The Bishop of Birmingham and his Critics AST Sunday in
St. .Paul's Cathedral there was an which must be described as painful, , . incident ed . whether one regards it from the point of view of the .sincere Canon Bullock-Webster who felt it to be his duty to make a public protest against the Bishop of :Birmingham being allowed to preach, or from the point of view of the worshippers for whom the service was startlingly interrupted, or from the point of view of the Bishop of Birmingham who was denounced at the :moment when he was about to preach and needed all the authority of his office to instruct his congregation ;in a difficult matter. As it. happened, the sermon t proved to be a noble series of thoughts on the reactions between science and religion. For our part, we think that whatever doctrinal offences may be alleged against a preacher, and however deep may be the convictions of his opponents, there can be no excuse whatever for the sudden interruption of a service in church. Such an interruption can never be saved from an appearance of theatricality. There are always other means of protesting.
Imagine the feelings of those who intended immediately after the sermon to approach the altar and engage in the most solemn service of the Church. If they were doing what they have always been enjoined to do, they were at the moment of interruption trying to bring themselves into that frame of mind which alone, according to the Prayer Book, justifies anyone in taking part in the Holy Communion. After the interruption, though it was no doubt conducted in as orderly a manner as an interruption can be, it must have been impossible for them to recover their composure or their concen- tration. The whole thing was shattering. To this extent Canon- Bullock-Webster undoubtedly defeated his intentions, the point of his denunciation, rather ironically, being that the Bishop of Birmingham, by his heretical teaching, had poured contempt upon the sacraments of the Church.
It would be interesting to ,know how many people who, have been discussing this strange affair- have remembered certain -words- in the first Exhortation in the.-, Communion Service—an Exhortation which is seldom read . in_ public. The " way and means" are *re .described_ for becoming . " worthy partakers" of the Communion Service. The intending communicant is-required 'not only to search his heart to discover his offences. against. -God, but- to discover- those -against-his neighbours. He is exhorted to reconcile himself with his neighbours, whether he has to make restitution or to forgive an offence ; and he is informed that if he has not thus prepared himself he is "doing nothing else but increase his damnation." In other words, the, Church insists that Christian charity is equally with a humble and repentant attitude to God the necessary preparation for the Communion Service. It will be said that the Bishop of Birmingham's offence in the eyes of Canon Bullock-Webster left no room for charity. But if that were true, the Church of England could not really be a comprehensive Church. It would be the Church of an exclusive group.
Undoubtedly there are many earnest people who would like the Church to exact strict qualifications. They think (perhaps piously forgetting. the parable of the wheat and the tares) that the Church can maintain exclusive standards, and that it cannot be whole-hearted and really definite without them. The constitution of the Church of England is, nevertheless, a flat repudiation of such ideas. It is a national Church with wide open doors. It repels nobody who would come to the seat of mercy. If this were not the constitution and the theory, it would be impossible for most of us to support the Establishment as we now sincerely do.
In a comprehensive Church there is room for all who "profess and call themselves Christians." Surely there is not so much Christianity in the world that we can afford to thrust out of the fellowship anyone whose beliefs are sincere, although they may not precisely be our own ! That learned theologian, Gwatkin, in his lectures at Cambridge used to insist upon the alertness Which the divisions of religious belief preserved in the Church. These divisions, he would say, were often deplored, but they had a virtue, too ; they were better than what might prove to be the dignified slumber of complete agreement.
Some of the heretics in the early history of the Church were notoriously' men with the higheit aims and of the greatest spirituality. Such men fell into heresy through over-emphasis; they were so intent upon emphasizing a truth which they feared was in danger or neglect that they' went too far in the attempt to correct the balance. Even if Anus himself was not in character all that he might have been, there can be little doubt that his purpose of proving the unity of the Godhead was sound and loyal. But he went too far. To gain one point ,14 . sacrificed others. The victors of the Council of Nicaea, after all, had no other intention than that .which Arius avowed—to 'define the unity of the Godhead. We cannot get on without definitions ; and definitions are dogma. Canon Scott Holland used to say, when he heard untidy thinkers talking about dropping dogma and getting back to the Christianity of Christ, that you might as well drop astronomy in order to get back to the stars.
The point is that the Bishop of Birmingham has his definitions, and Canon Bullock-Webster has his defini- tions; and that for each of them his definitions make possible spiritual perception and satisfaction. We are by no means defending all that the Bishop of Birmingham has said. We think that by throwing about such injurious phrases as "superstition," "magic," and "idolatry," when he repudiates the Anglo-Catholic conception of the Eucharist, he is tactless. He could express his beliefs quite as plainly without being so hurtful. All the same, one who is both a learned man of science and a theologian has a great part before him in these days. • Look at the matter through the eyes of some layman who feels--unnecessarily, perhaps, but still poignantly—that the ground of his religion has been falling from under his feet. All the dogmas, all the precepts, and all the authority of the Church, as he has understood these things, fail to help him. He wants a re-statement of his 'religion, if it is to satisfy _ him, in terms Of scientific knowledge. *hat a light breaks upon_ such a man when he can turn to the man, of science who is Bishop of Birmingham !
Let us give the Bishop of Birmingham credit for feeling from the bottom of his soul that the Church is at a parting of the :ways. He sees. pne way which is to make, material objects a mystical means of grace, and another way which is to, develop the illimitable possibilities of spirituality within a man, for which purpose material objects may indeed be invaluable symbols but cannot themselves mechanically contribute to a growth of Spirituality.
There is a place for those who think with the Bishop of Birmingham. They have' nothing to apologize for when they make belief possible to tho§e for Whom it was formerly impossible. What we hope is that the - types of thought which are represented by such clashing' spirits as the Bishop of Birmingham and Canon Bullock= Webster will be able, after the warning of this disagreeable incident, to live in charity, helping such as they can in' their own special ways. Jeremy Taylor long ago perceiVea the only 'rule for peace betwe'en sacerdotalists and non- sacerdotalists when he said : "Dispute not Concerning the secret of the Mystery and the nieety -of the manner of Christ's presence. Sufficient for thee that Christshall be present to thy soul." •
Previous page
