[To the Editor of Tim SPECTATOR.] Sa t, —May I protest
against both the spirit and matter of Lord Tavistock's letter last week ? There is hardly a sentence in it with which I .do not disagree. Some things, however, are lot i nportant matters of taste. That he should correlate " the fl!e try monotony of Hymns Zncient and Modern and the Book of Common Prayer," and should, apparently, find what are to me the somewhat irritating efforts of Revised Prayer Rooks and amateur services " more.worthy of God and more
helpful to man " than what is one of the glories of English prose and one of the classics of Christian devotion may be a matter for surprise ; but I have naturally no more wish to interfere with his form of public worship than I hope he has with mine. But the last three paragraphs of his letter call for more serious dissent.
I am not a supporter of the present Government. nor do I admire their policy ; but I should hesitate on the available evidence to describe theta as " obviously pagan statesmen." Even were I convinced of this, I should regard it as all the more reason for praying that " God would send blessings of grace and wisdom " on them. And if I feel (as I often do) that it is hypocritical to pray for a blessing on those of whom I disapprove, is that a reason for ceasing to pray forThem or for praying that oneself may be made more etnformable to Him who commanded us to pray for them that despitefully use us ?
Because another pursues a course which seems to me incon-
sistent with Christian principles, who am I that 1 sl ld decide whether he is or is not a " real Christian " ? Surely it is an elementary moral principle that while we should ourselves act upon the most rigid interpretation of Christ'i teaching, we should give others the benefit of every possible doubt. We may disagree with their views and deplore their actions, we may oppose and denounce their policy, but have we the right to condemn them for inconsistency and ittyincerity
There are people today very vocal in proclaiming what is or is not " in accordance with the mind of Christ." Others are less certain that they are in full possession of that infor- mation. Moreover, the views of the former are generally very different from those held by Christians for centuries past. None the worse for that. Newness does not condemn an opinion, but it does suggest sonic humility in propounding it. A sense of proportion alone might induce sufficient scepticism as to the probability of our own generation being right to induce us- not to give up our own opinions, that is neither necessary nor desirable-- but to tolerate those who hold to other views, especially when those views have commended themselves to generations of not wholly unintelligent men.
But, alas, odium theologicum is very persistent. It is hard to disagree and yet not condemn ; but it is disheartening to see that the new orthodoxy is to be no less exclusive than the old. Lord Tavistock is in good company in excluding front the true Church all who disagree with him ; but in former ages Christians did at least pray for their opponents. Even during the ages of persecution the early Christians prayed for the Roman Emperors, and prayed not merely for their " speedy removal to some sphere of life where they can do less harlot." but for their prosperity and happiness. It is a new doctrine that " only earnest Christians are able to receive . . . blessings of wisdom and grace " ; one had rather imagined that grace bad something to do with converting men to Christianity.
What exactly is meant by " really enlightened prayer " Is it related to the view of which we recently had a st riking example ? The Chapter of Liverpool Cathedral found them- selves unable " to commend the proposals of our Ministers of State to the blessing of Almighty- God," apparently not trusting Him to be able to decide whether they were good proposals or bad, or else holding such a mechanical conception of prayer that they could not see that the blessing of a bud policy would be the revision of it into a good one. But should one really pray for particular policies at all ? God alone knows what is the right policy today. Is it not more fitting that we should ask Him to bless our rulers and to endow them with wisdom and grace than that we should suggest to Him what policy He should persuade them to adopt Y Finally, may I say that, though T consider that Lord
Tavistock's views are deplorably Idle-headed and that their general adoption would be most pernicious, though 1, therefore, feel bound to combat them by every means. yet I do not question his sincerity or doubt that he is, personally. a much better Christian than I am ? That sounds painfully self-righteous, but I must sacrifice my own feelings for the sake of a concrete example of the attitude which I believe one should endeavour to adopt towards those from whom one
Previous page
