Is there anything wrong with ecumenical?

[David from New Bern]

Red flags go up when you mention the term "ecumenical". Yet, we admit that God never approved the propagation of the multiplicity of denominationalism that are man made creations to account for his many preferences in faith and practice. That there is safety in hiding behind a denominational tag which keeps you free from personal scrutiny. But we remain scared of a melting pot under the banner of "ecumenicalism". Is there anything wrong with "ecumenicalism?" Isn't the goal of the Body of Christ unity? Or should we work inside of our denominations to bring them to doctrinal purity and practice and give up on the pipe dream of unity?

[dakota190]

like everyone else, i don't have all of the answers, but let me venture into this a short distance. in Mark ch.9-v 38-39, now John answered him saying "teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us." but Jesus said, "do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in my name can soon speak evil of me. for he who is not against us, is on our side." some of the separation of the various members of the body of Christ comes from the rules the denominations have established for themselves. i suppose they thought, when they established these limits on the believers and in some cases on the Lord himself, they were protecting the purity of the christian faith. it was and continues to be a mistake. for some reason man did not think God had completed the job and provided enough in his word, for the christians and they built their own walls, where walls were not needed. now the walls have become traditions. Jesus spoke out in opposition to traditions and man made rules/laws, in such as how the pharisees and the sadducees stressed the following of the rules they had established (traditions) and had either ignored or forgotten God's law on the matter. (at this minute i can't remember where this exact quote is in the new testament) traditions are hard to break. this is the problem with some of the rules of the various denominations today, tear down these walls. the Bible, as given by God is guide enough!! it is arrogance for man to think God did not complete the job, when he gave us the guide (Holy Bible). the only guide needed. since God is perfect in all he is and in all he does, i would believe God was finished and did not need man's help.

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings,

Ecumenism today is intended to mean to be "tolerant" and "respect" other religions, even other "gospels". Perhaps the word "ecumenical" ought to be very carefully defined. There are foundational principles given in the Bible which make determining a definition possible, however, among true Christ followers, the word has become a byword of secularism or of those who are liberal in their thinking toward the scriptures. Case in point is the admonition:

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

That is a pretty strong admonition of the Lord. Yet, we are told that Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni and given a set of golden plates upon which was written essentially a NEW gospel. Yet to talk to any SDA today, they will confess that "Jesus is Lord", yet most have no idea that the Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus was the "brother of Satan".

Shall we stand with them in an ecumenical embrace?

How about the Jehovah's witnesses who deny that Jesus is God?

How about those denominations that allow homosexuality to run rampant in their church, even to the promotion of homosexuals to the pulpit? Shall we embrace them?

There are many other scriptures that reveal foundational beliefs of the True Christian. Jesus makes it clear: "By their fruit shall you know them."

Judaism is another "religion" that denies that Jesus Christ is Lord and God. Shall we embrace them? I really think not. Yet we are admonished in the scriptures to pray for them and to share the gospel with them, in hopes they may be saved. I can say no less for all the other -so called- religions, for our duty is to be so thoroughly washed by the Word of God, that we should be able to give an answer to all for the hope that is in us.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

[seraphimbride]

Sorry,

I dont know how to delete this post.

Edited April 25, 2006 by seraphimbride

[seraphimbride]

It's my view that organized religion is man-made. And thanks to man, we seem to interpret, overinterpret, conclude, judge, pre-judge, criticize, agree, disagree, divide, sub-divide, pick-apart, mutilate, disect, rejoice, retalliate, dictate, over every doctrine, Word, ritual, etc.

Where's the love? Where's the grace?

I cant quote scripture, but I know that Jesus says we must come to him like children, and I get a sense of what that means. It means simplicity. And that is hard to find in any form of organized religion.

I'm currently reading a book called "Joshua" by Joseph F. Girzone. In it, the main character, Joshua, says that God never intended that religion become what it is today, regimented and legislative; and that he sent the apostles to guide and serve, not dictate and legislate.; that religion today is a tangible set of measurable religious observances, which is legalistic and superficial. Also, that these things can frustrate the work that God wants to create in each of us. He says that religious leaders work best by setting examples, to draw people to God by their own deep faith and by the beauty of their personal lives, not by instructing people into sterile external observance. He says that God's prime concern is for the people, not ther eligious structures. He says that God's law is not a code arbitrarily imposed on people to restrict their freedom unreasonably. It was intended as a guide to lead happy lives, but that some leaders have twisted the law into code that is irrelevant to man's nature and restricts the natural freedom people should enjoy. He further says that the word religion means to "bind up", and that's not what God intended. All God wants is for us to love him and each other, and in doing that, we find happiness.-------sounds simple but the toughest part to me is to love everyone like we love God--how wonderful that would be--to have a love like that for every human being--to love everyone as our own, father, daughter, child...

I'm constantly working on it.

I dont know if I've ever met anyone who imitated Christ in their lives to such a degree that I was drawn to them, spiritually. I wish we could all imitate the life of Christ--I think that's what he wants for us, and I think it is the way to true fulfillment and happiness.

[David from New Bern]

Hello Dakota190,

I don't think it is a simple as the idea that divisions are over man-made laws or traditions. After going through many heated doctrinal battles here at Worthy Chat, I have come to the conclusion that the disputes are over legitimate differences in interpretation of scripture. Just about everyone I have dealt with has had some legitimate reason for believing what they do. The exception would be those that believe things based on hear say that have not read the Bible for themselves.

I was pondering on the issue of whether or not it is possible for the church to become united. If that means everyone agreeing and being able to worship together in peace, I still believe the answer is no. At this same time, here is an idea I thought of while I was out mowing the lawn. In Bible times, it appears that there was one church in each city, for instance the Christian Church of Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, etc. I don't know if this is a fact, but I have read some books that suggest the church was too large in each city to come together in one location so they often met in smaller groups in individual homes. Maybe that's true and maybe not, but it still remains there appeared to have been one church representing each city.

What if a representative of every major doctrinal division came together with the idea of forming one church? This church would not have a Denominational name like Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Wesleyan, Presbyterian, etc. but would be known as the church at _________________. (you fill in the blank) Since everyone cannot agree on doctrine, and cannot agree on whether to have a formal service or a modern service and likewise cannot even agree on the day of the week they wish to meet, there would be an individual leader for each group. Services would take place throughout the week. You would have Saturday services for those who hold to the 7th day sabbath and Sunday services for those who worship on the Lord's Day.

There are certain advantages to this. First of all, nobody is left out. In today's situation, many are left out. Basically the churches are all going to contemporary services with casual dress and as a result have alienated many that resist such change. The modern church says, conform but as you can see, there are many not willing to make such a compromise. The same thing applies to doctrinal differences.

Secondly, most church buildings go unused for a large part of the week. In such a setting as this, there could be something going on nearly all of the time, and one group after the other could be holding revival services during the week. This would allow for a person seeking the Lord who is at the end of his rope on a Monday to actually find someone available at the local church, they wouldn't have to wait till Wednesday night or Saturday or Sunday morning.

Third, there would be plenty of money for the work of the ministry because there would be people of all different faiths. The only thing they would have in common is their faith in Jesus, the one thing that holds the Christian Church world together.

The only thing that members would have to keep in mind is they would have to respect each other's feelings when it comes to their individual services. If it was time for those who hold to the Baptist doctrine to meet, being a Pentecostal I wouldn't go to that service and interupt it by giving out a message in tongues followed by an interpretation. During a formal service, people shouldn't come dressed casual. In doing this, the church would truly become all things to all people in such a way as everyone could be part of it without compromising their faith.

I believe it was mentioned in another thread that one woman's church reaches out to the young people with contemporary Christian music, something I don't like and want no part of in the church. My preference is southern gospel, so there could be services to reach the youth with contemporary music and southern gospel for people like myself.

I had a minister ask me one time, "Would you be willing to do anything to grow your church?" I said no. There are many things my conscience won't allow me to do. At the same time, many of those things I find objectionable, others embrace as wonderful and label me as judgemental for my opposition to them. See, the intollerance goes both ways. I am perceived intollerant of the modern church, yet the modern church doesn't accept those who hold to traditional ways.

There was a thread some time back where the person that started it made the statement that we in the church must change our ways to reach the world. He was coming against churches that held to traditions where they didn't want anything but a piano and only met twice a month. My question was, why must they change? Isn't the church big enought to accomodate such people? Didn't Jesus die for those who are traditional as well as those who are not? Perhaps people like myself come across hard and judgemental towards others, but if they would look in the mirror, they are just as hard and judgemental towards people that won't conform to modern times.

Anyway, this was just a thought. There could be various services scheduled all day Saturday and Sunday for regular worship services and there could be 2 or 3 sanctuaries with services taking place in all of them representing different groups. We already divide up in Sunday School classes, so why not into different sanctuaries? This could be a solution to churches that want a traditional and contemporary service as well. They could have a minister for each group, and they could meet in two different sanctuaries. One would have casual dress and one formal dress. If things were like that, many who have left organized religion would feel comfortable in returning.

If anyone has any thoughts about this, why it might work and why it might not, I would love to hear it. Just think David, you could be part of a mega church, the Christian Church of New Bern and could be all things to all people, but you would minister to those you are able to reach and another preacher would minister to those you could never reach.

Hey Butero...So you think while you are mowing the grass too...Written some great sermons on a 2 acre lot myself...The only problem with that is you have make sure you don't inhale too deeply if the exhaust is bad ! Seriously, I was with you the first couple of paragraphs and then you lost me. And you deserve an explanation for my jab...Unity doesn't scare me but compromise to achieve it does. I can't find "compromise" anywhere in the Bible at this late hour. There are matters of preference and then there are matters of error. There is style and then there are issues of substance. I say it in love and with respect, I think you confuse the dynamics of that a lot. We are all a product of our early endoctrination and some times we find there are lot of our beliefs are the traditions of men.

[David from New Bern]

Sorry,

I dont know how to delete this post....11:21pm

It's my view that organized religion is man-made. And thanks to man, we seem to interpret, overinterpret, conclude, judge, pre-judge, criticize, agree, disagree, divide, sub-divide, pick-apart, mutilate, disect, rejoice, retalliate, dictate, over every doctrine, Word, ritual, etc.

Somewhere between 11:21pm and 11:27pm inspiration hit huh? But from where?

[David from New Bern]

That's ok David. I was looking for thoughts pro and con. Basically I was just trying to reason out if there was any way possible to achieve unity, given the fact we all have such strong convictions over many different issues. Even in my scenerio there wasn't really any unity of doctrine. It was more of a recognition that we were all part of God's church in spite of our differences and a sharing of the same building. My doctrine is still my doctrine as yours would be yours.

Anyway, I used to come up with messages while mowing the lawn all the time. Actually, I would find myself preaching to myself throughout the week, and would later sit down and develop the sermon outline. I guess such methods cross denominational lines?

Did I misunderstand the premise of your thread in that it was a question of whether denominational differences were a good thing and if we should look for ways to unify as one church, as opposed to standing firm in our personal beliefs?

Yeah....roughly stated...but the tension I'm concentrating on in this were the words of Jesus in His high priestly prayer in John 17 when He prayed for unity in the Body. I have fellowship with many believers from multiple denominational backgrounds, but then there are others I can love but I can't join with them in minstry. Yet, I am smart enough to know there is much room for diversity, but I can't see compromise of truth to just get along. I see a lot of issues that divide to be non-salvific in nature and we can just respectfully disagree.I guess question: should we be fighting for unity or truth? Or am I too much of an idealist?

[seraphimbride]

Butero,

I've stopped attending church services for years. I dont seem to fit into any particular denomination. I dont totally agree with any denomination, but I guess I dont have to to belong. I've recommitted to attending church services, again, after many years. I'm giving it another try. We'll see. I just want to praise God and try me best to give him glory. I dont believe that you have to belong to a certain church or denomination, but I wish I knew more people with the same goal in life. I dont mean to make organized religion sound so bad. I just dont know how much of it is truly for HIS glory.

PS. Hey, if you wanna start a unified religion where every thought, word, and deed is only to praise God, I'd be interested!!

[seraphimbride]

David--

Heeey-was that a wise crack?

Whether it was or not, I couldnt stop laughin.

If your puttin me down-shame on ya