That Federal Council by Editor

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 23, 1913

That Federal Council

By Editor

There appeared recently in this department a report, written by one of our brethren, of the second quadrennial meeting of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, held in Chicago Dec. 4-9, 1912. We reprint herewith some observations concerning this same meeting made by a Presbyterian pastor, Rev. R. M. Hall, of Galveston, Tex., and printed in the Presbyterian of the South of January 8. After dealing in a general way with the work of the council, Dr. Hall continued:—

“There are several things I am compelled to say in criticism of the Federal Council:— “1. Before leaving home, and after a careful examination of the program and the literature sent out by the executive committee, I expressed the fear that the council was treating symptoms instead of the disease itself. I am sorry to say I found this to be the case. Painting the pump will never cleanse the infected water in the well. Painting pumps was a large part of the performance. Social-service problems took up a large portion of the time and thought of the council. Every Christian man must be deeply interested in the proper solution of the problems arising in connection with such subjects as ‘The Worker Versus the Employer,’ ‘The Industrial Community,’ ‘The Agricultural, Urban, and Suburban Community,’ ‘Wages,’ ‘Proper Housing,’ ‘The White Plague,’ ‘The Hookworm,’ but I submit that we utterly fail to find here a Scriptural program for the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, which church has been instituted and is operating under a very different and, at the same time, a very definite commission. If we really wish to change the effect, we must first of all heal the cause. A union of all the churches of Christendom and a universal reformation of all the people under the sun would not result in the eradication of sin from the human heart. Jesus Christ cut vastly deeper than this, and he expects his church to do the same. He was not a reformer, but a regenerator.”

“2. From the very nature of the case the council found it exceedingly difficult to accomplish anything of a very direct and positive character. It was impossible even to resolute with any marked degree of definiteness. In a report brought in by the executive committee the following language was used: ‘The fact of the substantial unity of the Christian and Protestant churches of the nation . . .’ The demand was so insistent that the words ‘and Protestant’ had to be eliminated from the report. There were so many phases of thought to be placated, and so immense was the desire for unity, that principle became attenuated into a negligible quantity. There was great applause when a man from New York City reported a meeting held under the auspices of the Social Service Commission, over which a Presbyterian minister presided, a Jewish rabbi led the congregation in the recitation of the Lord’s prayer, and a Roman Catholic priest took some prominent part! ‘Peace at any price’ would lead to national dishonor. I do not believe our Lord wants an artificial unity among his people at all, and there can be no real unity at the heavy cost of sincerity and principle.”

“3. And now comes the heaviest charge of all. The council was not loyal to the Word of God.

“(a) Sunday afternoon in the Olympic theater a great mass-meeting was held in the interests of the social-service wing of the council’s work. The principal speaker at this meeting was Prof. Edward A. Steiner, of Grinnell, Iowa. He is a converted Jew and a brilliant scholar. His address was unique and most interesting, but in the very beginning, the whole thing was spoiled for any one who reveres the Bible as the Word of God. In his introduction he relegated the book of Daniel to a place among the myths of the Bible. Of course we know what he thinks of the opening chapters of Genesis, and yet, upon these things depends the accuracy and even the veracity of our Lord, and therefore his deity. Professor Steiner’s name does not appear on the roll of delegates, but he was an honored guest, and the address referred to above was applauded almost from the first word to the last.”

“(b) The crowning mistake, I had almost written the word crime, of this council, was the election of Dr. Shailer Mathews

dean of the Divinity School of the University of Chicago, president for the next four years. This is the very thing the destructive critics have been clamoring for, recognition, and now it has been handed to them on a silver platter! Let us take a glimpse into Dean Mathews’s record. In this connection, for a number of years, with the Chicago University, he fell under the supreme influence of the late Dr. Wm. R. Harper, a prince among higher critics. As a natural result of this influence we find Dr. Mathews personally connected with the school of destructive higher critics, and he himself a member of and a teacher in that school. This is readily seen even from a cursory examination of his writings. . . .”

“The election, as president, of a man with such views ought to be enough to break up this council forever. Every church that honors the Word of God and means to remain loyal to that Word should withdraw at once.”

“It was distressing to see how lightly the presumably orthodox members of the council took all this. Almost every one with whom I talked admitted a blunder had been made. From a number I heard such expressions as, ‘He’ll not bring any of these things to the front;’ ‘He is coming straight;’ ‘Take the good, ignore the bad, and make the best of it;’ etc.”

“At the great banquet attended by more than four hundred persons Monday night, Dr. Harry Pratt Judson, president of the University of Chicago, presided, while Dean Mathews, the new president of the council, was principal speaker. As we look ahead, we are compelled to see, unless we are blind, that at least for the next four years the Chicago University is going to hold a commanding influence over the destinies of the Federal Council, and what that means we ought to know without being told. And in the meanwhile we are, whether we like it or not, sponsors for that institution, a veritable hotbed of the destructive higher criticism, as well as other forms of infidelity, and our further connection with the council will be used in drawing our young women and young men into this great anti-Christian institution. My conclusion of the whole matter is that this council, with many good men in it, men that are innocent of any such thing or thought, is headed straight and blindly for apostasy.”

We heartily agree with Dr. Hall’s views, and are glad to note that one pastor had the courage to write thus, and that one paper had the courage to publish his article. Not only is the council ‘headed straight and blindly for apostasy,’ but it is almost certain to exercise an oppressive supervision over all ecclesiastical bodies, a supervision which may become practical persecution. This is not the right road to Christian unity and cooperation.

In the next issue of the Presbyterian of the South (January 15) there appeared an editorial dealing with the general features of the council, and discussing the report made by Dr. Hall, extracts from which are given above. The closing paragraphs of this editorial run as follows:—

“An issue of special interest has been raised. Shall our church continue in this alliance which is dominated by such noxious sentiments,—an alliance upon which radical criticism has obtruded itself with its usual unblushing effrontery; an alliance into which it has not only been received, but has been welcomed with profuse applause? The Southern Presbyterian Church is now responsible for these skeptical and rationalistic utterances. She is one of the constituent federated bodies. Blatant skepticism proclaimed itself in the name of every church responsible for the council, and each must bear the reproach. We can not afford it. To assume a passive or submissive attitude would logically mean the renunciation of our position maintained from the beginning until now. It is scarcely to be believed that our infatuation with ideas of broadness and spurious fraternity will seduce us from continuing to conserve and declare our cherished convictions as to the inerrancy and authority of God’s Word.

“Some may be deluded with the idea that these are times of tolerating error and relaxing our grasp of vital truth. We believe that there was never a time that called more insistently for adhering steadfastly to ‘the truth as it is in Jesus’—‘the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.’”

To one who attended the sessions of this council, these criticisms seem well grounded, and the call for separation from the Federal Council seems abundantly justified. We shall await with interest the outcome of this matter.