{
  "bookName": "History of Christianity in India: Source Materials",
  "authorName": "M. K. Kuriakose",
  "publisherName": "Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge",
  "publicationYear": 2011,
  "chapterNumber": 165,
  "chapterName": "1929. Congregational Criticism of the proposed Scheme of Union in South India",
  "pageFrom": 341,
  "pageTo": 342,
  "pages": [
    {
      "pageNumber": 341,
      "ocrText": "SOURCE MATERIALS\n341\non the land; and the entire colony had been placed on a firm\nfinancial footing, and was capable of supporting its entire native\npopulation as well as the white missionaries. Several German\nBrothers were in charge of the boys' school and orphanage and\nassisted Fr. Felix in ministering to the spiritual needs of the\nconverts; Franciscan Sisters of the Propagation of the Faith of\nLyons looked after the girls' school and orphanage and the\ndispensary, and taught catechism to old and young females.\n165.\nCONGREGATIONALIST CRITICISM OF\nTHE PROPOSED SCHEME OF UNION IN SOUTH\nINDIA (1929 A.D.)\nThese critical comments by A. H. Legg, a London Missionary\nSociety missionary, were in response to the publication, in 1929, of\nthe First Edition of the Scheme of Union put forward by negotiators\nrepresenting the South India United Church, the Anglican Church,\nand the (English) Wesleyan Methodist Church. Legg spoke for a\nnumber of persons both within the SIUC and abroad who felt that.\nunion on the proposed terms was sacrificing too much Christian liberty.\nFrom a pamphlet entitled 'An Examination from the Congregational\npoint of view, with some suggestions', cited in A. J. Arangadan,\nChurch Union in South India, its Progress and Consummation, pp. 35-43.\nThe advocates of the scheme claim that an attempt has been\nmade to conserve for the united Church the elements of value in\neach of the traditions that are to be brought together, and the\nscheme itself contemplates affiliation with, amongst others, the\nWorld Union of Congregational Churches. It seems to me doubt-\nful whether the vital elements in such diverse traditions as are\nrepresented can be preserved in any scheme which contemplates\nso close and rigid an organic union as this scheme does. But let\nus examine some of the vital elements in Congregationalism and\nsee what prospect there is of their conservation. We have,\nof course, to bear in mind that Congregationalists who have\nentered the S.I.U.C. have already to some extent modified their\ncongregational practices. We shall refer again to this matter later.\nMeanwhile it will be interesting to see how far this new scheme\nwill take us from the strictly Congregational position.\n1. The individual congregation and the individual church\nmember. One of the most obvious characteristics of historic Congre-\ngationalism has been the importance it has attributed to the indi-\nvidual congregation and to the individual church member. The\nideal of a Congregational Church is a group of sincere believers\nin Christ, conscious that they are called by Him out of a wordly\nlife, to live in fellowship. Gathered together in solemn meeting",
      "status": "completed"
    },
    {
      "pageNumber": 342,
      "ocrText": "342\nHISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA\nthey believe their Lord is in the midst of them guiding them by\nHis Spirit. Thus they cannot submit their consciences to be guided\nby any outside authority. Hence such a congregation claims the\nright to govern itself, to call its own minister, to decide its own\nmembership, to decide its own form of worship, and to formulate\nits own statement of belief if it desires to do so. It may take advice\nfrom outside its membership, but the responsibility of decision\nremains with it. In this governance of the Church each adult com-\nmunicant member has an equal voice. The knowledge and gifts\nof the members will certainly vary and so will the influence they\nexert on the common life. But we cannot confine the guidance\nof the Holy Spirit either to the intellectually gifted or to the theo-\nlogically learned each member should, in fact, feel a personal\nresponsibility to participate in (the affairs of the Church) to the best\nof his opportunity and ability.\nNow in the United Church as outlined in this scheme it seems\ncertain that this emphasis on the importance of the individual\ncongregation and individual church member would disappear.\nThey would be swamped in a vast and complex organisation, would\nbecome mere cogs in the machine. A church would not be able to\ncall its own minister or suspend its own backsliding members.\nThe bishop or the Diocesan Council might often act in accordance\nwith the wish and judgement of the congregation, but they might\nalso often act contrary to them.\n2. The ministry and the sacraments. Congregationalists believe\nin a ministry. But they have no room for priests. Let me explain\nmore closely what I mean, for the terms are open to various inter-\npretations. We believe in a ministry in the sense that we believe\nthat Christ calls certain people to devote themselves specifically\nto the work of the Church and of evangelisation, and that the Holy\nSpirit guides the Church to set apart such people for that work.\nBut we do not believe that there are any functions of the ministry\nwhich cannot be properly and validly performed by unordained\nmembers of the Church...\nFrom what has been said above it will be clear that our idea of\nthe ministry leaves no room for the theory of Apostolic Succession,\nfor that introduces again the idea of a ministry to which certain\ngraces and powers are inherent and restricted. Now the Proposed\nScheme does not include belief in the theory of Apostolic Succes-\nsion. It bases itself on the 'Historic Episcopate in a constitution\nform and distinctly says that no particular theory concerning\nepiscopacy is intended to be implied thereby\n3. Creeds. I do not think that as Congregationalists we have\nany fundamental objection to statements of belief provided that\nthey are not thrust upon us by others against our conscience. But",
      "status": "completed"
    }
  ]
}