ONE LESS GENERAL AGENCY FOR UM? LET THE BISHOPS DO CHRISTIAN UNITY By: Dr. Riley Case

As of this writing the recommendation will go to General Conference that the General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns (GCCUIC) cease to exist as a general agency and that its responsibilities be handled by the Council of Bishops.

A commendable idea.  We have too many unnecessary agencies in the church.  Furthermore,  ecumenical matters, at least as they have been conducted by mainline Protestantism, are in a state of disarray.  There is a questionable future for ecumenism as it has been handled for the past fifty years.

One of the very first things I did in 1954 as a newly-called-to-the ministry young college student was to attend the World Council of Churches Assembly held in Evanston, Illinois.  My pastor convinced me this assembly was one of the major religious events of the 20^th century and it was worth my while to attend.  So I did (on my own) and sat through sessions discussing world order that I would never make it through today.  I lit a candle in Soldiers’ Field along with 125,000 other persons to represent Christ, the Hope of the World, heard top theologians of the time, and generally had a good experience. 

But I was also aware that the kind of people I associated with-evangelicals-were not present at that gathering.  The discussions were primarily between white males from the United States and white males from Europe.  Robed Orthodox dignitaries  offered color but not much substance in the sessions.  1954 was the last time the WCC Assembly ever met in the United States.

The WCC did not live up to its hype of being a major institution in the shaping of  Christianity and the world social order, though not for lack of trying.  From a “theology of order” and peaceful change the WCC soon became caught up in a “theology of revolution.”  Along with this was the critique that “traditional theology” was inadequate for the present times.  The WCC moved from being dominated by Americans to being anti-American.  Liberation theology, and the economic theory that went with it, Marxism, reigned.  Its ideology became the darling of American United Methodists, with the Board of Global Ministries and the Women’s Division contributing sizable grants to controversial causes including such revolutionary and sometimes violent movements as the Patriotic Front in Rhodesia (casting its lot with Robert Mugabe and against Methodist bishop Abel Muzarawa).  The result is the present mess in Zimbabwe. 

The WCC today is only a shell of its former self.  Liberation theology was a non-starter; Marxism has been discredited; the European state churches, the strongest supporters of the WCC, can hardly support themselves, let alone the WCC. 

In America ecumenism was the official business of the National Council of Churches of Christ (NCCC).  Starting as the Federal Council of Churches in 1908, the council also focused on the social order, always from a liberal perspective.  One of its early presidents, Methodist Bishop Francis McConnell, was also president of the Methodists Federated for Social Action.  In the 1920s and 30s and 40s about 50% of American Christians were in churches represented by the council.  But even at that time half of the Christians in America were in churches not affiliated with the Federal Council.  Missing in the Council were Roman Catholics and the whole evangelical world.  The Federal Council seemed not to mind.  Churches in the Federal Council were the significant churches, so they thought,  that would fashion the social order of the nation.  When the Federal Council sought to freeze out “fundamentalists” from religious broadcasting in the 1930s, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) was formed in 1942 in reaction.  So much for diversity and openness. 

Instead of bringing about unity within the American churches, the NCCC (as well as the WCC) has done as much as anything to bring about division.  The Inclusive Language Lectionary, as well as social stances which represented not the views of ordinary church members but of liberal bureaucrats, helped to precipitate the exodus from mainline churches.  Today, with fewer than 40 million persons in member NCCC denominations the NCCC represents less than 20% of Americans Christians (from 50% to 20%).  United Methodist money in large part keeps the Council functioning. 

Councils of churches also functioned on the state and local level.  Evangelicals in Indiana used to express concern about what they perceived as the undue liberal influence of the Indiana Council of Churches.  They should not have worried.  One day the Indiana Council of Churches died.  That is, on its own it simply ceased to exist.  It had no substance.  Major Christian groups in Indiana saw no need to be a part of it.  When a replacement group was conceived, Indiana Partners for Christian Unity and Mission (IPCUM), I became a part because the group wished to include Roman Catholics, evangelical denominations, and para-church groups.  The trouble is that by this time these groups saw no advantage or need to be associated with that sort of “ecumenism.”

But there was a bigger dream than just the NCCC.  Churches Uniting in Christ (CUIC)  is an “ecumenical” effort dating from 1962 when it originated as Consultation on Church Union (COCU).  The original vision was a merger of ten major denominations.  When that was rejected as unworkable, the vision shifted to the concept of “full communion” between the ten mainline denominations.  It should be noted that from its very founding in 1968 the Good News movement in the UM Church opposed COCU, and then CUIC.  Common, ordinary United Methodists never were persuaded that the idea had any merit.  Merger, or even full communion, would dilute United Methodist doctrine, and link UMs with dying and sick denominations.  Its basis for unity was not doctrinal but political and social.  In 1982, being a loyal denominational pastor, I suggested to the Sunday School class I was teaching that we study the document “In Quest of a Church of Christ United: An Emerging Theological Consensus.”  The study was aborted after two weeks when the class rebelled against the irrelevance of the material. 

Where does this grand vision stand today?   CUIC held its most recent general gathering in Florida in January with a grand total of “about 40″ church leaders present.  The three days were spent denouncing the Tea Party and discussing racism in the churches.  At the end of the three days the group announced that CUIC had “taken a major step forward” (on what basis it is hard to say).  One of its accomplishments was the receiving of an offering of $1,358 for Church World Service.

So goes ecumenism as practiced officially in United Methodism and other mainline denominations.

Most of this ecumenical disintegration has taken place under the watch of the General Commission of Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns, United Methodism’s agency charged with furthering ecumenical efforts.  In recent times, evidently because it ran out of meetings to promote and press releases to issue about “great steps forward,” the commission involved itself in the promotion of homosexual practice, declaring itself to be a “Reconciling Agency” (not even Church and Society went that far).  How the practice of homosexuality promotes church unity is difficult to determine, but then again, church agencies do strange things. 

Is ecumenism dead?   Of course not.  But it is not the kind of ecumenism linked with agencies like GCCUIC.  When a new group, Christian Churches Together in the USA (CCT) sought to gather Roman Catholics, mainline churches, and evangelicals together in a more representative ecumenical agency about ten years ago, United Methodists declined the invitation to join.  UMs claimed an “observer” relationship but CCT had no provisions for an “observer” relationship.  Evidently CCT did not represent the kind of ecumenism GCCUIC wishes to promote. 

The Third Lausanne Congress held in South Africa in October, 2010, gathered 4,000 delegates from around the world.  Reflecting the present state of world Christianity only 400 delegates were from the US; only 80 were from the UK.  230 were scheduled from China (but were detained by the Chinese government).  60% were under 50 years old (compare with the UM General Conference) and 10% were under 30.  Pentecostals were present; indigenous African churches were present; house churches were represented.  There was almost no bashing of America, or of capitalism.  There was great concern for persecuted Christians in difficult places.  Persons were challenged to change the world, not by political revolution but by winning persons to Jesus Christ.  All races, many languages, many cultures united in their praise of the gospel story as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.

There is much talk about structural reform in The United Methodist Church.  The elimination of GCCUIC is a good beginning.  Now how about eliminating about six other unnecessary agencies?   And with it, how about some changed attitudes along with realistic understanding of what is really happening in the Christian world?