The question concerning the membership of a Reformed denomination such as the Christian Reformed Church in the World Council of Churches has long had the present writer’s interest. From 1963 to 1968 he served as “convener” of a study committee of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod which was to investigate the question of membership in the wee. The outcome of this study report in which people from Europe, Australia, Africa and America cooperated was that the 1968 RES decided that its member churches ought not to join the WCC.
A further reason for the writer’s concern with this matter arises from the fact that he was present as a fraternal delegate at the meetings of the 1969 synod of the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland where the decision was made to enter into WCC membership. During the debate he was even invited to speak to the issue. But the forces of those favoring membership outnumbered those on the opposite side. So the GKN took the fateful step of joining the WCC. One of the ostensible reasons was that in this way the Reformed input of the GKN could be made within the Council. In a recent interview with professor emeritus Herman Ridderbos, the professor remarked that as he saw it, if there had been any such input at all, he had not noticed it. (Professor Ridderbos favors membership in the council.)
A Necessary Concern
But there are wider considerations why the question of the WCC concerns us all. Let me mention some. 1) The WCC is the organ of interchurch cooperation chosen by large numbers of Christian churches throughout the world for expressing their desire for unity and cooperation. To the extent that the well-being of other Christian churches is our concern we too should have a concern with the way in which they seek to further interchurch contact. If they are in error in this regard we should be concerned with this error and try to do something about it. If on the other hand they are following the path of truth and we decide not to cooperate with the WCC we have cause to examine ourselves.
2) The many volumes ofdoctrinal and ethical studies published under wee auspices have their reflex in what individual member churches are doing and saying. In our contact with these other churches we cannot ignore this fact. If we as a Reformed and confessional denomination have a duty with respect to other churches, and I believe we do, it is well for us to be prepared for dialogue with them.
There is another aspect to–this second point. The studies prepared for the use of WCC members in preparation of the various assemblies are inevitably influenced by the theological and exegetical approaches of our day. When I began to teach at Calvin Seminary in 1955 there was a consensus abroad in WCC circles that the discipline of “biblical theology” would serve as the great unifying factor between the WCC churches. Therefore it was the duty of a professor in a Reformed confessional seminary to examine whether the “biblical theology” the wee was speaking of was indeed biblical or not. When the Christian Reformed Church in 1967 decided that it would not be proper for a confessional Reformed church to join the WCC it took this decision on the basis of a (majority) report in which the essentially Barthian consensus of the WCC theology was noted. Whether the present theology of the WCC is Barthian or not, in any case, the discussion of whether or not we should be members inevitably touches on crucial questions of theology. For this reason the WCC concerns us all.
3) Related to point 2, and yet somewhat distinct, is the question of what the church is, what its nature and calling are, and what the marks are whereby the true church can be distinguished clearly from the false church (Belgic Confession, art. 29). This involves directly the question to what extent a church such as the Christian Reformed Church which still takes these marks seriously can enter into an association with an organization such as the wee which declares itself to be a “fellowship of churches.”
Motivating Ideals
In preparation for this article the present writer read through some of the articles found in a series of volumes called lnterseminary Series, published in 1946. These were intended to be study material for a conference of theological students to be held in 1947 under the auspices of the Interseminary Movement of the United States. The many contributors were mostly members of the so-called main-line churches, Presbyterian, Congregational, Methodist, Disciples of Christ, Protestant Episcopal, etc. Many of them held positions in schools of divinity or theological seminaries.
A chapter on the Rise of Ecumenical Organizations by Henry Smith Leiper (Congregational) and Abdel R. Wentz (United Lutheran) was especially interesting. Since that time many other studies about the history of the world ecumenical movement have been written. This particular article was written two years before the wee took definitive shape in its first assembly at Amsterdam. It traced in considerable detail the various steps and movements that eventually led to the formation of the Council. If, as I believe we must, we in the Christian Reformed Church continue to reject membership in the wee as a viable option for a confessionally Reformed church, we should not do so out of ignorance of what motivated those who formed the Council.
In my imagination I found myself standing in the Assembly Hall of the Scottish Presbyterian Church on the “Rock” in Edinburgh in 1910, when the great international missionary conference was held that gave a strong impetus to the later WCC movement. One can imagine how uplifting this conference must have been for the many delegates. They had come to Europe from various parts of the world, some from the “younger” churches, by ·means of steamships which slowly carried them to their destination. To arrive at long last in Edinburgh and to see the brethren must have been comparable to the medieval pilgrimages to sacred spots such as Santiago de Compostella in northwest Spain.
A young person who actually was in Edinburgh and served as an usher was the later archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, a man who became very influential in the ecumenical movement, especially in the Faith and Order aspect of it. Temple stood in the gallery to the left of the speaker’s dais. With bowed head he promised to God that he would devote his life to working for the unity of Christendom.
Let us not doubt the idealism and dedication of those who, though on a faulty basis, sought to pursue a goal that should be dear to the heart of all true followers of Christ. Our decision to stay out of the Council should not be prompted by a lack of zeal for the true unity of Christ’s church on earth.
No less touching is the exclamation of Bishop Charles H . Brent, a missionary bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Philippines, at the 1925 conference in Stockholm: “The world is too strong for a divided church.” But immediately the question arises: What kind of church union is strong enough to withstand the “world.” Is it a union that refuses to face up to the question of the fact that right within the churches there sometimes is a blatant denial of biblical truth? This is what has prompted churches such as the Christian Reformed Church and organizations such as the Reformed Ecumenical Synod to say “no” to the WCC in its present form. And though our hearts must affirm the ideals of those who formed the WCC I believe we can do nothing less today than say “no.”
The Flawed Basis
The 1968 decision of the RES puts it very clearly: “The WCC . . . does not unequivocally reject that which is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, nor does it warn its member churches against the false gospel that has a recognized place in many of these churches.”
The Basis of the WCC as now formulated is as follows: “The WCC is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the Scriptures and therefore seek to fulfill together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Of this Basis the 1968 Synod of the RES bad the following to say: “Although the words of the Basis are in themselves a summary of the gospel and include a reference to the Scriptures, this is inadequate as a basis or starting point for an ecumenical movement, because when understood in the light of history and in the context of contemporary theological discussion it is open to various unbiblical interpretations; and in effect, the World Council does permit such essentially different interpretations.”
Thus the RES assembly correctly raises the question of the theological context within which we do our ecumenical work and witness. It would be nice if raising that question were not necessary. But he who thinks that it is not lives in a theological fool’s paradise.
It is now almost 16 years since the RES took the stand it did. Has the theological consensus whereby the member churches of the wee are guided taken a turn for the better? Has there been a willingness to deny as well as affirm? We do not think so, quite the contrary! In England there have been direct attacks upon what is called “the myth of God incarnate,” in other words upon one of the cardinal points of the Christian faith. One of these attackers has recently moved to California and bas been admitted to one of the presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church in that state. Though such matters do not directly affect the functioning of the Basis of the wee they nevertheless show clearly the broader theological climate with.in which we are making our ecumenical pronouncements . However much we may try to steer clear of negative formulations and concentrate upon what appear to be the essentials of the gospel, such concentration will not be sufficient to bring about a God-glorifying unity of all who truly believe in Christ according to the Scriptures. There simply is a need to say “no” along with saying “yes.”
The same principle applies to dealing with the relation between Christianity and the other religions. While the Basis commendably speaks of Jesus as God and Savior this has not been sufficient to prevent repeated voices for a more syncretistic approach to other religions from being raised right within the assemblies of the Council. One may argue that such voices did not get much of a hearing at the most recent Assembly in Vancouver. As we see it, the inadequacy of the Basis in the present theological climate will continue to give opportunities for the voices of the “one-world-religion” approach to be heard. Council actions will then just depend on what countervailing forces will be present at a given Assembly or at the committee tables.
Some, after attending Vancouver, have pinned their hopes on the increase of evangelical strength within the Council. We do not doubt the sincerity of such hopes, but we respectfully believe that they are unfounded. We do so, not on the basis of observation of what went on on the floor of the Assembly. We are quite sure that heartening things were said, and it also appears that one of the final formulations of the Assembly will show some improvement precisely because of the evangelical input. But what is there in either the organization or its Basis to guarantee that such will be increasingly the case? Is it the joining of more evangelically minded churches? By joining, these churches have indicated implicitly that the Basis is sufficient to make a front against the tremendous forces of unbelief and secularism in our society. To the extent that they have admitted this, evangelicals have, in our opinion, deprived themselves of the very right to do within the Council what they would have to do if true to their evangelical commitment.
The same holdS true of the desire expressed by some among us to join the ranks of those who within the Council seek to improve its witness and to give it a more biblical direction. But is not this tantamount to saying: Let us join them to fight them? In this respect I see only two possibilities. The organization we wish to join either is a suitable means for accomplishing the desired union of Christian believers throughout the world or it is not. If it is, why should we try to alter the direction of the Council? If it is not, why should we as a confessionally-bound church join it?
In conclusion, our refusal to join the WCC should not be prompted by fear of confrontation with differently-minded Christians; it should not flow from a narrow provincialism. But let us also avoid the pitfall of falling headlong into the World Council’s embrace out of a sense of frustration with an alleged but unreal provincialism. As a Reformed denomination we are not essentially provincial. Living out of the best of our confessional heritage, which historically embraced churches in France and Italy, Poland and the British Isles, the Low Countries and Germany, we have every reason to develop a positive approach to the ecumenical question unencumbered by the fatal flaws which mark the Council. This option we must pursue much more vigorously than we have. If we do so with the help of God, we shall discover to our surprise that “the world is not too strong” for a confessionally committed church.
Dr. Woudstra is a Professor of Old Testament at Calvin Theological Seminary.