THE GRANDFATHER OF THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT
by Bill Jackson
From Evangelicalism Divided by Iain Murray, page 8ff: "(Friedrich) Schleiermacher, (a German theologian, 1768-1834) faced opposition from a few, but his teaching proved to be astonishingly successful in its influence. In part this arose from his genius. His surpassing gifts as a linguist, philosopher, writer and preacher captivated many and placed him on a pedestal above any criticism. In part his popularity arose from the support of undiscerning Christians who, confused by his language, supposed he had rescued religion from intellectual attack by showing that it stood on a different foundation. Many more of those whom praised him were simply happy to be confirmed in the idea natural to the human heart, that beliefs are not vital to a relationship with God. A definition of Christian which holds that creed and character have no necessary connection – that it matters not what we believe so long as our hearts are right – was bound to be popular.
"(Daniel Edward has written), ‘That one axiom of his, that religion stands in no need of revelation from another world – that certain pious and devout sentiments toward God and Christ are all that is necessary for salvation, was well calculated to carry along with him the majority of those who still inclined to have no religion at all.’(Edward, British and Foreign, vol.. 25, page 632)."
Christians who believed that Christianity does not stand on a foundation of intellectualism were quite correct. It is with the heart, not the head, that man believes unto righteousness (Romans 10:10). Nevertheless, it is possible, through the scriptures, to intellectually understand the mechanics of God’s salvation, although mere understanding does not suffice.
When man, without understanding all the truths of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), has those truths applied to his heart, he then becomes a new creature in Christ. He should then apply himself to understand so great salvation so that he will in turn be enabled to lead others into this relationship.
It is important to note that his future theological understanding has no bearing on his salvation. If he knows nothing and is saved, he is saved. If he knows everything, and is not saved, he is not saved.
Theological understanding does not add to or perfect man’s justification. That was a judicial act of God and cannot be added to or taken away from (Ecclesiastes 3:14).
However, proper understanding of the doctrine of salvation will make him more understanding and a more useful Christian.
Saved man tends to develop his soteriology along the lines that were first presented to him. If he is told to register a decision by walking the aisle, he will normally be most zealous of having others walk the aisle. If he was told to "let Jesus come into his heart" he will probably use the same expression in trying to preach salvation. Whether or not these man-made phrases and actions accomplish anything depends on whether or not the Holy Spirit is the One Who is doing the work of regeneration.
We are often led to believe that meeting some intellectual criteria is tantamount to having salvation. This is not true. It is true, however, that the truths of salvation from the Bible must be applied for a work of salvation to be done. Understanding these truths will be the fruit of a salvation wrought by Divine application of these truths.
People often ask the question, "Can a person be saved who thinks he has to worship on Saturday to be accepted by God?" The answer comes not by exploring his present sense of theology, but by looking back to what happened when he was first saved. If he was regenerated by the Spirit of God, incorrect theology cannot take away his salvation. If he was not regenerated by the Spirit of God, correct theological understanding cannot save him.
Does a person need to accept the Virginal conception of Christ in order to be saved? No, but the virginal conception of Christ was seen by God to be an essential, and no one can be born again except through the merits of the virgin-born Savior. When does he have to believe it?
If he dies five minutes after he is born again, God is not going to require him to have a fine tuned theology in order for him to see Glory. But, if he is saved for fifty years and then dies, God is going to be more demanding that this man’s theology should be biblically based. If it is not, that will not undo the work of regeneration that was completed for ever by the application of the blood of Christ when the man was initially justified.
However, lack of Bible study or deliberately disbelieving the Bible will cause that Christian to produce nothing but wood, hay and stubble. He will be saved, but will suffer loss. The extent of that loss has been debated for hundreds of years by theologians. Mr. Average Pew-Packer might not understand everything about that loss, but accountability and real loss are biblical truths that we cannot dismiss with a careless attitude (Romans 14:10-12; 1 Corinthians 3:12-17).
Mr. Murray continues, "The German public read with approval in Schleiermacher such words as these: ‘Many who believe [that is, in an orthodox way] are manifestly not freer from faults than others, but on the contrary; and I see many unbelievers who are the best of men.’"
It is true that there are many unbelievers who are fine moral persons, and man can seem to rise, especially in times of emergency, to be selfless and caring for those in need. However, taken as a group, evangelical Christians have a far better lifestyle than unsaved people, and those who are believers whose lives do not radiate the presence of Christ will be sorely used at the judgment seat of Christ.
It is also true that there are some people outside of evangelical Christianity whose good works or good lives are supposed to gain some merit before God, and their very unselfishness can be totally selfish.
Over the years, I have contacted many Catholic friends whose idea of behavior-based salvation is normally along the lines of Matthew 25:31-45, ministering to the poor, sick and imprisoned.
That reminds me of Judi, a Catholic friend I met in Ohio. She was bravely attending an evangelical house meeting, and in our conversation afterward she did her best to assure me that her hoped for salvation would not be the result of her good works.
"Bill," she said, "I visit the hospital regularly and I also visit the prisons, but neither of these things are in any way aiding my salvation. I am saved by Grace. Pure Grace. There are no works attached to my hope for heaven."
The next morning I saw her again. I said, "Judi, if you had an absolute and positive assurance of salvation, how would that affect your life style?"
"Oh," she said, "I wouldn’t go to the hospital any more nor would I go to the prisons." Then she seemed to realize what she had really said. The fulfilling of the ministries mentioned in Matthew 25 were indeed part of her salvation package.
Schleiermacher taught that unbelief does not exclude anyone from heaven. This is mirrored in contemporary Catholic thought, as expressed by Msgr Jordan in his dialog with Rob Zins. Monsignor Jordan said that, in order to attain heaven, one had to be true to the dictates of his conscience, "even if his conscience were erroneous."
While sincerity is often thought by man to be the key to Heaven, John 3:16 is written of those who have everlasting life because they believe.
Murray continues, "Schleiermacher is correctly viewed as the chief source of the massive change which has occurred in the historic Protestant denominations during the last two hundred years. . . (Schleiermacher’s theology) opened the way . . . for the idea that belief is no essential part of being a Christian."
The capsule form of soul-winning (repeat this prayer) has, according to William McDonald, produced people who "believe without knowing what they believe." Certainly this is as dangerous as elevating conscience as the determining factor.
This relegation of the importance of correct doctrine is a part of the ECT statement of 1994, when, according to Rob Zins, "the Gospel of Christ is being sacrificed on the altars of social concern."
But that is getting ahead of our story. We want to see how this departure from historic Christianity was viewed by evangelicals.
In England, until the 1950s, evangelicals took a clear position against the liberalism that was a product of thinkers such as Schleiermacher. This position did not serve to add to the popularity of Bible-believing Christians, so evangelicals within denominations that had gone liberal, found themselves isolated.
In the Church of England the evangelical, or "low Anglican" became a tolerated nuisance in his denomination. In America, J. Gresham Machen and others left liberal seminaries to form Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. Machen was suspended from the ministry of the Presbyterian Church and, with others, founded the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC).
The OPC, following the lead of one of its founders, Paul Woolley, were willing to have a low profile. Some of the graduates, notable Harold Ockenga, did not agree with this position. Ockenga became the leader of a departure from fundamentalism which he named "New Evangelicalism." The genius of this movement was not to separate from but to infiltration into liberal ranks. This infiltration could lead only to a theoloical comprehensiveness, or willingness to grant at least the name "Christian" to liberals. This comprehensiveness became the theme song of the next player on the scene, Billy Graham
The immense part the Billy Graham Evangelistic association has played in modern ecumenism has been outlined in detail in several books.
For whatever motive, Billy Graham, quite early in his ministry, while still professing to be a separatist, welcomed liberals and eventually Roman Catholics into the bosom of his crusades. Thus began a parting of the ways between true separated fundamentalists and those who wanted to be more conciliatory in their thinking toward liberal, New Evangelical and religious-but-lost "Christians."
The flow of the Anglican Church during this crucial time displays for us some of the major steps in the fall of those who were reputed to have been examples of evangelicalism at its finest.
At the beginning of Billy Graham’s London Crusade at Harringay in 1954, there was little support from denominational groups, either evangelical or liberal. Within three months, however, the situation was reversed. Liberal Methodist Leslie Weatherhead became a Crusade supporter and the liberal Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher, pronounced the benediction at the last meeting.
This signified to Billy Graham that church leaders, whether liberal, evangelical or fundamental, could unite on a platform, as long as that platform said nothing that would criticize any unbiblical views they might have had.
Billy Graham’s biographer, William Martin, wrote, "He doubtless intended to keep himself and his crusades free from Modernist contamination, but success weakened his resolve. . . Graham came to accept, then to welcome, then virtually to require, the cooperation of all but groups such as Unitarians, Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses."
This "evangelical" triumph of gaining blessing and results through non-evangelical sources was not lost on beleaguered evangelical Anglicans.
Iain Murray reports, "In the early 1960s in England the opinion that their aloofness had been a mistake steadily gained ground among (Anglican) evangelicals, and when some of them joined in ecumenical occasions they were quick to report that they had been given a respectful hearing. Finally, when the first National Evangelical Anglican Congress (NEAC) met at Keele in April 1967, the former evangelical stance was publicly disowned. Prior to the congress, the Rev. John R. W. Stott, its chairman, had said, ‘. . . We (evangelicals) have acquired a reputation for narrow partisanship and obstructionism . . . We have no one but ourselves to blame. We need to repent and change.’"
The fact that Archbishop of Canterbury, who gave the opening address, was a liberal Anglo-Catholic, seemed to go unnoticed, as no one was barred from fellowship who would confess Jesus Christ as God and Saviour. Those involved in ecumenism "have a right to be treated as Christians" was included in their final statement. It was the opinion of Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones and others that the acceptance of ecumenism was a direct result of Dr. Billy Graham’s Crusade at Harrringay in 1954.
Before the next NEAC Conference, waves were being made among England’s evangelicals, resulting in a break in 1970 between Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and J. I. Packer. The latter took the position that Christian fellowship was not to be withheld from ecumenists. A large part of Packer’s philosophy which was obvious in his commitment to ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) was a result of his Anglican assumption that all validly baptized people were Christians (including Roman Catholics).
By the time NEAC 2 was convened in Nottingham in 1977, the situation had deteriorated so much that, rather than just welcome Anglicans who leaned toward Rome (Anglo-Catholics), John Stott, in the closing statement (see www.dodone.com/NottSt.html) said that Roman Catholicism is a sister church.
The ecumenical movement, with the philosophies of Schleiermacher, the impact of Billy Graham’s ecumenical stance and the waffling of Anglican luminaries like John Stott and J. I. Packer, was well on its way. The evangelical arm of the Anglican Communion (Church of England) was largely responsible for this revival of Schleiemacher’s theology in the 20th century, and the resulting ecumenism.
