Page 752 - 1970S

Basic HTML Version

July 1971
Sorne Against Church Unity
The majority of Christians are for
church union, but let's not overlook the
vociferous minority opposed to it.
One of the major charges against the
World Council of Churches (and the
National Council of Churches of the
United $tates) has been that of Com–
munist sympathies, Communist in–
fluence,
oc
sorne similar charge relating
to Communism. One does not have to
look far to realize why such cbarges are
made. A good example can be found in
the Fourth General Assernbly in Upp·
sala, Sweden, in the summer of
1968.
An observer frorn
Christianity Today
magazine later wrote that a "deep
current of anti-Americanism can be–
neath asscmbly deliberations" (Au–
gust
16, 1968).
Another magazine edi–
tor at the assembly pointed out that the
"real thrust" of deliberations was more
concerned with political and economic
issues than with traditional religion.
There seemed a general preference
for socialistic ideas over those of capi–
talism. Archbishop Nikodim delinitely
implicated the United States when dis–
cussing "victims of aggression" but said
nothing of those Eastem Europeans suf–
fering under Communism.
One well-known columnist and edi–
tor for severa! Southern farm magazines
called the National Council of Churches
the "most
powerfttl
and
diabolirat
political organization in the United
States" (emphasis his). Others have
made stmilar indictments of the NCC
and WCC.
The WCC aod NCC Defend
Themselves
But these charges have not gone
unanswered.
Many feel that disunity among
Christians is itself of great benefit
to the Communist cause. One widely
published Roman Catholic ecumenist
Dr. John A. O'Brieo wrote: "With
Communism striving to complete its
conquest of the world by pulling the
remaining free natioos behind its Iron
Curtain, t11e need for Christians to unite
is imperative. Unable to present a
The
PLAIN TRUTH
united front, we are losing one battle
after another in the underdeveloped
countries."
Sorne feel church unity - a united
crusade of Christians - is the only
hope for world peace. They see the fail–
ure of national governments and feel
only a
religio!IJ
organization - tran–
scendiog national boundaries - can
effect that elusive goal of peace aod
harmony among nations.
There is oo doubt that a union in–
corporatiog the majority of Christians
would bave great potential power. It is
just this possibility of immense política!
power which sorne fear. They can, of
course, point to the actions of the pow–
erful medieval church and its not–
always-beneficent influence over the
Cornpronúse and the
"Superchurch"
21
Dr. Paul A. Crow, general secre–
tary of the Consultation on Church
Union, has pointed out that one of the
major fears about church unioo was that
of the "superchurch." People are afraid
that a church union would force uni–
formity of belief and worship through a
bureaucratic structure. They eovision the
new church as too much of a social
ageot.
Dr. Crow stated that "church union
is either the work of the devil or the
excitement of the century." There are
many who would agree with the first
altcrnative, it seems!
One of the big "bug-bears" is that of
compromiJe.
In order to bring about
Ambossodor
Co/le~
Pholo
MAJOR ECUMENICAL MILESTONE
-
Pope Poul VI speoks at Ecumenical
Centrum, Palois de Notions, Geneva, Switzerlond on June 1969. Eugene
Corson Blake, General Secretory of the World Council of Churches, is
shown seoted.
known civilized world of that time.
So the charges and countercharges go
back and forth. Leaving the questioo of
politics behind, let's consider the more
pertinent question of
religio11,
the big–
gest consideration for many. Must
churcbes be willing to comprornise in
order to get together ? ls church unity
contrary to the Bible?
church union, many feel they will have
to compromise belief and traditional
forms, which they are unwilling to do.
One writer on church uoion disagrees
that compromise is involved. He has
stated flatly: "Those who accuse ecumen–
ical churchmen of compromising the
truth are ignorant of what is taking
place," and argues that dialogue and