Ecumenicalism?
We live in a religious world that is divided. Open up the yellow pages of your local phone book and take a look. There will be a number of churches listed, separated by denominational titles. It amounts to an alphabet of church division:
| Anglican Baptist Congregational..... |
Dutch Reform Episcopal Free Methodist |
Just about everyone in these various churches will admit that the divisions ought not exist. Thus, the concept of ecumenicalism was born. Merriam-Webster defines ecumenical as:
"...of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches; promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation." (1)
The basic thought is, that despite the differences which exist, the various churches which label themselves as Christian can be united. To this end, ecumenical supporters have made a distinction between "essentials" and "non-essentials" of the faith. The Bible makes no such distinction.
Rupertus Meldenius penned:
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus autem caritas. (2)In English, that is, In essentials unity, in doubtful things liberty, but in all things love." The statement itself is not wrong, but many have failed in the application of it. What are the "non-essentials"? Who determines what is and what is not essential?
This severing of essential and non-essential has been labelled by some as a distinction between gospel and doctrine. The distinction may exist in the minds of men, but it is not present in the mind of God. Notice that the Bible reveals both the gospel and the doctrine are essential, and in fact, makes no distinction:
- Go into all the world and preach the GOSPEL to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved... (Mark 16:15-16)
- ...they continued steadfastly in the apostles' DOCTRINE and fellowship... (Acts 2:42)
- I am not ashamed of the GOSPEL of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes... (Romans 1:16)
- ...yet you obeyed from the heart that form of DOCTRINE to which you were delivered. (Romans 6:17)
- ...they have not all obeyed the GOSPEL. (Romans 10:16)
- ...note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the DOCTRINE which you learned, and avoid them. (Romans 16:17)
“We must set aside sectarian affiliation and seek to be just Christians.”
- ...vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the GOSPEL... (2 Thessalonians 1:8)
- ...charge some that they teach no other DOCTRINE... (1 Timothy 1:3)
- ...give attention to reading, to exhortation, to DOCTRINE... 1 Timothy 4:13)
- Take heed to yourself and to the DOCTRINE. (1 Timothy 4:16)
- All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE... (2 Timothy 3:16)
- ...the time will come when they will not endure sound DOCTRINE... (2 Timothy 4:3)
- ...speak the things which are proper for sound DOCTRINE... (Titus 2:1)
- ...what will be the end of those who do not obey the GOSPEL of God? (1 Peter 4:17)
- Whoever transgresses and does not abide in DOCTRINE of Christ does not have God. (2 John 9)
- If anyone comes to you and does not bing this DOCTRINE, do not receive him... (2 John 10)
No distinction of essentials / non-essentials is made in the Bible. Whether it be referred to as gospel or doctrine in the New Testament, God's command is that we obey it.
What then does that do to ecumenicalism? It demonstrates it to be a concept of man, not a concept of God. God's plan is not unity in spite of our differences, but unity because we believe and practice the same things. Hear the apostle Paul,
Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1 Corinthians 1:10)
What is the solution? Unity can only result when folks set aside denominational bias, and accept only what god has revealed in His word. The church Jesus built has no denominations in it. We must set aside sectarian affiliation and seek to be just Christians. No more denominational alphabet soup!
(1) www.merriam-webster.com
(2) ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/augustine/quote.html
Article Navigation:
Answering The Atheist
The Atheist's Complaint:
Did any Moabite enter the congregation of the Lord? Deuteronomy 23:3 and Nehemiah 13:1 say no, but Ruth 1:4; 4:13, 17 say yes. Is there a contradiction?
Response:
Indeed, it is true that Ruth was a Moabitess. She became what is called a proselyte - she converted to Judaism. When Ruth returned to Bethlehem with her mother-in-law Naomi, she served Naomi, and eventually married Boaz, a close relative of Naomi's deceased husband, that his family's name might be perpetuated in Israel (Ruth 4:10). Her marriage to Boaz was in fulfilment of a command in the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).
However, how could Ruth enter into the assembly of the Lord - she was a Moabitess; or, for that matter, how could any of her offspring, which include Obed, Jesse and David? Look again at the command in Deuteronomy:
An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD forever... (23:3)
The exclusion of this law appears to be specific to the males. In the law itself, we see "...none of his descendants shall enter..."
Throughout the Scriptures, and often in the commands given in the Old Testament, we see the headship of man being acknowledged. This is true, not only with regard to inheritance and blessings, but also for punishment. When destruction was brought upon the people of Midian (Numbers 31:7), it was the men who were destroyed. Women who had not known a man were kept alive (v 18).
Boaz characterized what Ruth did:
Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren and from his position at the gate. (Ruth 4:10)
Ruth did not raise up offspring for herself, to perpetuate her name or the name of her father in the land of Israel. She bore a son to Boaz to perpetuate the name of Mahlon, and to preserve his place at the gate of the city. Their offspring were Israelites, not Moabites, and thus able to enter into the congregation of the Lord.
There is no contradiction.
This article is in response to Skeptic's Annotated Bible.