INTERDENOMINATIONAL READJUSTMENT
Rural progress under church leadership has been much like the first
drops of water on a placid lake at the beginning of a rain. Little
rises of water appear and some waves circle out, but the ultimate
level is not much raised. So with the church. Here and there a
minister stirs up some local community, some definite progress is
made, attention is attracted from other communities and they may have
a few symptoms of a rise, but too often the minister moves, another
comes, and the general level of community life falls back to what it
was before.
The difficulty is that with the overlapping of interdenominational
jurisdictions it is impossible for any group to lead in progress
outside of the local community. Methodists cannot lead in a county
program because Baptists and Presbyterians will not follow them.
Neither can the other groups lead because Methodists are not gifted
in following the leadership of other denominations. It is perfectly
natural and justifiable that this should be so. Before the churches of
America, Protestant or Catholic, can render the entire service
demanded of them there must be a thoroughgoing system of
interdenominational cooperation worked out which will insure joint
responsibility of all denominations concerned in providing for
community leadership on a large scale. If this is impossible, then the
inevitable alternative must be accepted of passing by the churches of
America in carrying out comprehensive plans of progress and of turning
to other agencies for this service.
During the past, largely owing to the apparently hopeless situation so
far as interdenominational cooperation is concerned, Christian
organizations, such as Christian Associations and Sunday School
Associations, have sprung up to do for the denominations and for the
ministers what they could not do under present conditions. These
agencies have done notable work. They have accomplished much in
preparing the way for a nation-wide recognition of what the broad
function of the church is; they have brought representatives of all
denominations together and have gradually increased the social spirit
while at the same time lessening the emphasis upon those things which
have divided the Christian Church into so many isolated camps. They
have pioneered and experimented. They have had failures as well as
successes, but their failures have been a real contribution to the sum
total of human experience and have taught us many things that should
be avoided. The service rendered by these agencies must ever be
remembered as of the most vital and important character.
But it will be admitted by representatives of all organizations that a
large part of what is now found in the programs of those other
religious organizations, "arms" of the church, is a legitimate part of
the work that should be supervised by the minister of a community
program and included in his program, and that in those communities
where such trained pastoral leadership exists the functions of these
other agencies can be materially modified and their activities
directed into still further new and untried fields of endeavor. The
church needs organizations supported from funds not coming through the
regular channels founded on the budgets of individual churches. These
subsidiary organizations can go ahead with experimentation, and their
failures do not bring the discredit to the parent organization that
they would if done by the church directly. On the other hand, their
successes can be adopted into the regular program of the church and
thus conserved. Complete control of experimentation or demonstration
work is likely to destroy or prevent initiative, which is the soul of
progress.
In adjusting problems between denominations in local communities a
number of plans have been tried with greater or less success. One of
the oldest is that of the "union" church. This is a type of
organization in which the people of the local community, tiring of the
uneconomic system of interdenominational competition, and without hope
of uniting on any one of the local organizations represented, decide
to separate from all and form themselves into an independent local
organization.
No large denomination to-day is favorable to the so-called "union"
church; and all are opposed to the plan sometimes followed by rural
industrial concerns of erecting a church building open to anyone who
pretends to speak with authority about religious matters. The "union"
church usually begins with enthusiasm, but because of lack of outside
contacts, because of lack of continuity of program, because of lack of
a broad missionary spirit, it is generally shortlived and gives way to
some church with denominational affiliations. The "union" church
without denominational affiliations should not be confused with the
"community" church with denominational connection. It is the latter
type that most religious organizations are now agreed is most
desirable as the solution of the inexcusable overchurching now
existing in many communities.
In these days of get-together movements denominational leaders should
think clearly with reference to "federated" churches. A few of these
have had a fairly long life. But their growth in the past fifteen
years has not been such as to inspire confidence that they offer a
satisfactory solution to the overchurched situation. The "federated"
church idea is not in harmony with a connectional polity nor with the
principle of world democracy with centralization of administrative
responsibility for carrying out democratically adopted plans implied
in that polity. Local federation involves giving of full power of
selection of pastors and of determination of policies to the local
congregation. Whatever may be said about the occasional failures of
the connectional system in finding suitable pastors, or in other ways,
it is nevertheless true that this system has a vitality and efficiency
that are now being recognized by many of the leading religious
organizations. The polity of the "federated" church is congregational;
and extreme congregationalism and connectionalism do not mix readily
so far as polity is concerned. The growth of the one form involves the
decline of the other. This is why the Methodist Episcopal Church, for
example, has developed so little sympathy for the "federated" church
idea.
Far different from this is allocation of responsibility for community
leadership. This insures leadership to one denomination or the other.
Then the local congregations can work out their problems of adjustment
as local conditions indicate is best. Usually some form of affiliation
in worship and in sharing local expenses with continued separation of
support of missionary and other benevolent enterprises has proven the
most satisfactory method of local adjustment. By this method
connectional interests are preserved and fixing of responsibility in
each community assured.
With the vastly increased missionary resources made available by the
missionary "drives" of the leading denominations there is positive
danger of the problem of interdenominational adjustment being made
still more serious. If the Home Mission Boards, through unwise use of
mission funds for the purpose of assisting in competitive struggles,
should precipitate retaliation by other denominations, a misuse of
missionary funds would result that would not only dry up the sources
of missionary support but bring Protestantism into lasting disgrace.
In working out a program of interdenominational adjustment the
following plan has been tried with success on at least three
Methodist Episcopal Annual Conference districts:
1. A survey of the district and the preparation of a map showing the
location of all churches, residences of all pastors, circuit systems,
and whether churches are located in villages or the open country.
2. Separate lists are then made of cases of apparent competitive
relations with each denomination.
3. Conferences are then called with the representatives of each
denomination to consider the problems of competition between the
Methodist Episcopal Church and the particular denomination with which
the conference is called.
4. After tentative plans have been adopted representatives of both
denominations visit the local field together, confer with the churches
concerned, and arrive at some agreement as to adjustments to be made.
5. This method is followed with each denomination, separately, with
which Methodism has competitive relations.
This plan has been tried with success in the State of Vermont, where
Methodists, Baptists, and Congregationalists had to cooperate or
abandon the field; in the Portsmouth district, Ohio Conference, where
the principal problems were with the Presbyterians, United Brethren,
and Baptists; in Montana, where a conference was held to consider
adjustments affecting an entire State; and in the Wooster District,
North-East Ohio Conference, where adjustment of relationships is
proceeding satisfactorily.
The results of this program already noticeable are:
1. The increase in salary of rural ministers made possible by uniting
the financial resources of all religious forces in the community.
2. Saving of missionary money by eliminating duplication of missionary
grants by competing denominations.
3. A marked increase in membership and church attendance.
4. A more vital relationship of the church to community welfare
through unified action of all religious forces under the trained
leadership of one pastor.
5. Resident pastorates to more communities through better distribution
of pastoral residences of the denominations concerned in adjustments
made.
6. A more vital appeal to life service in rural work can now be made
to young people who have objected to service in rural charges where
efforts at community service have been handicapped and even nullified
by the presence of competing religious organizations and pastors.
It is believed that the results obtained far outweigh the possible
losses that may come through Methodists intrusting leadership in
service to Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, or the
reverse. The good work made possible by fixing responsibility for
leadership to a given denomination in one community is destined by the
force of example and imitation to compel similar progress in
communities to which leadership responsibility has been assigned to
other denominations.
A word of caution to ministers in charge of local fields is desirable
in regard to settlement of interdenominational difficulties. The
interests involved are so much larger than the local church that the
initiative must be taken by the district superintendent, always in
the fullest consultation with the resident bishop, or the proper
State, synodical, or other representative of the other denominations
concerned. In a number of cases local initiative in this matter has
resulted not only in defeating the end sought but has created
embarrassing situations between the supervisory representatives of the
denominations. If a local situation needs adjustment, the matter
should be gone over fully with those responsible for church
administration, and it is believed that in most cases such adjustment
can be made satisfactorily. The experience of those in the Methodist
Episcopal Church who have tried to bring about adjustments by the
method suggested has been that in most cases other groups are ready to
come to an agreement.
If other groups refuse to make adjustments, then the denomination
making the advances has no other alternative than that of caring for
its own obligations as adequately as possible and with every resource
that can be made available. But no blame can attach to this policy
after effort has been made to cooperate with other groups and these
efforts have failed.
After communities have been allocated for leadership to one or another
of the denominations, then the problem of a united program by all
denominations remains to be solved. Unless this end is attained, then
rural churches must continue to work largely alone, each in its own
community without relation to the program of neighboring churches or
communities. Unless there is coordination between the churches, then
we shall continue to witness the spectacle of the three
interdenominational branches of the church, the Sunday School
Association, and the Christian Associations, each moving in its own
self-chosen direction, each raising an independent budget, and each
establishing county organizations without reference to the interests
of the other; and none of the three doing anything to encourage the
organization of county groups of the churches as such. The time has
arrived when the church as such should take the lead in bringing about
interdenominational cooperation for community service under its own
auspices and in the most inclusive way.
For many reasons the county offers the best basis for this type of
organization. It is the most permanent political unit, next to the
State or the incorporated town or city. Social progress finds the
closest opportunity for cooperation with economic and political
agencies in the county. The following proposal for a County Christian
Association, supported out of the budgets of local cooperating
churches, has been worked out:
SUGGESTED PROGRAM FOR COUNTY RURAL CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OR FEDERATION
OF CHURCHES[1]
1a. Proposal for County Christian Association or Church Federation.
1b. Board of Directors.
1c. County Council chosen by each cooperating denomination on
basis of membership.
2c. Election or appointment of denominational representatives
to be left to each denomination.
3c. Selection of county secretary.
2b. Duties of county secretary.
1c. Survey--Follow up what interchurch county office has done.
1d. Location of all churches.
2d. Residence of pastors.
3d. Community boundaries.
2c. Organize county religious movements as:
1d. Evangelistic drive.
2d. Membership rally.
3d. Go-to-church campaigns.
4d. Religious worship in the home.
5d. Common programs with reference to moral and spiritual
problems.
6d. Other religious movements.
3c. Interchurch adjustments.
1d. Act as secretary of Committee on Adjustments--provide office
for interchurch activities.
2d. Depository for interchurch religious information.
3d. Follow-up plans made as result of interchurch survey,
including:
1e. Encouragement of building parsonage and getting resident
pastor in every community.
2e. Getting a community church building in every community
adequate to its needs.
3e. Getting a community building under joint religious auspices
where need exists for several houses of worship.
4e. Clearing house for membership conservation.
5e. Determination of parish boundaries.
6e. Establishment of new work in communities where there is none.
4c. Social and recreational.
1d. County field days.
2d. Cooperation in organizing boys' and girls' clubs in Sunday
school or otherwise.
4d. Direct social and recreational activities.
5d. Assisting in selection and training leaders for church and
community service.
5c. Religious education.
1d. Recruiting membership campaigns.
2d. Perform all functions now expected of volunteer county Sunday
school secretary.
3d. Assist in analysis of Sunday school methods and organization
in local churches in organizing for larger service.
4d. Week-day religious instruction plans.
6c. Social service activities to be encouraged:
1d. County free library.
2d. County hospital and nursing program.
3d. Adequate provision for dependents, defectives, delinquents.
4d. Securing desired State public service.
5d. Health and sanitation campaign.
6d. County Farm bureaus.
7c. Cooperation with other agencies. In general, give moral support
to agencies doing effective work in the fields mentioned in (6c).
8c. Act as bureau of advice with reference to appeals for charitable
purposes.
9c. Religious publicity.
3b. Budget.
1c. Estimated Salary of Secretary $3,000
Travel 400
Office rent 300
Equipment 200
Stenographer 750
Publicity 400
------
$5,050
2c. How to raise.
1d. Estimate amount that should come from each cooperating church.
Ask each church to assume its share on a three-year guarantee.
2d. Make list of special givers who may become a private source.
3d. Communicate with respective missionary boards for aid in
carrying balance of budget until such time as it can be brought
to self-support.
FOOTNOTE:
[Footnote 1: Prepared in Collaboration with C. J. Hewett, Garrett
Biblical Institute, Evanston, Ill.]
This form of organization has many advantages, among which are:
1. It coordinates all the religious forces of Protestantism, for a
common community service.
2. It insures ultimate permanent support by being financed out of the
budgets of the cooperating churches instead of by a limited number of
private givers of large funds.
3. The county organization develops its work through the churches,
strengthening the program of the minister instead of developing
independent organizations locally with volunteer leadership related to
an "arm" of the church instead of directly to the church.
4. By organizing to do their own work in this way the churches obviate
the necessity of private Christian agencies organizing with outside
support to carry on interdenominational work.
If the churches of America do not rapidly work out plans of
interdenominational cooperation in the development of their work,
other agencies will enter the field and will receive popular financial
support for doing those things in rural progress that are the
legitimate task of the church and for which the church should receive
support. Church people will supply the large part of the funds for
carrying on these activities through nonreligious agencies; and
because of the narrowness of program the church will have chosen for
itself many of the brightest and best minds, and consecrated hearts
now found in our student groups in educational institutions will find
their life's activities outside the church instead of within its ranks
where they would prefer to be. This will be the misfortune of the
church and she cannot clear herself of the wrong of depriving her
young people of the opportunity of rendering a service to humanity
within her own ranks and of forcing them to render that service
through independent social agencies.