A Mighty Organization and a Great Menace
By B. G. Wilkinson
Church Federation and What It May Do to Religious Freedom—A Religious Combine the Most Dangerous of Any—Principles at Work That Produced the Dark Ages—Federation Refuses to Be Tolerant By B. G. WILKINSON, PH. D. “It was during the epoch when there were sects and heresies that Christianity made the conquest of the world.”—The Hon. Camille Pelletan: In our previous articles we have examined the origin of church federation, the purposes of its existence, and the possibilities of its tendencies. We should now cover a special field, one of the most important which concerns human destiny. And there is demand for its consideration. Already the issues raised or adopted by church federation have invaded the national Congress, are discussed before municipal authority, and are agitating the masses in general. Such is the tendency of the human, that unions or federations can not exist without raising controversies involving individual liberty. Usually every union or federation has as its reason for existence, the necessity of defense. It claims to protect certain principles or interests, and to erect itself as a barrier to encroachments upon the same. This is true, for example, of labor-unions. Will it be any less true of religious federations? TO MAKE ALL FIT ONE PATTERN
Labor-unions claim to arise as a defense against capital and capitalists. They still continue to demand a right to exist, through this same claim. However, the doctrine of the closed shop, so generally condemned, shows that when labor-unions turn their attention from capitalists to non-union labor, they are able to become offensive, and then their crusade seems to threaten the liberties of the individual. It is the old story of a power endeavoring to make a suit of clothes to fit all men—to bring within certain principles adopted by an organization, all individuals, and so place an incubus upon the bounding impulses of the individual soul toward the progress of its own creation. It is fortunate for these unions and federations that they have opposing organizations. In the case of labor, its great opposer is capital. As labor finds out the power of its organization, its tendency is to enlarge its membership, and so increase its power. Hence the tendency to coerce the individual. THE FALSE RELIGIOUS SANCTION IS THE DANGER
Now add to such an organization a religious sanction, bring the conscience, such as it is, as well as the reason, into play, and the new organization feels that it has not only men but God behind it. It is likely not to go beneath the religious name under which it acts, to see whether or not its purposes and methods tally well with the ideals of its religion. France nominally was all Christian before the French Revolution, yet Christianity there did not prevent that great outbreak. Christianity of to-day would deny favoring any of those oppressions which drove that nation into its days of terror. Nevertheless, it was nominal Christianity in alliance with the throne—prosperous, with more than one third of the wealth of the country in its hands—which stands indicted in a large degree for the unhappy condition before the days of 1789. It is well to consider carefully what will be the tendency, along these same lines, of this organization called the Federal Council of the Church of Christ, claiming eighteen million members, and representing in the United States a population of forty-five million. TENDING TO CREATE A SOVEREIGNTY
There is another aspect, too, which involves the government as well as the individual, when great names and great wealth find themselves strongly federated or united in an organization. They tend to create a sovereignty of their own, and generally such a sovereignty as this looks menacingly toward the sovereignty of the state. Not that there is any thought of treason toward the state or government. Far from it. But there is always a possibility that an organization of this character will claim more directly the sanction of God for its existence, than435such sanction is usually claimed for civil government; and further, that it will look upon itself as divinely created to hurry up the government into lines of activity which, in their minds, will please God. The authority of the civil government seems more impersonal; its wealth, the contributions of the collective society, given only to be expended again for the running of the machine. But of great religious organizations that wealth comes through legacies and gifts whose proceeds are to remain. It is because of this threat, that England early passed what was known as the law of mortmain, which forbade the church to gather into her hands large estates. No doubt it was England’s early attitude toward this which saved her so tremendous a revolution as that which overtook France. France was belated in paying strict attention to this vital problem. And we need not, here in this country, flatter ourselves that with all such history behind us, it will be impossible for America to run afoul of these crises. A GREATER PROBLEM THAN FRANCE EVER HAD
It is not ten years since so great a statesman as Aristide Briand, prime minister of France, said, when it was told him that the United States was criticizing the activities of the French republic in endeavoring to unloose herself from the grasp of a rich political-religious organization, that “unless the United States gives heed to where she is now going, she will soon have on her hands a problem of clericalism greater than that which we ever met.” Now we come to notice a very vital matter in connection with this phase of church federation. All that we have said in the foregoing concerning the dangers of unions, either civil or religious, becomes many fold more serious when we speak of a religious organization unguided by the word of God. WARNINGS FROM THE RELIGIOUS PRESS
Already some of the constituent members of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ have voiced their alarm at the prominent position found in the federation by the advocates of “higher criticism.” Thus the editor of the Presbyterian of the South, in the issue of March 9, 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 aline 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: “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 thought. 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.” DANGERS INCREASED BY THE “HIGHER CRITICS”
An organization, no matter how dangerous in itself, is in a more hopeful condition if it bows in obedience to the great principles of the Bible than a union which does not. There is something in the divine word of God which speaks to the individual heart; and regardless of how much astray an individual may be, whether in India, in Africa, or in North America, the Bible can speak to the inner man and lead him to rely upon the mighty, invisible kingdom of God, sufficiently far above human powers, surrounding and opposing. It thus releases him from the dead level of surrounding customs. It enables him to cast away the fear of an organization, however powerful it may be. It is a living word. It speaks to him of a living kingdom, powerful to deliver—a kingdom swift also to call him to reckoning, if he in turn ruthlessly handles the liberties of his fellow men. Now if, at the outset, the Federal Council springs into existence under the leadership of those whom “higher criticism” has led to disbelieve the divinity of the Bible, we can naturally see that the dangers or menacing tendencies of the organization are more serious. THE RIGHT ARM OF THE FEDERATION
We have already seen that it is the purpose of church federation to remedy social distress by securing civil laws. When, however, it comes to religious matters, we would naturally think that a religious organization would confine her reliance in those issues to her divine power. Unfortunately, in this also we are disappointed in the Federal Council. Attending as we did in December, 1913, such meetings of the executive committee of the Federal Council as were public, as well as the meeting of the Lord’s Day Alliance, we heard this serious fact uttered by one of the leaders: “Sunday laws are the right arm of church federation.” We would naturally think that God would be the right arm of a federation. Nor do we think that to speak thus is begging the question. Every one knows, who knows anything of history, that when religion has lost the impulse from God, upon which it leaned for power, it has always turned to the civil authority for supporting laws. To show the effort to secure a Sunday law, nation-wide and effective, we need only to mention further, in substance, what this same speaker said: “We do not wish it publicly known, but we are organizing in some states, and in one state in particular, all the young people’s societies, to work to this end. INTIMIDATING THE CANDIDATES
“These societies watch when a man announces himself as a candidate for election to a legislature. They wait upon this candidate to ask whether or not he wishes the vote of the church. Of course he does. They then contract with him to give him that vote if in return he promises to support a Sunday law, whenever a bill for this is introduced. They intend to follow out this contract by gently reminding this candidate, if elected, of his promise when a Sunday law is introduced into the legislature. If, on the other hand, he will not enter into this contract, it will be the business of the church, as far as lies within her power, to see that this man is not elected.” Now every one knows what this means. It means the church in politics. Yet we are told that “the Sunday law is the right arm4of the federation.” If, then, to get a Sunday law, she must go into politics, it is evident that politics in reality will be her right arm. It will be worse than that. It will mean a combination of Sunday and politics, and this question of Sunday and Sunday legislation occupies no mean place in the future program of the Federal Council. A Mighty Organization and a Great Menace
FEDERATION REFUSES TO BE TOLERANT
To make this clear, we will simply revert to a prominent incident which occurred at the first great meeting, in which the Federal Council was organized. After the report on “Sunday observance” was made and adopted in this council, the following resolution was offered by a member of the council: “It is not our intention that anything should be done to interfere with the convictions of those brethren represented with us in this council, who conscientiously observe the seventh day instead of the first day of the week as a day for rest and worship.” Now this resolution was presented in behalf, as it says, “of those brethren represented with us in this council, who conscientiously observe the seventh day.” The brethren referred to were the Seventh-day Baptist denomination, for they were the only representatives in this council of any denomination which observed the seventh day instead of the first. When, however, this liberal-minded member had offered this resolution, it was met immediately by vigorous protests from all parts of the floor. It was immediately and clearly seen that whatever laying down of differences there might be between denominations when they entered church federation, whatever willingness there might be to give and take regarding doctrines, and the belief that the seventh and not the first day of the week should be observed as a day of rest and worship, the resolution would not prevail. It was overwhelmingly fought down under the loud and vigorous “No-o-o.” This is all the more significant, after a regular delegate from the Seventh-day Baptist denomination pleaded for an extension to them of the principle of “religious liberty,” which had been declared from the platform of the council. Moreover, in the model constitution and by-laws, approved by the business committee of the Federal Council, and authorized for use in forming the Inter-Church Federation of the county or city, we read in article II, section I, “The object of this federation shall be (1) to realize the general aims of the constitution, and (2) more particularly to foster evangelistic movements; to promote the spirit of comity and cooperation among all our churches; to advance the charities of the community; to safeguard the welfare of children; to encourage the feeling of mutual helpfulness among all parts of society, especially between employer and employed; to protect the interests of the Sabbath, temperance, good citizenship, social purity, and law and order; and to secure other objects pertaining to local betterment.” Every one knows that Satan himself is often transformed into an angel of light. The beauty found in resorts of vice, where marble, tapestry, carving, and gilding abound, is the beauty which really belongs to the hallowed temples of God. Only the soul enlightened by the grace of God can look beneath and see, back of the same beauty, vice in one place and holiness in another. Saturday and Sunday may be clothed on the outside with the same apparent authority. But to the enlightened conscience alone does God reveal which day He wishes His child to keep. EXCOMMUNICATING INCONSISTENCY
It is certainly taking a strong stand for church federation to be so liberal on all other points of faith and then to take an excommunicating decision when the conscientious worshiper believes in another day than Sunday. To believe in another day predicates a strong disbelief in Sunday. Yet the conscientious disbeliever in Sunday meets his Sunday-keeping brethren in Christian unity, only to be spurned and tabooed on this difference of faith. This looks to us like taking a gouging advantage. And when church federation expects to succeed by so ungenerous a policy as to endorse a little gouging advantage toward a Christian brotherhood seeking unity with them, what attitude can be looked for when church federation decides that some other conscientious act of worship of some body displeases them? Having admitted the principle, cases can soon multiply. THE PAPACY NO LONGER ALONE
It seems to us that with the advent of church federation, there came into existence a mighty engine for weal or wo. Protestants will not need now to look back to the papacy as the only dictator of religious faith and practise. Yet most Protestants believe that because of papal oppressions, God raised up the Turks to be the scourge of a fallen church. Do they think that arrogant assumptions over the conscience by the federated churches will be any less overlooked by the mighty Judge? Do they think that repeating the experiences of the Dark Ages will bring on any less calamities than those of that period when men “shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them”? Rev. 9:6. The papacy is still with us; and another organization like unto her makes its appearance. Verily the hour is solemn. While there is still chance, let us repent and undo any doing which might endanger the future. Else the coming of the Judge may be sooner than we believe. “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword.
His truth is marching on.”