The question posed by our title is one that is being asked by very many people today. We believe they have a right to an answer, and this article seeks to make it clear what that answer is.
Perhaps it would clear the air if we state first our conclusion, and then note the factors which led us to it. Study of the facts has brought us to what appears to us to be an incontrovertible conclusion: the World Council of Churches is the purposeful and dedicated enemy of Christian foreign missions. We shall make frequent reference to one of the most recent comprehensive official publications of the World Council entitled Evanston to New Delhi, Geneva, 1961.
Before we go further we should define two terms used in the previous paragraph: facts—statements of official publications of the wee and documented historical events; Christian foreign missions—the effort of the church to preach to the world the infallible, inscripturated Word of God—the gospel, the heart of which is the substitutionary atonement and the physical resurrection of Christ—to the end that men, being regenerated by the Holy Spirit and redeemed through faith in that Christ, may seek to bring their own lives and the world into service to God according to his Word.
ENDEAVOR TO INFLUENCE FOREIGN MISSIONS
The first thing we wish to point out is that the World Council wishes and endeavors to influence foreign missions (they call it “mission”). In 1961, at the Third Assembly of the wee in New Delhi, India, the International Missionary Council, which had been an independent group, was merged into the WCC. It is not our province to explore motives for this merger except to say that it would not have taken place if the wee had not wished to have something to do with foreign missions.
To effectuate the merger, the Constitution of the wee was amended to integrate the work of the former IMC into the work of the Council. So, for example, Article III of the wee Constitution, entitled “Functions,” has three sections which deal specifically with the IMC or missions: (i) “to carry on the work of the…International Missionary Council,” (iv) “to promote the growth of ecumenical and missionary consciousness in the members of all churches,” and (v) “to support the churches in their world-wide missionary and evangelistic task.”
In order to implement these functions the Constitution erects a Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (VI, [3]). The aim of the Commission is expressed in these words: “to further the proclamation to the whole world of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to the end that all men may believe in Him and be saved.” Then eight functions are given which, for lack of space, we cannot quote here. They all have to do with what is called “missionary and evangelistic work” of the churches, e.g., “to remind the churches of the range and character of the unfinished evangelistic task,” “to stimulate thought and study,” “to foster…more effective cooperation and united action for world evangelization.”
The Commission’s own Constitution provides that it “shall formulate the general lines of policy and programme to be followed…” by a subordinate Division of World Mission and Evangelism, and that Division will execute “the policy and programme” (5, [ii]). The Commission is also to “develop appropriate organs for fulfilling its functions in the area of evangelism, including the provision of staff for this purpose” (5, [v]). The Division itself, among other things, is to publish “such literature as may be called for in the furtherance of the aim and functions of the Commission” (3, [iv]).
So, the wee is interested in missions, it formulates a missionary program, and it takes the measures necessary to carry it out. Nor is this to be carried out merely by means of some ivory-tower proclamation from Geneva or New York headquarters. The WCC Constitution provides (XI, [1, 2]) that the WCC have “working relationships” with the national councils in various countries to provide mutual help “in the promotion of ecumenical activities in the area concerned and in the furthering of the plans and policies which the Central Committee has laid down…” (the “Central Committee” is the operating body of the WCC). In Evanston to New Delhi, World Council of Churches, Geneva, 1961. p. 18, it is stated that these national councils “provide the normal channel for interpretation, support, and the carrying out of World Council programmes.” Thus the WCC has a means of having its policies and program followed by every one of the various national councils. Conceivably, if the policy and program were good the WCC’s influence throughout the world might have at least some virtue. In that case the WCC would be the friend of Christian missions. Our task, therefore, is to examine the “policy and programme” of the WCC.
MISSIONS AND EVANGELISM
It should be obvious that we recognize that WCC adherents would hardly agree to such a statement as “the WCC is the enemy of Christian foreign missions.” They can even produce statements from their official documents which seem to be to the contrary. For example, we have already pointed out that the WCCs Constitution states that one of its seven “Functions” is “To support the churches in their world-wide missionary and evangelistic task” (III [v]). These words are fine. But what do they mean? What is the “missionary and evangelistic” message which the WCC supports?
Today “missions” and “evangelism” mean something far different, for some people, from what they once meant for everyone. The old-line Modernist disliked these words, and hence frequently refused to use them. Today’s New Modernists use them freely but give them a new meaning. In the second and third articles in this series (see March 1962, p. 8; April 1962, p. 11), the Basis of the WCC was quoted—and again the words are fine, as far as they go—but it was correctly pointed out that the WCC itself took pains to disavow anyone meaning for those words, to acknowledge that different churches in the Council interpret the Basis differently, and yet to regard such churches as one with all the other constituent churches (cf. Evanston to New Delhi, p. 216). How far the Council goes in allowing liberty of interpretation within the fellowship of the Council is demonstrated by the fact that at the Third Assembly the Church of England’s Archbishop of Canterbury was elected one of the WCC presidents. In the London Daily Mail for October 2, 1961, a statement by him was reported as follows: “Heaven is also not a place to which we humans go in our present bodily state, nor it is a place for Christians only. Those who have led a good life on earth but found themselves unable to believe in God will not be debarred from Heaven. I expect to meet some present-day atheists there.” It is these variegated messages, even if they are so false as to be “another gospel,” to which the WCC pledges its “support.” To whatever extent the WCC supports a false gospel it is the enemy of the true gospel.
There are those who criticize the Council for its use of the word “mission” instead of the traditional “missions.” Although we ourselves continue to use the word “missions” as entirely adequate we do not agree with the criticism. The new term “mission” is intended to indicate that the church’s evangelistic task is very broad and involves the teaching of the whole Word and all its implications for life. WCC spokesmen often speak of it as “the total kerugma.” We find nothing wrong with that in itself. As a matter of fact, this is what Reformed churches should be standing for. Nevertheless, in spite of our approval of the term “mission,” we find that the application of it by the WCC is so heavy on the hobby of unity and ecumenicity that the biblical force of the objective of preaching all the Word is seriously distorted. This writer certainly docs not mean by “mission” what the WCC does.
As has already been implied, the WCC does not regard the gospel as one true, objective message. Different views of Christ and his work may be held within the Council. Certainly its “gospel” is not centered upon the substitutionary atonement of Christ. That doctrine is carefully avoided and never mentioned even at points where a truly evangelical organization would feel required to do so. For example, in a report at New Delhi on “Christian Witness, Proselytism, and Religious Liberty in the Setting of the World Council of Churches,” this is said: “The purpose of witness is to persuade persons to accept the supreme authority of Christ, to commit themselves to Him, and to render Him loving service…” (Evanston to New Delhi, p. 240).
As you began to read that sentence, weren’t you hopeful? “Persuade persons to accept”! But how it let us down I How far from II Corinthians 5 where Paul says, “knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men…God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself…We pray you…be ye reconciled to God” (vv. 11, 19, 20). And what does the World Council say? “Accept the supreme authority of Christ”! This is the “gospel” that the WCC would promote in its program of “mission and evangelism.”
UNITY
We next turn to the objective which is uppermost in the goals of the WCC: “Unity.” This unity is not a unity founded upon the truth but organizational unity regardless of truth. “Unity” is the most important element in “mission and evangelism.”
The intentional ambiguity of the Council’s Basis is clear enough evidence of this. Again, though, an advocate of the Council might object by saying that the Council makes an unequivocal statement about Jesus in its “Statement on the Purpose and Function of the Basis” as adopted at the Evanston Assembly (Evanston to New Delhi, pp. 215f.). That statement is that the Council must “consist of churches which acknowledge that Lord (referred to in the Basis–JPG) as the second person of the Trinity.” But we must not remove this statement, though its words are true enough, from its immediate and larger context.
As to the immediate context, only four lines below that statement we read that although each church must “seriously consider whether it desires to participate in a fellowship with this particular Basis,” nevertheless the Council would “overstep” its limits if it were to attempt to “pronounce judgment as to whether any particular church is in fact taking the Basis seriously.” Note first how carefully the first part of the quotation is worded: not desires “to agree,” but to “participate”; not in fellowship “upon” this Basis, but “with” it. A few moments’ thought will reveal the significance and importance of these distinctions. Second, note that the seemingly forthright statement is promptly discarded with the assurance that, as it were, “We’ll look the other way.” So far as the larger context is concerned, we refer simply to the confusing use of language which is the current Liberal vogue. The man who wrote those words could have meant one thing by the words “Lord” and ‘“Trinity,” and each of the other members of his committee could have held his own distinct view. The problem is that in today’s theological world one cannot know what is meant by such terms unless they are spelled out. It is this which the World Council advisedly, purposely, and consistently, refuses to do. The purpose of such ambiguity can only be to form the broadest possible base for the greatest possible number of churches in the one organization.
Actions of and spokesmen for the Council frequently refer to the “unity of the Church of Christ” but they never define what the term “Church of Christ” means. We too believe in the “unity of the Church of Christ.” And so do all Reformed Christians. But the unity in which we believe, and for which we strive and pray, is unity which is first of all founded on the truth. We believe that unity flows from truth. The Council apparently turns this around when it makes unity more important than truth.
Where, now, does this quest for unity lead the World Council in the matter of missions? Being a world organization, touching as it does, through the various national councils, a large number of nations in which there are Christian churches or missions, it is committed by its Constitution to the support of the missionary work of those churches which are WCC members. The inclusivist Basis and general character of the WCC requires it to be on the side of the inclusivist (liberal) churches and against those churches and missions which stand for the one way of salvation, life, and service. One purpose of the WCC is “to help the several churches…strengthen one another” (ibid., p. 240). So it becomes the enemy not only of the gospel but also of the endeavor to spread the gospel, Christian missions. As the WCC uses these terms, “mission” and “evangelism” do not mean the spread of the gospel as we Reformed people have understood it for generations.
In J. H. Piersma’s able tracing of the history of the WCC movement it was clear that it was originally a Protestant, or at least a non-sacerdotal* group. But in the course of time the desire for “unity” overcame the desire to be a fellowship within a circumscribed area and the gates were opened to the Eastern Orthodox churches. At the Third (New Delhi) Assembly in 1961 the Russian Orthodox Church was received into membership. Its membership, estimated at not less than 30 million, makes it the largest group in the organization. Approximately 13 other Eastern Orthodox churches are also members, from such countries as Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, and the U.S.A. Nor is the road intended to end here. Dr. W. A. Visser ‘T Hooft, in his General Secretary’s report to the Third Assembly, said, in the section entitled “Enlarge the Place of Thy Tent,” that the Council has a “most useful relation with the special Secretariat set up by Pope John XXIII to promote the unity of Christians.” So observers from the Vatican attended the Third Assembly on invitation, and a delegation from the WCC will attend the coming Vatican council, also upon invitation.
CONTROL
After an overwhelming desire for unity comes a desire for control in order to assure unity.
Both the Eastern and Roman churches have taken strong positions against “proselytism” as the Council calls it (ibid., p. 241 ), and when they have the political power to stop Protestant missionary work in their areas they do. Since their Third Assembly, the wee has large Eastern elements in it which the Council is pledged to support, and it is wooing the Roman Catholic Church. Suppose that in this situation an Eastern or Roman church in a certain country complains to the WCC that an evangelical group is making inroads on their membership. In most countries the civil governments are endeavoring to maintain religious liberty and probably would not interfere in such a matter. But suppose the WCC, through its national council in that country, and because of pressure either from a member or prospective member, goes to the government and says, “We are Christians, too; we don’t favor this type of work and we would be quite agreeable for you to keep them out of the country.”
And what might that country do? Here are two harbingers from India. (1) Dr. Carl McIntire, a constant critic of the WCC, reports in his paper, the Christian Beacon” (Dec. 14, 1961, p. 4), that the wee received from the Indian government “the sale right of certifying those who would receive visas for entrance to India to attend the Assembly” and that as a result he and others were able to enter India only on tourist visas. Upon arrival on that basis, Dr. McIntire reports, an official of the Indian Home Ministry informed him that he would violate his visa if he were to “issue press releases which would disturb the World Council’s Assembly.”
(2) A pamphlct written by the Rev. John L. Dorsey, a missionary in India, entitled “The Government of India Does Not Force Protestants to Belong to the National Christian Council” reveals that the NCC attempted to obtain control of visa applications by prospective missionaries. On February 14, 1955, the Rev. A. Ralla Ram. editor of The Christian Messenger, official organ of the Uttar Pradesh Christian Council, a constituent of the National Christian Council of India, requested the government to give “recognition” to the Council as the certifying agency for “all” applications for admission and stay of missionaries to the state. In its publications the India NCC refers to itself as “A child of the ecumenical movement and is in association with the World Council of Churches.” On the following April 13 a letter from Sri A. N. Jha, Chief Secretary of the state government, replied, granting the request, explaining that the Council would be a kind of “referee.” Fortunately that recognition was withdrawn after a protest by the India Bible Christian Council and thereafter limited to affiliates of the UPCC. We said “fortunately” because the official who requested the recognition had previously told an evangelical who is opposed to the WCC-type ecumenicism: “If I had my way, I would not let missions such as yours continue in the country at all.” This official was also Executive Secretary of the UPCC.
In such matters the wee finds itself in real difficulty, for it recognizes that its own member churches are sometimes in a minority situation where they want to grow. So they speak of a “tension” between two poles: “the right and duty of free Christian witness on the one hand” and “the obligation of an ecumenical fellowship to manifest the visible unity of the church…on the other hand” (ibid., p. 239). They therefore suggest “guiding principles” and among them are an acknowledgment of the right of an individual “to change his church allegiance,” and of the need for all Christians to “work toward the establishing and maintenance of religious liberty for all churches and all their members in every land.” These are high-sounding words which we would that the WCC would live up to itself.
In conclusion we reiterate that we believe the WCC to be an enemy of the Christ who is revealed in the Bible. It gives it approval to churches which deny cardinal truths of the gospel; spokesmen for the Council—and, in the eyes of an unenlightened world, presumably for the Christian church—proclaim false doctrines; and it misinterprets Christ’s church as being a polygot of contradictory beliefs.
*Non-sacerdotal means: non-priestly–K.