D'autres articles de cet numéro | En anglais | En français

Integralism and Fundamentalism : Christians Confronting Ecumenism
Lathuilière, Pierre

* During the past two centuries cultural and sociopolitical modernity has caused hitherto unheard of upheavals in Christianity in the areas of authority (Scripture, Tradition, discipline, clerical and lay responsibility, magisterial functioning,...). Two distinct ecclesial reactions to these developments are expressed through fundamentalism in the Protestant sphere and integralism in the Catholic sphere.1 In the Orthodox churches, for the most part, the emergence of anti-modernist trends was impaired by Communism’s dominance and its unprecedented persecution of Christian communities. However, since 1989 they have seen developments similar to the traditionalism of post-revolutionary France: the anti-modernist and anti-ecumenical expressions now claiming the palm of martyrdom previously endured by the Christian churches under the Communist regimes.

The beginning of this century witnessed the nearly simultaneous births of ecumenism, fundamentalism and integralism. The ecumenical development was not in response to the demands of modernity but rather to the mission in the context of internationalism: for those who welcome the Good News, the message of Christ presented by the different churches should not be obscured by the quarrels which separate them. Also, the primary preoccupation of ecumenism was not the struggle against fundamentalism and integralism. While Protestant revivalism and Catholic traditionalism respectively are the basic ingredients of fundamentalism and integralism, some pioneers of contemporary ecumenism have also drawn their inspiration from them.

As it developed in the twentieth century ecumenism’s objective was the visible and concrete reunion of the Christian confessions, to form one church, according to the common confession of faith as elaborated at Nice. This entailed efforts at various levels in each Christian confession with regard to its institutions, its theological propositions and its community functions. The architects of the ecumenical rapprochement – involved Christians, theologians and church leaders – gradually perceived a distinct opposition to their effort. This opposition was not a simple skepticism regarding the effort to reunite the churches, nor was it a fear of extinction due to theological pluralism. Fundamentalists and integralists shared the conviction that this effort to reunite the churches was basically a bad idea. Though they rely on a common understanding regarding doctrinal, moral and social purity, fundamentalists and integralists differ in the theological justification of their rejection of ecumenism. Hence, an separate overview of fundamentalist anti-ecumenism and integralist anti-ecumenism is useful.


The Fundamentalist Anti-Ecumenism of ICCC

At the invitation of an association of American fundamentalist churches, the founding congress of the International Council of Christian Churches (ICCC) was held in Amsterdam on Aug. 12-19, 1948. A statement describing this gathering of 150 representatives from 50 fundamentalist denominations gives rise to two observations:

• The World Council of Churches (WCC) was founded, also in Amsterdam, during the period of Aug. 22-Sept. 4, 1948. This geographic and chronological proximity chosen by the American association,2 very clearly highlights the anti-ecumenical foundation of ICCC.

• The creation of ICCC appears to be largely dependent on the opposition in the United States between Christians believing in the Bible (Bible-believing Christians) and members of the mainstream Protestant denominations whom they deem infected by theological modernism.

This ‘American’ rejection of ecumenism is based on the frequently-invoked scriptural theme of separation as a condition of salvation: “Come forth from them and be separate says the Lord” (Cor 6:17). A caricature appearing in a basically fundamentalist magazine3 several months later describes the “ecumenical ship”: a construction somewhat off balance and filled with people bearing the name of “ecumenical monstrosity,” without a pilot, without life preservers, with a sail “to catch every wind of doctrine,” sailing toward a threatening horizon “during the worst storm in history...for an unknown destination with an inexperienced crew.” On the solid wharf, supported by “the sure foundation, Christ Jesus our Lord,...the international splinter group that refuses to go along” sings a hymn. On the wooden floor of the wharf appears the aforementioned citation in which Paul quotes Jeremiah.

Fifty years later in 1998 both ICCC and WCC, celebrated their 50th anniversaries. The message of ICCC’s founder, Carl McIntire, who still is president, remains the same. In reference to the founding of WCC he wrote:

“Now Satan has his way by giving his blessing to pluralism, this broadening church, this dream and promotion of a one-religion world. It is frightening, but it is on the horizon and as we reach out to these next two years,4 the emphasis on unity by these liberal, apostate, ecumenical churches is paramount. Nearly everything you hear is ecumenism, ecumenism, ecumenism. The Pope of Rome is making himself the number one world leader...”5

This opposition to ecumenism was born in a typically American context – a country with a Protestant majority which has never known religious wars but was founded by victims of religious persecution in England. Interestingly, ICCC held its first congress in 1948 in the very church from which the Pilgrim Fathers had departed. Fleeing religious intolerance they boarded the Mayflower in 1620 in order to establish in the American wilderness the new England. Indisputably, Carl McIntire and his fundamentalist friends are rooted in this ancestry which knew how to separate itself in the name of purity of faith.

The founding of ICCC in 1948 appears to be the result of internal division in American fundamentalism. Affected by a failed campaign against the teaching of evolutionism in the 1920's, American fundamentalism tried to regain a foothold by orienting its efforts toward mission and formation.

Twenty years later the effects of formation resulted in some fundamentalists – who preferred to be called ‘neo-evangelicals’6 – opting for a more inclusive theology and a less marginal insertion into American society. Others, including McIntire, accused them of compromise and proudly continued to bear the name of fundamentalist. For them ecumenism expresses compromise with a world from which Christ has come to separate and save us. Significantly, the ICCC brochure prepared for the Amsterdam founding congress7 presented the following introductory resolution:


Exhortation to Bible-Believersthroughout the World

Whereas, WCC (the Ecumenical Movement) is under the leadership of Modernism, and

Whereas, WCC includes in full membership the Greek Orthodox bodies, and

Whereas, the Roman Catholic Church has been openly invited to affiliate,

Therefore, be it resolved: That the American Council of Christian Churches plead with its brethren in Christ in Europe and throughout the world that they refuse to forsake the honor of Christ for the sake of material advantages or promised political favor; and we further urge our brethren not to grieve our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by joining the WCC and thereby making a covenant with the enemy, but that on the contrary we invite and urge them to give prayerful consideration to affiliation with those of like precious faith who are looking to God to raise up a council of genuinely Christian Protestant Churches.8Today, with uncompromising insistence, Carl McIntire continues the account of ICCC: “In all their meetings the issues were modernism, unbelief, ecumenism, versus the inerrancy and full truthfulness of the Bible.”9

Ecumenism is thus, among other things, simply a form of modernism and unbelief which true believers must reject. From the fundamentalist perspective modernism threatens the very heart of Christian faith: the inerrancy of the Bible. Thus, every attack on the sovereign authority of Scripture, such as ecumenism, must be opposed. In effect the WCC threatens this cornerstone of the fundamentalist faith since it tolerates modernists who reject the authority of Scripture as well as those churches who do not give pride of place to Scripture alone. Threats to the authority of the Bible serve to strengthen the determination of fundamentalist believers: for them the WCC is but one of the signs in the biblical reference to the great apostasy which will visit the churches10 when the end time approaches.

Though fundamentalist anti-ecumenism is only one characteristic of ICCC it is nevertheless a very significant and constant expression of its aim to systematically oppose WCC. In the history of Protestant fundamentalism anti-ecumenism remains a general given – as expressed in a 1980 World Congress of Fundamentalists11 which condemned the deviation of certain fundamentalists who “in the interest of larger crowds, larger ministries, and fantastic offerings are willing to disregard God’s clear-cut call to separation.”12 Though the rejection of ecumenism was not the central goal of this Congress, it was simply part of its natural expression. History further demonstrates that this anti-ecumenist attitude toward ecumenism remains a determining criterion for fundamentalist separation from other evangelicals. The most celebrated case is that of Billy Graham. Having grown up in a clearly fundamentalist milieu, he was quickly reproached for lacking a sufficiently firm separatist attitude when his experience with large masses of people resulted in his personal evolution.13 In August 1957 the fundamentalist magazine Christian Beacon takes issue with the appearance of an article by Graham in The Ecumenical Review in order to stigmatize the one who “seeks to be accepted by the ecumenicals.”14

The fundamentalists’ essential point of disagreement with the evangelicals is their apparent desire to accept that which fundamentalists consider worldly and anti-Christian. The notion of “separation” is the primary spiritual reference for fundamentalists who are above all converts, separated from the world, thanks to the Word of God as contained in the Bible. But once the Word of God is interpreted – and here lie the sources of conflict – this logic refuses any reconciliation with difference. The Word is a spiritual given. Interpretation and attempts at rapprochement are therefore schemes of the devil.


The Integralist Anti-Ecumenism of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

The term integralist is used here to designate those Catholics who, whether separated or not from the Roman Church, refuse to recognize Vatican II as an authentic part of the Catholic Church’s tradition. The term traditionalist is broader and carries with it precise theological connotations which predate the integralist trend. Just as we can say that “all fundamentalists are evangelicals but not all evangelicals are fundamentalists” so we can say that “all integralists are traditionalists but not all traditionalists are integralists.”

Lefebvre’s refusal to accept ecumenism originates in clear teachings from the Magisterium: the encyclical Satis Cognitum of Leo XIII (1896); the encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pius XI (1928); the Dec. 20, 1949 instruction of the Holy Office regarding ecumenism. The only ecumenism accepted by Lefebvre and his followers is that which strives for the unconditional return of the members of other confessions to the one Church of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church. This hardened sectarianism is precisely the kind of logic which Vatican II through profound reflection on the nature of the Church refused to accept. Though rooted in Tradition, the scope of the Council’s reflection was without precedent in the history of Christianity. For integralists ecumenism is one of the fundamental betrayals by Vatican II. In a 1985 homily Lefebvre denounced a “Rome which has accepted liberal values” and denounced likewise the fact that:

“With the Council a change which we absolutely refuse to accept was introduced into the Roman Catholic Church. This, we are aware, was introduced particularly through the intervention of the Secretariat for Christian Unity. Cardinal Bea, president of the Secretariat, had official contact...with Freemasonry of New York, with B’nai B’rith (which) asked him to introduce religious freedom into the Church.”15

Based on his analysis of history and his concept of ecumenism, Lefebvre applies the term ecumenism to a dialogue among the Christian churches as well as to interreligious dialogue.

“Is this ecumenism which now accepts all religions not a return to pagan Rome?...The Pope himself, you remember, prayed with the Protestants in a Lutheran church in Rome, thus welcoming false religions, invented by the devil...How could anyone on the 500th anniversary praise Luther, the most abominable heretic ever known who tried to destroy Christianity from top to bottom?”16 “Why these difficulties with Rome? Because we refuse ecumenism! Because we refuse to accept the freedom of all religions! Because we have only one God, Our Lord Jesus Christ...”17

Three main reasons for confusing ecumenical and interreligious dialogue can be identified. The first, which does not deal with integralism as such, is rooted in a basic respect for the other, regardless of differences in thought or belief. Because this basic respect is considered an absolute it makes impermeable boundaries permeable. Openness of heart and spirit is a necessary condition for ecumenical dialogue, interreligious dialogue, and dialogue with the unbeliever. Living in fraternal understanding with a Muslim disposes one to living with other Christian confessions; a Western friend of an Orthodox person is sensitized to the role culture plays in religious difference. On the other hand, one who has never spoken of religion with his co-religionists risks approaching other religions or confessions from a narrow and faulty perspective. When one religion is considered absolute, the distinctive characteristics of other beliefs cannot be appreciated. Many today confuse ecumenical and interreligious dialogue because they convey similar predispositions and attitudes. Openness of heart can result from sharing a bond through belief in Christ, from an attitude of faith, or from a common understanding of humanity. For the integralist these distinctions bear no weight.

Two other reasons, applicable to integralism, help explain the confusion between ecumenical and interreligious dialogue. To approach “heretics” or “pagans” as equals is to accord them an importance which authentic “freedom of true religion” cannot allow. There can be no question of freedom for errors. And outside of true religion, it is unnecessary to distinguish between errors, because all are fatal.

A final more definitive reason is based on the theological concept that the Catholic Church is “the only means of salvation,” “the only ark of salvation.”18
“Our Lord did not found several churches. He founded only one. There is only one cross by which one can be saved. And that cross was given to the Catholic Church; it is not given to the others. To his Church, which is his mystical spouse, Christ has given all his graces. He has given no grace to the world; no grace in the history of humanity will be dispensed without passing through Her.”19

Without doubt Lefebvre knew that these words were expressing a proposition condemned by Pope Clement XI in Unigenitus Dei Filius, Sept. 8, 1713. This encyclical, which addressed the errors of the Jansenist Quesnel, condemned 101 propositions including that which expressed the belief “outside the Church, no salvation.”20 Lefebvre’s position on ecumenism illustrates what separates integralism from fundamentalism. For him ecumenism is only one of many modernist components. The inability to distinguish between Christ and the Church, between the Head and the Body, between the Church of Christ and the churches (which should not be separated), is at the heart of this ecclesiology. Therefore ecumenism at the very core of the Church becomes a danger to the faith, regardless of the magisterium’s doctrinal precautions. Aside from his annual ordinations and counter-revolutionary celebrations, it was Lefebvre’s integralist position which made him the subject of conversation at the 1986 gathering in Assissi which he depicted as syncretist. A tract to this effect was distributed several weeks in advance during a visit by the Pope to France in which John Paul II was depicted as presenting himself before the strongly fortified doors of Paradise and being refused entry because of his ecumenism.

Other writers present the same line of reasoning as Lefebvre. They condemn ecumenism as the other side of religious freedom as presented by Vatican II which is suspect because it does not give truth its rightful place. There are, however, differences of perception in the integralist world. Some adversaries of Vatican II have developed a somewhat Gnostic approach to Tradition. For them the major sell-out by Vatican II is liturgical more than ecclesiastical. In line with the philosophy of René Guénon, who converted to Islam toward the end of his life, their concern is spiritual and intellectual rather than institutional. While they do not affirm ecumenism, it is not their main concern. Most important to them is the loss of symbols during this disastrous reform of ritual.21 Other anti-Council experts see in ecumenism a resurgence of ancient Gnosticism.22


Change and Conversion

Fundamentalism and integralism are complex and in flux and cannot be captured in a simple explanation. Though rooted in a similar worldview and reaction to modernism’s questioning of religious belief, their common opposition to ecumenism can conceal important nuances of difference. The most important of these is the fact that one is Protestant and the other Catholic. There are also internal nuances in each as a result of cultural differences, historical roots, and diverse psychological responses in the face of challenge.

With ecumenism, however, modernism’s challenge is very tangible since the need to change is at the very heart of the effort toward unity among the churches. Since the Spirit of the Father and the Son is the source of unity in diversity this effort for unity does not imply absorption or compromise. It is by moving forward together in the creative Spirit of Christ that the one Church is progressively discovered. In face of this challenge to change, fundamentalist Christians and integralists are not the only stumbling blocks. However their similar perception of belief and truth reinforces the strength of their opposition.23 In addition to significant tenets related to Tradition and conversion, fundamentalist and integralist belief is identified with several dogmatic formulas expressing a fundamental theology. The “five points” defined by the Northern Presbyterian Church in 1910 to confront theological liberalism, modified by a slightly millenarianist perspective, serve as the basis for fundamentalist confessions of faith. The most binding and juridical declarations of the Catholic magisterium, such as the Syllabus of 1864, are considered the most free of theological error by the integralists. Both attempt to maintain the original balance as expressed in the creeds of the Church prior to its internal divisions. Here above all truth is considered enclosed, as it were, in the formulas meant to serve as the test of true faith.

Fundamentalists and integralists believe that a choice must be made between truth and unity: “Unity is more important than truth for them,” says Carl McIntire.24 Archbishop Lefebvre declares: “The Christian, through misdirected charity...no longer sacrifices himself like the martyrs of his faith; it is truth he sacrifices.”25 In either perspective neither truth nor unity are in question. They are givens to be accepted or rejected. The only unity worth fighting for is an interior unity expressed in a given form of belief, a perception which is more psychological than spiritual. This static and intellectual conception of truth perceives reality in an apparently simple manner and maintains a Manichean vision of the world. The frequent use of satanic imagery is but one symptom of this, as are the readily interchangeable labels used to designate the common theological enemy. Archbishop Lefebvre speaks principally of “liberalism”26 in developing the sociopolitical implications of the crisis in the Church. Carl McIntire uses the term “modernist” which originated in Catholic magisterial circles since it places the accent on the specifically religious dimension.

The principal difference between fundamentalism and integralism lies in their systems of references which express their reciprocal opposition regarding the very notion of church. These ecclesiologies were elaborated at a specific time – from the 17th to the 19th century – when Protestantism and Catholicism hardened into two apparently irreconcilable systems. For the fundamentalist, who remains an evangelical, the conversion of the individual is central and must be systematically protected under the authority of the biblical word. A church is only a structure to support the converted individual, so one can found as many churches as the evangelical principal of separation requires. For the integralist, who prefers to be called traditionalist, the key is the intangible Tradition over which the Catholic Church has sole authority. Therefore, in their opposition to ecumenism it no problem for fundamentalists to found an organization which brings together different churches – an organization which is not interconfessional but pluriconfessional. The strategy of the integralists is to manipulate public opinion or to exert influence in an effort to win back the One Catholic Church to the cause of the true Tradition.

In this respect both are totally alienated from the ecumenical effort expressed as the conversion of the churches.27 To the fundamentalist conversion is a spirituality entailing the individual’s discovery of Jesus as his personal savior. To the integralist conversion is simply an adherence to the Roman Catholic Church. For the believer who sees the ecumenical movement as the realization of the desire expressed by Christ on the eve of his Passion (cf. Jn 20-21), the conversion of the churches is a necessary process of change for the Christian communities in order to be in living fidelity with the authentic Tradition. This conversion does not entail a choice of unity over truth; it places each church in a state of openness to the truth as given by Christ to his Church.



* Fr. Pierre LathuiliPre is Director for Christian Unity in Lyons and the Delegate for Ecumenism for the Diocese of Lyons.
1 For a more developed presentation of the distinction between fundamentalism and integralism, see my work: Le Fondamentalisme Catholique: Signification Ecclesiologique, (Paris: Cerf, Coll. Cogitatio Fidei, 1995). An analogous distinction applied to contemporary Judaism is found in: Gideon Aran, “Return to the Scripture in Modern Israel” in Evelyne Patlagean and Alain Leboulleuec, Les Retours aux Ecritures Fondamentalismes, Présents et Passés, (Louvain-Paris: Peeters, 1993).
2 “The strategy of always having two councils was that the fundamentalist council would always meet around the World Council’s plan. Having two councils being formed and meeting in close proximity was an effective strategy from the beginning.” Carl McIntire, History of the ICCC. Undated text, p. 2, www.iccc.sg/iccc.htm Aug., 1999.
3 Cf., Christian Beacon, Oct. 20, 1949, p. 8.
4 One might think the author is alluding to the year 2000.
5 Carl McIntire, The Redeemed of the Lord Say So. Undated text available on the internet, 1999. The contents, which imply a 1998 date, were part of a presentation given in the Netherlands on the 50th anniversary of ICCC.
6 The neo-evangelists formed the international organization, The World Evangelical Alliance. Their attitude toward WCC was one of “benevolent neutrality.” Cf., Christian Beacon, Jan. 18, 1951, p. 1.
7 Presenting an International Council of Christian Churches, prepared and released by the American Council of Christian Churches, New York, undated pamphlet, p. 52.
8 The American Council of Christian Churches..., p. 51. This appeal was drafted during a congress of the American Council of Christian Churches in Atlanta in May, 1948.
9 Cf., Carl McIntire, History of the ICCC, p. 1.
10 Cf. Carl McIntire, The Redeemed of the Lord Say So, p. 1.
11 Cf., (Collection) Biblical Fundamentalism: Selected Messages Delivered at the 1980 World Congress of Fundamentalists Convened in the Far East (Greenville: Bob Jones University Press, 1981).
12 William Hoffman, “The Resurgence of Fundamentalism,” in Biblical Fundamentalism, ibid., p. 87. One can assume that those aimed at in these proposals are especially the famous televangelists – among them Jerry Falwell who views these detractors as hyper-fundamentalists.
13 Graham, Sockman Meet at America’s Town Meeting: Sockman Wins Round” in Christian Beacon, XV, 49, Jan. 18, 1951, pp. 1-8.
14 Christian Beacon, XXXII, 26, Aug. 17, 1967.
15 Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Homélies Ordinations Sacerdotales du 29 juin 1985. Audio cassette, edited by the Seminary of St. Pius X at Ecône.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
18 Archbishop M. Lefebvre, “Ils l’ont découronné. Du libéralisme a l’Apostasie” La Tragédie Conciliare. (Escurolles: Editions Fideliter, 1987) p. 176; and “Lettre Ouverte aux Catholiques Perplexes” in Albin Michel, Collection Lettre Ouverte (Paris, 1985) p. 100.
19 Ibid.
20 Cf. Dz. 2429. The Holy Office’s astonishing leniency with Archbishop Lefebvre’s writings permits his followers to believe that his initiatives to “maintain the Tradition” are merely a disciplinary schism and not a heresy which affects dogma.
21 Cf. Eric Vatre, La Droite du PPre, Enquete sur la Tradition Catholique Aujourd’hui (Paris, 1994).
22 Cf. Etienne Couvert, De la Gnose a l’Ecuménisme. Les Sources de la Crise Religieuse (Vouillé, 1983).
23 Cf. Le Fondamentalisme Catholique, op. cit., pp. 166-211.
24 Carl McIntire, Presenting an International Council of Christian Churches, p. 7.
25 Archbishop Lefebvre, Lettre Ouverte aux Catholiques Perplexes, p. 105.
26 See especially Archbishop Lefebvre, Ils ont découronné, op. cit
27 Cf. Groupe des Dombes, La Conversion des Eglises. Identité et Changement dans la dynamique de Communion (Paris: Centurion, 1990), p. 113.