A continuing problem confronting Christian churches is the relationships which they have, or ought to have, with other churches. It is often called the “ecumenical” problem. Our Lord prayed that His followers might be one (John 17:21–24). What is often overlooked in the frequent allusions to that prayer is that in it the Lord prayed that His followers would be separated and distinguished from the world by their faithful adherence to God’s Word (vv. 14–19). Accordingly His plea for their unity is always and only a plea for their unity in that “truth.”
The Reformed Ecumenical Synod and World Council of Churches
This concern for unity in faith has for some years led our churches to make common cause with other church bodies which hold the same or similar confessions of faith, in the Reformed Ecumenical Synod. It is no secret that that organization has recently experienced increasing strains, especially as a result of the well-known doctrinal and moral apostasy of its largest constituent, the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands. The R.E.S. continuing to tolerate such misbehavior on the part of this prominent member has, we understand, already led five of the other member churches to resign from it. A writer in the Monthly Record (Sept., 1982, p. 188) of the Free Church of Scotland, one of the resigning churches, observed that “the R.E.S. . . . like all salt which has lost its savor, is now useless.” For some years a point of controversy within the R.E.S. has been the insistence of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands (and a daughter church in Indonesia) on joining and remaining a member also of the larger and more inclusive World Council of Churches in spite of the objections of the other R.E.S. members to such dual membership. The prolonged discussion of this controversial matter led the R.E.S. to devote 47 pages in the June, 1982 issue of its Theological Forum to this subject.
Rev. James R. Paxton an Orthodox Presbyterian, introduced the subject by outlining the Reformed concept of the church. He stressed especially its emphasis on God’s covenant promise, “I will be your God, and you shall be my people,” pointing out that this divinely established fellowship between God and His people bears the distinguishing “marks” of the true church, faithful preaching to the gospel, proper administration of sacraments and church discipline. Then he stressed the covenant responsibility of God’s people to manifest these distinguishing marks. We must seek unity with those who share this Biblical (and therefore Reformed) Faith, and separate ecclesiastically from those who do not. This commitment forbids us to join the looser, more inclusive, World Council of Churches.
A second essay by Dr. Henry Zwaanstra, Church History professor at Calvin Theological Seminary, is a valuable review of the somewhat differing Reformed conceptions of the church. He notes that the Reformed Churches in their 16th Century Creeds, particularly in the Belgic Confession, did not speak of an “invisible church” but only of visible churches, distinguishing them sharply as “true” or “false.” In contrast, the Westminster Confession of Faith, formulated later, in England where there were differing Protestant church organizations and views of proper church order, reckoned with diverse “denominations” and spoke of an “invisible church” made up of true believers who were found in a variety of more or less pure organizations, some of which may so degenerate that they are no longer churches of Christ, but “synagogues of Satan.” The Reformed churches who seceded from the Dutch state church in 1834 justified their action on the ground that the state church no longer had the marks of the true church and was therefore false. On the other hand, Abraham Kuyper and his followers defended their remaining to struggle for orthodoxy m the state church by appealing to the “invisible” church idea, reckoning with the degrees of faithfulness and unfaithfulness in churches and stressing the autonomy of the local church. Kuyper insisted that while faithfulness to the Word and sacraments were essential marks of the church, the third mark, proper discipline, although needed for the welfare of the church, was not essential. The 1944 Report of the Christian Reformed Church’s study committee on these ecumenical matters stressed the true-false distinction of the Reformed creeds and was critical of the idea of various forms of churches or denominations (Westminster’s and Kuyper’s tendency).
Dr. Harry R. Boer, retired Christian Reformed missionary to Nigeria, began a discussion of the “Reformed Attitude to the World Council of Churches” by alluding to our confession of “one holy, catholic Church” alleging that all churches have sprung from it. Among those churches “No church is more fully church than any other church be she ever so old, or ever so large, or ever so orthodox.” He sees the World Council as an effort “to express publicly and organizationally the historical and physical reality of the church whose spiritual unity all confess to exist.” Although he concedes that “the theology that appears to be dominant in World Council circles is liberal . . . . that is to say, it questions or does not give serious consideration to essential elements of the gospel” and that “the organizational machinery of many churches is in the hands of liberal ecclesiastics” (some of the main reasons why our churches have felt that they may not join it), Boer argues that it is our duty to join it. By staying out, according to him, “Right now we are not coworkers with Christ on the score of his concern for the visible as well as the spiritual unity of his church as this seeks to express itself in the WCC.” Boer argues further that our missionary effort should move us to join the World Council. He alleges that the churches in other lands which have arisen out of the missionary efforts of liberal churches are still “evangelical in character” even though they have never accepted our Western theologies. (He esteems their not doing that a blessing.) He argues that we are neglecting our duty to these younger churches by staying out o~ the council to which they belong.
Probably nothing has done more to discredit the World Council than its funding of African Marxist guerilla movements, movements which have driven out missionaries and destroyed churches. This kind of activity on the part of the council has so disgusted the Salvation Army that it withdrew from membership. According to a news report in the Jan. 7, 1983 Christianity Today, Rolf Scheffbuch, spokesman for a group in the (Lutheran) Protestant Church in Germany (largest contributor to the WCC, annually contributing close to $1 million), has disclosed that German church tax funds contributed to the wee budget had been transferred from the departments of world mission, evangelism and development to the Program to Combat Racism’s special fund used to support liberation movements.
This was done in spite of WCC executive assurances that the controversial program would be financed only by funds designated for it. Even this WCC support of Communist guerillas does not deter Dr. Boer fro m defending the wee and its programs, for he says the “rebels, terrorists, and guerillas . . . were doing no more than our Dutch forefathers did in casting off the Spanish yoke and our American forefathers the British, and with far more reason than in the latter case. Moreover, the monies granted were for humanitarian and not for military purposes.” It is plain that Boer refuses to be governed by the Biblical warnings against “being unequally yoked together with unbelievers” (2 Cor. 6:14 ff.) which he recognizes have kept our churches out of the WCC, and refuses to hold that the only unity of which our Lord called was a unity in His gospel (John 17). Refusing to distinguish between the work of Christ and of Anti-Christ, between the work of God and the devil in the churches, he attributes the WCC to the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit and therefore argues that we must join it.
Next, the case against the WCC was argued by Rev. Glen D. Jerrell, an Orthodox Presbyterian minister. He pointed out that the basis of the WCC is less than is required for communicant membership in Reformed Churches and much less than is necessary for ordination in them, and is not indicative of teaching all things that Jesus commanded. “The Bible . . . requires that the Church of Jesus Christ seek to maintain the purity of the fellowship in Christ by separation from false doctrine.” “Membership in the Council amounts to surrendering the battle for truth before it is even fought.”
John Vriend, who was at the time of this writing a Christian Reformed minister,* like Boer, defended membership in the WCC. He made some valid observations that t he RES was something less than a real “synod” but more than a mere conference. The WCC is also a fellowship of churches. It is “not proof against a false gospel. As a forum it is too open; as an arena it is too treacherous; as a fellowship of believers it is too unpredictable for the majority of t he RES churches,” who on principle “will not be forced into fellowship with churches that tolerate perceived unbelievers.” Since the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands insist on being members of the WCC, Vriend urged that the RES broaden its view of our ecumenical calling to make room for that wider relationship.
The Forum concluded with a report of an RES conference in Indonesia where the member church is also a member of the WCC. That report advocated a more “open” view of the church, arguing that the “marks of the church” are considered as no longer entirely sufficient to identify the true church, and that the creeds should “in no way be a fetter or . . . be exclusive towards other churches.”
A review of the arguments of this Forum in general shows how those who seek to maintain the Biblical standard of a church unity based on faithful adherence to the gospel are opposed to the inclusive fellowship of the wee, while those who are no longer concerned about that standard are urging that we join, or at least tolerate it. The Monthly Record article previously mentioned calls attention to the fact that the RES Interim committee has now decided that membership in the WCC is quite compatible with membership in the RES. The Presbyterian writer saw this RES decision as vindicating his churches’ previous decision to leave that body. The Christian Reformed Churches will continue to face questions about the WCC. They will arise as we have to deal with the question whether we should not break off relations with the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, the question whether the disintegrating RES should be continued, and the questionable cooperation of our denominational relief agency with wee relief programs.
(A concluding part of this article will deal with the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.)
*John Vriend is no longer a C.R. minister.