The Basis of Ecumenism

The March 4, 2015 issue of The Wall Street Journal spotlighted identical twins who grew up in a small town in North Carolina. Raised as active Baptists, whose parents still attend, each has taken a different direction. Brad became a Roman Catholic priest in Charlotte, and Chad is now an Anglican bishop in Atlanta.

The article, “When We Quit One Faith for Another,” explores this topic. [Wow! The Wall Street Journal still capitalizes the prominent words of a title. Good for them!] The writer, Clare Ansberry, observes that when the sons return home, it becomes a very ecumenical household (D1).

On the one hand, it sees encouraging to know that more than “half of the U.S. population has changed religious affiliations at least once during their lives, most before they reach the age of 50,” according to the Pew Research Center (D1). On the other hand, some of those left religion altogether. (Why are there so many who are quick to announce, “I was born a , and I'll die a ”?)

Why?

Of course, the main question ought to be, “Why do people change religions?” Some do so because they had little or no commitment in the first place. In some instances, a change occurs when a marriage takes place. One spouse will give up the religion of his or her youth in order to attend with the other. In many instances, the idea that all churches are essentially alike is so entrenched that many visitors ignore variations. Every place has its own idiosyncrasies; so they can tolerate all differences.

It would be nice (not to mention, appropriate) if people changed because of TRUTH. That is to say, they realized that what they had been taught as youngsters was not accurate—whether about worship, salvation, or even the details of important events in the Bible (such as the birth of Jesus). Just as in the days of Jesus, many manmade traditions have supplanted Biblical truth (Matt. 15:1-9). It would be understandable, then, that those raised amidst manmade traditions might be attracted to something closer to the truth. Many who are members of the Lord's church have followed that precise course. Many are former Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Baptists.

The reason they are now members of the churches of Christ is that they understand that the Bible never approves of denominationalism and that they did not learn the truth concerning salvation. They were taught either a system of works or salvation by “faith only”—neither of which is Biblical. Studying the Book of Acts helps most people see God's system of salvation for the first time. It is likely the religious body from which they came never studied the conversions that are recorded for our learning.

But in This Case….

However, when young lads who were raised Baptist become a Catholic priest and an Anglican bishop, they have moved further away from the truth—not closer. Obviously, then, truth did not motivate them; so what was it? They thought something was missing in the Baptist church, and they decided to go looking for it. An older cousin took them to a Catholic Church in Greensboro. Though it was three decades ago, both brothers remember clearly what being inside a Catholic Church building for the first time was like. Although the impression it made is hard to believe, below is what the article recorded about what impressed them.

The beauty of the building itself—the vaulted ceilings, marble steps, intricate woodwork, statues and stained glass—the smells of burning incense and the sounds of the bells had a mystical quality that is hard to explain, says Father Brad. What struck Bishop Chad was watching the priest standing in front of the altar and elevating the Communion host.

For them, the Catholic liturgy made the invisible God palpable and tangible to the senses. Their own Baptist Church, where the walls are white and flat, the altar austere, and the worship focused largely on Scripture alone, didn't (D9).

Really? They were more impressed by the physical than the spiritual? So much is wrong with this way of thinking that it is difficult to know where to begin. Did it occur to either brother that when Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount there was only a vaulted sky? No incense was burning, and there were no bells (or whistles). Jesus was not teaching mysticism but the Word of God, which apparently has little meaning for them. It is likely that no highly decorated building existed in the first century—unless one wants to count the catacombs. Church buildings did not exist (on a wide scale) for two more centuries.

Christianity began and spread tremendously without paintings and carvings and statues. Jesus, His apostles, and the gospel did not appeal to the senses but to the mind and the heart. Bishop Chad remembers painting a picture of Jesus (how did he know what the Lord looked like) and wishing his Baptist church had pictures. Seriously? That is one of the things that the Baptists get right.

What the brothers describe as a deficiency is what God has always considered a plus. He did not want Israel making graven images in order to have a more tangible religion. All the nations around them had objects they could see and touch and bow down to—none of which is appropriate to represent the Almighty, all present, all-knowing God.

Focusing on the Scriptures

Studying and learning from the Scriptures is considered a negative? God could have sent mankind bells and incense so that all could experience goosebumps, but He chose to give us the gospel—words through which we can be saved (1 Cor. 15:1-4, 1 Peter 1:23-25). By the way, Paul said he was not ashamed of the gospel (Rom. 1:16). He also commended brethren to the Word of God's grace, which is able to build us up and give us an eternal inheritance (Acts 20:32). It pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save men (1 Cor. 1:21)—not pictures and ornate buildings.

It is always dangerous when religious “leaders” choose to ignore or minimize the Bible because they do not have anything better to replace it with. It is Satan who wants to keep people from the Bible. God wants us to know it. Hosea said that his people were destroyed for lack of knowledge—not mystical experiences (4:6). The failure of the two brothers to focus on what the Scriptures teach will be the cause of them being lost. No one can be saved without a love of the truth (2 Thess. 2:10), and in their spiritual quest, they left it behind.

The twins considered various churches; Chad chose to go with the Anglicans because after studying history, he decided that it was “the true church arising from the apostles and fathers of the early church.” How anyone could come to such an outrageous conclusion may not be mystical, but it is mystifying. What history did Chad read? The one most of us read said that the Anglican Church broke off from the Roman Catholic Church when King Henry VIII departed from it when the pope refused to grant him a divorce. He appointed himself to be the head of the Church in England. Can anyone explain how this situation relates at all to the church Jesus established (Matt. 16:13-19)?

The biggest bone of contention the two brothers have is that Brad thinks that the pope has authority while Chad does not. Of course, the pope has no authority. The Scriptures, which neither brother desires to focus on, do not mention a pope or “the Communion host.” Furthermore, the use of bells or incense in Christian worship cannot be found in the pages of the New Testament. Jesus taught, after His resurrection, “All authority is given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18).

Anyone who knows history knows that no universal bishop (or pope) existed for more than 500 years after Jesus ascended into heaven. There were four or five “bishops” who used the designation, but none was over the entire Catholic Church. Chad wins that argument, but King Henry's departure from the Catholic Church did not somehow transform the resulting Anglican body into the true church, either. They retained most of the teachings of the Catholics. Both groups have dozens of doctrines that contradict the Scriptures and thus show themselves to be false.

A few of these are easy to spot with just a casual reading of the article, which states that both men became priests. The fact is every Christian is a priest (1 Peter 2:5, 9), and Jesus is the high priest (Heb. 3:1). Brad and Chad are priests in a way that is not mentioned in the New Testament. “Both celebrate mass and administer sacraments” (D 9). Okay, what book of the Bible does that come from? Oh, that's right. Neither mass nor sacraments are found in the New Testament. This terminology was invented by men to refer to that concerning which the Bible is silent.

What is Ecumenical Thinking Based On?

Despite being two different religions, the twins get along remarkably well—their main disagreement being over the pope. This distinction should not be minimized. Either the pope has authority and should be obeyed, or he does not. The fact is that he assumes authority which God has not granted him. God did not place sovereignty in a man but rather in His Word, which is profitable for doctrine, reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. In fact, “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Since these things are true, how can a Catholic priest, and Anglican bishop, and two Baptists possibly be united in Christ? Many refer to these different religious groups as different faiths. Does no one ever notice that Paul speaks of only one faith (Eph. 4:4)? On what basis can contradictory teaching be reconciled? They cannot. The only way the two religious groups which the brothers represent can be united is if they make decisions that the things they have disputed over for decades (the authority of the pope) doesn't matter.

Well, if it doesn't matter, then why do they continually debate the subject? If it does matter, how can they be united in Christ? The Baptist parents have the same problem. They reject not only the authority of the Roman Catholic Church but whatever authority the Anglican Church claims to possess, also. So when the family meets, how can they worship together? There is only one way that such a thing is possible. Each has to compromise his beliefs and agree to disagree. The resulting amalgamation does not constitute unity.

Unity cannot be reached by saying that we will ignore all the things that make us different. Unity can only come through agreeing with what the Bible teaches. A few divisions had occurred in the Corinthian congregation. Paul did not advise them to ignore what separated them. He beseeched them, by the name of the Lord Jesus to be “perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). That can only happen when all parties agree to study the Scriptures honestly and without bias. It cannot have anything to do with incense and bells; it can only occur when we use the Word of God as our final authority. Our faith, period, must come by the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). If we are not willing to hear what God has spoken through His Word, then nothing else matters. We can invent any religious practice we want, but salvation will not result.