The Medical Missionary, vol. 18
February 3, 1909
“Church Federation—III. (Concluded)” The Medical Missionary, 18, 5, pp. 83-85.
ALONZO T. JONES
AND in the report on Local Organization, one of the “certain committees that should be created in every local Federation” and that are “needed in every community,” is a committee of— MEDM February 3, 1909, page 83.1
“Investigation—to look into the merits of proposed interdenominational enterprises or such organizations as ask for the support of the churches of the community, for the purpose of either approving or disapprove.” MEDM February 3, 1909, page 83.2
Thus under cover of the purring profession of “protecting the churches from appeals from aid which tend to benevolence from the regular and recognized channels,” the Federation at one mighty stride plants herself bodily and in full panoply in the jurisdiction of the whole realm of all bodies, denominational and undenominational and of the channels of the benevolence of them all. MEDM February 3, 1909, page 83.3
It assumes jurisdiction of all the undenominational bodies by assuming to “endorse” and “commend” them, or assuming to refuse to endorse or commend any; and by calling upon all who want “financial assistance from the churches” to file with the executive committee of the Federation an “annual statement” of their business and how it is done. MEDM February 3, 1909, page 83.4
And suppose that upon fundamental Christian principle, and by plain human right, these organizations or any of them, should mildly and in a perfectly Christian way tell the Federation Council that she has no kind of authority nor any shadow of right to assume any such office or jurisdiction in their affairs nor in their business; and that such assumption is only presumption, officiousness and meddling. Then the Federation could, and undoubtedly would, direct the local Federation to make that “needed” “investigation,” and the general Federation make its disapproval manifest by “public sentiment” created by the Federation and passed on to all the Churches of the Federation. And the churches of the Federation, in “loyalty to the Federation,” must expect to accept this pub- lic sentiment,” and in accordance therewith exclude that Christian agency which is just as worthy as any, and as worthy as it ever was; but must now be held as utterly unworthy, just because the centralized Federation has put upon it her stamp of disapproval. The churches themselves may have no disagreement with the Christian agency in question, and no disapproval of its work but they must be “loyal to Federation,” and so must yield to the “public sentiment” manufactured and dealt out by the centralized Federation. MEDM February 3, 1909, page 83.5
And the dictum of the centralized Federation will be expected to be thus accepted by the churches of the Federation, and to control them. For have not the churches entered into this Federation! Have not the churches set up this centralized hierarchy! And is not this centralized Federation office most disinterestedly “protecting the churches,” and most benevolently keeping “the stream of their benevolence” in “the regular and recognized channels”? MEDM February 3, 1909, page 84.1
And suppose that some of the churches, or some individuals of the churches, choose to think for themselves; and they see that the work that has been now “disapproved” by the Federation, is a perfectly Christian work, and entirely worthy of their benevolence; and they therefore choose to disregard the Federation dictum and the “regular and recognized channels,” and give their sympathy and their money to this “disapproved” enterprise direct! Then, those churches and individuals will be held as “disloyal,” as “opposed to Federation,” as “setting an example that will destroy all organization, and therefore such “disloyalty” must be stopped, those churches or individuals must be “disciplined.” And if the churches or individuals will not accept the Federation discipline and come under the universal Federation assumption and domination, then they fall under the ban of the Federation, and must be cut off and east out from the Federation system, so as to make sure that the blessed benefits of Federation with all its assumption and domination, shall be preserved. MEDM February 3, 1909, page 84.2
But any individuals separately and alone, or any individuals composing a church, have full and perfect right; they have divine right, to give their money to whomsoever they choose, and to bestow their benevolence wherever they please, according as they themselves shall think that their money will be expended most to the promotion of the gospel. And this without any reference whatever to any “regular and recognized,” or any other kind, of fixed and specific “channels” of any denomination or any local or state or national Federation. MEDM February 3, 1909, page 84.3
It is the individual who makes the money. It is the individual who saves the money. And it is the individual who must give the money. And the individual has just as much right to give the money, without any denominational or Federation interference or assumption or domination, as he has either to make the money or to save, it, without any of this. MEDM February 3, 1909, page 84.4
So far, the individual is left free to make the money and to save it, without denominational or Federation interference—assumption and domination. But having made it and saved it without this he is not allowed to give at without this. When it comes to his giving it, then ecclesiasticism assumes control; denominationalism assigns “regular and recognized channels” through which alone he can give his money; and Federationism backs up the other two in firmly fastening and making perpetual this ecclesiastical and denominational assumption, which is only usurpation of the control of the individual as to his giving. MEDM February 3, 1909, page 84.5
This assumption is that the money that he individual has saved and has in “his possession, is subject to control, to levy, and to appropriation by the church combine. The denominational combine fixes “the regular and recognized channels” through which his money, by the centralized levy and appropriation, must go; and the federation combine decides that only those whom the Federation endorses” and “commends” to the denominations can have any of this money; and these can have it only through “the regular and recognized channels.” Thus individuality in giving is annihilated, individual benevolence is swept away, and the individual himself is eliminated from Christian giving, by this assumption—this usurpation—of Federation. MEDM February 3, 1909, page 84.6
We have seen the Federation assumes control of all—“each foot”—of territory. We have seen that Federation assumes control of all religious work that shall be done in the territory. And we have seen that Federation assumes control as to just who may, and who shall not, have access to “the stream of benevolence” that shall flow only through fixed and “regular channels.” MEDM February 3, 1909, page 85.1
It is evidence, therefore, that Federation means nothing else than a universal and all-absorbing religious trust, a close and exclusive monopoly of all that pertains to religion; and consequently the pronounced disapproval and exclusion by the Federation voice, and the oppression and persecution by the Federation “public sentiment” of all who will not come under the Federation domination; this “public sentiment,” however, being not public sentiment at all in any true sense, but only a federation formed and federation-foisted “public sentiment” the more effectually to accomplish the Federation purpose of domination. MEDM February 3, 1909, page 85.2
In the conference on Federation in New York City, November, 1905, Bishop Fowler spoke the warning that “If this Federation should grow into a centralized power under which the denominations lose their distinctive identity and native perfect freedom, then we shall see here despotism, cruelty and persecution by Protestantism. Human nature has not changed. It was a sorry day for the world when there was but one human brain in the world, and that brain in the chair of St. Peter’s.” MEDM February 3, 1909, page 85.3
By purring pretentions of “protection,” and sly degrees of encroachment, that process has begun. And all who will look will see it grow in the very likeness of that thing which made “the sorry day” that Bishop Fowler cited. MEDM February 3, 1909, page 85.4
All of this is enough, and is bad enough, to be a warning. Yet there is far more and it is far worse. But that phase of Federation must be deferred till next week. MEDM February 3, 1909, page 85.5