In need of behind stories on WCC's structure

Not open for further replies.

Ken S.

Puritan Board Freshman
Somebody mentioned that "the RCA is a leading member of the NCC and WCC" (from R. Scott Clark)and it was good to hear about that sort of information. It's my first time to know some behind story of WCC. That information is valuable to me.
I need this sort of information very much. So can anyone give me a more thorough account of WCC's structure? For example, how much of it is apostate, how much is not apostate or unknown? Why there are so many churches, if they do know WCC is apostate, still staying as part of WCC? Why is WCC so powerful? Is there any groups or organizations as organised and wellknown as WCC in the west that is particularly anti-WCC or have/had been kept disclosing WCC's apostate nature and warning the church of Christ all over the world (I just know of two which are ICCC and ACCC ) ?

Really hope that some of you could help out for me. I look forward too all you's comments. Thank you very much. :welcome::pray2:


Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
Back in the early 20th century, in the USA, there was a tremendous impetus toward massive centralization. This impetus was society-wide, as education was turned over to the state and standardized, as the federal structure of the USA was replaced with an empirical, etc. The bigger the organization and the more command-driven the apparatus, the more efficent--or so went the logic.

Actually, modernity and industrialization were having this effect globally, in different ways and with various effects in this or that place.

Likewise, the was a big push for religious consolidation as well. I don't think anyone really thought in terms of different religions merging (at the time) but certainly Christian denominations could join together! The first step was the creation of an umbrella organization, the Federal Council of Churches (FCC--renamed (?) to the National Council of Churches, NCC). Of course, in any huge organization, filled with suborgs having competing creedal committments, doctrine took an immedate backseat to social-gospel concerns.

Within the first half of the century, most of the major denominations had seen splits between either orthodox or fundamentalists and the main-lines. The large, liberal remnants continued to push for organic unity and cooperation.

In parallel, note the results in Canada, which did see a major combination of Protestant churches in the United Church of Canada (do I have the name right?).

The WCC was simply an extension of the same cooperative/union mindset. Its most obvious parallel is the United Nations, in the secular-political realm. Of course, when one gets all these quasi-Christians together (few of whom agree on what the gospel actually is) they purport to speak for Christians everywhere. Being BIG means the press courts you (kind of like the pope or the RCC being treated like some sort of "Christian spokesman" just because they are BIG).

The Western churches have got tons of money (like the western nations in the UN). So, they have plenty of power in the WCC. Little churches in small countries are attracted to a big organization, with money to spend (and influence to buy). So, I think less attention is paid to theological committments of this BIG organization than to influence and pronouncements made by it. Sadly, that's not very much in accord with the spiritual mission of the church. but it does explain how the liberal churches maintain presence and influence around the world, at the expense of the gospel.

Within conservative American Christianity, the WCC is not on the radar screen. We don't belong, generally. Neither is there much interest in consevative "parallel" institutions. The concept is unstable, as we see it. Eccumenicism is not going to happen on the "UN model," so why spend energy in that direction?

So, in the rest of the world the WCC sets up its embassies, and poses as World-Christianity's representative bureaucracy. They are opposed by little groups like the ACCC or ICCC which are little more than figurehead organizations (they are all parachurch) without money.

That's all for now. Hope that's helpful...

[Edited on 1-13-2006 by Contra_Mundum]
Not open for further replies.