|
(From the March 1983 issue of
Fundamentalist Journal --
Click
here to view the PDF version)
The Two
Headed Council
by Stephen R. Clark
A Look at the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches
It began as a noble enough
idea—bring the American and the world churches into unity under one common
banner, thus creating a stronger base from which to battle evil and win the
world for Christ. It was an idea that won worldwide plaudits.
The idea for such a
movement to encourage ecclesiastic synthesis had taken seed in 1910 at the World
Missionary conference in Edinburgh. Thirty-eight years later, following two
world wars, the World Council of Churches (WCC) was officially born in Amsterdam
in what has been called a burst of “ecumenical euphoria.”
Signing the original
charter were 147 church organizations representing 44 countries. Protestant
denominations from the United States signing on included the Reformed Church in
America, the American Lutheran Church, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian
Church, and the Protestant Episcopal Church. Notably absent from this impressive
roster of founding members were the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern
Baptists. Today, 32 church denominations belong to the United States National
Council of Churches (NCC).
For many, the inauguration
of the WCC represented the beginning of a golden era for church cooperation and
accomplishment. Charles Paul Conn, a visiting scholar at Harvard University who
has studied the WCC, characterizes those early days as full of shining idealism:
“It promised to be, in that day of bright beginning, simply a ‘fellowship of
churches which accepts our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Savior,’ a nonpolitical
forum for dialogue and cooperation among the many Christian organizations around
the globe” (Saturday Evening Post, May/June 1982).
Conn further points out
that the limits of the purposes and motivations of the resplendent new WCC were
carefully delineated as spiritual and not political in nature. The primary
concern was espoused to be the establishing of the lordship of Christ around the
world.
The high point of the WCC
and its ecumenical ecstasy was in 1954 when it held its second assembly in
Evanston, Illinois. The idealism behind the drive for solidarity among the
world’s churches was at a peak, and the WCC was enjoying the graces of a
favorable press. But all was not as it seemed.
The Shift to the Left: The
Liberation Shuffle
Change wormed its way into
the structure and ideology of the WCC. More and more Third-World denominations
joined, causing a determined shift to the left in theology and philosophy, and
creating an insistent preoccupation with liberation politics. As Conn astutely
observes, “The rhetoric of the Council has become that of the radical left.” And
a WCC theologian is reported to have said that, while the WCC’s previous hero
was Gandhi, it was now Che Guevara.
The change was not sudden,
but subtle, taking effect over a period of years. According to The New Republic,
September 9, 1981, “... the WCC underwent a gradual transformation parallel to
the United Nations. It experienced a steady in crease in Third World
participation, rapid growth of an inter national bureaucracy in Geneva and,
finally, a crisis of con science among its Western members, chiefly as a result
of the Vietnam War. By the late 1960s, the WCC had decided that its business—and
God’s—was liberation.” And another U.S. theologian, John Meyendorf, lamented
that “the World Council of Churches has become an ecclesiastical United Nations”
(Time, January 22, 1979).
And while, as Dean Kelley,
director of Civil and Religious Liberty for the NCC, stated recently in an
article in Christianity Today, the NCC, composed of the same denominations, “is
not a branch office of the WCC, each makes its own decisions” (September 17,
1982), the National Council of Churches clearly reflects the WCC’s strong
political attitude and left-leaning inclinations. As pointed out by Conn, “The
WCC’s willingness to mix religion with politics is shared by the National
Council of Churches, its United States subgroup. The NCC, in fact, has begun
taking official positions on partisan political issues at home.”
In recent years the WCC
and NCC have taken clear-cut stands on a number of political issues:
-
1972: the NCC urged
support for the liberation forces operating in Angola and South Africa.
-
1973: the NCC urged a
“compe tent Christian stance toward the Com munist question.”
-
1973: Claire Randall,
the NCC’s general secretary, endorsed the Supreme Court’s ban on prayer in
schools and expressed favor for the court’s decision to allow abortions.
-
1975: the NCC’s
Governing Board affirmed in a resolution that all per sons, including
homosexuals, are en titled to full civil rights and “pastoral concern.” They
also expressed strong support for the ERA.
-
1977: the NCC’s
governing board called for public financing of abortions for “poor” women, and
it called for “normalization” of relations with Red Vietnam,
-
1981: the WCC’s Central
Commit tee forcefully criticized the U.S. role in El Salvador and other
Central American countries, disapproved of the annexing of East Jerusalem by
Israel, and called for “immediate negotiations” with the PLO as a means of
resolving the Mideast crisis.
These and other political
testaments have been reported in various media, including the Religious News
Service, and documented by various watchdog agencies such as the Church League
of America in Wheaton, Illinois. The nonreligious gospel of the WCC/NCC is no
secret, but it is annoying when it is preached under the banner of Christianity.
As Charles Paul Conn states, “With such pronouncements filling the air, many
American pastors are hard- pressed to convince their already dubious
parishioners of the non political nature of the NCC and its parent
organization.”
In fact, the situation is
becoming so extreme that prominent individuals within the NCC and WCC are
criticizing the Councils for their non-Christian evolution.
American Lutheran
theologian Richard John Neuhaus has cited the NCC’s “one-sided political
activity” as “obscene.” Neuhaus spoke to the NCC’s Information Committee at
their headquarters luncheon, saying, “Today an obsession with the alleged
systemic and inherent injustices of America precludes the affirmative, even
patriotic, vision that is required if critical judgment is to be meaningful and
effective.” Neuhaus further stated that, because of the NCC’s obtuse confusion
of theology and politics, “Even prayer and doctrine are suspected of being in
the service of partisan purpose” (Christianity Today, April 23, 1982).
Simply, what has happened
is the loss of Christian vision in the Councils. The task of unifying thousands
of churches and hundreds of denominations, representing a myriad of doctrinal
differences, has proved impossible. The WCC and NCC have whittled away at the
particulars of difference, try ing to reduce them into a handful of generalities
around which everyone can rally. In doing so, they have cut away from the
Councils the very meaning and substance of Christian faith. And they have
ignored the necessity of diversity within unity.
As stated in an editorial
in Christianity Today (February 2, 1979), “Now unity itself is apparently being
relegated to in significance in the shadow of the social action concerns of Life
and Work [committee within the Council], the other WCC arm [opposed to the Faith
and Order committee]. The result was inevitable: the eroding of commitment to
any common belief. If a biblical basis is irrelevant, activism may take many
forms.”
WCC & Terrorism: The
Contribution Heard Round the World
How extreme the WCC’s
radical attitude had become was made glaringly evident in 1978. Under the
headship of Philip Potter, the General Secretary, who is “fond of citing Marxist
writers. . . [also admires black-power advocates like Stokeley Carmichael and
Malcom X” (Reader’s Digest, August, 1982), a new and controversial committee was
formed: The Program to Combat Racism (PCR).
And in 1978 the PCR
displayed its true colors, and WCC critics and friends saw red. The PCR
contributed a generous $85,000 to the Patriotic Front, a Marxist guerilla
organization fighting to overthrow the mostly white regime of Rhodesia (now
Zimbabwe). The Patriotic Front, reportedly, had been responsible for killing
more than 200 white civilians, over
1,700 blacks, and was
involved in the slaying of nine white missionaries and their children.
Considering the expense of arms and ammunition, the Patriotic Front could
obviously put the $85,000 to good use.
The repercussions from
this five-year-distant shock are still rumbling through the WCC even today. In
protest of the grant, the Salvation Army withdrew from the WCC. Harry Williams,
international secretary of the Salvation Army, at the time pointed out to the
WCC that the Salvation Army had been striving against racism and preaching the
gospel in Rhodesia for 80 years, and doing it without violence and bloodshed.
“Should not. . . WCC funds be mediated through such church councils, rather than
directly to a militant organization?” Williams asked (Saturday Evening Post,
May/ June, 1982).
Other church organizations
within the WCC were also visibly and vocally upset, as reported in a Time
magazine article titled “Going Beyond Charity: Should Christian cash be given to
terrorists?” (October 2, 1978): “There has been an ‘enormous disturbance’ in
British churches, says one Executive Committee member. As for West Germany—which
now provides 42 percent of the budget for the financially pressed WCC—official
protests are muted, but one top churchman reports ‘bitter reaction in our
churches.’. . . In the U.S., important elements in such WCC member groups as the
United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ and the Greek Orthodox
Archdiocese are upset.” Many denominations sent letters of protest to the WCC
and threatened to pull out.
In short, the reaction to
the WCC’s contribution to violence and terrorism brought what was termed “a
fierce wave of church protest” from both members and nonmembers. The protest,
however, is somewhat surprising, since contributions by the PCR to Marxist and
guerilla groups had not been uncommon.
The Program to Combat
Racism had been launched in September 1970. Since its inception, the PCR has
given over $5 million to more than 130 organizations, most outside the organized
Church. In 1970 alone, the PCR contributed to 14 groups known to be involved in
terrorist guerilla activities, with some who were also known to be Communist in
ideology and receiving arms from the Soviet Union (Reader’s Digest, October
1971).
But, unscathed by the rage
of harsh criticism it received from both the religious and secular press in
1978, the WCC defiantly granted more money to the Patriotic Front in 1979. At a
meeting in Bosse, Switzerland, in September 1979, the WCC Executive Committee
boldly approved a generous gift of $35,000 to the African terrorist group. As
reported in Christianity Today, “The only concession this time around—after more
than a year of heated debate on the issue, which led a few church bodies to
suspend their WCC membership—was a more careful targeting of funds. The grant
was designated for supportive and administrative costs for the guerilla
grouping’s delegation at the constitutional conference in London. The
all-parties conference was convened to bring a settlement to troubled Zimbabwe,
formerly Rhodesia” (October 17, 1979).
But in spite of this “more
careful targeting” of money, the WCC has acknowledged that once the money is
handed out, they have no real control over how it is or is not spent. Nor is the
Patriotic Front the only organization receiving funds from the PCR. Other groups
receiving hand outs recently include:
$200,000 to the Southwest
Africa People’s Organization; $44,000 to the efforts of Australian aborigines to
stop oil drilling in Western Australia; $10,000 to the Movimiento Ecumenico
Nacional seeking to “decolonize” Puerto Rico—over 47 similar groups “com bating
racism” receiving substantial sums of money (Saturday Evening Post, May/June,
1982).
Yet, while contributing
generously to leftist (often anti-American) groups, the WCC is strangely silent
in criticizing racist and oppressive activities in Marxist countries. As Conn
states, “expressions of concern over the human- rights violations in Eastern
bloc countries or objection to Soviet influence in Poland or to the invasion of
Afghanistan are muted or nonexistent.”
This tunnel vision is
further criticized in The New Republic, September 9, 1981: “There is not a penny
to suggest that there may be racial or ethnic problems in black Africa,
Indochina, Asia, or the Soviet bloc, One might, for example, have thought that
if ethnic repression in the Soviet bloc would not move the WCC, then religious
repression would. At the 1975 WCC assembly in Nairobi, efforts to condemn Soviet
restrictions on religious liberty were defeated. About all the assembly could
bring itself to do was to resolve to note that it had ‘devoted a substantial
period to the discussion of the alleged denials of religious liberty in the
USSR.’
“Predicting who will be
condemned by the WCC is easy. It has nothing to do with the relative level of
violation of human rights, as documented, for example, by Amnesty International.
A practically infallible predictor of who will be singled out by the WCC is a
country’s ideological affinity with the U.S.”
NCC and the Bible,
Homosexuals and ERA: Unholy Alliances
While its Big Brother is
seeking social justice by courting guerilla terrorists, the NCC has been
practicing the Council’s nonreligious gospel at home. Most notable of its
actions has been the advocacy of homosexual rights, support of legalized
abortions on demand, and its impotent support for the failed Equal Rights
Amendment.
However, when it comes to
homosexual rights, the NCC has been known to waffle. For years the NCC has
recognized the civil rights they believe are due homosexuals, and urged
acceptance of homosexuals into the congregations of member denominations
unequivocally and without judgment.
Yet, in 1981, when the
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC), whose member ship
consists largely of homosexuals, applied for membership in the NCC, they were
put on hold. The Christian Century reported that, “Even before the MCC had
formally made application... some council officials were predicting publicly
that its bid would be rejected. Assistant General Secretary Arleon L. Kelley
issued a statement for the Council: ‘Considering the historical position and
doctrinal practices of the communions that compose [Council], it appears to me
extremely doubtful that 21 of the necessary members would vote for the inclusion
of the MCC’ “ (September 30, 1981).
The impression generated
from the discussion surrounding the MCC’s application for membership in the NCC
is that there is hope for truly scriptural sanctions within the Council. But
that is only the impression, not the reality. The MCC’s application was not
rejected.
On May 13, 1982, the NCC’s
Governing Board met in Nashville, Tennessee. A hot item on the agenda was the
MCC’s application for membership. Oscar McCloud, the NCC Credentials chairman,
stated that the MCC met requirements for membership and recommended that the
Board declare the MCC eligible. However, by a narrow vote of 88 to 77, the Board
instead elected to place the MCC’s application in the hands of the NCC
Commission on Faith and Order “for a study of the ecclesiological issues raised
by the application.” That com mission’s report must be in by May 1983.
The NCC released a
statement to the press saying, “Although many of the member communions support
civil rights for homosexuals, none affirms homosexuality as a Christian
lifestyle and many believe its practice to be a sin and contrary to the will of
God.”
Mary V. Borhek, in an
emotional article appearing in the April 14, 1982, issue of Christian Century
advocated acceptance of the homosexual denomination into the NCC. Borhek
discusses her own personal turmoil after discovering that her son was
homosexual, doing a “180-degree reversal” from believing that homosexuality was
an individual choice and a sin, to now affirming that homosexuality is a
biologically predetermined “given.” She says that, “Not to accept the Universal
Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches as a member denomination of the
NCC carries with it some uncomfortable theological implications. The criterion
for being a Christian is whether a person or a denomination accepts Jesus Christ
as Lord and Savior. This requirement seems to have sound biblical support. That
one must also be heterosexual or, if this is impossible, celibate, introduces a
condition which could well be considered heretical. It is dangerous for human
beings to take for themselves the task of judging the quality of the
relationship between other believers and God. We may think we know who is saved
and who is not, but how can we really tell?”
Such an analysis as that
by Borhek is obviously based on only a carefully selected portion of Scripture,
and not on the whole content of the Bible. But it is this type of twisted
apologetic and exegesis that has plagued the NCC, and is likely to be the basis
for relieving its current dilemma of sup porting homosexuality in Christians
while rejecting the homosexuals. This is a complete reversal of Christ’s example
of accepting the sinner (the person) and rejecting the sin (the wrongdoings).
And the NCC isn’t
satisfied with merely misinterpreting the Bible, but is actively engaged in
changing it. As reported in Time magazine (December 8, 1980) in an article
titled “Un manning the Holy Bible: the sexual-textual revolution comes to
Scripture,” the NCC’s education division is overseeing the removal of sexist
terminology from the Revised Standard Version. This rewrite of Scripture is an
off-shoot of the feminist movement.
The NCC has balked at
radical revisions of the Scripture’s wordings, but has instructed its
translators “to get rid of as much ‘masculine-biased language’ as possible.” And
it has been admitted by feminists and scholars alike that some parts of the
Bible, while sexist in wording, cannot accurately be translated otherwise. But
in spite of this problem, feminists are not discouraged. As Sister Ann Patrick
Ware stated in the Time article, “‘There are parts of Scripture that are sexist,
and there is nothing you can do about them.’ Of course, she adds, ‘you don’t
have to read them either.’ “Ware is ranking theology executive with the NCC.
Misdirection Blues: Which
Way From Here?
How did such a
well-intended idea as represented by the founding of the WCC and the NCC become
so perverted?
First, any organization
that seeks to encompass such a massive number of groups and individuals can not
begin to hope to maintain close touch with those it supposedly represents at the
grass roots.
As the Councils have grown
in numbers, power and authority have become more centralized, posited in a
concentrated left-leaning elite. “Failing a consensus within the
Council, leadership
reverts to an elite—and this does appear to be the trend in the WCC. Cynthia
Wedell, one of the WCC presidents, pointed out that ‘half the member churches
cannot be represented even in the Central Committee, and many who represent
their churches on commissions and committees have no direct access to the
decision-making bodies of their own churches.’ That can be compensated for when
grass-roots church members and Geneva staff are committed to the same causes,
But when they are guided by different stars, or marching to different drummers,
the elite can take up a position that, if not arrogant, is highly condescend ing”
(Christianity Today, February 2, 1979).
A second problem of the
Councils is their push toward a reductionist syncretism of the diversity of
doctrines. The goal is to discover the fewest elements of faith and doctrine
that will cover a multitude of doctrinal differences.
Often, actions of the
Council have been defended as being carried out in “love.” But this use of a
blanket term tends to reduce its intended universal meaning to meaninglessness.
“To use love as an umbrella to cover doctrinal differences and deficiencies does
not solve the basic problem. Doctrine does divide. It always has. It always
will. It must do so, as the Bible does, in order to separate truth from error”
(Christianity Toda February 2, 1979).
Also, such reductionism
tends to strip away the very covering of biblical mandate that is supposed to
give the Councils their cohesiveness and reason for being: to. serve God and
proclaim the gospel of Christ. And it is this strip ping away of the diversity
inherent in biblical authority that has led the Councils into their nonreligious
political ideological ghettoes. As Dr. Peter Beyerhaus, director of the
Institute of Missiology and Ecumenical Theology of Tubingen University, has
stated, in the theology of the Councils “sin is no longer regarded as a
‘consequence of rebelling against God, but rather as being left behind in the
process of liberation experienced by society in the course of the history of the
world’ “(The Presbyterian Journal, November 17, 1982). As theologian Helmut
Thielicke has stated, “We can only note with alarm the byways and wrong ways of
an ecclesiastical institution which has strayed from the Father’s mansion of the
gospel into the alien world of an ideological spell” (Christianity Today,
November 20, 1981),
The World Council of
Churches’ next assembly is scheduled for 1983 in Vancouver. The decisions
generated from this massive gathering will be reflected in the actions of the
National Council of Churches. Will there be a turning away from the present
course of left-wing political activity, and a returning to the founding
intention of establishing the lordship of Christ in all the world? Such a
drastic and much needed philosophical and theological realignment is unlikely.
If the majority of the
grass-roots constituency would stir, rouse itself, and make itself heard, the
Council executives might realize their misdirected guidance, and steer the
organizations back onto the intended course. But if the people in the churches
of the member denominations keep silent, allowing the Councils to pursue their
descent into the shadows of nonreligious political action and theological
bankruptcy, the WCC and NCC should be steered clear of by concerned Christians
worldwide.
|
