When the Pope issued his invitation to disaffected Anglicans to cross the Tiber and bolster ’the true Church’, it was hardly surprising that there was an explosion of interest. It will be interesting to see what happens and how it looks as the days, weeks and months go by.
In an interview with a journalist the other day I was asked what the problem was with the Archbishop of Canterbury (and everyone else, it seems) getting only two weeks notice of what was planned by the Vatican. After all, she said, two weeks is a lifetime in businesses where things move fast and judgements have to be made on the hoof.
I replied that although the media might be driven to make instant judgements – even before the facts are known and considered reflection can be given – in the church we generally take years, decades and centuries. I wasn’t being funny – nor was I being critical of the media who have no option but to act quickly these days. That is why the Archbishop of Canterbury once said to me that just because someone puts a microphone in front of your face doesn’t mean that you have to speak into it. Sometimes we need to hold our nerve, keep shtum and wait until the smoke begins to clear and our perspective has a bit more credibility.
So, I was delighted to read the great Diarmaid MacCulloch in yesterday’s Observer offering a wider perspective from the point of view of an expert in ecclesiastical history who is no longer a paid-up member of the Church of England (or even the Christian club). He says:
Equally extravagant claims that this could be the end of the Protestant Reformation need to be taken with several fontfuls of salt. It is in the interests of various discontented groups on the margins of Anglicanism to talk up the significance of the latest piece of papal theatre, while ignoring its wider context.
He then goes on to analyse briefly some of the issues going on in this debate and concludes:
In one sense, this is a storm in a teacup, stirred by an elderly cleric in the Vatican with a private agenda and a track record of ill-thought-out policy moves. In another, it is a fascinating moment in a confrontation as much a struggle for the soul of the Church of Rome as of the Church of England. Once we have got past the screaming headlines, we should keep an eye open for the real story.

Perhaps it is no surprise that MacCulloch (Professor of the History of the Church at Oxford University) shone new light on the Reformation in his magisterial book Reformation: Europe’s House Divided 1490-1700. He has now published a huge and readable A History of Christianity which also forms the basis of a Channel 4 television series starting on 5 November (which in English history was not a great day for ecumenical relations).
It is the perspective of centuries that will put this latest business into proper perspective. Perhaps a compulsory reading of MacCulloch’s book by all commentators is too much to ask?
October 26, 2009 at 10:39 am
Yes, I read Prof MacCulloch’s article yesterday too and was grateful for a voice of reason in all the frenzy.
Being the type generally to want to rush in way before angels wouldn’t, I liked ++Rowans words of wisdom to you. But I wonder if the House of Bishops and C of E is being rather too ‘gentlemanly’ (using the term both positively and advisedly) about this. I hope very much that there will soon be other ‘mainstream’ C of E episcopal voices to join you in the ‘mainstream’ media. Or surely the full orchestra of the C of E risks being drowned out by the brass (neck) section?
October 26, 2009 at 11:57 am
This whole thing gives us a better idea of what the RC’s move towards ‘unity’ is all about. Rather than being a unity of Spirit (which most of us already have anyway) it would appear that they are going for political unity.
Do we really need it to effectively show the Gospel to the world? I’d suggest that that kind of unity (political) would only diminish the Gospel. Some of Rome’s policies over the years have caused me to wonder if their leadership are Christian at all, but that’s another matter!
October 26, 2009 at 1:03 pm
MacCullough made similar points on ‘Start the Week’ on Radio 4 this morning. you can access it from the BBC iplayer. Still think Liverpool won’t win anything this year…
October 26, 2009 at 2:15 pm
I too caught a bit of DMacC on Start The Week, and I’m sure I heard him say that in his view that Anglicanism was in good heart, but it was the RCs that were likely to have more difficulties – but I haven’t yet been able to check back on iPlayer (it isn’t up yet…) that is indeed what he said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ndwc2/Start_the_Week_26_10_2009/
Out of interest, I checked back with the online Crockford’s, which currently still lists MacCulloch, in deacon’s orders. Don’t know how that correlates with ‘paid up’…!
October 26, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Gareth,
I’m not sure why you distinguish between ‘unity of Spirit’ and what you dismiss as ‘political unity’. Surely unity of Spirit should lead us to seek institutional unity: Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians, urges us to “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” and then goes on to encourage unity in the Body of Christ. The unity that we are called to is not some vague, well-meaning, spiritual unity but a real, actual, organisational unity which will enable Christians to speak to a sceptical world with one voice, and with visible love for and fellowship with one another. Don’t forget the high priestly prayer in John 17, in which Christ prays that his followers will all be one as he and the Father are one.
And please don’t dismiss Roman Catholics as not being Christian. That’s just a cheap jibe which should have no place in discourse between Christians. After all, I could ask if liberal, pop music loving bishops are really Christian, and then where would we be?!
October 26, 2009 at 3:48 pm
The bishop seems to have been surprised by Desmond MacCulloch’s article but to anyone who has been following internal Roman Catholic developments over the past 40 years it is no sort of surprise. The point I was trying to make in connection with an earlier posting on the RC moves obviously fell by the wayside but put in blunt terms it is that the Vatican is generally at least 50 years behind its brightest and most creative theologians and that there has been considerable movement on all these fronts – Anglican orders, unity, women’s ordination. There is no frenzy Erica in the quarters where it matters. Anyone relying on the British media for any form of genuine enlightenment these days must be technically dotty. (Tangentially, congratulations Nick Baines on praying so effectively for a Liverpool win!)
October 26, 2009 at 4:39 pm
At least Liverpool fans can spell MacCulloch!
October 26, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Dex, was your last sentence an unchairtable jibe at me? If it was, I think you need to check what you mean by ‘liberal’. I have never been anything other than evangelical. And I don’t love ‘pop’ music. But you are free (obviously) to question my Christian credentials.
October 26, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Peter, I wasn’t at all surprised. I just wanted to get MacCulloch’s stuff out there so it got a wider consideration.
And I have to confess – I didn’t pray for Liverpool as my theology has problems with that. But I did think of praying that Manchester United would lose…
October 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm
In reply to NB: Fine, I stand corrected but am dismayed that you couldn’t pray for Liverpool. What is God for, for God’s sake, if not to help us weather the toments and disappointments of the Premier League?
October 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Peter, I know. I am a hopeless case.
October 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I wonder which event would have an effect on the most people. Liverpool winning the league or a few disenchanted bishops and vicars leaving the C of E to join the Roman Catholic Church and discovering the grass isn’t always greener on the other side of the hill. I think I might be tempted to pray for Liverpool. It would make a lot more people very happy.
October 26, 2009 at 5:35 pm
By a unity of Spirit I mean that we cast aside our differences so we can work together for the benefit of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. None of these require one leader/leadeship or static set of doctrines.
Perhaps you ought to consider the way in which Christ and the Father are one in John 17. Are you expecting that prayer to be answered on your terms? Is it fair or realistic to expect that prayer to be answered in that way this side of death? Could there be an alternative answer that you’ve been ignoring?
I have nothing against individual catholics, I would even go so far as to say that the RC church is Christian BUT I can’t help but judge a tree by it’s fruit and some RC fruit is very rotten in-deed.
October 26, 2009 at 6:27 pm
I don’t want to hijack the blog but a further point;
I don’t (and didn’t) dismiss Roman Catholic’s in general as not being Christian. My point was that some of the policies of Rome appear not to be.
That’ll teach me to bring other matters into the discussion! Sorry…
October 26, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Perhaps one day the realisation might dawn that it is the Church of Christ and it really makes no difference what denomination you belong to. Blurting “but I’m Catholic” or “I’m CofE” probably won’t make that much difference when we eventually have to stand up and be counted…
October 27, 2009 at 8:28 am
Mustn’t start hares but DM was remarking on Start The Week that of course it was a matter of pure chance that the role of leadership of the Christian Church passed to Rome. This isn’t new of course – if you read the Chadwicks on the early history of the church then the emergence of any sort of Christian order seems remarkably providential. However, does DM’s view suggest that in the establishment of the Papacy in Rome we have an example of randomness? It puts Stuart’s comment in an interesting light.
October 27, 2009 at 8:35 am
Peter, I thought something similar when I hear DM’s comment. I hope he might pursue it some time.
October 27, 2009 at 11:23 am
Gareth,
Surely we do need (and indeed have in the creeds and the teachings of the early ecumenical councils) a “static set of doctrines”. The eternal truth of the God who was and who is and who is to come doesn’t change, and part of the role of the Church is to defend and to teach that truth, and one of the strengths of the RC Church is that it has a magisterium to do just that. In an age of individualism and relativism, the need to teach that truth is urgent.
And no, I don’t want the prayer of John 17 answered on my terms – the prayer is Christ’s, not mine, and the answer to that prayer will challenge us all. We are all of us comfortable within the culture and boundaries of our own denominations, but if we are to reposond to the call to unity, we have to allow ourselves to be challenged. I am not starry-eyed about the Roman Catholic Church, and there are things in its culture that make me very uncomfortable, so I am as challenged as anyone else by the call to unity. But it’s God’s will that must be done, not ours.
And yes, I do think that institutional unity must be our aim. Ours is an incarnational faith – Christ did not come as an abstract spirit, but as flesh and blood, and his body now on earth should be one. Of course, the different limbs will function in different ways and serve different needs, but we should all be one. The Common Worship lectionary this morning gave us Psalm 133 for Morning Prayer: “How good and pleasant it is to dwell together in unity”. If that is the prayer of Christ to the Father, we would be utterly presumptuous to ignore it. We cannot expect the world to repsond to the healing love of God if we are unable to heal the wounds of our own body. If we are serious about the ministry of reconciliation which has been entrusted to us, we have to be able to reconcile ourselves.
October 27, 2009 at 11:28 am
Bishop Nick,
My gentle dig at you was based on what I saw reported of you in the Croydon Guardian: clearly, we shouldn’t believe everything we read in the papers…
October 28, 2009 at 12:30 am
Dex,
I just can’t see it happening, protestantism isn’t a historical tradition, it is still a very active part of a lot of anglicans faith (and as Nick has pointed out is a job requirement for any anglican minister).
Christ himslef said “this is how the world will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” no mention of a hierarchical structure, just love. This is why I think you are not reading John 17 in the way it was prayed. There is a lot of love between grassroots RC’s and Anglicans, some even marry each other! Futher Christ said “I pray that they are one as we are one Father” now Christ had incarnated but the Father hadn’t, so what was their oneness?
Gareth.
October 28, 2009 at 10:07 am
Hans Kueng, the Swiss-German Catholic theologian, who was a sparring partner of Josef Ratzinger when they were at Tuebingen, has written a piece for the Guardian which is of interest to those on this thread discussing ARCIC. HK says the ARCIC documents provided a basis for reconciliation and for a recognition of Anglican orders “which Pope Leo XIII nack in 1896, with anything but convincing arguments, had declared invalid”. HK reiterates his position of 1967 on a resumption of “ecclesial community” between the Catholic and Anglican churches under conditions of a guarantee for Anglican church order under Canterbury and the recognition by the C of E of “the existence of a pastoral primacy of Petrine ministry..”etc However, he sees nothing but trouble from the new initiative for Anglicans and irritation for reform-minded Catholics. Since Vatican II “conferences, pastors and believers have been calling for the abolition of the medieval prohibition of marriage for priests which in the last few decades has deprived almost half of our parishes of their own pastor..” HK’s piece is of course contentious as he dislikes Ratzinger so much but it squares with a great deal of modern Catholic thinking. (Sorry this contribition is so long..)
October 28, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Gareth,
The oneness of the Father and the Son is in their divine nature – they are distinct persons in one substance: I presume you are familiar with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
Similarly, the distinct limbs of the Christian church are called to recognise that they are part of the one body of Christ. The challenge is to find a way of ensuring that the unique insights of each tradition can be brought into a re-united church – that will not be easy, but for God all things are possible, as the gospel tells us.
The importance of holding Christians together in unity exercised the minds of the Apostles and their immediate successors in the very early days of the church, as we see from the epistles of Paul and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. What you dismiss as ‘hierarchical structure’ developed in order to ensure that the church remained united in purpose and teaching.
Just a generation after the Apostles, Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the church at Magnesia “Be as submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to his Father, and as the Apostles were to Christ and his Father; so that there may be complete unity, in the flesh as well as in the Spirit.”
But what I’m really curious about is why you are so hostile to the idea of Christians being re-united. A generation ago, there was real excitement at the hope of corporate re-union as a way of enabling the Church to demonstrate more effectively God’s love for the world. What has changed? Have Anglicans been so converted by the world that they have adopted its post-modern suspicion of all institutions, and so feel obliged to jettison their Christian hope of unity?
October 28, 2009 at 6:41 pm
I’m not hostile to Christian untiy, what I am trying to suggest is that we already have it, just not in the way that you (or Rome) might like. Please re-read comment 19…
October 30, 2009 at 7:57 pm
I’m not sure that describing this move as a ‘bit of papal theatre’ and the Pope as ‘an elderly cleric’ are particularly helpful to the overall discussion.