Where is the ecumenical movement?

The Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) is at the heart of attempts to tackle the split between Catholics and Anglicans.

Mark Santer, the Bishop of Birmingham, who was co-chairman of the Commission that produced the latest report entitled 'The Gift of Authority', is quoted as saying: 'the dialogue between Anglicans and Roman Catholics is only one stream in the wider river of ecumenical dialogue. The issue of authority comes up sooner or later in every dialogue which addresses itself seriously to the questions of communion and authority.'

His opinion is surely correct and the publication of this report last year provides a useful point of reference in assessing where the ecumenical movement has got to. ARCIC was set up in the heyday of ecumenism during the 1960s, following a celebrated meeting between Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsay. The First Commission finished its work when it produced a report in 1981. Following that report, a Second Commission was created to address further issues of concern to the two denominations. In 1987, a report tackling the issue of justification by faith was published, and now we have a report which takes a closer look at the vexed issue of authority.

Climate colder

But first, it is worth reflecting on the change in the ecumenical atmosphere that has occurred even since 1981. 20 years ago, the ARCIC material was treated with considerable respect. Evangelical views had to be forcefully argued in synods. Yet this observer at least now detects a shift in attitude. Perhaps it is the climate of post-modernism, with its suspicion of authority which has changed things. This report has simply not created the same level of interest and concern that earlier ones did. It is recognised that statements from bodies which cannot carry ordinary people with them will not carry conviction. Grassroots ecumenism is now the name of the game.

Authority?

When evangelicals are faced with problems of authority, the danger is that we will reach out for ungodly solutions which appear tempting but prove disastrous. If you expect a report entitled 'The Gift of Authority' to be largely about Scripture, then you would be wrong, and therein lies the problem.

Within the report, phrases like 'local church' and 'tradition' are used in ways which thoroughly distort the biblical sense in which these words may be employed. Thus 'local church' is said to be 'the unity of local communities under one bishop' (paragraph 13, quoting from an earlier report). The meaning of tradition depends on whether it is spelt with an initial capital letter or not (note on p.16), and there is also tradition which is apostolic. If one is unwilling to link apostolic tradition with the text of the New Testament, then immense confusion results which provides a doorway for ungodly practices.

Since the Scriptural guidelines for the exercise of authority among God's people are not the priority of this report, it ends up with a predictable conclusion. The Roman Catholic church should accept more synodical involvement in its decision-making (paragraph 57). The Anglican group of churches should enhance the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury and its inter-provincial bodies (like the Lambeth conference) (paragraph 56). Similar convergence is encouraged in accepting the universal primacy of the pope.

Tip of the pope iceberg

It is this latter issue that has inevitably generated most publicity. The reason why this report is so flawed is that it is so thoroughly committed to resolving problems in the exercise of authority among God's people through resort to the offices of human individuals. That method of resolving issues of authority can be adopted within a local congregation as well as on the grander scale between denominations.

Of course God's purpose is that human beings should exercise leadership and authority among God's people, but the perspective in this report is very different from an evangelical understanding of these matters. Evangelicals know that unity can only be found as Christ rules his people through his Word. Thus evangelicals will see the responsibility of human leaders as being to teach that Word faithfully and to support and encourage such teaching. It is in this way that the gospel is proclaimed, that unity is created and a community bears a living witness.

Primary task?

This report sees matters differently. It appears to operate on the premise that the world will only believe the gospel if all who call themselves Christians are united, and therefore God has given leaders whose primary task is to maintain that unity. It is this divergence from the evangelical priority of leading through teaching truth which creates the unwarranted confidence in the ability of the authority of human office bearers to resolve problems. The exercise of authority among God's people must, in the end, be able to be traced back to the Word of God. It is not good enough for someone to say: 'I am the bishop (or the minister for that matter) and that is that.'

The initial reaction to the report was sufficiently critical to put its authors on the defensive. My disappointment is that much reaction has focused on the 'universal primacy' of the pope. It has not got to grips with what I feel is the real issue that needs to be debated. Yet there are signs that the worldwide Anglican community as a whole may be ready to do this. At the Lambeth conference in 1998, it was Scripture that was affirmed as God's gift of authority. Since this strong affirmation is not reflected in this report, one wonders how representative of the Anglican Communion the members of this Commission really are. Concern in this respect is not allayed when it is realised that the new co-chairman of the Commission is Frank Griswold, the Presiding Bishop of the notoriously liberal Episcopal Church in the USA.

The issues of the ordination of women and homosexuality are important test cases to analyse the viability of the proposals which appear in this report. One has to say that Anglicans know full well that settling the matter of the ordination of women by appealing to the universal primacy of the pope would not be very popular. And as Anglicans face up to divisions over homosexuality created by aggressive liberalism, they must think through carefully how this crisis should be tackled. They can go the way of this report, which sees human office holders as the key to healing breaches. At a recent international Anglican meeting in Edinburgh, the Archbishop of Canterbury appealed to be given more authority to resolve disputes between different Anglican provinces. This idea was actually floated at Lambeth conferences at the end of the 19th century, but it was not deemed wise then to try and make the Archbishop into a Patriarch.

Resisting the Archbishop

When the current Archbishop made this call, the idea was immediately vehemently denounced by Richard Holloway, the Bishop of Edinburgh. It is not often that one can agree with this bishop who, with some reason, has come to be regarded as the Spong of the British Isles, but on this occasion one can. He, of course, resists this proposal because he can see that the Archbishop's increased authority would be used to discipline extreme liberalism like his own, whereas an evangelical will want to argue that this is simply not the right way to resolve such problems.

As the Anglican Communion faces a crisis of authority, it is vital that evangelicals do not allow the resolution of its problems to be determined by the agenda set within this ARCIC report. Looking to human office bearers to arbitrate on issues is a dead end, which in certain circumstances leads to a tyranny that persecutes the people of God.