[The following material is from O Timothy magazine, Volume 3, Issue 7, 1986. David W. Cloud, Editor. All rights are reserved. O Timothy is a monthly magazine. Annual subscription is US$20 FOR THE UNITED STATES. Send to Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, Michigan 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org. FOR CANADA the subscription is $20 Canadian. Send to Bethel Baptist Church, P.O. Box 9075, London, Ontario N6E 1V0. The Way of Life Internet web site is http://www.wayoflife.org/.]

In July, 1986, S. Wesley Ariarajah, director for interfaith dialogue of the WCC, delivered a report at the World Council headquarters. Consider a few quotes from this report:

"... In the early years, those who were suspicious of dialogue had put the [WCC] Sub-Unit [on Dialogue] very much on the defensive, challenging it to define and redefine the term "dialogue" and to answer the many questions raised by them....

"Much patient and scholarly work was done by those who led the work of the sub-unit to allay the fears and to win the support of churches for the Dialogue programme. ... We should recognize, however, that we are but at a beginning, and much more work will need to be done by many in all parts of the world before Christian theology and life can come to terms with this reality. There is no doubt, however, that this challenge and the response to it will mark a basic shift in the development of the Christian theological tradition...

"... what of evangelism? One of the questions being raised is whether Christians have the responsibility to invite, in all humility, persons of other faiths to follow Christ and to become members of an identifiable Christian community.

"Similarly, questions related to worship have become much more pronounced. How do Christians respond when they are called to pray with people of another tradition and in another name? It is not intended that we should seek to take up or answer these questions here...

"... I believe that we are now entering a stage in which we should challenge our partners in dialogue to take more initiatives for dialogue. It was important and natural that we took most of the early initiatives on dialogues, but I believe that at least a section of the Christian community has demonstrated its good faith sufficiently enough to be able to require of our neighbours that they also take active initiatives for dialogue and also do the needful to prepare their communities, where necessary, to relate to religious pluralism." (Ecumenical Press Service, WCC, 1-15 November 1986, Year 53/Issue 33, 86.11.27)

We make a few observations from this frightful, and yet pathetic, report:

First, we see that through patient politics and clever speaking, the liberal ecumenicals have deceived the great majority of those professing Christians who only a few years ago were questioning whether or not it is right to "dialogue" with non-Christians. Herein we see the fulfillment of warnings such as Romans 16:18. The Apostle commands that Christians separate from those who teach error (Romans 16:17). If they do not obey this command for separation, he warns that the false teachers (such as those who are in the World Council of Churches) will "by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."

Secondly, we see the end results of ecumenical dialogue with non-Christian religions. (1) Christian doctrine is perverted and changed by these disobedient dialogues. Ariarajah admits that dialogue will result in "a basic shift in the development of the Christian theological tradition." (2) Another result of this unscriptural dialogue is the tendency to consider non-Christians already saved. This is why we see those involved in dialogue asking foolish questions such as "what of evangelism?... [do] Christians have the responsibility to invite persons of other faiths to follow Christ and to become members of an identifiable Christian community?" Oh my, what an ignorant question! Ariarajah is speaking about the unsaved, the idolators, the lost religious persons, the atheists, the agnostics, the humanists, the communists, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Sikhs, those who have never been born again through personal faith in Christ. Of course we must invite them to come to Christ. If they don't, the Bible solemnly warns they will spend eternity suffering torments in Hell! So we see that this unscriptural dialogue with non-Christian religions leads to all sorts of foolish thinking and error.

Thirdly, we see that the WCC dialogue denies the deity and supremacy of Christ as Lord of lords, as the only God and Savior. This is seen in Ariarajah's statement about whether or not Christians should pray with people of other religions, whether Christians should pray in names other than that of Jesus Christ. Of course not! Of course not! A thousand times no! The truly born again Christian cannot pray in a name other than that of His blessed Christ Jesus. The Bible says there is none other name given under heaven whereby men must be saved (Acts 4:12). Jesus Christ Himself claimed, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER, BUT BY ME" (John 14:6). He said that all others who claim to be God or who claim to be ways to God or claim to be christs are false. "Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them" (John 10:7,8). Jesus Christ was "God manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 1:23). In holy prophecy, Jesus Christ is called, "Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus Christ alone is God and Jesus Christ alone is the true Savior. All others who profess to be are liars. Here we see the utter folly and error of ecumenical dialogue. We are not commanded by God to dialogue with the unsaved, but to proclaim boldly and unhestitatingly to them that Jesus Christ is God and Savior and all men everywhere are commanded to repent and turn to Christ for salvation from hell.

Finally, the World Council leader shows amazing ignorance of non-Christian religions when he expects that they will "take initiatives for dialogue and do the needful to prepare their communities to relate to religious pluralism." For the most part, this is a silly statement. Are the people of Islam changing their doctrine of Allah and Mohammed to satisfy ecumenical Christians? Of course not. They are aggressively spreading Islam across Europe. Every 10 days a new Muslum mosque goes up in England, we are told!

An ad in a Muslim paper in England boasts that liberal Christians who deny Christ's deity are conforming to the message of Islam, which says that Christ is not God and that through Muhammed was the final revelation given, and in the Koran rather than the Bible is the fullest revelation of God.

And what of the Hindus? Are they, for the most part, adapting themselves to ecumenical dialogue? Of course not. In nations and places where Hinduism is strong enough, such as in Nepal and in some states in India, Christians are persecuted, reviled, hated and abused constantly. And what of Buddhism? Or Sikhism? Are they tolerant of Christians? Are they adapting themselves to ecumenical dialogue? NO! Look at the Buddhist state of Bhutan. Christianity is outlawed and the few existing churches persecuted. Consider Thailand, a nation in which Buddhism is the state religion. Christians are barely tolerated, and even now the government is taking steps to reduce the number of Christian missionaries.

Oh, foolish ecumenists, when will you awaken out of your dreamworld, repent and flee to Christ for salvation, and to the Bible for Wisdom?