Federal Council of Churches

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D.C. · Apr 3, 1913

Federal Council of Churches

Several years ago, when there was first organized what is known as the Federal Council of the Churches, it was confidently believed by many that a long step had been taken toward the realization of many worthy ideals. It was believed that this federation would serve very greatly to bring about unity and harmonious cooperation between various churches, and that it would prove a quickening force in the promotion and attainment of various reforms which many churches desired to secure.

It would seem, however, that this arrangement is not promoting the fullest church unity after all, and it is charged that very serious influences are at work committing the council to policies which some of the church bodies composing it can not support. The editor of the Presbyterian of the South, in the issue of March 19, 1913, presents the matter in this way:—

At a time when the value and authority of revealed truth are being so widely depreciated in the estimate of religious leaders, and the cry for the submergence of cherished doctrinal beliefs for the sake of bigness and broadness has become so clamorous, it is well for those who love and cherish the eternal truths of inspiration to emphasize them and defend them with unwavering fidelity. The advocates of a merely humane fraternity, the culture of purely human instincts by purely human methods and appliances, under the guidance of a vague, universally diffused religious sentiment or influence, are demanding not only recognition but leadership.

In the accomplishment of this purpose it is their ambition to secure the following of the evangelical forces of the organized church, as well as their own school of rationalistic religionists. They are prosecuting this purpose with increasing energy and with an audacity that is little less than startling. Their latest achievement in prosecuting their ambitious purpose was the capture of the Federal Council. Evangelical churches must squarely face the question whether they will consent to align themselves with the prevailing skepticism, or will hold uncompromisingly to the authority of the gospel by withholding organic fellowship.

The situation is becoming clear to the expositors of religious thought and activity; warnings are being sounded and counsel freely given. The following from the Presbyterian of Philadelphia impresses us as being most timely and wise:—

“THE FEDERAL COUNCIL.— It has been generally recognized among the evangelical churches that the Federal Council has been captured, body and soul, by the so-called liberal or higher critical men. They have elected as president Dr. Shailer Mathews. They choose such speakers as Professor Steiner, who says that Daniel is a bundle of myths. The various commissions are made up chiefly of men who are leaders in liberal thoughts. This matter has received considerable attention in some of the leading religious journals. Conspicuous among these are the Presbyterian Standard, the Presbyterian of the South, the Christian Observer, of the Southern Presbyterian Church, and our honored colleague, the Herald and Presbyter. All these seem to be of one mind as to the defection from faith of the Federal Council. All raise the question, What should be done? The Presbyterian of the South and the Standard are decided that true evangelicals should withdraw from the council. The Christian Observer and the Herald and Presbyter seem to be of the opinion that the evangelicals should remain in the council, and fight.

“We are in sympathy with the withdrawal. Little good is to be accomplished by remaining in an organization for the sake of contention. The purpose of the council was to unite the different bodies on the ground which they hold in common, in order that they might contend against a common foe. If evangelicals remain in the connection and keep silent, then the council shifts its purpose, and becomes a mere propaganda of false teachings. If they remain in the council and fight, then the house, divided against itself, can not stand. To stay in, therefore, in either case means defeat of the original purpose, and worse, the fostering of false doctrine, which is more vicious than false practise. The only sane and sensible thing to do is for the truly evangelical to withdraw in peace, and form a federation of those truly loyal to the Word of God.”

The highest quality of Christian charity is that which extends cordial appreciation to all that is praiseworthy in the thought and deeds of others, but to the propagandists of error will give “place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue.” It remains to be seen whether the church will be true to its trust, or will allow itself to be held in the bonds of an alliance in which its cherished faith is scorned, and the words and offices of its Lord are repudiated.