PERSONAL COLUMN
Reflections on a missing link
SELWYN LLOYD
My great-grandfather was a Wesleyan Methodist Minister, who began his ministry as a probationer in 1826 at Caernarvon. My grandfather and my father, each called John Wesley Lloyd, were devoted Metho- dists. I was brought up in the same way, am a member of our church at West Kirby, and have been one of the trustees for forty years. Although recently I have played a small part in considering the parliamentary consequences of union with the Church of England, I have never been in the higher councils of the Methodist Church. I therefore write as an ordinary member of that Church, with what some may think to be a rather naive approach.
First, I do not believe that John Wesley ever wanted to found a separate denomin- ation. He wanted to effect certain reforms within the Church of England of his time.
Second, for me what Pope John achieved was a miracle. That one man, albeit the leader of a great Church, could in so short a time make such an impact on Christian men and women everywhere was miraculous. The troubles afflicting this world today are easy to catalogue: the balance of fear of nuclear destruction which keeps an uneasy peace; the threat of materialism; the decline in certain,,moral standards; the present phase of anarchism, temporary though it may be. Amid all this, Pope John proclaimed, so it seemed to me, that the Christian Churches are not warring enemies, that Catholics and Protestants, Christians of any and all persuasions, are part of Christendom, and should work more and more together. This may be a naive view, but many shared it. It was like a breath of fresh air. The miracle was that he should have put it across so success- fully with his background, at his age and in so short a time.
Who would have thought in other days of a message like that from Cardinal Heenan to the Convocations—Way God bless your proceedings. You have our best wishes and prayers'? What would have been thought of Roman Catholic prelates taking part with Anglicans and Noncon- formists in the religious part of the investi- ture of the Prince of Wales?
Third, I have witnessed the gradual development of Methodist unity. The Wesleyans, the Primitives and the United Methodists came together in 1932. I think that I was present at our quarterly meeting to vote for that union. It has taken over thirty years to be really effective. Fourth, the modern urban sprawl, the growth of new communities, the new housing estates, overspill, the new towns constitute formidable problems for the Churches. Bringing the Christian witness to them on a basis of tidy and balanced sectarianism is not only a waste of re- sources already in short supply, but it is also unpalatable, an incomprehensible duplication and overlapping.
With that background, I make my com- ments on the votes last week. I was de- lighted with the vote of the Methodist Conference, 77.4 per cent in favour of union. What was it they voted for? Dr Harold Roberts, moving the main reso- lution, said that the inauguration of Stage One meant the approval of proposals that closer relations between the two Churches should be in two stages, aiming ultimately at organic unity, but not a crippling uni- formity. He then dealt with episcopacy, and it is quite a step forward for those steeped in the traditions of nonconformity to take episcopacy into their system. Dr Roberts described Stage One as an accept- ance of episcopacy given liberty of inter- pretation, not a mechanical succession from the earliest times, but a link with the earl- iest apostles, a representation of their wit- ness and gospel.
The difficulties about the service of re- conoiliation could always be foreseen. Dr Roberts said in his speech that the service was one of reconciliation and not of ordination, reconciliation of the ministries. As a fellow Methodist put it to me the other day, doubts could and should be brushed aside. For the service had been devised by men of wisdom, zeal and piety in both Churches, and we should remember the words of Dr Faber : 'For the love of God is broader than the measure of man's mind'.
The Anglican vote, with its large but insufficient majority in favour, was a dis- appointment. It is not for a Methodist to try to analyse the reasons for the 31 per cent voting against, except to comment that the reasons seemed to differ greatly, and the votes were for the most part des- cribed as not being against union itself.
What next?
What not to do? This decision must not be allowed to bring bitterness within or between the Churches. We Methodists must give no impression of feeling that we have been let down: 69 per cent is not all that much short of 77.4 per cent. I would also hope that Anglicans would abstain from recriminations among them- selves.
What to do? Many suggestions are being made. The Bishop of Carlisle, an opponent of the scheme, wishes to allow members of each Church complete freedom to come to Communion in one another's Churches. Others suggest that Church leaders should actively promote joint endeavours in wor- ship and in other ways. Others wish a new scheme to be prepared and presented as quickly as possible. Then there is the opinion that when synodical government is _introduced in about eighteen months' time, the matter should be raised again, and a large majority is certain.
Although the discussion must continue ,,fairly and objectively in thepress and else- ,where—and I pay a particular tribute to the Methodist Recorder for the way in which it has handled this matter—I doubt the wisdom of presenting a new scheme at once. But I also believe that to do nothing but wait on events would be utterly wrong. The statements of many of the opponents that they are not against union should be , accepted, and 9 July's result should be used as a challenge to all of us to take all practical steps within our power to promote joint work and joint worship which in time will lead to union. This may mean untidi- ness and variations in forms of service and actual arrangements. But we cannot stand still. We must move forward with the ob- jective of union. Otherwise the impact of our Churches upon the problems of today will. not measure up to the needs of indi- viduals or of the community.
Previous page
