« AnteriorContinuar »
if we catch this vision ourselves, and then lead others to live up to it. We need not wait for the millenium. The time is today. Let us use what we have.
We would like to say more about the importance of religious education in the home, if space permitted. Here again we need the divine power, the "dunamis" which God has promised, and which will be the dynamo to furnish power for right living and true thinking by God's people. We long to see our homes become Christian homes, where our Lord is well known and loved and served, where parents and children pray, where grace is said, where the Bible is read each day, where devout souls try to live up to their Faith, and where families come together to the Lord's House to plead His Sacrifice on the Lord's day. It is hard to see wherein the majority of modern homes differ from those of pagan Rome, except that we use telephones, automobiles, cigarettes, and some styles of clothing not known to them. Possibly one result of the great war may be the restoration of our homes to God.
We have left to the last to mention briefly one of the most important elements in the spiritual training of children, worship. We have referred to the devotional life as it is developed through the Christian Nurture Series. Since our boys and girls are the children of God, they have the right to be trained to approach Him in divine worship in the manner appointed by our Lord Himself, through the pleading of His Sacrifice. The best way to do this is to give them the opportunity of taking their part in the service, using the Prayer Book and Hymnal of the Church, with just as much of the ceremonial and music as circumstances make possible, in order that they may learn by doing. If the regular parish services can be arranged in such form and with such music, lessons, sermons, etc., as come within the range of children's capacity and comprehension, it is ideal to have them present in full numbers with their parents in the family pew. But observation has led us to believe that in many of our Church Schools a large proportion (frequently one-half) of the children are from the homes of non-Church, or non-attending, families. They have no one to take them. And in some of our parishes
the services and music are arranged so entirely from the adult point of view that they are not especially helpful to children. When these conditions prevail, we have found it of the greatest benefit to establish as a definite part of the work of the Church School services of the Church, in which the children can be carefully trained to take their full part and to understand what they are doing.
Let the children, with their teachers and such parents as can come, assemble in the Church for this worship. The Rector, his assistant or one of the Lay Readers, can drill the congregation for a few moments on finding their places and explain the meaning of the service about to begin. Where it is possible, there should be a choir to lead the singing of the congregation. Older boys of the School may be used as crucifers and acolytes. Others may act as ushers. The Altar should be as carefully prepared as for the regular parish services and every detail of reverence carefully observed, for children are responsive to every influence and are forming their impressions of what is fitting in the worship of God. At each point in the service the assistant can quietly tell the children the page, and make such explanations as are necessary. This does not disturb the service. It may even be done by the Celebrant when he has no one to assist him. In a very brief time the children become familiar with the Prayer Book, and take their parts with earnestness and devotion which warm our hearts. Our observation is that they are usually as reverent as adult congregations and their responses far more hearty. Children who are trained in this way love the services and are less frequently lost to the Church than when they have never learned how to worship. The transition from Church School to Church worship comes naturally. They understand the services and feel at home in the congregation, and as a result are less likely to drop away when they stop attending the School. We do not mean to substitute entirely these services, where the children are learning to worship in an environment which wins their love, for the other parish services. But if we prayerfully and wisely use them for teaching our children they will prove of the greatest benefit to them
and to the adults who attend them. It is not difficult to have them. The Rector, with the help of a few sympathetic people, can arrange them. Again, let us use what we have.
By taking up the work where we find it, seizing upon the materials at hand with which to work, and learning from those whose experience may give us good suggestions, we can go forward with our work among the children. We know that it lies very close to the heart of our Saviour. We may therefore feel sure of His assistance if we take the children upon our hearts and ask Him to give us grace and power to do it.
The Place of Women in the Church
N a recent number of The English Church Review, the Rev. A. E. Olroyd discusses the claim recently made in the Church of England that "women may occupy any position in the Church that men do." This movement, it is pointed out, is not a legitimate development within the Church, but is the demand of the English Suffragettes applied to the Church and her government. The whole question, at any rate in this shape, is entirely foreign to our thought. And we are startled to learn that, while some of the societies working for this "reform" confine themselves to the province of the laity, others go so far as to claim that women should be admitted to the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopate, on the same basis as men. The foundation for this claim in the Church is the same as for the claim of equality of rights in the political world: that men and women are equal. Much use is also made of the claims of "Democracy." In connection with these claims the precedent of women ministers in the "Free Churches" is cited. It is even asserted, by the claimants, that women have in the past exercised the priesthood, though it is carefully concealed that no woman has ever served as a Priest at the Altars of the Catholic Church of Christ. I am sure we all agree with the writer when he says: "But surely we have the right to demand that professing Churchwomen shall consider this question from the standpoint of Church principles, and not from that of
political expediency or modern undenominationalism. Most of their arguments begin at the wrong end, and seem more concerned with the supposed grievances of women, than with God's revelation and the faith and practice of the Church."
Mr. Olroyd examines this plea on the basis of Democracy. No such plea can have any standing in the Church of Christ, he points out, as that Church is not a republic, but a Kingdomthe Kingdom of God. Its authority comes not from the people, but from its King, Jesus Christ, the Son of God. In the Church the authority of the ministry is based on the Apostolic Succession from Jesus Christ; and the Faith which the Clergy teach is derived from the same source. The claim, then, that because a woman may be as clever as a man, therefore she has the same right as a man to be a minister of God has no standing; and, if allowed and carried out to its logical conclusion, would destroy the Apostolical Succession. Further "the Church is not of the world, but called out of the world. It is the business of the Church to Christianize the world, not of the world to democratize the Church."
One basis of the argument thus disposed of, Mr. Olroyd turns to the place of the layman in the Church. We American Churchpeople are certainly astonished to learn how meager are the rights of English, as compared with American Laymen. It appears that they have little, if any, voice in the government of the English Church. The author is of the opinion that this has always been so, and that—while occasionally, in the Ancient Church, laymen may have attended the Councils, yet they had neither seat nor vote. To an American Layman who has sat and voted in our Conventions, Diocesan or General, or has voted for the delegates to these bodies, the following paragraph will sound strange:
"When the Bishops learn to govern their dioceses in and by means of the Sacred Synod of their Clergy, and not as so many autocrats wielding papal sway, then it will be time to erect in each diocese a House of Laymen to co-operate and advise in such matters as rightly belong to their sphere. But, as things are, any attempt to label a Diocesan Conference of mixed clergy
and laity with the name "Synod," will not ipso facto invest it with any spiritual authority, whatever legal powers it may obtain from the state."
Outside of this failure of the laity to hold any position in the governing bodies of the Church, the functions of the English laymen appear to be similar to those of our own laymen. It is these functions of the laity that the more sane and moderate of the ecclesiastical feminists are anxious to share. And they base their claim on the alleged equality with men. Mr. Olroyd insists that this basis is wrong. "There are no rights," he says, "either of men or women, as distinct from duties." He insists that the whole matter is a question of function, and not of right; and the function of a woman is not the same as that of a man. The oft-quoted text: "In Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, bond nor free," cannot, he insists, "by any stretch of the imagination be made to cover the abolition of the differences of nationality, or sex, or class; for that is simply, and as a fact, impossible.
As an example he takes the distinction between a Deacon and a Deaconess. The latter, he argues, could never take over the exercise of the powers of the former, because-in case she wished to marry-she would have to be released from her vows. The character imparted by Holy Order is indelible, and cannot be laid aside. Yet the Deacon may marry and still exercise his functions. St. Paul, we are reminded, excluded "the younger widows" from the Order of Widows, just because they were expected to remarry. The whole matter is summed up, to the writer's mind in the fact that "the highest office of womanhood is motherhood, and the highest office of manhood is Priesthood, and that the two offices are not interchangeable."
It is at this point that I desire to point out a distinction between our women and the women of England. Despite the fact that, in some of the American Denominations, women do exercise the functions of ministers, yet our Churchwomen have never claimed the right to enter the Sacred Ministry.
Our writer sees no reason why women should not have some part in the government of the Church, and share, to some extent,