Skip to main content

Full text of "Christian Division: A Prior Claim"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 


Shanghai, China 

The subject of church union is just now being discussed as a primary problem 
of Christianity. But does the matter of organic unity really touch any profound 
interest of ordinary men ? If church union is to be worth anything it must represent 
a vital passion, and not a nice balancing of subtle distinctions. As a matter of fact 
the great issue of today is the valuation of human life. Industrial and international 
problems really involve the question whether men can manage to organize in a fellow- 
ship which recognizes human rights. The fundamental test which Christianity must 
apply is whether the Kingdom of Heaven is actually to come on earth by human 
consecration and co-operation, or whether we shall despair of and depreciate ideals 
of social evolution. Here is a fundamental cleavage in modern Christianity which 
cannot be ignored. 

What a dust of words the church has stirred up as it has 
ploughed its slow way down the centuries! Even in this day, 
when so much good time is being wasted wondering why 
Smith does not go to church, the publishers continue to bring 
out religious books in quantity almost equal to the ubiquitous 

No will one deny that some of this verbal flood has 
influenced mightily the course of history, despite Mr. Wells's 
ability to tell the story of our race without mentioning John 
Calvin. Yet there comes at times a suspicion, when one 
views the massed rows of apologetics and homiletics and 
apocalyptics and hermeneutics and all the rest (and remembers 
how much larger an array of the same it is now impossible to 
view) that we churchmen, if we have managed to obey the 
apostolic injunction against thinking of ourselves and our 
words more highly than we ought, have committed another 
sin in taking ourselves and our words more seriously than we 
have any business to. 

Just now we are gushing forth on church union. Our con- 
tributions range all the way from the suggestions of the 
Anglican bishops at Lambeth, the Council on Faith and 



Order, and the ill-fated "tendencies" of the Interchurch 
World Movement, to the pronouncement of the Sage of 
Emporia, Walt Mason, who finds in church division the root 
of all our troubles, and in church union their solution. One 
who makes an effort to keep abreast of Christian thought finds 
it necessary to read a seemingly endless array of words, all 
presumably contributing toward a union of the Christian 

To what good ? 

Read it all, if you have the patience. Then place your- 
selves as far outside the influence of professional ecclesiastical 
interests as it is possible for you to do, and ask this question: 
What is there in all this that touches the spiritual problems 
in which ordinary men are actually interested? What is 
there here to which a man who cares little about churchly 
traditions, but greatly about spiritual power, may run and 
grip and shout, "See, here is something upon which we may 
plant a church that will challenge mankind!" ? 

As it was in the beginning, so is it now (and one fears will 
be) — polite preachers piously proposing improbable perform- 
ances, as they would say in the type catalogues. Schemes 
evolved in committee rooms; discussions that have had their 
birth in musty studies — parson talk, all of it, even when 
spoken by laymen, and useless because it has so little connec- 
tion with the vital issues of life. 

The tragedy of our preoccupation with this illusion stands 
the more starkly in the presence of our failure to deal with 
issues that are vital, and have their direct application to the 
same questions of church division and union. For while we 
palaver of orders and ordinations and the acts of legates long 
dead— and better so!— we are blind to true divisions that 
spell weal or woe for humanity, establishment or loss for the 
Kingdom of Heaven. 

Sometimes I have heard my clerical friends, especially 
from among the Anglicans, say that we must have a church 


so broad that it can include the symbolism of the high church- 
man at the same time with the exuberance of the Salvation 
Army evangelist. But this is not something to be attained 
by a nice balancing of tradition. If it ever comes it will come 
spontaneously. If those who work for a union of the churches 
would think deeper they would see that before we can have a 
vital church union we must have a vital church division. 
Today we are mixed up about standards that mean little; 
at times nothing at all. But let us dare to admit our real 
lines of division, and we shall perforce find ourselves regroup- 
ing in units that will cut across and transcend our present 
herdings. We shall then have a unity with meaning. 

Christian division is an actuality of immense importance to 
the world. Unfortunately, the church so far has refused to 
admit this actuality and so, in its very presuppositions, serves 
notice that it is not a servant of reality, and therefore is 
unable to play a great part in the problems of our time. If 
you doubt this, regard our attitude toward two fundamental 

We are divided in our conception of the value of the indi- 
vidual and in our attitude toward the Kingdom of Heaven. 
These are not "the flaccid tissues of long dead issues," but 
vitalities that cut to the heart of the world's hope. Yet here 
we are divided, and refuse to face the division. 

Always, theoretically, the individual has held supreme 
value in the Christian church. It is this that has made the 
Bible such a dangerous book. The depiction of man standing 
only "a little lower than God" has inspired many a lofty 
flight of pulpit eloquence. 

We are past the day when eloquence will save us. Reality 
is the demand. We face the test of our action as to whether 
the welfare of every human being is the supremely important 
matter, be its effect what it may upon the stocks and bonds 
of our material civilization. 


This goes deep. It goes clear down to the fundamental 
upon which all such conceptions as a League of Nations, and 
the like, must rest. For, as that brilliant Englishman, Edward 
Shillito, said not long ago, "Nations must live together; but 
how can they live in the same house in peace unless they are 
agreed upon the meaning of human life, and upon its true 
values and its destiny ? " What is true for nations, controlling 
life politically, is as true for those who control it in any of 
its other relationships. 

Let us admit that it will be hard to force most of the 
churches to face this demand. It is too easy to sidestep it 
with words, social creeds, the reports of commissions, and 
other means of testifying to our verbal impeccability. But 
this is just the issue. If there is reality in the mission of the 
church just now, it dare not confine its passion to words. 
We face the same demand that St. James voiced in the first 
century of the church's life: "Show me thy faith by thy 
works." It will be recalled that much of the Epistle of 
St. James deals with the relative importance of individuals. 

What actuality have we faced when we talk about the 
supreme value of every human soul ? We have various tests 
for membership within our communions. Have any of us yet 
dared place a test just here? Have any of us announced 
that we will sternly exclude from our ranks any who, by 
personal act or the pressure of securities owned, or in any other 
manner, direct or indirect, lower by one atom the dignity of 
a single life, or cause one of the world's little ones to stumble ? 

The experience of the Interchurch World Movement with 
its report on the steel industry, and of the Young Women's 
Christian Association with its outline for a Christian order 
in industry, shows that no such test as this can be made with- 
out producing a real division. The moment the church acts 
upon the implications of a belief in the supremacy of the wel- 
fare of every man, that moment it will lose the support and 


arouse the antagonism of all the "practical" elements in its 
ranks. Many, fearing this, will cry out against any such 
test. It is only the Christian-minded who will welcome it. 
For they will see that a church practical is a church damned, 
and that there are modern applications of the experiences of 

Moreover, they will see that this is not a question to be 
answered on the basis of expediency, no matter how many 
denominational colleges and benevolent boards may be hunt- 
ing endowment. It is a question that tests the church's sense 
of reality. Here is a division demanded by the condition of 
the world at this hour. If the church avoids it she will show 
great adroitness, astuteness, adaptability. And she will, in 
the act, convince most men that she has no call to a task of 
world rebuilding. 

Inextricably bound up with this issue of the value of the 
individual goes the question as to whether the Kingdom of 
Heaven, as portrayed by Jesus, is actually to come on earth, 
as we have for centuries been praying that it may come. If 
this is to happen all individual, social, political life is due to 
be transformed, and our race carried onward to a goal as 
glorious as the present reality is disheartening. 

A large part of Protestantism, and a vigorous part, denies 
this expectation. An indication of the way in which the 
church goes dallying along sidetracks is found in its attitude 
toward these thoroughly consecrated, thoroughly conscien- 
tious, and thoroughly calamitous members. Occasionally it 
condescends to discuss with them subjects such as the theory 
of scriptural inspiration or the probability of a thousand 
years of messianic glory just before or after the bodily return 
of Jesus to earth. But for the most part the church says, 
"They're mistaken, but what of it?", blind to that vaster 
heresy which these indorse, that denial of the supreme hope 
Jesus planted when he taught of the Kingdom that is to be. 

Here is a vital division. 


One man says, "The Kingdom of Heaven is to be estab- 
lished on earth by the gradual and unceasing upbuilding of 
the rule of Christ." Another replies, "The Kingdom will 
only be realized in some future state, when, by a sudden mir- 
acle, the Lord will descend with a shout from the sky to sit 
for a limited period upon a throne in Jerusalem." 

One man says, "The race is progressing toward a far-off, 
divine event, when evil will be overthrown and good completely 
established." Another replies, "The race is getting worse 
and worse. Church, state, society, everything, must go on 
until all is utterly bad, and then the smash-up." 

One man says, "I will give my life for the building of the 
Kingdom." Another replies, "It is unscriptural for you to 
express such a thought. The Kingdom is not to be built or 
established, or anything else that implies any place for your 
puny efforts in its securing. It is to be disclosed by an 
omnipotent fiat in the hour when God, his patience at an end, 
wipes out the last vestige of our sorry strivings." 

One man says, "We must not rest until every last man has 
been won to loving allegiance to the Kingdom and its King." 
Another replies, "It is not the purpose of God to bring more 
than a select remnant into his Kingdon. He has ordained 
destruction for the rest." 

One man knows Jesus as a savior; another awaits him as 
a despot. Indeed, it is significant that one of the leaders of 
the latter group should have written of him as "Kaiser Jesus." 

This is a division. Either the church is concerned with 
building the Kingdom in the world or it is not, and it is mean- 
ingless to talk about a church unity which would harbor both 
ideas within the same fold. The reality of such a division 
serves to show the more clearly the unreality of the divisions 
by which the denominations now group themselves. 

Two men were looking out of the windows of the Mission- 
ary Home in Shanghai last winter, watching the Chinese 
crowds shifting past through the gathering dusk. One watched 


until the lines of pain were etched deep in his face, and when 
he turned away his voice was scarcely under control. 

"Doesn't it almost drive you mad," he cried, "to realize 
that after all our work we have scarcely begun to affect the 
edges of that multitude out there ?" 

His companion replied without a moment of hesitation, and 
with a complacency complete: 

"It might, if you did not know that God has never planned 
to have us reach those people anyway." 

Both those men are casually grouped by their acquaint- 
ances as Presbyterians. Yet it is folly to say that they belong 
to the same church; that they are Christians of the same sort; 
that they follow the same Christ; that they worship the same 

In these two illustrations of the demand for clean division 
there is nothing new. That fact renders the illustrations the 
more illuminating! In every aspect of the life of the church 
we are constantly showing an ability to ignore such questions 
of real moment, the while we concern ourselves with artificial 
schemes that revolve about shibboleths that are "old, far- 
off, forgotten." Before vital Christian unity can ever come 
there must be sharp cleavage where divisions truly exist, after 
which we can, and will, rally about great facts and hopes 
that outrange the artificial lines of our present demarcations.