CHRUCH REFORM
‘But now hath God set the members each one of them in the body, even as it pleased Him.’
1 Corinthians 12:18 (R. V.)
What is meant by Church Reform? This has nothing to do with pressing for a revision of the Reformation settlement; it has nothing to do with any restatement or new statement of doctrine. Its rôle is a simple reversion to original type. Its scope is the reforming of the government of the Church of England on old lines—lines laid down in apostolic days, adhered to long subsequently, and followed consistently in the best ages, and in the healthiest and purest communities possessing the Christian name.
I. For two centuries our Church has been without the power of self-government.—Its members have as members no voice in the administration of its affairs. It is to-day a Church without a constitution. Two hundred years ago it ceased as an autonomous body to exist. In 1702 William III died, and with him died Convocation. Not that Convocation afforded a constitution to the Church of which it was the mouthpiece, but Parliament which accredited Convocation did. For Parliament in those days was itself a Church Assembly. All its members were professedly members of the National Church. Government by Parliament was self-government for the Church. In 1717 Convocation, which for fifteen years had been practically in abeyance, was finally prorogued; and until our own times (1861), no licence from the Crown was granted to it to proceed to business. From the time Parliament ceased to represent the Church of England till the revival of the Ecclesiastical Assembly—i.e. during a period of one hundred and forty-four years—our Church had no properly constituted means, recognised by the State, even of deliberating on its own affairs. This means of deliberating was granted afresh at the date we have named; but, as we are all aware, it is solely a deliberative assembly, and as such has no governmental power. And, as at present constituted, we are heartily glad that it has none. Convocation in no true sense represents the Church. It does not even represent the clergy. With its revival came a certain inadequate degree of representation.
II. But the imperfect representation of the clergy is nothing to our present purpose.—It is the fact of the absence of the laity from this assembly to which we wish to draw attention. True, there is the House of Laymen, formed a few years back. But there is a view to take of this assembly which involves a reproach. What are the laity doing deliberating apart from the clergy? Does this represent any conciliar antagonism between pastors and people? Not at all. Why, then, this separation between the two bodies? It has arisen from the circumstances that the lay members of our Church have not in modern times been sufficiently instructed in their true position and rights, and therefore have not troubled themselves to assert that position and those rights.
III. And what fresh life it would infuse into our parochial organisations if parochial church councils with real power, resident in wisely chosen hands, were at the back of them all; and what frequent troubles would be altogether avoided, if (as would necessarily be the case) patrons would be compelled to put themselves into communication with such bodies when an appointment had to be made, and the clergy would have to do the same, and surely in the vast majority of cases would be thankful to do the same, when any serious changes of ritual were in contemplation. I, for one, trust the strong common sense, the seasoned judgment of the laity of the Church too fully to entertain much fear that the power thus granted would be used otherwise than wisely.
IV. Fellow-members of Christ our Head, we are members of one another.—God hath set us, each of us, in the body, that we may contribute to the original life and growth of the body. One member may not say of another, ‘I have no need of thee.’ Baptized into one spirit, eating the same spiritual meat, we are linked together in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity.
(a) There is a vulgar opinion abroad that the clergy only consult the laity when they want their financial support, while it is often overlooked that this support is sought not for themselves, but for work in which the people are primarily interested. But the clergy who long for the administrative co-operation of the lay-members of our Church say in effect, ‘We seek not yours, but you.’ We want your comradeship in the Church’s undying feud with sin and evil of every kind; we want your living voices awakened after two centuries of silence in the counsels of the Church; we want to understand you, and your strong practical ways of looking at life and life’s problems, better than we ever can, as long as the lack of a Church constitution deprives us of half the benefits of corporate cohesion.
(b) And perhaps we want to be understood a little better by you (I speak now of the laity at large), understood better, and thus to secure that mutual confidence which is the tonic of associated labour; we want to have our faulty clerical methods corrected, not by the critic who criticises just because he has no power to correct, but by the partner in counsel who has the power, and therefore uses it with the wisdom and humility which a sense of responsibility is calculated to promote.
V. If our Church is to do her great work in the future efficiently, this question calls for speedy but most careful consideration. Questions of detail bristle around it, but the fundamental inquiry is the first issue. Shall the voice of the Society once more be heard?
—Bishop Alfred Pearson.