Go to Page Number Go to Page Number
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The New English Weekly, 16 (1 Feb 1940) 226-27

Sir, – When, as Mr. Reckitt reminds me, I “welcomed the possibility of a discussion which must occupy many minds for a long time,” I did notmean that I hoped that people would continue to discuss my book for a long time; and I write now, not for the purpose of provoking a fresh burst of correspondence, but to make a few observations in retrospect. 1

I am grateful to Mr. Reckitt for drawing attention to more than one obscurity in my phrasing. It is always possible that a statement which is misunderstood in different ways by everybody, may still be the only way in which the thought could be put: but any statement which is misunderstood in the same way by different people is one that ought to be re-framed. I therefore agree that my sentence about the natural and supernatural end of man should be re-written, now that Mr. Reckitt seems to understand what I meant (or rather, what I did not mean) by it. In his letter in your issue of January 18, Mr. Reckitt cites two more sentences which must be blue-pencilled.

It should by now be clear that I was trying to limit myself to the minimalrequirements in a society before it could be calleda Christian society; and that I should not necessarily be satisfied with what I had outlined. It was, perhaps, misleading to speak of a “community of men and women, not individually better than they are now,” since I was unable to make clear that the real gulf to be bridged, from the point of view taken up throughout the essay, was not that between the spiritually backward and the spiritually advanced individual, but between one and another kind of collective attitude. The difficulty about my other sentence “Social customs would take on religious sanctions” is of another sort. I was only attempting to suggest what I thought was sure to happen in my society, not what I advocated and approved; and I did indicate elsewhere that it would be the business of the Church – primarily in the sense of the hierarchy – to check such identifications from going too far.

I did not mean to imply, anywhere, that any Christian, by reason of being engaged in manual labour, or on any other ground, was “absolved” 8from the obligation of prayer and self-improvement in the spiritual life. 2 I repeat, I was concerned with minimal requirements. If you say that my requirements were so modest that the result – however superior to our present situation – would not produce anything that could justifiably be called a “Christian society,” I can only say that I think you must abandon altogether the hope for a Christian society, and limit your thinking to the possibilities of a Christian community within a non-Christian one.

I am not obstinately attached to the term “pagan,” as the alternative to “Christian.” 3 I shall be glad if anyone can tell me of a better: I wanted to avoid, as far as I could, using (or rather abusing) the term “secular.”

I feel that I ought, in closing, to reply also to Dr. Peck, but, apart from the misunderstanding which he shared with Mr. Reckitt, and which I am grateful to him for exposing, I find him much more difficult to understand. 4 I do not know what he means by “fundamental democracy.” It does not seem to me that I denied to the masses of the people their Christian instruction. I do not think that I asserted that anyoneon earth was incapable of the vision of God. I hold no predestinarian theory of damnation. Dr. Peck seems to regard me as suspiciously as if I was an affable stranger in a smoking compartment trying to inveigle him into a new game of cards: I hope that he may come to be...

Published By:   Faber & Faber logo    Johns Hopkins University Press

Access