WHAT DOES THE CHURCH STAND FOR ?
By T. S. ELIOT OBSERVE that the propounder of the question 1. " What does the Church. stand for ? " in your columns uses the terms " Church " and " Churches " interchangeably (he speaks of " different branches of the Christian Churches "), and this raises a doubt in my mind as to what point of view, at least for the purpose of the moment, he is maintaining. And it is very difficult to reply to any criticism of the Church which . is made from an unspecified point of view. To discuss the shortcomings of the Church with another person who is inside it is one thing ; to defend the existence of the Church against those who are outside of it is quite another. The Church is. not a public institution on the same footing as, .let us say, the Water Board—an institution the proper functions of which can be discussed by all members of the community on the same assumptions. I cannot conceive such a discussion as you have initiated taking place in a Latin country, where people are either inside the Church or. outside ; it can take place here because the Church of England is in a vague way accepted by your " man in the street " as a kind of national institution, something maintained, as he supposes, at the public expense, something which has an obligation towards him, although he is unaware of any obligation towards it. It is some- thing, of course, that he should feel that the Church should be concerned with him. But the man who is neither inside the Church nor outside is a person who has thought nothing out, and therefore a person with whom discussion is impossible ; we can consider for purposes of argument only those who hold the Christian Faith, and those who (without necessarily being hostile) hold some other beliefs equally positive.
It is easy to admit, in the abstract, that there must be a profound difference not only between the theories, or between a few ideas which are from time to time consciously in the mind, but between the whole process of life, of those who believe in Christian Revela- tion of the supernatural order and those who do not. Both classes of people may underestimate the difference. We are apt to assume that we all, at least of one nation and language, have so to speak a large bookful of working beliefs in common, codes of conduct and manners and feeling ; and that the Churchman simply has something more, a kind of appendix to the book, called Christianity, .which contains some more beliefs to which the other man does not subscribe. But from the Christian point of view the appendix is the book, and the book the appendix ; and for him even the appendix is not quite the same. You do not carry on business in the same way you do not make investments with the same con- victions ; for the matter of that, you do not make love in the same way, or enjoy good wine in the same way. I know that I am thinking of the ideal Christian, who might be a St. Francis, and of the ideal atheist, who might be a Lenin ; and I know that such admirable exemplars of thoroughness and reason as St. Francis and Lenin are very uncommon ; but it clarifies the issues if we concern ourselves with the pure types.
. Now if your correspondent was, as I suspect, a Churchman. (whether of my communion or not) trying to take the point of view of the " man in the. street," there are two confusions : that of a man taking two points of view at once, and that inherent in the "man in the street's" point of view. . I am assuming, out of good will, that your correspondent's own point of view is not a confused one. The confusion which he appears to have taken on does not prevent him from having something to say that is worth saying ; but it is some- thing which needs a good deal of . clarification. We must make clear at the start that to justify the existence of the Church in the eyes of the world is from the Church's point of view no more rational than to justify any of the laws of physics, or the primary axioms and propositions of mathematics. The thoughts, words and deeds of individual ecclesiastics may from time to time require a good deal of justification, or even regret ; the ecclesiastical organization and administration may be criticized ; the quality and qualifications of men taking orders may be criticized ; the quality and the subject-matter of sermons do actually come in for severe criticism which is often deserved. And obviously, the quality of spiritual direction given to individual penitents will vary a great deal. But so long as the Sacraments are provided for the benefit of men, and the services for the glory of God, the Church is doing what is its essential business.
Is there not a great more that the Church might do ? There is, as a matter of fact, a great deal more that the Church does do. But one would hardly suspect, from your correspondent's way of putting the matter, that any responsibility rested with the laity. I suspect that the " man in the street " interprets, the parabolic figure of the Shepherd and the Flock too widely, and regards himself for all purposes as a Sheep ; with no further obligations toward the pastors than those expected of the sheep which we eat as mutton. He is even inclined to murmur that he has looked up and not been fed ; 116 expects, like an ordinary sheep; to have his pasture pro-. Yided for him without taking the trouble to look up. Your correspondent seems to envisage a Church weakened by an irresolute Modernism, established upon no theological Rock, and attempting to justify its exist- ence by " a thousand and one services, which other organizations might do better." It is for him to provide evidence. There are no doubt services, such as the pro- vision of better housing, which can be done better by other organizations—such as the State. But after all, vour contributor says only, " might be done better " ; and until they are done better, I do not see why the Church should not lead the way ; and I see no reason for assuming that the Church, in exerting itself in social activities, is necessarily neglecting its proper business.
A great deal of the criticism which the Church meets comes from such antagonistic sources that it cancels itself out. The two great popular types of criticism may be named Indifference and Meddling. If the Church affirms the primary importance of the spiritual over the temporal, it is accused of indifference to the real problems of the modern world ; if it affirms that the Christian Doctrine is incompatible with this or that political doc- trine, or with this or that tendency of modern society, if it _affirms its attitude towards divorce, or .usury, or the treatment of the unemployed, another class of critics, equally numerous, voval and powerful, will immediately accuse it of meddling with what is not its business. Is the Church which put forth Rerun Novarum and Quad- ragesimo ..4 no " seeking eager! v ," (as your contributor puts it) " for irrelevant attractions to win ears which are deaf to its doctrines " It is difficult to reply to a writer when one does not know upon what facts he bases his generalizations. It is still more difficult when he formulates the problem very differently from oneself. There are at least three .problems (1) the attitude, not of the Church toward the laity, but of the Church in the sense in which it compre- hends the laity, towards the World, (2) the attitude of the layman, who has to take part in the life of the World as well as in that of the Church, (3) that of the person who is neither for us nor against us. None of them can be dealt with very briefly.
[The Rev. J. S. Whale. President of Cheshunt College, Cambridge, will write on this subject next week.]
Previous page
