The Church of South India
Sta,—Bishop Tubbs's appeal in the Spectator of October 28th has beep accompanied by scarcely veiled criticisms affecting the good name and policy of S.P.G., and, if these are to be submitted to public judgement, it is important that the presentation of the facts should be balanced and unequivocal. I therefore beg leave to make the following comments.
(a) Bishop •Tubbs attributes the withdrawal, or, as we prefer to call it, suspension, of S.P.G. support entirely to ecclesiastical scruples. It is true that many members and friends of S.P.G. have felt misgivings about certain provisions and omissions in the South India Constitution, and in this anxiety they are not far removed from the Lambeth Con- ference itself, which agreed that six points would have to be re-examined before full inter-communion between the Churches could be considered. In adopting a cautionary line the critics have not been concerned to defend any peculiarities or rigidities of the Church of England, but have been actuated by a godly jealousy to safeguard what has been the treasure and heritage of the whole Catholic Church, even in its divided states Even if the Bishop claims that the issues of the fourth and twentieth centuries are not comparable in significance, would he seriously contend that Athanasius ought to have compromised with Arius on the assurnpa tion that everything would come right in the end ? He admits that the case is still sub judice, and that is precisely one reason why S.P.G, 'reluctantly decided to hold its hand until the Church to which it owes, its allegiance has authoritatively spoken.
(b) He makes no mention of the fact, however, that S.P.G. operates tinder a charter which confines its activities to the Anglican Communion, and on these terms of trust it receives contributions from a multitude of subscribers. No person of good will wants to underline more strongly or longer. than need be the negative fact that the Church of South India is not in communion with the Church of England. Nevertheless, this acknowledged status cannot be ignored where legal conditions are involved.
(c) He uses the recognition of Lutheran ministers in 1825 as evidence of Inconsistency. It can be shown from S.P.G. records that this necessity was a very exceptional and temporary anomaly, which can hardly be compared with the recognition of a non-episcopally ordained ministry for a potential period of thirty years by an official act of a fully consti- tuted Church.
(d) He correctly quotes the returns of the Separate Account. But he does not explain that the sums of £4,795 collected in 1947 and £4,722 in 1948, when S.P.G. grants were still being paid in full, were intended to be a reserve for future expenditure. The gap ought therefore to be considerably smaller than he implies.
(e) I hope that the Bishop does not*issociate hin.self with the not unnatural inference of Indian Christians that the S.P.G. decision was influenced by the desire to bring financial pressure to bear on the success of this experiment. This motive only entered the mind of our coun- sellors as a deterrent to the course which they otherwise felt bound in conscience to take, and the repudiation of it is testified by the use of every possible opportunity to give indirect assistance to the Church of South India without infringement of principle or statute.
I know how difficult it is to treat these matters without the infusion of party spirit, and it would be disastrous to provoke an unbridled con- troversy at this interim stage. But it has been impossible to remain silent in the face of statements which, if allowed to pass unchallenged, would undermine confidence in a society whosel.responsibilities extend to forty- four overseas dioceses of the Anglican Communion, and whose only real offence is that it has endeavoured to comply with the proprieties of Church discipline by waiting for the pronouncement of Convocation. There are at least two other channels besides the S.P.G. Separate Account through which offerings can be forwarded for the maintenance of former S.P.G. work in South India, namely, the Missionary Council Fund and Bishop Western's Committee, and the Society can hardly be held blame- worthy if Church-people have responded less than .adt quately to these
opportunities.—Yours faithfully, BASIL C. ROBERTS,
is Tuf ton Street, Westminster, S.W.i. Secretary, S.P.G.
Previous page
