Church Federation in Purpose and Method
By B. G. Wilkinson
The Bible Speaks of a Federation—What if the Complicated Machine Is Started Wrong?—No Certainty of Purpose THIS is the third article Elder Wilkinson has furnished on the federation of the churches. In previous articles, he has spoken of the inception and history of the movement, and has dwelt upon the ecclesiastical organization formed in the fourth century, and which exerted such a powerful influence for evil in the world. The gospel of Christ is persuasive, and not dominative, was one of the leading points made. Next week the theme of his article, in continuing this subject, will be the threat of the tendency of this modern federation that is reaching out in its ambitions to embrace the world. “It was during the epoch when there were sects and heresies that Christianity made the conquest of the world.”—The Hon. Camille Pelletan. Why should not the churches federate? Why should not the Methodists, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Episcopalians,—in fact all the Protestant churches,—unite in an effort to advance the interests of the church universal? Further, why should not the Protestant denominations, after they are confederated, come together on some basis of unity with the Catholic world—yes, with all Christendom? Yea, more, why should not the Christians unite with the Mohammedans in common efforts to relieve industrial oppressions, check vice, clean up bad tenement districts, and bring in world-wide prohibition? Do they not have the right?—They certainly do. And apparently, to all intents and purposes the effects they intend to accomplish are laudable, and worthy of the endorsement of all. THE SCRIPTURES TELL OF A FEDERATION
Yet the Scriptures have not left us in ignorance of the fact that an apparently laudable federation with bad results can be effected. “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.” Ps. 2: 2, 3. Here is confederation—the possessors of might against the possessors of right. It is a confederation of kings, of the ruling ones in the earth. Surely they must put forth some laudable purpose on which they take counsel together. They could not hope for moral leadership unless they were able to present apparently good reasons why followers should join. Moreover, those who thus band themselves together are not those who are in ignorance of God; for they say, in speaking of God and His anointed, “Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.” In other words, they have the knowledge of God and of Christ, but they do not do as they know. They are like the Pharisees of whom Christ said, “Whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.” So these rulers, these kings of the earth, knowing of God and Christ, but obeying not, confederate themselves together. According to what they say, they federate themselves together to achieve great and good results. But God looks underneath the surface, and reveals what the actual results will be. Really they break these bands asunder, and cast away His cords from them. In other words, their organization accomplishes disorganization. We are then led to make inquiries about church federation. In the first place, what are its purposes? Are they clear and certain? What about the means they have adopted to effect these purposes? Are they practical, or are they superficial, and bound to be ineffective? And finally, what will be the tendency of the organization? All must admit that intentions are not results; and however highly laudable the intentions of the contracting parties, the instrument they use to materialize their intentions may be weak and impracticable. If it happen to be a big and complicated instrument, as church federation is bound to be, then if the machine gets started wrong, and develops bad tendencies at the very first, it might be difficult to detect those tendencies before it is too late, or to correct them if they should be detected. And history proves abundantly that in this we are not talking theories. One may say that this very argument would apply to church organization. Not at all. To have a union of those who believe alike, working together for the same purpose, is vastly different from having a union of several denominations for whom the essential element of the union is that they must drop some of their fundamental points of faith; for no one can believe in the text, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” without believing in a union that will permit believers to send their representatives to distant fields and support them there. THEIR PURPOSE NOT CLEAR TO THEMSELVES
In the first place, there seems to exist for church federation as now formed an uncertainty of purpose. At least there is not a clear statement of its raison d’être. At Baltimore, Maryland, on the night of December 4, 1913, I heard the president of the federation say that the reason for federating was that the churches had unused forces, much reserve, and that the Federal Council was formed to develop these. Then Bishop McDowell, of the Methodist Church, took the stand. “It is not possible,” he said, “that all the world will become Methodist or Baptist or Episcopalian. We have only about so much reserve force.” It is not clear, from these statements, whether the churches had so great an abundance of force that they demanded an organization of higher potentiality, as the Federal Council, to create an outlet for their great resources, or whether they had so little force that a reorganization was necessary, in order to check retreat and to give life to what there was. SHOULD GIVE A CERTAINTY OF PURPOSE
This raises the issue. If there exists a real demand for federation, that demand will easily give a certainty of purpose. And if there is a certainty of purpose, federation can swing into existence under color of right. But if there is no real demand, then the reasons for federating will be conflicting, uncertain, and so will cast a cloud upon the endeavor. This is exactly what those statements quoted above from two leaders in the movement do. “It is not possible that all the world will become . . . Baptist.” Do the Baptists accept this conclusion as the first dividend they receive for investing in church federation? If so, how inspiring will it be to them to fight a good fight? They believed in a divine commission to go into all the world and baptize all men. Whether such a result is attainable, is not for them to say. Their duty is to obey. It is theirs, under God’s command, as they understand it, to attempt the impossible. That is the logic of their belief. The other denominations with whom they federate may not believe it; but will that release Baptists, who do believe it, from the obligation of their convictions? Not all men are to be baptized, declares the federation. Hence the Baptists can lower their mark. They are not to attempt so great things as they have hitherto attempted. Thus they will not need to lean so heavily on the Lord. But no individual should join a society if by so doing he is compelled to lower his mark. Likewise no society should join a federation of societies, if by so doing that society is compelled to lower its mark, unless the federation puts before it some other endeavor as a substitute. But the Federation of Churches is not only under obligation to give a substitute purpose, but is also under obligation to give with it the assurance from God that His blessing will rest upon the new endeavor as much as it did upon the old. And this is exactly what federation means, if the leaders of the federation say what they mean. Either their public utterances say what they mean, or else they do not; and we are either to take them seriously, or we are not. NO ESCAPING CONFLICTING CONCLUSIONS
It will be no escape from these conflicting conclusions, for the leaders of church federation to say, as they do, that the Baptists can go on working with all their might, as Baptists, to baptize all men, but that as members of the federation, they toil for better social conditions. This is directly contrary to the statement made above; for there it was said that the Baptists enter the federation because not all the world is likely to become Baptists. It is not social mission and baptizing, but403social mission instead of baptizing. It is not an increase in the fields of usefulness, but an exchange in the fields of usefulness. HOW CAN THESE DIFFERENCES COMBINE?
And what is true of the Baptists is true of other denominations. Do they enter the federation to develop forces yet in reserve, or to safeguard a limited amount of force? One church preaches plainness of dress, another admits the fashions. One opposes the dance and the theater, another countenances both. One makes the use of tobacco a bar to fellowship, another does not. How fast will social reform progress, if these bodies abandon their war against the evils of worldliness, in order to enter the federation? RAPID INVASION OF SOCIAL EVILS
Compare the rapid invasion of social evils with the small victories already won by the federated churches. One Eastern manufacturer says that he would not be surprised any day to see another French Revolution break out in New York City. That metropolis has hundreds of thousands of Hungarians, Bohemians, Poles, and other foreign nationalities. Many of these never see Broadway and never learn the English language. Work is not always plentiful, and these people suffer. Yet only a mile or so across the city are the fashionable wealthy spending their thousands and millions in wantonness. Should those foreigners ever rise, this manufacturer declares, the police would not be able to control the situation. The writer, on entering the city of Staunton, Virginia, one day, saw in one of the newspapers an appeal to the mothers of that city to rise against the invasion of the immoral dance and the immoral dress, lest the fair name of that city go down in history besmirched by the products of these Bacchanalian pleasures. Bishop Rhinelander, of the Episcopal diocese of Pennsylvania, in his Lenten services, 1914, said, while declaring that the trend of modern thought, as manifested in the present-day drama, modern novels, up-to-date fashions, and moving-picture stories, shows that the seed of truth as given by Christ is not taking root in the hearts of the people: "No wonder suicide is becoming popular and fashionable, if the miserable panderings to bestial instincts that we see nowadays in the theaters and on moving-picture films are our ultimate conception of moral truth. These things are said to be produced for the moral uplift of the people and for social enlightenment and betterment, and the discouraging part of the question is that they are accepted by the people as such." WHAT THE FEDERATION DID IN ONE CITY
On the other hand, here is what the Inter-Church Federation of Trenton, New Jersey, says of itself: "The federation prevented the Tri-State League from opening up Sunday baseball in the city. Sunday vaudeville at the local White City Park was stopped. An obscene play, called 'The Girl from Rector's,' was compelled to stop and leave town; and another, called 'The Easiest Way,' was prevented from entering the town at all. The objectionable side-shows on the Midway at the Interstate Fair, after a long battle, were at last withdrawn. The Charity Bureau of the federation has become the most effective charity organization of the city, and has lately devised a plan of cooperation with the City Department of the Outdoor Poor. . . . This temperance victory [over seven saloons] is an example of what an Inter-Church Federation can do. The Trenton federation is something more than a ministerial union, or a voluntary association. It is a combination of thirty-seven Protestant churches. Its council is composed of the pastor and a lay delegate selected by each church in the federation. Consequently the federation is a permanent and powerful body properly qualified to handle the moral situation of the city." So the different Protestant denominations enter the Church Federation on the basis that not all the world is to become of the same persuasion as their particular denomination. They abandon that hope upon entering the door of the federation. They join upon the understanding that henceforth they are not to emphasize denominational differences. If, in the past, they became separate denominations by emphasizing their denominational differences, the formation of the Church Federation will correct that past mistake. And over against this consent to call their special denominational features non-essential, what do they secure? The report of the Trenton Inter-Church Federation claims that the federating resulted in (1) more emphasis on Sunday, because a baseball game or games and a vaudeville were stopped on Sunday; (2) stopping some obscene shows and prohibiting another from entering the city; (3) increased supplies and service for the city poor. Yet disgraceful war between capital and labor in Colorado, sordid discontent among the foreign poor with wantonness among the Christian rich in New York City, American capitalism and American armies invading Mexico, and preparations all over the world for war, roll on. It is enough to cause one to stop and ask if there is not some truth in the statement of the Hon. Camille Pelletan, "It was during the epoch when there were sects and heresies that Christianity made the conquest of the world." (Speech in French Chamber of Deputies, April 22, 1905.) Is church federation a good or a bad omen for the future?