Can the Churches Unite the World?

“OUR Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name,” chanted the crowd. They were words any schoolboy could recite; words so often repeated, recited and sung that they have been inerasably etched in the minds of millions. Yet on this occasion these words seemed particularly moving.

For one thing, the 3,500 worshipers under the brightly colored circus tent were a sampling of many races and nationalities. Each recited in his own native language, creating a babel that stirred one worshiper to whisper, “We’re speaking in tongues.” But perhaps even more remarkable was the fact that these worshipers did not share the same religion. Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and even Catholics prayed side by side.

The “Lima Liturgy,” a theological compromise reached just months earlier, laid the groundwork for this unprecedented tent service.a Nominal Christians of various sects could now lay aside centuries-old differences and share ‘Holy Communion’ together. And though Roman Catholics and members of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches declined participation in the Communion service itself, representatives were there to join in the singing and prayers. The multilingual recitation of the Lord’s Prayer was thus a moving event for many. Worshipers wept, embraced and kissed one another. For a brief moment, barriers of race, color, religion and politics were dissolved.

Many feel that this religious service was the high point of the 18-day general assembly of the WCC (World Council of Churches) held from July 24 to August 10, 1983, in Vancouver, Canada. Some see it as a beacon of hope, a harbinger of the eventual triumph of ecumenism, the movement for Christian unity. Some even hailed this religious service as “a new Pentecost.” ‘But might it have even broader implications?’ wonder some. After all, religion has for centuries been a potent divisive influence. Now if the churches were somehow able to heal the wounds that have divided them for centuries, could not the nations do likewise?

Few thinking persons would deny the desirability of a harmonious human family. It is just that the possibility of ever achieving that oneness seems so remote. For lurking in the background of all human efforts at unity are the age-old hatreds, suspicions and doubts. Could it be, however, that the churches are now leading the way toward global cooperation? And under the powerful influence of a united church, might not political rulers be moved to stop their suicidal accumulating of nuclear weapons?

Really, though, how near are the churches to reaching an accord? Let us take a closer look at the recent assembly of the WCC.

[Footnotes]

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.

It was this concern that we are living “in very perilous times” that moved Mr. Graham to spearhead a recent meeting of nearly 4,000 evangelists in Amsterdam, Netherlands, from July 12 to 21, 1983. This International Conference for Itinerant Evangelists had representatives from 133 countries and 30 religious denominations. Its purpose was to accelerate the forward movement of evangelism throughout the world by giving further training to the evangelists. But what kind of “training” did they receive? Has the conference served to promote Christian unity? What message did they have?

Some 107 workshops dealing with subjects as diverse as public speaking, language and geography were held. Much stress was laid on improving methods of reaching people. True, addressing large “revival” crowds continues to be the evangelists’ most potent tool. However, workshops on the use of TV, radio and films were also held. But since about 70 percent of the evangelists were from so-called Third World countries, “hi-tech” ministries are out of the question for many. One preacher from Zaire explained that he has to walk from village to village and from house to house to gather a crowd.

Alternate Preaching Methods

Evangelists, though, learned that there are pleasant alternatives to door-to-door canvassing. ‘Go to dinner with business executives and political leaders,’ they were told. The idea is to get these prominent personalities to ‘accept Christ’ and through them attempt to reach the masses more effectively.

Sports evangelist Eddie Waxer, for example, told a workshop audience that if top men and women athletes can be reached, they will have limitless potential to glorify God before television audiences of millions​—even billions! He then told how Nigerian athlete Naduka Odizor made it to the quarter finals of the 1983 Wimbledon tennis championships. Says Waxer: “He then became one of the great witnesses to that nation which is cold to the Gospel. In all the papers, on television and radio stations you had Odizor being interviewed and telling that country​—and much of the world—​that he owed his tennis success to God and Jesus Christ.”

Fund Raising

Not surprisingly, how to raise money was another prominent subject for discussion. Fund-raising experts gave numerous suggestions along these lines. So great an issue has money become that Argentine evangelist Luis Palau was moved to say: “Evangelists tend to covet money for personal pleasure.” He added, “We love a good life. There’s nothing wrong with that . . . but temptation regarding money has destroyed a lot of preachers.”

Where to Direct Converts

But probably one of the stickiest issues the convention had to deal with was, After the evangelist has made a convert, what next? Everything that will be said in a sermon should point forward to the call for the decision to accept Christ in their heart, said Graham. But just what does ‘accepting Christ in one’s heart’ entail? The Bible speaks of “the congregation of the living God, a pillar and support of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15) But where is it? The conference merely echoed the lame suggestion that after conversion, people should be led to the local church of their choice. Yet these are the very same churches Graham earlier chided as ‘floundering in confusion, especially concerning evangelism, its message, its methods and its results.’

An Indistinct Call

The Amsterdam conference is thus merely another woefully inadequate attempt at uniting the world. Instead of learning how to ‘handle the word of truth aright,’ evangelists prefer to hear about fund raising and filmmaking. (2 Timothy 2:15) No wonder, then, that Christendom’s evangelists have failed to offer a uniting message for mankind! At best their efforts do little more than offer a temporary emotional lift. While condemning the churches for ‘floundering in confusion,’ Billy Graham and company themselves have little to offer but vagueness, confusion. And as the apostle Paul once said, “If the trumpet sounds an indistinct call, who will get ready for battle?”​—1 Corinthians 14:8.