One of the good decisions to come our of the Synod of 1985 was that is postponed making a decision about membership in the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC, for short). It would have been even better if the Synod had decided not to join at all. There were people on the advisory committee who were prepared to advise the Synod to do just that. Instead, Synod decided to ask the Interchurch Relations Committee to provide the church with more information about WARC, such as the identity of member churches, and the content of its recent position papers. Synod also noted that the matter of a proposed “Ecumenical Charter” will come before the Synod of 1987. Presumably , if some sort of charter is then adopted, it will set forth the ecumenical principles which will guide the church in years to come. In the light of these principles other decisions can then be made.

Just in passing, this shows the vital importance for all consistories and classes to be alert regarding the nature of any ecumenical charter the church may adopt. Just about everything about the future direction our denomination will be taking will depend on how this charter is worded. I am sure that appeal to it will be made again and again. The 1985 synodical decision gives us at least some room to discuss. That’s what is good about it.

As to the first concern of the 1985 Synod, that of the identity of WARC’s member churches, it always has seemed passing strange to this observer that the CRC has never been apprised of the actual membership of WARC. Just think, since 1972 we have been studying this organization. Observers have participated in its theological commissions, yet, even more, more than a year after having been requested to provide this information, the IRC continues to hide it from the church. It is kept a deeply hidden secret , until the time, presumably, when the IRC chooses to bring the matter again before a next synod. I totally fail to understand such an approach. Is not the cause of ecumenicity the concern of the church as a whole? Why then act as if the exact identity of WARC’s membership is classified information to which only the IRC has privileged access? Or is the IRC afraid that suddenly our elders in the Dakotas or in New England will wake up to the fact that from here on they will be expected to “further” the faithful proclamation of the Word of God with denominations such as the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, and the arch–liberal United Church of Christ? See the “Purposes” of WARC (Acts, 1985, p. 232).

Yet, this is what we will be pledged to do when we join with WARC. We will be expected to further all endeavors to proclaim the Word of God faithfully with churches who, by the IRC’s own admission, cover the whole range of the “theological spectrum.” All “theological options” are represented among its membership (Acts, 1985, p. 227).

One of our long–time observers at the WARC theological commission meetings has stated clearly that “a review of the materials published by W ARC over the past years would reveal a considerable content that we would find objectionable.” (Acts, p. 227). Still we are urged to join this alliance of churches so that together with all these churches, whose positions we will find objectionable at many a point, we will further the faithful proclamation of the Word, as well as the work of evangelism, mission and stewardship. These are commitments we will make when we join. But how can we make them if we know that our “allies” are not faithful to the Word themselves? Does ecumenicity happen in an “Alice-in-Wonderland” atmosphere? Does one defend the faith together with those who are betraying the faith?

Part of the difficulty in this whole matter comes from the fact that there are those who think they can make a forum out of what clearly is more than that—it is an alliance of churches. The IRC report urging the church to join WARC uses the word “forum” here and there in its description of WARC. But this world clearly is a misnomer. Admittedly, the word “alliance” is sometimes used in a very loose way, as is evidenced by newspaper u sage and otherwise. Certain groups that have a common interest, even though otherwise divided, may temporarily form an alliance to promote certain common concerns. I understand that in California recently some extreme conservatives and some feminist groups have jointly picketed pornography shops. The papers called such a joint endeavor an unexpected “alliance.”

WARC does not fit this sort of loose description of the word. It wants to be viewed as an Alliance of Reformed Churches. In other words, it is not the kind of alliance the Christian Reformed Church can join rather loosely, in order then to “witness” to the Reformed faith within its ranks. Say as we may among ourselves that WARC’s member churches are not quite kosher, soon we will find out that we must toe the inclusivist line which the organization has had from its very inception in 1875. From the very beginning, WARC and its antecedents have looked upon any merely “confessional” organization as “narrow.” Marcel Pradervand, long-time General Secretary of WARC, says in his book: A Century of Service, that the “founders of the Alliance had no narrow Reformed spirit and they were anxious to bring together all Evangelical Christians” (p. 25). This same inclusivism is echoed again and again in the Alliance’s pages and pronouncements.

This is what we will be committing ourselves to when we join. To be sure, for some in our church, this will be exactly the reason for joining. I have heard prayers said and remarks made in sermons in recent years that show how some ministers consider the differences between churches, including even the Roman Catholic Church, to be negligible. The proposed Ecumenical Charter as printed in the Acts of the 1985 Synod also contains some inclusivistic statements. It argues that matters of worship, theology and church order are in many ways determined by local and regional concerns of the churches. To one’s utter surprise, on the next page of the proposed document, the committee state that, as we seek rapprochement with Reformed Churches, we must insist that these churches be Reformed not just in confession and polity and the like, but also in actual practice. This in itself true statement comes at the end of a document which at its beginning has practically thrown all reasons for being Reformed in confession and practice over board. If all is only a matter of region, locality and national origin, what reason do we have to insist that the Pope give up his devotion to Mary, episcopal churches surrender their hierarchical polity and the Methodists and others their Arminianism?

But what about the argument that once we are in WARC we will “witness” within it? It strike s me that the idea of witnessing to an organization whose basic principles one has accepted in good faith is purely illusory. To enter into an “alliance” means to agree with the alliance’s purposes and aims. In this case it means that’ we .will agree that the Reformed faith, when insisted upon in its confessional preciseness, will be a hindrance rather than a help in the work of the Alliance. Pradervand’s book abounds with statements which show that the W ARC constituents and its spokesmen have no use for what they perjortively call “ecclesiasticism.” This is true of the whole ecumenical movement of the World Council type. At the heart and basis of these movements lie the para-church movements of the 19th century, the Young Men’s Christian Association and the World Student Federation. This is why ecclesiology, the doctrine of the church, has been such a difficult subject precisely in organizations which seek to bring churches together.

This dilemma, as I see it, cannot be solved by first setting up some broad and ill-defined “universal church” concept, of which, presumably, the denominations are then but small particles. Indeed, the church is wider than the denomination. Still, as even some leading ecumenicists have said repeatedly, ecumenicity, begins at home. In our local church we must catch some of the vision of what it means to be church of Jesus Christ, confessing the full gospel of salvation according to the Scriptures and the Creeds, and inviting all who are likeminded to join us in a common cause.

The IRC seeks to link its advice to join WARC with an appeal to the Report on Ecumenicity of 1944, but at the same time it repudiates what I consider to be the heart of that report. We must, said the 1944 Report, “labor in love” with all the churches in the world , non-Reformed Reformed churches, Protestant churches more generally, and also the RC and Orthodox Churches. But that Report also insisted that the churches which are not now Reformed should be brought to a better understanding so that they too would want to be Reformed in faith and practice. Granted, a seemingly impossible tasks. But, so I would add emphatically, not one that is prompted by Pharisaical “know-it–all” attitudes, or by a feeling of smug superiority. What have you, says the apostle, that you have not received? If that attitude of humility should guide us, and if in the meantime we should wake up to what it means to be Church of Jesus Christ, locally and denominationally, who knows what great things God can still do through us?

For the CRC to join an organization such as WARC is therefore to engage in an act of futility. We will be asked to surrender at the outset that which we secretly say to ourselves we want to accomplish. In the meantime we have “allied” ourselves with leading liberal churches, such as the United Church of Christ in the USA, to further the Alliance’s common goals.

     

The IRC has undergone a notable shift in the many years it has engaged the CRC with WARC. In the beginning, when the notion of WARC participation was first broached, the IRC still spoke frankly of cooperating with a group in which both orthodox and liberal churches worked together. But in 1985 there suddenly are no liberal churches left in W ARC. There are only “less conservative” and “more conservative” churches. See Acts, 1985, p. 227. This certainly shows a remarkable shift in the IRC’s thinking. I hope and pray it is not indicative of a shift in the church’s thinking.

And what about WARC’s theology? A longtime observer at the meetings of the theological commission has warned us that its publications in recent years contain much that we will find “objectionable.” Can one really “ally” the church of  Jesus Christ with an organization that entertains and publishes error?

It is the church that is at stake. WARC is an alliance of churches, both components ought to receive equal stress. As a church we stand committed to teach the truths of the confessions and also to refute everything that militates against sound doctrine. See the Formula of Subscription. How then can we enter into an alliance knowing that this alliance publishes error?

The IRC seeks to solve this by working with the distinction of the 1944 Report, a report whost basic thrust they have actually repudiated, but  whose terminology seems useful for the defense of the committee’s proposal to join. Hence we are told that we will be joining with churches of “circle two,” i.e., the non–Reformed Reformed churches. The problem with this approach is that WARC itself knows nothing of such a distinction, and does not want to have anything to do with it. So when we join something I hope will never happen—there will be a big laugh in the Geneva headquarters. The crucial decision to join will have been made, and the rest will speedily be forgotten. It has to be, if WARC is going to function at all upon its present basis.

Presumably the IRC is carefully studying the documents of WARC to see what the Alliance really teaches. This is what it has been asked to do by the 1985 Synod. The question arises, does the IRC, in the nominations it submits for new members on the committee, consider a thorough theological training essential for membership? Modern theology is very subtle. Truth and error are not nearly as easily distinguished as in the days of the older liberalism.

An attempt to infuse some new blood in the IRC’s ranks, which was made at the 1985 Synod, did not get anywhere. Dr. Norman Shephard’s name had been proposed from the floor. To be sure , this nomination did cause a run-off election between him and an incumbent. But the incumbent won. Just as the vote was in progress the chairman of synod’s advisory committee, the Rev. Rodger Buining, who had struggled long and hard with the IRC materials in committee, said on the floor of synod: “We felt in the committee that the IRC’s membership is too much the same kind.” Such a remark could, of course, not go unchallenged. Mercy be! Imagine anyone nominated from the floor of the assembly which does the electing getting into the IRC! Not that! So, as the voting was in progress, the Stated Clerk, ex officio member of the IRC, arose and said that, “it wasn’t so.” The IRC, he said, was trying its best to get different people. “Just look,” he said, “we also have women on the committee.” As if the Rev. Buining had spoken of all members being of the same gender!

I am trying to maintain a fraternal spirit in all of this, butJ think it is easy to see how difficult this is when one considers episodes of this sort. I have just returned from a meeting of the General Assembly of the OPC. What a vast difference in nomination and election procedures between that Assembly and our Synod! Granted, the OPC is much smaller than the CRC. But there is much to be said for the completely open nomination procedures I witnessed there.

And what to say of the fact that in the same denomination which has said “no” to the wee. the membership of its Interchurch Relations includes two members who are known to have favored wee membership, or who at least have declared that they find such membership compatible with being a Reformed church such as the CRC? Will the real Christian Reformed Church please stand up!

A final word on the theological position of the WARC in its publications: The IRC report says that WARC represents all “theological options” and covers the whole “theological spectrum.” The word “spectrum” comes from the realm of physics. When a beam of light gets refracted in a prism it produces a beautiful spectrum. Wonderful, isn’t it? Or take the colors of the rainbow. Do we not marvel at that “spectrum”? I believe therefore that to speak of a theological “spectrum” will not help us in sorting truth from error. Yet, the IRC is fond of the word. It holds that “all perceptions of biblical truth are incomplete” and hence it warns against “the judgment that we possess the truth in all its fullness” (Proposed Ecumenical Charter, Acts, p. 238). Put these words next to the Formula of Subscription which all office bearers have signed! In the proposed Ecumenical Charter, up for a decision at the coming synod, the idea of error is reduced to just one phrase, where it is called a “distortion” of biblical truth. (Acts, ‘85, p. 239). Even that euphemism is not enough. For the committee puts things in more comparative terms. It is ready to reject only those “perceptions” that “so distort biblical truth that our witness to Jesus Christ is hindered,” etc. Note the little word “so.” In other words, there are probably many distortions of truth, but we will live with them. Only those that are so bad that they hinder, etc., will be rejected by us. I find this language completely alien to the Scriptures. It seems to come straight from some WCC manual. The Bible speaks of error, of false teaching, of wolves that seek to devour the flock of Christ. There is nothing relativizing about that.

I will conclude with just one example of how I think the theological pronouncements published under WARC auspices are faulty. In a book of Theological Studies of WARC, published under the name A Christian Declaration on Human Rights in 1977, Professor Allen O. Miller, chairperson of the North American Area Theological Committee of the WARC, calls both the story of creation and the story of the fall a “myth” (p. 152). I know full well that this word when used today does not mean that there is not truth in these stories. But they certainly must not be regarded as history. This is contrary to the statement attributed to the Faculty of Calvin Seminary who are holding without exception that there was an historical fall into sin. Will the Seminary Faculty rise up and protest to a man our entering into WARC?

An Alliance is what the word says. WARC is not a forum. If it were, we might participate in it with some profit. It is an alliance which demands of its member churches the surrender of anything that is exclusive or distinctive about their confessions and their church polity. It is a potent arm of World Council Ecumenicity, advising its member churches in 1948 to join with the WCC. Membership in WARC will surely lead the Christian Reformed Church down the path of a gradual loss of its identity as a confessionally Reformed church. And may God have mercy on us all.

M. W. Woudstro is a retired Professor of Old Testament at Colvin Theological Seminary.