A previous article (“What Ministers Think of Mergers,” Nov. 24, 1961, issue) discussed the proposed merger between the United Presbyterian Church, the Protestant Episcopal Church, The Methodist Church, and the United Church of Christ. There we analyzed the reaction of some clergymen to the so-called Blake-Pike proposal and drew several tentative conclusions. This second article enlarges on the success or failure of mergers already consummated, and proposes several guidelines on the subject of organic union of churches.
Recent developments furnish ample evidence that union (or reunion) will be a topic for serious conversation for some time to come. In December of 1960 the archbishop of Canterbury visited the pope of Rome. The pope granted an audience also to the presiding bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the American branch of the Anglican fellowship. This latter visit by the Right Reverend Arthur Lichtenberger to the Vatican en route to the New Delhi meetings of the World Council of Churches created considerable press interest in America. The fact that this audience occurred before rather than after the World Council meetings, and that it followed the earlier meeting of the English primate, could be no accident. Such timing lends to the visit the appearance of a movement of Protestantism toward Rome.
To illustrate the urge for such union we need only go back to Bishop Oxnam’s episcopal address of 1948. He pleaded for organic union that allows but two churches—one Protestant and one Roman Catholic—and expressed the further desire that these two might someday constitute one holy, catholic church. The recent merger of the Congregational Christian Churches with the Evangelical and Reformed Church, the union of the United Presbyterian Church with the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., the Blake-Pike proposal, and the integration of the International Missionary Council into the World Council of Churches, attest the fact that powerful merger forces are moving swiftly toward church union. How rapidly this movement will surge ahead, and how soon its objectives will be substantially attained cannot be predicted. These already functioning operations, however, constitute the unmistakably growing ecumenical thrust of our day.
Merger And Missionary Thrust
While it is openly acknowledged, the fact yet needs repeating that the genius of the present ecumenical movement owes its beginnings to the foreign missionary impulse. In essence, the recurring argument in favor of church union is simply that the Church’s mission has been thwarted by the many divisions within the body of Christ. Bishop Lesslie Newbigin propounds this argument constantly:
The health of the ecumenical movement depends upon the vigor and freshness of the missionary passion from which it sprang.… But the missionary passion, the longing that “the world may know” must remain central to the “ecumenical” movement.… Of that true understanding of the word “ecumenical” the forthcoming Assembly of the World Council of Churches and the International Missionary Council at New Delhi will surely be a potent symbol. Its theme, “Jesus Christ the Light of the World,” is a reminder to all who have any part in it that our concern is with a Gospel for all men.… And the fact that it will be the occasion of the uniting of these two world bodies in one, so that from henceforth the World Council of Churches will itself carry the direct responsibility for missionary counsel and cooperation which the IMC has carried for half a century, will surely mean in the end that all the churches will have to take this missionary responsibility much more deeply to heart …, will have to learn that to be a Christian congregation anywhere is to be a part of a mission which reaches out to the ends of the earth.
Dr. Eugene Carson Blake of the United Presbyterian Church, LISA, has expressed the same ideas. Speaking at the North American Ecumenical Youth Assembly in Ann Arbor, Michigan, on August 19, 1961, he said the divided state of Christ’s Church retards accomplishment of its mission. “The Church is not a club but a mission, to make known the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world. We are beginning to see that the divided state of the Christian Church is blocking its mission.” Dr. Blake and Bishop Newbigin, among others, have underscored taking the Gospel to the ends of the earth as the church’s primary mission. They have concluded further that the divided condition of the churches is one, if not the, principal hindrance to realizing this objective. This mission of the Church, therefore, is the main reason for establishing a church which Dr. Blake calls “truly catholic, truly reformed, and truly evangelical.”
Consolidation of the International Missionary Council into the framework of the World Council of Churches was justified mainly by this rationale. Indeed, the whole ecumenical movement is indebted to foreign missions for its very existence. It is fairly safe to say that without the nineteenth century forward movement in missions there might well have been no present-day ecumenical movement and no World Council. It is important, therefore, not only to understand the ecumenical thrust of the missionary movement half a century ago, but also to recognize what changes have occurred. Such analysis will supply the necessary historical background for evaluating the present movement.
Clouding A Great Vision
In 1902 the fourth international conference of the Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions convened in Toronto, Canada. Orthodox in theological orientation and ecumenical in membership and purpose, this movement had sprung from the evangelistic work of Dwight L. Moody and the famous Northfield Conferences. Eight years later in 1910 the World Missionary Conference convened in Edinburgh. Its transactions were printed in North America by the Fleming Revell Company. Revell was Moody’s brother-in-law, a fact that may explain the close connection between the missionary conferences and the Moody-Revell interests. At this 1910 conference the theological thrust was still well within the orthodox context, and the spirit of the meetings was distinctly ecumenical in the best and broadest sense. The major denominations of the world were represented. So were the leading faith mission boards such as the China Island Mission, Ceylon and India General Mission, Egypt General Mission, New Hebrides Mission, North Africa Mission, Regions Beyond Missionary Union, South Africa General Mission, and Sudan United Mission. The meetings were both interdenominational and nondenominational. They truly represented the whole Church of Jesus Christ at work in its mission.
After 1910 a distinct change took place. Theological considerations bifurcated the ecumenical spirit of the earlier missionary conclaves. Faith missionary agencies increasingly separated from the ecumenical missionary stream as denominations seriously compromised their orthodoxy. After 1910 the Faith and Order group emerged, and also the Life and Work group, and the International Missionary Council. In 1928 the Jerusalem Conference met under IMC auspices. Theological differences were consciously recognized for what they implied. The IMC adopted a resolution on “Missionary Cooperation in View of Doctrinal Differences.” The original ecumenical missionary spirit was dissipated because of the leavening inroads of theological liberalism. What had begun as a genuinely ecumenical and theologically orthodox movement now became fragmented, its witness based on theological inclusivism on the one hand, and on theological exclusivism on the other.
How significant this change has been may be seen from any missionary survey today. The North American picture is perhaps the most obvious index. Once the vast majority of North American missionary personnel came from the old line denominations. This is no longer the case. In 1956, 43.5 per cent of North American foreign missionaries were related to the Division of Foreign Missions of the National Council of Churches; in 1958, the percentage dropped to 41.2 percent; and in 1960 to 38 per cent (10,324). In other words, 62 per cent of the North American foreign missionaries are not affiliated with the Division of Foreign Missions. Contrasted with the situation in 1911, 1928, and 1936, it becomes quite clear that the gap between missionary personnel and the ecumenical complex has widened steadily. More and more missionary work is being done outside rather than within the ecumenical framework. Even today if only one group—like the Seventh-day Adventists with their 1,385 missionaries—were to withdraw from the Division of Foreign Missions, the Division’s total missionary force would drop perceptibly (from 10,324 to 8,939). Furthermore, their withdrawal would leave under the direction of the Division of Foreign Missions less than one third of the total number of North American missionaries. If any observation is to be made from this summary it is that the foreign missionary impulse of the ecumenical movement in North America today is far weaker percentagewise in overseas personnel than it was 50 years ago.
Ecumenism originally flowed from the missionary impetus; it represented churches sharing and thriving under the spiritual urgency to spread the Gospel. We may ask, then, if the recent church mergers have strengthened the Church’s witness and furthered its missionary outreach as men like Visser’t Hooft, Blake, and Newbigin envisioned. If mergers have not accomplished this objective and if church unions have fostered no appreciable gains along the lines announced when such mergers were projected, then any further encouragement to merger must find some other rationale than that of overcoming the obstacle of fragmentation to church mission. What is the effect of church union in North America on missionary vitality?
The Fruits Of Inclusive Merger
On this continent the most famous of all church union movements is the United Church of Canada. Completed in 1925, this merger of Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregational churches united people of unrelated denominational backgrounds. But it was divisive too, in that it separated brother from brother and created wounds as yet unhealed. Particularly affected by the merger movement were the Maritime Provinces of Canada; many observers consider the breaches caused by the movement far too costly for the benefits derived. Today the United Church calls itself a uniting church; it has held conversations with the Canadian Disciples, the Evangelical United Brethren, and the Anglican Church of Canada. Its ecumenical passion remains. But since union has been justified in terms of furthering the witness of the Church the question must be asked: “How well has the United Church of Canada met this standard?” The reply leaves much to be desired.
At its annual session in 1961 the United Church of Canada was addressed by its retiring moderator. As weaknesses of this group he mentioned the need for renewed missionary zeal and for a quickening of spiritual life. Following the 1925 merger there had been a surplus of ministers. Now the moderator says a shortage exists which has reached emergency proportions; moreover, he says that membership growth for the United Church of Canada is lagging far behind the nation’s population increase. The last annual report showed a drop in new members by profession of faith in every conference. In finances, 80 per cent of all monies gathered from the congregations remained in the congregational coffers.
What is more, the very reason usually given for union, namely, the fulfillment of mission, gets little confirmation. Year by year the United Church’s foreign missionary force has decreased. From 452 missionaries in 1936, the number had declined to 245 by 1960. By contrast, the whole North American foreign missionary force of 11,289 in 1936 increased to 27,219 by 1960. While this total force increased almost 250 per cent, that of the United Church of Canada shrank to almost one half. (It is true that following the 1925 merger there was a continuing Presbyterian Church in Canada reporting 60 missionaries in 1936 and 83 in 1960.) If this example fairly reflects what normally happens in merger situations, how can ecumenists contend that church union helps missions?
An analysis of other mergers will test the larger validity of observations about United Church of Canada.
A prime example of sizable merger in the United States is that between the Congregational and the Christian Churches, formalized in 1931 in Seattle. Over against the previously mentioned North American increase of almost 250 per cent in missionary personnel between 1936 and 1960, the figures for the Congregational Christian Churches are instructive. In 1936 there were 495 missionaries operating under the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. By 1960 the number had shrunk to 364, a decline of slightly more than 25 per cent as contrasted with the almost 250 per cent increase in the general average.
The merged Congregational Christian Churches have negotiated further merger with the Evangelical and Reformed Church (which represents still another church union). In 1934, Evangelical Synod of North America united with the Reformed Church in the United States in Cleveland. Here, too, subsequent missionary outreach significantly lags behind the forward surge in missions generally. Missionary personnel of the Evangelical and Reformed Church increased from 116 in 1936 to 153 in 1960, a growth of slightly over 30 per cent as against almost 250 per cent increase generally. Inclusive merger did not yield the kind of outreach that ecumenists envision.
In 1946 the Evangelical Church and the United Brethren Church became the Evangelical United Brethren Church. In 1936 these two separate denominations supported a missionary force of 101 people. In 1960 the total was 143, an increase of slightly over 40 per cent as against the 250 per cent increase generally. Missionary strength fell far short of the average.
In 1939 the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church South, and the Methodist Protestant Church united to form The Methodist Church. Since then their combined missionary force has increased less than 20 per cent. Again the missions story is much like that of other merged denominations.
Some Contrasting Gains
We must not, of course, simply cite the above figures without some overview of the missionary scene. Thus, while the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., had fewer missionaries in 1960 than in 1936, the number of the Southern Presbyterian Church rose from 402 to 492 missionaries in the same period. While the Protestant Episcopal Church missionaries declined from 427 to 414, the Reformed Church in America increased its foreign staff from 140 to 173. Many denominations even advanced remarkably well during this period. The Southern Baptist missionary staff soared from 405 to 1377; that of the Free Methodists from 81 to 161; of the Christian and Missionary Alliance from 447 to 824; of the Church of the Nazarene from 88 to 400; and of the Evangelical Mission Covenant Church from 38 to 153. Missionaries under the American Baptist Convention dropped from 587 to 383. This denomination, however, had undergone several divisions. Some churches joined the General Association of Regular Baptists, others organized the Conservative Baptist Foreign Mission Society. Thus while the American Baptist Convention figure for 1960 was 383 missionaries, if we add the 378 of the Conservative Baptists and the 473 of Mid Missions and the 228 of the Association of Baptists for World Evangelism (both GARBC agencies), the total missions personnel far exceeds the 587 enjoyed by the ABC in 1936.
The Baptist General Conference of America normally operated its missions program through the American Baptist Convention, but in the 40s the two went their separate ways. This fact accounts partly for the decline of the ABC, inasmuch as the Baptist General Conference alone now has more than 100 missionaries.
Faith mission agencies scored the most substantial increase of all in missionary personnel. Generally they represented small, isolated constituencies in Bible churches and fundamentalist groups. The roll call is impressive: Evangelical Alliance Mission missionaries increased from 95 to 807; Unevangelized Tribes from 48 to 211; Oriental Missionary Society from 36 to 198; Wycliffe Bible Translators from nothing to over 1,000.
Some Significant Conclusions
With respect to missions and the fulfillment of the Great Commission, two generalizations seem to emerge. 1. Church mergers have as yet produced nothing that resembles a significant increase in foreign missionary witness so far as the number of missionaries is concerned. Actually, there seems to have been a general decline among those groups which have merged. 2. The increase of missionary passion and concern seems to have been stirred largely by faith boards and by the smaller and generally more theologically conservative groups. Therefore if church mergers are encouraged on the ground that ‘the divided state of the Christian Church is blocking its mission,” there is little evidence to show that mergers do substantially improve the realization of the mission of the church. So far mergers just have not produced such results.
One significant church union scheme outside the American scene has attracted much attention. This is the Church of South India which united adherents from different Protestant denominations into one fellowship. Here, too, the main motive was to overcome the fragmentation of witness that was proclaimed a scandal to the world of heathenism and a hindrance to more rapid evangelization of the lost. It was supposed that a united fellowship would do what a divided fellowship was unable to accomplish. Donald McGavran, whose book How Churches Grow was highly commended by Hendrik Kraemer, investigated and assessed the growth of the churches. He concluded that the Church of South India has not lived up to expectations; union has made little or no difference in its rate of growth. Indeed, there is no reason to suppose that the individual churches would not have grown just as well apart from the union as they have with the union. While there may be compelling reasons for urging churches to merge, no primary weight can be attached to the motion that merger leads to more compelling witness that fulfills the Great Commission. Nor dare anyone plead for maintaining present divisions in order to speed the missionary task, for neither has a divided Christendom completed the task of world evangelization.
Evidence Not Reassuring
In the final analysis, the main achievement of the ecumenical movement is to coalesce into one family those already within the Christian community. This in itself may be sufficient reason to justify church union; if so, then the cause for merger should be stated in those terms. But the outcome does not confirm an expected missionary upsurge as the justifying reason for organic union. This is particularly true in North America, where the vast majority of missionary work is being accomplished outside the ecumenical stream, and where, indeed, the proportion of the work being done within the ecumenical orbit has been decreasing steadily in the past 50 years.
For churches to merge so that they become a larger force within the context of the Christian community is one thing. For such largeness to produce missionary impetus and virility apparently is quite another. It the mission of the Church is as significant as both proponents and opponents of church union profess, it is imperative to stress the fact. Unity in itself, in terms of organic union, may not be the main consideration. One can argue with some degree of dogmatic assurance that a single world church which forfeits its missionary responsibility is a meaningless anomaly, whereas proliferating churches which fulfill our Lord’s command to take the Gospel to every creature is far preferable. This is not to say that these are the only alternatives, nor would we argue that one church must necessarily be a sterile and impotent force in foreign missions. But the evidence so far gives the earnest seeker no good reason to suppose that church union will increase missionary passion. Indeed, the facts point to an opposite estimate.
Time will tell whether the integration of the International Missionary Council into the World Council of Churches will motivate a new surge of missionary outreach. In the light of what has taken place so far I personally am skeptical about such an eventuality. In the name of a lost and dying world I hope my doubts prove unwarranted. But unless there is a dynamic move forward, the evidence would indicate that God may bypass channels once mightily used and may replace them with other agencies that do not permit the desire for structure and organization to interfere with the risen Christ’s command to evangelize all nations. God bypassed the Roman Church in the Reformation. Today he seems to be bypassing some denominations in North America by allowing the rapid increase of faith missions. May he not also bypass merged denominations that lose the vision of the Church’s task to evangelize the world?
Some Proposals For Action
The fact remains, of course, that there is division in the body of Christ in our day. This ought not to be. If the merged and unmerged groups are not fulfilling the call to world evangelization; if the faith groups as well have not finished the task, what word shall we say, what hope can we offer those still without Christ? However well founded, negative criticism is not enough. Some positive course of action, some guidelines for future strategy, must be stated. What are they?
1. Let sincere effort be made for conversation with those churches and groups still functioning as separate units. Obviously there are always those who refuse any ventures toward fruitful interchange with others. But there are many men and women of good will who are not divisive and dissident.
2. Let ecumenicity begin where it should—on the field. Let it proceed from the bottom up, not from the top down. Let it be spiritual and practical rather than institutional and ecclesiastical. Instead of division such as that which has resulted in various field councils because of the IMC-WCC integration, let councils all over the world fellowship through the mutual burden of reaching men for Christ. If organization divides, it may mean that for a time, at least, further changes should be suspended. The work of Jesus Christ is bigger than organization.
3. Let an honest effort be made to define an adequate theology based only upon the Word of God. While this theology obviously cannot include details, it should at least embrace the great affirmations of the Christian faith. It should be a positive proclamation, not a negative apologetic.
4. Let us not perpetuate local peculiarities overseas. If we have differences based upon subjective conviction let us be sure the nationals recognize these differences as peripheral—as of matters not of the essence of the faith.
5. Let us yield ourselves in penitence and contribution to the person of the Holy Spirit and ask what he would have us be and do.
6. Let us be patient and understanding. Let us withhold judgment until all the facts are ascertained, remembering that God is the judge of conscience, that he alone knows the full number of his sheep, the full range of his kingdom.
New Delhi Doesn’T Excite Me
Ecumenical organization means ecumenical machinery, and churchmen are human, too, human to the extent that keeping an organization going and thus multiplying jobs and perquisites can become as important as proselytizing. Reading between the lines of reports from New Delhi, I was particularly impressed by the control that the professionals had over the procedures, even to the rationale for the control, namely, that fixed orders of business were necessary in order to expedite progress and save time. Give me the power over procedures, i.e., agendas, and the control of information, and ninety-nine times out of a hundred I’ll control the organization.
For those who think about modern developments, there is something frightening in the mere size of the World Council. Now, I know there are those who think size results in efficiency and more witness, but I am not one of them. I don’t even see it as a way to build a counterweight to Catholicism or Communism.…
I know the argument for machinery. How else can the Gospel train he kept on the track? Aren’t order and uniformity proper virtues?… Believe me, there is a great difference in church or military between volunteers and conscripts. A cause is always more relevant if it is one’s own.
So, New Delhi doesn’t excite me. As we blend into the whole we inevitably subject ourselves to liturgy and form. Why? Because the liturgical and formal in worship are predictable and consequently controllable. No hallelujahs are apt to upset the decorum.…
I’m convinced that the problem of our time is the problem of delegation. In the National Council—and, I’m convinced, equally so in the World Council—the Christian witness tends to become the testimony not of life but of resolutions. Problems of our time are considered by experts in the bureaucracy or individuals friendly to it; recommendations are made and then pressures are exerted on state and national legislature. The natural consequence is often that the church becomes a lobby. The state (anti-Christ) becomes the implement of our Christian resolution. This is the paradox of our time. Charity, for example, the care of widows, orphans, the aged, and all those who were once the responsibility of the fraternity (the church), has now become the responsibility of the state; and more often than not men and women become clients, rather than brethren in the church.—Dr. KERMIT EBY, Professor of Social Science, The University of Chicago.
