The condensed summary of American church history in Chapter Two was presented because every informed Disciple in Canada acknowledges the persons and events there as part of his religious background. They were recorded as preliminary to the theme--"The Disciples of Christ in Canada Since 1830."

      The development of the American churches of Christ down to date is a story that belongs particularly to themselves, and only generally to Canadian minds. Several major histories of the American scene have served the informed minds in America, but if at all, they have touched but lightly their remoter Canadian brethren. Our sources of light have been four: journalism, visits of American leaders, attendance at International Conventions, and the official contacts which Canadian churches very largely have had with American promotion agencies, the most familiar of them being the Home and Foreign Christian Missionary Society which, since 1920, has been succeeded by the United Christian Missionary Society. These have promoted acquaintance more thoroughly than can perhaps be imagined, let alone recorded.

      Therefore for the readers of this Canadian religious effort who desire to know something, or more, of American developments, a very brief sketching of the Disciples' activities after 1832, is now offered. Subject as this must be to the laws governing historical perspective and the foreshortening of a figure, it is suggested that any reader's interest which may be aroused, will be rewarded by a first hand acquaintance with acknowledged historical sources. Our Canadian story is the present duty. Yet, illustrative developments in the American scene, are chosen because they reveal the co-operation on both sides of the international line which divide two very unequal parts of a great religious body, existing agreeably in adjoining countries. This unity-in-diversity situation, in a word, is likely unique in religious history, and it may be a reason for increased interest on that account. A complete resumé of American beginnings, therefore, cannot be expected here. [28]

      Let us consider the position of the early Kentucky and Pennsylvania churches, which united dramatically on January 1, 1832, through chosen leaders. Not a document to register the decision is of record: it was a fraternal and verbal re-grouping in a mass meeting, or several of them. There were no 'synods' nor 'associations', or other organized groups, to formulate methods of forms of progress. The Disciples and Christians who united under these two names did not even agree on one fixed name, but they used "Church of Christ" as official designation of their churches. But in the realm of Christian fellowship they were perfectly 'at one'. Historically, to find a counterpart to fix the next move suggests that of the ten tribes of Israel when they entered into the Promised Land, after long and uncertain wanderings, later to achieve through life and conflict the usages and amenities of the Jewish race and religion. The Disciples had not a prophet who foresaw the marvellous development that followed and which it is difficult to sketch in brief terms.

      Dr. W. E. Garrison deals with the period that followed the release of the Disciples and Christians from the embarrassment of association which they had in vain tried to maintain whilst under association with another religious body. He states:

      "By 1833 the Disciples had been pretty thoroughly eliminated from the Baptist churches, to the number of something like twenty thousand members, nearly all in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Their most important accomplishments during the next two decades were: the growth of a conscious fellowship and the sense of being a united group; the union with the greater part of the western 'Christian' churches; the development of institutions, customs, and procedures by which their common life and purpose could be expressed; and a remarkable increase in numbers and geographical extent".--(An American Religious Movement, p. 90, Bethany Press, St. Louis, Mo.)

      These leaders--Stone and Campbell--met first in 1824, when each one was pursuing union by different routes. Campbell's aim was to destroy the entrenched errors which ecclesiasticism had forced upon the simple vital terms of Christianity, and he was careful always to use Bible terms in religious discussion. Stone, on the other hand, was a man possessed of the spirit--of Christianity rather than being over-careful of its forms. He wished [29] men to cultivate a sense of the love of God and to strive for its place in their affairs. Yet, we cannot assert that he was a deeper Christian than A. Campbell, but only a different one. For one thing, his group had to discover New Testament baptism through loyalty to the Word, as they found it. On the name, Stone favored "Christian" and the organization of the group as the "Church of Christ". Campbell stood for "Disciples" (the "disciples were first called Christians at Antioch"); but here they agreed to differ within unity, since both names are in the Book, as are other designations of Christ's followers. The "Christians" too, were in the practice of admitting to membership in their churches those unimmersed, esteeming the fact of loyalty to Christ as sufficient. In time, Stone agreed with Campbell about baptism by immersion, and so practised it. Because both leaders spoke of religious states in the Bible terms, both were accused of being other than they were. Stone was said to be a Unitarian, because he would not preach Trinitarian formulas. Conclusion was reached in this way: if he is not a Trinitarian, he must be a Unitarian. The differences were harmonized between the two leaders, but the "Christians" were a cause of stumbling to the Baptists in the Reformation. Let us think of B. W. Stone as a man who held that one might be a good Christian through holding erroneous theological doctrines: that brotherliness, good will, helpfulness, and devotedness count for more than mental concepts of the Christian life.

      Another difficulty that the two leaders, and their followers, had to resolve was a difference over 'open communion', as well as receiving the unimmersed. (This means admitting to the Lord's Supper other Christians not immersed.) In spite of 'differences', the representatives of the two bodies met on January 1, 1832, at Lexington, Kentucky, and dramatically gave to each other the hand of fellowship in a scene unequalled in interest. It was Barton W. Stone and 'Raccoon' John Smith who shook hands. But the real union was to come later and was completed in 1835. The associates of B. W. Stone (for Stone's function was increasingly that of an editor, rather than an active or acknowledged leader of the group), brought into the union a number of 'Christian' Churches, but some of the Ohio and New England groups remained outside. These, as late as the year 1929, united with the Congregationalists. Stone's Christian Messenger was a power in effecting reform.

      Alexander Campbell in his Biblical theology, announced a view long put forward by others, that one thing, one thing only, was necessary to salvation, namely faith. But, he placed upon this a relationship which [30] Paedobaptist leaders never urged. Campbell's statement was that "the belief of one fact is all that is requisite to salvation; as far as faith goes, the belief of this one fact and submission to one institution expressive of it, is all that is required of Heaven is admission to the Church. The one fact is expressed in the simple proposition, that Jesus the Nazarene is the Messiah. The one institution is baptism."

      Out of this decision has often arisen the question, can an unimmersed person be a Christian? A lady wrote to Mr. Campbell from Lunenburg, Va., in 1837, about the matter. His reply is a memorable one, quoted from the Millennial Harbinger. He wrote:

      "Who is a Christian? I answer, everyone that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sins and obeys him in all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will . . .

      "I cannot make any one duty the standard of Christian state or character, not even immersion . . .

      "It is the image of Christ the Christian looks for and loves, and this does not consist in being exact in a few items, but in general devotion to the whole truth as far as known.

      "There is no occasion, then, for making immersion, on a profession of the faith, absolutely essential to a Christian--though it may be greatly essential to his sanctification and comfort."

      This outspoken expression (seemingly of heart as well as mind) on the part of this great leader, reveals his breadth and ability to see afar. As such, for example, it would seem incompatible with the mind of Walter Scott; but as given by Campbell it reveals him at a new stature. He did not announce it as such, but some leader may arise who will see in it a germ of truth that may assist in finding a new platform for the divided house of religion.

      One powerful and prolific source of energy and propaganda for the new cause was launched by Mr. Campbell in 1830, immediately upon the withdrawal of the Christian Baptist. It was the Millennial Harbinger, a monthly magazine printed on his own press at rural Bethany. Its aim was different from the earlier journal. It was devoted to presenting a constructive program for curing the ills from which the churches suffered. It [31] became a news medium also. Its millennial feature was not such as is generally understood by use of that name, but "the triumph of the kingdom of God upon earth," when the Church should be purified and united. Mr. Campbell was editor for thirty years, until near his death in 1866. The journal had and has a great influence, and is today a source of history.

      Before leaving the Campbells, who eventually became memories in the volume of membership expansion, a few words are needed to suggest the great stature of Alexander Campbell as manifested by his mental acumen, range of knowledge, and passion for truth, and some sense of the position he won on the American continent through his principles, his sermons, his books and his other contacts with the public.

      Archibald McLean (name still dear to countless thousands) left two small volumes on the Campbells, and the opening sentences from one of them is here quoted:

      "Alexander Campbell was a many-sided man. He was an author and editor. Sixty volumes have his name on their title pages. He founded a college and was its president for a quarter of a century. He taught regularly all those years. He was a defender of the faith as he held it. He had oral discussions lasting for days with John Baptist Purcell, a Roman Catholic bishop, with Robert Owen, of Lanark, the Secularist, and with several other of the strong men of their time. He had written discussions with sceptics, Jews, Unitarians, Universalists, Baptists and Pedo-baptists. These discussions covered nearly all questions relating to Christian doctrine and to church polity. Mr. Campbell was a man of affairs. He married and raised a family. He was the father of fourteen children. He managed a large business and made money. He served the state that adopted him. He was a member of the constitutional convention of Virginia. He sat in council with ex-president Madison, with Chief Justice Marshall, with Randolph of Roanoke, and with many other of the illustrious men of the old commonwealth. Mr. Campbell was a conversationalist worthy to rank with Luther and Johnson and Macaulay and Coleridge. He preached in most of the states of the Union, in Canada, and in Great Britain and Ireland." (Alexander Campbell as a Preacher, page 7, Fleming H. Revell Company, New York.)

      The evolution of the Disciples of Christ from 1830 to 1948, in its variety of checks and changes, its bitter differences and its abiding [32] fellowships, would take much space to portray. What follows are some highlights and points for further study and interest.

      The problems arising from expansion in the body caused no small concern. As the consciousness in the power of evangelism grew, the possibilities grew with it. Doubtless there were differing viewpoints, but it became evident that a growing body would give rise to new responsibilities. The trend of migration was westward, and so the Churches of Christ followed the frontiers as they altered. An innate dread of a large religious body has always hedged the Disciples, which view the pioneers somewhat consciously implanted. A pioneer church saw Christian duty as becoming a Christian and thereafter walking worthily of one's calling. Much more seems to be involved in our day. Our forefathers were timid because their origin was due to the excesses of ecclesiastical bodies, with creeds and overhanging lordship in matters of faith and church procedure. Therefore the Disciples by birth looked askance at numbers--and yet, the gaining of more disciples was the must command of Christ for His Church.

      The decision of the body broke through this distrust quite naturally--much as a chick cracks its shell. It was seen that effort must be made as strongly as possible, and "working together with God" (1 Cor. 3:9) was an impelling suggestion which may have helped. This Scripture seems to be the foundation of what the early churches called "a co-operation"--meaning united action, rather than a thing. There was great reluctance to do anything which might seem to detract from the prerogative of the Church, which was its glory. But, the Epistles spoke of "messengers of the churches", and so why might not 'messengers' charged with duties to perform do them in the name of the Church? This method would not impair its authority. The local church was deemed sovereign in its scope (and still is), regarding any duty whatsoever in the name of Christ. However, (somewhat after the spirit of the Sanhedrin) the 'messengers' were to be charged with remembering that they were deputies, with no power whatever to legislate, but that no voluntary 'expedients' should be introduced, only as they promoted co-operation. Mr. Campbell himself laid aside earlier prejudices against "schemes for denominational promotion", and urged a general and efficient co-operation in the Bible cause (translations), the missionary cause, and the educational cause. This became a permanent policy of the American churches about 1844. Canadian provinces were lagging here, but in Ontario there where strong supporters of the American Bible Union in 1854. [33]

      In Cincinnati, O., during October 24-28, 1849, 156 representatives from 100 churches situated in 11 States met as the first National Convention. It was to have been a 'delegate' convention, but as many well-known Disciples were present without credentials the rules were waived and the convention became a mass meeting. Years afterwards (in 1913, at the International Convention in Toronto) precisely the same result attended a later 'to-be-delegate' convention. At the 1849 meeting the great step was taken of forming the American Christian Missionary Society. Alexander Campbell was named president, (and he held office until his death about 16 years later): vice-presidents were D. S. Burnet, John O'Kane, John T. Johnson, Walter Scott. James Challen was appointed secretary, but was soon succeeded by D. S. Burnet. The Society's aim was to promote the gospel both at home and abroad. This occurred forty years after the issuing of the 'Declaration and Address'.

      The Society chose Jerusalem as their foreign objective and sent Dr. James T. Barclay, a classical scholar and physician, with his family to the place where the gospel was first preached. This was in 1850, and four years later they returned with the report that, under present conditions, nothing could be accomplished.

      A second choice was the education of a purchased slave, Alexander Cross, who was sent to his native Africa to preach. He fell a victim to fever in Liberia on landing. These two families re-acted against the new policy. Mr. Campbell's earlier criticism of 1823 of "modern missionary schemes" was resurrected and used against the Society of which he was president. Those who opposed were not anti-missionary, but merely anti-society. They believed the Church was being robbed of its function. It can be seen readily that this legalistic view is dependent upon belief as to the character of the New Testament, whether or not it is a fiat document (such as the decalogue of Moses) or an evolving record and guide to Christian effort for all time. This controversy still divides the heirs of the Restoration Movement.

      Growth became a habit, as it generally does where men's minds break through to new and challenging conceptions of duty. Evangelism became the central core of the Disciples' efforts everywhere. In this they felt they were following the Book of Acts. In time, other forms of co-operative effort were adopted as duty, notably through education, journalism, and public [34] debates. Some great speakers and leaders were developed and a few are here named: John Smith, Walter Scott, John Rogers, Samuel Rogers, Jacob Creath (father and son), Adamson Bentley, Tolbert Fanning, D. S. Burnet, Charles Louis Loos, Wm. Hayden, P. S. Fall, Benjamin Franklin--the last a journalist and author, whose life mission was made particularly effective in Canada in the 1870's. Of the first named--called popularly 'Raccoon' John Smith--Campbell said that he was "the only man who would have been spoiled by a university education". Another great name, among many, is that of Dr. Robert Richardson--who was the son of a friend of Walter Scott. He became a great Bible student and wrote for the Disciples a needed work: The Office of the Holy Spirit. His masterpiece was Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, in two volumes, to which all Disciple historians must defer. Benjamin Franklin set a style for preachers in his Gospel Preacher. His American Christian Review, in both the U.S.A. and Canada, influenced a restricted outlook that has helped to produce a sense of legalism in the presentation of the gospel, rather than the freedom manifested by Jesus himself and some of his Apostles.

      An educated ministry became a necessity owing to social development, and this aim recognized indicates some maturity. Their first College was named 'Bacon', after the English philosopher. It was situated at Georgetown, Kentucky later removed to Harrodsburg, in 1839, and was discontinued in 1850. It was revived as Kentucky University in 1856 and removed to historic Lexington, where it became Transylvania University. Its College of the Bible is the net result of this series of trial efforts. Fifteen colleges in all were founded before Civil War days. The ones best known in Canada are historic Bethany, 1841; Hiram, Ohio, 1849; Abingdon, Illinois, 1854; Butler, 1855; Eureka, Ill., 1855; Oskaloosa, Iowa, 1861--the last to become Drake University. Before the turn of the century special training for the student minister did not go beyond the Arts, but was later developed, along with modern trends in education. (A full list is published in another chapter.)

      It is a remarkable fact that the Civil War did not divide the Disciples but lesser issues did in the period between 1866 and 1875. W. E. Garrison lists them, as follows: "The principal topics which were discussed with greater or less heat during this period were these: open or close communion; [35] the title 'Reverend'; the one-man system of the pastorate; the alleged introduction of a creed; the use of the organ; and the missionary societies. Only the last two of these had any lasting importance as divisive issues. The first four merely illustrate the heightening tension between the strict constructionists and those who favored what they considered reasonable expedients to meet changed conditions." (Page 119, An American Religious Movement, The Bethany Press, St. Louis, Mo.)

      The American Christian Missionary Society was laying foundations widely and began its co-operative work in Canada in 1858, in the Maritime Provinces (document by Sarah B. Dorman.) It is still helping Canada through its successor, the United Christian Missionary Society. But the anti-society complex was very persistent, although it was urged not against the Society, but the idea of a Society at all. A compromise called the 'Louisville Plan' became unanimously adopted in 1869. It took the place of a Society and established a system of general, State, and district conventions, with boards, secretaries, treasurers, springing from and reporting to the three levels of Conventions. 'Scriptural' or not, it was found to be impractical, and annual receipts fell off from $10,000 to $4,000 for the next decade. Eventually the Brotherhood returned to the Society.

      In the impasse of the controversial period a great leader arose. This is another confirmation of the fact that in crises of humanity the necessary leader is thrown up as by Fate or Providence. The leader in this instance was Isaac Errett, a son of an elder of the Haldane congregation in New York. In time he was to become probably the best known American name in the Brotherhood in Canada, outside of the Campbells. He had been a co-laborer with Campbell in his later years upon the Millennial Harbinger, had been secretary of the American Christian Missionary Society and even a president of the Convention. He saw a clear way to influence the course of the Brotherhood was by a new publication. He therefore instituted the Christian Standard, having General James A. Garfield as one of his sponsors. Its first issue was from Cleveland, Ohio, and it is significant that it contained in its first issue, notice of the death of Alexander Campbell, on March 4, 1866. Here we can see history turning upon its appointed axis.

      Under its founder the Christian Standard became a journal devoted to the advocacy of a Christian religion conceived in human terms yet owning the enlightenment of the Spirit for their highest interpretation. Against this liberating influence were two strong journals arrayed--the Gospel Advocate [36] and B. Franklin's American Christian Review. Franklin's journal, interpreted here in Canada, made a deep entrance to minds that coveted a narrow legalism in restriction to the Spirit that is superior to the 'letter'. The effects of this journal were perhaps greater in the Maritime provinces (See Chapter 8). Mr. Errett contributed also to the Brotherhood, possibly the tract most widely used and known to elders.

      W. E. Garrison in his An American Religious Movement already quoted, summarizes our history with regard to numbers, as follows:

      "The total numerical growth from 1849 to 1874 was not merely substantial; it was amazing. By the middle of the nineteenth century, after twenty years of separate existence, the Disciples had about 118,000 members. In the 1850-60 decade their numbers were almost doubled, to 225,000. For 1870, the figure is given as 350,000. By 1875 it was probably close to 400,000. This growth is -the more remarkable because it was accomplished with every little help from promotional organizations and with very little general planning."

      During long indecisive years, from 1866 to 1900 or later, the Disciple body came through a period of controversy, with some stagnation arising, but it also had within it a defining purpose which Time had required to provide. Subjects of dispute were the use of societies, in the church and out of it, instrumental music in worship (the most disturbing of all); the pastor system, and later on open membership, and the question of entering federations, such as the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ, which was agreed to in convention in October, 1907. In Canada the question of whether or not the elders should rule in all matters, instead of by obtaining a majority membership vote, caused a number of splits. The movement toward division was marked by the use of such terms as "loyal" churches, or preachers, who were often so publicized. Under the stress of such agitations parties were formed and leadership of them developed naturally upon certain journalists and their organs. Even the question of a church using a Sunday School as an adjunct to its work was felt by some to be a "human" error--since no definition of such a work could be found within the pages of the New Testament. But churches were split upon this--and new ones formed in support--and this was sometimes tangled with the question of "one cup" or many at the Lord's Supper. [37]

      Some root of difference in conception of the values of the New Testament may be traced perhaps to the use by Thomas Campbell, in his Declaration and Address, of the word "constitution" as a description of the scope of the New Testament for the Church. He asserted that the New Testament was the constitution of the Church as the Mosaic law was the constitution of the Jewish system. It may be observed that certain books, or parts of the five books of Moses, are characterized by very positive laws, directions and inhibitions: the New Testament contains almost nothing of the sort: except in matters of moral or spiritual counsel. It is very doubtful that Thomas Campbell had such a conception. Of recent years it has been the habit of this certain school proudly to refer to the New Testament as the "blueprint" of the Christian Church. Again, there is an overstepping of the meaning involved. An architect's blueprint is a "specification" in exact terms of measurement of every portion of a building to be erected. While both the old Law and the New Testament are documents of great spiritual force and direction, the New Testament parts company with those who look within for a systematically devised church, to be operated according to a fixed schedule or ordinances for all time.

      An example of the breakdown of such claims has been afforded by Alexander Campbell himself. Like others he desired to find in the New Testament a perfect system of worship on the Lord's Day. He could find in Acts and the Epistles plenty of warrant for the breaking of bread by the disciples, for baptism in water for the penitent confessor, and suggestions that the first Christians used at will, prayer, song, reading of Scriptures, and even listened to long sermons without a schedule being suggested. And when Mr. Campbell desired to propose an appropriate order of worship and procedure, he "drew from the pages of my memorandum book" a scheme of Christian worship (Christian System, 1835 ed., p. 329). Such a recommendation as that may have caused many, it is hoped, to revise their idea of the purpose of the New Testament. Another reference may be quoted from experience in Canada. James Beaty, Sr., of Toronto, was one who claimed that "we should do all things according to the law of God." When goaded by George Munro, then editor of the Canadian Evangelist, (1888), to produce an oft-claimed warrant for the order of Scriptural worship, he brought forth merely an imagined order of the elements previously mentioned, but with no proof of authority for the order claimed. [38]

      A certain climax in disagreement was attained when certain brethren, 'working out of Nashville, Ten.', secured from the government of the U.S.A. permission to enroll their groups under the name "Churches of Christ", and this has been effective ever since.

      Thus, a vital disunion became apparent in a religious body whose origin and aim was to unite and purify the Church of God in all its practices. One question involved, but not discussed here, is whether this action was right in a religious body, conceived in the spirit of unity, to divide--not over matters of necessary faith but of mere opinion. No census action has been taken in Canada, though the associated division occurs, but without dissension and with some fellowship. Some day, it is hoped, a reconciliation, with adjustments, may be attained.

      Since the 20th century arrived the question of 'open membership' has arisen, involving the admission of an unimmersed person into local membership. Actually this move has not been widely followed in the U.S.A., yet in 1920 it became an issue in the Convention. It was followed by the setting up of a conservative convention and conservative missionary, benevolent, and educational agencies. A. T. DeGroot, in his excellent Grounds of Divisions Among Disciples of Christ (Chicago, 1940) quotes W. E. Garrison as saying that "In a denomination that has never professed to have any solidarity except such as results from and expresses itself as fellowship and actual co-operation in the advancement of common ideals, this comes near to constituting an effective division." (DeGroot proved conclusively in his book "that the principle of restoring a fixed pattern of a primitive Christian Church is divisive and not unitive.)" (Grounds of Division Among the Disciples of Christ pp. 8 and 220.)

      But another sort of unity, based not upon the letter but the spirit of Revelation, still resides in the Bible. Some day this light will break forth from its pages when the scholarship of the Church has devised it. It may, perhaps, arrive in time to be a factor in the evolution toward real unity in diversity, which the Christian Church in many countries is now experiencing. [39]

      With the withdrawal of the American Christian Missionary Society from the foreign field the Society could do more in spreading the influence of the church in the American west and did so. Of course the Society was but a part of the total effort, the results were as an increase in membership of 400,000 in 1875 to 641,000 for 1890; to 1,120,000 for 1900; and 1,363,533 for 1910. The evangelistic forces were here operating in a virgin developing field, beyond new and expanding frontiers. In this long period (its length must be noted) the results of growing and powerful journalistic influence was seen in the removal of the Christian to St. Louis, in January, 1874, under the leadership of J. H. Garrison, who later merged it with the Evangelist (B. W. Johnson's paper) in 1882. His conservative yet progressive policy had for many years a strong influence for stability and progress. There was harmony with Isaac Errett's paper, the Christian Standard, and both leaders worked together for progress and served the cause mightily.

      Devoted women, led by Mrs. C. N. Pearre, of Iowa City, Ia. formed the Christian Women's board of Missions in 1874. It organ was the Missionary Tidings. By 1909 there were 60,000 adult members and two and a half million dollars had been raised for the promotion of the cause.

      In 1875 the Foreign Christian Missionary Society came into being. It had a slow growth at first. But in 1881 Archibald McLean began to give his whole time, and work in foreign lands was opened up. J. H. Garrison in 1881 added the stimulus of Children's Day. Japan was entered in 1883, China in 1886, the Belgian Congo in 1897, Cuba in 1899. A. McLean's work here is emphasized elsewhere.

      The American Society began to operate a plan of making loans to new and weak churches, as well as later on to important city churches. The name of George W. Muckley is associated with this enterprise of building for the Lord.

      The National Benevolent Association, 1887, grew from a local institution in St. Louis, Mo. to a long list of institutions for children, old people and the needy. Financial aid for ministers was found through the Board of Ministerial Relief, but this has long been surpassed by the launching of the adequate Pension Fund scheme on January 1, 1931. [40]

      Early in this century the Christian Women's board developed a number of 'Bible chairs' in universities. The idea was useful where Bible colleges did not exist; but they had small effect in producing a trained ministry. Later more modern methods beckoned the Disciples, who were growing in several ways, owing to stresses of the times. Older universities had developed great theological departments; it began to be discovered that 'Disciple' colleges as such were insufficient, though necessary. The step was to use State or endowed institutions that could function better in great areas of learning such as theology, philosophy, and psychology, leaving the purely religious 'Disciple' and other schools to develop their students along their own lines. So a well-established trend was begun, that has never stopped, taking Disciple students to such universities as Yale, Union, Harvard, Princeton, Hartford, Vanderbilt, and later to Chicago (Disciples Divinity House, part of University of Chicago.) The Disciples now control 25 educational institutions whose standards meet the high requirements of their Board of Higher Education (see chapter 11.) Canadian ministerial students owe much to this development, in America, and also in Canada. The affiliation of even a Disciple lectureship with the University, Toronto, has helped.

      There is liberality in the Disciple fold which permits opposite views to be held without violation of fellowship. Is this the result of carrying forward the ideas of the original thinkers in Kentucky and Pennsylvania? At any rate, it is in harmony with their aims. Most of the institutions of the Disciples have been merged in an institution called "The United Christian Missionary Society." This was successfully launched in 1919. F. W. Burnham was its first president. The operations of this Society are reported to an annual International Convention, and there, as in a forum, the influence or control of the entire Brotherhood of churches of Christ co-operating within it is exercised and felt. In no feeling of pride, yet in humble thankfulness for what has been accomplished, the following figures are quoted from the Year Book of the Disciples of Christ for 1945.

1. The total world membership of Disciples of Christ is 1,849,591, an increase over 1944 of 3,762. [41]
2. The total membership in United States and Canada is 1,707,028, an increase of 19,095.
3. A. The total number of baptisms reported for United States, Canada and foreign countries is 55,037, an increase of 2,549.
   B. Baptisms reported for the United States and Canada--50,607, an increase of 2,412.
   C. Baptisms reported in foreign countries--4,430, an increase of 150.
   D. Illinois churches report the largest number of baptisms for any State 4,881, an increase of 1,067, compared with Illinois baptisms last year.
4. A. Total number of churches reported throughout the world, 8,926--an increase of 21.
   B. For the United States and Canada-total number of churches 8,004, an increase of 6.
5. Total number of ministers in the United States and Canada--7,854, an increase of 82.
6. Total monies given by the United States and Canada to the national boards reporting to the International Convention, including miscellaneous missionary benevolent and emergency relief offerings, amounts given to the Christian Church Widows and Orphans Home of Kentucky, and State development funds in Oklahoma and Missouri, amount to $8,759,872.65, an increase of $2,742,110.90, or 45.57 p.c. Included in this amount is $428,252.09 contributed by the churches as Wartime Service Fund gifts. This makes an average of $5.20 per member in the United States and Canada, against $3.58 per member last year and for the 8,004 churches in the United States and Canada, an average of $1,094.43, an increase of $342.02. For the 5,872 contributing churches in the United States and Canada, the average is $1,491.80--an increase of $474.43.
7. The total amount given by the churches in the United States and Canada, including individual gifts applying on budgets, including also miscellaneous missionary benevolent and emergency relief offerings, $4,487,939.33, an increase of $1,017,957.27. This makes an average of $560.71 per church against $438.85 last year, an average for the 5,872 contributing churches of $764.29, against $586.64 last year. The total given does not include the $428,252.09 contributed by the churches to the War-Time Fund. [42]

      It will be observed that the Scriptural and catholic elements of the make-up of the Disciples of Christ indicate the beginnings of a World Brotherhood or organization. From the Year Book, 1946, p. 658, the following list is printed, in which thirty-nine countries have churches, according to last reports. They are Australia, Argentina, Belgian Congo, Bulgaria, Bessarabia (Russia), Canada, China, Czecho-Slovakia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Great Britain, Hawaiian Islands, Hungary, India, Japan, Jamaica, Korea, Liberia, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Norway, New Hebrides, New Zealand, Nyasaland, Poland, Philippine Islands, Paraguay, Puerto Rico, Roumania, Rhodesia, Russia, Siam, Tasmania, Tibet, Union of South Africa, United States, Yugoslavia.

      Chapters Two and Three have provided a resume of the early history and development of the Disciples of Christ in America. This history is to a large extent the background also of the cause in Canada, and is necessary in order to relate Canada to her large religious neighbor. While this brevity is unavoidable for this work, the reader is directed to other histories of American origin which are full and explicit. And as this work is being compiled, in the U.S.A. another history is in the making--the work of two scholarly historians, Dr. A. T. DeGroot and Dr. W. E. Garrison. Their large book is titled "The Disciples of Christ: a History". For the first time in such histories Canada worthily appears in an appropriate section.

      Certain differences in viewpoint divide the heirs of the Campbellian Reformation and prevent complete fellowship, co-operation and progress. Recognition of these differences has gained since 1934 the attention of a Brotherhood Commission on Re-study. From its report at Columbus, O. Convention in August, 1946, some facts are presented, and quote marks are used where the language is given in full. Ever since the need for a withdrawal from the Baptists in 1830 (Chapter 2) the Disciples have been compelled to continue their pursuit of ideals as a separate people. We then believed ourselves as a movement amidst the universal Church and scarcely have lost that belief. But, in order to maintain our witness for Scriptural standards in faith and practice, we have had to act unitedly as congregations, and by delegation, and co-operation, endeavor to do our largest share of work for the kingdom of Christ. These efforts have been regarded by [43] some as a departure from the original faith. Now follow some notes of the Commission.

      Denomination or Movement: "It is agreed that at our inception we were a movement rather than a denomination; that historically we have endeavored to avoid denominational status; and that to be content with occupying a status as one among many denominations is to abandon our attempt to realize unsectarian Christianity." "Some hold that we must therefore refuse any denominational status"; others, that we are compelled by the existing order of Protestant denominations to be a denomination, while at the same time protesting against denominationalism. Still others, probably few, hold that in the process of history, we have become a denomination, possessing peculiarities identifying us with other bodies."

      Local Church Autonomy: "We are agreed, from the beginning we have emphasized the autonomy of the local church. Some among us hold that agencies and conventions, have a tendency to assume and exercise authority over the local churches. Others interpret the utterances and policies of the agencies and conventions as, in the main, the exercise of the responsibility of leadership, which the churches desire them to undertake, and to which the churches respond voluntarily, with no sense of restraint by official authority."

      The New Testament status: "It is agreed" as set forth elsewhere, "that the New Testament affords the sufficient basis and norm of evangelism and church life." "A difference exists in interpreting whether or not the New Testament (1) sets forth a divinely authoritative pattern or form of organization and that our duty lies in restoring that form; (2) Others recognize in the New Testament certain principles which inherently belong to any local church that calls itself Christian, but they do not find any evidence that the particular forms of organization or procedure in the primitive church, were authoritatively presented as a pattern which the Christian Church is obligated to reproduce in detail everywhere and throughout all time."

      In the relationship amongst local churches it is agreed "that the New Testament discloses a clear conception of the Church as distinguished from all local churches and a profound sense of interdependence among all the churches; but the New Testament gives no clear evidence of an organization of churches local in a general or connexional relationship." Some believe (1) they would deviate from the New Testament more by recognizing such a relationship, or (2)" consent to create a recognized agency as the [44] exclusive instrument for the united administration of our missionary, benevolent and other enterprises"; or (3), adopt such other attitudes as would give expression to a united conviction in relation to Christian Unity, or moral problems of our time. This would "leave the Brotherhood free to create any number of agencies for the expression of any or all the above ends as may seem expedient."

      Again, it is the belief that "the absence of an authoritative pattern leaves the churches free, and their relation to each other in the Church renders it their duty; (a) to create such agencies or organs as may be needed unitedly to carry on their missionary and benevolent enterprises and their plea for Christian Unity in the most adequate and responsible manner; and (b) to constitute a genuinely representative Convention or council through which the united voice of the Brotherhood may be expressed, provided always that such agencies or organizations and such conventions or councils, shall not be clothed with, nor allowed to assume, any independent authority over the churches and shall operate only under the consent of the churches."

      Another source of tension is the practice in certain U.S.A. churches of 'open-membership'; that is, they receive by transfer unimmersed Christians into their fellowship. The opposing belief to this is that to do otherwise is disloyalty to Christ, since the Church issuing the credentials recognizes the bearer as having full Christian standing. Disagreement here is a peril to unity. Other minor differences are held, all it is believed honestly.

      These differences are a dilemma and a regrettable commentary upon the development of a body arising to maintain purity in the Church and promote unity in all its councils. We all mourn their presence, and regard must be exercised for the opinions of others. History holds no brief for prophecy, but several facts should be recalled here. Religious differences (like all others) are to be tested by true standards, and Time must be invoked and allowed, together with fresh study, and patience. Such differences have long resided in the minds of certain people. Within the thought-grooves of European and N. American Christianity they have existed, and still persist to some extent. They are lagging elements in the incomplete Reformation of the sixteenth century. It is true that the Disciples or the Churches of Christ, have in these areas occupied a wide front opposed to [45] papalism, episcopacy and ecclesiasticism as forms of Church polity. All parties are agreed that the witness of the Disciples began in a deep search for truth, and what seems due at this stage is a revival of that search, begun long ago and apparently not finished. We can but continue to search for it in a tolerating spirit, and rather than assume that our early principles are at fault, check them again with what seem to be present ideals. Is it not evident that the essence of Christianity includes the belief that truth, liberty, and unity must yet emerge amongst the followers of the lowly Nazarene? That was His mind. [46]

[DCC 28-46]