In the City of Chicago, III. , Dec. 5, 1912, an assembly of three hundred and nineteen clerical delegates from thirtyone professedly Protestant denominations intentionally and expressly repudiated the word "Protestant."
That is an occurrence that can never mean less than much every way. It will be found to mean much more, and in more ways, than was thought of by the three hundred and nineteen who did it. And to the people of the United States it means the most of all.
The assembly by which this meaningful thing was done, was the "Second Quadrennial Meeting of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America." It was held in the Hotel La Salle, Chicago, Ill. , Dec. 4-9, 1912, and was composed of three hundred and nineteen actually present and participating delegates.
This "Federal Council" was then composed of thirty-one denominations, including all of the most prominent ones, having a total membership of "more than seventeen millions." It was originally organized by five hundred delegates from twenty denominations, who met for the purpose in Carnegie Hall, New York City, Nov. 15-21, 1905.
In its original organization the "Federal Council of Churches" was expressly and distinctly Protestant. In the call under which the convention met in New York City, the object of the proposed meeting was distinctly stated to be "to secure an effective organization of the various Protestant communions of this country", and "to form a bond of union that will enable Protestantism to present a solid front," etc.
And then, in only the second meeting of the Council as such, and without any issue or crisis to demand it, spontaneously and voluntarily this professedly Protestant organization repudiated the word "Protestant" that gave them an existence as a Federal Council, that gave them an existence as denominations, and that gave them existence even as Christians! And this was done in the very first business session of the Council, and in dealing with the very first "Report" that was made to the Council: that is, at the first possible opportunity.
The occasion for it was this: The "Executive Committee" presented its report. In that report the committee expressed the "earnest hope that the Second Federal Council will make yet more clear certain fundamental facts as to the churches of the country, through their federation." And the first of these was--
"The fact of the substantial unity of the Christian and Protestant Churches of the nation."
No sooner was opened the discussion of the report than that word "Protestant" was challenged as if it were a mortal enemy that had invaded the Council.
"Why emphasize a word that is not a uniting but a dividing word? a word that recalls a most unhappy and trying experience," said one.
"By using this word, you make it more difficult for many of your Christian brethren to work with you," said another.
Discussion was soon cut off by a motion to resubmit the report for revision, eliminating the word "Protestant." And this was done thus:--
"To express the fellowship and catholic unity of the Christian Church."
Then the report was promptly adopted, and with applause.
All the circumstances of this action of the Council plainly show that there was a full and waiting readiness to do it. Indeed, preceding facts prove that all that was really new or sudden about it was the actual doing of it at the first possible opportunity.
1. In a "Moral and Religious Conference" held at Colorado Springs in May, 1908, in the opening address, there were spoken the following words:--
"Once the church embraced all human activity. It was a great social structure. Then Luther proclaimed his doctrine of individual responsibility, and the social structure disintegrated. Individualism in the church produced individualism in economic relations and in the State.
"But there is coming rapidly a change. The Christian Church must recognize this movement and be the leader in it."
That was not officially a conference of the Church Federation; but prominent men were of it who in 1905 had aided in the formation of the Federal Council. And that it is strictly indicative of the spirit of the Council itself, is confirmed in the next item.
2. In December, 1908, at Philadelphia, Pa. , in the first meeting of the Federal Council as such, the "right of private judgment" that was "emphasized," and the Individuality" that was "developed in a notable manner," by the Protestant Reformation," was specifically abandoned as that which should "no longer blind the minds of believers to the need of combination and of mutuality in service."
The right of private judgment in religion, and the principle of individual responsibility to God, are two essentials of the Protestant Reformation. Without these there never would--there never could--have been any Reformation. But these are not only essentials of the Protestant Reformation. They are essentials of Christianity itself.
And yet in the keynote speech of the first meeting of the Federal Council that was ever held, the declaration was made and published as the standing word of the Council that these essentials of the reformation and of Christianity should "no longer blind the minds of believers."
When the first meeting of the Council could publish such a statement as that, it is perfectly logical that the second meeting should eliminate altogether the word "Protestant" as in any way properly attaching to that organization.
3. In the public announcement of the date and place of holding that meeting in Chicago, it was plainly stated that this "United Protestantism is not to be construed as a demonstration against the Roman Catholic Church."
When anything bearing the name "Protestant" is not even to be construed as a demonstration against the Roman Catholic Church, then that thing is not Protestant at all; and of course in honesty should no longer bear the title.
Accordingly when that open statement had been most widely made in behalf of the Council, again it was perfectly logical as well as only consistent that the Council should formally renounce the title of "Protestant."
4. The Roman Church as represented or manifested in her Councils, especially in the Council of Nice, was openly the aspiration of this Council.
In his speech at the opening of the Council, the outgoing president said that by this assembly he was caused to--
"think of the Council of Nice--the first General Council of the Christian Church. This Council has almost the exact number that composed the Council of Nice. The history of the Church is largely told in her great Councils."
And when the number of the delegates who actually were present and officially acting in the Council was made up and announced as "three hundred and nineteen," the statement was accompanied with the remark, "Just one more than the Council of Nice."
Yes, the history of the Roman Church is largely told in her great Councils. And beyond all question her conspicuously great Councils were those of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Second of Nice, Trent, and the Vatican.
In brief the story of these "great Councils" is this:
The net result of the first four was to put the dead formulas of human creed in the place of the living Word of God; a woman in the place of Christ; and a man in the place of God.
The Second Council of Nice, three hundred and fifty bishops, "unanimously pronounced that the worship of images is agreeable to Scripture and reason, to the Fathers and Councils of the Church."
The Council of Trent put church-tradition above the Bible as "more sure and safe."
The Vatican Council established the infallibility of the Pope.
And when the Federal Council in Chicago could count worthy of her aspiration such a record as that, then it certainly was about time that she were renouncing the name and title of Protestant.
All of this is fully confirmed by another act of this Council itself, at Chicago. The Council unanimously adopted a report in which it is declared that--
"The business of the State is to bring about such economic conditions and environment that the idealism of the Gospel may have as clear and fair a field as possible. It is this that justifies the Church" in turning to the State for a cooperation which will enable her to do her sacred task."
And that is in exact parallel with the instruction given by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical of Jan. 6, 1895, to the hierarchy in America, saying that in this "American nation" the Catholic church--
"would bring forth more abundant fruits, if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority."
The Protestant Reformation neither had nor sought either the favor of the laws or the patronage of public authority.
The Protestant Reformation neither sought nor expected any State to bring about for her such economic conditions and environment as should give to the idealism of her Gospel any clear or fair field at all.
The Protestant Reformation never sought for any State, and there was none if she had, to which she could turn for a co-operation that would enable her to do her sacred task.
So also was it with Christianity at the first.
Yet not only without any, but actually against all of these, both the Protestant Reformation and Christianity in the beginning, did each her sacred task triumphantly and gloriously.
And as in the beginning, so also in the latter: when Christians lost their first love in the loss of the fulness of the Holy Spirit and His power, they were ready to dally with the world, to seek the co-operation of worldly power, and to tickle their fancy with "economic conditions" and "civic environments" as "aids" in the sacred task of preaching the Gospel of the blessed God!
But all of this was, and ever is, only to abandon the Reformation and Christianity. It is to cease to be Protestant and Christian, and to become papal only.
"The Reformation was accomplished in the name of a spiritual principle. It had proclaimed for its teacher the Word of God; for salvation, faith; for King, Jesus Christ; for arms, the Holy Ghost; and had by these very means rejected all worldly elements.
"Rome had been established by 'the law of a carnal commandment': the Reformation, by 'the power of an endless life'.
"The Gospel of the Reformers had nothing to do with the world and with politics. While the Roman hierarchy had become a matter of diplomacy and a court of intrigue, the Reformation was destined to exercise no other influence over princes and people than that which proceeds from the Gospel of peace.
"If the Reformation, having attained a certain point, became untrue to its nature, began to parley and temporize with the world, and ceased thus to follow up the spiritual principle that it had so loudly proclaimed, it was faithless to God and to itself. Hence-forward its decline was at hand.
"It is impossible for a society to prosper if it be unfaithful to the principles it lays down. Having abandoned what constituted its life, it can find naught but death."-- D'Aubigne.
There has been an apostasy from the Reformation, as truly as there was from Christianity at the first. This has been manifest in each form of Protestantism that has arisen. And now this apostasy has reached the point of open repudiation of the very title of Protestant, by the federation of thirty-one of them together.
The apostasy from Christianity at the first meant much to the world for it developed the papacy in all that it has ever been. This apostasy from Christianity revived in the Protestant Reformation can scarcely mean any less.