Talk:World Council of Churches

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I changed the WCC article to add reference to some of the major programmes that the WCC has undertaken.

I also changed the list of member denominations to more accurately reflect their origin. Namely: the Baptist and Methodist churches do not date to the Protestant Reformation (16th century). I also updated the number of WCC member churches to 342. This will change from year to year.

--Njesson 23:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Too bland 2 Bias in use of links to orgs antagonistic to WCC + twisted interpretation of info 2.1 Given that there is some contention, need better citation of sources 2.2 Quoting Cuba and North Korea appear to be used as code for Un-American 2.2.1 Cuba no citation provided 2.2.2 The article at NCC--North Korea: Not WCC 2.3 Bias 2.3.1 Darfur 2.4 This is supposed to be an encyclopedia 2.5 Response to Guy Montag 3 Organization 4 Who's in, who's out 5 need souces - "Collaboration With and Funding By the Soviet Union" 6 False statement on Darfur 7 Zeq intro... 8 Many churches

[edit] Too bland

This article does not mention the antagonism that many the evangelical churches hold toward this organization. The organization, "World Evangelical Fellowship," though composed of groups predating even the WCC's predecessors, was formed to be against this organization. The article does not mention the political workings of the WCC. It is accused of Marxism.

Feel free to enhance it. A-giau 23:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it's also debatable that it's a christian organisation. Alot of its doctrine consists of political radicalism involving socialism and doctrinal fallacies which contradict christian ideals. Regardless of what they claim, they're not christian. User:138.89.32.17513:44 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Rational discussion of the weaknesses/errors (and strenghths) of the WCC is appropriate. An encylopedia is supposed to be a reference not a rant. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is important - feel free to edit with this in mind. Paul foord 20:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, please keep in mind that the WCC is a fellowship of churches. It does not stand alone, nor does it promote its own doctrine. The programmes of the WCC are carried out as articulated by delegates from the churches who convene during general assemblies. Delegates represent member churches and relevant organizations. For example, at Porto Alegre you would have found a delegation from the various eastern and oriental orthodox churches, mainline protestant churches from many countries, a delegation from the Roman Catholic Church (which is not a member church), and theologians with evangelical and pentecostal backgrounds. Special sessions and a press conference were devoted to building ecumenical relationships with the latter two groups, which do not fit neatly into the WCC membership structure, but are recognized by many member churches as being legitimate and important members of the wider ecumenical movement. --Jerseygator 02:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: second blurb. Socialism isn't inherently counter-Christian at all.

[edit] Bias in use of links to orgs antagonistic to WCC + twisted interpretation of info

[edit] Given that there is some contention, need better citation of sources

• Is the point that the WCC is still supporting liberation movements, "Programme to Combat Racism" no longer operates in the manner that it did when it funded ANC, SWAPO and ZANU. Is there an argument that apartheid should not have been opposed?

You are missing the point altogether. The criticism is that they as a supposedly nonpartisan group have funded violent revolutionary organizations when other religious groups like the Salvation Army, were doing non violent work in the country trying to foster change without appeal to violence.

For example, The PCR program contributed $85,000 to the Patriotic Front, a Marxist guerilla organization fighting to overthrow the white regime of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). This was months after it shot down an airliner that resulted in the death of dozens of civilians.

Since its inception, the PCR has given over $5 million to more than 130 organizations, most outside the organized Church. In 1970 alone, the PCR contributed to 14 groups known to be involved in terrorist guerilla activities, with some who were also known to be Communist in ideology and receiving arms from the Soviet Union (Reader’s Digest, October 1971).

Guy Montag 23:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quoting Cuba and North Korea appear to be used as code for Un-American

by those of a jingoistic mindset.

Who are you to judge what relevent information is about? Reading the North Korea article, even it shows that most aid goes to feed the NKA instead of civilians. Why was it involved when it would go back into the machinery that oppresses its citizens? They arent governments, they dont have to bargain with politicians over foreign policy, they didnt have to contribute anything if they knew that aid would go to the NKA instead of civilians, but they did anyway; thats controversial.

Guy Montag 23:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cuba no citation provided

Paul foord 10:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

delete reference Paul foord 09:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The article at NCC--North Korea: Not WCC

NCC USA gave aid as a member of "a five-member delegation representing Interfaith Hunger Appeal (IHA), a coalition of Jewish, Protestant and Catholic hunger relief organizations" Paul foord 10:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The NCC is affiliated with the WCC. They share the same denominations and same church memberships.

Guy Montag 23:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Have you looked at their membership - not the same Paul foord 12:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So they (NCC) gave food aid, so did most of the rest of the world - probably including the USA. Masses of people were going to starve.

NEW YORK, January 13, 1998 ---- Church World Service (CWS) is planning another $500,000 in aid to help North Koreans survive their next crucial "crunch" in March or April, when basic food supplies will again start to run dry and a harvest will still be four to five months away.

The $500,000 will be raised from individuals and CWS member communions. $250,000 will go towards food shipments and $250,000 towards the purchase of livestock and freight costs. The Korean Christians Federation, a CWS partner in North Korea, has also requested CWS supply portable greenhouses and solar electric generators, so CWS is welcoming designated contributions for these items.

Since 1995, Church World Service has sent more than $2.2 million worth of rice, corn, barley, beef, antibiotics, blankets and clothing to help alleviate famine-related suffering in North Korea. This and other outside aid is improving life in North Korea, and points to North Korea's emergence from isolation, said Victor Hsu, Director of the CWS East Asia and Pacific Program, but he cautioned that humanitarian efforts must be redoubled to help the North Korean people through a critical time in upcoming months.

Paul foord 10:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The food doesnt go to civilians, it goes to the North Korean Army. Read the North Korean Article that says:

"The steady flow of international food aid was critical in meeting the population's basic food needs; it has been widely believed that very little of this food aid was actually received by citizens, but was instead taken and given to the military in order to improve loyalty. Malnutrition rates are perhaps among the world's highest and estimates of mortality range in the hundreds of thousands or even millions as a direct result of malnutrition and famine-related diseases."

Thats controversial given that they did not have to give any aid, but governments are bound by foreign policy to do so.

Guy Montag 23:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete reference - not relevant here - innappropriate attribution. Paul foord 09:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is it not relevent? Work with me here provide reasons.

Guy Montag 11:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NCC reference not WCC Paul foord 12:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough.

Guy Montag 04:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

• Concerned Methodists is part of the Confessing Movement and antagonistic to WCC.
  • Concerned Methodists: ANNEX G WCC Not NPOV - put under critics maybe, not in body of article. The Reader's Digest article attacking WCC as marxist on their site does not count IMHO as unbiased criticism.

What does that even mean. Its criticism of the organization for being a left wing organization that has focus on liberation theology. Stop censoring information you dont like.

Guy Montag 23:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• So 'The WCC issued 36 "human-rights complaints" against Israel and two about Sudan' does not prove anything - look at UN, look at government of USA.

Will revert to NPOV Paul foord 10:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, yes it does prove something. We have an article in the UN about its bias against Israel. We will have one in the WCC, which has become nothing but "an ecclesiastical United Nations” (Time, January 22, 1979).

Guy Montag 23:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I beleive that the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine/Israel underscores the idea that everyone becomes a victim when anyone commits violence. Therefore it is wrong for the general public to categorize Israel as good and Palestine as bad, or vice versa, because both sides of the conflict can be defined as good or bad depending on your point of view. Some Palestinians feel occupied and oppressed while some Israelis feel terrorized. Other Palestinians and Israelis really are terrorists. The EAPPI is so helpful in understanding this because the ecumenical accompaniers involved simply write about what they see and experience.--Jerseygator 02:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darfur

see Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch in May 3 Washington Post: "Since January Bush and Rice have met with leaders from NATO and U.N. Security Council member countries 29 times, and they have mentioned Darfur publicly only once."

Repeating Clinton's Mistakes: U.S. Response to the Crisis in Darfur By Tom Malinowski, Washington Advocacy Director Published in The Washington Post Paul foord 12:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This is supposed to be an encyclopedia

If you wish to make a point gather better evidence - put information in the correct place so it can be peer reviewed. Put airline incident under ZANU-PF (or ZAPU as appropriate), and reference from here. Look up background to controversy from perspective of Salvation Army, who withdrew from WCC over incident. Note: Jerusalem Post article is not accessible. Your gripe appears to be with Programme to Combat Racism, this is one aspect of WCC work, it does not define the WCC. Paul foord 09:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you going to actually discuss the points I provided or hide behind officiality? Provide reasons for your edits. I provided mine. If you cannot, I will bring in a third opinion.

Guy Montag 11:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Guy Montag

The reason for my edits - attempting NPOV - balance. Am happy to have different perspectives. You seem to think reinserting material citing biased sources justifies your position. Sorry if you can't se I have attempted dialogue. Happy for mediation if thats what you mean. Paul foord 12:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate attribution means ascribing facts or characteristics to one thing on the basis of its relationship or similarity to another thing, e.g., WCC does not equal NCC. Paul foord 12:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I have long ago removed any references to the NCC in the article. Lets work on the WCC controversy then.

Guy Montag 04:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have tried to put the context and sources of citations more clearly. Not sure about using sources requiering registration Jerusalem Post Paul foord 10:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I'd like to mediate. Guy, if you have questions about the PCR, you should contact Ms Marilia Schüller who is the current programme executive for the PCR. You can reach her via web form at http://www2.wcc-coe.org/wccstaff.nsf/SendEmailForm?OpenForm&ParentUNID=67C1F04CFF0FF373C125708A004B4110

I hope that helps--Jerseygator 02:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

I think that many of the problems with this page could be solved with a tighter structure. The successes of the WCC (first and foremost being that it exists) ought to precede the controversies...which are serious and deserve mention, but even that section can be "neatened up" a bit. Also, the number of wikilinks to non-existent pages is awful...we shouldn't really list that many ecumenical pages until somebody makes them first. KHM03 15:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed over 70 dead links to pages that don't exist (feel free to add the links again when the pages are created) and took out an unsupported paragraph about the Christian right (the WCC gets plenty of criticism from within...ecumenical, non-conservative groups...why was this pointless paragraph in there?). KHM03 23:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone tried to gloss over criticism of the WCC. Keep an eye out. Guy Montag 23:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This citation was initially published in the March 1983 issue of Fundamentalist Journal

The most strident criticism of the WCC and its programs has come from outside, from conservative and right-wing Christian and other groups. The Christian groups would generally now be seen as belonging to the Christian right. - Paul foord 13:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But is this accurate? The Orthodox members of the WCC...many of whom have threatened to leave...have been highly critical, as have evangelicals in mainline groups such as the United Methodist Church. They have used extremely strong rhetoric in criticizing the WCC...but are hardly fundamentalists or part of the Christian right. KHM03 13:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Orthodox criticism of the WCC has not been directed at its very existance, as many of the Fundamentalist churches do. Orthodox are more interested in theological dialogue, such as that undertaken in the Commission on Faith and Order. They also have expressed concern with the process of decision making. Recent developments resulting from the Spcial Commission appear to have addressed many of the Orthodox objections. Remember, the Orthodox are among the early founders of the WCC, and they continue to participate (for the most part). Evangelical participants in the WCC also express criticism. This criticism is similar to the Orthodox objections. It is directed at the decision-making process, and at the politically-sensitive advocacy work. Both Orthodox and Evangelicals also have particular theological concerns that they wish to address in the Faith & Order process. Despite their criticisms, many within these communities continue to be active participants in the process. Finally, it should be pointed out that the politically-sensitive advocacy that the WCC was involved in during the 1970s continues today without the criticism. The WCC has changed somewhat, it has also moved some of these programmes into arms-length agencies. However, the biggest change appear to be within the member churches. Churches that were once highly critical now work side-by-side with the WCC, sometimes as members of the WCC and sometimes as members of other agencies such as Action of Churches Together. The annual meetings of Christian Communions has provided an opportunity for the WCC members to consult with non-WCC members and resolve some of the difficulties. User:njesson 20:47, 9 August, 2005 (UTC)

Paul foord: Your most recent edit looks fair and NPOV (those are not neccesarily the same thing!). Good work. KHM03 13:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who's in, who's out

I think it would enhance the article if anyone who is knowledgable about these things could add to the information about who isn't in the WCC and why. Specifically I'm wondering about groups like Mormons. Have they tried to get in? If so, what was the 'litmus test' that kept them out? Zach (wv) (t) 02:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The membership rules are available here: http://wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/rules-e.html

Most notably, a member church must itself have 25,000 members. Thus members of the WCC are generally restricted to major national churches like the Presbyterian Church USA or the Church of England. That is why special groups like the Joint Consultative Group with Pentecostals exist to build relationships with churches and Christians that that do not fit neatly into the WCC structure.--Jerseygator 02:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] need souces - "Collaboration With and Funding By the Soviet Union"

What reputable sources are there for this:

During the 1960's, the then-Soviet Union identified members of the WCC as useful fellow travellers. Soviet intelligence cultivated contacts among the highest levels of the WCC's leadership, thoroughly penetrating the organization. Also, beginning in the mid-1960's, the WCC accepted direct payments of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Soviet government intended to support its propoaganda efforts opposing U.S. foreign policy. The group was also used by Soviet intelligence as a funnel for financial contributions to armed communist struggles. These contacts and payments continued until the fall of the Soviet Union, and many senior members of the WCC remain intractibly anti-American and committed Marxists.

This seems particularly POV

and many senior members of the WCC remain intractibly anti-American and committed Marxists.

Paul foord 14:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] False statement on Darfur

I removed a statement to the effect that the WCC has ignored the situation in Darfur. There are a number of statemen a statement at least as early as 2004. I've also removed a phrase from the introduction that seemed to be based on the same matter. The whole section on anti-semitism, where this was located, really needs some attention. Rafaelgr 02:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq has re-added a lot of what you took out, saying it is sourced (from a non-English site). However, these two lines are far too vague: The council has been described by some as taking antisemitic positions, principally in connection with its criticisms of Israeli policy. The council has a focused set of activities and publication on criticizing Israel. The described by some mentioned need to be specified, as this is a weasel word and it needs to be mentioned who is saying that they have focused on a set of activities criticizing Israel. Since Zeq claims it is sourced, he needs to be more clear in the wording. --MattWright (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The WCC has accused Israel in many things. It is very active here. The WCC has received an answer by Amnon Rubinstein which is quoted in the article. No "weasle". Zeq 05:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Accusing Israel in many things" and "taking antisemitic positions" are too very different things. If it is "very active" in this area, there should be more references than a single one in Hebrew. Find them and clarify "some" by stating which groups or persons feel this way. --MattWright (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in a source in Hebrew. Zeq 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeq intro...

Your edits didn't even contain good grammar (it should be: the activities have caused controversy and council's funding)... Furthermore, the lead in does stand on its own and accurately describes the issues that have led to controversy. Please provide a reference to something that states they have given more focus to anti-Israel activities than all other world-wide humanitarian crisis. Also specify what activities you are talking about if it is more than criticism of Israeli policy. Please be more specific. In reference to your edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Council_of_Churches&diff=67690362&oldid=67654398. --MattWright (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. fixed the english and NPOV the lead. Zeq 21:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference for The church has been crtisized for it's focus on anti-Israel activities while not giving other world-wide humanitarian crisis such strong emphasis as it gives to Israel. Thanks. --MattWright (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It is in the text of the article itself. The source for it is here: [1] Zeq 21:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you translate the appropriate section where this is found? I can't read Hebrew. I'm not challenging the source, but would like to have an English translation of the appropriate question and answer. Thanks. --MattWright (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"israel's ex education minister, Prof. Rubinstein accused the council in antisemitism" ...."there is no darfur?, There is no Iran ? From all the world's human rights violations they single us out ? not worrying about the real human rights violation that go all over the middle east and the rest of the world is showing lack of true concern to 'human rights' and focus on hatred of Israel instead" Zeq 17:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, thank you very much for translating the relevant sections of the article for me. While I am fine including this in the article, I don't think your text The church has been crtisized for it's focus on anti-Israel activities while not giving other world-wide humanitarian crisis such strong emphasis as it gives to Israel. deserves to be placed in the introduction. The controversy is mainly due to the fact that the WCC has criticized Israeli policy -- which should be summarized in the intro (as it was) and then this specific accusation (by one person) can be detailed in the relevant section. In these quoted statements I don't see any reference to actions other than criticism of policy to back up your text of "anti-Israel activities." Also, from what I can tell from the source, it appears the interview was in late May, 2006. As noted above, the WCC has issued statements on Darfur as far back as 2004 [2] and even Iran prior to this interview [3] calling on them to recognize Israel and adding concern about their hateful rhetoric against Israel and Jews. So while Rubenstein may have accused them of ignoring all other issues, it is not fact. --MattWright (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This 'one person' (an ex-minister and head of an academic institution) expressed the views of many others. It is an important view point that should be described in the Lead. Zeq 03:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks cool. Zeq 18:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Many churches

I agree that this article is biased. It needs neutral sources to back up the claims esp regarding controversy. "Many churches have opted to stay out of the WCC, accusing it of being dominated by liberals and (or) leftists." ... surely such a statement must be backed up by sources. The author needs to quantify ‘many’ 100, 10, 2?? And what are the issues around a large ‘dominant liberal’ membership? What are the concerns of the ‘many’ churches regarding the apparent ’liberal’ or ‘leftist agenda’ of the organisation?

I conceded with Guy’s comments. Sproutingflower 17:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC) SproutingFlower