When the clack of the gavel begins to echo through New Delhi’s spacious Vigynan Bhavan Hall next week, it will resound presumably for the one-third of the world’s population which goes by the name Christian.
Assembled in the modern capital of India will be nearly 1,000 church men and women from throughout the world—devout, sincere individuals who are deeply concerned about fragmentation of the Christian witness. Their very presence at the third and most important assembly of the World Council of Churches will indicate hope that some kind of new posture can be attained, particularly for Protestantism, if not for non-Roman Christianity as a whole. Could New Delhi signal a much-needed ideological breakthrough, and a transcendence of existing diversities? Many Christians feel that such a breakthrough can come through a recovery of the Church’s authority and mission. Others hold that a demand for organizational unity exists as a near-term requirement, although pressing questions of doctrine and order remain for future debate.
In the New Delhi assembly hall, originally built by the government of India to house a UNESCO conference, the move for unity will manifest itself most acutely in the apparently-presumed integration of the International Missionary Council into the WCC. The proposal, already endorsed by the WCC’s Central Committee and a majority of the IMC’s constituent national councils, will see the IMC organization emerge within the WCC framework as the Commission and Division of World Mission and Evangelism.
“The assembly,” according to a WCC press release, “provides the major forum for Christian leaders to discuss Christian unity.…”
Spokesmen for the ecumenical movement are already heralding the New Delhi assembly as a major step in the reunification of Christendom. Far in advance of the November 18-December 6 meeting, U. S. ecumenical leaders list among the “assured results” of the ecclesiastical conclave the virtual reunification of the missionary task force with the organized Christian (non-Roman) community.
Critics of the movement deplore this representation as highly exaggerated. They readily concede that New Delhi will emerge as an important episode in the ecumenical dream of restoring Christian unity through the progressive merger of existing denominations along theological and ecclesiastically inclusive lines.
Yet the setting and scope of assembly debate troubles many. Will there be a free and representative exchange of views on fundamental issues, they ask, or does the very process of organizational delegation militate against it or confine the pro-and-con to a limited sphere? In the organizational propaganda and ecclesiastical power gathering in New Delhi many critics are prone to see human planning and ecumenical contrivance at work, more than the Spirit of God breathing obviously new life and unity into the Body of Christ.
Does New Delhi symbolize an ecclesiastical injection of new strategy into the sprawling ecumenical movement? Or does it neglect a divine work of the Holy Spirit in the world-wide Body of believers over whom the crucified and risen Christ reigns as Head?
The answer to this question is of paramount importance, and American delegates to New Delhi bear an important role in shaping that answer. Since the formation of the Federal Council of Churches, predecessor of the National Council of Churches, American churchmen have significantly influenced the shaping of the ecumenical perspective. Their leadership, often heavily dominated by liberal forces, supplied much of the supportive pressure for inclusivism in theological and ecclesiastical concepts. It also directly involved American Protestantism in politico-economic programs that provoked sharp criticism by European churchmen who assigned greater priority to Christian faith than ever.
What stake have U. S. churchgoers in the ecumenical movement? To what extent does the movement represent American Christianity? Do the delegates now heading for New Delhi adequately represent their own constituencies? Does the proportion between clergy and lay delegates supply evidence that American churchmen are eager to assign a larger role in ecumenical affairs to the laity at grass roots? To answer these and other questions, and to provide an overall perspective on the significance of the New Delhi assembly for the American scene, CHRISTIANITY TODAY conducted an intensive study of the views of the American delegates compared with those of the constituencies they represent.
Of the 625 official delegates representing 176 member churches in some 50 countries, 160 delegates—or more than one in four—will come as delegates from the United States. Despite the emphasis on a voice for the younger churches, the massive organization and sheer weight of numbers of the United States contingent gives it staggering power. The United States remains one of the great Protestant lands of the world, despite the tendency of religious minorities to speak of a “post-Protestant era.” It is also the chief manpower source of the world missionary movement (only 31 per cent of the 28,000 U. S. missionaries around the world are NCC-related; see interpretative chart). Important questions may therefore be asked about the American delegates, who now carry much of the responsibility for shaping the immediate course of the directed mainstream of non-Roman Christianity, but who are well aware that distressing cleavages remain unhealed in American Protestantism.
These percentages were established by a scientific poll of American clergymen, across interdenominational lines, by Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey, for CHRISTIANITY TODAY. The survey distinguished Fundamentalist and Conservative ministers in respect to their doctrine of Scripture; the former subscribe to total inerrancy, the latter either do not, or have doubts. Other historic Christian doctrines were not in doubt.
Do the delegates speak the spontaneous convictions of American grass-roots Protestantism, or is the slate otherwise slanted? From several considerations, their tilt toward prevailing ecumenical positions may be noted in advance. Of the U. S. delegates, all chosen by their respective denominational leaderships, 37 per cent come from within the influential inner circle of American ecumenism. At least 44 of the delegates are currently members of the policy-making NCC General Board; at least 14 others are past or present officers of NCC or paid officers of local church councils. Hence NCC official and staff representation may be said to bulk extraordinarily large in the list of U. S. delegates. The question naturally rises whether free and objective determination of the issues before the assembly can be expected from these participants. At any rate, critics who contend that the ecumenical movement’s ecclesiastical and theological pronouncements are largely shaped and controlled by an influential majority which holds strategic interlocking posts in NCC and its member denominations, seem to have an impressive case.
NCC General Board officers appearing as delegates are: President J. Irwin Miller (Disciples); Vice-President-at-Large Bishop J. Wesley Lord (Methodist); Vice-President-at-Large Mrs. J. Fount Tillman (Methodist); Vice-President, Division of Christian Education, Bishop Reuben H. Mueller (Evangelical United Brethren); Vice-President, Division of Christian Life and Work, Dr. Norman J. Baugher (Church of the Brethren); Vice-President, Division of Foreign Missions, the Rev. Earl S. Erb (United Lutheran Church in America); Past President, Dr. Edwin T. Dahlberg (American Baptist); other members of the NCC General Board from the following denominations are among the U.S. delegates: African Methodist Episcopal Church—Bishop George W. Baber, Dr. R. W. Mance, Bishop Joseph Gomez, Bishop S. L. Greene, Sr.; African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church—Bishop W. J. Walls; American Baptist Convention—Dr. L. Doward McBain, Dr. John E. Skoglund, Dr. Edwin H. Tuller; Augustana Evangelical Lutheran Church—Dr. Malvin H. Lundeen; Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ)—Dr. Gaines M. Cook, Dr. A. Dale Fiers, Dr. Virgil A. Sly; Christian Methodist Episcopal Church—Bishop B. Julian Smith; Evangelical United Brethren Church—Bishop Paul W. Milhouse; Greek Archdiocese of North and South America—the Rev. George J. Bacopulos, Charles Raphael; The Methodist Church—Dr. Harold A. Bosley, Mrs. Porter Brown, Bishop William C. Martin, Dr. J. Earl Moreland, Charles C. Parlin, Bishop Roy H. Short, Dr. Eugene L. Smith; National Baptist Convention U.S.A.—Dr. E. A. Freeman, Dr. C. H. Hampton, Dr. J. H. Jackson; Presbyterian Church in the U.S.—Dr. James A. Millard, Jr.; Protestant Episcopal Church—the Rt. Rev. Arthur Lichtenberger, Mrs. Theodore Wedel; Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America—the Rt. Rev. Bishop Valerian D. Trifa, Ivan Michelson Czap; United Church of Christ—Dr. Alford Carleton, Dr. Truman B. Douglass, Dr. Fred Hoskins, Dr. James E. Wagner; United Lutheran Church in America—Dr. Franklin Clark Fry; United Presbyterian Church—Dr. Eugene Carson Blake. Blake is a Past President of NCC. In addition Dr. Benjamin Mays (American Baptist) and Dr. Harry V. Richardson (Methodist) are past members of the General Board, and Metropolitan Athenagoras (Greek Orthodox) and Dr. George Florovsky (Greek Orthodox) have each served as past Vice-President-at-Large.
Besides these 48 delegates, the list includes 10 others who currently hold or have held strategic positions in the National Council or affiliated local councils of churches, including NCC General Secretary Roy G. Ross (Christian) and Dr. Irene Jones (American Baptist), associate executive secretary of the Division of Foreign Missions. Others are Dr. W. Barnett Blakemore (Christian); Church Federation of Greater Chicago, Chairman of Ecumenical Education Committee; Bishop F. Gerald Ensley (Methodist), President, Iowa Council of Churches; the Rev. Archie Hargraves (Congregational Christian), Brooklyn Division of Protestant Council of City of New York, Chairman of Racial and Cultural Relations Committee; Miss Frances Kaptizky (Evangelical and Reformed), Second Vice-President, Ohio Council of Churches; Dr. Ganse Little (United Presbyterian), Pasadena Council of Churches, Chairman of Community Worship Committee; Dr. Walter G. Muelder (Methodist), Massachusetts Council of Churches, Chairman of Church, State and Community Committee; the Rev. Robert W. Stackel (United Lutheran Church), Council of Churches of Greater Akron, Chairman of Evangelism Committee; Dr. Edward Ziegler (Church of Brethren), Virginia Council of Churches, Chairman of Evangelism Committee.
The weight of ecumenical organizational influence will not be limited, however, to the delegates; it shows up imposingly in the extended list of consultants. The Episcopal delegation, for example, will also include: the Rt. Rev. Henry Knox Sherrill, former Presiding Bishop, as one of the six Presidents of the World Council of Churches; the Rt. Rev. Angus Dun, in a consultant capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Proselytism and as a member of the Central Committee; the Rev. Canon Theodore O. Wedel, in a consultant capacity as Chairman of the Working Committee of the Department of Evangelism; and Charles P. Taft, in a consultant capacity as Chairman of the Working Committee of the Department of Information.
An interesting question concerns the delegates from the world of Protestant education. Some influential ecumenists increasingly view seminaries as an indoctrination center for theological inclusivism and for service in the restructured Protestant community. Among the 25 delegates (almost one-sixth of the total) who are seminary or college identified, some are distinguished in the academic world, but these constitute a conspicuous minority. President Nathan M. Pusey of Harvard stands out in the list—and is a symbol of the Protestant call for religious revival that runs as wide as Tillichian theology while neglecting historic evangelical commitments. (The evangelical voice is virtually suppressed today in Harvard’s United Ministry to Students.)
While there may be an exception or two, the viewpoint of virtually all U. S. delegates from the Protestant academic world is squarely sympathetic to the inclusivist vision. Schools whose main influence is theologically liberal so heavily dominate the picture that aggressively evangelical centers seem to have been bypassed.
Taken as a whole, the list includes only a few of the outstanding liberal or neo-orthodox thinkers, but it is heavily weighted along with Pusey with delegates from schools that register an inclusive theological influence: Andover-Newton (President Herbert Gezork); Colgate-Rochester Divinity School (Dr. James C. Miller); Pacific School of Religion (President Stuart Anderson); Oberlin College Graduate School of Theology (Dr. Roger Hazelton); Disciples Divinity House (Dean W. Barnett Blakemore); Boston School of Theology (Dr. Walter Muelder); Perkins School of Theology (Dr. Albert C. Outler); Princeton Theological Seminary (President James I. McCord); and so on. Dr. Blakemore is a successor and disciple of Edward Scribner Ames, the humanist. Dean Donald C. Dearborn of Catawba College, also on the list, is a layman thoroughly inclusive in his views, who clings to the outmoded liberal view that Paul perverted the Christian Gospel.
RATIO OF DENOMINATIONAL DELEGATES TO MEMBERSHIP
Number of Delegates to Every Million Members
One can also find, here and there among these delegates, some who bridge between neo-orthodoxy and evangelical views, such as Dr. W. R. Cannon of Candler School of Theology (Emory University).
Not a single president is included as a delegate, however, from the aggressively evangelical seminaries within, the NCC structure. Others whose theological positions cannot be dismissed simply as liberal but who strongly favor the present development of the ecumenical movement are included, such as President Paul Eller of Evangelical Theological Seminary. Some, while declaring themselves evangelicals, such as President Walter N. Roberts of United Theological Seminary, show little sympathy for evangelicals not wholly enthusiastic over NCC.
Except for an outright liberal like Dr. Joseph Sittler (United Lutheran Church), formerly of the federated divinity faculty at University of Chicago, the Lutheran educators on the whole appear to be among the most sturdily evangelical. President Alvin R. Rogness of Luther Seminary, St. Paul, and President E. C. Fendt of Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary, Columbus, Ohio, are widely regarded as conservative, the former somewhat more open to inclusive associations than the latter. Dr. Malvin H. Lundeen, the new president of Augustana, is a delegate, as is his predecessor there, Dr. P. O. Bersell, who has openly criticized the Blake-Pike proposal. President Alfonzo Rodrigues of Matansas Seminary, Cuba, a champion of evangelical evangelism, is considered one of the most conservative Presbyterian delegates. Nothing is clearer, however, than the predominantly inclusive theological and ecclesiastical temper of the great majority of the educators designated as delegates to New Delhi, and that institutions dedicated aggressively to an evangelical theological perspective within the ecumenical movement are left without great delegation strength.
Member Bodies Of National Council Of Churches
ECUMENICAL AFFILIATION OF U. S. DENOMINATIONS
MEMBER CHURCHES OF N.C.C.
(Mostly 1959 statistics from Year Book of American Churches for 1961)
The delegates include 112 clergymen and 48 laymen. While this represents a larger participation by the laity than in many ecumenical activities, American ecumenism has assigned the clergy about three times the representation given the laity in reflecting their constituencies to the New Delhi assembly. The division of lay delegates into men and women (31 male, 17 female) is more balanced. There is no lay representation whatever for the Church of the Brethren, Augustana Evangelical Lutheran, Christian Methodist Episcopal and African Methodist Church.
When one looks beyond the statistical question, and inquires into the representative character of American lay leaders, some interesting facts emerge. Currently most influential is the NCC’s multimillionaire non-conservative lay president, Dr. J. Irwin Miller, whose radically liberal dissatisfaction with the conservative Disciples of Christ church in his home community led him to spearhead establishment of a rival church. American Protestant laymen who share his religious idealism mainly disavow Dr. Miller’s theological prejudices and his long-standing sympathy for church endorsements of specific politico-economic programs.
Nearly 24 Million Protestants Outside N.C.C.
MEMBERSHIP OF NON-ALIGNED RELIGIOUS BODIES …
(List of those with 100,000 or more members)
MEMBER DENOMINATIONS OF N.A.E.
The National Association of Evangelicals is not a centralized organization, but claims a service constituency of 10,000,000 through its affiliated agencies. The National Council of Churches has service lines also, but lists as cooperating agencies those related to various phases of its work.
MEMBER CHURCHES AND INDIVIDUALS OF A.C.C.C.
The list of lay delegates as a whole is theologically conglomerate and predisposed toward the ecumenical structuring of Protestantism. The list therefore reflects the stance of Protestant leadership both in the ecumenical movement and in many affiliated denominations. It does not truly reflect the temper of the Protestant laity at grass roots. A recent sampling of ministers in NCC-identified churches yielded their acknowledgment that not more than 10 per cent of the members in most of these congregations are enthusiastic over giant church mergers. Yet nine of the lay delegates representing American Protestantism in New Delhi are now serving as members of the NCC General Board, and most of the others are enthusiastic supporters of the merger trend. Inquiry among lay leaders and clergy in one circle after another evoked such comments about their denomination’s lay delegates: “liberal as regards ecumenism”; “an inclusivist by disposition”; “he rides with the tide.”
The Lay Viewpoint
Protestant laymen in America are overwhelmingly conservative in their theological views. Yet the New Delhi lay delegation is heavily sprinkled not only with aggressive liberals like NCC President Miller and Dean Dearborn of Catawba College, but with laymen whose ecumenical enthusiasm exists alongside theological illiteracy. Inquiry about doctrinal convictions elicited comments like these: “a conservative of limited theological discernment”; “has the theology of an en thusiastic Rotarian”; “theologically not oriented”; and so on. One delegate, for example, remarked that he doesn’t “know enough about theology to tell” whether he is “neo-orthodox, conservative, or whatever else. After all, he insisted, “I’m a layman.” Another refused “any theological label,” preferring to identify himself with the “social application of the Gospel” which he equated mainly with pacifism.
But that is not to say that the lay contingent wholly lacks a concern for theological fidelity or for a spiritual view of the Church. For inquiry about lay delegates also paid solid tribute to some of the denominational representatives: “a conservative of good balance”; “a conservative who understands the issues all the way”; “a good type to represent the American Baptist laymen—theologically sound, radiant testimony, dedicated to the person of Christ, loyal to the Convention.”
An overview of other clergy delegates to New Delhi raises the question whether they are more prominently representative of denominational life and mood than the lay delegates. Their New Delhi participation will be eagerly followed by denominational colleagues who know that American ecumenism has faced widening protest with every merger plan. While organizational influence has loomed large in the determination of delegates, the complaint of one churchman seems exaggerated: “They would not have been selected as delegates did they not represent the controlling leadership of the denominations.” Nonetheless, the delegates are mainly professional ecumenists.
Not a few Presbyterian ministers thought the denomination’s New Delhi contingent to be rather obviously weighted with ardent supporters of the (so-called) “Blake plan,” although some of the group are known not to share this commitment.
The delegation of the Christian Churches (Disciples) is heavily weighted on the liberal side, including extreme liberal and humanist delegates. A survey indicates that of the 10 delegates, two represent a fairly wide segment of the membership while most of the others reflect militant minorities.
Deploring Conservatism
The Episcopal delegation too is held to be heavily weighted for the liberal side. Presiding Bishop Arthur Lichtenberger, a delegate, not only has come out strongly for church union, but deplores the rising tide of conservatism both theologically and politically, whereas another delegate, the Rt. Rev. Stephen W. Bayne, Jr., has already become executive officer for the world-wide “Anglican Communion” which some critics declare to be a structural nonentity.
Several ministers long constructively active in the American Baptist Convention agreed that only two of their ministerial delegates represent the denominational image at grass roots.
Some of the conservative delegates, assuredly, were depicted as inclusively disposed: “seldom theologically objectionable in public utterances, but always counted with the liberals” (of an American Baptist delegate). Some of the liberal delegates were marked as intolerant of evangelicals. A denominational colleague noted of one: “tries to stay middle-of-the-road, but is violently opposed to interdenominational groups such as Young Life, Campus Crusade, and so on.” Another sharp judgment: “a clever manipulator of everybody for the program.” The driving commitment of many of the delegates, however, is ecclesiastical rather than theological, so that many of the New Delhi participants are viewed as “a vanguard of tomorrow’s togetherness.” Here are some comments by fellow clergymen of their denominational appointees: “The leading exponent of church union in our denomination”; “a council of churches’ man for many years”; “a typical church bureaucrat”; “he works for the hierarchy”; “he looks on theology only as a matter of ‘order’ ”; “a saintly man who has not given serious thought to theology for many years”; “a theology bounded on all sides by the nace question”; “his theology is best called ‘secretarial.’ ”
The American Lutheran Church’s delegation is viewed as sturdily conservative. Some observers thought the Augustana Lutheran delegation “more conservative” than its seminaries.
In many of the major denominations at least one delegate could be found who is a highly respected conservative, and here and there a delegate to whom ministerial colleagues referred as “a rebel in the camp of the organization.” Among tributes to conservative delegates: “a good composite of the average American Baptist Convention pastor—evangelical, evangelistic, positive and co-operative.”
Many churchmen are convinced “that resolutions passed at these well-publicized assemblies overcome fragmentation by merger”; remarked another, “but the Church cannot legislate itself into well-being.” “One doesn’t win ecumenical friends and influence Riverside Drive [NCC headquarters] by being candid,” said another, but “some of these leaders are busier remaking the Church today than remaking the world.”
Confident ecumenists, assuming in advance that WCC-IMC integration would be approved, have had on schedule for many weeks a two-day “first meeting” of the newly-emergent Commission on World Mission and Evangelism to be held at the Vigynan-Bhavan, beginning the day after the assembly closes. Ecumenical promoters clearly had little disposition to wait in New Delhi for a moving of the Holy Spirit. WCC leadership long ago asserted that this meeting on mission, as well as the first meeting of the newly-elected 90-member WCC Central Committee, not only would be held, but that it would be held in secret (a memo circulated to accredited correspondents underscored the words closed to the press). The pre-Miltonian motivation of such an edict, which extends even to the friendly Christian press, was sure to yield a harvest of regrets. Many observers will wonder how Christian leaders presuming to plot the course of church history dare to lock out their constituents from knowing how they arrive at their conclusions.
The Organizing Momentum
Future church history will judge the delegates not simply by who they are, but by what they do. Many laymen—and not a few clergymen—are bewildered by an ecumenical organizing process whose momentum they cannot stop nor effectively shape, and they are distressed at the bold ecumenical steps to heal world Christianity while these same leaders have been unable to heal the fragmentation of American Protestantism.
While the delegates deliberate in New Delhi, millions of Christians the world over will storm the way to the throne of grace, the way that is never closed, to gain presence with Him by whom they shall never be denied. They will beseech the Lord of the Church, who loved her and died for her, that he not forsake her now, but through the quiet workings of his mighty Spirit who cannot be contained will grant such blessing at New Delhi as shall surprise Christians everywhere, not least those who labor for the unity, peace and healing of the Church.
