Recently, I wrote about an elephant in the room with respect to ecumenical conversations in Britain. This time I am going to identify a second elephant. We need an understanding of intra-ecumenism, the ecumenism within the historic traditions.
Most of the mainstream traditions are in fact alliances where churches have consented to a particular ecclesiology for the sake of unity. Some of these alliances go back hundreds of years and so it is true in a sense that many traditions are themselves evidence that ecumenism works, up to a point.
I am going to take a look at each of the five main traditions in Britain.
The Baptists are congregationalist; they believe each local church is the full church of God, complete in itself. The Baptist Union of Great Britain (BUGB) is an alliance most local Baptist churches have chosen to join. BUGB offers services to local churches which would be difficult for them to carry out on their own. Members must adhere to certain theological positions, most notably practice of believers' baptism. Membership in no way compromises local autonomy.
The United Reformed Church , conciliar in governance, is also broadly an alliance of congregationalist churches. They make some decisions through councils which are taken to be binding on the members. Several churches have joined the URC, the first two combined in 1972. It seems it is still possible to recognise ex presbyterian and ex congregationalist churches today, almost forty years on.
The British Methodist Connexion was formed in 1932 when three churches, themselves amalgamations of a number of smaller connexional churches, signed the Deed of Union. Apart from church architecture, these days it is difficult to tell the original churches apart. Possibly some distinctions persist. I suspect ex Wesleyans are keener on union with the Church of England than ex Primitives, although these distinctions are in the main unconscious. It is arguable the Deed of Union was so successful because all the partner churches had the same connexional ecclesiology. Theological differences were less important than governance. Today, of the main five it seems Methodism might be the most homogenous tradition.
The Church of England has always been a compromise between Catholicism and Protestantism. Today its three main theological strands are evangelical, liberal and catholic. The ethos has over 400 hundred years been one of compromise on the basis that unity is preferable to conflict. These traditions live together, respect each other and pray the same prayers for each other. This church is rooted in the parish and as such has exported this spirit of compromise into British politics. Today this historic settlement is eroded not only by the disputes covered in the media but also through dilution in a secular and atheist society with growing numbers of other faiths.
The Roman Catholic Church has always been a compromise between various orders and traditions. During the last 200 years it has been more hardline in its ecclesiology although this was relaxed following Vatican II in the sixties.
It seems the last two Popes have been more traditionalist than their immediate predecessors to the extent that they might have been happier in a pre Vatican II church. However, with a membership of one billion, half the Christians in the world, this sort of control is unlikely to be effective. The post Vatican II settlement has taken a hold and in some places it seems there are powerful movements for example for married priests.
So why the recent apostolic constitution ? Some people believe the motivation is internal rather than external. It is not seeking to undermine Anglicanism but to bolster catholicism. An injection of Anglican traditionalists, the argument goes, will bolster the arguments of the catholic traditionalists.
I'm not entirely convinced. The Catholic Church is enormous and a few hundred Anglicans are unlikely to make much difference. Indeed, the fact that they will be married priests might have the opposite effect for that particular issue. Nevertheless it is worth asking why the Vatican is doing this at this time.
It is difficult to believe the Anglican communion will suffer as much as the media predicts. The Anglicans have been in the media's sights for many years, and politics within the Catholic Church is not of the same interest to the British media. Whilst the loss of some catholics will be a blow to the Anglican Communion, it is unlikely to have that much impact. They will move to become small fish in a much bigger pond where their influence will be felt on the whole less keenly.
Comments