During the Los Angles riots of the early ‘ 90s, Rodney King made an impassioned media appeal in an attempt to quell the violence when he said, ” Why can’ t we all just get along?” A similar sentiment has become an evangelical mantra in the late 1990s. We are frequently told today that unity will bring a much needed revival to the American church, but only if we’ ll all ” just get along.” What does the Bible have to say about unity and ecumenicalism?

Evangelical Ecumenicalism

The last few years have witnessed a shift in aggressive ecumenicalism from Liberals to Charismatics and now to Evangelicalism. We are told that we must unite with any and everyone (including Catholics and even Mormons) so that our evangelism efforts will bear fruit. Sure we can maintain our doctrinal distinctives, but those should not be a barrier to this new spirit of group participation. For example, Joe Stowell, President of Moody Bible Institute participated in The National Consultation on Evangelism on May 1, 1996 near Washington, D.C. It is reported that he ” reminded participants that God historically moves only when His body is unified.” [1] Joe Aldrich, then president of Multnomah School of the Bible, argues that unity is the universal cure for all spiritual ailments.

Its presence would silence the critic and attract the unconvinced. Its presence would release large amounts of spiritual energy. Remember, where it exists, God commands his blessing (see Psalm 33). When Present, unity scatters hope in every direction.

Its return would be a miracle.

Friend, we’ re talking about UNITY. Not uniformity, not even union, but unity.[2]

I recently recall hearing a charismatic espouse the following formula for effective evangelism in any community: ” If a city has 10% unity, then there will be 10% response to the gospel. If 30%, then 30% response. If 80% unity, then an 80% response to the gospel.” The implication was that if you or your church don’ t participate in city-wide events, then your non-participation would prevent people from getting saved. Such Evangelical superstition is increasingly common in our day. However, no such thing is taught in the Bible.

Biblical Unity

The New Testament does teach us about the unity of Christ’ s Body- the Church. However, I believe that it is very different than many popular notions that are even penetrating some IFCA churches through such recent movements like the ” March for Jesus” and ” Promise Keepers.” Both organizations were conceived within the Vineyard movement of the late John Wimber and have as goals a unity that is in conflict with the New Testament faith.

There are two unity passages in the New Testament that we should consider in order to understand this issue (John 17:11, 21-22; Ephesians 4:3, 13). Correspondingly, I see two aspects to biblical unity. John 17 speaks ofpositional unity, while Ephesians 4 instructs Believers about experiential unity. Confusion of these two aspects of unity are at the core of the error of ecumenical unity.

Positional Unity

John 17:21 says, ” that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me.” This passage in Christ’ s High Priestly prayer is a seed-plot statement about Church Age Believers being placed into the Body of Christ and thus union with the Triune God. This is a forensic work done by God in the bookkeeping room in heaven at the moment of salvation on behalf of all believers. It is not an experience, even though this act will be the basis for experience with our Lord. The unity spoken of in this verse is not the result of any human act. It is a sovereign work of God when an individual believes the gospel. Every Believer in Christ is in unity with the Triune God and every other Believer in the history of the Church because God has never failed to fulfill what He said He would do. Nothing in this passage speaks of any human activity. At this point, the Believer is passive. It is a statement of what God will do on our behalf. I am confident that God The Father answered His Son’ s prayer.

The increasingly popular teaching that experiential unity is the basis for greater results in evangelism or will bring revival cannot be supported from this passage. Further, the phrase, ” that they may all be one” refers to the union of Jew and Gentile into one body, the Body of Christ. This was accomplished, as Paul teaches in Ephesians 2- 3, with the birth of the church as Jewish and Gentile Believers are co-equal in the Body of Christ. They are made one- positionally- enabling the world (i.e., the Gentiles who were previously ” without God in the world” [Ephesians 2:12]) to now have access to God through Christ. It is instructive at this point to read Ephesians 2:11- 22 paying attention to the phrases of unity that Gentiles now enjoy with saved Jews on the basis of Christ’ s work for the Body of Christ. Jesus prayed for it in John 17 before the cross and Paul reports on the fact that Christ’ s work is an answer to the prayer.

Experiential Unity

I recall our church history professor in seminary noting that the basic of theological error of holiness and Pentecostal/charismatic theology is their confusion of positional and experiential truth. For example, the idea of sinless perfection was erroneously developed by teaching that we could experience what Christ has done for us (usually related to justification) with what He has enabled us to experience in our Christian walk (usually related to sanctification). This same error is at the heart of those who think that Believers will ever experience the type of union that Christ has provided for us positionally. However, Paul does teach in Ephesians 4 that there is a basis for experiential union. Simply put, doctrine is the basis for experiential union. Strangely, this is the very item that current ecumenicists insist must be set aside if we are to have their kind of unity and its fruits. The context of Ephesians 4 is that of doctrine.

until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love. (Ephesians 4:13- 16)

Conclusion

The basis for Christians getting together to do things for Christ is to be based upon what we believe and not on the liberal counterfeit of setting aside our beliefs to accomplish some greater good. Starting at Babel, apostates have always wanted to get together to accomplish some great feat, to ” make for ourselves a name” (Genesis 11:4) through the power of numbers. Yet, God Himself judged them by scattering them. Today we see the same spirit telling us that we should lay aside God’ s Word, come together with any willing soul in order to accomplish some great task- evangelism. History has shown that Satan still uses the same basic lie of Babel, but he has refined it by attempting to blend it with some degree of the truth.

The IFCA and similar organizations were formed earlier this century as a response to liberalism. Their basis for fellowship was a doctrinal one based upon a faithful adherence to God’ s Word. Our forefathers fought the battles of their day and stood strong regardless of the circumstances. Years later the issues have changed (at least their packaging), yet the basic issue remains the same: Are we going to express our loyalty to our Lord Jesus Christ in the way He has prescribed devotion- doctrinally? Or, will our hearts be stolen away by the promise of pseudo-success if we will all just get along?

Endnotes
[1]Gary Thomas, ” Leaders Map Out Evangelism Plan,” Charisma, July 1996, p. 22.

[2]Joe Aldrich, Prayer Summits: Seeking God’ s Agenda for Your Community(Portland: Multnomah Press, 1992), p. 9.

“Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps, and went out to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were foolish, and five were prudent. For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, but the prudent took oil in flasks along with their lamps. Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep. But at midnight there was a shout, ‘ Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.’ Then all those virgins rose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said to the prudent, ‘ Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ But the prudent answered, saying, ‘ No, there will not be enough for us and you too; go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.’ And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut. And later the other virgins also came, saying, ‘ Lord, lord, open up for us.’ But he answered and said, ‘ Truly I say to you, I do not know you.’ Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour.”

– Matthew 25:1- 13

Alas, we wave good-bye to chapter 24 and say hell-o to chapter 25. There are a number of items that need to be addressed as we move into Matthew 25, which impact how we should understand Christ’ s intent in this passage. If we are wrong on these issues it will guarantee that we will misinterpret the passage (unless we are illogical in the process).

One of the first issues that should be recognized is that the parables and teachings in Matthew 25 are a continuation of the flow of the previous chapter. Jesus has not totally shifted gears and started speaking about something totally new when He enters this section. This means that these parables are related to Israel, (not the church), her first century rejection of His Messiahship, and the coming spoken of here relates to the second coming and judgment that will take place upon Christ’ s arrival. Stanley Toussaint explains as follows:

This parable as well as the next one deals with the Jews in the tribulation period. This is seen from various facts. The context favors this view (Matthew 24:3, 8, 14, 15, 30, 31, 33, 42, 44, 47, 51). The subject being discussed is the end time, the final years before the kingdom is established. At the time the church will be absent from the earth. Therefore this section deals with a Jewish period of time.[1]

Chapter 25 highlights that since the Jewish people missed Messiah’ s first coming because of unbelief and were judged temporally in a.d. 70, they need to be prepared for His return so that they will escape judgment and enter into blessing (the millennial kingdom). ” He taught that following His return (Matt. 24:30) and the regathering of the nation Israel to their land (v. 31), the nation would be brought under judgment (25:1- 30),” says Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost. ” Christ used two parables to teach that the regathered nation will be judged to determine who is saved and who is unsaved. The purpose of this judgment will be to exclude the unsaved from, and to received the saved into, the kingdom that He will establish following His Second Advent.” [2]Jesus accomplishes His goal as He continues presenting parabolic lessons and teachings about judgment upon His return. Matthew 25 can be broken down into the following three sections: First, the parable of the ten virgins (25:1- 13), second, the parables of the talents (25:14- 30), and third, the judgment of the Gentiles (25:31- 46).

The Parable of The Ten Virgins

In a sense, Matthew 24:50- 51 raises the following question: ” On what basis will Israel be judged?” The answer in 25:1-13 is preparedness. The parable of the ten virgins provides a picture of living Israel brought back to the land at the end of days for a judgment to see who is prepared and who is unprepared the second time for the coming of Messiah. The focus is on Israel in the last days (i.e., the tribulation period just described in Matthew 24:4- 2. The prepared enter the millennial kingdom while the unprepared are excluded.

The ten virgins represent the nation of Israel as a whole. The nation is divided into two groups of five each. One group, the wise, is depicted as prepared and waiting since they have obtained extra oil in case a delay occurs in the coming of the bridegroom. This first group represents believing and prepared Israel. The second group, the foolish, did not prepare and they represent unbelieving Israel. They were not ready for the coming of Messiah. Dr. Pentecost tells us the following:

Although a strong testimony will be given to the nation of Israel during the Tribulation (Matt. 24:14), some people will be unprepared when the King comes to institute His millennial kingdom. The prepared will be received into the kingdom to enjoy its bounty but the unprepared will be excluded. Thus this parable teaches that there will be a judgment of living Israelites to determine who is and is not prepared. This is an expression of Christ’ s previous statement that ” you also must be ready” (Matt. 24:44).[3]

Some Rapture Implications

Since this parable deals with the future nation of Israel (likely the current nation of Israel that exists today), this is not a passage that comes into play concerning the rapture. This means that the parable of the ten virgins does not support the notion of a partial rapture position, which has been argued from this, as well as other passages (Matt. 24:40- 51; Mk. 13:33- 37; Lk. 20:34- 36; 21:36; Phil. 3:10- 12; 1 Thess. 5:6; 2 Tim. 4:8; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 9:24- 28; Rev. 3:3, 10; 12:1- 6). This view teaches that the rapture occurs before the tribulation, but only ” spiritual” Christians will be taken, while other Christians will remain through the tribulation. They also believe that multiple raptures will occur throughout the seven-year tribulation period. This view is thought to have been developed by Robert Govett in the mid-nineteenth century in England, and held mainly by British advocates such as J. A. Seiss, G. H. Lang and G. H. Pember.[4]

Since this passage, by and large, is not thought to relate to the rapture by pretribulationists because it contextual refers to Israel, it is even harder to make a case for a partial rapture. ” We shrink from the partial rapture idea because other passages seem plainly to suggest that every member of the body of Christ will be caught up (2 Thess. 4:16- 17; 1 Cor. 15:51- 58, etc.),” notes Randolph Yeager. ” Partial rapture would seem to imply rupture in the Body of Christ.” [5] Quite frankly, the same grace that saves each believer is the grace that will take one out at the rapture. One does not have qualify through their own words or reach a certain level of sanctification to be taken at the rapture. Qualification for being taken in the rapture is not a reward for faithfulness, but like salvation itself is a free gift. One’ s name is added to ” the rapture manifest” when their name is added to the roll the moment one trusts Christ as his Savior. Even if a believer does not believe in the pretribulational rapture, they will be taken anyway if they are indeed a believer. I am sure some will be taken by surprise, and perhaps some kicking and screaming but they will be taken nevertheless.

Partial rapturists say that this parable pictures the part of the church that is watching and waiting for the Lord’ s return as the five wise virgins who had oil and the carnal church who is left behind as the five foolish virgins. This they believe supports the notion of the partial rapture theory.

There are major problems with anyone’ s attempt to apply this parable to the church to begin with, since Israel is in view. Further, the imagery does not match up with what should be if this were actually teaching a partial rapture doctrine. The imagery used in the parable of the ten virgins does not comport with that used of the church in other New Testament passages. ” The passage itself uses none of the characteristic terms relating to the church, such as bride,body, or the expression in Christ,” [6] notes John Walvoord. Instead we see that the ten virgins are merely bridesmaids who would be attending at a wedding and not brides themselves. Where this portraying in some way the church, then these virgins would need to be portrayed as brides who were waiting upon their bridegroom, which would be Christ. This is not what is found in the passage. Dr. Walvoord further explains in the following:

If watchfulness is necessary for worthiness, as partial rapturists characteristically argue, then none of the ten virgins qualify for ” they all became drowsy and fell asleep.” The command to ” watch” in verse 13 has, then, the specific meaning of being prepared with oil- being genuinely regenerated and indwelt by the Spirit rather than having unusual spirituality. The clear teaching is that ” watching” is not enough. This passage will serve to refute the partial rapturists instead of sustaining their viewpoint. Only by the power and presence of the Holy Spirit can one be qualified for entrance into the wedding feast, but all the wise virgins enter the feast.[7]

(To Be Continued . . .)

Endnotes
[1] Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold The King: A Study of Matthew (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1980), p. 283.

[2] J. Dwight Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ: A Study of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), p. 407.

[3] J. Dwight Pentecost, The Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), p. 154.

[4] Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide To Understanding Biblical Truth (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986), p. 480.

[5] Randolph O. Yeager, The Renaissance New Testament (Bowling Green: Renaissance Press, 1978), Vol. 3, p. 345.

[6] John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979 [1957]),104.

[7] Walvoord, The Rapture Question, p. 104