could will the kind of life he would live. But the will of man, like the total personality, must be regenerated uy the Spirit of God, and instructed and regulated by the written Word of God. Penn State offered Frank Buchman the opportunity to gather about him a group of young men to whom he introduced public “ sharing” and confession of sins “ one to another” which brought both blame and praise. In 1915 he resigned and went abroad with Sherwood Eddy, one of the very early liberals, visiting India, Korea and Japan. It is thought that on that trip plans for his work were formulated. Afterwards he visited Oxford and Cam bridge where he gained some notable converts, among whom were some excellent writers whose books and articles and later plays, along with those of other journal ists and playwrights, likely had more to do with getting the Oxford Group “ off the ground” than any other one influence. Arthur J. Russell’s book “ For Sinners Only” practically became a textbook for the Group; Harold Begbie’s “ Life Changers” , “Twice-Born Men” and other volumes glorified the Group. From Oxford to the Group came one of Lord Beaverbrook’s “bright young men” Peter Howard, who wrote innumerable propaganda vol umes and remains as a leader of the Group to this day. Alan Thornhill, Garth Lean, and other gifted playwrights and authors have followed. Frank Buchman definitely had a penchant for attracting intellectuals. The first “ houseparty” was formulated in Ruling, China, in 1921, held in the home of a well-to-do person, and such gatherings were repeated in many countries. The meetings seemed to develop into a kind of exchange of testimonies in regard to “ life-changing.” Certainly one can find no records of any emphasis upon Bible study, or any doctrinal teaching. The house party became part and parcel of the movement until it was super seded by the mass meeting. There are conflicting dates in Group literature, but as far as can be learned, the years from 1916 to 1922 were spent by Frank Buchman at Hartford Seminary as a lecturer where considerable con troversy arose over his methods, particularly the confession angle. Efforts were made to reach students at Smith, Yale, Williams and Harvard, but the results were neg ligible. We have referred to the difficulty at Princeton to which Frank Buchman was invited by a football star who professed to be “ changed” by the group. The student body divided sharply over Buchman, some ac cusing him of “unwarranted inquisition” into their person al lives, others claiming spiritual benefits. The picture is not too clear for although President Hibben ordered Buchman off the campus, a special committee later dis agreed with findings of an earlier investigation. However, as a result of this trouble, the Group toned down the sex confessions in their meetings and did not again attempt meetings on the campuses. Houseparties continued and the Buchmanites were in and out of Oxford with con siderable regularity. They were not without opposition there as well. Geoffrey Williamson, in his excellent objective sur vey of the Oxford Group, sums up the situation to the year 1921: “ One thing, however, can be clearly established. In the first forty-three years of his life, Frank Buchman achieved nothing of any consequence. He had dabbled in slumming; dabbled in YMCA work; held a brief post as theological lecturer; and had dabbled in missionary work and experimental evangelism. How was it, then, that this very ordinary man, with such an unpromising background, came to make such a powerful impact upon Oxford? “ In those early Oxford days, of course, there was
not the slightest inkling that Buchmanism would ever develop into a world movement. Buchman himself was chiefly absorbed in personal evangelism, the saving of individual souls by his own mixture of psycho-analysis and religion. ‘Soul-surgery’ is how the late Harold Beg- bie described it in his book Life-Changers. “ There is no doubt that Buchman worked with terrific application. Sometimes he would be closeted with one man, delving into case history, exploring inner recesses of the mind, acting as father confessor. Most of his sub jects, it would seem from Begbie’s account, were troubled by what Benjamin Franklin termed ‘that hard-to-be- governed passion of youth.’ ” “ As a practiced YMCA secretary, and with the exper ience of missionary work behind him, it cannot have been very difficult for Buchman to size up the individual needs of the adolescents who sought his advice. “ Somehow, I don’t think the quiet phase of evangel ism at Oxford lasted very long. Later commentators among the Buchmanites say that Buchman’s real purpose in concentrating upon the university students was to create leadership for plans he already entertained for giving his ideas world scope. This sounds reasonable, and it ties up with my theory that he drew some of his inspiration from Confucius. “ Confucius held that moral order must precede political order. So does Buchman. Confucius loved good food. So does Buchman. Confucius trained 3,000 young followers. Buchman has trained ‘a lot of little Wesleys.’ Confucius taught: ‘If we could all be courteous for even a single day, the hatreds of humanity would turn to love.’ “ Buchman taught his followers to sing: ‘Sorry is Magic Little Word.’ ” * This latter is a reference to a song made popular in Moral Re-Armament plays and movies. Space does not permit us to go into details of Buch man’s activities from 1921 to 1938 except to say that it covered many of the countries of Europe with repeated visits to Britain and the United States. It was in South Africa that the name “ Oxford Group” took the place of “ First Century Christian Fellowship.” It came about through the inadvertent designation of Buchman and team as “the Oxford Group” on a railroad train ticket, and it stuck. Frank Buchman then concentrated upon building up the prestige of his “ teams” . Distinguished individuals, political leaders, even members of royalty, took them up. The League of Nations issued them an invitation; heads of states in France, Persia, Finland, India, the Scandinavian countries, and other lands fol lowed suit. The Group seemed to be riding the crest of the wave until they had a reversal in 1936. Frank Buch man committed a near fatal error so far as his work was concerned when he gave Hitler a pat on the back. It took some time for the Group to live it down. “ I thank Heaven for a man like Adolph Hitler,” said he, “who built a front line of defense against the Anti christ of Communism. Think of what it would mean to the world if Hitler surrendered to the control of God. Or Mussolini. Or any dictator. Through such a man God could control nations over night and solve every last bewildering problem.” Added to this were rumors that Buchman had visited Heinrich Himmler and that the Group was sympathetic to the cause of “peace at any price” with Germany. There was never any evidence of collaboration with the Nazis on the part of the Group but these things did them no good, and after a few meetings ’ Excerpts from pp. 119-201 of Inside Buchmanism, by Geoffrey Williamson, used by permission of C. A. Watts & Co., Ltd., 39 Parker St., London W . C. 2, England
18
THE KING'S BUSINESS
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker