A searchable, downloadable PDF of the original article appears below. Although this open letter does not include everything that might be said by evangelicals about the WCC 6th Assembly – it was authored mid-way through the meetings – the general consensus of those who wrote it was that some positive things should be said even while we held continuing critical apprehensions. Other issues of concern especially raised included a nagging feeling, later confirmed by debate on the Afghanistan question, that human rights issues in the Soviet-bloc countries are not sufficiently addressed by the WCC and an ongoing feeling that the socio-political stance of the WCC is more often than not of a left-leaning line. – J.H.K.
Many evangelicals from all over the world are present at the 6th Assembly of the World Council of Churches as delegates and observers, advisers and visitors, speakers and press representatives. Many are members of churches within the WCC framework. A number gravitated together and frequently shared impressions and matters of common concern during these days. This statement represents our deep desire to bear witness to what we believe God sought to say to us through the Christians we encountered, the words we heard and the official actions taken at Vancouver. We do not claim to speak on behalf of our churches or of all the evangelicals at the Assembly.
The theme of Vancouver is “Jesus Christ – the Life of the World.” We are impressed anew with the rich diversity and complexity of the worldwide Christian movement. We found the exploration of this theme a stimulating experience, especially because the Assembly sought to call Christians everywhere to be more faithful to their threefold task – the pastoral, the prophetic and the apostolic. As a result, its ongoing concern is that the churches be spiritually renewed (the pastoral), that they become socially responsible (the prophetic) and that they display diligence in their holistic witness to the Gospel (the apostolic).
As we pressed deeper into days crowded with presentations, reflection and interaction, it became apparent that Vancouver 1983 marks significant progress over the last two Assemblies (Uppsala 1968 and Nairobi 1975) in its overarching spiritual and biblical orientation. This was apparent in the following ways:
1. The dimension of worship was both central and spiritually refreshing. At plenary sessions and in the daily worship services, we enjoyed warm communal fellowship as we reached out to God in prayer and praise.
2. The wider space given to Bible exposition and the affirmation of basic biblical themes in plenary sessions represented unmistakable loyalty to the historic rootage of our Christian faith.
3. Biblical messages on the nature and mission of the church under such key themes as Jesus Christ, life and the world, prepared the way for earnest efforts to relate these truths to the problems facing Christians today.
4. The Orthodox with their trinitarianism, their spirituality, and their participation in group discussions at all levels reminded us of some of the church’s non-negotiable treasures, while other segments of the worldwide church called us to face the urgencies of today.
5. We entered into deeper anguish over the terrible injustices currently perpetrated against the poor, the powerless and the oppressed throughout the world. We perceived anew that the issues of nuclear disarmament and peace could become a preoccupation and divert attention from the equally urgent issues of deprivation, injustice, human rights and liberation.
6. We found ourselves standing with the many who refused to believe that the powers of oppression, death and destruction will have the last word on human existence.
7. Finally, and most important of all, representatives from all segments of the church called the Assembly to accept the reality that Jesus Christ is indeed the life of the world. Women spoke alongside men. The youth and the disadvantaged were heard. Even the children. And the ordained clergy made no attempt to dominate the ministry of the Word of God.
Ever since the WCC was formed in 1948 in Amsterdam, each successive Assembly has been unique. Vancouver was no exception. In its study papers, group discussions and personal conversations, we could readily discern several concerns:
1. That Christians must rigorously eschew any docetic understanding of the Gospel. The church can only be renewed today if it faces courageously the relation of Jesus Christ to the totality of human need and experience. We see one-sidedness in a preoccupation with “contending for the faith” while ignoring a world going up in flames.
2. That as the church presses deeper into the ’80s, all agreed that Christians shall increasingly be drawn into their biblical reflection and theologizing to focus on the plight of the poor – those whom Christ particularly singled out as the ones to hear the good news of the kingdom (Luke 4:18,19).
3. That increasingly, the church is being reinforced in its perception of the demonic dimensions of structural evil. They are offensive to God and as destructive to people as any personal evil. One WCC official spoke for many when he related the poor to “the church’s most important missiological issue – the centrality of Jesus Christ.” Christ alone is the life of the world and He alone can deal with the problem of evil. But He must be proclaimed to all peoples. And the majority of those who have not heard the Gospel are the poor.
4. That the dominant issue before the church today is the interrelation of its concerns for justice and peace. They cannot be separated. We note that this issue has both vertical and horizontal implications. Moreover, the biblical vision of justice with peace through Jesus Christ, the life of the world, was not posed as one of several options for those who could follow Him, but the only option.
We were moved to join hundreds from the United States and Central America who covenanted together to seek a better understanding of the issues involved in the present conflict in Central America as a positive step toward the achievement of peace with justice throughout the area.
As evangelicals we rejoiced that the Assembly did not simply confine itself to the prophetic task of the church. The nurture of Christians and their witness to the unbelieving world were also included. But we would not be true to our evangelical convictions were we merely to endorse the positive affirmations made at Vancouver. We were trouble by occasional statements which implied that apart from Jesus Christ the world can have life. Not every address reflected high Christological and soteriological perspectives. On occasion we wanted to rise up and call the WCC to be consistent with its own basis: “A fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Savior according to the Scriptures and therefore seek to fulfill together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” We would assert that WCC leadership has the solemn responsibility to uphold this confession in all its public programs.
True, none of us wants to judge the Assembly by the input of some of the speakers. Nevertheless, at the end of the second week of deliberations, we would like to make the following observations:
1. Although the WCC Central Committee had approved (1982) an illuminating and thoroughly evangelical study: Mission and Evangelism – an Ecumenical Affirmation, we were disappointed that it wasn’t referred to in any plenary address. We were gratified that the Affirmation received strong support in the Programme Guidelines Committee Report, in other reports and in the Assembly’s Message to the Churches. No ecumenical document has been so welcomed by evangelicals. Actually, evangelical counsel was widely sought in its preparation. Furthermore, the Assembly did not give central place to the shameful fact that at this late hour in the history of the church, more than three billion have yet to hear the Gospel of Christ – despite Christ’s mandate that it be proclaimed to all peoples. We did not feel that the Assembly adequately treated either Gospel proclamation or the invitational dimensions of evangelism.
2. On occasion terminology became fuzzy and theology worse. For example, while, the Assembly frequently heard that sin brings social alienation, little was said about spiritual alienation – from God Himself. As a result, the redemptive dimension of Christ’s sufferings on the Cross was not particularly stressed. Moreover, while larger issues of social ethics were frequently treated, more personal ethical concerns rarely surfaced. In sum, there were times when we wished that evangelical voices in the churches were given the prominence accorded some theological mavericks. Fortunately, in the issue and discussion groups, we heard evangelical men and women participate whose evident concern was to remind fellow delegates of the biblical authority and witness to the issues under review. Evangelicals are convinced that if Jesus Christ is the life of the world, His claim that His words are spirit and life (John 6:63) should not be downplayed.
All of which brings us to raise the crucial question: What should be the evangelical response to the many signs of growth and renewal we discerned in the Assembly? Should evangelicals seek more direct involvement in the ecumenical process?
At Vancouver, some evangelicals were adamant in their stand against any participation in the WCC. We were saddened to come upon a few zealous Christians distributing scurrilous anti-WCC literature. We deplored their tactics and hung our heads in shame over their sweeping denunciations. Their actions, in our judgment, constituted false witness against their neighbours.
At the same time, should evangelicals see significance in the growing effectiveness of the Orthodox contribution to the WCC alongside the growing WCC challenge to the Orthodox to extend their mission into the world? Is there not the possibility that evangelicals have not only much to contribute but something to receive through ecumenical involvement?
Do evangelicals not also have the obligation along with other Christians to seek to overcome the scandal of the disunity and disobedience of the churches that the world might believe (John 17:21)? Should evangelicals not seek to receive all who confess Jesus Christ as Lord, even though they may seriously disagree on theological issues apart from the core of the Gospel? There is no biblical mandate to withdraw from those who have not withdrawn from Christ. Should not Christians gladly receive all those whom God has manifestly received? Are not the alternatives – rejection or indifference – totally incompatible with the Apostle Paul’s affirmation that Christ is not divided (1 Cor. 1:13)?
Our experience at Vancouver challenged stereotypes some of us have had of the WCC. And our involvement in WCC processes and programs made us realize anew the distortions in the popular evangelical understanding of them. Hence, we feel pressed to declare publicly our determination to be more actively involved in all efforts seeking the unity and renewal of the church. Because we have seen evidence of God at work here, we cannot but share our growing conviction that evangelicals should question biblically the easy acceptance of withdrawal, fragmentation and parochial isolation that tends to characterize many of us. Should we not be more trustful of those who profess Christ’s lordship? Should we not be more concerned with the peace, purity and unity of the people of God in our day? And if God thereby grants the church renewal for which many pray, shall this not forever demolish that all too popular evangelical heresy – that the way to renew the body of Christ is to separate from it and relentlessly criticize it?