Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

we have developed in this country an episcopate whose functional life is quite distinct from that in other lands.

For example, our American bishops individually have more unlimited In no other power than any other bishops of the Catholic Church. section of Christendom is a bishop's judgment irreversible except by the cumbersome machinery of a criminal trial. It is true that in certain countries bishops have a more immediate jurisdiction (to benefices, mission, etc.) than here, but this is of slight importance to the administrative wellbeing of the Church in comparison with the uniquely ultimate authority which every American bishop possesses. Even in England, where we are told to picture "my lord bishop" the later's judgment is reviewable by the archbishop, and in practically all other countries is very frequently so reviewed. The caustic query of a distinguished foreign theologian, made to the writer several years ago, points the unusualness of the American sitution. I had explained to him that we had some one hundred bishops, and he had at once asked how many archbishops. I of course replied that we had none, save a titular primate. "A hundred bishops and no archbishops" he repeated slowly, and then "But who keeps the bishops in order?" It was the total absence of either humor or disrespect that made his question illuminating. It seems that at the Reformation, just as Protestants substituted an infallible Bible for an infallible pope, so Anglicans started the evolution of an infallible bishop. It is one of the ironies of history, that the germ of all later Roman claims, viz., that the Roman bishop could judge all but himself be judged by none, has developed into the accepted constitutional status of every American bishop.

Along the same line of ntional evolution is the freedom of the American episcopate from the devotional ministrations of subordinates. For anyone not a bishop to formally "exhort" bishops has become of questionable propriety. Here again, England has preserved the older practice. There, at many episcopal consecrations, the sermon is preached by a presbyter, who frequently takes the opportunity to point out in plain language the defects obvious in episcopal life. Many of the finest sermons of the Victorian Church orators were delivered on such occasions, and the plain speaking in them is startling to American ears.

One further local phenomenon may be noted. Throughout most of the rest of the world, the general custom is for bishops to depend-for theological judgments-upon theologians. No Roman bishop, for example, passes judgment upon a theological book himself (except in the

most extraordinary circumstances), but turns it over to his theologians, and upon their testimony depends his imprimatur. Further, in any important theological conference (such as that proposed in behalf of Church Unity), a bishop attends with his theologians, and these are quite distinct from his chaplains. Our American usage seems to be a legitimate development along the lines suggested by our Thirty Nine Articles. It will be recalled how Article XXII carefully distinguishes, with an implied contrast, as to "the Romish doctrine of Purgatory." Hence it may be proper for us now to speak of "the Romish doctrine" of infallibility -in contrast to others. LEICESTER C. LEWIS.

Monthly

A Magazine of comment, criticism and review dealing
with questions confronting the Anglican Communion
and more especially the Church in the United States
TEMPLE PUBLISHING CORPORATION

President: GEORGE A. ARMOUR, Princeton, N. J.

Vice-President: GUY VAN AMRINGE, 55 Liberty Street, New York
Secretary: THE REV. CHARLES C. EDMUNDS, D.D., 6 Chelsea Square, New York
Treasurer: HALEY FISKE, I Madison Avenue, New York

[blocks in formation]

THE

HE sermon preached before the University of Cambridge on February 2, by the Rev. Dr. Arthur C. Headlam, Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, was one of the most trenchant pronouncements on the relation of the Church to industrial problems that we have seen. He vigorously denounced the report of the Archbishop's Committee on Christianity and Industrial Problems for attempting to commit the Church to a particular economic theory and "temporary, doubtful and disputed political action." He says:

"I cannot conceal from myself a conviction that this is one of the most harmful documents which has been issued in the name of Christianity, since the days perhaps when the Stuart divines taught the doctrine of the divine right of kings, nor have I read any responsible treatise which in my opinion has failed so decidedly to grasp the functions of the Christian teacher."

We are glad someone has had the courage to speak out against the ever-increasing tendency on both sides of the water to commit the Church to distinct social and economic policies. We suspect that our own Social Service Commission would like very much to do the same thing in this country as the Archbishop's Committee has done in England. Perhaps they are already preparing some resolution to present to the next General Convention, embodying the program of the British Labor Party, which at present seems to be the social gospel most in vogue amongst those "who think socially" in the Church. We need to be on our guard lest the American Church should be led to make itself ridiculous by advocating any temporary or doubtful expedients for the solution of our present industrial difficulties.

Surely the Church is going very far beyond its proper function when it attempts to lay down the law on economic details. What would we think of the Convention of the Diocese of New York if when the construction of the Subway was being planned the Convention had appointed a committee to inform the city just what engineering methods should be adopted for the completion of this momentous work. We all agree that it would have been absurd if the last General Convention had appointed a committee to recommend to the United States Government the proper measures for building a sufficient number of ships. Today we are confronted with the great problem of unemployment, a problem which requires the knowledge of experts, men of scientific knowledge and experience, to frame a satisfactory solution. Shall anyone maintain that it is the duty of the Church to step in and tell the country how to deal with the problem of unemployment? Why then should the Church attempt to deal with such questions as taxation, or the use of the land, or the hours of labor, or the rate of wages? And yet it is just such questions as these that the Archbishop's Committee has attempted to handle.

It is individually the right of every Churchman, just because he is a citizen of the nation, to make suggestions as to needed changes in our social and industrial system, to offer his assist

ance in bringing about more harmonious relations between labor and capital, or to stimulate the passage of such legislation as may be especially needed. It may even be necessary for a group of citizens through their various organizations, such as Civic Clubs or Welfare Leagues, to appoint committees of experts to draw up programs for reform. No one, however, would contend that it was the duty of the Board of Education to tell us how we should settle strikes, nor that it was the duty of the American Federation of Labor to tell us how we should run our churches. Neither is it the duty of the Church to lay down programs for economic and industrial reform.

What then is the duty of the Church? The duty of the Church is to teach religion, to provide for the worship of God, and administer the sacraments as a means of grace for faithful people. Its fundamental duty at present is to revive the spiritual and religious life of the nation. If the Church can adequately fulfil that duty it will be doing all that may reasonably be expected and it will make a very considerable contribution to the social and the industrial welfare of the nation.

The closing paragraph in Dr. Headlam's sermon seems to us to state admirably what is the function of the Church:

"For there are two things of paramount importance. The one is that a people should live in the fear of God; the other is that it should have a right conception of what God is. That our people may be God-fearing-that is the first thing we need. That our conception of God should be a lofty one-that is equally vital. The religious history of the world is a record of the conflict between worthy and unworthy conceptions of God, and what Christianity has given us is a true idea of what God is the revelation of God through Christ. It is the function of the Church to teach that lesson that God is a God of Righteousness and Lovethat truth and justice, righteousness and self-sacrifice are the duties of man. We must be upright and honest; we must love our neighbor. Our full self-realization can only come if we are ready to give up all. Thus we shall seek the Kingdom of God, because our aim will be, in whatever place in life we may be, to fulfil His Will."

« AnteriorContinuar »