| Highlights of Dawn | November 1954 |
Confusion at Evanston
THE second general conference of the World Council of Churches (Evanston, Illinois, August 15-29) was undoubtedly one of the most imposing religious events of all time. One hundred and sixty-three denominations were represented, delegates coming from nearly all parts of the world, some even from countries behind the Iron Curtain, although there were none from China. To the consternation of a large segment of the delegates, especially those of the United States, the committee on agenda succeeded in having the main theme for discussion a biblical one—“Christ, the Hope of the World.” It was this theme that revealed the extent of Protestant disunity, and caused the conference to end in confusion insofar as the meaning of the theme was concerned.
These general conferences of the World Council of Churches are scheduled six years apart. Commenting on the complete failure of this one to agree on its biblical—or, as most of the delegates referred to it, “theological”—theme, The Christian Century, independent mouthpiece of liberal Protestantism, said:
“If four assemblies handle theological or dogmatic themes as badly as this one did, the outlook is not encouraging. Give the World Council about four more such theological or dogmatic main themes—say, the nature of biblical authority in 1960, the nature of the church in 1966, the nature of salvation in 1972, and the creedal basis of the council’s own being in 1978—and if the world itself hasn’t blown up by that time the Council almost certainly will.”
What a frank confession of confusion and unbelief! In the Council, nearly all the Protestant churches of the world are represented, yet as The Christian Century indicates, the delegates would be unable to agree as to how authoritative the Bible really is in Christian life and doctrine; in what constitutes the church of Christ; in its teaching of salvation; and why, from the standpoint of theology, the Council should exist at all. This seems to be a fair appraisal of the Council’s inability to agree on the teachings of the Bible, the textbook of Christianity. Certainly the Bible does teach that Christ is the only hope of the world, yet the church delegates at Evanston reached no agreement at all as to whether or not this was really true, and if so, how.
Most of the European delegates insisted that Christ is the hope of the world because he will return to establish his kingdom, but they gave no clear indication of just what they meant by this. Most of the American delegates preached the “social action” gospel, which, in general, is the modern version of what formerly was referred to as the “post millennial” viewpoint—meaning that the church will convert the world and establish Christ’s kingdom and have it ready for him to take over when he comes. The “social action” gospel, however, differs from the original post millennial doctrine in that it bypasses essentially all theology and is concerned mostly with moral reform, social justice, economic security for all, equal rights for all races, and the like.
Some European delegates went along with this viewpoint. Bishop Emil Strum, of Austria, said, “We need not think of Christ coming down in an airplane. … Something of the kingdom is already here.” An American delegate, Dr. James E. Wagner of the Evangelical Reformed Church, drafted a statement which a majority of the delegates approved. It was this:
“Let there be a word for the people where they are living right now. A society which seeks to recognize human dignity, where there is an attempt to distribute justly the burden and benefit of labor, where there is effort to banish hunger, war, and despair, is a token of hope.”
As the conference progressed there was a tendency to speak of the delegates who endeavored to set forth their understanding of the Bible with respect to the theme, “Christ, the Hope of the World,” as “theologians,” and seemingly with a slight tinge of derision. Geoffrey Francis Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, said, “It’s a conflict between theologians and not between the rest of us.” Thus he dodged the issue by placing himself with the non-theologians who, as he saw it, were not supposed to know anything about Christ being the hope of the world.
Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, of the Methodist Church, said, “‘He’s here’ and ‘He is to come’ is a contradiction in terms. I believe he is here in all his power now. It’s a terrible thing to admit, but I don’t understand what they’re arguing about.” Here then, are two of the world’s outstanding leaders of churchianity admitting that they know so little about the teachings of the Bible with respect to the second coming of Christ and the establishment of his kingdom that they do not feel qualified to discuss the subject. Nor did they indicate that they had any desire to learn more.
Unity Remote
The World Council of Churches disclaims any ambition to become a united and super-church, although it is hoped that through the years a great degree of understanding and unity will be attained among the many churches represented. At the first general conference of the delegates, held in Amsterdam, Holland, in 1948, the delegates seemed pleased over their resolve to “stay together.” At the Evanston conference six years later, a tentative resolve was drafted which read, “We enter now upon a second stage. To stay together is not enough. We must grow together.” However, this was not acceptable to a majority of the delegates, so it was amended to read, “We must go forward.” Commenting on the disunity of the delegates, The Christian Century says:
“Always at Evanston, and not far below the surface, there were grim disunities which the World Council may at limited times and to limited degrees transcend, but which it has hardly begun to dissolve. The personal fellowship at Evanston, such as it was and as grateful as the participants were and will continue to be for it, was not the kind of fellowship that can reach out beyond a meeting to bring divided congregations and denominations together. It will not have much if any effect on the scandal of denominational competition in our American towns. It will leave the Greek Evangelicals as insecure as ever. It will do little to end the bewilderment of African natives over the conflicting claims of various church ordinances. Evanston will not be remembered for having carried forward the cause of Christian unity. It might possibly (although we hope not) be remembered for having shown how far-off and how blocked-off the goal of unity is.”
The committee on agenda which, after much deliberation, chose the main theme of the convention, was confident that this and no other theme could be the proper one, that the Holy Spirit had led them to adopt it. But now the general impression of many of the delegates seems to be that the choice of the theme, “Christ, the Hope of the World,” was a great mistake. Certainly it did lead to confusion, and exposed Protestantism to the world as being tragically divided. Commenting on this alleged mistake in choosing a theme, The Christian Century says:
“The choice of the main theme itself is now seen to have been as unhappy as earlier criticism suggested. The sequel puts a serious question to all that headquarters enthusiasm about the theme which ‘was not selected, but selected itself.’ Rumor has it that the study department will turn shortly to a long investigation of the Holy Spirit. Somewhere along the way its members may discover how and why the Spirit’s pre-Evanston promptings were misinterpreted as a command to consider The Hope.”
The world has become accustomed to “investigations” of one sort or another, but the “rumor” that now the Holy Spirit is to be investigated for prompting a wrong theme for the World Council Conference is, to say the least, extraordinary. But perhaps this is no more out of line with the principles of true Christianity, and with the certainty of every feature of God’s great plan of salvation than some of the things which occurred at Evanston. As one observer put it, “Something is wrong when the second coming of Christ is put to a vote.”
Sectarianism Promoted
One of the aims of the World Council is, of course, to break down the spirit of sectarianism among its member denominations. But now it seems that to some extent it is helping to foster the very evil which it was designed to cure. The report is, for example, that prior to the Evanston Conference, the Presbyterians, Anglicans, Disciples, Lutherans, and Methodists held separate meetings at which they decided upon the stand they would take at the conference. The report is that the Lutherans came very close to laying down a strict “party line” from which they would not deviate. Observers say that the growth of the ecumenical movement is being counter-balanced by a general increase in confessionalism and even in sectarianism, at least in some quarters.
The Greek Orthodox Church let it be known at the conference that it would not participate in any effort whatever to unite the Protestant world. In a prepared statement its delegates said:
“The whole approach to the problem of reunion is entirely unacceptable from the standpoint of the Orthodox Church. From the Orthodox viewpoint reunion of Christendom, with which the World Council of Churches is concerned, can be achieved solely on the basis of the total, dogmatic faith of the early undivided church, without either subtraction or alteration. The episcopal succession from the apostles constitutes a historical reality in the life and structure of the church and one of the presuppositions of her unity. The unity of the church is preserved through the unity of the episcopate. In conclusion we are bound to declare our profound conviction that the Holy Orthodox Church alone has preserved in full and intact ‘the faith once delivered unto the saints!”
This did not come as a surprise to the conference, but by the use of the Evanston Conference as a sounding board from which to reaffirm its claim of apostolic succession, the Greek Orthodox Church has succeeded in getting its claims over to Protestantism in general, and in letting it be known that the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England have a rival claimant to apostolic succession. Indeed, it is of more than passing interest to realize that this claim by the Greek Orthodox Church should be proclaimed so widely and so boldly at a time when the Church of England seems willing to consider this viewpoint of its own authority among the churches a little less important than formerly.
A Consummation Promised
While there was little or no agreement at Evanston as to the manner in which Christ is the hope of the world, in the adopted report on “The Evangelizing Church” there are two paragraphs which indicate at least a vague hope that some day the Lord might intervene in world affairs to make an end of human suffering. We quote:
“The tragedy of the world is that it knows no judge, no lord of history. To the church it is given to know that man is not condemned to an endless succession of meaningless nights and days, to never completed toil, to uncomforted mourning or ever disillusioned hoping. It possesses, or rather is possessed by, the hope of a glorious fulfillment.
“In this hope we are saved and by it we live, considering the ‘sufferings of this present time not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.’ The time of evangelism will not last forever; it will be succeeded by the kingdom fulfilled. The good news will not remain forever a promise made: it will become a promise kept. The Gospel will not be the knowledge of the privileged few: it will be revealed to all. Seeing in a glass darkly will not be our ultimate vision of God: we will know even as we are known until we say, ‘We are complete in him.’”
Some of these sentences come close to expressing the glorious hope for the world which the Scriptures so clearly set forth. However, analysis reveals that the writers did not really understand the plan of God. Take, for example, the statement, “The time of evangelism will not last forever; it will be succeeded by the kingdom fulfilled.” This is true, but what is meant by the expression “kingdom fulfilled”? This, we think, reflects the conflict of opinion held at the conference, and is an attempt to satisfy all factions.
The vast majority of the delegates believed that through evangelism, particularly along the lines of “social action,” the kingdom of Christ would eventually be established, and then, perhaps, the King would come. For the benefit of these the word “fulfilled” was added, meaning that kingdom hopes would be fulfilled by human efforts. Others believed that Christ would return and establish the kingdom, and thus would the work of evangelism be brought to an end.
It is true, gloriously true, that man “is not condemned to an endless succession of meaningless nights and days, to never completed toil, to uncomforted mourning or ever disillusioned hoping.” But there is nothing said as to how this expected change in human experience will be brought about. This statement could have been clarified and made intelligible simply by the use of a few of the Bible’s kingdom promises—“Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning”; “He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces”; “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”—Ps. 30:5; Isa. 25:8; Rev. 21:4
The difficulty was that the delegates at the conference seemed unable to distinguish between the hope of the church and the hope of the world, as taught in the Bible. They quoted Paul’s words to the church, “The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us,” as though the apostle was speaking of human suffering in general, and as though the consummation of God’s plan will mean that the whole converted world of mankind will share this promised glory.
It is true that the age of evangelism—the Gospel age—will end. It is true that it will be succeeded by the kingdom age. But what they did not report at Evanston was that the purpose of the age of evangelism is simply to take out from the world a “people for His name,” and that with this task completed, these called-out ones are exalted in the “first resurrection” to “live and reign with Christ a thousand years,” that thousand years of the kingdom which will end all human suffering, and when the knowledge of God’s glory will be caused to fill the earth as the waters cover the sea.
Nor was there the slightest hint at Evanston that when the kingdom is fully established by divine power its blessings will be so all-inclusive that even the dead will be reached and restored to life. Thus will it be demonstrated that throughout the ages God has not been indifferent to human suffering, but has been working out his plan for the ultimate blessing of “all families of the earth,” even as he promised so long ago.—Gen. 12:3
Human Need Recognized
The delegates at Evanston were keenly aware of the distressing conditions which prevail throughout so much of the fear-filled world of today. They were particularly concerned over the threatened use of atom and hydrogen bombs, and urged the churches to do all they can to influence government against such use. In the adopted report on International Affairs, they said:
“The development of nuclear weapons makes this an age of fear. It is vain to think that the hydrogen bomb or its development has guaranteed peace because men will be afraid to go to war, nor can fear provide an effective restraint against the temptations to use such decisive weapon either in hope of total victory or in the desperation of total defeat.
“The thought of all-out nuclear warfare is indeed horrifying. Such warfare introduces a new moral challenge. It has served to quicken public concern, and has intensified awareness of the urgency of finding means of prevention. War’s consequences can no longer seem remote to any individual; all mankind is vulnerable to a disaster from which there may be no escape.
“The foremost responsibility of the Christian church in this situation is undoubtedly to bring the transforming power of Jesus Christ to bear upon the hearts of men. Christians must pray more fervently for peace, repent more earnestly for their individual and collective failures to further world order, and strive more urgently to establish world contacts for reconciliation, fellowship, and love.”
From the standpoint of humanitarian desires, this is a noble statement, but it reveals a gross misunderstanding of the plan of God for world peace. It is simply a rephrasing of the centuries-old error that the work of the church in this age is to convert the world and establish Christ’s kingdom through human efforts. Indeed, in its report the conference said that one purpose of evangelism
“… is surely so to proclaim the gospel that it will transform the groupings and patterns of society in which men and women are involved, to the end that human institutions and structures may more nearly conform to the divine intention, and respect the limiting prerogatives of God.”
In its report on “The Responsible Society in a World Perspective,” the conference said:
Christians should work for the embodiment of the responsible society in political institutions by emphasizing the following: (1) Every person should be protected against arbitrary arrest or other interference with elementary human rights. (2) Every person should have the right to express his religious, moral and political convictions. This is especially important for those who belong to minorities.”
Resolutions
The resolutions passed at Evanston were expressive of the same general ideas enlarged upon in the adopted reports. On international affairs a resolution said, “The World Council of Churches bears witness to Christ as the Hope of the World,” and then proceeded in the resolution to appeal to the governments of earth to take all necessary measures to prevent the outbreak of war, and to establish justice and equality for all. These delegates represented professed Christian churches, and could not consistently avoid an expression of belief that Christ is the hope of the world. But having said this, their entire appeal veered away from God’s kingdom plan for establishing peace and providing the world with health, happiness, and life.
Because of this the Evanston Conference sounded no new hope for the world so far as a message from Protestantism is concerned. The “social action” gospel which the modern church has substituted for the Gospel of the kingdom was given a further impetus. To the extent that the world listened to the Evanston Conference, they were left with no more assurance than the hope that man himself may yet stumble upon a way out of the present chaos and distress of nations before it is too late.
The delegates urged that all pray for peace, but did not suggest that the prayer be the one which Jesus gave the church, that prayer for the Lord’s kingdom to come, and for God’s will to be done in earth as it is in heaven. But we can thank God that even if all Protestantism overlooks this one and only effective way to pray for peace, that kingdom will soon become dominant in the affairs of men, that “out of Zion shall go forth the law and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” Yes, we can rejoice that in this “mountain” kingdom of the Lord, he will make unto all people a “feast of fat things,” that he will turn to the people a “pure language,” and that they will then all “call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.”—Micah 4:1-4; Isa. 25:6-8; Zeph. 3:8,9