For many, the term ‘ecumenism’ is associated with a slide into liberal theology and an overly institutional approach to inter-church cooperation. There are good reasons for these associations. Australians will think of the 1977 union of Congregationalists, Methodists and Presbyterians in the Uniting Church and its theologically liberal trajectory. But ecumenism was, in the first place, one of the great missionary movements of the last one hundred years. And a major branch of it was heavily driven by mission-minded evangelicals.
In my last article I observed how strange it is to me that many Australian evangelicals in the days of my great-great-grandfather were heavily influenced by the higher life movement. In this article I will show that many also were advocates of church unions and ecumenical efforts. I will show the strength of this noble aspiration among evangelicals at the turn of the twentieth century and critique its naïvety. As with my three previous articles, the 1902 Melbourne Simultaneous Mission will be a case study.
Inter-Denominational and Inter-Parachurch Cooperation
In 1902, church leaders involved in the Simultaneous Mission gushed about its vast demonstration of ecumenical cooperation. It was almost exclusively celebrated in the reports of local church newspapers, such as The Southern Cross and The Victorian Churchman and the reports of various committees to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria. One of the Mission secretaries, J. J. Virgo, described it this way:
It began … with an amalgamation of organisations. … representatives from all the inter-denominational associations met together … Then it became known that the Evangelisation Society of Australasia had invited the Rev. Dr. Torrey, of Chicago, to visit Australasia, and the meeting decided to ask the Society to co-operate in the movement. The Council of Churches, too, … had been requested to arrange for a Simultaneous Mission … [T]he upshot of the meeting was that the Council of Churches, the Evangelical Church Association, the Evangelisation Society, the Young Men’s Christian Association, and the Salvation Army agreed to co-operate; representative men apart from these organisations were associated with the movement, a strong committee was formed and operations began.[1]
The Southern Cross editorial immediately before the Mission began, reads:
[S]o many different Churches—Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists, Baptists—agreeing for a moment to forget the things in which they differ, and to remember only their own common and supreme duty. The fact is itself a concrete and luminous prophecy, a witness to the essential and permanent unity of all Protestant Churches, a pledge of combinations in the future even greater in scale and happier in promise than that which the world now witnesses. We have a right to believe that we are on the verge of a great spiritual movement.[2]
At moments like this we can rejoice with Psalm 133:1: “How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity!”
Optimism for Church Unions
Far from being framed as an exceptional and occasional effort, many desired that the Mission would encourage further cooperation and ultimately the union of denominations. For example, from The Victorian Churchman: “Why should this spirit of unity prevail only at mission time, and be limited only to such special occasions as the present?”[3] A The Southern Cross editorial quoted in the previous section speaks of this unity as a prophecy.[4] While this may simply be a turn of phrase, it might possibly be suggesting greater unity aligned with end-times expectations.[5]
The great political achievement of the federation of the Australian colonies had only just taken place on the 1st of January 1901, soon followed by the federation of the colonies’ various Presbyterian churches on 24th July. In February 1902, the four Methodist denominations in Victoria and Tasmania merged together.[6] As a guest at the first united Methodist conference, R. C. Johnstone, Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria, said he hoped to see “a union of the fire and go of Methodism and the solidity and strength of Presbyterianism.”[7]
There was a great deal of cultural optimism about human capacity for cooperation. From our vantage point today, this optimism strikes me as sweet but also naïve. There are good reasons to be cautious about the limitations of human unity in this fallen world, and wary of errors we might make in the pursuit of union. Reflection on the ecumenical movement, with the benefit of hindsight, shows it to have been at the very least a problematic endeavour.
Downplaying the Importance of Theology
There was a noticeable lack of cautious reflection on doctrinal and ecclesiological differences at the turn of the twentieth century. Those positive about unification often downplayed theological convictions, especially convictions about biblical grounds for a style of church governance. It is striking that Reuben Torrey and William Geil (the Simultaneous Mission’s keynote international evangelists) were more dogmatic about extra-biblical moral issues such as theatre-going, cards, alcohol and dancing, than they were about denominational theological distinctives.[8]
Torrey also said, when asked which church he attended: “It is the Episcopaleopresbygationalaptist. … I belong to them all, but the Church I believe in is the Holy Catholic Church of Jesus Christ.”[9] Or again, at the New Zealand Methodist conference, the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand said:
The Calvinistic bogey was being put in the background in the Presbyterian Church, and the same applied to the Arminian bogey in the Methodist Church, and both Churches were striving, not so much to maintain their party standards, as to give effective battle to the world, the flesh and the devil.[10]
Other church leaders did not merely downplay the importance of such denominational differences but undermined theological frameworks entirely because of theologically liberal assumptions. Canon Henson, declared, for example: “the essence of Christianity be not membership of a Church nor yet acceptance of a system of belief, but rather discipleship of a living Person”.[11]
Ecumenism Doesn’t Go Bad in a Vacuum
The blame for the theological compromises of the twentieth century does not entirely lie with ecumenism. Peter Barnes has shown the range of forces at work, for example, in the Presbyterian Church of New South Wales around the same time as the Melbourne Simultaneous Mission.[12] Church leaders were facing the challenges of modernisation and the pressures of theological liberalism. In Australia and the United States, denominations faced resourcing pressures quite foreign to Europe: leading and resourcing young denominations across enormous continents with fast growing populations. Evangelical revivalism brought its own influence, emphasising fellowship beyond denominational boundaries. Some errors of judgment might have been obvious at the time, others have only became apparent in hindsight. Church union was a relatively new ecclesiological experiment, so it is not surprising that many leaders didn’t realise then what we know now.
The problem doesn’t lie with a desire for inter-denominational cooperation in and of itself. However, over time, in the wrong context and in the wrong hands, this desire goes bad.
Cautious Cooperation, Especially for the Cause of the Gospel
There remains many practical as well as ethical and theological reasons for striving for inter-denominational cooperation. The various Gospel Coalitions around the world are manifestations of that commitment, as is the 2024 Meet Jesus campaign—and, in fact, the Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students which initiated that campaign! There are various principled working relationships between churches and denominations, occasionally even local or regional church and denominational mergers, that uphold the importance of theological convictions, rather than undermining them. The godly ideals and genuine achievements of ecumenical efforts in the past encourage us to persist at Christian cooperation—especially for the cause of evangelism.
We should be wary of downplaying the importance of theological and ecclesiological distinctives. I believe it was also a mistake of the ecumenical movement to place too much emphasis on institutional unity and denominational mergers as an urgent necessity. We can express our spiritual unity in Christ in a whole range of ways. Focussing too much on the formal and organisational can easily slide into unwise compromises.
There is actually a range of degrees of cooperation. Some of these should not be thought of as spiritual or Christian unity at all. Others are expressions of genuine Christian fellowship, but are best limited and occasional. Still others are more sustained and substantial. And yes, sometimes institutional mergers will result.[13]
There is no perfect fix to gospel partnership—neither detailed doctrinal statements nor denominational silos.[14] The drift to liberalism is a live risk, so also is the opposite drift into legalistic isolationism. The landscape of church, theology and practice will be in a constant state of flux, and requires wise leadership in every age, sometimes more collaborative, flexible and irenic; sometimes differentiated, steadfast and courageous. What makes it so immensely difficult is that usually we need a bit of both!
Much of this article is adapted from my article “Strategies for Church Relations During the 1902 Melbourne Simultaneous Mission”, Lucas 2.20 (December 2022) 87-116.
[1] ‘The Simultaneous Mission: Interview with One of the Secretaries’, The Southern Cross, 28 March 1902, XXI.13 edition, National Archives of Australia, State Library of Victoria.
[2] ‘Editorial: All Things Are Now Ready’, The Southern Cross, 11 April 1902, XXI.15 edition, National Archives of Australia, State Library of Victoria.
[3] ‘Notes on Current Topics’, The Victorian Churchman, 25 April 1902, XIV.312 edition, 86, Anglican Diocese of Melbourne Archives.
[4] ‘Editorial: All Things Are Now Ready’. Speaking at the Methodist Conference in March 1902, Canon Hindley also used the language of prophecy: “There was, as Canon Hindley, with a gleam of statesmanlike vision, declared, ‘a prophetic element’ in the union; a presage of a still larger union.” ‘Editorial: Spiritual Springtime’, The Southern Cross, 28 February 1902, XXI.9 edition, National Archives of Australia, State Library of Victoria. And again, the Editor of The Southern Cross, then also President of the Methodist Conference is reported speaking at a gathering of lay preachers: “The time is coming when the various Protestant Churches will forget their differences and when our Saviour’s prayer—that all may be one —will be fulfilled. Better times are near; God is drawing the Churches together in the Simultaneous Mission just now in progress. Methodist Union is showing what way the tide is turning, and this gathering is a good omen of the future.” ‘Melbourne Lay Preachers’ Association’, The Southern Cross, 9 May 1902, XXI .319 edition, National Archives of Australia, State Library of Victoria.
[5] Evans and Paproth notes that pre-millennial expectations were “surprisingly common” in 1900. Robert Evans and Darrell Neil Paproth, The Evangelisation Society of Australasia: The First Thirty-Five Years: 1883-1918 (Hazelbrook: Research in Evangelical Revivals, 2010), 282.
[6] Primitive Methodist, United Free Methodist, Methodist and Bible Christian. ‘The Coming Methodist Conference: Forecast of Proceedings’, The Southern Cross, 21 February 1902, Vol. XXI No. 8 edition, National Archives of Australia, State Library of Victoria.
[7] ‘The Methodist Union: A Day at the Conference’, The Southern Cross, 28 February 1902, XXI.9 edition, National Archives of Australia, State Library of Victoria.
[8] ‘The Simultaneous Mission: Notes about the Mission’, The Southern Cross, 9 May 1902, XXI .319 edition, National Archives of Australia, State Library of Victoria; ‘Hot Shots for Melbourne: A Temperance Lecture’, The Southern Cross, 9 May 1902, XXI .319 edition, National Archives of Australia, State Library of Victoria.
[9] ‘The Simultaneous Mission: Notes about the Mission’, 538.
[10] ‘The Week’, The Southern Cross, 28 March 1902, XXI.13 edition, National Archives of Australia, State Library of Victoria. An editorial comment on this piece is largely positive about these developments, merely disagreeing with the use of the pejorative ‘bogey’: “Any Church may well grow sensitive when it hears its own characteristic doctrine described, by its official head, as a ‘bogey.’ A happier description of the situation is to say that in both great Churches named, the sense grows that what is called ‘Calvinism’ and ‘Arminianism’ are complementary aspects of one great truth, and there is a sense in which both may be held.” So also the Rev. Dr. Fitchett is reported as saying to a group of lay preachers: “Many of the old theological battles are fought and done. The controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism is dead. The Church is learning common sense. We are all brethren, and carry a common mission … The time is coming when the various Protestant Churches will forget their differences.” ‘Melbourne Lay Preachers’ Association’.
[11] Henson Henley, ‘The Church: A Plea for Christian Brotherhood’, The Southern Cross, 14 March 1902, XXI.11 edition, National Archives of Australia, State Library of Victoria.
[12] Peter Barnes, Theological Controversies in the Presbyterian Church of New South Wales, 1865-1915 : The Rise of Liberal Evangelicalism (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2008). Geoff Treloar charts similar trends on a global scale, with a more generous assessment in Geoffrey R Treloar, The Disruption of Evangelicalism: The Age of Torrey, Mott, Mcpherson and Hammond (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2017).
[13] For further reading, see chapter 12 of my The Vine Movement.
[14] The Presbyterian Church of Australia’s 1901 union came with a Declaratory Statement that qualified the nature of required agreement to the Westminster Confession of Faith. This both reflected a softening in confessional rigour and facilitated further compromises. Yet the Presbyterian Church of Australia that remained separate after the 1977 union with the Uniting Church has kept this Declaratory Statement and yet, it seems, has not been marked by a slide into liberalism. Consider also AFES, whose Doctrinal Basis is meagre, yet AFES has remained theological conservative.
