LETTERS TO. THE EDITOR

[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. Signed letters are given a preference over those bearing a pseudonym, and the latter must be accompanied by the name and address of the author, which will be treated as confidential.—Ed. Do SPECTATOR]

OXFORD GROUP CO., LTD.

[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR] SIR,—" Janus," is a friendly note, speaks of " quite undue vilification." Is he quite sure? Let him look at the Official Report, Column 1,o99 (June 13th). This was my question: " To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether in the memorandum and articles of association of the Oxford Group Company it is proposed to include a declaration that the Group has no association of any kind with Oxford University or with the Oxford Society?"

This was the answer :

" I am informed that the promoters propose to include in the articles of association a statement that the group has no official con- nexion with Oxford University or with the Oxford Society."

"Official." Does not this imply that there is some con- nexion? Although the Hebdomadal Council and the Union

Society, not to mention the Senior Burgess and Oxford men generally, have repudiated all connexion. And who, in any case, will ever see this " statement? "

Then let " Janus " explore with me some past issues of Who's Who. The biographies therein, as most of us know, are pre- pared or authorised by the subjects of them.

The name of BUCHMAN, Frank. N. D." is not found there

until 1928. Here are some extracts from the account of that year:

. . Educ. Muhlenberg College, A.B., A.M., D.D. ; studied Cambridge University, 1921-22. . . . became the centre of a new religious movement known as A First Century Christian Fellow- ship, 1921."

The record remains the same in 1929 and 193o. (A cor- respondent tells me, as I have related elsewhere, that when he met Dr. Buchman in Holland in 1928 he was engaged on a vital Christian Movement ; but my friend must be mis- taken, for there is nothing about this in Who's Who.) In 1931 the name of Oxford appears for the first time (the name of Cambridge University, by the way, remains constant throughout).

. . originator of the Oxford Groups .. . became the centre of a new religious movement known as A First Century Christian Fellowship, 1921."

This I call the First Transitional Stage of the Tale.

In 1932 there is no change.

In 1933 we reach the Second Transitional Stage:

lf . . . originator of the Oxford Groups . . . became the centre of a new religious movement known as the Oxford Group Movement (A First Century Christian Fellowship), 1921."

In 1933, it may be remembered, the cerltenary of the Oxford Movement was celebrated in churches and cathedrals through- out the land, so that there was every encouragement to make the transformation complete. Accordingly, in the 1934 edition we read: " became the centre of a new religious movement known as the Oxford Group Movement, 1921."

At last, after thirteen years' faithful service, the First Century Christian Fellowship is finally discarded.

In 1939, the year in which, by a happy chance, the Board of Trade is to be asked for official recognition, the epic swells to a climax and quite a new note is heard:

" . . Educ. Muhlenberg College, A.B., A.M., D.D. ; studied Cambridge University, 1921-22 . . . visited Oxford in 1921, where in Christ Church the Oxford Group was founded."

Sir, do these words, or do they not, suggest to you and to the ordinary reader that in 1921 a new movement was deliberately founded at Oxford with the name of Oxford Group? It would be one thing to say " After thirteen years I have decided to change my name from Stein to Stanley for the benefit of true religion." It would be quite another thing to adjust the records so that it appeared that the name was Stanley from the beginning.

Cambridge University, no doubt, can look after itself. But

if any Cambridge man inquires what exactly is meant by " studied Cambridge University, 1921-22," I refer him to Who's Who in America, 1938-39, which gives an additional

detail ". studied Westminster Coll., Cambridge U., 1921-

22 "; and, from inquiries which I have made at Cambridge, I gather that even this entry is, to employ Parliamentary language, not pedantically ingenuous. Westminster, a Pres- byterian Theological College, is undoubtedly within Cam- bridge Borough bounds, but that does not make it " Cam- bridge U.," and no reference to it will be found in the University Calendar. Still, perhaps " studied" is more easily justified. It would be interesting to know whether Dr. Buchman obtained leave to attend University lectures, and did attend them.

As " Janus " probably knows, I exhausted every patient resource before I expressed (in words which I presume formed the basis of " Janus's " comment) the well-justified anger of Oxford men, as I am glad I did. I began this controversy in as friendly a spirit as I could command, feeling as strongly as I do. I kept it, of set purpose, off the floor of the House, until intolerably provoked: it was a Group supporter who put down the first question "for oral answer." I met two of the leaders months ago at the House, and I discussed the thing in a friendly way ; but nothing came of that. I have twice appealed in The Times for an amicable settlement, with- out response. In my final question I asked Mr. Oliver Stanley to receive a deputation.

I thought, and still think, it strange that my request was