"Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War" by Peter Kreeft

Boston College philosophy professor Peter Kreeft's Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War (Ignatius Press, 1996) is one of the most astonishing books I have ever come across. To begin with, the book's title is arresting. The somewhat frightening word "Jihad," associated in our Western culture with Islamic terrorists, means "holy war" that is carried out as a religious duty. Juxtaposed with "ecumenical," the title is odd indeed. Kreeft acknowledges that these two words are indeed laden with distinctive religious overtones. "Ecumenism," he writes, "is a 'liberal' idea and one that makes 'conservatives' suspicious. 'Jihad' is a 'conservative' idea and one that makes 'liberals' suspicious" (p. 9). I submit the term "Jihad" (which is Arabic) is neither "Christian" nor "conservative," and should not be incorporated into our evangelical vocabulary.

In the first half of the book, Kreeft aptly describes the state of moral decay in our world today (he is obviously not the first person to call our attention to this state of affairs (1) ) and issues a call to arms to engage in the culture wars that are engulfing humanity. Kreeft contends that this can only be done by enlisting all of the world's great religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism). Unlike the supporters of the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" document, Kreeft has moved beyond simply calling Roman Catholics and evangelicals to lay aside their differences and join ranks to fight the fiends of secular humanism. Instead, he beckons us to embrace the other world religions as allies in this great (greatest?) battle as well. Let me say, at this point, that the trouble with ECT and Kreeft and their desire to enlist evangelicals in "co-belligerence" is that, in both cases, evangelicals are implicitly called upon to sacrifice theological distinctives in the process. In the case of ECT, "sola fide" was laid aside and, in the case of Kreeft, the doctrines of God, Christ, and salvation end up being eviscerated of any meaningful biblical content.

Peter Kreeft is in his own right enigmatic. He was reared and nurtured in the Christian Reformed Church and even taught philosophy at Calvin College before converting to Roman Catholicism. He is a gifted writer, which I think accounts for his popularity among many within Evangelicalism. The book carries the glowing endorsement of two very high-profile evangelicals: Chuck Colson and J. I. Packer. Well then, the book can't be all that bad, can it? Yes, it can, and here is why.

Kreeft advocates, in a way that advances the position of Vatican II and Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, that the world religions are not outside the scope of God's saving activities. (2) The way he goes about defending this thesis is very unique. He claims to have had an O.B.E. (out of body experience) while he was surfing off the East Coast of the United States during a hurricane. Suddenly, he tells us, he was overwhelmed by a huge wave and was sure he was going to drown. The next thing he knew, he was surfing through a bright light onto the shore of what he calls a heavenly beach with sand that was golden bright. He noticed a man with a surf board walking toward him who bore a striking resemblance to the pictures of Confucius that Kreeft had seen in various books. Well, lo and behold, guess who it was? That's right, it was Confucius! Kreeft had a long and interesting conversation with the Chinese philosopher before discovering that this heavenly beach party was also attended by Buddha, Mohammed, and Moses (all of whom engage the author in heady theological discussion). As it turns out, Kreeft ends up being scolded by this celestial quartet for his arrogant Christian exclusiveness. His dialogue with Mohammed is particularly revealing. We are told that despite Mohammed's categorical rejection of the Christ's claims, the Islamic prophet enjoys everlasting life, because after death he at once recognized Jesus as his Savior and worshiped him. Kreeft has Mohammed saying, "I hope most of my pious followers will follow this last step of my pilgrimage as well. If they cannot do it on earth, they may still do so in Heaven, as I did" (p. 105).

Are we actually to believe that Kreeft went to heaven and there found the likes of Confucius, Buddha, and especially Mohammed? (3) Kreeft is not content to simply argue his case based on the biblical and theological evidence. He attempts to sanction his position by a direct appeal to a heavenly experience. In the final analysis, this is no different than the absurd claim made by Betty Eadie in her runaway best-seller, Embraced by the Light. (4) She too claims an O.B.E. and a trip to heaven. Since neither Eadie nor Kreeft can substantiate their "special revelations" from Scripture, whom are we to believe? (See Gal. 1:8.)

If successful, Kreeft's book would destroy any need for evangelistic or missionary effort. Why take the Gospel to people who hold different religious beliefs if they are going to end up in heaven when it's all said and done? If Confucius, Buddha, and Mohammed (and their followers) are in heaven, what about Joseph Smith and his Mormon followers or Charles Taze Russell and his devoted Jehovah's Witnesses? If all that matters is religious sincerity (which is what Kreeft seems to be concerned with), then three cheers for the Heaven's Gate crowd that followed their leader in mass suicide. (You can't question their sincerity.)

I mentioned earlier that Kreeft's book carries the glowing endorsement of two highly respected evangelicals: Chuck Colson and J. I. Packer. This is baffling. Why would these two men want to give anyone the impression that Kreeft's thesis had any credibility? It should be condemned, not praised by every biblically informed Christian. I would certainly describe Colson and Packer as biblically informed Christians (and in Packer's case, theologically learned). So the big question: Why would they give Kreeft's book any credence? I can only surmise, but I think it is another aspect of "co-belligerence."

Co-belligerence is an expression that goes back to the late Francis Schaeffer, who used the term to describe the joint effort of Catholics, Mormons, evangelicals, et. al. in opposition to social issues like abortion. Schaeffer certainly never implied that these joint efforts should spill over into legitimate theological concerns that would end up blurring important doctrinal distinctives, key to understanding the Gospel. But this is exactly where Kreeft's book leads.

Evangelicals are at times so preoccupied with fighting "culture wars" that they have a tendency to lose sight of the real war. Theology to some is often not very important in light of the great moral issues confronting us today (i.e., abortion, euthanasia, gay rights). Along with all historic Protestants, I disagree. For the spiritual war can be won only with the Gospel of justification by faith alone in Christ alone through grace alone. Kreeft's book renders this Gospel totally meaningless.

Of course, as a Roman Catholic, Kreeft stands in opposition to the Reformation's understanding of the Gospel. The Council of Trent, which was convened by the Roman Catholic Church (1545-63), officially condemned the Gospel as understood by the Reformers. But Trent did at least seek to maintain the exclusivity of Christianity when it came to understanding salvation. I am convinced that had Trent come up against a thesis like Kreeft's, they would have pronounced it anathema.

I alluded to Kreeft's standing in the long shadow of Vatican II (1962-65), which enabled the Roman Catholic Church to come to grips with modernity by capitulating to the spirit of the times. This should not really come as a big surprise. One thing that has historically characterized the Roman Church through the ages is her remarkable adaptability. Rome changes on the surface but at the core remains the same. Rome has recognized the pervasive pluralism of the modern age and has therefore assimilated a pluralistic perspective in the stance she shows the world. But the pluralism that Rome embraces serves Rome, not vice-versa. It is interesting that Kreeft urges the various world religions to unite behind the leadership of one man. And who might that be? You guessed it, the Pope. Kreeft further admonishes his readers to adopt a strategy program for culture war that includes the following Roman Catholic distinctives:

Reschedule and reprioritize your life to allow at least one or two of the following each day: Mass, Eucharistic adoration, Bible Reading, family prayers, the Rosary.



Consecrate your life to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. She is the one who will win this war. She is the one (as the Bible says) who triumphs over Satan. She is the one all the early Church Fathers call the "New Eve." (See Genesis 3:15.) She is the "woman clothed with the sun" who will destroy the "dragon" (the Devil). (See Revelation 12.)



If there is a Catholic charismatic prayer group nearby, explore it. Many have found remarkable new spiritual power through the "baptism of the Holy Spirit." That's how the apostles were transformed from a confused, frightened bunch of losers to world-winners: through the Holy Spirit. (5)

In the middle of the last century, J. C. Ryle, the evangelical Anglican, admonished the ministers under his charge about this danger.

False doctrine does not meet men face to face, and proclaim that it is false. It does not blow a trumpet before it, and endeavor openly to turn us away from the truth as it is in Jesus. It does not come before men in broad day, and summon them to surrender. It approaches us secretly, quietly, insidiously, plausibly, and in such a way as to disarm man's suspicion, and throw him off his guard. It is the wolf in sheep's clothing, and Satan in the garb of an angel of light, who have always proved the most dangerous foes of the Church of Christ…. It is the man who tells us we ought not to condemn anybody's views, lest we err on the side of want of charity…. It is the man who always begins talking in a vague way about God being a God of love, and hints that we ought to believe perhaps that all men, whatever doctrine they profess, will be saved. (6)