Ecumenical leaders face a new year of critical decisions
The National Council of Churches enters a new triennium with a new emphasis: evangelism. Official interest in evangelism blossomed during the NCC’s seventh General Assembly in Miami Beach. Protestant Christians from coast to coast now hope that the council will define evangelism. They rightly expect the council to state its evangelistic goals as clearly as it pinpoints the social policy and legislative programs that it continues to promote, to the dismay of many clergymen and lay leaders.
The concern for evangelism was long overdue; until now the NCC has condoned evangelism as an optional diversion from the ecumenical priority of social action and politico-economic pressures. In Miami Beach there was provided, at long last, an ecumenical platform for the evangelical view. Evangelist Billy Graham, in a luncheon address to the General Assembly, swiftly killed the liberal myth that links evangelical Christianity with social indifference; yet he insisted that true biblical social concern must be built upon authoritative proclamation and personal regeneration. Miami Beach was thus an improvement over New Delhi; there, when word was abroad that Graham was an unofficial observer, Kyle Haselden, later named editor of the “ecumenical weekly,” The Christian Century, blurted: “They’re not going to let him speak, are they?”
Some journalists and ecclesiastics hastily took Graham’s combination of personal regeneration and social compassion as a synthesis of ecumenical and evangelical evangelism. But NCC officials knew the difference. Colin Williams, associate secretary of the Division of Christian Life and Mission (his sixty-four-page pre-assembly study book had a favored 100,000-copy press run), urged radical revision of the traditional concept of evangelism and took issue with Graham. The Australian Methodist wants a new evangelism demanding repentance from “social sins”: New Testament evangelism that emphasizes personal conversion is no longer adequate.
“The right-wing alliance in this country with the old evangelism is well known,” charged Williams, who chose not to discuss the left-wing orientation of much that is dignified as new evangelism. He further blurred issues by insisting that the new evangelism “takes just as seriously as the old” the Christian call to a radical change of life and the need for preaching, but differs in “its insistence that evangelism must also take seriously the new situations in which men must be addressed.” Surely New Testament evangelism took seriously the special situation of its hearers; and, moreover, it was explicit about the indispensability of personal regeneration on the ground of Christ’s atoning death, and it was not at all inclined to substitute social activism for spiritual renewal.
Top-level NCC leaders, to whom division secretaries must answer, are striving to repair the movement’s shoddy public image. In this task they will gain the expert help of two professionals who were elected vice-presidents at large: Arthur Larson, former head of the United States Information Agency, and William B. Arthur, editor of Look magazine. The NCC’s continuing intrusion into the political arena, repeated endorsement of legislative bills, espousal of specific positions on military, economic, and social issues, and support of demonstrations to bring about political change, have alienated many dedicated laymen and clergymen. These persons view such activities as a violation of the authority and mandate of the Church and a public misrepresentation of their personal views as well. Official welcome on the ecumenical platform for champions of radical theologies, maverick moralities and secular versions of evangelism has stirred widespread criticism in hundreds of churches, all the more because historic Christian convictions in these areas are routinely ignored.
In some sections of the United States, resentment of National Council activities has deepened inside ecumenically affiliated churches to a point where laymen have banded together and pledged not to give funds to any cause that directly or indirectly supports the council. The council is beginning to feel the financial pinch.
The fact that National Council officials who wanted Graham to address the General Assembly apparently out-voted the devotees of a new evangelism is a sign of some responsiveness to the wide and deep indignation over the NCC stance. There has been a growing flirtation with evangelistic themes. Yet ecumenical pronouncements have tended to justify social engagement as an evangelistic activity, and traditional evangelism has often been criticized publicly while defended privately by NCC spokesmen. In 1966 there was an NCC-oriented colloquium on conversion, a subject now scheduled for further consideration by the WCC at its Fourth Assembly in Uppsala, Sweden, next year. Next June 11–16, at Notre Dame, the NCC Division of Christian Unity will hold a colloquium on evangelism in a pluralistic society. The continuing WCC-NCC “study” of the missionary structure of the congregation, moreover, is expected to make headlines one of these days.
The long-standing suppression of evangelical viewpoints within the National Council may be measured by the fact that in recent memory no major platform has been yielded to a prominent spokesman for this point of view. The appearance of Graham was important because his supporters represent the largest bloc of evangelical critics of ecumenical perspectives in and out of the conciliar movement. There are now reports that Graham will be next invited to address the Uppsala assembly of the World Council of Churches. Bishop Otto Dibelius of Berlin told delegates attending the World Congress on Evangelism that he had long ago urged the World Council of Churches, of which he is a former president, to anchor its spirit to evangelism, and to consider Graham as its exemplar in seeking to reach the masses for Christ.
But though Graham had ecumenical visibility in Miami Beach, and that is to be welcomed, it is clear that he was given only a hearing for, not an endorsement of, his views. Since the NCC’s Division of Christian Life and Mission is promoting an alternate type of evangelism—different not simply in method but in theological content as well—the champions of the new secular evangelism reacted to Graham’s participation as a threat to their security. Willis E. Elliott, of the United Church Board for Homeland Ministries, was scheduled for a sectional meeting at Miami and brought a stinging indictment of the World Congress on Evangelism. He described the “scribal mentality” of Billy Graham and of the editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY as demonic.
Elliott, who says Truman B. Douglass of the United Church of Christ considers him theological spokesman for that two-million-member church, describes himself as “in doctrine … an orthodox believer; in attitudes, a liberal; in social, economic, and political matters, a radical.” But, he swiftly adds, he is “orthodox open!” To the National Council he misrepresented the World Congress as an affair of “verbalists … [meeting] independently of existing ecumenical fellowship,” dismissed its presentations as “piles of preachy scribal Bible expositions,” and deplored the magnificent congress Bible teaching of Anglican John R. W. Stott (honorary chaplain to the Queen of England) as being fully as dangerous as “the Red Chinese pollution.” Elliott warned that the NCC’s differences with this evangelical position “may seem small but the chasm is wide.” Then he hailed what he considered the chief ecumenical effect of the World Congress: to further dialogue between “Bible-defenders” and the rest of the Christian world.
Leaders of the National Council have offered an olive branch to evangelical Christians, but it remains to be seen whether the branch is grafted onto a wild tree. The decisive issue is whether the changing stance of the NCC involves a misuse of evangelism for broader conciliar goals, or an evangelical renovation of conciliar ecumenism.
The issue between evangelical Christians and committed ecumenists, is not that of evangelism versus social compassion. It lies rather in these considerations: (1) Evangelicals insist that authentic evangelism centers in the evangel (the good news of forgiveness of sins and personal regeneration on the ground of Christ’s atoning death and bodily resurrection). (2) Evangelicals insist that love becomes mere humanitarianism if social action leaves out the evangel and espouses material gain rather than moral and spiritual betterment. (3) Evangelicals continue to insist that social involvement is a Christian duty, but they repudiate the institutional church’s direct political pressures, endorsement of legislation, and advocacy of specific military positions; and they also repudiate ecumenical efforts to sell socialism as a Christian economic philosophy. (4) Evangelicals champion the authority of the Bible and are critical of pluralism in theology. (5) Evangelicals seek Christian unity but are lukewarm to the promotion of church mergers for the sake of organizational cohesion, rather than for the sake of theological unity and evangelistic momentum.
Conciliar ecumenism, on the other hand, has tolerated a variety of theologies, a variety of evangelisms, a variety of ecumenical dialogues. As Newsweek has noted, the National Council considers rapport with Roman Catholicism no less important than a bridge to evangelicals and evangelism.
What now concerns evangelicals, encouraged as they are that evangelical evangelism has gained at least a measure of platform visibility, is whether the evangel itself will be permitted to renew ecumenism, or whether ecumenism will continue to redefine the evangel.
“There is a real clash, not just a fake war,” emphasized Colin Williams in a news conference discussing key differences that exist in the NCC over evangelism.
The General Assembly meanwhile called for a halt in American bombing in North Viet Nam.
A French Communist theoretician welcomes the new theology for its rejection of absolute truth
The recent American speaking tour of the foremost French Communist theoretician, Roger Garaudy, signals a new effort by leading secularistic theologians to bring about a rapprochement between Christianity and Marxism. Under the sponsorship of his Roman Catholic publisher, Herder and Herder, and at the invitation of such theologians as Harvey Cox, John C. Bennett, and John Courtney Murray, Garaudy addressed audiences at Harvard, Columbia, Temple, St. Louis, and Fairfield Universities, Union Theological Seminary, and the Roman Catholic La Farge Institute. He advanced the thesis of his new book, From Anathema to Dialogue, that genuine intellectual cooperation—not merely an exchange of views—between Christians and Communists is necessary, desirable, and, on the basis of common humanistic concerns, possible at the present time.
Garaudy argued that in view of the thermonuclear threat, dialogue between the two major shaping forces in the world today is a necessity. He was optimistic about the possibility of substantive intellectual cooperation, since, he asserted, a “metamorphosis” has taken place both in Christian theology and in Communism, in which both have abandoned previous claims to “unique, definitive, and absolute truth.”
Showing a firm grasp of contemporary theology, the former senator and vice-president in the French National Assembly pointed out new teachings by theologians that are encouraging to Marxists. He showed particular appreciation for the writings of Rudolf Bultmann, John A. T. Robinson, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. He applauded the view of the demythologizers that the Christian message was originally presented “in the inadequate language of ideologies, myths, and philosophies of the ancient world” and should be given an existential interpretation acceptable to modern man. He attributed the supposed success of Honest to God to its stripping away of the mythical and Robinson’s emphasis on the need for a deeper immersion in existence: “No longer is the relationship between God and the world a relationship of alternatives: ‘either God or the world.’ Now it is a dialectical relationship: God in the world.” Garaudy commented that “seen in this perspective, transcendence is no longer an attribute of God but a dimension of our experience and our acts.” He further asserted that the thought of Teilhard de Chardin paves the way for Christian-Marxist dialogue. This was based on the Catholic theologian’s rejection of the historic fall of man and the traditional concept of original sin, his belief that man is saved through the extension of the evolutionary process taking place in the universe, and his emphasis on the value of work and human effort.
Viewing current theological trends optimistically, Garaudy sought to show that Communism is not really anti-religious. Communism’s “former” opposition to the Church, he said, was based on the Church’s support of counter-revolutionaries. But now Christianity and Communism can work together: “If each of us takes stock of what is basic in his convictions, he will discover, the one in his faith in God and the other in his faith in the task of man, a mutual willingness to stretch man’s creative energies to the maximum for the sake of realizing a total man, and he will become aware of the mutual enrichment which will flow from dialogue, cooperation, and rivalry between the Marxists’ Promethean humanism and Christian humanism.” But Garaudy gave no sign of re-examining the Marxist concept of atheism. Rather, he stated, “I think that Marxist atheism deprives man only of the illusion of certainty, and that the Marxist dialectic, when lived in its fullness, is ultimately richer in the infinite and more demanding still than the Christian transcendence.”
Can there be real dialogue between Christians and Marxists? If the Christian is willing to concede that his position has only a subjective basis, that man is not fallen, that salvation is an evolutionary process, that God has performed no miraculous events in history, and that man’s prime concern is to work to create a heaven on earth, he can indeed get along very well with the Marxist. The Marxist is correct in his recognition that the views advanced by secular theologians are not incompatible with his own humanistic outlook. But, as Garaudy admitted in a public forum, no true dialogue can take place between the Marxist, who believes Christianity is a man-made projection, and the biblical Christian, whose view of life rests on God’s revelation and miraculous saving acts in history. Theologians who naïvely believe that substantive dialogue with Communists is possible on a humanistic premise either are deluded or have surrendered their claim to be Christian theologians. They are men blinded by the “god of this world” who are sitting ducks for the deceptive and specious arguments of atheistic revolutionaries.
While it is folly to think that Christianity and Marxism can engage in profitable dialogue, it is crucial that Christians sincerely love Communists as individual men and make known to them the biblical Gospel that can revolutionize their lives and reconcile them to God. Real communication between the Christian and Marxist can take place—but only if the word of God is spoken in the conversation.
The Artistry Of Walt Disney
Walt Disney would not be pleased if the world were to mourn his death for long. For he devoted his entire life to bringing joy to the hearts and smiles to the faces of people of all ages in all parts of the earth.
His consummate artistry gave birth to the motion picture cartoon as a human institution and populated our cultural landscape with such unforgettable characters as Mickey Mouse, Pluto, Snow White, Dopey, Dumbo, and Donald Duck. Whether Disney sought to entertain through comic strips, animated cartoons, full-length motion pictures, nature films, television programs, or his monumental Disneyland, he constantly strived to combine excellence with mass appeal. He ably demonstrated that a film-maker could scale the Matterhorn of entertainment for the millions and yet maintain high moral standards in his productions. The songs he taught us—“Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Wolf,” “Whistle While You Work,” “Zippity Do Da,” “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious,” and scores of others—brought a note of cheer to gloomy days. His creative genius, perceptive understanding, and warm spirit made him an exceptional man of his time.
The man who built Tomorrowland as a part of his magic kingdom has entered eternity. We pay tribute to Walt Disney for doing so much to brighten life today.
Baptist Indignation Mounts
If Southern Baptists were stunned by the refusal of American Baptist Convention leaders to participate in the 1969 hemisphere-wide evangelistic Crusade of the Americas, a growing number of American Baptist ministers are now expressing similar dismay.
Recent efforts to widen Baptist ecumenical relations have taken two paths. Evangelical Baptists have favored pan-Baptist cooperation, with evangelism as the most hopeful key. Advocates of the Consultation on Church Union seek larger Baptist involvement in organic merger, with eventual dissolution of Baptist seminaries and other institutions into the theologically inclusive ecumenical movement.
Following the advice of its staff aides in evangelism and programming, the ABC General Council recently spurned an invitation to join other Western Hemisphere Baptists in the 1969 crusade. The evangelistic project not only signaled a fresh openness by Southern Baptists to trans-denominational cooperation but also was the first joint effort approved by the new North American committee of the Baptist World Alliance.
Since American Baptist annual baptisms declined more than 30 per cent between 1955 and 1965, many ministers are dismayed. Dr. Lester J. Harnish, former president of the ABC, deplores “the miscarriage of evangelism in my denomination.” Carl W. Tiller, current president, still holds out the hope that there will be ABC cooperation in the 1969 crusade—if not nationally, at least on a state level.
But the temper of indignation is rising among many American Baptists. This week a Pomona, California, minister addressed an open letter to the ABC Crusader in which he bluntly condemned the General Council’s defection from a major evangelistic opportunity. Taking a cue from C. S. Lewis, the ABC-ordained Rev. Robert Wernersbach signed his letter WORMWOOD (the junior devil on earth popularized in The Screwtape Letters) and in choice paragraphs of satire voiced Satan’s delight over the present policy of his convention:
The recent decision of the General Council not to engage in the Crusade for Christ in the Americas has prompted us to prepare this letter which expresses our feelings.
We would like to commend the General Council for this wise move. There is no good theological reason why the American Baptist Convention should engage in such a crusade. Certainly the words of Christ in Matthew 28:18–20 have been badly interpreted through the years. They cannot mean that man is lost without Christ and that the Church should go throughout the world proclaiming salvation through Christ. This type of biblical hermeneutics went out with the flat-earth theory. Of course, there are still some mistaken individuals who accept the idea that man without Christ is going to hell (witness the recent World Congress on Evangelism held in Berlin), but it is refreshing to see the General Council is not taking this narrow road.
You must continue to allow your department of evangelism to convey the idea that all men are already saved and it is not necessary for us to waste so much good time on such a secondary program. You must push civil rights and all other social and political programs in the months and years ahead. The key issue at both Pittsburgh and Boston must be your entrance into the Consultation on Church Union. In short, you must push everything except these evangelistic crusades. After all, isn’t this why Christ came? Isn’t this the meaning of the Christ event? Let us as a convention not miss the real point of Christianity as the delegates to the conference on evangelism did in Berlin.
Crusade for Christ in the Americas. Who needs it? Certainly not our American Baptist Convention. Statistics only support our position. In 1955, you reported baptisms of 63,632 individuals, and in 1965, baptisms were down to 43,759. Excellent! This shows a good trend since everyone is already saved. We no longer need bother about baptism, or salvation, or the Church (except for organic union, of course), or Christ, or God. We can devote all our time to civil rights, COCU, Red China, and so on. Here is Christianity at its best.
In closing, keep up the good work. Try hard at Pittsburgh for COCU, and if you fail always remember these in Boston in 1968. Whatever you do, don’t get yourselves involved in a crusade—unless it is for civil rights! Good luck. We will look forward to seeing you some day.
