A More Judicial Attitude (1936)

BISHOP MANNING’S LETTER, published in this issue, in which he states that our editorial in The Living Church of March 28th gives “a distinctly wrong impression” as to his relation to the Torok case, requires an editorial reply, despite our disinclination to pursue the matter further. Since the Bishop’s letter revolves about four main points, we shall endeavor to answer these seriatim.

(1) Bishop Manning says: “Your claim that ‘The Living Church has taken no part in this controversy’ is an extraordinary one in view of the editorials and other statements on this matter which you have published during a period of more than two years.”

The controversy referred to in the sentence that Bishop Manning partially quotes is not the general question of the status of Bishop Torok but the particular controversy between Bishop Manning and Bishop Wilson, of which we said: “The Living Church has taken no part in this controversy except to record the news as it has developed.” We have recorded the news as it developed, that being a legitimate function of the Church press. Editorially, here is exactly what The Living Church has said about these matters since the original letter of protest by Bishops Mann, Ward, and Manning last December. In our issue of December 14th, after enumerating their charges, we said: “These are very serious charges indeed. The Living Church does not venture to express any opinion about them one way or another but does insist that both justice and honor demand that they be sifted fully and impartially.” The only other editorial in which we discussed this matter was in our issue of January 25th, in which we stated: “It seems to us that both parties to the controversy are acting in good faith and are justified in their contrary views of the attitude of the House of Bishops. . . . Justice to Bishops Wilson and Torok and the good name of the Church require that the House of Bishops cease evading the issue and render a clear, unequivocal, public decision in the matter at its next meeting.” If to demand a full and fair investigation and a just decision is to take part in a controversy, then and then only is Bishop Manning right in charging that we have been a party to this controversy.

(2) Bishop Manning says: “The case is far indeed from being one mainly of discussion between the Bishop of Eau Claire and myself.” Bishop Ward also makes this point in his letter in this issue.

We agree, though the controversy has revolved about the discussion between these two individuals. Bishops Wilson and Manning each claim the support of about 48 bishops for their respective positions. (We have heard on good authority that, incredible though it seems, there are several duplicates on these two lists!) Of course the matter is one that concerns not only the bishops but the clergy and laity of the entire Church.

(3) Bishop Manning says: “The primary question is not that of Dr. Torok’s fitness for the office of a bishop in this Church, as your editorial indicates. That question has now fallen into the background.”

We must respectfully disagree with the Bishop of New York at this point. If the issue as to Bishop Torok’s fitness has fallen into the background it is none the less the underlying element in the whole discussion. Bishop Manning himself has on several occasions made public but veiled references to “other serious matters” in connection with the Torok case. He has never said what these “matters” are and has thus succeeded in throwing a shadow of suspicion on Bishop Torok’s character. Is he now going to let that question slide into the background without bringing his charges into the open so that the man he accuses of nameless “matters” can have an opportunity of answering them?

(4) Bishop Manning says: “The question now before the Church is, Has the Bishop of Eau Claire, or any individual bishop, the right to ‘receive’ one who claims to hold the office of bishop, and give him status as ‘a bishop in this Church’?”

It is true that this question is now before the Church and we do not yield to the Bishop of New York or anyone else in our desire to have it settled. But there is another question before the Church that is at least equally important and perhaps more so. It is this: Has the Bishop of New York or any other bishop or priest the right to make grave charges that cast a slur upon the character of a fellow-clergyman without giving him a fair opportunity to reply before a duly constituted tribunal?

In any secular matter the civil court would protect the right of the accused to be squarely faced with the accusation against him and would permit him to testify in his defense and call witnesses to support his testimony. Will the Church be less just in protecting the rights of an accused bishop than the State is in protecting the rights of the defendant in a civil case?

If the Bishop of New York and those who support him in his contention that no investigating committee should be appointed but rather that the House of Bishops should consider the matter directly will agree that Bishop Torok be permitted to defend himself before the full House of Bishops and bring witnesses there to support his defense, then we shall feel that their contention is a just one. If, however, Bishop Manning and his associates intend simply to present their side of the case before the House of Bishops, probably in secret session, and expect the House to arrive at an ex parte decision, then we are forced to the conclusion that they are demanding an unjust method of procedure and one that is not worthy of the Church.

In a letter to the editor, accompanying his public letter, Bishop Manning writes: “I wish it were possible for you to take a more judicial attitude in the matter.” We for our part wish it were possible for Bishop Manning to take a more judicial attitude; but since he has chosen rather to be cast in the role of prosecuting attorney we hope he will find it possible to permit the defense the same privileges that he claims for the prosecution.

The Living Church, April 4, 1936, pp. 423-424.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Torok Case (1936)

The Living Church, April 4, 1936, p. 420

TO THE EDITOR: It was my hope, and that of the bishops with whom I am acting, that no further statement on the action of the Bishop of Eau Claire in regard to Dr. Torok would be necessary until the meeting of the House of Bishops, but your editorial (L.C, March 28th) gives a distinctly wrong impression as to my relation to the case and I must therefore ask you kindly to publish this brief statement in correction. Your claim that “The Living Church has taken no part in this controversy” is an extraordinary one in view of the editorials and other statements on this matter which you have published during a period of more than two years.

The case is far indeed from being one mainly of discussion between the Bishop of Eau Claire and myself, as all know who have read the published statements. What I have felt compelled, most unwillingly, to write on this matter represents, as you know, the conviction and position of a great number of the bishops of this Church, and this conviction has not been reached without careful thought and consideration.

The primary question is not that of Dr. Torok’s fitness for the office of a bishop in this Church as your editorial indicates. That question has now fallen into the background. In spite of the position taken in this matter by the House of Bishops at Atlantic City, and at Houston, the Bishop of Eau Claire, acting apparently with the assent of the Presiding Bishop (see the Presiding Bishop’s published reply to the protest sent to him by Bishop Mann, Bishop Ward, and myself), has taken action purporting to give Dr. Torok status as a bishop in this Church, and The Living Church has announced this action in its columns, and has recorded it, and published it as though it were official action in the Living Church Annual for 1936 (see page 500, and elsewhere, in that volume).

Apart from all personal questions relating to Dr. Torok, therefore the question now before the Church is, Has the Bishop of Eau Claire, or any individual bishop, the right to “receive” one who claims to hold the office of bishop, and give him status as “a bishop in this Church”? This vital constitutional matter, which your editorial ignores, is the question now before us, and this question must be dealt with, and can only be dealt with, by the House of Bishops itself, or by the General Convention, and not by another unofficially appointed committee.

(The Rt. Rev.) William T. Manning, New York. Bishop of New York.


TO THE EDITOR: May I file a respectful but emphatic protest against the statement in your editorial column of March 28th, that “The dispute (about Dr. Torok) has been principally between Bishop Manning, who opposes vigorously the recognition of Dr. Torok, and Bishop Wilson who is equally determined to have him recognized.”

The Bishop of New York is not waging single combat, but is clearly and strongly giving expression to the view of many other bishops, members of the House which on two occasions, at Atlantic City and Houston, refused to approve of the election of Dr. Torok and declined to give him the status of a bishop in this Church.

The main question to be considered at the next meeting of the House is not the other matters in this case, important as they may be, but the constitutionality of the action of the Bishop of Eau Claire; and for this decision the House does not need guidance by a committee.

(The Rt. Rev.) John C. Ward, Erie, Pa. Bishop of Erie.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Changing Manchuria and the Manchurian Chaplaincy, by the Rev. H. W. Overs (1936)

IF IT CAN be said that the Orient is changing, how much more truly can it be said of that part of it which has been the scene of so much political activity during the past decade. Manchuria is not only changing—it has changed.

During the time that the writer has lived there, since 1926, a new regime has arisen, which is so far different from the old as to warrant a change of name for the country.

Manchukuo does not seem to our western eyes so euphonic as Manchuria. There is difficulty with the pronunciation. Radio broadcasters call it “Manchu-kewoh” or “Manchu-quo.” And they have every reason for so doing. Who would guess that kuo in Chinese—the name means simply country—is pronounced gwar? The name rhymes with heretofore, not status quo.

This difficulty over pronunciation is not trivial. It is symbolic—for us westerners. Manchuria has a nice welcome sound; Manchugwar is anything but nice. The change in the name sums up in a word the effects of the change in the country.

Before 1931—that date is now alluded to as the year of the “Incident”—there was a welcome to “foreigners,” as all non-Chinese are called in China. Now it is not so.

The “Open Door” policy is a joke: or it would be if it were not so serious for foreigners who formerly tried to make a living there and have now given up trying. It may be an open door. It is, in fact, an open exit. There comes to my mind a riddle which my old headmaster boasted that he had invented—the only alternative answer to the old riddle, “When is a door not a door.” His startlingly novel answer was “When it’s an egress.”

But enough of joking. The opinion of the present writer —formed after ten years of living in the country—is that foreigners are no longer welcome in Manchukuo. And it is not to be wondered at. Look at it from the point of view of the nation that has expended much money and energy in creating the new state. Do they welcome those who desire to do business and to take money out of the country? I trow not.

In 1926 there were a dozen firms, British, American, and German, working in Manchuria. Now there is only one of any importance, the British-American Tobacco Company. The oil monopoly of 1935 caused the closure of the two last big firms there, the Standard Oil Company and the Asiatic Petroleum Company.

But what has all this to do with the work of the Church in Manchuria? The answer is, A great deal. The work of the Church may be divided into two parts: evangelistic and pastoral, i. e., missionary and “chaplaincy” work.

Evangelistic or missionary work in Manchuria is mainly in the hands of the Church of Scotland mission and the Irish Presbyterian mission with their joint headquarters at Mukden. The Anglican Church—for obvious and good reasons—does not overlap with missionary work, but confines its activities to the care of its own people who are residents in Manchuria.

As regards missionary work, the new regime has recently adopted a “positive policy” towards native Christians, somewhat similar to the experience of Korea twenty years ago. Native Christians have been arrested and “examined” for alleged complicity with Communist plots to overthrow the new state. The new regime is most suspicious of this Communism, whatever is meant by the term. Proximity to Russia is the excuse for this suspicion. If the Christians happen to be working for foreign firms they are especially liable to arrest. If they belong to any society—however innocent—they are asking for trouble. Some Christian students of the Manchuria Christian College in Mukden belonged to a society for assisting a poor student to pass through college. They called it the One Cent Society because they contributed one cent per day. They were all arrested and imprisoned for weeks or months.

This persecution, however inconvenient for the persecuted, may have its benefits in the long run. Church history bears this out. It is a time of discipline and testing for the Church in Manchuria. Up to the present only those who are connected with British firms or missions have been subject to persecution. The reason for this is that they are associated with the nation which was mainly responsible for the Lytton Commission whose findings are unpopular with the present regime. In fact, some of those arrested were questioned as to what they told the commission which visited Mukden four years ago. The Oriental has a long memory.

It is hoped that only good will come out of the present distress. Good in the way of a better quality of Christianity. From now on, those who are influenced to join the Church will know that their decision may entail suffering for their Faith. This has ever been so in the history of the development of the Faith.

AS REGARDS the chaplaincy—that side of the Church’s work which is concerned with the spiritual oversight of the non*native or foreigners in Manchukuo—the effect of the new regime has been disastrous. Whereas when the present writer took over the chaplaincy in 1926, there were upwards of 500 persons in the four congregations scattered in Manchuria, now there are less than a hundred. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel which has partly maintained a chaplain in Manchukuo for nearly 30 years has now decided at least temporarily to stop the grant. It is a sorry tale; and sympathy is felt for the few remaining Christian folk in Manchuria who are at present without a resident chaplain. The Church of Scotland Mission in Mukden, with whom the most cordial relations exist, will continue to help in maintaining a weekly service in Mukden. This arrangement, which has the sanction and blessing of the Bishop of North China in whose diocese Manchukuo is, has gone on happily for the past ten years. The absence of the chaplain in other places on certain Sundays in the month has been an occasion for this happy experiment in Church union. A weekly service has been held in St. Barnabas’ Church, Mukden, since its consecration in 1933, either by the chaplain or a member of the local Scottish or Irish mission. It has resulted in nothing but good on all sides.

There are two beautiful little churches which have been built and maintained by the foreign congregations, at Newchang—once a flourishing port and now reduced to a handful of foreigners—and Mukden. Here, it is hoped, the Bishop of North China will be able to arrange for occasional celebrations of Holy Communion. The Church in Dairen is used mainly by the Japanese Congregation of the Sei Kokwai—the Episcopal Japanese Church. The future outlook for the Church in Manchuria is unsettled, but “God sitteth above the water-floods.”

The Living Church (Milwaukee), 1936, pp. 789-790.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Our Semi-Centennial (1928)

The Living Church has attained to the dignity of an age of half a century. Its fiftieth year was completed with last week’s issue; the present issue begins the fifty-first year. The fact that it also begins the eightieth volume is a little misleading, since the volumes, originally covering a full year, now cover only six months. A year’s quota consists of nearly two thousand pages, an average of nearly thirty-six pages to an issue.

The first number of The Living Church was dated November 2, 1878. It consisted of twenty-four pages, slightly smaller than the present page. A reduced size facsimile of the cover page is printed on the cover of this issue. Most of the issues for the first year consisted of sixteen pages, and the subscription price was $3.00 a year. Since the present contents are more than double those of the first volume, though the increase in price is only from $3.00 to $4.00, it will be seen that the greatly increased costs of publication are reflected not at all in the present subscription price, and the Class B sustaining subscribers are paying scarcely a higher rate than did the original subscribers under the conditions of fifty years ago.

The paper began with the subscription list of The Province [of Illinois], formerly The Diocese, which had been published in Knoxville, Ill., for the Illinois dioceses, by the late Rev. Charles W. Leffingwell, D.D. The first editors of The Living Church were the Rev. Samuel S. Harris, D.D., rector of St. James’ Church, Chicago, and the Rev. John Fulton, D.D., rector of St. Paul’s Church, Milwaukee, while the Rev. George F. Cushman, D.D., rector of St. Stephen’s Church, Chicago, was described as associate editor. The publication office was in Chicago.

The first editorial leader recalled that “not very long ago” there were two parties in the American Church, but that now (1878) “the High Church party seemed to have carried all before it.” Of late, however, “the ‘advanced’ men of the ritualistic school were recognized as forming a new ‘Catholic’ party, and they forthwith found themselves opposed not only by Low Churchmen but by staunch High Churchmen with whom they had previously been allied.” There were, however, “no organized parties in the Protestant Episcopal Church, and what is better still, the spirit of party is in universal disrepute.” It is declared that The Living Church is not to be “the organ of any school or party in the Church, and just as little will it be the enemy of any.”

IT was only about six months that the paper remained under the management of Drs. Harris and Fulton, and the avowed nonpartisanship did not prevent rather frequent “hits” at “ritualists,” which, however, was then the popular indoor sport in the Church. Notwithstanding that, a high order of contents was maintained and the paper was a credit to its two distinguished editors.

They had found, however, that even with the assistance of an associate editor, the editorship of a high-class weekly paper required more than merely the spare time of busy men, and they were unable to carry it on. Appealing, then, to Dr. Leffingwell, who was rector of St. Mary’s School, Knoxville, Ill., they returned the paper to him and he became the owner and editor, continuing the publication office in Chicago. The form was changed to that of a blanket sheet, about double the former page size, with eight pages to the issue, and the subscription price was reduced to $2.00.

Under Dr. Leffingwell’s editorship, which lasted for twenty-one years, the paper became widely known, and was less and less a western or sectional organ. Its Churchmanship became rather more robust than it had been in the earlier regime. A notable service was performed at the time of the revision of the Prayer Book in the eighties and early nineties by a series of constructive criticisms from the pen of the Rev. William J. Gold, D.D., which had much influence in the final outcome. Another great service to the Church consisted of the serial publication of Dr. Arthur Wilde Little’s Reasons For Being a Churchman, which afterward, in book form, became one of the classics of the Church.

A notable experiment made during several years at this time was the attempt, by reducing the subscription price to $1.00 a year, to enroll a really large circulation, such as would popularize The Living Church among the rank and file of Churchmen who, then as now, subscribed to no Church paper, and such as would command a large advertising constituency. The result was a disastrous failure. There were, of course, large additions to the subscription list, but not in such quantity as to attain the desired end. Even in that day of low costs, as compared to the present day, the paper cost more than one dollar a year to produce, and the advertising did not nearly pay the deficit thus created. After losing a very considerable sum, the price of $2.00 was wisely restored, and at that it remained until the advanced costs of later years demanded its increase.

 

IT WAS early in 1900 when Dr. Leffingwell surrendered the editorship and the present regime began. Dr. Leffingwell retained his interest in the publication to the end. Living a retired life at Pasadena, Calif., until he passed quietly to his rest less than a month ago, The Living Church was always his pride. He looked upon it, rightly, as his child.

The Young Churchman Company (now the Morehouse Publishing Company) purchased the publication, and the issue of February 3, 1900, was the first to be issued from the new office in Milwaukee, and under the editorship of Frederic C. Morehouse.

The Young Churchman Company owed its name to the weekly periodical of that name which had been founded in 1870 by Linden H. Morehouse, Sr., and which had obtained a wide circulation in the Church. That name was retained for the corporation until after the death of the founder, when, in commemoration of him, it was changed to the present name. A book publishing business had been added in 1884, and when, in 1900, The Living Church was added to the list of publications—the Living Church Annual had been added fifteen years earlier—the responsibilities of the publishers were greatly increased. The editorship has remained unchanged to the present time, so that Mr. Morehouse has not only exceeded Dr. Leffingwell’s term of years as editor, but has also attained the seniority among all the editors of Church publications, weekly and monthly.

In the prospectus of the new owners it was declared:

“The world—its literature, progress, politics, art—will be viewed from the standpoint of the Church, and the Church from the standpoint of Catholic thought. The editorial policy will always be frank and outspoken; but controversy will not be its main desire. We shall attempt to be Broad rather in intellectual grasp than in Churchmanship; to learn and to teach. There will be ‘malice toward none,’ ‘charity for all.’ In short, The Living Church will be The Young Churchman grown up.”

This was further amplified in the first editorial under the new management by the explanation:

“We call it the Catholic standpoint because it is the standpoint which sees in the Protestant Episcopal Church a living branch of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of the Creeds, of the six—probably seven—Ecumenical Councils, and of history. It is not necessary to explain to any who read this how different is this conception of the Church from the Roman idea.”

THAT was the position and the platform enunciated twenty-eight years ago, and it is substantially that of Dr. Leffingwell twenty years earlier. Has that position been maintained since, or has it been materially changed?

It has been reassuring to ourselves to glance through the editorial pages during these years of the present management, and see how uniformly consistent with this position they have been. We have not sought controversy, and yet we have never run from it. “Crisis” after “crisis” has come and gone. That over the ceremonial and vestments used by the bishops at the consecration of the Bishop of Fond du Lac came only a few months after this administration had begun. Curiously enough, the attack was led by Dr. Fulton, co-founder of The Living Church, in the Church Standard, of which he was then editor; and it is difficult to reconcile that attack with the original prospectus of the two founders of The Living Church, though they showed more than once their lack of sympathy with “ritualism” in spite of the inclusiveness of their aims. The so-called Open Pulpit controversy, after the General Convention of 1907, was another in which The Living Church was forced to take an active position, maintaining that the legislation of that Convention on “Canon Nineteen” did not involve an “open pulpit” at all, and was, instead, a protection against such an abuse; but about twenty clergymen of Catholic sympathies abandoned their orders and went to Rome because of it—a simple misunderstanding of plain fact. Long since, the interpretation of The Living Church became generally accepted in the Church, and now it is the advocates of looseness who ask for the repeal of the legislation that is obviously restrictive. So time has its triumphs and the last word.

As to controversies of later years, we trust the position of The Living Church has accorded with those principles which the present editor avowed at the outset.

There are some interesting facts concerning the advertising department. That the whole trend of general advertising has been away from the religious press is, of course, true, and it has involved an increasing problem as to the support of all periodicals of that nature. The Living Church has not been exempt from that problem.

Notwithstanding that, we find, with surprise no less than interest, that seventeen present advertisers have used our columns for nearly or quite the whole fifty years; fifteen others for twenty-five years; while twelve others have been occasional advertisers during a very large part of the entire period. The advertising manager, Charles A. Goodwin, still in service, has held that position continuously since 1896, a longer term of service than that of the editor, and is well known to the advertising world.

THE future? No man knows.

But this disconcerting fact must be recognized.

Unless conditions so change that all subscribers will willingly pay a much higher subscription price than they can do today, The Living Church can never again pay its way on the revenues from ordinary subscriptions and advertising alone. This makes the problem of the future a grave one.

We began last winter the plan of arranging sustaining subscriptions of $10.00 and $20.00 each, and several hundred generous subscribers quickly accepted the higher rates, thus dividing a great part of the deficit on last year’s account among them. We are hoping that this generous response will be repeated for several years.

But we cannot assume that this will afford permanent relief. If The Living Church will be needed in future years, it must be partially endowed. Yet the endowment of a periodical is fraught with great difficulty, chiefly because no one can guarantee that it will be worthy of support in all perpetuity.

Our plan announced for the “Church Literature Foundation” obviates this difficulty. Such a Foundation has been organized and incorporated; but instead of operating directly to endow The Living Church, its trustees will decide annually (if there continue to be deficits in publication) whether the paper, as then published, is worthy of such support or not. Of nine trustees, six represent the Church at large and three The Living Church. Of the primary trustees, the former are Bishop Ivins (president), Bishop Webb, Bishop Manning, Bishop Rhinelander, Bishop Griswold, and Mr. Haley Fiske. It is a self-perpetuating organization, and men of that type may be counted upon to protect the income from misuse for all time. And it is hoped that an endowment may be secured large enough not only to pay deficits of The Living Church (if needed and if the periodical is deemed worthy of such assistance) but also to enable the publication of Churchly literature from the Catholic standpoint, such as would probably not pay its way, and to distribute such literature. In short, it is hoped that the Foundation may develop into an American S.P.C.K.

An objective of $250,000 for such an endowment is asked for as our semi-centennial request. The Rev. B. Talbot Rogers, D.D., well known among the clergy of the Church, has accepted an appointment as fiscal agent for the Foundation, and through the courtesy of Mr. Edwin S. Gorham will make his headquarters at the well established Church book store in New York, at 11 West 45th street. Dr. Rogers has undertaken, by personal calls and by use of the mails, to seek to raise at least the amount above indicated for endowment. We earnestly commend Dr. Rogers’ efforts to our Family. It is a self-sacrificing work in which he has engaged, and he does it because he thoroughly appreciates its value, and because he has been close to the work of the present publishers, knowing and sharing their ideals, from the days when Bishop Edward R. Welles, Bishop J. H. Hobart Brown, and Mr. L. H. Morehouse, Sr., entered into the venture of faith which is now the Morehouse Publishing Company.

Not alone that it may be the crowning event of the semi-centennial of The Living Church, but also because of its obvious merits and need, we are hoping that the Living Church Family will generously respond to this call for a really permanent service in behalf of the ideals for which this journal has invariably stood.

The Living Church, November 3, 1928, pp. 9-11.

Richard Mammana is the Archivist of the Living Church Foundation.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Dr. Wilson Elected Bishop of Eau Claire (1928)

THE Rev. Frank B. Wilson, D.D., rector of Christ Church, Eau Claire, Wis., was elected first Bishop of Eau Claire by an overwhelming majority of both clerical and lay votes on the first ballot, in the primary council of this diocese, held here yesterday. The election was made unanimous.

The council opened with the conciliar Mass in Christ Church, which is to be the cathedral of the diocese, celebrated by the Rt. Rev. Reginald H. Weller, D.D., Bishop of Fond du Lac, assisted by the Rt. Rev. William Walter Webb, D.D., Bishop of Milwaukee, as gospeller, and the Rt. Rev. B. F. P. Ivins, D.D., Bishop Coadjutor of Milwaukee, as epistoler. After a brief adjournment for breakfast, the council was formally opened in the parish house by Bishop Ivins, and organized with the election of the Rev. R. D. Vinter as chairman pro tern. Following the adoption of a diocesan constitution and canons, the delegates adjourned to the church for the episcopal election.

An informal nominating ballot gave Dr. Wilson forty-eight of the seventy-five votes cast, with six each for the Rev. Frederick D. Butler of St. Paul and the Ven. Milo B. Goodall of Bice Lake, Wis.; five for the Ven. William H. Wolfe of Tomah, Wis.; four for the Rev. Francis P. Keicher of Hudson, Wis.; and the balance scattering. The first formal ballot followed, revealing a decisive majority for Dr. Wilson, and the election was thereupon made unanimous.

Following the signing of the testimonials of election, and a luncheon served by the women of the parish in the guild hall, the council reconvened and elected the following:

Standing Committee: The Rev. Robert D. Vinter, La Crosse, chairman; S. G. Moon, Eau Claire, secretary; the Rev. H. S. Kuth, the Rev. H. E. Chase, the Rev. F. R. Keicher, and Messrs. B. S. Mellinger, Gunner Anderson, and Judge Baldwin.

The trustees of the diocese were also elected, consisting of the Bishop ex-officio, and Messrs. G. Van Steenwyk, Otto Von Schroder, A. R. Owen, and F. S. Thompson. The Rev. A. H. Head was elected secretary of the diocese, and Otto Von Schrader, treasurer; R. W. Owen was elected missionary treasurer, and G. O. Linderman was appointed chancellor of the diocese. Examining chaplains appointed were the Rev. R. D. Vinter and the Ven. W. F. Wolfe.

Some two hundred and fifty people were present at the diocesan dinner, presided over by Claire Crocker of Spooner, Wis. Speakers included the Bishop-elect, the Bishops of Milwaukee and Fond du Lac, and the Bishop Coadjutor of Milwaukee. At the speakers’ table also were Mrs. Mary B. Dulany, whose generous gift to the episcopal endowment fund made the erection of the diocese financially possible, and who was presented with a large bouquet, and the Ven. Henry E. Chase, veteran missionary, whose work years ago as archdeacon in northern Wisconsin laid the foundations of the diocese of Eau Claire. Fr. Chase has been in ill health for a number of years, and when he made his appearance at the dinner, he was given a spontaneous and prolonged ovation.

The Bishop-elect of Eau Claire was born March 21, 1885, in Kittanning, Pa., the son of the Rev. and Mrs. William White. He received his B.A. degree from Hobart College in 1907, his S.T.D. in 1923, and his B.D. in 1923 from General Theological Seminary. He was ordained deacon in 1910 by the Rt. Rev. John Chanler White, D.D., Bishop of Springfield, and priest in the same year by the Bishop of Chicago.

Dr. Wilson was married in 1911 to Miss Marie Louise Walker. He was priest-in-charge of St. Ambrose’s Church, Chicago Heights, Ill., 1910-13; rector, St. Andrew’s Church, Chicago, 1913-15; rector, St. Augustine’s, Wilmette, Ill., 1915-19; secretary-treasurer, diocesan board of religious education, 1913-17; associate secretary, national Field Department, 1924-25; director of diocesan publicity, 1925-26; delegate to the provincial synod, 1910-19-26; served as chaplain with the 86th Division, U. S. Army, and with the 332d Infantry, 1917-19; was field secretary of the Nation-wide Campaign, and was a deputy to the General Conventions of 1922, 1925, and 1928. He is the author of several books, including Contrasts in the Character of Christ, What a Churchman Ought to Know, Religion, and The Divine Commission, besides editor of the Witness.

The Living Church, November 22, 1928.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

On Praying with the Orthodox (1929)

On Praying with the Orthodox (1929)
By the Rev. George Clark

IN MANY parishes these days we have some kind of contact with one or more groups of foreign-born Americans who are not in communion with the see of Rome. These people come to us or send for us and we must minister to them as well as we may or answer at the Last Assize as to our failures. But where contact with any such group is steady and sustained, two problems at once arise; the problem of getting the foreigner to understand us well enough to feel at home in our churches, and the far greater problem of first understanding the new American and then leading one’s flock to do the like. This takes time. And related to both is the third problem, how to keep the American-born and English-speaking children at home in the Episcopal Church yet loyal to and proud of the Church of their parents. This last, of course, we can only do when the parents belong to an Eastern Orthodox Church. Lapsed Romans are quite another problem and need separate treatment. Of them this paper says nothing at all.

There are a few Serbs in our parish, but beyond sick calls and funerals they ask nothing of us and we cannot give them more than they ask. But there are Greeks enough so that it is worth giving up a service once in a while to allow them the use of the church for their liturgy. And this means that some of us must work.

Our early Eucharist is said at half past seven. When it is over the altar must be stripped bare and washed lightly with warm water. And this washing must be done by the priest—the Anglican, I mean, not the Greek. Then fresh altar linen must be spread. Technically the Greek priest now has an altar which has not been used that day. Next a square table is put within the altar rails and placed against a side wall. This is for the service of the Prothesis. On it goes a lunch cloth, a cross, and two candlesticks with fresh candles in them. Near the front door is placed a table. On this the Orthodox priest will put his icons and a box of rock salt or sand for the placing of lighted tapers. And it seems to hurt no one’s feelings if a large piece of wrapping paper is placed on the carpet in front of this table. Incense and charcoal are placed conveniently in evidence in the sacristy, and a square of asbestos with an alcohol burner upon it and a small sauce pan beside it completes the preparation of the church. Knowing what we have to do, three of us can get our church ready for an Orthodox liturgy in twenty minutes, for a funeral in ten.

It takes longer to prepare the congregation than it does the church. It must be seen to that everybody is notified that on such and such a day the service will be Greek. Otherwise all those dear, good people who give the Episcopal Church as the one they stay home from will be out in force. Nor is notifying the flock all there is to it. For two or three Sundays beforehand it is time well spent to tell an average American congregation what is going to happen and why it is the same service as our own office for the Holy Communion. Rightly prepared for, an occasional Orthodox liturgy will vastly widen the average parishioner’s idea of the Holy Catholic Church he so glibly professes his faith in and will help him nobly over a lot of unworthy superstitions about liturgical accessories, incense for example.

It seems to be good form, at the least for the American priest, to be present at just as much of the divine liturgy as he can manage. It seems also to help considerably if the parishioners will drop in and drop out quietly as the drama of the Holy Sacrifice goes on. And there will be a few who will want to understand what it is all about. But it is just here that, if seems to me, most of us who are priests are too weak to help those of us who are lay. With the Division of Foreign-born Americans to help us as far as it is able, we are still a pretty helpless lot. Yet we need not be.

To begin with, we have The Service Book of the Greco-Russian Eastern Orthodox Church by Isabel Hapgood (Association Press). This is a rather ponderous book, well worth its price ($3.50), and well-nigh indispensable to the priest who has Orthodox Christians in his fold. But it is too bulky for the average layman, and for the priest it would be greatly improved if it had about a dozen pictures scattered through the text and about a hundred more rubrics. It can be had from the Division of Foreign-born Americans, 281 Fourth avenue, New York. For the layman who wants to follow the liturgy through intelligently but doesn’t want to pack a library with him, there are several smaller books. Father Papastefanou of the Hellenic Orthodox church in Fond du Lac, Wis., has a pretty well arranged edition, in Greek and English of the Anaphora of the Liturgy of Saint Chrysostom which is of great use already, though barely oft the press. His English is at times no English at all, but some of this at least is due to his censor and not to his own lack of skill. It is’a good book for Americans who have no Greek and for the English-speaking children of Greek parents. It is toJ these I have sold or recommended the book. It is the first book to come to my notice which shows a priest of the Greek Church trying to meet American, problems. For this reason I welcome the book. It is called Liturgical Egolpion, costs one dollar, and may be got from Father Papastefanou direct.

In the same class with the Liturgical Egolpion is The Divine Liturgy of Our Father Among the Saints, John Chrysostom, edited by Dom Placid de Meester and done into English by the Benedictines of the Stanbrook Community. It is the work of Roman Catholic scholars, but personally I cannot see that that is anything against it. It contains the Prothesis as well as the Anaphora, the notes are fuller and more numerous than in Fr. Papastefanou’s book, and in places the English is much better. In other places it is not. It will not slip so easily into a coat pocket, as it is both wider and taller than the Liturgical Egolpion. It is published in London by Burnes, Oates, and Washbourne, and costs in paper about $1.00 and in cloth $1.40. The American agents are Benziger Brothers.

For the American who would follow the Orthodox liturgy, whether in his own parish church or in an Orthodox church, the two books just mentioned have one very serious lack. They have no pictures of Orthodox worship. And pictures are almost as necessary as translations of the service. For this reason the Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, translated into English by the Rev. H. H. Maughan, is helpful. There is no Greek text, but there are eleven illustrations. From the preface I judge they are pictures of Orthodox churches in England. It is an easy book with which to follow a service, but it is even less adapted for American pockets than is Dom Placid’s book. For compactness Fr. Papastefanou has the field—which is not at all the same as saying Fr. Maughan’s book is not a good book to own. It is. It is a Faith Press publication and can be got from Morehouse for $1.40, at which price, it seems to me, he might at least pay postage. Maybe I think so because I’m not selling books but only buying them.

But to go back to pictures. The Faith Press has two portfolios which are useful. They are Russian Worship and The Sacraments in Russia. They do as well for Greeks or Serbs or Rumanians as for Russians. Owned and loaned, they are worth a great deal.

And, while I’m at it, I’d like to add a good word for The Eastern Church in the Western World (Morehouse, $1.25), the joint effort of the three secretaries for the Division of the Foreign-born. It is a good book to own, to read, and to pass, on. And another good book—if you’re fortunate enough to own it— is Greeks in America, which Dr. Burgess wrote back in 1913 when he was a parish priest and there was no Division of the Foreign-born. It is out of print and its statistics are out of date, but it ought to be revised and re-issued. It simply “knocks off the map” J. P. Xenides’ Greeks in America, a study prepared by the patrons of the ill-fated Interchurch World Movement.

There are 500 parishes where the Episcopal Church has contacts with the Greeks. That means 500 parishes where we may help to answer our own Lord’s prayer that we may all be one. And that calls, on our part, for sympathy, for patience, and for prayer. But chiefly prayer. And that we may pray with them with the spirit and with the understanding also is the purpose of this paper.

The Living Church, February 2, 1929, pp. 473-474.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Charles Neale Field, S.S.J.E. (1929)

Charles Neale Field, S.S.J.E. (1929)
By the Rev. William H. van Allen, S.T.D.

WHEN Father Field was buried, January 17th, it marked the end of an epoch in the history of the American Church. He was the oldest member of the Society of St. John the Evangelist; and when he joined the staff of St. Clement’s, Philadelphia, the habit of the society was rather a reason for suspicion than a recommendation. In these forty years, the attitude has altogether changed; and Fr. Field was himself largely answerable.

Born in Reading, Berkshire, in 1849, the son of a priest, graduated B.A. from Durham, and from Cuddesdon a little later, he was made deacon in 1872 and priest the following year, by the Bishop of Exeter. His first curacy was at Plympton St. Mary’s, Devon; but after several years there he determined to identify himself with the Cowley Fathers at Oxford. In 1800 he joined the staff of St. Clement’s, Philadelphia, afterwards being sent to St. John Evangelist’s on Beacon Hill, Boston, becoming Superior in due course and holding that office for many years. Laying it aside, he remained a member of the order until his death. Strangely, he is the first member in America to fall asleep.

Such are the essential facts of Fr. Field’s career in the Church; yet one had to know him well to clothe those facts with reality. “He. was a holy and a humorous man,” one said on the morning of his funeral; and those two qualities, marvelously combined in him, were distinctive. Tall, spare, utterly frank, never concerned too much about his own dignity, no one could meet him first without recognizing his transparent simplicity and sincerity. His enthusiastic sympathy for every sort of constructive good work was never appealed to in vain, whether for discharged prisoners, for the souls in purgatory, or for the unprivileged here. He was chaplain-general of the Iron Cross, president of the Massachusetts Catholic Club, on the councils of the Guild of All Souls and the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament; but, more than these, he was peculiarly the apostle to colored folk. With shame be it said no American-born priest has even shown such aptitude to understand them and their characteristics, for good and for evil, as this Englishman. To see him among the colored children who loved to crowd around him was to learn to love him afresh; and his farm at Foxboro is a perpetual memorial of his affectionate care for the needy little folk of that race.

Like all truly humorous persons, he was admirably patient and forbearing, suffering fools gladly; and his conversation, whether at table, in general society, or alone with one other, glowed with all the qualities which endeared him to people of every type and class.

Of late he had formed the habit of spending the winters in the West Indies, and had made himself a place there such as he had filled in Boston for so long. But this year he remained in the North; and it was at the home of a loving friend that he breathed out his soul in peace.

“O may my soul be with Bedell!” Such was the aspiration of a Roman cleric as he stood by the grave of the holy Bishop of Kilmore, the echoes still in the air of the salute which the muskets of the Irish rebels had fired in honor of that ornament of the seventeenth century Church of Ireland.

We, who rejoiced in his friendship, may well have echoed that phrase as we passed out today from his funeral, bishops, a goodly company of priests, and members of religious communities. Among all men there was now no suspicion, no wrong ideas, but only a reverent gratitude for all that he had meant to the Church, the city, the community, and to ourselves. May he rest in peace!

The Living Church, January 26, 1929, p. 432.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized