Six Thousand Country Churches

by Charles Otis Gill; Gifford Pinchot

In the long run the officials who now entertain objections to the federated church will doubtless not permit them to stand in the way of rural church progress. Particularly will this be true when a minister of their own denomination is to be made pastor of the federated church. It would seem wise, therefore, for the denominational authorities to agree that when federated churches are formed the choice of pastors should be made, so far as possible, on the basis of interdenominational reciprocity.

In view of the urgent needs of the rural communities, as a rule, those methods should be adopted which are most acceptable to the local people whose interests are involved. When the people of a community come to desire united Christian action in promoting community welfare, their zeal will usually be strong enough to overcome the difficulties in the way. But this desirable consummation is greatly retarded where opposition is made by the denomination or its officials. Until the church officials and denominations are able to propose some other practicable plan for the readjustment of church life to community welfare, a plan which can be carried out, the demands of the situation certainly require them to help rather than hinder the movement for the formation of federated churches. In any event they will not be able to stop it.

In the investigation striking cases were found of denominational officials opposing Christian unity in the mistaken belief that they were acting in accord with the sentiment of their denominations.

It has been reported to us that a certain denominational official has tried in ten different communities to prevent interchurch coöperation, although the local churches and the local people were for it. It might in charity be contended that in nine of these it was not Christian coöperation itself that was opposed, but rather the form of coöperation embodied in a federated church. But in the tenth community it was clearly Christian coöperation and not the form of it to which this official was hostile, for the people of the two local churches were merely meeting together, in union services on Sunday evenings, and for an occasional communion service. No federation or organic union was contemplated. But the old minister was removed, and a new minister was sent to the field with definite instructions to break up what unity there was. These instructions he carried out so thoroughly that the Christian forces in the community were greatly reduced in effectiveness.

In another community an official persistently tried to prevent the formation of a federated church, although himself acknowledging that he sincerely believed it was the very best thing that could be done for the local people. From two other communities it was reported that this same official was the only obstacle in the way of Christian unity. It is entirely probable that in many other communities these denominational officials have opposed Christian coöperation, for only incidentally did the authors hear of the cases reported.

(9) Nonsectarian Support

To give strength to the movement for interchurch coöperation, a strong interdenominational or undenominational backing is needed. On the part of the higher leaders and officials there is no lack of genuine desire to further interchurch coöperation. The same desire is shared by very large numbers of the younger ministers who are properly trained for their calling, and by many older ministers also. The movement, however, is often halted because of a feeling that somewhere in the denomination there is a strong sentiment against it.

Faintheartedness is the greatest obstacle to coöperation between churches at the present time. Numbers of actual instances could be given if it were proper to do so. What is needed, therefore, is an active movement between or outside of the denominations, to strengthen those officials who hesitate to promote interchurch coöperation. Such a movement would finally reveal the fact that the prevailing sentiment in the denominations is really in favor of coöperation and not against it, and many who now oppose it or refuse to help would become most valuable agents in promoting it.

It must not be assumed that the day of denominations is past. Although, as between most of the denominations, theological differences no longer exist, and other differences between many of them are small, denominational feeling is still dominant. The slight differences loom large. Denominational officials for the most part feel that their chief duty is to their denomination, from which they hold their official power; and this duty is very absorbing. Hence it is often most difficult to gain support from denominational authorities and churches for interdenominational projects.

Moreover, the direction of interdenominational organization, at the present time, is largely in the hands of men who are responsible for denominational interests, or the interests of other organizations which require their wholehearted and undivided support. While the coöperation and combined judgment of such men is invaluable in the wise direction of interdenominational projects, in Ohio they fail as a driving force. This is now the chief cause of weakness in the interdenominational movement for church and country life in the State.