THE FUTURE OF EVANGELICAL MISSIONS IN THE FACE OF ECUMENICAL COMPROMISE
* * *
Many leaders in modern missions have ceded theological ground to ecumenical dialogue. Ecumenism and ecumenical dialogue are typically inter-religious (or inter-faith) and cross-denominational alliances based upon a high value of perceived community around activism and a lowest-common denominator of doctrinal clarity. These alliances can either be formal (e.g., signed agreements between diverse parties) or informal (e.g., ministry-based relationships for common causes). Often there is a general agreement to the “basics” of the Christian faith, such as The Apostle's Creed, and anything more specific is considered peripheral, distracting to Christ's mission, or even divisive and harmful to church unity.
Others have convinced themselves that the promises of God in redeeming the world are conditioned upon their own efforts. The resultant shift from bearing witness to Christ and His coming kingdom to “being Christ,” “living the gospel,” and “building Christ’s kingdom”[1] is a blend of confused theology and familiar evangelical vocabulary, all built upon the priorities of humanistic utopianism. Missionaries must recognize and avoid this pervasive and troubling trend. They must take notice particularly of the repeated failings of pietism, activism, and pragmatism. By doing so, they can courageously take their place in the long line of faithful Great Commission servants who have proclaimed God’s Word with precision and love, and have left the results to Him.
Social Action and Doctrinal Compromise
Much of Western Christianity’s ecumenical compromise can be traced back to the American activistic theologian, Walter Rauschenbusch (1861–1918). Rauschenbusch pioneered an American variety of Christian activism, socialism, pietism, mysticism, volunteerism, and pragmatism. Rauschenbusch referred to both sin and salvation as “social forces.” He argued, “[Salvation] is exerted by groups that are charged with divine will and love… a social organism ruled by justice, cleanness, and love. A full salvation demands a Christian social order.”[2]
Contemporary social liberals are the progressive offspring of Rauschenbusch’s religious ideals.[3] Rauschenbusch’s social transformationalist ideas live on as subsequent generations become enthralled with Christianized movements and causes. Christians, however, are called to unite around truth, not causes. The Church must avoid using Christianity as a platform for organizing social activism. Christianity is fundamentally a doctrinal religion, not a cause to follow.
Ecumenism Based on Causes and Friendships
Along with viewing Christianity as a means for social improvement, there is a similar temptation to make Christianity flexible, so as to include anyone who professes to love or follow Jesus. This approach marks a drift from the ancient gospel, the gospel which the Church has historically confessed and built its fellowship upon, to a cause-oriented camaraderie in which solidarity and niceness are ends in themselves. The great Welsh preacher D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899–1981) labeled this blind commitment to harmony a “false ecumenical tendency.”[4]
Pietism: Confusing Zion and Sinai
Ecumenism in evangelical missions does not only spread in face-to-face dialogue at conferences and seminaries. It also creeps into books and other media that expose evangelicals to its ideas and to foundational convictions of historic Protestant liberalism and mainline denominations. The Christian’s subjective experiences can quickly replace the objective truth of Scripture as divine revelation, which can lead to an over-realized eschatology[5]—the expectation that God will fulfill His kingdom promises now, rather than in the eschaton.[6] In that case, ecumenism comes through a kind of pietism, legalistic emphasis on personal experience, renewal, and holiness over formal doctrine, minimizing confessional boundaries.[7]
A biblical analogy from Galatians and Hebrews can help clarify the connection between ecumenism, pietism, and over-realized eschatology. There is an inclination in every heart to go back to the stipulations of Sinai, as it were, to rely on obedience for inheriting God’s promises (Gal 3:10, 18). When one does that, the promises given to Abraham to be received by faith alone (Gal 3:8; cf. Gen 12:3; 15:6) are taken and turned into mere potentials based upon one’s faithfulness. In other words, the believer operates in terms of achieving the promises of God, some promises that will not be bestowed upon them until Christ’s return—in particular, the promise which the author of Hebrews calls “Mount Zion,” the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb 12:22; cf. Gal 4:26; Rev 21:1–2). In so doing, the gracious, unilateral covenant of God with His people (by analogy, Zion) is turned into an impossible, bilateral contract (by analogy, Sinai; Gal 3:7–9, 21–24; 4:21–25; Heb 12:18–24). But Zion ensures the promised blessings based upon Christ’s perfect and personal obedience as a substitute for sinners (Gal 3:13–14, 23–29; 4:4–5; Heb 12:24). To try to transform the world through kingdom-building is to get ahead of God’s purposes and promises. Instead of building a kingdom through doing all the right things, believers should focus on heralding the kingdom that God is pleased to give those who trust in Christ alone.
The conditions of Zion’s blessings for the world have already been achieved by Christ. The promises of Zion are future realities based upon the objective good news of Christ’s perfect obedience. The promises are secure, not merely possible, and they are only for those who have faith in the faithful One. On this side of the cross, Christians need only rest in those promises and receive grace to press on in this dark age before the events of the eschaton commence. “Building the kingdom,” though it sounds pious, is a false basis for ecumenism.
Activism: Co-opting the Mission of God
Ecumenical dialogue in evangelical missions often comes through partnerships built upon causes and activism. Something dynamic happens in relationships that are built upon movement ideologies. However, when Christians use language like “partnering with God,” “living the gospel,” “incarnating Christ,” or “being Jesus” for the world, they erroneously imply God needs man’s help in His work of redemption.
The Triune God does not need man’s partnership or assistance to build the kingdom. Scripture teaches that believers receive the kingdom, and that it is the King who builds His kingdom (Col 1:13). The mission of the local church is to make disciples among all the nations by testifying about the King, resting in His gracious promises, and keeping His Word until He returns. Then, at His return in glory, all the promises of God will be fulfilled and true peace will fill the earth (Phil 3:20–21; 2 Pet 3:13).
Pragmatism: Conflating the Great Commandment
and the Great Commission
If Western missions of the last few generations had a motto, it would be something like, “If it works, God must be behind it.” Those words are a spiritualized version of the pragmatic secular mantra: “If it works, it must be true.” This approach to discerning God’s secret will for spiritual success is a blend of American entrepreneurship and a modernist, liberal, anti-supernatural, inclusivistic ethos.[8]
The pragmatic approach to missions views the Word-centered and church-oriented task of the Great Commission as antiquated and narrow. It argues that if Christians are truly Christ followers, they will work the works of Jesus, love the poor, overturn the oppressive systems of the rich, and bring healing to the broken. They seek a more useful approach to the Great Commission—one that has more immediate and measurable results. Their approach is to reimagine Great Commission service as Great Commandment activism—loving the socially oppressed by doing justice.
Conclusion
There have been many big-hearted missionaries in the history of modern missions who have lost their resolve to keep contending for biblical truth and who have grown weary in waiting for the future promises of God. The seeming innocence of ecumenical partnerships can threaten to shipwreck their faith. Through pietism, activism, and pragmatism, missionaries can easily slip from a stable trust in the written Word, a patient hope in the future promises of God, and a faithful plodding in sowing the gospel seed.
Missionaries must remember that the history of missions is a legacy of God’s sovereign grace triumphing by His proclaimed Word in spite of the imperfect efforts of His people. Holding to this precious truth, they can courageously proclaim the Word to the world, knowing that all authority on heaven and earth belongs to Christ, and that He promises to be with His followers, even to the end of the age (Matt 28:18–20).
______________________________________________________________________
[1] These are common terms that have been popularized over the last sixty years through liberal Christian jargon and are usually related to what is typically called “incarnational ministry.” For resources that bring careful correction to this language, see Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert, What Is the Mission of the Church?: Making Sense of Social Justice Shalom and the Great Commission (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011); Greg Gilbert and D.A. Carson, What is the Gospel? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010).
[2] Walter Rauschenbusch, Christianizing the Social Order (Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1912), 116.
[3] See Joseph Bottum, An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America (New York: Image Books, 2014).
[4] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, What Is an Evangelical? (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2002), 18–19.
[5] For a further discussion on the challenges of over-realized eschatology in missions, see E.D. Burns, Seeds and Stars: Resting in Christ for Great Commission Service (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2023), 52–82, 170–182.
[6] The propensity here is what Martin Luther famously called a “theology of glory” (as opposed to a “theology of the cross”; cf. Heidelberg Disputations 20–21). An over-realized eschatology can have a variety of faces, such as, but not limited to, the New Apostolic Reformation, the prosperity gospel, Christian reconstructionism, and theonomy. See Douglas R. Geivett and Holly Pivec, A New Apostolic Reformation?: A Biblical Response to the Worldwide Movement (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014); Costi W. Hinn, God, Greed, and the (Prosperity) Gospel: How Truth Overwhelms a Life Built on Lies (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019); Jonathan Leeman, Church Matters: A New Christian Authoritarianism?: Christian Nationalism, Theonomy, and Magisterial Protestantism (Wasington, D.C.: 9Marks, 2023).
[7] Cf. Mark A. Noll, “Pietism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 3rd ed., ed. Daniel J. Trier and Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 668–70; F. E. Stoeffler, “Pietism,” Dictionary of Christianity in America, ed. Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 902–4.
[8] See further in J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 100th Anniversary ed. (Glenside, PA: Westminster Seminary Press, 2023); Carl R. Trueman, The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2012).