Discord in the Federal Council by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Sep 30, 1915

Discord in the Federal Council

By C. M. S.

The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, that union of denominations which is to make its power felt in things civil as well as religious, is finding some breakers ahead. Not all the ecclesiastical bodies that have joined the organization are ready yet to abandon some of the principles which will have to be abandoned if the Federal Council is to succeed in its purpose. With some of them there is something more than mere sentiment to the principle of the separation of church and state, and they are making earnest protests, which bid fair to end in something more than protests. We find a very interesting discussion of the matter in the American Lutheran Survey of September 8. We quote the article entire:—

Mistakes of the Federal Council

Most Lutherans have not been able to see their way clear to joining the church union body known as the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America. As far as we know, the few who have joined have not been loudly enthusiastic about the union and its work and spirit. It is beginning to appear that others besides Lutherans are unable to overlook the faults of the body in question. The trouble with all the union movements with which we have any acquaintance seems to us to be that their promoters are so desirous of getting results that will show, that they forsake the sphere in which the rule is for the leaven to work quietly, and move out into the field where they do not belong, in order to do things which will attract attention and produce quick impressions. The Lutheran Church Work, speaking of the threatened withdrawal of certain churches from the Federal Council, heads its editorial “Confusing Church and State.” It says:—

“It is evident to all who can see, that if the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in this country is to hold the allegiance of some of the evangelical forces, it must restrict itself to that which is of the church and distinctively religious in its operations. The General Assembly of the Southern Presbyterian Church, at its last meeting, gave notice of its withdrawal from the council a year hence. At the last meeting of the Northern Assembly of the same church, held at Rochester, N. Y., a word of warning was passed. While the General Assembly reaffirmed its sympathy with the purposes of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, it was very careful to warn its representatives in the Federal Council to advocate caution in connection with all subjects which are upon the border line of the jurisdiction of the church and the state, and this the more particularly because of the international complications of the great war. The Southern Presbyterian Church also gave warning concerning some of the actions of the Federal Council. The report which was adopted by the Southern church says:—

“‘While there are many things in the reports of the council which we approve and heartily indorse, there are actions taken which so do violence to the historic Scriptural position of our church that we can do naught else than decline to accept responsibility for them, and enter our protest.’”

“The report goes on to speak at some length and with much strength, and the Federal Council will be wise if it takes heed to the counsel of these two great churches. There has been a tendency for the Federal Council to rush on recklessly along some lines, and to cause the council to become an institution for civil actions rather than a union of the churches for spiritual and evangelization purposes.”

There are two points in the expressed attitude of the Southern Presbyterian Church which very strongly appeal to us.

The one is its clear insight into the fact that when a body of religious organizations calling themselves churches begins to take a hand directly in affairs which are distinctly political, the said body is on the wrong track.

The other is its plain conviction that when a church joins a union like the Federal Council, it makes itself responsible for whatever the said council enacts. “We can do naught else than decline to accept responsibility for them,” says the report. This is a point which is often overlooked. There is a prevalent vogue to the effect that, just so there is some good in the program of an association of men, it is a good man’s duty to join and assist; and this vogue includes the further opinion that, if the association makes itself guilty of errors, it is sufficient for a non-concurring member to protest or to voice his dissent.

We are glad to see the Southern Presbyterian Church taking the correct ground that the churches which belong to the Federal Council cannot absolve themselves of responsibility for its enactments as long as they retain their membership; and that the only honest way to give point to a church’s dissent from

positions taken by a general body to which it has joined itself is to sever its connection unless the abuse complained of be discontinued.

This organization plans to create a force which lawbreakers and lawmakers will respect and heed; it proposes to compel an audience in this country, and to speak with authority in matters civil and religious by putting aside their differences and making their agreement their argument. There is in such a purpose every element of compulsion in conscience, with the force back of it to insure the effectiveness of the compulsion. If the papal power, when it controlled the civil and religious affairs of the people, was fitly represented by the inspired writer by the symbol of a beast, then may this great religious combination, when it is in full flower, be fittingly represented as the “image of the beast.” And thus does the prophet designate it. We are glad that some are seeing whither the movement is tending, and are getting ready to abandon it.

C. M. S.