Howsoever desirable and advantageous they may appear at first thought, doctrinal councils have, nevertheless, often but widened existing differences and intensified already established feelings. To have a doctrinal council of any practical value that could ever hope to draw together strong, differing groups of thought, the major exponents of the divergent viewpoints would of necessity have to be present and be permitted to present their variant conceptions. There would, of course, be no hope of unity springing from such a council without the leading parties concerned being present. But the very presence of these strong, opposing personalities would almost surely eventuate into the taking of sides, and result in a mental bracing against what the opposition would present. Usually, under such circumstances, the majority of such participants simply entrench themselves in their former positions. This has happened before, and it would likely happen again. Under such conditions, ,men's minds usually become impervious to all contrary or even modifying evidence, irrespective of its merits. Much as with a debating team, men do not, under those circumstances, hear with a view to accepting light that may appear. Rather, they seek to find the vulnerable spot in the opponent's line of argument, and to counter his reasonings and discount his evidence. They go away still more entrenched in their former belief and even more antagonistic to those who differ with them.
As we all know, human pride shrinks from admitting personal fallacy of reasoning, error of fact, or inadequacy of data from which conclusions have already been drawn, or upon which a position has been taken. Preconceived opinion, belief in the rightness of one's own position, innate dislike for admitting error, distaste for instruction by another who differs, and a fatal pride of reputation—especially if one is holding a rather prominent position or is reputed to be somewhat of a scholar—make any change of view exceedingly difficult. Under such conditions, the grace of God and the spirit of Christ can alone effect the necessary changes.
Better are informal group meetings for the study of problems or truths. To sit down quietly as brethren and talk things over and study them through, each contributing his bit, to learn from each other, to think out loud—though imperfectly and subject to revision—and not be misunderstood, misjudged, or misquoted, is a privilege for which many long, but few are permitted to enjoy. Under such procedure, there are no commitments to defend, no personal honor or prestige to maintain, no humiliating confessions or revokements to make. A drawing together thus becomes natural, easy, almost inevitable.
To the cocksure, doctrinarian die-hard, such a procedure is a new and questionable method of approach. He has already settled everything to his own satisfaction. He comes to declare and to defend his own position and to oppose and attack all who differ, for truth—as he conceives it—is at stake. But it is such an attitude of spiritual bigotry that really perpetuates differences. Unless we come in a spirit of prayer, humility, and submission, we shall never draw unity from study-group councils, nor blend into that oneness of the faith yearningly desired by our Saviour and desperately needed by us as a ministerial fraternity. We face an increasingly hostile world. But that hostility will prove effective only as we are divided among ourselves. This is the hour to draw together through informal group study.
L. E. F.
