The Church-Union Movement: its Causes and Various Manifestations. The Protestant and Catholic View-Point.

Church-union is to-day the outstanding feature of the Protestant world. The possibilities and promises, the necessity and advantages of this movement are widely discussed in the press and magazine, in the pulpit and on the platform, in Church conferences and synods. Denominational barriers are being swept away; creed lines lowered; inevitably great changes are impending. This universal unrest is assuredly symptomatic of a chaotic Christendom outside of the true Church. The peace and self-confidence of the Catholic Church pursuing the even tenor of Her life is indeed in striking contrast.

No serious-minded Christian can be disinterested in this supreme effort of the various Christian denominations for unity. We are not allowed to doubt the good intentions that animate and direct the promoters of this inter-church movement. For, as Lord Morley said, "in the heat of the battle it often happens that men manifest towards the heretic feeling which should be exclusively reserved for the heresy." Yet we believe that the explanation of our attitude, so much misunderstood and misinterpreted, cannot but help to hasten the day of the true and everlasting union, when in accord with the great desire of the Master, there will be but "One Fold and One Pastor." Gladstone said: "Any man who advances one step the cause of Christian unity in his life may well lie down to die content that he had a life well lived."

We said advisedly "our" attitude, for it is a vastly interesting point to note with Hilaire Belloc: "The Catholic understands his opponent, whereas that opponent does not understand him. A similar contrast existed once before in the History of Western mankind, to wit, in the latter days of the Roman Empire. The Catholic understood the Pagan; the Pagan did not understand the Catholic."

Church-union was always more or less an ideal in the various non-Catholic denominations. Periodically efforts were made to realize this ideal; but they always failed in the presence of the bitter antagonism that existed between the leading factions. The Church-union movement manifested itself, timidly at first, in the interchange of pulpits, the united services and inter-communion of several denominations. This exchange in the ministerial field now prevails among the Nonconformists and has also affected to a large extent the Anglican communion. But the multiplied divisions and multiplying sub-divisions among the conflicting creeds, a wasteful overlapping and disastrous competition in the mission field, the enlightening experience of the great war, have forced an issue upon the Churches.

In Scotland the "Old Kirk" is trying to bridge the chasm that has separated it from the "Free Church" in the past years. In England, under the leadership of Mr. Shakespeare, the Nonconformists are fusing their differences and presenting a united front to the Established Church. Only last year, (1919) in Kingswall Hall, did not the Bishop of London make most remarkable overtures to the Wesleyans and propose to them a scheme of union! By the introduction of Evangelical methods and particularly by the association with Nonconformists on doctrinal grounds, or in services in which doctrines are involved, the Anglican Church has been engaged—to speak with Newman—"in diluting its high orthodoxy."

Last August, 1920, Geneva was the meeting place of "The World Christian Congress." The Congress adopted a resolution to form a "League of Churches" whose object is to put an end to proselytizing between Christian churches and promote mutual understanding between them for Christian missions among non-Christian peoples; secondly, to promote an association and collaboration of Churches to establish Christian principles; thirdly, to help the Churches to become acquainted with one another; fourthly, to bring together smaller Christian communities, and unite all Churches on questions of faith and order.

But it was reserved for America, the land of daring schemes and audacious plans, to formulate the most chimerical project of all.

The Episcopalian Church has promoted "The World Congress on Faith and Order." Bishop Weller, of Fond-du-Lac, Wisc., is directing this gigantic movement. A committee of bishops has already called on the various heads of Christian Churches, and we all know of their visit to the Vatican and of the refusal of the Holy See to participate in the Pan-Christian Congress.

Sponsored by the Presbyterian Church of America, "The United Churches of Christ" were formed some months ago, with a complete organic union of the Protestant Churches of America in view. This is . . . "an advance of the present existing organization of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, as it opens the way for consolidation of administration agencies and the carrying forward of the general work of the Churches through the council of the United Church."

But the most ambitious scheme is that of the "Inter Church World Movement." It has been called into existence (1918) for the purpose of developing a plan whereby the Evangelical Churches of North America may co-operate in carrying out their educational, missionary and benevolent programme at home and abroad. To discover and group the facts concerning the world's needs; to build a programme of inspiration and education based on these facts; to develop spiritual power adequate for the task; to secure enough lives and money to meet the needs: such is the tremendous task the "Inter Church World Movement" has set itself. At a meeting in Atlantic City it was voted to raise the stupendous sum of $1,300,000,000 to meet the requirements of this Pan-Protestant project. Two thousand men and women are now (Feb. 1920,) busy at the head-office, in New York, preparing the world-wide survey and financial campaign.[1]

The Protestant Churches in Canada are also falling in line in this universal movement for unity. "The United National Campaign" which marked 1919 with thirteen national conventions, represented the co-operative feature of various churches in a general "Forward Movement." The war, we all know, has impeded the projected union between the Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregationalist denominations. There is hardly any doubt that this union will be effected in the near future. But as usual, while the East was deliberating, the forward and aggressive West was acting. Church-Union is an accomplished fact in many centres, particularly in the Province of Saskatchewan. Last October the "Union Church of Western Canada" held a convention in Regina and reported progress. Conditions in the West, especially in the rural districts, naturally favour this movement. The strong denominational feeling is becoming more and more a thing of the past. The identity of churches is being absorbed in "social service" work, and sectarian peculiarities considered "obsolete impertinences."

These are the various manifestations of the "Church-Union Movement." Although loose thinking and indefiniteness of purpose characterize most of these various moves, a close analysis reveals two different underlying principles which support and explain them. As an Anglican clergyman stated: "There are two courses open, uniting on points of agreement and allowing the differences to settle themselves, or facing differences with a view of settling them." The first course promotes a "co-operative union" in social and Christian work. This union does not interfere with matters of belief, but aims solely at the co-operation and co-ordination of all services which the Churches can render in the missionary, educational and social fields. It means a League or Federation of Churches, with a view to "greater efficiency."

The other course goes deeper into the problem under discussion, for it has as object an "organic union." This union means the fusing of all denominational creeds and forms of worship, or, at least, the acceptance by all of a certain doctrinal minimum as a basis of the entente cordiale. The Anglicans in the Conference of Lambeth, 1888, formulated the famous "Quadrilateral" whereby the Scriptures as Rule of Faith, the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, the two sacraments of Baptism and of Eucharist, and the Episcopacy or apostolic succession, are "as the irreducible minimum on which they would open negotiations for reunion." [2]

II.

The Protestant Inter-Church Movement is a fact; we know its causes, its various manifestations, its ultimate aim. To what extent this universal movement reflects the general, deep and conscientious convictions of the masses, it would be hard to say. The prevalent indifference and profound ignorance as regards the specific tenets of each denomination would lead us to believe that this movement does not spring from the very soul-depths of the masses. Yet the fact is there, and assuredly of importance in the religious realm. What is the meaning of this fact? What is its message? For, every universal fact of that kind reveals and interprets an ideal.

Naturally the view point of the Protestant will be different from that of the Catholic. The explanation of the attitude of both, as we stated, cannot but help to hasten the coming of true union in Christendom. The non-Catholic mind sees in this Inter-Church Movement the ultimate triumph of Protestantism, the vindication of the leading principles of the Reformation. The Anglican Archbishop DuVernet wrote in the "Montreal Star," May 10th, 1919: "Reviewing the movement towards Christian Union in Canada, a very natural evolutionary order is at once detected, which gives us the assurance that a spiritual cosmic urge is at work behind this united action of the Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregationalist Churches of Canada, the great evolutionary movement towards the comprehensive Church of the Future."

We all know of the sensation created in Anglican circles by the extreme views of the Bishop of Carlisle. In a recent article on the "Nineteenth Century and After"—entitled "Monopoly of Religion," he protests against the claims of right and the privilege of monopoly in Religion, either in doctrine or in form of government. He says that the Free Churches have been right in resisting unto death the doctrines of religious monopoly.

Robert H. Gardner, in the "The Churchman," (Episcopal), acknowledges that "The unanimous recognition of the plans (Interchurch World Movement) is only a beginning; the hope of all that it will lead to a more perfect union, and the evident anxiety to leave the Catholic (?) churches free to maintain their principle without compromise or surrender, have converted him to the belief that God the Holy Ghost is guiding this movement, and, therefore, that it is truly Catholic (?)."

If such are the views of the Anglican Church, which, among other denominations, has always been considered as most conservative, what may we not expect from the other Churches? And indeed, the reading of addresses made at their different Conferences and General Assemblies, the resolutions passed, and the very atmosphere of these meetings tend to uphold the Church-Union Movement as the realization of unity in Christendom. "The Christian Century" (organ of the Disciples of Christ) says: "It marks out the best path yet that has been described for the attainment of unity. It outlines the goal and bravely takes the first step towards its realization." The New York "Christian Advocate" (Methodist) thinks: "It will mark a definite step toward that fusing of Protestant forces whose absence hitherto, is responsible in large part for the failure of Christianity to make powerful headway among men." As the Presbyterians were the originators of the movement, "The Continent" takes a justifiable pride, in quoting from a contemporary, that: "They are perfectly ready to contemplate a Christian unity that involves the passing away of this particular organism called the Presbyterian Church, finely wrought though it be," and exhorts: "Presbyterians, this sort of reputation is a lot to live up to. But we must not fall from it."

The principles of evolution—principles which we find underlying modern thought—are freely called upon to explain this movement and justify its consequences. Our millennial-minded doctors and preachers are celebrating already the apotheosis of the Universal Church of the future.

And what does the Catholic Church think of Church-Union? What is its point of view on this "Movement" which has now such hold on the Protestant denominations? As the Catholic Church is in itself the largest Christian body, it is but natural to presume that all Christians will be interested in knowing Her views on this vital subject. For is She not that Church which Gladstone himself calls, "the most famous of Christian communions, and the one within which the largest numbers of Christian souls find their spiritual food!" (Gladstone to Acton, Nov., 1869.)

The Catholic Church sees in this movement of Church-Union the complete disintegration of Protestantism and the open condemnation of its fundamental principles. Those who are not of the "Fold" will perhaps resent, but not be astonished at this sweeping statement. We would only ask them to follow our argument and then judge for themselves.

Union—and therefore unity—will not and cannot be the result of the present Inter-Church Movement. This statement involves a question of fact and of right. In facto.—Let us examine first the question of fact. Union, as now promoted, is either "co-operative" or "organic." Co-operative union ignores differences of creed or form of worship; organic union suppresses them or merges them into a neutral mixture.

Co-operative Union,—as a basis of religious unity affecting the religion of the individual, can be at once dismissed. For, what religious action,—i.e., action prompted and guided by a principle, a religious doctrine,—is possible without that principle, that doctrine? Moral action,—and Religion is at the same time the foundation and the highest expression of the moral order,—pre-supposes immutable and recognized principles. "The mental attitude defined on paper as 'undenominational,' Miss M. Fletcher says rightly, has no existence in the human mind. Below all sustained enthusiasms lie strong convictions."—Therefore to ignore the directing principles of their various denominations in a common religious action, and yet to pretend to keep their denominational identity, involves, on the part of the Churches, an absolute impossibility. Because doctrine is the very foundation, the "raison d'Être" of intelligent Christian action. Diversity of opinion is bound to bring, in religious matters, diversity of action; for, to be consequent one must act according to his belief. Baptism, for instance, is necessary or not necessary for salvation. On this doctrinal point will necessarily hinge a diversity of action in the mission field alloted to this or to that denomination. The position is quite different when common action is confined to merely social work. But "social service," stripped of all its Christian principles and reduced to pure philanthropy, is not Christianity; it is mere naturalism or neo-paganism.

The great majority of those for whom Christianity is yet a living reality understand the nefarious consequences of "co-operative-union." To protect themselves against this scheme of a perfidious neutrality, they advocate an "organic union." This even is to the fore in the Philadelphia plan of the "Inter-Church World Movement." "The plan of federal union will have this result, that after it shall have been in operation for a term of years, the importance of divisive names and creeds and methods will pass more and more into the dim background of the past and acquire, even in the particular denomination itself, a merely historical value, and the churches then will be ready for, and will demand, a more complete union; so that what was the 'United Churches of Christ in America' can become the 'United Church of Christ in America,' and a real ecclesiastical power, holding and administering ecclesiastical property and funds of such united church."

The promoters of "organic union" do not ignore the differences between creeds, but they are trying to reduce them. This union strikes at the very bed rock of Divine Revelation. For, the suppression of differences, or their limitation to a certain doctrinal minimum, implies a compromise, and a compromise, in matters of truth, is unacceptable. Truth is eternal and therefore does not change. If the Westminister and Augsburg Confessions were true yesterday, why should they not be also true to-day? If the 39 Articles were the rule of Faith for the Anglican Church in the past, why should they be to-day but "definitions of theological opinions of the time of the Reformation," as Anglican Bishop Farthing, of Montreal, recently stated.—"You change . . . therefore you are not true," we may say, with Bossuet, to those Churches.

In jure.—This universal readiness to compromise should not astonish us when we know that the very fundamental principle of the Reformation is "private judgment" in matters of Faith. The divine message of Revelation is to be interpreted as each one sees best. This principle makes, "de jure," every Protestant independent in his religious belief, and opens the door to the most conflicting interpretations of the Divine Message. "The High Church clergyman to-day," writes A. Birrell, "is no theologian, he is an opportunist." Dogma degenerates into religious emotionalism. Doctrine becomes nothing but a "scheme of theological impressions." To tolerate every doctrine is, for a Church, to teach none. Doctrinal chaos, such as we now see outside of the Catholic Church, is the inevitable result of compromise. Winston Churchill's famous novel, "Inside of the Cup," is nothing but the diagnosis of this disintegration which Protestant Churches are now witnessing.

The history of Protestantism is but the history of its changes of religious belief. For "between authority and impressionism in matters of Revelation, there is no alternative." As Christianity is not the product of the human mind, but a Revelation from God, authority,—a divinely constituted infallible and living authority—is a necessity, and the only possible bond of unity.

This disintegrating principle of "private judgment" in matters of Divine Revelation has been at work since the inception of Protestantism. By the very force of its dissolving power the primary elements of a supernatural religion have fast disappeared from the various creeds. One by one the different Churches have drifted away from their Christian moorings and taken to the high seas of Rationalism. Assailed by the storms of unbelief they are breaking on the rocks of religious indifference. Empty churches are the natural outcome of empty creeds. "The dominant tendencies are indeed increasingly identified with those currents of thought which are making way from the definiteness of the ancient Faith, toward Unitarian vagueness." If Bishop Kinsman, Anglican Bishop of Delaware, a recent convert to the Catholic Faith, gave this statement as one of the reasons for leaving the Anglican Creed, with how much more truth could it not be made of the kaleidoscopic tenets of other denominations?

This process of dissolution of doctrinal grounds is bound to continue. The fluid condition of the various churches testifies to the uncertainty of their actual position and forces them to seek the lowest doctrinal level. "Their standard is determined by the minimum, rather than by the maximum view tolerated, since their official position must be gauged, not by the most they allow, but by the least they insist on." (F. Kinsman.) The remnants of Christianity that were still to be found in their teachings are now looked upon as "obsolete dogmas" and, as such, obstacles to unity. The very fundamental mysteries of the Incarnation and the Redemption are fast growing dim in the minds and hearts of men.[3]

The Protestant Churches will never come back to their former position. In this Church-union movement they are burning their bridges behind them. The gospel of pure "humanitarianism," which is the absolute negation of a supernatural religion, will eventually be the last result of this present unity.

Destructive criticism, to be profitable, should be followed by constructive suggestions.

"That they may be all one!" This ideal of the Master, this supreme wish of His last hours, remains the ideal, the wish of His Church. But its realization cannot be at the expense of truth. Cardinal Gasparri outlined to the promoters of the "World Congress on Faith and Order" the view and position of the Catholic Church in this most important issue. "The Holy See has decided not to participate in the Pan-Christian Congress which it is proposed to hold shortly, as the Catholic Church considering her dogmatic character, cannot join on an equal footing with the other Churches. The feeling at the Vatican is that all other Christian denominations have seceded from the Church of Rome, which descends directly from Christ. Rome cannot go to them; it is for them to return to her bosom.[4] The Pope is ready to receive the representatives of the dissenting churches with open arms, since the Roman Church has always longed for the unification of all Religious Christians. Pope Leo XIII. was deeply interested in this question and wrote two famous encyclicals on the subject of the unification of the Christian Churches."

The divine Founder of Christendom did not leave to several Churches the conservation and propagation of His doctrine. He founded only one Church and gave "unity" itself, as the supreme test of its divinity. Therefore the Church, that has remained "one" through time and space, and has conquered those two great enemies of unity, bears the birth-mark of its divine origin. The Catholic Church alone makes that specific claim. History is there to substantiate it. Matthew Arnold himself could not help acknowledging this universal fact. "Catholicism is that form of Christianity which is the oldest, the largest, and most popular. It has been the great popular religion of Christendom. Who has seen the poor in other churches as they are seen in Catholic Churches? Catholicism envelopes human life, and Catholics in general feel themselves to have drawn not only their religion from their Church, but they feel themselves to have drawn from her, too, their art, poetry and culture. And if there is a thing specially alien to religion, it is division. If there is a thing specially native to religion it is peace and union. Hence the original attraction towards unity in Rome, and hence the great charm when that unity is once attained." The sharp contrast between the actual restlessness and uncertainty of the dissident Churches, and the calm assurance and self-possession of the Catholic Church, is not that an abiding proof of the security of the Catholic position?

Father Palmieri, O.S.A., Ph.D., D.D., who has made the problem of Christian Unity a life-study, made, in a recent article, these pertinent remarks: "The reunion of Christianity in the Catholic sense is not a Babel-like confusion of different sects which oppose creed to creed, which proclaim their absolute indifference in the doctrinal field, which take the individual reason as a judge of Christian revelation or Christian discipline. It would be an absurdity to suppose for a moment that Catholicism or Catholic Theology would propose this hybrid confusion of concepts and human caprices under the name of unity. For Catholicism and Catholic Theology, the reunion of Christianity is the return of dissident Churches and of the non-Catholic sects to Christian unity, to the one Church of Jesus Christ, which not only teaches this unity theoretically but also puts it into practice, in its doctrine, in its government, in its dogmatic and moral teaching, in its principles of authority. By logical sequence the Church of Jesus is one. This unity is not broken by political barriers, by ethnic divisions, by opposing national aspirations. To tend therefore toward Christian unity signifies to tend toward the only Church of Jesus Christ, and to effect this unity is the same as to adhere to it."

Father Palmieri concludes his study with these words: "An impartial study of many years' duration has fully convinced us that the union of the dissident churches can be brought about only under the leadership of the Catholic Church. Outside of Rome there is a principle of dissolution which breaks up and disintegrates the most solid organisms and which will cause the breaking up even of the Orthodox Churches. It is therefore in the supreme interest of Christianity that the Catholic Church addresses its appeals for union to the dissident Churches, and it will never cease to exercise this, its noble mission. Its efforts have been crowned with success several times, and I am convinced that that day will come in which by means of prayer and action the aspiration of Christ's Vicar for union will be realized."

Our non-Catholic reader may say that the position we take tends to strengthen that exclusiveness, that narrowness, that aloofness with which he has always charged the Church of Rome. But we would ask our dissenting brethren, can it be otherwise? Truth is indivisible and unchangeable. Were the unity of the Church Universal to exist only in the Church of the future we would have to conclude that there was a time when the Church of Christ did not exist on earth. This would be absurd and would destroy Christianity in its very foundation. The true Church of Christ has a right to claim the monopoly of Christianity. The Church which, through a so-called spirit of broad-mindedness, accepts the conflicting claims of the various dissident bodies, and is ready to merge its entity with other denominations, immediately, de facto, invalidates its claim to be "The Church of Christ." For, its position involves a contradiction and is in itself a self-condemnation.

Yet, the Catholic Church cannot feel indifferent toward this general and supreme effort of the various fragments of Christendom towards unity. Confidently she waits for the hour when all will return to her as to the only centre and source of permanent unity. Yet, we would say with the Bishop of Northampton, "If we may not compromise the very object of this remarkable movement towards unity by accepting the pressing invitations of our separated brethren to make common cause with them, neither can we rest content to be mere spectators of their perplexities like those who watch from the shore the efforts of distressed seamen to make their port." Let us hope that Divine Providence, always gentle and strong in its dealings with human liberty, will hasten the day when there will be but "One Fold and One Pastor." In the meantime the efforts made to constitute unity of Christianity outside of its true centre will prove as futile as ploughing the sands of the desert.

[1] The withdrawal of the Northern Presbyterian and Northern Baptists and the failure of the financial drive have imperilled the existence of this ambitious project. Is it not a case of repeating with the Psalmist: "Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it?"—Ps. 126.

[2] In the last Lambeth Conference—1920—the Church of England has again reduced this minimum by implicitly recognizing the Nonconformist ministry and abandoning its claim to reunion through the absorption of all sects in the Anglican communion. It has so shifted from its former position that it has openly expressed in the Bishops' manifesto the desire to place itself on some "no man's land" where all the dissident Churches may safely meet and unite.

[3] Canon E. W. Barnes, of Westminster Abbey, in a sermon to the members of the British Association, at their meeting at Cardiff, Aug. 29, 1920, declared that, to harmonize Christian Doctrine with modern science, particularly with the theory of evolution, he found it necessary to abandon the doctrine of the Fall of Man and arguments deduced from it by theologians, from St. Paul onward.

[4] Father Leslie Walker, S.J., in a recent work on "The Problem of Reunion," suggests we should enquire rather how we came to differ than what we differ about.