The Henson Journals

[67]

Monday, August 2nd, 1920.

[A woefully wet day with a brief spell of sunshine at lunchtime. I walked to Lambeth through the rain, & was just damp enough to be uncomfortable.] The Conference spent the morning in finishing the Reunion Resolution, taking much time over the resolutions. Then an unexpected speech eked out gracefully with ꓥclassicalꓥ tags [of Juvenal] moved a resolution requesting the President to inform the public of the amazing unanimity of the Conference. On this he dilated [very cantingly, &] with general applause. Then I rose & protested. I was "neither wise nor fair" to spring such a resolution on us: we all know what the unanimity really amounted to: that I personally could not go an inch beyond the statement of the Report: finally, that I reserved my full liberty to explain the measure of my assent to what had been passed. The Resolution was carried, but there was a substantial minority which voted with me, & a significant number of abstentions. Then the Bishop of London introduced the Report on Marriage Questions. I moved an amendment that the words "and indissoluble" should be deleted from the resolution which declared Christ's principle & standard to be a "lifelong & indissoluble union." Of course, I was defeated, but there was a brisk debate, & many people were made uncomfortable. I moved another amendment affirming the liberty of Christians conveyed in S. Matthew's version of Christ's words, but the conference was dead set on carrying its resolutions. Yet there was not a little sympathy with my position. The Bishop of Exeter supported me very usefully.

[68]

In the course of the discussion this afternoon ꓥone American Bishopꓥ [the Bishop of North Carolina] boasted of his State as allowing no divorce at all, and drew an idyllic picture of its social morality. He was followed by another by ꓥ another American Bishop ꓥ [the Bishop of Harrisberg] who declared that ꓥ precisely in that State ꓥ incontinence was more rampant [in North Carolina] than in any other [state]. My statement that a strict marriage law was no trustworthy index of sexual morality ꓥwas impressively confirmedꓥ [held good].

I was not a little surprised at the eagerness with which on critical grounds St Matthew's version of our Lord's words about marriage was summarily set aside by the Conference. It is one more illustration of the truth that in controversy men's attitude is rarely determined by arguments they advance but always by temperament, habit, or interest. Criticism would normally carry no weight with "Catholicks".

[I received a letter from Wallace Williamson, thanking me for my sermon at the Temple on July 25th, which he had heard. He wants it to be published, but on the whole I hardly think it deserves publication.]

[I dined in the United Services Club, and afterwards wrote letters. I sent £100 to L.'s account at the National Provincial Bank of England Ld, 18 Cromwell Place, S.W. 7: also I sent £40 to Bateman: and wrote to the Bank for a new cheque book. All these cheques I sign "Herbert Dunelm".]

---