`WITHOUT A HEARER ?'
SIR,—You were kind enough to publish recently an article from me entitled 'Without a Hearer?' I was naturally interested to see what, if any, response this might evoke in your corre- spondence columns. On October 28 there were two letters. One, agreeing in the main with what I had to say, suggested as a remedy the shortening of school holidays. This provoked further correspondence on November 4. This I fear would be no remedy for the ills I tried to diagnose—at best it would be a very slight palliative : and I doubt whether it is either reasonable or desirable, from my knowledge of the life school teachers lead in so many of our schools. The 'long' holidays they enjoy seem mainly to be spent in the virtuous'atten- dance of educational courses provided to assist them to do their difficult job better.
The other letter was written by Mr. Deans. of St. John's College, Cambridge. It ended with a plea for 'lucidity'—but I confess that I did not find this quality in the letter, whose main thesis was to me obscure, and so far as I could understand it, irrelevant to the issue l was trying to raise.
He claims that the Church is largely respon- sible for the evil symptoms I had detected. Does he by 'the Church' mean, as I suspect he does, the clergy (a far too common and quite inaccurate use of the word, popular with the laity who like to disclaim a responsibility which is theirs too)? Or does he mean the Church? If the latter, it is no doubt true that, since the Industrial Revolution, Church people have been much too complacent about social evils of all kind—though it is fair to remember that nearly all social reforms have in fact been initiated by Church people. If the former, can he explain how the present lack of adequate provision for the leisure needs of boys and girls who live in industrial areas, and are in especial need because they live in tiny overcrowded houses, and because both their parents are usually at work until late in the evening, is especially the clergy's responsi- bility? I am sure the clergy will accept their share of responsibility for this very real social evil—but it is the responsibility of society as a whole, of which they are members, is it not?
What Sunday school teaching or bad sermons can have to do with the question I am unable to see : nor for that matter the proselytism of Dr. Billy Graham (I am care- ful you will note to give him his correct title). And I am all for experiment being made— that is why I wrote the article : but they can come to very little unless far more lay people will come forward to do social work in our slums, and unless the social conscience is made much more alive to the spiritual evils for which the Industrial Revolution has been and still is responsible.—Yours faithfully,
1. C. VAUGHAN WILKES
Hunslet Vicarage, Leeds, 10
Previous page
