USA > Massachusetts > Worcester County > Worcester > Minutes of the annual meeting Congregational Churches of Massachusetts 1906 > Part 8
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20
70
The Dayton Council and Church Union
[1906
elders, elected annually, and superintendents (whom they call bishops), chosen for four-year terms. The body numbers 260,000, has seven col- leges, a theological seminary, preparatory schools, a fine publishing plant in Dayton, Ohio, and carries on missionary work in several foreign fields. These are the two bodies with whom we propose union.
And be it known that church union is not wholly an unknown quantity in the Christian world, albeit it is rather unique so far as the United States is concerned. More than twenty years ago the four Methodist denomi- nations of Canada, namely, the Methodist Episcopal, the Wesleyan, the Free Methodist, and the Bible Christians, united, forming the Methodist Church of Canada. In that same country to-day the Presbyterians, Con- gregationalists, and Methodists are debating plans of union with a fair prospect of success. The same thing can be said of the same churches in Australia. But the farthest that steps have ever gone toward union in this country has been to bring together dismembered parts of the same church. The Old School and the New School Presbyterians, divided in 1837 on account of doctrine, were reunited in 1869. The Methodist Protestant Church, north and south, divided before the war on account of slavery, reunited in 1877. But the Presbyterian churches, divided before the war by the slavery question, have been unable to come together; and the Methodist Episcopal Church and Methodist Episcopal Church South, separated by the issues of the war, have deliberated for several years, and the most they have been able to do is to jointly edit a hymn book, from which they sing:
" Blest be the tie that binds Our hearts in Christian love."
No, the proposed union is absolutely unique in United States church history. In this country we are more used to division and subtraction than to combining, or the resolving of fractions into a common denomi- nator. And Rev. Dr. Carroll, our church census enumerator, informed us in the last decade that our one hundred and forty sects had grown to one hundred and forty-one, because our Dunkard brethren were unable to agree whether in the matter of feet washing the brothers should perform the service for brothers only, and the sisters for sisters, or whether the sol:mn service of pedal ablution should be performed irrespective of sex distinction. Thus will the brethren " tithe mint, anise and cummin," and neglect the " weightier matters of the law."
But, we are asked, if union is to take place, why may it not be between bodies that have a common origin and ancestry? which question leads to three remarks.
1. The law of attraction and repulsion in friendship, as in many other things, cannot always be explained by a common rule. For instance, in spite of what might naturally be expected, the quiet, gentle Isaac takes to the hearty, impulsive, roving Esau, rather than to the " plain man,
.
71
1906]
The History of the Movement
dwelling in tents." And I must confess that in this my heart always sided with Isaac, for I never did like the cold, crafty, self-calculating Jacob, never -- until long afterwards when he was soundly converted. Why Congregationalists should be found courting Methodists rather than Presbyterians is only another evidence that you cannot always judge of the caprices of the heart or know the way of the human spirit. Besides, it takes two to do courting; and while we would gladly respond to over- tures from the Presbyterians, it must be frankly admitted that they do not encourage any advances in this direction.
2. Church union to be effective must be on the basis of spiritual affinity and not along the lines of history and ancestry. It is not a question of a common origin, but of a common life. The union must be vital, not formal.
The present conditions seem to answer this test. The Methodist Protes- tant Church is a protest against an episcopacy that was tyranny. It demanded that the rights of the laity should be guaranteed. It believed in the right of the local church to govern itself; in the freedom of speech; in the right of private judgment in matters of religion; in the equality of all rather than the rights of a privileged few; in "a church without a bishop " as well as " a state without a king." To maintain these it suf- fered ostracism, persecution, and oppression.
The United Brethren grew out of an effort to carry the gospel to a lowly and neglected people. They were dissatisfied with the mere for- malism of a ceremonial church. They did not believe that a change of heart was effected by a change of robes. They held that life was more than liturgy; that the new birth was necessary to salvation; and so they preached and maintained the evangelical faith.
We need not recall the origin of the Congregational Church; how it was born in persecution, and suffered the loss of home and property, and endured shipwreck and imprisonment and even martyrdom, that it might maintain the freedom of the local church and the right of the individual to worship God in his own way without any intervening priesthood.
Now, here are three bodies, born at different times, under conditions wholly dissimilar, with very little in common so far as form and method are concerned, wholly unlike in their ancestry and inherited traditions, and yet having kinship of spirit. They are alike in this, that they have always stood for the right of private judgment in matters of religion, the freedom of the local church, and supreme loyalty to Jesus as Lord and King. The basis of real unity must always be found in a common spir- itual impulse and life. '
3. And, thirdly, there must be essential harmony on points of doctrine. These two sister denominations we are considering, in their forms, sacra- ments, and ordinances, do not differ from us in any important particular. In doctrine they are Arminian. Congregationalists are Calvinists by in- heritance. For many years they clung to the Westminster Confession as their symbol of faith. But they repudiated Calvinism long before they
72
The Dayton Council and Church Union [1906
laid aside its symbol. If we were compelled to label ourselves now, we might take the name of Calvin, but the voice would still be the voice of Jacob while the hands were the hands of Esau. The fact is, the Con- gregational church is more Arminian than Calvinistic, and by any doc- trinal test we are as near to Methodists as to Presbyterians. While we differ in forms, manner, and customs, the heart of our theology is the same.
Before closing this discussion let us briefly consider some of the advan- tages that will accrue to the Congregational Church through union.
1. Economy of administration. It takes less to administer one plant than three. The foreign missionary work of the three churches could not ' only be carried on with less expense, but with greater efficiency. And the same is true of the various forms of missionary work in our own country.
2. We would have the inspiration of greater numbers. A million and one hundred thousand count for more than six hundred thousand. The union would mean larger resources, greater influence, and more enthusiasm. In addition, we would cover more territory, which would mean that we would be more national and less provincial. Each section of the country would modify every other section, and in the end we should have a better type of church organization and life than we possess to-day.
3. Union would give us a better type of Christian experience. Congre- gationalism has always been noted for the kind of men it produced. It has had the genius for sending forth sturdy sons and daughters. The Pilgrim fathers were men of caliber and character. They loved education, and the little red schoolhouse was always seen near the little white meet- ing-house. Wherever the church went it planted also the college and the seminary. The result has been that our Christian life has been predomi- nantly of the intellectual type. We have laid the emphasis upon right conceptions of the truth. Congregationalism has therefore produced a type of Christian experience which, because it was largely intellectual, was cold and formal. Now, if we can have mixed with this a little bit of the fire and fervor of these other denominations; if we can have, not less of the head, but more of the heart and its passion, we shall have a higher and better type of Christian experience than we now possess.
4. Union will furnish us an opportunity and a reason for a readjustment of some of our forces. Our various benevolent organizations were all formed as close corporations. The churches which were appealed to for support had neither vote nor voice in their management. This is true of the American Board and of all the home societies. But no one contends that it is Congregational. It is Congregational in the sense that it is the New England way. And there are some who follow the good old deacon's logic and say, " We have always done it this way," ergo, we must. Now the time has come, it seems to many, when all of our boards should be made in fact what they are in name, Congregational; and union furnishes us an opportunity for a readjustment of our polity along this and other lines. 5. We will become leaders in a great movement. It is not a question
73
1906]
The History of the Movement
of the union of three denominations alone, but of many. The trend of the age is in the direction of unity, and combination, if not consolidation, is the watchword of the hour.
The time may never come when there shall be only one Protestant church in this country. That may be neither wise nor practical. The answer to the Saviour's prayer does not require it. Quite likely there may be always three great types: (a) The liturgical church, emphasizing ritualism and the sacraments, of which the Protestant Episcopal church is an exponent; (b) the ecclesiastical, in which power is concentrated in the hands of a few, the Methodist Episcopal church being an example; and (c) a plain, democratic church, into which will be gathered those who stand for simplicity in worship and who maintain the rights of the local church .- Into this last will be gathered the Dutch Reformed, Presby- terians, Congregationalists, Baptists, and many other bodies. Of course, outside of these three bodies there will always be wandering stars or comets, without a known orbit, - Theosophists, Christian Scientists, Zionists, Canaanites, Jebusites, and particularly Gadites. But these will not affect the movement of the heavenly bodies.
But while there may continue many forms, I believe the age of division must end. We have gone to the extreme in that direction. The church, the body of Christ, has been torn and rent asunder. We must find a way to bring the different parts together. While the prayer of Christ may not mean organic unity, I am sure it does not mean organic division. Christ is not glorified through contention. The true church will know how to tolerate individual differences while dwelling together in one fami'y. Unity does not mean uniformity, but it does mean such a spirit of loyalty to the Master and of love for the brethren as will permit of individual variety under a common form. Along this line Christian forces must draw together. The tide is already setting in this direction, and in this great movement I want to see the Congrega ional churches leading.
There are many who feel that our church holds the vantage ground in questions of faith and polity. If there can be found a common basis upon which all churches can unite, it will be quite near to that on which the churches of the Pilgrim faith now stand. Therefore, it is said, we should not enter upon any union that requires an essential inodification of our polity. To this statement I am sure we all heartily agree. But we must keep before us clearly what is involved in the premise. The Congregational polity carries within it two principles of equal importance, namely, independence and fellowship. The independence of the churches we cherish and will never surrender. The right our fathers contended for and suffered to secure cannot be yielded under any consideration. But this union proposes no such thing. "The unit of our fellowship is the local church," and "a freedom which leaves each local church free in its separate affairs " is the principle affirmed by the Dayton Council. The other bodies would be as slow to yield on this point as ourselves.
74
The Daytan Council and Church Union [1906
What of the second article in our Congregational creed? We believe as much in fellowship as in the principle of independence; at least we so affirm, though we have not worked it out as fully nor emphasized it as earnestly. Is it not possible for us to find some way in which common interests can be cared for and the great work of the churches carried on through cooperative action without the sacrifice of individual freedom? The Dayton Council affirms that " the character of our fellowship is that of a representative democracy " and that we believe in "a fellowship which unites all the churches for mutual care and cooperant action." Many of us believe that a representative democracy is the only form that guards individual rights and, at the same time, provides for effective cooperation. An absolute democracy might be practical for the city of Athens but would be impossible for a country as large as the United States. Likewise a simple democracy is easily realized in a local church or a small group of churches, but is not feasible for a large number. A representative gathering is the only method of expressing fellowship and of uniting all forces for a common end. The point to be guarded is the encroachment upon the rights and interests of the local church. But all of this is secured when to the representative assembly are committed only those interests which are general or common to all of the churches.
An illustration will serve to make this clear. My own city of Brockton is free to manage its interests for itself without interference, just so it does not jeopardize the interests of others. But in affairs which concern Plymouth County, Brockton has only a representative right, and must bow to the will of the majority. The same is true of Plymouth County in its relations to the state. And while the Common wealth of Massachusetts is free to manage her own concerns, when it comes to those of national importance she finds herself only one among many, and must conform to the expressed will of the majority. The greatest war this world has ever known was fought to overthrow the contention that a state could have its own way regardless of the effect of its action upon the nation.
The same principle holds in the church. Local affairs will be managed by each local church, free from outside control. Independence here is and must be guaranteed. Liberty to do as the membership wishes, so long as the rights of others are not infringed, must be granted. But matters of common concern, which belong to all sections alike, the churches must care for in their representative capacity. In this way the local and annual or state conferences will control affairs peculiarly their own; but the interests which concern the entire denomination must be adminis- tered through the National or General Conference, which is the church in its representative capacity. As individuals surrender certain privi- leges when they unite with a local church, so must individual churches expect to forego certain prerogatives when they combine with other churches. In this manner alone can independence be preserved and fellow- ship be secured.
75
1906]
Some Principles Involved
This paper has already reached the limit assigned it, and yet in closing I cannot forbear a word expressing my joy at having before us something practical in the way of church union, and having had some humble part myself in bringing it to pass. However small the movement may be in itself, it is much greater because of what it is the forerunner. Christian forces are drawing nearer together. We have been praying for union, and our prayers are being answered. Let us not draw back when the Spirit is leading, nor marvel at what may be accomplished. Greater things than these shall our eyes yet behold if we maintain our courage to the high level of our prayers and our convictions. If Burbank, the wizard of Cali- fornia, can cause tomatoes to grow upon potato vines, and apple-trees to bring forth pears, let us not think anything impossible with God. In the secret processes of his will there shall yet be wrought out miracles of grace and love that shall far transcend our imagination and our faith.
II. SOME PRINCIPLES INVOLVED BY REV. CHARLES F. CARTER, LEXINGTON
My associate in this discussion has ably unfolded the leading features in the history of this movement and has caused our hearts to glow with the fervent spirit of the meeting held at Dayton. My approach to the subject is that of one who was not present at that remarkable gathering and who has, therefore, to consider the proposal without the direct inspi- ration of what must have been almost a modern Pentecost. Perhaps the best that one can do in such a situation is to attempt an outlook that may be representative of those in the churches to whom the subject has come with something of surprise and who have not yet given to it much detailed attention, and especially to consider some of the principles in- volved in this proposed union.
It is often noted in our day that a growing sentiment of union is felt among Christian people. Men outside the church, as well as those within, deplore ecclesiastical divisions and look upon sectarianism as a reproach. They welcome signs that the fences are being taken down and a spirit of interchange and good fellowship is obtaining among brethren. To the common man all this seems to be right. Ministers, too, find their people ready and eager to respond to this sentiment. Doubtless every pastor in this assembly, unless he be quite new to the calling, has preached upon the great text that is in all our minds, overarching this entire dis- cussion, the prayerful desire that lets us into the mind of Christ. We cannot escape it any more than the flowing river can escape the head waters of its source. There stirs in every heart some pulsation of response to the deep longing that all may be one, and whenever the preacher has
76
The Dayton Council and Church Union [1906
entered into that desire and has shared it with his people the " Amen " has been hearty and sincere.
Now this sentiment has come to a time of testing. It is met with a definite proposal. It is no longer in the air. It has received a challenge. For this is no academic discussion in which we are engaged. Action is to follow or reaction will set in. This proposal of union affects directly over a million people. It traverses some of the deeply cut ruts of historic movement. Important in itself, it is even more significant as an object lesson and as a possible forerunner of similar movements that happily may characterize the present age. To many of us it has something of the glad surprise of a dream coming true, and whatever the immediate impres- sion, we must be agreed that our churches should receive this proposal seriously and accord to the consideration of it their most earnest thought. Its possible significance is too great lightly to be set aside.
In this initial stage of discussion surely we must keep close to the fundamentals. The question arises, What must be, in any instance, the basis of organic union? The answer is not far to seek. There must be a common purpose, a central motive. This constitutes the inner likeness and the vital union. Such a motive exists in every church, of whatever name, that is organized in dependence on God to promote his kingdom on the earth. Whenever this impulse appears as the dominant note, over- riding all lesser considerations by its intensity, unity is already at hand.
But for organic unity this common motive is not enough. Men may work in the same spirit and yet not effectively or wisely work together. The practical question always follows the primary one, asking whether the common purpose is being wrought out by methods that are congenial to each other. The question has its various phases and becomes more obvious in concrete instances. It is well to recognize that there are con- ditions under which organic union is practically impossible. The Roman Catholic Church exists to promote the kingdom of God on earth. Toward that communion I cherish, with many of my brethren, a profound respect. I rejoice that it is here, doing its noble work so efficiently.' I do not see how we could get along without it, and I prize the sense of fellowship and union, real, inner union, with this venerable and potent church of God. Yet for us, as Congregationalists, it would be altogether idle to think of organic union with that body as long as we stand for the principle of personal liberty and individual autonomy, while the Church of Rome maintains the principle of ecclesiastical authority and under this advances her peculiar credentials of power. The extreme instance makes the point obvious that we cannot successfully unite with those whose principles of organization present radical differences from our own.
Forms of organization and methods of administration, however, may differ and yet room be open for practical union, provided these differences are not exalted to the rank of essentials. Organic union then becomes simply a practical question of willingness to subordinate the differences in
77
1906]
Some Principles Involved
order to secure greater efficiency. In application, take a step nearer home. The Protestant Episcopal Church has the central motive to which our own responds, but associated with this it has traditions and methods directly affecting the consideration of organic union. Most of us share the feeling of Emerson in saying:
" I like a church, I like a cowl, I like a prophet of the soul.
Yet not for all his faith can see Would I that cowled churchman be."
Well, why not? Would you not, if thereby you could better further the kingdom of God? Is it just a matter of prejudice, buttressed by tradi- tion? If so, it is unworthy, and a man who finds himself opposing his instinctive feelings as an insuperable obstacle to a great, significant movement should pray for grace to be willing even to be made a bishop for the glory of God. A matter of mere externals should never be allowed, from one side or the other, to stand in the way of union, and it never will be when the central motive is sufficiently dominant.
At the same time we freely recognize that there are diversities of opera- tion; and as each man is entitled to employ the mode befitting his own temperament, so are groups of men warranted in developing their own distinctive methods. Emerson himself was a good deal of a priest. Yet doubtless he was more of one by being less, and it would be a pity to pre- scribe a vestment for one whom it did not fit, just as it would be a mistake to prohibit its use by the man whose power would be enhanced by it. There are differences which no one holds as essential which yet may prop- erly separate one form of active service from another, and such separation is no ground for reproach unless the minor difference is unduly exalted. If the recognition of the authority of the church is based on some external requirement and this is maintained as an excluding test, there can be no organic union with those who regard such a test as non-essential. The failure of the Lambeth Articles to secure any practical advance was due largely to the impression of an exclusive authority that seemed to be implied in them. So long as the Baptists regard immersion as necessary to church membership they forbid organic fellowship with those dissenting from this view, yet the moment this sacramental rite is conceived as simply one mode of symbolic action, there may be union with those preferring another form yet recognizing the validity of this. Subordinate beliefs, when raised to the rank of essentials, block the way to union and lead to the sharp alternative that either the world must be converted to that special form of belief or those holding it must modify their claim. For there is no proprietary right in matters of faith that can finally be made good. Consequently, every proposal looking to the union of those who
78
The Dayton Council and Church Union [1906
have differed in belief or polity involves a sifting of the minor matters and a new testing of the fundamentals.
Hence the present proposal requires us to examine ourselves to see if, as good Congregationalists, we are also fitted to be good unionists. For we have a strong sense of denominational loyalty. The name is a minor matter, fraught as it is with dear associations; the organization is second- ary, much as we love its peculiar freedom; but the thing that we have stood for is a priceless heritage from the past, and we cannot lightly set it aside. A principle is ours which we are bound to maintain, and our consciences affirm an obligation to the God who has wondrously wrought in our history. What is this principle? It is often named as individual liberty in matters of faith. It is something more than that. It is the conviction of a direct channel open between God and the soul of every man, giving him freedom indeed from the dictates of other men, but imbuing him with a deepened sense of obligation, first to God, and then to his fellows. This was the noble impulse of our early vigor and the forerunner of our growing, modern appreciation of the ultimate worth of personality. We have been jealous with a great jealousy for the sanctity of the personal life, and if in this we have shared with all the sons of the Reformation, still have we not been Protestants of the Protestants, guard- ing the individual soul with peculiar solicitude in order that its delicate function in the wondrous economy of spiritual revelation might be pre- served inviolable and secure?
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.