The Churches
Share My Chalice
By MONICA FURLONG s she is, or is she ain't? is the question Angli- icans have been asking in the last week, the `she' referrifig to the Church of England, and the question itself to her Catholic status. For revolt has, quietly and respectably, broken out in her ranks, and the theological argument which many of us squabble over in private has come out into the open. Religious controversy in England being not what it was, thank God, we shall be spared the worst excesses. Canons Lampe, Moule and Montefiore will not be toasted in the forecourt of Church House, and it is improbable that the little man I saw dashing away from Lambeth Palace on All Souls' Day was fetching twopennyworth of machine-oil for the rack. To the nub of the matter. Thirty-two theolo- gians, including a great fistful of Cambridge divines, the Deans of St. Paul's and Norwich, the Archdeacon of Doncaster, the general sec- retary of the Church Missionary Society, and six heads of theological colleges, have signed an open letter to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York which begs for new regulations on inter-Communion. The existing ruling, stated at the Lambeth Conference of 1958, says that `Anglicans conscientiously hold that the celebrant of the Eucharist should have been ordained by a bishop standing in th- historic succession, and generally believe it to be their duty to bear wit- ness to this principle by receiving Holy Com- munion only from those who have been thus ordained.' It is this statement which the signat- ories set out to refute, saying that they do not recognise the duty and that they believe many Anglicans would also deny it. They want 'in- dividual baptised communicant members of churches not at present in communion with the Church of England' to be received at Com- munion and they see no bar to Anglicans receiv- ing Communion in other churches. They also urge corporate acts of Communion between members of Churches which are seeking unity. Well, do we or don't we conscientiously hold, etc.? Do we bless 'em all, Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists and offer them our chalice? Do we start sharing theirs? It depends, of course, on which Anglican you set out to question. If you pick an Anglo-Catholic the answer will be a sharp 'Certainly not!' If You pick an Evangelical the answer may be 'By all means.' If you pick an ordinary, not ter- ribly bright, Christian, emerging from Matins and thinking happily of the roast beef to come, the answer will be 'Don't know.' More interest- ing, to my mind, than any of these groups, is the large centre group of the Church which moves calmly through the mined field of theology and with cheerful unscrupulousness borrows what it needs from high and low trad- itions. It is noticeable by its unwillingness to be anything but amused at partisan antics and is comfortably unfanatical. Among the younger members of this group one seems to notice the kind of virility and razor-sharp intelligence which have been missing from English Christianity for far too long. In the end, I believe, the Church moves in the direction in which this ballast- group moves, and if this is so, then there is little chance of its rolling in the direction of Cam- bridge. For the most noticeable thing about the centre of the Church is how far it has moved and is continuing to move along the Tractarian track. While laughing at some of the wilder excesses of Anglo-Catholicism it has gratefully redis- covered the sacramental nature of the Christian religion. It has placed Holy Communion back at the centre of parish life, it has attempted to place the Church of England in its historical setting instead of accepting the intolerable narrowness of a national church, and it has reached a position where practices which might once have been condemned as popish perver- sions (regular confession, for example) now seem normal and right. Many intelligent young Angli- cans, asked if they considered their Church to be Catholic, would agree with the Book of Common Prayer that it is so. Some might add that there was no choice; that Protestantism seemed to them a cul-de-sac, but that Catholi- cism offered a view and a road. Apparently riding against this wave and sup- porting the thirty-two theologians in the share my chalice movement is the ecumenical move- ment, at least in so far as it affects Anglican re- lations with the Free Churches. The longing for unity and friendship is so strong (though stronger, I sometimes think, between Anglicans and Romans than between Anglicans and Dissenters) that suddenly all the divisions seem maddening and one longs to tear the walls down in the hope that somehow this might result in a Christ-like motion of acceptance. It is when one is in this screaming mood that one is ready to go all the way with the thirty-two theologians. But when emotion is put on one side, and one attempts to bring reason to bear on the propo- sals, it is difficult to see how they might work. Throughout the letter, in the shifting of ground, and the slightly over-zealous tone, there is the ominous hint of the short cut. Unity is difficult, especially when it inyolves actually getting to know members of other Churches, listening to their arguments about one's own Church, and enduring their jokes on the subject. It is both exhilarating and painful, like most human rela- tionships, and comparatively little of it has so far gone on. Holy Communion without the mutual knowledge that should precede it is a little like marrying without having actually met the girl. Marrying, what's more, when both parties are still pitifully far from maturity. Worse than the sheer practical improbability of it at the moment, however, is the suggestion that if one takes notice of one's warmer impulses the principles will take care of themselves; a strange belief for Christians who learn in a hard school that goodness has little to do with emo- tion. The Church of England held at her incep- tion, and has held in her brighter moments since, that its bishops are in the Catholic succession, and that the only people who may administer Holy Communion are priests ordained by these bishops. Is it possible, by some strange feat of self-deception, to pretend that this is not so, and even if it is possible, is it the best basis for inter- Church friendship? Honesty may not always be the best policy, but it is one to which Christians are heavily committed.
Previous page
