Read Ebook: La biche écrasée by Mille Pierre

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 930 lines and 53569 words, and 19 pages

I do not say there may not be individual misunderstandings and frictions now and then, but they are miraculously few. The normal temper is shewn by the numerous meetings for conference and devotion by the various chaplains. These are more easy to effect at the bases than in the line; but they take place everywhere. Typical is the conduct of a small base on the sea, where the eight chaplains or so meet regularly for devotion, and each is entrusted with a section of the proceedings each time. For instance, the American Episcopalian takes the Thanksgiving, the Presbyterian the Confession, the Wesleyan the Intercession, each of the others has found from the same chapter of, say, St Mark's Gospel, some "seed-thought" upon which he is allowed to dilate for four minutes. There is no constraint or self-consciousness in this gathering. Each is perfectly happy, and so is the whole.

And next, before considering practical steps, let us recall certain postulates and axioms, which in any attempt to realise so magnificent a vision must always be borne in mind, lest, in our human frailty and selfwill, we head straight for new misunderstandings and disasters.

For the whole Church of England--I think that can be truly said--has now an unutterable desire for the joy of Unity; it is, further, convinced that action must be taken; but it is by no means convinced that certain actions--to take a concrete example, free interchange of pulpits with Nonconformists--are as yet either helpful or right. If one part adopt such a policy, hostilely and sectionally, it will simply throw others into convinced opposition and retard the whole desire for decades. Questions of deepest implication cannot be settled in haste. Before approaching at all, we must find the right methods of approach. Quite rightly, the American "World Conference for the consideration of questions touching Faith and Order," paid, from the start, the utmost, an uniquely scientific, attention to right method; their patience has been lightning-swift in result. It did not even go so far as to say, "We will confer, that is the right method"; it said, "We will learn how to confer." It was a new and by no means easy exercise, but it has been learned, and the English Conference mentioned above, "the landmark," arose by its inspiration and worked by its methods.

With these precautions, then, let us see what can be done with universal consent.

It is the more important, because there is a danger of the leaders and clergy of communions rushing ahead of the rank and file. Naturally they see the vast issues most clearly; the congregation sees more easily its own needs and habits of worship, and inclines to shut out of mind the needs and interests of the Church as a whole. A National Mission of Love, dealing with all history, the larger duties of the present, and future hopes, would help to correct this, and give a single mind to the whole body.

Then, in order that the Church of England may go forward as one whole, without the risk of sectional exasperation, it does seem to me an urgent necessity that--I do hope it is not a presumptuous suggestion--the Archbishops appoint a Council of Unity; to thrash out the whole subject, and decide on definite steps of action, both within and without the Church.

My vision sees it thus. A small Council of, say, five Bishops, and a dozen other members. These dozen to be nominated, not elected, and to consist of the leading and trusted men of each "party" with at least two of our greatest scholars. It must be small, so that it may truly "confer"--not drop into controversy--and meet regularly. It should issue definite advice and suggestion, all of which would be unanimous, upon which the whole Church could act, and act immediately. I am sure that the amount of unanimity would be surprising, and the advice bold. Perhaps the Archbishops and Bishops in accepting and issuing such reports would require them to be read in every pulpit in the land, so that the whole Communion understand what is going on, and each congregation be spurred to do its part in its own locality.

The mere appointment of such a Council would be a notable step towards unity and place the whole matter on, so to speak, a scientific footing. The Church of England would then be wisely and consistently ordered to the one end, and be thinking and acting as itself an unity; the danger of sectional action would be reduced to a minimum, and the mutual confidence of the sections be assured. Indeed it would be a hard blow to the bad party licence too common hitherto amongst us. Further, the Nonconformist communions would have a definite organ to approach on all subjects making for friendliness, cooperation, and conference, and sufficient certainty that the Church of England desired the peace of Jerusalem very earnestly indeed.

There are a number of issues on which all communions could begin at once to work together. There is a real chance of abolishing war, and establishing a more or less universal peace. The idea of the League of Nations gains ground. Bishop Gore is already summoning the support and labour of the Church to it. Here serious united effort of all Christian bodies, of Europe and America, is obviously fitting and might be decisive.

There are the hundred social problems confronting us. The very working together upon these would be as valuable as the large amount of work that so easily might be done.

Education! Word of lamentable memories. The present Bill, which all Christian bodies have urged on, left in despair the vital question of religious teaching until the Churches can agree upon it among themselves. With all the lessons of the war, both to the appalling need of such teaching, and of the necessity of bigger thinking, can they not do it now? Here is a critical field for cooperation and self-suppression. Only let the younger men be put to the task. The elder will be the first to admit that long controversy and deepening opposition have unfitted them for sincere agreement. The younger men are fresh, and start with an eagerness to find the way out.

Cooperation in these great matters will not only promote unity, but display already the men of Christ as one before the world. But it is not enough. How about cooperation in directly religious work and worship? "The visible unity of the Body of Christ is not adequately expressed in the cooperation for moral influence and social service, though such cooperation might with advantage be carried much further than it is at present; it could only be fully realised through community of worship, faith and order, including common participation in the Lord's Supper."

Here let us once more and finally insist that the all-important thing is the development of the desire for Unity even in the most local, or uneducated, or out-of-the-way congregations. Most of the clergy now are revolutionaries for better, bigger things; but, frankly, we fear the lay people who hate change, and desire things to remain as they are--in church and out of it. That is why I should so like my imagined Council to set going my imagined National Mission of Love. But much can be done besides. Those who seek unity will be labouring fruitfully for it, if they simply devote themselves to developing social and Christian friendship between Churchmen and Nonconformists in town and village. There might well be an enormous growth of meetings, both of clergy and laity of different denominations, for conference, devotion, even retreat. We want more than one "Swanwick." Can we not go further, and draw together by experimenting with each other's devotions or organisations of proved value? For instance, I wonder if it is suggesting too much, to suggest that if Nonconformists appropriated with vigour our Christian year, they would be sharers with us of a devotional joy and help, which would certainly promote spiritual sympathy. In the same way, the Church of England has been crying out for some method of using the spiritual gifts of her laymen in church. Why not borrow notions from those who know how to do it?

The same leading article proposed that ministers of other denominations should be asked by such congregations as wished, to come and explain to them frankly their standpoints of doctrine and order. I am sure that all communions might be, and now should be, more brave in explaining themselves to each other. The gain in preventing misunderstanding and destroying suspicion and unfriendliness would be great, and I can see no loss anywhere about such a proceeding.

Have you read the story of the Woolwich Crusade, published by the S.P.C.K. ? The Crusade movement and method is a new thing. Its idea is not that of a mission--to increase or improve the membership of a particular denomination, but to bring God and the meaning of Christ into the life and problems of to-day. It is doing the same sort of work which chaplains in France do, among the munitioners, artisans, and labour world at home. Perhaps our Nonconformist brethren could join us here. The difficulties would, I think, merely be those of organisation.

Thanks to the College system, and to the Student Christian movement, Churchmen and Nonconformists are as friendly in this University as they are in France; and joint devotion is usual. We have a great responsibility here amid the young and the enthusiastic, and good feeling is both easier to achieve, and more widespread in result, at a University than anywhere else. Well, we are awake to our chances, and will do our best.

This leaves but one more subject to touch on: the old, hard, question of Church order, and the orders of ministry. But all looks in the best sense hopeful here, very hopeful, since the striking report signed by the thirteen members of the sub-committee appointed by the Archbishops' Committee, and by representatives of the English Free Churches' Commissions. Let me quote it.

Looking as frankly and as widely as possible at the whole situation, we desire with a due sense of responsibility to submit for the serious consideration of all the parts of a divided Christendom what seem to us the necessary conditions of any possibility of reunion: That continuity with the historic Episcopate should be effectively preserved. That, in order that the rights and responsibilities of the whole Christian community in the government of the Church may be adequately recognised, the Episcopate should reassume a constitutional form both as regards the method of the election of the Bishop as by clergy and people, and the method of government after election.... The acceptance of the fact of Episcopacy and not any theory as to its character should be all that is asked for.... It would no doubt be necessary before any arrangement for corporate reunion could be made to discuss the exact functions which it may be agreed to recognise as belonging to the Episcopate, but we think this can be left to the future.

The acceptance of Episcopacy on these terms should not involve any Christian community in the necessity of disowning its past, but should enable all to maintain the continuity of their witness and influence as heirs and trustees of types of Christian thought, life, and order, not only of value to themselves, but of value to the Church as a whole....

It would be difficult to imagine a wiser, braver, or happier statement than this in the whole history of the Church. A landmark indeed! The Chaplains to the Forces in France almost shouted for joy. At one stroke, the first and greatest incompatibility of conviction has been cleared out of the way. Perhaps that is too strong--or prophetic--a way of putting it. Let us say rather, that at least the question of Episcopacy and Church order has been raised to a new plane, where all can discuss it, and think it out, not only peaceably, but with good hope of new wealth of conception and polity pouring into the old, rigid, bitter, rival views of church government. In France I corresponded with a Wesleyan chaplain on the subject of orders and ordination. He wrote a careful letter affirming the historic Nonconformist position about ministry. But, he ended, it would all be changed, if re-ordination could be presented and accepted as a great outward "Sacrament of Love" which reunited us. That is more than the Church of England has ever asked, for she regards ordination as a Sacrament of Order merely, not of Spiritual Love. But let us gladly put the higher value upon it. And the day will surely come, unless goodhearted Christians settle down to accept the intolerable burden of permanent separation in communion and worship, when this Sacrament of Love be celebrated, and the Church of England ordains the Free Church ministry, and the Free Churches commission us, to work each and all in the flocks that have been made one Fold.

FOOTNOTES:

Quoted from the Second Interim Report of the Archbishops' Committee and the representatives of the Free Church Commissions.

UNITY BETWEEN CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS

While I think that what I say may be fairly taken to represent the general mind of these churches it must be understood that I do not in any way commit them but speak only for myself. I propose first to recall the circumstances which gave rise to these churches and the conditions which still operate in maintaining them as separate Christian bodies, and then to give some account of the various movements towards reunion in which they have taken part. The Baptists and Congregationalists you will remember arose at a time when membership in the Anglican Church was a formal and perfunctory thing. It was open to every parishioner and meant very little in the way of Christian life or witness. The first Nonconformists stood for the principle that membership in Christian churches should be confined to genuinely Christian people, and in order to secure this they formed separated churches, on the New Testament model, of those who were able to give effective witness of their Christian calling. That such churches should be self-governed followed almost as a matter of course. Their meeting in the name of Christ secured His presence among them and the guidance of His spirit in their doings. But it is always important to remember that their essential characteristic is not either democracy in church government or dissent from the Establishment, but the positive witness to purity of membership and to the sole headship of Jesus Christ just described. The Wesleyan Church, the parent of the whole great Methodist movement, arose at the end of the 18th century from somewhat similar reasons. There was never anything schismatic in the spirit of John Wesley, but when he found that the rigour and stiffness of Anglicanism made a free spiritual witness almost impossible, he was driven, like the Nonconformists of the Elizabethan times, to set up separate churches. While it is quite true that the great principle for which English Nonconformity has stood is now almost universally accepted, and that what may be called the negative witness of the Free Churches is much less necessary than it used to be, there is still room for their positive contribution to the religious life of the country, for their witness to freedom, spirituality, and the rights of the people in the Church. For a long time, no doubt, they did rejoice in the dissidence of their dissent, and they suffered, and still suffer, to some degree, from a Pharisaic feeling of superiority to those whom they regard as bound by tradition and State rule. The great majority among them, however, have long since come to feel that they have more in common with one another and with many in the Anglican Church than they have been hitherto prepared to admit, and that existence in isolation from the rest of Christendom is neither good for them nor helpful to the cause of Christ and His Kingdom. This feeling first took definite shape about the year 1890 in connexion with what are now known as the Grindelwald Conferences. For three successive years informal parties of clergy and ministers were arranged by Sir Henry Lunn, at Grindelwald and Lucerne, with the object of getting representatives of the different churches together in order to exchange views on the subject of union, and to create an atmosphere of mutual knowledge, sympathy, and friendliness. Although no practical steps directly followed them, these conferences undoubtedly did good by removing misunderstandings and paving a way for further intercourse. To many of the Free Churchmen who attended them torale, dans quatre ans. Comptez aussi qu'il a des frais, que les soci?t?s de gymnastique et les fanfares de sa circonscription exigent son obole. Madame Barbier-Dacquin et ses filles disent qu'elles sont raisonnables, et il le croit; mais pour aller aux soir?es officielles, et dans les th??tres subventionn?s, qui se font un devoir d'accueillir gratuitement quelquefois les familles parlementaires, il faut bien quelque toilette. Elles n'ont pas grandes r?serves dans leurs armoires: on ach?te ce qui se montre, plus que ce qu'on cache. Alors la blanchisseuse de fin passe souvent.

Elle passe sous la forme de C?line, apprentie, qui a quinze ans. J'esp?re que vous l'avez rencontr?e. Elle est jolie. Nul ne sait comment, car elle n'a pas le nez bien fin, ni la bouche bien petite, mais ce nez est d'une gaiet? jeune, et la bouche s'ouvre comme pour sourire au nez. Elle a aussi beaucoup, beaucoup de cheveux, couleur de soleil couchant, nettement tordus sur sa nuque, casqu?s sur ses deux oreilles, qui sont faites comme de petits coquillages; et ses sourcils presque droits, audacieusement, sur ses deux yeux gris passent comme un beau pont sur une eau claire. M. Barbier-Dacquin aime quand elle vient.

Il aime quand elle vient: n'allez pas chercher autre chose. C'est un assez vieux bonhomme, tr?s pur de moeurs et d'une vertu presque timide. S'il d?sirait--comment dirais-je?--s'il d?sirait autre chose que le plaisir qu'il a de la regarder, pour demander cette autre chose il ne saurait comment s'y prendre. Et comme il faut que toujours il syst?matise un peu, dans sa pens?e tr?s innocente C?line repr?sente le peuple, et ainsi lui en donne l'amour. Lorsqu'il discuta en commission la loi sur le repos hebdomadaire, cette grande loi ? laquelle il s'attend que son nom reste attach?, c'est ? C?line qu'il a pens?, c'est elle qu'il a gard?e en vue. Et quand il s'est dit, dans son langage, qui est assez lourd: <>, cela signifiait: <> Il comptait peut-?tre lui demander, un jour de courage, avec qui elle le passerait. Mais pardonnez-lui; les hommes sont des hommes, et s'ils ne le sont que gentiment, c'est tout ce qu'on peut exiger de leur faiblesse.

Il l'interrogeait sur son m?tier. C?line r?pondait presque du bout des l?vres, ?tonn?e que des affaires que tout le monde conna?t pussent int?resser un monsieur comme il faut; un peu m?fiante, et m?me presque s?re qu'il voulait se moquer d'elle. Il fallait lui arracher les paroles.

--... Y a la m?canique, oui: un po?le de fonte pour chauffer les fers, qu'on met sur des plaques. Et c'est moi qui le bourre avec du coke. Alors on repasse, les linges fument; ?a fait de la chaleur humide, comme si ?a serait une baignoire. Les plaques de fer, bien s?r, elles rougissent. Il fait chaud en juillet, ah! oui... Il y a aussi un autre feu, pour les petites lessives qu'on fait chez soi... La boutique, si c'est grand? Non ?a n'est pas grand. C'?tait une cr?merie avant. Mais on laisse ouvert sur la rue de Bagneux. Les passants regardent, on regarde les passants.

--Mais le dimanche? interrogeait M. Barbier-Dacquin, le dimanche?

--Le dimanche? On travaille comme les autres jours. Plus. M?me la nuit. Y a beaucoup de pratiques qui veulent leur linge pour le lundi.

M. Barbier-Dacquin ?tait attendri. Il racontait aussi ces choses ? ses coll?gues, afin de montrer qu'il connaissait les maux du peuple.

Voil? pourquoi il souriait, avec une joie de brave homme et de l?gislateur content de son oeuvre, en songeant que sa femme attendrait vainement son linge, ce lundi, puisque la loi ?tait vot?e, et qu'on n'avait pas travaill? la veille. Il se consolait m?me de ne pas voir la petite C?line: elle viendrait le lendemain... Dans le vestibule la sonnette retentit. C'?tait C?line. Il entendit qu'elle posait son lourd panier sur le parquet. Il entendit encore qu'on la traitait sans politesse. Elle ?tait en retard. Est-ce qu'elle croyait qu'on n'avait rien ? faire qu'? l'attendre?

La voix de madame Barbier-Dacquin vibrait plus encore que d'ordinaire, la sup?riorit? s'y m?lant au bl?me, et il semblait que celle de C?line f?t au contraire plus faible que d'habitude: une pauvre petite voix, bredouillante et comme ?puis?e. On emmena la petite dans la salle ? manger, pour compter le linge.

--Trois pantalons, disait la voix claire de madame Barbier-Dacquin.

--Trois pantalons, r?p?tait C?line, en ?cho tr?s faible.

--Deux chemises jour, une nuit.

--Deux chemises jour, une nuit.

--Deux cache-corsets, une modestie.

--Deux cache-corsets, une modestie.

--Une brassi?re... c'est pour Am?lie. Elle ne veut plus porter de corsets, ?a ne se porte plus... Eh bien? J'ai dit une brassi?re; qu'est-ce qui vous prend?

--Rien, madame... une brassi?re.

La voix de C?line devenait horriblement h?sitante et malheureuse.

--On dirait que ?a vous fait mal au coeur... Trois blousons.

--Trois blousons.

--Une jupe piqu? blanc Empire... J?sus-Marie, qu'est-ce que vous avez? Elle se trouve mal! Marie! Marie! du vinaigre. Am?lie, d?lace-la!

Mais ce fut le bon M. Barbier-Dacquin qui accourut le premier.

--Je vous demande pardon... c'est rapport ? la loi.

--Rapport ? la loi! dit M. Barbier-Dacquin, froiss?. Qu'est-ce qu'elle vient faire l?-dedans, la loi?

--Oui, dit-elle. Depuis qu'il y a la loi, qu'il ne faut pas travailler le dimanche, on travaille tout de m?me. Seulement, on travaille tout ferm?.

--Tout ferm?? dit le d?put?, sans comprendre.

--Oui. On ne laisse plus ouvert sur la rue, quoi, ? cause des inspecteurs. On ferme tout, tout! Et avec les repassages, le po?le, la m?canique, la lessive, c'est l'enfer... Ah! je ne peux plus, je ne peux plus! J'ai tomb? malade...

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet