The World Council of Churches has secretarial offices in New York, London, and Eastern Asia. Its administration world center is in Geneva. A few months ago I called on the secretary-general of the World Council in Geneva. Housed in a comfortable but not very pretentious home on the Route de Malignou, Dr. Visser 't Hooft, the secretary-general, was ready to discuss with me some of the achievements of the World Council and also to point out some of the problems it faces.
Dr. Visser 't Hooft inquired immediately as to my denominational identity, and it was clear that he knew of Seventh-day Adventists. He said that he had enjoyed pleasant contacts with some of our men in various parts of the world, particularly during the last war. He seemed to be well informed concerning our position on ecumenism and our reservations about joining the council. He spoke very kindly and respectfully of some of the preachers and editors whom he had met, particularly at the Evanston meeting in 1954. He remembered some of the articles that had been published in THE MINISTRY and in other denominational papers, and he expressed gratitude at the effort we put forth to understand the work the council is trying to do in the world. Since he knew that we are not members of the council, he felt free to discuss some of the things that were on his mind and to point out what he, as secretary-general, thought of .certain groups that are not a part of the ecumenical movement.
First, Dr. Visser 't Hooft had encouraging words to say on Seventh-day Adventist endeavors and our determination to take our message to all parts of the world in our own way and on our own terms. The World Council is not a purely academic movement existing only in the minds of some theologians. To be united is not a mere idea or a pious wish expressed by many Christian churches. Since the Amsterdam meeting in 1948, when the World Council was called into effectual existence, 158 member churches have come into it from approximately fifteen major confessional "families" in forty-three countries. The entire work is efficiently planned and organized. It deals, for instance, with relief and welfare, and with youth (work camps particularly); it also deals with education, evangelism, and society. And there is an institute, in the beautiful Chateau of Bossey near Geneva, that offers training courses for laymen as well as refresher courses for pastors and theological students. In addition to these activities, the council has a very important information service, giving innumerable press releases and excellent monographs of the background and the history of the movement. The Faith and Order Department has a special service of information, including various books, such as More Than the Doctrine Divides the Church and Towards Church Union. And, of course, there are official reports of the meetings at Amsterdam, 1948; Lund, Sweden, 1952; Travancore, India, 1952; and Evanston, Illinois, 1954. The Youth Department has its own releases and periodical magazines. And there is a great deal of material available also for church services, dealing with international affairs, the role of women, et cetera. Then there are numerous visual aids, and periodicals such as Christendom, The Ecumenical News, and Youth News Sheets.
"Are you of the opinion," I asked, "that ecumenism is a factual reality today? Are you convinced that the masses in your large denominations are with you?"
"No. I do not think that the ecumenical idea has yet penetrated the live forces of Protestant constituencies.
"An idea like this," Dr. Visser Hooft continued, "takes time to come to fruition." Then he interrupted himself, and looking out the window past the lawn bordered with beautiful flowers and into a large, shady park, he said, "Of course, you know how it all started." And then he referred to books about the history of this very complex movement, which he thought had its inception in the great ecumenical councils of the church. Incidentally, he himself has authored an important monograph, A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517-1948.
"But," I observed, "the councils that you referred to and which were held in the early stages of the Christian church settled mostly theological differences, whereas modern ecumenism is endeavoring to unite all Christian bodies -while leaving each church and denomination with its own creed. Is it not a fact," I asked, "that the theological differences are precisely those that the ecumenical council does not deal with?"
"Yes," he said, "that is what we face. The basis of our union is that all we ask of the more than 150 churches making up the World Council is that they endorse the belief that the Lord Jesus Christ is God and Saviour.
"I need not remind you," he continued, "that this need for a working unity grew out of the missionary movements at the beginning of this century. And the idea of church fellowship took concrete form in the ecumenical conferences of 'Life and Work' (Stockholm, 1925) and 'Faith and Order' (Lausanne, 1927). Later, at Oxford and Edinburgh, plans were laid for a World Council at Amsterdam in 1948, which finally ratified the plan."
Major Obstacles to Unity
"How are you going to dissociate between the aim of unity for all churches and the right of each church to draw up its own pattern and teaching?" I asked.
"That is, of course, one of the intrinsic problems. As I see it, our major obstacles are institutionalism and denominational conservatism.
"Most of the non-Roman churches believe," Dr. Visser 't Hooft continued, "that in seeking a unified action to combat evils that confront all alike, they should 'take counsel together' and take a common stand, because there are questions to which every Christian has essentially the same answer. There is, after all, a common denominator among all creeds, all confessions, all movements, and all Christians who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. And that is not incompatible with denominational independence and the safeguarding of a sacred doctrinal trust."
"Is it not a fact that one of the basic tenets of Protestantism is precisely the right to individual interpretation, the right to differ?" I asked.
"Of course," he said, "and that is what we wish to safeguard."
"But," I objected, "the very doctrine, if it is 'a sacred creedal trust,' would, I imagine, interfere with the ecumenical ideal, because a denomination would have to surrender, to some extent at least, some of its own objectives and ideas on organization and missionary endeavor. And some Protestant denominations have not seen their way clear because they do not, at the present time, wish to pool their material resources or to surrender in any way, even in an implied way, their tenets."
Dr. Visser 't Hooft admitted that a close clinging to one's theological opinions is a cause of obstruction to unity. For example, the various churches assembled in World Council had to relate themselves in some manner to the partaking of the Lord's Supper, for it seemed a fitting ceremony to enter into together. What communion would prevail, was the question. Since this particular ceremony is necessarily a carefully prepared service, it raised an immediate and delicate issue. It seems that the Quaker way was endorsed by the majority at Amsterdam.
Aside from the doctrinal issues, Dr. Visser 't Hooft admitted that there are problems facing the council within the organization itself, and within the churches that are part of that organization—problems such as radicalism and lack of courage. "It is what I call the 'bread and butter' type of pastorate that causes many pastors to refrain from openly advocating a World Council of Churches in their own midst, for fear they might hurt their position."
Dr. Visser 't Hooft is a pleasant conversationalist, intelligent and well informed, sometimes turning aside for a personal side light indicating that he is intensely interested in how people relate themselves to the movement to which he has dedicated his life.
To be more specific in my questions, I asked him what he thought about the relationship, or rather lack of relationship, between the World Council and Seventh-day Adventists. He well understood some of the reasons that hinder us from participating in the work of the World Council and from cooperating wholeheartedly with the Federal Council of Churches. I mentioned to him that in many parts of the world our men have shown great interest in the work of the council. He told me he knew that some of our men were most sympathetic, ready to help wherever they could. He also said that he knew about our own program to bring our message to the entire world field. Furthermore Dr. Visser 't Hooft stated, not without irony, "You have the truth, and if ever you should join the council, you would consider this another field of opportunity to propagate your views and to set every one of us straight as to the truth as you see it."
Stating his opinions kindly and guardedly, yet forcefully, he suggested that we should send more observers to their meetings. He said, "I wish we had at every meeting as many keen and sympathetic observers from your denomination as we had at the Evanston meeting." Then he suggested that we should consider sending some young people to the Bossey Institute to receive firsthand information. And he invited us to send some observers to their central committee to see "what's cooking."
Visit With Marc Boegner
Some weeks later I had occasion to meet one of Europe's most respected ecumenical leaders—Pastor Marc Boegner, the leader of the Reformed Churches of France. Pastor Boegner is a white-haired gentleman whose face radiates vitality and great intelligence. He is one of the early artisans of the World Council, a key figure in the laying of the foundation of ecumenism, and he has somewhat taken over the role of grand old man in European ecumenism. He has written numerous papers on the subject, especially a splendid volume, The Problem of Christian Unity, of which he was pleased to give me a copy "in remembrance of our fraternal visit." This little volume states quite clearly and completely the background, the history, and the idea of the unity of the churches. Pastor Boegner reminded me that the World Council is not a "super church." It is not for the World Council to take any steps in legislating for the churches. It has no initiative to take; ecclesiastical fusion between two or more ecclesiastical bodies is up to these bodies exclusively. "A church is not responsible toward another church as to the conduct of its own life, including the training and ordination of ministers, the preaching of the gospel, et cetera." And he, too, spoke frankly of the difficulty of having a unity of churches and at the same time safeguarding one another's communion, as for instance in the Lord's Supper. (By the way, let us not forget that the Lord's Supper was one of the major reasons for disunity among the Protestant churches and refoimers in the sixteenth century.) His idea was that when it comes to the Lord's Supper each one should go to his own church. He admits that this is but one of the major issues that "torment the church."
Working in France, Pastor Boegner is, of course, particularly interested in observing the Catholic reaction to the movement, and he is satisfied that he sees some hopeful signs. He quotes a number of Roman Catholic leaders who have, at least in word, given some encouragement to his ideals. Catholics in France, he thinks, advocate more than ever the reading of the Bible, and also the use of French rather than Latin in their services.
I asked Pastor Boegner, "Now that the meetings of Amsterdam and Evanston are in the past, how do you evaluate the strength of ecumenism today, and what is the present status of the World Council?"
"Alas," he said, "I must admit that our ideal has not yet caught the fancy of the masses. It still is endorsed mainly by church leaders and theologians. We have not been able to bring our idea across to the people, and if the masses are not with us we have yet a long way to go."
"But how," I asked, "are the churches to adopt and endorse this principle of union?"
"The World Council must be an educator. The education of the crowds has only begun. It is a long and tedious task, and not until this task has been accomplished faithfully and successfully will we enjoy a complete unity within our individual churches. The consciousness of ecumenical unity is difficult to attain, as I said, but it is of particular beauty and great urgency."
"But why do you have to wait for the masses to go along?" I asked. "Any reformation in the church is carried on by a small group of men, if not at first by one man alone."
"Yes, but in Reformation times men were quickly followed by the masses; in fact, the leaders expressed a well-timed and forcefully expressed message, which the masses instinctively conceived as being the message for their own times. In our modern ecumenical movement, either the timing has not been too good, or the synchronization between the urgency of the task, as it has been conceived by the leaders and theologians, and the instruction of the masses has not been carried on simultaneously."
Then Pastor Boegner turned abruptly to me and asked, "Why are you Seventh-day Adventists not in our movement?" I knew from a previous conversation that he was already too well informed to need at this time any further briefing on my part as to our methods, our aims, and our convictions. I assured him that although we had made up our mind, we would continue to follow with the keenest interest the development of the World Council; yet I, for one, shared his conviction that the church masses (including ourselves) had not yet grasped the urgency of going along with the ecumenical movement, nor could we be assigned to the evangelization of certain territories.
There is, as Pastor Boegner said, in ecumenism a basic fact that fundamentally clashes with the Protestant ideal of private interpretation. It is what he calls the "ecumenical paradox."
While we must cooperate with all honest efforts to bring before the world the name of Jesus Christ, by whom alone mankind can be saved, I am convinced that our movement is to keep its identity and remain true to the commission that it has been given, to go into all parts of the world, not into certain sections only, to witness. But we can learn from these ecumenical leaders lessons in efficiency and vision and even in frankness and honesty.
