Our London Letter by W. T. Bartlett

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · May 31, 1910

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 37, No. 21.

Our London Letter

By W. T. Bartlett

From Our Own Correspondent, the Editor of Present Truth

[The first part of this letter was given last week. The portion below was withheld that we might have space for the story of King Edward’s death. This pertains to the religious life of Britain.]

In the Religious World

In the religious world, the most interesting topic is the suggestion put forward by the Rev. J. H. Shakespeare at the annual Free Church Council, for the union of the Free churches of England in one organization, of which all the existing denominations shall be merely sections, and which shall redistribute the forces of the Free churches and enter upon a vigorous campaign of social service. The proposition has been discussed, and several of the leaders in religious life have given it their warm approval. Dr. J. H. Jowett, who occupies the first place among the great preachers of the day, and who has lately declined a pressing invitation to go to the United States, believes that the time is ripe for such a move, and that the churches are longing for just such a step. He says:

“Everybody mourns our present wastage of strength. The denominations are like so many regiments engaged in a common battle, but with no common plan of campaign. Each regiment is doing whatever it likes, without any cooperative consultation with any other. There is no fine strategy, no enlightened attack or defense, no mutual counsel or support. The consequence is, we get in one another’s way; we are jostling rather than confirming. We make a perspiring, pell-mell rush for one part of the field, while another vital part of the field is forsaken. There are a dozen regiments where two would suffice, or, again, there is only one where the needs require six. So we have both prodigality and stint, superfluity and impoverishment. . . . But there is not only wastage of strength. Our want of strategy and common policy leads to rivalry, and therefore to misunderstanding, irritation, resentment, and bad blood. I have only just entered upon the duties of president of the Free Church Council, but already I have made the acquaintance of this perilous truth. Churches are established without any conference with fellow laborers in the field; they are started, not because they are really needed, but to gratify denominational pride, the wish to display an aggressive representation. And this, I say, engenders bad blood, and the springs of service are often poisoned at the fountain.”

On the other hand, many criticize the scheme for union adversely. They point to the fact that the Free Council is an admitted failure, and do not see how a further step in the same direction can be expected to produce any better results. The Rev. J. D. Jones, who ranks high among the evangelical spirits of the Congregational Church, thinks that the idea of uniting the Free churches is an unattainable dream. In a recent address he said that “what they wanted to do was to realize that God had given to every church its own distinctive religious work, and that they were really serving the interests of God best not in disparaging or depreciating one another, or by trying to produce a kind of mechanical uniformity, but by each one of them following the bent of their own genius, and so developing their own type of men, and so creating richness, wealth, and variety in that kingdom to which they belonged.”

W. T. BARTLETT.