In the January and February numbers of The Ministry I gave consideration to the international conference on Life and Work held at Oxford, England, last July, and now I shall deal with the similar conference on Faith and Order held at Edinburgh, Scotland, the following month, with substantially the same delegates. The issues before these conferences have been briefly stated in the following paragraph:
"At Oxford, the churches faced the question of their relation to the world; at Edinburgh, the question of their relation to each other. At Oxford, the center of interest was the immediate one of securing, in spite of all difference, a united front in meeting practical problems ; at Edinburgh, the center of interest was the more ultimate one of reconciling the differences which now divide Christians into churches. At Oxford, Christians found themselves possessing a spiritual unity which, in large measure, gives them a common world view in sharp contrast with the current world views of secular civilization. At Edinburgh, the very fact of this unity of spirit led Christian leaders to seek the way of manifesting that unity in a form visible to the world."—Samuel McCrea Calvert, in Federal Council Bulletin, September, 1937, p. 7.
As viewed by some of the leaders there, the most important results of these conferences was the adoption, by both bodies, of a plan for the formation of a "World Council of Churches" to be submitted to the churches of the world for their approval. This matter is presented in the same paper, on page 9:
"The plan contemplates a World Council of Churches functioning through a General Assembly of approximately two hundred representatives appointed directly by the cooperating churches and meeting every five years. There will also be a central committee, of approximately sixty members, likewise representative of the churches, meeting annually as the executive of the General Assembly. The council would have 'no power to legislate for the churches or to commit them to action without their consent.' Its functions, as provisi6nally defined, •would include the following:
" 'To carry on the work of the Faith and Order and the Life and Work movements'; To make it easier for the churches to act together; To promote cooperation in study ; To further the growth of ecumenical consciousness in the churches; To call world conferences on specific subjects as occasion requires.'
"There would be two special commissions, one for the further study of Faith and Order subjects, the other for the study of Life and Work subjects."
It seems clear that the delegates from all parts of the world attending these two conferences recognized that the professedly Christian churches were not meeting the challenge of the world in these days of doubt and fear. And it may be granted that they were honestly seeking a remedy for the situation, but it must be as frankly affirmed that their proposed plan does not deal with the root of the difficulty. When our Lord sent out His disciples to proclaim the gospel in an absolutely pagan world, how did He provide for their success? Not by suggesting a particular form of unified organization, but by the presence of the third Person of the Godhead, through whose power they were to testify concerning Jesus. Note His words: "But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." Acts 1:8. The success of this plan for their work is plainly set forth: "And with great power gave the apostles their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; and great grace was upon them all." Acts 4:33. Writing more than twenty years later, the apostle Paul attributed to "the power of the Holy Spirit" his success in preaching the gospel "from Jerusalem, and round about even unto Illyricum [Italy]." Rom. 15:19.
involvements of Unity Program
By this, I do not mean to belittle the value of proper organization. But a properly organized church is simply the channel through which the Holy Spirit may work effectively, and "the unity of the Spirit" may be manifested. Much stress is placed upon the value of the proposed council as "a structure which will enable them [the churches] to act unitedly on a world scale." And it is declared that this plan "may well prove to be the most creative and epoch-marking event in the history of the church in our generation." But if the power of the Holy Spirit is regarded as the only hope for the victory of the church, this fact is not mentioned. The powers of evil are now marshaled for the last struggle, and only the mighty power of God through the Holy Spirit can make the church sufficient for these things.
As "a specific program of approach to a united Christendom," a report was adopted containing these items:
"(1) Publication of a Christian ecumenical review; (2) Courses in theological colleges on denominational emphases; (3) The organization of study groups; (4) Prayer offered for union, especially in connection with the Eucharist; (5) Aid given to struggling churches across denominational lines; (6) Union meetings for evangelism, etc.; (7) Denominational cooperation; (8) Fellowship unions: (9) More local gatherings similar to Oxford and Edinburgh; (10) Uniting youth in these endeavors ; (11) Exchange between churches both of pastors and members; (12) Standing committee on union in each denomination; (13) The allocation to a specific denomination of new settlement areas; (14) Guarding against national churches; (15) Guidance for the younger churches by mission boards; (16) Establishment of a world council of churches."
If this plan for unity among all the churches outside the Roman Catholic Church is realized, there will then be two great professedly Christian organizations comprising in their membership all the denominations in Christendom, each having a united voice through which to give expression to its aims and plans. Will the lack of the power of the Holy Spirit drive either or both of them to seek the power of the state in order to restrain evil? The growing power of communism, fascism, and atheism will require more than beautiful ideals eloquently urged, in order to set them aside. What will be the logical outcome of this conflict if professed Christians do not again seek, by penitence and prayer, that Pentecostal experience which enabled the early Christian church to triumph in the face of Roman paganism as the state religion? "The Word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God." 1 Cor. 1:18.
Inasmuch as the report of the platform adopted at the Edinburgh conference occupies twenty-three large pages, it follows at once that I shall be unable to discuss in detail this profession of faith. So I shall attempt to deal with only its most significant features. The first major subject is "The Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ," which is discussed under these headings: "The Meaning of Grace," "Justification and Sanctification," "The Sovereignty of God and Man's Response," "The Church and Grace," "Grace, the Word, and the Sacraments," and "Sola Gratia." Much gratification was expressed that the delegates were able to come to an agreement on such a fundamental subject.
But the reason for this agreement seems to me to be that the pronouncement was general, and did not deal with some fundamental issues. The statement concerning justification will serve to illustrate this:
"Justification is the act of God, whereby He forgives our sins and brings us into fellowship with Himself, who in Jesus Christ, and by His death upon the cross, has condemned sin and manifested His love to sinners, reconciling the world to Himself."—Christendom, 3rd quarter, 1937.
This is the only paragraph in this section in which sin and the death of Christ are mentioned, and the only place in the whole report where the relation between the death of Christ and sin is presented. And what is stated here? Simply that God "in Jesus Christ, and by His death upon the cross, has condemned sin and manifested His love to sinners, reconciling the world to Himself." Not a word is said about the nature of sin, or about the necessity of the atoning death of Christ, or about the substitutionary character of His death as making forgiveness possible without compromising the righteousness of God. This savors so much of Modernism that we find it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it was intended to bring unity by surrendering the fundamental idea of Christianity. Jesus Himself declared that "the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many." Matt. 20: 28. The Holy Spirit testifies: "But now once at the end of the ages hath He been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." Heb. 9:26. Under the guidance of the same Spirit, the apostle Paul placed "first of all" the fact that "Christ died for our sins." 1 Cor. 15:3. The same apostle writes in Romans 5:9 of our "being now justified by His blood," but the blood atonement is not acceptable to the modern mind, and reference to it might prevent unity in a modern conference.
In marked contrast with this defective and really compromising reference to the meaning of the death of Christ on the cross, is the interpretation given to us in these incisive words:
"The sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin is the great truth around which all other truths cluster. In order to be rightly understood and appreciated, every truth in the word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light that streams from the cross of Calvary."—"Gospel Workers," p. 315.
A Significant Omission
Inasmuch as "Christianity is so inextricably bound up with Christ that our view of the Person of Christ involves and determines our view of Christianity," it would seem logical that any attempt to provide a confession of faith for a united church should present, as fundamental, a clear and absolutely Biblical view of the Person of Christ; but I do not find this in the confession adopted at Edinburgh. Incidental reference is made to Christ as the Son of God, Lord, Saviour, and Redeemer, but the authoritative ground upon which such terms may be applied to Jesus of Nazareth, and their necessary implications in the field of theology, are for some reason not discussed. This omission is quite significant of the liberal spirit which prevailed at the conference, and which made it possible for well-known Modernists to accept the statement of belief.
To be concluded in May