The divided house

Preface

IJ AS not the church of Christ arrived at that con- * ^ception of her place in the world where she should hecome conscious of the incongruities of her present divided state? Is it not reasonable to suppose that the (Jhristian conscience of this generation has become sufficiently sensitive to be aroused by the existing evils of our present denominationalism ? Has not the time come when we should expect a higher and more pronounced state of piety than present day Christians manifest? (Jan we expect the Christian ever to attain any verj' liigh degree of Christian character while there rankles in his heart such feelings towards persons whom he recognizes as Christians as to lead him to refuse to throw down the denominational partition which separates him from them? Such questions and the reflections which have followed have led to the writing of the following pages.

If some of the strictures upon denominations to some seem severe, or if the implied condemnation of some classes of persons appear harsh, will you not judge kindly, and pardon graciously, for be assured that only the most intense longing to speak truly has moved the writer. All along there has been an honest effort to be perfectly fair. The endeavor has been made to present the actual situation as it exists in our midst to-day. No imaginary condition has been presented, but there has been the endeavor to paint the picture from real life. From beginning to end there has been one overmastering desire, a prayer breathed on every papio, that the Name of the Blessed Lord may bo honored, and that II is prayer, offennl in the ui)p(M- room on that last night, may speedily be answered, "That they all

PREFACE may be one ; as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent me."

Edwin E. Roaers,

December 1, 1916.

Introductory 9

I. A Situation 19

II. Advantages of Denominationalism .... 3r

III. Complications 55

IV. Conflicts 70

V. Hardships 84

VI. The Waste of Denominationalism .... 93

VII. The Vainglory of Denominationalism . 109

VIII. Denominationalism a Process of Stultification 127

IX. The Apostolic Ideal 148

X. An Obligation 168

XI. A Duty 186

XII. Possibilities 209

XIII. The Next Great Awakening 223

XIV. A Question of Action 239

I i

INTRODUCTORY

pROFESSOR CHARLES WOODRUFF SHIELDS, * of Princeton University, in his book, The United Church in the United States, in the opening sentence of the preface, says, "It has been becoming evident to many thoughtful observers that the chief Christian problem of our age is the reunion of Christendom, and that the most favorable conditions for its solution are found in the New World." Twenty-one years have elapsed since this was written. During this time so many, and so important, changes in the relations which exist between the great denominations of the country have taken place that one looks in surprise and wonders whether the situation at that time may not have been a vision of things in a remote past. Slowly a spirit of brotherhood between the members of the various denominations has been developing. The tendency to form federations, for convenience in carrying on Christian work, weak and uncertain at the first, has become a mighty factor in religious effort, and is full of promise. Tliat unity which a few years ago only a few were bold enough to suggest has come to be a popular theme for pulpit and platform. With varying success efforts have been made in Australia, New Zealand, Scotland, Canada and the United States to bring about the amalgamation of some of the denominations. The conviction expressed by Professor Shields has been extending farther and farther, as well as deepening. It must, however, be admitted that the leaders in our cliurches appear to have experienced no very profound conviction concerning the obligations of church unity. It is looked upon as something desirable, a kind of millennial ideal, so far removed from present possibilities that busy practical men need give it no special consideration. The whole subject is looked upon as the fancy of dreamers. .

The attitude of the church and her leaders is aptly illustrated by a story told by Dr. Robert Bruce, of the University College, London, in his book. Apostolic Order and Unity. He reports a conversation which once took place between a ^Mohammedan priest and a Missionary. The priest asks, "How many sects have you in England?"

IMissionary. ' ' I never counted them ; but presume we have as many as IMohamraed said we should have. ' '

Priest. "What did Mohamined, peace be upon him, say?"

M. "Art thou a teacher in Islam, and knowest not what thy prophet said ? ' '

P. "Well, what did he say?"

M. "It is written in your tradition that the prophet said, 'There were seventy sects in the religion of IMoses, only one of whom went to heaven; there were seventyone sects among the Christians, ditto ; and there will be seventy-two sects among my followers, only one of whom will be saved.' " The Christian leaders while applauding church unity as a theory appear to have settled down in the conviction that while we may deplore the present unfortunate situation, we find it everywhere, and in all religions, consequently we need not be unnecessarily disquieted. We therefore go on strengthening the bonds which hold us in disunion. We have become so acclimated to this kind of spiritual climate that it seems to have ceased to be even distasteful to us. Dollinger, of the University of Munich, in his book. The Keunion of the Churches, more than forty years ago made this statement, which applies with equal force to-day: "It cannot bo denied that there is somotliiiig repulsive in the present aspect of the Christian world.

INTRODUCTORY witli its shari)]y divided aud hostile churches and sects iiatui-ally hating and incriminating one another. And were we not accustomed to the sight from our youth up it would strike us as still uglier, and the contrast between the idea and the reality would be more glaring in our eyes." But because we have spent our lives in such an ecclesiastical chaos we have grown familiar with the din of discordant notes. "We speak glibly of the ideal of unity, then do all within our power to predetermine that such an ideal shall never become a reality.

We discover some hopeful tendencies. There is marked disquiet under present conditions. All sorts of questions are being discussed. The church is being led from her former lines of work into an innumerable number of new departments. "We are hearing much of ' ' Social Service," and are discussing "Social Regeneration" as something just discovered and brought to light. Turning aside from the old ideas of Christianity, when it was spoken of as a "Faith," we speak of it as a "Life." Men have grown impatient under "Creeds" and clamor for the "Christ Spirit," if any one may know just what this may be. A new phraseology has grown up within the last twenty years which would have been to the fathers an unknown tongue. We have developed a whole race of ecclesiastical specialists. We have specialists in Sunday School work, specialists in gathering congregations, specialists in raising church debts, specialists for work among the young people, on the "downtown church," the "country church," "the social life of the church," specialists on church entertainments, temperance, the "White Slave" traffic, specialists in preaching against infidelity, specialists in evangelism, in short, about every possible kind of work has found specialists who assume to have mastered all the intricacies of the trade and are ready to take charge of this for the time and lead the congregation from beneath all her burdens. With this condition there has developed a tendency on , the part of men generally to consider the old-fashioned work of the Pastor as out of date. In the present day his principal work appears to be to arrange dates and make the necessary preparations for the advent of the specialist. It is the specialist who is really to bring results. This nervous restlessness would seem to indicate a conviction that the church is failing to accomplish what she should. Because of such failure the Pastors and church Boards resort to these ingenious devices as a means to strengthen the lines of Protestantism. This restlessness indicates a real dissatisfaction with our present religious status. We appear to understand that the Kingdom of God is not moving on as it should and we take these methods to hasten its progress.

Over against this we find a line of tendencies, mentioned by Professor Shields {The Historic Episcopate, p. 7). "The Churches of the Old World as transferred to the New, compacted together under one political system, have been growing like each other through social intercourse and unconscious imitation. Protestants have been reviving the Catholic sisterhood and fraternity under new names and guises ; while Catholics are resorting to the Protestant platform and newspaper in their conflicts and troubles. Episcopalians have restored Presbyterian elements to their polity and extempore prayers to their liturgy ; while Presbyterians are recovering episcopal agencies of administration and liturgical modes of worship. Both Presbyterians and Episcopalians have learned something from the Methodist revival ; while Methodists have learned to have choirs and divinity schools as well as camp-meetings and laypreachers." This pronounced tendency indicates a movement, not apart, but towards each other of the various denominations. We appear to have arrived at the point where the differences seem to have become so slight that it is difficult to distinguish between some of the denominations. While denominational leaders have struggled hard to liold together each his own group of churches, and the changes have been rung out on the particular denominational shibboleths as a means of

INTRODUCTORY rallying the scattered forces, still we must admit that within the last decade there has been a remarkable diminution of the old-fashioned denominational spirit. i As at no time since the days of Calvin, Luther, and their j associates in the Reformation, the spirit of hostility be- j tween the churches has seemed to die down. Even the j clergy have so far lost their former hatred of other ec- 1 clesiastical organizations than their own, that it has be- j come quite easy for a clergyman of one denomination to i go over into another. It was not long ago when such \ a thing would have caused an ugly scandal. j Now such a change of church relations is common, ' causing no serious comment. As a Presbyterian the j writer is more familiar with his own church than with ; the others, but it is not improbable that what is true of ) the Presbyterian body is also true of sister denomina- | tions. In the year ending March 31, 1909, 88 ordained i ministers entered the Presbyterian Church coming from j other denominations. In 1910, 98 ; 1911, 140 ; 1912, 118 ; and in 1913, 141; 1914, 142; 1915, 139, and 1916, 121. j When we remember that in 1916 the number of young 1 men in the Presbyterian Church ordained to the ministry was 266, while 121 came from other denominations, we readily see how small a barrier denominational lines have become. During the five years ending with March 31, 1913, there was an average of a little more than 213 young men ordained to the ministry, in the Presbyterian Church, each year.

There was an annual average of 117 who entered the ministry of this church from other denominations. Almost 36 per cent of the increase of the ministry in the Presbyterian Church came from other denominations. For the sake of further comparison, going back to the year 1890 we find that for the five preceding years only 6 1-10 per cent of those entering the ministry in the Presbyterian body came from other denominations. In about twenty years the number of ministers entering the Presbyterian Church from other denominations increased .from 6 1-10 to 36 per cent, an increase in ratio of 600 per cent. When we i remember that the lines drawn about the ministry in this denomination are more exacting, and are more rigidly adhered to than in others, we see how the denominational lines, which a generation ago were so strong that for a man to go from the ministry of one denomination to that of another was esteemed sufficient to cause him to lose caste among his brethren, are wasting away. Formerly such a deflection was a subject for adverse comment and severe criticism not merely by the denomination from which the man went, but by the religious press of all denominations. The day has come when such a change can take place, and a man's standing not suffer. This, evidently, is due to the fact that the differences which divide communions have come to be considered of far less moment than formerly. The large number of ministers from other denominations entering the ministry of the Presbyterian Church seems to indicate that in all the denominations less stress is laid upon doctrinal differences than formerly. Men are no longer, even in the ministry, held fast by denominational ties. Whether we deplore this as evidence of a decadent state of church life, or look upon it as indicative of a higher type of true religion, the fact must be admitted. It shows that a change has certainly taken place. It marks a decided trend away from the controversial spirit of a generation ago to a condition far more favorable to a final coming together of the various denominations into one grand church of Christ. From these indications we would judge that the pioneer work already accomplished is bearing fruit. With the passing away of old antagonisms a new spirit of fratei*nity is becoming dominant. Why should not the church of Christ take advantage of this condition? Why should not the leaders of the church commence in real earnest a movement which may speedily culminate in a single organization for the present divided kingdom of God on earth?

There are many men, who are loyal to their own denomiuatious, whose loyalty to the teachings of the Scrip-

INTKODUCTORY tures, as interpreted by their denominations none would suspect, who have labored earnestly for the building up of the kingdom of God in denominational lines, who for some time have been under the conviction that we are working at a great disadvantage. Not a few are convinced that while the church is divided into so many factions there can be only a partial success for her. There has been, it may be somewhat slowly, developing a conviction, which with many is becoming oppressive, that this divided state of the church is a manifestation of a spirit of hostility. It seems to be evidence of a lack of that genuine Christian love, which is being so loudly, and rightly, applauded. It looks too suggestive of a relation between the Christians, so unlike Christ, that for the peace of Christendom the different sects must be tj-eated like the animals in the menagerie, each placed i]i a separate cage, or falling upon each other there will bo a battle to the death. Such a spirit certainly has very little of Christlikeness in it. While we may highly reverence the founders of our denominations, we can scarcely claim that to maintain denominational contentions in our day shows in any marked degree Christian character. It is unthinkable that the Great Head of the church can look with any measure of complacency upon the distrust, the antagonisms, the contentious spirit, the wastefulness of men and money, and the unpardonable (!xtravagance in the use of Divine grace, involved in our present denominational struggles.

One may well question whether there has been a time since Pentecost until the opening of the Twentieth Century, when tlie church has needed a reformation more sorely than she does to-day. When we consider the churcli in hor morals she is not as far in advance of the community in which she exists as she should be. Is slio prwlucing men of profoundly godly character, whose piety shines forth as evidence of an indwelling spirit? Are the lead(!rs ol" the cIiuitIi men renowned for spiritual purily and humility V If there is to be a Moderator of a General Assembly, a President of a Conference, the election of a Bishop, the selection of some one to stand at the head of his denomination self-constituted candidates rise up on every side. The methods to which as- I)irants resort to secure the coveted honors cause even seasoned politicians to smile. If there be a vacant pulpit at all desirable, the number of applicants for the place, persons in every instance, holding less desirable positions is appalling. If we may judge from appearances it is true that among Christians, members of the church, and even in the ministry, there is a similar thirst for honor and place as exists in the heart of the irreligious and worldly. We must admit an appalling deficiency in deep, real godliness. This we find in all classes from the worldly spirited member of the church to the denominational leaders. The most conspicuous evangelists of our time are none of them famous for their piety. It is suggestive that since the ch\irch commenced her divisive course, bringing forth brood after brood of denominations, piety, that peculiar type of character which in spirit is Christlikeness, has not been conspicuous. It is true that great men, great churchmen, have lived, but far too often their greatness was manifested to the best advantage in controversy. There must be something wrong in the kind of character which our modern Christianity is producing. This may be illustrated by supposing that somewhere among the western mountains two communities grew up. Suppose that these communities were near together, and rivalries developed. The bitterness increased until a kind of internecine warfare resulted. So long as such contentions continued would yon expect a very strong, devout religious character to develop? Has it been our experience that when there is dissension in a little community, or a country congregation, the condition favored the liighest and most devout type of religious experience? Tlie spirt of controversy is always looked upon as unfavorable 1o religious growth. Now for more than four hundred years (!liristendom has been rent asunder by controversy. Such a state is inimical to the develop-

INTEODUCTORY ment of a devout faith, a simple trust in God, and that humble sweetness of character which indicates that the man has lost himself in Christ his Lord.

It can scarcely be necessary for us to proceed farther. It is evident that there is something wrong in the church. "Were this not the case we would not have such a multitude of separate camps of the blaster's hosts. Doubtless, we all regret exceedingly the situation. It is the prayer of every believer, not that the Great Head of the church would establish more firmly these divisions, but that our differences might disappear, and that the church might be one. even as the Son is one with the Father. It is true that we all greatly desire that among all the people of God there might be perfect harmony. "We may at times defend denominationalism, nevertheless while so doing we deeply regret that denominations exist. In the moments when we come nearest to Christ, when the world recedes and the things of God appear as the great and only realities, wlien the spiritual life appears as the one only thing worthy of the human soul, then as the state of the church, so divided, comes before us the heart is filled with unutterable sadness. As we go from city to city and from country village to country village those structures, edifices which .should be to the glory of the crucified Lord, rise before us, each bearing the stamp of some particular denomination, representing an angry controversy, whicli separated those who should have been brothers in Christ, and that which should have been a monument of infinite love redeeming a lost world, is sadly transformed and becomes a memorial of human discord and theological controversy. It is not true that the names Presbyterian, Metho(list, Congregational, Episcopal. Lutheran, and a multitude of other similar appellations stand for the church. The name church means Christ, and stands for Him. These other names to the thoughtful .student of church history bi-ing to iniiul periods of contention and strife. All these separate bodies e(|ually believe in Christ. They all believe, and with a measure of zeal proclaim the same fundamental doctrines of salvation. They preach the same crucified Lord. They differ not in their desire to lead the lost world to a Savior. Not one of these names stand for these doctrines. The church stands for these. These names are simply the scars left from controversy. These scars, blemishes on our beloved Christianity, we are seeking to our own dishonor, to perpetuate. Yes, there is something wrong in the church. It is time that Christians should arouse themselves, and set themselves seriously at work to right the wrong. One cannot restrain the intense desire that the old theological battlefields might he left behind forever, and that the multitude of the divisions of the church of our Lord might come together in one splendid, harmonious, glorious body of Christ.

Chapter I

HE Eeformation of the 16th Century was preceded by a season of general religious unrest. This resulted from a variety of contributing causes. The church had become formal and worldly. Her leaders d(!voted their time to political intrigues and ecclesiastical contention. The people remained uninstruetod in the elements of religion. There was little real devout earnest effort to attain a genuine religious character. The priesthood having left its place of honor, as leading in religious living, and turning to the pleasures of tliis life, grew sensiial and avaricious and became a reproach to the church. It was an open secret that not unfrequently the clergy while continuing in the ministry of their holy ofRce indulged in excesses and practices which scandalized whole communities. Contentions arose between ecclesiastical leaders and temporal rulers. There was frequent discord among high eliurcli dignitaries. The church seemed no longer a spiritual power, but her holy officials had become ambitious aspirants for worldly fame and riches. The Albigen.ses in southern France, and the Waldenses in northern Italy, through reformatory councils had endeavored to resist the depressing inlluences everywhere engulfing the church. Individuals, like Wiclif and the Lollards in England, Jolin IIuss in Bohemia, Arnold and Savonarola in Italy, had uttered their protests and sought to arouse the chun^h to a consciousness of her danger. Here and tlierc ajjix-ared iticu oi" less prominence who dissatisfied with the existing state of tilings were sincerely striving to attain a purer faith and a holier life. The

THE DIVIDED ROUSE leaders of the church were deaf to every sound of discontent while they quarreled with the German princes over temporalities. Their profligacy increased their need of funds and there was deep scheming to provide larger financial resources. A great effort was put forth to secure money that buildings of vast proportions under construction might be carried to completion. Among the people there developed general dissatisfaction. Not a few of the clergj', grieving over what seemed to them so sad a condition in the church, sought with commendable fidelity to cultivate in their parishes a true and devout type of religious life. They longed for and earnestly prayed for a reform, but were helpless to bring it about. In some of the universities were found instructors, conspicuous for the purity of their lives and tlieir devout spirit, like John Staupitz in Germany. Robert d 'Olivet in France, who were seeking to lead the church from tlie existing corruptions in life and faith to the simpler teachings of the Scriptures. Such a condition in the church could not fail to bring her into disrepute. The people honored the godly men whom they recognized here and there, but the great ortrniiization, the church, which claimed to be the vehicle of Divine grace, was fast ceasing to be revered. Tier teacliers were disregarded and her authority was spurned. Infidelity sprung \ip on all sides and there was evidence of a coming religious collapse. At this time the father of John Calvin, an of?icial in the church, loyal to her teachings, who had determined to dedicate his son to her service, foresaw the coming storm and diverted his promising child from holy orders to the law.

Among a class of men who sincerely gave themselves to a careful study of the religious condition of the day there were some who openly expressed a longing for purer things. Others seeming to have lost their ('(lulidcnce in religion, discarding the claims of the chiircli became open unbeliever.s. To a few it ajjpearcd necessary to look elsewlicre than to the clnirch for leadership in any general religious reform. There was a breaking away from the old authority and a disposition for every man in his own way to seek to build for himself a basis of authority upon which a purified ecclesiastical organization might be established. At this time the great leaders of the Reformation appeared : Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and their associates. As earnest and true men they commenced to feel their way, each differing from all the others in many minor matters. They all agreed as to the necessity to break away from the established church. Besides the great leaders a multitude of lesser lights sprung up, striving to build up an organization which should embody their peculiar views. As the Reformation continued and the leading reformed churches, the Lutheran in Germany, the Reformed in Switzerland, France and Ihc Netherlands, extending over the Channel into Scotland, and permeating England, became established, it was discovered that the spirit of disintegration which had been strengthened by the discussion out of which these organizations had grown was most powerfully working through the whole Protestant body.

With respect for the old ecclesiastical authorities destroyed, with a suspicion of any man, or circle of men who might bo acquiring unusual influence, the new movement was left without a steadying hand. Wanting in solidarity, it fell into unfortunate extremes. No man was bound by any authority, not even by custom to recognize any particular leader. No one man was recognized as a leader of all. Every one conceiving himself to be under no outside restraint pushed ahead to find a way of work and a system of faith which might best comport with the ideals which he was forming. The result was not alone many different schemes of faith and polity, but an undue magnifying of rival theories. This gave to them for the time a place of fictitious importance. The authority of the old church was gone. Tlie Reformed church, unable to unify hersc'If, had failed to attain a place of authority. There was thrown o])en a fi(;ld for ecclesiastical exploitation and many hastened to take advantage of the opportunity. For more than three hundred years we have been reaping the fruit of this unfortunate situation. The spirit of disunion has proven to be the evil genius of Protestantism. Its work has been so widespread that venturesome indeed would be the man who to-day would presume to give the number of Protestant denominations. The number runs into the hundreds, we meet them everywhere. Each of these organizations claim to stand for some separate truth sufficiently essential to true Christianity to justify the forming of a separate organization for the purpose of proclaiming this truth, which is made a matter of conscience.

Some of these divisions have grown out of distinctively theological questions, such as Calvinism, and Lutherism, and others. Some took for their point of departure a question of church government, as for example, the Episcopalian Church, Presbyterian and Congregational. Again others split upon the question of liturgy or no liturgy. We have almost every conceivable thing made a basis for some new religious denomination. These denominations have usually, we had almost said, always, been started by some man, an individual, who because of some fancied discovery, theological possibly or because he felt himself restrained in his liberty, knowing that there was an open field led forth a little company of followers and commenced the struggle to establish a new church. Most unfortunate for the cause of Christianity has been the result. H. K. Carroll, LL.D., who for years has been the head of the ecclesiastical department of the Census Bureau, at Washington, from his intimate familiarity with the denominational divisions of this country makes the statement, that "No denomination has thus far proved to bo too small for division." The great denominations have broken up into smaller ones, which in turn have again divided, and the fragments have gone on and divided again. Sometimes the divisions hold precisely the same creed, and employ tlie same polity or form of government. Not uufrequently the members of these separate denominations are unable to tell intelligently, just how tlieir church differs from another. The Census gives twelve different kinds of Presbyterians, thirteen different kinds of Baptists, and that the Methodist persuasion may be properly cared for they have split themselves into seventeen different denominations, each being Methodist. "We have in our own country some say 143 different Protestant denominations, and some make the number even greater. What a spectacle is this to the unchristian world ! No wonder that men think lightly of the church. What must the unbeliever think of a faith which engenders such controversy? Is it strange that sometimes when an unbeliever is urged to consider the claims of Christianity, and to take his place as a Christian before the world that the insolent question is hurled back, "What kind"? It is true that Christians liave always and everywhere greatly regretted the situation. We admit, with sadness, that it is a great, a lamentable misfortune, but still we continue the divisions.