ALONE WITH GOD     

How We Want Christian Unity

    When a family starts in to buy a car they usually consider the question of whether they want it, before they take up the question of whether they can have it. Perhaps that is not the logical order; possibly they should have considered first whether it is possible to obtain it. But life is larger than logic; and there is not very much interest in inquiring whether we can have something which we do not want. Often we find that when we want a thing bad enough it is possible to devise a way to have it.

At the outset then let us frankly face the feet that there are good religious people who do not desire organic Christian unity. Even if we desired to do so—which we do not—there would be no use in calling them names. All we can do is honestly to examine their objections and see if they have enough weight to overbalance the age-long yearning of the church and the invincible prayer of Christ.

Some people do not like Christian unity because of some of its friends. One of the strongest protagonists in the cause of Christian unity is the Roman Catholic Church. There is no reason why any earnest evangelical Christian should be prejudiced against Christian unity simply because the Catholic Church is striving for a principle which it calls by the same name. Most Protestant advocates of Christian unity would be appalled at the idea of giving up all the advancement in Christian truth made by the Sixteenth Century Reformation and subsequent development, and going back four hundred years under the supreme headship of the bishop of Rome.

At the same time the truth is the truth, regardless of who says it; and I think that we ought not to flout everything which Roman Catholic writers have said in favor of Christian unity simply because we do not favor their method of attaining it, and are unwilling to sacrifice what we consider—rightly I think—to be essential truths in order to obtain the unity they urge upon us.

The Episcopalian Church has been a leader among Protestant bodies in the discussion of Christian unity. Occasionally other Protestant bodies have taken them at their word and met together with them to discuss the question. It is not impugning the good faith and good will of our Episcopalian brethren to state as a mere matter of historic fact that these conferences have generally been disappointing.

In a sense it has been nearly as hard to come to an agreement with the Episcopalians as with the Roman Catholics. The Catholics have said that the other side must leave their denominations and come bodily into the Catholic Church, accepting all of its creed and dogmas without any alteration or modification.

The Episcopalians have practically said the same thing, except that the Episcopalians have been willing to remodel the house and get new furniture if enough new guests will come to make it worth while.

The Catholics have said that in order to obtain Christian unity all the Protestants and dissenters must come into the Roman Catholic Church just as it is. The Episcopalians have said that in order to have Christian unity everybody must come into the Episcopalian Church—but they are willing to make any kind of changes necessary to make the new guests feel at home, provided the essential features of the Episcopal Church are retained. Doubtless they would be willing to change even the name of the institution; but they insist that it must have a line of bishops descending in direct succession from the apostolic age. And the ministers of the church must all be ordained by bishops having the socalled apostolic succession.

This requirement has been an insuperable barrier to unity of the kind which they desire. Protestant ministers with a long, honorable, and successful career behind them do not like to cast aspersions upon their past ministry and the good men who preceded them, as well as the converts and parishioners who have been served by their ministry by acknowledging—or seeming to acknowledge—in submitting to reordination, that their first ordination was spurious and vain. This has long been an obstacle toward realizing the kind of unity in which our Episcopal brethren believe; and if I thought that was the only way to Christian unity I would not trouble to write this book, as I regard the accomplishment of unity by that method as impossible.

There are a number of little sects who preach Christian unity even to the point of making a hobby of it—apparently from the standpoint of the Roman Catholics and Episcopalians. They remind one of the old story of the man and woman who were being joined in matrimony by the minister. Solemnly he pronounced them one. "Which ones" quickly queried the young bride. Her question was and remains a pertinent one. If we are going to be joined together in one with a group of people who emphasize Christian unity we are within our rights to ask which one it is to be.

That question used to bother me a great deal—not with regard to matrimony but with regard to the state of being one in Christ. But I got light upon it by reflecting upon the normal Christian married state. I know there are many persons who consider that the "one" of the marriage unity is the man. Doubtless there are wives who would say it is—or ought to be —the woman. As a matter of fact that "one" is not the man nor the woman, but "they twain shall be one flesh," says the Word of God.

Years ago the country was flooded with nostrums which were advertised as "cures for tuberculosis." The advertising of these drugs emphasized the dread consequences and awful dangers of consumption. Finally this advertising became a nuisance, so much so that about the worst thing you could say of a medicine was that it could cure consumption.

Yet we never did go so far as to say tuberculosis is a good thing. We never did cease to desire to find a way to cure it. And as a matter of fact we have found a way which does cure the larger part of such sufferers if taken in time. However, that means of cure is not some patent medicine, some secret method taught only in certain copyrighted books; it is mostly a natural method of rest, food, and common sense, administered with skill.

Every lover of the truth ought to be glad for every true word spoken about Christian unity by Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, or by zealots of small sects. This discussion does good and encourages the desire for unity in the community of Christian believers. But when the day breaks which shall see the organic unity of the whole Christian community it is my belief that it will be seen to have come like the cure for tuberculosis—not by some narrow sectarian scheme of aggrandizing one or the other human corporations, however big or little, but by the skillful practice of great principles known to all Christians.

Some Christians object to Christian unity on the ground that if the church were one it would make for an intolerance which would hamper the creative intellectual life of the country and thus thwart its moral and religious development and paralyze its spirit of exploration and discovery.

If Christian unity should do such a thing it would doubtless be unfortunate and would halt the progress of the human race. Christians need to learn anew the spirit of adventure and divine questing which was so characteristic of the church of the apostolic age. Undoubtedly the greatest saints of the past have possessed only the faintest outlines of knowledge concerning the possibilities of the grace of Cod both socially and individually. It would be the tragedy of history for the church to become crystallized in the primary grades of the divine science of the spiritual life.

We cannot deny that the church of the Middle Ages did develop an attitude of opposition to discovery, both intellectual and spiritual, and did practice intolerance toward new and strange ideas.

It is doubtless true that an highly organized human corporation ruled by men holding office in political fashion would be very much inclined to such a tendency. But while we are not pleading for the type of unity which the bishops of Rome imposed upon the Medieval Church, yet we think that the intolerance of that age did not altogether grow out of the system but out of the social and cultural background of the age. The Church of England in the nineteenth century had a system remarkably similar to the religio-political entity called the Medieval Church; yet with all its faults the Church of England was not markedly intolerant in the period referred to, nor is it in the present century. As a matter of fact the Church of England has given place to a wide variety of opinion, and has given stimulus and encouragement to profound scholars and thinkers with original and creative minds.

This is not said as a defense of the episcopal political type of unity—for I think that the unity toward which Christ leads his flock is a far different thing but merely to show that the crudest type of Christian unity imaginable would very probably not produce the abuses today, in our age, that it did in a rude, barbarous age of poverty and ignorance.

It takes more than religious strife to generate tolerance in the minds of men. India would be a good illustration of this fact. India has nine religions, all hostile to each other, but the principal religions are Hindu and Moslem. The religious division between Hindus of various sects and castes, and Mohammedans, also of various sects, runs down into the smallest villages. If there is something in religious difference which tends to create a spirit of tolerance and openmindedness toward the other fellow India ought to be the most tolerant country in the world, for there the Hindu and Moslem have faced each other and have been in intimate contact for many weary ages—much longer than the Protestant sects have argued over their differences. The first Mohammedan invasion of India occurred in 664. That is nearly thirteen hundred years which they have had in which to discuss their differences and learn tolerance through differences in religious point of view.

But they have not done so. On the contrary the age-long religious controversy, instead of benefiting the country in any way, is probably the one big hindrance to prevent their wresting their independence from the British at the present time, just as the intolerance among Protestants in the sixteenth century probably weakened their political defenses and laid the way open for the horrors of the Thirty Years War.

Just because Protestants in this country have practically ceased to fight over their religious differences and have decided to live peaceably with each other in a Christian way without strife, we come to the conclusion that the tolerance in this country is the direct result of the religious differences and the multitude of denominations. May it not be largely due to the presence of that which India with its religious controversy lacks, namely, the spread of education among us?

I have traveled in France. There everywhere one finds only one type of religion—the Roman Catholic Church. There are only a few Protestants in France. However, there are multitudes of people in France who are tolerant to an exceptional degree. This is not because they have lived all their lives among different kinds of warring religions, for they have not. It is because they are educated people. I believe that whenever the church attains her unity in our land it will be a type of unity which shall stimulate the spirit of man to unheard of advances in literature, art, and philosophy—and especially in the art and science of the spiritual life.

It is not alone education and culture which has softened the asperity of theological dispute and breathed the Christlike spirit of Christian tolerance into the hosts of ('hristians divided by denominational walls. This change is due to a better understanding of the spirit of Christ. We treat each other with more courtesy not merely because we have gone to school longer than our ancestors did, but because, however much we may fall below them in other respects, in this, at least, we are better Christians than they. Doubtless we have lost some religious values they had, but at least we are richer in this particular.

And we shall be still richer in Christlike courtesy and forbearance; there will be a deeper, more spiritual form of tolerance in us; we shall have a finer culture of mind and spirit whenever we learn to get along together in one visible church as our Lord prayed that we should.

The objection is sometimes made against unity that the different denominations each develop a special type of religious culture; and the contribution of these different kinds of religious character to the community tends to enricher society in a way impossible if the church be in unity.

I think this is a matter worthy of serious thought by every Christian in the world. Meditation on this thought will serve to enhance our good opinion of other Christians and make us more friendly toward the idea of living with these kinds of people. Think of the value to the world of such a man as Luther— stalwart and vigorous saint of God. The world would be immeasurably poorer if bereft of the characters of the great saints of the Lutheran communion. The Reformed churches and Presbyterianism have contributed a type of serious and high-minded men and women, great scholars and great saints, that have lifted humanity to its loftiest heights. How I wish we could teach our young people the stories of their heroic lives. And what shall we say of Roman Catholic saints such as the Christlike Francis of Assisi, and of those other worldly mystics trained by the Quakers ? yes, and of the saintly women preachers produced among them like the mother of Herbert Hoover ? The Methodists have their mystics, too; but they were of a different type from the Quakers—not better, perhaps, nor worse—just different. And what mighty men and women of God they were ! How the wilderness echoed to the shout of their triumphant and godly ministry! Were the Baptists better than the Methodists ? Of course not—nor were they worse; but different. They too wrought mightily in conquering the wilderness and laying the foundation of our great nation.

It is impossible to go on and name them all. Congregationalists, C h r i s t i a n s, Disciples, United Brethren, Nazarenes, and a host of others have trained disciples of Jesus so fine and so noble that the tears rush to the eyes to think of the crystal beauty of their souls. Every time I get hold of a denominational year book I always turn and read the biographies of the workers that have died in the past year—often stories of humble lives unknown to fame. And I do not care what denomination it is these stories go to the depths of my heart and make me walk on the stars and want to be a more devoted follower of our Lord Jesus.

One cannot deny that the different communions have all along tended to develop a somewhat different type of religious character. However, as culture increases and different groups tend to know and understand one another more this tendency to produce unique values in each communion is constantly lessening. A Presbyterian Christian and a Methodist Christian, or a Baptist Christian and a Quaker Christian are very much more alike today than they were a hundred years ago.

It reminds one of the advance of science. Long ago there was a German science, and a French science, and an English science. Particularly does one remember the days when French science and English science were very distinct. Doubtless it would be possible to argue that each of these types of science was contributing unique and precious values to mankind.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the advance of science wiped out the national and sectarian schools of science and gave us one school of science— not English, or French or German, or Japanese; not pow-wowism, or wizardry, or alchemy, but merely science. Today there is not a German or Japanese doctrine of electricity, but simply a scientific doctrine of electricity. Is this a loss or a gain?

Moreover, the different denominations do not so much pride themselves in producing Christians of a peculiar type, different from their other brethren. Years ago a Quaker community took satisfaction in producing a type of Christian who wore a certain garb and addressed people with a " thee " and a "thou. " Quite generally this man, dressing and taIking quaintly, was a stalwart saint of God; but he would be a bold man who should assert that the modern Quaker is not as good a Christian without these peculiarities.

Every light has its shadow; and the truth is these differences between Christians of different communions sometimes arose out of their aloofness toward each other, growing out of their mutual ignorance and intolerance of each other. It is in tacit recognition of this fact that different denominations no longer take pride in producing queer Christians who are different from all the others.

If this tendency toward the assimilation of the types of Christian character which is now perfectly apparent is a good thing and is a result of the increase of general and Christian culture, then who can deny it the right to develop to the point where all denominational distinctions are done away ?

At the same time there is a true sense in which the church ought to strive to cultivate unique and gifted personalities, strong in some certain gift and quality of character; and it is my contention that the church in unity will be more effective in doing that than any denominational system that has ever existed. The very fact that different denominational systems tend to develop certain types of character is indubitable proof that they tend to thwart the development of other types. In the past when each denomination was supposed to produce a certain type of man there is no doubt that many gifted souls were either driven away from the Christian life altogether or dwarfed and twisted into something much less and different than their God-given possibilities.

The church in unity will give liberty and scope of development for every type of Christian character that has ever existed in history—and may even be expected to produce some new kinds. In that glorious field of God will grow side by side rare mystics like Thomas a Kempis, and practical men like Oliver Cromwell. Stern Puritans like Cotton Mather will dwell cheek by owl with cheerful saints who enjoy their meals like Martin Luther and old Dr. Johnson.

If anybody doubts this let him read again the history of the apostolic church, and there he will learn that men of different temperament do not have to organize separate denominations in order to get along together. Take the three apostles who companied closest to the Lord in every critical time—Peter, James, and John. These men represent the three dominant types of Christian character that have lent dignity, glory, and strength to the Christian church from the first.

Peter was the dynamic type, the doer. His followers have wrought the visible marvels of Christian history. They built the cathedrals, the hospitals, the children's homes, and the schools. They preached on the streets and in the slums, and laid down their bones among the heathen as missionaries in the faraway corners of the earth.

It would be possible to eulogize them to the point where we should say they were the only servants of Christ worth while until we get to thinking of their faults and of the virtues of the other kinds.

John was the type of the mystic of the church. A long line of the rarest and finest spirits of history have followed in his steps. Counted as cranks and fools by the world, they have nevertheless contributed the spiritual values to the church which have made it seem worth while for weary humanity to keep plodding on the long road. These have contributed to life, vision—its highest and finest gift.

James may be regarded as of the judicial type. He was the kind needed to mediate between the wild zeal of the men of action and the wild dreams of the men of contemplation. In their moments of weakness doubtless each of these types seemed utterly unchristian to the other. Doubtless the men of zeal often wondered how the men of vision could spend time in prayer and meditation when children were hungry and men were going to hell. They also wondered how the men of poise could be so calm when conditions were so desperate that fighting was in order. The mystics wondered how the zealots could be Christians at all when they were so impetuous and spent so little time in prayer. They also wondered if the men of the James type were not really backslidden compromisers. But the men of judicial temperament were tempted to give up the whole thing because they could not sympathize with the heat of the zealots on the one side and the dreamy impracticability of the mystics on the other.

Such were the stresses within the apostolic company before our Lord had even ascended to heaven. Already men of many minds were finding a welcome haven in the fellowship of the Lord of universal humanity.

After our Lord went away the personnel of the church became more complex than ever. Jewish workingmen and Greek philosophers mingled with Roman soldiers—to mention only a few of the different types—within the glorious fellowship of the apostolic church.

The early church developed men of every type and kind. Within her communion were brought to fruition many different varieties of religious genius. The universal character of her membership appealed to the universal need of human nature; and exemplified in multitudinous ways the infinite resources of the grace of Glod.

What has been can be again. What a glorious day it will be when the denominational walls are broken down and those brave days of the ancient church are restored again; when God's children long divided by what they imagined to be insuperable differences shall flow together like the kindred waters of the boundless sea. Then shall they contribute each to the other the priceless treasures they have accumulated during their age-long separation; and cheerfully shall they throw away the dross of ancient prejudice and intolerance.

When all Christians shall realize their blessed unity there will be a mutual helpfulness which will stimulate the spirit of man to unheard of achievements. In the mellow warmth of an universal Christian brotherhood the soul of humanity, once disorganized by division and scorched by the heats of discord will spring to new life under the divine blessing like Aaron's rod, and put forth at once the 'cowers of genius and the precious fruits of a sublime art and a splendid life.

Perhaps even more than they fear a rigid, dogmatic church, reactionary and non-progressive, do some opponents of Christian unity fear that the Christian church in unity would be a great, sprawling, helpless giant, too weak to erect and maintain the essential standards of the Christian faith. Such a church, they fear, would be a yielding, compromising thing, utterly unable to repel heresy.

Some dear souls are always for building a fence around every precious thing and guarding such things by always standing on their defense. Such people are always fighting to defend the church, to defend the character of Luther and Wesley, and of Peter and John. They struggle hard in defense of the Bible; and even God is in their debt by their reckoning; for they fight hard to defend him. They keep their children in leadingstrings as long as possible, boys as well as girls, for they want to defend these young people against that contact with life which they themselves weathered in their own youth. Their ideal seems to be a static and a changeless world, well defended on all sides.

They have never learned that there are some things so big that even if they needed defense one could never defend them. The sea is a soft and yielding thing. One can punch his finger into it anywhere— except where it is frozen. And yet the sea needs no defense against the land—nor ought else. Perhaps in some places the land may be encroaching slightly on the sea; but none of our stalwart defenders ever need to raise money or make speeches in defense of the sea. Never fear, old ocean will hold his own; but even if he could not, then the case would be hopeless; for the defense would be beyond any man's power.

Some scientists claim that the sun may explode sometime. If that be true something ought to be done about it to protect this earth from such great danger; but cannot the feeblest intellect perceive that there is no possible defense humanity can make against such a possibility? It all rests on the knees of God.

The sun is too big to defend. The sea is too big to defend. The Bible is too big for us to defend. God is too big for us to defend. And the majestic destiny of the Christian church is also too great for us to defend by the feeble safeguards of our human defenses of organization and creed.

Although the sea is a soft and yielding thing, yet it grinds away the mighty granite rocks and holds its place against the land and the arts of man unflinchingly through the ages of time. Just so the Christian church in unity can be expected to be gentle enough to avoid crushing the most sensitive souls that cast themselves on its bosom; and yet so invincibly strong will it be that the migrations of peoples and the arts of man and the storms of the ages shall not move it from its place.