The Presbyterian of the South : [combining the] Southwestern Presbyterian, Central Presbyterian, Southern Presbyterian. [volume], April 02, 1919, Image 2

About The Presbyterian of the South : [combining the] Southwestern Presbyterian, Central Presbyterian, Southern Presbyterian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1909-1931

Image provided by: Library of Virginia; Richmond, VA

                
CHURCH UNION.
This is a subject that is being discussed by
writers in almost every branch of the Protes
tant Church. The views held by these writers
differ very much. Without discussing them
specially it may be of interest to state some of
these views. Many writers have much to say
about Christian unity and they seem to think
that the only way in which this unity can be
expressed- is by the organic union of the
churches. To this end many plans are being
proposed.
First let us notice those in which our Church
is specially concerned. For many years there
has been an effort to secure the union of our
Church and the Presbyterian Church U. S. A.
In response to an overture from the Church in
viting us to unite with them, our General As
sembly appointed a committee on this subject.
The Assembly instructed its committee to say
that our Church was not ready for this union,
but instructed it to propose to the other As
sembly the taking of steps looking to the fed
eration of all the Presbyterian churches of this
country. The two committees failed to reach
an agreement and they were continued for fur
ther consideration of the matter.
In the meantime the Church U. S. A. sent
out a broadcast invitation to all Protestant
churches in this country to come together in
organic union. A meeting of representatives
of a number of the churches was held a few
months ago, but little progress seems to have
been made.
The committees of the U. S. and the U. S.
A. churches are still working on a report to be
made to their Assemblies at their meetings in
May, but thus far it has not been completed.
In our Church there are various views held
on this subject. One party is opposed to any
union or federation and feel that the churches
are doing better as they are than they would
do otherwise. Another party is in favor of an
unconditional union with the U. S. A. Church.
Their chief ground for favoring this seems to
be that this will make a larger, stronger Church
and for that reason it will be able better to do
the work of the Lord.
Another party favors what is called the Sy
nodical plan. This proposes that these two
Assemblies shall unite, and that greater author
ity shall be given to the Synods over all local
matters, and that the Synods shall be made up
of delegates from the Presbyteries.
The Provincial Assembly plan proposes the
union of these two churches and that they shall
be divided into three or more provinces ac
cording to geographical location. Each pro
vince is to have its own Assembly, with Synods
and Presb3rteries under them, and over them
there shall be a General Assembly taking in all
of the churches.
The Federation plan proposes that each
Church shall remain autonomous and control
its own affairs, but over them all (as many as
will go into the Federation) there shall be a
Federal Assembly that will have the direction
of the affairs that are common to all the
churches.
An effort is being made now in the United
Presbyterian Church to awaken a sentiment in
favor of union with the Presbyterian Church
U. S. A. A few years ago our Assembly agreed
to a proposition to unite with that Church and
the plan was approved by the United Assem
bly, but the Church turned it down.
The latest union plan is that proposed by the
Faith and Order Commission of the Protestant
Episcopal Church. This Commission for some
years has been trying to bring about the union
of the churches of this country on the basis of
the historic episcopate, which means, among
other things, that all ministers of other church
es must renounce their ordination and be re
ordained by an Episcopal bishop. They have
not made much progress towards union. Now
this Commission is sending a delegation to
Rome to visit the Pope with a proposal that
the Protestant, Roman Catholic, Greek and
Russian churches shall all unite, in one great
Christian Church. It is said that no bishop of
the Episcopal Church has made an official visit
to th*e Pope since the days of Ilenrv the Eighth
of England.
It is very evident that there are variations
of plans enough for almost any one to find one
that will suit him, and fortunately each one
has the right to make his own choice.
A MUCH MOOTED QUESTION.
The annual discussion of union is beginning.
No doubt overtures will be presented to the
Assembly at New Orleans, both pro and con.
In some directions the discussion has degener
ated into a personal pow-wow between a sweet
ly smiling pastor and a profound professor,
with incursions into the arena, of interested
bystanders. Out of this fray we have gathered
a large fruitage of words and phrases. From
the point of view of the "Continent" we are a
set of naughty schoolboys whose "pride, arro
gance and selfishness'' prevent us from playing
in the U. S. A. back yard. Some of us are even
suggesting that the dignified matron of the
Church U. S. A. start acourting or at least lis
tening to the soft wooing of our brethren.
Well, well we never thought we would come to
this confusion of ecclesiastical doctors. In fact
we hardly knew that we (the U. S. Presbyte
rian) were so badly ofT and so badly in need of
curing.
The patient is neither dead, nor in bed with
liny rerious ailment, but just going about her
business in a wonderfully progressive style. If
we tiTe not mistaken she is apt to throw tho
boitle? of medicine ? the cure-all of all eccle
siastical infirmities ? out of the window and
start in on her spring plowing.
In the midst of this much mooted question it
is a good thing to stop and take stock.
We are agreed on some things:
1. It is desirable that all Presbyterians in
the several Southern States get together ? the
TJ. S. Presbyterian, the U. S. A., the A. R. P.
and the Cumberland Presbyterians. There are
some advantages. We need not dwell on
them.
2. It is also desirable that they should get to
gether under the form and leadership that is
making the most headway. The Church that
has the best equipment, methods of work and
approved of God and man. If one farmer has
a good and approved method of farming, and
all the farmers are going to pool their work
and profits, it ill becomes the good and success
ful farmer to give up his improved methods
and go back to those of his less successful
neighbors. That is not common sense.
3. It is certainly very desirable that they
should not throw ecelesisastical stones at each
other as they come together. Else the union
will only result in an explosive disunion. We
can all agree on the desirability of these
things. The Southern Presbyterian Church is
not opposed to union ? of the proper sort. We
may not want to stand responsible for the
(heterdoxy of New York Presbytery, (nor for
the vagaries of McCormick Seminary and Chi
cago University; but if the U. S. A. Synods
want to come into our body we will welcome
them. The A. R. P.'s have always found a
cordial reception with us. Let them come in in
a body, and then we can discuss larger things
with clearer vision and deeper love. And one
of the desirable things will have come to pass.
If the second one is true, then the moral
compulsion is on these bodies to seek admis
sion at once. For in equipment, in schools, col
leges, seminaries, churches and executive com
mittees the Southern Presbyterian Church is
far ahead of the others. The Southern Pres
byterian Church is growing faster by 50 per
cent, than the U. S. A. Church in the same ter
ritory. It is getting more members at less
(est. One dollar in Home Mission money goes
farther than five in the other branch of the
Presbyterian faith. If we can do with one dol
lar twice as much as the other Church is doing,
then in the name of a Christlike economy, do it
all in our way. If one Church with improved
methods and equipment is accomplishing twice
as much as another of like doctrinal faith,
what reason exists for its doing business at all,
except the unwillingness to give up and admit
the better way of another party.
If any accountant will take the figures as
presented by the Synods of the U. S. and U. S.
A. churches these statements will be verified.
In conclusion, it. is surprising that any body
would want a body of hard-headed, "arrogant,
selfish and proud" Southern Presbyterian peo
ple to come and take seats alongside the meek,
unselfish and humble Presbyterians of another
Assembly, unless as a means of grace this would
reduce these proud Southerners in humility to
the dust. Mayhap it be a means of grace to us.
A. A. L.
Contributed
MILLENNARIANISM AND THE CONFES
SION OF FAITH.
By Rev. C. A. Hyland.
This is not intended to be an addition to
the great number of things written and spoken
on the subject of Millennarianism. The writer
is not an unqualified adherent of either the
pre-millennial or the post-millennial view of
the Second Advent. He is moved to sending
this communication by some articles which
have lately appeared in The Presbyterian of
the South, the last being on the subject, "The
Westminster Confession of Faith and Millenna
rianism." In this article there are certain
statements which are, at least, open to criti
cism. In speaking of the fact that there were
a number of pre-inillennialists in the Westmin
ster Assembly the question is asked, "Is it
likely that these divines would put forth an
anti-pre-millennialist confession?" It is ad
mitted that there were some pronounced post
millennialists in that Assembly. We can ask
the question, "Is it probable that these post
millennialists would have put forth a pre-mil
lennial confession?"
If there has been one thing more than an
other which has moderately disposed this
writer toward the post-millennial view it has
been the excessive dogmatism of some of the
advocates of the other view, mingled with,
what has seemed to him to be, a genuine feel
ing of pity, if not contempt, for those who
have failed to see as they have seen. The ar
ticle in question does not appear to be entire
ly free from this feeling. This dogmatism has,
so far as it has come under his observation,
been confined to the attitude of Scripture on
the subject. It is a revelation to him to find
the same dogmatism expressed in regard to
the teaching of the Confession.
Quoting the Confession, chapter 33, section
3, the writer of the above mentioned article