Last summer’s World Student Christian Federation conference in Strasbourg, France, on the mission of the Church was the culmination of several years’ discussion. Now, half a year later, it is far from forgotten. Afterthoughts are still provoked, particularly over an “ideology” of missions which seemed to float through the conference and its study materials.
One delegate expressed the matter this way: “The ‘ideology’ or presupposition of some of those responsible for the Strasbourg conference might be stated thus: that the present structures and organizations of the church, particularly those of missionary societies and boards, are no longer adequate to meet the challenge of the modern age and enter into a positive, free encounter with a ‘world come of age.’ Expressed more bluntly, the inference seemed to be this: one of the greatest hindrances and stumbling blocks to the mission of the church to the world is foreign missions. The answer: a new concept of ecumenical mission, unhampered by denominationalism, confessionalism, missionary societies, or boards, which would in the freedom of the Holy Spirit discover new forms and patterns for living in an open, dynamic dialogue on the frontiers of the modern world.”
Those who offered this criticism conceded that this mood was a disturbing undertone rather than an avowed policy of the conferees. In fact, over against the idea of any WSCF conspiracy to undermine missions, stands its originally defined missionary raison d’être: “To enlist students in the work of extending the Kingdom of God throughout the whole world.” Over the past decades, however, observers have noted WSCF’s missionary concern to be considerably less than overwhelming. Thus recent signs of awakening interest have been greeted with gratitude by many church leaders. The Strasbourg conference was hailed as the “key event,” a renascence noteworthy in several respects.
Its 700 delegates, leaders, and speakers constituted one of the most “international” assemblies ever conducted under Christian auspices either in Europe or North America. Anglo-Saxon delegates were for once not in the majority, and the leadership was properly in line with this fact. The conference enjoyed the stimulation of speakers like W. A. Visser’t Hooft, D. T. Niles, and Lesslie Newbigin. Incisive questions and discussion followed outstanding lectures. A heavy theological emphasis was guarded from speculative flights by sensitivity to burning issues of our time, e.g., revolution, communism, and resurgent nationalism. Frank exchange was made possible by an underlying sense of unity in Christ even on such combustible issues as between white and black South Africans, Europeans from both sides of the Iron Curtain, Indian and Pakistani, Japanese and Korean, Cuban and American. Representatives came not only from all these areas but also from Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism (specifically from “Pax Romana,” an international Romanist student movement). And for the first time, a leader of Inter-Varsity Fellowship played an active role in a WSCF conference.
With all the good qualities of the conference, the thing that proved disturbing to some delegates was the undertone that “the mission of the Church” is to be enhanced by forsaking “missions.” Several of the better study documents indicated that the two concepts are inseparable—that while missions may be only one aspect of the mission of the Church, it is nonetheless an indispensable one. But the former line of thought, novel as it was, manifested itself in several areas to the ear sensitive to misplaced emphases and half-truths.
Salutary was the emphasis upon the Holy Spirit in several lectures. D. T. Niles contended that on the day of Pentecost the Gospel became a Gospel for all nations, so that wherever the Holy Spirit comes into the life of a person he is ipso facto swept into that movement which would take the Gospel to the uttermost parts of the earth. But most references through the conference failed to relate the work of the Holy Spirit to the written Word and to the Church. Consequently, it was assumed that the Holy Spirit “is breaking the finality of inherited structures” and giving us new forms for the mission of the Church. As to how we determine what these new forms are—here there was a great vagueness. But the implication was that the institutional element of the Church was unessential and accidental for the life and mission of the Church.
No one was so rash as to claim dispensability of the Church as the Body of Christ, but it was often assumed that the structures of the Church, the manner of its proclamation, its confessions and use of the Bible, its ministers and missionaries in particular (above all, missionary societies!) are quite dispensable and are in fact a hindrance to the kingdom.
Relation of Church and world was obscure. That this is God’s world was clear enough, but the prince of the power of the air was granted total eclipse. Christian identification with the world was untempered by any reminder of the evil of being “of the world.”
Besides “missions,” other scare words were “confessionalism” and “pietism.” The debilitating influence of the latter was so turgidly portrayed, all the while undefined, that one could be excused for imagining it the paramount threat to the WSCF. Great enthusiasm was roused by the pleas of one speaker for a true “secularism,” flexible new church structures, a “desacralized” church, and a “de-religionized” Christianity. But later discussion revealed general lack of understanding by the students of what the new-coined words involved. But there seemed to be a confused desire for a confessionless, structureless, clergyless, in short a churchless, fellowship—a sort of ecclesiastical docetism.
But the real scandal was “missions,” and more particularly “foreign missions.” In this area was seen in essence the failure of the Church to adjust and free itself for the challenge of our times. WSCF’s General Secretary made a frontal attack on foreign missions in the closing address, suggesting they lack theological validity. Sending agencies are unnecessary and harmful, he said. Missionaries are not to offer themselves but go only when and where requested. “Full time ministries in most parts of the world have become the most serious handicap in evangelism.”
A small faction consisting chiefly of American students (bona fide undergraduate students comprised only about a third of the delegates) called a special meeting for all interested in a new “ecumenical order.” Said a statement: “Since God works, suffers, etc., in the world, we must take the world seriously. But our churches aren’t prepared for dialogue on this level. We are tempted to leave the church, but this is a false alternative, for it is the body of Christ. Yet we want to enter into the world in ‘new patterns of missionary obedience.’ Unfortunately, the church will suspect us of being secularists.” It was added that the World Council of Churches and International Missionary Council had been consulted but there were no possibilities there.
Such thinking found support in two WSCF study outlines, distinguished from the more constructive and balanced lectures and other outlines by a schizophrenia which apparently dogs the WSCF view of missions. One titled “Has Christianity a Future?” spoke of the unreliability of the New Testament and asserted, “It is common opinion today that the Scriptures of all the world’s religions all have a certain value as poetry or as records of mystical experience, but none of them is genuine history.” The pamphlet voiced concern that students still had to study the Christological controversies of the Ecumenical Councils and marvelled at the “arrogance” which makes claims of finality for the Christian religion.
Another study outline exalts the virtues of non-Christian religion and boldly claims: “Western Christians can no longer be sure that they are saving anyone from anything, because heaven and hell are not ‘real’ to them anymore. Anthropologists tell them of the harm that missionaries have done by introducing alien ideas into ancient cultures; psychologists tell them dark stories about the emotional confusion they create; and sociologists reveal that their own Church is often itself a structure of illusions anyway.” “The almost demonic activity which the missionary movement seems to have unleashed” is decried. The missionaries themselves are somewhat excused, for though well-meaning they were blind and “enclosed within their own prejudices.” But the missionary societies are another story. “A great deal of the blame for the present mess we are in” lies with them, it is claimed.
With such enthronement of the negative, the conference failed to fulfill a stated aim: “to recover and communicate to this student generation a new and more adequate understanding of the basic motivation for the mission of the Church and commitment to it.” Preconference literature stressed the importance of history, but this was forgotten in the conference. Renewal of Bible study had been listed as a significant change, but no Bible study was held, to the complaint of many. There was much talk of dialogue, particularly with other religions and the world. But no non-Christian spoke, and the only attempt to hear directly from the world was the presentation of a Sartre drama. On the theological side, some Germans criticized the omission of discussion of the theological revolution embodied in Bultmann. Barth’s visit to Strasbourg was a highlight, but Brunner and Tillich were singularly ignored in discussions.
Nor were mission board secretaries invited to the “dialogue.” Sadly enough, it seemed easier to criticize mistakes of others and turn brightly to vague new patterns for the future.
Greater profit would have been gained by following up lines of discussion suggested in some of the pamphlets: that we should not confuse the mission of the Church with a particular missionary program, thus confusing the purpose with a task; but also that we should not stress the general mission of the Church to the exclusion of concern for specific missionary activities. Needless to say, this danger was not always avoided at Strasbourg.
Challenging and moving as the conference was, it failed to recognize that almost everything it proposed as radical and new had already been discussed and in many ways implemented at and since the IMC world conference of 1952. This again marked the absence of real dialogue. Thus the conference fell rather far short of a hope once expressed by Bishop Newbigin: “Above all I have expressed the hope that our coming to terms with these new facts of our situation [so brilliantly analyzed at Strasbourg] may lead not to a dilution of the missionary passion, but on the contrary to a new clarification of the missionary objective, and a new concentration of the resources of the whole Church upon the unfinished task of making Christ known to all nations as the Saviour of the World.”
