HOW TO BE RECEIVED WITH OPEN ARMS

Most of us in Churches of Christ-Christian Churches have a rather hazy view of the Ecumenical Movement in general and the World Council of Churches in particular, and yet as a “unity people,” which we are supposed to be, we should have substantial interest in what has been going on.

In one manner of speaking the Ecumenical Movement is as old as the New Covenant Scriptures, for they tell us that “This Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world” (Mt. 24:14). The phrase in all the world in Greek is “oikoumene,’ from which we get ecumenical, meaning world-wide. The Ecumenical Movement, therefore, is an assortment of councils, agencies, churches from all the world dedicated to the world-wide witness of a united church. The movement has been tied closely to missions, its aim being to plant an undivided Church of Christ in every non-Christian nation in the world.

The Ecumenical Movement began in 1910 in Edinburgh, Scotland as a world missionary conference that brought together missionary leaders from many denominations. Realizing that any hope for unity demanded a hard look at differences, they created the World Conference on Faith and Order, which was named for their intention to study the faith and order of the various denominations in hope of moving closer together. This evolved into the World Council of Churches in 1948 in Amsterdam, Holland. The council has met something like once a decade, pioneering in world church union and service. By 1961 at the New Delhi, India gathering the member-churches reached 197, with Pentecostal and Russian Orthodox churches taking membership. Since then the number has further increased with African churches becoming members.

A glance at the member-churches should enlarge one’s view of what might be called “the Christian world.” There are, for example, six denominations from Indonesia, including the Protestant Christian Batak Church. From Hungary there is the Reformed Church of Hungary. From Austria there is the Evangelical Church of the Augsburgian and Helvetic Confession, and from Egypt is the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria. From China there is a denomination called Church of Christ in China, but they are not “our” people. Out of all the long list of churches “our” folk have but two listings: from Canada is Churches of Christ (Disciples) and from the U.S.A. is the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). From the earliest days of the Ecumenical Movement the Disciples of Christ have played a leading role. The rest of us of the Stone-Campbell Movement have had nothing to do with these developments, which is odd in view of the fact that we belong to a Movement that was born of a passion for unity.

Some churches beside ourselves have steered clear of these world endeavors for various reasons, some political, some theological. The World Council has been accused of everything from being communistic to being atheistic and liberal. But it is noteworthy that churches that were once suspicious are now a part of the effort, such as Pentecostal, African, and Russian denominations. When the Russian Orthodox Church became a member it issued this statement, which reads as if it might have come from our own heritage.

The Russian Orthodox Church is aware of the difficulties along the road towards the oneness of all Christians in the Church, and she is grateful to the Almighty for the mercy he has revealed in helping disunited Christendom to realize the sinfulness of this division and the duty incumbent upon it to achieve unity. She sees in the joint activities of the Churches an effective manifestation of that consciousness, which is directed towards finding ways of restoring the lost unity of all Christians.

Apart from the geographical reference, that might have come from the pen of Thomas Campbell! The Pentecostal churches that joined were from Chile, and they were welcomed not only because older denominations sought fellowship with such younger churches, but also because it was believed the Pentecostals would add a spiritual dimension to the world organization. For those who suppose the council lacks theological guts it might be pointed out that from the outset these ecumenical leaders have avoided “mere togetherness” and have sought “an authentic Christian confession based upon the Scriptures,” as their own records reveal.

While no one has looked for a miracle in these ecumenical efforts, it is of moment that they continue to make the effort. There own leaders often express disappointment in their inability to make much headway, but they nonetheless hang in, believing that “The church will one day be one,” as their own leaders put it. They are at least doing something, while those of us who preach unity with such vigor seem to do less.

One response to these ecumenical efforts especially interests me, for it sounds like something right out of the Tennessee-Texas Churches of Christ or maybe the midwest Christian Churches.

In the formative period the invitation to become a part of the world effort went out to “all Christian Communions throughout the world which confess Our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour,” which sounds as if it was not exactly without theological guts. But the invitation at first went out only to Protestants. By 1919 they decided to invite the Roman Catholics also, issuing the invitation to the pope himself. The pontiff, Benedict XV, was most cordial to the delegation that called on him, but his official response was resoundingly negative. It may well have a familiar ring to many of our readers:

The Holy Father, after having thanked them for their visit, stated that as successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Christ he had no greater desire than that there should be one fold and one Shepherd. His Holiness added that the teaching and practice of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the visible unity of the Church of Christ was well known to everybody and therefore it would not be possible for the Catholic Church to take part in such a Congress as the one proposed.

His Holiness, however, by no means wishes to disapprove of the Congress in question for those who are not in union with the Chair of Peter; on the contrary, he earnestly desires and prays that, if the Congress is practicable, those who take part in it may, by the grace of God, see the light and become reunited to the visible Head of the Church, by whom they will be received with open arms.

This was 1919, and it is to the credit of the Roman church that it has softened its attitude toward the Ecumenical Movement in recent decades. In fact, Pope John XXIII in 1960 created a Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity, which made it possible for the Roman church to send representatives to the World Council as “observers.” At the same time Pope John went on record expressing his brotherly feelings toward “all other Christians.” The Disciples of Christ are among those who have carried on bi-lateral conversations with the Roman church.

This does not mean, of course, that the Roman church has changed its basic position in reference to unity, but only a happier climate for dialogue. The executive committee of the World Council took official note of this in reporting that “the creation of the Secretariat does not mean that any of the fundamental differences which exist between the Roman Catholic Church and the churches in the World Council of Churches have been solved. “

One can feel for those ecumenical leaders who made the initial overtures to the Roman church, believing that it should be included in an invitation to “all Christian Communions throughout the world which confess Our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour,” only to be told that they would be received with open arms whenever they “see the light” and find their unity in the pope.

But isn’t it something like this that “the Restoration Movement” is saying to the Christian world even in 1982? Like the pope in 1919, if not today, we will gladly receive all other believers with open arms on our terms. That of course is sectarian, not ecumenical, whether it be the pope or the elders of the Sixth and Izzard Church of Christ in Little Rock.

What is wrong with the basis for acceptance of each other as issued by the churches of the world—those who confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour—and why can we not all receive each other on that proposition? We have much (nearly everything in fact) in common with all those who believe that Jesus is Lord, especially in a pagan, humanistic world like ours. Believers should receive each other with open arms (period). We only make a mockery of our plea for unity when we base it on the peculiarities of the Restoration plea, even when it is assumed that those peculiarities are right.

Thomas Campbell, a true ecumenist, taught us that even when we are right in our scriptural deductions we cannot impose them on others as terms of communion until they see the connection. And he was taught by St. Paul, who in Rom. 15:7 pled that we receive each other on the same grounds that Christ received us, which was by God’s grace as a free gift. We must be gracious, not demanding, in receiving others.

In an atmosphere of accepting and forbearing love we can bear witness to any vital truths we believe we have to offer from our peculiar heritage or from Scripture. Why should not Churches of Christ and Christian Churches be involved in the Ecumenical Movement? If we are really a unity movement as we claim, one would suppose we would be excited over the opportunity of being with believers from over 200 denominations from all over the world, in pursuit of unity.

Any old sect will receive one with open arms if he will kow-tow to the demands of that sect. But to be magnanimous, gracious, and ecumenical is to receive all other believers as equals on the basis of their devotion to Jesus Christ.

To receive others with open arms on party terms has never cultivated brotherly love and fellowship, and it never will. Jesus received us with open arms even when we were wrong. We are most Christian when we receive our sisters and brothers even when they are in error. It is not likely that there are any other kind. This mentality of preaching unity and being separatists keeps others from seeing what we have to offer. We are a great people with an impressive heritage, but this is obscured so long as we suppose that we can’t have anything to do with other churches.—the Editor