Ecumenical Developments in WCC Member Churches in the U.S.

The ecumenical obligation has become a concern of more Christians today than ever before. Never have so many been so challenged, and so puzzled, by that obligation. Its fulfillment has never seemed more imperative, the means of that fulfillment more elusive.

Ecumenical activities within U.S. member churches of the World Council of Churches are increasingly prolific and diffuse. The baffling puzzle that occupies each church in its own life, and all in their common concerns, is the relationship between ecumenical organization and ecumenical movement. We shall look at the nature of that problem in three relationships.

1. Relationships With Roman Catholics

The multiplication of new contacts between Roman Catholics and members of churches represented here is almost astronomic. From the parish, to the county, to the state, to the national and international level, there is an explosive spread of theological discussions, shared Bible studies, joint services for worship, alliances in civic programs, and pooling of resources for community, state, national, and international issues. Both communities and churches are enriched. On both sides there is awareness of continuing and profound theological difficulties. Nevertheless there is in countless communities a new atmosphere of hope both for a deeper understanding of the Gospel within churches and for a more vital witness of the churches to those communities.

This development is a notable example of ecumenical movement far outrunning ecumenical organization. It is an illuminating and a surprising sequel to the New Delhi statement on Christian unity, with its focus on “all in one place.” Most of us who were delegates voted for that statement and returned home with no particular intention of doing anything new because of that affirmation. Such a hiatus between word and deed is not unprecedented among us! The new initiative for examination by our people of the implications of such an affirmation came front a source that no delegate at New Delhi could have anticipated—our Roman Catholic brethren. The ensuing discussions have led many of our own members to a new understanding of their Roman Catholic neighbors and to a deepened encounter with the Gospel as they try in a new way to give a reason for the faith that is in them.

A major function in relationships at this stage is the shattering of stereotypes, and a mutual discovery on both sides of the real identity of the other. Another is the developing of the joint activities—of a range far wider than most would have anticipated—that are possible in the context of theological differences. For the new atmosphere that has developed, and for the Roman Catholic initiative in helping create it, we praise God.

2. Relations With Conservative Evangelicals

The description “conservative evangelicals” covers a wide spectrum—from Southern Baptists to Missouri Synod Lutherans, from Pentecostals to Dispensationalists. Many within our own communions are conservative theologically and socially, evangelical in faith, and also committed ecumenically. No generalization adequately describes so varied a group. The most important American meeting of conservative evangelicals in this decade was held April 10–16, 1966, at Wheaton, Illinois—a “Congress on the Church’s Worldwide Mission.”

In the United States there are five major groupings of foreign missionary agencies.

1. The Division of Overseas Ministries of the National Council of Churches (10,452 missionaries; $95,300,000 income in 1962).

2 The Evangelical Foreign Missions Association (5,993 missionaries; $30,700,000 income in 1962) (primarily denominational agencies of churches in the National Association of Evangelicals).

3. The Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association (5,506 missionaries; $19,700,000 income in 1962) (“faith missions” with personnel from various denominational backgrounds).

4. The Associated Missions of the American Council of Churches (missionaries and income not known) (the group to which Carl McIntire is related).

5. Agencies not organizationally related to any of the above (4,393 missionaries; $41,600,000 income in 1962) (Southern Baptists, Missouri Synod Lutherans, and other relatively small groups).

(The above totals include organizations in full and associate membership.)

The congress at Wheaton was sponsored jointly by the EFMA and the IFMA. Two hundred and fifty-six mission boards, societies, schools, and specialized agencies were represented among the nearly one thousand participants.

The congress was superbly organized. The fifteen major papers showed careful scholarship and exhaustive preparation. Discussion focused on preparation of a “Declaration on the Church’s Worldwide Mission.” Considering the number of missionaries related to the EFMA and IFMA agencies, the size of the churches they serve, and the keen interest within their circles about this meeting, this declaration will be among the more widely welcomed and read missionary documents of this decade.

The convening of the meeting was a major achievement that would have been impossible five years ago. Theological tensions within the group are acute. As far as I would know, they focus especially in the areas of Pentecostalism, ecclesiology, and dispensationalism.

Nevertheless, the sense of unity in the congress was vivid, and the process of discussion and formulation of the statement deeply creative. Delegates brought from other countries were of notable ability and training. The dynamics were familiar: excitement over the new discovery of broad and deep fellowship; intense discussion of issues; many plans for establishment or strengthening of area committees and of functional agencies in such fields as medicine, literature, and mass communication; proposals for merging independent missions and for uniting Bible schools, field ministries, and correspondence courses, as well as for “the unifying of church groups.” I am happy to record my conviction that the Christian mission will be enriched by the congress, although I must immediately express my concern as to one possible divisive result.

The distrust of the ecumenical movement within this group has to be experienced to be believed. Fifteen major papers were presented. Each had been through a thorough process of comment by reactors, revision, and final committee acceptance. Thus each in a sense represented more than individual opinion. Nine of the fifteen carried attacks on the ecumenical movement, and at times on the World Council of Churches by name. They ranged from the sadly irresponsible to one that was a careful analysis of church growth in the United Church of Canada and the Church of South India and a conclusion that church union does not of itself ensure evangelistic passion. There were frequent comparisons of the best in “evangelicalism” with what seems to them the worst in the “ecumenism.” It was carefully stated from the platform that only the formal document voted on by the congress was to be taken as the “mind” of the meeting; but in the heavy attacks upon the World Council of Churches, no World Council documents were cited—except one paragraph on proselytism. Robinson, Gerald Anderson, Tillich, Barth, and Bouquet were quoted as reasons for distrust in the ecumenical movement. The careful instruction we as observers received that we could attend discussion groups to which we were assigned but could not participate in any way was a wise decision. I was received in my group with courtesy, but so intense is the distrust of conciliar bodies that any participation by me would have been deeply disruptive.

The most frequent charges against us were theological liberalism, loss of evangelical conviction, universal-ism in theology, substitution of social action for evangelism, and the search for unity at the expense of biblical truth. These comparatively mild phrases by no means suggest, however, the deep intensity of conviction underlying them.

In a report of this length it is impossible to deal with the theological differences that I think do exist. I report these attacks only because of the divisive effect that the congress may produce in churches of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

One of the clearly stated purposes of the meeting was to further the establishment of evangelical fellowships around the world. This process is under way. Such fellowships have recently been established in Africa, Canada, Ireland, Bolivia. Others will follow. Some, as in India, have been long established. There is a profound difference between the initiative which comes from the United Kingdom and that from the United States for the establishment of such fellowship. In the former case there is no desire to make such fellowship exclusive. Its emphasis is close to the carefully worded statement of the Evangelical Fellowship of India.

Membership in EFI is open “to Churches, missions, institutions, organizations, groups, or individuals.” Membership does not adversely affect other affiliations; therefore EFI will respect the conscience and convictions of its diverse membership in their current church and world affiliations provided that such members are unreservedly committed to the Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in the Holy Bible.

In sharp contrast is the statement of the recently established Evangelical Fellowship of Africa and Madagascar, which restricts participation to bodies that have no part in activities of the World Council of Churches or any related agencies. A number of well-informed persons at the congress said that the same intention will underlie the establishment of other evangelical fellowships sponsored by the EFMA and IFMA. One can only regret the divisions thus produced by forcing Christian bodies to make such a choice, especially in countries where Christians compose small minority groups confronting massive and entrenched paganism.

How should we react? We must remember that the attacks were probably much less extreme than they would have been five years ago. Moreover, an amazing range of persons at the congress, total strangers as well as friends, expressed to me (1) their regrets at the attacks, (2) their conviction that at many places the criticisms were unfair, and (3) their concern at the unnecessary limitations the group placed upon itself by its preoccupation with opposition. Alike for their sakes, for ours, and especially for the churches of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, we have an enormous job to do in furthering real understanding—on both sides. And, that job can be rewarding. No person could have received more gracious hospitality, more courteous care, than I at Wheaton. There is an enormous and urgent task to do in clearing away false stereotypes. When that is done, we will find important residual differences—but at least then they can be dealt with for what they really are. That step of itself will be a great gain toward healing this wound in the body of Christ.

3. The Relationship Between “Churchly” And “Rebellious” Ecumenism

This gathering is characteristic of what Albert van den Heuvel calls “churchly” ecumenism. It can be contrasted with the individual ecumenism of an earlier era (“Crisis in the Ecumenical Movement,” Christianity and Crisis, April 4, 1966). Churchly ecumenism is found in official organizations. It is constituted by the various churches, directed and financed by them. It is of, by, and for the churches in their life and witness. Its officialdom is senior in years. It is characteristically cautious. Its basic policies are voted upon by representatives, who come into conciliar bodies through designation by their own churches.

The development of churchly ecumenism in the last half century is one of the visible victories of God in our time. The Christian mission has been enriched, refugees have been housed, destitute persons have been cared for, the cause of peace has been strengthened, justice has been affirmed, religious liberty has been enlarged, the faith has been clarified for many, congregations have been served, the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ has been made more widely known.

The very fact that such ecumenism has been rooted in the churches has been a source of great power. That fact is also a source of danger. Increasing prestige of any churchly organization can mean a smothering weight of protocol.

Churchly ecumenism can be compared today with various other kinds. There is the conservative evangelical ecumenism that convened the Congress on the Church’s Worldwide Mission. Albert van den Heuvel writes of a “secular ecumenism,” John Cogley of a “private ecumenism”; and Hendrikus Berkhof speaks of an “anonymous ecumenism.”

Let me here coin my own term, and do it in rather extreme form in order to make the issue sharply clear. There is today a “rebellious ecumenism.” The phrase is to some degree self-contradictory. The ecumenical task is that of the whole Church taking the whole Gospel to the whole world. To call such an activity “rebellious” is, of course, a misuse of words. Nevertheless, there is a significant element of rebellion—part of it creative—underlying some ecumenical activities. The volume of it is sufficient to warrant use of the phrase. I do so because this element of rebellion must be taken seriously in our churchly ecumenism.

Theological students in both the United States and Canada are not nearly so excited about the proposals for church union in these two countries as we would have expected twenty years ago. Is there not a feeling that the merging of what seem to students to be obsolescent structures hardly promises of itself a new relevance?

There is apparently a strong element of rebellion in the development in Europe that Dr. Berkhof described as “anonymous ecumenism.” He reports that members of the most conservative as well as the liberal Protestant churches say “there is no bridge between us and what our preachers say,” and that they are reading Robinson, Van Buren, and Cox with intense interest. He reports that many active Roman Catholics are reading those writers more eagerly than the documents of the Vatican Council. Bible study groups, cell groups, youth action groups multiply, cutting squarely across Protestant-Catholic, liberal-conservative lines.

Such developments may be strongest where congregational life is most weak. Nevertheless, they are not limited to Europe. I have heard reports of intercommunion between Roman Catholics and Protestants in at least five European countries as well as in Canada and the United States, in some instances including faculty members of theological schools.

It is expectable that a rebellious ecumenism should be found especially among students. Ralph Hyslop of Union Theological Seminary, returning after a year’s sabbatical, reported his surprise at the rapid increase in that short time of estrangement between the more mature and deeply committed students and present forms of church life.

I met recently with an able group of younger pastors in an Eastern city. They were seeking a way for united action in that city but found themselves blocked by denominational structures. Some were in thriving parishes; but none could escape a feeling of helplessness within their present divisions before the massive human need and growing paganism they encounter. They discussed earnestly whether they should take secular jobs, in the pattern of “worker priests.” Their sense of imprisonment in churchly structure was strong. At last one said, slowly, amid a deepening silence in the group, “We will stay at our churches as long as we can; try to adapt our church structures as much as we can. When, and if, the time comes that we cannot breathe in this atmosphere any longer—then we will have to do as Abraham, and leave. We will have to leave our security in the church, our salaries, and perhaps some of our friends—but we may have to go. I hope we can stay.”

One strange aspect of this rebellious ecumenism is the fact that we churchly ecumenists are now getting what we have wanted. For long years we have talked about the need for “grass roots” ecumenism. Our wish has been granted. We are frightened by the results. The very “grass roots” nature of this development means that it is not under our control. It breaks out in unpredictable places, and sometimes in irresponsible behavior.

This “rebellious ecumenism” is rooted in two strong and strangely inter-related currents of public concern. One is a dissatisfaction with present church structures, the other an enormous concern about religious belief. Bishop Robinson’s book Honest to God sold 300,000 copies almost overnight in Britain and became a best seller here. Pierce Burton’s critical look at the Church, The Comfortable Pew, shattered all publishing records in Canada. The recent issue of Time, with the lead article “Is God Dead?,” has caused a volume of letters to the editors vastly greater than any previous issue.

Leadership of institutions and rebels against those institutions often have difficulty in understanding each other. As a matter of fact, these two ecumenisms profoundly need each other. Rebellious ecumenism may be God’s gift to save churchly ecumenism from early ossification. Churchly ecumenism has a major task to keep rebellious ecumenism from heresy and divisiveness.

The urgency of that need, however, is not found in the natural desire of ecumenical officials for a balanced and dynamic ecumenism. It is the need of the world for a movement able to proclaim with convincing joy the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. The urgency of that need has been vividly stated by the young Jesuit Avery Dulles:

From many quarters … one hears the call for new ecumenism—one less committed to historical theological controversies and more in touch with contemporary secular man; one less turned in upon itself, more open to the world and its concerns. The great decisions affecting man’s future are being made in the sphere of the secular; and Christianity does not seem to be there. A cry to all the Churches rises up from the heart of modern man: “Come to us where we are. Help us to make the passage into the coming technocratic age without falling into the despair and brutality of a new paganism. Teach us sincere respect and affection for our fellow men. If the charity of the Good Samaritan burns in your hearts, show that you share our desires and aspirations. In our struggle to build the city of man, we need the support which your faith and hope alone can give. If you remain comfortably in your churches and cloisters we are much afraid that God will become a stranger to modern life. Christianity, secluded in a world of its own, will turn into a mere relic to be cherished by a few pious souls” [quoted by the Rev. Walter Burghardt, S. J., in The Theological Issues of Vatican II, University of Notre Dame, March 26, 1966].

Our calling as Christians is to take the whole Gospel to the whole world, with an evangelism rooted in the power of Pentecost and a social passion guided by the vision of the prophets. As we lose our lives for the sake of Christ and his Gospel in carrying out that task, we will find the Ecumenical Way to which he summons us.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.