ANGLICAN-LUTHERAN
RELATIONS: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
(The Plenary Discussion
at the ALS AGM 2009 - reported and reproduced in a
re-arranged order by Rupert Hoare)
The Plenary session, at a sleepy time
after lunch, was well chaired by our Anglican President, the
Very Rev John Arnold, who kept things moving with his own judicious
comments from time to time. Important topics, most of which
are listed below, were explored with the seriousness they deserved,
interspersed with much good humour and laughter. We were never
in danger of falling asleep.
The session got off to an excellent start
with two presentations commenting on the morning’s papers
(the authors of which were able to stay for the Plenary): the
first by the Revd David Cormick of the United Reformed Church
and General Secretary of Churches Together in England, and the
second by Father Phillip Swingler our long-serving observer
on the ALS Committee and a priest in the diocese of Northampton.
Bishop Jana Jeruma-Grinberga, newly appointed Lutheran Co-Moderator
of the Society joined the panel to provide a Lutheran voice.
The following topics were discussed:
1. Concerning our
History:
(a) Calvin
David Cormick reminded the meeting of
Calvin, the apostle of unity, indicating, in a communication
with Cranmer, how (very) far he would travel in search of unity,
and sitting fairly light to the issue of bishops. The recent
renewed interest in Calvin is leading to a re-discovery of what
he had actually been about, and insights that should replace
many of the myths that we have grown up with. Bishop Jana stressed
how much Lutherans were finding they had in common with Calvin
- adding that the question whether Lutherans were Catholic or
Protestant was not as easily answered as one might expect.
(b) The Political
Aspect of the Reformation
It was not just in the English Reformation
that politics played a significant part. Charlotte Methuen argued
that this was the case throughout Europe at that time: the idea
that the German Reformation did not have a political aspect
was a myth which had to be refuted. The same was true of Scandinavia.
John Arnold commented that his students had been astonished
to learn that the Augsburg Confession was signed by civic authorities
rather than clergy and sent to the Emperor rather than the Pope.
He added that from the 16th to the 19th century England was
clearly Protestant in a political sense, against France, Spain
and the Empire. He contrasted the ethos of the Reformation in
Germany and in England: in the former, it was carried by God’s
Word preached, in the latter by God’s Word read.
(c) The C of E’s
ecumenical stance, since the Reformation
Father Phillip Swingler stressed the Protestant
stance of early Anglicanism, its insistence on Justification
by Faith alone, and the importance of its dealings with non-Catholic
theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries. For her part, Dr
Methuen felt that it was the debate on Predestination in the
early years of the Church of England which in her view eclipsed
the debate on Justification. This had changed in the 19th century,
when the Church of England re-discovered its earlier Catholic
roots. Consequently it then became more difficult for other
Christians to know with whom, within the different constituencies
of Anglicanism, they were talking.
(d) What are your
views?
If you have any views on theseissues,
or anything that follows, please email them to the Society.
We should love to hear from you.
2. Concerning Bishops
Inevitably discussion turned to the issue
of episcope in general, and of bishops in particular. David
Cormick raised the temperature by quoting the image of the dead
mouse, current at the moment in ecumenical circles, the unwanted
gift the cat brought in! He hinted that there just might be
models of personal episcope with which no other church wanted
to be presented.
His own view was that primary forms of
episcope were synodical, and no particular form of personal
episcope should be regarded as primary or non-negotiable. Father
Phillip pointed out that in the medieval period it was the priest
whose role was most important.
Alex Faludy referred us to the fact that
the Reformed Church of Hungary was episcopally ordered and asked
what significance that had for the Reformed Churches as a whole.
David Cormick thanked him for the reference, and stated that
the Reformed Movement was far more “dappled” or
“piebald” as regards its patterns of governance
than is generally assumed, and Bishop Jana commented on this
as an example of how ecumenical endeavour has the effect of
destroying some of the false myths we otherwise tend to hold
about each other.
Bishop Michael Westall, commenting on
the desirability of a genuinely local episcopate, pointed to
the financial burden that was inherent in the expectations people
had of what a diocese had to provide - a fact that militated
against the multiplication of dioceses. He referred to the Kenyan
attempt to work on a regional rather than a diocesan basis,
and observed that in Africa you do sometimes see a ‘Big
Man’ appearing, who comes to command very widespread authority
(cp Mandela); on the church scene, that means that church leaders
can and do become genuine fathers to their region. In this regard,
Father Phillip had argued in his address that the African tradition
of tribal leadership could enable a bishop to be father to his
tribe, in a good sense. Bishop Michael added that he had himself
experienced a lot of concern about the appropriateness of an
electoral system for the appointment of bishops: an election
nearly always produced a favourite son of the dominant group,
not necessarily the right choice.
In his address David Cormick had pointed
out that the Lutheran practice of episcope is being successfully
used in unity schemes with both Reformed and Anglican churches
and suggested that this Lutheran practice and understanding
could provide a bridge between the Reformed and Anglican churches
3. Concerning Current
Progress towards Christian Unity
Father Phillip, in his address, had referred
to Cardinal Casper’s quote of 2006 to the effect that
anyone who speaks of the current situation of the ecumenical
movement as one of regression, or of an ‘ice-age’,
does not grasp all that is in fact going on. He felt the concepts
of unity with which we were working needed further clarification
and commended that found in Porvoo. He stressed the importance
of the fundamental agreements that had been achieved, citing
that on Justification, between the Roman Catholics and the Lutherans,
now endorsed by the Methodists, but argued that the right direction
in which to move now was to be found in doing as much as possible
together, while each preserved what it had inherited. What mattered
was to live the Gospel truths, which raised the question: was
the statement on Justification sufficient for that? He quoted
the maxim: ‘In order to unite with one another, we must
love one another. In order to love one another, we must know
one another; and to know one another, we must meet one another.’
David Cormick, in his address, had picked
up on Dr Methuen’s “fascinating” question
as to whether world communions were actually a hindrance to
local or regional unity. He said that the ‘Faith and Order’
enterprise ought never to have been separated from ‘Life
and Work’; the two need to be in constant tension with
each other. The common life of Christians of different traditions
could provide the basis on which Faith and Order questions could
best be handled, within relationships of friendship. Relationships
remained central within the Body of Christ, but had to be embedded
institutionally, while keeping legal frameworks in their proper
place. Speaking from within the World Alliance of Reformed Churches,
he said that a great deal had been learned about the nature
of Christian unity by Uniting and United Churches, and that
there was much scope for research which would draw together
all that experience.
4. Concerning Problems
and Possibilities Thrown up by the Current State of the Ecumenical
Movement
a) Blurring the
edges
Pastor Woldemar Flake said he was a Lutheran
pastor working in a team ministry in the Blackburn Diocese in
England for a three year period, as part of their exchange programme
with the Diocese of Braunschweig in the EKD, on the basis of
the Meissen Agreement. He described how he was now presiding
at Eucharists five times a week (contrast his work pattern in
his former parish in Germany). He found himself wondering what
exactly he, as a Lutheran minister, was doing when presiding
in an Anglican church, with Anglican colleagues some of whom
appeared to be working with Zwinglian, others with Lutheran
theologies of the Eucharist. His real question was what was
he doing, theologically? Is the project in which he is involved
“blurring the edges”? Or does it provide a model
which is important for the future? Should he recommend to his
bishop that it should be repeated?
Charlotte Methuen responded: she had a lot of sympathy with
his questions, and spoke of her own similar experience when
presiding in an Old Catholic parish: did she then, as it were,
become an Old Catholic priest? She saw no easy answers, but
wondered in the last resort, whether that mattered. Technically,
Meissen was very strict about it; Porvoo on the other hand gave
no instructions about the form of liturgy to be used. The assumption
was: if you were appointed to a parish, you would be subject
to that local jurisdiction. What mattered in her view was theological
coherence. She concluded that ecumenical agreements were opening
up the questions; what they make possible is modelling Christ
in each other to each other.
John Arnold underlined the importance of what Pastor Flake,
and others like him, were doing, on behalf of the rest of us.
b) Information about
ecumenical progress
The Revd David Carter (Methodist) asked two questions: were
there any moves towards unity between
(1) the Old Catholics and the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran Churches?
Dr Methuen answered in the negative: the Old Catholics did not
have sufficient resources, and there was no geographical overlap,
though she agreed there were no theological issues at stake
between them in Europe - though there would be with the Old
Catholics in the USA; and
(2) between the Reformed Church of Hungary and the Porvoo Churches?
Alex Faludy answered in the negative, saying he was himself
researching into the Reformed Church of Hungary’s understanding
of episcopacy, but finding the sources somewhat impenetrable.
David Cormick reminded us of the United Reformed Church’s
longstanding relationship with the Reformed Church of Hungary.
c) Tensions raised
by bi-lateral agreements
Pastorin Dagmar Apel described a partnership
her parish in Berlin had with a parish in Finland, in which,
in her experience, the Porvoo Agreement had now made an exchange
of ministries between the two parishes more difficult, as the
Finns now found their self identity through Porvoo rather than
through Leuenburg. In this sense Porvoo was in fact hindering
their relationship. If we are in communion with the one, can
we not also be with the other?
In reply, John Arnold referred to a passage at the end of the
Porvoo Common Statement (which he had himself drafted) to the
effect that Porvoo should not have any negative effect on any
existing agreement any of the participating churches had with
other parties. On the contrary, the signatories to Porvoo saw
their agreement “as part of the pursuit of a wider unity…[which]
will involve…strengthening the links which each of our
churches has with other churches at local, national and international
level… developing further existing links with other world
communions, especially those with whom we have ecumenical dialogues
and agreements.” (Porvoo Common Statement 60).
Charlotte Methuen commented by referring to the tension that
bilateral agreements brought with them, and said that things
can get messy…
Canon Guy Smith referred to his experience
in the Anglican chaplaincy in St Petersburg, which was searching
for a permanent chaplain. A Lutheran pastor was a member of
the congregation there; he had been ordained in America with
an Anglican bishop taking part in the Consecration: could he
therefore not become chaplain to the St Petersburg Anglican
chaplaincy? However, the Diocese of Europe had answered: ‘No’.
John Arnold suggested a possible solution was to transfer the
St Petersburg chaplaincy from the Diocese of Europe to an American
jurisdiction.
Pastorin Gudrun Kaper referred to her
experience as a chaplain to the American Army base in Stuttgart,
commenting on the importance of language to the ecumenical endeavour.
Was a common language more important than confessional order?
Bishop Jana, in reply, commented on the high level of ecumenical
commitment of the Swahili
speaking Lutheran congregation in London, because few people
knew Swahili, so that the English language had to be used.
5. Concerning the
current crisis within the Anglican Communion.
David Cormick had said in his address
that he did not want to comment on the internal Anglican difficulties,
except to say how much other church bodies felt for Anglicans,
especially for Archbishop Rowan, and how they were praying for
them.
Father Phillip, referring to Bishop Michael’s
address, said that we must not demonise people of different
views; that this was an important issue for all the churches,
and in his view Christians in South Africa, through their struggle
with apartheid, may have “had their minds sharpened”
in respect of the issues surrounding homosexuality.
6. Concerning the
Dominance of Church Order questions over Agreements on the Content
of the Gospel
The Rev Dr Roy Long commented on how much
seemed to be about Church Order, and how little about preaching
and the content of the Gospel we are to proclaim.
Dr Methuen responded that the agreements that had been reached
recognise that we are all preaching the same Gospel, and are
duly administering the sacraments in the churches to which we
belong. However, the Anglicans (drawing on the Lambeth Quadrilateral)
have added the historic episcopate as one of the fundamental
marks of the Church. Hence the concentration on issues of Church
Order, and on those issues on which we are not yet agreed, with
all their ensuing tension.
7. The import of
so-called ‘non-theological factors’ on our ecumenical
endeavour
Rupert Hoare referred back to Bishop Michael’s
very honest pinpointing of the role weakness, on the one hand,
and ambition, on the other, played as motives for, and against,
ecumenical advance. To these the discussion had added politics.
All these, he argued, were in fact deeply theological matters;
his question to David Cormick was: what is the Church in its
ecumenical theological work doing to make sure these issues
(which are very real ones about what it is to be human) are
brought to bear on Faith and Order questions? In reply, David
Cormick reiterated his view that he did not think the thesis
that the ecumenical movement was based on weakness was the whole
story. Father Phillip, in his address, on the other hand, had
affirmed Bishop Michael’s analysis that we only get together
when we’re weak: this was true of all of Christian tradition;
he also admitted the role ambition played, and not only in Africa.
[Rupert Hoare, in drawing up this account
of the discussion, is going to take improper advantage of his
editorial role to add: it is so easy to put value judgments
on e.g. weakness, and ambition, and for that matter politics,
which have not been thought through theologically. But, until
they are faced and discussed openly, as Bishop Michael was encouraging
us to do, they will continue to influence our behaviour without
our being able to face them, deal with them in Gospel terms
and live accordingly.]
David Cormick went on to refer to a recent
paper by Paul Avis on ethics, as perhaps the closest people
were at the moment to deal with such questions, but accepted
that they do need sustained theological exploration. He added:
in England, ecumenism has yet to disengage itself from the period
following the failure of the Covenant Proposals. In conclusion,
the ecumenical enterprise had to be a matter of our growing
together into the fullness of Christ.
John Arnold, as Chairman, thought that
was a good note on which to conclude the Plenary, reminding
us that full communion was eschatological.
