Some Evangelical Gains at Saint Andrews

Saint Andrews, Scotland Facing a changing world order which challenges the Church to show the relevance of Christianity to man’s needs and to the tremendous ideological warfare engaging all the nations, the World Council of Churches held one of its most significant meetings last month in Saint Andrews, Scotland.

In the shadow of historic monuments to the faith and courage of the leaders of the Scottish Reformation (this year celebrating its 400th anniversary), WCC leaders saw their best hope and greatest resource in a strengthened Basis of membership which exalts Christ and emphasizes the authority of Holy Scripture and the validity of the Trinitarian faith.

Some 200 ecumenical leaders, representing more than three-fourths of all non-Roman Christendom, had come to Saint Andrews for the last annual meeting of the Central Committee and its multifarious subcommittees before the great Assembly in New Delhi, India, next year. The 90-member Central Committee of the World Council is often said to be the World Council, so great is its constitutional authority and practical importance in the ecumenical structure. What it decided at Saint Andrews is almost certain to be approved at New Delhi.

For evangelicals the Central Committee’s action on the new Basis was more heartening than anything else that transpired August 16–21. Its importance calls for a bit of historical background.

When the Council came into being at Amsterdam in 1948, it adopted a bare formula acceptable to almost any shade of theology:

The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches who accept Jesus Christ as God and Saviour.

Evangelicals contended that there should be a “basis for the Basis.” They held that any form of ecumenicity which bypasses the Holy Scripture as the ground of authority must be futile. While the WCC’s basis was stronger in its evangelical spirit than that adopted by the National Council of Churches in the USA, it still left much to be desired.

In 1954, prior to the WCC Assembly in Evanston, the Church of Norway became the spokesman for a very considerable evangelical element in the Council and proposed an amendment to the Basis which would cause it to read:

The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of Churches who, according to Holy Scriptures, confess Jesus as God and Saviour.

Doughty Bishop Eivind Berggrav, of honored memory, assumed the responsibility of presenting the proposal and came from Norway bravely contending that “What the WCC needs is a flying standard under which we will march. This standard without the Bible is incomplete.” He was greatly shocked when this proposal was sidetracked by a parliamentary and constitutional technicality and did not come before the Assembly for consideration. The complete story of that maneuver would make interesting reading. Competent observers are divided as to its entire justification. Some indication of the fears of those in authority at Evanston is reflected in a statement by Dr. Samuel McCrea Cavert in a press conference in Cann Hall to the effect that if Norway’s proposal Should come to the Assembly for discussion, it would pave the way for proposals to include in the Basis the Trinity, Holy Tradition, and the dogmas of the historic creeds. That, said Dr. Cavert, would wreck the ecumenical movement. Finally the proposal was referred to the Central Committee.

It was with some reluctance that the Central Committee eventually appointed a subcommittee to study the matter and report. Dr. Earnest A. Payne, respected British Baptist leader and a vice-president of the WCC, headed the group. One of its first moves was to poll some 70 theologians for their advice. The almost unanimous response was in favor of retaining the original Basis. For two years the future of revision looked dark.

But Dr. Payne and his colleagues persisted in their assigned task and explored every area of WCC influence. Unexpected reinforcement of the Church of Norway’s inflexible position then came from Eastern Orthodox theologians. They urged even further strengthening by reference to the Trinity and Holy Tradition. The General Council of the Congregational Christian Churches asked a change in wording that would make clear the humanity of Jesus, implicit in the Trinitarian formula. About this time it became evident to Council leaders that theological thought in continental Europe was becoming more favorable to a biblical frame of reference in dealing with all matters ecumenical. Suzanne de Dietrich’s The Biblical Renewal (Le Renouveau Biblique) indicated that there was in progress a world-wide “Back to the Bible” movement not only in Protestantism but in the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. With this encouragement the Central Committee was constrained to consider seriously an entirely new proposal going beyond Norway’s initial suggestion. Subcommittee reports at New Haven in 1957 and at Rhodes in 1959 were well received.

All along the Central Committee maintained that the Basis adopted at Evanston was primarily a formula of agreement which is purely functional and has as its purpose “to say what holds us together in the World Council, what is the starting point of our conversation and the foundation of our collaboration.” The Committee’s reluctance to alter the Basis stemmed from a fear that if it were to be thought of as a creed, or as offering a full statement of the Christian faith, the WCC might be accused of seeking to set up a super-church. In the changed climate of Saint Andrews there was almost unanimous consent that something was needed to guard against misunderstanding.

Four changes from the original Basis were proposed and accepted: (1) the word “confess” was substituted for “accept” as being more decisive; (2) the definite and exclusive article “the” replaced the vague “our” before “Lord Jesus Christ”; (3) the authority of the Bible was recognized as “the basis for the Basis” by the addition of the phrase “according to the Scriptures”; and (4) the Trinitarian character of the Basis was clarified by introduction of the formula “the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

The Central Committee will now submit the following altered form of the Basis for confirmation at New Delhi:

The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of Churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour, according to the Scriptures, and therefore seek to fulfill their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

While confirmed evangelicals rejoiced at this trend toward a more explicit commitment to the cardinal doctrines of the historic Christian faith, and while others breathed a sigh of relief over a succesful ecumenical maneuver which left WCC unity substantially intact, there are fears and unresolved problems in many quarters. Will the proposal open the gate to an overt development in creed-making? Will there be emergence of a super-church with the Basis as statement of faith? Is the proposed revision adequate to exclude Unitarian theists who may hold modal Trinitarian views? Does it completely satisfy those who contend not only for the Scriptures as supplying normative Christian witness but as divinely inspired and authoritative? American liberal theologians particularly see this move as a step backward which may delay ecumenical achievement by 50 years. Swiss liberals (who are greatly influenced by the theological speculations of Rudolph Bultmann) fear the expansion as a stumbling block to wholehearted cooperation in the Council. There is, however, little unanimity among protestors and effective negative action at New Delhi is quite unlikely.

It may be relevant here to view the status of Faith and Order which was under discussion at Saint Andrews. From August 3 to 8 this important Commission met to deal with the theological concerns of the Council. Important papers on the Church, Baptism, Tradition, Institutionalism, Worship, and other themes were presented, and progress was reported in several areas of study and ecumenical action. The biblical frame of reference was frequently evident in the papers and discussions.

In the meetings of the Central Committee much was made of the “growing significance” of theology in ecumenical encounter, and of a more practical role of Faith and Order in every phase of the Council’s program. In the background, however, there seemed to lurk a deep concern for the future of the Commission. The long-time clash between Life and Work on the one hand and Faith and Order on the other is still very real.

Faith and Order traces its beginning beyond the history of the WCC itself. It was originally known as the Conference on Faith and Order and Missionary Cooperation. Its first meting at Edinburgh in 1910 has been considered the birthplace of the ecumenical movement. Liberals became restive under its strong theological emphasis—its belief that effective unity must be grounded in a common Christian faith—and agitated for a conference which would stress the social concerns of Christendom. They held that “doctrine divides, but service unites.” Accordingly the Universal Christian Council of Life and Work held its initial meeting in Stockholm in 1925. When these agencies along with others combined to form the world Council of Churches in 1948, Faith and Order was given preferential status and retained much of its original freedom of action.

Since Amsterdam, Life and Work has steadily moved toward primacy, and Faith and Order is now considered by many objective observers to be a “third-rate” Commission. At Evanston (1954) it was forced to surrender its right to convene inter-church conferences on faith and order, its separate London office was ordered closed, and its functions were integrated with those of the WCC secretariat.

The present Constitution which was adopted at Evanston, states that the Commission is (1) to proclaim the essential oneness of the Church, (2) to study questions of faith, order, and worship with the relevant social, cultural, political, racial, and other factors in their bearing on the unity of the Church, (3) to study the theological implications of the existence of the ecumenical movement, (4) to study matters in church relations which need theological clarification, and (5) to provide information concerning actual steps taken by the churches toward reunion.

Still further integration with “the total work of the WCC” was proposed at Saint Andrews. It is being made clear that the Commission now works under “changed circumstances.” Going beyond Evanston, the Central Committee called for a fuller statement of the Commission’s purpose; a review of memberships, the requirements therefor and methods of appointment; and a re-examination of the means by which Faith and Order should realize its goals. No radical changes are to be made until after New Delhi, but there are fears that the Commission’s new role may destroy its remaining evangelical strength and usefulness.

Integration of the International Missionary Council with the WCC moved a step further toward final realization at New Delhi. Bishop Lesslie Newbigin, IMC general secretary, said, “We have reason to believe that it is virtually certain that the plan will go through.” It was reported that 24 IMC councils had approved the integration proposals, six were considering the matter and five had not responded. Little was said of the withdrawal of the Congo council and the warnings of the Norwegian boards. It would take five negative IMC votes to block confirmation at New Delhi, but even in case of such an unexpected development, the merger is certain to come at some future time. Eighty-three WCC member churches have approved the plan; only five oppose it. Evangelical elements in both the IMC and the WCC are fearful that the proposed new Division of World Mission and Evangelism will cool the ardor of the churches in winning the world to Christ. Already other WCC concerns are pressing in to claim the attention of mission boards—Christian Home and Family Life, Inter-Church Aid, Ecumenical Action and the Division of Studies. But the doubting Thomases put great faith in Newbigin’s oft-repeated plea “that if ecumenicity is not to mean Christianity without its cutting edge, one of our needs is to identify and promote the specific foreign missionary task” within the ecumenical complex. Observers believe the “proof of the pudding will be in the eating.”

Major attention was given to reports and pronouncements of the Council’s Commission of Churches on International Affairs. The secular press gave most of its headlines to this phase of the meetings. Left-wing humanitarian Dr. O. Frederick Nolde, director of the Commission, bulks large over modest moderate Sir Kenneth Grubb, its nominal head. Admittance of Red China to the United Nations was endorsed though in somewhat ambiguous terms. The Council urged its members to help “create the conditions” which would permit the 650,000,000 citizens of “the People’s” China to have a voice in world affairs.

Professor Georges Florevsky of Harvard Divinity School cast the only vote against the proposal. Another member abstained. Nolde said the Commission hoped that “other governments” would establish diplomatic relations with Red China. His panacea for the solution of world problems takes the form of “seven steps”:

—Peaceful competition and larger cooperation with the Reds, avoiding risks involved in the Soviet conception of coexistence and the dangers in the view that coexistence is impossible and morally undesirable.

—Creation of an intergovernmental committee to study the basic differences between East and West with a view to bridging the gap between the Communist and the non-Communist nations.

—Acceptance by all governments of essential rules of behavior in all negotiations.

—Reduction and regulation of armaments under international control.

—Agreement on the cessation of nuclear testing with provisions for international control.

—United Nations aid to keep the great powers from open clashes and from suspension of negotiations for better understanding.

—Promotion of calm consideration of international problems on their merit without “blusterings, threatenings and name callings.”

When asked in a news conference whether there was any theological basis for the Commission’s program, Nolde said “No,” but insisted that its members had tried to look at world issues from “a Christian viewpoint.”

It may be noted here that the WCC is continuing to urge Council membership for the Russian Orthodox Church. The report of the Central Committee indicated progress. His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow sent a message of greeting to Saint Andrews. He was represented by two observers of the proceedings, Professor Protopriest Vitaly Borovoy and Mr. Victor Alexeev. Communist members of the Central Committee Bishop Jan Chabada and Professor J. L. Hromadka of Czechoslovakia and substitutes Bishops Tibor Bartha and Zoltan Kaldy of Hungary actively participated.

One of the finest examples of the values of ecumenical cooperation came in the reports of the special Commission on Christian Witness, Proselytism and Religious Liberty. The Right Reverend Angus Dunn had guided the extensive preliminary studies and negotiations which have done much to create a more cordial ecumenical atmosphere. The report on the nature of religious liberty recognizes the right of the individual to be free from coercion in religious matters and free for the “proclamation of his faith and its implications among his fellowman.” Whenever state or society uses force in the matter of religion it denies its true nature under God. The report strongly asserted that respect of the churches for the convictions of other churches and for the individual’s right to choose or to change his church allegiance are inherent in the Christian way of life. Principles were adopted which should enable the Council to deal effectively with problems of religious liberty.

When Youth spoke up at Saint Andrews there was a considerable stir. The European Youth Assembly at Lausanne had challenged the denominational separateness of the churches and most of its delegates had shattered precedent by holding an unauthorized union Communion service. The ecumenical portent of this revolutionary action warmed the hearts of many, but was frowned upon by ecclesiastical leaders. The Central Committee sternly warned that church tradition should be respected and communion is best received in the churches. It failed to speak any word of caution respecting the shocking leftist social and political views expressed at Lausanne.

“Population explosion” and “family planning” came in for their share of ecumenical discussion. Bishop Stephen L. Bayne, Jr., executive officer of the Anglican Church, startled many by his major address calling for a study of the moral and social aspects of birth control. Professor Egbert de Vries, director of the Institute of Social Studies at the Hague, called attention to the political and economic aspects of the population problem. The WCC now has an important Commission on Christian Home and Family Life (strangely enough now being “tacked on” to the Division of World Mission and Evangelism) which will be giving a great deal of attention to this and other kindred problems.

Many other important issues were considered. But the eventual unity of Christendom was the all-pervading concern of the Saint Andrews meetings.

One of the high points was Faith and Order Commission report which dealt with ecumenical action. Vice Chairman Henri d’Espine presented a statement which broadly defined the theological nature and organizational form of eventual unity. It should be primarily a local unity said the document or “one which brings all in each place who confess Christ as Lord into a fully committed fellowship with one another.” Their union would be based on the same baptism and express itself by the preaching of the same Gospel and by participation in the one Bread. The statement indicated that “there would no longer be in each locality several churches but one church comprising all” Christians. “The local community would be linked to the Christian community at all times and in all places by the fact that its ministry and members would be acknowledged by all.” The very nature of such a unity would be “visible” but it would “not imply a single centralized ecclesiastical institution.…” The plan was admittedly a long-range proposition which would “involve nothing less than death and rebirth for many forms of church life.” It is proposed that the Report be sent to the churches for study and action.

Plans for merger and integration within the Council itself are concentrating greater and greater authority in the Central Committee and the Secretariat. Three groups of Divisions and Commissions may well come to dominate the whole Council. Fearful that these moves might indicate a departure from the Toronto (1950) assurances that WCC would never become a “super-church,” leaders sought to make clear that the Council is only an instrument to encourage organic unity—an achievement which must eventually come by action of the churches themselves. The Church of South India was frequently cited as a pattern for such action. Progress toward unification in Madagascar is following a similar course.

Ecumenists at Saint Andrews even discussed seriously eventual union with Rome. They saw hope in the new secretariat for the unity of Christians set up by Pope John XXIII. It is to perform a double function: (1) to enable non-Catholics to follow the work of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and (2) to help the churches not in communion with Rome to arrive at unity with the Roman Catholic Church. Here appears to be a medium through which effective dialogue may take place and it is quite likely the WCC will move to initiate such conversations at an early date. Two Roman Catholic observers were present at Saint Andrews: the Reverend Bernard Leeming, S.J., of Heythrop College, Oxford, and Dr. J. G. M. Willebrands, secretary of the new Vatican bureau, Warmond, Netherlands. WCC observers will quite likely attend the Second Vatican Council.

Eight new churches were received into WCC membership. Protestant churches: The Evangelical Church of Madagascar, the London Missionary Society Synod in Madagascar, the Evangelical Church of Togo, the Sudanese Christian Church of West Java, the Methodist Church of Ghana (subject to approval of the WCC basis and receiving full autonomy next summer), and the Presbyterian Church in the Republic of Korea (subject to formal confirmation of the basis). Others: the newly autonomous Church of the Province of East Africa (Anglican) and The Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East.

One cannot fail to be impressed, indeed, awed somewhat at the growing evidences of competence and power in this great complex of churches intent on acting together to achieve common ends. By means of constant communication and intercourse, which we can clearly observe, there is evident a very widespread and increasingly uniform development of a new form of Christianity somewhat removed from the pattern of the apostolic church depicted in the New Testament. By virtue of its extraordinary importance, the World Council of Churches demands our serious consideration and should have a large place in our prayers, that “God’s will may be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.