The Press. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1913. THE ANGLICAN CHURCH CONGRESS.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14842, 6 December 1913, Page 10

The Press. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1913. THE ANGLICAN CHURCH CONGRESS.

The annual Congress of tho Anglican Church (in England) is generally an event of far-reaching importance, for the modern religious world generally. Its increasing importance in the eyes of the British public may be illustrated by a ]ittle fact mentioned by tho president of the recent Congress at Southampton, viz., that on the last occasion of meeting at Southampton, forty-three years ago, the amount of space given by ."The Times" to the whole week's proceedings was two columns; whereas the space given to the meeting of 1912 was eighteen and a half columns. We have not reckoned up the space allotted to the recent meeting, but, on a rough estimate, it would be found to surpass even that of last year. Unusual interest had been aroused beforehand over this meeting. It was known . that ecclesiastical politics, parochial and diocesan affairs, and such-like matters, would receive scarcely any attention; but that, instead, tho Congress would try to grapple with the ideals of the Church in their relation to some of tho large social and international problems of the present day. This anticipation was abundantly fulfilled, and some interesting and fruitful discussions were the result.

, Expressing the religious ideal as /'the Kingdom of God," tho Bishop of Winchester, President, of the Congress, laid .down, as tho broad basis of their discussions, the Kingdom of God in its relation to—(1) tho sexes, (2) the races, (3) the social order. The first division naturally bifurcated into the problem of marriage laws and marriage relations, and that of the general ideals and inspirations of women. The second also bifurcated into two main heads: the relation of civilised nations to. each other, and .the relations of tho higher civilised races to the lower. The third, as might be expected, broke up into several divirions. Such, topics as industrialism, Socialism, property, liberty, civilisation ftself, capital and labour, and other aspects of modern life, came. under discussion. From this mass of material it will be easily understood ' that the Congress found itself confronted with a task of enormous complexity. It had to try to determine where does the Church come in, and where ought it to come in, in all this, vast 'complex mass of modern life ? It is hardly necessary to say that no specific answers to these .questions vrere t or could be, arrived at. One has only to take

any two. subdivisions, say, femalo franchise and the question of . individual ownership, and ask oneself— should the Church take a definite side on these questions, and, if so, which eide? In fact, one might go ife-ough the whole programme, and ask,, on which one of these problems is a great religious body bound by its tenets or its authority to take up a partisan attitude P And, if there is only one possible answer—practically on none of them—-the nod; question that naturally arises is, was, the whole Congress then, a solemn beating of the air? Nothing could be further from tho fact: and we will try to show briefly how. It would indeed bo unfortunate if discussions on -the Christian ethics of modern problems were to be regarded as barren 'of. results unless they committed the , ' Church to a definite choice between two highly controversial points of-view. 2?obody can say, for example, that Socialism is wrongs and private property right, or vice-versa, in a moral or Christian sense. But in both these broad constructive principles, in tho mode of propagating them, in the spirit in which they are advocated, in the sides of human nature to which they are made to appeal, in the theory of human nature on which they are based, there may be a groat deal tbat is morally low, and, from the Christian point of view, downright bad. It was quite worth the "while of a Church Congress to spend four days in turning the searchlight of nigh Christian standards on the inner spirit and divining impulses of a great array of social and political •nrobloms.

In fact, as. was clearly brought out at the Congress, the mission of a Church in the world is far higher and deeper than to be an advocate of female franchise, or Home Rule, or some specific way of dealing with native races, or any other "cause" of this kind. If it takes a definite side on one of such questions, which may be at the time deeply moving the public mind, it does so as a corporation of persons who may be presumed to have been well educated, and to have thought deeply and seriously on such social and political questions as affect the welfare of humanity. But it has no right to do co as a religious organisation, claiming Divino authority and Divine guidance in support of its operations. Its business is to go to the heart and spirit of things. As-one speaker put it, religion

is not a body of political aad social maxims; it is a flame and an inspiration. There iwed to b© a method (not quite dead yet) of arriving at principles of social conduct solely by quoting definite commands and prohibitions from tho New Testament. It is not for as to attempt to draw the line between those atlerancs of Christ and St. Paul which had a purely temporary application, and thoso which were meant to bo abiding canons of Christian conduct. But we are bound in honesty to state that much mischief has boon done by attempts to engraft on a highly complicated social system maxims which wero obvously only called forth by the "hardness of heart" of a single generation. The most conspicuous instance is the grare and difficult problem of tho laws of marriage and divorce. In this and such like instances the most potent factor must always bo the best public sentiment of any particular age. And the business of a Church is to strive that this public sentiment may be, through all it* social manifestations, and through all changes -wrought by time and circumstance, permeated and saturated not only with the moral ideals, but with the spirit and method of the Founder of Christianity.