The Council & Its Critics

The National Council of Churches was formed in 1950 to coordinate such matters as foreign mission support and development of Christian education programs. In the last two years council leaders have increasingly taken strong stands on moral issues in politics and economics. The result has been a wave of criticism, and last week, at a General Board meeting in Portland, Ore., council leaders discussed how they ought to respond.

Because the council, through its Commission on Religion and Race, has been fervent in the cause of civil rights, much of the slugging comes from angered Southerners or others dubious about integration. Such radiorators as Carl Mclntire and Billy James Hargis, who are fundamentalist in religion and right wing in politics, charge that the council is soft on Communism because a 1958 council study conference advocated recognition of Red China, and because council leaders welcome Rus sian Orthodox churchmen to the U.S.

The Primary Mission. These perennial opponents have been joined by a number of responsible laymen and clerics of the council's member churches who are arguing vigorously that the main business of the clergy is to save souls, and not to transform society. One of them is the Rev. Carl Henry, editor of the fortnightly Christianity Today, who argues that the clergy's primary mission "is to invite sinful men to their Savior and Lord, who shapes a new character and morality. The clergy have neither a divine mandate nor authority nor special competence to articulate particular programs of politico-economic action." Another is Episcopalian John Maury Allin, coadjutor Bishop of Mississippi, who says: "I get the feeling that they meet at the national level, pick a problem, and send a staff of three or four rushing in with proclamations."

About one-fourth of South Caroli na's 800 Methodist churches are withholding contributions to an Interdenominational Cooperation Fund because a fraction of the money goes to the National Council. Recently the Knoxville presbytery formally resolved that the parent Presbyterian Church in the U.S. (the Southern Presbyterians) should withdraw from membership in the council, a motion that may well be seconded by a dozen more presbyteries at this year's General Assembly. Episcopalians in Southern California who belong to the archconservative Society of St. Athanasius have made a number of motions at church financecommittee meetings to withhold funds from the council.

The Gospel as Critique. There are plenty of clergymen who stoutly defend the council's social-action stand. Episcopal Bishop Francis Bloy of Los Angeles says: "A careful study of the teachings of our blessed Lord makes it quite clear, I believe, that he expects his followers to be totally involved in the total life of the world." In December, the Lutheran Church of America sent its 7,000 ministers a pamphlet explaining the council's goals.

As Dean Jerald Brauer of the Uni versity of Chicago Divinity School analyzes the conflict, the council's sincere critics "do not think that the churches have the responsibility, not to say the right, to employ the Gospel as a critique as well as a bulwark of American society. The very fact that the council is under attack is fairly good evidence that it is seeking to fulfill the role it ought to play in American society." The council proposes, in any case, to amplify the role. The General Board last week gave its approval to a number of new programs, including a pilot citizenship education project in Cleveland aimed at helping Negroes gain political power.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.