The Ecumenical Mirage by C. Stanley Lowell, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967. 205 pages.
The Ecumenical Mirage is a fascinating book written by a man who has served several Methodist churches and is presently editor of Church And State and associate director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The Ecumenical Mirage is filled with surprises. One would expect Rev. Lowell to promote the ecumenical movement, for he was at one time an enthusiastic ecumenist. But, instead of promoting the movement, he insists that “Ecumenism has not proved to be a liberating or empowering concept for Christendom” (p. 43). On the other hand, when one notes Rev. Lowell’s involvement in Americans United for Separation of Church and State, there are many statements in the book which can be easily predicted. This predictable element is especially evident in the later chapters.
The first chapter is well introduced by the opening sentence: “Ecumenism is an indubitable fact of our time” (p. 11). Lowell makes clear from the beginning that, when he writes about ecumenism, he is not thinking of “a desire for togetherness and cooperation” (p. 12). Rather he has in mind that “drive for Christian unity which envisages bringing all churches, including the Roman Catholic, under one ecclesiastical tent” (p. 12). This type of ecumenism—an “all-embracing unity of ecclesiastical structure—is a fact. It is a fact recognized, not only by Dr. Blake and Bishop Pike, but also by Dr. Billy Graham who said at Belmont Abbey College: ‘This is the beginning of something so fantastic it could change all of Christendom and will affect you, your children and their children” (p. 21).
In further defining the fact with which we must live, the author contends that present-day ecumenism has a very wide range which includes Protestant churches, the Orthodox Church, and the Roman Catholic Church. And then he adds: “A basic stipulation of this merging program … is that the Pope shall be in some sense the titular head of this combined enterprise” (p. 13). This contention is supported by several quotations which demonstrate that “most ecumenists acknowledge this” (p. 13).
Chapter Two is entitled “The Ecumenical Assumption.” The ecumenical assumption has never been demonstrated. But, says Lowell, “the ecumenical assumption is that the bringing together of all Christian bodies…would be the best possible thing that could happen to them” (p. 27). This assumption has produced an intolerant attitude toward those who question or challenge it. And it has also led to “the most tortured exegesis” of Scripture (p. 35).
Further, the author asserts that “the ecumenical movement has no real foundation in the Scriptures,” and thus asks the question: “Is it a good thing?” (p. 36). In the closing pages of this and in subsequent chapters he answers the question negatively: “One church can easily become too much church” (p. 37).
“Ecumenism And Sterility” is the title of Chapter Three. Instead of giving new impetus to the Church and its mission, ecumenism has resulted in “a slow process of bureaucratic strangulation” (p. 44). This strangulation, according to Lowell, comes from absorption in the mechanics of union and “the surrender of distinctives which is invariably involved in church union” (p. 44).
The author then goes on to show that “The practical consequence of ecumenism is the end of missions” (p. 49). The statistics on pages 49–57 are shocking and sound a clear warning to all who are in any way concerned with the mission of the Church.
The chapter ends with a plea to recognize that ecumenism, not only means the end of missions, but also erodes the strength of the Church itself. This, to our mind, is one of the best and strongest chapters in the book.
The following chapter, “Proliferation And Health,” has as its basic thesis the contention that, “while unity has never been a stimulating condition for the Church of Jesus Christ” (p. 66), “the creative forces of the Christian faith have been unleashed…by proliferation” (p. 65). Reference is made to the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, the “arch-proliferator” John Wesley, and various sects to show that proliferating groups have been very useful to the Church. The Second Vatican Council, “called because of the Protestants” (p. 79), is cited as “perhaps the most dramatic instance of the power of proliferation upon the church…” (p. 79). In summary Lowell writes: “History teaches that reforms come about only under challenge and only when the challengers are firm to the point of proliferation away from the group to be reformed. This is why division has been good for the church. A church incapable of proliferation is dead” (p. 83).
Chapter Five bears the caption “The New Approach Of Rome.” Rome remains basically unchanged, Lowell insists. Rome’s goal is also unchanged: “It is the goal of Trent and the goal of Vatican I–the restoration of Christian unity. Christian unity means the ecclesiastical monolith with the Pope as its head” (p. 118). But, while Rome and its goal remain unchanged, Rome is prepared “to wheel and deal” (p. 119). Thus Rome has taken a new approach in her dealings with Protestantism. This new approach is expressed in a willingness to recognize the reality of other churches, an openness to Protestant churches, and a “come home appeal” addressed to whole communions rather than to individuals. This new approach also reflects a willingness “to stretch its theological, liturgical and structural limits…” (p. 119). But, again, the goal remains the same—“one fold” (p. 119). “But the structure destined to emerge from this dialectical process will be the papal structure of the past ages” (p. 119).
In the sixth chapter Lowell states that Protestant-Catholic differences are fundamental and far-reaching. In fact, these differences are so basic that real unity between Protestantism and Catholicism is impossible. But the ecumenists press on, and there is “a serious possibility that they will succeed in bringing most of the existing Christian bodies into communion with Rome and into acceptance of the primacy of the Pope as the visible symbol of Christian unity” (p. 134).
Chapter Seven, entitled “Roman Ecumenism At Work,” considers the ways in which Rome is endeavoring to overcome the “apparently insuperable barriers” to unity. The barrier “par excellence” is papal infallibility. Lowell shows that Home has endeavored to make papal infallibility more palatable to Protestants by means of the collegiality of bishops, reinterpreting past pronouncements, and assuring one and all that “When the Pope speaks infallibly, he is only pronouncing what the church already believes” (p. 150). However, Lowen contends that “Nothing is changed here. The 1870 dogma stands. The Pope is infallible when as the vicar of Jesus Christ he gives moral teaching for the whole church. But what if, in the practical carrying out of the work of moral teaching, there was with the Pope a large college of bishops who shared his authority with him? This would seem to mean a widening of the base of the papa! power with the bringing of other voices into its exercise” (p. 143).
“There appears to be a little chance for a new Marian dogma in the foreseeable future” (p. 154). But amazingly there are indications of a willingness on the part of Protestant ecumenical leaders to accommodate themselves “to the Virgin’ Mary emphasis of Romanism.” For example, “A Mariological trend has been noted among a group of the United Church of Canada” (p. 155).
Lowell acknowledges that there is a remarkable openness of discussion within the Roman Church. And he further admits that “Once a thing like the Vatican Council has been let loose, it is hard to stop it at the point some leaders desire” (p. 161). He agrees also that there is a new approach of openness and friendliness to Protestants today. But, having said this, he re-emphasizes that “Its purpose is to restore ‘Christian unity’ under the primacy of the Pope and to bring into this fold not individuals but entire Protestant bodies in one or a series of gigantic sweeps” (p. 162).
The eighth chapter addresses itself to the “Rules Of The Came.” Prior to Vatican II communication between Rome and Protestantism was carried on by way of monologue “which proceeded solely from Catholic to Protestant without any responding procedure from Protestant to Catholic” (p. 166). Now, however, full-fledged dialogue is under way in many places. But basic to the rules of this dialogue is the “assumption that a single unified structure is God’s indubitable will for the church…” (p. 172). And what, in the mind of Rome, will be the nature of this unified structure? The author answers this question by quoting Paul H. Hallett:
The Protestant must have no illusions that Catholic ecumenism means that Catholicism is going to change in any basic way. Any return, corporate or individual, must involve recognition of the Pope as the vicegerent of Christ… There can never be a Catholic-Protestant Church or even a Catholic-Protestant fellowship of churches. The Catholic must say to the Protestant that the (Catholic) Church was substantially right and, therefore, any endeavor toward reunion will be a return to unity (p. 190).
Lowell also fears that Rome is “using the ecumenical movement, or allowing it to be used, to soften up the Protestant leadership on such an issue as public subsidy for Catholic schools” (p. 177). The book closes with an appeal to Protestants to openly reject the ecumenical movement. And, expressing his distrust of any “stickings together,” Lowell calls his readers to seek out and follow leadership which, in the words of Glenn Archer, “is proud of the Reformation which divided Christendom for the sake of freedom and broke the back of the most oppressive spiritual tyranny the world has ever known” (p. 198).
This is, in many respects, a very good book. Its analysis of the ecumenical movement is sharp and perceptive. It issues a warning, relative to Protestant ecumenism and the Protestant-Roman Catholic dialogue, which we do well to heed. It is true that the Christian Reformed Church has not been very much involved in ecumenicity outside Reformed circles. But, before we contemplate the “taste and see” procedure, we should listen carefully to those who have tasted and seen that present-day ecumenism is a “mirage.”
However, there are certain positions taken and articulated by Rev. Lowell with which we cannot agree. We would certainly want to join him when he writes: “The kind of oneness which Christ extols here (John 17:20–23) and the kind He desires for His Church could only by the most tortured exegesis be made to indicate a structural monolith” (p. 35). But we must part company with him when he writes referring to such as the Salvation Army, the Quakers, the Mormons, the Christian Science Church, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses—“There are many proliferating groups which, while destructive of ‘Christian unity’ have proved to be extremely useful to the church” (p. 74). There are times when Lowell seems to promote proliferation for the sake of proliferation. This is no more biblical than the ecumenical assumption”…that the bringing together of all Christian bodies under one ecclesiastical tent would be the best possible thing that could happen to them” (p. 27).
We were also sorry to find the P.O.A.U. (Protestants And Other Americans United) position set forth. We do not question Rev. Lowell’s right to take this position regarding the church-state issue and the use of public’ funds for non-public schools. Nor do we believe, however, that he has demonstrated that the legislation and programs sponsored by groups such as Citizens For Educational Freedom arose out of uncritical ecumenism, would mean the end of the separation of church and state, or serve as a vehicle for concessions to Rome. The author’s position on this issue seems to us to be a bit simplistic.
Never-the-less, having said this, we recommend the reading and serious consideration of the contents of The Ecumenical Mirage.
The Ecumenical Mirage is a fascinating book written by a man who has served several Methodist churches and is presently editor of Church And State and associate director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The Ecumenical Mirage is filled with surprises. One would expect Rev. Lowell to promote the ecumenical movement, for he was at one time an enthusiastic ecumenist. But, instead of promoting the movement, he insists that “Ecumenism has not proved to be a liberating or empowering concept for Christendom” (p. 43). On the other hand, when one notes Rev. Lowell’s involvement in Americans United for Separation of Church and State, there are many statements in the book which can be easily predicted. This predictable element is especially evident in the later chapters.
The first chapter is well introduced by the opening sentence: “Ecumenism is an indubitable fact of our time” (p. 11). Lowell makes clear from the beginning that, when he writes about ecumenism, he is not thinking of “a desire for togetherness and cooperation” (p. 12). Rather he has in mind that “drive for Christian unity which envisages bringing all churches, including the Roman Catholic, under one ecclesiastical tent” (p. 12). This type of ecumenism—an “all-embracing unity of ecclesiastical structure—is a fact. It is a fact recognized, not only by Dr. Blake and Bishop Pike, but also by Dr. Billy Graham who said at Belmont Abbey College: ‘This is the beginning of something so fantastic it could change all of Christendom and will affect you, your children and their children” (p. 21).
In further defining the fact with which we must live, the author contends that present-day ecumenism has a very wide range which includes Protestant churches, the Orthodox Church, and the Roman Catholic Church. And then he adds: “A basic stipulation of this merging program … is that the Pope shall be in some sense the titular head of this combined enterprise” (p. 13). This contention is supported by several quotations which demonstrate that “most ecumenists acknowledge this” (p. 13).
Chapter Two is entitled “The Ecumenical Assumption.” The ecumenical assumption has never been demonstrated. But, says Lowell, “the ecumenical assumption is that the bringing together of all Christian bodies…would be the best possible thing that could happen to them” (p. 27). This assumption has produced an intolerant attitude toward those who question or challenge it. And it has also led to “the most tortured exegesis” of Scripture (p. 35).
Further, the author asserts that “the ecumenical movement has no real foundation in the Scriptures,” and thus asks the question: “Is it a good thing?” (p. 36). In the closing pages of this and in subsequent chapters he answers the question negatively: “One church can easily become too much church” (p. 37).
“Ecumenism And Sterility” is the title of Chapter Three. Instead of giving new impetus to the Church and its mission, ecumenism has resulted in “a slow process of bureaucratic strangulation” (p. 44). This strangulation, according to Lowell, comes from absorption in the mechanics of union and “the surrender of distinctives which is invariably involved in church union” (p. 44).
The author then goes on to show that “The practical consequence of ecumenism is the end of missions” (p. 49). The statistics on pages 49–57 are shocking and sound a clear warning to all who are in any way concerned with the mission of the Church.
The chapter ends with a plea to recognize that ecumenism, not only means the end of missions, but also erodes the strength of the Church itself. This, to our mind, is one of the best and strongest chapters in the book.
The following chapter, “Proliferation And Health,” has as its basic thesis the contention that, “while unity has never been a stimulating condition for the Church of Jesus Christ” (p. 66), “the creative forces of the Christian faith have been unleashed…by proliferation” (p. 65). Reference is made to the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, the “arch-proliferator” John Wesley, and various sects to show that proliferating groups have been very useful to the Church. The Second Vatican Council, “called because of the Protestants” (p. 79), is cited as “perhaps the most dramatic instance of the power of proliferation upon the church…” (p. 79). In summary Lowell writes: “History teaches that reforms come about only under challenge and only when the challengers are firm to the point of proliferation away from the group to be reformed. This is why division has been good for the church. A church incapable of proliferation is dead” (p. 83).
Chapter Five bears the caption “The New Approach Of Rome.” Rome remains basically unchanged, Lowell insists. Rome’s goal is also unchanged: “It is the goal of Trent and the goal of Vatican I–the restoration of Christian unity. Christian unity means the ecclesiastical monolith with the Pope as its head” (p. 118). But, while Rome and its goal remain unchanged, Rome is prepared “to wheel and deal” (p. 119). Thus Rome has taken a new approach in her dealings with Protestantism. This new approach is expressed in a willingness to recognize the reality of other churches, an openness to Protestant churches, and a “come home appeal” addressed to whole communions rather than to individuals. This new approach also reflects a willingness “to stretch its theological, liturgical and structural limits…” (p. 119). But, again, the goal remains the same—“one fold” (p. 119). “But the structure destined to emerge from this dialectical process will be the papal structure of the past ages” (p. 119).
In the sixth chapter Lowell states that Protestant-Catholic differences are fundamental and far-reaching. In fact, these differences are so basic that real unity between Protestantism and Catholicism is impossible. But the ecumenists press on, and there is “a serious possibility that they will succeed in bringing most of the existing Christian bodies into communion with Rome and into acceptance of the primacy of the Pope as the visible symbol of Christian unity” (p. 134).
Chapter Seven, entitled “Roman Ecumenism At Work,” considers the ways in which Rome is endeavoring to overcome the “apparently insuperable barriers” to unity. The barrier “par excellence” is papal infallibility. Lowell shows that Home has endeavored to make papal infallibility more palatable to Protestants by means of the collegiality of bishops, reinterpreting past pronouncements, and assuring one and all that “When the Pope speaks infallibly, he is only pronouncing what the church already believes” (p. 150). However, Lowen contends that “Nothing is changed here. The 1870 dogma stands. The Pope is infallible when as the vicar of Jesus Christ he gives moral teaching for the whole church. But what if, in the practical carrying out of the work of moral teaching, there was with the Pope a large college of bishops who shared his authority with him? This would seem to mean a widening of the base of the papa! power with the bringing of other voices into its exercise” (p. 143).
“There appears to be a little chance for a new Marian dogma in the foreseeable future” (p. 154). But amazingly there are indications of a willingness on the part of Protestant ecumenical leaders to accommodate themselves “to the Virgin’ Mary emphasis of Romanism.” For example, “A Mariological trend has been noted among a group of the United Church of Canada” (p. 155).
Lowell acknowledges that there is a remarkable openness of discussion within the Roman Church. And he further admits that “Once a thing like the Vatican Council has been let loose, it is hard to stop it at the point some leaders desire” (p. 161). He agrees also that there is a new approach of openness and friendliness to Protestants today. But, having said this, he re-emphasizes that “Its purpose is to restore ‘Christian unity’ under the primacy of the Pope and to bring into this fold not individuals but entire Protestant bodies in one or a series of gigantic sweeps” (p. 162).
The eighth chapter addresses itself to the “Rules Of The Came.” Prior to Vatican II communication between Rome and Protestantism was carried on by way of monologue “which proceeded solely from Catholic to Protestant without any responding procedure from Protestant to Catholic” (p. 166). Now, however, full-fledged dialogue is under way in many places. But basic to the rules of this dialogue is the “assumption that a single unified structure is God’s indubitable will for the church…” (p. 172). And what, in the mind of Rome, will be the nature of this unified structure? The author answers this question by quoting Paul H. Hallett:
The Protestant must have no illusions that Catholic ecumenism means that Catholicism is going to change in any basic way. Any return, corporate or individual, must involve recognition of the Pope as the vicegerent of Christ… There can never be a Catholic-Protestant Church or even a Catholic-Protestant fellowship of churches. The Catholic must say to the Protestant that the (Catholic) Church was substantially right and, therefore, any endeavor toward reunion will be a return to unity (p. 190).
Lowell also fears that Rome is “using the ecumenical movement, or allowing it to be used, to soften up the Protestant leadership on such an issue as public subsidy for Catholic schools” (p. 177). The book closes with an appeal to Protestants to openly reject the ecumenical movement. And, expressing his distrust of any “stickings together,” Lowell calls his readers to seek out and follow leadership which, in the words of Glenn Archer, “is proud of the Reformation which divided Christendom for the sake of freedom and broke the back of the most oppressive spiritual tyranny the world has ever known” (p. 198).
This is, in many respects, a very good book. Its analysis of the ecumenical movement is sharp and perceptive. It issues a warning, relative to Protestant ecumenism and the Protestant-Roman Catholic dialogue, which we do well to heed. It is true that the Christian Reformed Church has not been very much involved in ecumenicity outside Reformed circles. But, before we contemplate the “taste and see” procedure, we should listen carefully to those who have tasted and seen that present-day ecumenism is a “mirage.”
However, there are certain positions taken and articulated by Rev. Lowell with which we cannot agree. We would certainly want to join him when he writes: “The kind of oneness which Christ extols here (John 17:20–23) and the kind He desires for His Church could only by the most tortured exegesis be made to indicate a structural monolith” (p. 35). But we must part company with him when he writes referring to such as the Salvation Army, the Quakers, the Mormons, the Christian Science Church, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses—“There are many proliferating groups which, while destructive of ‘Christian unity’ have proved to be extremely useful to the church” (p. 74). There are times when Lowell seems to promote proliferation for the sake of proliferation. This is no more biblical than the ecumenical assumption”…that the bringing together of all Christian bodies under one ecclesiastical tent would be the best possible thing that could happen to them” (p. 27).
We were also sorry to find the P.O.A.U. (Protestants And Other Americans United) position set forth. We do not question Rev. Lowell’s right to take this position regarding the church-state issue and the use of public’ funds for non-public schools. Nor do we believe, however, that he has demonstrated that the legislation and programs sponsored by groups such as Citizens For Educational Freedom arose out of uncritical ecumenism, would mean the end of the separation of church and state, or serve as a vehicle for concessions to Rome. The author’s position on this issue seems to us to be a bit simplistic.
Never-the-less, having said this, we recommend the reading and serious consideration of the contents of The Ecumenical Mirage.