-
The Church Assembly and Social Credit. To the Editor of The New English Weekly
- Johns Hopkins University Press
- document
- Additional Information
Sir, – I hope and believe that the difference between myself and Mr. Maurice Reckitt is more verbal than real. I assumed, even if I did not make explicit, the difference between the Report of the Commission and the debate on the Report in the Assembly.
I should like to draw a distinction between the use of the terms “the Church” and “Churchmen.” I indicated a point beyond which I thought that “the Church” should not go; but I should think poorly of Churchmen, as human beings, if they were unwilling to go farther: I might even say that it seems to me to be the duty of Churchmen to go farther than the Church should go. When Mr. Reckitt says that he does not think that Churchmen are justified “in associating religion categorically with any particular secular theory,” I am in agreement, except that instead of the term “religion,” which I do not much like, I should prefer “the Faith.” But I should add that I feel that Churchmen, as individuals, might well advocate whatever secular theory seems to them most nearly compatible with their Churchmanship. By all means let Churchmen “draw constructive deductions from their premises”: Mr. Reckitt does that, and so, I hope, do I. In so doing, we commit no one but ourselves. It is not the business of the Church to commit itself to any particular secular solution; but it is very much the business of individual Churchmen, as they take their membership of the Church seriously, to be ready to commit their individual opinions.
