Ecumenical Evangelicals?
Today at his Jesus Creed blog, Scot McKnight, put up a post outlining what he thinks evangelicals do well. He made some good points while admitting that there is room for improvement. But one of this points bugged me a bit. He wrote -
We are good at being properly ecumenical. Evangelicalism is a movement and not a denomination. We align ourselves with others - all others in fact - who embrace the gospel. Because of this conviction, evangelicals are found working across denominational lines, forming parachurch organizations united around a common gospel theology, and joining hands in public with those who want to work with us. A genuine evangelical transcends her or his denomination in the unity only the gospel can bring. Think Christianity Today and John Stott.
I see the true aspects of what he is saying. My experience at Wheaton College - a very interdenominational school - was a poignant example of various groups of believers coming together under one conviction (more or less). But I find myself hesitant to agree that evangelicals are truly ecumenical.
My hesitation starts with the fact that for most of the evangelicals I have known “ecumenical” is a dirty word. I recall one amusing encounter regarding this issue. A small group I was a part of at my Baptist church in Wheaton was going door to door around the church’s neighborhood collecting prayer requests. We generally received the typical responses of either a quick locking of the door or a “that’s soo sweet,” but one lady decided to give me an earful instead. After a diatribe on why judging others is a mandate for all Christians, she told me that she wanted no one from our sinful Baptist church praying for her. Why? Because we were known to hold ecumenical activities in our basement. She said that like we were sacrificing children or something. The conversation ended with her telling us that she would pray for our salvation and quick exit from such an unholy environment (if she only knew…). Her stance reminded me of the stories author Philip Yancey would tell of how his home church tried to have him kidnapped and physically harmed to prevent him from attending ecumenical Wheaton College. Some could write these sentiments off as fundamentalist and not evangelical, but they sounded familiar to me having grown up evangelical.
In my experience other denominations were suspect for the mere sake of being denominations. Even at “ecumenical” Wheaton College, certain denominations were more accepted than others. The Assembly of God crowd were often suspect of following a misguided faith, and the Episcopal Church was only for philosophy majors who weren’t really Christians anyway (the Catholics had been run out a year or so before I arrived). In my campus job calling alumni for donations and prayer requests, I once was asked to pray that all the Mennonites on campus would find Jesus and become Christian. And in our final days working at the Baptist church, we had a few church members very upset that we would dare expose the youth to non-Christian religions - meaning Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans… Acceptance apparently only went so far.
So I am uneasy applying the term “ecumenical” to evangelicals. A very limited understanding of unity is representative of certain branches of evangelicals, but the term must be reinterpreted in order for that shoe to really fit. I just can’t bring myself to say that evangelicals truly deserve the label ecumenical. Inter-denominational, sure, but not ecumenical. It is hard to be one in the Spirit when you can’t admit that those not exactly like you could even be believers. Perhaps this is the definition Scot was intending. If “embracing the gospel” draws a very small boundry of believers then yes it is possible to be ecumenical among those one thinks are believers. But the traditional usage of the term implies unity among all who follow Christ - in whatever form. And that form of ecumenicalism is not yet fully realized by evangelicals.
So while I agree that evangelicals do many things well, this is one area where the still remains much room for improvement. Perhaps one day all areas of the church will truly be ecumenical, but today I still see more division than cooperation.
Julie Clawson
Topics: Church |
November 13th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
as much as i respect scott and the intent of what he was saying, i have to agree. it is difficult to swallow the assertion that protestants, especially evangelicals, who seem to thrive on schism, are inherently ecumenical. in fact, i would go so far to say that if his assertion were true, there would be little or no need for something like “emergent” to exist as an entity/movement/discussion.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Accepting the idea that perhaps it’s more accurate to call evangelicals “inter-denominational” than “ecumenical,” I think Scot isn’t so far off the mark. Perhaps if he had worded this paragraph more as an expression of an evangelical ideal (using the exact same supporting evidence) rather than a reality (however much I don’t think examples such as your door-to-door experience are common, there’s certainly no denying they’re out there more than any of us would like), it wouldn’t have caused such a reaction?
November 13th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I would agree that evangelicals have made a lot of improvement on the ecumenical front, much more is needed. I left the assemblies of God to be a United Methodist minister 18 years ago and one of the main issues is ecumenical working.
I am involved with a local pastor’s group where God is the chairman of the Republican Pary and all who disagree with Republicanism have their Christianity suspected.
I left a parish where 5 different denominations had a joint Vacation Bible School. It was Presbyterian, Disciples of Christ, UM, Nazarane and Roman Catholic. There was a lot of joint work in that and we ministered to around 70- 80 children each year. Our concern was to help the children grow in faith not evangelise for a particular group. It is still a very sucessful VBS.
November 13th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Julie,
I would not call Evangelicals ecumenical. That they embrace more people than they used to is commendable (and a certain sign to the lady you mentioned about the evils of ecumenicism) but they are far from embracing ALL who claim the name of Jesus.
I live in a very conservative area that is dominated by evangelicalism. I have visited dozens of Churches in this area and I don’t know of one I am at “home” at. Visit a couple of times and some will be sure to find out a.) I am a minister b.) I write regularly in the local paper. (where my left leaning views are condemned regularly by bible carrying evangelicals)
The 2 Churches that I find the most acceptance? Episcopal and Catholic………and we know they ALL are going to Hell.
By our very nature we as Evangelicals are divisive. Standard Baptist Joke. Abraham and Lot are overlooking the plain and Abraham says to “Choose where you want to go. You go your way and I’ll go mine” and the first Baptist Church was formed.
Bruce
November 13th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
‘Ecumenical’ was a dirty word in the evangelical circles I moved in too.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Even “interdenominational” was suspect in the evangelical areas I was a part of.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Good stuff my friend.
As Scot wrote, the typical thing to do is “…joining hands in public with those who want to work with us.”
I think this is the sad part. That we only join hands with those who want to work with US. This sounds positive on the surface, but it betrays an unfortunate tendency that lies underneath. As long as THEY will come into OUR circle, all is well. But God forbid WE reach beyond our immediate sphere. (Of course, I know Scot’s intentions were good, but I’m just trying to make a point, so forgive me.)
Saddest of all is that not only are evangelicals guilty of this (often unconscious) tendency, but all of us are. Even for those of us who claim to be inviting and tolerant, we will not tolerate those who we label as intolerant. And while cooperation must work both ways, someone has to be the first to reach out, and we shouldn’t expect it to be “them.”
I believe true ecumenism is certainly possible, but we all are far from it. …And yet, defeatism will also get us nowhere.
November 14th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Julie,
I guess like so many things under the elastic evangelical umbrella, it depends what one means and what era one is saying it. But overall, I would probably side more than you than with Scot, even though I can see to some extent, shades of Scot is saying. Like you, I’ve rarely seen evangelicals embrace “ecumenical” as a positive thing, in word or spirit. On the other hand, you do have instances of it happening.
For me, interestingly enough, it wasn’t until I started to my research on the cross-gender friendship and reached across to fellow Catholics that I began to see a deeper bond uniting evangelicals and Catholics, for just one example.
November 14th, 2008 at 6:50 am
amen. yes. in general, i find that i’m not a fan of fundamentalist-leaning evangelicalism; i’m okay with moderate evangelicalism; i embrace emerging evangelicalism; but i do not see evangelicalism or evangelicals as ecumenical. it seems inherent in the “we’re right and we have to make sure everyone gets the good news” model.
but i’m not prejudiced; heck, some of my best friends are evangelicals …
November 14th, 2008 at 7:40 am
I agree that there are levels among evangelicals. (and that I used extreme, but amusing, examples) Scot himself is part of one of the more ecumenical groups there at North Park. It is interesting though that the non-denom bible church I grew up at here in Austin has as park of its name “covenant” as more northeners move here, they show up at the church expecting it to be Evangelical Covenant. The church is actually considering a name change so as to avoid any confusion with a denomination. Not exactly an embrace of ecumenical ideals.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Julie, I can totally resonate with what you’re saying here. I commented on the post when he originally posted it at the Out of Ur blog and said,
“I would like to challenge (NOT criticize, but just push back a bit) you, however, over the point that evangelicals re “good at being properly ecumenical.” I’d agree if ecumenicism is understood as being oriented only within protestant circles. Evangelicals have a long way to go toward being fully ecumenical with respect to Catholic and Orthodox Christian communities. I’d even say that in every church in which I’ve served in ministry (all of which have been evangelical congregations), there still exists a strong orientation toward anti-Catholicism that borders on exclusivism. Evangelicals are, indeed, good at being ecumenical with other evangelical protestants but could use a lot of work toward existing ecumenically toward protestant groups who are theologically different and especially toward Catholics and the Orthodox.”
Evangelicals, of course, have a long way to go…but how LONG is it going to take??
November 14th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Julie,
I agree with you completely about evangelicals NOT being ecumenical. I’ve lived in a number of places across the country, and in places they don’t even join with others in the community for a Thanksgiving service or in social work type of outreach. Even certain Jewish congregations joined the Thanksgiving service, (and we Christians chose OT scriptures for the service.)
November 14th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
This is a fair statement by Julie IMO:
“I agree that there are levels among evangelicals. (and that I used extreme, but amusing, examples) Scot himself is part of one of the more ecumenical groups there at North Park.”
All the examples that Julie and others have given are true, and familiar. The line between fundamentalism and evangelicalism isn’t always clear, and much of evangelicalism still carries fundamentalist, separatist tendencies. Or is still fighting the battles of the reformation.
At the same time you have things like the Lausanne Covenant, interdenominational institutions like Wheaton College, efforts like “Evangelicals and Catholics Together”, publications like Christianity Today, the ecumenical approach that Billy Graham’s crusades took, and many other such examples - all of which spring from solidly mainstream evangelicalism. If you go to a self-avowed “fundamentalist” church or website, you’ll find that one of the fundamentalists’ primary condemnations of evangelicalism, is for evangelicalism’s ecumenism.
So I think there’s definitely something to what Scott is saying, even if ecumenism is to an extent in the eye of the beholder, and even if not all of evangelicalism is characterized by a generous ecumenism.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Karl,
In my fundy days I was in the “secondary separation” crowd. We separated from those who refused to separate from those we separated from. The Bob Jones crowd was really big on this. Even a couple of books written on the subject.
It is the same old “guilt by association” game. One that, quite frankly, wore me out trying to play it.
Bruce
November 14th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Hi, Julie,
Don’t be so hard on evangelicals for their lack of ecumenical openess to Catholics and Orthodox. Catholics in general have become more open, thanks to the reforms of Vatican II, but they used to return the favor of stride exclusivism.
The Orthodox? Really, the insularity of the smug fundamentlaist Protestant is only matched by the insularity of the smug Eastern Orthodox. The latter (usually with a veneer of elitism picked from having a read a tract or book or two on the historicity of the E.O. Church) sneers at anything evangelical, and are sure they are the true church. Again, there are exceptions, but in the U.S., if anything, the opposition to ecumenicism seems to be growing in Eastern Orthodox ranks.;
November 17th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Bruce,
Having grown up attending a fundamentalist Baptist school (14 years - preschool through high school graduation) I’m familiar with what you’re talking about. Our school was in Jerry Falwell’s hometown but Falwell wasn’t conservative enough for the leadership of our school, who were almost all Bob Jones grads. I was already suspect because my family attended a Presbyterian (USA) church, and when I decided to go to Wheaton College (that bastion of liberalism) they pretty much gave up on me.
I don’t see anything in your post that contradicts my original one - there are undoubtedly separatist and uber-separatist attitudes within fundamentalism, and within evangelicalism too. But I think Scot McKnight is also correct that (at least some of) evangelicalism does a better job than lots of other branches of the Christian family tree, at being open to ecumenical work and dialogue. YMMV depending on where you’re located and who you’re dealing with. Sadly we do still have a long ways to go.
Karl
November 25th, 2008 at 11:35 am
If evangelicals were truly ecumenical, would we be so segregated by race?
I think we are ecumenical in the sense of slowly learning we don’t have to put everybody down who doesn’t march lock-step with our own views. But
I suspect we are not ecumenical enough to be OK with being led by people who aren’t of our own evang/social/cultural/economic outlook.
I also suspect that theological “separation” is code-talk for what is really a cultural difference, rather than a theological one.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
B”H
I think Monte Asbury is onto something when he says, “I also suspect that theological “separation” is code-talk for what is really a cultural difference, rather than a theological one.” I had a theologian friend inform me once that there is a difference between ecumenical and interfaith. I agree that Evangelicals are not, but should be, far more ecumenical than they truly are. I think that Scot may be driven more by his desire for the term Evangelical to be redeemed than by a willingness to acknowledge the dark underside of the movement.
Blessings,
Shlomo
November 26th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Shlomo I agree there’s a dark underside of evangelicalism that isn’t ecumenical at all. And it isn’t always the underside - too often it’s the face. We could all tell our stories to that effect, I’m sure.
At the same time what religious group that takes its religious identity seriously, is more ecumenical than evangelicals?
Off the top of my head and without giving it a lot of extended thought, I would suggest that mainline protestants and non-evangelical emergents (if the latter really qualify as a discernible category yet) fall into the “more ecumenical than evangelicals” category.
So which religious groups fall into the category of being less ecumenical than evangelicals? On the whole Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, fundamentalist protestant Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, all seem to be less ecumenically minded and open than evangelicalism as a whole.
It seems to me that to the extent there’s a scale for how ecumenical a religious group that takes its identity seriously is, Scot is correct that evangelicalism is on the “more ecumenical than most” end of the scale, even if there’s still room for a whole lot of improvement.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
As an individual, I’m at different parts of the ecumenical continuum, depending on the day.
As a movement, evangelicalism is on different parts of the ecumenical continuum depending on . . . well . . . .
To mention just one variable: the subjectivity of the person marking evangelical’s place on the scale. My fundy friends definitively put it on the ‘going-to-hell’ end. My UCC pastor says it’s several miles on the other end.
I’m an evangelical. I think. (I don’t know where to send my membership dues.) But when I participate in our metropolitan ecumenical council, I’m the only evangelical there. I think. Doesn’t that mean we’re not that ecumenical after all?
Perhaps my participation in ecumenical councils helps slide our position on the scale a bit. It’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it.