CHURCH FEDERATION by H. F. Phelps

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, California · Mar 14, 1906

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 32, No. 11.

Read the full edition

CHURCH FEDERATION.

By H. F. Phelps

[H. F. Phelps, in Minneapolis Progress.]

Religious, as Well as Other, Combination a Tendency of the Times.

An Omen of Good or Evil?

THE recent federation of thirty-two denominations in New York City was an event as to the significance of which the American people do well to inquire. Is it an omen of good or evil?

What is there in this Federation? What is its great purpose? The actual results can not now be estimated. As suggested by the Literary Digest, "Its chief interest is as a sign of the times." Yet, as a Philadelphia clergyman remarks, it is "the greatest epoch in the life of Christianity within the past five hundred years," for its influence may be far-reaching, but doubtful in the extreme.

A casual reading of the various reports, the statements of many of the speakers, and the declared objects of the Federation, would give the impression that all is well. But the thoughtful will be ready to suggest that a union of any certain number of churches of varied beliefs and creeds, forming a confederated council, accepting and rejecting certain churches, can not be the unity for which Christ prayed: "That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us."

It was said that this Federation of Churches represented eighteen, some say nineteen, millions of communicants. And some of the speakers were not slow in calling attention to this fact. Bishop Goodsell, Methodist Episcopal, said, "A church of many votes is sure of respectful attention;" while another declared with much emphasis that such a constituency could make their demands, and their voices would be heard; and that voice would be heard more often in the future.

Bishop Fowler sounded a note of warning against

Centralization, or Assumption of Power,

by this federation movement, declaring that this would lead to despotism, cruelty, and persecution, by Protestantism. Human nature, said the bishop, has not changed. It was a sorry day for the world when there was but one human brain in the world, and that brain in the chair of St. Peter. And the New York Independent, if we mistake not, sees in this movement a combination for influence and power.

As to this point, a note of warning was sounded in the United States Senate Report of 1829, which is very appropriate:

"All religious despotism commences by combination and influence. And when that influence begins to operate upon the political institutions of a country, the civil power soon bends under it; and the catastrophe of other nations furnishes an awful warning of the consequences." "Extensive religious combinations to effect a political object are always dangerous."

And now let us consider the object of this movement.

Is It Political?

Let it only once be demonstrated in this country that a "united church" can have "whatever it demands," as one speaker said, and their demands will be much larger than they are to-day. And these demands will be, as suggested by one speaker, where lies the greatest need. The reasons for a federated church were because of certain "social evils," such as "promiscuous divorce," "the liquor traffic," "all forms of gambling," and "Sabbath desecration."

A Magnifying Glass

is not needed to enable us to see that all these "social evils" are already political questions, as attempts are made to regulate them by legislative enactments. And if the demands of a federal church are to be made for their enforcement, or for more restrictive measures, this will most certainly become a religio-political movement. Suppose for one moment that what may, by a federated church, be called "Sabbath desecration," shall, by any class of persons in church capacity, be declared not to be Sabbath desecration. What would be the result if their demands shall be heard? It requires no stretch of the imagination to find the answer.

The Possible Outcome

of this council was outlined, as "a local federation," "a county federation," in "order to bring pressure to bear on county officials," and where these were inadequate to cope with the evils by such measures, then "a state federation, to bring to bear the pressure of the united influence of the churches of the state. This in turn suggests and grows into a national federation; and this will logically lead to an international federation. The federation, local or otherwise, reports violation of law, and aids the authorities in the enforcement of law." And this will be the union of church and state, full and complete.

Now we give credit to these men as being perfectly sincere in all they are doing; but

Sincerity Is No Evidence

of the correctness of any position. We are sure, and that from history and the sure Word of prophecy, that a huge machine has been set in motion, the finale of which no human eye can foresee; but the beloved apostle on the Isle of Patmos did see it in a holy vision. Read Rev. 13:1-18; 14:9-13. The despotism of the Dark Ages was the result of a religious trust, a religious federation. And the churches of to-day, going over the same road, will, inevitably and logically, set up an image and cause men to worship it. This will be the result; for like actions will produce like results.

In closing, we will present a sound opinion of the Rev. S. J. Niccolls, a Presbyterian pastor of St. Louis, Mo. In an address descriptive of the conference he said: "Others again seemed to think that the object was to unite all who call themselves Christians, for reforms in society, and that the bodies thus united could crush out all vice, and bring good men to the front in the rule of society. The good wine of reform seems to have gone to the heads of some most excellent people. The overthrow of political bosses, and the awakened public conscience with reference to political and commercial rascality, seem to some to offer a favorable opportunity for a united church to assert its power. But I, for one, do not think that

Ecclesiastical Bosses

would be any better than political ones. The darkest pages of the history of the Christian centuries are those which record the supremacy of ecclesiastical rule. So far as the records show the results, I would rather have the reign of Tammany or the bossism of St. Louis than that of the ecclesiasticism of the Dark Ages. So far as history shows, there has never been a church organization, or a combination of them, that was worthy to reign over men. There is only One whose right it is to reign, and who is worthy of a supreme place—Jesus Christ, our Lord.