tom:

Well unless we can find common ground.

Dave:

Well but there really isn’t any common ground here.We’re pretty far apart let’s say.This is my illustration, okay?

Tom:

Okay, sorry.

Dave:

Now on what basis are we going to find this common ground and eventually get to an agreement?Which direction will we go?Well, let’s go to the least common denominator.That’s our common ground.There must be something that we all agree on and in the process we’ve got to throw out more important things.Alright?Now Tom what is the point of agreeing on something.I have a background in mathematics way back there, or accounting.Let’s take Arthur Anderson-whoa!

Tom:

I think you can take him, Dave.

Dave:

Right, okay and let’s say they just get around and get together and they say well let’s go in this direction.Why don’t we make up a balance sheet and all agree that 2 + 2 = 5 on Thursday.We could find common ground in that.

Tom:

Well you’re going to use numbers so we have that in common.

Dave:

Yes sure, but you see it begs the question.Does truth exist?If truth exists; if God exists—I mean these are religious people now.Ecumenism involves religion.

Tom:

Right.

Dave:

Does God have anything to say about this?I wonder if God has an opinion.It would seem logical.God did make rules—laws of physics, laws of chemistry—

Tom:

Some have said—well those, but religiously speaking it wasn’t the ten suggestions was it?

Not that I last checked.

Dave:

That’s right.So what these people ought to find out is maybe none of us is in touch with God.Maybe we are all wrong.Now why don’t we find out what God has said and then we’ll all agree on that.We’ll be in agreement with God and the way to be in agreement with one another is if we all agree with God.And then we’ll know that we’re all doing what’s right.No, they don’t even think of that Tom.But let’s see now, the Catholics, the evangelicals—you were just at a conference: Evangelicals and Catholics in Conversation.Where did this conversation go and what was your evaluation of it?

Tom:

Well just briefly, because we could do six programs on this, but the general idea was we are moving toward what looks like the objective and the goal is to full communion.In other words, we want to move together. And if there are some issues in which we have some disagreements on how can we sort of get around these disagreements?Well one suggestion was well it’s our vocabulary Dave.If we could just change the meanings of certain things, then we could sort of continue to move closer together.

Dave:

Then we can all use the same words even though we have different meanings for them but we are at least using the same words.

Tom:

We can all sit down at the same dinner, we can still kind of party together and so on and take care of issues that are—because you know, again, a concern of this is dealing with moral issues.Dave does anybody obtain eternal life on the basis of their own morality?

Dave:

Absolutely not.“It’s not by works of righteousness that we have done….”Now Tom, we’re talking about something specific, that is, evangelicals and Catholics.Now in that case and we’re not talking about joining up with the Hindus, although the Pope has gathered Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, witchdoctors—

Tom:

Vatican II reached out—

Dave:
People who worshipped snakes, and fire, and so forth.He got them all there in Assisi and said we’re all praying to the same God and so forth.But okay, now we are just talking specifically about Catholics and Evangelicals.Now there was something called the Reformation back there 470 years ago or thereabouts.

Tom:

It’s a semantic problem Dave.

Dave:

And they burned people at the stake.

Tom:

But still a semantic problem—

Dave:

Well for 450 years Tom, there was a very clear distinction.The Catholics for example say that this little wafer is Jesus and he’s being reoffered.The evangelicals say with the Bible, no, Christ was once offered for sin, there is no more sacrifice sin—big difference.

Tom:

But Dave, we can get around those things.See for example, the—

Dave:

Now Tom, you better let people know you’ve got tongue-in-cheek now when you’re saying this.

Tom:

Well I’m putting on this face because I’m depressed Dave over what I experienced there.

Dave:

But Tom, let me make my point.There are very sincere people on both sides.

Tom:

No doubt about it.

Dave:

They burned people at the stake and people were willing to be burned at the stake because they had some very firm convictions.Now after 400 and some years we’re being told it was a semantic misunderstanding.

Tom:

It was a misunderstanding according to this idea of Catholics and evangelicals on both sides.

Dave:

Sure, I mean if they could have only understood it.If the guy that was being burned at the stake could have said, “Wait a minute, why are you burning me at the stake?We agree.This is a semantic misunderstanding.”

Tom:

Well the Latter Day Lutherans, the Lutheran World Federation signed an agreement on justification with the Vatican, so what’s the problem Dave?

Dave:

I don’t think we can pass it off as a semantic misunderstanding.There are serious differences.The differences are the distance between heaven and hell.One is a false gospel and Paul, he anathematized anyone that preaches another gospel, “…than that which I preached unto you, let him be ana-the-ma.”Now I don’t think Paul would settle for a semantic misunderstanding and re-write the Book of Galatians.I think people better wake up and get back to the Word of God and see what God himself has to say.