This is an email answer I set to somebody who asked to clarify the term "Ecumenicalism".

Dear ____,

The term Neo-Evangelical is a term that has come to be as a result of the fighting within Christianity. Around the end of the 1800s German theologians were attacking very strongly the facts and composition of the Bible. They said for example that none of the miracles of the gospels actually happened. They split Isaiah into 2 or 3 authors (none of which were really Isaiah) so that they could locate these authors AFTER THE PROPHECIES (thus making them history written to look like prophecy, non-miraculous, and not revelation of the future). They attacked the Pentateuch as being written by 5 different authors instead of Moses because there are different names of God and treatments of subjects. It is as if nobody can speak on more than one topic or they will split you into two people instead of just accepting you as a single person with different themes to talk about.

Around the beginning of the 1900th century, this became more critical. To speak of terms, these German theologians were called "liberals" because their approach to the Bible was liberal (giving away or conceding to critics what they objected to): There was a counter reaction among people who accepted and trusted the Bible and this group was called Orthodox (coming from the idea of a position with is in line with "what we have always believed").

With time the liberals pulled Orthodox ministers into their group, but these Orthodox ministers didn't go to the extremes of the liberals. Their own congregations would have lynched them, so they took a middle of the road attitude, accepting some things but rejecting the more extreme. These middle of the roaders were know as Neo-Orthodox, coming from a position of renewing Orthodoxy by compromising it with Liberalism, mixing it well, and coming up with a middle of the road position.

The Neo-Orthodox were still pretty corrupt (in my opinion) because they still abandoned many Bible positions. One of these was universalism which believes that everybody one day will end up in heaven. Nobody will go to hell, or nobody will stay in hell, but God will one day totally empty hell into heaven. This doctrine is rampant among certain types of churches and neo-orthodoxy embraced it wholeheartedly. If you believe this, then you do not need to evangelize anybody, because sooner or later everybody will get there.

This extreme brought about a new movement, Evangelicals. These people took the great commission seriously and maintained strongly the need for every Church and Christian to witness, give testimony, or evangelize. Although these people basically believed that the Bible is true, but many didn't want to separate on fellowship basis from the other groups. They simply believed the same but evangelized.

To further clarify things, people began dealing with these issues using these terms. The Neo-Evangelicals as they were called were evangelicals that refused to separate from the Neo-Orthodox people in fellowship. So yet another group or division was caused in Christianity.

The issue of separating from people who are heretical in their doctrine or just refuse to separate themselves from those who are not biblical became more focused. The term Fundamentalist was brought forth as a term identifying people who believed the Bible, were proactive in evangelism and missions, and also separated from those who weren't. As with the other groups there were certain "Fundamentalists" who refused to cut fellowship ties with people who were identified with incorrect doctrine or practices.

This is where the term "ecumenical" or "ecumenism" came into being. It describes a person who refuses to cut his relationship with other people or denominations that are corrupt in their doctrines or practices. THE promoter of Ecumenicalism has been Billy Graham, getting an inheritance of theological ideas from Harold Ockenga. The exact purpose or philosophy of Billy Graham has always been to unite people of different theological beliefs and practices under the umbrella of his evangelistic ministries.

Search the internet and you will find a lot about Billy Graham and his promotion of ecumenicalism. Graham attend Bob Jones University for a year and left it because he didn't like the strictness of the Fundamental position. He was a personal friend of Dr. Bob Jones Sr., but many including Bob Jones have warned him of the unbiblical position and practice he was following (to date), but Graham refused to hear them.

To let you know where Graham is theologically, since the 1950s Graham has internally in his organization followed the policy that he will not have a crusade in a city without the cooperation of the principle churches of that area (Fundamentalists excluded of course). So he has universalist, Pentecostal, Baptist, Methodist, and even Catholic churches represented as supporting his crusade. Let me explain this a little more. Of these churches, those in charge of them invite and pressure their members to attend Graham's meetings. After the sermon, Graham offers an invitation message (trying to be a true evangelical). But Graham cannot have thousands of counselers traveling around with him. So he asks these supporting churches to provide him counselors. So the Catholic church has nuns and priests as counselors to receive the people who come forward for salvation. Once the attendee comes forward for salvation, he is asked what church does he attend and he is then "given" somebody from that church. A catholic wants to get saved, so he comes forward and is given to a priest or nun, which keeps him in the Catholic church. A Catholic church in the area has a rebirth ceremony sometime after Graham's crusade ends, where they celebrate Mass and "the renewal of their Catholic faith" with these "converts". Graham has called to pope (John Paul) the most religious man he has ever met, and "our pastor". Pope John Paul had a standing invitation for Graham anytime he wanted to come to Rome, the Pope would receive him. In the last 20 years the biggest supporters of Graham's ministry has been the Catholic Church. Various arch bishops and theologians have declared publicly for the Catholics that nothing Graham teaches or does threatens in any way Catholicism, but strengthens it.

Despite what you hear of the explanation of the gospel in Graham's sermon, they are redirected back into their own churches. Graham's people wanted him to go to India, and Graham agreed if his advance people setting up the services could get the Hindu priests to support his ministry. They asked for a clarification. "Can a person go to heaven without ever having heard the name of Jesus Christ, Messiah, etc?" Graham said yes it is very possible. He went and had many "decisions" (Hindu priests receiving and counseling with Hindus who came forward at his invitation).

My point is that according to Graham's thinking, salvation is granted by God to a person when he stands up and walks to the front of one of Graham's crusade meetings, because once he is inside a counseling room, Graham doesn't care who (doctrinally) deals with him. Graham doesn't care what church that person goes to afterwards. Even if a Catholic priest by some miracle didn't deal with the person, but he put down "Catholic" as his previous religious belief, the Catholic church gets that person's decision card after the crusade.

Graham's view of salvation is very faulty even though he sounds wonderful in his sermons. Please note that Graham doesn't condemn anybody as going to hell for being in and believing and following a false religious belief system (like the Catholics or Hindus). His position is love God and you'll get to heaven. The rich young ruler came running to Jesus wanting Jesus' assurance that he will get to heaven. He was very religious, but Jesus refused to grant him what he wanted (a nod of the head at his current sinful and avarice lifestyle). The rich young ruler left sad and unsaved because he refused to give up his former beliefs and treasured goals to follow Christ. Is this the same Gospel that Graham presents? Giving up sin is one thing, but giving up your own fabricated religion is another thing. Graham talks of giving up sin, but does he specify sins? (He has refused to label homosexuality as a sin.)

In general the ecumenicist is somebody who will talk like a Fundamentalist, but will fellowship and seek religious support for his ministry from just about anybody. Graham is the leader of this movement, but others follow his lead in varying degrees.

I hope this has clarified the term somewhat.

In Christ,
David Cox