The two major American ecumenical movements of an evangelical character today are the American Council of Christian Churches and the National Association of Evangelicals.
ORIGINS
The former of these movements originated in 1941 (having as nucleus the Bible Presbyterian and Bible Protestant Churches) in protest against the Federal Council, now known as the National Council of Churches in America. It became international ( the Ieee) in 1948 in deliberate opposition to the formation of the World Council of Churches which it condemned as anti-Biblical, anti-Protestant, anti-Evangelical, and the inaugurator of the Final Apostasy predicted in. the book of Revelation of St. John. Its first assembly at Amsterdam in 1948 had representatives from 29 countries; the second at Geneva had 43; and the third in America had delegates from 45 countries. Its official organ is the Reformation Review.
The second of these movements had a similar origin. Some two hundred evangelical ministers and educators from 34 denominations (called the “brain trust of the evangelicals”) met in St. Louis in 1942 under the guiding genius of Dr. J. Elwin Wright. They resented the claims of a liberally dominated Council [the NCC] to be the voice of American Protestantism,” and contended that the evangelical segment of American Protestantism now constituted an “unvocal multitude.” The organization of the NAE followed. Its official organ is Action (formerly United Evangelical Action).
The latter has from its inception been milder in its ·criticism of the WCC than the former. It has been accused by the ACCC of not only being unecclesiastical in character but of compromising with Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy and occupying a “middle of the road” position. The ACCC has been trenchant and strong in its criticism of the World Council it schedules its regional and international meetings to synchronize with the meetings of the WCC in order to point up its diametric opposition, The WCC dubs it the “wrecking crew” coming on the heels of the “construction gang.”
DOCTRINAL BASES
The doctrinal bases of these two movements are very similar. Doth of them subscribe to an inerrant, infallibly inspired, and supremely authoritative Bible. Both of them specify in full doctrinal statement the need of unanimity on the Trinity; the unique deity and the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, who actually arose from the dead and will reappear at the end of time; the total depravity and lost condition of man, salvable only in the grace of God and through the instrumentality of faith; the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, and other cardinal truths of historic Christianity. There is no vagueness or ambiguity as to doctrinal basis. The trumpet gives forth no uncertain sound on this score and it sounds a responsive chord in our hearts.
OBJECTIVES
The goals and objectives are also similar. Neither one of them envisages organic union of its members. They are agreed in assuming that the unity of believers of which Christ spake in John 17 is essentially spiritual. As Dr. H. J. Ockenga expressed it, “True Christian unity, rather than being an ecclesiastical organizational unity, is a unity of which the Holy Spirit is the Author.” Fellowship and cooperation of evangelical Christians is the aim. The design is to strengthen the hands of those who are concerned about the defense and propagation of the evangelical faith and to accomplish those tasks which can only or can better and more effectively be done by united action. A case in point is equal rights in television and radio time. Monopoly of the air and audio·visual waves by liberally dominated groups is a current danger and, as Geo. L. Lord, Executive Director of the NAE, put it in 1956, “Our aim is not to do the work of the church but to stand for the right of the churches to do their work as they feel called of God.”
This is, perhaps, one of the strongest arguments for reaffiliation with the NAE. The Christian Reformed Church held membership for six years in that organization in the ‘40s, withdrawing because we were dissatisfied with the fundamentalistic domination and its engaging in evangelism, the proper task of the Church of Christ. We do have reservations about both of these organizations, as I shall indicate shortly, but the argument about the value of cooperative effort in a day when liberties are jeopardized does hold force and cogency. Evangelical Christians must protect and guard jealously their basic freedoms and take such measures as are necessary to insure them.
MEMBERSHIP POSSIBILITIES
While the NAE permits membership to churches, segments of churches, groups and societies, and individuals who will subscribe to the doctrinal basis and all of whom have a voice in the regulation of the organization, the ACCC breaks down membership into two categories: l. Constituent: open to denominations, associations of churches and societies of a definite church character provided they are connected in no way with the WCC. Voting privileges are restricted to this category; 2. Associated: available to groups, leagues, societies, etc., who accept the doctrinal basis and who wish to participate in the efforts of the organization. They are given the privilege of the floor but are without voting prerogatives.
EVALUATIONS
Although we feel a spiritual kinship with both of these organizations in that they are founded on the rock-ribbed basis of the divinely inspired, inerrant, and infallibly authoritative Word of God, we sense an inadequacy as to objective. Most of us are convinced that federation is not adequate as ecumenical goal. We concur with John Calvin that fragmentation of churches is an evil and that proper interpretation of the key passages, John 17 and Ephesians 4, requires of us that spiritual unity find concrete expression in visible unity.
Furthermore, we have some specific reservations as to the movements under consideration. The ACCC, largely under the domination of a leader with monarchical propensities, has at its basis the premise that the WCC is the beginning of a tyrannical ecclesiastical octopus that will squelch all freedom and inaugurate the Final Apostasy. We are not convinced that this exegesis of the Biblical eschatological data with respect to the signs of the times is valid and sound. As far as the NAE is concerned, it has one serious weakness and that is its undervaluation of the institutional church. (By contrast the ACCC is ecclesiastical in character and as a consequence we feel more affinity with them on this score.) The NAE is conglomerate in character. It is a loose organization, sprawling and varied, and as a consequence the Church concept is largely enveloped and lost. And if ecumenicity has at its heart the reunion of separated churches to heal the wounds of Protestant Christendom, the NAE hardly deserves the designation of an ecumenical organization.
The ecumenical principles of John Calvin are, I think, very relevant to us today. They are:
First, the presupposition of the True-False Church antithesis. Calvin insisted that a religious organization purporting to be a Church submit itself to Scriptural testing before church union proposals be broached. It must first exhibit the marks of the True Church, to wit, the pure preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments in accord with the institution of Christ. If those marks be present the title Church may not be withheld even though there be faults in doctrine and in practice (e.g., the Church at Corinth ) and if those marks be absent, as in the Roman Catholic institution of his day which had a “corrupt government…by which the pure light is suppressed and extinguished” and in which “an execrable sacrilege has been substituted for the Supper of the Lord” (Inst. IV, II, 2) the title Church is thereby forfeited. Efforts at church union may be initiated only when these conditions are met. Each organization entering into ecumenical conversation must hold validly the title Church.
Second, the ascription of mutual obligations to those in the True Church framework. No individual lives unto himself and no Church lives unto itself. It may not hoard its spiritual resources and complacently ply its solitary way. To do so is to be seriously derelict in duty. God has entrusted her with insights and truths in order that she may dispense them to others. The various churches which together comprise the Church of Christ owe to one another “to maintain a brotherly agreement with all the children of God” and “to mutually communicate their advantages to each other” (Inst. IV, II, 1).
Third, the basis of negotiations laid in the Word of God. The Lutheran M. H. Franzmann has expressed well the alternative, “One may seek unity by founding a club, loosely organized and broadly inclusive; or one may seek it by raising a standard about which one may rally.” Calvin would insist on the latter. The rallying-point is the Bible. In his Reply to Sadoleto he stated that his zeal burned for the unity of the Church “provided only that truth be the bond of concord.” “All union,” said he, “which is formed without the Word of the Lord is a faction of the impious. and not an association of believers…Evangelical truth is the bond. May God grant that you and yours may see that there is no other bond of union but this…” Calvin suggested that a free and universal council (Trent was neither, he claimed ) be called “to appease all the troubles of Christendom and in order that all Christendom may be united.” Should the Pope be asked to preside (not advisable however) he must agree to submit to all the decisions. This council should engage in frank and earnest discussion and seek to frame an ecumenical creed or confession. To Cranmer he wrote that it was highly desirable that “an assembly of the most eminent men of learning, from all the various churches which have embraced the pure doctrine of the Gospel, after haVing discussed separately the controverted topics of the day, might transmit to posterity, out of the pure Word of God, a true and distinct confession…All who refused to accept this confession should be judged schismatic.
Fourth, the cultivation of flexibility by the participants in the ecumenical encounter. Calvin was realistic and knew full well that any ecumenical venture can easily founder on the rocks of pride, narrowism, and rigidity. Hence humility .. recognition of limited insights, and willingness to learn is, the first prerequisite. He set the pace in his preface to his. commentary on Romans when he wrote, “God never designed in such a way as to exercise liberality towards his: servants, as that each should be endowed with a full and perfect understanding on every point and doubtless…he intended in the first place to keep us humble and next of all to keep up and maintain the desire and the exercise of brotherly love and communion.” Allowance must also be made for minor differences. He wrote to the Lutherans, “Keep your minor differences, let us have no discord on that account, but let us march in solid columns under the banner of the Captain of our salvation, and with undivided counsels pour the legions of the cross upon the territories of darkness and of death.” In his Institutes he distinguished between indispensable doctrines as the deity of Christ and salvation only by the grace of God and the peripheral and controvertible which do not destroy the unity of the faith.1 As to church polity, although he preferred presbyterianism and claimed for it the most Scriptural support, he allowed for episcopacy.2 He rebuked John Knox for being unbend~ ing on minor points. To the Brothers of Wesel he wrote, “We ought to make mutual concessions in all ceremonies that do not involve any prejudice to the confession of our faith, and for this end that the unity of the church be not destroyed by our excessive rigor or moroseness…The main consideration is, that you do not yield to a faulty pliancy in the confession of your faith and that you make no compromise as to doctrine.”3 Melanchthon tended to go too far and Calvin reminded him that “several of the things which you consider indifferent are obviously repugnant to the Word of God.”4 Unity in the essentials, concessions in minor points, and charity in controversial issues—that was Calvin’s goal as he led the Protestant ecumenical crusade of his day.
The time may come when we may have to join such movements as the ACCC and the NAE in order to preserve—our cherished liberties but since in the good Providence of God such times are not yet upon us (and God grant that they may never come) we feel that ecumenically we should redouble our efforts along two lines:
One: Carry on earnest ecumenical conversations with a view to organic union with churches spiritually and doctrinally akin to us, exploring our differences and asking sincerely whether in the eyes of God we have good reason to go our separate ways; and
Two: broaden, deepen, and widen the Reformed Ecumenical Synod organization by organizing national chapters. The RES, worthy as it is, meets infrequently and Ends it difficult to carryon significant committee work between meetings because of the distances involved. National chapters meeting annually could discuss pressing common problems, give mutual counsel, and consider denominational differences.
If H. P. Van Dusen is right in predicting that “When historians of the future come to assess the most significant development of Christendom in the first half of the 20th century, they will fasten on the ecumenical movement,” we must be ecumenically concerned or we will become irrelevant in our own times.
1. Inst. IV, Xl I.
2. Letter to Fare!, Oct 1538, I, p. 89 ff.; Letter to King of Poland, Dec. 9, 1554.
3. Letter to The Brothers of Wesel, 1554, III, p. 30.
4. Letter to Melanchthon, June 18, 1550, II, p. 272.