For at least the second time, anyone who reads as far as
this may feel that he has been led up the garden.
The search for a common-sense
statement about God and the universe led to the familiar Creed.
The search for a common-sense Church leads to the building round the corner
that we see (and pass by) every day of our lives.
One of the troubles with us in England is that we take our
Church of England so much for granted that we seldom think about it.
It seems to us only natural that it should be there, for us to be married
(or buried) in, or to attend occasionally when there is a civic service or
a national day of prayer.
We perhaps know the vicar as an ordinary sort of fellow ('not a bit like
a parson').
When we go into the Army, we put ourselves down as 'C of E', without meaning
anything in particular.
We know that bishops sit in the House of Lords, and sometimes make rather
odd pronouncements about matters of public interest that do not seem to be
really their business.
We know too that on certain State occasions, such as a Coronation, the Archbishop
of Canterbury has certain functions to perform.
Most of us know the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury;
a smaller number that of the Archbishop of York.
Few could name more than one or two of the other bishops.
If this is a fair picture, let it be admitted that it is
the fault of the Church as well as of the public.
For the Church of England also takes itself very much for granted.
After all, the parish church is there for all to see.
Its tower has risen above the housetops for centuries.
Its bell rings (once again) for all to hear.
The times of services are on the notice board for all to read.
The doors are open for all to enter.
The Sacraments are administered weekly and often daily.
Yet, in spite of all this publicity, the general public, on the whole, ignores
the Church.
The reason for this is that the general public has come to
believe that the Church does not really matter.
Ask any ordinary person to give you his idea of Christianity, and ten to
one he will refer you to the Sermon on the Mount.
That is the impression he has got, and he would be genuinely shocked to
be told that the Sermon on the Mount is not Christianity, or even religion,
but a series of instructions as to how a good man should behave.
To do him justice, the ordinary man does not see where the Church comes in,
and the Church does not do much to enlighten him.
The urgent necessity, then,
is somehow to get it across to the general public
that the Church does come in;
that CHRISTIANITY IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT THE CHURCH;
and that the Church,
and in particular the Church of England,
does stand for something definite,
positive, and essential.
It is not just one of those funny old English survivals that keep alive a
quaint but out-of-date tradition.
It is not just a body of people who try,
however unsuccessfully,
to live according to the Sermon on the Mount.
It is not just an institution that exists to marry and bury people
and to provide a Sunday service to which you can go,
if you like,
to sing hymns and hear a sermon.
It is first, last, and all the time,
THE MEANS OF KEEPING OPEN THE CHANNEL OF COMMUNICATION
BETWEEN GOD AND MAN
BY MEANS OF THE SACRAMENTS,
WHICH GOD HAS PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE,
AND ALL ITS ORGANISATION,
ITS RITUAL,
AND ITS ACTIVITIES
ARE BASED ON THIS.
Without this they are meaningless,
and it is because people have not had this fundamental fact presented to
them
that they find the Church meaningless.
ONCE, however, THIS FACT IS RECOGNISED,
everything falls into place.
WE SEE THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AS A TRULY CATHOLIC BODY,
CARRYING ON THE SACARAMENTAL TRADITION
AND AT THE SAME TIME MAKING
THE BEST USE OF THE RELIGIOUS TECHNIQUE
DISCOVERED, OR REDISCOVERED,
BY THE AUTHERS OF THE REFORMATION.
It is, if you like, that essentially English thing, a compromise.
But it is not the sort of compromise
in which principles of real value are given up for the sake of peace and
quietness.
It is that rarer kind of compromise
in which there is a real reconciliation
of what might otherwise have been opposing lines of thought and action.
This is not to suggest that the Church of England is faultless.
It has serious defects, as its strongest supporters must admit.
It does not claim to be the one true Church;
on the contrary, it is based on the belief that there is at present no Christian
body that can properly make this claim.
But it does believe itself to be constituted on the broad principles which
must characterize the universal Church of Christ, when, under God's guidance,
that Church eventually comes into being:
namely, the Sacraments administered
by an ordained priesthood as the normal and principal links between God and
man, coupled with freedom of thought and conscience, no dictatorship, no
superstition, no sentimentality.
The Church of England may in many respects fail to live up to these ideals,
but these are the ideals by which it tries to live and for which it stands.
But surely, it may be said, the Church of England is itself
divided on certain important questions.
This is true to some extent, but within definite limits.
The very nature of the English Church allows for a wide difference of emphasis.
There are the 'high' Churchmen who tend to emphasize the sacramental and
ceremonial aspects of the Church;
and the 'low' Churchmen who give a prominent
place to the non-sacramental services and activities.
But all this is within the same framework, and the influence and importance
of a few individual extremists at either end of the scale should not be exaggerated.
The essential point is that both extremes meet in the common Sacraments,
as to the vital importance of which all are agreed, although they may differ
about the exact methods by which God makes the Sacraments effective.
Custom and habit have led many people outside (and even inside) the Church
to suppose that the principal acts of public worship are the services of
Morning and Evening Prayer.
Once it is realized that, for high and low Church people alike, the chief
and central act of worship is the service of Holy Communion, it is possible
to understand what is otherwise so puzzling, namely how, in spite of all
internal differences, the Church of England does hang together.
The enthusiasts may and do hold strong views as to whether the eleven o'clock
service on Sunday should be Mass or Matins.
But they can do so without real division, just because they have all met
on absolutely common ground at eight o'clock, when the non-churchgoers are
enjoying their Sunday 'long lie'.
It is true that many people who regularly go to church on
Sunday and contribute liberally to the collection would be astonished and
insulted if they were told that they are not sharing fully in the life of
the Church.
But if there is anything in the line of thought we have been following, it
is clear that, unless people are first and foremost sharing in the sacramental
life of the Church, they can hardly in any real sense be said to be sharing
in its life at all.
The fact that the Church of England is 'established'
some?times seems to cause misunderstanding.
Many people appear to think of it as a sort of public social service, provided
by the taxpayer to perform certain official functions, like the National
Health Insurance or the Labour Exchange.
It seems necessary, therefore, to point out that the Church of England is
self-governing and self-supporting.
'Establishment' means that there are Acts of Parliament which confer upon
it certain rights and duties.
There are some things, which it cannot do without the sanction of Parliament.
The chief appointments in the Church are made by the King, who has constitutionally
in this as in other official matters to act on the advice of his Ministers,
who may not be Churchmen or even Christians.
It is to be presumed, however, that His Majesty's Ministers are in the habit
of taking their responsibilities seriously, and that they do not make recommendations
without taking steps to make sure that those recommendations are reasonable
from the point of view of the Church in general.
On this understanding, there is evidently much to be said for the system
as compared, for instance, with a system of election by ballot, with all
the accompaniments of canvassing and other undesirable features.
Most Church people are probably content that things should remain as they
are, believing that God overrules all, and that he is just as capable of
using the present system as any other human arrangement for the purpose
of giving effect to his will, if he sees fit to do so.
Page^