The Henson Journals

[310]

Trinity, Sunday, May 30th, 1926.

For some reason or another I had a broken restless night, and felt the effect in the following day. The two outstanding features of a Nursing Hospital are the misery of the nights, and the extraordinary patience & kindness of the nurses. I have always been an advocate of Nurses, for the future I shall be an enthusiast.

How small is the power we have to determine our own plans! I had looked forward to this day's Ordination with more than ordinary hope, and, until the stroke fell, I had never given a thought to the possibility of my being myself prevented from taking it. This summer had been more than commonly marked by engagements, important as the Prayer Book Revision Sessions, or interesting as the sermons at Hereford, Eton, Westminster, & St Paul's. All have had to be cancelled. The "self–direction", of which we boast as the hall–mark of individual liberty, is a very precarious, limited, & contingent thing after all: &, in fact, we are more free in appearance than in reality. This is the solemn and humbling reflection which my present situation suggests, and indeed compels. Well is it for us, if we can hold fast to the belief that the really controlling factor in our lives is the benevolent Will of our Father in Heaven, whose Purpose is "to give us the Kingdom".

[311]

Lying in bed I read through the Ordination Service, and, as far as was in my power, associated myself in spirit with the actual service proceeding in Durham Cathedral. Yesterday I received from the Ordination Candidates the following letter:

To the Lord Bishop of Durham.

It is a great disappointment to us all that you will not be with us this Trinity for the Ordination.

We are, however, confident that you are thinking of us, and we are desirous that you should know what a large place you occupy in our thoughts and prayers these days, and look forward to your return to us, strong and well, in the very near future.

R. Richardson.

Albert F. de Burton.

A. C. Hague.

Samuel Moore.

(Priests)

J. E. Dobbie.

R. W. Hitchcock.

John C. S. Daly.

James W. Welch.

(Deacons)

[312]

It is impossible not to ask myself the question, If I were a young man with the choice of a career before me, should I offer myself for Ordination in the year of Grace 1926? Certainly, the whole aspect and outlook of the Anglican Ministry have wonderfully changed since the year 1887, when I was ordained to the diaconate by the Bishop of Oxford in Cuddesdon Parish Church. So far as professional prospects are concerned the change has certainly been for the worse. Then, the essay in Disestablishment announced in Chamberlain's "Radical Programme" had just been triumphantly defeated. The General Election of 1886 had returned a great Unionist majority: and the Established Church had scored a resounding victory over its foes. Today, the very name & notion of "Establishment" are odious to a great number, perhaps to the majority, of the Anglican clergy. But this external aspect doesn't generally matter. In 1887 there was a prevailing optimism in Anglican circles. The Cambridge Scholars had rolled back the critical attack of the Germans: the process of "reconciling" modern science with historic Christianity was well advanced: and the eager response of the Academic Youth to such appeals as "The bitter cry of Outcast London" was as remarkable as it was moving. The Church of England seemed to be strong in the love of the people, in the loyalty of its own members, & in the enthusiastic zeal of its clergy. Perhaps [313] in one respect is the contrast between 1887 and 1926 more marked than in the quality and influence of the Episcopate. Then the English Bench contained not a few men of real & recognized distinction, to whose expressed opinion public deference was given. The Archbishops, Benson and Thompson, were notable men, and among the Bishops were Magee, Henry Goodwin, Elliott, Lightfoot, Temple, Thorold, Wordsworth of Lincoln, Claughton, Ridding, and very soon Creighton, Westcott; Stubbs, Paget of Oxford, & John Wordsworth. These men counted as individuals, and the public was concerned to know what they thought. The Bench now consists almost altogether of excellent and estimable nonentities, who are mildly Socialistic, mostly "Catholick" of some shade or other, and conscientiously "corporate" in their expressions of opinion. Individually, with very few exceptions they count for nothing. They are the mere dittoes of one another, & their voices are echoes of some "policy"! The consequence is that the public influence of the Church of England has enormously declined: & now has fallen so low that it is hardly worth while for statesmen to take it into their reckoning. The triumph of Tractarianism has been dearly purchased by the loss of moral & religious consideration. This fact has told disastrously on the quality, intellectual & social, of Ordination candidates.

[314]

"Not many mighty, not many noble are called" wrote S. Paul in the first age, & the fact did in his eyes but emphasize the Divine Energy which made the message of the Cross triumphant. But today the decline in individual quality which is apparent in Ordination candidates suggests no such consolatory reflection. For it cannot but imply failure of the Message to win audience, & move enthusiasm. The decline is not merely in individual quality but actually and most seriously in numbers. We cannot provide the working clergy required for the "manning" of the parochial system. My own diocese presents the general problem in a highly accentuated form. The clergy of Durham have fallen in numbers by at least 100 men in ten years! And the wasting process continues. The task of filling vacant livings grows ever more difficult: the day cannot be far distant when it will have become impossible. In 1887 the candidate for Holy Orders knew himself to be seeking admission to a respected profession, which included its fair proportion of really able men. In 1926 he cannot, if he be himself a man of parts & culture, be blind to the general contempt which invests the clergyman's profession. No doubt the Great War is answerable for much: but the decline had gone far before that immense disaster fell upon the Church, and it rather disclosed & emphasized existing tendencies, than created new ones.

[315]

But, it will be said, and with evident justice, all this may be true about the Church, but when all is said, Ordination is more than an ecclesiastical act: it is surely the confession of a spiritual allegiance, and the response of a man to the summons of God. "I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then I said, Here am I: send me. And He said, Go." If any man hears that Vocation, can he do other than obey? Must he not, be the secular outlook what it may, offer himself for Ordination? But it is precisely here that the real difficulty presents itself. In 1887 it did seem natural, all but inevitable, to interpret the Divine Call as a summons to be ordained: but in 1926, I doubt whether for most men this is the case. I doubt whether, if I had to face the issue myself today, I should conclude that Ordination was for me the right, still less the necessary, interpretation of the Divine Call. The lamentable and quite indisputable failure of every known alternative to Christianity – for I do not think this is an untrue or even an exaggerated description of the result of experience during the last 40 years, when the Churches have been shrinking in membership & sinking in credit – has left Christ's Claim more insistent & more irresistible than ever, but the claim of the Churches to express His Claim in their own terms is quickly becoming almost ludicrously unacceptable.

[316] [symbol]

Shall I have a longer opportunity of spiritual service as a layman, than I should have as a clergyman? Will Ordination extend, or restrict, my opportunity of spiritual witness? It is when trying to answer these questions that the devout layman, pondering this question of his personal duty in the matter of being ordained, finds himself compelled to take into account the general and growing contempt into which the clergyman's office & career have fallen. He sees, to put it brutally, that the Church of England has shriveled into a comparatively petty factor in the nation's life: that the clergy are dwindling in number & credit: that the traditional observances by which organized Christianity has expressed & strengthened its influence in society are quickly falling into general neglect: that the professional claim is being ever stated in more exalted terms, but that that claim is commanding recognition in an ever shrinking sector of the public: and he finds it difficult to resist the conclusion that he would hamper, rather than strengthen himself for spiritual service if he exchanged the layman's liberty for the clergyman's obligations. In all this, is the devout layman mistaken? Perhaps, in many cases he is, because it is probably still true that for some, possibly for most men, Ordination is still the most favouring condition for service, but should I have so judged in my own case?

---