ft 
 
 Alfred Williams Anthbny 
 
 Kinds and Kindliness 
 of 
 oo-operation. 
 
0y, OF rmlT^ 
 
 BR 517 .Ad iyi5 
 
 Anthony, Alfred Williams, 
 
 1860-1939. 
 Kinds and kindliness of co 
 
 operation 
 
 •3"i -soya aw jiAvo 
 
 Aq psjn^ooj iuo,v 
 
 INnowolOHd 
 
Kinds and Kindliness 
 
 OF 
 
 CO-OPERATION 
 
 Interdenominational Problems 
 
 By 
 ALFRED WILLIAMS ANTHONY 
 
 
 Chairman of the Commission on State and Local 
 
 Federations of the Federal Council of the 
 
 Churches of Christ in America, 
 
 Secretary of the Interdenominational 
 Commission of Maine. 
 
 THIRD REPEINT 
 
 Lewiston, Maine 
 
 1915 
 

JUST BY WAY OF PREFACE 
 
 The following pages were prepared as the basis of 
 an address to be given at the Eighth Annual Meet- 
 ing of the Home Missions Council, which was held 
 in New York City, January 12, 13 and 14, 1915, and 
 are printed in the Eeport of that Council. 
 
 The subject-matter has been presented by me in 
 varying forms, both oral and printed, on platforms 
 from Maine to Oregon, and in pamphlets of the 
 Interdenominational Commission of Maine and of 
 the Federal Council of Churches. My sufficient 
 apology for repetition is what seems to me the 
 necessity of giving ''precept upon precept; line upon 
 line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little", 
 until in some form these fundamental definitions and 
 underlying principles of cooperation become common 
 property. I alone am responsible for the printing 
 of these statements in the present form. 
 
 It is a useful service to promote an understanding 
 of terms and of the fields of action; it is a greater 
 to put into practice the principles of Christian 
 comity and cooperation. They who do the latter, 
 with kindliness and grace, become incarnations of 
 the spirit of Christ. 
 
 ALFEED WILLIAMS ANTHONY. 
 
 Lewiston, Maine. 
 
 Copies for distribution may be had gratuitously. 
 
INTERDENOMINATIONAL PROBLEMS 
 
 Federations Function in Four Different Spheres. 
 
 First. — In the national sphere, wherein the units 
 are national, denominational organizations, the 
 functioning is strictly interdenominational, national, 
 and of world reach. Creeds are undisturbed, in- 
 dividual convictions unaffected, and the relationship 
 and activities of the local church influenced remotely 
 and indirectly, if at all. 
 
 Second. — In State Federations, wherein the con- 
 stituent units are fragments of denominations, 
 organized as state bodies under the denominational 
 name, the functioning naturally is co-ordinated with 
 the functioning of the state denominational bodies 
 themselves, and these are largely home missionary in 
 character. The state denominational bodies organ- 
 ize churches, receive churches into fellowship, aid 
 weak churches, and conduct campaigns of education 
 and inspiration common to the entire membership of 
 churches; while they occasionally represent the 
 entire membership of their churches in appeals to 
 outside or unecclesiastical bodies, as for example the 
 Legislature, in seeking permissive acts or statutes 
 for common welfare. The state federation there- 
 fore, finds its natural sphere of activity in the 
 domain of comity, that is, in establishing right 
 relations between state denominational bodies as 
 they conduct their home mission enterprises. Since, 
 however, nearly all denominations carry on their 
 home mission work, not only through the state 
 organizations, but with larger resources and farther 
 reaching plans, through a national society or a 
 national board, the full expression of a state federa- 
 tion calls for the coincident co-operation of both 
 the state denominational body and the national 
 society or board of home missions. In this latter 
 direction state federations have as yet scarcely 
 moved. In Colorado the only federation is a Council 
 
of the officers representing the state bodies and also 
 closely in touch with the national bodies. In Utah 
 in Februar}', 1914, a plan was outlined putting for the 
 first time a state federation fully in touch with both 
 the state and the national home mission bodies of 
 the different denominations. Whether, however, the 
 state federation reaches to the national home 
 mission bodies, or not, the subjects of its considera- 
 tion and service are chiefly of the following forms: 
 Shall one church withdraw for the sake of another? 
 Shall two or more churches in the same community 
 combine? Shall denominational agents confer in 
 order that they may not conflict in carrying out 
 their plans? Shall the separate denominations 
 assume peculiar responsibility for special classes or 
 specific communities? Shall courtesy and considera- 
 tion prevail between denominations and their agents 
 such as should obtain between Christian gentlemen? 
 Shall combination and co-operation take the place of 
 competition and strife? 
 
 Third. — In cities and large villages the function 
 of a federation is partly ecclesiastical and partly 
 sociological, ecclesiastical when it arranges parish 
 boundaries, censuses and surveys, when it conducts 
 union campaigns of evangelism and of reform, when 
 it establishes institutes of instruction, either for 
 teacher training or for vacation Bible Schools, when 
 it plans for united or accordant movements into the 
 slums, or into the suburbs; it is sociological when it 
 undertakes to bring a united Christian and church 
 conscience to bear upon the problems of poverty, 
 crime, the social evil, education, law and order, tene- 
 ment housing, the wage earner and his welfare. 
 All of these objects have entered into the program 
 of city federations. These entail a sphere of activ- 
 ity and of functioning distinct from that of the 
 federation in the national or state sense of the term. 
 
 Fourth. — In the local community, the small vil- 
 lage, the hamlet, or the rural community as such, 
 the function of federation is to deal more largely 
 with the individual, at least with the individual in 
 the small groups of the small church and the small 
 neighborhood. Here the main problem is, how may 
 
men and women, under the influence of inherited 
 customs and traditions, with the bias of long con- 
 tinued practice and habits, and with the narrow 
 vision of those whose experience is monotonous and 
 observation scant, how can such people, preserving 
 their individuality, combine in common worship and 
 common service? 
 
 In this last sphere is the function of federation 
 most important. Unless wasteful strife, bigoted 
 pigheadedness, and the bitter dogmatic denuncia- 
 tion, which sadly characterized some small communi- 
 ties a few years ago, can terminate, much of the talk 
 respecting federation is vapid and meaningless. 
 The real test of the substance of our dreams is the 
 practical application of the principle in the small 
 community. Is the practical application possible? 
 
 The. answer is, Yes. 
 
 In the first place churches and Christians in local 
 communities have actually combined. They have 
 combined in one of these four different forms of 
 church: (1) The Denominational Church. In many 
 cases members of different denominations have will- 
 ingly enrolled themselves under the standard of an- 
 other denomination for the sake of uniting all 
 Christians in a given community for common tasks 
 and common worship. The denominational church 
 thus established by the surrender of some for the 
 sake of all has been proven the best type of feder- 
 ated church. The federation of Christians in their 
 own hearts has no superior. In some states, notably 
 Maine, a plan of reciprocity, first proposed about 
 ten years ago, has made this surrender and this^ 
 merging of interests easier because an effort has: 
 been made to give to the denomination surrendering 
 a church or a name in one community, an equal or 
 similar advantage in another community; and have 
 the denomination which gains in one place yield in 
 another. This "give and take," this reciprocal 
 exchange, establishes a sense of fair play, of equity 
 and justice which makes the task easier for all con- 
 cerned. Those who surrender do so the more readily 
 when they realize that by their sacrifice members of 
 their own order gain in some other community. 
 
Denominational leaders and agents more readily 
 yield advantage at one spot since they acquire ad- 
 vantage at another; and denominational statistics, 
 the bete noire and bugbear of spiritual reform, re- 
 ceive compensations in gains to offset losses. 
 
 (2) The Multi-Denominational Church, or the 
 Federated Church, has been tested in many com- 
 munities all across the continent, notably in Massa- 
 chusetts. This is a union of two or more ecclesi- 
 astical organizations under one pastor, usually in one 
 meeting house, as one congregation, with common 
 local functions but with separate denominational 
 associations and allegiances. This form of federa- 
 tion withdraws nothing from denominational rosters, 
 loses none of the advantages of denominational 
 organization, oversight, and missionary enterprises; 
 yet consolidates the Christians of the community for 
 all local church purposes. 
 
 (3) The Interdenominational Church, or the 
 Church of Federated Christians, exists in some 
 places where the conditions of residence or the 
 sentiments of the people prevent either the Denomi- 
 national Church or the Multi-Denominational 
 Church. In the Inter-Denominational Church in- 
 dividuals, without severing membership in churches 
 elsewhere, combine for local church purposes. It 
 may be that they are residing for but a short period 
 within the community. It may be that there are 
 but a few of each faith and creed, too few for a 
 local organization, and yet too tenacious of convic- 
 tions and customs for compromise and surrender, or 
 possibly too far apart to find, at the outset at least, 
 common meeting ground. This form of church, how- 
 ever, lacks denominational leadership and affiliation 
 with the outside organized forms of Christianity. 
 
 (4) The ''Union Church" in our present cate- 
 gory may properly be classified as the Un-Denomi- 
 uational Church. This is purely a local church, 
 sustaining no denominational connection. Such a 
 church as this has been tried in many communities 
 for a long term of years; and in almost every in- 
 stance has been found unsatisfactory. Nine serious 
 charges can be brought against it: (a) It lacks 
 
associational fellowship; (b) it lacks outside super- 
 vision; (c) it lacks an adequate source of ministerial 
 supply; (d) it has no approved literature, and helps 
 create none; (e) it has no connection with religious 
 education in a responsible way, by helping to sup- 
 port academies, colleges, theological schools, and 
 seminaries; (f) it carries on no Home Mission work 
 for the Immigrants, the Indian, the Negroes, or for 
 the pioneer and needy settlements of the country; 
 (g) it has no wide vision of world tasks and the 
 extension of the Kingdom of Christ amongst all 
 nations; (h) ordinarily it lacks an adequate system 
 of truth; many denominational churches may fail to 
 receive instruction of any large and comprehensive 
 character, but the Union Church necessarily fails of 
 it; and (i) in experience the Union Church has 
 proven to be, unfortunately too many times, a 
 church of discord and dissention. These are serious 
 charges, and so nearly true are they that well- 
 wishers of a community no longer advise the estab- 
 lishment of a Union Church; but seek rather the 
 formation of one of the previously described types 
 of churches, preferably the Denominational, if not 
 that then the Multi-Denominational or Federated- 
 Church, and if not that then the Inter-Denomina- 
 tional Church, rather than the Union Church; but 
 the Union Church is better than no form of local 
 federation whatever. 
 
 It is of the utmost importance that denominational 
 leaders, from the highest national councils down to 
 the lowest local stewardship, should recognize the 
 fact that federation does not involve the disregard 
 of denominational standards and denominational 
 organizations. On the contrary, federation from top 
 to bottom honors denominationalism, advocates the 
 maintenance of denominational organizations, and 
 fidelity to denominational standards. Denomina- 
 tionalism within the scope of federation is just as 
 possible as is the right of private judgment within 
 the membership of a single church. Federation 
 rests upon as sound a religious philosophy as does 
 Protestantism. Only a papist insistence upon inflex- 
 ible conformity and unvarying iteration precludes 
 the federation of Christians and the federation of 
 Christian churches. Denominational leaders must 
 
recognize the fact that federation in its logical out- 
 come and in its practical application, while calling 
 for concession, surrender, and even sacrifice, yet 
 entails at the same time fair play, advantageous 
 gains, and favorable opportunities. It has in it the 
 principles of justice which underly all genuine ex- 
 pressions of courtesy and comity. 
 
 So far as the individual Christian is concerned 
 federation does him no injustice, even when by its 
 application he severs connection with the denomina- 
 tion of his choice, and becomes connected with a 
 denomination which would not be his primary pref- 
 erence. For all churches exercise in reality common 
 social functions. These common social functions 
 are: (1) the church is a social center of acquaint- 
 ance and friendship, where the human touch pre- 
 vails; (2) the church is a great educational institu- 
 tion in which the proclamation of truth, the explana- 
 tion of principles of life, and the inculcation of 
 personal duties are constant themes; (3) the church 
 is a place of worship, where the deepest and most 
 profound emotions are stirred in the sense of awe, 
 and in expressions of adoration and praise; and (4) 
 the church is the means of ministry and service in 
 the community, the place where Christians combine 
 in united good-will and good deeds. These several 
 functions are the common functions of all churches, 
 of whatever denomination. 
 
 Why then should men stand apart? Must they 
 because of reasons unchanging and irreconcilable? 
 The causes which keep men apart in different com- 
 munions appear fundamental in character; but are 
 not so far-reaching as at first appears. They are: 
 (1) difference in temperament; and by temperament 
 is meant those qualities of mind and heart with 
 which men are born; but these undergo changes in 
 process of time; (2) differences in tastes; and by 
 tastes one means, of course, the results of cultiva- 
 tion, education, and habits; all of these, inasmuch as 
 they have grown, are capable of alteration; (3) 
 dift'erences in opinions, shading off into convictions, 
 doctrines, and creeds; all of these at bottom, and at 
 best, are but opinions, interpretations of Scripture 
 and of revelation in all of its forms; and these, too, 
 if vital, are subject to change; and (4) personal 
 
 9 
 
pride, for at root that tenacity, with which people 
 hold to their sect, to their traditions, to their places 
 and their positions, is but that self-complacency and 
 self-assurance which is j^roperly called pride. 
 
 These four distinctions do keep Christians apart, 
 but they are not final nor fatal. Men can worship 
 together and work together and be members of one 
 organization, even though they have different tem- 
 peraments, have cultivated different tastes, and 
 entertain widely differing opinions. Will they fore- 
 go their pride? Within a single denomination, in- 
 deed within a single church, there may be as great 
 differences of opinion as exist between the central 
 convictions of denominations themselves. Each 
 denomination has its right wing, and its left wing; 
 its liberals and its conservatists. We do not need 
 to be alike in order to be in one organization. A 
 federation calls for scarcely larger charity than a 
 single church may demand. And this is true of 
 federations as of churches — fraternity, intimacy of 
 contact, co-operation in service, produce confidence, 
 kindness, and a kind of conformity; for the law of 
 assimilation operates; and unlikes approximate each 
 other in the domain of friendly tolerance. 
 
 In promoting federations of any kind or descrip- 
 tion several kindly cautions must not be overlooked: 
 
 1. Good feeling, above all else, must be preserved. 
 How can the spirit of justice, and of courtesy, and 
 kindness prevail, if irritation has been produced, 
 animosity aroused, and ill will engendered. An 
 ideal thing or condition must not be urgently in- 
 sisted upon, if the insistanee becomes offensive to 
 any. No good thing is worth while if obtained by a 
 domineering personality, who disregards either the 
 rights or the feeling of others. Dismiss your Pope 
 and the Northeast wind, if you are seeking to pro- 
 mote a federation; and introduce your Christian 
 gentleman and the sunshine of the balmy isles! 
 
 2. It is never wise to look for the full fruit first. 
 The federation should begin at the beginning; and 
 the beginning of each federation is close to the 
 actual conditions just as they are. A conference, an 
 occasional gathering, a friendly cup of tea, an 
 
 10 
 
exchange of pulpits, courtesy and acquaintance are 
 beginnings enough, if hitherto they have been lack- 
 ing. The spirit of grace must have expression, the 
 spirit of Christ must win its place in human hearts. 
 Men must be sweet-spirited, affable, approachable, 
 at least tolerant. He who deems himself alone per- 
 fect and thinks his own church the sole possessor of 
 all the oracles of God has the task of beginning with 
 himself, to bring himself into harmony with the 
 other sons of God, if he would promote good-will and 
 concord amongst the disciples of Christ. 
 
 3. It is unwise to begin with an elaborate pro- 
 gram, perchance in imitation of some other federa- 
 tion which has outlined an ideal plan. One thing, 
 or a few things, in which all, or even a majority, 
 can agree, is better than a multitude of things how- 
 ever perfect ideally they may be, if they be too 
 numerous for unanimity of sentiment and concentra- 
 tion of purpose. Too many enterprises, although 
 worthy each of itself, entail too many committees, 
 too cumbersome an organization and frequently too 
 much expense, for the numbers and the degree of 
 interest involved. Then a failure follows which 
 could have been foretold by a wise prophet, and 
 should have been avoided by a wise leader. 
 
 4. It is not right to trespass upon the domain of 
 organizations already existing, even though they be 
 }>artially dormant and to many unsatisfactory. It is 
 a wise rule for a federation never to do what some 
 other agency is doing, or will do, for the federation 
 should not spring into life for the sake of combating 
 some other organization, or entering into competi- 
 tion with it. Its characteristic function is to co- 
 ordinate, not to coerce, not to suppress, the activities 
 of other bodies. It must be larger in mind and 
 genius, more charitable in spirit than all others. 
 It should stimulate activity, prevent conflict and 
 clashing and substitute for competition co-operation. 
 
 5. One cannot say too plainly, nor too often, that 
 the chief virtue is patience — Christian patience. 
 We must wait for the slowest person in the pro- 
 cession, if we are to maintain unity and promote the 
 spirit of harmonious co-operation. What gain is 
 
 11 
 
there if the head of the column unites with the head 
 of another column, and there be a break midway in 
 the line of march? What advantage is there to have 
 the leaders of four groups of men combine, when 
 the followers remain in their four camps, and the 
 union results simply in the creation of a fifth camp? 
 What profit is there in cutting off all the men of 
 vision and broad charity from their followers, who 
 need their sympathy, their oversight, and their care? 
 Is federation abroad desirable if there be lack of 
 unison at home? There is grave danger to-day lest 
 our Federal Council be an organization of a few 
 without the intelligent understanding and support 
 of the great denominations behind their representa. 
 tives. There is danger lest in our state federations 
 there be a few men of each denomination, broad and 
 charitable themselves, who have broken company with 
 their own fellows and associates. There is danger, 
 indeed, lest in a local community a few of the chosen 
 spirits find fellowship together while the sum total 
 of worshippers and adherents upon the church is not 
 increased. We must be patient; we must move 
 slowly; we must bring up the rear and gather in the 
 stragglers. It is no disgrace, if one denomination 
 finds itself handicapped with laggards more than 
 another. Patience must persevere, charity should 
 never fail. 
 
 12 
 
BW4145.A62 
 
 Kinds and kindliness of co-operation 
 
 Princeton Theological Setninary-Speer Library 
 
 ; 1 1012 00052 2260 
 
 Jl