PROTESTANTISM
in the

UNITED STATES
by JOHN A. HARDON, SJ.



Nihil Obstat: John A. Goodwine, J.C.D., Censor Librorum

Imprimatur iji Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York

The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a

book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication

is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and

Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.

October 7, 1957

Pamphlet No. 1 1- 17

Designed and Printed at Craymoor Press, Peekskill, N. Y.



PROTESTANTISM IN THE UNITED STATES

By JOHN A. HARDON, SJ.

I. Disunity in American Protestantism*

The multiplicity of separate and independent Protestant churches

in the United States is something unique in the modern world, which

Protestants themselves are the first to deplore. “The fissiparous

tendency,” they confess, “which has characterized the whole of

Protestantism has run riot in the United States.”^

In view of the recent meeting of the World Council of Churches

held in Chicago, it will pay to study at close range the condition of

Protestantism in the United States, which may properly be called

the testing ground of the world ecumenical movement. On the one

hand, the problems facing ecumenism are magnified many times in

America—so deep have been the ravages of religious liberalism

outside the Catholic Church. On the other hand, in spite of these

obstacles, if any measure of success is achieved in the United States,

then the world ecumenical movement may take heart and not despair

that unity is impossible. Moreover, as one Protestant leader observed,

“The problem of achieving unity on a world scale will be solved

more readily if many lesser imits of world Christianity provide actual

demonstrations of church union. The most convenient, natural and

promising of these units is the church within a particular nation.”^

In the following study, therefore, we shall inquire into the

divided state of American Protestantism in order to ascertain how

deep and extensive is this fragmentation. Evidently the cure must be

suited to the disease; so that if ecumenism is the prescribed remedy,

its efficacy can be duly evaluated only if the nature of American

sectarianism is first properly appraised.

* This is the English version of an article in the Rome publication,

Civiltd Cattolica, for lanuary I, 1955, published here through the courtesy

of the editor. Rev. Giacomo Martegani, S.J.

The author has taught religion and philosophy at the Universities of

Detroit and John Carroll, Cleveland. Graduate studies in theology were

made at the Gregorian University in Rome. During the Holy Year he

worked on the Vatican Radio, receiving special recognition for a series of

broadcasts answering the Anglican opposition to die definition of the

Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. A regular contributor on American
affairs to the Civiltd Cattolica, since 1951 he has been teaching apologetics

and dogmatic theology at the Jesuit scholasticate in West Baden Springs,

Indiana.

1 Morrison, Charles C., The Unfinished Reformation, New York,

1953, p. 3

2 Ibid., p. xi

1



HOW SECTARIAN IS AMERICAN PROTESTANTISM^

According to the latest statistics, an estimated 91 million Ameri-

cans out of a total population of 160 million are church-goers, in the

sense that they are affiliated with some rehgious body. Subtracting

from this figure 31 miUion Catholics, 5 miUion Jews and 2 miUion

Orthodox leaves approximately 54 million people who are professedly

Protestants. The official figure is 52,890,992.

No one questions the fact that American Protestants are sepa-

rated from one another in many ways. In the words of a cynical

commentator, '‘trying to describe Protestantism is like trying to de-

scribe the United States; one can say almost anything about it.’’^

Protestants range in doctrinal belief aU the way from the super-

naturahsm of the right-wing Lutherans to the agnosticism of the left-

wing Unitarians. They range in ritual and worship all the way from

the near-Catholicity of the high-church Episcopalians to the barren

simplicity of the silent-meeting Quakers. They range in emotionahsm

all the way from the restraint of the CongregationaHsts to the dervish

exuberance of the Pentecostals.

These differences will here be analyzed from two aspects which

may conveniently be called the denominational and the individual.

In other words, the divergencies in faith and morals which charac-

terize American Protestantism are not mere conjecture, but may be

proved to exist, first among the various denominations, secondly

among the members themselves. Or, negatively, it is a demonstrable

fact that American Protestants are divided on the fundamental truths

of religion, not only because their separate denominations teach and

practice contrary doctrines, but because individual Protestants, hold-

ing contrary opinions, are tolerated within the same denomination.

I. NUMERICAL DIVISION AND MEMBERSHIP OF

PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS

It would be tedious and quite unnecessary to go through all 86

Protestant denominations listed in the Year Book of American

Churches. Many of them are so small that most Americans hardly

know of their existence. Christ’s Sanctified Holy Church has 28

congregations and 884 members; The Church of the Living God has

only 120 members in 6 congregations; The Church of St. Mary the

Virgin has one congregation and 800 adherents. In the following

classification are listed the 20 largest denominations which represent

approximately 90 per cent of American Protestantism.

3 Williams, J. Paul, What Americans Believe And How They Worship,
New York, 1952, p. 88

2



MAJOR PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

Denomination 'Church Membership Number of Sects

Adventist Churches 290,898 5

Baptist Churches 17,470,111 29

Christ Unity Science Church 1,112,123 1

Church of Christ, Scientist^ 1

Churches of Christ 1,500,000 1

Churches of God 126,844 7

Congregationalist Churches 1,273,628 2

Disciples of Christ 1,815,627 1

Evangelical Churches 1,618,339 5

Latter-day Saints (Mormons) 1,210,336 6

Lutheran Churches 6,313,892 19

Menonite Churches 142,513 15

Methodist Churches 11,664,978 21

Pentecostal Assemblies 300,070 7

Presbyterian Churches 3,535,171 10

Protestant Episcopal Church 2,482,887 1

Quakers 114,119 9

Reformed Churches 373,780 3

Salvation Army 232,631 1

Unitarian Churches 82,420 1

II. DOCTRINAL AND RITUAL DIFFERENCES

Without attempting a full scale comparison of the fundamental

differences among the major Protestant denominations, we can at

least touch on their more important discrepancies and classify them

according to traditional theological principles:

A) The Nature of God and the Holy Trinity

At least in their official declarations of belief, the principal

Protestant denominations unequivocally subscribe to the first article

of the Apostles’ Creed, "I believe in God the Father Almighty,

Creator of heaven and earth.” A notable exception are the Christian
Scientists, whose pantheistic idealism is summed up in the maxim

of their foundress, Mrs. Baker Eddy, that “All is infinite Mind and

its infinite manifestation, for God is All in all.”®

On the dogma of the Trinity, however, there is less unanimity.

4 Statistics for the Church of Christ, Scientist, are not available. The

by-laws of the denomination forbid the publication of membership figures.

However it is known that in 1954 there were 2,323 Christian Science

churches and societies, operating in every state of the Union and, with

few exceptions, in every city of more than 50,000 population.

5 Eddy, Mrs. Baker, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures

(no publication date or place), p. 468

3



Most of the denominations still profess the traditional doctrine; for

example, the Episcopalians teach that in the unity of the Godhead

“there are three Persons of one substance, power and eternity.”®

At the other extreme are the Unitarians who deny the Trinity,

and profess instead that “We believe in the Fatherhood of God, the

Brotherhood of Man, the Leadership of Jesus Christ.”'^

B) The incarnation and the Divinity of Christ

In their handbooks of doctrine Protestant churches generally

repeat the words of the Nicene and Apostles’ Creed declaring belief

in “Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary.” But

not all subscribe to this. Outstanding in their scepticism about the

Incarnation are the Congregationalists. Ironically they are the mother

church from which the Unitarians seceded in the 19th century

because Congregationalism refused to accept the thesis, “One God

in One Person only.” In its latest declaration of faith, the Congrega-

tional Church teaches that, “in knowing Jesus,” the early Christians

“felt they had come much closer to God than ever before. That was

the Son of God.”® This is consistent with their modal concept of

the Trinity, by which “Christians believe in one God who as Father

made all things, as Son showed himself clearly to men in order to

lead them away from their sins into a full life, and as Spirit is even

now at work in the world and in our own hearts.”®

C) Scripture, Tradition and Revelation

The majority of Protestants reject Christian tradition as a source

of divine faith. Article 5 of the Methodist Doctrine, for example, is

typical in declaring, “The Holy Scriptures contain aU things neces-

sary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be

proved thereby, is not required of any man that it should be believed

as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salva-

tion. In opposition to this the Protestant Episcopal Church freely

espouses tradition. “There is an essential place for tradition,” it says,

“in the Christian religion,” because “the guidance of the Holy Spirit

has been with the Church in its development.”^1

Correspondingly most denominations still recognize the Scrip-

tures as the word of God and of paramount importance for salvation.

But there are exceptions. The Society of Friends, or Quakers, as they

® The Book of Common Prayer, New York, 1935, p. 603

Williams, op, cit», p. 226

8 Pastors Manual, Boston, 1944, p. 22

® Ibid., p. 23

Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Church, Nashville, 1952,

p. 67

11 The Faith of the Church, New York (The National Council of the
Protestant Episcopal Church), 1951, p. 20

4



are popularly called, pay their respects to Jesus Christ, but they

place personal experience above the Gospels as a source of religious

knowledge. Their founder, George Fox, wrote, ‘‘You will say, Christ

saith this, and the apostles say this; but what canst thou say? Art

thou a child of the Light, and has thou walked in the Light, and

what thou speakest, is it inwardly from God?”^-

Different again are the Mormons, whose founder, Joseph Smith,

is reported to have had a revelation from the heavenly messenger

Moroni, directing him to “a book deposited, written upon golden

plates.” Translating this mysterious volume into English, he produced

the Book of Mormon. Article 8 of the Mormon profession of faith

reads: “We believe the Bible to be the Word of God, as far as it is

translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the

Word of God.”^3 Nor do they stop there. Since heavenly communica-

tions are an essential part of their religion, the Mormons not only

believe that which “God has revealed,” but “all that He does now
reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and impor-
tant things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”^^

D) Priesthood and Church Government

The Protestant bodies in America commonly reject the papacy

as of divine institution; but beyond that there is no agreement on the

governing office in the church. In general, however, they may be
classified in their descending emphasis on the priesthood:

1. Episcopalians, by definition, proclaim that “a bishop is to be

a chief pastor in the Church; to confer Holy Order, and to administer

Confirmation.” They also believe that “a priest is to minister to the

people committed to his care, to preach the Word of God, to
celebrate the Holy Communion, and to pronounce Absolution and

Blessing in God’s Name.”i^ The Methodists, foimded by John
Wesley, an Anglican clergyman, are the largest American church

which substantially subscribes to the same doctrine.

2. Presbyterians reject the episcopate as a man-made innovation.
Their system of sacerdotalism is centered around elders, who are
elected by the people and ordained by the laying on of hands. A
group of elders and laymen form a Session; and the Sessions of a

district—usually 10 to 30—are organized into Presbyteries, which
substitute for the episcopate in all matters of doctrine and worship

and jurisdiction.

3. Congregationalists differ radically from Episcopalians and

Presbyterians in vesting their authority not in a single person, bishop

Russell, Elbert, The History of Quakerism, 1942, p. 54

13 Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints, Salt Lake City (no date)

14 Ibid., Article 9

15 The Faith of the Church, p. 138

5



or elder, nor in a group of persons like the Presbytery, but in each

separate congregation. ‘"We hold,’’ they declare, "to the autonomy of

the local church and its independence of all ecclesiastical control.”^^

The Congregational idea of church government has been adopted by

many church bodies in America, of which the largest are the Baptist

commimions.

American Protestants are no less divided on the question of

admitting women to sacred orders. At one extreme, in the Congrega-

tional Church there is no sex discrimination. Women are ordained
and have been elected to the highest honorary office in the church,

the Moderatorship of the General Council. In the introductory

rubric to ordination, the ordinal explains that, "Although the mascu-

line pronoun is used, women are eligible to all stages of the ministry

in the Congregational Christian Church.’’^^ At the other extreme,

Presbyterians will have nothing to do with women ministers. Several

years ago when a minority effort was made to ordain women, a

Presbyterian pastor called the proposal "absolutely contrary to the

Bible and to common sense. . . . Women are not temperamentally
fit to be ministers.” He added that "Women are not especially good
at keeping secrets. . . . Women are apt to be influenced by their
feelings in matters of belief and . . . women are usually too kind

and sympathetic with other women.”!® Similar sentiments have been

expressed by the Lutherans who never seriously considered having

women ministers in their church.

E) The Sacrament and Rite of Baptism

Baptism in American Protestantism is not generally regarded as

essential to salvation. A person is saved dependent exclusively on his
interior dispositions, although the Baptismal rite is usually made the

first formal step toward becoming a church member. Providentially,

when the sacrament is administered, the words used are the correct

Trinitarian formula. But there is wide divergence on the manner of

administration. Pools for Baptism by immersion may be seen in Bap-

tist, Disciples of Christ and Adventists denominations, which regard

Baptism by immersion of the whole body as essential for the valid

reception of the sacrament. Most other churches are satisfied with

ablution. The Discipline of the Methodist Church leaves the matter

optional, directing the minister to "Let every adult person, and the

parents of every child to be baptized, have the choice of sprinkling,

pouring, or immersion.”!® So tenaciously do the Baptists and Disciples

!® Atkins, Gams G., and Fagley, Frederick L., History of American

Congregationalism, Boston, 1942, p. 404

!7 Manual of the Congregational Christian Churches, Boston, 1951,

p. 101

!® McComb, John H., The New York Times, February 17, 1947, p. 14
1® Op. cit., p. 519

6



hold to the immersion ritual that Protestant observers consider it one

of the main obstacles to sectarian unity in the States: ‘‘They invest

immersion with the high importance not only of New Testament

authority, but of explicit command of Christ. Obviously we have here

a really difficult problem as we strive to envisage a united church.

The same discrepancy exists with regard to infant Baptism.

Few if any denominations prescribe Baptism before the age of

reason, although most churches encourage the practice, and provision

is made for it in the church manuals. Some are unalterably opposed;

for example, the Baptists who prefer to be called “Baptized Believ-

ers” or “Christians Baptized on Profession of Their Faith.” Their

contention is that Baptism is useless unless accompanied by the

candidate’s own confession of faith, which is precluded by infant

Baptism. In pursuance of this theory, John Smyth, their founder,

“baptized himself by applying water to his own head, and then

baptized his followers.”^! Another strange aberration regarding Bap-

tism was introduced by the Mormons. Persons who died before thev

had a chance to be baptized into the Mormon faith can be baptized

by proxy, living relatives or friends being immersed in water and the

formula pronounced, instead of the dead.

F) The Eucharist and Holy Communion

While the denominations are unanimous in rejecting the doctrine

of transubstantiation and therefore the Beal Corporeal Presence of

Christ in the Eucharist, they disagree on what the Eucharist means,

on who is to administer the sacrament, and even on the proper

elements which are necessary for its consecration. Methodists hold

that “The body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper,

only after a heavenly and spiritual manner.”^^ Congregationalists

prefer not to speak of the body of Christ, but rather “when we eat

the bread and take the cup, we are to remember Jesus.”^^
The consecration of the Eucharistic elements follows logically

from the concept of the sacerdotal office in the denominations. Thus,

the Protestant Episcopal Church would never allow women and,

much less, the laity to “consecrate” the bread and wine for distribu-

tion as Holy Communion. But the Congregational and Methodist

Churches have made both concessions. Women are admitted to
ordination with consequent power to dispense Communion to the

people. More significantly, they also provide for the “consecration”’

of the Eucharist by the unordained laity, men or women, when

actively engaged in preaching. The pertinent text in the Discipline

of the Methodist Church reads: “An imordained pastor, while serving

20 Morrison, op. cit,, p. 167

21 Williams, op, cit., p. 236

22 Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Church, p, 30

23 Pastors Manual, p. 90

7



as a regularly appointed pastor of a charge, may be authorized to

administer the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.”24

And the corresponding text in the Manual of the Congregational

Christian Churches says, ‘‘A lay preacher . . . will not ordinarily . . .

administer the sacraments unless especially authorized to do so by

the church he is serving, with the approval of the association/’^s

In both churches, therefore, the unordained laity may "consecrate”

the Eucharist, provided they are authorized to do so by their local

congregation. But where Methodists limit this privilege to students

for the ministry, Congregationalists extend it to any preacher, indis-

criminately.

More extreme is the difference in the elements used for the

Eucharistic rite. All the denominations who still retain the Lord’s

Supper use leavened or unleavened bread. But there is wide diversity

as regards the use of wine. Some churches, like the Episcopalians,

use wine. Others, like the Methodists, insist on unfermented grape

juice. The Mormons even use water. Behind this substitution lies

their inveterate opposition to alcohol. The Methodist Church, which

prescribes in the ritual, "Let the pure, unfermented juice of the

grape be used,”^® has gone on record to say that, "Our church re-

asserts its long-established conviction that intoxicating hquor cannot

be legalized without sin. The Church of Jesus Christ from its very

nature stands at variance with the liquor traffic.”^'^ The anomaly

which this creates is emphasized by the fact that in the Eucharistic

ceremony the minister is required to say the Prayer of Consecration,

in which he addresses the heavenly Father in the words, ". . . we,

receiving this bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus

Christ’s holy institution.’’^^

EVIDENCE OF CONTRARY DOCTRINES

WITHIN THE DENOMINATIONS

The principle laid down by the original Reformers that every

man has the right to his own interpretation of Scripture has been

operating for four centuries, and perhaps nowhere better than in

America are the fruits of this principle more painfully evident. It is

not only the denominations which are at variance with each other,

but individuals within the denominations are tolerated and "in good

standing” although they contradict the most solemn convictions of

their fellow sectarians.

Some years ago, American Protestants organized the Institute

of Religious Research, whose task was to inquire into the religious

beliefs of outstanding churchmen in each denomination and tabulate

their findings with a view to promoting mutual understanding. The

26 Op. cit,, p. 502

27 Ibid., p. 639

24 Op. cit.y p. 106

25 Op. cit», p. 114

28 Ibid., p. 511

8



results of this study are taken as authentic and serve as a scholarly

basis for the ecumenical movement in the United States. Over one

hundred tabulations were made, of which the following are typical

answers to questions that were asked on fundamental religious beliefs

and attitudes:

A. The Authoritarian View of the Church

(624 Church Leaders Interrogated)

“Christ founded the Church upon the basis of a final and

authoritative body of revealed truth, fixed in content, to

which nothing essential may be added, although new impli-

cations and applications may be declared by competent

authority in the Church/’

r
Per Cent of Replies Asserting Proposition Is:

|

False True
|

Certainly Probably Undecided Probably Certainly

Denominations 45.7 15.2 10.7 11.2 17.2

Congregational-

Christian 71.9 12.5 11.4 1.1 3.1

Methodist Episcopal 56.1 19.5 8.5 7.4 8.5

Baptist (Northern) 47.5 15.0 15.0 12.5 10.0

Disciples of Christ 42.6 26.2 11.6 9.8 9.8

Presbyterian 41.8 16.4 13.4 10.5 17.9

Protestant Episcopal 40.0 17.1 0.0 11.4 31.5

Reformed Churches 41.9 12.9 9.7 22.6 12.9

Methodist Episcopal

South 27.6 24.1 0.0 13.8 34.5

Lutheran 6.0 0.0 6.1 27.3 60.6

B. The Unity and Nature of the Church

(624 Church Leaders Interrogated)

“There is but one visible Church, holy. Catholic and apostolic.”

All Denominations 37.8 16.9 17.1 9.6 18.6

Congregational-

Christian 46.9 20.8 18.7 7.3 6.3

Methodist Episcopal 46.4 19.5 14.6 7.3 12.2

Methodist Episcopal

South 44.9 17.2 10.3 3.4 24.2

Lutheran 39.4 21.2 9.1 3.0 27.3

Baptist (Northern) 41.0 18.0 13.1 9.9 18.0

Presbyterian 34.4 17.9 16.4 10.4 20.9

Reformed Churches 19.4 29.0 22.6 16.1 12.9

Disciples of Christ 25.0 17.5 22.5 17.5 17.5

Protestant Episcopal 17.2 5.7 11.4 5.7 60.0

29 Douglass, H. Paul, Church Unity Movements in the United States,

New York, 1934, pp. 189, 262 (Tables XXIX, XXXVIII)



II. CONCESSION OF DOCTRINAL FREEDOM

GIVEN BY THE DENOMINATIONS

Sectarian apologists claim that the essence of Protestantism is

‘'the freedom of the Christian man,” and its appeal is to “those who

are willing to assume the responsibihties of liberty as well as enjoy

its privileges.”^® Consistent with this theory, the denominations

openly encourage dogmatic individualism. Unlike the “false freedom”

in the Catholic Chinrch, “which consists only in liberty to believe and

do what the infallible authority of the church says is true and right,”

American Protestants are free to accept or reject, as the Spirit moves

them, even what their own denomination proposes as the official

doctrine.

A good example is the Methodist Church, reputedly “the most
representative church in America.”^^ Methodist bishops describe

their organization as standing for “an inclusive Christianity,” which

“believes that the things that unite Christians are far more important

than the things that divide. It has no exclusive doctrines, rites or

ceremonies.”®^ fact is that Methodism professes an elaborate

body of doctrine and form of ritual, but without obligation to accept

them.

In 1953, the followers of John Wesley published The Methodist

Pnmer, to commemorate the 250th anniversary of his birth. The

Primer is an epitome of Methodism as presently operating in the

United States. It is also the most authoritative admission of the

dogmatic flexibihty of the “most characteristic church” in America,®®

whose “doctrines are broad” and whose broadness covers every phase

of religious faith and practice.®^

Methodism teaches that all followers of Christ may have

access to the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and

that ordination by any established evangelical Church is valid.

A letter from any Christian Church may be accepted as the
only condition of membership. . . . Any minister in good stand-

ing may be invited to oin: pulpits.

The foundation for this amorphous Christianity is the authority

of John Wesley who declared that “the distinguishing marks of a

Methodist are not his opinions of any sort. His assenting to this or

®® Garrison, Winfred E., A Protestant Manifesto, New York, 1952,

pp. 193-194

31 Statement of President Theodore Roosevelt, quoted by Charles A.

Beard, The Rise of American Civilization, New York, 1930. Vol. II, p. 399

32 Selecman, Charles C., The Methodist Primer, Nashville, 1953, p. 36

33 Life magazine, November 10, 1947, p. 38

34 The Methodist Primer, p. 36

10



that scheme of religion, his embracing any particular set of motions

. . . are all quite wide of the point/'^® What makes a man a Christian

is not what he believes, but how he feels. The basis of Christianity

is not a ‘^set of notions” immobilized in a dogmatic creed, but a sense

of fellowship with "those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincer-

ity.” In the words of Wesley’s famous sermon on Fraternity, "If thy

heart be right with my heart, give me thy hand.”^®

The divided character of American Protestantism deserves to be

better known, not only as a vindication of Catholicism whose unity

is a reproach to the sectarians, but in order to stimulate the desire

for unification among those who have been kept in ignorance of

their own dismembered condition. Protestant leaders are slow to ex-

plain to their people how disunited they are. When the Federal

Council of Churches recently published a "critical and historical

study” of the thirty denominations which belong to the organization,

they entitled the book. We Are Not Divided, Yet among the mem-
bers of the Council were Baptists who deny the validity of infant

Baptism admitted by all the others, and Episcopalians who admit a

valid episcopate which is denied by all the others. In the face of such

doctrinal contradiction on matters of divine faith, to still speak of

unity is either an abuse of language or an implicit declaration that

the Founder of Christianity is the author of inconsistency.

II. American Protestants Investigate Their Disunity

In a previous article (February, 1955) we have seen the extent
to which American Protestantism is disunited on the two basic levels

of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and doctrinal profession. Ninety denomi-

nations are separated into two hundred and thirty sects, which are

further divided into thousands of autonomous churches where the

final basis of authority is the board of trustees appointed by the

local parishioners. Doctrinal differences cover every phase of Chris-

tian revelation, ranging from the condonation and condemnation of

divorce to the admission and denial of three Persons in one God.

In the present study we shall examine this "unhappy division”
through Protestant eyes, allowing their own church leaders to make
the evaluation. In this way we can better appreciate the gigantic

problem which faces the ecumenical movement, not only in the

United States, but wherever Christianity has broken away from the

unity of Roman Catholicism.

35 Anderson, William K., Methodism, Nashville, 1947, p. 128

36 Sweet, William W., Methodism in American History, New York,
1933, p. 42

11



REASONS FOR THE DISUNITY IN AMERICAN PROTESTANTISM

Protestant scholars have undertaken to analyze the background

of the proliferation of their own denominations in America. They are

frank in admitting that while Protestants have been divided into

different sects from the very beginning, the division has not been so

rapid or so radical as in the United States. The original reformers

founded different churches in Germany, England, Switzerland and

France. They were not only geographically separated, but also doc-

trinally opposed to each other on many points. Yet, for the most

part, European Protestantism has followed the general pattern set

by Luther, Cranmer, Zwingli and Calvin, with some, but relatively

little, further fragmentation. How explain the abnormal situation in
America?

I. The first explanation suggested is that the principle of reh-

gious liberty granted by the American Constitution tended to be

carried over from the political sphere to the sphere of religion, that

is, from the state to the church. This psychological transference was

more or less unconscious:^

The neutrality and impartiality of the American state toward

all forms of religion subtly predisposed Protestant people to

assume that the creation of a new denomination was not only

legally irreproachable but could be religiously approved. "This

is a free country, isn’t it?” became the colloquial justification by

which the withdrawal of a disaffected group to form a new

denomination was appreciably relieved of any moral or religious

reproach.

James Madison, fourth President of the United States, who was

largely responsible for the "religious freedom” amendment to the

American Constitution,^ had said, "The more independent religious

bodies, the more secure would be the government in its freedom

from church influence.”^ The Protestant mind mistakenly assumed

that if this multiplication of sects were good for the government, it

was also good for religion. "Sectarian diversity was therefore ac-

cepted as an ecclesiastical virtue.”^

II. Unlike European Protestantism which has a tradition of

stability behind its denominations, the American churches had no

1 Morrison, Charles C., The Unfinished Reformation, New York, 1953,
pp. 4-5

2 The first clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the

United States reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establish-

ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It became part

of the Constitution in 1791.

3 Quoted by Morrison, loc, cit,

4 Ibid.

12



valid objection to make when a disaffected group wished to secede.

In fact, secession was part of the American tradition since practically

every sect which migrated to the States had broken away from the

parent denomination over in Europe:®

The parent denomination itself had originated in essentially

the same kind of situation as that which it now confronted in

the threatened secession of its own children. With what con-

sistency, therefore, could the parent now chide her children

for doing what she herself had done a century or two centuries

or three centuries ago?

III. Another factor explaining the uninhibited growth of so

many denominations on American soil may be found in the pioneer

psychology of the nation. Until recent years the American people

have always lived on the frontier. New regions had to be explored,
new territory cultivated, new homes and institutions established—

among them the churches. Except for those who were traditionally

Catholic and were blessed with the services of a priest who moved

along with them, the majority settled as small religious communities

that were distinct from the original denomination, at first only geo-

graphically, but, later on, also in doctrine and religious discipline.

Add to this fact the circumstance of size of country, and the

mutiplication of sects becomes a logical corollary. The table below

will illustrate the relative sparsity of population which made sec-

tarianism a natural necessity in the United States.

Even in 1950, the per square mile population in the United

States was only one-fourth that of Europe, exclusive of Russia. But

in the middle 1800’s, with only ten to fifteen persons to a square

mile in the States, with intercommunication rare and unnecessary,

it is no wonder that small religious groups first migrated and then

separated completely from the parent denomination.

Year Total Population of U. S.

Population

per Square Mile

1800 5,308,483 6.1

1840 17,069,453 9.7

1880 50,155,783 16.9

1920 105,710,620 35.5

1950 150,697,361 50.7

PROTESTANT ATTITUDE TOWARD AMERICAN DENOMINATIONALISM

It is difficult adequately to analyze the Protestant attitude

toward the extreme sectarianism which prevails in America. For

one thing, it is not uniform, but fluctuates from the perfectly com-

placent to the very critical, with certain churchmen undecided

® Ihid.

13



where precisely to stand. Fortunately for our purpose, there have

been outspoken commentators among Protestant leaders, whose

opinions may safely be regarded as representative of the churches

themselves.

I. The Complacent Minority Opinion

In 1951 there appeared an illustrated volume, Protestant

Panorama, which fairly described the minority attitude toward

American denominationalism. The United States, with its more than

fifty million Protestants, is called "the largest and most virile

Protestant nation on the face of the globe.”® Ever since the English

dissenters reached America in 1620, men in search of religious

liberty have been coming to a free land, "each fiercely determined

to find sanctuary for his right to believe and worship as he saw

fit, and as God seemed to lead.” This mixture of religious sects is

therefore the outgrowth of a heterogeneous assortment of indi-

viduals and groups from a variety of cultures in Europe and other

parts of the world. Yet they had one thing in common: "their thirst

for religious liberty.” Consequently, if America may be called a

"melting pot” for diverse social and national customs, "it is even

more of a melting pot of denominational diversity.’"^

But this is nothing of which the sectarians should be ashamed:®

That diversity, so far from being something to carp at, is

Protestantism’s glory. Only he who does not comprehend the

patterns and processes of democracy can fail to understand

and appreciate our profusion of sects. It conforms to the rich

pattern of heterogeneity that characterizes so much of life in

these United States. Americans glory in their system of eco-

nomic "free enterprise”; American Protestants glory too in the

spiritual free enterprise that is as much a part of the American

idea as States’ rights and individual initiative.

Not only is such diversity not unhealthy but, we are told, it is

part of the original tradition of the American Republic. "Did the

Founders [of the country]] look aghast at this religious coat of many

colors?” On the contrary: "They helped design it.” Thus James
Madison, previously mentioned, laid down the principle which was

endorsed by his compatriots, that "all men are equally entitled to

the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience.”

This political expedience "started us on our diversified way.”®

® Hall, Clarence W., and Holisher, Desider, Protestant Panorama,

New York, 1951, p. 91

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

® Ibid.

14



Arguing on the subject with an Episcopalian who feared that

the American Constitution did not sufficiently protect religion,

Madison is reported to have said:^^

Happily for the States, they enjoy the utmost freedom of

religion. This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects

which pervades America, and which is the best and only

security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is

a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect

to oppress and persecute the rest.

American denominationalism, therefore, is not to be deplored,

but encouraged. According to Thomas Jefferson, author of the Dec-

laration of Independence, difference of opinion in matters of religion

is not only politically advantageous, but also beneficial to religion:

The several sects perform the office of a censor morum over

each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men,

women and children, since the introduction of Christianity

have been burned, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not

advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the

effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools, and

the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over

the earth.

Behind these formidable statements from political figures whose

religion is known to have been de-supernaturalized deism,^^ ^ sizable

portion of American Protestants take pride in their sectarian diver-

sity and call it the glory of democratic liberty.

II. Critical Majority Opposition

The majority of Protestants, certainly the leaders in church

circles, are agreed that sectarianism in the States is an evil, and

something that needs to be corrected as soon as possible. Outstanding

among the critics have been the guest speakers at the University of

^bid., p. 93

11 Ibid,, p. 94

12 It is commonly accepted by historians that Thomas Jefferson, for

example, was "a deist who shared the views and attitudes in matters of

religion that were common to the English deists.” John Orr, English

Deism, Grand Rapids, 1934, pp. 211-212. To quote Jefferson as a cham-

pion of Protestantism is a distortion of Christianity. He explicitly denied
and called artificial: . . the immaculate conception of Jesus, His deifica-

tion, the creation of the world by Him, His miraculous powers, His resur-

rection and visible ascension, His corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the

Trinity, original sin, atonement, regeneration.” Koch and Peden, Selected

Writings of Thomas Jefferson, New York, 1944, p. 694

15



Chicago who are invited every year to give a series of lectures on

Christian Unity. The lectures are later published in book form and

enjoy wide circulation.

The first series of lectures was delivered by the Episcopal

Bishop of Washington and entitled “Prospecting for a United

Church.’" They were hailed as a godsend that “wdl give substance

and vitality to the slumbering will for church union.” After describ-

ing in accurate detail the “division among the churches,” which

“manifests itself in many forms and degrees,” he decried this hostile

diversity as a scandal. Divisions among pagans and unbelievers are

expected and understandable. “But for those who are called Christ’s

people to be at enmity with one another, to withdraw from one

another, to have no intimate, brotherly dealing with one another, is

a scandal. It is a scandal even to the unbelieving and half-beheving

world around us.”^^

Is is a strange spectacle, he concludes, when those who call

the world to be reconciled are themselves unreconciled:^^

We call the world, burdened with its own tragic divisions of
race and class and nationality, to find its unity in the one

Father and the one Christ, and then we add other divisions

to those with which it already struggles. “Woe unto the world

because of offenses.” The simple are confused and the sensitive

are offended by the incongruity between Ihe churches and the

Church.

More specific and penetrating were the lectures in 1953, deliv-

ered by the ranking Protestant writer in the country, the late editor

of the internationally respected Christian Century. Dr. Morrison’s

lectures, published xmder the title of The Unfinished Reformation,

were called by the reviewers a “hard-hitting critique” of sectarian-

ism, and, when printed, were said to have been “written as only a

great crusading editor, one of the outstanding religious journalists

of this generation, could write it.”^®

Morrison’s message claims to be that of the reformers of the

sixteenth century, who earnestly tried for many years to unite the
separate branches of original Protestantism. They failed, for histori-

cal reasons which he carefully sets forth. Then to bolster his fellow-

religionists to take up the cause of the Unfinished Reformation and

work toward a united Protestantism, he presents in a series of the

following six propositions the evil of denominationalism in the

United States, which he boldly stigmatizes as a sin.

13 Dun, Angus, Prospecting for a United Church, New York, 1948,

p. 12

14 Ibid., p. 13

15 Publisher's advertisement

16



A. Division and Waste

“Denominationalism is scandalously wasteful of Protestant re-

sources.”^® The prodigal waste of money applies to the support of

local churches and to the overhead expenses of their many denomi-

nations. For one thing, there are too many local churches. The

fifty-three million Protestants, most of whom are only occasional

church-goers, operate a total of 260,000 church edifices, which

means an average of only two himdred persons for each building.

By comparison, the Roman Catholic Church with thirty-one million

members has less than 16,000 chinches, with an average member-

ship close to two thousand.

This would be less serious if the Protestant churches were at

least evenly distributed. "But this is notoriously not the case. Nearly

all of them exist side by side and in competition with other Prot-

estant churches in small and large communities.”^'^

Not only are funds thus wasted in too many churches, but the

multiplicity of sects adds the further burden of multiplied overhead

expense to run the separate organizations. If only the sects united,

instead of spending their money in competition with other churches,

they could use it "directly to the great enterprise of the Kingdom

of God.

B. Division and Missioners

"The missionary expansion of the Christian faith is seriously

handicapped and misrepresented by our sectarianism.”^® Put more

bluntly, a divided church at home inevitably, and to a high degree,

hinders the spread of the gospel to the people of non-Christian

lands

When Christians in mission lands leave father and mother,
caste and tribe, and the whole social order that has been home

to them, for the sake of Christ, it is grievous and shocking to

them to find the Christian community divided against itself. . . .

What can it possibly mean but confusion and distress of mind

when a Northern Chinese joins the American Southern Baptists,

thus adding the divisive heritage of the American Civil War
to a country already cursed with its own civil wars! Every

experienced missionary knows that this is scandalous.

C. Division and Social Efforts

"Denominationalism frustrates the efforts of Protestantism to

discharge the unique responsibility which the social gospel lays upon

Morrison, op, cit., p. 29

17 Ibid., p. 30

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid., p. 31

17



the Christian Church/'^o Here the author touches on a critical prob-

lem which besets the Protestant churches in their conflict with

collectivist tendencies in the country

A disunited church is no match for the tremendous power
of the social collectivities that have emerged in modern

America. . . . Great magnitudes of social organization have

emerged, over against which our denominational churches pre-

sent a picture of limp futility. Protestantism has not learned

to live in the modern world.

The American mind is supposed to be "predominantly collectiv-

ist in its structure. It is molded by a relatively few massive blocs

of secular interest, each under the control of its own center of propa-

ganda and power.”22 allows us to make an invidious comparison

between the relative strength of the Catholic Church and the Prot-

estant sects. "The contacts of Protestantism with government, the

labor unions, the movies and television, the press, industrial man-

agement, the educational system, the scientific enterprise, even the

family, are tenuous and unimpressive. By contrast, "these blocs

of collectivist power have ample reason to be respectfully conscious

of Roman Catholicism.’’^^ Though fewer in number. Catholics are

united and therefore represent a standing threat to the enemies of

personal liberty, which Protestant churches cannot duplicate unless

they unite.

D. Division and Catholic Strength

"The denominational system robs Protestantism of its inherent

strength in its inescapable competition with a formidable and

aggressive Roman Catholicism.’’^^ The writer concedes that Prot-

estantism and Catholicism are both engaged in resisting the gradual

secularization of American life. This common purpose, he explains,

has led many Protestants to believe that the two are therefore allies

co-operating in a common cause:

This notion, however, is not for a moment shared by Catholi-

cism. The Catholic Church knows that itself and Protestantism

represent two profoundly different kinds of religion, and it

draws the line sharply between them. In the past, Protestants

^bid., p. 33
21 Ibid., p. 34

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

^^Ibid. A fair example is the respect which the movie industry pays
to the moral rating of films by the Legion of Decency, which is under

the direction of the Catholic Hierarchy.

^^Ibid.,p, 35

26 Ibid., p. 36

18



have always been clearheaded on this matter ... It is only

in our generation, under the influence of a sentimental and

false conception of tolerance, that a considerable portion of the

Protestant mind has been beguiled into the delusion that

Protestantism and Catholicism are allies.

But they are not allies. They are competitors in the struggle

for the soul of America, in which "Catholicism has been rapidly

overtaking Protestantism.” The figures quoted are revealing:^^

In the city of New York the Roman church membership

outnumbers that of Protestantism by 5 to 1—2,225,000 Catholics

to 478,000 Protestants. In Chicago, the ratio is 3 to 2. In

Buffalo, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Cleveland, San

Francisco, Washington, Cincinnati, the ratio is roughly 50-50,

with an edge in every one of these cities in favor of the Roman

church. Boston, from Plymouth Rock to the beginnings of the

twentieth century the proud capital of New England Protestant-
ism, is now overwhelmingly Roman Catholic.

How to meet the challenge? It can never be met, and Prot-
estantism is doomed to failure while it persists in spreading its

efforts, dividing its interests and localizing its forces, when the

Catholic Church, strong in unity, "is aggressively out to win”

America to its side.

E. Division and Spiritual Good

"Denominationalism provincializes Protestant mentality by erect-

ing barriers against the free flow of Christian thought.”^^ This is

another way of saying that "the denominational mind is necessarily

narrow, provincial and short-sighted.”^^ The result is that, instead

of being united under Christ and the Gospel, Christian peoples are

separated from each other with serious detriment to their moral and

spiritual welfare. Despising what others teach, the denominations

deprive themselves of the richness of the gospel truth

Because the denomination is but a fragment of the church,

its feeling and vision of the whole gospel is necessarily trun-

cated. The full witness to the Christian faith finds no adequate

expression in the "broken lights” of the denominational system.

27 Ibid., p. 37. Official figures submitted by the bishops to the Catho-

lic Almanac survey in 1952, give the following per cent of Catholics in

the total population of the following cities: New York 27.1; Chicago 40.6;
Buffalo 63.4; Pittsburgh 42.1; St. Louis 30.4; Philadelphia 31.6; Cleveland

45.9; Washington 16.6; San Francisco 34.4; Cincinnati 24.2; Boston 44.9

28 Ibid., p. 41

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

19



The truth of Christianity is not exhausted by the uniformities to

which it is reduced by our sectarian creeds and ideologies.

As an example of truncating the Gospel and suffering thereby,

the largest denomination in America, the Baptists, at least on prin-

ciple deprive their children of sacramental regeneration because

they disagree with the rest of the Protestants on the necessity or

even the propriety of infant Baptism.

F. Division and Spiritual Specialization

“Denominationalism breeds a subtle and perilous moral insin-

cerity among Protestant Christians.^^i In the critic’s opinion, this

is the most serious indictment that can be levelled at American

sectarianism. He believes that Protestant denominations ‘‘are hardly
more than survivals of an era that is well on its way out. The issues

upon which they were founded are losing their vitality. Yet the

structure, the shell of the denomination persists. What happens?

In order to maintain their position as ministers of a distinct religious

group, churchmen feel compelled to resuscitate obsolete issues into

a semblance of importance and reality; thinking there is no better

way to inspire and preserve denominational loyalty. Many of the

clergy, especially those who have been “enlightened by the ecumeni-

cal ideal,” recognize the situation as fostering insincerity. Yet they are

victims of the system. A sectarian minister “is caught in it and can-
not extricate himself from it. Protestantism provides him with no

opportunity for a Christian ministry except one that is identified

with and results in the strengthening and greatening of his denomi-

nation.”33 Thus, instead of promoting the principles of Christ which

are or should be the common heritage of all Christians, the sectarians

are dividedly preaching their own peculiar specialty. Adventist

ministers teach the imminent Second Coming, Baptists the necessity

of Baptism by immersion, Quakers the idolatry of church ritual,

Methodists the sinfulness of traffic in liquor. They are constrained

to defend their denominational position by advocating doctrines and

practices which are distinctive of their sect; yet if they are at all

31 Ihid,, p. 42. Although coming from a Protestant who presumably

knows the mentality of his own people, this sweeping statement needs

to be qualified. He admits that it “will require delicate exposition if we

are to avoid a reaction of resentment.’' Yet he fails to distinguish between

the average lay Protestant who, even when well educated, is woefully

ignorant in religious matters, and the professional church leader in the

ministry. The charge of insincerity is aimed at "Protestant Christians,”

in general, while the proof of insincerity is an appeal to the “enlightened

churchman” who, if he “will search his own heart . . . will find a conflict

there.” Ibid,, p 43.
32 Ibid.

33 Ibid,

20



familiar with religious history, they know that this distinctiveness

was an arbitrary innovation which originated in human caprice. To

preach it as though it were divinely sanctioned is simply hypocritical.

Without excusing this insincerity, "a fair judgment requires that the

major responsibility for it must be placed in larger measure upon

the system than upon the churchman who is more victim than free

agent.”^^

The full explanation of sectarianism in America must be

looked for in the very nature of Protestantism. From its inception

in the sixteenth century down to the present day it has operated

on a theory of religious allegiance that is contrary to historical

Christianity. While giving lip-service to ‘‘church authority” and

arrogating to itself the title of a “church,” Protestantism is not eccle-

siastical—except where and to the extent to which it still retains

some vestige of its original Catholic heritage. It is by nature indi-

vidualistic. In the words of a modern spokesman, “Protestants are

committed to religious liberty, not as a matter of temporary expe-

diency, when and where they are weak, but as a matter of prin-

ciple.” Their basic “formula of liberation” is the “assertion of the

right of the private Christian to have direct access to the Bible

and to read and interpret it himself.”^® Given this principle of

liberation from all external authority in matters of faith, the wonder

is not that Protestant denominations have become so multiplied in

democratic America, but that any congruity among them still exists.

On their own admission, the source of Protestant disunity is

their denial of an ultimate ecclesiastical authority in matters of

faith and morals. The first in a series of principles which “Protes-

tantism rejects as corrupt, corrupting, pagan and false” is: “That

God has given infallibility to any man or group of men, or has

made any man the ‘Vicar of Christ’ on earth.”^®

They frankly admit that:^"^

We put the pope first among the objects of Protestantism’s
Everlasting No because Roman Catholicism puts submission to

the pope foremost among its requirements. . . . Those who

‘submit’ to the pope and all his claims are Roman Catholics,

those who do not are not. All other differences sink into

"^bid.

35 Garrison, Winfred E., A Frotestant Manifesto, New York, 1952, pp.
117, 132. The author is ‘Veil qualified to speak for the many communions

of the Protestant faith.’’ Literary editor of the Christian Century, the

foremost Protestant publication in the States, he taught Church History

at the University of Chicago for over 20 years and presently serves on

the Theological Commission of the World Council of Churches

36 Ibid., p. 176

37 Ibid., pp. 176-177

21



insignificance in comparison with this. Rome recognizes no

rapprochement until its basic dogma of papal infallibility is

accepted, and when that is accepted, no further rapprochement

is necessary because everything else naturally and necessarily

follows.

Protestantism, therefore, admittedly has no "united voice” with

which to give authoritative answers to "questions that arise concern-

ing systems of doctrine, forms of worship, the polity of the Church,

and the specific applications of Christian principles.” Only the

Catholic Church, "with a high command similar to that of a totali-

tarian police state,” which obliges its members to accept "as final

the judgments of a central authority that presumes to speak with

the voice of God can achieve that Idnd of unanimity. Protestantism

has no such dictator, and therefore it has no such voice.” The fact

is that "it does not want it on those terms. It prefers to remain

disunited but independent, than to lose its freedom of private judg-

ment in matters of faith, even if unity should be thereby attained.

III. The Protestant Ecumenical Movement in the

United States

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION of the ecumenical movement in the United
States would be to call it the effort to join a divided Protestantism

into some semblance of religious unity. Protestant sectarianism has

been given many epithets by the critics from its own ranks, but

none more critical than the expressive term—sin. Without the suspi-

cion of love for Roman Catholicism, the multiplication of churches

instead of allegiance to one Church is judged to be a crime against

Christ Himself. "This churchism of the denominations must be per-

ceived as a sin against Christ—against Christ who is the head not

of any of our denominations, but of the Church which is his body.”

The attempt to undo this evil of sectarianism, "to awaken the

conscience of the churches to the fact that their churchism is sinful—

that is the radical, primary and imperative task of the ecumenical

movement.”^

HISTORY OF THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

While the beginnings of the ecumenical movement in America

go back more than a century, the large-scale mergers of Protestant

denominations have all taken place since 1900. From 1906 to 1950

there have been sixteen major unions in American Protestantism,

^bid., p. 190

1 Morrison, Charles C., The Unfinished Reformation, New York, 1953,

p. 64

22



thirteen of which resulted in the formation of new denominations

and three were inter-denominational, in which numerous sects

united to form a federated church council.

I. Mergers Forming New Denominations

Since 1900, thirty denominations have merged into thirteen,

and these by remerger have been reduced to nine, as shown in the

following tabulation, in which it will be noted that the Presbyterian

Church, U.S.A., the Congregationalists, the Evangelical Church and

the Reformed Church in the U. S. have each taken part in two

mergers.

Year

1906

1911

1917

1918

1920

1922

1924

1924

1931

1931

1934

1939

1946

Denominations Merged

Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.

Cumberland Presbyterian

Northern Baptist Convention

Free Baptist

Hague Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran

Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran

United Norwegian Lutheran

General Synod of Evangelical Lutheran

General Council of Evangelical Lutheran

United Synod of Evangelical Lutheran

Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.

Welsh Calvinistic Methodist

Evangelical Association

United Evangelical

Reformed Church in the U. S.

Hungarian Reformed Church

Congregational

Evangelical Protestant

Congregational

Christian Churches

Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Ohio

Lutheran Synod of Buffalo

Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Iowa

Evangelical Synod

Reformed Church

Methodist Episcopal Church

Methodist Episcopal Church, South

Methodist Protestant Church

United Brethren

Evangelical Church

Present Name

Presbyterian

Church, U.S.A.

Northern Baptist

Convention

Norwegian

Lutheran

United Lutheran

Church

Presbyterian

Church, U.S.A.

Evangelical

Church

Reformed Church

in the U. S.

Congregational

Congregational-

Christian

American Lu-

theran Church

Evangelical Re-

formed Church

Methodist Church

Evangelical

United Brethren

Many other mergers have been proposed but to date have not
materialized. However at least two large-sized reunions are expected

to take place in the near future. In May, 1954, three major Presby-

23



terian denominations brought merger negotiations, begun in 1937,

to the decisive stage. The Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. (a national

group with 2,575,000 members), the Presbyterian Church, U. S. (a

Southern sect which broke away during the Civil War over the

Negro question and now has 770,000 members), and the United

Presbyterian Church with 300,000 communicants, voted to send a

plan of union to their presbyteries for action. Approval by these

local bodies would create a near four million member Presbyterian

Church of the United States in 1956. Moreover final approval is

expected by 1955 for a merger plan which will bring into being

a 1,800,000 member Lutheran Church three years from now. Inter-

ested parties are the Evangelical (907,000 members), American

(791,000), Free (64,000), and United Evangelical (52,000) Lu-

theran Churches. Significantly, there were once 85 Lutheran church

bodies in the United States. Today there are 19. When the prospec-

tive merger goes into effect, there will be 13.

II. Mergers Forming Federated Church Councils

Besides the above mergers in which the uniting elements fused

into a new society or one element absorbed the others, there have

been three other coalescences on a much wider but less intensive

scale in which the end product was not a new entity but a co-

operative organization : ^

Year

1908

1941

1950

Denominations Merged

Twenty-eight Reformed Churches

including the Baptists, Methodists

and Presbyterians

Fifteen Fundamentalist Churches,

including the Bible Protestant and

Militant Fundamental

Twenty-five Protestant denominations

and five Eastern Orthodox Churches

Name of Merger

Federal Council

of the Churches

American Council

of Christian

Churches

National Council

of the Churches

of Christ

2 The present membership of the National Council of the Churches

of Christ comprises twenty-nine denominations:

African Methodist Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal Zion, American

Baptist Convention, Augustana Evangelical Lutheran, Church of the

Brethren, Colored Methodist Episcopal, Congregational Christian, Czech-

Moravian Brethren, Danish Evangelical Ludieran, Evangelical and Re-

formed, Evangelical United Brethren, Quakers (two denominations). Dis-

ciples of Christ, Methodist, Moravian, National Baptist of America,

National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Presbyterian in the U.S., Presby-

terian in the U.S.A., Protestant Episcopal, Reformed in America, Romanian

Orthodox of America, Russian Orthodox of America, Seventh Day Baptist,

Syrian Antiochian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox of America, United

Lutheran, and United Presbyterian.

24



It is seen immediately that the latter type of federated combi-

nation is coextensive with the former, so that a merger may occur

within a merger. The present Methodist Church, itself a new crea-

tion out of three different sects, is now a fellow member of the

National Council of the Churches of Christ, along with other

denominations.

THE CHARACTER OF AMERICAN ECUMENISM

I. Mergers Forming New Denominations

With rare and unimportant exceptions, the mergers of two or

more denominations was simply the healing of old dissensions.

Divided religious groups solved their original differences and came

together again. Or if they were never actually together before, they

had common antecedents, in stemming from a common religious

family. In the last fifty years, for instance, the Lutherans were

involved in three reunions of smaller sects that were separated in

America largely because of immigration and geographical distance.

So also the Presbyterians were rejoined on three occasions, once

with a sect of the same denomination and twice with the Reformed

Churches, which trace their lineage to the same Calvinistic origin.

The importance of this lies in the fact that the historical basis of

the ecumenical movement, at least in the United States, is the

consciousness of a common source. This is strikingly emphasized

in The Declaration of Union by which three Methodist bodies re-

united in 1939 to form the largest Protestant denomination in

America: 3

The Methodist Episcopal Church, The Methodist Episcopal

Church South and The Methodist Protestant Church are and

shall be one United Church.

The Methodist Episcopal Church, The Methodist Episcopal

Church South, and The Methodist Protestant Church had their

common origin in the organization of the Methodist Episcopal

Church in America in 1784, A.D., and have ever held, adhered

to and preserved a common belief, spirit and purpose, as ex-
pressed in their common Articles of Religion.

On closer analysis it is found that the Methodist Articles of
Religion are nothing else than a redaction of the Anglican Thirty-

nine Articles drawn up by the Methodist founder, John Wesley;

which Methodist churchmen today honor by including them in their

draft of things to be believed, but which they officially declare

3 Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Church, Nashville, 1952,

pp. 7-8

25



not to be binding in conscience. Nevertheless a common historical

origin and at least token adherence to a common ritual and creed

is what generally urges separated denominations to re-combine their

forces under a common ancestral name.

The question arises of whether any change occurs in the

doctrinal content of the uniting denominations. Do they gain or

lose in dogmatic stability? Generally they lose. This is inevitable

since the doctrinal differences which separate prospective combiners

are frequently deep seated, of long standing, and usually the

greatest single obstacle to unification. With authoritarianism rejected

on principle, when the merger takes place it is on the basis of

mutual—and therefore minimal—agreement. When, for example, the

merger between the Congregational and Christian Churches was

first proposed in 1895, it was unsuccessful because, among other

reasons, the Christian Churches were suspected of denying the

Trinity. One apologist for union wrote of them:^

Their rejection of all man-made formulas and creeds has

sometimes led to the idea that they are Unitarians, because

they will not adopt the word Trinity which they do not find

in the Bible. ... In the worship of our Lord they do not differ

from us (Congregationalists), even although some of them still

protest against being called Trinitarians.

It took thirty-six years before this merger was finally accom-

plished. By that time the Congregational and Christian Churches

had both become liberalized to a point where creedal differences

no longer stood in the way of "fellowship,’’ where "theologv, pre-

cisely defined, had ceased to be the primary concern of the churches

and their leaders.”®

II. Mergers Forming Federated Church Councils

The three interdenominational federations are closely related.

First came the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in

America, when twenty-eight Reformed Churches were organized

along structural lines which duplicated as closely as possible the

federal union of the United States. It was difficult at first for the

churches of the Federal Council to believe that their autonomy

would not be jeopardized. This suspicion kept many sects from

joining the union. Actually they had little to fear because the

4 Atkins and Fagley, History of American Congregationalism, Boston,

1942, p. 351

5 Manual of the Congregational Christian Churches, Boston, 1951,

p. 29

26



federation was scupulously careful not to encroach on the inde-

pendence of the member churches.

Two incidents in the forty year existence of the Federal Council

will illustrate its character. For years the Unitarians had asked to

be admitted and were consistently refused. Their creedal position

was said to be too liberal. They deny the Trinity and their concept

of God is not far removed from a monistic deity. In a parody on the

Apostles Creed, prepared by a high-ranking Unitarian minister, the

first article reads: ‘T believe in a single, eternal, all-inclusive,

all-pervading Life Principle whose source and perfect embodiment

is God, who finds varying degrees of embodiment in all forms of

life.”® Ostensibly then the motive for refusing admission to the

Unitarians was based on principle. But when the president of the

Federal Council was directly questioned, he conceded it was only

a matter of expediency: ‘Tf we let in the Unitarians, we let out

the Lutherans.”^ In other words, if creedless liberals like the Uni-

tarians were accepted, then conservative groups like the Lutherans

would leave the organization. Since the Unitarians even now num-
ber less than one hundred thousand, whereas incorporated Lutheran

bodies in the Council have had over a million members, the choice

was a foregone conclusion.

Again in 1930, the Committee on Marriage and the Home of

the Federal Council was pressed for a declaration on the morality

of contraception. Their official statement was an implicit approval

of the practice: ‘Whatever the final conclusion may be, the com-

mittee is strongly of the opinion that the church should not seek

to impose its point of view as to the use of contraceptives upon the

public by legislation or any other form of coercion.”®

The second stage in federated ecumenism came when the

conservative Protestants, generally called Fundamentalists, formed

a union of their own in protest against the liberalistic Federal

Council. While the latter would have been happy to admit the

Fundamentalists, “provided they came in a co-operative spirit,”

their opponents claim that the leaders of the Federal Council are

really promoting a new denominational effort, based not on the
word of God but on the purely natural social principles of man.
The American Council of Christian Churches is therefore a rival

organization, comprising fifteen national constituent bodies together

with independent congregations. The Council believes the Bible

to be the infallible word of the Holy Spirit, the sole rule of faith

® Williams, J. Paul, What Americans Believe and How They Worship,
New York, 1952, p. 226

7 Ibid,, p. 130

® Fry, C. Luther, Recent Social Trends in the U.S., Vol. II, New
York, 1933, p. 1017

27



and practice, and urges a return to the great essentials of the

Christian faith, especially:

1. The inerrancy and divine authorship of Holy Scripture.

2. The Divinity of Christ.

3. His Virgin Birth and physical Resurrection.

4. His substitutionary atonement.

5. His imminent second coming.

As a social phenomenon. Fundamentalism arose as a ‘‘defense

of the agrarian culture of the nineteenth century against the develop-

ing urban culture.”^ Theologically, however. Fundamentalism, is an

effort to preserve traditional Christian dogma from the solvent of

liberalism. As such it is closer to the basic doctrines of Catholicism

than the bulk of American Protestantism in the larger, but less dog-

matic denominations. Unfortunately the fifth “fundamental” on the

imminent parousia has weakened the whole fundamentalist structure

in the eyes of American Protestants. Also the fact that Fundamental-

ists are generally found among the poorer and less educated classes,

in rural areas and small towns, has so weakened their hold on the

Protestant mind that educated sectarians do not take them seriously.

Their aggressive dogmatism is dismissed as antiquarian, “frozen in

the crudest form of orthodoxy known in Protestant history.”^^

Finally, in 1950, the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ

enlarged its scope activities and changed its name to the National

Council of the Churches of Christ, to become the largest federated

imion of Protestants in American history.^^ At the present writing,

it numbers twenty-five Protestant denominations and five Eastern

Orthodox bodies, representing over thirty-five million church com-

municants. Structurally the National Council is the same as the

Federal Council, with one notable difference. Among the new

agencies which the National Council established for co-operative

effort were Christian Education, The Home Missions and The

Foreign Missions. Friends of the ecumenical movement regard this

as deeply significant

Their inclusion in the National Council marks an appreciable

deepening of the feeling of Protestant unity. For these three

functions come nearer being ecclesiastical functions than any

which the denominations had ever committed to a federated

responsibility. The Federal Council had been constituted in a

® Williams, op. cit., p. 99

Morrison, op. cit., p. 190

The most important absentees from the National Council are the

Southern Baptists and the conservative Lutheran bodies.

12 Morrison, op. cit., p. 12

28



manner that limited its operation to strictly non-ecclesiastical

fields. So also, in theory, is the new National Council. Its consti-

tution provides especially meticulous safeguards of denomina-

tional autonomy in the functioning of its missionary and religious

education divisions. There is no suggestion here that these

restrictions could ever be disregarded. What is suggested is that

the denominations themselves, having taken this cautious and

timid step in recognition of the ecumenical nature of foreign

missions, home missions and religious education, will gradually

find the way to emancipate them completely from the scandal

of sectarian control and administration.

Like its predecessor, the National Council is not a union of

denominations but distinctly a merger of their common, external

interests. Its avowed pmpose is to accelerate the growth of “unity

within diversity,” to reduce the supervisory expenses and needless

duplication of buildings and personnel, to increase the influence of

American Protestantism through its “united front,” to become a

clearing house for exchange of ideas and views aimed at the develop-

ment of a “sound Protestant strategy.” In a word, it is hoped that

by means of this federated co-operation Protestants in the United

States will retrieve the loss in prestige and influence which they

have suffered through more than three centuries of sectarian disinte-

gration.

EVALUATION OF THE AMERICAN ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT

The most obvious merit of Protestant ecumenism in America

has been the lessening of tension among the various denominations.

“A century ago Protestant denominations spent most of their time

trying to prove one another 'svrong. With the start of the twentieth

century a definite change took place; the denominations decided to

accept rather than fight one another.”!^ Instead of opposing one

another, they are now co-operating in projects and areas where

previously there was little or no collaboration. For example, one

of the principal services sponsored by the National Council of the

Churches of Christ is “Evangelism,” which promotes the spiritual

interests of the member churches. Recognizing that promotion work

in this field has to be non-sectarian, the Council has kept away from

denominational polemics and concentrated on such basic items as

prayer with more than ordinary success. The first full week of

January has been declared a “Universal Week of Prayer”; during

Lent an advertising campaign urges the people to a more faithful

observance of the pre-Easter season as a period of sacrifice and

prayer. In October of each year, a Church Attendance Crusade is

13 Colliers Magazine, August 20, 1954, p. 21

29



sponsored through national advertising media. During Advent there

is propaganda work in the form of bulletins and leaflets, “helping

communities to put Christ into the center of Christmas, and to make

the celebration of the birth of Christ more spiritual, less commer-

cial.’’^^ A recent development has been the Chaplains’ Spiritual
Retreats, during which the Protestant equivalent of the Spiritual

Exercises is held annually for chaplains of the Armed Forces.

However it is especially in the field of public education that

the reduced tension among American Protestants shows promise of

spiritual benefit to the country. It is a commonplace in the nation’s

history that the public school system has become secularized because

conflicting denominations could not agree on a standard method

of religious instruction. As denominationalism recedes into the back-

ground, the chances are improved for introducing at least a minimum

of religious training into American public education without the

fear of arousing opposition from vested sectarian interests.

On the debit side, American ecumenism suffers from the con-

genital wealoiess of Protestantism which is religious liberalism. The

denominations frankly recognize the inherent weakness of their

divided condition, and they are doing something to correct it. But

the foundation of this projected unification is superficial and there-

fore largely illusory. An example from each type of merger will

serve to illustrate.

When the Congregational and Christian Churches united in

1931 to form a new body, they did so in spite of traditional creedal

differences. The Christian Churches were long notorious for doctrinal

free-lancing and, in fact, this was a main obstacle to an earlier

attempted union with the Congregationalists. But the latter had

need of a new spirit in their ranks. They were mostly New England-

ers, while the Christian Churches were nation-wide; they were

generally urban, wealthy and well educated, while the Christian

Churches were quite poor and their members were mostly simple

people from the farms. The democratic ideal bade the Congrega-

tionalists “come down” to the Christian Church level—which they

did, not only socially but also doctrinally. The committee for merger

of the two churches proposed to “strike out all reference to the

‘Kansas City Declaration’ (the Congregational statement of faith)

that there might not even be the suggestion of a creedal statement

to stand in the way of union.”^^ While this radical proposal was

not accepted, at least verbally, it was equivalently adopted when

the Congregationalists conceded that the “basis of union” required

by the Christian Churches “be conditioned upon the acceptance of

14 Handbook of the National Council of the Churches of Christ, New
York, 1953, p. 20

15 Atkins and Fagley, op. cit., p. 358

30



Christianity as primarily a way of life, and not upon uniformity

of theological opinion or uniform practice of ordinances. The au-

tonomy of the local congregation and the right of each individual

member to follow Christ according to his own conscience should

remain undisturbed.”^®

Equally devoid of doctrinal content is the federated union of

sects in the National Council of Churches of Christ. While boasting

that ‘‘the Council represents more people than any other rehgious

body in America, the official documentation is honest in admit-

ting that the principle of union is strictly pragmatic. The churches

collaborate in practice, but without any consolidation of dogmatic

differences:^®

The National Council represents the wholeness of the Chris-

tian task. Co-operation no longer appears as something to be

practiced in one or another phase of the Church’s activity, but

as a deliberate policy and a consistent pattern in its entire work.

The National Council is the direct creation of the Churches

themselves. . . . The Council does not enter into details of

doctrine, but stands upon the common ground of historic

Christian faith and conviction held by the Churches that com-

prise it.

The genius of the Council is to foster a united Christian fel-

lowship which will express itself in every phase of the life and

work of the Churches. It has no authority over the denomina-

tions and is in no sense a super-organization. ... It conserves

freedom and diversity, with no thought of dictation or enforced

uniformity, while at the same time securing needed unity of

action.

It is safe to say that American Protestants, at least the ecu-

menically-minded among them, are not dogma conscious. They look

with complacency on the “bickerings over trifles” among the con-

servatives who believe that the first essential of Christian unity is

doctrinal uniformity. “There was a time,” they admit, “when theo-

logical differences loomed large to Americans, and they are still

important to a few.” But today “the average (Protestant) church-

goer just doesn’t care about technical differences separating denomi-

nations.”^®

17 Handbook of the N.C.C.C., p. 2

18 Ibid., pp. 2-3

1® Colliers Magazine, p. 20. The article is entitled, “Will All Protes-

tants Unite In One Church?” and was written to coincide with the

Assembly of the World Council of Churches held at Evanston, Illinois,

August 15 to 31.

31



Given this laissez-faire attitude towards fundamentals of

Christian revelation like the Divinity of Christ and the Real

Presence, the Protestant ecumenical movement in America is a

misnomer. It may be called a co-operative movement in so far as

doctrinally separated religious groups are collaborating in external

activities. But until the motive of mere efficiency yields to a sincere

desire for creedal conformity, it is not ecclesiastical and therefore

not ecumenical.

32





Send for free 32 page Catalog of Unity literature with

full description of our 85 booklets