The National Council of Churches
by Carl McIntire
By Carl McIntire
The council movement started in the United States in 1908 when the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America was organized. In 1950 the Federal Council joined with other interdenominational agencies to constitute the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.
The Council has aided the Communist cause and sided with Russia on point after point in the cold war. It has been a spokesman for socialism, advocated federal aid to education, opposed states rights, stimulated racial strife in the country, promoted the welfare state, and maintained a political lobby in Washington. It claims to be the voice of some 37 million Americans.
All this has its significance and has gradually been working its way down through the life of the country. It has brought about a reaction both North and South and even produced a militant countermovement which is growing in strength!
It is therefore imperative that a fresh appraisal in the light of recent developments be made.
"DISTRUST BETWEEN MINISTERS AND LAITY"
The keynote speech at St. Louis was delivered by the NCC's retiring president, Dr. Eugene Carson Blake, stated clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. To admit that such a situation has developed, as he did, must in itself have been a blow to the prestige which the ecclesiastical leaders have sought to maintain.
Dr. Blake declared:
"There is distrust between ministers and laity -the distrust goes both ways. There is distrust between ecclesiastical officials and ordinary pastors -the grass roots and the hierarchies.
"There is distrust of our conservative constituency by the liberals, theological and political, and the opposite. There is distrust between North and South, Eastern Seaboard and Middle West, . . ."
Dr. Blake made it plain that he was not speaking of mere differences of opinion or of convictions but of "mistrust of the integrity and Christianity of those persons who hold to the differences." But he tried to justify these divergencies, for he said, "So long as a church is a church and not a sect, there will be room in it for a wide variety of conviction and practice, and its life should be enriched by the dialogue that continually goes on among its members."
It is here that the Christian people must pause and recognize that a great apostasy from the historic Christian faith is upon us. The difference between the conservatives and the liberals has produced the "mistrust of the integrity and Christianity of those persons who hold to the differences." The conservative, or "fundamentalist," as he is frequently called, holds that Christ was born of the virgin, that He died on the cross for the sins of men, shedding His blood, and that He arose again from the dead on the third day. The liberals deny this. They do not accept the Bible as the Word of God. The dialogue that has gone on continually between those with various beliefs in side of this new kind of church with its new concept is not a blessing; it is a tragedy. The wide variety of convictions which Dr. Blake recognizes to exist represents the Babylon of the hour.
Actually, there is no place for a wide variety of convictions concerning Christ within a true Christian church, for the position the church has accepted is stated in its creed. For a church to profess a creed and then to allow within its pulpit men who deny that creed results in the dialogue which conflicting positions produce. In this, Christianity has gone bankrupt. A corrupt, impure, and inclusivist church stands before the nation in contrast to the historic testimony of the Protestant churches, that each body must be true, pure, ]oval to its creed, and faithful to the Christ of the Scriptures who is the Church's only Head.
A PACIFIST PRESIDENT
The National Council elected Dr. Edwin T. Dahlberg as its president for the next three years. The Council could not have found a man who more adequately represents what the Council itself -is. On the religious side he is an outstanding modernist and pacifist. Speaking before the Baptist World Alliance in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1950 as reported in the New York Times, July 27, he called for a "new language" in the church. Such phrases as "the precious Name of Jesus," "coming under the Blood," and "saved by grace," "simply do not register in the mind of the average American listener," he said. But they are a part of the language of faith!
Dr. Dahlberg has been a member of the National Committee of the Church Peace Mission, a radical, pacifist group in the U.S.A. This committee has been securing signatures to a pacifist pledge which reads, "I hereby affirm (re-affirm) my refusal to make -or to use the weapons of war -, and my purpose to do my utmost to win other Christians to join in this stand and to bring the Church of Christ throughout the world to break with war."
This radical pacifist position Dr. Dahlberg gave immediate expression to when he declared in his first presidential address that it was "utter folly and futility" to spend "forty billions of dollars on a system of defense that never in the world can defend us." He made a plea to the churches to embark upon "a plan of massive reconciliation based on the Christian gospel of love." Mr. George Dugan, reporting this in the New York Times, December 6, 1957, called Dahlberg "a prominent Christian pacifist."
This is no time for a pacifist leadership, when America is in peril and facing an enemy who is pressing a cold war with every possible weapon! There can be no reconciliation, massive or otherwise, with an anti-God, atheistic, materialistic Russia who is determined to destroy the free world and enthrone Communism. There can never be massive reconciliation with an international beast, such as Communist Party Chief Khruschchev, who has announced to the American people, "We will bury you." Such a pacifist leadership at this moment is fraught with peril to the security of the United States.
The church in St. Louis of which Dr. Dahlberg is pastor is a member of both the Northern and Southern Baptist Conventions, and this undoubtedly was the reason he was selected as President of the Council. Repeated references are now being made to the desire on the part of the National Council to include the Southern Baptist as well as the Missouri Synod Lutheran Churches within the Council.
A PROMINENT COMMUNIST FRONTER
Dr. J. B. Matthews, former chief investigator for the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives, said: "Mr. Dahlberg's record of collaboration with. the Communist apparatus places him among the leading Communist fronters who are clergymen. In choosing Mr. Dahlberg to bead the organization for the next three years, the National Council of Churches has followed the precedents of the old Federal Council of Churches which numbered among its presidents such well known Communist fronters as the late Bishop Francis J. McConnell and Bishop G. Bromley Oxam."
According to public records, the following indicates some of Dr. Dahlberg's Communist-front activities:
When Harry Bridges, a self-confessed Communist, was ordered deported, from the United States by the Attorney General, Dr. Dahlberg, on April 22, 1943, joined with a group of Communistfront clergymen in signing an open letter to President Roosevelt calling for the release of Harry Bridges. The letter said:
"We respectfully ask that you set aside the deportation order against Harry Renton Bridges, President of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Congress of Industrial Organizations, and afford him full opportunity to become a citizen of the United States of America." The letter maintained that his deportation would be an "injustice to him," and it expressed "our own belief in his loyalty."
A Citizens Committee to Free Earl Browder has been cited as "Communist and subversive" by the Attorney General of the United States. Browder was imprisoned following a conviction for perjury. He was the general secretary of the Communist Party. One of those affiliated with this committee was Dr. Dahlberg.
Another well known Communist-front organization was the National Committee to Combat Anti-Semitism Even Jewish groups in the United States warned that the National Committee was a Communist front. But, according to the letterhead of the organization, dated March 26, 1946, Edwin T. Dahlberg was one of the sponsors of this National Committee.
The Communists set tip another front organization, known as the Committee for Peaceful Alternatives to the Atlantic Pact. This organization was launched by a meeting called "Washington Conference on Peaceful Alternatives to the Atlantic Pact" and, according to The Worker, July 24, 1949, Edwin T. Dahlberg was one of the organizers of this conference.
When a group of American clergymen visited Communist Yugoslavia, with all their expenses paid by the Communist government, the delegation returned with a glowing report praising the Tito regime. This report was printed and circulated in the United States under the sponsorship of a group of Protestant clergymen, one of whom was Dr. Dahlberg. Such Communist-front activity has given great aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.
There is a Communist-front organization just now known as The Committee to Secure Justice for Morton Sobel. The publication of this organization dated August, 1957, reports that Dr. Dahlberg was a signer of an appeal on behalf of the Communist espionage agent, Morton Sobel. Sobel is now serving a thirty-year prison term in Alcatraz because of his connections with the Rosenbergs' espionage activity.
Human Events, December 14, 1957, published in Washington, D. C., quotes material from the files of the National Republic "Washington's most authoritative reference service on Communism," concerning the record of Dr. Dahlberg:
"Member, National Committee for Defense of Political Prisoners, 1931 (cited as subversive by the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1942, and by the Attorney General of the United States in 1947 and 1948) ; sponsor, Political Prisoners' Bail Fund Committee, 1935; signer, open letter to President Roosevelt asking that the deportation order against Harry Bridges be set aside; one of several 'prominent Americans' who favored 'Presidential clemency for the release of Earl Browder,' under auspices of the 'Citizens Committee to Free Earl -Browder' (cited as a Communist front by the HUAC Guide to Subversive Organizations) ; one of 17 churchmen asking a Senate probe of 'perjured testimony by informers' (Daily Worker, November 3, 1953) ; signer, open letter to the President urging support of the Lehman bill as substitute for the McCarran-Walter Act (Dail y Worker, November 3, 1953) ; signer of open letter to Representatives and Senators urging outright repeal of McCarran Act sponsored by National Committee for Repeal of McCarran Act (Daily Worker, December 28, 1954); petitioned President Eisenhower to ban H-bomb tests (Sunday Worker, July 14, 1957) ; signer of open letter to platform committees of Republican and Democratic parties urging them to back repeal of McCarran Act (Daily Worker, July 9, 1952); initiator, National Committee to Repeal McCarran Act (Daily Worker, December 27, 1950), this group is cited as a Communist front in the Guide to Subversive Organizations."
HUGE RELIGIOUS CORPORATION
George W. Cornell, AP religion writer, describing the St. Louis meeting, December, 1957, said, "This country's biggest religious corporation of them all is holding a week-long meeting of the stockholders starting today."
"The council," he said, "has an 18¼ million dollar budget for this year, and proposals are to up it another million next year.
"There are about 700 employees on its payroll, and 4,000 other church leaders and specialists serve voluntarily on its many committees, divisions, departments and commissions.
"It is building a new 19 million dollar headquarters in New York. "Altogether, the council has 76 different units, each carrying on a different type of activity."
There is hardly any avenue of religious activity where the Council's hand is not felt, It is operating in Korea, Alaska, Africa, and Hong Kong. It produces more than one thousand religious radio and TV programs a year, and it claims to have distributed 35 1/2 million dollars worth of relief goods in 1956. The bulk of this, of course, was an outright grant from the United States Government. But all of its activity supports the ideological position which its general board directs. It considers itself to be the conscience of the nation The November issue of its official paper heads the article describing the Council's ministry, "When the Churches Speak With One Voice." It has appropriately been called "the Protestant vatican."
The Christian Century outstanding modernist, independent weekly, called the NCC "the national voice of the non-Rmoan churches" in the United States. The nonmember or the separated churches do not count. This presumption is the spirit of monopoly! In Dr. Blake's presidential address he said- "The council conceives one of its functions to be that of serving as the representative conscience of the churches in relation to crucial developments in the political, economic and social order affecting the life of the churches and the well being of humanity It has been referred to as the council's prophetic role."
Thus the Council throws its weight behind the United Nations and puts tremendous pressure upon John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, who has previously served as chairman of the FCC's Commission on International justice and Goodwill. Its main impact is that of a well-oiled political pressure group. With the robes of the church about its work, it is shielded from political attack.
NCC GOES TO MOSCOW
The visit of an official delegation from the National Council of Churches to Moscow, March, 1956, brings to the fore the collaboration with the Communists which has been going on over the years, and every true Christian in this hour of national peril should renounce it all.
The churches in Russia, what is left of them, are under the complete control of Georgi Karpov a major general of the secret police.
Empire of Fear by Vladimir and Evdokia Petrov' pp. 97 and 98, reports Petrov's identification Of Karpov: "At this conference Stalin suggested that the character and erudition of Karpov made him an ideal man to represent the church on the Soviet Council of Ministers. His suggestion was applauded, and Karpov was appointed."
Yuri Rastvorov a lieutenant colonel of the MVD for eleven years who served under Karpov, testified before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, April 12, 1956, that Georgi Karpov was "head of the so-called religion section in MVD headquarters." Rastvorov testified, "The state controls all activity of the church in the Soviet Union." He testified that Karpov sent his secret police agents to the seminaries that he permitted to exist. They graduated and became bishops in the church.
Thus the representatives of the National Council of Churches officially went to Moscow and Georgi Karpov entertained them. According to a report in the National Council Outlook , -official organ of the NCC, April, 1956, the reception was "in a most lavish Russian manner." The report says that Karpov "stressed the first visit by representatives of American churches, deplored the short visit, and urged many times that they come again."
Featured on the cover of the NCC Outlook, official organ, was a picture of the delegation marching across Red Square in Moscow. To be the honored guests of a major general of the secret police, who was in charge of the Communist enslavement and infiltration of the churches, created a spectacle which should have shocked the entire Christian world.
Emphasizing the accomplishments of his threeyear term as president, Dr. Eugene Carson Blake said in St. Louis:
"Let me remind you that the National Council during this triennium organized and made possible the deputation of Protestant church leaders in the Soviet Union, and their return visit, a project which worked out more fruitfully and to less criticism than any of us dared hope before the fact. But we did it as a council because we thought it our Christian duty whatever the results in council support or council criticism.
"Let me inform you that the National Council (here I make a prediction) will similarly arrange for the same reasons and to the same ends further visits, such as with the churches of China, when ever it appears that the Chinese churches themselves wish and are prepared for such a project."
It is anything but a Christian duty for one to permit himself or the churches which he represents to be used by the Communists in their cold war.
The head of the Russian delegation which returned the visit to the U.S.A. was Metropolitan Nicolai, the second top ranking churchman of the Russian Orthodox Church, and in charge of foreign relations for the churches. Nicolai in speech after speech, has been the mouthpiece of the Communists through the churches, castigating the West. In a speech at the first session of the World Council of Peace, Berlin, February 23, 1951, Nicolai said referring to the Americans in Korea:
From the first day of the lawless aggression the American neofascists began a systematic cannibalistic destruction of the 'lower' Korean race. . . .
"These civilized savages arranged shooting matches with living targets, binding peasants to posts with barbed wire and shooting each of them over the heart of the target. Reviving the custom of the young-fascists, youngyankees photographed these scenes for their family albums and sent them home to their fiances and wives."
This material and considerable more was presented to the National Council leaders before they went to Moscow. Nicolai, to this day, has never retracted, apologized, or even attempted to explain his charges against the United States' soldiers in Korea. The April Outlook, with picture after picture, shows Metropolitan Nicolai, in a very affectionate manner, holding Dr. Blake by his left arm as they walk from the air field. Gifts were exchanged. Chalices and crosses given back and forth. But this could not cover up the blood that is on the hands of these church leadersCommunists just patiently waiting the day when America will be under their control. Clergymen who serve the cause of Communism and praise the atheistic state of Russia are not entitled to the name "Christian," and it is certainly not a "Christian duty" for Western clergymen to visit them, fellowship with them in the name of Christ, and deceive the Christians of the West as to the true nature of the enslaved churches in Russia.
And now the National Council is to attempt the same identical affair with Red China. Shall this powerful church group in America be used now to cross out the lines that have been drawn by our nation against Red China?
The National Council Outlook, September, 1956, features on its cover a picture, "World Council Leaders Meet in Hungary." In this picture, left to right, are: Dr. Eugene Carson Blake; Dr. Franklin Clark Fry, president of the United Lutheran Church; and then Communist Bishop K. H. Ting of Red China; Bishop D. Ward Nichols of New York, African Methodist Episcopal Church; Communist Bishop Albert Bereczky, head of the Hungarian Reformed Church in Hungary and president of the Hungarian Ecumenical Council; and Dr. Robert S. Bilheimer of Geneva. Switzerland, associate general secretary of the World Council.
It was October 23 that the freedom fighters led the uprising in Hungary. Bereczky was deposed and repudiated as a Communist. He was an active leader in the Communist underground before the Reds captured Hungary in 1945. These American leaders went to Hungary for the meeting of the central committee of the World Council behind the Iron Curtain in July and August, 1956. It was a pretty close call all the way around. Janos Horvath, president of the State Office for Church Affairs, representing the government, was also locked in prison by the freedom fighters. He is back now in office. Bereczky is back in his place of power for the Communists.
Bereczky's praise of Communism has been profuse through these years. Celebrating the tenth anniversary of the socalled "liberation" of Budapest, he said, "A rich, abundant, flourishing, powerful new life surrounds us, and we decided, as Church, to regard this new, pulsating, hopeful life as the gift of God's grace which we modestly and humbly try to promote with our helpful ministrations."
Bereczky came to Evanston, Ill., in 1954 for the Assembly of the World Council of Churches, and was welcomed by the leaders of the National Council as a fine Christian gentleman. He was an official delegate with others from the Communistcontrolled churches in Hungary.
But this collaboration with the Communists on the top level relates to Red China and it is directly connected with the present announced plan of Dr. Blake to go to Red China with a delegation of churchmen representing the NCC.
Ting is the Communist-appointed Bishop of Chekiang, and Dean of Nanking Theological Seminary. In Red China the Communists have taken complete control of the, churches. What church there is, is Communist-sopnsored.
Ting, thus far, is the No. 1 exchange delegate. His article, "The Church in China Today," first appeared in The Student World, January, 1957, organ of the World's Student Christian Federation.
When the delegation of church leaders from India went to Red China, Association Men, official organ of Council of Young Men's Christian Associations for India and Ceylon, dedicated its July issue to a report of the trip and praise of the Communists. The delegation was pictured with Chou En-lai, the prime minister. This July issue featured Ting's "The Church in China Today." Ting preaches the Communist line that there is freedom of religion and that Communism has been a blessing to China.. The coming of Communism to China, he said, "represents rather an act of God." "In that act, we discover once again that God loves China, that China has not been out of His hands, and that He does care for our people." He denounces "a small number of missionaries who left China . . . and giving speeches to spread rumours and slanders about China and the Church there."
When the top leaders of the National Council of Churches collaborate, fellowship with, and commend as fine Christian leaders these appointees and spokesmen for the Communists themselves, disaster has come upon the churches. They give the Communist line great advantage and prestige, and the claims of these Communistappointed church leaders are given respectability.
The most important activity of the National Council at the present time is the aid and comfort that it is giving to Communism and the discouragement and disillusionment it has generated in the hearts of refugees and those in Iron Curtain lands who yearn for the day of liberation from their Communist tyrants.
REVISED STANDARD VERSION
George W. Cornell, in his report from St. Louis, said that the Council "guides the production of uniform Sunday school outlines used by 20 million Protestant children." These outlines are based upon the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyrighted and published by the National Council of Churches. An advertisement in the December, 1957, issue of the Outlook calls their Bible "The Perfect Gift for This Moment in This World." Nothing that the Council has ever done has brought greater opposition or stirred more controversy throughout the churches of the country.
The "new Bible," as it is called, and indeed it is new, did considerably more than just correct some archaic expressions. Twelve of the 32 translators bad Communist-front records. A member of the Jewish faith who does not accept Christ as Messiah helped translate the Old Testament, and passages dealing specifically with the deity of Christ were changed or modified.
Isaiah 7:14, the glorious prediction of the virgin birth of Christ, has the word "virgin" dropped from the text and "a young woman" put in its place. The Old Testament quotation in Matthew 1:23 uses the word "virgin" and says that it was "spoken of the Lord by the prophet," when the prophet says nothing of the kind, according to the "new Bible." Messianic passages like Micah 5:2 eliminate the deity of Christ. Isaiah 45:6 is changed, and Hebrews 1:8, supposed to be a quotation, becomes a contradiction.
The translators made no distinction whatever throughout the entire Bible between the actual translation of the words of the original Hebrew and Greek texts and their own words which were added. Arbitrarily they used "thee" and "thou" o refer to deity, and "you" and "yours" to everyone else. But they always referred to Christ as "you" and "yours," never recognizing His deity. Quotation marks were inserted although there are none in the original text and the translators took the famous text, John 3:16, out of the lips of Jesus Christ, after they had eliminated from the verse the reference to Christ being the "only begotten" Son.
Bible-preaching radio preachers denounced it and pressed the story into the homes of thousands of Christians inside the National Council of Churches. The American Council of Christian Churches, which had been organized back in 1941 to offset the Federal Council, led the fight in the United States against the perverted book which was offered as a "new Bible." The announced purpose of the National Council that the Bible would replace the King James Version continues, after these five years, to be their goal.
The difficulty is that the Sunday school material of the denominations in the NCC uses the new Bible, and this literature is banded down to the people from the top ranks.
No sensible person can read the new Bible, study it critically or carefully, and possibly believe that it is a book inspired by a holy, righteous God.
The Bible says, "Every word of God is pure." God does not contradict Himself, and the translators of His Book should be men who believe in Him and who are enlightened by His Holy Spirit.
The point of all this is that, before the foundations upon which the individual's freedom which Americans have enjoyed can be broken, the confidence of the people in the Bible as the infallible land inerrant Word of God has to be shaken. Unbelief has driven a dagger into the Christ revealed to us in the Holy Bible. The book is no longer trustworthy, and multiplied thousands have been deceived by it, and particularly by those who have promoted it as something "better." The offer of the new Bible as "better English" does not justify or compensate for the serious errors it contains. It should not be used in private or public worship. The King James Version is still the best and most beloved of all.
FESTIVAL OF FAITH
From the standpoint of the Christian faith itself, perhaps the worst thing that the National Council of Churches ever did in all the years of its history, even when it was the Federal Council, was its co-operation in the Festival of Faith, June 19, 19551 held in the Cow Palace, San Francisco, California, celebrating the tenth anniversary of the formation of the United Nations.
Representatives of six different religions participated in a united service "of prayer for peace and divine guidance to the United Nations." These representatives were from the Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Bahai and Jewish faiths. Quotations from the sacred writings of six faiths were woven into one responsive reading. They came from the Confucian (The Sayings of Confucius), Hindu (The Bhabavad-Gita), Buddhist (Selected Readings), Christian (New Testament), Moslem (The Koran), and Judaism (Old Testament).
The National Council Outlook, September, 1955, featured the occasion with a picture of all the participants standing together on the platform, and Dr. 0. Frederick Nolde, chairman of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, representing the World Council of Churches and International Missionary Council, presiding. The NCC report said, "They called God by different names--speaking to him in different tongues, but the dream for peace in their hearts was the same." Dr. John S. Gardner, who prayed for the "Protestants" and who is now the executive secretary of the Greater Chicago Council of Churches, said, "It is probably true that such an inclusive assembly has never before been achieved in a single service." In honor of the occasion, and as a manifestation of the cooperation of the National Council of Churches, the General Board, June 19, 1955, adopted a resolution specifically drawn for the occasion and printed as a part of the Festival of Faith's order of service!
There is only one true and living God, and the first command is, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." This flagrant violation of the First Commandment by the National Council of Churches in its official action stands indeed, as it has been called, a "climax of apostasy."
The chairman of "A Festival of Faith" and president of the San Francisco Council of Churches, affiliated with the NCC, Mrs. William Lister Rogers, welcomed the delegates of the United Nations. The Hon. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, the United States, delivered the main address, "The Moral Foundations of the United Nations."
The prayers were printed. The Buddhists called upon "the Ultimate Reality" and "the Supreme Buddha," and "our Lord The Buddha." The Moslem prayed in the "Name of Allah." The Hindu addressed, "0 Brahman-Thou God Transcendent." And the man who offered the Protestant prayer addressed the "Eternal God, Father of all." And thus modernism, apostasy, restated its departure from the glorious faith of our Lord, for He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me." This fellowship with idolatry and claiming that they just called God by different names is at the heart of the National Council's appraisal of the present world crisis. It indicates why the NCC leaders are ready, to shake hands in Christian fellowship with the Communist-appointed church leaders in Moscow who eulogized Joe Stalin, and constantly commend the atheistic socialist state!
Elijah, where art thou?
F B I UNDERCOVER AGENTS TESTIFY
In all the years of the Federal Council of Churches and now the National Council of Churches the strangest phenomena in relationship to Communist activity and the Communist fronts have prevailed.
We have watched the situation very closely and never have we seen any recognition on the part of the National Council 4 Churches that there even is such a thing as Communist infiltration of their churches. In fact, the leadership of the Council has directed attacks against those who have come forth alleging that there is such a thing. Particularly is this true of attacks on the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
Two FBI undercover agents have given reports that cannot be ignored.
HERERT A. PHILBRICK, nine years an undercover FBI agent, operating in the top level of the Communist apparatus in the United States, had this to say:
"It is no accident that your church is the number-one target of the Communist conspiracy in America today. . . . Virtually no Communist or Communist-front activity takes place today without ministerial and church support, sponsorship or participation.
"Sometimes this shows up in church literature. The Communist Party leans heavily upon publicly printed and distributed magazines, papers and books which do not bear Communist Party identification as such. But one can spot the Communist influence by the terminology often used-the scoffing at capitalism, the labeling of the United States as 'imperialist,' the sneering directed at the profit motive. America is not wholly perfect. But neither is it wholly imperfect, as the Communists would have you believe."
"In 1942 1 was ordered by the Party to maintain strong ties with the Baptist church, the denomination with which I had been affiliated since early youth. I did this, joining the First Baptist Church of Wakefield, Massachusetts. . . .
"The most shocking fact was that there was also a special subversive cell of hardened, disciplined, trained agents of Stalin, men who were ministers of the Gospel! . . .
"I am not guessing about this. I saw those ministers in action-ruthless Communist leaders, prostituting the Christian ministry to the evil ends of atheism and oppression. They knew exactly what they were doing" (Article, "The Communists Are After Your Church!" in Christian Herald, April, 1953).
BORIS MORROS, another undercover FBI agent who testified before the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, said that among the instructions given to him by his Communist superiors was an order to place an agent in the office of Cardinal Spellman of New York City. Morros warned in general:
"The American people are not cognizant of the great danger that looks us straight in the eye. It is much more dangerous, and much more serious, than any of us can even imagine.
"And we should start paying more attention to every little detail of what the Soviets are trying to do to us-and there is nothing good they ever have in mind for us. There is always great danger in anything they are doing, and it is mostly danger to our American form of life."
Representative Francis E. Walter, chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, commenting upon Morros's testimony, said:
"Many of our people-and some of our courts -still cling to the idea that Communism is a mere political theory. It is more than that. It is a plot to enslave the United States and the rest of the world."
Judge Robert Morris, Chief Counsel of the U. S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, in an address on November 1, 1957, before the 16th Annual Convention of the American Council of Christian Churches, warned that Communists have infiltrated the churches and he declared, "Communists in the United States are the advance guard of the legions that are grinding down Hungarian freedom fighters in the streets of Budapest." Then he appealed: "I adjure you to take up your own brand of arms in this titanic endeavor. Plunge into the tasks ahead with all your skill and evangelistic fervor. This is the greatest challenge that man has ever encountered."
Nothing like this has ever been heard on the platform of the National Council of Churches. Instead, Dr. Blake, in St. Louis, said the free world "faces a true crisis in that it will be as dangerous to continue 100 per cent skepticism of totalitarian Communism as it would be to believe all the protestations of peaceful intentions that come from the Kremlin."
In truth, none of the peaceful protestations can be believed! World domination is the goal. In truth, a 100 per cent skepticism of totalitarian Communism should be preached. Atheistic, antiGod, Christ-hating Communism cannot be trusted in any particular by God-fearing lovers of freedom.
CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATING COMMITTEES
The testimony of former Communists themselves cannot be ignored.
Manning Johnson, a former member of the national committee of the Communist Party, testified, "Once the tactic of infiltrating religious organizations was set by the Kremlin, the actual mechanics of implementing the 'new line' was a question of following the general experiences of the living church movement in Russia where the Commmunists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much faster through infiltration of the church by Communist agents operating within the church itself. . . .
"The Communists had some small forces in the seminaries and under the leadership of Harry F. Ward. These were quickly augmented by additional recruits and siphoned into the divinity institutions by manipulations of Communist cells in the seminaries. . . .
"The plan was to make the seminaries the neck of a funnel through which thousands of potential clergymen would issue forth, carrying with them, in varying degrees, an ideology and slant which would aid in neutralizing the anti-Communist character of the church and also to use the clergy to spearhead important Communist projects.
"This policy was successful beyond even Communist expectations" (Investigation of Communist Activities in the United States, Part 8, July 13 and 14, 1953-Committee on Un-American Activities).
Louis Budenz, former editor of the Communist Daily Worker, in hearings before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, testified as to Communist infiltration into the churches. Naming Harry F. Ward of Union Theological Seminary, New York City, he said, "I knew Dr. Ward 'very well over a great number of years. . . . I also know from conversations with Dr. Ward personally, of his Communist affiliation." (Ward was a member of the Communist Party.)
Benjamin Gitlow a former general secretary of the Communist Party, testified, July 7, 1953, before the House Committee:
"The Comintern leaders were of the opinion that clergymen, with Dr. Ward's point of view, using the cloak of religion, could render service of inestimable value to the Communist cause in China and to Soviet interests. Besides, the missions and church institutions in China could be used, in the opinion of the Comintern, to cover up Communist espionage activities in China. Clergymen, who served in various capacities in China, and who deliberately followed the Communist Party line. or were duped into following it, formed an important branch of the conspiracy to turn China over to the Communists."
Joseph Z. Kornfedder, a former member of the national committee of the Communist Party in the United States, testified, July 7, 1953, before the House Committee. Kornfedder gave lengthy testimony "of Communist and fellow travelers working inside the churches, giving themselves the coloring of religious reformers and of getting the church in the social side, away from spiritualism into the class struggle."
But such testimony gathered by our Government to protect the security of the country has been ignored by the NCC. It has not deterred the National Council leaders from their program of collaborating with the Communists.
In an hour when the entire nation is concerned, and properly so, over the superiority of the Russians in missiles and sputniks, Dr. 0. Frederick Nolde, director of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, speaking at St. Louis, declared that the danger of space missiles "lies not in fantastic scientific achievements but in fantastic human reactions." He said that Americans "seem to be acting like spiritual adolescents at a time of scientific maturity." They could, he emphasized, by "extremist countermeasures betray our genius and endanger the world."
The Communists indeed want the American people not to be aroused or too concerned. This is the slant which, in an hour of peril, the National Council leaders seek to give to the country. American people arise, gird herself, and carry on a vigorous campaign to win the cold war as well as maintain adequate strength to deter any aggressors' ambitions.
COMMUNIST "DAILY WORKER"
A faithful barometer registering activity of church leaders favorable to Communist causes is, of course, the New York Daily Worker. One of the major issues of the cold war during recent months has been the Russian demands that the West discontinue H-bomb experimentation; The West has insisted that before any cessation of testing can take place an agreement on disarmament, which would be fool-proof, had to be forthcoming.
In the midst of this struggle, the central committee of the World Council of Churches, including the top leaders of the National Council of Churches from the United States, met in New Haven, Conn., July 31 to August 7, 1957, and came out flatfootedly on the Communist side -of these issues of the cold war!
The Daily Worker, August 6, 1957, featured a -front-page spread with inch-and-ahalf headlines, for the story: "The central committee of the World Council of Churches today approved a statement calling for the discontinuation of all nuclear tests, (at least for a trial period.' It said the stopping of the tests would be a first step in what the committee hoped would be disarmament 'by stages.'"
This hit the Communist bull's-eye. In the name of high moral principles, these church leaders pulled the foundations out from under the position of the Western world. No wonder the Communists gleefully promoted the pronouncement!
A little later in August, the Lutheran World Federation endorsed the same position. Dr. 0. Frederick Nolde, chairman of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, was responsible for the drafting of the WCC and LWF statements. He is the same Dr. Nolde referred to above who presided at the "Festival of Faith" in San Francisco.
The pronouncement in supporting its demand said: "Moreover, there is a risk for the sake of peace which Christians, especially in countries projecting tests of nuclear weapons, are justified in advocating, in the hope of breaking through the barriers of distrust. They can urge their governments to declare their resolve to forego tests for a trial period, in the hope that others will do the same, a new confidence be born, and foundations laid for reliable agreements."
This assumption that the Russians somehow will be influenced for good or that they can be trusted is what the Communists want the Western world to believe. And their strongest ally in this cold war on moral issues has turned out to be the World Council of Churches and the church leaders from the United States represented in the National Council of Churches.
This pronouncement came at a time when the Moscow World Youth Festival had been emphasizing the same Communist line-abandonment of H-bomb tests. For the NCC leaders in this country to be a party to a program which is exactly what the Communists desire in their cold war battle ought in itself to be sufficient cause for Christian people to forsake the Council.
The Communist - appointed delegates in the World Council of Churches who were present at New Haven went back to their countries and reported most favorably upon their accomplishments. This has been seen in the Communist-controlled Hungarian Church Press and in the Protestant Churches in Czechoslovakia.
The fact that these top church leaders from the United States are willing to sit down in "Christian fellowship" and co-operate with these Communist-appointed church leaders and unanimously-the above statement was adopted unanimously-produce a statement which undermines the welfare of the West, places these men in the position of giving Communism a recognition, a respectability, and an influence which it should never have at the hands of the Christian religion.
Jesus Christ said, "No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house" (Mark 3:27).
When the Council, however, does this sort of thing, it does not get called to account in press reports for some reason. For instance, the United Press, December 27, reporting from Cairo, Egypt, the African-Asian conference, said that the delegates from 37 nations "started preparing resolutions based on reports which voiced the Communist line on familiar cold war themes.
"The reports, introduced Thursday, demanded an unconditional halt to nuclear weapons tests. . . ." Even the UP recognized this as "the Communist line."
When the central committee of the World Council of Churches calls for unilateral cessation, with no conditions whatsoever, the United Press and the other press agencies in the United States did not identify it as "familiar cold war themes."
The Outlook, October, 1957, the NCC's official organ, as we have pointed out, had this to say: "The Central Committee of the World Council of Churches after lengthy consideration of widely divergent views, voted to commend the CCIA statement to the churches. It went further in urging governments to cease atomic weapons tests as a first step at least for a trial period, unilaterally if necessary. It also requested the churches in the countries directly concerned to present the statements to their governments.
"On the basis of this request, a delegation of churchmen representing the World Council of Churches, the Commission -of the Churches on International Affairs and the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. conferred with the Secretary of State of the United States on September 13."
The Outlook concluded, "What effect, if any, this statement and its presentation to government to may have on the United States policy remains to be seen."
Thus a pronouncement which favored the Communist cold war line was carried to the Secretary of State in the name of these church bodies and this was done in country after country by the groups related to the WCC.
Both the President and the Secretary of State are accessible to the top leaders of the National Council of Churches. They have received them. It is significant to note that similar requests by leaders of the American Council of Christian Churches to see the Secretary of State and also to see the President of the United States have been denied. If the President and the Secretary of State have the time to see NCC delegations, as they have, they should be willing to receive an American Council delegation which -desires to present a different viewpoint on these issues from that which they have repeatedly received now from the NCC.
There is strong feeling in American Council church circles in this country that there is just plain discrimination being manifested by the President and by the Secretary of State. For instance, when the World Council was desirous of getting its delegates from the Communistcontrolled countries into this country for the Evanston Assembly, its leaders -the NCC leaders-were able to see the Secretary of State. But when the American Council of Christian Churches requested an opportunity to see the Secretary of State on the same subject it was denied the privilege. Several requests have gone to the White I-louse. The door of the White House in the United States has been open to Dr. Eugene Carson Blake and Dr. Franklin Clark Fry, the chairman of the central committee of the World Council of ;Churches and president of the Lutheran World Federation, but it has not been open to any American Council churches' representatives.
This was not the case with the former President, Harry Truman. He opened his door to the American Council brethren as well as to the National Council leaders.
Another familiar cold war theme pushed by the Russians is "peaceful coexistence." On this score the WCC, NCC again sided with the Russians, though they do not always use the name "peaceful coexistence." The title adopted at Evanston in 1954 at the Second Assembly of the WCC, was "Living Together in a Divided World." But it was the Communist line. "Peaceful coexistence" was only "a transitional stage or a point of departure. It must move, through untiring endeavor, beyond these minimum requirements into an order of genXXXXXXXXXXXXX uine cooperation. The first move into such an order must surely be in the direction of peaceful competition with growing co-operation. This order will be facilitated and reinforced through the free exchange of persons, culture, information and goods; through common undertakings for relief and human welfare; and through the growth of the United Nations as an instrument for peaceful change" (Evanston pronouncement on International Affairs).
The race relations program of the National Council of Churches is a major cause of strife and bitterness within the country. It has turned preachers against laymen and colored against white and has helped create the embarrassment which has come to the United States.
Since there is considerable evidence that the Communists have made racial tensions one of their major fields of concern. it is all the more important that Christian people face the issues in the light of the Bible, with Christian love and grace. But the National Council has based its aggressive program upon the false and unbiblical doctrine of the "universal brotherhood of man and the universal fatherhood of God."
Race relations promoted on such an unchristian foundation will not bring peace. The Bible teaches that all men are born in sin, the children of wrath, and that it is not until they are born again that they become children of God and one in Christ. This comes only when the true Gospel with its regenerating power is preached, With their false gospel, therefore, the National Council has stimulated the emotions of unregenerate men.
It was reported in St. Louis that not more than ten per cent of the churches in the U.S.A. are what is called integrated or interracial, and this has been attained after 40 years of the Council's intensive propaganda to make all churches interracial and nonsegregated, as they call it. An all-white or an all-colored church is a "segregated church."
In the Year-End Roundup of the World Council of Churches, released December 17, 1957, it is reported, "Dr. J. Oscar Lee, the. National Council of Churches' race relations expert, spent the first three months of 1957 on a round-the-world tour for the WCC to attempt to discover the world body's role in the field of race." The report says, "The new race relations program is designed to implement the affirmations of the 1954 WCC Evanston Assembly that 'segregation, based on race, color, or ethnic origin is contrary to the Gospel and is incompatible with the Christian doctrine of man and with the nature of the Church of Christ.' " This is the shibboleth!
So far as the Bible is concerned, there has never been a more segregated people in the history of the world than the Children of Israel. The Old Testament demanded it of them. This segregation was based upon race, religion, and ethnical origin.
In the New Testament the Gospel brings menJew and Greek, bond and free, white and blackinto a blessed, eternal fellowship in Christ, the Church Universal. But this does not mean, and has not meant, historically or otherwise, that God's people have not and do not worship around the world in their various local "segregated" assemblies according to their race, their color, their linguistic and ethnic origins. There are many factors indeed that have produced this, and yet true Christians fully respect and love one another.
In the United States, under the doctrine of States Rights, each state has been free to handle its own social, educational, and racial problems, as circumstance required. But the National Council of Churches, denying the true Christian distinction between the saved and the lost, has used its position to try to force certain political and social patterns upon the southern states of the United States.
The entire racial agitation of the National Council of Churches should be stopped. The company of Christians in the United States who endorse it, moreover, is small indeed.
The approach to the problem should be, on the part of all Christian people, regardless of their race, or color, or ethnic origin, the preaching of the true Gospel of Christ which alone generates love in the hearts of men for one another. To try to force "Christian love" as a social pattern in the name of the brotherhood of man, which does not exist, can only produce strife. It has. Christians who believe the Bible and love their Lord will love and respect one another, regardless of their race, color, or ethnic origin.
The National Council's racial program is not based upon the Gospel of Christ at all, but it is designed to complement and to further the Communist ends of strife, turning man against man, color against color!
Social patterns are not forced upon people from above by courts or by councils. They are determined in a democratic country by the people themselves and the true Gospel is the only sure remedy for the hearts and deeds of men.
Present providential and historical locations of people of different races, colors, and ethnic origins around this earth are all going to have to be readjusted and a thorough mixing brought to pass, if the World Council is to carry out its thesis for the Gospel. Radical, leftist, and Communist influences, we believe, are mainly responsible for this agitation. Testimony available today, both North and South in the United States, is to the effect that the racial situation is deteriorating and the cause of the colored man and genuine racial tolerance has been set back at least 50 years.
Every true, Bible-believing Christian who loves his country, loves his neighbor, and loves his fellow Christian, whether be is white or black, should repudiate the National Council of Churches for the confusion and harm which it has produced even in its churches, where NCC leaders talk big at the top, but in actual practice their own churches are the biggest hypocrites of all!
At St. Louis, Dr. Blake, in his report, pointed up the new emphasis on theology. He listed, "The practice of bringing to meetings of the general board some of the great theological voices of our churches: Niebuhr, Tillich, Calhoun," and said, "This is to the end that the thought and discussions shall be deeply oriented in the best available insights into the nature of the gospel itself."
Who are these men mentioned, and what are their insights? It is just here that the divergence of the Council from the position of the historic Christian faith is so clear.
Niebuhr has given to the world a "Niebuhrian" Christianity. It is of his own thinking. He believes that the Jesus of history was a sinner and was mistaken in some of his ideas. To him there is no essential difference between the Jesus of history and Socrates or Gandhi. He uses a dialectical approach.
The Banner, organ of the Christian Reformed Church, October 4, 1957, appraises his position in these terms: "It is not at all surprising, therefore, that according to Niebuhr both the Virgin Birth and the Incarnation are to be understood mythically. Heaven and hell are not to be understood literally. The resurrection of the body is another dialectical symbol; 'to believe that the graves will be opened and men will literally be raised is to Niebuhr literalistic nonsense.' The Second Coming of Christ, too, is a mythical symbol; Niebuhr regards with scorn those who believe that Christ will actually appear upon the clouds of heaven."
Niebuhr is vice-president of Union Theological Seminary, New York; and in a review, May 19, 1957, New York Times Book Review, he criticizes Jim Bishop in his book, The Day Christ Died, as follows:
"He constantly weaves the Johannine narrative of the events with that of the Synoptic Gospels without any seeming recognition that the Johannine Gospel is something more and something less than history and has about the same relation to the actual record of Jesus' words as Plato's account of Socrates' life has to the character of Socrates.
"John sometimes actually corrects the record at important points, but the words he puts into the mouth of Jesus are certainly a poetic elaboration of the actual 'sayings.' No, they are the very words of Jesus and they are, as Jesus said, "Spirit and Life"!
Reinhold Niebuhr is a socialist. His socialism is expressed in such statements as these:
"The social power which inheres in the ownership of the means of production is so irresponsible and so irrelevant to the necessities of the technical civilization that its destruction has become a primary prerequisite of social health."
Such influence in the name of theology and social consciousness at the head of the National ;Council of Churches only indicates how far afield present-day Protestantism has gone from its historic moorings. Such guidance will lead to social disaster.
Paul Tillich also has a philosophy of his own. His book, Dynamics of Faith, Harper & Brothers, 1957, makes it abundantly clear that the historic literalistic view of Christianity cannot be accepted; that even "symbols and myths" cannot be understood in their immediate meaning. Such literalism, he emphasizes, "deprives God of his ultimacy and, religiously speaking, of his majesty." He objects to the virgin birth of the Messiah being "understood in biological terms, resurrection and ascension as physical events, the second coming of Christ as a telluric, or cosmic, catastrophe." In fact, he says, "If the Christ-a transcendent, divine being appears in the fullness of time, lives, dies and is resurrected, this is an historical myth. Christianity is superior to those religions which are bound to a natural myth. But Christianity speaks the mythological language like every other religion. It is a broken myth, but it is a myth; otherwise Christianity would not be an expression of ultimate concern."
But the historic Christian faith has never believed -or taught that the Christian religion is built upon symbols and that it is myth. Instead, we hear, "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you." As the Apostle Luke said, it was "by many infallible proofs" that men were persuaded that Christ had literally and bodily been raised from the dead. It is fact, not myth!
Here again is a pagan philosophy akin to other pagan myths being offered as Christianity and for the leadership of the church of the twentieth century. What valid "insight" can such apostasy offer our nation?
Dr. Calhoun of Yale lines up pretty well with the above two. David expressed what should guide any church council:
"Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep they precepts. I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word" (Psa. 119:98-101).
THE ONE-WORLD CHURCH
Co-operation through a greatly strengthened council of churches is not the end which the National Council leadership envisions. There is some "double talk" right here, but the Christian unity toward which they look is "one church." This is to include all the churches of the world, with the Roman Catholic and the Communistcontrolled churches in Iron Curtain lands. Quite a goal!
A conference on Faith and Order, the first to be held in the United States, was sponsored jointly by the National Council of Churches, the World Council of Churches, and the Canadian Council of Churches, in Oberlin, Ohio, September 3 to 10, 1957. The widespread publicity given to the conference in the United States convinced some of the American people that the end in view was the "one-world church."
Bishop Harms Lilje of the Lutheran Church in Germany, addressing the meeting, emphasized the need for this unity and said, "This means that we have to rethink our whole Christian status, our Christian message and our Christian way of living in the light of greater Christian unity" (New York Times, September 9, 1957).
The conference closed with a message to the churches calling for "a unity in which every ministry is a ministry of and for -all the members, bound together in a worshiping and sacramental community." Every church was called upon "to examine the way in which it makes visible the nature of the Church of Christ." The message expressed "a common sorrow over the continued fact of our separations one from another," and, "Although some of our divisions arise out of loyalty to truths that we now see, we must acknowledge that Christ calls us to a fuller comprehension of truth and more obedient service." And it said, "We cannot forget that His prayer for the unity of His followers remains unfulfilled."
But John 17 was not a prayer for organic union of the followers of Christ into one visible church I This is the great error here. It was a prayer that His disciples might be one in Him, in their faith in Him and their love for Him and for each other. It was a spiritual oneness, not visible organic union.
Thus the NCC is using Christ, His name, regardless of how men may consider Him or believe, or what they may believe concerning Him, as the shibboleth under which they are seeking to bring together all into one visible church.
Instead, if all the churches of the land were preaching the Bible as God's Word, teaching the people the truth and the authority of the Scriptures, and seeking to win lost men to Christ. there would be blessing and peace in the land. If all the time spent on the unity programs was spent in full and free and independent preaching of the true Gospel, there would be spiritual power and discernment in the land. But men want power. Yet, God's way is "by my Spirit, saith the Lord."
COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
There is a certain organizational structure concerning the National Council of Churches which should be understood. It is a council of churches. We do not in any way question this. Its constitution provides that the various denominations, through their own responsible bodies and by their own processes, vote to affiliate with the Council. Each denomination is accorded a representation on the basis of its numerical strength, and each denomination determines who will be its delegates to the National Council. In this way, officially elected delegates from denominations which have officially acted to unite with the Council form the Council itself. Here is where the administrative power of the body lies. There is a national board responsible to the Council which has on it men who have been elected by the denominations to the Council.
From an organizational standpoint none can challenge the representative or democratic character of the Council's setup.
The Council, in fact, is a reflection of the condition that prevails in its various denominations. Each denomination operates according to its own setup, and, as it works out, usually the leaders of a particular denomination are the ones who are elected to serve in the Council.
Thus when the Council claims to represent 37 million Americans, it is claiming to speak for the membership of the churches which have officially voted these members into membership in the National Council of Churches.
When a person joins a local church of a denominational which is in the National Council, he also joins the National Council and World Council of Churches. The way for an individual to get out of the National and World Councils is for him to leave the local church of the denomination which put him into the Council.
The philosophy and inclusivist concept of the church which is embraced by the National Council reflects the conditions which have come to exist over a long period of time in the Council's denominations.
There is some discrepancy between what some of the people in the National Council of Churches believe and the position represented by the Council itself. But the church leaders are sufficiently in control of the situation and have sufficient support from the churches that they have no fear of any difficulty. The hope of the country, so far as this National Council situation is concerned, is for the people in the grass roots of the country to realize that what is being done in their name through the Council and in the terminology of religion is actually undermining the very freedom which the farmers, the businessmen, and the laborers enjoy.
The list of denominations, 30 of them, which have constituted the National Council until its St. Louis convention, are as follows:
African Methodist Episcopal Church
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
American Baptist Convention
Augustana Evangelical Lutheran Church Church of the Brethren
Colored Methodist Episcopal Church
Danish Evangelical Lutheran Church of America
Evangelical and Reformed Church
Evangelical United Brethren Church
Evangelical Unity of Czech Moravian Brethren in North America
Five Years Meeting of Friends in America
General Council of Congregational Christian Churches
Greek Orthodox Church in America
International Convention of Disciples of Christ
The Methodist Church
Moravian Church in America
National Baptist Convention of America
National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc.
Presbyterian Church in the U. S.
Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
Protestant Episcopal Church
Reformed Church in America
Religious Society of Friends of Philadelphia and Vicinity
Roumanian Orthodox Church of America
Russian Orthodox Church in North America
Seventh Day Baptist General Conference
Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Church of North America
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America
United Lutheran Church in America
United Presbyterian Church of North America
There is one aspect of the National Council's present activity that is confusing to many Christians. In fact, the National Council is using it to commend the Council and to offset its other activities.
The Protestant Council of New York is the No. 1 local council affiliated with the National Council of Churches. The modernists, as we call them, those who deny fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith and have a wide variety of opinions concerning Christ, are in control of this Council. The NCC joined with the Protestant Council of New York in promoting the Billy Graham Crusade in Madison Square Garden in the summer of 1957. Indeed, the Protestant Council of New York was actually the sponsor of the Crusade. At the conclusion it also received from the campaign $67,618 for its followup work.
Billy Graham, who started out in his ministry as a fundamentalist who faced the evidence of modernism, has changed. He has ceased to question the modernists and would not go to New York until he had the sponsorship of their Protestant Council. Along with this he had, to lead in prayer, on his platform outstanding, present-day modernists who reject the Christ of the Bible. And then, the converts who responded to the invitation to accept Christ Dr. Graham, without giving them any information on the apostasy, turned over to "the church of their choice." Converts were directed to all manner of churches, including modernist Protestants, fundamental Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jewish Synagogues, Seventh Day Adventists, and so on.
The National Council Outlook, October, 1957, featured Graham's visit to the central committee of the World Council of Churchees in New Haven, Conn., in August of 1957. Graham was pictured with the Archbishop of Canterbury as the "guest" of the Council. This is the meeting that promoted the Communist line on the H-bomb (see preceding story). Back in 1948, however, when the World Council was organized, Graham was asked at the annual convention of the Conservative Baptist Association, "What do you expect the World Council of Churches to do this August when you visit Copenhagen?" He replied, "I believe they are going to nominate the Antichrist." It is now indeed serving the cause of Antichrist, but Graham is helping to build their churches!
Dr. Graham's next campaign is to be under the direction of the San Francisco Council of Churches, another NCC affiliate. Of this campaign Dr. Graham has said, "Anyone who makes a decision at our meetings is seen later and referred to a local clergyman-Protestant, Catholic or Jewish." Carl Howie, pastor of the Calvary Presbyterian Church, San Francisco, and co-chairman for the Crusade, has announced that in San Francisco "the local committee will control policy and not the team." The president of the San Francisco Council of Churches and the chairman of the financial committee for the Graham campaign is none other than Mrs. William Lister Rogers, who conceived and led the iniquitous "Festival of Faith," where all joined in praying to pagan deities. (See "Festival of Faith" section above.)
A serious and major reaction in evangelical circles across the country has set in. The Scriptures are clear. They require obedience to the commands of Christ. The Bible says, "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine [the doctrine of Christ], receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed" (2 John 10). But Dr. Graham places them on his sponsoring committee and he goes under their direction for the conducting of his campaigns, and then he turns his converts, who have had no caution whatsoever, into the hands of many modernists that they might be fed on husks.
The National Council of Churches is using Dr. Graham, featuring him in its official organ, and many people are being misled. True Biblical evangelism will preach only the one Gospel, honor the commands of God in its preaching, and turn the newborn babes over to churches which preach the precious blood of Christ and are standing without compromise for the Faith in a great day of apostasy! All Christians should demand just that. God tells His people not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. The duty which God requires is "obedience to His revealed will," not compromise, -expedience, or disobedience in order to save souls. The Hon. James E. Bennet, LL.D., well-known New York attorney and Christian leader, has written at length on the Billy Graham New York Crusade. All should have the facts he has gathered. (Write for pamphlet, "Ministry of Disobedience," 35 cents each, to Christian Beacon Press, Collingswood 7, N. J.)
This inclusivist evangelism, ecumenical evangelism, as it has now come to be called, is being used to build the National Council of Churches and to defend it when men arise with criticisms such as are reported in this appraisal.
A lengthy book could be written on the program of the National Council of Churches to develop world government. The United Nations has had' the Council's enthusiastic support, with the emphasis that it is not enough-it is only the beginning.
A world government is the answer. The fact that Russia, with her deceit and subversion, is in the U. N., in explicit violation of the provisions of the charter, does not seem to weigh upon the Council's conscience as it claims to be the conscience for the nation, and the "voice of the Church."
The General Board of the Council on June 9, 1955, in its official declaration presented to the Festival of Faith on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the signing of the Charter of the United Nations, appealed for support, and emphasized that the United Nations bad more meaning now than ever before "as sheer necessity to avoid international anarchy and war." It called the U. N. "both a symbol and a method of strengthening the foundations of freedom, peace and security in the world."
But, indeed, it is a symbol that two cannot "walk together, except they be agreed," and it is a method whereby the Communists gain tremendous advantage in destroying "freedom, peace and security in the world." Gradually people are seeing the moral bankruptcy of the U.N.
A world church, toward which the NCC is driving needs a world government which can use its political power to protect and promote the interests of the church. In the Book of Revelation, the oneworld church, the scarlet woman, rides on the back of the one-world government, the beast (Rev. 17).
REFUSAL TO MEET CRITICS
An appraisal such as this is made against the background of the Christian faith, as it has been taught and understood by Protestants in the United States through the years, and our social order based upon individual freedom. The National Council of Churches, and previously the Federal Council of Churches which it absorbed, has had a profound in influence upon the churches and the national life of the United States. Its influence has had a great deal to do with the present impasse as the Reds have been strengthened in their drive to socialize all humanity.
The strategy which the Council leaders have used in dealing with such criticisms as we are here giving has usually been one of silence. They have repeatedly refused challenges to meet in public discussion those who are making responsible objections.
Recently Radio Station WPEN, Philadelphia, scheduled a program, "Frank Ford's Show," to. which it invited representatives of the American Council of Christian Churches and the National Council of Churches to discuss the subject, "Socialism and Communism in Religion." The National Council leaders declined to appear.
The defense that they have made is to attack those who have raised criticisms as "apostles of discord," also they have attempted to discredit such Government committees as the Senate Committee on Internal Security and the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities. The truth is that the evidence which is presented by the Council's critics stands.
There are other indirect ways in which the Council is working. It has sought to have the radio stations of the country voluntarily adopt the policy of not selling time to religion. This is an official policy which the Council is pressing. When radio stations give time, the Council goes to them and claims to represent the Protestants, and so has a monopoly. This procedure eliminates the fundamentalists who are the ones who are in their zeal able to procure enough support to buy time. Modernists generally cannot get support of this nature.
This monopolistic psychology which abounds in the Council leaders' program is expressed in their comity philosophy and their activity in working with zoning boards. The local councils presume to have the say as to where churches may be established or located. This, of course, involves threats to the liberty which the American people enjoy under the Bill of Rights and the "free exercise of religion."
The Council in its over-all program emphasizes its relief activities, its interchurch aid, and secures the support of groups which are not connected with it. Surely this is a field where the Council's program is not being promoted but the Council is using its aid to silence criticism among those who receive it and those who Co-operate. It is using its aid in every section of the world to promote the ecumenical movement-the one-world church with its corollary, one-world government. It has purchased with this aid whole libraries slanted to the leftist, socialistic line, and presented them to schools and institutions all over the world. It brings foreign students to study in the modernist seminaries. In fact, there is little that the Council does that is not oriented into its over-all picture.
The zeal of the Council is eating it up. Its total impact is that of a powerful pressure group, operating under a front, to condition the people for certain social changes which they envision will establish the kingdom of God as a social order here on the earthman-made, man-controlled--an instrument, as they see it, for world peace, but indeed an instrument of world tyranny.
THE VOICE OF JEREMIAH
The lonely prophet , Jeremiah, needs to be heard in this hour of apostasy and confusion.
"Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a Vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord" (Jer. 23:1). His day was like ours. And so the Lord emphasized, "I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings" (vv. 21, 22). "The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord. . . . Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that use their tongues, and say, He saith" (vv. 28, 31). "Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the Lord, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the Lord" (v. 32).
The apostasy which has fallen upon the church, the inclusivist concept of the church, the emphasis upon building a one-world church, a man-made powerful system, and a one-world government-all of this is the dream and the fancy of men and is not in accordance with the Word of the Lord.
In the 15th chapter of Jeremiah, God calls for a taking forth of "the precious from the vile." The precious and the vile cannot be joined together in fellowship.
Jeremiah describes his own estate, "I sat not in the assembly of the mockers, nor rejoiced; I sat alone because of thy hand: for thou hast filled me with indignation" (15:17). He was not a member of the NCC or WCC of his day! And his indignation was against the prophets who were misleading the people and claiming that they spoke for God when the dreams that they offered them were in conflict with His commands and His Word.
Jeremiah heard the message from the Lord: "Stand in the gate of the Lord's house, and proclaim there this word, and say, Hear the word of the Lord. . . . Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place. Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these [the Council of Churches, the Council of Churches, the Council of Churches]" (7:2-4). And then we read how Pashur, "who was also chief governor in the house of the Lord, heard that Jeremiah prophesied these things. Then Pashur smote Jeremiah the prophet, and put him in the stocks that were in the high gate of Benjamin, which was by the house of the Lord" (20:1-3). But Jeremiah kept crying out, "The Lord bath not called thy name Pashur, but Magor-missabib. For thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will make thee a terror to thyself, and to all thy friends" (20:1-4).
WHAT ARE WE TO DO?
We every true servant -of Jesus Christ-should stand in the succession of Jeremiah.
It was this spirit that in 1941 led churches that had separated from the National Council, then the Federal Council of Churches, and its denominations, to establish the American Council of Christian Churches. There are 14 of the smaller church bodies in that Council today. It is challenging the National Council in its departure from the Word of God. And as the National Council and the ecumenical leaders established their World Council of Churches in 1948, another parallel and opposing council, the International Council of Christian Churches, with which the ACCC is affiliated, was also founded, and now has 5.8 denominations. This council does not stand for the organic union of the churches. It is calling the churches to stand by their confessions, to build their testimonies, and to cooperate together in Christian fellowship, mutual love and respect, and to join in battling the apostasy as represented by the NCC.
There are some things that must be done now by every Christian: (1) Be informed. (2) Be an active missionary in informing others. (3) Separate from the National Council of Churches and from the denominations which comprise it; the whole system is evil. (4) Take part in the maintaining and establishment of true Bible-believing churches where the Word of God is preached in its purity. (5) Cease to give money to the National Council or to any of the denominations associated with it. The National Council counts all the people and it gets its funds directly and indirectly, in various ways, to support its intricate and involved setup. (6) Give more than ever before to help the true missionary testimonies, the Bible-believing churches, and all who are engaged in the battle for the Faith and for the freedom of our country. (7) Pray without ceasing! Each individual Christian must recognize that he counts, that he has a personal responsibility in this battle, and that what he does is going to determine the way things go in the future, for the church and for the country! The key to all Christian activity and testimony is the individual, obedient and faithful, uncompromising and militant, as he stands by the ancient landmarks, keeps them from being removed, and as he resists the enemies of men's souls today.
"Fight the good fight of faith."