The Ecumenical MovementSOME QUESTIONS

"The ecumenical movement in recent yearshas grown apace. We now have a NationalCoimcil of Churches (as do many other na-tions)

,a World Council of Churches, with some

one hundred and sixty-three constituent denom-inations, an American Coimcil of Churches, andan International Council of Churches. Presby-terians have also a World Presbyterian Alliancewith some sixty constituent Churches of forty-two countries, and other denominational groupshave similar world bodies. Moreover, there areworld missionary organizations and other specialgroups of many kinds. All of this means thereare "wheels within wheels" and "wheels on topof wheels" in order that the procession may bekept moving.

"To promote these organizations adequately;to hold annual, biennial, or quadrennial as-semblies, as these organizations do; to pay travelexpenses and entertainment of their officers anddelegates; to maintain headquarters and regionaloffices; and to keep the Christians of the worldinformed of their plans and work are matterswhich require both large numbers of personneland increasingly large sinns of money. Thesefacts give rise to some questions:

"Are we using for such purposes too manyof oiu' ablest men and women, taking themaway largely from the first and supreme taskof the Churchthat of winning soids to Christand 'building them up in the knowledge andadmonition of the Lord'?

"Are we spending on these matters largeamounts of Christian funds that might betterbe expended in evangelism, world missions,home missions, and the other basic causes ofthe Chinch?

"In a word, are we building an ecumenicalChurch at the cost of more fundamental thingsand is it worth the cost?

"We merely raise these questions; we do notimdertake to answer them here. We confesswe do not know the answers. Nor are we mak-ing any attack on the ecumenical movement.If it is of the Lord, as many of its promoterssincerely believe, 'Ye cannot overthrow it'(Acts 5:39) . But we think these questions andothers like them are worthy of serious consid-eration and that the answers to them should besought."

The above editorial, copied from the ChristianObserver of August 24th, is but another evi-dence that many Churchmen are taking a sober-ing second look at the ecumenical movement andits implications.

Instead of being a movement to witness tothe spiritual unity of Christian believersaround the world, it is becoming increasinglyclear that, in the eyes of many of its leaders,it is paramount in itself.

In the vision of some of its early leaders itwas a witness to the unity which comes froma common faith. Now it is rapidly becomingan organization dedicated to ecclesiastical pres-sures and controls and propaganda, from whichthe articles of the Christian faith have been ban-ished to a corner where they become matterswhich are minor and elective rather than ofvital importance.

In its spiritual concept the ecumenical move-ment is Scriptural and it is eternally right. Inits present condition, and under its predomin-ating leadership, it can lead to a tragic betrayalof Christianity itself. If any would doubt thisstatement let him make this test: ask for asimple statement of the content of the Christianfaith and it will invariably be denied. Why?Because its present concept is that of a greatChurch in which will be gathered men of everyshade of belief and unbelief.

The New Testament view of the Church isa group of beliexiersbelievers in a Person; WhoHe was, What He did, and, what we must doabout Him. While there is abundant room forvariations of interpretation on many matters,there is no room for question about the Personand Work of Christ, the Son of God.

It is our prediction that the ecumenical move-ment, as now constituted, will come under in-creasing and critical scrutiny. L. N. B.

Evil AdviceBy Gordon H. Clark, Ph.D.

In the popular magazine Look, issue of Sep-tember 6, 1955, page 35, someone raises thequestion whether he (or she) should kee}) thepre-marriage promise to raise his children Ro-man Catholics. He is not a Catholic, he regretsthe promise, he wants to take the children tohis own church, but is troubled by the promisethe Roman church once extracted from him.

Norman Vincent Peale gives the answer. Heasserts that to break the promise would be dis-honorable. A promise once made should bekept, no matter how difficult the keeping maybe.

Another question is. Does Dr. Peale give goodadvice?

To answer this last question, let us ask an-other. Is it always right to keep a promise?Suppose, and this supposition is not so far re-moved from the sordid realities of life, that one

PAGE 6 THE SOUTHERN PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL

criminal promises anotner to murder a chosenvictim. Should he, if he comes to regret hispremise, commit the murder even if it is nowdistasteful to him? When we thus canvass therange of possible promises, we see clearly thatit is not always honorable to keep a promise.The only promises that are honorable to keepare honorable promises. It is never right tokeep a promise to do wrong. The second wrongdoes not erase the first wrong.

Anyone who promises to raise his or her chil-dren as Romanists is sinning. It is a sin topromise to induce children to worship images.The Romanists, who bow to statues and whopray to the Virgin, are idolaters. To persuadeanyone so to act is a sin. The promise is a sinand the carrying out of the promise is a worse

sin. A person who is troubled because of hav-ing made such a promise should be laged torepent and to sin no more. Any contrary adviceis evil advice.

Of course, it woidd have been better not tohave made the promise in the first place. Whena boy and girl fall in love, one or both ofthem may lose a sense of value. He or shemay do or promise ill-considered actions. Anda warning, such as this article, may not be wellreceived. Btu if young people can fix theirprinciples ahead of time, if they can take afirm stand against idolatry before they fall inlove, they may well avoid falling in love withthe wrong person. And they may be able tosee through some of the evil advice that isserved up in the popular magazines.

THE LAYMAN'S PLEABy L. Nelson Bell, F. A. C. S.

The American layman's plea today is that theProtestant ministry shall not take from him hisBible and offer in its stead a mutilated and dis-credited book.

And yet, that is exactly what is taking ))lace, inso far as htmian efforts ever succeed against Godand His Word; for it is a fact that in America to-day theological education is only too often shotthrough with a consistent and concerted attemptto change the attitude of ministerial studentsfrom one of faith in the complete aiuhority andintegrity of the Bible to one of reevaliuuion ofthe Scriptures along the lines of a largely hiunandocument, some to be accepted, other parts tobe rejectedand all on the basis of himian de-duction, specidation and reason.

And, the most exasperating thing of all isthat c|uestioning of and imbelief in many partsof the Word of God continues at points wheremore recent discoveries and scholarship haveconfirmed tlie record cnid discredited earlierrejection.

There is a good deal of pious talk about thereturn to the orthodox faith on the part offormer liberals and modernists. The thing thelaymen would rejoice to see, if this be true, isan open confession by these liberals that theywere wrong and that they have recanted fromand rejected their former aberrations from thehistoric evangelical faith.

Instead of this we find the rather amazingassumption that wherever theological belief (orunbelief) happens to be at any particular time,that that is the final word.

On the other hand, the layman feels thatthe final word is to be found in the Word ofGod and he hates to see those to whom he hasthe right to look for spiritual leadership them-selves living in a flux of varying opinions onesseiuial doctrines of Christianity. By experi-ence and by observation the average laymantakes the Bible at face value. He is perfectlywilling, even anxious to imderstand it better;the times in which it was written, the back-ground of the writers, the conditions obtainingin the areas under discussion, as well as a com-))osite picture of God's marvelous plan of re-demption and of man's complete dependence onHis redeeming grace.

But, he rightfidly resents the assmnption thatthe final authority, both as to the authenticityand the meaning of the Scriptures is to be foundin a "scholarship" which has been abysmallywrong again and again and which often seemsto make a concerted effort to luidermine anddestroy the foundations of faith itself. The lay-man believes that the Holy Spirit is the greatteacher and the final arbiter in things of theWord, and he is becoming increasingly restiveunder a leadership which arrogates to itself theright to discredit the Book in the name of"scholarship."

There can be little doubt that the interest,and concern, of laymen is movmting. In recentweeks we have talked to several men from theNorth, one a Presbyterian of national stature,the other a Methodist, equally well known. Bothof these men expressed independently to thewriter that in their opinion the hope of theChurch is an aroused laitymen and women

SEPTEMBER 14, 1955 PAGE 7