during the time that i spent in china as a missionary, it was my privilege to be associated with the members of other christian bodies who were working alongside of friends in the province of szechwan. for a number of years there has been a large measure of co-operation in the missionary work in that province, in some directions of a more thorough character than in any other part of the mission field. the province was mapped out thirteen years ago between the various missions, and by this means overlapping has been avoided and great harmony has prevailed. to such an extent has this been the case that, at the conference of west china missions held in chengtu in 1908, the ideal of “one protestant christian church for west china” was unanimously adopted by a gathering representing the missions of six different denominations, and two inter-denominational societies. it was also resolved “that whereas all christian missions laboring in west china have for their 57aim the establishment of the kingdom of god, and whereas there is a sincere desire for more co-operation and a closer union of our churches, this conference recommends the free interchange of full members on a recommendation from the pastor of the church from which they come.” this remarkable action on the part of the west china missionary conference compelled me to look into the problem suggested by the title of this address in an altogether new way. if we were really working for a single united church, what was to be the contribution of our society: had we in fact anything distinctive and vital to give, and in what way were we to give it? the still more remarkable gathering held at edinburgh in 1910, and the contact which i have since had with members of other christian bodies in following up the results of that conference, have pressed the question home with renewed force.
to many it may seem that the ideal of a single organically united christian church is a wild and impracticable dream. to some it will appear as an altogether 58undesirable object to set before ourselves. we are indeed perpetually reminded in a variety of ways of the inestimable gain which comes to the kingdom of god through the wide differences of opinion and view-point represented by the existing sections of the christian church. if union spelt uniformity, i confess that i should be found amongst its strongest opponents. if, indeed, it stood for merging all differences and an emphasis upon nothing beyond the minimum upon which we are all agreed, i could not look forward with any satisfaction to such a prospect. to me, however, union stands for something far other. my ideal of it is represented by the following sentence from the report presented to the edinburgh conference on this subject: “they desire that ... those who are at present separated should seek to be led by the spirit of god into a unity in which all that is true and vital in the principles and practices of each may be preserved and reconciled.... unity when it comes must be something richer, grander, more comprehensive than anything which 59we can see at present. it is something into which and up to which we must grow, something of which and for which we must become worthy. we need to have sufficient faith in god to believe that he can bring us to something higher and more christ-like than anything to which at present we see a way.”4
it is not, however necessary for us to determine in our own minds what is the ideal towards which the christian church is moving, or ought to move, in regard to this particular problem. one thing is abundantly clear, and that is that, if our own generation is to receive and respond to the christian message, every section of the church must bring its best contribution. no one section will, in itself, contain the whole of truth. in this day of foreign missions we are enabled to see on the horizon the glorious ideal of the kingdom of god into which each nation and each race shall contribute its own distinctive elements of moral strength and spiritual 60illumination. even so may we not conceive, as a preparation for this end, the delivery of a christian message more comprehensive than any which has been delivered to the world since apostolic days? if this message is to be delivered, either at home or abroad, there must be a larger sympathy and a better understanding between the various christian communions. each must seek to interpret its own message in terms intelligible to the others: each must make a patient endeavor to appreciate the strength and beauty of that which has been committed to other christian communions with which it has perhaps hitherto been at war. whether this will ultimately lead into an organic unity or not none of us can possibly say. whether, indeed, we should work for organic unity or not will evoke large divergence of opinion. whether or not we should cultivate the spirit of unity—the atmosphere in which the beautiful flower of unity will come to perfection—this is a question upon which there can surely be no divergence of view.
i approach this question as one who 61dares to believe that christianity is the future religion of mankind. i believe this because i see no other religious system in the least degree competent to take this place. i believe it because the closer linking of mankind by commercial and intellectual bonds appears to me as nothing less than a preparation for the linking together of the whole human race in one great spiritual kingdom. i believe it because i see in the man christ jesus the one who alone can appeal to all ages and all races and all classes of men: who is in very truth the son of man. i believe it supremely because i see in him the only begotten son of god sent into the world for the redemption of mankind, and offering his life as the one supreme sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. it is with nothing short of a passionate longing that i desire that the society of friends may make its full contribution to the achievement of this glorious ideal. in the great purposes of god the full content of truth will, i feel assured, be some day discovered and followed by a redeemed humanity. for the 62society of friends, which has already played a great part in leading men into the truth, i am ambitious that we may not, through any failure of spiritual perception or moral earnestness, lose the opportunity of giving what has been given to us. that which we have, we hold in trust for the church and for the world.
on this occasion, it is not my purpose to enlarge upon the contribution of our society to the world. in common with all the christian churches, we have a great message to deliver. even as george fox said in his day we are charged primarily with “the preaching of the everlasting gospel.” the great essentials of this gospel—the divine sonship of our lord and savior jesus christ: his great sacrifice for sin: his victory over it in his resurrection: the gift of his holy spirit—these are the things which bind us together with all sections of the christian church, and which give us, in common with them, a life-giving message to our own generation. i wish it to be clear that, in passing over these fundamental questions, it is not because i lightly esteem them; 63but simply because i feel so sure that we here are united with one another and with all who truly call upon the name of christ, and because i wish rather to emphasize and plead for a more deliberate and sympathetic attempt to bring the message of quakerism to our own generation.
but i do this in no narrow sectarian spirit. it may be that the following recollection of a quaker boyhood represents to some extent the attitude which many of us have held at one time in our lives. “i said ‘thee’ and ‘thy’ to everybody, and i would fully as soon have used profane words as have said ‘you’ or ‘yours’ to any person. i thought only ‘friends’ went to heaven, and so i supposed that the use of ‘thee’ and ‘thy’ was one of the main things that determined whether one would be let in or not. nobody ever told me anything like this and if i had asked anybody at home about it, i should have had my views corrected. but for a number of years this was my settled faith. i pitied the poor neighbors who would never be let in, and i wondered why everybody did not ‘join 64the meeting’ and learn to say ‘thee’ and ‘thy.’ i had one little gentile friend whom i could not bear to have ‘lost,’ and i went faithfully to work and taught him ‘the language,’ which he always used with me till he was ten or twelve years old, when the strain of the world got too heavy upon the little fellow! i am quite sure no israelite, in the days of israel’s prosperity, ever had a more certain conviction that he belonged to a peculiar people whom the lord had chosen as his own than i had. there was for me an absolute break between ‘us’ and anybody else. this phariseeism was never taught me nor encouraged directly by anybody; but i none the less had it. if i had anything in the world to glory over, it was that i was a quaker.”5
i have no doubt that we shall all wish to banish from our minds any lingering suspicion of such a spirit as is represented by these words. to us it must be clear that no one sect is the sole repository of truth, and that others may have more to 65give than we; but this attitude is not inconsistent with a clear sense of what is entrusted to us and an intense desire to share it with all.
again i want to make it clear, in referring to various elements of the quaker contribution, that i am well aware that in respect of many of these questions there are many individuals belonging to other christian denominations who hold the same views and exemplify in their lives the same moral qualities. i think, however, that i am right in saying that in each case friends hold a distinctive position through the fact that they, as an organization, stand for these views of truth and, in some cases, exhibit them through that organization in a way which it is not possible for them to be exhibited in the lives of single individuals.
