INTRODUCTION

      We, as a particular body of Christian people use the term "Brotherhood" with rare abandon. It is possible that we do not often pause to consider the true meaning of the word. There are many other words in our language, which, because of their common usage, are accepted in the context in which they are spoken without any concern for their origin and true meaning. Maldwyn Edwards has written that "A Brotherhood of man presupposes the Fatherhood of God. If the divine Father of the human race is left out of the reckoning, there is no alternative bond of purely human texture strong enough of itself to hold mankind together."

      The philosophy of "Our Brotherhood" may be considered under these five headings which pose five somewhat potent and significant individuals of the same trade." This may be a carry over from the sublime tempo of the Middle Ages when the Trade Guilds flourished as associations of individuals carrying on the same kind of trade. The definition is hardly a satisfactory one for our purpose. But it may not be stretching the point too far to regard ourselves as being associated together in the business of the Kingdom of Heaven.

      Personally I do not like to think of the work of the Church as being conducted altogether along business lines; worse still to think of the work of the Church as being conducted as a business. This would bring us almost to the point of regarding human souls as a commodity.

      If, in the definition we substitute for the words "of the same trade" the words "of the same spiritual beliefs," "of the same Christian outlook," "committed to the same tasks," we may be nearer the mark. One of the purposes for which Jesus came into the world was to establish in human hearts a true Brotherhood of Man. This concept is somewhat difficult to define. Perhaps the concept of Brotherhood has its counterpart clearly expressed in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Here is an example of practical help, and an attitude of good neighbourliness was shown.

      No blissful theorising characterised this act of Brotherhood. The need was seen, and translated into action--prompt. intelligent and effective. It was left to the Priest and the Levite to theorise, and according to their masterly inactivity

the wounded man must surely have died. Perhaps this is a sketchy introduction to the theme of Brotherhood. But a Brotherhood is surely an aggregation of people, a whole human organism, having common interests, common beliefs, and common objectives. When we apply these factors to our Christian experience we relate these common interests, common beliefs, and common objectives, to spiritual matters involved in the work of the Kingdom of Heaven.

      If we regard ourselves as a Brotherhood of Christian people and our understanding of this matter goes no further than the comfort and convenience of regarding ourselves as a static organism, resting secure in the privileges of the Christian Faith, retaining them for our own purposes and satisfactions, basking in the sunshine of spiritual bliss, and failing to give out to others, that which we ourselves have received, then we have no Brotherhood at all. We are resting heavily upon the spiritual capital invested by our forefathers, and capital, if it is not used well, has an uncomfortable way of running out.

      If Brotherhood means one thing, it means sharing--sharing privileges, sharing opportunities, sharing responsibilities and sharing obligations.

Constitution.

      Personally, I abhor constitutions. They are usually rigid inflexible documents. which can only be altered to meet the needs of the situation, and to match the changing scene, by cumbersome and time-consuming processes.

      They provide a glorious let-out for those who enjoy a static situation and wish to do nothing about it. All they have to do is to fall back upon the excuses "Ah, we can't do, that--it's against the constitution." The masterly in-activity which follows is surrounded by the pious air of platitude.

      The constitution then becomes the instrument by which achievement is stultified and mediocrity is enthroned. At the other end of the line there is the group of active people who want to get something done, and may find the constitution a barrier. They try to buck the constitution--to get around it in some way. But this a frustrating process and they become discouraged and say "This is not for us--let us expend our energies in some other direction." Somewhere in this set-up there are those who find some delight and entertainment in debating the significance and interpretation of some of the clauses of the constitution. The finer legal points become a fascination, and the document itself, instead of being, a constructive framework within which an organism may work effectively, becomes the plaything for those whose minds revel in legal technicalities. In other words, those who rejoice in the comfort of the status-quo find in the constitution a, haven of refuge from the exigencies of change, and perhaps we are all a little resistant to change.

      But the Constitution of Churches of Christ in Victoria and Tasmania is none of these things, or certainly not all of them. It is not an inflexible document. It can be amended by Resolution of Conference, and hardly a year passes without some amendment being made. Our Constitution sets out the nature and scope of various Departments, Committees, and Auxiliaries. It defines functions and areas of operations. It establishes methods of election and appointment. It lays down certain basic rules for the conduct of debate and discussion, voting and so on. Without such a Constitution there would be no common ground for understanding on these matters, no uniformity of procedure, no singleness of purpose and possibly

chaos. The Constitution gives us shape, direction, focus and balance.

      If a Constitution is too flexible it becomes an idle farce; if it is too rigid it becomes a retarding influence. Somewhere in between these two extremes there is a happy medium, of common sense, and in the Constitution of Churches of Christ we have probably found it. The abuse of the Constitution, often by those who should know better, is no criterion of its ineffectiveness. It is a characteristic of human nature that we abuse some of our best institutions, but to discard them may be the first step towards mob rule on the one hand or autocracy on the other.

Committees.

      It can hardly be denied that more time is wasted by more people more often on Committees than in practically any other exercise of the present age.

      Certainly, there are many different reasons for having a large number--a dozen or more, assembled together on a Committee. But how many of these actually work, and how many merely sit on Committees?

      This is no idle question in an age of high tempo and rapid change, to say nothing of strong challenges. Far too many Committee men reach the peak of their service in coming along each month to hear the Secretary report on what has happened during the past month.

      It seems to me that the Secretary, more often than not, is the real worker on the Committee. Sometimes he may be the only worker. He shoulders the load of detail; he carries the responsibility; he takes the blame; and for the most part he remains in the background, when the bright beam of praise is being focused on results. Often his decisions must be made "on the spot" only to be criticised later in the placid air of retrospect.

      Committee membership is no criterion of service, even though it may in many cases be an indication of willingness to serve. Often it is a salve to a slightly active conscience, a desire to be identified in some way with Brotherhood activity, so long as this does not involve much sacrifice of time and effort, and above all, serious, measured, thinking. When a new member of a Committee ventures to make some constructive suggestions as to how some real results could be achieved in the work, there may be a tendency for the older members of the Committee (older in terms of years on the Committee) to be jolted out of their comfortable complacency to a recognition of their own relative inactivity. Whether the jolt is ever sufficient to be translated into action is the potent point.

      It takes some time to be really effective in Committee work. A long time to get a thorough understanding of what is involved in the work, and without this understanding it is difficult to make a real contribution. But surely understanding can only come from hard work, and diligent striving; it is no royal gift.

      This in itself is a difficulty, because it tends to build up a monopoly of experience among the few members who remain long enough to gain it. How many actually take the time and make the effort to gain a thorough understanding of the work and to be active in the real sense in accepting some definite responsibility.

      Is this all that should be said about Committees? Certainly not. There is no satisfactory substitute for the Committee system in modern affairs. There is an unmistakable trend in human affair away from individualism and towards the group, and this trend manifests itself in almost every walk

of life. In politics, in economics, in sociology, in science, in education and perhaps in religion, so that the most effective kind of action in these days is that which emanates from group thinking, in which there is a blend of opinion rather than the dominance of any one opinion. Rugged individualism is no symbol of virtue in this situation. In fact it can be a confounded nuisance.

      This is not to suggest of course, that the individualist has no further part to play in human affairs. It simply means that the contribution of the individualist should be made through the group. In the final analysis it will probably be more effective in this way. It will at least have the refinement of having passed through the screen of other opinion.

      The Committee, system is a truly democratic system, but we should remember that a democracy only really works when its members are well informed. An ill-informed or uninformed democracy may be a good deal worse than a well informed dictatorship.

      In our committee work we need to confront ourselves every now and then with the kind of assessment which brings into focus, not so much the attendance record (important though that is), but what has actually been done, and what is being planned as a continuing acceptance of responsibility.

Conference.

      Are Conferences worth while? This is not an easy question to answer with a straight forward yes or no. If you ask the question of me, I would have to ask some further questions.

      Show me the Agenda. Who attends?
      How broad is the representation?
      Who does what after the Conference is over?

      In Victoria there are many district Conferences during the year, apart from the Annual Conference at Easter. They are designed to formulate some local plans; to set some objectives for the way ahead; to give an account of stewardship for the time past; to enjoy the fellowship of kindred souls.

      This is a good thing especially for those who are taking a direct part and who therefore have to prepare something for submission to the Conference.

      It is a good thing for those who are appointed to preside over the proceedings. Chairmanship is an honourable and responsible function and imposes a discipline of its own. But if Conferences are merely pleasant get-togethers in which a number of platitudes are indulged in, and the difficult things are gently pushed aside, they may become an idle and somewhat pathetic indulgence, so far removed from the general body of members as to lose all real significance.

      I am not suggesting of course, that this is the case at any time, but we ought to bear in mind the possibilities. The fellowship of kindred souls is an uplifting experience, and a rich privilege of the Christian faith, and we should use it well.

      Stewardship and the need to account for it periodically, is a salutary reminder that we are not independent agents in the work of the Kingdom, but instruments of the Brotherhood which in turn accounts to God.

      What is the significance of resolutions of Conference?

      Conference has no authoritative, dictatorial power to impose its will on the Churches affiliated with it. Each Church congregation is an autonomy with a high degree of self government. Some may well ask, what is the significance of Conference decisions which are framed in the form of Conference resolutions.

      First of all these resolutions are reached by a truly democratic process. They are an attempt to express the mind of the majority, after careful and prayerful consideration and discussion on which different viewpoints are brought to bear.

      Usually the resolutions are accepted by the Churches because they are recognised to be wise decisions. They often constitute the one best way to do certain things and achieve certain objectives. To this end Conferences are coordinating bodies seeking always the best way to do the things to which we are committed in the work of the Kingdom of Heaven. Matters which are to be brought before Conference are the subject, for the most part of "Notices of Motion." All delegates have a prior knowledge of these matters and the opportunity to come prepared to deal with them intelligently.

      So far--so good. But what is the performance of delegates? Here is the record at a recent conference:

      a. 344 delegates could have been appointed.
          258 delegates were appointed.
          199 delegates attended at least one business session.
          59 delegates did not attend even one business session.

      b. of the 258 delegates who were appointed--
          26 attended 6 business sessions
          33               5
          40               4
          40               3
          27               2
          38               1
          59 did not attend any business session.

      c. Of the 258 delegates who were appointed--
          only 137 voted for the election of Conference Committees.

      And in the face of this some say that the government of our Church

affairs is in the hands of an hierarchy. Perhaps it deserves to be; but in spite of this dismal expression of delegated responsibility the hierarchy in our Brotherhood is a myth rather than a reality.

      It can only remain so, if we as a people, exercise our privileges and our responsibilities wisely and well.

Co-ordination.

      A flood of literature has come off the printing presses in the post-war years, extolling the virtues of co-ordination in a variety of business situations. The term co-ordination has become something of a catch word, holding a particular fascination for those who expound the techniques of organisation, human relationships, and efficiency in industry and commerce.

      When we apply the concept of co-ordination to our Brotherhood departments and committees I am inclined to think that we may be prone to over-emphasise its significance, and exaggerate its merit.

      In Victoria we have had, for several years a Committee on Coordination. I do not think we have accomplished anything under this heading worth putting on the record book.

      Departmental work is so distinct and diverse between one department and another, so clearly defined for the most part, and in the hands of at least some, in each case, who may be regarded as the core of experience, that co-ordination is almost a nebulous subject.

      There is naturally and automatically a certain degree of coordination. Brotherhood Departments do not compete with one another for Annual Offerings in the same month. Under a budget system, Churches are left to their own decision to allocate portion of their funds to the various departments in whatever proportion they deem fit. Monthly committee meetings

are so arranged that there is no clash between one department and another. At Conference, time for reports is so arranged as to provide as equitable an arrangement as possible for each Department. At District Conferences the whole Brotherhood story is unfolded rather than an undue emphasis on any one departmental activity.

      Perhaps this in itself is the answer to the question. Common sense has prevailed to prescribe the best course, and without this common sense there would surely be chaos; and a lessening of effectiveness, which would nullify much good effort. Co-ordination is a vital factor. But to make co-ordination an obsession, may be to defeat its very purposes. Certainly it is the kind of thing which makes cooperation more effective. Nothing is more wasteful of well-intentioned effort, than to have highly energised activity racing around in a frantic endeavour to be co-operative unless there is the over-riding element of co-ordination.

The Brotherhood Centre.

      The procurement of a city Brotherhood Centre is a step in the direction of intelligent co-ordination of work and activities. It is an adventure in great faith and confident expectation. It calls for an expression of true spirit of Brotherhood, a sharing of responsibilities and of privileges. It calls for vision, work and sacrifice.

      Co-operative effort is already being brought to bear upon the problems naturally associated with its most effective use. If the "centre" was deemed to reach the level of full effectiveness at the point where our departments and committees are more comfortably and conveniently housed, and weary travellers to departmental offices can put their feet up for a while, then the "centre" will fall short of the high hopes and aspirations held for it.

      Comfort and convenience can be purchased at a high cost--too high in relation to other claims upon our resources. Every opportunity has within it a challenge, and the challenge before us in this great venture is clear and unmistakable.

      This must be a true Brotherhood Centre, a place of real Christian fellowship. It cannot achieve all the range of worthy intentions in the short term. It is essentially a longer term project; one of continuing development. It will take time to develop the full effectiveness. The important thing is to have the objectives clearly in view, and to move steadily towards them. We can rely on the Committee of Management and the Finance Appeal Committee to lead us in these matters.

      Among the benefits which are obvious and which can be realised quickly are the centralising of offices and committee accommodation, a city literature room, fellowship and rest rooms, educational and social facilities. These have both a spiritual and material significance. They will be to the advantage of many people and many enterprises. There is also the unique opportunity of effective co-ordination of such functions among departments and committees as telephone service, typing pool, cashiering, accounting, preparation of financial statements and reports, purchasing and storing stationery, duplicating, packaging and mailing, and perhaps auditing.

      If we miss the real economies of this kind of co-ordination, together with the effectiveness and efficiency which should follow, stewardship of our resources will become an empty phrase, and some important potential advantages of the "centre" will be dissipated in what may be interpreted charitably

as lack of vision, or less charitably as a self centred interest of relevant groups.

      As Arnold Toynbee has said so challengingly--

      "The divine spark of creative power is still alive within us, and if we have but the grace to kindle that spark into flame, the stars in their courses shall not defeat our efforts to reach the goal of human endeavour."