FARMERS' INSTITUTES. 79 



the future promises to see a great development and growth in church, in school, in 

 farmers' organization. At this meeting we have been shown how the country church 

 can do twentieth century work; how the country school as well as the agricultural 

 college can help the farmer as a farmer and as a man ; how the possibilities for farmers' 

 organizations are only beginning to be developed. 



If now we believe that the church, the school, and the farmers' organization are 

 the fundamental and the necessary rural institutions, when broadly defined to include 

 all efforts for the spiritual, mental, and material welfare of farmers; if we believe that 

 all three are destined to a greater expansion and a wider usefulness, the next question is, 

 shall each of these institutions do its OAvn work, in its own way, without paying any 

 attention to what the others are doing; or shall they all try to work together? 



There are no doubt enthusiasts in each institution who would go so far as to 

 advocate that one particular institution is sufficient. To use the words of a recent 

 writer, "The church should be tJie center of the religious, social, intellectual, and 

 esthetic life of every rural community." I quote still another writer, who urges 

 the propriety of making the schoolhouse the center of community life;" meaning 

 evidently that the school should be the means of uniting all the social and educa- 

 tional forces of the neighborhood. And there is occasionally a member of the Grange 

 who seems to feel that when it is stated that the Grange tries to benefit the farmer 

 financially, socially, intellectually, and morally, therefore it is the chief or only 

 institution needed in country life, because it covers the whole ground. 



There are other people who do not go so far as to say that the church or the school 

 or the farmers' organization should be the central force, but who act as if they thought 

 that way. There are country pastors Avho do not appear to enter into sympathy with the 

 farmers' problems ; country teachers who have no enthusiasm in rural life beyond 

 keeping the school and getting their pay; farmers who do not show the slightest 

 interest in the mighty work that church and school are doing and may yet do. 



But I take it that a different attitude prevails at this meeting. As I understand it, 

 this whole program is based on the idea that there is room in rural life, and not only 

 room, but imperative need, for the religious factor as represented by the church, for 

 the educational factor as represented by the school, and for the business factor as 

 represented by the farmers' organization. And not only that, but this meeting is based 

 on the further idea that co-operation and mutual aid among all these forces are 

 extremely desirable. It seems to me that this is the correct view. If the church 

 cannot become the center for all rural activities, it can at least become the center 

 for those activities that are more directly religious, and a center for many other 

 activities. If the school cannot become the center of country life, it can at least 

 take the leadership in all educational work, and no doubt can enlarge its social 

 interests. If the farmers' organization cannot do the work of church and school, it can 

 at least supplement them, besides doing a distinctive work relating to the practical 

 questions of farming, of business, of legislation. Moreover, will it not be better if 

 all who are interested in these movements will agree not to disagree, will admit 

 the necessity for the work of others, and will seek to co-operate. 



That is the magic word, co-operate. We hear about the necessity of co-operation 

 among the churches, between teachers and school patrons, among farmers as farmers. 

 Bait there is need of a still higher form of co-operation, co-operation between church 

 and school and farmers' organization. 



This meeting has we trust served to demonstrate the value of this idea of rural 

 social co-operation and to show the need of such co-operation if we are to get the 

 best rural advancement. This meeting has not attempted to show just how this 

 co-operation can be brought about; it will have done its work if it has convinced a 

 few farmers and a few educators and a few country clergymen that "co-operation 

 between all rural forces" is one of the twentieth century watchwords for rural progress. 



