ONE of the serious problems which has exercised the minds of preachers, editors, and leaders, during the last quarter of a century, has been, how to develop, train, and utilize the rapidly increasing strength of the churches. The churches were growing faster than the agencies for their proper care and training. The tendency in this period has been to emphasize Christian culture, moral and spiritual growth, alongside of evangelism. It was felt that evangelism had overshadowed nurture and education--that quantity had taken the place of quality as a test of religious progress. The churches were growing more rapidly in size and wealth than in knowledge and beneficence.

      The value of great meetings in which there were large numbers of additions was [304] sometimes held in doubt, when the churches receiving such increases, did not show a corresponding increase in missionary contributions. It sometimes happened that after a year such churches did not contain a very large proportion of the converts in their active membership, and were even weakened in their hold upon the community. The tide was rising in favor of a new evangelism, which should depend more upon instruction than upon emotional excitement to produce results. Pastors began to fear the large ingatherings into their churches as laying upon the church a burden of training and assimilation too great to bear. They came to prefer meetings which edified the saints as well as converted the sinners; and for this purpose the safest man was felt to be the preacher who was under the responsibilities and understood the problems of the settled pastor's office. Professional evangelism was discredited in favour of [305] pastoral evangelism. It became a very common practice for pastors to exchange meetings from year to year; while the professional evangelist assumed more frequently the pastoral relation. More recently pastors and evangelists have come to agree to eliminate the more objectionable features of professional evangelism, and to give it a new, but somewhat restricted, place in the church.

      The Disciples have eagerly adopted many modern agencies of an instructional character for the development of Christian life in the churches, such as Christian Endeavor societies, Reading Circles, Bible lectures, and in some few instances, Institutional Church work. More and more they are beginning to share the common life and enterprises of the churches around them, and to be willing to adopt any method or society which has been found helpful to the larger social usefulness of the church. They are sharing with others the awakening to the duty of [306] making the church a factor in social improvement and regeneration. They have ceased to raise the cry of "innovation" against modern methods and devices in church work. One of the most recent developments is the employment of women as pastoral helpers in the larger churches. A school for the training of such helpers was organized in 1900, by A. M. Harvuot, at Cincinnati. After three years it was transferred to Drake University.

      The rapid development of educational institutions, with the rise of the educational ideal in the last twenty-five years, has forced education as a problem upon the Disciples. They have never competed with the older denominations in educational equipment, nor have they kept pace with their advancement. The state institutions, with their inexhaustible resources, have made the problem all the more serious. The colleges of the Disciples, after applying all their resources to the first [307] requirements of the literary courses, have had nothing left to devote to the enlargement and specialization of their Bible departments. Liberal conditions of entrance to the larger institutions of the East, and their immense opportunities, began to attract the young men of the church, and before 1890 a few had crossed the Alleghenies in quest of the larger educational advantages. Just before and after 1890 there were to be found in Harvard, Yale, and Union Seminary, larger or smaller groups of Disciples from the various colleges of the West, among whom were Levi Marshall, John McKee, W. C. Payne, Clinton Lockhart, H. L. Willett, E. S. Ames, Hiram VanKirk, L. W. Morgan, B. A. Jenkins, W. E. Garrison, Baxter Waters, C. B. Coleman,--at Yale; C. C. Rowlison, Silas Jones--at Harvard; J. M. Philputt, S. T. Willis, C. A. Young, A. B. Phillips, Errett Gates, and L. S. Batman--at Union. The contrast between the meagre equipment of the [308] colleges they had left and the vast equipment of the richly endowed institutions to which they had gone filled them with pain and surprise. It made every man of them a missionary of the cause of education to his own people. Many of these young men gave themselves to the neglected cause of education and a few have been called to the presidencies of the colleges--H. L. Willett, as dean of the Divinity House, in 1894; B. A. Jenkins, as president of Kentucky University, in 1901; Hiram VanKirk, as dean of Berkeley Bible Seminary, in 1900; W. E. Garrison, as president of Butler College, in 1904; C. C. Rowlison, as president of Hiram College, in 1905.

      The task of immediately bringing the educational standards and equipment of the Disciples up to those of other religious bodies seemed an impossible task. Yet the demand of the times was for a thoroughly trained and educated ministry. To meet the needs of the immediate present for the [309] ministry of the Disciples, the plan of cooperation with the larger institutions was adopted. The Disciples in California were the first to take advantage of this plan by cooperating with the state institution already established and equipped beyond their ability to equal. The funds obtained from the property of a college which was obliged to close its doors were devoted to the establishment of a Bible Seminary at Berkeley, in proximity to the State University. The University was glad to have biblical and theological instruction put in reach of its students, and the Seminary was glad to be given the privileges of the University.

      A similar yet a wider purpose was served in the establishment of the Disciples' Divinity House at the University of Chicago. In this instance the relation of the House to the University was organic, as it could not be in the case of a state institution; and besides taking advantage of an academic [310] foundation, took advantage of the Divinity School as well. It was an effort to provide for the Disciples professional ministerial training under the broadest and amplest provisions which Christian munificence and scholarship could create. The movement to establish the Divinity House originated with H. L. Willett and was carried out in cooperation with the Acting Board of the American Christian Missionary Society in 1894.

      Eugene Divinity School was founded in 1895 by E. C. Sanderson, at Eugene, Oregon, to take advantage of the State University located at that place. The school is under the management of the Disciples and was organized primarily for the training of men for the ministry.

      The Disciples of Missouri established a Bible College in connection with the University of Missouri to provide biblical instruction for the University students; but it has gradually grown into a college for the training of men for the ministry. [311]

      Thus by a succession of annexations with the larger, older, and better equipped institutions, the Disciples have sought to meet the educational situation which confronted them. There are evidences of a rising tide of interest and devotion to the cause of education in the denomination at large, which is destined to make the next twenty-five years preeminently an era of educational enlargement as the last twenty-five years has been an era of missionary organization.

      Modern biblical criticism, which had obtained a foothold in the higher institutions of learning and theological seminaries of the east, and was disturbing the theological position and dividing the ecclesiastical councils of the various religious bodies in America, began to receive some consideration from the Disciples before 1890. Not until the Christian Standard opened a department of "Biblical Criticism" under the editorship of J. W. McGarvey in 1890, were [312] the problems of the higher criticism brought to the general attention of the Disciples. Professor McGarvey had made for himself a foremost place as preacher and author before 1870. He was one of the group of influential men who established the Apostolic Times in opposition to the Christian Standard, and has consistently stood in opposition to modern innovations to the present time. He fought the introduction of the organ into the churches, including the one in which he held membership; and when it introduced the organ in 1901 he withdrew his membership from it. When the new problems of the higher criticism appeared he entered the field against it and fought its progress at every step with every weapon of argument, ridicule, and innuendo. He has been the centre and brain of the opposition to higher criticism among the Disciples.

      The questions raised by the new criticism were entirely strange to the rank and file of [313] the ministry. The Standard committed its influence and authority against the newer critical methods from the beginning, and identified the higher criticism, in use in all European universities and most American, with the infidelity of Celsus, Voltaire, Renan, Strauss, and Robert Ingersoll. There were some students among the Disciples who did not look upon the higher criticism in that light, but insisted upon distinguishing its principles and methods from its conclusions.

      The first voices raised in favor of clearness of distinction and calmness in the discussion were those of J. J. Haley and J. H. Garrison. Many articles were written in explanation of the principles, purposes, and workings of the higher criticism to moderate the hatred and fear of it, but very few were written in espousal of any of its conclusions. Those who did venture to accept any of its conclusions which contradicted the traditional opinion, were denounced [314] and defamed as unsafe and unsound. It became nearly fatal to usefulness for a teacher, preacher, or newspaper to give occasion for being read out as a higher critic. In the case of a teacher, colleges either cautioned him or dismissed him; in the case of a preacher, churches and his ministerial brethren avoided him; in the case of a newspaper, subscribers stopped it and Sunday-schools refused to buy its supplies and helps. Many teachers, preachers, newspapers, and even colleges hastened to put themselves on record against the higher criticism, for silence was construed as confession of guilt. There can be no doubt that several publishing companies were materially benefited by assuming a judicious attitude against it; while one company was actually threatened with disaster for refusing to join in the undiscriminating cry against it and for employing men suspected of leanings towards it as writers in its columns and of its Sunday-school [315] supplies. Higher criticism was the question which formed parties in conventions, influenced the action of missionary societies, drew the line between teachers and preachers, and divided the denomination into two more or less clearly defined camps. Out of this question have grown the new controversies within the body which have disturbed its peace and harmony during the last fifteen years.

      The first controversy which drew upon itself general attention and was warmly discussed in the newspapers was the case of H. C. Garvin, which occurred in 1895 while he was professor in Butler College. He had been greatly influenced by the new ideas in his views and methods, and began to question the correctness of some of the doctrinal positions of the Disciples. The question which came to the front in the controversy was as to the priority of faith or repentance in conversion. He expressed the opinion [316] that repentance preceded faith both in the teaching of Scripture and in experience, contrary to the usual teaching of the Disciples. Other opinions of a heretical nature from the orthodox denominational point of view were drawn from him, which aroused the opposition of the authorities of the college and forced him to resign. A group of his students who thought him unfairly treated, and could see no serious departure in his teachings, left the denomination with him.

      A continuous controversy has centred in the person of Herbert L. Willett since 1894. He sprang into prominence as pastor of the church at Dayton, Ohio, and as a Bible lecturer of exceptional attractiveness and power about 1894. He had been a student at Bethany College and Yale University, and came to the University of Chicago as a student and instructor at its opening in 1893. As Dean of the Divinity House he came in for a share of the criticism aroused [317] over its establishment. He was known to be in sympathy with the new learning, and his influence over a large group of younger men was feared. An unbroken opposition to him and the work of the Divinity House has been waged by a conservative element and has involved everything with which he has been connected. His connection with the Christian Evangelist drew that paper under fire, and his later connection with the Christian Century has involved that paper in all the suspicion and opposition attaching to his name. An attack calling in question his loyalty to the teaching of the denomination, was made upon him by the editors of the Standard in 1901. Certain passages in his book on Our Plea for Union and the Present Crisis, in which he set forth his position with reference to the place and mission of the Disciples, were made to bear a meaning not intended by him, and awakened widespread discussion and bitter criticism. The opposition to [318] Professor Willett which was intended to destroy his influence in the denomination, has only partly succeeded, for in spite of it he has steadily grown in favor and influence and in demand as a lecturer upon Bible themes.

      When S. M. Jefferson resigned as Dean of the Berkeley Bible Seminary in 1900, Hiram VanKirk, then instructor in the Disciples' Divinity House, was selected to succeed him. Suspicion rested upon him from the first, coming as he did from a suspected institution. He was growing rapidly in favor with the Disciples in California when a group of men opposing him entered into a conspiracy in 1903 to drive him from his position. Their charges of heresy were sent to the Standard, as having the widest influence in California and reputed for its zeal against the new learning, and without investigating them published them and sent hundreds of extra copies into the state to make sure of a general uprising against the [319] Dean. The charges were denied by him and laid before his board of directors for investigation. He was cleared of the charges and retained in his position. After investigation the Standard discovered the groundlessness of the charges and acknowledged that the persecution against Professor VanKirk was unjust.

      Another Butler College professor fell under criticism in 1898, in the person of E. S. Ames, professor of philosophy, on account of certain utterances made in an article in the New Christian Quarterly. He became pastor of the Hyde Park Church, Chicago, in 1900, and shortly after published a sermon entitled, A Personal Confession of Faith. No notice was taken of the sermon until two years after its publication, when, in connection with a sermon advocating "Associate Church Membership," he was denounced by the editors of the Standard as a Unitarian and apostate from the accepted teachings of the Disciples, and [320] pronounced unworthy of fellowship among them. The church of which he was pastor was called upon to dismiss him or acknowledge its agreement with his opinions. The church took action in a series of resolutions declaring its loyalty to the doctrinal position of the denomination, and affirming its right to liberty in local church government, as well as in doctrinal matters not involving the essential teachings of Christianity.

      The missionary societies did not entirely escape the influence of these controversies. Moved by the conviction that the persons who were known to be friendly to the new learning were dangerous to the well-being of the churches, the editors of the Christian Standard sought to commit the American Society against them by calling upon its secretary, B. L. Smith, to sign a statement disavowing all sympathy with the higher critics or disposition towards the employment of such persons in its service. Inspired by their success with the secretary [321] of the American Society they turned their attention to the Board of Church Extension and asked its secretary, George W. Muckley, to assure the churches by a public statement that he would have no fellowship with men suspected of sympathy with the higher criticism. By this time many men of influence thought they saw danger in making the missionary societies parties to theological controversies, and protested against the action of the editors of the Standard. The Extension Board and other societies concluded that it was not in their province to pass judgment upon the orthodoxy of their servants, and that it was not in the province of a newspaper to require it of them.

      These controversies have been the nearest approach to "heresy trials" among the Disciples in recent years. There being no court of inquiry outside of the local churches, a heresy trial in the usual sense and form as carried on in some other bodies, has never [322] been known among them. The newspapers have usually assumed the functions of prosecutor of errorists and defender of the faith. Since it is not always possible in such trials, where there is no authority over the accused to secure his appearance in his own defense or carry out any decision with reference to him, heretics prosecuted by newspapers have usually gone unpunished except in the suspicion and prejudice awakened against them in the churches.

      Involved in all of these controversies was the appeal to the principle of Christian liberty or freedom of opinion, which had always been the boasted and peculiar possession of the Disciples. A larger liberty of thought and opinion was one of the first principles laid down in the Declaration and Address. Liberty to think and differ with one another upon many truths of Christianity was a sacred privilege demanded and accorded by all the great leaders. It was felt to have a place in the discussion and [323] settlement of the new questions concerning biblical criticism.

      The discussion of all the learned problems connected with these controversies was carried on in the weekly newspapers, and laid before all the people of the churches for their perusal. It was felt by many persons to be unwise if not injurious to introduce the technicalities of these discussions to the unlearned. As an outlet for the discussion of all modern biblical, theological, and philosophical questions, the Congress of the Disciples was organized and met for the first time in St. Louis in 1899. It has served as a clearing-house for many of these controverted questions, and has been the means of a better understanding among the conservative and progressive elements.

      The Disciples have never forgotten that their special mission among the various Protestant denominations was to teach them the desirability, and if possible, show them the [324] way to Christian unity. Their own anomalous position as a separate communion, looked upon as a sect among the sects, they have never accepted as justifiable or final. Their separation from the Baptists they laid at the door of the Baptists, and would not be held responsible for it, because it was a recourse which they did not choose and never willingly consented to. Since the separation they have constantly proclaimed Christian union as a duty and as the goal of their mission in Christendom. Many conferences have been held between the Disciples and Baptists, and the Disciples and Congregationalists, to discuss the differences which separated them, and the principles and terms on which union could be consummated.

      A conference to consider the union of Baptists and Disciples was held at Richmond, Virginia, in April, 1866, attended by J. B. Jeter, A. M. Poindexter, W. F. Broaddus, and others on the part of the Baptists; and W. K. Pendleton, J. W. Goss, J. Duval, [325] W. H. Hopson, and others on the part of the Disciples. Party spirit between the two bodies ran high in Virginia from the days of the separation, and was intensified by the publication in 1854 of an attack upon the position of the Disciples by J. B. Jeter, in a book entitled, Campbellism Examined. Numerous replies were made, the most elaborate of which was by Moses E. Lard in a book published in 1857, called, A Review of Campbellism Examined. The books were not designed to moderate the spirit of opposition between the two bodies. The proposal which led to the conference at Richmond originated with W. F. Broaddus and was quickly endorsed by J. W. Goss on the part of the Disciples. The conclusion deliberately yet reluctantly reached by the conference and published to the two bodies in the state of Virginia was: "That the time has not yet come when the Baptists and Disciples are, on both sides, prepared, with a prospect of perfect harmony, [326] to commit themselves with any degree of cooperation beyond such courtesies and personal Christian kindnesses as members of churches of different denominations may individually choose to engage in." Similar conferences were held in different states, as in North Carolina, in December, 1868, between the Disciples, Free Baptists, and Union Baptists.

      The second half of the nineteenth century witnessed the rise of a notable interest in the question of Christian union among all the larger Protestant denominations. In 1853 arose the Memorial Movement in the Protestant Episcopal Church which was designed as an important step "towards the effecting of a church unity in the Protestant Christendom of our land." In 1863 the "Christian Union Association" was organized in New York as an effort on the part of sympathetic spirits of the leading Protestant denominations "to diffuse the great principles of Christian union." In 1864 the [327] "Christian Unity Society" was organized within the Protestant Episcopal Church. By 1880 the Disciples were not alone in their prayer for Christian union. The appeal began to be heard in all the denominations. The Disciples are to be credited with some influence in the revival of this new enthusiasm, but to the Protestant Episcopal Church belongs the larger credit for the consideration Christian union has received in American religious thought during the last twenty-five years. The Memorial Movement bore fruit in a Declaration Concerning Unity, promulgated by the House of Bishops at Chicago, in 1886. After submitting the so-called "Quadrilateral Basis" of union as the essential foundation of a true, catholic, apostolic church, they closed by announcing: "We hereby declare our desire and readiness, so soon as there shall be any authorized response to this declaration, to enter into brotherly conference with all or any Christian bodies seeking the restoration [328] of the organic unity of the church, with a view to the earnest study of the conditions under which so priceless a blessing might happily be brought to pass."

      This Declaration was transmitted to the General Convention of the Disciples which met at Indianapolis in 1887. A committee consisting of Isaac Errett, J. W. McGarvey, D. R. Dungan, J. H. Garrison, B. J. Radford, C. L. Loos, and A. R. Benton, was appointed to draw up a reply. The reply consisted in a statement of the principles and basis of union advocated by the Disciples. The Episcopalians submitted a description of themselves as a basis of union, and the Disciples responded with a description of themselves. Both bodies submitted bases which they regarded as "incapable of compromise or surrender." It is not surprising that nothing further came of this correspondence in the way of "brotherly conferences." It was a foregone conclusion that each would be content [329] with nothing but the absorption of the other, or a remodelling of the other, after its own pattern as the final goal of a union.

      As ended this correspondence, so has ended every correspondence and conference between the Disciples and other denominations looking to a union, except the conference which issued in the union of the Christians and Disciples in 1832. That was a union by agreement in doctrine and practice. Yet a union between the Disciples and Baptists or Free Will Baptists, has never been possible, notwithstanding their essential agreement in doctrine and practice. The poor success attending the union efforts of the Disciples, and the slow acceptance of their principles by other denominations, during the last hundred years, has led a large and influential group among them to the conclusion that something more immediate and practicable than a program of union by doctrinal and formal [330] agreement should be attempted by the present generation. It has resulted in a more cordial and appreciative attitude of the Disciples towards other bodies, and in the conviction that the closely related denominations could and should enter into cooperation with each other in many social and civic, missionary and evangelistic movements, which would not interfere with the freedom or integrity of each other's denominational life and activity. They have rejoiced in the growing spirit of fraternity among the churches in recent years manifested in the various union movements, such as the Young Men's Christian Association, Young People's Society of Christian Endeavor, Sunday-school Associations, League of Church Federation, and Union Evangelistic Meetings, and have freely participated in all of them. Many are feeling that since the Disciples have been preaching Christian union for nearly a hundred years without tangible results, it [331] is time now to practice it as a method of promotion.

      There has come to some of the best spirits of the denomination a new and intense appreciation of its mission as a Christian union movement. They feel that its chief justification for existence as a separate body lies in what it can contribute towards the union of Christians in this generation. They are not content to wait for the consummation of a far-off, ideal union in some future generation, but desire to prepare the way for it by a larger cooperation and freedom of relationship with other bodies in the present generation. The leaders in this reviving sense of obligation to the principle and practice of Christian union are J. H. Garrison and Herbert L. Willett, who are doing all they can as editors of the Christian Evangelist and Christian Century, respectively, to inspire the denomination with this new eagerness for a united church. There is no disposition on their [332] part to abate the insistence upon a return to primitive Christianity as the principle of a true consensus, but primitive Christianity is receiving a larger meaning and a new emphasis. It is no longer held to be in its essence a form of public worship or a method of church organization, but an attitude of the human spirit in all of its social relationships, as child of God and brother of man.

      There is new hope for union in the increasing agreement among all Christians to regard Christianity as something essentially spiritual and ethical, and therefore universal and practical. The hope of a universal unity lies in the spiritual. The one lesson of this history is, that the letter destroys unity while the spirit makes it alive. [333]

[TDOC 304-333]