The World Council of Churches—Can It Unite the World?
ALMOST a thousand delegates descended upon the campus of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, in July of 1983. They came from the far corners of the earth, representing some 300 Protestant, Orthodox and Coptic denominations, which, in turn, embrace an awesome 400 million people. Also present, although not members of the WCC, were representatives of Roman Catholicism, Islam, Judaism and North American Indians.
For 18 days the colorfully clad delegates met together, debating everything from nuclear disarmament to baby formulas, drafting and revising policy statements, delivering and listening to talks, and, in between, watching dramas, dances and musical performances. Supposedly tying these diverse events together was the convention’s lofty theme: “Jesus Christ—The Life of the World.”
Expectations ran high for this meeting. An editorial in the Vancouver Sun described the assembly as being held “at a crucial period in religious history.” It explained: “Never before has the capability existed to such degree for the total destruction of humanity, and never before have so many members of the human race been so afraid that that is likely to happen.” Clearly, it was felt that the churches might help avert such a catastrophe. In fact, a WCC spokesman had earlier told reporters that “discussion of nuclear disarmament and church strategy for bringing about worldwide peace” would be “major topics of the convention.”—Italics ours.
Agreements and Disagreements
The WCC’s impotence as a peace promoter soon became painfully apparent, however. Delegates quarreled over what the focus of the convention should be. The theme “Jesus Christ—The Life of the World” vanished in the heat of bitter political debates. Representatives of so-called Third World countries felt that the attention of the convention should be devoted, not to nuclear disarmament, but to human-rights issues. The drafters of the assembly’s final resolution thus had the tricky task of acknowledging both positions as equally important.
Further causing division was what The Globe and Mail called the WCC’s “penchant for condemning actions by Western nations . . . while barely reprimanding Eastern-block countries.” U.S. involvement in Latin America drew from the WCC what some felt were scathing condemnations. On the other hand, some claimed the WCC was curiously “soft” on the Soviet Union’s involvement in Afghanistan. WCC general secretary Philip Potter, however, claims that anti-Soviet talk could endanger the WCC’s relationship with the Soviet Union, which up till now has allowed the Russian Orthodox Church to have WCC membership. An editorial in the Vancouver Province called this policy a “divided morality.”
“Serious Obstacle”
More than politics divided the delegates. ‘Women won’t wait another hundred years for justice,’ warned Jean Skuse, a vice-moderator of the Central Committee of the Council. She referred to the red-hot issue of the ordination of women, asserting that women will quit the churches in droves if not recognized soon. But what makes this such a sticky problem for the WCC is the fact that Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, along with some evangelical groups, are definitely—if not unalterably—opposed to the idea of ordaining women. This issue, according to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, is a “serious obstacle to church unity.”
On the other hand, some fear that the push for “unity” will lead to a compromise of doctrine. Noting a trend toward “universalism” in some of the discussions, some delegates openly expressed concern that Jesus Christ not be ruled out as “the only Savior.” In fact, one journalist asked “how the panelists reconcile interfaith dialogue with Jesus’ statement that he is the way, the truth, the life.”
Churches Against War?
The delegates did, nevertheless, manage to agree on advocating a mutual and verifiable nuclear freeze. The Council even encouraged “member churches to support those who take a conscientious stand against participating in war or in preparation for war and to ‘explore possible non-violent ways of protest action’ including ‘civil disobedience.’” This would seem a startling reversal of positions, since the churches themselves, in the words of WCC official Dirk Mulder, have “a history of war and genocide.” Indeed, he added that “religion is still oil on the fire of all conflicts of the world.” One therefore wonders to what extent the churches will abide by the declaration of the WCC, especially in wartime.
Interestingly, this altered position on war may actually work against the WCC by endangering the comfortable relationship religion has traditionally enjoyed with secular governments. An editorial in the Vancouver Sun said: “The new church activism is causing a confrontation that modern societies have tried hard to avoid: [a confrontation] between church and state.”
United Religiously?
It is therefore obvious that political and secular issues dominate and divide the WCC. But what about the Lima accord that led to that ecumenical Communion mentioned at the outset? One Catholic historian, according to the Canadian Press, reportedly called this accord “of ‘prime significance’ in progress toward Christian reunion.” Archbishop of Canterbury Runcie, who presided over the interfaith Communion, likewise said that it pointed “toward full Christian unity.”
But did it really? True, the Lima liturgy was developed by Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican and Roman Catholic theologians alike. Yet, when the new liturgy was for the first time used in Vancouver, Roman Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox delegates had to decline participation. Why? Because their church doctrine prohibits their receiving Communion from anyone other than one of their own priests. The Lima accord also falls miles short of solving other issues dividing the churches, such as belief in apostolic succession and papal infallibility.
So while the spectacle of delegates praying and singing together may have briefly stirred some emotions, in reality the chasm that has divided Christendom since the Reformation looms up as large as ever. And as one columnist observed: “If they can find cause to fight so much among themselves, can the churches be trusted to explain or even find the true relationship between men and God?”
The Vancouver Assembly can thus be added to the list of human failures. By attempting to work through political systems, the churches find themselves tainted by the same corruption and divisiveness that has brought the world to the brink of annihilation. The Bible indicates that, in time, governments will tire of religion’s interference and take dramatic steps to curb her influence permanently.—Revelation 17.
The ineffectiveness of the churches to attain unity is also reflected in their efforts to accelerate the spread of evangelism around the world. The following article reports on this.
[Blurb on page 6]
“If they can find cause to fight so much among themselves, can the churches be trusted to explain or even find the true relationship between men and God?”—The Province, Vancouver, B.C., July 28, 1983
[Picture on page 5]
Ordination of women—a divisive issue