by J. Herbert Kane
In a previous article in the Evangelical Missions Quarterly (Spring 1965) I attempted to document the nature and extent of cooperation among evangelical missions around the world. That article was concerned exclusively with mission societies, and said nothing of the national churches brought into existence by these missions. What about cooperation among them?
In a previous article in the Evangelical Missions Quarterly (Spring 1965) I attempted to document the nature and extent of cooperation among evangelical missions around the world. That article was concerned exclusively with mission societies, and said nothing of the national churches brought into existence by these missions. What about cooperation among them?
The mission, after all, is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. The mission exists for the church, not the church for the mission. The one is temporary, the other permanent. We must not be content with cooperation among the missions; we must be equally concerned that there should be cooperation among the churches.
Cooperation is just now beginning to emerge, and in many countries it is still embryonic. It remains to be seen what the "baby" will be like-but it is safe to assume that the birth will not be painless, nor will infancy be free from danger. In this situation missionary societies may find themselves playing the role of midwife, which will require much skill and tact.
At best, the delivery will be difficult, yet if we err here, we may undo the good of a hundred years of missionary work.
As the ecumenical movement continues its momentum in areas once regarded as the mission field, the national churches brought into existence by evangelical missions are faced with the problem of cooperation on a scale hitherto unknown to them. Up to the present these churches have been under the wing of the missions, and for the most part they have been content.
But with national independence, many churches have demanded and received autonomy. Still happy to work in close fellowship with their parent bodies, they today find themselves in a religious milieu for which few of them are prepared. While wishing to be master in their houses, national church leaders will doubtless look to missionary colleagues for guidance. What kind of guidance will they get?
MISSIONS POLLED
To answer this question, I sent a questionnaire with three questions to all Evangelical Foreign Missions Association and Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association members, as well as to the Associated Missions of the International Council of Christian Churches. Sixty-two replies make it possible to piece together a fairly accurate pattern of evangelical thinking on this crucial matter.
1. If your indigenous churches manifest a desire to join a national council or similar association, would your mission encourage such a move? If so, on what basis?
Answers varied from mission to mission and from country to country. Some smaller countries have no councils, so the question did not apply in those cases. In some countries the churches are already members of a national association of one kind or another. In some countries evangelicals predominate, and the only association is evangelical; consequently, no problem exists. In other countries the only inter-church group is a predominantly liberal council that evangelical churches do not care to join. In still other countries the conservative churches, rather than go it alone, have formed their own evangelical fellowship that exists alongside a council or federation dominated by liberals.
One mission said that in one of its fields the only interchurch association is the evangelical fellowship in which its nine hundred autonomous churches already hold membership. The mission has adopted a hands-off policy. Not knowing what the future holds for this fellowship, the mission has neither encouraged nor discouraged the churches in their relationship to it.
Another mission said it would encourage cooperation with evangelical churches in education, medical work, evangelism, and other special activities so long as doctrinal standards were not jeopardized. Another mission said it encourages participation in inter-church cooperation provided the fellowship is evangelical and completely separated from apostasy. Another mission,working in a rural area, said it regrets that an interchurch fellowship does not exist, and hopes that a sound evangelical association may be organized in the near future.
Many evangelical missions are still young. They state their churches are too weak to think of joining an association composed mostly of large churches whose size and strength are likely to overwhelm them. One such mission said that in time it hopes its churches will grow to the point where they can derive benefit from, and make a significant contribution to, a national association.
Running through all the replies is the caution about sound doctrine; i.e., cooperation only on an evangelical basis. Some missions cannot in good faith encourage their churches to join a council of churches because the council represents a wide spectrum of theological opinion.
A few missions are not in favor of cooperation outside their own group. One such mission is encouraging its churches to link together as a fellowship, but there is no idea that they should connect themselves with any other denomination or council, certainly not with a liberal group.
From the replies I received several things are clear:
(1) Evangelical mission leaders are aware of the winds of change that are blowing across the world’s mission fields. (2) They are cognizant of the need for identification and cooperation on the part of national churches. (3) Most of them are willing and eager to do what they can to provide the kind of wider fellowship that is both necessary and desirable in this new day. (4) They are unanimous in their determination to preserve the integrity of their theological convictions.
They desire fellowship for themselves and for the national churches, but always with the understanding that the fundamentals of historic faith are preserved. "Cooperation without compromise," is the way one leader expressed it, which seems to be the consensus.
2. What is your mission’s attitude toward the possibility of merger between your indigenous church and some other indigenous church?
The idea of merger goes beyond cooperation, and raises questions of denominational loyalty and mission polity as well as of spheres and methods of work. Understandably there is less agreement on this question.
A small number of missions takes a negative stand. One mission believes strongly in the autonomy of the local church and has no present intention of setting up a denomination. Another prefers association rather than merger, to avoid the centralization of power in the hands of a few. Some missions prefer to go it alone and wish to have their churches do the same. Still others prefer spiritual unity without organic unity.
Different reasons are given for not favoring merger. One mission takes this stand because its churches are weak and small, and no good purpose would seemingly be served by merger. Another mission considers merger unnecessary because its churches and congregations constitute a fairly strong body and are looked upon already as a denomination.
Several boards report that the matter of merger has been under consideration for some time but no action has been taken.
Another group states that on one of its fields a merger was effected but did not work out satisfactorily. Still other missions are cautious, adopting a wait-and-see attitude.
A surprising number of missions, however, seem to have faced up to the question of merger and heartily favor it, provided certain safeguards are maintained. Most missions want to be sure that the other partner in the merger is sound in the faith. Others speak of "satisfactory terms." One would be in favor of merger "only after careful and prayerful analysis." One mission would insist that the other church be "spiritual" as well as "evangelical." One mission would be happy to see a merger if it represented an enlarged opportunity for service and if it were predicated on commonallegiance to Christ and the basic doctrines of the Christian faith.
In a few instances mergers have already been brought about with happy results. The Bolivian Indian Mission helped its national churches to set up the Evangelical Christian Union. The churches belonging to The Evangelical Union of South America and other groups are joining this organization rather than setting up their own. The same is true in Japan, where the churches formed as the result of The Evangelical Alliance Mission’s ministry have received into fellowship churches formed by the Swedish Alliance Mission and the Liebenzeller Mission.
3. Does the ecumenical movement of the World Council of Churches in any way constitute a threat to the future of your indigenous churches?
Almost without exception evangelical leaders express concern over the growing influence of the World Council of Churches. Now that the International Missionary Council has merged with the WCC, the latter by means of its Division of World Mission and Evangelism is extremely active in areas of the world traditionally known as the mission field. Bigness makes for power, and the WCC with 209 denominations is big. Power has a way of begetting power, and before long even well-meaning men seem to employ coercive measures to achieve their goals.
Membership in the WCC is voluntary, but given the ecumenical movement’s basic assumptions-that division is sin and organizational unity is essential to the success of the Gospel and the survival of the Christian church in this postChristian era-it would be strange indeed if pressure were not exerted on churches outside the organization. As the WCC grows in strength and numbers it will become increasingly easy to resort to coercion to corral stragglers and bring them into the ecumenical fold. It is unlikely that ecumenical leaders will rest content until every sizeable church in the world is a member of this organization.
Reports from all parts of the mission field indicate that pressure is being used to attract new members to the World Council of Churches. It is exerted in two ways: discrimination and cooperation.
Discrimination can take various forms: attempts to deny or delay visas for undesirable (i.e., evangelical or nondenominational) missionaries; efforts to represent the WCC as the sole voice of Protestantism in a country; persuading governments to recognize the WCC as a clearing house for all missionary personnel; keeping evangelical programs off national radio stations.
Cooperation, on the other hand, usually means the offer of material, financial, or technical assistance to nationals from ecumenical or nonecumenical groups. Such assistance might include higher salaries, student scholarships, trips abroad, relief supplies, subsidies and grants, expense money for participation in ecumenical gatherings.
Overtures of this kind are difficult to turn down, especially when national churches are poor. And the fact that the WCC bypasses the missions and makes its appeal directly to the national church leaders does little to allay the former’s fears.
Comity, once a cherished policy of the historic denominations, appears to have been disregarded when it comes to wooing nonecumenical national churches. Ecumenical representatives can enter an area which from the beginning has been served by evangelical missions and where a homogeneous pattern of church doctrine and polity has been established. Without consulting or notifying the parent body, attractive appeals can be made to churches that have been self-supporting and self-governing for decades. These appeals from the WCC-oriented groups are usually for the national churches to raise their standards, educate their clergy, initiate institutional work, and engage in social service. If the suggestions are accepted, money is available to underwrite the new programs. Needless to say, such an approach plays havoc with the indigenous existing structures that evangelicals have built through the years.
The offer of ecumenical groups to send eligible young nationals abroad to study in liberal institutions can be hazardous to the conservative theology in which they were reared. It also may mean later efforts to lead the national church into the ecumenical movement.
Evangelical mission leaders are understandably perturbed by the inroads being made in the national churches with which they are affiliated by groups that do not share their theological convictions. The situation, already highly confused, is further complicated by the fact that the churches are autonomous, or soon will be; consequently they want to stand on their own feet and make their own decisions. Any attempt on the part of the missions to steer the churches in the right direction might easily be construed as neocolonialism in religious garb. It is a situation that calls for wisdom, tact, patience-and much prayer.
—–
Copyright © 1965 Evangelism and Missions Information Service (EMIS). All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMIS.
