10-Importance of Organization
CHAPTER X IMPORTANCE OF ORGANIZATION THE essential fact in Christianity from the beginning has been an experience of fellowship between the individual believer and Jesus Christ. It was most natural that those who enjoyed this experience should have been drawn together into a brotherhood of believers. The mutual love which characterized the earliest Christians in their relations each to the other was a new thing in the world so unselfish and beautiful that they themselves explained it as a divine creation, the work of the Holy Spirit who filled the body of believers with his presence, binding the many together into a single organism. This fellowship dates from Pentecost, which was not the time, as some suppose, when the Holy Spirit first came into the world (God’s Spirit has been here since he brooded over primeval chaos), but the day when the Spirit created “the Beloved Community.” The atmosphere of good will which prevailed in the early church was very attractive to outsiders and very helpful to new converts, whose faith was fortified not only by the teaching of the apostles but by companionship with fellow believers. “They devoted themselves to the instruction given by the apostles and to fellowship, breaking bread and praying together” (Acts 2:42, Moffatt’s translation). The quality and strength of this corporate unity are suggested by the figures of speech employed in the New Testament to describe it “the temple of God” (1 Corinthians 3:16), “the body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:27), “a kingdom” (i Thess.
2:12), “a household” (Galatians 6:10). The essential idea in each instance is that the many, mutually related and dependent, were arranged into a systematic whole under the influence of a common spirit so that they lived and wor
117 n8 THE PASTORAL OFFICE shiped together with the greatest harmony. The church has kept this ideal o fellowship before it continually by thinking of itself throughout its history as “the communion of saints.” As time passed, problems arose within the brotherhood which called for solution. Moreover, it appeared that the Christian propaganda could be carried on more effectively by collective than by individual action. So the fellowship became formally organized with officers whose respective duties were clearly defined. The type of organization seems to have varied, in different localities, though generally the Jewish synagogue was the model. And from that day to this the organization has been increasing in complexity.
It is quite the fashion to complain that organized Christianity has lost Christ’s vision of saving the world and is chiefly concerned these latter days with saving itself. The critics render a valuable service in so far as they merely warn us against the danger of permitting the organization to become an end in itself. When they suggest, however, that organization is inherently bad, they do violence to the truth. There is no important achievement in the history of the church that would have been possible to an unorganized Christianity. The critics should reflect upon the futility of certain attempts to bring in the Kingdom* which discounted the importance of organization. The contrast between the work of George Whitefield and John Wesley is familiar. The former was the greater preacher, judged by popular standards, and probably the more winsome personality. But his influence upon the English-speaking world was insignificant as compared with that of the latter, who organized his followers into “societies.” Less frequently is attention called to the difference between the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament apostles.’ They matched each other in zeal and religious passion. But the former had very little influence upon their own generation, failing to avert the calamities which they saw impending; while the latter turned the Roman world upside down.
IMPORTANCE OF ORGANIZATION 119
Humanly speaking, this difference seems to be due largely to the fact that the prophets were isolated voices, while the apostles, in addition to preaching, left organizations behind them in all the great cities of their day.
One can imagine how little headway individual Christians would have made in the task of Christianizing the world, each attacking the evils of paganism in his own way without reference to what any other was doing. Just as little as a patriotic young man would make in fighting his country’s enemy with impetuous zeal, but refusing to join an organized body of soldiers! He would contribute more to the cause he loved by merging his identity with a group in which the many act as one. This principle holds to-day.
We are still fighting against great evils. There is need of assistance from every high-minded man and woman in this war. But we shall make our blows more effective if all strike together rather than separately. We read that while one shall chase a thousand, two shall put ten thousand to flight. How? Obviously by careful cooperation in plan and effort. The difference between ten and two more or less fairly represents the difference in effectiveness between organized and unorganized effort. And the task of a pastor is the twofold one of (i) keeping in the church a spirit of divine fellowship, and (2) molding that fellowship into an instrument by which Christ can do his work in the world. The New Testament figure of the church as the body of Christ expresses both ideas a form which is filled with his spirit, and which puts eyes, ears, hands, feet, and voice at his disposal that he may coordinate their several activities and so increase the effectiveness of each. The Methodist Episcopal Church believes in organization to an unusual degree for a Protestant body. It has a highly centralized form of church government which invests its general officers with almost despotic power. Churches accept pastors, whose names they may not know, merely on the appointment of a bishop. Ministers sometimes find their pastoral reigns broken in one place and new ones 120 THE PASTORAL OFFICE established in another without their permission being asked.
Great benevolent boards are trusted with vast sums of money and their executive officers clothed with extraordinary authority. In a way, it appears to be anachronistic “a church of the people, yet so autocratic!” But one does not create an autocracy by centralizing authority so long as those who possess power are held to a high degree of responsibility! The autocrat is accountable to no one. The agent of a democratic society, say the President of the United States, may for the time being have all the power of a Czar, but he is responsible to the people who conferred the power, and must make an accounting every four years.
Similarly with the general officials of the Methodist Episcopal Church. They possess extraordinary power, but their work is subject to frequent review. Ministers and laymen trust them very far for the time being. But the day of accounting is always ahead. This keeps the church democratic its power, in fact, widely distributed but a democracy which believes in collective effort and is not afraid to delegate great authority temporarily to a few individuals. In this manner the church attains to something like the “efficiency” of an autocratic organization without sacrificing real freedom.
Organization is as significant for the local church as it is for the general body. The pastor deals in the small with precisely the same problems that bishops and general secretaries face in the large. Therefore he must learn to approach them intelligently. He may not like them, but they are unavoidable. He may not withdraw from his prophetic office, but, in addition, he must acquire “the gift of administration.”