That They May Be One 2/13/49
Scripture: John 17: 9-23
Text: John 17: 21; “That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us...”
In our Lord’s prayer of intercession, as recorded in the 17th chapter of the Gospel of John, he uses the expression “that they may be one” at the end of verse 11. Again, at the beginning of verse 21, he says, “that they all may be one;” and in verse 23, “that they me be made perfect in one.” Evidently Jesus believed that it was not only desirable, but essential, that his followers, those who believe in God through him, should have fellowship and community of action together. In the face of this prayer of our Lord and the obvious human necessity for companionship and concert in any effective endeavor, it would seem that there should be no divisions within his church. This is a frequently used argument for organic church union. The fact, the origin and the continuance of separate denominations of the church of Christ are sometimes made to appear a scandal, as possibly they are in the sight of God. Probably they are the result of human frailty and stubbornness, and the limitations of human experience.
The church of Christ, holy, universal, is one united, spiritual fellowship in him -- a united fellowship of those who live in him now in the present, and of those who have gone before, and those who will yet come to follow in his name. This sense of universal fellowship is the strongest bulwark against the evils of the world, the selfishness of individuals, and the thirst for power in government or other organized society.
Strangely, and tragically enough, the organized church and the Christian individual are not immune to the temptations that beset all organizations and individuals in the world, and must be constantly concerned that they be purged of those evils. The church has had need of repenting its errors repeatedly throughout its history. The martyrs have been victims not only of evil non-Christian society, but of evil within the church. This is particularly true of those periods when people have been persecuted for heresy, which has been as dangerous to the soul of the accuser as to the life and liberty of the accused.
If we were all sufficiently in agreement in the spirit of Christ, we would probably find ourselves in substantial agreement as to the form of organization, the body of doctrine, and the course of action to be taken by all of us Christians in the church universal. Since we are not sufficiently in sincere agreement, it seems to me safer for Christians to belong to familiar churches wherein we may worship and act with some freedom, while, at the same time seeking all possible cooperation with those others with whom we differ.
From time to time, a majority of the people in heretofore separated church denominations have decided that their differences were so slight, and their common faith so great, that they desired to be together in one communion. It has been so with the Congregationalists and the Christian denomination; between the Evangelical and Reformed churches; between at least three of the denominations formerly known as Methodist; between another Evangelical church and the United Brethren, and perhaps others. A careful, and honest, examination of similarities and diversities has been conducted by those of other groups as in the case of recent conversations between Presbyterian and Episcopal communions. In that particular case, it was discovered that the divergencies are still too wide to be overcome by compromises that would seem too costly in the surrender of convictions held. Such movements have to wait for more light in the future.
For some years now, two of these already-accomplished mergers have moved in the direction of a further merger. The Congregational Christian churches and the Evangelical and Reformed church have been exploring the way in which they may become one in organic fellowship even as they seem to be, largely, in spiritual kinship. The path has been stormy, but a clear majority of those of both denominations, among those who have expressed their convictions, seems to favor this union.
Some years ago, Dr. Rockwell Harmon Potter described Congregationalism in these words: “We Congregationalists,” he said, “would be known by the things we do together.” Insofar as that is true (and of course it is an ideal, and not always uniformly a fact), it seems to be evident now that we Congregationalists, Christians, Evangelicals and Reformed churches are now coming to desire that we all be known by the things we may do together. In the last balloting, some 72 or 73% of the Congregational Christian churches voting have so expressed themselves. At the meeting of our General Council in Cleveland on February 4th and 5th, the accredited delegates so expressed themselves by a vote of 757 to 172.
At the Cleveland meeting, the vote was taken on the basis of a resolution presented by our denominational Committee on Interchurch Relations and Christian Unity. We were reminded that the first official steps were taken in 1942 when the Council at Durham, NH, authorized its appropriate commission to “explore the possibilities of organic union;” that in 1944 at Grand Rapids, Mich, we were reminded that we ought to seek opportunity for fellowship at the local level with corresponding bodies of the Evangelical and Reformed fellowship; that a joint committee was authorized to work on a “Basis of Union” and did so from March 1943 to January, 1947, revising it from time to time as seemed necessary; that the Council at Grinnell, IA, directed a more careful study of the merging of the two denominations’ mission boards, Social Action agencies and Pension boards; that the final draft of the Basis of Union was submitted to the delegates of the 1946 Council with the request that they vote on the question: “Is the Basis of Union now ready for submission to all Conferences, Associations, Churches and Members?” and that the resulting vote was: favorable - 497; opposed - 99; that the Basis of Union has been submitted to the churches for their approval or disapproval with a considerable majority expressing approval (you remember the figures); and that many churches considered it again in the light of interpretations given at Oberlin with a higher percentage of approval than before.
With all of this reminder phrased in a series of “whereas” paragraphs, the delegates at Cleveland were then asked to vote on this page of recommendations:
NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission of Interchurch Relations and Christian Unity, meeting at Cleveland, Ohio, this third day of February, 1949, and reviewing all pertinent data available to it, hereby recommends to the General Council:
(1) That the General Council makes a finding and determination that the percentage of Congregational Christian Churches approving the Basis of Union with its Interpretations warrants the consummation of the Union in accordance with the Basis of Union and the Interpretations.
(2) That such consummation be contingent, however, upon the approval by the General Synod of the Evangelical and Reformed Church and by its constituent Synods, of the Interpretations of the “Basis of Union” hereinabove referred to, in order that both parties may be united in their understanding and acceptance of the same instruments.
(3) That the General Council instruct its Executive Committee to assign to the several Conferences quotas which together shall provide approximately three hundred of its members as delegates, and authorizes such delegates, subject to the foregoing conditions, to represent the General Council at a joint meeting, called in accordance with the provisions of Article X-A of the “Basis of Union”, which meeting shall constitute the first meeting of the General Synod of the United Church; empowering the said delegates to take such actions as shall be in conformity with the principles and provisions of the “Basis of Union”, the said Interpretations, and the votes of the General Council pertaining to this union.
(4) That the General Council, at a subsequent meeting to be called at the discretion of the Executive Committee of the General Council, make such disposition of its capital funds and property rights of all types and designations as shall be in accordance with the instruments under which such funds and property rights may now be held by the General Council, and as shall be further consistent with the provisions of the “Basis of Union” and the Interpretations.
(5) That the Moderator of the General Council appoint a Commission of lawyers to study and, if necessary, draft such instruments as shall facilitate its continued operation subsequent to the union.
(6) That the Executive Committee be authorized to take such other and further action, from time to time, as shall be necessary and advisable to execute the foregoing recommendations, if adopted by the General Council, and as shall be directed toward the consummation of the union.
It was the secret balloting upon the above recommendations that resulted in a vote of 757 favoring, and 172 opposed. Also by secret ballot, the Council voted upon this further recommendation:
“This Council solicits the widest support and adherence of all Congregational Christian Churches to the proposed United Church of Christ. And, acknowledging the varieties of religious experience and conviction within our membership, we further recognize the possibility of various types of relationship to the United Church of Christ, so that each local church, whether having approved the Basis of Union or not, may be free to maintain or establish such relationships to its Association, Conference, and to the General Synod, as may be mutually agreeable.” This recommendation was adopted by a somewhat closer margin, the vote being: favorable - 652; unfavorable -277. The clear majority, however, wishes to proceed. Unhappily, we are not, in this denomination, completely of one mind.
Those who have most vigorously and continuously opposed the merger have determined to form a continuing Congregational denomination, with probably legal steps to establish their right to the name. A leading spirit in this movement happened to be pastor of the largest church in our denomination. How many churches will elect to remain aloof from the union under the drive of his powerful personality, and the convictions of those like him, will remain uncertain for a time.
But whether a sixth, or a tenth, or a quarter of the churches elect to form the continuing Congregational churches, the new United Church fellowship will be weakened to that degree, and the world, if they persist in their purpose, will witness another of those piteous “remnant denominations” like the continuing Presbyterian Church of Canada which has followed the formation of the great United Church of Canada.
Probably the most moving address of the Council was given near its close, after the results of the balloting had been made known. It was given extemporaneously by Dr. Wendell Fifield of Brooklyn, NY. He is a brother of Dr. James Fifield, Jr., who now leads the opposition. Though not himself a member of his brother’s anti-merger organization, Dr. Wendell Fifield has not favored the merger.
He reminded those who had voted for the merger of the solemn responsibility they had taken upon themselves for the spiritual welfare of the churches entering the union. Firmly, but lovingly, he pointed out to us that we might very well have to continue our care of missionaries and others dependent on our funds without some of the support hitherto available (presumably that of the churches which might stay out of the union.) For this is more than dollars and cents. It is the life and effectiveness of our Christian gospel and its messengers abroad.
To the opposition, he pointed out three possible courses:
1. To go along with the majority, acknowledging defeat of the minority position and bowing to the will of the majority.
2. To decline to go along, but to do nothing to hinder (This he thought would be the position of his own church).
3. To stay out, and to interfere where possible with the merger.
He further made a moving plea that there be no further movement until after Easter, with the hope that all of us might use the Lenten season for deep searching and prayer for knowledge of the will of God for us all.
There the matter now stands. Plans for the merger will proceed in accordance with the will of the majority. Numerous steps must yet be taken to make it effective. If the Evangelical and Reformed church approves the Oberlin interpretations, the initial meeting of the new General Synod of the United Church will be held. If a constitution is drawn up it will then need to be submitted to our churches for approval. Our national bodies will merge, including our foreign mission boards, all home mission agencies, Christian action bodies and pension plans.
Our state conferences, district associations and local churches may merge, or continue separately, by our own initiative. Through the years, we shall still seek to know and do the will of God “that we may be one” in spirit with those of the new common family and also with those who chose to remain separated.
The Cleveland Council closed solemnly with the singing of the hymn “God Be With You ‘Till We Meet Again.”
It is my hope, my counsel, and my expectation, that this church will ally itself with the new United Church of Christ, if and when the arrangements have proceeded satisfactorily, assured that we may continue our present local identity if we so choose. Meanwhile, let us pray earnestly, that we may continue at one with all Christians, especially with whom we have heretofore had, and those with whom we will hereafter have, denominational fellowship.
Dr. Albert Palmer, an ardent advocate of the merger, faced those of the opposition at the close of the Council and assured them, simply and, very sincerely: “We love you. We love you.” So let it be among all of us, in Jesus Christ our only head, and Lord.
--------------- AMEN ---------------------
Delivered in Wisconsin Rapids, February 13, 1949.