ecumenical babel

8/9/2019 Ecumenical Babel

1/14


2/14

Jordan Ballor has written a useful guide for those wishing to venture

into the smelly swamps of ecumenical social and economic thought.

Why should non-swamp dwellers care what goes on there? Ballors

quite reasonable answer is that ecumenical bodies claim to speak onbehalf of churches, churches which many of us are part. Whether

anyone outside is listening is another questionone which Ballor

doesnt address but which others such as Anthony Waterman have

consideredthat being less and less so. Ballors book is distinguished

by considering not just the content of ecumenical statements on

economic matters (which have given grief to a long line of profes-

sional economists), but also the theological self-understanding of

the various bodies when they speak. He asks the deeper question ofwhether the bodies are adequately constituted to be the (or even a)

Christian voice on economic matters, as well as the not irrelevant

questions of their actual theological and economic competence.

Fundamental questions are raised about the relationship between

theological and economic discourse, and the sorts of institutions

that support helpful discourse. Christian faith certainly bears on

economic mattersthe briefest acquaintance with the Scriptures isenough to dispel any doubts. Ballors book is part of the movement

towards a better discussion of the links in our churches, universities

and political forums.

Paul OslingtOnProfessor of Economics,

Australian Catholic University, and Visiting Fellow,St. Marks National Theological Centre

and Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture, Canberra

WithEcumenical BabelJordan J. Ballor gives us a much needed

consideration of modern ecumenism. In particular he grapples

with this daunting question: whether ecumenical bodies indeed

speak for the church in their pronouncements on the hot-button

social issues of the day. Wedding compassion with clear-headed

thinking, Ballor questions whether ecumenical bodies may right-fully make such assertions on behalf of Gods people, andmore

to the pointwhether ecumenism is getting its economics right.

VictOrV. claarAssociate Professor of Economics,

Henderson State University,and coauthor,Economics in Christian Perspective:

Theory, Policy and Life Choices


3/14

Drawing on a long running and coherent critique that begins

with Dietrich Bonhoeffer and is picked up later by Paul Ramsey,

Ecumenical Babelexplains why the activism of the social justice curia

of churches and ecumenical bodies so often works at cross purposesto the great moral imperatives of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

This is particularly so in the areas that are receiving so much atten-

tion nowsocial ethics and economic globalization. Jordan Ballor

vividly illustrates how the ideologies of these church bureaucracies

are grounded in faulty economic thinking, which leads to policy

positions that seem to be impervious to the facts of the situation.

Ecumenical Babelis an invaluable introduction to the world of con-

temporary ecumenical social thought and should be required read-ing for anyone interested in the future of Christian social witness.

Michael crOMartieVice President, Ethics and Public Policy Center,

and Vice Chair, United States Commissionon International Religious Freedom

Inter-Christian dialogue is more important than ever as Christen-dom lurches from one crisis to the next. The problem is that many

of the bodies created to foster this dialogue end up beholden to

neo-Marxist, collectivist, and statist paradigms that ostensibly solve

the crisis but are in fact no more than temporalized, millennial

knock-offs of the Christian faith. Jordan Ballor offers us a short

history of strong Protestant thinkers (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Paul

Ramsey, and Ernest Lefever) who recognized the vulnerability ofthese ecumenical bodies to the ideologically inclined. InEcumenical

Babel, the author reminds us that the original intention of ecumenical

dialogue was not to subvert the Christian social witness, but discern

how to bring it into an increasingly secular worlda world that every

day seems to drift farther from its moral moorings. The takeover of

the WCC, NCC, and other groups by ideologues represents neither

a corruption of the original intent of the ecumenical movement,

nor does it represent the inevitable end of the dialogue. Rather,the lesson of failure is that we learn, once more, what Bonhoeffer

and Ramsey and Lefever taught: We follow no one but Christ.

reV. JOhannes l. JacObsePresident, American Orthodox Institute


4/14

Jordan Ballor calls for leaders of the largest Christian ecumenical

organizations to stop endorsing neo-Marxist hermeneutics as the

presumed framework for Christian professions of social theory and

practice worldwide. He appeals to Dietrich Bonhoeffer and PaulRamsey in making a case for welcoming diversity of theological

and economic opinion on Christianity and the emerging modern

global economic culture, and for encouraging debate as the best

means for making confessions on Christian social policy. Ballor draws

upon the recent works of Christian writers who resist neo-Marxist

deconstructions of market capitalism as inherently de-humanizing

and destructive to the natural world. On the contrary, they see im-

mense potential in market capitalism for the pursuit of Christiangood, not least for the sake of the poor. Ballors voice is one that

very much needs to be heard and considered by all Christians who

profess serious commitment to the liberation of the worlds poor

from the terrible evils of poverty.

JOhn r. schneiderProfessor of Theology, Calvin College,

and author, The Good of Affluence:Seeking God in a Culture of Wealth

The modern ecumenical movement, which began a century ago

with such promise for unity in the mission of Christ, took a tragic

turn at mid-century. As a result of this turn various organizations

representing the movement embraced an agenda that is less known

for fidelity to the gospel of grace than it is for a sectarian form ofculture-Christianity deeply rooted in economic and social theories

that are highly questionable. Through a judicious use of source

material, and the insights of three great mainstream Christian

thinkers from the twentieth century, Jordan Ballor shows why we

should end the tyranny of these ecumenical experts and again

confess the gospel properly, which is nothing less than the original

purpose of ecumenism.

JOhn h. arMstrOngPresident, ACT 3, and author,

Your Church Is Too Small:Why Unity in Christs Mission

Is Vital to the Future of the Church


5/14

The economic questions of our age remain widely disputed. Ballors

latest work achieves two objectives: establishing a normative evan-

gelical statement on economics informed by theological thinking,

while setting a general basis from which one can posit an informedfoundation for any treatment of poverty and economics. Ballor calls

into question the basis for some of the past and current premises

used to analyze social concerns. Through a reading of the philo-

sophical assumptions that have informed much of the ecumenical

analysis on economic issues, Ballor moves to offer an alternative,

yet historically consistent Evangelical Protestant framework, from

which to address critical social concerns. Ballor meticulously sets

out the nature of the demands of moral duty as it relates to thetask of soundly formulating prudential judgments. He does so

by drawing an important distinction between absolute ends and

the misguided effort to standardize proposed economic means as

absolute moral positions to which the Christian is bound. Though

not an Evangelical Protestant myself, I have found Ballors work

to be of foundational importance: certainly required reading for

students, clergy and academics seeking an introductory understand-ing on how to approach biblical stewardship. The monograph is

an excellent starting point to any effort seeking to gather a unified

body of Evangelical Protestant thought on the subject.

garreth blOOrJournalist and Graduate Student

(Social Science Hons.),University of Cape Town, South Africa


6/14

J o r d a n J . B a l l o r

Foreword by Stephen J. Grabill

G r a n d r a p i d s M i c h i G a n


7/14

Ecumenical Babel: Confusing Economic Ideologyand the Churchs Social Witness

2010 Jo J. Bllo

Cov mg: M V Vlckoc I (15341612),Tow of BlSouc: A Rwl C

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,o vl m, o m fom o means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording,o ow wou po pmo of pul.

ISBN 10 : 1-880595-70-2ISBN 13 : 978-1-880595-70-1

B L Clogug Pulco Ifomo Avll

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bllo, Jo J.Ecumcl Bl: Cofug Ecoomc Iolog Cuc Socl W / Bllo, Jo J.

Christians Library PressAn imprint of the Acton Institutefor the Study of Religion & Liberty

161 Ow Avu, NW, Su 301G Rp, Mcg 49503Po: 616.454.3080

Fx: 616.454.9454www.clp.com

Cover design by Peter HoInterior composition by Judy Schafer

P U S of Amc


8/14

In necessariis unitas,

in non necessariis libertas,

in omnibus prudentia et caritas.


9/14

Fowo ix

Pfc xv

Ackowlgm xix

1. A Ccl Eggm 1

2. Lu Wol Fo (LWF) 29

3. Wol Commuo of Rfom Cuc(WCRC) 53

4. Wol Coucl of Cuc (WCC) 79

5. Cocluo: Avu fo Rfom 105

Rfc 127

Aou Auo 141

C o n t e n t s


10/14

1

Is the ecumenical movement, in itsvisible representation, a church?1

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Every Christian reader of the New Testament has felt discom-fo om lvl, pp fg ucomfol, pp

skipping quickly ahead in the text, or perhaps shedding tearsof moug, w coug quo lk o of pol Pul: I C v? W Pul cucf fo ou?Were you baptized into the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:13 NIV).A ou comfo Pul mg mk cl, -uol vo of cuc cl.

Y qull cl xl u xp ofu o l oluo. A Gm olog pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer expresses the dilemma, How willu pol w clm o fl u u oevery side?2 It is in the midst of this perennial dilemma facingthe Christian churches that the modern ecumenical movementw o w cu, ,

A C r i t i c a l E n g a g e m e n t

1


11/14

2

EcumEnical BaBEl

seventy-fifth anniversary of Bonhoeffers critical engagement

of the ecumenical movement, that this study addresses thecllg fcg cumcl movm o.

The significance of this scandal of division and the potentialanswers represented by the ecumenical movement are reasonoug fo C o coc mlv w ccllunity.3 Our recognition of the scandal of institutional divisionrequires us to actively seek out solutions, however improbable

and however unrealistic. It is at this point, and this point only, cumcl movm ou coo.Goup uc Wol Coucl of Cuc (WCC), newly formed World Communion of Reformed Churches(WCRC), Lu Wol Fo (LWF) p- mo gfc log-m glol uolcommm l cu g lmm

of C u.For mainline Protestant Christianity in particular, these

k of ffo ol pom of g ogog fo cuc o com o om k of cou odoctrinal and ethical issues. The function of church coun-cils and international synods did not cease to be salutary w G Scm of 1054 a.d. o Po

Rfomo of x cu. Fo o m cannot be decided by individual congregations, classes, ordenominations, some higher forum for adjudication, or atl vm lo, .

Po cuc v ll w of om-tional authority other than that represented by ecumenicalgoup. Ev o, mo v f Wol

Coucl of Cuc w fou 1937, cclcluo of cumcl movm m ou. I cogo of , pcull mog Pocuc, fo om k of uol cumcl cv u gg cumcl movm p- Lu Wol Fo, Wol Com-


12/14

3

a crit ical EngagEmEnt

munion of Reformed Churches, and the World Council of

Cuc.Having recognized the important role that ecumenical

groups might play in Protestant ecclesiology it remains toestablish the importance of engaging these particular groups.T lg, ol, og mopv of v of mm cuc of cu-mcl movm. T o mpo goup, o

at the national and international levels, but where exhaustivecomprehensiveness is not possible, representative sample mustsuffice, and the LWF, WCRC, and WCC collectively provide areliable and authoritative index by which to gauge the current of C cumm.

The question is: Why a criticalengagement? We mean ggm o critical l wo . F,

f o ccll mpo plc of cumcl goupin the ecclesiastical structure of the churches, particularlyPo cuc. Sco, f o cc of ggm, o o ow fom of o coco of fc. T pom p cclplc of cumcl movm f quccm co .

This is particularly the case in those areas that the ecumeni-cal movement has increasingly focused on in recent decades,the areas of social ethics and global economics. James M. Gus-tafson has noted that pious Protestants can be virulent racistsor civil rights activists. They can be militarists or pacifists,ocl o f of f-mk m, glof w cuc gc c ou m. O

, c uo of Po cucwith regard to moral teachings as being only a little short ofco.4 If m w ccu w w c go, uo pog wll o co vg .


13/14

EcumEnical BaBEl

4

I pcl o pog co of co-

mpo Po cl oug cumclmovement has been most ineffectual. This is not because of alck of ffo, u cug co of uouindividual conscience, the ecumenical movement has contrib-uted to the ethical cacophony through a seemingly endless andcouou m of pooucm, co, mo,, l, po, cofo. T ffo

misguided in that while they rightly seek to bring the churchsmoral authority to bear on contemporary issues, they haveo o m g o m of pul jugmw v of opo oug o pc suppressed. Rather than addressing clear areas of morality,ecumenical pronouncements often attempt to make arbitrarycocluo moll g.

The reason for this lack of ethical leadership has to do witha more fundamental flaw endemic to ecumenical activism.Ineffectual ethical pronouncements by the ecumenical move-ment are grounded in faulty economic assumptions. Thisfundamentally flawed relationship between false economicvw ull cl cocluo o of mocpplg fu of cumcl movm mpoc

o pov uov mol guc. I pcull po ccl ggm m u qualifiedggm. W o o cu o co ,for instance, the significant theological work that is beingo cumcl movm, clug uc g Joint Declaration on Justification Lu WolFo Rom Colc Cuc (1999). N

do we consider the work of the innumerable other ecumenicalogzo, o lg mll, locl, gol, ol, ol. I, ccl ggm focupcll o cc of c ocl w of ml cumcl movm p LWF,WCRC, WCC.


14/14

a crit ical EngagEmEnt

5

Tcologcl ovo, p mo poml

uqu of I cou coumpo, com w fo pulc fluc o c kofecumenical-industrial complex, made up in great part by theLWF, WCRC, and WCC, in which the ecumenical movementis promoted, through the media and political engagement, lf cuc vc o o-ers. The institutional ecumenical movement is no quaintly

pou gg of vl m clg. Icgl ecumenical movement represents major institutional invest-ment, manifested by annual budgets totaling hundreds ofmillions of dollars aimed at influencing global institutionsof g o.

It is with the unrealized potential of the ecumenical move-ment to be of service as a church to the Christian community

m ccl ggm of ook u-taken. This is in the same spirit as that identified by Edwin H.Roo Booff movo fo cqu of cumcl movm 1935. A Roo w of Bo-off, I w cu o g g fo cu-mcl movm w col xmg subjecting it [to] searching criticism.5 However, this service is

ol pol w cumcl movm o flf cuc, o ccl ggm of ookfollows in the path preceded by three other significant voicesfrom the past century: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Paul Ramsey, andE W. Lfv.

Bonhoeffer: The Confessing Churchand the Ecumenical Movement (1935)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (19061945) was a theologian and pastorintimately involved in the German church struggle (Kirch-enkampf)the attempt by the Third Reich to consolidatecool u cl Rc op pomo po-Nz

ecumenical babel

Documents