The Montreal Faith and Order Conference, which gathered five hundred participants from fifty countries July 12–26, faced the World Council of Churches with the thorny question of whether to widen or relax the role of theology in its quest for church unity. In the first world theological study conference of its kind on the North American continent, the 270 delegates from 138 Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican churches sensed from the outset that doctrinal issues may be cresting toward “a moment of truth” in the ecumenical movement. They hoped before the final days of their dialogue to clarify the ecumenical role of faith and order concerns.
Not a few ecclesiastical leaders saw Montreal as essentially “a holding operation” by delegates trapped between conference fever pressures to “say something manifesting unity” and the theological urge to probe doctrinal debate in depth. Dr. Franklin Clark Fry, chairman of WCC’s Central Committee, characterized the conference as “transitional” and stayed for two days. Anglican Bishop Oliver Tomkins of Bristol, England, later elected conference chairman, reminded the opening press conference that the World Council has been “trying to elucidate the causes of church disunity for twenty years.” The Montreal conference, he added, was “simply an incident in a long continuing process.… Faith and order is not the only nor even the chief effort in the ecumenical field.”
Delegates and sixteen observers from nine churches outside the World Council assessed reports summarizing the ten-year effort of four theological study commissions named at Lund in 1952 to explore Christ and the Church, Tradition and Traditions, Worship, and Institutionalism.
Most theological world giants were notably absent. Now in retirement, Karl Barth and Emil Brunner bequeath ecumenical participation to younger men, content to have given them “a pointer.” The conference sent greetings to Leonard Hodgson, long an active participant. Anders Nygren of Sweden towered above most theologian-delegates. Unconvinced that theology holds adequate scope in the structure of WCC, not a few European theologians point to the mass of theological research still undigested by the ecumenical movement, while program-planners continue to move from theme to theme on the edge of journalistic relevance.
Edmund Schlink of Heidelberg contributed one of the outstanding papers, but sent an alternate, deciding that Rome in September would be more important than Montreal in July. Oscar Cullmann and A. Koeberle were preoccupied, and T. F. Torrance of Edinburgh and Hendrikus Berkhof of Leiden wanted summer respite from the ecumenical circuit. Norman Pittenger and Otto Piper were absent, too. But Roger Mehl of France, N. H. Soe of Denmark, and Albrecht Peters of Heidelberg were among those who came.
Only a small number of American participants are widely respected by Europeans as theologians. Paul Minear, who went from Yale to the WCC Geneva staff for two years, Jaroslav Pelikan, J. A. Sittler, Floyd V. Filson, Walter M. Horton, G. M. Lindbeck, R. Johnson, Bernard Ramm, and C. J. I. Bergendoff were among the American contingent. A group of younger theologians took a competent part in discussions.
When questioned about “theological greats” one American delegate after another would apologize for the lack of “scintillating greatness” in his own denominational circles and point outside his own communion. The pragmatic temper of American ecumenism has been doctrinally debilitating. Ecclesiastical leaders continually ask how theological contributions serve “the cause of unity.” Theological interest is largely confined to such consensus as promotes ecumenism. The fortunes of dogmatic theology are at low ebb (Princeton’s bookstore no longer stocks Hodge’s Systematic Theology). Seldom are achievements in biblical studies worked out in relation to dogmatics and ethics. “What can we say together,” asked French theologian Mehl at Montreal, “to help the Church to manifest on the doctrinal plane, more clearly and more courageously than in the past, that unity in Christ whose mystery is already known to us?”
The Montreal conference got off to a hopeful, if anxious, beginning. Methodist theologian Albert C. Outler of Texas noted that “Faith and Order is a risky business.… We are never further away than two bigots from disruption or three diehards from a deadlock.” And he added: “In this conference and its outcome, Faith and Order is on trial.… On the one hand, our colleagues in the WCC must form a judgment as to our distinctive contributions to the ecumenical movement as a whole. On the other hand, a sizable number of ecclesiastical statesmen have thus far regarded our enterprise as rather more arcane than practical.… This conference is almost certain to tip the balance in the verdict as to what function we have to perform in the WCC and in the larger cause of Christian unity.”
This was the first time in eleven years—since Lund—that Faith and Order was speaking to some of its concerns. Consequently, any statement by the Montreal conference (overall cost: at least $150,000) was sure to be judged, not simply by its easy generalities reaffirming the urgency of the Christian world mission or the desirability of Christian unity, but by the presence or absence of new commitments and specific evidences of increasing theological and ecclesiological unity.
Bishop Tomkins, in his conference address, said he lacked courage to poll the delegates on whether they had read the advance theological reports. “I have long believed,” he added, “that one of the main effects of Faith and Order work lay not so much in its printed results (indeed I am rather skeptical about how far these laboriously produced volumes and reports are in fact very widely read), but in the transformation that it produces in the outlook of those who take part in person.” That turn of things gave theologians eager for theological revival in the local churches little encouragement. But the bishop urged that “within the structure of our organization” WCC make room for “such sustained, intensive, serious theological discussion as to justify us in asking the leading theologians of Christendom to give their time and energy to meet with one another on occasions which will vindicate themselves by their own inherent value.” There was a word also for church politicians aspiring to theological competence: “We may be in danger of developing a sort of stage army of ecumenical activists who, wearing different hats, dash about the world meeting each other in a variety of guises.”
Dr. Minear was hopeful that reflection on the study document “Christ and the Church” would issue in a statement elaborating “what WCC believes.” That document contained two unreconciled reports by American and European sections. Professor Ernest Kaseman, who with Eric Dinkler of Bonn gave ardent support to Bultmannian positions, deplored the fact that the European report was written from the standpoint of Cullmann’s salvation-history rather than of Bultmann’s existentialism. A similar plea for the mirroring of Bultmannian perspectives came from the conference chairman, Bishop Tomkins, in the opening address: “Are we in danger of developing a kind of theological provincialism in our Faith and Order work?… Certain theological voices that are speaking amongst us today have not been sufficiently attended to in our work in recent years. To name only one, the kind of thought associated with Professor Bultmann is not reflected in our studies as effectively as it should be.…”
Mobilization For Integration
O freedom! O freedom!
O freedom over me!
And before I’ll be a slave
I’ll be buried in my grave
And go home to my Lord
And be free!
Hands clapping, voices raised in song, the seven hundred pastors and laymen echoed Negro minister Andrew J. Young as verse after verse of the freedom song surged across the crowded auditorium. Some persons pondered the current racial crisis. Many yearned for measures which would successfully counter the swelling tide of racial and ethnic bigotry. The event might well have been a freedom demonstration in any one of a dozen Southern cities, but it was not. The setting was the Grand Ballroom of the Denver Hilton Hotel. The churchmen were predominantly white. And the occasion was the final evening session of the fourth biennial meeting of the United Church of Christ.
The event itself was not unusually significant, but it was expressive of a deeply felt need which had dominated the eight-day convention of the two-million-member denomination—a need for formative action in the current racial crisis. President Ben Mohr Herbster had taken the floor on opening day to set aside the scheduled program of events and to call for immediate and effective action in the race-relations crisis. “The situation present across America, the way in which … our Negro brethren are treated, economically, politically, and socially, constitute a blight from which we must be saved,” said Dr. Herbster.
“We have had too many words that changed too little. We must act, and we must act now.”
His proposals, approved overwhelmingly by voice vote of the delegates, called for uprooting of intolerance and bigotry in the life of the individual, universal integration of the United Church of Christ, mobilization of the manpower and means of the church for racial justice, establishment of a special fund to cover the cost of such a program, and prayerful dedication on the part of church members to the cause of justice and good will. President Herbster did not mention a specific total for the proposed fund, but a pre-convention document had suggested §1,000,000. By convention’s end $5,530 of this goal had been collected. In implementation of these proposals, President Herbster called for formation of a bi-racial committee which would direct the administration of funds and coordinate specific action in the struggle for racial equality.
The program was not allowed to rest only with the committee or with church officials. On Wednesday night soon after the singing of the freedom song, the newly formed committee for effective racial action, the Committee for Racial Justice Now, challenged the delegates to sign a pledge installing them in “The Fellowship of the Committed.” The pledge, signed by 580 of those present, committed the delegate to work for inclusive membership in his church, to seek for enactment of civil-rights laws, and to engage in non-violent demonstrations for racial justice when necessary.
The same night saw first defeat and then approval of a controversial measure which will require economic sanctions against dependent churches of the denomination if by July 1, 1964, they have not declared “a policy of openness without respect to race, national background or ethnic origin.” Rejected by a vote of 232 to 204 after an hour of heated debate, the proposal was subsequently revived and passed by a vote of 308 to 129. A number of those present declared that they had been swayed by the succession of Negroes who had risen to speak in favor of the economic sanctions and by President Herbster, who concurred, noting, “If we really mean what we say we mean … we must do this though we do it with a heavy heart.”
The General Synod took further steps toward racial integration by presenting citations for distinguished service in the cause of racial equality to Chicago Negro physician Dr. Theodore K. Lawless and to former Brooklyn Dodgers baseball star Jackie Robinson. The General Synod also elected a Negro woman, Mrs. Robert C. Johnson, to the post of assistant moderator for the next biennium. Dr. Gerhard W. Grauer, pastor of St. Paul’s United Church of Christ in Chicago, was elected moderator.
Other business on the agenda was a pronouncement on the Relation of Government to Freedom and Welfare submitted to the General Synod by the Council for Christian Social Action. This document, approved only after acute debate which extended through several sessions on the floor of the synod, declared that the Christian conception of freedom requires law and order but justifies civil disobedience whenever governments become “tyrannical or oppressive.” The document also tended to encourage government welfare, noting that “government must meet the changing needs of the people without being bound by the assumption that the growth of government is inherently a threat to freedom.”
One proposal particularly provoked the opposition of individual delegates and, in its final form, differed significantly from the original statement submitted to the synod. The original statement had declared the right of Christians and citizens “to safeguard the right of freedom of expression as guaranteed in the First Amendment, including the constitutional right to express opposition to our government or to advocate alternative political and economic systems without being intimidated and harassed by legislative or other instrumentalities of government.” The latent apprehension of many was further aroused when a member of the Council for Christian Social Action declared that “alternative political and economic systems” might conceivably include “communism or anarchy.”
In its final form, after this portion of the 147-line pronouncement had been repeatedly challenged and at last returned to committee for rewriting, the sentence read: “to safeguard the right of freedom of expression as guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, including the right within constitutional limits to express opposition or commendation to our government or to advocate peaceful change to alternative political and economic systems without being intimidated or harassed.”
On the second day of the convention the United Church of Christ took further steps toward Protestant consolidation by authorizing its delegation to the Consultation on Church Union to join with the Methodist, Protestant Episcopal, Christian Churches (Disciples), United Presbyterian, and Evangelical United Brethren representatives in a comprehensive plan of ecclesiastical union.
In further action by the 700-member General Synod, approval was given to a denominational emphasis for the next biennium on “The Church and Urbanization,” and authorization was accorded the Executive Council to establish the national headquarters of the United Church of Christ in New York City. The instrumentalities of the church, some of which have offices in Philadelphia and Cleveland, were urged to relocate at or near the national headquarters.
J.M.B.
The following report was prepared forCHRISTIANITY TODAYby Dr. George E. Failing, editor of The Wesleyan Methodist:
At its thirty-first Quadrennial General Conference, convened at Fairmount, Indiana, June 26-July 2, the Wesleyan Methodist Church of America reported modest gains in church membership and finances in North American conferences and phenomenal membership increases (10 to 1) in overseas conferences. National conferences were organized during the preceding quadrennium in Haiti, Central India Jamaica, and Puerto Rico.
Major changes made in the administrative structure of the church at the 1959 conference were solidly reaffirmed in the return to office of all general officers of the church and by endorsement of a continuing progressive program in establishing indigenous overseas churches, in implementing an aggressive evangelistic outreach at home, and in making financial provisions to secure a better-trained ministry.
Introduced on the floor of the conference, and received by the conference to be placed in the minutes, was a statement offered by five delegates from the North Carolina and South Carolina conferences: “The current social revolution that is sweeping the country is of grave concern to us. As Christians we cannot condone the strife that is resulting from racial unrest in our beloved Southland. Neither can we condone nor be a willing party to the heinous system of racial segregation that has so long plagued us. It is our firm belief that, as Christians committed to evangelization of the world, we must seek out and win our black brothers to Christ.… Central (S. C.) Wesleyan College has never refused admittance to a bona fide applicant because of race. Recently the Academic Committee unanimously went on record as being opposed to racial discrimination in the admission of students to Central.…”
The General Conference also adopted a resolution calling upon all Wesleyan Methodists to “respectfully petition legislative leaders to recover for us and the great majority of our people some adequate lawful redress from the growing inclination to ban from public life all worship of God and recognition of Him. We presume that such may require a constitutional amendment.…”
In other action, merger negotiations were reopened with the Pilgrim Holiness Church. Delegates ordered formation of a committee charged with preparing a merger plan, to be presented at the 1967 conference.
Vancouver, British Columbia—Delegates to the eighty-fourth annual meeting of the 85,000-member Baptist General Conference adopted a resolution calling for prayer for peace and support of reduction of armaments, “thereby lessening the tensions that lead to war.”
Joplin, Missouri—The Pentecostal Church of God of America went on record at its biennial General Convention as being opposed to the Supreme Court ruling against Bible reading and prayers as devotional acts in public schools. In another resolution, the 500 delegates declared their opposition to “every form of social violence resulting from both race and religious prejudices.”
New York—A resolution condemning the U. N. as a symbol of “idolatrous worship” was approved unanimously by nearly 85,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses at their International Convention. The resolution pledged that Witnesses would never worship an organization which “stands for world sovereignty by political men.”
Convention Chairman Milton G. Henschel cited a membership increase which makes the Witnesses claim to be one of the fastest-growing religious bodies. In 1939, he said, there were 41,000 Witnesses in 2,425 congregations in the United States, compared with a current total of some 308,000 in 4,708 congregations. Witnesses now claim a world membership of about 1,000,000.
MISSIONS STRATEGIST
The war made him a missionary. Beginning September 1, he will man the strategy switchboard for a global network of nearly 8,000 evangelical missionaries.
Edwin L. Frizen, Jr., newly appointed executive secretary of the Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association, got his missionary vision while serving in the Pacific with the Seabees during World War II. He was one of a group of servicemen who founded the Far Eastern Gospel Crusade. Following the war he and his wife served as missionaries to the Philippines.
Frizen, known familiarly as “Jack,” fills a post made vacant last year by the resignation of Dr. J. O. Percy. As administrative chieftain for IFMA, he will coordinate strategies and operations for 46 interdenominational “faith boards,” ranging from Arctic Missions, Inc., to the Soldiers and Gospel Mission of South America.
World conditions tend to be less forgiving of missionary policy blunders and disputes, which makes Frizen’s job even more strategic. One of his biggest challenges will be the possibility of closer cooperation with the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association, which represents the interests of 59 missionary boards with 6,500 missionaries. Some measure of cooperation has already been achieved between IFMA and EFMA, but the opportunities are broad. Discussions between the two groups thus far have been fruitful, as evidenced by the fact that they have scheduled their first joint retreat at Winona Lake, Indiana, this fall.
