CHURCH AND STATE.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."] Sta,—At a time when decentralization is generally recognized by leading statesmen as the chief feature in progressive administration, the "voice of the Church" seems to favour centralization, even though it has failed so patently in her case. The " Enabling Bill " and the " Central Council" scheme would perpetuate the inefficacy of Convocation. Cones- cation is hilid in London, and therefore only the richer clergy, that is the dignitaries, can afford to attend it. Thus the rank- and-file of the clergy are never really represented nor their views ventilated. Were a Referendum of the clergy taken throughout the country, the Bishop of Hereford would probably be found to have the support of thousands of the clergy in his opposition to the attempt to change our national comprehensive Church into a narrow, limited sect. Many of the reforms
suggested by Dr. Temple could be carried out under the present conditions of Church government if the administrative machine were decentralized. It would not require a Turgot to work up an effective administration through raridecanal meetings, archidiaconal visitations, and episcopal conferences. Reforms should begin from the top, and while we have Convocation or e Central Council composed only of dignitaries these reforms will always be checked. These remarks also apply to lay effort, which would be better represented with decentralization. At present the clergy when they do meet together are not expected to discuss any measures submitted to them, nor are they encouraged to urge reforms. The " Enabling Bill " has not really been laid before the clergy or laity for their dis- cussion or approval. It is the proposal of a certain ecclesiastical clique, which seeks to extend its present power in the Church.
Previous page
