World Council of Churches—A House Divided
FOR centuries the religions of Christendom have been divided. That is nothing new. But today Christendom’s fragmentation is at its peak. More religions claim to be Christian.
However, although they all claim to be Christian and to worship the same God, they have different doctrines, practices and political beliefs. Even within the same church there are often profound divisions, such as along lines of race and nationality, as well as those stemming from financial and social barriers.
These divisions have resulted in the greatest contradiction in wartime: members of the same religion, and others too, all claiming to follow the “Prince of Peace,” slaughter one another.
Attempts to Unite
Such obvious contradictions have turned many people away from the churches—and from God. So various attempts to heal the divisions have been made. One of these attempts at unification has been the formation of the World Council of Churches.
The Council was founded in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in 1948, with its headquarters located in Geneva, Switzerland. It is presently made up of 286 of the larger church organizations, including Protestant, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholic. These represent an estimated 400 to 500 million persons.
At the end of 1975 the Council held its fifth general assembly. The location, for the first time, was Africa—Nairobi, Kenya. Member churches were represented by 747 voting delegates. Other religions, including the Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Moslem and Roman Catholic, sent observers. Pope Paul VI sent a message of greeting.
The theme of the assembly was “Jesus Christ Frees and Unites.” Dr. Philip Potter, the Council’s general secretary, spoke of the “search for the unity of the church.”
Deep Divisions
At the very outset, it became evident that there were deep divisions that it would be impossible to repair. One of these had to do with the changed makeup of the assembly.
In previous assemblies delegates from West European and North American churches had dominated the proceedings. But in Nairobi the churches representing Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Pacific Islands and Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe had the greater voting strength.
Of the 747 delegates attending this religious conference, 439 were from “Third World” (developing) nations and Communist lands. Together, these constituted nearly 60 percent of the total delegates.
This changed makeup was apparent in many issues dividing the Council. Usually, the West European and North American churches supported Western political, social and economic policies. Churches from the Third World and Communist lands had opposing views.
An indication of the difference came when an African delegate hurled this charge at the Council: “I believe there is a conspiracy to tone down this whole assembly to please the North Americans and Europeans because that’s where the money is.” However, in view of the new majority, that did not happen.
Another example of East-West tension was observed by Newsweek. It noted that a Liberian churchman “proposed the most controversial demand of all—a five-year moratorium on sending white missionaries to Africa.” The hostility of some African churchmen toward their European and American counterparts was apparent.
Divided on ‘Liberation Struggle’
A bitterly divisive issue had to do with ‘liberation movements.’ The tone in this matter was established at the beginning of the assembly in the keynote address. This was delivered by Dr. Robert Brown, a professor of theology at the University of California.
Although he was from a Western nation, Brown pointed out that “the idea of Jesus Christ as a liberator of mankind offered little comfort to those whom history has seen as oppressors, such as the ‘Whites’ who as a race conquered, oppressed and exploited so many of the coloured races of the world.”
His comments angered Western churchmen. But as other speakers presented their views, it was obvious that the majority of the Council favored a continuation of ‘liberation from Western imperialism.’ That theme had been adopted at the Council’s last assembly at Uppsala, Sweden, in 1968.
Regarding this issue, an editorial in the Seattle Times stated: “In such a changing situation, the people from the undeveloped nations could be heard. They spoke bluntly to delegates from the developed nations. What they had to say may contain the seeds of new debate, confrontation and controversy.” The editorial noted “the deep feeling of the nondeveloped world about the fact that the developed world, the United States and others, raped them of their natural resources.”
So it came as no surprise when a special committee recommended that the Council should “step up aid to guerrilla groups around the world, and especially in southern Africa.” Such support already had been approved at Uppsala when the Council established the “Program to Combat Racism.” Under this program funds have been funneled to various guerrilla movements.
The magazine Christianity Today, in its January 2, 1976, issue, acknowledged that such funds had been appropriated. And it also reported that the assembly defeated “a motion to restrict grants from the Program to Combat Racism to non-violent groups.”
However, the same publication observed that “the Marxist government” in Mozambique was one “which the council helped bring to power.” Yet that new government, it said, “has taken a hard line toward the churches and especially toward foreign missionaries.” Because of this, some Western delegates saw the support of liberation movements as counterproductive.
The tragic results of divisiveness among the churches was brought to the attention of the Council by Presbyterian clergyman Gordon Gray from Ireland. He declared: “From Ireland we have proclaimed to the world a Jesus Christ who enslaves and divides. Both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches have found themselves captives of political and social, cultural and religious divisions which we have helped to create and preserve. When the breakdown of our society called urgently for a prophetic word from the Lord we discovered we could not agree on what that word should be.”
More Division
Another area that exposed how badly the Council was divided had to do with religious freedom. Attempts were made by some Western delegates to pass a resolution condemning countries where religious freedom is denied.
However, the direction of this condemnation was more clearly seen when an Orthodox priest said: “People are being killed and murdered in so-called socialist countries.” It was evident that the main thrust of these attempts was aimed at the Soviet Union.
This attempted condemnation was bitterly opposed. The National Catholic Reporter spoke of “the agonizing between East and West when West wanted to specify violations of religious liberty in the Soviet Union.” Eventually, only a ‘watered-down’ version of the proposal was adopted.
But was the Council really interested in religious freedom? No, because it ignored one of the most flagrant and widely known examples of religious oppression in modern times. This is the mass torture, murder, rape and banishment of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Malawi.
The German newspaper Bild said: “This would be a good opportunity to protest against persecution of Christians in some black African countries. For example . . . in Malawi where Jehovah’s Witnesses have been beaten and their wives raped. What did the World Council of Churches do? It decided to boycott seven banks (among them was the Deutsche Bank), because they did business with South Africa. Politics with banknotes instead of help for brothers in distress—that too is a creed, but a bad one.”
In the Washington, D.C., Star, staff writer W. F. Willoughby asked regarding the persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses: “Will the WCC rise to this poignant but opportune occasion? If not, any other pronouncement it makes against oppression—religious, racial or otherwise—will sound less than convincing.”
The Council did not ‘rise to the opportunity.’ It did nothing, showing that it was more interested in political matters than in religious freedom. Columnist Jeffrey Hart called this failure to condemn religious persecution a “shocking piece of hypocrisy.’’
No Unity
The fifth assembly of the World Council of Churches did prove something. It proved that Christendom’s house is more badly divided than ever.
The Council’s general secretary, Mr. Potter, said that “no striking new ideas or phrases emerged,” and that attempts at unity were still “in the wilderness.” Christianity Today added: “That assessment of the World Council of Churches’ position, given by its own general secretary, summed up the feeling of many delegates on the last day of the council’s Fifth Assembly.’’
So futile were attempts at unification that, as the assembly ended, one high-ranking Australian delegate said: “You could say it was over before it began.” And the Toronto Star commented: “Nairobi raised more questions by far than it answered.”
Newsweek observed: “It was clear that their internal disputes had weakened the Council’s image in the West and the Third World. And in the midst of its political clashes, the organization seemed to have completely lost sight of its basic religious goal: to bring together Christians from all over the world into a united front.”
Yet, the Bible, the basis for Christianity, says that true Christians “should all speak in agreement.” It says that “there should not be divisions among you,” but that Christians should “be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.”—1 Cor. 1:10.
The Bible also says that those who profess to serve God but who hate their spiritual brothers are liars. And it identifies as children of the Devil those who slaughter their brothers.—1 John 4:20, 21; 3:10-12.
It is little wonder that columnist Jeffrey Hart said: “The fifth assembly of the World Council of Churches solemnly assembled in Nairobi, Kenya, presented a stomach-turning spectacle of moral and spiritual illness.”
Part of the World
The assembly also proved that the churches were far removed from true Christian teaching when they agreed to become even more heavily involved in the political affairs of this world. The Christian Century reported: “To be, or not to be, in the world—that is not the question. The question is whether to be involved up to the ankles or the ears. The Assembly opted for the maximum.”
Helping to assure that this would be the case was the fact that one of the newly elected presidents of the Council was the Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Nikodim, the archbishop of Leningrad. He supported the Council’s aid to liberation groups and said: “I feel that as one of the presidents, I now feel even more concern for this kind of work.”
Yet, Jesus said that his true followers would be “no part of the world.” (John 17:16) God’s Word also says: “Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God.”—Jas. 4:4.
The churches have indeed rejected God’s Word and purpose. They have turned their backs on the only hope for mankind, God’s heavenly kingdom, and the new order it will bring here on earth.
Where Headed?
The divided state of the World Council of Churches shows that there is no possibility that God is backing it. “God is a God, not of disorder, but of peace.”—1 Cor. 14:33.
Instead, the Babel-like confusion of doctrines and practices contrary to God’s will identifies it as part of the harlot called “Babylon the Great” in Revelation chapter 17. And its future is clear. That prophecy shows that it is headed for total annihilation at the hands of the very ones with whom they now play the harlot—the political forces of this world.—Rev. 17:16.
Jesus foretold: “Every city or house divided against itself will not stand.” Neither will the divided house of the World Council of Churches.—Matt. 12:25.