By 1957 it was clear that the merger of the International Missionary Council and the World Council of Churches was well into its development stage; the place of the IMCCAJ in the merger was now a critical issue. Hedenquist had prepared a memorandum for the IMC Staff Conference at Jordans, England, in April 1957 that outlined the context from which the IMCCAJ approached integration and some of the reasons an international committee was necessary:

(1) "The Jewish religion in a special way is related to Christianity, and vice versa";

(2) "No other people since the time of Jesus Christ has been treated so badly on the part of Christians and the Christian Churches, as has the Jewish people";

(3) "It is necessary to confront Christian churches and communities and individual Christians all over the world with their responsibility towards Jews. Behind such efforts there must stand a group of specially interested people of some experience in the work....The Christian Approach to the Jews can never be dealt with in the same way as the approach towards Muslims, Hindus, or other non-Christian groups";

(4) "Today the theological background of Jewish-Christian relations is very much on the minds and hearts of outstanding theologians. There must be a forum like a Commission of Theology to deal with this matter";

(5) "There is a special need for Christian literature and literature about the Christian Church and the different Churches to be spread among Jewish people";

(6) "In order to reach some common rules on the education and theological standards of missionaries and workers in the programme of the Christian Approach to the Jews, an international forum is needed....More and more the Christian approach to the Jews has become a 'dialogue' between two different religions in order not--in the first place--to convert the other part, but to give true knowledge of both religions, and as far as the Christian Church is concerned to point to Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of Judaism and to the Church of Christ as the 'New Israel.'"

Hedenquist's memorandum was before the delegates who meet at Baarn, Holland, 4-7 June 1957. In the subsequent discussion serious problems that had been fermenting for some time took center stage. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that the Director was in favor of integration into the World Council. He proposed, in fact that one of the departments in the new Division of World Mission should be called "Department on the Church and the Jews." But others in the Committee could hardly have agreed less.

Harcourt Samuel "hoped that integration would not take place., He felt that if it did a number of supporters of the IMCCAJ would withdraw. There were a number of bodies associated with the IMCCAJ who could not constitutionally be associated with WCC and they would have to decide whether or not to come in to any new set up....He felt that the usefulness of IMCCAJ would be seriously impaired if societies now co-operating with us felt impelled to withdraw."

H. L. Ellison wanted "to go on record as being against integration....the desire for integration was largely a question of office tidiness....Was business efficiency worth tearing up all the hopes of unity in Israel."

But J. H. Grolle supported the position of the Director because "work amongst Jews is totally different from any other mission enterprise. You must distinguish between the dialogue with Israel and mission in the ordinary sense. He did not think work could progress in the future if this committee was a sub-committee of the IMC, he felt it must be an independent committee."

And so the IMCCAJ was divided. Chairman Clephane Macanna summed up the discussion by saying that the "Committee was in a difficult position...Many people feared the growth of the World Council of Churches and especially the growth of their Department of Evangelism into which this committee might be drawn.... He proposed that we approve the memorandum prepared by the Director; that the Director acts and proceeds on this memorandum but also keeps the lines of this discussion in mind...and that our misgivings be stated as proposed by Mr. Harcourt Samuel."

That was in 1957. In 1958 at Edinburgh more clarity had emerged about the form of the WCC-IMC merger and Hedenquist was even more definite about where the IMCCAJ had to fit: "The IMCCAJ should be related to the Commission on World Mission and the Division of World Mission in which he hoped that there should be a special Department consisting of the secretariat of the present IMCCAJ. He thought that was the only way in which the IMCCAJ could be saved if integration came."

Others, though, predicted dire consequences:

H. L. Ellison: "Said he was convinced that...integration would go forward. He thought that the IMCCAJ was very near to being a unique body within the IMC, and while there might be privileges in being unique there were also extreme dangers. We must discover on what terms we can continue to exist. The British Section will disintegrate if integration comes."

Harcourt Samuel: "Agreed that integration will almost certainly come in some form or another and he thought the effect of this in some quarters would resemble a high explosive. He knew that there were some Societies represented in IMCCAJ which could not find a place within the WCC. The International Hebrew Christian Alliance would certainly have to withdraw....He agreed that the British Section would disintegrate, and he thought it likely that the same would happen to IMCCAJ."

Again Chairman Macanna summed up: "To give guidance to the Director there are two alternatives: (1) we should seek to remain as we are, a unique Committee finding our own finance, existing in fellowship with the IMC but with a considerable measure of autonomy; (2) we should say that if we come in completely in the organisational set-up as part of the Division of World Mission and Evangelism that it is proposed to organise, then this committee could not continue because there are members in it who could not possibly consider working under such a scheme."

No meeting of the IMCCAJ was held in 1959. The next meeting of the IMCCAJ was scheduled for Münster, 5-9 September 1960, a date that fell after crucial decisions about the structure of the new Division of World Mission and Evangelism were to be taken by the IMC staff in April and then by the Joint Committee of the IMC and WCC and the IMC Administrative Committee in August.

Norman Goodall (Secretary of the Joint IMC-WCC Committee), Lesslie Newbigin (General Secretary of the IMC), Ronald Orchard (Chief Secretary of the IMC London Office) and R. Clephane Macanna (Chairman of the IMCCAJ) met in London, 26 November 1959 to seek clarity on the situation. After surveying the timing of the various meetings and the apparent options before the Committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews, they concluded that it would be necessary to hold a special session of the IMCCAJ.

Göte Hedenquist therefore issued an urgent call to all Committee members to come to London on 14-15 March 1960 to discuss nothing save the proposed integration of the IMCCAJ into the World Council of Churches. No Americans were able to be present, though a good representation of British and European delegates, including WCC representatives such as Adolf Freudenberg, were on hand. However, with the exception of a member from the British Jews Society, no one was present who represented the societies which were certain to withdraw should integration occur.

The March meeting had before it a paper by Göte Hedenquist that sketched out the reasons for integration and the history of the IMC and WCC leading to the plan for merger, as well as sections from the 1947 Constitution of the IMCCAJ. In addition, R. Clephane Macanna had prepared a report on the informal November meeting, which included his own position that "Jewish missions should take their place alongside missions to other religions in the consideration and working of the Division on World Mission and Evangelism."

With this background, the Committee systematically set about developing proposals for the future of the IMCCAJ, proposals which were to be submitted to the appropriate decision-making bodies of the IMC and the WCC, as well as to the upcoming Münster meeting of the Committee itself. Despite the absence of representatives from those societies most directly concerned, their interest was central to the deliberations in London:

The discussion was focused on the effect which any degree of relationship with the WCC was likely to have upon relationships within the IMCCAJ itself: The following points were fully recognized:

1. Some of its members represented groups which are at present opposed to any recognition of the WCC or any degree of co-operation with it.

2. The Committee's responsibility towards every section of its membership.

3. The Committee's responsibility towards those it sought to serve, i.e. the Jewish community, and towards the mission of the Church of Jesus Christ among them in diverse situations in every part of the world.

4. That any relationship to the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (i.e. the continuing IMC) must be accepted as in fact implying recognition of the WCC as a whole, though this is different from "membership" of the WCC.

5. That a positive decision carried with it a vital responsibility for seeking means of renewing and strengthening links with organizations (and individuals) which, as a result of such a decision, felt compelled to sever their connection with IMCCAJ, and responsibility for endeavouring in every possible way to maintain the unity of this Committee.

6. That it was vitally important that Christian work among the Jewish people should be carried on in a spirit of complete unity; this had in many areas been the case in spite of organizational and doctrinal differences, and no rift should be permitted now to appear.

7. That the matters with which IMCCAJ is concerned should in any case be central to and not on the periphery of thinking and action in an ecumenical body, and their Biblical and theological implications kept constantly to the fore.

When the time came for a decision to be taken, W. R. Newton of the British Jews Society (which opposed integration) said that "he personally fully recognized the importance of the IMCCAJ having a place in the new structure of the IMC/WCC and suggested that a decision should be made at this meeting on full 'incorporation' of the IMCCAJ into the integrated IMC/WCC." And so it was decided.

The next decision concerned where in the WCC structure the IMCCAJ should be placed. Should it go into the new Division of World Mission and Evangelism or into the Division of Studies? This was an extremely important decision, for its consequences would be long lasting and would have considerable effect on the self-understanding of the Committee. There were those who felt it belonged with the Division of Studies (which included the Commission on Faith and Order) because of the advantage such placement "might have for those seeking to initiate dialogue between Christians and Jews. They reminded the Committee of the sensitivity among Jewish people to the lack of differentiation in Christian circles between Judaism and paganism: what Christians thought of as 'mission' was frequently construed as proselytism...distrust of the word 'mission' was deep...incorporation into the Division of Studies might be a step towards winning the confidence of Jews." Supporting this position, Adolf Freudenberg "suggested that links with those unable to accept incorporation might more easily be forged through the division of Studies."

On the other side, it was "pointed out that incorporation into the Division of Studies might limit the Committee's working programme more than would be the case in incorporation into the Division of World Mission and Evangelism: whatever the organizational set-up, in practice the question of mission or dialogue depended on the groups of individuals actively involved, rather than on any central committee structure with which they were linked: study with the purpose of bringing men to Christ was in effect 'mission.'"

It was decided to recommend the IMCCAJ's inclusion within the Division of World Mission and Evangelism.

The only item remaining was the drafting of a Constitution for the new Committee, which was done on the basis of the 1947 IMCCAJ Constitution, making the necessary changes, e.g., Division of World Mission and Evangelism for International Missionary Council. And then the name of the Committee. It became the Committee on the Church and the Jewish People.

One item not on the original agenda ended the London meeting. Göte Hedenquist tendered his resignation in order to accept the directorship of the Svenska Israelsmissionen, a position long held by Birger Pernow, and a committee was appointed to search for his successor.

A Note on the Name

When Birger Pernow raised the question as to the possibility of changing the Committee's name in 1949 to "Committee for Church and Israel" and when the subject was raised for further discussion in 1951, the ostensible reason given for a name change was the difficulty of translating "Christian Approach to the Jews" into various European, mainly Nordic, languages. In every case the proposed name began "The Church and...." None of the recorded discussions about nomenclature indicate difficulties with that formula. The problem at Hemer in 1951 was with the theological and political implications of the word "Israel" should the Committee be called something like "The Church and Israel." At Baarn, Holland, in 1957, the Director, in reporting on the discussion about merger between the WCC and the IMC, had suggested that there might be "a department on the Christian Approach to the Jews, possibly called 'Department on the Church and the Jews.'"

In the end, the title of the book Hedenquist edited for the Evanston Assembly, The Church and the Jewish People, was adopted at the London meeting as the name of the committee to be formed in the World Council of Churches.

It appears that this name emerged more or less naturally from within the IMCCAJ. For a number of years the present writer has attempted to discover precisely how the change came about, but without success. Certainly the minutes and correspondence that might shed some light are silent. And though any argument from silence can never finally be persuasive, in this case the evidence seems to suggest that the parish approach had so replaced the individualistic stance indicated by "Christian Approach" that there was no need to question it. And, then, within the World Council of Churches, it was appropriate that the focus should be on the Church.

When queried in 1990 about the change, Göte Hedenquist wrote that ever since his time in Vienna in the thirties and forties, "I tried to include the Church parishes in the dialogue between Christians and Jews instead of emphasizing the mission to and among the Jews. This became more clear to me when I came to know the situation in Germany during the Hitler period. In my ten years as Director of the International Committee on the Christian Approach to the Jews, I tried to get the missions to the Jews all over the world to help the IMC become a part of the WCC."

The parish approach that was initiated by Conrad Hoffmann at the beginning of the 1930s had been brought to symbolic fruition by Göte Hedenquist at the beginning of the 1960s in the name, "Committee on the Church and the Jewish People."

Please Turn the Page