John 17 and Jesus' Prayer for Unity
DON M. AYCOCK
John 17 is one of those maddening passages of Scripture that
says what it means and means what it says! And that is the trouble.
It is clear, straightforward, and enormously difficult to put into
practice. This article is not intended as an exegesis per se. Instead,
I will be looking at the broader context of Jesus' prayer for unity
among believers in 17:20-23. The attempts at bringing about
unity in the church are examined from an historical perspective.
Scholars generally agree that chapter 17 belongs, along with
chapters 14 through 16, to the farewell discourses in John. Jesus
is bidding his disciples goodbye and preparing them for his de-
parture. William Neil has said of the seventeenth chapter of John
that *'nothing in the New Testament will bring us nearer to the
mind of Christ."1 This being so, we must take seriously Jesus'
prayer that his followers would be one and would show unity for
the sake of witness in the world (vv. 21 and 23). Such unity in the
church is hardly a given. Even the most casual observer knows of
the schism and splits within the body of Christ.
Such division is a major scandal which creates artificial stum-
bling blocks for many. One church historian has noted the divisive
nature of denomi nationalism and has written, 'Only by the
wildest stretching of the imagination can one defend denomina-
tionalism scripturally. Rationally, it is antithetical to the recon-
ciling nature of the gospel. The church ought to be the epitome
of unity. By its very nature, it should break down the unnat-
ural human barriers with which denominationalism must be
classified."2
132
John 17 and Jesus1 Prayer for Unity
In the New Testament are to be found solid evidences for unity.
Jesus prayed that there would be one flock and that they would
have one shepherd (John 10:16). Paul said that since Christians
know only one Lord, one faith, and one baptism (Ephesians 4:5),
they are all members of one another (Romans 12:5). This fellow-
ship is so intimate that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek,
slave nor freeman, male nor female (Galatians 3:28). For Paul, if
the Church is divided then Christ is divided, but that is impossible
(cf. 1 Corinthians 1:13).3 This sounds fine in theory, but putting
it into practice has been a struggle of centuries. This was the goal
of the early ecumenical councils.
EARLY ECUMENICAL COUNCILS
The word ecumenical comes from the Greek oikoumene which
referred to "the inhabited world." This concept led naturally to the
ecumenical councils of the church in the fourth and fifth centuries.
The bishops of "the whole world" were invited. The word has
evolved in the twentieth century to mean an inclusion of those
divided not only by geography but also by theology and ecclesi-
ology. Thus "ecumenical" has come to mean "uniting." 4 By an
etymological paradox, "ecumenical" movements have been pos-
sible in one small geographical location, such as in England with
the British Council of Churches.
The early ecumenical councils were not primarily an attempt of
a divided church to find the sort of unity for which Jesus prayed
in John 17. Those councils originated from the link between the
Christian church and the Roman state during the fourth century.
Originally called together by the emperors to promote unity, those
early councils were intended to represent the whole church.5 Later,
Roman Catholic canon law stipulated that an ecumenical council
must be convened by the pope. An irony of history is that the
church is divided even on the number of such councils. Roman
Catholics accept twenty-one, while the Coptic, Syrian, and Arme-
nian churches accept only the first three in the Roman Catholic
list. Most Protestant groups and the Eastern Orthodox Church
accept seven.
133
The Theological Educator
The first eight ecumenical councils were called by emperors and
had representation from both Eastern and Western bishops. These
included Nicaea I (325); Constantinople I (381); Ephesus (431);
Chalcedon (451); Constantinople II (553); Constantinople III
(680-81); Nicaea II (787); and Constantinople IV (869-70).
The papacy initiated and assumed control of the councils be-
ginning at the First Lateran Council in 1123. This policy continued
with Lateran II (1139); Lateran III (1179); Lateran IV (1215);
Lyon I (1245); Lyon II (1274); and Vienne (1311-12). During the
sixteenth century, the Fifth Lateran Council ( 1512-17) and the Coun-
cil of Trent (1545-63) were called due to the challenges against the
Roman Catholic Church. Two modern councils met almost a cen-
tury apart: Vatican I (1869-70) and Vatican II (1962-65).
Despite early attempts to develop and maintain Christian unity,
various divisions split the church. The early ecumenical councils
often failed to prevent schism and heresy. In 1054 the Eastern
and Western churches excommunicated each other and divided
the church in a rift which exists to some degree even today. The
Councils of Lyons in 1274 and Florence in 1438-39 attempted
reunification but with no success. The Protestant Reformation of
the sixteenth century split the Western church even further. This
opened the door to the spread of denominations and sects. The
Roman church countered with the called meeting of the Council of
Trent. Thomas Cranmer wrote to John Calvin that the Protestant
churches should arrange their own council to meet, and if neces-
sary, to oppose, the claims of Trent.
The eighteenth century brought about sporadic movements and
negotiations between the Anglicans and Roman Catholics. Roman-
ticism provided part of this new impulse of dialogue and cooper-
ation and brought about dreams of the corporate reunion of the
Church of England with the main body of the Western Church.6
These efforts bore fruit, or at least buds, in the symbolic papal
visit to Canterbury in 1982.
MODERN MOVEMENTS TOWARD UNITY
The status quo of division and separation has not been accepted
by all Christians. Some have worked to bring about at least some
134
John 17 and Jesus' Prayer for Unity
measure of cooperation among the various groups and churches.
In the nineteenth century, for example, Christians from several
American Protestant denominations banded together to form nu-
merous societies for the purposes of evangelism, missions, and
benevolence. Tract and Bible societies were established. In 1846
individuals from over fifty American and British denominations
formed the Evangelical Alliance to promote religious liberty and
to cooperate in various evangelistic and educational ministries.
Individuals have been instrumental in efforts to unify the
church. John Eliot (1604-90), a missionary among the Indians,
hoped for a union of the Presbyterian and Congregational
churches. He even drew up a plan of polity for the two bodies.7
Thomas Campbell (1763-1854) published his Declaration and
Address in 1809. It was a plea to transcend sectarian divisions
through a restoration of the church to its "primitive unity, purity,
and prosperity."
Samuel Simon Schmucker (1799-1873), a Lutheran, published
in 1838 his Fraternal Appeal to the American Churches: With a
Plan for Catholic Union, on Apostolic Principles. He called for the
formation of the "Apostolic Protestant Church" which had as a
doctrinal basis a united confession based on the fundamental doc-
trines of Protestantism expressed in and common to all Protestant
creeds. Schmucker even proposed open communion and a free
interchange of ministry.
While these efforts helped set the stage, the drive toward ecu-
menical unity is actually a movement of the twentieth century. One
historian has noted that
ecumenism has been predominately a phenomenon of the twen-
tieth century and, until recently, of Protestantism. It is essen-
tially a spiritual mood or religious commitment rather than a
single clearly worked out theological position; and moreover,
much of its impulse has always been pragmatic: the wasteful
and scandalous rivalries and duplication of effort in the mis-
sionary work of the churches, especially in India and Africa; the
clear need for cooperation in areas of social witness; the de-
clining resources of the smaller churches in a country like
England; the increasingly 'sect'-like character of all Christian
135
The Theological Educator
bodies in more plainly secular societies. . . . giving even to
established churches a greater self-consciousness as they have
ceased to occupy a central role in relation to political and cul-
tural life in general.8
In 1908 the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America
was established with about thirty major bodies of Christians. It
had among its goals that of securing "a larger combined influence
for the Churches of Christ in all matters affecting the moral and
social condition of the people, so as to promote the application of
the law of Christ in every relation of human life."
Two years later, in 1910, an American Methodist, John R.
Mott, presided over the International Missionary Conference in
Edinburgh. Mott led the thousand delegates to see a vision of what
could be done if Christians united behind mission efforts. Three
organizations were established to continue the work of the Edin-
burgh Conference. The International Missionary Council met in
Lake Mohon, New York, in 1921. It attempted to bring about
cooperation among the various Protestant mission organizations.
The second group springing from Edinburgh was the Conference
on Life and Work which met in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1925
under the leadership of Nathan Soderblom. Its goals were to unify
efforts to solve social, economic, and political problems. The third
group was the Conference on Faith and Order which met in Lau-
sanne, Switzerland, in 1927. It addressed the theological issues of
the unity of the church. Over four hundred delegates representing
more than one hundred churches met to explore their ecclesiastical
divisions. As a result, they issued a statement entitled "The
Church's Message to the World."
By 1937 two of these conferences, Life and Work, Faith and
Order, agreed that a more extensive and long-lasting conference
was needed. They proposed the establishing of a World Council of
Churches. World War II prevented an immediate implementation
of the proposal, however. In 1948 the dream became a reality when
351 delegates representing 147 denominations from 44 countries
met in Amsterdam, Holland, and formed the World Council of
Churches. The first Secretary was W. A. Visser't Hooft. The
International Missionary Conference joined with this group in
136
John 17 and Jesus' Prayer for Unity
1961 at the WCC meeting in New Delhi. The Russian Orthodox
Church also joined then. Thus, by 1961 the conferences on doc-
trine, social action, and mission were merged into one body, the
World Council of Churches.9 A confessional "Basis" was adopted
in 1961: "The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of
Churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Savior
according to the Scriptures and therefore seek to fulfill together
their common calling to the glory of one God, Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit." 10 Visser't Hooft spoke of this ecumenical band of
Christians as "an emergency solution, a stage on the road, a body
living between the time of complete isolation of the churches from
each other and the time—on earth as in heaven—when it will be
visibly true that there is one shepherd and one flock."11
The World Council of Churches first met in Amsterdam,
Holland, in 1948 under the theme, "Man's Disorder and God's
Design." The delegates adopted a statement that "the Christian
churches should reject the ideologies of both communism and
laissez faire capitalism, and should seek to draw men away from
the false assumption that these extremes are the only alternatives."
The context of this statement was the rising cold war between the
East and the West. This meeting was a time of high church
rediscovery, that is, a search for the continuities behind church
divisions.12
The second WCC meeting took place in Evanston, Illinois, in
1954. Many Christian leaders from the third world attended this
meeting. They influenced many strong statements on social issues
such as one on disarmament: "It is not enough for the churches to
proclaim that war is evil. They must study afresh the Christian
approaches to peace. . . . Christians in all lands must plead with
their governments to be patient and persistent in their search for
means to limit weapons and advance disarmament." Issues of
politics, economics, and peace were debated. The issues of racial
injustice and civil disobedience were discussed. This meeting also
saw a turn from inward looking of the churches to an outward
sense of "mission."
The third WCC meeting was held in New Delhi, India, in 1961.
This gathering saw the emergence of nonwhite voices of Africa,
Asia, and Latin America. Human rights were an issue high on the
137
The Theological Educator
agenda. Beginning at this meeting, an attempt was made to move
ecclesiology out of the center of theological concern. The church
exists "for others" and need not waste time debating its own role.
A fourth meeting of the WCC was held in Uppsala, Sweden, in
1968. Revolution, human rights, religious liberty, the instability of
the Middle East, the United Nations, China, conflicts in Nigeria,
racism, and the development of Third World countries were all
items on the agenda for discussion and action. Theologically, there
was a move toward a Christocentric approach to church and world
issues.
The WCC's fifth meeting was in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1975. An
even stronger influence by Third World leaders was seen there.
The emphasis was upon Jesus Christ, his mission to the world, and
the mission of the church that grows out of the liberation that
Christ gives. Robert Webber has said of this meeting, "It is clear
by 1975 that the early democratic ideal of 1948 and the liberal
social gospel of love of preceding W.C.C, assemblies has been re-
placed by the dominant theme of liberation. This due largely to the
presence and influence of the Third World church in the W.C.C." 13
The sixth and most recent meeting of the WCC was held in
Vancouver, Canada, in 1983. The centrality of the liberation theme
was played down and a shift was made toward visible unity ex-
pressed in worship.
Absent from many of these meetings were representatives of
the Roman Catholic Church. Many issues separated them from the
members of the WCC, but the Second Vatican Council opened
the door to ecumenical dialogue. This council's Decree on Ecu-
menism recognized there were authentic Christians outside the
Roman fold. They were called "separated brethren." Further, in
December of 1965 the Roman pope and the patriarch of Constanti-
nople mutually lifted the excommunication that had divided the
Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches since 1054.
EVANGELICALS AND ECUMENISM
"Where have the evangelicals been in all these efforts at unity
in Christ?" The question practically raises itself in this discussion.
138
John 17 and Jesus' Prayer for Unity
The answer, at least in part, is that the evangelical community
has stood at a distance and watched these efforts with suspicion.
Almost from the beginning of the rise of modern ecumenism, the
various evangelical bodies have questioned the attempt to unify
the churches on the so-called "federation" model. The nebulous
nature of the WCC's doctrinal statements and its seemingly weak
support of evangelism tend to make ecumenism suspect in the
minds of many Christians. Some evangelicals also object to
the left-leaning political statements which have come from the
WCC as a result of the influence of Third World leaders.
In a more generalized reservation, some evangelical Christians
have feared that the goal of the WCC is the organization of a
"super church" composed of all the various denominations
thrown together and homogenized with no respect for their various
traditions. The WCC itself has been aware of such a fear, and has
published the following statement to counter it: "It [the WCC] is
not a 'super church' and has no jurisdiction over the church bodies
which compose it. To seek unified action in responsibilities and
problems faced by them all, is by no means incompatible with
denominational independence. Does this mean that differences
will just be ignored or glossed over? No! True unity does not mean
absence of differences, but a constructive way of dealing with
14
them."
Even with their reluctance to participate in the WCC and other
organizations, evangelicals have not been static regarding efforts
to unite for specific tasks. Two cooperative organizations were es
tablished in the 1940s for evangelism and foreign missions—The
National Association of Evangelicals (ΝΑΕ) and the American
Council of Christian Churches (ACCC). They differ in their in
terpretation of what is orthodox. The ΝΑΕ accepted any group or
individual which was broadly evangelical. The ACCC demanded
an adherence to a more narrow doctrinal statement. It rejected
anyone who had dealings with the WCC or the National Council
of Churches. The interest of the ΝΑΕ and ACCC was in cooper
ating for evangelism and not in union on the federation model.
In 1951 the World Evangelical Fellowship (WEF) was orga
nized with membership being open to national evangelical fellow-
139
The Theological Educator
ships that subscribe to an orthodox statement of faith. Its interest
has been in theological education and humanitarian relief, and it
promotes Bible and evangelistic ministries.
Billy Graham and his associates organized the World Congress
on Evangelism in Berlin, West Germany, in 1966. Delegates from
over 100 countries attended. In 1974 the International Congress on
World Evangelization met in Lausanne, Switzerland. This con-
gress recognized that "the church's visible unity in truth is God's
purpose." Such unity is part of the divine mandate to preach a
gospel of reconciliation to everyone. If the church is fragmented
and unreconciled, how could it proclaim its message? A 48-
member Continuation Committee for World Evangelization was
formed in Lausanne with the expressed purpose to assist and
encourage the formation of regional national committees to ad-
vance world evangelization everywhere.
By the 1980s, two different models of unity were evident
among the churches. The first was the federation model of the
WCC in which doctrinal agreement and evangelism were down-
played and social and political action in Christ's name was
stressed. The second model was the cooperative model of evan-
gelical groups such as the WEF which have worked to place
evangelism at the center of the churches' mission efforts.
SOUTHERN BAPTISTS AND ECUMENISM
As a denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention has never
been hospitable to the overtures of the WCC or similar groups.
One scholar notes, "Southern Baptists, with their heavy stress
upon the autonomy of the local congregation and the fear of any
centralized authority, have, as a denominational body, consistently
remained aloof. Indeed, this denomination was once dubbed 'the
problem child of American Protestantism' in this respect."15 Brit-
ish Baptists, the American Baptist Convention, and the National
Baptist Convention have become members of the WCC. Why has
the Southern Baptist Convention declined membership? Historian
William R. Estep answers this question this way:
The dynamic of Baptist life is part of the explanation. Vigorous
growth in areas of relative freedom has produced a heady wine
140
John 17 and Jesus' Prayer for Unity
that has torn asunder the Old World wine skins. Proliferation
and even fragmentation of the Baptist witness has been one of
the results. Baptists rival the Holiness movement in the variety
of their denominational structures. Baptist individualism, con-
gregational polity, differing doctrinal emphases, strong person-
alities, geographical and cultural isolation, limited educational
attainments, and strong conservative tendencies with some in-
teresting liberal sidelights contribute their share in creating a
rather confused picture.16
The strong emphasis upon the autonomy of the local congrega-
tion serves to vitiate the interest in ecumenical involvement by
many within the SBC. This, in part, explains the denomination's
negative response to the invitation to join the World Council of
Churches. While not an official reply to the formal invitation, the
following paragraph from the 1940 "Annual of the Southern Bap-
tist Convention" expresses the sentiment of most Southern
Baptists:
Our convention has no ecclesiastical authority. It is in no sense
the Southern Baptist Church. The thousands of churches to
which our Convention looks for support of its missionary, be-
nevolent, and educational program cherish their independence
and would disapprove of any attempted exercise of ecclesiasti-
cal authority over them.17
The SBC joined the Baptist World Alliance through a decision
made by the Convention and not individual congregations, how-
ever. Even so, the idea of joining the WCC is abhorrent to many
Southern Baptists. Part of the reason is an assumption, shared by
some other Protestants, that the "real" goal of the WCC is the
external unification of all Protestant denominations into one vast
organization. This suspicion lingers even though the WCC has
denied that this is its intention.
WHAT BID JESUS INTEND?
Jesus' prayer for unity among believers has been taken very
seriously by some people, as this article has shown. For many,
141
The Theological Educator
Jesus said what he meant, namely, that all who march under his
banner should be in the same battalion. Others who are just as
serious about biblical teaching and Christian witness feel that
independence and autonomy best serve the church.
I personally have met three men, now all dead, who have been
active in ecumenical work and vision: Bishop Stephen C. Neill;
Dr. George A. Buttrick; and Norman Goodall. All three of these
men were Christians of broad vision, love of the church and the
church's Lord, and deep compassion for people. At the same time,
I know people who would hardly know what the word "ecumen-
ical" means, but who have the same Christian virtues as the men
listed above. One fact is certain. No one can force his view on this
matter of unity on another or make him see beyond his present
horizon.
The poet Emily Dickinson wrote of a preacher who waxed
eloquent on the need for broad thinking in the church:
He preached upon "breadth" till it argued him narrow,
The broad are too broad to define;
And of "truth" until it proclaimed him a liar,
The truth never flaunted a sign.
Simplicity fled from this counterfeit presence
As gold the pyrites would shun.
What confusion would cover the innocent Jesus
To meet so enabled a man!
In any case, unity of purpose and witness among the churches can
be achieved without necessarily fusing structures and meshing the
rich colors of one's history into the dull hues of homogenized
polity. In this area, each Christian must choose his own path.
Some of these paths will converge while others will run parallel,
but all, I hope, head in the same direction.
NOTES
William Neil, Harper's Bible Commentary (New York: Harper
& Row, 1962), p. 412.
142
John 17 and Jesus' Prayer for Unity
2
E. Glenn Hinson, The Church: Design For Survival (Nash-
ville: Broadman Press, 1967), p. 56.
3
Fbr more on this, see Avery Dulles, Models of the Church,
Image Books (Garden City: Doubleday & Co., 1978), p. 146.
4
The New International Dictionary of Theology, s.v., "Ecu-
menical Movement."
5
See Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, s.v., "Ecumenical
Councils."
6
The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, s.v.,
"Ecumenism."
7
John W. Carlton, "The Ecumenical Movement," in Preaching
in American History: Selected Issues in the American Pulpit,
1630-1967, edited by Dewitt Holland. (Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1969), p. 296.
s
The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, s.v.,
"Ecumenism."
9
Robert E. Webber, The Church in the World, Académie Books
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), pp. 183-193.
10
Cited in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, s.v.,
"Ecumenism."
n
Visser't Hooft, quoted in Webber, The Church in the World,
p. 183.
12
Colin W. Williams, The Church, Vol. IV, New Directions in
Theology Today (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), p. 14.
13
Webber, The Church in the World, p. 193.
14
This statement is quoted in Hinson, The Church, p. 57.
143
The Theological Educator
15
Carlton, "The Ecumenical Movement," p. 305.
16
Estep, quoted by Carlton, Ibid.
17
Quoted by Carlton, p. 306.
144
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.
