Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

agencies. According to one system the ministry is the unit, and increased demands upon the church are met by multiplying the orders of the ministry. This is the method illustrated, for example, in the history of the Episcopal Church. According to the other system the local church is the unit, and increased demands upon the church at large are met by the enlargement of the functions of the local church. This is the method illustrated in the working of the Congregational churches. Of course we are not now concerned, in this contrast of systems, with any other question than that of administration. This is the point at which modern civilization is testing the two systems. It confronts each with great masses of men at the centres of population, and tries each in its power to deal with accumulated life. The church is compelled to ask, under the exigencies of social life in the cities, which method works best. The majority of our readers believe, as we do, in the working power of the local church. We think that we see advantages in this matter of administration which belong to a church acting in its single unity, and as a complete organism. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the system which is able to work through long-established agencies and through well-defined orders in the ministry is in some respects better equipped at present to meet the demands of an increasing population in the larger communities. Episcopacy is gaining upon Presbyterianism in New York city, not because of the social drift, but because it is better organized, uses more men, occupies more points, and avails itself of more methods. The mission now in operation throughout the city under the auspices of the Episcopal Church shows the reach and the versatility of its power. The same relative gains are noticeable, and for the same reasons, in some of the growing towns of the East. Where a Congregational church of large membership and of commanding position employs one man, the Episcopal church by its side is employing two or three, and not altogether, as is sometimes supposed, for the performance of its services, but for its parish work.

We advocate without reserve the use by the local church of more men in its ministry, wherever the circumstance invites the increase. Why should not a great church in a great city be an institution? Why should not its doors be open every day of the week, with services upon each day fitted to the religious wants of the people within its reach? Why should a church property of a half million or of a hundred thousand be used simply upon one day of the week, employ one minister, and supply the needs of but one or two thousand souls? Is the system, as practically carried out, an economy or a waste of means? Would business men invest the amount of capital represented in the church of the larger city and then use it to so little relative profit? And as respects the church of the smaller city, why should it not increase its force according to its material and spiritual resources and according to its opportunity? If we believe in the local church as the unit of power, rather than in the ministry, let us take the advantage of our belief, let us have the courage of

our convictions. Practically we are surrendering our working idea at the point of administration. We are giving up to the ministry what, indeed, the ministry does not ask for, but what we fear is necessary to its peace and to the harmony of the church. The failure of the old colleague system has disheartened the church in the attempt to multiply ministerial force under the same conditions. But the idea of associate labor, of labor representing different functions, is true to the genius of Congregationalism: it is a part of its history, and the recovery of the idea is, we believe, necessary to the maintenance of its relative place at the centres of population. The church of the Pilgrim and of the Puritan was sufficient in itself for all demands upon its life because it utilized the gifts of all its membership. The eldership represented all the functions which were then called for. The principle which was then declared ought to hold good under the incoming of new duties. New duties ought to create new functions, and new functions ought to be made effective through an increase in the working force of the church. If the actual membership of a church is insufficient for its larger work, or is otherwise employed, as is usually the case with the business men in its membership, let the church act through representatives. Let it invite into its membership those whom it wishes to employ for specific purposes. This it does in respect to its pastorate. It calls a man, adopts him into its life, and intrusts to him the function of preaching and pastoral visitation. Sometimes the formal expression of this act is very significant. The writer recalls with great distinctness of impression the occasion of the reception into its membership of its present pastor- then the pastor elect by the oldest church of the Orthodox Congregational order in Boston. The reception took place a week before the installation. The senior deacon presided. The usual letter of transfer of membership was presented to the church. Then the pastor elect, referring to the fact that some years had elapsed since he had united with the church from which he had taken a letter of transfer, stated the development of his personal experience and the growth of his faith in the apprehension of Christian truth, since that time. The church then acted upon the letter and upon the statement of experience and belief. And then the pastor elect was formally received by the church through the mutual acceptance of the church covenant, the church concluding the act with the use of the benediction, assuming for the time its own priestly rights, "The Lord bless thee and keep thee. The Lord make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee and give thee peace." The simple ceremony was not only touching in the extreme, but most suggestive of the authority and capacity of the local church. Why should not the local church receive into its membership as many from the ministry as it may need for the fulfillment of its various functions? We distinctly advocate the employment of more than one minister in our larger churches, with such division of labor as may be determined upon, as a matter of economy in the use of

-

upon

church

church property, and as necessary to the growing demands life at the centres of population. Separateness in function ought in itself to secure harmony in work without recourse to the expedient of creating orders in the ministry. If two men cannot work side by side, except as one is put above the other in formal rank, then the conception of equality in the ministry is not a practical one. It gives way before the complications of associated life and work, and necessitates either a narrower range of service or a change of ecclesiastical method. We believe that with proper care, and under the pressure of a sufficient work, the local church can wisely enlarge its functions, and thus show itself able to take advantage of the great and tempting opportunities for increased usefulness in the larger communities. We have in our possession letters from some in the ministry who are seeking pastoral assistance in their work, confirming our position, and asking what can be done by the seminaries in training men to meet these new demands upon the church. The consideration of the subject suggested by this question of wider training for the ministry must be deferred to another time.

The discussion of our subject thus far applies to comparatively few churches. It has been really a discussion of the enlargement and equipment of the local church of the city. The subject itself is of general application. There are at least two functions of the local church which demand present attention, irrespective of the size of the church or of its situation. We refer to the teaching function and to the function of worship.

Without question the greatest advance which the church has made within the present generation has been in the department of instruction. The Sabbath-school in its recent growth is the largest expression of the productive power of the church. And it is but fair to say that this growth has been quickened and steadied by the system of uniform lessons now generally in use. This system has popularized Biblical study, put it upon a broader and more practical basis, and made it possible for more persons to take intelligent part in the work of instruction. It has multiplied teachers and in various ways enlarged the teaching function of the church. But it has now become a serious question, whether it has not reached the limit of its stimulating and developing power. We have no hesitation in saying that in some churches it has passed this limit and is working to the detriment of the teaching faculty. It is lessening the sense of responsibility on the part of the pastor, weakening the invention of the average teacher, and through its innumerable lesson-helps making the study of the lesson on the part of many teachers and scholars perfunctory and superficial. The root of the evil is the lesson-help. The system itself has its disadvantages, which are becoming more apparent, but many of these can be obviated, leaving the system to work on in large practical force. The lesson-help, if continued and multiplied as at present, will bring about the downfall of the system. No Sabbath-school can grow, in the quality of its work, upon instruction at second hand. The

[ocr errors]

inevitable result of prepared instruction the better the preparation the more dangerous—is to repress originality and to retire personal investigation and study. So long as the weekly religious paper, or the Saturday evening secular paper, brings to teacher and scholar alike the lesson of the Sabbath thought out and illustrated, the study of others will be accepted by the majority in place of their own. It is idle to talk of the use of the lesson-help in distinction from its abuse. A constantly increasing number will abuse it. In 1642 a book of helps for preachers, "Skeletons and Sketches," was published at Amsterdam with the honest motto on its title-page, "Sleep without Anxiety." The hasty recourse on Sabbath morning, in so many homes, to the help for the teacher suggests the composure which this kind of literature is begetting in the minds of many teachers. Teaching, like preaching, is effective as it is responsible and within fair limits original. The lesson-help is affecting the originality and the responsibility of teaching. The heroic remedy for this relief, or supplanting of the teaching function of the local church, is to cut loose from the system. Not a few churches will, we predict, adopt this remedy in self-defense. Some will discover that they can do better work for themselves, work, that is, better adapted to their needs, and to their capacity. We recall an instance in which a church, through its pastor and Sabbath-school superintendent, laid out a course of Biblical study for itself for a term of years, and prepared each year a question book with two grades of questions upon opposite pages, one for adults and one for children. The course necessitated, as it stimulated, careful study and investigation on the part of the church. It developed a full, constant, and earnest teachers' meeting. Gradually it brought the congregation in large numbers into the Sabbath-school, and resulted finally in a definite spiritual awakening in the church and congregation. Probably the majority of churches are disposed to underestimate their capacity for original work. Others doubtless will be held back from independent action by the argument for uniformity, though this argument will have less and less force if the results do not justify it. Uniformity is easily gained at too great a cost. It is better that each church should do its best than that all should act alike. Uniformity is not necessary to unity. Methods may differ in the interest of the larger and richer life. It may be possible, as we have intimated, to retain the system of uniform lessons, and maintain the teaching function of the church in its integrity, but not, we are convinced, if the church is to succumb to the aid of the lesson-help. The lesson-help is fast ceasing to be a stimulus to the true study of the Scriptures, and is becoming a substitute and relief. And it is endangering the system which supports or tolerates it to the same degree in which it is weakening the teaching power of the church.

We have discussed in earlier numbers of the Review the development of the function of worship. We refer now to the subject, to note the danger of secularizing this function. Secularism in worship may said to be the danger of the non-liturgical churches, as ritualism is the

danger of the liturgical churches. And the channel through which secularism most easily invades worship is the music of the church. Where there is a division between church and society in the management of affairs, and especially if there is any jealousy between the two, the music is relegated to the society. A music committee is made up out of members of the society who are not members of the church, and not infrequently the money for the choir is raised outside the ordinary revenues of the church. The tendency is to make the whole affair a pecuniary transaction. Those who pay for the music of the service wish to see a full return for their investment. As a result, the morning service is apt to be crowded with musical exercises, often little better than performances, while the other services of the day and week are left to take the chance of the musical culture of the congregation. We have no desire to put any restriction upon the rights of the society under the New England parish system. We believe that its rights should be fully honored; but why this distinction between the music and preaching, if it is not conceded that the music is a secular element in worship? The danger lies in the low estimate which is placed by the church itself upon music as a spiritual part of its worship, and the danger will not be removed until the estimate is changed. Worship as expressed in music is too sacred a thing to be intrusted either to an unsympathetic choir or to an untrained congregation. God is not worshiped by unspiritual performers, neither is He worshiped by careless, indifferent, and unskilled believers. Congregational singing, when introduced as a mere economy, or as a substitute for true musical expression, is not worship. We submit that it is time for the church to do more than to criticise the choir. Faultfinding is a confession of weakness. The choir is at best an instrument, and if at any time it assumes an unnatural prominence in worship, the fact is due to the helplessness or ignorance of the congregation. We look for relief, in the present helpless condition of so many of our churches, to those who are seeking to illustrate the proper function of music in the service of the sanctuary. The better organists and musical directors are beginning to educate the churches in the idea of church music. If left to their own choices, they will elevate musical taste and develop musical ability in the congregation. Their artistic perceptions are of great value to the church, for true art always seeks to magnify the end, not the means. A musical performance in a church service is not artistic: it violates the first principle of good art, and a good artist knows it. In a recent conversation with one of the most successful organists and musical directors in New England, he insisted upon these two points in the rendering of the music of the service first, that the anthem by the choir should never precede the invocation, lest the rendering of it should be used or mistaken for a performance; and second, that the hymns of the service should all be sung by the congregation, the choir leading. As the music of the church. under his direction is church music, and as he has been most successful

« НазадПродовжити »