Uppsala 1968

A Report on the Fourth Assembly of the World Council of Churches

Twenty years ago at Amsterdam the World Council of Churches was launched, using as its symbol a ship named Oikoumene sailing the ocean waves. During these first two decades of voyaging, the hull of the good ship Oikoumene has been expanded theologically to include additional Orthodox bodies and is being readied to take on the Roman Catholic Church. The ship’s chief officer, W. A. Visser ’t Hooft, has been succeeded by Eugene Carson Blake, former stated clerk of the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. Death and retirement have edged out such notable crew members as John R. Mott, Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, Henry Van Dusen, and John Mackay.

The passenger list has grown; more than 230 churches have boarded, and others are on the way. At Uppsala and the Fourth General Assembly, it was discovered that the Greek Orthodox Church (the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece) had jumped ship prior to docking and that the seventeen seats assigned to this church were empty for the time being. But despite this snub, the hope for the one church aboard the one ship is steadily increasing.

A ship must choose a port and map out a course to reach it. Here, perhaps, is the greatest problem facing the Oikoumene crew. Although the present course-setters monotonously assert that there has been no change, the ship’s initial course has been altered dramatically. Those who favor the new course seem to have the ship under firm control.

Evangelicals inside and outside the ecumenical movement must take a hard look at Oikoumene’s progress since it set out from Amsterdam. This is not easy, for the World Council of Churches has become a very complex organization, has extended its outreach deeply into politics, economics, and social affairs, and has committed the churches to programs and activities covering nearly every area of human life. God made the heavens and the earth in seven days and populated the earth with two people. The 702 official delegates at Uppsala were given the tough task of remaking and renewing the earth and its more than three billion people in less than three weeks. Mimeograph machines disgorged incredible piles of releases, and the task of collation and interpretation was enormous. Any survey in depth must await a careful study of the documents over a longer period of time.

Assembly Composition and Attitudes

At the Fourth Assembly there was The Establishment and there were the delegates. The latter were diverse and disorganized. They ranged from evangelical to liberal in theological persuasion, from supporters of evangelism to far-left social-auctioneers, from deeply committed pietists whose language was the language of Scripture to social engineers who spoke the secular lingo of the profane world. It would be difficult to doubt the sincerity and commitment of any, but impossible not to question the validity of many viewpoints and of their theological foundation. Courtesy and concern were the coin of the realm, both toward those who attended the conclave and toward the broken and bleeding world outside. The overarching topics of conversation were race, rich and poor nations, social justice, human rights, restructuring society and the churches, communications, and world community.

The Establishment was often invisible. But it exists, and it understands power structures and how they can be used to implement its ideology. It was this group that determined the agenda for the churches, even though it had, in its turn, let the world determine the agenda for The Establishment. General Secretary Blake, who in his report to the assembly spoke of “us who are official or establishment leaders,” told the delegates he hoped they would approve the revolutionary and risky proposals that would be presented to them.

A deep current of anti-Americanism ran beneath assembly deliberations. It seemed to be based on opposition to the war in Viet Nam and to America’s affluence as well as on a preference for socialism and communism over capitalism. Senator George McGovern, Democrat from South Dakota and a Methodist delegate to the Assembly, told the press: “I have been surprised by the self-righteous and intolerant expressions of opinion I have heard. The delegates from no nation come to this assembly with clean hands. If the United States is as blind and evil as some imply, then surely we are in need of the assembly’s compassion and prayers, and not intolerance.” In a clear reference to the United States, Archbishop Nikodim of Russia told one audience that the WCC should take “a more principled and resolute stand on the obviously intolerant violation of international peace and the sovereign right of people—victims of aggression.” But he had no word of sympathy for the people of East Germany, or Czechoslovakia, or Poland, or Finland. The feeling against America seemed to be an obsession. But attitudes toward Americans as individuals were friendly, and on the whole social intercourse was excellent.

The young people at Uppsala gave the Fourth Assembly its roughest and toughest criticism. Their paper Hot News might well have been named Hot Foot. Far to the left, the youth prodded and bullied their elders by voice but not by vote. They considered themselves the “conscience” of the assembly and were critical of the WCC power structure, of Secretary Blake, of assembly acceptance of anything that resembled conservative or traditional theology, and of the idea of winning men to Christ by preaching the Gospel. They said plainly enough that they had chosen to work through the Church because it was one of the few international institutions. Their statements and resolutions were, said one Swedish journalist, “as unrealistic as they are idealistic.”

Many assembly delegates strongly supported the biblical concept of personal salvation through faith in Christ and the need for the Church to take the Gospel to every creature. The assembly, in plenary sessions, sent back some of the section papers to force the inclusion of this emphasis. And they did so by substantial majorities. During the last week of meetings, the important differences between The Establishment and some of the delegates stood out clearly. To what extent the decisions of those who steer the ship between assemblies will reflect this dissent remains to be seen.

Problem of Communication

Uppsala exuded words. Of the making of documents, even prior to the assembly, there was no end. Delegates were supposed to have studied the preparatory documents before the meetings convened, but it is unlikely that many of them really understood what they found in those documents. Certainly the bulk of the people in the churches would not. What was (and is) needed desperately is a glossary offering clear, succinct definitions of terms that were thrown about recklessly. “Justice,” “the new humanity,” “sholem” “ontology,” “secularism” and “secularization,” “renewal,” “missio Dei,” “the humanum,” “reconciliation”—these and a hundred other terms haunted delegates and reporters alike.

Another great need is a simplifying of expression. Some of the pre-assembly material was written in language that defied understanding. “To change the metaphor from static to dynamic physics, we need to maintain a kinetic polarity between Creation and Redemption, ontology and teleology, as a living and dynamic basis for development”; “holding these three foci in dynamic polarity and unity provides an integration and wholeness of theological perspective”—formidable sentences like these stand in striking contrast to the simple parables of the Man of Galilee, to whom the multitudes flocked because they could understand him.

Emerging Viewpoints

No one speaker could be said to represent all churches, for assembly actions were referred back to the churches for their consideration. Yet the choice of speakers and writers was certainly a sign of the “official” attitude of the WCC.

Former General Secretary W. A. Visser ’t Hooft, a charismatic speaker who drew good applause and was elected honorary president, said in his address on “The Mandate of the Ecumenical Movement” that the movement “has entered into a period of reaping an astonishing rich harvest but that precisely at this moment the movement is more seriously called into question than ever before. And once again the basic issue is that of the relation between church and world.” Later he added, “it must become clear that church members who deny in fact their responsibility for the needy in any part of the world are just as much guilty of heresy as those who deny this or that article of the faith.” For this he was applauded vigorously.

The anxiety of The Establishment to justify the current WCC stance was further seen in Blake’s speech. “There is no time in such a report as this to defend the World Council of Churches from its many and varied critics,” he said. “It is best to let the critics demolish each other and proceed on the ecumenical way.” As the “most widely held criticism” he cited the charge that “the World Council of Churches is by its involvement in social, economic, and political questions leading the churches away from their central task of proclaiming the Gospel, worshiping God, and offering eternal salvation to a dying and sinful humanity.” In answer to this he said he wanted “to be sure this assembly understands” that involvement in social, economic, and political questions “has always been the proper business of the Church.” Blake also looked ahead to further criticism: “The stronger we become, the more criticism we may expect from Christian Churches outside our membership since many of them feel that our open membership policy is a standing criticism of their not being members. It will not do for us to become defensive about such criticisms.”

Blake’s affirmation that social, economic, and political activities have always been the business of the Church was reiterated in the WCC book Line and Plummet, which was distributed to every delegate and referred to again and again. The author, Richard Dickinson, said: “The development concept is fundamentally rationalist, based on an implicit faith in the capacity of reason to unravel the knots which snarl progress.… It implies faith in the physical sciences to help man master nature, faith in the social sciences to help man understand human relationships and to arrange them to promote human welfare, and faith in men to act morally and rationally to build a more just and rational society.” There are, he said, “Christians who believe that concern for development is itself a dangerous emphasis. History is passing away; societal process is ephemeral and unimportant; what really matters is individual men and their salvation, and the churches should not squander their energies on anything else. Charitable concerns have their valid place, but larger questions about the structure and direction of society are no concern of the churches. While this is a minority view, and while we cannot in any way subscribe to this argument, it is firmly held by some Christians.” Dickinson’s analysis of the “opposition viewpoint” was incorrect, but what did emerge clearly from his attack was the fact that he had no use for the idea of the primacy of the Gospel for “individual men and their salvation.”

Miss E. Adler from East Germany, a discussant of Visser’t Hooft’s paper, got close to the heart of the ecumenical dilemma when she said: “Of course the ecumenical movement cannot leave the churches out of account altogether.… Probably the ecumenical movement needs the churches, the churches which have no money. But does it not also need their support and approval? Usually money does not flow in unless this is the case. So the ecumenical movement becomes dependent upon traditional church institutions, whose very structure it wants to challenge.”

Actions of the Assembly

Prior to Uppsala six preliminary section drafts were prepared: (I) The Holy Spirit and the Catholicity of the Church, (II) Renewal in Mission, (III) World Economic and Social Development, (IV) Towards Justice and Peace in International Affairs, (V) The Worship of God in a Secular Age, (VI) Towards a New Style of Living. In general, the drafts grew out of the 1966 Geneva-based World Conference on Church and Society. That conclave leaned to the left, advocating extensive church involvement in social, economic and political affairs. The draft on Renewal in Mission, which followed the Geneva pattern, was hotly criticized before the assembly, and it was obvious from opening day that it would be a battleground.

Evangelicals worked for drastic revision of Renewal in Mission and got it. To no one’s surprise, vigorous debate greeted the new draft when it was presented to the assembly in plenary session. A WCC release said: “Fourteen speakers in a row discussed the missions report, several agreeing in general with the paper’s call for new approaches to a rapidly changing world but virtually all finding it lacking in sufficient reference to the basic Christian task of spreading the Gospel.” John R. W. Stott of London was widely applauded when he called for the inclusion of a statement about the two billion who have never heard the Gospel, and the assembly sent the draft back for further correction. The final statement said: “The Church in mission is for all people everywhere. It has an unchanging responsibility to make known the Gospel of the forgiveness of God in Christ to the hundreds of millions who have not heard it.…”

The youth at the assembly were unhappy about this final Section II draft, and they said so. Whether or not anyone else saw the issue, they did: the revision of the draft made it incompatible with the other section reports. Indeed, the affirmation that the basic Christian task is to proclaim the Gospel to all men ran counter to the program in general and to the speeches in particular, especially those of Visser’t Hooft and Blake. “Clearly, this is a point of real tension in the WCC. In Hot News the youth asked: “Why did so few delegates who do oppose these non-interpreted theological statements really speak up? Why did not the existing tensions within the assembly show themselves? Why did not anyone stress the need for vision and movement in theologizing? Why does anybody see the risk of hindering the movement towards political involvement, development, new style of living, etc., if this draft is not radically rewritten?”

The young people failed to see that a majority of the delegates were interested in the personal salvation of individual men. Whether the bureaucracy, the new presidium, and the new Central Committee got the message flashed by so many of the delegates remains to be seen.

Because of the differences among churches in the council, the report of Section I (The Holy Spirit and the Catholicity of the Church) was a rather thin one containing broad generalizations. It did embrace the idea of the historic episcopate. An apologetic footnote explained that the report was presented “as a basis and instrument for further discussion.… A variety of theological positions were expressed in honest and vigorous interchange, and the convergence of thought convinces us that further substantial progress can be made in the future.” To this no one could take exception.

Section III (World Economic and Social Development) (1) asserted opposition to the status quo, (2) endorsed social justice, (3) endorsed the Report of the World Conference on Church and Society (Geneva, 1966), (4) called rich nations to give at least 1 per cent of their gross national product to underdeveloped nations, (5) approved the idea that revolutionary change may take violent forms, (6) advocated lifting the economic blockade of Cuba, (7) recommended an international taxing system, (8) condemned racism, (9) endorsed family planning and birth control, (10) advocated volunteer service in development work as an alternative to compulsory military training, (11) urged that “in restructuring of the WCC a concerted approach to economic and social development be made a priority consideration,” (12) called for the nations to diminish expenditures on armaments and to put the savings in development, and (13) asked the churches to “make available for development aid such proportion of their regular income as would entail sacrifice” and to explore how “endowments and other church funds may be responsibly invested for development.”

Section IV (Towards Justice and Peace in International Affairs) (1) said “war as a method of settling disputes is incompatible with the teachings and example of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Amsterdam, 1948), (2) opposed nuclear war and weapons as well as the establishment of anti-ballistic missile systems, (3) advocated human rights, (4) condemned racism and called for the churches to “withdraw investments from institutions that perpetuate racism,” (5) called for help for refugees and displaced persons, (6) said “both churches and governments of developed countries must seek to end their economic dominance of the low-income societies” (italics added), (7) claimed “it is imperative” for the churches to “concern themselves with political parties, trade unions, and other groups influencing public opinion,” (8) supported an international development tax, (9) called upon Christians (without using the term “church” or “churches”) to “urge their governments to accept the rulings of the International Court of Justice without reservation,” and (10) urged support of the United Nations and inclusion of the People’s Republic of China in its membership.

Section V (The Worship of God in a Secular Age) (1) said that “since the Word of God is the basis of our worship, proclamation of the Word is essential.… The traditional sermon ought to be supplemented by new means of proclamation” (dialogue, drama, and the visual arts), (2) urged the churches to “consider seriously the desirability of adopting the early Christian tradition of celebrating the Eucharist every Sunday,” and (3) urged the Faith and Order Commission to undertake a study of the “symbols used in worship and in contemporary culture.” This latter recommendation was curious, for Faith and Order is part of the WCC structure, which the assembly controls in theory if not in practice. It might better have ordered this study instead of recommending it.

Section VI (Towards a New Style of Living) (1) affirmed that “young people have a right to participate in discussions in schools and universities as well as in political, business and family life” and proposed that “all ecumenical assemblies set an example by giving voting rights to a fair proportion of young participants,” (2) pointed out that the delegates at Uppsala “are middle class,” (3) called for the “transfer of wealth and knowledge by an international development tax [and] moratorium on church building programmes,” (4) said the WCC “should continue to rebuke member churches which tolerate racism, and make it clear that racist churches cannot be recognized as members in good standing of the council,” and (5) advocated sexual purity and asked that materials “elaborating the problems of polygamy, marriage and celibacy, birth control, divorce, abortion, and homosexuality be made available for responsible study and action.”

The assembly strongly supported further rapprochement with the Roman Catholic Church. Both the WCC and the Roman Catholic Church appear eager to bring about the organic union of all churches. But Pope Paul, on the eve of Uppsala, threw cold water in the faces of those who hope that Rome will modify its position about its own primacy. He proclaimed once again that reunion must take place under the headship of the pope even as he reaffirmed the church’s traditional theology. The assembly was equally forthright in its appeal to conservative evangelicals to find their places in the WCC structures. At the moment the WCC has its eyes on the Pentecostals, particularly in Latin America. At a meeting scheduled for 1969 it will once again try to get the ecumenical ship afloat there, under the leadership of Emilio Castro. Previous attempts have failed.

Money is the oil that keeps the ecumenical machinery running. The assembly adopted a budget, but this was relatively unimportant. What stands out is where the money comes from and what control is exercised by those who provide it. The 1967 financial report showed that the churches of the United States paid roughly two-thirds of the operating expenses, contributing nearly $600,000 toward a budget of almost $1 million. Five American churches contributed more than $450,000 of this $600,000. If and when COCU (the Consultation on Church Union) jells and union takes place, then one church will be contributing approximately half of the WCC’s operating budget. Financially, then, the WCC is an American enterprise. A sharp decrease in American financial support would cripple it. The abundance of American money raises the spectre of the North American colossus and the fear of American control. The Soviet churches contributed about $9,000, but at Uppsala they got their money’s worth in publicity, propaganda, and influence. The Methodist Church in Ceylon, which sent in $180, emerged with a presidency for one of its members, D. T. Niles (whose universalistic tendencies are well known).

Evangelical Appraisal

When the smoke at Uppsala has cleared and the trivia have been forgotten, the question that will remain as the main issue at the Fourth Assembly is, “What is the mission of the Church?” In and out of section meetings this issue appeared again and again. Visser’t Hooft stated it. Blake repeated it. Delegate after delegate made reference to it. Conservative evangelicals huddled in corners at coffee breaks to plan how to work their viewpoint into the official statements. One important delegate said: “In closing I feel bound to return to the main theological issue—the apparent opposition between the Gospel of personal conversion and the Gospel of social responsibility.” One was reminded of the liberal-fundamentalist controversy of fifty years ago. The terminology has changed, the personnel have changed, the setting is different. But the issue remains the same.

There are two opposing views. One tends toward the secular and would make the Church a pressure group of the world and in the world. It sees the Church as the agency of political, economic, and social change and has for its goal the betterment of men and society. Its driving force is benevolence. Its dynamic, in part, evolved from the historic Christian faith, and its apologetic is geared to the defense of social action as the real mission of the church.

The other view sees the mission of the Church as evangelizing the world, that is, preaching the Gospel of Christ to all men. It does not reject social concern, properly understood and used, but it refuses to be satisfied with what Donald McGavran of the Institute of Church Growth labeled “temporal palliatives instead of eternal remedies.” Those who hold this view think that for the Church to abandon its call to evangelize the world would be fatal. They believe that even if the Church succeeded in altering the social and political structures so as to put an end to social injustice, it would have missed all if those whose temporal lives had been improved were left to die in their sins. Evangelicals in and out of the WCC see eye to eye on this.

Evangelicals feel they cannot subscribe to the social-gospel viewpoint and must oppose it vigorously. This leads to another dilemma. When a church in its theological and functional forms departs from the biblical norms, should evangelicals leave it? Or should they remain, bearing their witness, and hoping for a return to biblical standards? Does the cyclical pattern of Israel’s history of apostasy and renewal offer any guidelines for those who wish to remain within such a church and be obedient to Jesus Christ? Evangelicals have not always answered this question the same way. Perhaps this is good, for it leaves the way clear for each man to decide for himself what he should do.

It is always a mistake for the Church to promise more than it can deliver. Somehow Uppsala did not seem to realize that we live in “this present evil world” and that Satan is the “prince of this world.” Even redeemed men are not perfected men. Men should not be led to think there will ever be a warless world or a race of men who are well fed, well educated, and undivided. This dream goes back to the days of Plato but has no support in Scripture. Marxism will ultimately perish precisely because it cannot deliver what it promises. Christ told his people that in the world they would have tribulation, and that there would be “wars and rumors of wars.” The optimism of the Christian springs from his hope, and his hope lies in the return to Jesus Christ, who will establish his kingdom and bring the peace and prosperity men yearn for.

The social engineers are wrong. But this should bring no comfort to evangelicals. Lip service to evangelism and missions is not enough. They must actually proclaim the Gospel to all men and do it now. The best answer to a wrong viewpoint is not caustic criticism. It is demonstration of the rightness of the true viewpoint. Let evangelicals manifest the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives, let them radiate a Christlikeness in all their relationships, and let those who have been converted through their preaching of the Gospel be the evidence to the world of the rightness of their cause.

On Violence

What does the World Council of Churches say about violence?

One document adopted by delegates to the WCC assembly in Uppsala last month reaffirms a pacifist declaration adopted at the council’s initial meeting in Amsterdam twenty years ago. That statement asserts, “War as a method of settling disputes is incompatible with the teachings and example of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

But in another report approved in substance at Uppsala and commended for study to the member churches, the council states that violent revolution is another matter and is “morally ambiguous.” This is what the report on “World Economic and Social Development” says:

“In countries where the ruling groups are oppressive or indifferent to the aspirations of the people, are often supported by foreign interests, and seek to resist all changes by the use of coercive or violent measures, the revolutionary change may take a violent form. Such changes are morally ambiguous.

“The churches have a special contribution towards the development of effective non-violent strategies of revolution and social change. Nevertheless, we are called to participate creatively in the building of political institutions to implement the social changes that are desperately needed.”

At the closing plenary session of the assembly, delegates adopted unanimously a statement that reverts to a peaceful tone. “We shall work for disarmament,” they vowed.

They also pledged to labor “for trade agreements fair to all” and said they were “ready to tax ourselves in furtherance of a system of world taxation.”

Milton D. Hunnex is professor and head of the department of philosophy at Willamette University, Salem, Oregon. He received the B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of Redlands and the Ph.D. in the Inter-collegiate Program in Graduate Studies, Claremont, California. He is author of “Philosophies and Philosophers.”

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