[To THE EDITOE of THE "SPECTATOR. "] Sur,—The letter of Mr.
Ellison (Spectator, August 8th), draw- ing attention to this most important question, only indicates a few of the reasons why this matter is so grave and so urgent. May I venture, being in complete agreement with him, to supplement what he says in one or two directions. And first, it should be noticed that this question of the organisation of the finances of the English Church is in the strictest sense a Pan-Anglican matter. It not only concerns the two provinces of Canterbury and York, but the whole Anglican Communion. For, with the exception of the Epira copal Church of the United States of America, every branch of our Communion still looks to the mother Church at home for the supply of both men (including women, of course) and money. The extent of this dependence varies very largely, but it is true of all branches to a lesser or greater degree. The home Church, in fact, occupies a position in the Anglican Communion rather like that of the Bank of England in the English banking world. All the other branches keep their balances with us at home. And, therefore, if we at home muddle and bungle our finances, all the "overseas" branches are to a great extent sufferers by the mischief. They do not get either the men or the money which would be forthcoming if only our present elms could become a system. Their appeals too often elicit no response at all, or only an inadequate one, not because there is a lack of money or living agents, but because of the way in which we trust individuals, or groups of individuals, to attempt to fulfil the obligations of the whole body. This is no exaggeration. Rather it is a commonplace to all who have given the matter any close attention. Yet it seems almost impossible to get any one to take up the matter seriously. It is a real grief, not untinged with shame, to many sons of the Church of England to see her left behind in work both at home and abroad by other bodies which have organised themselves as for a great campaign, with central funds and all the power of concentration and initiative which a great central fund, supported loyally by the whole body, can alone confer. We trust entirely to individual initiative, to associations of a private and unauthoritative kind, while the Church of England herself and as a body does absolutely nothing. Confronted as she is in every part of the world by the gravest responsibilities and the most splendid opportanities, she has no policy, no outlook, no organisation, no initiative. This is true both at home and abroad. At home, for instance, the Church of tnglancl neither recruits nor trains a single candidate for the ministry. There is a great outcry for more men to be ordained, and at the same time there never were, at least since the Reformation, so many men desiring to be ordained. These men are for the most part poor, but admir- able raw material. All that is needed is to train them. But the Church does nothing, absolutely nothing. A few enthusiasts take the matter up and struggle along; but it is only private enterprise, the fad of a few, and the result is that while the Wesleyan, for example, have an ample supply of efficiently trained ministers, the Church of England has a meagre supply of men whose training for the most part is totally inadequate. And so it is with all work at home. Then consider the work abroad. The Society for the Propa- gation of the Gospel has a policy. The Church Missionary Society has a policy. Other missionary societies have policies, aims, commitments. But the Church of England has nothing and does nothing, trusting entirely to these private associations of individuals to discharge what is the bounden duty of the whole body. The result is that we are falling behind in the work of enlarging the king. dom of God. But surely the point need not be laboured. A body which has no fund can have no policy. It cannot undertake or carry out any work. It cannot, therefore, enlist enthusiasm or call for, enrol, and equip volunteers. At most it can smile in sympathy on the active and intelligent people who, having a work to do, organise themselves in a common-sense way to carry it through. But the Church of England has sympathised with work long enough, and if the Pan-Anglican and Lambeth gatherings mean anything, the time has Come for it to set to actual work. The lion in the path is, of course, the vested interests of all the existing private societies, which will fight to their last gasp to maintain the present state of affairs. But if the House of Laymen and the Representative Church Council will take the matter in hand, trembling Christian, or Churchman rather, will find that the lion is chained, and that he can advance in safety.—I am,
Previous page
