all churches have a right to send or at least to vote for delegates. In others the representation is mediate, through presbytery, classis, or diocese. But in each case the power to act for the denomina- tion as a whole is confined to the highest body, and during the period between the sessions of this body this power is correspond- ingly limited. This difficulty, as we have seen, was keenly felt during the war. In the case of those churches whose supreme body did not meet in 1917, various devices had to be resorted to. Agencies of the Church designed for different purposes were forced to act to meet the emergency. Others were created by voluntary action in the hope that what they did would be ratified later. The same causes which made it desirable for the churches to be able to act promptly during the war are operative in peace, and their inability so to act has similar disastrous consequences. It may be said indeed that this need of a permanent executive is supplied by the various boards and other agencies whose work we have described. Up to a certain point this is true. But these boards are strictly limited by their charters to specific tasks. They have no power to assume new responsibility. In the division of powers between them many promising opportunities go unutilized. What is needed is some permanent body inclusive of the different interests which can be clothed with the full powers of the denomi- nation, and can act in its name during the interval between con- ventions or assemblies. The Christian Associations, facing a similar problem, have created such central bodies in the International Committee and the National Board. The churches have no cor- responding central executive authority, and this lack is one of the most serious obstacles to effective Christian union. 1 Apart from the limitations thus put upon the ability of the churches to co-operate effectively, there are various ways in which the lack of such a central executive body limits the efficiency of the denominations themselves. It makes impossible any compre- hensive plan for the location or merging of churches. It leaves the ____________________ | 1 | This is true not only at home but on the foreign field. A more serious obstacle to union even than the presence of separate denominations working side by side is the existence of a number of independent local committees within the same denomination without any central executive competent to speak for the mission as a whole. One of the most encouraging steps toward unity on the foreign field has been the progress which has been made toward unifying the different missions within each denomination. | -250- |