The same desire is shared by very large
numbers of the younger ministers who are properly trained for their
calling, and by many older ministers also. The movement, however, is often
halted because of a feeling that somewhere in the denomination there is a
strong sentiment against it.

Faintheartedness is the greatest obstacle to cooperation between churches
at the present time. Numbers of actual instances could be given if it
were proper to do so. What is needed, therefore, is an active movement
between or outside of the denominations, to strengthen those officials who
hesitate to promote interchurch cooperation. Such a movement would finally
reveal the fact that the prevailing sentiment in the denominations is
really in favor of cooperation and not against it, and many who now oppose
it or refuse to help would become most valuable agents in promoting it.

It must not be assumed that the day of denominations is past. Although, as
between most of the denominations, theological differences no longer
exist, and other differences between many of them are small,
denominational feeling is still dominant. The slight differences loom
large. Denominational officials for the most part feel that their chief
duty is to their denomination, from which they hold their official power;
and this duty is very absorbing. Hence it is often most difficult to gain
support from denominational authorities and churches for
interdenominational projects.

Moreover, the direction of interdenominational organization, at the
present time, is largely in the hands of men who are responsible for
denominational interests, or the interests of other organizations which
require their wholehearted and undivided support. While the cooperation
and combined judgment of such men is invaluable in the wise direction of
interdenominational projects, in Ohio they fail as a driving force. This
is now the chief cause of weakness in the interdenominational movement for
church and country life in the State.

Both the work for the country church and for the promoting of rural
business are rendered ineffective by lack of pecuniary support. In spite
of this, however, plans for progressive work both for rural business and
rural church are well developed, and have been tested; and moreover, the
feasibility of progress in both these lines of endeavor has been
thoroughly proved. Two things, then, are now required. These are funds and
federated or independent direction of