The conventional wisdom of Christendom I today holds that both the churches and the world at large would reap large dividends from a union of denominations. This has become an article of faith. Its devotees are nearly as convinced of the axiomatic character of their principle as are the defenders of home and motherhood. If all Christians would enter into one organization, the argument runs, the church's mission on earth would be accomplished faster and better.
To speak critically of this fundamental article in the modern creed makes one about as popular as does the violation of quarantine for the man broken out with smallpox. Still, there are good and prophetic reasons for putting popular ecumenism under the X-ray of common sense. Valid conclusions are not the result of calling the roll; they are the result of the careful analysis of premises.
A change of organization is prudent if and only if the present one has shown itself unsatisfactory. Human affairs are much too sticky and complicated to make tinkering with institutions an allowable sport for no higher end than merely to see what will happen. If an organization is working well the wise man leaves it alone.
The crusade for organic union of Christian denominations is based on the premise that the present plurality of sects is unsatisfactory. People who work for the union of churches obviously believe that the new entities (or entity) that might result from their schemes would be stronger, more efficient, and more in harmony with the will of Christ. Like all assumptions, this one is open to question.
Jet Fighters for Shooting Down Mosquitoes
Disunion can indeed be a prime cause of underachievement as it was, say, among the governments of East and West Africa until recently when they began to undertake joint projects. Mergers between railroads and chemical firms can put more money into the hands of stockholders, there is no question about that.
The success of a remedy in one situation. however, should not lead us to assume blindly that it will succeed in another; the disease may be different in the second case. Schemes for using jet fighters to shoot down mosquitoes or insect repellent to shield from nuclear attack would not commend themselves to the sensible man.
No one in touch with reality would deny that the churches as they are fall far short of what they should be. Nevertheless, it is still possible to insist that the present situation fails to indicate any urgent need for scrambling all the ecclesiastical shells, yokes, and whites into some giant but unpalatable church omelet.
Church union can only cure ecclesiastical malaise if disunion has been one of its necessary causes. But this causal connection is the basic proposition that remains to be demonstrated.
It is far more likely that the weaknesses of some of our churches are the result of substituting fuzzy platitudes for gospel sermons, of engaging in secular power-grabbing instead of works of mercy, of compromise with unbelief rather than making a genuine search for truth. Denominational union will not remove any of these symptoms of spiritual nerve failure. Indeed, it may aggravate them.
Strength in Plurality
Not only is there no evidence that denominational separatism is the prime cause of the ills of Christendom, it is quite conceivable that this condition of spiritual individualism and plurality may be one of the few factors that tend toward strength in the present situation.
Union is not always the solution to organizational troubles. We will not solve the problems of a pair of disintegrating families by moving them into the same household. We will probably only complicate matters and hasten the collapse of both. Marrying one another is not going to keep a pair of oldsters who are in precarious health from tottering into the grave; it will probably hasten their death.
Not all denominations are in the same state of health today. Some students of ecumenics have noted that the weak ones usually favor movements toward union while the stronger ones are not so enthusiastic. This is not necessarily due to smugness on the part of the latter. A strong organization does not help the weaker ones by becoming weak itself.
This leads us to ask: Do the churches that result from denominational mergers really accomplish more in line with their Christian aims than they would have accomplished apart?
Victims of the Tabular Column
But let us not fall victim to the fallacy of the tabular column. We would expect to be given a list of figures by the advocate of a railroad merger, but whatever a church is, it is not primarily a business. This does not mean that numbers are of no importance in church life and growth, but it does mean that they are far from the sine qua non of a true Christian church. God, at least, has not begun to despise the day of small things.
Protestants have usually followed Calvin in saying that the tests of a true Christian church are whether the gospel is truly preached and whether the sacraments are rightly administered within its fellowship.
Would uniting today's churches help a given denomination to better achieve these objectives?
"Yes," the conciliar ecumenist replies, "because: (1) the members of the formerly separate movements could now direct their energies toward preaching a common faith rather than toward hurling polemics at one another, and (2) the sharing of traditions could help to enrich the understanding of both with respect to God's grace and the channels through which He may elect to pour it out."
These things could happen, of course, but this is not the same as saying that they would. On the other hand, experience has shown it to be equally possible that: (1) the preachers in the hybrid movement might for the sake of internal organizational harmony trim their messages so they become even more nugatory, and (2) the eradication of harmless sectarian idiosyncrasies might result in a pastiche so bland that it will call forth the loyalty of none but the most platonic few.
These tragic developments are such likely results of large-scale mergers that lively denominations feel they have more to lose than to gain from them.
Cooperation Instead of Merger
Instead of merger, then, why not try cooperation and mutual respect among all groups? Instead of organic union, why not try spiritual communion around a common Holy Book? Instead of erasing denominational lines, why not make stimulating friendships that span them?
The loyalty of Christians is far too precious to be risked on any dubious experiment with a more collectivist polity.
