THE CALL OF THE CHURCH
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—My letter was intended to provoke discussion ; it is difficult to draw conclusions from the comments which it has evoked.
I was sure that my experience was not unique, and some of your correspondents have shown that there I was right. I introduced it, however, to illustrate my point, not to air a complaint. I would assure " Candlemas Bell " that I am not in the least annoyed because no clergyman has ever called upon me, and Mr. Featherstone that I am not " com- plaining." I meant merely to suggest that there might be people whom (though they might not realize it) a visit from a clergyman would help ; and that if that was not reason enough for a clergyman to call, at least the Church might gain materially by a call. Mr. Bell states that I for my part have never called on the clergy, in church or otherwise ; I never stated that, and if I had done so it would not have been true.
The analogy of the Doctor is, of course, very imperfect. As a matter of fact I should have thought that possibly a doctor would strengthen his practice if he did call. But I believe that such conduct is abhorrent to his professional rules. Is that the case also with the clergy ?
Of course one does sometimes go to a doctor (or dentist) whom one had never met before and about whom one knows nothing ; but mainly, I should say, in a ease of recognized emergency. I fancy that we are quicker to recognize our physical than our spiritual ills ; and also that it is easier to discuss the body with a stranger than the soul. But, as I .say, I hesitate to accept the analogy.
Mr. Featherstone admits (with regret) that generally speaking London clergy do not visit their people ; he adds his own experience and suggests that " the people living in the more expensive flats " do not respond so well as the poorer " people. Well, I am certainly not one of those who pay £300 a year in rent ; so I am admittedly one of the poorer " people. I am, therefore, more likely to respond— only I have not been asked. I should like to answer this point far more fully, but I dare not ask for so much space.
Then Mr. Horsley asks me to be more sympathetic. I hope he will believe that I am not unsympathetic ; but I rather wonder whether lack of personal contact between the clergy and (may I call it ?) the non-practising public will not aggravate rather than solve the problem of understaffing.
Naturally," says Mr. Horsley, " we visit first the sick and infirm and those who ask us to call on them." He has, quite rightly, suggested that I have inadequate knowledge of the parson's lot ; will he, then, forgive me if I ask how the parson discovers the sick and the infirm ? Mr. Horsley will have noticed Kent's letter (in your issue of January 31st) ; may I add to it that though I personally have no knowledge of a ease where a Vicar has been asked to call but has not done so, yet there are two cases in London within my personal knowledge to-day where the sick and infirm " have never received a visit ?
Finally, Mr. Scott seems to have missed the point of my letter.
Well, what is my general conclusion to be, from the answers which my questions have received ? It seems generally agreed that the clergy cannot call, whether or no they ought to ; and that we ought to remember our duty without this form of reminder. So I am left just where I started—wonder- ing whether in fact we shall do what we ought and hoping that if we fail in our duty it will matter to no one but ourselves.
Previous page
