Whither the Church?

The following article by J. W. Hyde appeared in the February, 1967, issue of the “Presbyterian Survey” under the title, “NIP*: Good or Bad?” (*New Improved Presbyterian). It explains one reason why there is so much unrest within all major Protestant denominations.

By and large, laymen know the world in which they live and look to the Church to preach and teach the Gospel by which alone people’s hearts can be changed. When they see the Church becoming a social-action group, they are rightly alarmed.

After listening to the pronouncements emanating from the courts of the church, one gets the impression that the Presbyterian Church U.S. has been preaching Christianity on a trial basis, and any day now she may change her name to the “New Improved Presbyterian Church.” We seem to have switched our emphasis from God so loved the world to Jesus went about doing good. I read these pronouncements with dismay and increasing alarm, and quite frankly, I would rather fight than switch.

Let’s take a look at a prototype—this New, Improved Presbyterian. His ecumenical viewpoint borders on what someone has rightly described as an ecumaniac—a man who believes everyone else’s religion is better than his own.

Briefly, his joy knew no bounds when we officially joined COCU. Nothing short of full organic union with all of Protestantism will satisfy him, and after this, a world church.

I firmly believe the strength of the Protestant Church to be in its multiplicity, not in its oneness. The unity of a free society resides in its diversity, and diversity is more compatible with Christian unity than is uniformity.

The ecumenical movement has translated unity and oneness to mean unison and union. But there is absolutely no relationship. Real unity does not require compromise, sameness, uniformity, nor union. It does require a unity of “mood, disposition and objective,” as well as an understanding of the freedom that is in Christ.

Unity does not require the submerging of differences and motivating forces. On the contrary, it is a united desire to present Christ to the world in the best way we know. Christians have a oneness with each other, not necessarily because we think alike, but because we pledge allegiance to a common Saviour. We should shout this—not from a common pulpit—but in a million different ways, and from a thousand pulpits. We should let the world know that this Christ in whom we believe does not demand uniformity and union among Christians, but rather a united concern to make the Christian faith a living reality in the world—an eagerness to get on with it.

Merger for the sake of putting up a united Christian front to the rest of the world is hypocrisy.

Regarding the mission of the Church, the New Improved Presbyterian’s viewpoint seems to be that while the Church is not necessarily wedded to the world, there should nevertheless be some sort of common-law arrangement to serve the purpose of accommodation. A sort of hide-and-seek arrangement, whereby every time the world progresses another notch on the scale of sophistication, the Church adopts a new stance in order to be recognized. She jumps out of her hiding place and says, “Look at me.” This she calls “relevancy.” I call it absurdity. She calls it compatibility—I call it compromise.

It is not the job of the Church to preach reformation through social action. It is the task of the Church to preach redemption through Christ. A man does not become a Christian through the knowledge that he is doing something morally right. It might help his conscience, but it will do absolutely nothing for his soul.

The Church has a high calling: to confront men with Jesus Christ. No other organization on the face of the earth is charged with this responsibility. She will, therefore, influence the world in direct proportion to her ability to bring about this confrontation. This is her great task—to proclaim the Gospel of Christ. She can eliminate every evil in the world, but if eliminating evil is her primary task, her job would then be through. If every person in the world today had adequate food, adequate housing, adequate income; if all men were “equal”; if every possible social evil and injustice were done away with and the world were truly a Utopia—men would still need one thing: Christ!

One cannot be concerned over the soul of his fellow man without being concerned over his welfare. Good work indeed is closely related to the teachings of Christ, as well as every other religion, and unconcern at this point makes a mockery of Christianity. It places the Church in the position of preaching Christ in isolation. The servant theme in the New Testament, however, does not suggest that men serve men, but that they serve Christ among men. The Christian’s concern for his brother and the Church’s mission are two different things.

As you might have guessed, the New Improved Presbyterian is unequivocally in favor of the National Council of Churches. In his sight they can do no wrong. Perhaps he is right, but they could surely use a good public relations man right now. I think the NCC does some good, but it also does some harm; and there is serious doubt in the minds of many as to which it does the most of.

The NCC shatters the unity of the Church by its very controversy, and the irony of it all is that the impression of unity expressed by Christians counseling together in this manner is overshadowed by disunity of Christians quarreling.

I don’t mind counseling with other denominations at all, nor do I mind being challenged and disturbed by groups who do not think as I; but I object very strenuously when the group initiates programs which I do not approve, makes pronouncements (from war in Viet Nam to unemployment insurance) on political and social issues, and spends my church’s money on causes to which I do not subscribe, yet conveys to the rest of the world not only that I agree, but that this is Christian unity.

I have come to the conclusion that the NCC is a politically oriented, religious organization run by professional clergymen who think that the Church should be involved in the mainstream of American and world politics. This view of the mission of the Church is incompatible with evangelical Christianity, which proclaims the “Good News” of the Gospel, not the pronouncements of the U.N.; which builds its message around a person, not an organization; which witnesses to the power of the Holy Spirit, not the Democratic Party; which teaches salvation by faith, not by united community action.

Certainly the Church should speak, but she should speak against the backdrop of the love of Christ for the world and his reason for coming, not in the name of social reform. Certainly the Cross should be taken to the market place, not necessarily by the Church, but by individual Christians working in the world. As George MacLeod has written, “Christ was not crucified in a sanctuary between two candles, but on a cross between two thieves.” He is present in the world to redeem the world, and the Church had better get this message across, or the sanctuary will become obsolete.

Copyright 1967, Presbyterian Survey.

Reprinted with permission.

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