PRAYER BOOK REVISION

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 83, 6 January 1928, Page 7

PRAYER BOOK REVISION

EXCHANGE OF OPEN LETTERS ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY AND DR. BARNES “SCIENCE AND RELIGION NOT INCOMPATIBLE” “The reverbrations of the footsteps of Canon Bullock-Webster along the aisle of St. Paul s may well be heard for centuries down the corridors of English Church history,” writes “A Churchman, in the London "Daily News. The open letter of Dr. Barnes, _ Bishop of Birmingham, to the Archbishop of Canterbury as a result ot the lenient at St. Paul’s Cathedral earlier in the month has proved to be the great of the week in England recently, says "Public Opinion,” and it has occunte pride of place in the newspapers up and dowtf the land for some days His not necessary to give in full the Ict of Dr. Barnes and Archbishop Davi - son, as they have been widely printed, but here are the main points made by the writers. Dr. Barnes said ■- “One cause of weakness of the Church has arisen from the apparent urination of religious teachers to gnore scientific discovery, though all competent biologists accept mans evol - tions from an ape-like stock. The theological consequences of such beliei al still seldom stated. I set myself years ago to expound these consequences and to show why they did not. seem to me to upset the main Christian position. On this topic I have preached or spoken scores of times. . . “I spoke as follows in the Birmingham address which called forth the recent protest. ’We understand ~aciamental Grace in its fullness and power not by foolishly speaking of bread as if it were God Himself, but when the Heavens open for us find for a moment we see the whole of creation as the expression of God’s purpose and He Himself in wisdom, might, and love, the goal to Whom our striving leads and the end where man’s restless spirit has Pe "lt’is’vital to the welfare of English religion that the officers of the National Church should fear neither to welcome new knowledge nor to maintain all that is sound in ancient doctrine. The standard of education is slowly rising. I invite your Grace to consider what steps can be taken to help those of us who are giving of our best to fit the Church to be in the future the spiritual guide of an educated nation.” The Archbishop’s Reply.

The Archbishop, in the course of his reply, said:— T ... “For myself, at least, I can say that your position on the biological question, in outline and so far as I understand it, is one with which I, personally, have been familiar for more than fifty years. Believe me, this teaching, however admirable, is to most of us not novel, and I do not think that those who hear you on the subject with interest and advantage would recognise themselves as 'wistful agnostics.’ As far as I can judge, it is not on what you have said with regard to that branch of science or theology that the attention of thoughtful men has been centred. It is to familiar. . • • ... . , “In my judgment one of the first, steps is to secure the scrupulous use of the most careful language possible in dealing with doctrinal matters of deep solemnity which affect the devotional thoughts and prayers of Christian people. .■ . . “In your natural and legitimate desire to denounce the few in the Church of England who hold or teach the doctrine of Transubstantiation, you were led to speak of the Sacrament ot Holy Communion in a way which—quite reasonably as I think-gives real offence to the great body of devout Churchmen and Churchwomen, and not least to those who are able to give, scholarly as well as reverent consideration to the sacramental doctrines which our Church upholds. _ , “I do not believe that you had any intention of wounding the souls of honest and faithful English Churchmen, but you ignore or belittle the position and teaching of those within our Church who stand in the tradition of such English Bishops as Andrewes, or ken, or Wilson, or. in our own day, Edward King or Charles Gore. Nay, more. "Your words seem to me capable ot being so interpreted as to include in reprobation or almost in contempt the position of the great mass of Churchmen who would associate themselves with the teaching of such leaders as, say, my own great masters, Bishop Lightfoot or Bishop Westcott, or who have caught the devotional spirit of the hymns of Charles Wesley.”

Weigh the Effect of their Words. "The exercise of responsibility is obviously a duty peculiarly, incumbent upon Bishops,” says the "Times,” "who have to weigh the effect of their words upon all sections of tho great body to whom they desire to be lathers in God. It is not by public quarrels, largely over matters which are not in dispute, that Christian teachers wik advance the cause which they have at heart.” "The real question is, of course, not whether the Archbishop personally likes or dislikes the use of the bludgeon, points out the "Daily News,” but whether Dr. Barnes is justified in using it, and whether he lias done harm or wood to a cause greater than the Church of England in his full-blooded assaults on what he describes as 'priest magic’ and superstitious idolatry. ... "Io many reflective persons inside and outside the Anglican, community his bold ami uncompromising sermons have come like a breath of fresh air—enabling them to clear their minds, redefine their point of view and recover their faith. "Others, as reflective and as earnest and as liberal-minded, but more jealous perhaps for the maintenance of a tolerant Church outlook, have convinced themselves that Dr. Baynes has made an unfair because a promiscuous attack on Church doctrines, that he has failed lamentably to distinguish between the idolatry of the ‘transubstantiators’ and the true Sacraments, that he has cast upon the many a stigma deserved only by the few, and that at a critical moment in the history of the Church ol England he has placed her in imminent peril of a widespread and destructive schism.” A Reminder of Robert Elsmere. 'Fifty years ago the religious world was staggered by Mrs. Humphrey Ward's novel on the soul-torment of a clergyman who had to revise his views about tho supernatural side of the Jesus story,” asserts the "Westminster Gazette.” “There are to-day thousands of clergymen who find no difficulty in remaining Christian ministers though they have moved on to Robert Elsmere’s position and farthar. Truth about religion, as of everything else, must be a progressive revelation, or the Churches will not survive; and this is the central part of the Bishop’s position. "There is a moral in the situation for the Prayer Book controversy. It was put in the 'Times’ in a letter from Canon Streeter, who warned the technical controversialists that what the younger generation of men and won en are looking for is some broad moral and spiritual guidance in the form of an everyday religion. This is lhe new mentality to which Dr. Barnes i” addressing himself; and it is a delightful paradox that the range of his voice is actually being extended by his sacerdotal and Calvinislic critics.”

"Do we pul first 'fight living,’ or 'right thinking’?” asks the "Daily Chronicle.” -"Are those to be excluded

from any given Christian community who, being right in theiu observance of the practical Christian life, are thought to be wrong in the dogmas they hold? Is it possible, in the same community, to agree about the first, and bo disagreed in regard to the second? Upon tho answer to this question depends the practicabilitv, not only of Christian unity, but of the unity of the Anglican Church. “The answer is not easy, for it may be maintained that there can be no right living if the thinking is wr<«ig upon matteijs of fundamental impui'i. Tho whole problem for those w^ lo are endeavouring to compose the diflerenccs within the Church depends on 'he importance attached to ceffiain dogmas and tho observances arising from them. “Do these, or do these not, so profoundly affect right living that men holding divergent views about them cannot feel ns brethren within the same community? If this is the case, many will feel that unity may bo bought at too high a price, and that happier results might be obtained by religious forces co-operating under different flags.” What Happens in Scotland. “In Scotland it may be safely asserted that most of the students who leave the Theological Colleges of the Church of Scotland and the United Free Chuirch,” says tho “Scotsman,” “accept without much question the general doctrine of evolution, and the fruits of historical scholarship and criticism. “When they enter the Minis!i;y they find that their congregations have as a rule received little or no guidance as to what they are to believe, for example, about the story of Adam and Eve, which Dr. Baijnes—and many with him—believes to be simply folklore. “The natural temptation—and it is perhaps the best thing for a yonng man to do—is to avoid the controversy, or at least to teach nothing inconsistent with the new knowledge, though without drawing attention to tho fact that tlie preacher’s standpoint differs from that of many in the pews. For this policy, which seems to bo general, there can be urged, not without reason, the plea that while there is no real inconsistency between science and religion, yet to preach even a modicum of destructive critisicm would probably cut the ground from under the feet of many older people. “These, seeing the beliefs which they have unhesitatingly accepted all the days of their life, suddenly questioned and upset, might have their faith in the unshakable " foundations of religion seriously disturbed. But there is a more heroic view of truth. Admittedly truth may be uncomfortable and disconcerting, but should the Church not face it as the Bishop of Birmingham urges it to do? Have not the weaker brethren sometimes received too much consideration? In this part of his appeal to the Archbishop Dr. Barnes will have the sympathy of all intellectual people who believe that science and religion are not imcompatible.”