The Henson Journals

[40]

Friday, January 30th, 1931.

[symbol]

I had my interview with Mr James, and accepted him for Ordination next September, on condition he passed the requisite Examinations, & offered a suitable title. I took the impression he was sincere, and earnest, but preternaturally heavy and boring! Before leaving my study, he begged for his expenses in coming to see me: and I gave him £3. This is illuminating.

The newspapers report that Winston Churchill has parted company with Baldwin over the Indian question. It is a pity when a General Election is imminent.

The Preface of the new Crockford is, as usual, good reading. Its reference to the Church & State Commission includes the following:–

"The Archbishop [of York] emphasized that the laity entitled to a voice in the affairs of the Church must be 'the worshipping laity'. His Grace did not attempt any exact definition of that somewhat elusive entity. Yet the point cannot remain undetermined. We think that it may prove extremely difficult to devise arrangements which will prevent those who regard the affairs of the Church as of national rather than sectional importance from making their voices heard [41] [symbol] from time to time."

The antithesis between "national" & "sectional" is hardly well–chosen to describe that between "spiritual" and "secular": nor is the indispensable sovereignty of the organised Nation (i.e. the State,) properly inconsistent with the indispensable independence of the spiritual Society (i.e. the Church.) But, of course, the situation in England, where the very notion of the Church as a spiritual society apart from the Church State is almost unknown, the superiority of the "national" to the "sectional" notion of Anglican duty needs no proving. Dibelius perceives clearly enough the complete absence of the Church–idea from the average Churchman's mind.

"The dependence of on the State of the Church of England as founded under Elizabeth has remained unaltered to this day."

He points to the rejection of the Revised prayer Book, as 'plainly showing how strictly the Church of England is still fettered to the State'. [England. p. 343f.]. He is certainly right; & he might point to the easy acquiescence in that rejection by the main body of Anglicans as proving how completely the "soul" of Anglicanism has grown to the servile model of its establishment.

---