The Crisis in the Church
TIRE lay newspapers have been discussing at considerable length the revision of the Prayer Book, and some of them have announced that the approaching crisis is one from which the Church can scarcely be expected to recover. The crisis which will be revealed when the Bishops have finished the final revision upon which they are now engaged will, no doubt, be serious, but the Church has weathered crises (affecting both doctrine and administration) as grave as the present one, and for our part we expect that she will weather this storm, too. The Church of England, more than any other institution, has been aided again and again by the British genius for tolerance. All one can say is that, if she is not aided in this way during the next few months, there will be a distressing proof that the gift of tolerance is less potent than it was.
There is so much misunderstanding about the pro-. longed process of revision that it may be as well to put on record once more the various stages. First, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity in the Church Assembly drew up a revised Book of Common Prayer which is to be a permitted alternative to the existing Book. The Bishops, last week and this week, have been reviewing that work of revision, and their final revision will be placed before the Church Assembly. The Church Assembly must pass it or reject it as it stands. If it is passed, it will be referred to the Con- vocations of Canterbury and York for ratifica. tion. The next step will be for the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament to consider it as a Measure submitted to Parliament. They will make a report on it to Parlia- ment, though they will have no power to amend it, and when the Report has been circulated the Church Assembly will be able, if it so desires, to withdraw the Measure. Last of all, when the Measure comes before Parliament, Parliament will pass a resolution merely accepting or rejecting it.
The real controversy within the Church has revolved round the Communion Service. Men of various shades of opinion have disputed as to whether the modern language which it has been proposed should take the place of archaic phrases in various parts of the Prayer Book _was appropriate ; they have disputed as to the necessity of excisions and as to the value of additions ; but none-of these things has deeply moved them because they were not matters of doctrine. When the Com- munion .Service was tackled, it became clear that it contains or implies teaching which is regarded as complete and untouchable by those who are called Evangelicals or Protestants, and as inadequate by those who are called Anglo-Catholics. Some repre- sentatives of -both these parties are talking as though Secession from the Church would be preferable to a rejection of their own. point bf view.
The ideal solution, no doubt, would be that such a revision _should be agreed upon as would gradually, and on its merits, supersede the existing Prayer Book. There would then be but a single Prayer Book for the whole Church. This solution would be in the direct line of Church practice ; the revision of 1927 would take its place with the revisions of 1549, 1552 and 1662. The use of an alternative Prayer Book is a makeshift concession to necessity. At present anybody can enter a church and know with reasonable certainty what is happening, for a single Prayer Book is used by all. Still, it must be admitted that there is a wide gulf to be bridged before the Church can be satisfied with a single Book. There is now a deplorable amount of indiscipline in the Church. Some Bishops allow vest- ments and practices in the Communion Service which are disallowed by other Bishops ; and some clergy do what they like, whether they have the consent of their Bishop or not.
Consider, for example, the practice of reserving the consecrated elements. The sixth rubric at the end of the Communion Service explicitly forbids reservation. It says that if any of the bread and wine remains after the service, it shall not be carried out of the Church but shall be reverently eaten and drunk there and- then; Yet reservation is common. A great deal may be said for it on the ground of convenience. Very hard-pressed clergy—and there are many such nowadays—find it convenient to reserve the elements for sick persons. Some clergy, however, put reservation to quite a different use, and desire that the elements shall be used as an object of adoration, thus approximating to the Roman services of Benediction and Exposition. The Evangelicals think that any form of reservation is the thin end of the wedge.
Very likely the real test of strength will come in Parliament, and not in the Church Assembly or Convocation. Many Evangelicals say that the pro- hibition of reservation must be absolute, and have been warning Members of Parliament what is expected of them. The Anglo-Catholics reply that what t hey want is only a revised version of the primitive Eastern Liturgy, which ought not to horrify anybody, since even the present Communion Service reproduces one or two unprimitive features of the Roman Mass. It would seem that permission to reserve the Sacrament only for sick persons would meet the case. That would be merely in accordance with what is already a widespread habit.
The real point to insist upon is that the ideal of a national, comprehensive Church—embracing all except those who definitely desire not to conform—should, with the willing consent of the contestants, override all doctrinal differences. Anglo-Catholics should remember that there is no greater danger than that the Church may be crippled. Evangelicals should remember that even the -Elizabethan settlement, in spite of its tre- mendous importance (which, for our part„ we fully admit), would become a fetish if it lost that compre- hending spirit which was its greatest glory. What we fear more than anything else is not that the Church may be weakened by the secession of a party, or a section of a party, but that a majority of the Church, dissatisfied, though for very different reasons, with the control of Parliament, may come to believe that dis- establishment is a thing to be desired..
When the Spectator sent a. questionnaire to a repre- sentative number of the clergy, we found that, though the vast majority stood by the principles of the Reformation, even among them there was a certain feeling that disestablishment might not be a bad thing. Then, it was thought, the Church could govern herself as she thought fit, without all the misunderstandings of lay control. But this point of view was evidently adopted purely with reference to the Church and without consideration for the State. It is for the good of the 'State, much more than for the good of the Church, that we desire the continuance of the Establishment. It is very important that the State in all its dealings should definitely associate itself with Christian principles, as it clearly does by means of the Establishment.
Let it not be forgotten, however,- that, if the Church has become weary of Parliament, Parliament may behave in a tiresome or arbitrary way because it has become weary of theological faction. The greatest of all services which the Church can render to herself and. to the people of this country, and the noblest lesson she can teach, is to show, that she can live as a peaceful family should, containing many different Shades of belief and a various ritual, but not pressing any differences so far as to break up the family. On this subject the Preface to the Prayer Book written in 1662 is well worth rereading. It is a magnificent instance of the tolerant and compre- hending spirit.
Previous page
