Anglican-Methodist Ecumenism: The Search for Church Unity, 1920-2020 0367628155, 9780367628154

Citation preview

Anglican-Methodist Ecumenism

This book offers a detailed analysis of one of the key episodes of twentiethcentury ecumenism, focusing on the efforts made to reconcile the Church of England and the Methodist Church of Great Britain in the years since the First World War. Drawing on newly available archives as well as on a broad range of historical, theological, and liturgical expertise, the contributions explore what was attempted, why success proved elusive, and how the quest for unity was reconfigured into the twenty-first century. The volume sets contemporary ecumenical ambitions in historical context, explains the origins, course, and aftermath of the Anglican–Methodist ‘Conversations’ of 1955–72, retrieves their enduring global legacy, and explores the fraught nature of the ecumenical quest. It will be of key interest to scholars with an interest in ecumenism, Methodist studies, and church history. Jane Platt is an archivist at the Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History, where she listed its Anglican–Methodist Union collection. She is Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, the author of several books and articles on church history, and a member of the editorial team of CWAAS Transactions. Martin Wellings is Superintendent of the Barnet and Queensbury Circuit of the Methodist Church. He is an Ecumenical Canon of Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford, and Chair of the Methodist Church’s Faith and Order Committee.

Routledge Methodist Studies Series Series Editor: William Gibson, Director of the Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History, Oxford Brookes University, UK Methodism remains one of the largest denominations in the USA and is growing in South America, Africa and Asia (especially in Korea and China). This series spans Methodist history and theology, exploring its success as a movement historically and in its global expansion. Books in the series will look particularly at features within Methodism which attract wide interest, including: the unique position of the Wesleys; the prominent role of women and minorities in Methodism; the interaction between Methodism and politics; the ‘Methodist conscience’ and its motivation for temperance and pacifist movements; the wide range of Pentecostal, holiness and evangelical movements; and the interaction of Methodism with different cultures. Editorial Board: Ted A. Campbell, Professor of Church History, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, USA David N. Hempton, Dean, Harvard Divinity School, Harvard University, USA Priscilla Pope-Levison, Associate Dean, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, USA Martin Wellings, Superintendent of the Barnet and Queensbury Circuit of the Methodist Church, UK and Past President of the World Methodist Historical Society. Karen B. Westerfield Tucker, Professor of Worship, Boston University, USA The Practice of Mission in Global Methodism Emerging Trends from Everywhere to Everywhere Edited by David W. Scott and Darryl W. Stephens The Methodist Church in Poland Activity and Political Conditions, 1945-1989 Ryszard Michalak The Monastic Footprint in Post-Reformation Movements The Cloister of the Soul Kenneth C. Carveley Anglican-Methodist Ecumenism The Search for Church Unity, 1920-2020 Edited by Jane Platt and Martin Wellings For more information and a full list of titles in the series, please visit: https:// www.routledge.com/Routledge-Methodist-Studies-Series/book-series/ AMETHOD

Anglican-Methodist Ecumenism The Search for Church Unity, 1920–2020 Edited by Jane Platt and Martin Wellings

First published 2022 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2022 selection and editorial matter, Jane Platt and Martin Wellings; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Jane Platt and Martin Wellings to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-0-367-62815-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-63447-6 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-11921-0 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003119210 Typeset in Sabon by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

Contents

List of figures and tables List of contributors Foreword Acknowledgements

vii viii x xii

 1 Introduction 1 JANE PLATT AND MARTIN WELLINGS

  2 The Long View of Anglican–Methodist Unity 11 MARTIN WELLINGS

  3 Anglican Ecumenism and the Problems of the ‘Historic Episcopate’ 29 MARK D. CHAPMAN

  4 Church, Episcopacy and Ecumenism: Debates about order, authority and ambiguity in the Anglican–Methodist Conversations 47 PIPPA CATTERALL

  5 The Major Participants and their Actions in the Anglican– Methodist Conversations: The First Stage 1956–63 83 JOHN LENTON

vi Contents   6 Theology, Providence and Anglican–Methodist Reunion: The case of Michael Ramsey and E.L. Mascall 101 PETER WEBSTER

  7 Evangelical Dissentients and the Defeat of the Anglican–Methodist Unity Scheme 118 ANDREW ATHERSTONE

  8 Fighting for Methodism’s Soul: The Voice of Methodism Association, 1963–72 135 CLAIRE SURRY

  9 ‘An Umbrella for all Dissenters’?: The National Liaison Committee, 1965–82 152 MARTIN WELLINGS

10 Grassroots Methodism and the Anglican–Methodist Conversations 170 JANE PLATT

11 Anglican–Methodist Relations in the Context of the British Army 199 PETER HOWSON

12 The Anglican-Methodist Service of Reconciliation and the Ordinal of 1968 215 PHILLIP TOVEY

13 Developments since 1972 230 DAVID M. CHAPMAN

Index

249

Figures and Tables

Figures 10.1 Donald English visiting Consett when President of Conference in 1978, OCMCH, DEP/K/PB3/3 10.2 Primitive Methodists celebrating the completion of their church renovations at Raunds, c. 1953 12.1 Methodist and Anglican Ordinals 12.2 The influence of CSI 1958 on Anglican Ordinals

172 184 219 226

Tables 10.1a. and b. Local voting patterns, 1969 10.2 Circuit Voting in Cumbria, 1969 10.3 Oxford and Leicester District Circuit Votes, 1969 10.4 Question, ‘Do you think that the existence of the different denominations within the Christian Church is …?’ Survey of Anglicans and Methodists in Four Towns, by David B. Clark 10.5 Problems involving sharing at Fairhill Church, Cwmbran, 1971–2 10.6 Extract from Brian Dawson, ‘The Past, Present and Future Strategies of the Church of England Parishes and Churches in Mid-East Cumbria’ (2001)

179 181 183

188 192

193

Contributors

Andrew Atherstone is Latimer Research Fellow at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, and a member of the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford. His recent books include, as co-editor, Making Evangelical History: Faith, Scholarship and the Evangelical Past (2019) and Transatlantic Charismatic Renewal, c.1950–2000 (2021). Pippa Catterall is Professor of History and Policy at the University of Westminster and editor of National Identities. She has written widely on British political and religious history and is the author of Labour and the Free Churches 1918–1939: Radicalism, Righteousness and Religion (2016). David M. Chapman is Chair of the Bedfordshire, Essex, and Hertfordshire District of the Methodist Church in Britain. He is a member of the British Methodist Faith and Order Committee and the World Methodist Council, where he Co-chairs the Methodist-Roman Catholic International Commission. His research interests include ecclesiology and ecumenism. Mark D. Chapman is Professor of the History of Modern Theology at the University of Oxford and Vice-Principal of Ripon College Cuddesdon. He has written widely on Anglicanism. His books include Anglican Theology (2012) and The Fantasy of Reunion: Anglicans, Catholics and Ecumenism, 1833–1882 (2014). Peter Howson is a Methodist supernumerary presbyter who also holds Permission to Officiate from the bishop of Salisbury. Much of his ministry was spent as an army chaplain, mostly overseas, and invariably in ecumenical environments. His most recent book, on Britain and the German Churches in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, was published in 2021. John Lenton, Local Preacher, is the Honorary Librarian of the Wesley Historical Society Library at Oxford Brookes University. He was Convener of the British Methodist Church’s Archives and History Committee 1996–2010. His publications include Harold Roberts (1995),

Contributors 

ix

John Wesley’s Preachers (2009), and, with others, Women, Preachers, Methodists (2020). Jane Platt is an archivist at the Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History, where she listed its Anglican–Methodist Union collection. She is Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, the author of several books and articles on church history, and a member of the editorial team of CWAAS Transactions. Claire Surry completed her master’s degree in history with distinction at the University of Southampton in 2017. Her dissertation on the 1932 Methodist Union drew on themes of diversity, division, and union in the context of the post-war evangelical movement. She currently works in the commercial research industry. Phillip Tovey is Principal of the Oxford Diocese Local Ministry Programme and Warden of Readers. He has written extensively on the subject of Christian Worship and has taught in England and around the globe. He has had pastoral experience of working in LEPs and fondly remembers being ‘recognised and regarded’ for a period. Ordination rites are of a particular interest. Peter Webster is an independent scholar and consultant based in the UK. He has published widely on the history of the Church of England in the twentieth century. His study of Michael Ramsey, archbishop of Canterbury, was published in 2015. Martin Wellings is Superintendent of the Barnet and Queensbury Circuit of the Methodist Church. He is an Ecumenical Canon of Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford, and Chair of the Methodist Church’s Faith and Order Committee.

Foreword

Ever since John Wesley began to direct his formidable talents to the nurture and growth of the Methodist movement, there has been an uneasy relationship between Methodists and the Church of England. To many, this has been a cause of great distress as they believe it denies the prayer of Christ for the unity of his followers. To others, it has been the natural outworking of how the Holy Spirit leads the Church as it pursues its mission at various times, in various places and in various ways. This volume of essays concentrates on one period in the ongoing relationship between the two Churches. The editors have brought together a group of well-informed authors who have produced some detailed and interesting accounts of the background to the Anglican–Methodist Conversations of the 1960s, which resulted in a scheme for eventual unity, but which ultimately failed. The stimulus for this volume was the acquisition by the Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History at Oxford Brookes University of the extensive archives of Methodist dissidents to the unity scheme. Thus, the collection of essays has a bias towards this previously unpublished material. This in no way detracts from the comprehensive nature of the collection, as many aspects of the background to the scheme are reviewed. The problems posed by the 1960s scheme are well rehearsed but what is new is the descriptions of the major players, particularly of the dissident Methodist groups. There is also an extremely revealing account of ‘grassroots’ Methodist opinion, not previously documented. Jane Platt and Martin Wellings in their Introduction and David Chapman in his concluding chapter provide knowledgeable accounts, respectively, of the relationship from Wesley’s day to the advent of the 1960s Conversations, and of the consequences since the proposed scheme’s final failure in 1972. Chapman is perhaps more pessimistic of the future than we would be, although the dissidents of the 1960s would regard us as biased over-zealous leaders on a national level! Despite the failure of the scheme, these chapters offer themes of insightful encouragement. There is a reminder that lessons can be learned from chaplains in various spheres who are already often heavily involved in ecumenical ministry. We are also reminded that the failed scheme produced an

Foreword 

xi

Ordinal which has been ‘a highly influential piece of liturgical work’ since it was published in 1968 and therefore made an ongoing positive contribution ecumenically. We were grateful when Martin Wellings asked us to write a Foreword for this volume. It is an important contribution to the literature on the Anglican–Methodist relationship. It also has some very useful lessons for those who will be involved in future ecumenical endeavours. We represent the next major episode in this long-running saga, having been the co-chairs of the Joint Implementation Commission for the Anglican Methodist Covenant (JIC) from 2008 to 2014, although one of us had also served from 2003 to 2008. One of the main areas of contention in the 1960s scheme and currently was the nature of ordained ministry. Matters of ministry are not, of course, confined to discussions between Anglicans and Methodists, or even within each of the two Churches, but are also a matter of contention within and between all Churches. Perhaps our two Churches had that unconsciously in mind when they respectively appointed an Anglican diocesan Bishop and a Vice-President of the Methodist Conference as Co-chairs of the JIC, and we enjoyed greatly the opportunity that gave us to work together for the common cause of Christian unity. Embodiments of ecumenism in personal friendships sustain ecumenical endeavours at all times and at all levels. While we therefore look to the past and the subject of this volume with a certain amount of sadness, and déjà vu, we remain convinced of the imperative of achieving fuller communion between our Churches, as set out and agreed in principle by both Churches in 2014 (The Challenge of the Covenant: Unity in Mission and Holiness) and in 2018 (Mission and Ministry in Covenant), and we look forward to the future in hope and with faith. Professor Peter Howdle Vice-President of the Methodist Conference 2002-03 Co-Chair JIC 2003-14

The Rt Revd Dr Christopher Cocksworth The Bishop of Coventry Co-Chair JIC 2008-14

Acknowledgements

This book has been a long time in the making, and we are glad of the opportunity to express our thanks to those who have made possible the successful completion of this endeavour. Professors Pippa Catterall and William Gibson were the presiding geniuses for the whole project. Pippa gathered the raw material of letters, manifestoes, minutes, and pamphlets which now form the core of the Documents of the Anglican–Methodist Union Collection (DAMUC), adding taped interviews with key protagonists in the Conversations debates. Her breadth of understanding of twentieth-century political and social history ensured that the book avoided a narrow ecclesiasticism and set the ecumenical quest in a wider cultural context. Bill Gibson, meanwhile, gave the DAMUC material and the archive of the Voice of Methodism Association a home at the Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History, and ensured that this invaluable resource would be carefully sorted and expertly catalogued. His academic entrepreneurship inspired the day conference which led to this book, and he has been an unfailing source of encouragement and wise counsel as a somewhat disparate collection of conference papers has evolved into a coherent volume. Around half of the chapters published here had their origins in a day conference at Oxford Brookes University in November 2018; the others began elsewhere or were commissioned in order to achieve a comprehensive treatment of a multifaceted topic. We are grateful to the authors for their labours and for their patience with the editorial process and publishing timetable, and we hope that they will agree that the whole is greater even than the sum of its undoubtedly excellent parts! We would like to thank the editors of Wesley and Methodist Studies, and Penn State University Press, publishers of the journal, for kind permission to publish a revised and expanded version of Andrew Atherstone’s article ‘Evangelical Dissentients and the Defeat of the Anglican-Methodist Unity Scheme’, which first appeared in Wesley and Methodist Studies, volume 7 (2015).

Acknowledgements 

xiii

We would also like to thank Professor Richard English and Mr Paul English for generously permitting us to include a photograph from the archives of The Revd Dr Donald English as an illustration in Chapter 10. We were delighted that the Co-chairs of Phase 2 of the Joint Imple­ mentation Commission under the Covenant between The Methodist Church of Great Britain and The Church of England, The Right Revd Dr Christopher Cocksworth, Bishop of Coventry, and Professor Peter Howdle, Past Vice-President of the Methodist Conference, graciously agreed to write a Foreword for the book, and we are deeply grateful for their kindness and generosity in so doing. Their words of introduction and commendation are warmly appreciated. Our grateful thanks are also due to the editorial and production team at the Taylor & Francis Group, particularly Katherine Ong, editor for anthropology and religion (research), for their expertise in bringing this work to fruition and to the editorial board of the Routledge Methodist Studies Series for accepting this volume into its distinguished company.

1

Introduction Jane Platt and Martin Wellings

When Horton Davies, Professor of the History of Christianity at Princeton, published the final part of his magisterial Worship and Theology in England in 1965, the title chosen for the volume covering the period from 1900 to the contemporary age was ‘The Ecumenical Century’.1 At the time, this choice seemed entirely apposite, both to sum up a century whose ecclesiastical landmarks had included the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910, the 1920 Lambeth ‘Appeal to all Christian People’, and the formation of the World Council of Churches, and also to catch the mood of a decade in which the British Faith and Order Conference at Nottingham had called for the reunion of the main British denominations by a ‘date not … later than Easter Day 1980’.2 At the centre of this ecumenical enthusiasm was the scheme to bring together the Church of England and the largest of the English Free Churches, the Methodist Church.3 For ten years, Anglicans and Methodists had been engaged in a process of dialogue, and these ‘Conversations’ had borne fruit in proposals for a two-stage reunion. The proposals, presented to the Convocations and the Methodist Conference in 1963, had undergone two years of consultation, and in summer 1965 both Churches endorsed the scheme in principle. As Horton Davies’ volume rolled off the presses, Roger Lloyd, Canon of Winchester Cathedral and one of the mid-twentieth century’s most prolific religious commentators and journalists, completed his history of The Church of England 1900–1965. For Lloyd, the Report of the Conversations was ‘one of the most influential documents in the field of reunion which has ever been written’. ‘It is at least possible – more than that, it is likely’, Lloyd averred, ‘that by the end of the century the two Churches will be organically one single Church’.4 Roger Lloyd died in September 1966 and did not live to see the publication of his book.5 Nor did he live to see the collapse of the Anglican– Methodist Union scheme, as the proposals failed to achieve the necessary majority, first in the Convocations in 1969 and then in the General Synod in 1972. Ecumenical enthusiasm turned to disillusionment and acrimony, as Methodism winced from a ‘smack in the face’, in Adrian Hastings’ pungent phrase.6 Although Rupert Davies discerned ‘an admirable absence of bitterness’,7 he believed nonetheless that ‘a golden opportunity was lost’,8 and DOI: 10.4324/9781003119210-1

2  Jane Platt and Martin Wellings memories of the disappointment over the Conversations endured, leaving a legacy of wariness and distrust to cloud continuing ecumenical dialogue and co-operation into the twenty-first century. The acquisition of two significant archives by the Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History at Oxford Brookes University has recently created an opportunity to revisit the Anglican–Methodist Conversations and to set them in a broader context. The larger archive comprises materials gathered by Professor Pippa Catterall, including the correspondence of C. Kingsley Barrett, one of the Methodist ‘Dissentients’ from the 1963 scheme,9 and the papers of the National Liaison Committee, which aspired to be a co-ordinating body for Methodist opponents of union. These primary sources, together with books, pamphlets, newspaper cuttings, and Professor Catterall’s taped interviews with key protagonists in the Conversations debate, now form the Documents of the Anglican–Methodist Union Collection (DAMUC) at the Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History. A second archive, deposited by the Voice of Methodism Association and representing the history of the earliest and most pugnacious organised opposition to the scheme, has been added to the Collection more recently. Taken together, the DAMUC papers facilitated a day conference in November 2018 and underpinned the research embodied in the present book. Brief references to the Conversations and summaries of the proposals, debates and ultimate debacle of 1969 and 1972 abound in the general ecclesiastical and denominational histories of the period, and in the biographies of Church leaders.10 Acknowledging the valuable insights captured by these studies, this book seeks to delve more deeply into four areas: first, the contexts of the Conversations; secondly, the shaping of the scheme, and the key personalities involved in that process; thirdly, the polemics, and how these played out in organisations and at the grassroots of the two Churches; and fourthly, the lasting consequences, for British Methodists and Anglicans, and for the wider Church. These themes may be teased out a little here, in anticipation of the fuller treatment to follow.

Contexts Three contexts, two long-term and one more recent, help to shed light on the Anglican–Methodist Conversations of 1955–72. The first long-term context, mentioned already and analysed here by Mark Chapman, was the national and international ecumenical quest, reaching back beyond Lambeth 1920 and Edinburgh 1910 to the work of the Student Christian Movement and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886–8.11 For nearly a century, the case for organic reunion had been made by Church leaders and theologians, and denominations had moved beyond practical co-operation in home and overseas missions to serious negotiations for the healing of their past ‘unhappy divisions’. Serious-minded undergraduates

Introduction 

3

meeting at Swanwick under the auspices of the SCM and ecclesiastical statesmen of the calibre of the Methodists John Scott Lidgett and Robert Newton Flew and the Anglicans William Temple and George Bell shared the goal of visible unity,12 and this was pursued through the 1920s in the aftermath of the Lambeth ‘Appeal’, through the sequence of international Faith and Order conferences, in the creation of the British and World Councils of Churches, and in the formation of the Church of South India in 1947. When John Robinson, bishop of Woolwich, wrote in The New Reformation? (1965) that ‘our present pattern of parallel denominations and over-lapping networks of world-wide confessions’ was ‘an abomination in church history’ and that ‘the prayers and actions of all Christians must be engaged in furthering the movements towards organic unity at every level’,13 he expressed an ecumenical consensus shared by many in the Church of England and the Free Churches. Robinson was astute enough to admit that it would ‘doubtless be centuries’ before the denominational pattern would disappear,14 and seasoned negotiators like Flew in the inter- and post-war years were well aware of the challenges.15 But enthusiasm was running high in the 1960s, building on generations of ecumenical commitment.16 The second long-term context was the convoluted story of the relationship between the Church of England and the Methodist movement.17 Unlike the progenitors of Old Dissent, expelled from the Established Church at the ‘Great Ejection’ of 1662, the Wesley brothers lived and died in communion with the Church of England, and envisaged the Methodist societies operating in a continuing relationship with the Church. This picture was complicated by Anglican antipathy to Methodist field-preaching and ‘enthusiasm’; by tensions between the Wesleys’ robust Arminianism and the moderate Calvinism of Anglican Evangelicals; by the desire of Methodist preachers and congregations for full autonomy; and by John Wesley’s assumption of authority to ordain. The separation of Methodism from the Church of England was gradual and messy, and well into the nineteenth century Wesleyan Methodists asserted an identity different from Old Dissent and professed veneration for the Church as ‘the mother of us all’.18 Alongside this official Wesleyan rhetoric, however, there were strands of Methodism which felt no kinship with the Church of England. Revivalists and reformers – the Primitive Methodists, the Bible Christians and the Methodist Free Churches – did not share the Wesleyan respect for the Book of Common Prayer and were ready to make common cause with Nonconformity. Wesleyans too, perhaps the most strongly anti-Catholic of the Methodist groups, were increasingly alarmed by the effects of Tractarianism on the Church of England, in liturgical practice and in the assertion of episcopalian exclusivity. The Wesleys’ Anglicanism became a battleground for denominational polemics, as High Churchmen urged Methodists to return to the Church of their fathers and Methodists claimed that the Wesleys had been soundly converted from a dead ecclesiasticism to vital evangelical faith.19 Conflicting priorities within Methodism came to the fore in the decades

4  Jane Platt and Martin Wellings before Wesleyan, Primitive and United Methodists came together in 1932, as some argued for Union as a way to build a Methodist bulwark against the Church of England, and others feared that accommodating Primitive and United Methodist principles would damage Wesleyan–Anglican relations.20 Thus, two centuries of history and myth, refracted through denominational polemics and local memories, shaped how the Conversations were received and understood in the two Churches. This is the theme of Martin Wellings’ chapter on the ‘long view’ of Anglican–Methodist relations. The third, more recent, context involved social changes in post-war Britain, explored for this volume by Pippa Catterall. Two elements may be mentioned here. One was a perception of waning Christian influence and allegiance in British society. This is hotly contested territory among historians and social scientists, with some arguing for the 1950s and 1960s as a continuation of a century-long period of steady secularisation and others claiming that patterns of churchgoing held up consistently through the 1950s and then suffered catastrophic decline in the 1960s.21 This debate continues to generate both light and heat, but for the purposes of this volume, it may simply be noted that the protagonists in the Conversations, both advocates and opponents, linked the scheme to the mission of the Church. Harold Roberts, who persuaded the Methodist Conference in 1955 to enter the Conversations and served throughout the process as the Methodist Chair of the meetings, wrote of ‘the painful impotence of the Church in its disunity in face of the forces ranged against it’.22 Leslie Davison, the Methodist Church’s Home Missions Secretary and another member of the Conversations group, asserted: ‘They were fighting for the life of the Church. Time was not on their side’.23 For opponents, like the members of the Voice of Methodism Association and the Methodist Revival Fellowship, ecumenism was at best a distraction from evangelism; at worst, it was a substitute for genuine spirituality and renewal: ‘a pathetic attempt to find salvation in human organisations’.24 The other social change worth recording was the move towards larger institutions in industry, commerce and government. This was an era of amalgamation, with an emphasis on size, efficiency and economies of scale. Although no one compared ecumenism to an industrial merger, the backdrop of economic life is worth bearing in mind, as Pippa Catterall observes.

Shaping the scheme One of the paradoxes of the Conversations was that Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher, whose 1946 Cambridge sermon inviting the Free Churches to ‘take episcopacy into their systems’ launched the whole process, and who appointed the Anglican team to enter dialogue with the Methodists in 1955–6, later became a vociferous opponent of the 1963 Report and its proposals.25 Part of the solution to this apparent conundrum is that the

Introduction 

5

scheme which emerged from the first phase of the Conversations differed markedly both from Fisher’s 1946 vision of ‘a free and unfettered exchange of life in worship and sacrament’, achieved without merging Churches,26 and from a one-stage union modelled on the Church of South India. How this came about is described here in John Lenton’s chapter exploring the personnel of the initial Conversations and tracing the evolution over three years (1955–8) from developing mutual understanding to crafting a scheme for organic union in two stages. Attention is drawn to the key role of George Bell in steering the Conversations in these early years, and to the influence of Marcus Ward in countering initial enthusiasm for a South India-style solution to the challenges of English ecumenism. Since the Lambeth Conference of 1920, ecumenical negotiations had been a matter for denominational leaders and for meetings of the great, the good and the learned. The Anglican–Methodist Conversations fell into that pattern, with teams of bishops and deans, Presidents and professors. It is argued here that the Methodists assembled a team with the weight and seniority to command the confidence of the Conference, still the heir to John Wesley’s autocratic control of his Connexion. For the Anglicans, seniority and scholarship had to be married to a careful balance of Church parties, and here Fisher failed to include or to co-opt the most intransigent AngloCatholics and Evangelicals. This was a costly decision: it was an alliance of these groups that blocked the scheme in Convocation and General Synod in 1969 and 1972. The voices not heard in the initial shaping of the scheme, then, included Anglican sceptics, but also representatives of both Churches’ grassroots. Another group whose experience was overlooked was Forces’ chaplains, used to the unavoidable and sometimes uncomfortable ecumenism of battlefield and garrison. That oversight is remedied in Peter Howson’s contribution to this volume.

Parties and polemics Newton Flew had observed in his contribution to the Cambridge University sermon series on The Approach to Christian Unity that ‘those who take part in discussions or negotiations are apt to travel ahead of the convictions of the rank and file of those in our separated communions’.27 The judgement of this experienced ecumenist was certainly vindicated in the case of the Conversations. When the 1963 Report was presented to the Conference and the Convocations, it was intended that there should be a period of two years’ prayerful reflection before final decisions were taken. In the event, the Report acted as a catalyst for opposition. Chapters here consider in detail two of the Methodist groups which came into being specifically to resist the scheme: the Voice of Methodism Association, formed in November 1963,

6  Jane Platt and Martin Wellings is analysed by Claire Surry, while Martin Wellings describes the National Liaison Committee, set up in July 1965. Andrew Atherstone’s complementary chapter explores the relationship between Evangelical Dissentients in the two Churches. The Conversations created unlikely alliances: A.E. Clucas Moore, vicechairman of the VMA and representative of a staunchly Protestant tendency in Methodism, addressed the synod of the Society of the Holy Cross in September 1963,28 while Anglican opposition to the scheme came from a formidable quadrumvirate of two Anglo-Catholics and two Evangelicals: Graham Leonard, Eric Mascall, Jim Packer and Colin Buchanan.29 If the Conversations created unlikely alliances, they also exposed differences between those who might have been thought to have a good deal in common. Peter Webster’s chapter offers a case study of Michael Ramsey and Eric Mascall, two distinguished theologians from the Church of England’s Catholic wing, who disagreed sharply over the scheme. Turning from individuals to institutions, the relationship between the VMA and the NLC was seldom harmonious: Norman Snaith, a co-founder of the NLC, privately described the VMA committee as ‘more like a prize-fight with all the spectators in the ring than anything else’.30 Meanwhile, close study of conservative evangelicals in both denominations reveals not allies ‘fighting side by side in the same battle, but two battles in two Churches with two minority armies, in occasional contact’.31 Behind the parties, the pamphlets and the polemics was the way the Conversations Report was received and understood in local churches. This is the focus of Jane Platt’s chapter, exploring the ‘grassroots’ of the two Churches, the Methodist Church in particular, and the factors affecting responses to the proposals in the localities. Although in 1969 more than three quarters of the members of the Methodist Conference voted in favour of union, voting in the Circuit Quarterly meetings was almost evenly divided. Donald English, rising star of the Methodist evangelicals, but also a committed ecumenist, warned Kenneth Greet, Secretary of the Methodist Conference, that ‘we neglect this at our peril’.32 The causes of local dissent were many and various, and included ministerial stationing, evangelicalism, preferred association with the Free Churches, suspicion of Anglo-Catholicism, conservatism, disillusionment and a pronounced dislike of insensitive top-down policies which interfered with local church traditions. Methodist dissentients were found more commonly in rural areas, particularly in places far away from urban centres, where Methodist worship was congregational in spirit and local chapels were in danger of closure. Some Methodists believed that local Anglican congregations and clergy were contemptuous of Methodist worship traditions, causing local rifts to grow despite efforts to bring congregations together. The experience of ecumenism at the grassroots is taken forward beyond the era of the Conversations, showing that over time, falling church attendance has made the case for combined worship ever stronger.

Introduction 

7

Consequences and legacies The failure of the Conversations did not end the ecumenical quest. As Anglicans and Methodists were moving towards the decisions of 1969 and 1972, Congregationalists and Presbyterians in England were engaged in a dialogue which bore fruit in the formation of the United Reformed Church in 1972.33 The URC saw itself as a catalyst for ecumenical renewal, and for the next quarter of a century a succession of proposals for denominational reconciliation were brought forward. David Chapman describes the initiatives and probes the reasons for their failure to achieve the hoped-for reunion. Meanwhile, grassroots ecumenism continued, with ‘areas of ecumenical experiment’, first commended by the Nottingham Faith and Order Conference of 1964 and later renamed ‘local ecumenical projects’, and then ‘local ecumenical partnerships’,34 councils of churches, and local, regional and national institutions of ‘Churches Together’. Despite the disappointment of the Conversations, moreover, Methodists and Anglicans resumed bilateral discussions in the 1990s, moving towards the report Commitment to Mission and Unity in 1996 and then to An Anglican–Methodist Covenant in 2003. At present, with the proposals for the mutual recognition of ministries deferred by the General Synod and the Church of England’s request for yet more clarification and explication rejected by the Methodist Council, Newton Flew’s comment of 1951 seems apt: ‘we must distrust the ambiguous formula … love cannot flourish at the expense of truth … the only basis for genuine unity is an inexorable honesty’.35 Although organic unity was the aim of the Conversations, the legacy of the process extended far beyond the success or failure of the 1963 scheme. The Conversations encouraged the Church of England towards the introduction of a single decision-making body, replacing the Convocations with the General Synod.36 The Methodist Church, having retreated from its earlier decision to ordain women for fear of ruffling Anglican sensibilities, recovered the courage of its convictions after the second ‘smack in the face’ and pressed ahead with the ordination of women ministers in 1974.37 At the same time, some of Methodism’s more doctrinaire conservatives, unimpressed by the Conversations debates and not reassured at having been rescued from episcopacy by an alliance of Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals in General Synod, decided to secede.38 The Conversations had other unintended consequences. As Phillip Tovey points out here, one was the crafting of an Ordinal which has proved tremendously influential across the worldwide Anglican Communion, and beyond. Adrian Hastings, in his summary of the 1960s, confesses that ‘It is hard to plot fairly the progressive course of depression … the collapse of institutions of renewal, the fading away of its leaders’.39 To what extent the quest for organic unity diverted energies from other tasks or distracted attention from other challenges, and how far a project seen as integral to the Church’s

8  Jane Platt and Martin Wellings mission served in fact to undermine it, is a moot point. Robert Currie’s claim that ‘in advanced societies ecumenicalism is the product of an ageing religion … [which] arises out of decline and secularization, but fails to deal with either’40 is vigorously rebutted by Rupert Davies,41 and the Conversations emerged from a conviction that Christian unity, expressed in the organic reconciliation of denominations, was both an imperative of the Gospel and inseparable from effective and authentic mission in a fractured world. The counter-factual question may still be put: what might the Churches have done, if they had not pursued the ecumenical quest?

Trajectories This book does not claim to offer the last word on the Anglican–Methodist Conversations. Other topics still await further research: on contexts, the interplay between events in England, and dialogues elsewhere in the world; on the shaping of the scheme, the detailed negotiations of the second phase; on polemics, the story of the group Towards Anglican–Methodist Unity (TAMU); and on legacies, the development of local relationships and of ecumenical methodologies, to name but a few. The call for further study has been a regular feature of ecumenical dialogue, sometimes as a way of postponing a difficult decision; in historical research, the call can be made with confidence that the outcome will be fuller knowledge and deeper understanding. It is hoped that the material presented here will aid and encourage that process.

Notes 1 Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England, v, The Ecumenical Century (Princeton, 1965). A sixth volume, Crisis and Creativity, was added in 1996. 2 Unity Begins at Home. A Report from the First British Conference on Faith and Order, Nottingham 1964 (London, 1964), 43. 3 It should be noted that the Methodist Church included Scotland, Wales, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, so it was not an exclusively English denomination. 4 Roger Lloyd, The Church of England, 1900–1965 (London, 1966), 590, 608. 5 ‘In Memoriam: Canon Roger Lloyd’, Church Times, 23 September 1966, 15. 6 Adrian Hastings, A History of English Christianity, 1920–1985 (London, 1986), 549. 7 Rupert Davies, ‘Since 1932’, in Rupert Davies, A. Raymond George and Gordon Rupp (eds), A History of the Methodist Church in Great Britain, iii (London, 1983), 379. 8 Rupert E. Davies, The Church in Our Times: An Ecumenical History from a British Perspective (London, 1979), 107. 9 Davies, Church in Our Times, 102, describes Barrett as the ‘leader’ of the Dissentients. 10 See, for example, Hastings, History of English Christianity, 541, 548–9; John Munsey Turner, Conflict and Reconciliation: Studies in Methodism and Ecumenism in England, 1740–1982 (London, 1985), 194–214; Davies, ‘Since

Introduction 

9

1932’, 372–9; Robert Currie, Methodism Divided. A Study in the Sociology of Ecumenicalism (London, 1968), 306–16; Kenneth Hylson-Smith, Evangelicals in the Church of England, 1734–1984 (Edinburgh, 1988), 338–41; Owen Chadwick, Michael Ramsey:. A Life (Oxford, 1991), 333–46. 11 For a comprehensive history, see Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill (eds), A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517–1948 (London, 1954 [second edition 1967]). For the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, see Herbert Yoder, ‘Christian Unity in Nineteenth-Century America’, in Rouse and Neill, History of the Ecumenical Movement, 221–59, at 250–1. 12 Rupert E. Davies, ‘The Ecumenical Statesman’, in Rupert E. Davies (ed.), John Scott Lidgett:. A Symposium (London, 1957), 183–209; Gordon S. Wakefield, Robert Newton Flew, 1886–1962 (London, 1971), 201–43; F.A. Iremonger, William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury (London, 1948), 387–427; Ronald C.D. Jasper, George Bell, Bishop of Chichester (London, 1967), 56–70, 315–38. 13 John A.T. Robinson, The New Reformation? (London, 1965), 25. 14 Robinson, The New Reformation?, 25. 15 Wakefield, Flew, 203–4, 210–11, 236–8, 241–3; compare Flew’s contribution to The Approach to Christian Unity (Cambridge, 1951), 45–9. 16 For an example of the ‘prevailing zeitgeist’, see Martin Camroux, Ecumenism in Retreat (Eugene, OR, 2016), 1–2, reflecting on student Christianity in 1966–8. 17 See Frank Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England (London, 1970 [second edition 2000]) and Martin Wellings, ‘Wesleyan Methodism and Nonconformity’, in David Bebbington and David Ceri Jones (eds), Evangelicalism and Dissent in Modern England and Wales (Abingdon, 2021), 65–88. 18 Phrase used by John Wesley, Reasons against a Separation from the Church of England, quoted by numerous Wesleyan and Anglican writers, including Richard Watson, The Life of the Rev. John Wesley, AM (London, 1831), 362. 19 Martin Wellings, ‘Luke Tyerman and the History of Early Methodism’, in Andrew Atherstone and David Ceri Jones (eds), Making Evangelical History. Faith, Scholarship, and the Evangelical Past (Abingdon, 2019), 102–20, at 108. 20 Currie, Methodism Divided, 178–85, 251–2. 21 See, for example, S.J.D. Green, The Passing of Protestant England (Cambridge, 2011) and Callum G. Brown, The Death of Christian Britain (London, 2001). The historiography is summarised and appraised in High McLeod, The Religious Crisis of the 1960s (Oxford, 2007). 22 ‘Communicating Gospel to World in Need’, Methodist Recorder, 11 July 1957, 3. 23 ‘Unity: The Conference says “Yes”’, Methodist Recorder, 8 July 1965, 17. 24 A.E. Clucas Moore, What is the Voice of Methodism? (n.p., n.d.). 25 David Hein, Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury (Cambridge, 2008), 102–3. 26 ‘A Step Forward in Church Relations’, in G.K.A. Bell (ed.), Documents on Christian Unity, fourth series (Oxford, 1958), 47. The sermon was also printed as part of the report Church Relations in England (London, 1950), 1–12. 27 Flew, Approach to Christian Unity, 47. 28 Owen Higgs, ‘Postwar and Pre-crisis:1945–92’, in William Davage (ed.), In This Sign Conquer: A History of the Society of the Holy Cross (Societas Sanctae Crucis) 1855–2005 (London, 2006), 145–95, at 161. 29 See, for example, their Growing into Union (London, 1970). 30 Norman Snaith to Kenneth Mackenzie, n.d. [1967?], Oxford Brookes University, DAMUC Archive, NLC 1/4. 31 See Chapter 7. 32 Donald English to Kenneth Greet, 10 November 1971, Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History, Donald English Papers, H/1/8; Brian Hoare

10  Jane Platt and Martin Wellings and Ian Randall, More than a Methodist: The Life and Ministry of Donald English (Carlisle, 2003), 143. 33 Camroux, Ecumenism in Retreat, 24–46; Alan Argent, The Transformation of Congregationalism, 1900–2000 (Nottingham, 2013), 471–88. 34 Unity Begins at Home, 79; Elizabeth Welch and Flora Winfield, Travelling Together: A Handbook on Local Ecumenical Partnerships (London, 1995). 35 Flew, Approach to Christian Unity, 47. 36 Paul A. Welsby, A History of the Church of England, 1945–1980 (Oxford, 1984), 146–50. 37 George Thompson Brake, Policy and Politics in British Methodism, 1932–82 (London, 1984), 314–28. Rupert Davies gives this development just three sentences and a footnote: ‘Since Union’, 385. 38 Derek Tidball, ‘“Secession is an Ugly Thing”; The Emergence and Development of Free Methodism in late twentieth-century England’, in David Bebbington and David Ceri Jones (eds), Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism in the United Kingdom during the Twentieth Century (Oxford, 2013), 209–29; Martin Wellings, ‘The Methodist Revival Fellowship, 1952–1987’, Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society, 57/3 (2009), 101. 39 Hastings, History of English Christianity, 548. 40 Currie, Methodism Divided, 316. 41 Davies, ‘Since 1932’, 372, note 12.

2

The Long View of Anglican– Methodist Unity Martin Wellings

In November 2003, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the President and Vice-President of the Methodist Conference signed the Anglican–Methodist Covenant for England.1 Signing ceremonies in Methodist Central Hall, Westminster, and Westminster Abbey emphasised the mutuality of the commitment undertaken by the two denominations. Unlike previous unity schemes, the Covenant was deliberately modest in scope. In a ‘Common Statement’ it defined the conditions for full, visible unity; it set out the extent to which the two Churches had and had not met those conditions; and it pledged them to work together on their remaining differences. The Covenant, then, was framed as a work in progress, or a waymark on a journey, rather than a final destination.2 Since 2003, a succession of ecumenical commissions has been wrestling with those outstanding differences, particularly around the mutual recognition of ministries. Proposals to resolve the conundrum of reconciliation without, on the one hand, surrendering the Anglican commitment to episcopacy or, on the other hand, requiring Methodists to submit to (re-)ordination came before the General Synod of the Church of England in the Spring of 2018,3 and were effectively shelved 18 months later.4 More will be said about those proposals below, but the point made now is that the Covenant, although the outcome of six years of ‘Formal Conversations’ between the Methodist Church of Great Britain and the Church of England, was only one brief episode in a much longer story of Anglican–Methodist relations, stretching back to the days of the Wesley brothers. This chapter will take the long view of Anglican– Methodist unity, setting the 2003 Covenant and the ‘Conversations’ of the 1950s and 1960s in their historical context.

‘In the Church I will live and die …’: the Wesleys’ Methodism and the Church of England The ‘long view’ begins with the Wesley brothers, John (1703–91) and Charles (1707–88), and with a question. How did it come about that two lifelong adherents of the Church of England, two Anglican priests, faithful, committed, even some might say bigoted in their churchmanship, ended DOI: 10.4324/9781003119210-2

12  Martin Wellings up taking the credit or the blame for the genesis of a whole new Christian denomination? John Wesley famously wrote, when he was in his mid-80s: ‘I am a Church-of-England man; and … in the Church I will live and die, unless I am thrust out’.5 And yet, less than a decade later, and within scarcely four years of Wesley’s death, the Methodist Conference, the movement’s governing body, had given permission for Methodist itinerant preachers to administer the sacrament of Holy Communion to the local Societies, and by the mid-nineteenth century the Methodist movement in Great Britain comprised a squabbling family of denominations clearly separate from the Church of England. The story of the separation of Methodism from the Church of England has been told and retold over the years, from a variety of perspectives. For an older generation of denominational historians, like the Victorian Methodists Luke Tyerman and J.H. Rigg, Methodist new wine simply could not be contained within the stale old wineskins of the Established Church. Methodism had an evangelical dynamic which made separation inevitable.6 Writing in the 1940s, A.W. Harrison took a similar view, though without Tyerman and Rigg’s polemical edge.7 And Frank Baker in his John Wesley and the Church of England (1970) argued on similar lines.8 Much more recently, Gareth Lloyd has challenged the picture of a reluctant Wesley trying to hold the preachers back from separation, and has suggested that in the early days of the revival, in the late 1730s and through the 1740s, both Wesley brothers sat loose to Church discipline. By the mid-1750s, Lloyd claims, Charles Wesley was reaffirming his commitment to the Church, while John Wesley was wavering, and the preachers were divided.9 In navigating this range of interpretations, it should be noted, first, that the Wesleys were born and nurtured within the Church of England. Although there were Nonconformists on both paternal and maternal sides of the family tree, Samuel and Susanna Wesley did not broadcast this lineage to their children.10 At Epworth and at Oxford, the brothers were trained in the beliefs, practices and assumptions of the High Church school, with a leaning towards the Non-Jurors, the highest of the High Churchmen. Although encounters with Moravians and Pietists in Georgia and London in the 1730s, followed by their evangelical experiences of 1738, qualified and softened their very rigid High Churchmanship, the Wesleys continued to cherish the liturgy and doctrines of the Church. Even while revising the Book of Common Prayer for Methodists in North America in 1784, John Wesley affirmed that ‘I believe there is no liturgy in the world, either in ancient or modern language, which breathes more of a solid, scriptural, rational piety, than the Common Prayer of the Church of England’.11 A strong loyalty to the Church was complemented by an attitude to Dissent which Jeremy Gregory has characterised as ‘at times surprisingly bitter and prejudiced’.12 By upbringing, education and experience, the Wesleys instinctively lent towards the Church and away from Nonconformity.

The Long View of Anglican–Methodist Unity  13 Secondly, when the question of separation from the Church was raised within the Methodist movement, the Wesleys generally took a stand against it. In 1755, for example, separation was canvassed among the preachers. Charles Wesley penned an Epistle to the Rev. Mr John Wesley, underlining that the purpose of Methodism was to renew the Church, not to break away from it: Was it our aim disciples to collect, To raise a party or to found a sect? No; but to spread the power of Jesus’ name, Repair the walls of our Jerusalem.13 John Wesley reported the outcome of the debate in Conference in these terms: ‘We were all fully agreed in that general conclusion, that (whether it [separation] was lawful or not) it was no ways expedient’.14 More than 30 years later, Wesley was still holding out against Methodist services taking place in ‘church hours’ and denying the claims of the preachers to the ministerial office.15 How far Wesley’s words and actions were guided by principle and how far by pragmatism is a moot point. It is certainly the case that maintaining a position within the Established Church gave the Methodist movement access and opportunities which were denied to those who threw in their lot with Dissent. And, despite clerical opposition and episcopal misgivings, the eighteenth-century Church of England remained remarkably tolerant of the Methodist cuckoo in its nest. Given this tolerance, there were nonetheless sources of tension and strain. In the course of some 50 years, the Wesley brothers gradually created a church within the Church, building up a network of societies, a cadre of itinerant preachers, and a movement independent of episcopal control. Members, societies and preachers were defined by their ‘connexion’ with John Wesley, and through the institution of the annual Conference, the framing of the Model Deed governing Methodist property and the engrossing of the Deed of Declaration, which vested control of the movement and its assets after his death in the Conference, Wesley ensured that his Connexion became an entity which could outlive him. In significant ways, moreover, Wesley clearly breached the order, the rules and norms of the Established Church: in calling preachers, in licensing chapels, in disregarding parish boundaries, and above all in his ordinations, first for North America in 1784 and then for Scotland and for England. Ever the Oxford logician, Wesley justified his actions, whether by necessity, by research – for instance, taking up Lord King’s work on the Primitive Church – or by careful definition of terms like ‘separation’ and ‘schism’. But by 1791, Wesley had stretched the limits of Anglican comprehensiveness to breaking point, and beyond.

14  Martin Wellings The rationale for the development of Methodism was the priority of the mission of God. In his letter to the pseudonymous ‘John Smith’ in 1746, Wesley wrote: What is the end of all ecclesiastical order? Is it not to bring souls from the power of Satan to God; and to build them up in His fear and love? Order, then, is so far valuable, as it answers these ends; and if it answers them not, it is nothing worth.16 This evangelical imperative ultimately trumped church order and gave Wesley a standard by which to judge the contemporary Church and to justify the Methodist movement. Methodism, to his mind, was a providential work of God, served by its ‘extraordinary messengers’. The Church, although blessed by its heritage, its liturgy and its sacraments, was too often let down by its clergy – ‘heathenish priests and mitred infidels’, to quote brother Charles.17 The Wesleys’ Methodism, therefore, was an unstable compound, oscillating uneasily between loyalty to the Church and criticism of the Establishment, between dependence and self-sufficiency. This left a challenging legacy to Wesley’s heirs and successors.

‘Are the Methodists Dissenters?’ Methodism and the Church after the Wesleys18 When John Wesley died in March 1791, the pressing ecumenical question was not about Anglican–Methodist unity but rather about Methodist separation from the Church of England. Long-standing issues like the desire of some Methodists to hold worship services at the same time as services in the parish church and pressure for Methodist travelling preachers to be authorised to celebrate Holy Communion in the societies continued to vex the Connexion: the latter issue, which almost split the movement in 1795, was resolved by the Plan of Pacification, which allowed celebration where a majority of trustees and leaders agreed and the Conference approved. Moreover, Wesley’s death brought to the fore questions of succession and polity: Who would succeed to Wesley’s role as lynchpin of the Connexion? Would ordinations continue? If so, in what way and under what conditions? How would Methodist ministry be structured? And how, if at all, would it relate to the existing authorities of the Church of England? Although some work has been done on the 1790s, particularly by John Bowmer and David Hempton,19 there is scope for much more detailed investigation of the policies, politics and personalities of that tumultuous decade. Under the 1784 Deed of Declaration, the Conference inherited Wesley’s powers over his Connexion. Wesley named in the Deed one hundred of the preachers to be the legally appointed members of the Conference, and

The Long View of Anglican–Methodist Unity  15 this self-perpetuating ‘Legal Hundred’ continued until Methodist Union in 1932. Some of the leading preachers made a pitch for a threefold ministry in the so-called ‘Lichfield Plan’ of 1794, arguing that the itinerant preachers should be ordained first deacon and then elder, and that the Connexion should be divided into seven or eight territorial areas, each under a District Superintendent. John Pawson, one of the Lichfield group, asserted that this plan corresponded with Wesley’s own intentions, and claimed that Wesley had in fact ordained Thomas Coke and Alexander Mather as bishops. The Conference, however, rejected the scheme, apparently without discussion.20 The mood of the 1790s was against hierarchy, against episcopacy, and in favour of equality among the preachers, resisting the appointment of ‘another King in Israel’, and a healthy suspicion of the overweening ambition of high-profile figures like Coke.21 Thus, the Conference created a network of Districts, but without separated Chairmen: the presiding officer at the District Meeting would be an itinerant preacher in an ordinary circuit appointment, designated by the Conference. Ordinations ceased until the 1830s, so that there would be no division among the preachers; reception into full Connexion with the Conference became ‘virtual ordination’. Oversight was vested not in an individual, but in the collective pastorate, articulated through the Conference. Methodism in the 1790s, then, took some further steps away from the Church and towards ecclesial self-sufficiency. The thinking behind these developments and their implications for relations with the Church were debated in pamphlets of the period, like Samuel Bradburn’s The Question, ‘Are the Methodists Dissenters?’ Fairly Examined. Bradburn took a middle line between Thomas Taylor, who roundly asserted that the Methodists were already Dissenters, and those like Joseph Benson and the advocates of the ‘Old Plan’ who placed Methodism firmly within the Church. Bradburn, seeking to ‘remove prejudice, prevent bigotry and promote brotherly love’ – quite an ambitious enterprise in the context of the 1790s – argued that Methodism was in fact a coalition of loyal churchmen, occasional conformists and quasi-dissenters, a movement open to ‘pious people of any persuasion’, and warned against steps which might divide the Connexion either by pressing for a clear separation from the Church or by insisting that Methodists must attend their parish churches.22 Building and sustaining consensus won the day, and the Wesleyans took care to maintain their distinctive identity while eschewing overt separation. It is worth noting a couple of things about the backdrop to these developments. First, the debate about whether Methodists were or were not Dissenters was taking place at a time of considerable political unrest, when leading Dissenters like Richard Price and Joseph Priestley were giving vocal support to the French Revolution and when conservative forces in Church and State were taking the opportunity to brand all Nonconformity as politically disloyal, socially subversive, and religiously heterodox. Many Methodists, for reasons of pragmatism and self-preservation as well as

16  Martin Wellings principle, were keen to distance themselves from those negative associations of Dissent. Second, Methodism in this period began to experience unprecedented numerical growth, and to face internal tensions between consolidation and revivalism. It is far too simple to line up revivalists, democrats, and dissenters on one side against conservative consolidating churchmen on the other, although there were some who fitted those stereotypes. The important point to make is that debates over the style, identity, mission, and structure of Methodism overlapped, and so did wrangles about ecclesial identity and evangelistic strategy, to say nothing of institutional survival. Through the 1790s and early 1800s, some Methodists pressed for a clearer alignment of Methodism with Dissent and were disappointed with the cautious attitude of the Conference. Alexander Kilham, for example, was open about his identification as a Dissenter, although his departure from the Wesleyan Connexion had more to do with questions of polity and control than with relations between Methodism and the Church.23 A couple of decades later another itinerant, Daniel Isaac, wrote an excoriating attack on the Established Church, Ecclesiastical Claims Investigated and the Liberty of the Pulpit Defended; in Five Essays. Isaac claimed to be ‘a dissenter in principle’ and took his cue from the defeat of Lord Sidmouth’s 1811 attempt to curtail itinerant preaching.24 A distinctly unimpressed Conference censured Isaac for his temerity, or his tactlessness.25 At the other end of the spectrum, Methodists who felt a close affinity with the Church of England responded to the developments of the 1790s in a couple of ways. Some withdrew from Methodism altogether. Henry Durbin of Bristol, for example, had joined the Methodist society in the early 1740s, overcoming an initial disapproval of John Wesley’s practice of extempore prayer. In the 1790s, however, as Bristol became a focal point for conflict over the administration of Holy Communion by the preachers, Durbin was distressed by ‘the disputes [which] took place concerning the Sacrament; when he withdrew, with many other respectable persons, who had long been highly valued by us’.26 Gareth Lloyd gives examples of other prominent individuals, as well as groups in places like Newcastle and Oldham, who found that their loyalty to the Church required them to sever their links with Methodism.27 Many ‘Church Methodists’, however, were able to sustain a dual commitment, particularly where service times were complementary and not in competition. Well into the nineteenth century, Wesleyans continued to attend their parish churches, to support Evangelical ministers, and even to hold office as churchwardens. Edward Royle makes the case for Yorkshire,28 while from Cornwall Tom Shaw gives the example of Richard Robarts (1785–1819), member of the Wesleyan society at Trispen, who also regularly attended the parish church at St Erme.29 As the century wore on, however, this position became more difficult to sustain, and Anglican–Methodist relationships became more fractious.

The Long View of Anglican–Methodist Unity  17

‘The mother of us all’? Anglicans and Methodists in the short nineteenth century For British Methodism, the middle years of the nineteenth century – from the 1820s to the 1880s – were years of growth, controversy and consolidation. Rapid numerical growth in the early part of the century went hand in hand with secessions and expulsions from the ‘Old Connexion’ and the rise of new Methodist denominations, so that by the time of the 1851 religious census, there were some 2.5 million attendances in 10,000 Methodist places of worship, but these were spread across seven different denominations.30 Wesleyan membership, especially hard hit by the controversy over Reform in the late 1840s and early 1850s, topped 300,000 by 1871; the next largest group, the Primitive Methodists, claimed nearly 150,000 members.31 Denominational consolidation was expressed in the creation of institutions, whether central departments and connexional committees to manage property and administer overseas missions, or colleges to train ministers and teachers, or day schools, publishing houses, newspapers and periodicals. And this consolidation reflected a stronger sense of denominational identity, as an era of pan-evangelical cooperation gave way to one of separate organisations. To give one example, the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society was created partly to stop Methodist money from being siphoned off to support the London Missionary Society and other non-Methodist projects. Locally, there was a drive to set up Wesleyan Sunday and day schools, in place of long-established non-denominational institutions. These Methodist developments were taking place against a backdrop of rapid industrialisation and of urbanisation: 1851 marked the tipping point after which more people lived in towns than in the countryside, and the proportion of people living in large conurbations steadily increased. All Christian churches faced the opportunity and the challenge of urban mission, and of working in a society with an expanding political nation and a more popular political agenda. Three changes within the Church of England were of particular significance for Anglican–Methodist relations in this period. First, internal and external pressures brought about a series of reforms to the institutions and governance of the Church and to the training and work of the clergy. Some were imposed by Act of Parliament on a reluctant Church; some evolved through Church/State cooperation; some were initiated by reforming bishops keen to remodel diocesan structures.32 And some reforms were strenuously advocated by Nonconformists, but successfully resisted by the Church. Throughout these years, the Wesleyan Methodist establishment carefully avoided entanglement in campaigns for church reform, and especially in those which seemed to come from religious or political interests, hostile to the Church of England. The official line was that Wesleyans were not Dissenters; that they bore no animus against the Church; and that involvement with political campaigning (or ‘agitation’ as it was often called) would

18  Martin Wellings be both a distraction from the Connexion’s primary task of saving souls and a potential threat to spiritual well-being. In his 1831 Life of Wesley, Richard Watson wrote of the Church of England, ‘We wish her prosperity and perpetuity, as we wish all other Christian churches, and the more so as we recognise in her “the mother of us all”’33 – a phrase taken from Wesley’s Reasons Against a Separation from the Church of England. Not all Wesleyans agreed with Watson, and the general attitude of the other Methodist denominations was much less positive towards the Church, but the Wesleyan Conference stood firm against calls for disestablishment, disendowment, and even the abolition of compulsory church rates, the tax paid by all parishioners for the support of the parish church. The second significant change concerned education. By the 1830s, a consensus was developing that the existing national provision for elementary education was insufficient. Neither the Anglican National Society nor the largely Dissenting British and Foreign Schools Society seemed able to cope with the demand for schools and teachers, and a succession of proposals were brought forward to address the problem. In each case, debate swirled around the need, extent and consequences of State aid for schools: which schools, if any, should be supported, and on what conditions. And behind the arguments were two issues: the principle of State support for denominational schools, and the perception that the Church was using its schools to disadvantage Methodists and Nonconformists. Education proposals provoked shifting alliances and bitter arguments through the 1830s and 1840s, and again in the 1860s. Russell’s scheme of 1839, offering support to all denominations and proposing the creation of a non-denominational Normal School for training teachers, was welcomed by Dissenters, but opposed by Churchmen and Wesleyans.34 The Conference of 1839 recorded its concern at a plan ‘eminently calculated to afford facilities and means for the countenance and propagation of the corrupt and tyrannical system of Popery’, and also denounced a ‘merely secular … system of education’ as ‘essentially pernicious’.35 Graham’s proposals in 1843, which were seen as favourable to the Church, drew strong criticism from Dissenters, and the Wesleyans, anxious about the apparently Romeward drift of the Establishment in the light of the Tracts for the Times, added their voices to the opposition.36 Renewed efforts to tackle the issue of education in 1869– 70 found Wesleyan and Nonconformist opinion divided between rate-aided non-denominational education, advocated by the largely Nonconformist National Education League, and State support for denominational schools, backed by the Church, many Wesleyans and the National Education Union. Forster’s Act of 1870 gave increased aid to denominational schools and also provided for the creation of rate-supported Board schools, in which undenominational Bible teaching could be offered. This satisfied the denominationalists but dismayed the voluntaryists and those who argued for religious instruction to be provided by the churches. The Wesleyans welcomed Forster’s Act, but many Nonconformists accused the Liberals of betrayal.37

The Long View of Anglican–Methodist Unity  19 The third change, already mentioned, was the rise of the Oxford Movement, beginning with Keble’s Assize Sermon of 1833 and the Tracts for the Times, and then developing into a parish-based High Church revival and evolving into Anglo-Catholicism. In their eagerness to reassert the apostolical authority of the Church, to recover the liturgical and sacramental treasures of English Catholicism and to reclaim the nation for the National Church, the Tractarians and their successors were at best dismissive of Methodism – ‘the refuge of those whom the Church stints of the gifts of grace’38 – and at worst deeply antagonistic to it. Methodists of all kinds reciprocated, defending their ministry and their apostolic credentials, and accusing the Tractarians of attempting to Romanise a Protestant Church.39 In 1866, J.H. Rigg, one of the most prolific and pugnacious of Wesleyan controversialists, asserted that ‘there is not the remotest possibility of the Wesleyan Methodist Church ever being absorbed in the Church of England’.40 Rigg wrote in the knowledge that the prospect of reunion had been canvassed by several bishops, including Henry Phillpotts, bishop of Exeter41; it was raised again in 1873 by Christopher Wordsworth, bishop of Lincoln.42 Home Reunion, however, was not seriously on the agenda in the mid-nineteenth century. Bishops were more likely to criticise the Methodists, or to receive individual Methodists into the Church, while Methodism continued to grow by evangelising nominal Anglicans. Frances Knight has described the gradual change through the century as patterns of coexistence and shared attendance between Church and chapel gave way to exclusive loyalties. In a new world of activist incumbents, turning parish churches from ‘a resource for the community’ into ‘a resort for the devout’, Methodists moved – or were pushed – into closer contact with Nonconformity.43 And it was as part of a broader Free Church movement that Anglican–Methodist unity came to the fore in the closing decades of the Victorian era.

‘A Question … which belongs to the region of pure speculation’? Reunion from Henry Lunn to the Lambeth ‘Appeal’44 The half-century from the 1890s to the 1930s witnessed apparently contradictory developments in Anglican–Methodist relationships. On the one hand, Methodism became more explicitly part of a reconfigured Free Church movement, with the Wesleyans in particular becoming less inhibited about endorsing criticisms of the Established Church. On the other hand, however, in this period structured negotiations for visible unity began. The starting point here is that Methodism in these years was drawn more closely into the orbit of the Free Churches, with less reference being made to Wesleyanism as a ‘third way’ between historic Dissent and the Church of England. A relaxation of creedal Calvinism by Congregationalists and Baptists, a recasting of Wesleyan teaching on Christian Perfection by

20  Martin Wellings Methodists, a growing ‘church consciousness’ across the Free Churches, softening the Congregationalist/Connexional divide, a shared antipathy to Anglo-Catholicism and an increasing identification with Gladstone’s Liberal Party enabled Methodists of all kinds to work more closely with the other Free Churches on evangelistic, philanthropic and political endeavours. The visible expression of this rapprochement was the Free Church Council movement, which developed in the 1890s. Support for a Free Church Congress was canvassed by West Midlands Nonconformists in 1867, perhaps in response to the Anglican Church Congress of that year, but it was not until 1890 that the idea took root.45 Significantly, the proposal for ‘A Congress of the Free Churches’ was advanced by the Congregationalist Guinness Rogers in the pages of Hugh Price Hughes’ Methodist Times, and Hughes was one of the leading advocates of the movement.46 The first Congress met in Manchester in November 1892, with 370 members, all attending in a personal capacity, and not as denominational representatives. Fifty-three of the members were Wesleyans; the Congregationalists provided almost three times as many. As local Nonconformist or Free Church Councils were established, the Congress was shaped to represent the localities, and in 1896 the Congress became the National Council of the Evangelical Free Churches. Within a year there were over 200 local councils and federations; by 1901 there were 700 local councils and 36 District Federations.47 The Free Church Council movement brought together the positive and negative agendas of Nonconformity: especially of evangelical Nonconformity. National and local meetings continued to inveigh against the perceived pretensions of the Established Church, retelling stories of clerical intolerance and protesting about the injustices of denominational schools. In December 1897, for instance, John Massie, tutor at the Congregationalists’ Mansfield College and President of the Oxford and District Free Church Council, challenged the Vicar of St Barnabas’, Oxford, over remarks allegedly made by teachers to Nonconformist pupils at the local Church school, to the effect that ‘You can’t go to heaven’ and ‘Our Lord did not found the chapel, but He did found the Church’.48 The Oxford Council, strongly supported by Wesleyans as well as Baptists, Congregationalists and Free and Primitive Methodists, sent lecturers into the rural hinterland to expound the principles of the Reformation, and worried about villages which lacked a Free Church place of worship.49 When the 1902 Education Act became law, the Free Church Councils became rallying points for opposition and for the campaign of passive resistance to the education rate.50 There was plenty of evidence, therefore, of tensions between an assertive Free Church movement and the Church of England. At the same time, however, all of the Churches were being affected by the same intellectual, cultural and aesthetic tendencies, and all were facing the same challenges in mission. All denominations had to address the questions posed by ‘modern thought’: by Darwinism and the pervasive influence of evolution; by

The Long View of Anglican–Methodist Unity  21 literary-critical readings of the Bible; by disquiet at traditional interpretations of the atonement and eternal punishment. Stella Wood has identified a ‘Broad Church’ theological influence, derived from Coleridge, Arnold and F.D. Maurice, across the English churches in these years.51 At the same time, the assumptions and aesthetics of the Gothic revival crossed denominational boundaries, and both expressed and strengthened a concern for ecclesiology. The church-building boom of the later nineteenth century saw Methodists construct Gothic churches with towers, spires, chancels and stained-glass windows, while Methodist theologians like Benjamin Gregory, W.F. Slater and John Scott Lidgett reflected on the doctrine of the Church. Hugh Price Hughes expressed his admiration for the 1889 General Hymnary, because it had more hymns on the ‘Church Catholic’ than contemporary Wesleyan hymnals.52 Tracing the long history of the ecumenical movement, Ruth Rouse drew attention to the ‘changing ecumenical climate’ of the nineteenth century, and to a range of voluntary organisations which brought Christians of different denominations together.53 It might be suggested that several structural developments were also important in facilitating ecumenical contact. The revival of the Convocations, for example, gave the Church of England a mechanism for discussion and decision-making. The institution of the Lambeth Conference provided a forum for wider consultation across the Anglican Communion, and the endorsement of the so-called ChicagoLambeth Quadrilateral by the Conference of 1888 offered a definition of ‘principles of unity’ which provided a framework for formal negotiations on the basis of acceptance of the Scriptures, the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper and the ‘Historic Episcopate’.54 Three years after the Lambeth Conference, Henry Lunn, a Wesleyan minister and close ally of Hugh Price Hughes, founded the Review of the Churches, to promote inter-denominational unity and greater understanding.55 In January 1892, Lunn took a group of Anglican and Free Church leaders to the Swiss resort of Grindelwald for the first in a series of reunion conferences. Although the conferences did not produce a formal agreement, and the Review of the Churches ceased publication in 1896, Grindelwald clarified the differences between the Churches, fostered contact among Church leaders, and placed ‘Home Reunion’ firmly on the denominations’ agendas.56 Two other developments helped to keep reunion before the minds of the churches. One was the burgeoning Student Christian Movement, initially a pan-evangelical enterprise, but one which broadened in the first decade of the twentieth century to include liberal and catholic Anglicans.57 The other was the international missionary movement.58 In 1910, a World Missionary Conference convened in Edinburgh, the first such international gathering to embrace both High Church and Free Church representatives as official delegates of their respective societies. Unity for the sake of mission was

22  Martin Wellings a key theme of the Conference, and among the initiatives stemming from Edinburgh was the Faith and Order Movement, which ultimately fed into the World Council of Churches (1948). Cooperation in the mission field was also the concern of a meeting at Kikuyu in Kenya in 1913, where two Anglican bishops shared Communion with other Protestant missionaries. The subsequent furore ensured that questions of unity and inter-communion formed an important part of the programme of the 1920 Lambeth Conference.59 At Lambeth, Archbishop Davidson suggested the idea of an ‘Appeal to All Christian People’, and this captured the imagination of the Conference.60 The ‘Appeal’ modified the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral by replacing the explicit reference to the ‘Historic Episcopate’ with a commitment to ‘a ministry acknowledged by every part of the Church as possessing not only the inward call of the Spirit, but also the commission of Christ and the authority of the whole body’, but it went on to affirm that the episcopate would be ‘the one means of providing such a ministry’.61 The Appeal led to five years of negotiations between Anglican and Free Church representatives, in which the Methodists Scott Lidgett and A.S. Peake took a prominent part. Although the Free Churches were prepared to accept that ordinations in a future united church should be episcopal, the question of reconciling existing ministries proved a fatal stumbling block, because the Anglicans insisted on conditional ordination, and the Free Churches would not concede this.62 Lambeth 1930 seemed to step back from Home Reunion, excluding the Free Churches from the Conference’s opening Communion Service at St Paul’s before turning to debate the scheme for a united church in South India.63 Ecumenism had moved truly into the era of heavyweight reports and official resolutions and to the politics of church assemblies.

The Last lap? ‘Conversations’ and Covenanting In parallel with the discussions between the Church of England and the Free Churches, Methodists were engaged in their own quest for ‘Home Reunion’ at least from the third quarter of the nineteenth century. Unsurprisingly, some of the arguments for Methodist union were very similar to those advanced for union between Methodists and Anglicans, especially greater efficiency in the use of resources for mission and the avoidance of wasteful competition. Some of the stumbling blocks in the way of progress were also similar: disagreements about ministerial prerogatives and the rights of the laity, differences of polity and governance, and bitter memories of past conflicts. Despite these difficulties, the Methodist New Connexion, the Bible Christians and the United Methodist Free Churches achieved union in 1907, and their United Methodist Church joined with the Wesleyans and the Primitive Methodists in 1932 to form the Methodist Church of Great Britain. For some Methodists, the reunion of the branches of the Methodist movement was a step on the way to a wider ecumenism. For others, however, it

The Long View of Anglican–Methodist Unity  23 represented the creation of a strong alternative to the Church of England. The Deed of Union, adopted by the uniting denominations in 1932, was careful to affirm the place of Methodism in the Church Catholic and to express a view of ordained ministry clearly at odds with the Anglo-Catholic understanding which held sway in the Church of England: ‘Christ’s ministers … hold no priesthood differing in kind from that which is common to all the Lord’s people and they have no exclusive title to the preaching of the gospel or the care of souls’.64 Although the 1932 union was the consummation of more than a decade of negotiation and debate, making union effective locally took at least another generation to accomplish. Thus, when A.W. Harrison delivered his Fernley-Hartley Lecture of 1942 on The Evangelical Revival and Christian Reunion, followed by a lecture to the Wesley Historical Society in 1945 on The Separation of Methodism from the Church of England, he took for granted that Methodist energies for the foreseeable future would be devoted to reconciling Wesleyan, Primitive and Free Methodist traditions within the united church: ‘Our best policy for the next generation is to cultivate our own garden; a task which is big enough to occupy all our attention’. Harrison thought that, although ‘the spirit of co-operation and friendliness between the Church of England and the Free Churches has grown considerably … [t]he desire for union seems … to have receded’.65 In November 1946, a little over a year after Harrison delivered his lecture to the Wesley Historical Society, Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher, preaching a University Sermon in Cambridge, challenged the English churches to move towards ‘a free and unfettered exchange of life in worship and sacrament’, and, in particular, invited the Free Churches to ‘take episcopacy into their systems’ and to ‘try it out on their own ground’.66 This innovative proposal led to conversations between Anglican and Free Church representatives and to a flurry of resolutions and reports. The Methodist Conference proved the most amenable to further exploration, and from 1956 until 1963 a joint committee met, leading to proposals for a two-stage process of reunion. At stage one, the two denominations would remain separate, but establish inter-communion and the mutual recognition of ministries. This would be achieved through a Service of Reconciliation for those already ordained, through the appointment of bishops by the Methodist Conference, and by a guarantee that future Methodist ordinations would be invariably episcopal. At stage two, at some point in the more distant future, full visible unity in one church would be implemented.67 It may be seen that the ‘Conversations’ sought to square the circle of Anglican commitment to the ‘historic episcopate’ and Methodist opposition to re-ordination by proposing mutual recognition in the Service of Reconciliation. Whether this was to be construed, or could be construed, as re-ordination or conditional ordination, exercised Methodist dissentients from the scheme, but also worried both Anglo-Catholics, anxious to safeguard Catholic order, and Evangelicals, who thought that the

24  Martin Wellings proposals rested on a ‘sectarian view of episcopacy’.68 In the end, after years of debate within the denominations and a large quantity of ill-tempered polemic, although the Methodist Conference endorsed the scheme in July 1969, the Church of England failed to achieve the necessary majority in the Convocations.69 A second attempt, with a revised scheme, met the same fate in the General Synod in 1972. Michael Ramsey expressed his deep disappointment, telling a gathering of bishops at the Mansion House: ‘[I]t is the Methodists who are the leaders now’.70 Adrian Hastings, historian of English Christianity in the twentieth century, offers a more caustic assessment: ‘Methodism in the 1960s, while awaiting union, had little history, except for an unprecedented rate of numerical decline. At the end it was left with only a smack in the face’.71 Through the 1970s and 1980s, a wider ecumenism held the stage, with the Churches’ Unity Commission, the ‘Ten Propositions’ of January 1976 and the formation of the Churches’ Council for Covenanting, which produced the scheme Towards Visible Unity: Proposals for a Covenant, in 1980. Although more modest in scope than the ‘Conversations’, seeking simply to achieve mutual recognition of ministries among the Methodist, Moravian and United Reformed Churches, and the Church of England, Towards Visible Unity also failed to win sufficient support in the General Synod. Unity in this period was manifested in Local Ecumenical Projects (later Partnerships), where ecumenical experiment was possible.72 More than a decade after the failing of ‘Covenanting for Unity’, the Methodist Church made a new approach to the Church of England, and this led to a series of informal conversations and to the report Commitment to Mission and Unity (1996). This set an agenda for formal conversations, underscored the missionary imperative, and offered suggestions for ways in which local relationships between Anglicans and Methodists might be strengthened. These guidelines characterised the talks which resulted in the 2003 Anglican–Methodist Covenant: a fairly cautious, step-by-step approach to unity, building on established areas of agreement, an emphasis on the priority of mission, and a focus on grassroots reconciliation rather than a remote top-down scheme imposed by church leaders.73 The same approach flowed from the Covenant, through the work of the Joint Implementation Commission, to the proposals which came before the General Synod and the Conference in 2018 and 2019.

Conclusion Taking the ‘long view’ over nearly three centuries, it may be seen that the shape of Christian unity has varied considerably over time. Eighteenthcentury Methodists were exercised about whether they should or should not stay within the Church of England, and in defending themselves against accusations of schism. Nineteenth-century Methodists, in common with most evangelical Protestants, understood Christian unity fundamentally as

The Long View of Anglican–Methodist Unity  25 a spiritual phenomenon and emphasised working together in agencies like the Bible Society. ‘Visible unity’ in the sense of merging denominations came to the fore later in the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century, perhaps with a greater valuing of the Church as an institution and a corresponding critique of the classic evangelical conception of the true Church as an invisible fellowship of believers. The rationale for Christian unity and the priority of Christian unity have varied too. For some, visible unity has mattered principally because it is right in principle – reflecting Jesus’ high priestly prayer in John 17 ‘that they may all be one’. For others, unity has mattered for reasons of apologetics – how can Christians credibly proclaim a gospel of reconciliation while they are visibly separated from one another? And for others, unity has mainly been about a pragmatic pooling of resources – ecclesiastical economies of scale. The strength – absolute, relative and perceived – of the prospective partners has a major bearing on whatever proposals are being advanced. When denominations feel that they are succeeding, do they also feel confident in approaching others, or do they see ecumenism as unnecessary? Conversely, when denominations feel that they are struggling, do they look elsewhere for support, or lack the energy for anything beyond survival? A.W. Harrison, confident about Methodism’s prospects in 1945, saw Home Reunion as a remote proposition;74 since the 1960s the situation has been very different. Moreover, although the proponents of unity schemes may be very absorbed in their particular projects, the fate of any scheme owes a lot to other relationships and wider contexts. Thinking just about ecumenical horizons, Anglicans hoping for reunion with Rome tended to be nervous about compromises with the Free Churches that might flutter Vatican dovecotes. Other pressing issues may make the grind of ecumenical negotiations seem like a waste of time and energy, or a distraction from ‘the main thing’. On the other hand, developments in wider culture and in theology may bring denominations together, creating shared assumptions and common ground. Finally, the importance of local issues, particular memories and contested histories should not be overlooked. Decision-making at national level can be derailed, or rendered ineffective, when local narratives of cooperation or competition, fellowship or persecution, hold sway. For that reason, at least, the story of Anglican–Methodist unity needs to pay attention not only to the long view but also to the broad view, a theme developed in several of the chapters which follow.

Notes 1 ‘Long-Awaited Signing for Two Churches’, Church Times, 7 November 2003, 4. 2 ‘Introduction: The Purpose and Scope of This Common Statement’, in An Anglican–Methodist Covenant (Peterborough, 2001), 1.

26  Martin Wellings 3 ‘Methodist plan comes under Synod scrutiny’, Church Times, 26 January 2018, 3. 4 ‘Legislation a bridge too far for now’, Church Times, 12 July 2019, 21. 5 John Wesley to Henry Moore, 6 May 1788; John Telford (ed.), The Letters of John Wesley (London, 1931), viii, 58. 6 See, for example, ‘A Few Words on the Relations of Wesleyan Methodism to the Established Church’, in James H. Rigg, Essays for the Times on Ecclesiastical and Social Subjects (London, 1866), 4–7, and Luke Tyerman, Life and Times of John Wesley (London, 1870–71), iii, 514. 7 A.W. Harrison, The Separation of Methodism from the Church of England (London, 1945). 8 Frank Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England (London, 1970 [citing 2000 edition[), 2, 325. 9 Gareth Lloyd, Charles Wesley and the Struggle for Methodist Identity (Oxford, 2007), 120–33. 10 Henry Rack, ‘John Wesley and Eighteenth-Century Dissent’, in Mervyn Davies (ed.), A Thankful Heart and a Discerning Mind (n.p., 2010), 41. 11 ‘Preface’, for The Sunday Service of the Methodists in the United States of America, in Thomas Jackson (ed.), The Works of John Wesley (London, 1831), xiv, 304. 12 Jeremy Gregory, ‘“In the Church I Will Live and Die”: John Wesley, the Church of England, and Methodism’, in William Gibson and Robert G. Ingram (eds), Religious Identities in Britain, 1660–1832 (Aldershot, 2005), 175. 13 Charles Wesley, An Epistle to the Rev. Mr John Wesley (London, 1755), lines 254–9. 14 6 May 1755, in W. Reginald Ward and Richard P. Heitzenrater (eds), The Works of John Wesley, 21, Journal and Diaries iv (1755–1765) (Nashville, TN, 1992), 10. 15 Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England, 296–7, 312–13. 16 Letter to ‘John Smith’, 25 June 1746, in Telford (ed.), Letters, ii, 77–8. 17 Charles Wesley, An Elegy on the Death of Robert Jones, Esq. (Bristol, 1742), line 388. 18 For this section, see also my ‘Wesleyan Methodism and Nonconformity’, in David Bebbington and David Ceri Jones (eds), Evangelicalism and Dissent in Modern England and Wales (Abingdon, 2021). 19 John C. Bowmer, Pastor and People. A Study of Church and Ministry in Methodism from the Death of John Wesley (1791) to the Death of Jabez Bunting (1858) (London, 1975); David Hempton, The Religion of the People: Methodism and Popular Religion c.1750–1900 (London, 1996). 20 Bowmer, Pastor and People, 42–5. 21 John Vickers, Thomas Coke, Apostle of Methodism (London, 1969), 192; George Smith, History of Wesleyan Methodism (London, 1858), ii, 86, 688–9. 22 Samuel Bradburn, The Question, ‘Are the Methodists Dissenters?’ Fairly Examined (Liverpool, 1792), 18, 19, 25. 23 Bowmer, Pastor and People, 30. 24 Daniel Isaac, Ecclesiastical Claims Investigated and the Liberty of the Pulpit Defended; in Five Essays (Edinburgh, 1815), iii, xxii. 25 David Hempton, ‘Jabez Bunting: The Formative Years’, in Hempton, The Religion of the People, 106–7. 26 John Pawson, ‘A Short Account of Mr Henry Durbin, of Bristol’, Methodist Magazine (London), xxii (October 1799), 487–8; ‘H.D’, ‘From a Gentleman at Bristol to the Rev. Mr John Wesley’, Arminian Magazine (London), xx (April 1797), 201; Lloyd, Charles Wesley, 225. 27 Lloyd, Charles Wesley, 225.

The Long View of Anglican–Methodist Unity  27 28 Lloyd, Charles Wesley, 227–9; Edward Royle, ‘When did the Methodists Stop Attending their Parish Churches?’, Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society 56.6 (2008), 275–96. 29 Thomas Shaw, A History of Cornish Methodism (Truro, 1967), 32. 30 Rupert Davies, A. Raymond George and Gordon Rupp (eds), A History of the Methodist Church in Great Britain, iv (London, 1988), 500–1. 31 Robert Currie, Methodism Divided. A Study in the Sociology of Ecumenicalism (London, 1968), 87. 32 See, for example, Arthur Burns, The Diocesan Revival in the Church of England c.1800–1870 (Oxford, 1999). 33 Richard Watson, The Life of the Rev. John Wesley, AM (London, 1831), 362. 34 Raymond G. Cowherd, The Politics of English Dissent (London, 1959), 120–2. 35 Minutes of the Methodist Conferences viii (London, 1841), 514–5. 36 Cowherd, Politics of English Dissent, 125–9. 37 Michael Watts, The Dissenters, iii, The Crisis and Conscience of Nonconformity (Oxford, 2015), 234–48; John T. Smith, Methodism and Education 1849–1902. J.H. Rigg, Romanism, and Wesleyan Schools (Oxford, 1998), 59–66. 38 Tracts for the Times, by Members of the University of Oxford, 1 (London, 1834), iv. 39 See Mats Selén, The Oxford Movement and Wesleyan Methodism in England (Lund, 1992). 40 Rigg, ‘A Few Words’, 1. 41 In his primary charge: Henry Phillpotts, Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Exeter, by the Right Revd Henry, Lord Bishop of Exeter, at his Primary Visitation (London, 1834 [third edition]), 69. 42 J.H. Overton and E. Wordsworth, Christopher Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, 1807–1885 (London, 1888), 242–3, 246–8. 43 Frances Knight, The Nineteenth Century Church and English Society (Cambridge, 1995), 24–36, 71. 44 The quotation is taken from Benjamin Hellier: His Life and Teaching. A Biographical Sketch, with extracts from his Letters, Sermons and Addresses, edited by his Children (London, 1889), 134. 45 E.K.H. Jordan, Free Church Unity. History of the Free Church Council Movement 1896–1941 (London, 1956), 18, 20. 46 Christopher Oldstone-Moore, Hugh Price Hughes: Founder of a New Methodism, Conscience of a New Nonconformity (Cardiff, 1999), 208, 238–40. 47 E.K.H. Jordan, Free Church Unity. History of the Free Church Council Movement 1896–1941 (London, 1956), 18, 20, 31, 55. 48 ‘Notes and Comments’, Oxford and District Free Church Magazine, December 1897, 79. 49 James Nix, ‘Our Village Free Churches’, Oxford and District Free Church Magazine, March 1897, 17–19. 50 For a local example, see my ‘“The day of compromise is past”: The Oxford Free Churches and “Passive Resistance” to the 1902 Education Act’, in Rosamond McKitterick, Charlotte Methuen and Andrew Spicer (eds), ‘The Church and the Law’, in Studies in Church History 56 (Cambridge, 2020). 51 Stella M. Wood, ‘Nonconformity, Theology and Reunion, c. 1870–1910’, Oxford DPhil diss. 1995. 52 Wood, ‘Nonconformity’, 110. 53 Ruth Rouse, ‘Voluntary Movements and the Changing Ecumenical Climate’, in Ruth Rouse and Stephen Charles Neill (eds), A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517–1948 (London, 1967 [second edition]), 324–33.

28  Martin Wellings 54 H.R.T. Brandreth, ‘Approaches of the Churches Towards Each Other in the Nineteenth Century’, in Rouse and Neill, Ecumenical Movement, 264–5. 55 For Lunn, see Sir Henry S. Lunn, Chapters from my Life (London, 1918), esp. chs 11 and 12. 56 Wood, ‘Nonconformity’; Christopher Oldstone-Moore, ‘The Forgotten Origins of the Ecumenical Movement in England: The Grindelwald Conferences, 1892– 95’, Church History 70.1 (March 2001), 73–97. 57 Ruth Rouse, ‘Voluntary Movements and the Changing Ecumenical Climate’, in Rouse and Neill, Ecumenical Movement, 341–5. 58 Kenneth Scott Latourette, ‘Ecumenical Bearings of the Missionary Movement and the International Missionary Council’, in Rouse and Neill, Ecumenical Movement, 355–62. 59 Eugene Stock, History of the Church Missionary Society, iv (London, 1916), 409–24. 60 Alan M.G. Stephenson, Anglicanism and the Lambeth Conferences (London, 1978), 140–1. 61 Stephenson, Lambeth Conferences, 144. 62 Stephenson, Lambeth Conferences, 153. 63 Stephenson, Lambeth Conferences, 162, 167–9. 64 Constitutional Practice and Discipline of the Methodist Church (London, 2017), ii, 213. 65 Harrison, Separation of Methodism, 63, 64. 66 ‘A Step Forward in Church Relations’, in G.K.A. Bell (ed.), Documents on Christian Unity, fourth series (Oxford, 1958), 48–9. 67 John Munsey Turner, Conflict and Reconciliation. Studies in Methodism and Ecumenism in England 1740–1982 (London, 1985), 194–214; George Thompson Brake, Policy and Politics in British Methodism 1932–1982 (London, 1984), 100–44. 68 Andrew Atherstone, ‘Evangelical dissentients and the defeat of the AnglicanMethodist unity scheme’, Wesley and Methodist Studies, 7 (2015), 108, and see below, Chapter 7. 69 ‘Union Scheme Defeated in the Convocations’, Church Times, 11 July 1969, 1. 70 Owen Chadwick, Michael Ramsey. A Life (Oxford, 1991), 341. 71 Adrian Hastings, A History of English Christianity 1920–1990 (London, 1991), 549. 72 Turner, Conflict and Reconciliation, 216–25; Brake, Policy and Politics, 372–6. 73 ‘Fifty Years of Anglican–Methodist Conversations’, in An Anglican–Methodist Covenant, 22–3. 74 Harrison, Separation of Methodism, 61.

3

Anglican Ecumenism and the Problems of the ‘Historic Episcopate’ Mark D. Chapman

This chapter seeks to show how a particular understanding of the term ‘historic episcopate’ had come to define Anglicanism by the time of the Church of South India proposals of the 1930s, which had crucial implications for ecumenical relations between Anglicans and non-episcopal Churches.1 By this stage in its development, the Anglican Communion had been recast into a denomination that had adopted a distinctive interpretation of the ‘historic episcopate’ as part of its identity, a move that has even been described as the ‘episcopalization’ of Anglicanism.2 Tracing some of the key issues of Anglican ecclesial identity that were later to re-emerge in the Anglican–Methodist reunion schemes of the 1960s,3 it focuses in particular on questions of how the idea of the ‘historic episcopate’ came to play such a key role in Anglican identity, both in England and across the Communion. It will be shown, on the one hand, that it is a development of the Anglo-Catholic emphasis on ‘apostolical succession’ and, on the other hand, it is associated with the High Church tradition which had come to regard Anglicanism as a kind of ‘bridge Church’ which stood between Protestants and Catholics as a via media Church that had maintained a sense of continuity and purity unsullied by the excesses of both Protestantism and Romanism.4 This account concentrates on two crucial moments in Anglican ecumenism as it developed at the formative 1888 and 1920 Lambeth Conferences and how these affected Anglican self-perceptions with reference to the changing ecumenical scene in South India. It also shows that while there were alternative models to this sort of ‘Lambeth Anglicanism’5 which continued to regard Anglicanism as a form of Protestantism adapted for a particular context, these were supplanted by a fixation on the centrality of episcopacy as of the esse of the Church.

The Historic Episcopate and Lambeth 1888 The short phrase ‘historic episcopate’ had come to carry a great deal of ecclesiological baggage in the Anglican Communion by the 1920s and 1930s. A good illustration is offered by Frederic Hood (1895–1975), Principal of Pusey House, Oxford, which by that stage had established itself as a bastion of conservative Anglo-Catholicism. In 1935, Hood published a strong defence DOI: 10.4324/9781003119210-3

30  Mark D. Chapman of what might be regarded as a maximal understanding of the ‘historic episcopate’ as absolutely essential for the identity of the Church. He cited Bishop William Stubbs of Oxford (1825–1901), who had been one of the drafters of the Encyclical Letter following the Lambeth Conference of 1888 and was one of the leading church historians of the period. In a charge to his diocese of 1890, he emphasised the historicity of the claims for episcopal succession: The historic episcopate, not merely as a method of Church government – in which sense it could scarcely be called historic – but as a distinct, substantive and historical transmission of the commission of the apostles, in and by which our Lord formed His disciples through all generations into a distinctly organised body or Church – the historic episcopate is of the very essence of the Church of England; and could not be suffered to be called in question by any body or individual desirous to be incorporated in our Communion.6 At least for a certain type of Anglo-Catholic, episcopacy alone functioned as the very centrepiece of Anglican self-understanding. The term ‘historic episcopate’ had found its way into common usage in the Anglican Communion at the third Lambeth Conference of 1888, which was undoubtedly the most important event in the early history of Anglican ecumenism. Following the disaffection of a number of Roman Catholics in the aftermath of the 1870 Vatican Council as well as the divisions within the United States following the Civil War, reunion was high on the agenda of the Conference. It was the subject of a formal resolution that was later to become central to Anglican identity and was the subject of much often heated discussion among the assembled bishops of the Anglican Communion.7 The particular issue was the minimum that was required for union with other Churches. In response, the bishops adopted a slightly modified version of the so-called Quadrilateral that had been accepted by the American Episcopal Church at its Chicago General Convention two years earlier.8 This was to become the basis ‘on which approach may be by God’s blessing made towards Home Reunion’. The first three points of the Quadrilateral were relatively uncontroversial, at least in their final formulation: The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as ‘containing all things necessary to salvation’, and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith. The Apostles’ Creed, as the baptismal symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith. The two sacraments ordained by Christ himself – Baptism and the Supper of the Lord – ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of institution, and of the elements ordained by him.9

Problems of the ‘Historic Episcopate’  31 The final statement of the Quadrilateral, however, proved far more problematic. It stated that what was also required for reunion was ‘The historic episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of his Church’. Given that there was a complete absence of anything relating to the specific formularies of the Church of England in the four points and that the other three points would be acceptable to all doctrinally orthodox sacramental Churches, it was consequently the historic episcopate that was to become the key distinguishing feature of Anglican identity. Indeed, the four points of the Quadrilateral were quickly elevated into something akin to articles of religion. Of the four points, it was the historical episcopate that presented the main problem for future ecumenical discussion with Protestant Churches. While there was space in the Lambeth Quadrilateral for Anglicanism to evolve into a non-denominational Church that might depart from its English roots and formularies through reunion, such an emphasis on the fourth point – the only aspect that separated the Quadrilateral from any other mainline Protestant Church – meant that it had always to be a Church established on the basis of the historic episcopate. While this has remained a key issue in Anglican ecumenism ever since, it is also important to note that there was no clarification of precisely what was meant by ‘historic episcopate’ at the 1888 Lambeth Conference. The Encyclical Letter of the Conference spoke of the bishops’ ‘anxious discussion’ in laying down their four ‘Articles’.10 The historic episcopate was certainly not seen by all participants as equivalent to the mechanistic doctrines of apostolic succession maintained by staunch Anglo-Catholics before and after the Conference. Indeed, some regarded it as containing sufficient wiggle room for those from other Churches with a very different understanding of the exercise of episcopacy to enter into ecumenical discussion. As William Reed Huntington, who was the most important framer of the Chicago Quadrilateral in the United States in 1886, put it in a retrospective discussion: All [the bishops] did was to suggest a modus vivendi. Carefully avoiding the well-known phrase ‘Apostolical Succession’, which would have committed them hopelessly to a particular philosophy of the ministry, and made the winning of those who hold to the institutional idea impossible, they fastened on certain words, the characteristic of which is, that they express a fact without at all insisting upon any theory of the fact. … Had the Bishops said, ‘Take our words for it, there has been no break anywhere in our dynasty’; had they said, ‘Be ye sure of this, that unless you company with us there is no grace in you’, they would, indeed, as seekers after reconciliation, have made themselves a gazing-stock. But these are the things, be it observed, which they did not say. … the

32  Mark D. Chapman Bishops did that for which posterity will thank them, when they took the Historic Episcopate rather than the Apostolic Succession for the key-note of their appeal.11 In ecumenism, such careful vagueness may well have its merits. The variety of views expressed over the nature of the historic episcopate in the run up to the First World War meant that there remained considerable disagreement over its function in Anglican identity and by extension its role in ecumenical discussions, as was noted by no less a figure than the prominent Anglo-Catholic controversialist and lyricist William Sparrow Simpson (1859–1952) in 1914: [T]he term ‘the Historic Episcopate’ could not be designed to affirm any doctrine or theory as to apostolic succession or Divine origination, because a number of American Bishops were present in the Lambeth Conference by whom these things are not believed. And certainly we must admit that this expression taken by itself is open to more than one interpretation. It might mean to assert nothing more than the somewhat obvious fact that the Episcopate has existed for a very considerable time. But it may also mean to assert the necessity of the Episcopate to the Church’s constitutional self-identity.12 Following the First World War, with the increasing prominence of AngloCatholicism, the ‘historic episcopate’ had become central to Anglican self-identity. At a global level, the Anglican Communion was increasingly coming to think of itself as an alternative to, and a more decentralised form of, global Catholicism, different from the Roman Catholic Church, and one which relied on its episcopal identity. This meant that by the 1930s, the little word ‘historic’ was frequently given particular weight as a synonym for a strong doctrine of a visible and tactile apostolic succession, which in turn guaranteed the authenticity of the Church.

Lambeth 1920 Frederic Hood’s strong defence of the historic episcopate was given in response to the proposals for Church union in South India. Published in 1929 but in development for many years beforehand, the proposals were given an enormous boost following the famous Appeal of the 1920 Lambeth Conference.13 Building on the Quadrilateral of 1888, the Lambeth Appeal laid the foundations at an international level for Anglican ecumenism in the context of the post–First World War settlement. The main traits of the Appeal are based on the claim that ‘God wills fellowship’ (I) and that disunity is ‘crippling’ to the Body of Christ (III). The time had thus come ‘for all the separated groups of Christians to agree in forgetting the things

Problems of the ‘Historic Episcopate’  33 which are behind and reaching out towards the goal of a reunited Catholic Church’. Alongside allegiance to the Bible and the creeds and acceptance of the dominical sacraments (VI), unity, it went on, would be best promoted through the receiving of the episcopate which ‘required the apostolic rite of the laying-on of hands’ (VII). While there was no denying the ‘spiritual reality’ of the ministry of those Churches that did not possess episcopacy (VII), the Appeal nevertheless expressed the hope that ‘would lead ministers who have not received it to accept a commission through episcopal ordination’ (VIII). God might have willed fellowship but only through the reception of an Anglo-American episcopate. For Anglicanism to define itself solely in terms of catholicity and apostolicity seemed particularly suited to the new situation following the First World War. The Appeal and the Church of South India scheme itself were in part expressions of the changes in the British Empire following the First World War and the often heated discussions about whether a dominion status should be conferred on India which would elevate it to the same rank as the newly autonomous white dominions. For many, the Anglican Communion was understood as the ecclesiastical equivalent of the nascent British Commonwealth as it began to develop into a federation of self-governing dominions. In 1920, however, the self-governing Churches – like the dominions – remained principally those of the Anglo-American world and virtually all the bishops shared in an Anglo-American heritage.14 The ‘historic episcopate’ at this stage was still almost a completely white body and, with only a few exceptions, the self-governing Churches of the Anglican Communion were the Churches of the white dominions: those which were considered to have reached the stage of development that allowed for independence.15 There were other changes affecting ecumenism in the post-war world. Earlier pan-Protestantism was endorsed and adopted by many Anglicans in the pre-war years through the appropriation of German liberal biblical scholarship. This outlook had run into the sands after 1914, as liberalism was held to be guilty by association with Germany’s war aims.16 This meant that following the war, Anglo-Catholicism had risen to the ascendant; this was accompanied by an increasing understanding of and sympathy for the Eastern Orthodox Churches, some of which had been such important allies in the devastating conflict.17 At the same time, more Protestant-minded Anglicans, who were frequently also Evangelicals, became increasingly divided over such issues as biblical interpretation. In turn, wider political conditions of reconstruction, which saw the dismemberment of the old Austrian, Turkish and German Empires with mass shifts of population and economic disruption, were undoubtedly part of the background to the Appeal. Coupled with this was a significant expansion of British influence through the mandated territories which included many former German and Ottoman territories with diverse ecclesiastical backgrounds (as in formerly German Tanganyika).

34  Mark D. Chapman The concluding passage of the Appeal reflects these wider political changes, speaking of a ‘new age with a new outlook’, reflected in the new form of post-denominational Catholicism that would result from reunion. The Appeal concluded: We do not ask that any one Communion should consent to be absorbed into another. We do ask that all should unite in a new and great endeavour to recover and to manifest to the world the unity of the Body of Christ for which he prayed. The Lambeth Appeal amounted to a call for a kind of League of Nations for the Churches so that denominations, including Anglicanism, at least in its limited Protestant and English form, would cease. Such an idealistic hope amounted to culmination of the ecumenical impulse of the ChicagoLambeth Quadrilateral of 1888, and yet whatever denomination might emerge, the terms of the Appeal meant that it would always be established on the historic episcopate. While these developments within British imperialism in global reconstruction helped shape the Anglican Communion, they also had important repercussions on the internal changes in the national Churches, not least within the Church of England. In particular, claims to a form of catholicity rooted in the ‘historic episcopate’ meant that there was constant vigilance lest any Churches should fail to protect their denominational purity. This meant that what was happening in one part of the Communion could have strong implications for Churches elsewhere. Crucially, the legacy of a panProtestant identity which had been such an important defining characteristic of the Church of England in earlier periods (as in the early seventeenth century) was supplanted among many Anglicans, especially Anglo-Catholics, by an identity that rested on an almost mystical attachment to the ‘historic episcopate’. This had become synonymous with the idealised forms of ‘apostolical succession’ maintained by the Tractarians from Tract One in 1833. Understandings of the centrality of the episcopacy for Church identity had been transformed through the nineteenth century under the impact of the Tractarians, for whom the authority of the bishop as successor to the apostles had become increasingly central to ecclesial identity following the perceived breakdown of the old alliance between Church and state after both Catholic Emancipation in 1829 and the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts the year before. This legacy and its resurgence after the First World War meant that post-denominational identity was bound to be challenged by a model of ecclesiology which regarded episcopacy as of the very essence of the Church.18 Consequently, one of the ironies of Anglican ecumenical involvement is that the commitment to Church unity expressed in the Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 – and even more so in the Lambeth Appeal of 1920 – brought at the same time a strong affirmation of Anglicanism as an exclusive kind of Church,

Problems of the ‘Historic Episcopate’  35 based on its allegiance to the historic episcopate. The very impetus towards stating the minimum requirements for ecumenism helped shape a global denominational identity which made Anglicanism far less willing to embrace its historic Protestantism. Instead, it soon absorbed a particular doctrine of episcopacy. This has meant that the question of the ‘historic episcopate’ has proved the main bone of contention in ecumenical discussions between Anglicans and most (other) Protestant denominations. As the controversialist and future bishop of Durham, Hensley Henson was to claim as early as 1908: the ‘historic episcopate’ is ‘an obstacle to the union of Christians, and indefensible, … a claim which cannot really be sustained’.19 Even so, 12 years later Henson himself was to play an important part in drafting the Appeal where Protestants were invited to embrace that very episcopate.20

Mission, India and Ecumenism Even if the original impetus behind the Chicago Quadrilateral of 1886 was Home Reunion following the disastrous Civil War in the United States, the main spur to ecumenical co-operation came from the problems that emerged alongside missionary expansion through the nineteenth century, especially in an Anglican context across the British Empire. The need for co-operation between the denominations at a practical level was something that grew out of various comity relationships as missionaries found common cause in working out how to work together most effectively for evangelism in nonChristian lands. Nevertheless, among missionaries of all hues, such comity arrangements came to be a hotly debated topic which became increasingly pressing in the period of rapid imperial expansion following the carve up of Africa at the Congress of Berlin in 1884–5. In this new context, some of the key features that had originally set European Churches and denominations against each other in such matters as Church government or liturgical practice came to be seen as increasingly irrelevant in the completely new contexts represented in Africa as well as in south and east Asia. Various missionary conferences were held in the missionaries’ home countries as well as in the missionary context that aimed at clarifying spheres of influence and areas for co-operation between the different Churches. While comity arrangements might have been more practical than structural, the ground was nonetheless prepared for more far-reaching projects that could move in the direction of Church unity. Some of the earliest efforts at ecumenical co-operation in a missionary context took place in India. In 1870, for instance, the Revd Lal Behari Day (1824–92), an Indian journalist converted to Christianity and ordained by the Free Church of Scotland, had proposed a union for Bengal on the basis of Episcopal, Presbyterian and Congregationalist principles, to free Christianity from what he regarded as European forms that constricted the proclamation of the Gospel. ‘If you want to see Bengali Christianity develop itself freely and naturally’, he suggested in a lecture, ‘you must remove it

36  Mark D. Chapman from the hot-house of European Church organization and plant it in the genial soil of Bengali modes of thought and feeling; … you must make Christianity indigenous in Bengal’.21 Working across denominational lines would, he felt, allow for the development of an authentic Bengali expression of Christianity. In part this was because, in the face of Hinduism’s own divisions, Christianity needed to display a unity to refute any charge of its own disunity. Consequently, he wrote, uniting ourselves into one community, one brotherhood, [would] thus entirely cut away the ground from beneath their feet. And when this union is effected, will not our non-Christian countrymen say of us what the old heathens said of the primitive Christians. – ‘Behold, how these Christians love one another!’22 Fundamental for such an understanding was the establishment of a local post-denominational historical form of Christianity appropriate to context. This meant, according to K.M. George, that Behari Day can be regarded as ‘one of the first persons in India to see denominational divisions of the Church as a denial’ of the form that could communicate the Gospel of salvation in an appropriate manner.23 There were many further Indian examples of calls to work together, some of which moved in a similar post-denominational direction. In 1879, for instance, a missionary conference in Madras acknowledged ‘a common basis of Evangelicalism in piety, forms of worship and zeal and methods of evangelism, upon which they could meet’.24 By the time of the First World War, reunion conferences were becoming more and more frequent as Anglicans and representatives of other denominations discussed possible routes towards reunion. Hardly surprisingly, missionary-fuelled efforts at ecumenical collaboration raised crucial ecclesiological questions over the historic divisions, not least over forms of Church government and the centrality of episcopacy, which were especially pressing problems for Anglicans. The American South India United Church missionary G.S. Eddy (1871–1963) and the Anglican Tamil V.S. Azariah (1874–1945), later bishop in Dornakal, who had both spoken at the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910, and Henry Whitehead (1853–1947) bishop of Madras for 23 years, came to be leading advocates of reunion in 1911 and 1912.25 Whitehead was firmly committed to ecumenism for the sake of what he called an ‘impending avalanche’ of millions of Christians who were to be gathered into the Church. It was a simple missionary imperative: ‘The Anglican Church’, he claimed, ‘could not handle this stupendous task alone’.26 By 1919, the well-known conference held at Tranquebar resulted in a Manifesto proposing a scheme for reunion agreed by Anglicans and members of the South India United Church (comprised of a union of Presbyterians and Congregationalists): ‘We believe that the union is the will of God, even as our Lord prayed that

Problems of the ‘Historic Episcopate’  37 we might be one, that the world might believe. We believe that union is the teaching of Scripture’.27 With the renewed emphasis on reunion after the Lambeth Appeal, there were moves towards a more substantial set of proposals to bring about a new united Church. In 1929, E.H.M. Waller (1871–1942), bishop of Madras, noted that the Gospel imperative ‘that all might be one’ was the principal consideration: If we have painted the evils of disunion in dark colours, it is because the most terrible thing in the whole situation is the placid contentment in which we all alike live in disunion and schism, while there are not wanting those who claim that disunion is part of God’s plan to exhibit the variety of His operations. God’s plan is plainly set forth in the New Testament.28 In turn, he was keen to see reunion as the work of the Holy Spirit who ‘has been leading [the framers] to try to find a means of union, [and who] will not desert His Church, even if a crisis arises thirty years hence’.29 The ‘Basis of Union’ of the Joint Committee’s ‘Proposed Scheme of Union’, completed in March 1929, emphasised the role of the Spirit in promoting the ‘bond of peace’.30 The pattern of faith for the new Church was identical to that of the 1888 Lambeth Quadrilateral and the Lambeth Appeal which would require the acceptance of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, as well as the dominical Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist.31 More complex, however, was the issue of Church order, especially the episcopate which was discussed in relation to the ‘Council of the Presbyters’ and the ‘Congregation of the Faithful’ (a phrase used in Article XIX of the Church of England’s ThirtyNine Articles of Religion). While there was acceptance in the proposals of ‘the historic episcopate in a constitutional form as part of their basis of union’, this did not mean that there was any intention ‘thereby to imply, or to express a judgement on, any theory concerning episcopacy’.32 Bishops would be appointed through election by diocesan and central Church bodies and continuity would be maintained. Ordinations would be by bishops and consecrations would be by bishops.33 In formulating the final proposals, Edwin James Palmer (1869–1954), bishop of Bombay, 1908–29, had long advocated the centrality of the historic episcopate for any unity based on the ‘Greatest Common Good’, which should not remove all differences between the denominations. Ministers in the new Church should ‘accept a commission through Episcopal ordination’.34 This point, however, was modified in 1926, allowing the proposals to go forward but causing significant problems for Anglicans: until such time as all bishops and clergy conformed to the historic order, there was to be a 30-year interim period. This meant that while in the long run all those in ministry would be episcopally ordained ministers, there would be

38  Mark D. Chapman exceptions until that time.35 The chief problem with the South India proposals was the interim period rather than the question of episcopacy per se. Eventually, after all, episcopacy would be universally embraced, which meant the anomaly of a ‘presbyterian bishop’36 would eventually disappear. At the end of the process, as the Lambeth Conference of 1948 recognised, there would be ‘the establishment of full communion in a complete and technical sense … [when] the CSI has been fully unified on an episcopal basis’.37 It was the interim arrangements that led to such heated opposition.

Opposition For opponents of these proposals, the historic episcopate had come to be treated as an all or nothing affair: there could be no compromises or anomalies, even for 30 years, since it was treated as of the very essence of the Church. Despite the acceptance of the centrality of episcopacy in the proposals, the interim measures meant that episcopacy was no longer to be regarded as of the absolute essence of the Church: there were exceptions ‘to the general principle of an episcopally ordained ministry’.38 This meant that it was possible, in theory at least, for a congregation that was formerly Anglican to be ministered to by a non-episcopally ordained minister, even if this was highly unlikely and had been ruled out in a pledge in the proposed Constitution: Neither forms of worship or ritual, nor a ministry to which they have not been accustomed or to which they conscientiously object, will be imposed upon any congregation; and no arrangements with regard to these matters will knowingly be made, either generally or in particular cases, which would either offend the conscientious convictions of persons directly concerned, or which would hinder the development of complete unity within the United Church or imperil its progress towards union with other churches.39 Nevertheless, even though former Anglican congregations would remain unaffected by the changes, the fact that it was possible for a Church to live with seeming anomalies was enough to ensure that the orders and sacraments of the whole Church were open to question. According to Frederic Hood, the interim period contradicted the Preface of the Ordinal as well as the Constitution of the Church of India, Burma and Ceylon.40 At the same time, he continued, betraying the real goals of his ecumenical endeavours, such a move would rule out union with Rome, which meant that ‘Reunion on a small scale in South India may lead to disunion on a wide scale elsewhere and this would not be due to prejudice and perversity, but to deeprooted convictions conscientiously held’.41 Consequently, Hood maintained: ‘Great harm will be done to the very cause which we all have at heart, if this scheme is approved without drastic revision’.42 This sort of opposition

Problems of the ‘Historic Episcopate’  39 reveals that the South India proposals on episcopacy, however limited they were in practice, functioned as a red rag to the Anglo-Catholic bull: the very identity of the Church was at risk. For many Anglo-Catholics, who were increasingly prominent in the Church in the 1920s, episcopacy had come to function as the guarantee of the Church’s authority against any encroachment either from an increasingly secular state or from other denominations; indeed, episcopacy was the sole guarantor of sacramental validity and had been elevated into a symbolic and often visceral totem of identity. The same sorts of questions that had emerged at the Kikuyu missionary conference in East Africa of 1913 – over giving of communion to members of non-episcopal Churches – returned with a vengeance over South India. Kikuyu provoked a protest from the formidable Anglo-Catholic bishop of Zanzibar Frank Weston, who would become influential in the revival of Anglo-Catholicism after the war, including in the production of the Lambeth Appeal.43 The Indian proposals went even further. As N.P. Williams (1883–1943), Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford and one of the leading academic spokesmen for Anglo-Catholicism, put it: ‘I venture to suggest that such a geographically-conditioned priesthood’ as proposed in South India ‘would be practically as productive of irritation as it would be theoretically incapable of justification’.44 Many feared that it marked the thin end of the wedge, as the irregularity of non-episcopally ordained clergy presiding over eucharists would continue well into the future and might set the pattern for future developments elsewhere, even possibly in England. This South Indian background continued to play a significant role through the 1940s and into the 1950s: apostolic ministry remained a much discussed topic, especially in the light of the publication of the collected volume of that name by a group of Anglo-Catholics in 1946.45 Anglo-Catholics in particular ensured that there was careful policing of the historic episcopate lest anything should slip in unnoticed that could sully the purity of the Church. One of the harshest critics of the proposals was T.S. Eliot who published a pamphlet entitled Reunion by Destruction where he attacked what he regarded as the denial of Christian truth which could never be dependent purely on context. Furthermore, what happened on one side of the globe could easily affect the Church at home: Between the ‘missionary field’ and the ‘home field’ there can be no radical difference – England was once a missionary field: what is good for one is good for the other …. If it is accepted in India, it will inevitably be proposed in England. Not only logic will compel it, but circumstance. A precedent will have been established; the inconsistency will become intolerable; and we shall be told that if we do not conform to the precedent of India, it is we who will be responsible for the consequent disorder.46

40  Mark D. Chapman This meant that the support that had been given by numbers of English Churchmen to the proposals raised the question of ‘whether the Church of England shall survive or perish’.47 In particular, the 30-year interim period was nothing more than an ‘amiable masquerade’48 and would deny the ideal of ‘a National Church’ representing all people, becoming little more than a ‘department of the Board of Education. As a Church, it would be only a shell’.49 For many, the stakes were high. When the Church of England agreed to enter into communion with the Church of South India in 1955, the politician Tom Driberg predicted that as many as 2,000 clergy would secede from the Church of England, such was the attachment to the idea of the historic episcopate as of the esse of the Church.50

Another Variety of Anglican Ecumenism At the same time, however, the sort of ecumenism of the Lambeth Appeal as interpreted by Anglo-Catholics was not the only approach to reunion among Anglicans. Many held a quite different understanding of the historic episcopate which had been commonplace in the nineteenth century. This alternative form of Anglicanism, less fixated on the episcopate, also came to prominence in a missionary context. Such post-denominational and contextual expressions of Christianity could potentially go much further than the Church of South India: for some, including some Anglican missionaries, it was even feasible for different models of oversight to coexist within a new Church. This became apparent at one of the most important early international missionary conferences which took place at Exeter Hall in London 9–19 June 1888 shortly before the Lambeth Conference (and which has failed to attract as much attention as later conferences, most obviously the Edinburgh World Missionary Conference of 1910). The 1888 Conference was attended by 1,579 delegates from 139 different denominations. However, Anglican attendance was limited to the evangelical Church Missionary Society. Notably, the High Church Society for the Propagation of the Gospel and the more extreme Anglo-Catholic Universities’ Mission to Central Africa absented themselves.51 Although the Conference was dominated by the racialist assumptions of the time on both sides of the Atlantic about the ‘civilising’ role of the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ race, there were at the same time calls for the increasing independence and inculturation of the local Churches. This is particularly clear in an important paper given in the section on Missionary Comity by C.C. Fenn (1823–1913), CMS Secretary from 1864–91, who sought for increasing co-operation and unity across the different denominations. There were ‘great varieties of Church government’, he claimed, yet all Christians were understood as ‘belonging to the same outward visible Church’.52 He asked three simple questions about (1) the degree of reunion that was desirable; (2) the need to explore when the

Problems of the ‘Historic Episcopate’  41 ‘native Christians in heathen lands’ would be able to ‘decide respecting their own religious organisation’; and (3) ‘what kind of union and what degree of union should be aimed at’.53 He even went as far as suggesting that such an arrangement would also bring about ‘mutual amicableness’ between the Anglican Church Parties represented by the Anglo-Catholic followers of Dr Pusey and the Broad Churchmen who followed the path laid by Thomas Arnold.54 In addition, Fenn pointed to the importance of self-government.55 However, his most important point was that ‘those sectional differences among Protestant Christians, which are purely owing to historical causes or to local causes, will disappear among converts gathered in bodies so divided, if the converts act for themselves in countries where those historical or local causes are inoperative’.56 Fenn recognised that there would obviously be many repercussions for denominational self-identity, most especially the different polities expressed in the various denominations, which ranged from episcopal to independent. However, while recognising that Church government would remain a problem, he nonetheless made some practical suggestions: The unity that exists among the Nagercoil Christians might be manifested by an annual or half-yearly gathering of ministers and lay delegates in a Congregational Union, presided over by a president chosen at each occasion. The corresponding body in Tinnevely might be a Central Church Council, presided over by a bishop. But the two central representative bodies might each regard the other as representing a part of the visible Church.57 Fenn also felt that the same sort of solution would apply to Presbyterians: ‘The difference in Church government would not really break or even obscure their visible and evident union’.58 He went on to cite Bishop J.B. Lightfoot’s influential discussion of episcopacy in his introduction to his translation of the Apostolic Fathers. This had sparked a long-standing debate on ministry among Anglicans from the different parties. Fenn cited Lightfoot: ‘In the epistles of Ignatius there is no indication that he is upholding the Episcopal against any other form of Church Government, as, for instance the Presbyteral’.59 Lightfoot had developed his thinking at length in his dissertation on the ministry published in his commentary on Philippians, where he maintained that Church orders were simply ‘aids and expedients’, which, even though ‘a Christian could not afford to hold lightly or to neglect, were no part of the essence of God’s message to man in the Gospel’.60 While the breakdown of presbyteral government might have been best in the context of the early Church, Fenn observed, its replacement with episcopal government was not something that could have universal validity for all time. Indeed, he went on:

42  Mark D. Chapman Among the more progressive Christian countries of the world, the nonmonarchic element of civil government seems, on the whole, at the present moment to be growing stronger and stronger. And, therefore, it would almost seem as if the self-same cause which at one time led to the introduction of Episcopacy, might now have a tendency in the exact opposite direction.61 Fenn concluded by foreseeing a Church that would embrace diversity while at the same time being united around the creeds, and in which ‘great varieties of Church government will co-exist’. In such a Church all would ‘recognise each other as belonging to the same outward visible Church, the union being manifested by some corporate and representative action, and by very free intercommunion’.62 At the same time, Fenn recognised that there were some ‘learned and spiritually-minded members of the Church of England, who regard what they term “Apostolical succession”, as essential to the wellbeing, if not the being of the Church, who would be unable to join the new body’.63 It is feasible that Fenn had in mind Charles Gore, who had been appointed Principal of Pusey House in Oxford in 1888, and had published his influential book The Church and the Ministry in the same year. Here, he claimed that ‘Christianity is as much the establishment of a visible system of means for realizing the end of human life, as it is the divine announcement of what that end is’.64 According to Gore, because ‘the record of history renders it practically indisputable that Jesus Christ founded a visible society or Church’,65 the succession of orders in the historic episcopate was understood as the channel of authority stemming from Christ himself.66 Fenn, however, continued to maintain Lightfoot’s line, especially in the missionary context. Indeed, he felt that the great majority of lay Anglicans, whether in the British Isles or in the Colonies or in India, attach comparatively little importance to the fact or the theory of the so-called Apostolical succession, and that in India, they will at once set it aside, if it should assume such a shape as to be an obstacle to the larger comprehension.67

Conclusion Fenn’s view was obviously quite distinct from the view maintained by the bishops gathered at the 1888 Lambeth Conference, as well as the post-Tractarian thinking of Charles Gore and other Anglo-Catholics that eventually came to dominate Anglican identity after the First World War and which was given such a fillip at the 1920 Lambeth Conference. It was also quite distinct from what was eventually adopted in the Church of South India. What Fenn’s missionary example reveals is that ‘Lambeth Anglicanism’ or the establishment of a denomination founded solely on a particular theology

Problems of the ‘Historic Episcopate’  43 of bishops, which has become the Anglicanism of ecumenism, is only one variety among the diversity of historical Anglicanisms.68 However, it has come to be treated with a reverence and finality that means that alternatives, which were maintained by such key figures as J.B. Lightfoot, have hardly ever been brought to the ecumenical table. Thirty years ago, the American theologian William Countryman returned to something like Fenn’s understanding, which still seems imperative for contemporary ecumenical endeavours, as the failure of series of Anglican–Methodist schemes reveals: The goal of ecumenical unity requires a network of ordinations using bishops in the classic manner, but also deliberately and expressly preserving all of our existing ministerial successions. In such a network, we shall be speaking sacramentally both our past, with its divisions, and a present in which unity is being reclaimed as our divine birthright. The resulting commingled succession will serve the future as a kind of sacramental recapitulation both of the griefs of the past and of God’s grace in overcoming them. As such, it may even come to seem a succession preferable to all its predecessors because it is richer in testimony to God’s goodness to us.69 A Lambeth Conference solely comprised of bishops, however, is hardly likely to make much of such ideas, even if a commingled succession is what ecumenism with protestant denominations seems to require. But logic and identity are seldom straightforward partners in ecumenical dialogue.

Notes 1 ‘Proposed Scheme of Union’, March 1929, in G.K.A. Bell (ed.), Documents on Christian Unity, Second Series (Oxford, 1930), 145. 2 On this, see Steffen Weishaupt, ‘The Development of the Concept of Episcopacy in the Church of England from the Nineteenth to the Mid-Twentieth Centuries’ (DPhil thesis, University of Oxford, 2013). 3 On this, see J.I. Packer: ‘The Church of South India and Reunion in England’, Churchman 82 (Winter 1968), 249–61. Packer was a prominent opponent of the 1960s Anglican–Methodist Unity Scheme. See Andrew Atherstone, ‘Evangelical Dissentients and the Defeat of the Anglican–Methodist Unity Scheme’, Wesley and Methodist Studies 7 (2015), 100–16. 4 On this, see Mark Chapman, ‘The Church of England as a Bridge Church’ in Vladimir Latinovic and Anastacia K. Wooden (eds), Stolen Churches or Bridges to Orthodoxy? Volume 2: Ecumenical and Practical Perspectives on the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Dialogue (New York, 2021), 53–68. 5 See Robert William Keith Wilson, George Augustus Selwyn (1809–1878): Theological Formation, Life and Work (Farnham, 2010), 149–53. 6 Frederic Hood, Some Comments on the South India Scheme (Westminster, 1935), 3. Hood cited William Stubbs, edited by Ernest Edward Holmes, Visitation Charges Delivered to the Clergy and Churchwardens of the Dioceses of Chester and Oxford (London, 1904), 130. Hood noted that he owed ‘this quotation to a

44  Mark D. Chapman pamphlet by Professor J.P. Whitney’, Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge. 7 Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Communion holden at Lambeth Palace, in July 1888. Encyclical Letter from the Bishops, with the Resolutions and Reports (London, 1888). 8 On the American background to the Quadrilateral, see Mark Chapman, ‘American Catholicity and the National Church: The Legacy of William Reed Huntington’ in Sewanee Theological Review 56 (Easter 2013), 113–48; and ‘William Reed Huntington, American Catholicity and the Chicago–Lambeth Quadrilateral’ in Paul Avis and Benjamin M. Guyer (eds), The Lambeth Conference: Theology, History, Polity and Purpose (London 2017), 84–106. 9 Resolution 11 of the Lambeth Conference of 1888: Conference of Bishops, 25–6; this is also in Roger Coleman, Resolutions of the Twelve Lambeth Conferences (Toronto, 1992), 13. 10 Conference of Bishops, 15–6. 11 William Reed Huntington, The Peace of the Church (London, 1891), 204. 12 William Sparrow Simpson, The Relation of the English Church to the NonEpiscopal Communions (London, 1914), 17. 13 ‘An Appeal to All Christian People from the Bishops Assembled in the Lambeth Conference of 1920’, (Resolution 9: Reunion of Christendom) at: https:// www​.anglicancommunion​.org​/media​/127731​/1920​.pdf (accessed 10 February 2021). 14 On this, see Mark Chapman, ‘Un-Protestant and Un-English: Anglicanism and the 1920 Lambeth Conference “Appeal to All Christian People”’, Ecclesiology 16 (2020), 159–74. 15 On this, see Mark Chapman, ‘The Lambeth Appeal and the Appeal of Britain’, The Ecumenical Review 72.4 (2020), 683–90. DOI:10.1111/erev.12560 16 See Mark Chapman Theology at War and Peace: English Theology and Germany in the First World War (London, 2017); and ‘William Sanday, Modernism and the First World War’, in Andrew Mein, Nathan MacDonald and Matthew A. Collins (eds), The First World War and the Mobilization of Biblical Scholarship (London, 2019), 69–88. 17 See Mark Chapman, ‘The Church of England, Serbia and the Serbian Orthodox Church in the First World War’ in Vladislav Puzović (ed.), зборник радова са Међународног начног скупа Православни свет и Први светски рат [Proceedings of the Orthodox World and the First World War, 5–6 December 2014], (Belgrade, 2015), 385–401. 18 On this, see Peter Nockles, The Oxford Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship, 1760–1857 (Cambridge, 1994). 19 Herbert Hensley Henson, Reunion and Intercommunion: Two Lectures on the Report of the Lambeth Conference (London, 1909), 5. 20 On the production of the Lambeth Appeal, see Charlotte Methuen, ‘The Making of an “Appeal to All Christian People” at the 1920 Lambeth Conference’, in Paul Avis and Benjamin M. Guyer (eds), The Lambeth Conference: Theology, History, Polity and Purpose (London and New York, 2017), 107–31 and Charlotte Methuen (ed.), ‘Lambeth 1920: The Appeal to All Christian People: An Account by G.K.A. Bell and the Redactions of the Appeal’, in Melanie Barber and Stephen Taylor with Gabriel Sewell (eds), From the Reformation to the Permissive Society (COERS, volume 18) (Woodbridge, 2010), 521–64. See also Alan M.G. Stephenson, Anglicanism and the Lambeth Conferences (London 1978), 128–54. 21 Lal Behari Day, Desirableness and Practicality of Organising a National Church in Bengal: A Lecture delivered at the Bengal Christian Association, 13 December 1869 (Calcutta, 1870, p. 4), cited in Sipra Mukherjee ‘Conversion

Problems of the ‘Historic Episcopate’  45 without “Commotion”: Rev. Lal Behari Day’s Candramukhīr Upākhyān (Story of Candramukhī)’, in Richard Fox Young and Jonathan A. Seitz (eds), Asia in the Making of Christianity: Conversion, Agency and Indigeneity, 1600s to the Present (Leiden, 2013), 189–212, 212. 22 Behari Day, Desirableness and Practicality, 2–3, cited on 210. 23 K.M. George, Christianity in India through the Centuries (Hyderabad, 2007), 280. See also Robert Eric Frykenberg, Christianity in India from the Beginnings to the Present (Cambridge, 2008), 412. 24 See Bengt Sundkler, Church of South India: The Movement Towards Union 1900–1947 (London, 1954), 25. 25 See Lesslie Newbigin, A South India Diary (London, 1951), 9. 26 Sundkler, Church of South India, 52. 27 ‘Statement drawn up by Thirty-three Ministers of the Anglican and South India United Churches at Tranquebar, May 1 and 2, 1919’, in G.K.A. Bell (ed.), Documents on Christian Unity: 1920–4 (Oxford, 1924), 278. 28 E.H.M. Waller, Church Union in South India: The Story of the Negotiations (London, 1929), 19. 29 Waller, Church Union, 79. 30 ‘Proposed Scheme of Union’, March 1929, in G.K.A. Bell (ed.), Documents on Christian Unity, Second Series, (Oxford, 1930), 145. 31 ‘Proposed Scheme of Union’, 146. 32 ‘Proposed Scheme of Union’, 146–7. 33 ‘Proposed Scheme of Union’, 147. 34 Henry Whitehead, cited in Sundkler, Church of South India, 63. 35 ‘Proposed Scheme of Union’, 153. 36 See Andrew C. Stout, ‘Presbyterian Bishop: Lesslie Newbigin and Reformed Ecumenism’, Pro Ecclesia 26 (2017), 278–96. 37 Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Communion (London, 1948), II. 46. 38 ‘Proposed Scheme of Union’, 153. 39 Basis of Union, Section 16. On the official interpretation of the Pledge, see G.K.A. Bell (ed.), Documents on Christian Unity, Third Series 1930–1948 (Oxford, 1958), 230; Lesslie Newbiggin, The Reunion of the Church, 2nd edition (London, 1960), 114. 40 Hood, Some Comments, 4. 41 Hood, Some Comments, 8. 42 Hood, Some Comments, 2. 43 See Mark D. Chapman, ‘The Impact of Kikuyu in England’, in Mark D. Chapman and Jeremy Bonner (eds), Costly Communion: Ecumenical Initiative and Sacramental Strife in the Anglican Communion (Leiden, 2019), 121–44. 44 N.P. Williams, Lausanne, Lambeth and South India: Notes on the Present Position of the Reunion Movement (London, 1930), 43. 45 Kenneth E. Kirk and Cecilia M. Ady (eds), The Apostolic Ministry: Essays on the History and the Doctrine of Episcopacy (London, 1946). 46 T.S. Eliot, Reunion by Destruction: Reflections on a Scheme for Church Union in South India (Council for the Defence of Church Principles, Pamphlet 7) (London, 1943), 5–6. 47 Eliot, Reunion by Destruction, 1. 48 Eliot, Reunion by Destruction, 12. 49 Eliot, Reunion by Destruction, 20-1. 50 See Church Times (8 July 1955), 7. 51 Thomas Askew, ‘The 1888 London Centenary Missions Conference: Ecumenical Disappointment or American Missions Coming of Age?’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 18 (1994), 113–16, 113.

46  Mark D. Chapman 52 C.C. Fenn, ‘Missionary Comity’, in James Johnston (ed.), Report of the Centenary Conference on the Protestant Missions of the World, 9th–19th June 1888 (London, 1889, 2 vols, 2, 470–7. 53 ‘Missionary Comity’, 470. 54 ‘Missionary Comity’, 471. 55 ‘Missionary Comity’, 472. 56 ‘Missionary Comity’, 473. 57 ‘Missionary Comity’, 474. 58 ‘Missionary Comity’, 475. 59 J.B. Lightfoot (ed.), The Apostolic Fathers, Second Part, Vol. 1(Epistles of St Ignatius) (London, 1885), 382, cited in ‘Missionary Comity’, 475. 60 J.B. Lightfoot, Philippians (refs to 6th ed., London, 1881), 184. 61 ‘Missionary Comity’, 476. 62 ‘Missionary Comity’, 476. 63 ‘Missionary Comity’, 477. 64 Charles Gore, The Church and the Ministry (refs to the third edition, London, 1893), 355. On this debate, see Stephen Mayor, ‘Discussion of the Ministry in Late Nineteenth-Century Anglicanism’ in The Church Quarterly 2 (1969), 54–62; and ‘The Anglo-Catholic Understanding of the Ministry: some Protestant Comments’, The Church Quarterly 2 (1969), 152–9. 65 Gore, Church and the Ministry, 337. 66 Gore, Church and the Ministry, 343. 67 ‘Missionary Comity’, 477. 68 For the sorts of stories different Anglicans have told themselves about the nature of their identity, see Mark Chapman, Anglican Theology (London, 2012). 69 L. William Countryman, The Language of Ordination (Philadelphia, 1992), 100–1.

4

Church, Episcopacy and Ecumenism Debates about order, authority and ambiguity in the Anglican–Methodist Conversations Pippa Catterall

Conversations exploring unity between the Church of England and the Methodist Church of Great Britain began in 1956 and continued until 1972. It was apt to title these as ‘Conversations’, both as an exercise in expectation-management and as an appropriate description of these wideranging discussions over a series of study weekends which articulated a process of negotiation surrounded by extensive pamphleteering, comment in the religious press, and organising into pressure groups by partisans either enthused or apprehensive about the ultimate outcome. Indeed, it was this surrounding sound and fury, evident to a much greater extent than in earlier similar ecumenical discussions in England, that was one of the key novelties of the Anglican–Methodist Conversations. For the main parameters and talking points of the actual negotiations had long been well established. What animated the activists was the extent to which these came closer than ever before to actually achieving a visible unity between the negotiating Churches. Humans may find that theology, the process of speaking of God, is complicated by the ineffable nature of the divine. Humans have not usually had the same problem when it comes to speaking of the nature of those human organisations known as Churches established to communicate that divinity to humanity. Views on the nature, structures and role of authority in these bodies have often been contrastingly precise, if not positively prescriptive. Definitional wrangles over the nature of Church order have been major factors in schism over the centuries, as well as barriers to the ecumenism that gathered force in the nineteenth century. This ecumenism came to a pitch in the era of the twentieth-century world wars, peaking in the immediate aftermath of 1945, though many of the approaches and ideas which shaped it developed much earlier. Accordingly, post-war ecumenical dialogues ran along well-worn lines, and this revealed the depth of those challenges faced by ecumenists who were impatient for visible unity. Reunion may have been the will of God, as so many well-meaning enthusiasts proclaimed, but that divine imperative did not make it easier to achieve. Indeed, even the most enthusiastic were well aware of institutional barriers that had emerged historically and the real obstacles they DOI: 10.4324/9781003119210-4

48  Pippa Catterall posed to ecumenical advances. These were not simply matters of culture, property, finance, or due diligence. Such considerations certainly applied in the post-war years to processes of building trust and organisational convergence between Churches over everything from congregational culture to transferability of pension rights. Organisational rationalism, which was very much the flavour of the period more widely, could still fall foul of such issues. These were the sort of challenges that complicated – and sometimes undermined – the parallel enthusiasm for industrial mergers, often driven on a top-down basis by technocratically inclined national governments, that occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. Yet mergers between Churches had additional layers of complexity that made them even more difficult to achieve than the technocratic efforts of the Macmillan or Wilson governments to pick national champions. Not least, there was an awareness of all serving and communicating the same God but having, over time, developed different understandings of what ‘Church’ meant. If the divine imperative to overcome these past differences existed, as was so often proclaimed, why had the Churches nonetheless fallen into schism and developed along historically distinct pathways? Trying to unravel these processes and find the point of divergence in the past was thus one of the starting points for ecumenical dialogue. This issue was complicated in England by the peculiarities of its religious environment.1 Churches are transnational bodies, as all parties in the ecumenical dialogues in England in the twentieth century were acutely aware. However, negotiations tended to focus on local unity at a national level, often with limited cognizance being taken of parallel discussions taking place elsewhere. Thus, for instance, the Anglicans and Methodists in conversation in England in the 1950s and 1960s seem to have paid scant attention to the dialogue between their sister Churches in the United States which had commenced in 1942.2 This was probably only in part because of the unambiguous view – albeit privately expressed – of the secretary of the Protestant Episcopal Church’s Unity Commission that re-ordaining Methodists apostolically ‘would be one indispensable but not the sole constitutive basis for intercommunion’.3 Beneath the grandiloquent language of ‘Church’, there was always the largely unspoken issue of the relationship of Churches within and to a particular nation. Indeed, the leader of the Anglican side of the Conversations made clear that he felt that the issues in the United States were very different.4

From Disunity towards Ecumenism The Protestant Churches which began tentative conversations about their relationships with each other in England around the time of the Great War may have shared certain historic and theological roots in the Reformation. By the twentieth century, their separation into distinct bodies was

Church, Episcopacy and Ecumenism  49 nevertheless of long-standing. The conflicts between partisans of different ecclesiological positions over which should emerge dominant in the postReformation Church of England had been resolved not by the divine will but by the State during the seventeenth century. The fundamental split of the various Protestant Free Churches from the Church of England occurred as a rationalisation of the latter by the State in 1662 whereby non-Episcopalian elements were deliberately excluded. This was compounded and formalised when, following the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688–89, attempts at what was called ‘Comprehension’ – the creation of a Church of England able to embrace a broad spectrum of doctrines about theology and Church order – foundered on the impact that ‘bringing in so great a body as the Presbyterians’ would have on both Church and State.5 This constitutional and legal framework continued to shape the environment in which twentieth-century ecumenism operated. As the Methodist lawyer, Henry Woodhouse noted in 1964, ‘Fundamentally, the Church of England is the English people engaged in Christian worship and service. It is the sacred counterpart of the secular state’. Indeed, in law, other Churches did not exist as Churches but simply as voluntary bodies, making unity with Methodism legally preposterous!6 This did not make it unfeasible. However, reunion with an Established Church could not effectively be contemplated without direct State involvement and sponsorship. Until the 1820s, the State was positively opposed to such moves. Thereafter the State continued to attempt to police the Church of England. For instance, the 1865 Clerical Subscription Act, requiring assent to the Thirty Nine Articles, the threefold ordering of the ministry into bishops, priests, and deacons, and the Book of Common Prayer, remains on the statute book and was clearly a potential barrier to a united ministry with Nonconformity.7 Accordingly, it was only as the State’s interest in maintaining a nexus between Church, State and nation waned by the end of the nineteenth century that it became increasingly possible for the Churches themselves to explore ecumenical possibilities.8 By then, those Dissenters who had been excluded from the Church of England in the later seventeenth century had been supplemented by the Methodists who emerged as a group with links to the Church of England through the eighteenth-century ministry of John Wesley. Following Wesley’s death in 1791, this group became more distinct from the Church of England. During the Conversations, the distinguished Methodist historian E. Gordon Rupp and his Anglican opposite number and former mentor Norman Sykes attributed this partly to Anglican hostility to lay preaching and itinerancy, while possibly under-emphasising the role of the State.9 Wesley’s death was also swiftly followed by internal schism in Methodism itself. This process itself illustrated the pre-eminence of organisational issues and authority in causing such divisions. Doctrine and theology were much less significant in these than disputes over the respective roles and authority of ministers

50  Pippa Catterall and laity.10 Simultaneously, though for varying reasons, similar processes of schism were also marked in the early nineteenth century in other Englishspeaking Protestant Churches.11 By the later Victorian period, all parts of a still divided Methodism generally identified more with the rest of what was by then known as Nonconformity than it did with its Anglican origins. Leading Methodists were, for instance, involved in the creation of the National Council of the Evangelical Free Churches in 1896, which emerged not so much as an ecumenical move but as a body to co-ordinate – not very effectively – the interests and evangelical efforts of the denominations involved.12 A significant motive was thus the rationalising one of increasing efficacy and influence. Nonetheless, reinforcing a sense of commonalty and inter-communion between the various Free Churches was a significant ecumenical outcome. Various other developments in the late nineteenth century proved favourable to a growing interest in Church unity. Denominational differences over Church order became less sharp as biblical criticism undermined illusions that a particular Church order or practice was uniquely sanctioned by the New Testament. Missionary activity beyond England’s shores reinforced awareness of the Churches as international institutions trying to make sense of their message in very different settings. In Methodism and Anglicanism, respectively, this internationalism was expressed through the emergence of conferences held every ten years bringing together their various elements from around the world: first with the establishment of the Lambeth Conference in 1867, followed by the Methodist equivalent in 1881. Within England itself, the disappearance of Nonconformist civil disabilities, and the declining willingness of the State to enforce these, cleared the way for greater inter-denominational co-operation. These developments were reinforced by the impact of the Great War, not least on the various branches of Methodism. Intra-Methodist discussions had already led to the union of three smaller groups into the United Methodist Church in 1907. Both the creation of this body and the negotiations which began from January 1918 about further union with its larger counterparts, the Primitive and Wesleyan Methodists, were fraught with difficulty. These problems were partly about supposedly rational considerations. T.B. Stephenson had argued at the 1901 Methodist Ecumenical Conference that everything possible had been done to eliminate wasteful competition among Methodists by inter-denominational fellowship, and further progress could only be achieved by union.13 This was, however, easier said than done. In gathered churches with overlapping networks, deciding which places of worship to merge to achieve efficiency gains is never an easy task, with the result that procrastination too often becomes the default position. Mergers of Circuits and rationalisation of chapel provision consequent on the Methodist union eventually achieved in 1932 accordingly continued well into the 1960s.14 Blithe assumptions about potential gains from

Church, Episcopacy and Ecumenism  51 rationalisation were falsified by the lengthy process and the administrative and cultural challenges it involved. However, if rationalisation had been the main issue, more would have been achieved – for instance, in the moves to create Free Church ‘parishes’ – before 1914.15 Even when negotiations did get under way, debate about how to fulfil the efficiency gains suggested by Stephenson was largely overshadowed by the issues that mattered most to the principal actors, the leading figures in the respective denominations. Thus, the biggest stumbling blocks in the negotiations revolved around doctrines of the ministry, lay presidency at communion, and the statement of the doctrine of the merged body. All of these, not least the last, involved repeated redrafting to find a formulation that was acceptable to all parties. Whatever the imperative for union, the fundamental challenge was to establish a framework and statement of the nature of the newly created body sufficiently broad to avoid conflict with sincerely held beliefs about the nature and purpose of Christianity and Methodism on which even enthusiastic supporters such as the eminent Primitive Methodist Bible scholar A.S. Peake were unwilling to compromise.16 Ecumenical negotiations with the Church of England posed all these challenges and more. Nonetheless, initial discussions with a range of Free Churches were opened in January 1914. An attempt to be inclusive was marked by framing these discussions in terms of ‘In what direction should we look for Christian unity as being hopeful?’ Their interim report in February 1916 made clear that faith and doctrine was just such a hopeful direction. The second report, published in March 1918, reflected that the question of order and the ministry was far more fraught with difficulties, particularly around episcopacy. The leading Wesleyan, John Scott Lidgett recognised that episcopacy had value ‘not on the score of antiquity and prevalence’, though these were facets often emphasised by Anglicans, ‘but as an effective instrument for the administration of the Church’. The report acknowledged that episcopacy was a condition of unity. It qualified this by suggesting that the ancient practice of election of bishops by clergy and people, as opposed to the system of royal appointment which had obtained since the Reformation (and often before), should be revived.17 A variant on such processes was, after all, soon to be introduced in Wales when the Anglican Church was disestablished there in 1920. Peake spoke for many ecumenists when, against the backdrop of the slaughter of the Great War, he urged, ‘The world is yearning for Unity. It is tired and weary of strife’.18 Lidgett invoked the League of Nations, then being envisaged to resolve future international conflict, as a model for mutual recognition between the Churches.19 With the Church of England at the time, even measures of mutual recognition such as pulpit exchanges, let alone inter-communion, did not exist. This lack of regular contact ensured that, whatever the enthusiasms of denominational leaders, mutual

52  Pippa Catterall suspicions ran deep at grassroots level. ‘Anglican clergy’, wrote a Wesleyan minister in 1918, ‘never will meet us on equal terms … we are interlopers in their parishes’.20 There were legal difficulties in establishing inter-communion for a Church established by law. Parliamentary unwillingness to countenance changes to the liturgy was made clear during the Prayer Book debates in 1927–28.21 In other words, the State continued to be a factor in ecumenical relations. The Church Assembly created in 1919 did not prove a successful vehicle for asserting the spiritual autonomy of the Church of England. It was not until after it was replaced by the General Synod in 1970 that it became easier for the Church of England to resolve such issues. Nevertheless, by 1919, many leading Anglicans were willing to contemplate inter-communion with Nonconformists. Such moves, however, were met with threats of schism from the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church.22 Pulpit exchanges should have been easier. Nonetheless, an Anglican committee in 1919 restated opposition, primarily from the same quarter. Bertram Pollock, bishop of Norwich, in August 1919 suggested as a solution that pulpit exchanges could take place on the grounds that the visiting preacher assented to the first three elements of the Lambeth Quadrilateral. Some of his fellow Churchmen were also now advocating inter-communion on the same basis. At the time Pollock’s idea proceeded no further, though in 1922 Lidgett was to become the first Nonconformist to preach in Hereford Cathedral.23 Pollock’s invocation of the Quadrilateral, however, reflected its importance in Anglican thinking during the crescendo of ecumenical discussions that accompanied and immediately followed the Great War.

The Lambeth Appeal and inter-war Developments Formulated in 1870 by the American Episcopalian priest, W.R. Huntington, the Quadrilateral was adopted in slightly altered form by the Lambeth Conference in 1888. Writing in the aftermath of a bloody civil war, Huntington proposed a Church of reconciliation that would gather together Christ’s scattered sheep, to be based upon agreement around scripture, the creeds, the sacraments of baptism and communion, and the historic episcopacy. These four elements were for Huntington the ‘Quadrilateral of pure Anglicanism’. Indeed, Huntington argued that ‘Because the English StateChurch has muffled these first principles in a cloud of non-essential … she mourns to this day the loss of half her children’.24 As the 1916 report suggested and Pollock acknowledged, the first three of these elements were relatively uncontroversial. Nonetheless, when adopted by the 1888 Lambeth Conference, they made little headway. The Wesleyan Conference at the time noted that these, especially the last, ‘do not … provide a practical ground for discussion of the subject’.25 As the ‘Appeal to All Christian People’ from the revived Lambeth Conference in 1920 made clear, the Quadrilateral was, however, the only real practical basis for Anglican

Church, Episcopacy and Ecumenism  53 engagement in discussions on Church unity. And, while there may have been more Methodists than Anglicans globally (and more Baptists than either),26 the Church of England’s local significance and preponderance made it central to any ecumenical initiatives in England. The Appeal trenchantly proclaimed: ‘We believe that the Holy Spirit has called us in a very solemn and special manner to associate ourselves in penitence and prayer with all those who deplore the divisions of Christian people …. We believe that God wills fellowship’. God may indeed have willed this, but the next two paragraphs began to reflect on the institutional obstacles confronting divine intentions. After noting Anglicanism’s relations and inter-communion with historic episcopal Churches, the lack of fellowship and communion with non-Episcopalian Churches is obliquely acknowledged. This ‘sin of disunion’ was ‘contrary to God’s will, and we desire frankly to confess our share in the guilt of thus crippling the Body of Christ’. This was an important admission for a Church which historically had tended to see Nonconformists, as their name suggests, as the schismatics. How, then, was this hindrance to be removed? ‘The time has come’, the Appeal continued, ‘for all the separated groups of Christians to agree in forgetting the things which are behind and reaching out towards the goal of a reunited Catholic Church’. This new unity was to be achieved by a ‘rich diversity of life and devotion’ and a ministry based on ‘the inward call of the Spirit’ around the core basis of all four elements of the Quadrilateral. ‘May we not reasonably claim that the episcopate is the one means of providing such a ministry?’ queried the Appeal. The reasonableness of this proposition that episcopacy was the one means of achieving a united ministry was questionable. Churches which had conscientiously objected to what they saw as the unscriptural office of bishops since the seventeenth century were thus enjoined to forget this stance for the sake of wider union. It remained a problem for objectors like Franz Hildebrandt when he remonstrated in 1958: It is false to Christ and to scripture, and sectarian in spirit, to make Christian unity dependent upon any form of ministry or organisation. Nothing in the New Testament supports such a demand …. A Church’s ministry is authenticated by the Gospel it proclaims, not the Gospel by the Ministry that proclaims it.27 An attempt to allay such concerns was made in stating that a bishop’s office should be ‘exercised in a representative and constitutional manner’. Quite how the ‘representative’ part of this was to be achieved given the role of Crown nomination to a diocese was obscure. Indeed, as the Establishment subcommittee of the Conversations noted in 1967, appointment by the Crown ‘and the absence of potentially disruptive electoral procedures has preserved a unity in many a diocese and province’ given the internal doctrinal tensions within the Church of England.28

54  Pippa Catterall Furthermore, the centrality of ‘that grace which is pledged to the members of the whole body in the apostolic rite of the laying-on of hands’ to this particular conception of the ministry had been reasserted by the end of the paragraph. As a quid pro quo, the Appeal made clear that Anglican bishops and clergy would submit to whatever alternative ‘form of commission or recognition’ other denominations might require of them. That this was not necessarily going to be seen by either party as a reciprocal arrangement was, however, tacitly encoded by the way in which the Appeal document only explicitly used the important term ‘grace’ in conjunction with the process of episcopal ordination. Nonetheless, the Appeal emphasised that such a process did not entail a repudiation of past ministries or the fruits of the Spirit with which they may have been blessed. Episcopal ordination by the laying on of hands was thus acknowledged as not the only means to exercising an effective ministry in the past. The central problem was how such a ministry might look in the ‘new and great endeavour to recover and to manifest to the world the unity of the Body of Christ for which he prayed’.29 The Appeal was in many ways the framing document for the ecumenical dialogues over the ensuing decades and at its core lay this question of the nature of ministry and how it was ordained in the imagined united body. Episcopacy per se was not necessarily the issue. As numerous commentators observed in the 1960s, Methodism had long incorporated the functionality of episcopacy. The Methodist Conference, in stationing and exercising spiritual oversight of ministers, embodied a collective episcopacy within British Methodism. Elsewhere, American Methodism had always had bishops. Bishops were also central to the ministry of the Church of South India, in which Anglicans and Methodists, with those of other Reformed traditions, had united in 1947. Such offices could be seen by Methodists as having organisational utility, but this did not mean that they were the esse – fundamental to the nature – of the Church.30 Many of their Anglican counterparts disagreed: episcopacy in apostolic succession for them was not only the characteristic of most historic Churches – including those Old Catholic Churches with which Anglicanism established inter-communion ties through the Bonn agreement in 1931 – but also very definitely of the esse of the Church. The irony that Leo XIII had roundly dismissed the Anglican Church’s claim to stand in apostolic succession in the Papal Bull Apostolicae curae in 1896 was certainly acknowledged by Anglo-Catholics,31 but it never seems to have stopped them insisting on it anyway in any ecumenical dialogues with the Free Churches. There was a fundamental, if rarely acknowledged Platonism behind this view: as Sykes put it during the Anglican– Methodist Conversations, ‘the historic episcopate which we commend is not intended to be a copy of our own imperfect expression of it, but an ideal’.32 Accordingly, when the Appeal referred to episcopacy as the one means to a united ministry, this acknowledged that this was the one means

Church, Episcopacy and Ecumenism  55 acceptable to the bulk of Anglican opinion, as figures like Peake were clearly aware.33 Methodist (and Free Church) responses were now – in the changed circumstances of the time – much more positive than in 1888. Formal inter-church discussions with the major Nonconformist denominations commenced on 30 November 1921. Many of the themes that re-emerged in the 1950s were first aired then, such as opposition among Congregationalists, Baptists and some Methodists to the credal element of the Quadrilateral, or the question of ecclesiastical relations with the State. The greatest difficulties, predictably, centred on the nature of the ministry. That Nonconformists exercised real ministries was conceded in a 1923 Anglican memorandum. Nonetheless, they were still seen as requiring episcopal laying on of hands in order to conduct Anglican services, and especially the Eucharist. This was, a further memorandum made clear in 1925, not a matter of spiritual efficacy but of the episcopal authority central to the Anglican vision of the Church as established by the Quadrilateral. The discussions thus reached an impasse and were terminated by mutual agreement.34 They resumed following the 1930 Lambeth Conference against the backdrop of the Church of South India negotiations. Progress continued to be limited, even on the issue of inter-communion. To some extent, this reflected bodies talking at cross-purposes, not least about what it meant to be a Church, let alone a united one. Consider the differing views on this matter articulated in the 1930s. Methodist reunion in 1932 had led that denomination to rethink such questions, with Conference producing an extensive statement on The Nature of the Christian Church in 1937. This emphasised that the Church was the Body of Christ whose mission was to preach the Gospel. The Church’s nature is therefore inseparable from its function; indeed, ‘It might even be said that the Church comes to its unity and fullness of growth through the ministry’. This ministry is seen as based on God’s gifts of grace. Although it was conceded as highly probable that the laying on of hands was largely practised in the apostolic age … the New Testament tells us little, and therefore it is difficult to believe that any principle essential to the Church … was involved in that rite.35 In any case, Wesleyans, who had since 1836 practised the laying on of hands as ordination into the whole Church rather than just Methodism, did not have any problem with the rite itself, except the insistence that episcopacy in apostolic succession was central to it.36 Wesley’s view that the New Testament acknowledges no distinction between the offices that have come to be known as bishops and presbyters was cited in 1937 as the basis for his decision – having failed to persuade the Bishop of London to do so – to ordain on his own authority.37 The Archbishop of York, William Temple, who was taking a leading role on the Anglican side of these conversations, had two years earlier suggested

56  Pippa Catterall that the fundamental barrier to reunion was not the nature of the ministry, but the doctrine of the Church. However, as both the Methodists’ 1937 statement and Temple’s own comments testified, the two were intimately intertwined. In reiterating in 1935 why inter-communion between the Church of England and Nonconformity could not occur, Temple stressed that until all ministers were episcopally ordained, open communion according to the Anglican rite was impossible. Mutual recognition of ministries, he argued, would not heal schism or create a united Church, for there would be no unified authority to direct that Church and no single system of ministry.38 Achieving agreement on the logic of unity was reasonably easy: witness the preliminary statement of the Outline of a Reunion Scheme for the Church of England and the Evangelical Free Churches of England published in February 1938 that ‘As there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so there must be one Body, one Fellowship of the people of God’. It was over the nature of that one Body wherein dissension lay. The uniformity of Church order, which Temple had already made clear he regarded as essential to be a Church at all, was demurred by the Methodist Conference in 1939. Indeed, Temple’s private complaint to Archbishop Lang of Canterbury in 1932 that Nonconformists cared more for co-operation than unity was partially borne out by Conference’s suggestion that ‘each of the uniting communions might at first be recognised as semi-autonomous within the united Church’.39 Nonetheless, Methodism in 1939 returned a nuanced response to Outline. It was made clear that Methodism could not accept a view that episcopacy and apostolic succession were indispensable to the constitution of the Church. Such unbiblical tenets were,40 however, neatly sidestepped in Outline by the studied ambiguity of the declaration on page15 that ‘the acceptance of Episcopal ordination … neither affirms nor excludes the view that Apostolic Succession determines the validity of the Ministry and Sacraments’. Conference in 1939 was reassured by the recognition in Outline that authority was to be conciliar, rather than episcopal. As far as entry to the ministry was concerned, it was also reassured by the insistence in Outline that ‘Presbyters should be associated with the bishop in the ceremony of ordination and the laity should have a share in the process by which a candidate is approved for ordination’. Similarly, that this process was not to be seen as a repudiation of past ministries was welcomed. The Methodist response to Outline instead merely quibbled about the lack of emphasis on evangelism and the role of the laity.41

From Fisher’s 1946 Sermon to Church Relations in England The onset of the Second World War, and the frosty response the Free Churches collectively delivered to Outline in 1941, prevented any immediate further developments. With the end of hostilities, in 1946, Archbishop

Church, Episcopacy and Ecumenism  57 Geoffrey Fisher of Canterbury invited Nonconformity to resume the talks. Before they could respond, Fisher set out a new approach to these in his celebrated Cambridge sermon of 3 November 1946. This sought to avoid the concentration on uniformity of ecclesiastical government that the Methodist Conference had criticised in 1939. Echoing Methodism’s call for autonomous growing together in 1939, Fisher envisaged that ‘while the folds remain distinct, there should be a movement towards a free and unfettered exchange of life in worship and sacrament’.42 This inter-communion would be facilitated by seeing the Church, as agreed at the international and ecumenical Faith and Order conference at Lausanne in 1927, as constituted historically by the episcopacy, presbyters and laity. Having been represented at Lausanne and accepted this declaration, Fisher’s message was that the English Free Churches should now facilitate the growing together he sketched out by taking episcopacy into their own systems.43 This would have the effect of making the various denominations more similar organisationally. Fisher’s concluding remarks make clear that he saw this as a means whereby the uniting bodies could find a means ‘to grow to full communion with each other before we start to write a constitution’.44 Fisher thus retained the Lambeth Quadrilateral intact and the ecumenical initiative, whilst placing the onus on the Free Churches to grow towards the Church of England based upon commitments they had already made. Methodism reiterated many points from 1939 in responding positively to Fisher’s call. Talks with various Free Churches began in 1947 and led to publication of Church Relations in England in 1950. This demonstrated that matters of doctrine were not what divided the various denominations. Despite some differences over the desirability of credal formulations, fundamental agreement was reached over matters of faith. It was also recognised that differences over the sacraments were within as much as between churches. In such circumstances, Church Relations was able to cite with approval the Anglican agreement with the Old Catholics that ‘Intercommunion does not require from either Communion the acceptance of all doctrinal opinion, sacramental devotion, or liturgical practice characteristic of the other, but implies that each believes the other to hold all the essentials of the Christian faith’.45 The difficulties, as usual, were over Church order and ministry. As one sympathetic Anglican reviewer, J.P. Hickinbotham, noted, Church Relations demonstrated that some had an emphasis on the Church being constituted by ‘means of grace … whatever its outward form and order’, while others ‘start from the belief that the Church is an outwardly and historically continuous society, the necessary marks of this continuity being a particular form of ministry’. Accordingly, while the former group – largely Nonconformists but also containing many evangelical Anglicans – saw no real barriers to inter-communion, this remained difficult to achieve while there was not agreement among all parties ‘that the Sacraments of all the

58  Pippa Catterall Churches concerned are administered by those whom they can recognise as duly qualified to do so’.46 Other points that then preponderant High Anglicans might have been inclined to insist on, such as episcopal confirmation, were conceded because too many historic exceptions were acknowledged. Similarly, it was agreed that under this scheme the Free Churches would be able to maintain inter-communion with non-episcopal Churches. Not only was this a long-standing condition for Nonconformists anyway, but it was already a feature of Anglican Church relations with Lutherans.47 Accordingly, the most controversial aspect of the scheme was the proposal that movement towards unity should be phased, with progress centred on adoption by the Free Churches of an episcopate consecrated by apostolic succession as a necessary condition of inter-communion. This built upon the recent efforts of Anglo-Catholics like the bishop of Oxford, Kenneth Kirk, to argue that priesthood could only be legitimately exercised by those who had been so ordained.48 This was not, as his son-in-law Eric Kemp subsequently clarified, because Anglo-Catholics believed that bishops could give grace, ‘but that the Holy Spirit comes upon the ordinand in response to the prayer of the Church uttered by the bishop who is authorised to pray’.49 Sykes’ observation in 1948 that Anglicans were much less particular about episcopal ordination and the apostolic succession in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries seemingly had little impact on this core stipulation of Church Relations.50 Fisher had tried to shift the debate towards the promotion of co-operation and inter-communion. However, the effect of Church Relations was a return to an insistence that progress on that front required a united ministry and Church that all could agree on. The main difference was that a phased approach had now also been mooted. This invited Nonconformists to adopt episcopacy as a means gradually to achieve inter-communion and create a united ministry and Church. This brought into stark relief the practical difficulties of Fisher’s idea of growing together. As was later noted, ‘On this plan, full inter-communion would only be achieved when all Methodist ministers had been episcopally ordained (some fifty years, perhaps)’.51 This and the concomitant creation of two classes of ministry proved unattractive. Church Relations, Hickinbotham noted, had accordingly put forward as an alternative the idea that such difficulties could ‘be avoided if some satisfactory form of further commissioning for existing ministers could be worked out’.52 Most Nonconformists were not attracted to the idea of adopting episcopacy without clarity on further steps to unity. When the Convocations of Canterbury and York agreed in 1953 to set up a commission to explore the next steps in this ecumenical odyssey, only Methodism responded positively. On the proposal of its Faith and Order Committee, a resolution was approved by Conference to resume talks, subject to Church of England assurances:

Church, Episcopacy and Ecumenism  59 a) That the Church of England acknowledges that our divisions are within the Christian body which is throughout in a state of schism; b) That the same liberty of interpretation of the nature of episcopacy and of priesthood would be accorded to the Methodist Church as prevails in the Church of England; c) That the Methodist Church would be free to preserve the relations of inter-communion and fellowship with other non-episcopal Churches which it now enjoys.53 The first condition shows that the 1920 Lambeth Appeal still had not buried lingering fears of Anglican disdain at ‘schismatics’. It is unclear whether the third was made in the knowledge that Anglicans had similar issues in their relations with Old Catholics and Orthodox Churches. It certainly demonstrated that Church Relations had not provided complete reassurance that inter-communion with non-episcopal Churches was agreed with the Church of England. Nor did the equivocal response, conceding the idea only in principle but not necessarily in practice. With many High Anglicans then refusing inter-communion with the Church of South India on the grounds that many of its clergy had not been – in their eyes – validly ordained (episcopally through apostolic succession), this equivocation was only to be expected. Even after the relations with South India were resolved in 1955, 400 clergy in the York Convocation continued to express their doubts about the legitimacy of its faith, order and sacraments.54 This Anglo-Catholic recalcitrance was not lost on Methodists dubious about negotiations. Noting the way in which this minority of bishops had successfully stymied progress on South India at Lambeth 1948, Kingsley Barrett – an eminent New Testament scholar from a United Methodist background – mordantly observed the way in which the Anglo-Catholics’ principal organisation, the Church Union ‘finds deadly perils to catholicity lurking’ in all ecumenical schemes. Barrett went on in this 1951 lecture to point out that Nonconformists had to resist the Anglo-Catholic tendency ‘to act as if their interpretation of Episcopacy were the only one in the Church of England, and to make acceptance of it the indispensable condition of Reunion or Inter-Communion’55 Indeed, the Methodists’ second condition was as important to Evangelicals within the Church of England itself – who often had a purely functional view of the office of bishop – as it was to Methodists.56

The First Phase of the Conversations 1956–58 This cautious response was met by an Anglican suggestion that the term ‘schism’ should be avoided. Discussion, instead, was to be seen as taking place within the Body of Christ. This ambiguous setting enabled agreement that ‘conversations … exploratory in character and unrestricted in scope’ should commence in July 1956.57 George Bell, bishop of Chichester

60  Pippa Catterall and one of the key figures in the wartime creation of the World Council of Churches, was appointed to chair the Anglican side. His Methodist co-chair was Harold Roberts, principal of Richmond College and soon to become President of the Methodist Conference in 1957. Both felt that these negotiations, the first between the Anglicans and a single Free Church, held more potential than previous efforts, with Roberts noting ‘The existing differences between Methodism … and the Baptists and Congregationalists … are such as to make joint negotiations quite impracticable’.58 The Conversations teams were each 12 strong. They were not particularly seasoned in ecumenical work in contrast to the continuity of personnel throughout much of the inter-war years. Only four of the Anglicans and one Methodist had been directly involved with Church Relations.59 Both sides had only a limited negotiating brief: on the Anglican side, they were merely to negotiate ‘on the basis of the report on Church Relations in England … and to prepare proposals to put before the Convocations’.60 Bell was tasked with finding three laypersons, two other bishops and five clergy. Fisher’s prejudices showed in this letter of appointment, not least in commenting ‘The Evangelicals have not got any particularly good people in Convocation’.61 Bell, fresh from working with figures like Kirk and Eric Kemp on resolving Anglican relations with South India, was under no illusions about the challenge, noting ‘It will take some time to achieve results, even of a preliminary character’.62 Fisher’s tendency to agree who should be on the team with Leslie Weatherhead, then the President of the Methodist Conference, behind Bell’s back may not have entirely helped. Sykes, who Bell initially sought unsuccessfully to include because of his expertise on eighteenth-century Church history, was put on the negotiating team with the Orthodox instead, while Herbert Hodges – an expert on Orthodoxy63 – was appointed as the lay academic to the Anglican–Methodist Conversations. A disgruntled Sykes commented: [T]he episode confirms my impression that it is useless to waste one’s time on contemporary Anglican issues, when they are treated in this way. Of your commission, Oxford, Kemp, du Toit and Riley are there simply as Anglo-Catholics and without any knowledge of Anglican-Methodist history. Liverpool, Greenslade and Taylor are there as Evangelicals.64 Bell was sufficiently alarmed by the contrast between the scholarly team Weatherhead had approved for Methodism and the partisan-balancing on his own that he importuned Fisher: ‘We shall look foolish if the Methodist experts … find no-one on our side who can deal with real assurance and knowledge, with the origins [of the present situation]’.65 While Sykes, Bell and Fisher were debating the Anglican team in February 1956 – with Sykes eventually added to it the following month – John Lawrence went on BBC radio to set the scene for the Conversations. Lawrence was the editor of the Christian Frontier Newsletter and one of

Church, Episcopacy and Ecumenism  61 the figures Bell had unsuccessfully canvassed to include.66 He pointed out that the main problem in the Conversations would be the lack of mutual recognition of the ministry. Associated problems would make it difficult to comply with the Methodist demand that they retain inter-communion with Nonconformity. No less of a problem was continuing Anglican disdain for and ignorance of Methodist folk in the parishes. In particular, Lawrence suggested that Anglo-Catholicism would pose the latter with a culture shock.67 In response, Bell drew attention to Wesley’s sacramentalism.68 AngloCatholics were nonetheless frequently disdainful of those, like the Methodist Sacramental Fellowship founded in 1931, who had sought to revive such traditions.69 Moreover, large numbers of Methodists, particularly those from Primitive or United backgrounds, would no doubt have felt exactly the culture shock Lawrence spoke of. Awareness of this had even been expressed in the joint report from the Convocations of Canterbury and York in 1955, which had established the basis for the Church of England entering the Conversations. This noted ‘For many Methodists, the Catholic vocabulary is strange, and even suspect. They regard clericalism as historically a great evil in the Church of God, and have striven to set up safeguards against it’.70 This joint report also set up some safeguards of its own, particularly the stipulation that ‘before steps were taken to extend the episcopate to a Free Church, the Church of England would need to be assured that the office of a priest … would be safeguarded in its ordinal and practice’.71 Methodist commentators like Barrett at the time envisaged a whole slew of other potential problems for the Established Church, including a need for primary legislation.72 As his fellow Methodist, J.S.M. Hooper, pointed out to Bell – scarred from his experiences on the Faith and Order Committee’s deliberations with Anglicans over the founding of the Church of North India – episcopal ordination was nonetheless always the fundamental stumbling block which engendered the ‘fog of suspicion and ambiguity that besets so much thinking and writing about Church relations in which Anglicanism is involved’.73 Indeed, the problem was not episcopacy per se, which as Bell responded had been a sine qua non for Anglicans since the Lambeth Appeal, but the Anglo-Catholic interpretation of it which all too easily struck nonAnglicans as expressing ‘a view of the ministry and of the mind of God with regard to it for which he can find no basis in the New Testament, and very little outside it’.74 Despite the suspicions Methodist Dissentients came to express about him, Roberts was no less clear about the stumbling block this approach to episcopacy posed. In an interview during the run-up to the commencement to the Conversations, he emphasised that Methodism could only accept episcopacy on a functional, not an apostolic basis.75 A year later in a paper drafted for the Conversations, he set out his position even more starkly: Methodism cannot admit that episcopacy is indispensable … or that without episcopacy there is no Church. It would be further constrained

62  Pippa Catterall to declare that it cannot conceive of a higher ministry than that of the Word and Sacraments and would affirm that the distinction between bishop and minister is that of function.76 The secretary of the Church Assembly Overseas Council wrote to Bell in April 1956 enthusing about the value of the talks in the mission field, long a key stimulus for ecumenism.77 Bell himself approached these negotiations with his characteristic energy and determination, making clear to his team that he sought an interim report in time for the next Lambeth Conference in 1958,78 a timeline that alarmed less ecumenical colleagues like Lionel du Toit.79 On the eve of the Conversations, he privately set out what he saw as the way forward. This emphasised that to realise full inter-communion, ‘unification of the ministry would be necessary’. The issue was how to achieve this. Bell suggested that ‘This would be affirmed by a service of mutual authorisation’ beginning with ‘a Preface acknowledging that the ministries concerned are ordained ministries of the Universal Church’ and including a prayer that God will supply each minister involved with ‘whatever he may need’ by way of grace. The idea that a united ministry is created by a uniting service was not a new one. Bell was, however, aware of the problem of how such a service would be interpreted. It was necessary, he suggested, to make it clear that it did not express a repudiation of Methodist order. Instead, Methodists should be seen rather as ‘seeking admission to the full heritage of the other Church’, a formulation which nonetheless made clear which Church Bell thought had the fuller heritage.80 On 28 June 1956, the Conversations opened at Selwyn College, Cambridge, and proceeded on a twice-yearly basis at various Oxbridge locations.81 Very rapidly Hooper’s stumbling block emerged as a key theme. Following the initial meeting, the first flurry of position papers all focused on episcopacy. Harold Riley’s relatively emollient contribution noted that the Methodist superintendent is primus inter pares without the authority, pastor pastorum, wielded by a bishop.82 Kemp’s ‘Apostolic Succession’ was a more thoroughgoing defence of the Anglo-Catholic position. Emphasising the role of episcopacy in the Early Church as a safeguard against heresy, and therefore its fundamental role in his conception of what Church is, Kemp stressed that the absence of apostolic succession in the Church of South India needed to be exceptional. However, he sought to balance this hard line by suggesting that Methodists should also point out defects in Anglican orders and life. For Kemp, this mutual pointing of fingers seemed a ‘sounder and more Christian way than to try and devise a formula which will be interpreted by each of us in a different sense’.83 This was, as Kemp was no doubt aware, a false equivalent. There were, as Tom Jessop pointed out, plenty of non-theological characteristics which Methodists felt were particular to their witness, such as simplicity, spontaneity and hymn-singing,84 but these did not touch upon the essence of ministry. Methodists often felt Anglican ministry was deficient, not least in the preaching of the Word. A

Church, Episcopacy and Ecumenism  63 later joint paper for the Conversations by the Methodist Eric Baker and the Anglican Stanley Greenslade indeed argued that addressing such deficiencies was part of the means to unity.85 These were, however, deficiencies of practice and not of order. Methodists did not believe that Anglicans needed to be re-ordained to be better preachers, while Kemp – and even more du Toit – did believe that Methodists needed to be re-ordained into the apostolic succession. Behind this issue was an existential difference in conceptions of whether to be a Church is about its functions or its order. As Barrett later put it, AngloCatholics appeared to hold that the Holy Spirit was immanent within the Church rather than transcendent over it and working through it.86 The distinction was more subtle than that, as Kemp’s observations above on grace and ordination bear witness. Nonetheless, because so many on the Anglican side could not divorce their conception of the Church from the exercise of episcopacy, discussion focused on the latter rather than more fundamental issues of ecclesiology. Indeed, the second meeting of the Conversations appears to have been dominated by Kemp’s paper and Rupp’s robust attack both on its historicity and the ‘mystique’ of episcopacy it expressed. Indeed, the very doctrine of episcopacy, Rupp argued, was ‘full of ambiguities’.87 The following meeting in June 1957 was similarly shaped by Roberts’ aforementioned paper on this perennial subject. The gap between the two sides on episcopacy was spelt out by Roberts in a letter to Bell in preparation for this meeting. In contrast to the position largely held among the Anglicans, Roberts noted that It is doubtful … whether the suggestion that the acceptance of Episcopacy would be a ‘recovery’ is likely to make a widespread appeal to Methodism. I think myself that we have to stress that Episcopacy expresses what we already hold – the continuity of the Church with the Church of the Apostles.88 He thus claimed that the only succession from the apostles that mattered was one of faith and doctrine, rather than the Anglo-Catholic insistence of the laying on of hands. The minutes of that meeting note, ‘It was agreed that episcopacy, though not necessarily in its English form, is necessary for the enrichment of church life, and should therefore be sought in any scheme of Church union’. With that as a starting point, Bell sought to sketch out a way forward. Commencing with recognition of the validity of Methodist orders, Bell argued that the way to unity lay through the following two-element route which avoided the long transition period seen in South India: 1) Episcopal ordination in Methodism allowing inter-communion with Methodist ministers who had been episcopally ordained, while pulpit exchanges could occur with those who had not;

64  Pippa Catterall 2) Unification of the ministries by a Service of Reconciliation which, to address Kemp’s point about mutual deficiencies, would include a prayer referencing respectively the historic episcopate and Methodist holiness. It would also commission all the assembled clergy anew into the united Church by a laying on of hands by a bishop from the other Church.89 Sykes was by no means so optimistic. Immediately following this third conference he wrote to Bell, ‘I came away last evening with the grave doubt as to whether I ought not to resign membership, as a token of my admiration and sympathy for the Methodists and dissent from the rigid position of our own group’. To him, this was already making a sham of Bell’s Service of Reconciliation idea: We are asking [Methodism] to accept an episcopacy not simply in order to conform to the rule or form, but in order to give their ministry what it does not possess, and in return not to realise that Anglicans think that the commission to be given by Methodists neither conveys nor symbolises anything. I do not think there is the slightest chance of Methodism accepting so unilateral a proposal.90 Sykes stressed that the Service of Reconciliation had to be based upon genuine mutuality. Ever the ecclesiastical diplomat, Bell reassured Sykes on the importance of mutuality, while noting the centrality of the issue of ‘in what form can an expression of mutuality be made?’91 At this point, Bell does not even seem to have been clear as to how to get to the ordination of Methodist bishops.92 Accordingly, it is not surprising that a key member of his team, H.J. Carpenter (who had become Bishop of Oxford in 1955 following Kirk’s death), suggested cutting the Service of Reconciliation from the draft papers sent to the Methodists in anticipation of the fourth meeting of the Conversations.93 When Roberts did see it, he seems to spotted exactly the problem Sykes identified, suggesting that the draft might be ‘modified in such a way as will not leave the impression that the Church of England is making demands on Methodism whereas Methodism is not bringing anything to the Church of England’.94 Around the same time, one of Roberts’ team, Leslie Davison, suggested a way for Methodists to engage with the historic episcopate. While dubious of a mechanistic insistence on apostolic succession, Davison accepted that episcopacy had been an important device for countering the gnostic challenge in the Early Church. Episcopacy could thus be accepted as of the bene esse, though not the esse of the Church. Methodism, he argued, could ‘make a substantial contribution to the reunion of Christendom and to the development of her own inheritance if these necessary functions now dispersed were brought together in the office of a consecrated person, called of God, and authorised by the Church and standing in the Apostolic

Church, Episcopacy and Ecumenism  65 Succession’. Episcopacy ‘freed from the secular forces’ of the State, ‘could be restored to its original spiritual purpose’. As with Bell, the problem was how to get there. Davison recognised that any suggestion that the Service of Reconciliation was a re-ordination of Methodists had to be avoided.95 One of the other papers submitted to the Conversations at this time suggested that the way to achieve this was by adopting the studied ambiguity used in recent ecumenical projects in India and Ceylon by a refusal to specify in which ways previous ministries may have been defective.96 Davison’s reading of the common ground on episcopacy was reflected in the approach taken in the Interim Statement published in the summer of 1958.97 Bell had achieved his self-imposed deadline. Roberts wrote to him following the publication of Interim Statement noting the predictable opposition of Barrett but optimistic about the prospects of success.98 Bell, who had suffered a stroke at the latest Conversations meeting in April, was not to live to see this. Perhaps if Bell had not died that October, Roberts’ optimism would have been rewarded. Bell’s place as leader of the Anglican team was taken by the less dynamic Carpenter.99

The Conversations 1958–63 The issue of the Fisher approach to growing together had not altogether gone away. A report for the 1958 Lambeth Conference – giving the example of Beirut where six or seven Catholic bishops presided over different rites – suggested that a similar approach might be a means to achieve intercommunion with the Free Churches.100 As late as 1964, Oliver Tomkins, the Bishop of Bristol, asked ‘Should we not be much more likely to get union, at least of a sort, if we thought in terms of federation between existing bodies instead of holding out for a doctrinaire concept of one Church’.101 Many of those Methodists who responded to the Interim Statement by endorsing Barrett’s opposition to it seem to have felt the same way, echoing his complaint to Conference in 1958 that Roberts’ team had exceeded their brief by allowing the Conversations to move beyond inter-communion.102 Barrett’s 1958 Conference speech ended by arguing that while some Anglican participants in the Conversations, such as his University of Durham colleague, Stanley Greenslade, advocated immediate inter-communion, there was no way forward as long as the general Church of England refused to grasp that ‘full validity and regularity of Churchmanship are not dependent upon Episcopalian legalism’.103 Many also wrote to Roberts opposing episcopacy.104 Nonetheless, the response of those Barrett canvassed was sufficiently mixed for him to decide not to follow up his Conference speech the following year with a multi-signature letter of dissent in the Methodist Recorder.105 Meanwhile, Roberts sought to manage Barrett’s opposition by bringing him into the Conversations. Barrett missed the eighth meeting in December 1959, which discussed the absence of an official Methodist doctrine of

66  Pippa Catterall communion and the fraught issues of lay officiation at Methodist communion and their use of non-alcoholic wine.106 Barrett’s first attendance was at the following meeting in April 1960, where the discussions on the sacraments were concluded with a review of the respective Churches’ positions on baptism.107 Interestingly, the concern about efficient use of resources that had exercised Free Church ecumenists in the late nineteenth century had little role in the Conversations. Nor, correspondingly, did the Conversations feature much in the inquiry under Leslie Paul into the ‘inadequate and wasteful’ deployment of clergy set up by the Church Assembly in July 1960.108 Instead, in the Conversations, the key issues remained episcopacy and the Service of Reconciliation. The former clearly was a major stumbling block: in the run-up to the 11th meeting in March 1961, at which it was agreed to publish in 1963, Riley noted: I don’t see that any Report will help much unless either Methodists can show Anglicans that the episcopal ministry is a thing indifferent, or else Anglicans can show Methodists that it is needed for theological reasons (and neither of these seem to have happened yet).109 Riley overlooked that Roberts and a number of his colleagues were prepared to accept episcopacy for pragmatic reasons. Roberts and Carpenter’s joint memorandum at the 11th meeting agreed that the time for organic union was not yet ripe. Yet this proved the germ of a two-stage scheme for unity. The first stage of this, which would allow for inter-communion immediately, was a unification of the ministries. This, however, would only be possible once Methodism was considered by all Anglicans to possess a ‘fully constituted apostolic ministry’. Although the possibility of serious division within Methodism was foreseen, the memorandum ended by suggesting that ‘without denying the spiritual realities of its former ministries, the Methodist ministry may be constituted on an episcopal basis that conformed to the ordinal in the Book of Common Prayer’. It was presumed that something like a 20-year transition phase would then be required to reach Stage 2.110 Subsequently, Roberts sought to justify this position to Barrett. There was, he pointed out, no possibility of reunion without acceptance of the Lambeth Quadrilateral and Methodism had already agreed to episcopacy in South India.111 This was hardly likely to persuade Barrett, who regarded the Anglican conception of the priesthood as a corrupting inheritance from pagan Rome (whereas the only true priest is Christ), disliked the conformity required by the Book of Common Prayer, and felt Methodist witness had been swallowed up in South India.112 Barrett and another Methodist Dissentient, Norman Snaith, professed their zeal for unity, but recorded that they could not support this approach at the 12th meeting in September 1961.113 Provision in the ensuing report for the dissent expressed by four Methodist members of the Conversations

Church, Episcopacy and Ecumenism  67 was agreed at the 14th meeting in April 1962.114 Barrett’s ringing critique of a process which would see ‘The more scriptural Church order … swallowed up by the less’ was read at the 15th and final meeting of the Conversations.115 Meanwhile, planning for the major elements of the report began to take shape, with the outline agreed at the 12th meeting. Eric Baker, in his role as secretary of the Methodist Conference, produced a paper on the mechanisms for appointing Methodist bishops and developing liaison between Anglican dioceses and Methodist districts. It is not clear what social impact he thought that the latter might have at the level of individual places of worship as he concluded that the emerging scheme would have little effect on the Methodist laity, except by bringing to an end the already vanishing practice of lay presidency at communion, a practice which had been regularly and critically raised by Anglicans throughout the Conversations.116 Focus was instead on the ministry, with Kemp and Hodges deputed to prepare the Service of Reconciliation at the 13th meeting in January 1962. Kemp, who effectively took on this task, was in no doubt that what he saw as the unsatisfactory arrangements in South India had to be avoided. Instead, along the lines of the subsequent North India scheme, it was made clear that ‘unification will be once for all at the beginning and that then Episcopal Ordination will have to be the rule for the future’.117 If episcopal ordination had to be the rule in future, then was the Service of Reconciliation Kemp drafted effectively a re-ordination of the Methodist ministry? Kemp’s liturgy was intended to shroud such issues in ambiguity. As he later put it: ‘The basic principle of the Service of Reconciliation is that we place ourselves in the hands of God and ask him to give to each of us what He alone knows we need’. To aid this process, Kemp sought to borrow from each Church’s traditions, insisting that this was why the laying on of hands was such a feature.118 In practice, however, it was not how God interpreted the Service, but how it was interpreted by those who were to participate in it that mattered. Baker pointed out in October 1962 that Methodists could interpret the rite in their own way. The analogy he used at the Methodist training college of Wesley House in Cambridge was of conducting a baptism when you know that the parents have a different understanding of the rite from you, an analogy that would probably have alarmed Kemp. Against the backdrop of the final phases of Macmillan’s first attempt to take Britain into the European Economic Community, Baker roundly declared himself in favour of both efforts to achieve a greater unity. Some of his audience, nonetheless, were clearly unconvinced that what would result, from the Conversations at least, was unity rather than absorption.119

Ambiguity, Liturgy and Law 1963–65 Nor did the Service’s ambiguity satisfy all. J.I. Packer’s thoughtful response, even after several further revisions, was that ‘ambiguity in theological statements is only vicious when it either misleads by concealing from view

68  Pippa Catterall differences which ought to be exposed or … issues which, for the sake of the Gospel, need to be unambiguously resolved’. He accepted that ‘Ambiguity is pardonable and unavoidable, for one can never say anything, in theology or any other field, that does not leave some questions still open’. Yet, for him, the Service left too many issues unresolved, while its real intentions were nonetheless discernible in the insistence on a superfluous laying on of hands.120 This was denounced in Barrett’s dissenting note as taking a ‘mechanical and almost magical view of ordination’.121 Even more explicitly, another Methodist Dissentient, Tom Jessop, later denounced laying on of hands as a sleight of hand to achieve re-ordination while pretending that this was not the case.122 Kemp may have sought a fundamental ambiguity in his liturgy, but for these evangelicals, it lay only on the surface of his text. For Packer it was ironic that this concealed – but palpable – stress on ordination into the apostolic succession should appear in 1963, around the time the Anglican monk Gabriel Hebert, in his final published work, demonstrated the shaky foundations on which it rested in the history of the Early Church.123 Packer and fellow Anglican Evangelicals, such as the wealthy layman Gervase Duffield – who founded Marcham Manor Press deliberately to issue a series of pamphlets against these proposals – seemingly saw the Conversations Report issued on 26 February 1963 as part of their wider battle within the Church of England against the Anglo-Catholics. Writing to Barrett to offer common cause, Duffield represented himself as part of a rising generation of Evangelicals and launched into a diatribe against the rigidity of the still powerful though declining Anglo-Catholics who ‘rely very much on older men who live in the days of the bitter battles of the 1920s’.124 Kemp was already well aware of this hostility, not least from observing the extreme sectarianism of student evangelical bodies in his role as an Oxford college chaplain.125 The acquiescence of the Evangelicals on the Conversations – according to Michael Skinner, tutor at Wesley House Cambridge, ‘Apparently half were prepared to acquiesce in the Report, though they did not particularly like it, while the other half wanted to do something but did not know what’ – was clearly not shared by all their brethren.126 Methodist Dissentients also noted the ‘studiously ambiguous’ nature of the Report.127 The Plymouth solicitor David Foot Nash expressed, among other concerns, the view of the Congregational minister Erik Routley that a united Church could entrench conservative complacency to the detriment of mission.128 He even paid 50 guineas for Counsel’s opinion that the Service of Reconciliation was an ordination of the Methodist ministry. Barrett – who fulminated ‘I am prepared to admit my ministry is defective, but the deficiencies are due to my sinfulness and are not to be remedied by a Bishop’s hands’ – was clear that this was the case anyway.129 Moreover, it was claimed that Kemp effectively admitted this at a diocesan conference. However, Foot Nash had not wasted his money, as W.S. Wigglesworth also advised that primary legislation would be required to change the 1932 Methodist Deed

Church, Episcopacy and Ecumenism  69 of Union, not least those parts specifying the unitary nature of the Methodist ministry.130 Nonetheless, others of Barrett’s correspondents presciently predicted that the Methodist ministry were overwhelmingly willing to accept the scheme. Some readily embraced the Report, arguing that ‘Methodist bishops would help us to recover true Episcopacy, and rid us of that Prelacy which we all heartily detest’. The general tone was a readiness to accept this, like Baker, as a means to a more vital national Church.131 A. Kingsley Lloyd, the secretary of the Methodist Connexional Funds office who became joint chair in September 1963 with the Dean of Windsor of the new campaign group Towards Anglican Methodist Unity (TAMU), noted that this involved bridging a chasm, but that he felt they were being ‘led to realise a vision of the Church as something far greater and more comprehensive than we had ever dreamed’.132 Roberts tried to sketch out that vision a little more in his own publication endorsing the Report. He envisaged completion of Stage 1 by 1967–68, during which time Methodist bishops responsible to Conference would be appointed. Before Stage 2, there were then a number of issues to address, including relations with the rest of Nonconformity; aspirations to change the Establishment by promoting the spiritual self-government of the Church, as outlined in the Report; and a range of pastoral, social and liturgical issues. There was, accordingly, no blueprint for Stage 2.133 Indeed, Kemp in 1964 noted that he could not speculate how long it would take to get to Stage 2.134 Legal entanglements with the State were clearly a complicating factor. Woodhouse, TAMU’s legal adviser, pointed out that primary legislation would be required for Methodism to establish the legality even of Stage 1, given the impact of the doctrinal clause of the Deed of Union. The Church of England’s multiple breaches of the mass of legislation governing it accrued since Tudor times, which included legal prohibition on an Anglican minister conducting a non-Anglican service, implied a similar need for corrective legislation. Indeed, Woodhouse suggested that even the Service of Reconciliation was illegal under the 1662 Act of Uniformity. Another problem with the Service was that, if it was indeed interpreted as an act of reordination, then Methodist ministers would become subject to this mass of laws. By Autumn 1964, a group to consider these legal implications chaired by the eminent barrister and former Conservative Minister of Health Sir Henry Willink and including Kemp and Wigglesworth had been convened. They concluded that legislation at Stage 1 would be required to protect Methodism from coming into the ambit of this legislation and clarify what Methodist bishops could legally do. A five clause Bill was envisaged which would: 1) Authorise the Service of Reconciliation; 2) Authorise Methodist bishops;

70  Pippa Catterall 3) Authorise the Stages; 4) Exempt Methodism from ecclesiastical law; 5) Preserve the existing civil status of Methodist ministers at Stage 1.135 A further legal point was raised by Graham Leonard, the Bishop of Willesden, in October 1964 at a meeting attended by a number of Anglican and Methodist MPs. He pointed out that each Anglican benefice was a separate trust and therefore the law on trusts would also be a factor at Stage 1. Interestingly, from an Anglo-Catholic, he also drew attention to the fact that Roman Catholic priests were not required to be re-ordained when they took Anglican orders. Woodhouse’s speech at the same meeting stressed the need for legislation to make it possible for the two Churches to move towards Stage 2 on converging paths. Problematically, given its in-built ambiguity, this meant that ‘We should try to remove at the outset sources of friction due to doubts as to what the Service of Reconciliation really means’. At the same time, Woodhouse recognised that to satisfy both Methodists and Anglo-Catholics, ‘liberty of interpretation was quite fundamental’ to the whole design of the Service. He went on to list various other legal complications. These ranged from Lord Radcliffe’s verdict in the recent Macmanaway case to the impact of the marriage and burial acts.136 The Labour MP and Methodist, Jeremy Bray, felt that there would be little opposition in Parliament to whatever was proposed. The complications were such, however, that Foot Nash suggested that it might be best to leave these to be settled at Stage 2.137 Woodhouse, however, was clear that most of these had to be addressed even to get to Stage 1 and subsequently emphasised the need to apprise the 1965 Methodist Conference of this.138 A number of other implications of the Conversations also came under scrutiny in the aftermath of the Report. For instance, Tomkins and Rupert E. Davies, one of the most prominent Methodist supporters of the Report, co-edited a series of short books on the subject. Intended to help the laity understand the issues raised and consequences, these covered both liturgical and social issues.139 Opponents of the Report seem to have taken slightly longer to organise than those trying to work out how to implement it in practice. Nonetheless, in January 1964, the Voice of Methodist Association (VMA), partly formed in response to TAMU, held its inaugural meeting.140 Snaith was not initially impressed, writing ‘The trouble is that they are such a wild lot – known to have been against everything and generally naughty boys’. However, by March 1964, he was suggesting to Barrett that they should both join.141 The latter had made clear that he could not continue his ministry in the united Church. Nonetheless, he declined the invitation to become Vice-President (or even to join) VMA. They, meanwhile, accepted that their position was unfortunately defined by a negativity not all opponents of the Report felt.142 Skinner, for instance, felt that it, ‘though unacceptable, has done untold good in bringing Anglicans and Methodists together’. A more acceptable

Church, Episcopacy and Ecumenism  71 way forward for him was the alternative of some kind of covenanting arrangements of the kind put forward by the evangelicals of Cliff College.143 For the time being, however, the Report set the tone for the Conversations going forward.

The Anglican–Methodist Unity Commission 1965–68 After a two-year hiatus, the Conversations recommenced in 1965. One bishop was so moved by the endorsement of the Report that he proposed ‘that the Convocation should rise and sing the Doxology’.144 Conference in 1965 also gave conditional approval for proceeding to clarify the arrangements that Stage 1 would entail. The Anglicans fielded a slightly amended team, now led by Robert Stopford, Bishop of London. The Dissentient Methodists were replaced on a team that now consisted wholly of supporters of the scheme.145 Kemp entered this third phase of the Conversations deeply aware of a range of concerns about the Service of Reconciliation. To him, not least because he had represented Anglicanism at their meetings since 1948, the anxieties of the Old Catholics probably weighed most heavily. A difficult meeting with Archbishop Rinkel of Utrecht made plain that he did not think Methodists would be ordained if, at the Service of Reconciliation, they had no intention of receiving priesthood. In these circumstances, many Old Catholics were contemplating breaking communion with the Church of England if relations with Methodism moved forward.146 Superficially, the Orthodox were more accommodating. However, Metropolitan Athenagoras of Thyatira’s approval of the Service rested on the unhelpful grounds that, for him, the Methodists laying hands on Anglicans second resembled the way a newly ordained priest is sometimes asked by the bishop to give him his first blessing.147 Diplomatically, Michael Ramsey, who had succeeded Fisher as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1961, advised against disclosing such details of the Metropolitan’s letter.148 These concerns undoubtedly clouded Kemp’s thoughts, but they did not impinge on the renewed Conversations in what was now known as the Anglican–Methodist Unity Commission. The change of name implied these discussions were now moving from the feasibility to the mechanics of unity. Enthusiasts certainly thought so. The veteran Methodist minister, Maldwyn Edwards, in 1966, noted that as unity had in principle been accepted: ‘Many of us feel that it is now even more important to strengthen the progress towards unity at the local level’ made since the Report. He suggested that, to promote devotional and educational work, a Joint Council for Anglican–Methodist Unity (JCAMU) should supersede TAMU.149 After all, much education work remained to be done, as Edwards noted at the first meeting of this new body in March 1966, which he jointly chaired with Falkner Allison, the Bishop of Winchester. Indeed, risks to the scheme – including Leonard’s point that Anglo-Catholic

72  Pippa Catterall support might waver if what was proposed changed – were raised on all sides.150 Woodhouse, who was appointed later that year to the establishment subcommittee of the Unity Commission, was meanwhile still discovering new legal entanglements. The requirement for conformity with the Book of Common Prayer may have been addressed by the liturgical variety permissible under the Prayer Book (Alternative and Other Services) Measure 1965. Nonetheless, lay preachers raised a canon law issue, and the fact that Anglicans, unlike Methodism, then had no women exercising this function only further complicated matters. Indeed, it remained unclear how much inter-communion would actually be achieved for the laity at Stage 1.151 Reassurance only came on these points in a detailed legal opinion by T.A.R. Levett in December 1966.152 No less of a legal problem was the sharing of buildings. Experiments with sharing buildings had seemed a rational response to new housing estates since the inter-war years. An early example in practice was the Covenant Church established as a joint Methodist-Congregational experiment in Tynemouth in 1954. Such arrangements seem to have been managed by ‘gentleman’s agreements’,153 an arrangement that could easily fall foul of the strict regulation of Methodist property under the 1932 Deed of Union if extended to Anglicans. In these circumstances, shared premises would require a separate trust, and this still might require amendment of ecclesiastical legislation such as the New Housing Areas (Church Buildings) Measure 1954 or the 1949 Marriage Act.154 The legal work in subcommittees assumed a growing importance in the discussions, to the point in February 1967 when Woodhouse argued ‘that the Commission need to agree among themselves on the actual terms of the bill just as much as on the actual words of the Service of Reconciliation’. This legislation, he felt, had to be concise yet ‘The draftsmen must paint with a broad brush, avoiding, as far as possible, specific references to legislation or other legal provisions’ which might encourage wrecking parliamentary amendments.155 Ambiguity was not to be confined to the Service of Reconciliation. By June, Woodhouse had contacted Sir Harold Kent in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, enclosing a copy of his draft bill. Kent made various useful amendments. The opening paragraph was changed to make it clear that the decision for unity lay with the Churches and that parliamentary consent was only needed to resolve legal difficulties. That the two Churches remain separate legal entities, especially for purposes of internal discipline, was clarified. Not least, Kent advised that all mention of Stage 2 should be left out so as not to tempt parliament to interfere.156 Retaining this clause was, however, important for Woodhouse. It sent out a signal that this was a stage to a fuller unity, which was important to Methodists, and to a united Church, which was important to Anglo-Catholics. Moreover, Kent’s draft statement that Methodists accepted episcopacy was problematic, not least

Church, Episcopacy and Ecumenism  73 because of the Deed of Union. It also ran the risk of running counter to the discipline of worship in the Church of England. Further revisions therefore ensued before Kent sent new drafts off to the Dean of Windsor in August.157 While the preparation of legislation was proceeding relatively smoothly, such progress was not marked on all fronts. The JCAMU meeting of February 1967, for instance, featured much concern about the scheme creating new forms of disunity in the shape of dissident bodies. The leading Anglican ecumenist, Prebendary Peter Morgan suggested that the way to deal with this is to determine that ‘all the key folk of both our churches will be reconciled to each other through the Service of Reconciliation – whether they like it or not’.158 Concern with that Service was nonetheless growing, not least when a revised version appeared in the Commission’s 1967 interim report Towards Reconciliation. Fisher’s now vocal opposition to a scheme which had far departed from his 1946 vision was simply the noisiest response.159 Anglo-Catholics like Leonard and the Church Union made clear their concern. While the Anglican Evangelical Colin Buchanan was premature in declaring the scheme now dead, the risk that considerable bodies of clergy in both Churches would remain unreconciled was increasingly palpable. As another Anglican Evangelical, David Paton, pointed out, this raised among other issues, the question of the provision of pastoral oversight for such recalcitrants.160 For the Old Catholics, Rinkel remained deeply unhappy.161 So too now was Athenagoras, not least because of the change whereby the Methodists were now to do the laying on of hands first.162 Further revisions followed, resulting in the publication of the final report in two parts, consisting of The Ordinal (February 1968) and The Scheme (April 1968). An important lexical shift involved using the less loaded term presbyter rather than priest, a move which had been advised at a JCAMU residential conference in June 1967 as a means of mollifying Methodists.163 This adapted a term used in the Deed of Union, though incompatibility with that document was still widely claimed in criticism.164 The distinction between the Methodist stress on an open table at communion for all who love Christ with the Book of Common Prayer’s requirement that access was only available to the confirmed was addressed, if not fully resolved. The opening of lay readership to women in the Church of England tackled another issue.165 It was additionally hoped that the deliberate ambiguity of the Service of Reconciliation and the liberty of conscience in its interpretation would produce appreciation that ‘what is done at this point has a significance which can and should command the assent of all’. Nonetheless, The Scheme accepted that there would be recalcitrants in both Churches.166 Despite Kemp’s efforts, these now included Anglo-Catholics like Leonard, Riley and du Toit. Leonard’s case was that the ambiguity now seemed designed, not to leave it up to God, but merely to conceal differences, an approach he found morally indefensible.167 Woodhouse sympathised, arguing that the offending paragraph 396, which referred to treating Methodist ministers

74  Pippa Catterall ‘as if’ they were episcopally ordained, drastically undermined ‘the studied ambiguity of the Service’, which he and Kent had also incorporated in the draft Bill.168 As Kent explained in a letter rebutting Fisher, the Bill instead offered ‘no “definition” of the basis on which either Church recognises and accepts the ministry of the other’.169 While for Anglo-Catholics the Service of Reconciliation had become insufficiently ambiguous, for Packer it remained unnecessary. He asserted: [T]o limit full fellowship at the Lord’s Table to episcopally commissioned ministers only implies a false view of the Church, as if bishops were essential …. That is intolerable. The Report asks the Church of England to be ready to admit into the future united Church those relations with other Christians which Methodists at present enjoy. The proper course would be to accept the Methodist Church in this way now.170 Packer was the only member of the Commission to refuse to sign its report. The groundbreaking Keele Congress of Anglican Evangelicals in Summer 1967 had already voiced the almost universal opposition of this growing, youthful and increasingly assertive element of Anglicanism to the Service of Reconciliation. Instead of the Anglo-Catholic focus on churchmanship, they called for co-operation on new housing estates and, in favouring the South India scheme, suggested the whole trajectory of the Conversations had been a wrong turning.171 Up to this point, little thought had been given to the risk that the two Churches might grow further apart rather than together during Stage 1. Methodism’s move towards the ordination of women, approved in 1971, was to raise this issue.172 By then, however, even getting to Stage 1 was looking increasingly doubtful following the rejection of The Scheme by the Convocations in 1969. It was later suggested that Roberts’ opening reassurance to Conference when it passed the scheme on 8 July 1969 that the Service of Reconciliation was not an ordination had hardened Anglican opposition, despite the simultaneous debates and voting.173 Ironically, Rinkel, having changed his mind, regretted this outcome.174 The archbishops, faced with the dilemma of what to do next, noted that the recently published proposals in Intercommunion Today would nonetheless allow some progress on local schemes of unity and sharing in the Eucharist, and reached out to Methodism for further consultation.175

Endgame 1969–72 Arguing instead that the scheme was dead, two Anglican Evangelicals (Packer and Buchanan) and two Anglo-Catholics (Leonard and Eric Mascall) produced the alternative of Growing into Union in May 1970. This maintained that ecumenism had to start with agreement on theology

Church, Episcopacy and Ecumenism  75 and organic processes of growing together at a local level.176 This was, however, a wholly Anglican proposal without any consultation with Methodism. It drew a stinging rebuke from six leading Methodists – including Roberts and Baker – not least on the grounds that ‘When we agreed to take episcopacy into our system, we did not agree to take episcopacy as it now exists in the Church of England, but this is what the plan proposes for the United Church’.177 In many ways Growing into Union thus harked back to Fisher’s approach in 1946. The only immediate local scheme was the creation, after some years of planning, of the joint ordinands’ training college of Queen’s Birmingham in 1970.178 Conference’s 1970 approval of moving to Stage 1 and the introduction of the General Synod in the Church of England nonetheless gave a further chance to revisit the whole scheme. A Joint Working Group (JWG) was set up under Kemp (by then dean of Worcester) and Davies (the then president of Conference) to explore ways forward for the Conversations. Woodhouse created yet another ginger group to see if they could find a way to increase Anglican support without jeopardising the level of support in Methodism, and then joined the JWG itself in April 1971. At this meeting, it became clear that the Growing into Union group was regarded as a major obstacle. Kemp did not directly respond to their arguments, but he did point out that mere inter-communion does not provide unity, as the experience of the Free Churches demonstrated. Yet he also realised that his attempts in the Service of Reconciliation to ‘recognise that the Methodist ministers have been ordained to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament and confers whatever God knows them to need of episcopal ordination’ satisfied the objectors in neither Church.179 Nor did the report the JWG then published on 27 May 1971 offer any new solutions to this problem. Kemp was later to note that it had little impact on the General Synod and blamed the Growing into Union group for the increased defeat the scheme suffered in the vote of 3 May 1972.180 For the Conversations, this proved the end of the road.

Conclusions In a report for the 1968 Lambeth Conference Alan Wilkinson, the AngloCatholic son of a Primitive Methodist minister, drew attention to recent sociological texts critiquing ecumenism as defensive moves by declining institutions.181 Some disdainful Anglo-Catholic comments about Methodism expressed a similar view.182 Yet these early sociologists of religion largely misread the Conversations, in which such considerations were almost universally absent. Nor did the Conversations feature the discussion of organisational efficiency which had been so conspicuous in the late nineteenth century. There was, however, a late nineteenth-century inheritance – the Lambeth Quadrilateral – which had a defining effect on the arc of the Conversations. This starting point ensured that discussions always came back to the nature of the ministry and the Church. These discussions were

76  Pippa Catterall bedevilled by a priori differences. For Barrett, ‘An order of priests within the Church is contrary to the New Testament’.183 On the other hand, as the Report put it: The fact that the Christian faith rests on a series of historical events … and that we live in an historical period different from and later than the events themselves, makes tradition, in the sense of the handing down of the faith from one generation to another, both inevitable and inescapable.184 Attempts to resolve these differences generally rested upon ambiguity. Whether episcopacy was functional or fundamental was one aspect of this, brought into stark relief by the ambiguities of the Service of Reconciliation itself. Ambiguity’s role in such settings is to leave a space large enough to incorporate rather than exclude a range of interpretations of the text. This is certainly what Kemp sought to do in his efforts to satisfy all parties. Maybe if he had possessed Bell’s authority, as well as using Bell’s approach, he would have had more success. As it was, Packer, Leonard and Barrett saw all too clearly through a superficial ambiguity, that concealed rather than embraced, to a clear implication that none of them, for their varying reasons, could stomach. The particular configuration of entrenched party positions in Kemp’s own Church, and the way they hardened after 1967, was to ensure the fate of the scheme. Some throughout regularly suggested that the search for organic unity through the two-stage process that emerged as the way forward under Bell’s guidance early in the Conversations was essentially a wrong turning. One version of this posited that ecumenism was not a response to secularisation, but that it might encourage it. Loudly proclaiming that God sought Christian unity and then conspicuously failing to deliver it while wrangling over points that had no relevance to the man in the street hardly helped to convey the Gospel message or to enhance its clarity. The Methodist evangelical Amos Cresswell lamented: The Anglican-Methodists keep A watch over each other’s sheep They forget to give oats To the poor pagan goats Who die while the Church goes to sleep.185 Fisher certainly felt that the Conversations had taken a wrong turning but, if so, this happened when he was still archbishop and long before he chose to attack the scheme. Furthermore, it is doubtful that the approach he sketched out in 1946 would have proved any more fruitful at the time. He had, after all, asked the Free Churches to cash a blank cheque, by taking episcopacy into their systems with no guarantee of how and when they would get

Church, Episcopacy and Ecumenism  77 anything in return. Growing into Union was a more subtle and local version of the same approach. Yet the Church of England needed to go through the moves towards greater spiritual freedom leading up to Intercommunion Today and the founding of the General Synod before the kinds of covenanting they envisaged could meaningfully develop. At the time, the attempt at formal union that Bell developed, and the 1961 Roberts/Carpenter paper elaborated, was really the only way forward. More focus on the desideratum of the emerging united Church might have provided this process with more momentum. The God-willed ideal of unity instead succumbed to wrangles about definitions of Church and ministry which Kemp’s ambiguities were never large enough to accommodate.

Notes 1 Although the Anglican–Methodist Conversations had implications across the United Kingdom, and indeed the world, they were principally situated within the distinctive religious setting of England. 2 ‘A report to the presiding bishop on the present state of negotiations between the joint commission on approaches to unity of the Protestant Episcopal Church and the Commission on Church Union of the Methodist Church’ (1958), Lambeth Palace Library, London [LPL]: LC 1958/14. 3 Charles Keen to Bell, 7 February 1956, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 88–90. 4 Bell to Fisher, 1 March 1956, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 97. 5 Gilbert Burnet (abridged by Thomas Stackhouse), History of His Own Time (London, 1979), 305; John Coffey, ‘Church and State 1550–1750: The Emergence of Dissent’ in Robert Pope (ed.), Companion to Nonconformity (London, 2013), 65–6. 6 Henry Woodhouse, ‘A Note on the Church of England by a Methodist Lawyer’, 28 October 1964, Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History, DAMUC, HW2/1. Woodhouse worked in the Treasury Solicitor’s Office and so was able to observe Church–State relations at close quarters (Woodhouse to Chester Barrett, 1 June 1965, DAMUC: HW2/1). 7 Henry Woodhouse to Peter Morgan, 14 January 1967 enclosing ‘Church–State Relations at Stage II: A Methodist’s Observations’, 1, DAMUC, HW2/2. 8 As Robin Woods, Dean of Windsor, observed in his paper on ‘The Church, the Crown and Parliament at Stage Two’ 22 June 1967, ‘while in past ages … the Church assisted in the keeping of law and order’ it now had no political value to the state, DAMUC, HW 2/2. 9 Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church: An Interim Statement (London, 1958), 10–2. 10 John Lander, ‘“They are a Pitiful Set of Radicals, Agitators and Slanderers”: Methodist Disharmony, 1797–1849’ Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society 63.1 (2021), 3–16. 11 For instance, the emergence of the Brethren or the Churches of Christ. 12 Alan Turberfield, John Scott Lidgett: Archbishop of British Methodism (Peterborough, 2003), 94–5, 221. 13 Turberfield, Lidgett, 199. 14 Robert Currie, Methodism Divided: A Study in the Sociology of Ecumenicalism (London, 1968), 300–1. 15 See, for instance, Wilfred J. Rowland, The Free Churches and the People: A Report of the Work of Tbe Free Churches of Liverpool (Liverpool, 1908).

78  Pippa Catterall 16 Currie, Methodism Divided, Chapters 7 and 8. 17 Turberfield, Lidgett, 239–40. 18 Cited in Currie, Methodism Divided, 186. 19 Turberfield, Lidgett, 244. 20 Cited in Currie, Methodism Divided, 176. For reminiscences of similar hostility expressed by his local rector in Lincolnshire in the 1920s, see Eric Kemp, Shy But Not Retiring: Memoirs (London, 2006), 12. 21 John Maiden, National Religion and the Prayer Book Controversy 1927–1928 (Woodbridge, 2009). 22 Turberfield, Lidgett, 253. 23 Turberfield, Lidgett, 248, 250. 24 William Reed Huntington, The Church-Idea: An Essay in Unity (New York, 1899 [1870]), 3–4, 125–6. 25 Turberfield, Lidgett, 236. 26 In 1962, there were 38.5 m. Anglicans, 41.5 m. Methodists and 55 m. Baptists globally: David Foot Nash to Kingsley Barrett, enclosing ‘The Methodist Dilemma’, 18, DAMUC, KB5/2. 27 Enclosure on ‘Methodists and Anglicans’ in Franz Hildebrandt to Kingsley Barrett, 6 October 1958, DAMUC, KB3. 28 ‘Constitutional Issues and Matters of the Establishment’, 27 April 1967, 2, DAMUC, HW2/2. 29 ‘The Lambeth Conference: Resolutions Archive from 1920’, Resolution 9, https://www​.anglicancommunion​.org​/media​/127731​/1920​.pdf. 30 See, for instance, Maldwyn Edwards to Kingsley Barrett, 10 March 1959, DAMUC, KB3. 31 Kemp, Shy But Not Retiring, 87. 32 Norman Sykes to George Bell, 9 December 1956, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 144. 33 Turberfield, Lidgett, 285. 34 Turberfield, Lidgett, Chapter 19. 35 The Nature of the Christian Church 1937 (republished in Statements of the Methodist Church on Faith and Order 1933–1983, vol. 1 (Peterborough, 2000), 19 (see https://www​.methodist​.org​.uk​/our​-faith​/reflecting​-on​-faith​/faith​ -and​-order​/faith​-and​-order​-statements/). 36 Kingsley Barrett, ‘Ordination in the Methodist Church’, Paper for the Faith and Order Committee, January 1960, 7–10, DAMUC, KB7/2. 37 The Nature, 25–6. 38 Turberfield, Lidgett, 298. 39 Turberfield, Lidgett, 295; Statements, 145. 40 As Kingsley Barrett pointed out during the Conversations, the doctrine of apostolic succession is unknown in the New Testament: ‘Apostolic Succession Again’, c. 4 July 1959, DAMUC, KB7/1. 41 Statements, 147. 42 Cited in Edward Carpenter, Cantuar: The Archbishops in their Office (Oxford, 1988), 503. 43 George Thompson Brake, Policy and Politics in British Methodism 1932–1982 (London, 1984), 99. 44 Cited in Eric Kemp, The Anglican–Methodist Conversations: A Comment from Within (London, 1964), 6–7. 45 Cited in J.P. Hickinbotham, ‘Church Relations in England’, The Churchman 65.2 (1951), 72. 46 Hickinbotham, ‘Church Relations’, 72–3. 47 Some Lutheran churches were episcopal, but the lack of this characteristic did not stop the Church of England establishing relations with the Lutheran

Church, Episcopacy and Ecumenism  79 churches of Latvia and Estonia (1939) or Norway, Denmark and Iceland (1954); see draft undated letter by H.R.T. Brandreth, LPL: LC 216 175H, f. 21. 48 K.E. Kirk, The Apostolic Ministry: Essays on the History and the Doctrine of Episcopacy (London, 1948). Kirk was the grandson of a Methodist minister, while his daughter Patricia married Eric Kemp, a central figure in both AngloCatholicism and the Anglican–Methodist Conversations. 49 Kemp, The Anglican–Methodist Conversations, 38. 50 Norman Sykes, The Church of England and Non-Episcopal Churches in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (London, 1948). 51 Interim Statement, 40. 52 Hickinbotham, ‘Church Relations’, 70. 53 Cited in Brake Policy and Politics, 103. 54 Lionel du Toit to Kemp, 17 May 1956, LPL: Kemp Papers MS 3555, f. 3. 55 Kingsley Barrett, ‘The Methodist Theory of Episcopacy’ (11 September 1951), 1–3, DAMUC, KB7/1. 56 J.I. Packer, Fellowship in the Gospel (Abingdon, 1968), 15. 57 Methodist Conference Agenda 1956, 12, in Statements (1984 edition only), 197. 58 Roberts to Bell, 1 July 1955, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 66. 59 Kemp, The Anglican–Methodist Conversations, 13. 60 Bell to Fisher, 3 February 1956, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 76. 61 Fisher to Bell, 17 October 1955, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 71. 62 Bell to Fisher, 3 February 1956, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 74. 63 H. A. Hodges, Anglicanism and Orthodoxy: A Study in Dialectical Churchmanship (London, 1955). 64 Sykes to Bell, 22 February 1956, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 84–5. As Bell pointed out in response (f. 87) on 23 February 1956, Hodges had published on Anglican–Methodist relations and he and Greenslade were former Methodists. Additionally, Stanley Greenslade was a colleague of the leading Methodist Dissentient, Kingsley Barrett, in the Divinity School at Durham. 65 Bell to Fisher, 23 February 1956, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 86. 66 Bell to Fisher, 3 February 1956, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 75. 67 Script of talk for ‘At Home and Abroad’, broadcast 24 February 1956, in LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 107. 68 Bell to Leslie Smith, 19 March 1956, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 111. 69 M.A. Halliwell memorandum of attending a meeting of MSF in Oxford on 19 February 1961: ‘Generally I got the impression that this movement view its task as a return to the sacramental ideals of John Wesley with their necessarily limited insights, rather than as a forward movement in the Church Universal. One had rather the impression of a club for mutual encouragement for Methodists who would otherwise end up in the Church of England’. LPL: CFR.G 19/2. 70 The Report of the Joint Committee of the Convocations on Church Relations in England (London, 1955), 4. 71 Report of the Joint Committee, 3. 72 ‘Notes on changes which our proposals will involve for the Church of England’ (n.d.), 2, DAMUC, KB2. 73 Hooper to Bell, 3 April 1956, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 117–8. 74 Bell to Hooper, 16 April 1956, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 120; Hooper to Bell, 19 April 1956, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 122. 75 Methodist Recorder, 3 May 1956. 76 Roberts, ‘Episcopacy and Methodism’ (c.1957), LPL: Bell Papers 175, f. 141. 77 J. Gilbert Baker to Bell, c. April 1956, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 129–30. 78 Minutes of meeting, 19 March 1956, LPL: Bell Papers 175, f. 1.

80  Pippa Catterall 79 du Toit to Kemp, 17 May 1956, LPL: Kemp Papers MS 3555, f. 4. 80 Bell ‘Position as I see it’, June 195, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 33–4. 81 Kemp, Shy But Not Retiring, 158. 82 Harold Riley, ‘The Value of Episcopacy’, 18 August 1956, DAMUC, KB2. 83 Kemp, ‘Apostolic Succession’ c. August 1956, DAMUC, KB2. 84 Jessop, ‘’Non-theological factors in our divisions’ (n.d.), DAMUC, KB2. 85 Baker and Greenslade ‘Unity and Intercommunion’, c.1957, LPL: Bell Papers 175, f. 231–35. 86 ‘Apostolic Succession Again’ c. 4 July 1959, DAMUC, KB7/1. 87 Conference, 10–12 December 1956, LPL: Bell Papers 175, f. 5; Rupp, ‘The Historic Episcopate’ c.1956, LPL: Bell Papers 175, f. 25; Sykes to Bell, 6 December 1956, Bell Papers 174, f. 142. 88 Roberts to Bell, 13 June 1957. LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 171–2. 89 Conference, 24–27 June 1957, LPL: Bell Papers 175, f. 9; Bell to Susan Lister, 27 June 1957, Bell Papers 174, f. 177–9. 90 Sykes to Bell, 27 June 1957, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 187–9. 91 Bell to Sykes, 1 July 1957, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 190. 92 Bell to Roberts, 25 October 1957, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 269. 93 Carpenter to Bell, 22 October 195, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 248. 94 Roberts to Bell, 29 October 1957, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 271. 95 Davison, ‘Methodism’s distinctive marks and the approach to episcopacy’ (c.1957), LPL: Bell Papers 175, f. 194–210. 96 ‘Unity and Intercommunion: Taking Episcopacy’, LPL: Bell Papers 175, f. 220–9. 97 Interim Statement, 23–4. 98 Roberts to Bell, July 1958, LPL: Bell Papers 174, f. 337–9. 99 Kemp, Shy But Not Retiring, 159. 100 ‘The Ecumenical Movement’, 8, LPL: LC 1958/8. 101 Oliver Tomkins, A Time for Unity (London, 1964), 77. 102 J. Brazier Green to Barrett, 14 February 1959, DAMUC, KB3. 103 Barrett speech to Conference, 8 July 1958, 3–7, DAMUC, KB7/1. 104 Henry Wigley to Barrett, 12 March 1959, DAMUC, KB3. 105 Barrett and E. Benson Perkins to Wigley, June 1959, DAMUC, KB3. 106 Eighth meeting, 7–9 December 1959, DAMUC, KB2. Told of an illicit joint Anglican–Methodist communion service involving the Vicar of Wimbledon Park in April 1960, the Bishop of Southwark, Mervyn Stockwood, remarked that had he known of the use of non-alcoholic wine, ‘I should certainly disapprove’: Stockwood to John Statterthwaite, 12 April 1960, LPL: CFR.G 19/2, f. 4. 107 Ninth Meeting, 4–6 April 1960, DAMUC, KB2. 108 Commission on the Deployment and Payment of the Clergy Partners in Ministry (London, 1967), Preface, 5. 109 Riley to Kemp, 13 March 1961, LPL: Kemp Papers MS 3555, f. 22. 110 Eleventh meeting, 20–22 March 1961, DAMUC, KB2. 111 Roberts to Barrett, 9 April 1961, DAMUC, KB5/1. 112 Barrett memorandum, 6 September 1962, DAMUC, KB5/1. 113 Twelfth meeting, 25–27 September 1961, DAMUC, KB2. 114 Fourteenth meeting, 9–11 April 1962, DAMUC, KB2. 115 Fifteenth meeting, 24–26 September 1962, DAMUC, KB2; Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church: A Report (London, 1963), 62. 116 Eric Baker, ‘Some practical problems for Methodism Involved in the Taking of Episcopacy into its System’, 2 January 1962, DAMUC, KB2; Kemp, Anglican– Methodist Conversations, 29. 117 Thirteenth Meeting, 8–10 January 1962, DAMUC, KB2. See also Kemp, Shy But Not Retiring, 159–60.

Church, Episcopacy and Ecumenism  81 118 Kemp, Anglican–Methodist Conversations, 32, 41. 119 Michael Skinner to Barrett, 11 October 1962, DAMUC, KB5/1. 120 Packer, Fellowship, 30, 35–6. 121 Report, 60. 122 T.E. Jessop, Not This Way! A Methodist Examination of the Union Scheme and a Plea for Integrity (Abingdon, 1969), 15–6. 123 Packer, Fellowship, 13–4; Gabriel Hebert, Apostle and Bishop: A Study of the Gospel, the Ministry and the Church-Community (London, 1963). Methodist Dissentients instead tended to emphasise William Telfer’s The Office of a Bishop (London, 1962) on the same issue. 124 Packer, Fellowship, 35; Duffield to Barrett, 17 February 1963, DAMUC, KB5/2. 125 Kemp, Shy But Not Retiring, 40. 126 Skinner to Barrett, 19 July 1963, DAMUC, KB5/2. 127 Robin McGlashan to Barrett, 6 July 1963, DAMUC, KB5/2. 128 David Foot Nash ‘The Methodist Dilemma’, 30, in Foot Nash to Barrett, 22 February 1963, DAMUC, KB5/2. Foot Nash, who was Vice-President of the Methodist Conference in 1963, came from a well-established family of Cornish Methodist lawyers and politicians. His uncle was the inter-war Liberal MP Isaac Foot and his cousin the future leader of the Labour Party, Michael Foot. 129 ‘The need for unity and the types of unity’ c. 1963, DAMUC, KB7/1. 130 Skinner to Barrett, 16 November 1963; A.M. Hey to Barrett, 28 October 1963, DAMUC, KB5/2. 131 Walter Gill to Barrett, 1 March 1963; J.P. McKew to Barrett, 8 March 1963, DAMUC, KB5/2. 132 Lloyd to Woodhouse, 3 October 1963, DAMUC, HW2/1. 133 Harold Roberts, Anglican–Methodist Conversations (London, 1963), 27–34; Report, 52. 134 Kemp, Anglican–Methodist Conversations, 30. 135 Woodhouse to Lloyd, 21 January 1964; ‘Record of Informal Discussion on some of the Legal Problems Raised by the Service of Reconciliation’, 24 January 1964; Morgan to Woodhouse, 22 April 1964; Legal Group on Conversations, 21 October 1964: DAMUC, HW2/1. 136 Re Macmanaway [1951] A.C. 161. 137 Discussions on legal implications, 26 October 1964, DAMUC, HW2/1. 138 Woodhouse to Lloyd, 28 October 1964, DAMUC, HW2/1. 139 See, for instance, the preface to Kenneth Greet and Martin Reardon, Social Questions (Oxford, 1964). 140 Brake, Policy and Politics, 107. 141 Snaith to Barrett, 1 January 1964; 26 March 1964: DAMUC, KB5/3. 142 A. E. Clucas Moore to Barrett, 14 March 1964; 3 April 1964; 4 July 1964; 12 July 1964: DAMUC, KB5/3. 143 Skinner to Barrett, 17 April 1964, DAMUC, KB5/3. 144 Morgan to Woodhouse, 27 May 1965, DAMUC, HW2/1. 145 Kemp, Shy But Not Retiring, 161; Jessop, Not This Way! 5. 146 Memorandum, 6 February 1965, LPL: CFR.G 19/2, f. 15; Kemp, Shy But Not Retiring, 77–82, 160. 147 Metropolitan of Thyatira to Allison, c. April 1965, LPL: CFR.G 19/2, f. 20–22. 148 Ramsey to Winchester, 14 May 1965, LPL: CFR.G 19/2, f. 23. 149 Edwards to Woodhouse, 13 January 1966, DAMUC, HW2/1. 150 JCAMU Meeting, 18 March 1966, DAMUC, HW2/1. 151 J.C. Blake to Woodhouse, 13 June 1966; Woodhouse to Blake, 8 November 1966: DAMUC, HW2/1.

82  Pippa Catterall 152 Enclosure with J.C. Blake to Woodhouse, 9 December 1966, DAMUC, HW2/1. 153 An Adventure in Christian Unity (Bridgenorth Methodist and Congregational Church, 1962), 22–4. 154 Newsom and Brungate memoranda, 18 July 1966, DAMUC, HW2/2. 155 Woodhouse to Woods, 11 February 1967; Woodhouse, ‘Notes on Draft Enabling Bill’, 11 February 1967: DAMUC, HW2/2. 156 Woodhouse to Kent, 30 June 1967; Kent to Woodhouse, 26 July 1967: DAMUC, HW2/2. 157 Woodhouse to Kent, 30 July 1967; Kent to Woods, 17 August 1967: DAMUC, HW2/2. 158 JCAMU Meeting, 16 February 1967; Morgan to Woodhouse, 2 May 1967: DAMUC, HW2/2. 159 Geoffrey Fisher, Covenant and Reconciliation (London, 1967); Kemp, Shy But Not Retiring, 163. 160 JCAMU Meeting, 12 September 196, DAMUC, HW2/2. 161 Rinkel to Ramsey, 10 July 1967, LPL: LC216 175H, f. 6. 162 Kemp, Shy But Not Retiring, 161. 163 Report of the Anglican–Methodist Unity Commission: Part 2: The Scheme (London, 1968), 45; JCAMU Meeting, 21–23 June 1967, DAMUC, HW2/2. 164 Anglican–Methodist Unity: Report of the Joint Working Group (London, 1971), 19. 165 The Scheme, 60–9; see also, ‘Full Communion with Other Churches, 1968’, in Statements, 149. 166 The Scheme, 29, 55, 128. 167 Henry R.T. Brandreth, ‘Anglican–Methodist Unity: A Review of Attitudes’, c. 1969, cited in LPL: CFR.G 192, f. 87. 168 Kemp, Shy But Not Retiring, 162; The Scheme, 132; Woodhouse to Woods, 11 April 1968, DAMUC, HW2/2. 169 Kent draft letter, 27 July 1968, DAMUC, HW2/2. 170 Cited in Brandreth, ‘Anglican–Methodist Unity’, f. 89. 171 Andrew Atherstone, ‘The Keele Congress of 1967: A Paradigm Shift in Anglican Evangelical Attitudes’ Journal of Anglican Studies 9.2 (2011), 175–97; P.S. Dawes, ‘Keele: Unity and the Future’, c.1967, DAMUC, KB7/2. 172 Brake, Policy and Politics, 326–8; Anglican–Methodist Unity, 24–5. 173 ‘Note for the Record’, 18 March 1971, DAMUC, HW4; Brake, Policy and Politics, 132–5. 174 Rinkel to Ramsey, 18 July 1969, LPL: CFR.G 192, f. 76. 175 Archbishops’ message, 6 August 1969, LPL: CFR.G 19/2, f. 83–4; Intercommunion Today (London, 1969). 176 Growing into Union (London, 1970). 177 Cited in Brake, Policy and Politics, 135–9. 178 Andrew Chandler, Anglicanism, Methodism and Ecumenism: A History of the Queen’s and Handsworth Colleges (London, 2018). 179 ‘Note for the Record’, 18 March 1971, DAMUC, HW4l; JWG, 28 April 1971. 180 Kemp, Shy But Not Retiring, 164. 181 These included Methodism Divided: Wilkinson, ‘Review of Current Church Union Schemes’ (1968), 11, DAMUC: PUB3. 182 F.H. Mountney to Statterthwaite, 8 August 1967, LPL: CFR.G 19/2, f. 32. 183 ‘The Need for Unity’, 3–4. 184 Report, 17. 185 Cresswell to Barrett, 10 September 1964, DAMUC, KB5/3.

5

The Major Participants and their Actions in the Anglican–Methodist Conversations The First Stage 1956–63 John Lenton

Introduction The Anglican–Methodist Conversations were the most ambitious attempt to unify Christian Churches in England since the seventeenth century and they failed.1 To what extent was this due to the selection of participants, their capacity to represent, understand and articulate the spectrum of opinion across the two denominations, their decisions in framing the 1958 Interim Statement and 1963 Report, and their ability (or otherwise) to craft a scheme which could win support in their Churches? This chapter will focus on the first phase, from 1956 to 1963, because the important decisions in shaping the Scheme were taken in this crucial first period. In exploring these questions, in addition to general histories, biographies and memoirs, use has been made of the DAMUC papers at Oxford Brookes University and of the correspondence and other papers of George Bell, Geoffrey Fisher and Eric Kemp in Lambeth Palace Library. In addition, the papers presented for discussion by each side and the minutes for each meeting are held in the Methodist Archives at the John Rylands University Library of Manchester and in Lambeth Palace Library, although the minutes do not record participants’ contributions to the debates, so sources for what was said are very limited.

How and Why were the Participants Chosen? The Methodists2 The Methodist Conference of 1955 agreed to appoint representatives to enter ‘Conversations’ with the Church of England, delegating the selection to the President, Leslie Weatherhead, who consulted with Harold Roberts, the Methodist ecumenical expert, and with Eric Baker, the Secretary of the Conference, and began by appointing themselves. Unfortunately, neither Weatherhead nor Roberts nor Baker left a personal archive allowing the process of selection to be reconstructed in

DOI: 10.4324/9781003119210-5

84  John Lenton detail. It is only possible, therefore, to draw some inferences on the basis of those who were chosen, and this is done at the end of this section. Leslie Weatherhead3 Weatherhead was perhaps mistaken in agreeing to lead the selection process and be one of the representatives. Because of a long-held appointment at the Congregationalist City Temple, which had delayed his Presidency, he was divorced from mainstream Methodism. In choosing Methodist representatives, he therefore leant heavily on his advisers, Roberts and Baker. Born in 1893, Weatherhead was 63 in 1956, so the oldest of the Methodist participants. Moreover, his health was not good – he had two major operations in 1956; consequently, his record of attendance was poor. Before his resignation in 1958, he had attended only one meeting of the Conversations: for just one day.4 He had long been in favour of unity, supported the Conversations initiative, and, having listened to Harold Roberts’ speech in Conference putting the case for talks to begin, called from the Chair for an immediate vote. Although there were only two Dissentients, the failure to give the proposals a full critical airing at this early stage led to later suspicions of railroading by Methodist officialdom, and Roberts regarded Weatherhead’s action as precipitate and unwise.5 Roberts6 and Baker Harold Roberts, a Welshman born in 1896, trained at Wesley House, Cambridge. By 1955 he had become Principal of Richmond College in London. A great preacher without notes, he disliked writing his thoughts down on paper, but was a master at chairing assemblies, great or small. A long-term ecumenist, he was to be one of the few participants in both parts of the Conversations, acting as the Methodist Chairman throughout, while the Anglican chairmanship changed three times between 1955 and 1968. As Eric Baker was the Secretary of the Methodist Ecumenical Committee,7 he was also an obvious choice and became the Methodist Secretary for the Conversations. Born in Birmingham in 1899, and, like Roberts, Cambridgetrained, he had held a series of appointments in major cities before becoming Connexional Education Secretary in 1946. Five years later, he became Secretary of the Conference. This was a powerful post at the centre of the Methodist bureaucracy, and his knowledge of Methodism was immense. He used it with compassion, especially with regard to stationing, where he made himself accessible to every minister. Sangster8 and Snaith Born in 1900 in the City of London, William Sangster had charge of Westminster Central Hall during the Second World War, and was elected

The Anglican–Methodist Conversations  85 President in 1949, the youngest President since Methodist Union. A highly successful evangelist, much-loved and overworked, in 1954 he became the Secretary of the Home Missions Department, one of the largest and most important departments in the Methodist administrative system. In sending him to the Conversations Methodism was committing one of its best talents. Norman Snaith9 born in 1898, was a former Primitive Methodist minister, proud of his heritage. Trained at Mansfield College, Oxford, he became Principal of Headingley College, Leeds, in 1954. Snaith had been the seconder of Roberts’ motion to start the process of Conversations at the 1955 Conference: a deliberate move on Roberts’ part to ensure Snaith’s support from the outset.10 Elected President of Conference in 1958, Snaith retired from the active ministry in 1961 because of ill-health. Davison11 and Walker Lee Born in 1906 and brought up in United Methodism, Leslie Davison was Chairman of the Wolverhampton District, chosen because of this experience. In favour of union and emphasising the work of the Spirit in the life of the Church, he was to succeed Sangster at the Home Missions Department in 1957 and be President in 1962. W. (ʻBillʼ) Walker Lee,12 born the son of a poor miner in County Durham in 1909 and brought up in Primitive Methodism, he was a younger member of the Conversations group. He was minister at the Bolton Central Hall and Chairman of the Bolton District and was later President of Conference (1965). Like Baker, Sangster and Davison, he had experience of Central Hall ministry. Rupp13 and Monahan E. Gordon Rupp, born in 1910, so the youngest of the Methodist ministerial members, was newly appointed in 1956 as Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Manchester, though his historical expertise was not on the Methodist Revival. An ardent ecumenist, his wit and eloquence made him a significant contributor to the Conversations. One more Methodist minister was added later, in March 1956, to balance an Anglican addition. This was C. Dermott Monahan,14 the son of a missionary, who had long experience of the negotiations leading to the creation of the Church of South India. Born in 1906 and trained for the Bar, he had served in the Church of South India until 1950 and had been considered for a bishopric. He was chosen by Roberts because of his experience of the South India union negotiations: the leading Methodists were initially hopeful that the CSI model could be transferred to the English situation.15 Methodist Lay Members There were also three Methodist lay members, all from the North. The only woman was the theologically trained and able Deaconess, Dr Dorothy

86  John Lenton Farrar, born in 1899, a former Vice-President of Conference (1952) and Vice-Principal of the Deaconess Order, member of a notable Yorkshire Methodist family, and a powerful preacher with much experience and spiritual wisdom.16 The two men were both Local (lay) Preachers. The first, Thomas E. Jessop, born in 1896 and a former United Methodist, was an active Christian apologist, Professor of Philosophy at Hull, and VicePresident in 1955.17 The second was Philip Race, youngest of the Methodist cohort, born in 1916, a solicitor in Lincoln who had been involved in the development of the Methodist Association of Youth Clubs and had then gained prominence through the Westminster Laymen’s Movement, founded in 1954. He was to be Vice-President of the Methodist Conference in 1957.18

Summing up the Methodist Participants Of the twelve Methodist members, 9 were ministers and 3 were lay people. It was an able, highly educated group, with many powerful preachers, both lay and ordained. A majority had been born and brought up in the North of England, though some had moved south later in their careers.19 There was a relative lack of experience of rural Methodism: most of the ministerial members of the Conversations had served predominantly or exclusively in urban, suburban or city centre appointments, or in academic or administrative posts, though the lay members had much experience of preaching in rural Circuits.20 Two of the members had been Primitive Methodists and two United Methodists before 1932, an under-representation of those traditions in the post–union Methodist Church. It will be seen below that those nominating the Anglican representatives to the Conversations endeavoured to balance Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical and Central or Broad Church perspectives. Such theological groupings made less sense in mid-twentieth-century Methodism, where such party labels were eschewed or misunderstood.21 Although Sangster, Davison and Snaith might all be described as broadly evangelical in theology, while Roberts, Rupp and Weatherhead were ecumenical and liberal, all would claim to be evangelical, and most, ecumenical and liberal too. Furthermore, all the Methodist leaders were activists committed to mission.22 Rather than seeking representative diversity, the criteria for selection were denominational seniority, an ability to command the confidence of the Conference,23 a measure of ecumenical experience and the intellectual calibre to expound and maintain the Methodist position in dialogue with the Church of England. Seniority in years – the average age of the Methodist group was 54 – meant that issues concerning ill-health occurred, leading to losses by retirement or death. Long experience of wrestling with the implementation of Methodist Union, and the failure of post-Union and post-war ‘Forward Movements’ in evangelism to stem decline in membership, may also have shaped perspectives on the future of the Methodist Church: Weatherhead saw Methodism as inefficient, believing many chapels needed to close.

The Anglican–Methodist Conversations  87

The Anglicans24 The Selection of Bell For the Anglicans, the Fisher and Bell Papers show clearly what happened in choosing who would be the members and why they were chosen. Geoffrey Fisher, as Archbishop of Canterbury, working with Archbishop Garbett of York, appointed the Anglican team.25 On 11 August 1955, Fisher wrote to Weatherhead to say there would be three bishops: two from Canterbury Province and one from York, with five representatives from the Canterbury Lower House (priests and laity) and three from the York Lower House. Fisher then did little until he met the three leading Methodists early in October and learned what they were planning.26 Weatherhead suggested the eirenical ecumenicist George Bell, Bishop of Chichester, as Chairman, saying that Bell ʻwould gladly acceptʼ the role.27 The leader in many varied ecumenical conversations over the years, both internationally (where Bell was seen as one of the founders of the World Council of Churches) and inside the UK, he was the obvious candidate, and Fisher was to trust him to remain in close touch with both archbishops.28 According to Philip Race, Bell knew not only how the Methodist Church worked but also ʻwhat it felt like to be insideʼ it.29 Born in 1883, Bell was the oldest of either group, 73 in 1956, but his experience as ecumenical initiator meant no one else was better for the task. Early Suggestions The meeting with the Methodists was rapidly followed by correspondence between Bell and Fisher in which each suggested names, most of whom appeared in the final list. To some extent, the Anglicans were reacting to the news coming in as to whom the Methodists were choosing. Bell later wrote to Fisher in February 1956 that the Methodists were ‘very well composed, very scholarly’, suggesting that the Anglicans must not fall short.30 On 17 October, in a letter welcoming Bell as Anglican Chairman, Fisher had remarked that the ‘Methodists are anxious to include laity’. Fisher was compiling short lists of possible lay choices. He emphasised that members of Convocation would be most helpful. He was keen to have ‘useful’ people,31 and accepted Bell’s suggestion of Professor H.A. Hodges from Reading University, a ‘philosopher and theologian with first-hand experience’, and a former Methodist Local Preacher. A shy man born in 1905, Hodges was an Anglo-Catholic.32 The Methodists were in favour of including women, so Fisher suggested for the Anglicans, Susanna G. Lister, ‘a very able person with a First in Theology’ involved in ‘many sides of church work’. Scotsborn, she was a member of the Central Committee for Women’s Church Work and Chairman of the ecumenical Women’s World Day of Prayer Committee.33

88  John Lenton

Selections from York The Methodist choice of Rupp, Snaith and Jessop suggested to the Anglicans that they too should include historians and biblical specialists. The choice fell on S.L. (Stanley) Greenslade, born in 1905, Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at Durham and a patristics scholar with a wide expertise in Church history. He had been brought up a Methodist, trained for the ministry at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford and was regarded as an Evangelical, although his sympathies were broad. The Conversations were only one of his ecumenical interests: he also took part in Anglican dialogues with four other Churches, and he was a member of the Faith and Order Committee of the World Council of Churches.34 Clifford A. Martin Bishop, of Liverpool, born in 1895, was the only bishop to be chosen from the York province. He had trained at Ridley Hall, Cambridge, and has been described as the ‘leading evangelical’ among the Anglican participants,35 but, like Greenslade, represented the party’s liberal wing.36 Also from the Northern Province were Lionel M.S. Du Toit, born in 1903, who was Vicar of St Mary’s Windermere, and became Dean of Carlisle in 1960;37 and Dr John Vaughan Loach, born in 1907, registrar at Leeds University, a layman ‘of central churchmanship’. According to Archbishop Garbett, he would ‘understand the Methodist position’.38

Other Appointments Another selection was Harold Riley, born in 1904, a priest who was the secretary of the Church Union, an Anglo-Catholic who wrote on the Liturgical Secretary.39 Francis (F.J.) Taylor, Principal of Wycliffe Hall 1956–62, born in 1912, was seen by Fisher as one of the representatives of the Evangelicals. However, he was also the editor of the liberal/Catholic Parish and People and some Evangelicals were beginning to lose confidence in Wycliffe Hall.40 The other bishop from the southern province, in addition to Bell, was Harry Carpenter, Bishop of Oxford. Carpenter, born in 1901, had previously been warden of Keble College and was an Anglo-Catholic theologian. Eric Kemp was also selected. Born in 1915 and the youngest of the original Anglican participants, he was fellow and chaplain of Exeter College, Oxford, where he taught both theology and history. A Lincolnshire grammar school boy, he had become a somewhat stubborn man and one of the leading Anglo-Catholics of his generation. An expert on canon law,41 Kemp had been helpful to both Fisher and Bell in persuading Convocation to adopt a report accepting Church of South India bishops.42

Conclusion of the Process Fisher considered requesting William Wand, Bishop of London, to be Chairman, though he did nothing till the New Year (1956) arrived. At the

The Anglican–Methodist Conversations  89 end of January, he sent out letters to those he had selected, inviting them to serve, but still without asking anyone to be chairman. When Bell replied early in February wondering what had happened on this, Fisher realised that he had as yet no chairman, so replied immediately to Bell, requesting him to accept the post. Bell’s response was to agree but insist that he must have Norman Sykes on his team.43 Born in 1897 and Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge since 1944, Sykes was the historian of the eighteenthcentury Church, rescuing it from the ignominy in which previous historians had placed it. He had been Bell’s examining chaplain, lending his historian’s expertise to Bell’s biography of Randall Davidson.44 He was also Rupp’s mentor and friend, and was now expected to be able to answer him. In two lecture series in the mid-1950s, Sykes had explored the Anglican attitude to episcopacy, arguing for its maintenance as a condition of reunion.45 Sykes’s view was that the representatives had been selected by Fisher principally to balance Anglican party groups, and that they lacked expertise and knowledge of the background when compared to the Methodists.46 In his view (and Bell’s), Fisher had made rather a mess of the job and only Sykes could rescue him from it, if he was included. The total count, therefore, with Sykes, was three Evangelicals (Taylor, Martin and Greenslade), five Anglo-Catholics (Kemp, Carpenter, Hodges, Riley and du Toit) and four others (Bell, Sykes, Lister and Loach). Sykes, Kemp, Du Toit, Riley and Taylor were all clergy members of Convocation. Fisher had noted on the Evangelicals, ‘They have not got any good people on Convocation, F.J. Taylor of Wycliffe Hall could be considered’.47 The Anglicans were rather younger than the Methodists, averaging 49 to the Methodist 54. Later changes and replacements were to even up this age difference so that in 1963 both teams averaged 58.

The Conversations from 1956 to the Death of George Bell in 1958 The Conversations began in June 1956, with a day’s meeting at Lambeth Palace for introductions and planning. As the members gathered, the offer of no alternative drink to sherry to the group of teetotal Methodists made for an embarrassing start to the process.48 Thereafter, two four-day meetings were held each year, at alternate Methodist and Anglican venues. Some sessions at the meetings were joint, some separate, to discuss their side’s position.49 Each side presented papers on the main themes seen as significant, such as history, episcopacy, ordination, priesthood and ministry.50 Harold Roberts and George Bell were co-chairmen; the two secretaries were Susanna Lister and Eric Baker. Writing to Bell after the third meeting in June 1957, Sykes characterised the balance in the Anglican group thus: [T]he able and rigid quartet51 stood firmly for the extreme position as regards episcopacy and easily prevailed. The only definite Evangelical present was Taylor … and from the contributions he made … I should

90  John Lenton not have guessed had I not already known it. He lacks both the learning of Greenslade and the downrightness of Douglas Harrison of Sheffield.52 The evangelical cause in the Church of England went by default. Apart from yourself … and you did valiantly, the Central Anglican tradition has had a poor innings.53 Bell was the real mover behind progress in the Conversations. He was determined that this, probably his final task for the Church, should be successful. His energy in the cause was that of a much younger man. Every night when the remainder ʻretired to bed, he would be sitting up studying his notes of the day’s proceedings to come next morning prepared with proposals for the day.54 He worked closely with Roberts, sending him his suggestions beforehand and accepting Roberts’ amendments.55 In July 1957, Bell reported to Fisher after the third meeting: On the last day we got down to the definite question of taking the Episcopate into the Methodist Church. Roberts is quite admirable in his leadership of the Methodists and Doctor Snaith who represents the rather radical group by contrast agreed that Christian Unity was necessary and that he supposed the Episcopate was necessary for it. The Bishop of Oxford was particularly helpful on our side, and so was Taylor.56 Bell recognised he needed both Anglo-Catholic (Carpenter) and Evangelical (Taylor) support. It was during the third and fourth meetings, both in 1957, that the Methodist and Anglican representatives moved from understanding each other’s positions to taking actual steps towards Church unity. Drawing on previous work by Baker and Greenslade, Bell wrote paper 1/19 for the fourth meeting in December 1957 on ‘Unity and Intercommunion’, which proved most fruitful. He summed up the progress made at meeting four in a letter to Fisher in December 1957: We have just finished our fourth joint meeting … discussing the taking in of episcopacy to the Methodist system and the types of response to your proposal that might be made … very interesting [there is] a movement of thought on both sides. The Methodists felt that partial intercommunion of the very limited kind available to start with would not be welcome to Methodists generally, and surprisingly, would itself involve considerable constitutional changes – if they were to take in episcopacy in the sense of having some bishops, and having a rule for the episcopal ordination of future ministers. There was therefore a conviction, which came, significantly after separate sessions for the Anglicans and the Methodists, that we must set before our Churches the goal of union,57 but as a first step thereto we should start to set before them the need of a complete unification of ministries … preserving at that stage the

The Anglican–Methodist Conversations  91 Church of England and the Methodist Church as separate entities …. Methodists felt that, if they were to take episcopacy into their system … and divided their ministry into young episcopally ordained and the rest non-episcopally ordained, the brotherhood of the ministry would be broken.58 This clearly states the agreement which had emerged between the two groups of representatives. It explains the change from merely seeking to take episcopacy into the Methodist system to actually doing that as a means to effect an eventual union, the union being in two stages, not one, as in the Church of South India. Part of this new policy was because several on the Anglican side led by Sykes were against following the South India model,59 and partly because of a change of view, which was to some extent the result of a change in personnel on the Methodist side. Monahan, the ex-missionary from India, who had fallen ill before the first meeting, died in May 1957. Harold Roberts, looking for another Methodist with recent experience of the CSI, found one close at hand in A. Marcus Ward, a minister who had in 1955 returned from India to become a tutor with Roberts at Richmond. Ward, who had served in India since Union, had felt left out because he was not permitted to celebrate the Eucharist in the (ex-Anglican) Cathedral. He therefore persuaded Roberts not to follow the CSI method of union.60 George Bell, who had been so successful in leading the Conversations to agreement by the end of 1957, suffered a stroke on the last day of the meeting in April 1958. He was found unconscious by Kemp. He recovered sufficiently to present An Interim Statement to the Lambeth Conference that summer, but died in October.61 He was a great loss, but the agreement he had achieved was to lead to the eventual majority Report of 1963.

Conversations: An Interim Statement 1958 An Interim Statement: Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church was published jointly in April 1958.62 The different parts had been written by different members, but they appeared over the names of all. The early sections dealt with common ground: the eighteenthcentury history of the separation, the Anglican inheritance and the marks of Methodism and its attitude to Episcopacy. All these were based on the papers the group had produced earlier. The final and key section in An Interim Statement was ‘Unity and Intercommunion’, which Bell had written himself. It dealt with the first method of union as used in the Church of South India and explained why the participants had found it unsatisfactory and rejected it.63 There was then the vital statement, ‘We have been led … to the conviction that nothing short of organic unity, whatever form it may take, should be our goal’. This was clearly beyond the Intercommunion envisaged in Fisher’s 1946 sermon. It went on to propose a two-stage process, beginning with a ‘parallelism’ of intercommunion in which each would

92  John Lenton recognise the validity of the other’s Sacraments. The Ceylon and North India schemes were suggested as models for how this might be done, but no definitive process was as yet set out.64 The Interim Statement’s acceptance of episcopacy led two Methodist ministers, Kingsley Barrett and Vincent Parkin,65 to publish a critique, while Robert Newton Flew, the elder statesman of Methodist ecumenism,66 opposed it over its ambiguities on ordination. However, in both Conference and Convocations, there was no great appetite for a debate. Despite some hostile letters in the Methodist Recorder, the report was received by the two Churches and the representatives were sent back to continue the Conversations.

1958–62 Conversations Continued: changes in the membership The death of Bell, ʻa great loss to us’, was a major blow to the progress of the Conversations. Carpenter, who succeeded Bell as Anglican co-chair, was not as able as Bell, nor was he to find it as possible to take his fellow Anglicans with him.67 A member of the high Anglican quartet described by Sykes, Evangelicals looked on him less favourably. Significantly also, he was less close to Fisher and did not report to him as much (or as well) as Bell had in the previous period.68 In view of Fisher’s later opposition to the proposals, it is worth noting that Fisher, while in office (he resigned in May 1961), always supported the proposals; for example, he supported An Interim Report in 1958, when it was presented to the Convocation over which he presided, and again to the Lambeth Conference later that year.69 S. Falkner Allison, born in 1907, former Principal of Ridley Hall, Cambridge, Bishop of Chelmsford and a liberal evangelical, was appointed by Fisher to replace Bell as a bishop from the Southern province, partly as a balance to Carpenter’s Anglo-Catholicism. This strengthened the Evangelicals, but Allison, though able and later translated to Winchester, was not in the same class and never carried quite the weight in discussion that Bell had. Roberts, commenting on his appointment, said that he would have preferred Oliver Tomkins (Bishop of Bristol): ‘I should have preferred him because he is more rigid and it is good that we encounter the opposition in a more uncompromising form’.70 When Weatherhead resigned in 1958, Tom Meadley was appointed to the Methodist group to represent the more evangelical side of Methodism.71 His presence was important because he was responsible for pressing Roberts and Baker to maintain Methodist numbers by the replacement of Sangster,72 and the appointment of Kingsley Barrett as a leading expert on the New Testament Church.73 C. Kingsley Barrett was a Methodist minister, and son of a United Methodist minister. Born in 1917, he was the youngest among the participants in the first phase. From at least 1955, it is clear that he opposed the Conversations, particularly on the issue of taking any form of episcopacy

The Anglican–Methodist Conversations  93 into the Methodist system, and that he took a lead in speaking, writing to newspapers and encouraging opposition across Methodism and (later) outside.74 When he was invited to replace Sangster in late 1959, his first reaction was to refuse, and Meadley, who had suggested him, had to work very hard to persuade him that his strongest position was from within, rather than from without.75 It is worth pointing out that Roberts, the Methodist chairman, also wanted him inside, for Roberts always sought to persuade Barrett of the value of unity.76 Though Barrett was appointed by Eric Baker, the President of that year, Baker was doubtful about it, partly on the grounds that one new member of the group at this late stage could not make much difference, but Baker’s doubts were overcome by Roberts’ enthusiasm. Norman Sykes died in March 1961. The Anglicans decided not to replace him because by then they thought they could see the end of the Conversations. Perhaps it was also difficult to find an Anglican priest who was an equally good eighteenth-century church historian.

Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church: A Report Published early in 1963, the Report, referring back to the Interim Statement, proposed a Service of Reconciliation, including a form carefully drawn up by Kemp, which indicated that the Methodists would accept ‘episcopacy in continuity with the historic episcopate and the practice of episcopal ordination in the future’;77 the two Churches would, from then on, be in communion with each other and would seek to work and ‘grow together by consultation, common action and common devotion at all levels’. The Report went on to explain theological considerations, including the authority of the Bible and the role of tradition, Church order and episcopacy, and differences and similarities over sacramental practice, which would need further discussion. It asked both Churches to discuss the whole question at every level and to decide in 1965 whether or not to proceed with the proposals. The 11 remaining Anglican members agreed unanimously to commend the proposals to their Church. The 12 Methodist members, however, were divided. A majority of eight agreed, but four submitted a ‘Dissentient View’. The four – Barrett, Snaith, Meadley and Jessop – all had non-Wesleyan roots.78 Snaith had previously been in two minds on the issues. Keen on unity, he had initially conceded that episcopacy was probably necessary if union were to be achieved. However, by the early 1960s, childhood memories of past Anglican injustices had strengthened his misgivings. Kemp recalled Snaith telling stories of how he and his sister had been denied cakes at their Anglican village school because they were leftovers from the Church fete and they were not ‘Church’ children.79 As he had retired early due to ill-health, he was unable to take a lead. Jessop was also older, having retired from his post at Hull in 1960. His attitude towards the Conversations can

94  John Lenton be deduced from his absence from them; of the last seven meetings, he was present at only two. Barrett and Meadley were a generation younger and responsible for much of the ‘Dissentient View’. They argued against the proposals on the grounds that the Bible, not tradition, must be supreme; that the historic episcopate was incapable of proof; and that it had not been the safeguard it was claimed to be. They argued that the Service of Reconciliation was ambiguous on ordination and that this ambiguity was wrong; against the use of the word ‘priest’; that any lay celebration of the sacrament would be lost at stage one; and that unity would lead to the absorption of the Methodist Church into the Church of England.80 At one point, the Dissentients thought that they might gain support from Dorothy Farrar. As she regularly travelled on trains to and from the South of England with them, they felt hopeful that she might join them. In the end, however, she backed the Report. An ex-Wesleyan, she felt unity was most important and unity was the right course.

Conclusion: how important was this first phase of the Conversations? Reflecting on the period from 1955 to 1963 in light of the ultimate failure of the Conversations, several important features emerge. First, the participants were able to agree on a scheme which went much further than Fisher’s 1946 suggestion, and which could envisage bringing together two of the largest English Churches. Secondly, there was apparently very little opposition to the proposals in either Church until the publication of the 1963 Report. Few had thought out what might happen if unity took place, nor had many read An Interim Report. Those who had, had mostly forgotten it four years later. What comments there were tended to be scholarly, dealing with detailed questions of theology, church history, or sociology.81 Such comments did not utilise the kind of polemic which became commonplace later, and they were not much read. In both Churches, opposition before 1963 was limited to a few individuals who were not yet working together. In retrospect, the most important of these contributions was the historical one by John Kent, arguing that the view that episcopacy was the problem was wrong, and that Anglicans needed to understand what Methodists meant by episcope and how they exercised it, and how this could be used to bring about unity. It had no apparent effect on the Report.82 Thirdly, what had happened seemed to be of the utmost significance in the religious history of England in the twentieth century. The Anglican historian Roger Lloyd could write in 1965: It will be surprising if in the end these proposals, endorsed in principle by large majorities on both sides, come to nothing. There is no doubt at all that this report has more than justified all the labours of the distinguished Anglicans and Methodists who produced it and that it is one

The Anglican–Methodist Conversations  95 of the most influential documents in the field of reunion which has ever been written.83 Finally, while the Anglican team unanimously endorsed the Report, it ultimately failed to carry a sufficient majority in the Anglican Church to enact the proposals.84 By contrast, although one-third of the Methodist team took the ‘Dissentient View’, the Methodist Conference consistently supported the scheme by overwhelming majorities. How far were these outcomes due to the personnel and actions of the participants? And what were the relative contributions of the individual participants to the final process? The initial selection of participants from both Churches was driven by denominational prestige, expertise and the exigencies of ecclesiastical politics. Efforts were made to recruit people with relevant biblical, theological, or historical knowledge, as well as ecumenical experience in Britain or elsewhere, but a high denominational profile and, in the Anglican case, the need to balance Church parties weighed heavily in the choices made. The members were therefore typically ordained men, past middle age, in established positions of denominational leadership. Given this profile, some participants were impeded by failing health or declining energies. Most carried heavy workloads outside the Conversations. Those participants who became ill, resigned, or decided not to attend during the first phase were by definition unable to influence the discussions as much as those who survived, attended every meeting, and contributed positively to the papers presented and discussion about them. The participants who played the most important parts in the first phase were for the Anglicans: Bell, Kemp, Sykes, Carpenter, Greenslade, and Taylor, with Bell, Sykes and Kemp ahead of the rest, though neither Bell nor Sykes survived to see the final Report. For the Methodists, Harold Roberts supported by Baker, Davison, Ward and Rupp played the greatest part in the eventual report.85 The Methodist ‘Dissentient View’ was largely the result of Barrett’s efforts, supported by Meadley, Snaith and, by correspondence, Jessop.86 Both the teams as they were at the end in 1963 and the new teams appointed in 1965 were more sensitive to different groups. Crafting a scheme was the first part of the process; securing agreement was the second. Here, a contrast may be drawn between the Anglican and Methodist participants, reflecting differences in the polity of the two Churches. Methodism’s centralised structure of decision-making meant that success required winning a vote in the Conference. Here, the team’s preponderance of ex- (or future) Presidents and trusted denominational leaders was crucial, even if the Methodist team did not represent the diversity and concerns of ‘grassroots’ Methodism. Ironically, the balance within the Methodist participants over-represented the eventual voting in Conference. The minority in Conference was less than a quarter. The minority made up by the Dissentients in the team was one-third. For the Anglicans, balancing Church parties was much more significant, and the dearth of Conservative

96  John Lenton Evangelicals on the group was a fatal weakness in the longer term, especially in light of the resurgence of this school of thought since the Second World War. Conservative Evangelicals were much more prominent in the Church and Convocation in the mid and later 1960s than they had been in 1955. In neither Church did the Conversations teams devote energy in the initial phase to building support in Dioceses, Districts, Circuits, or local congregations: this was to be left to the group ‘Towards Anglican–Methodist Unity’, set up in 1963. With the publication of the Report, it suddenly became clear that there were significant groups in each Church who opposed its conclusions. The result was a flurry of pamphlets, the formation of pressure groups and a decade of acrimonious debate. Much of the comment, then and since, was inaccurate.87 Neither Methodists nor Anglicans, though there were still comfortable majorities for the Report in each Church in 1963, could be certain the majority would be enough. The course of the next nine years was to demonstrate how well-founded that uncertainty was.

Notes 1 For accounts of the Conversations, see John Munsey Turner, Conflict and Reconciliation: Studies in Methodism and Ecumenism in England 1740–1982 (London, 1985); Rupert E. Davies, ‘Since 1932ʼ, in Rupert Davies, A. Raymond George and Gordon Rupp (eds), History of the Methodist Church in Great Britain, iii (London, 1983), 372–9; Paul Welsby, A History of the Church of England 1945–1980 (Oxford, 1985); Roger Lloyd, The Church of England 1900–1965 (London, 1965). 2 Brief biographies of the Methodist participants may be found in John A. Vickers (ed.), A Dictionary of Methodism in Britain and Ireland (Peterborough, 2000) (hereafter DMBI), also available in expanded form at https://dmbi​.online/ 3 K.G.G. (Kenneth Greet), in DMBI; Kingsley Weatherhead, Leslie Weatherhead: A Personal Portrait (London, 1975); John Travell, Doctor of Souls (Cambridge, 1999). 4 Both Weatherhead, Leslie Weatherhead, 209, and Travell, Doctor of Souls, 222, give the impression that Weatherhead resigned immediately and took no part in the actual Conversations. The minutes show he was still sending apologies and had therefore not resigned as late as the fourth meeting in December 1957, two years after the start. The fifth meeting’s minutes do not include him at all, but it is probable he sent his apologies to it: AMC Minutes, Lambeth Palace Library (hereafter LPL). 5 Travell, Doctor of Souls, 213. 6 J.H.L. (John Lenton) in DMBI; John Lenton, Harold Roberts (Peterborough, 1995). 7 K.G.G. (Kenneth Greet) in DMBI; Roy Newell, Methodist Preacher and Statesman: Eric W. Baker 1899–1973 (Taunton, 1984); E.W. Baker, To Clear Misunderstanding: Methodism, the Free Churches and the Future (London, 1964). 8 J.D.B. (John Beasley) in DMBI; Paul Sangster, Doctor Sangster (London, 1962). 9 C.S.R. (Cyril Rodd) in DMBI. 10 G.S. Wakefield, Robert Newton Flew 1886–1962 (London, 1971), 243.

The Anglican–Methodist Conversations  97 11 K.G.G. in DMBI. For his (later) views, see his What is our Providential Way? Epworth Conversation Booklets, no. 19 (London, 1965). 12 Who’s Who in Methodism (London, 1933) and DMBI (online edition). 13 J.A.N. (John Newton) in DMBI. 14 R.A. (Ruth Anstey) in DMBI (online edition). 15 For the Church of South India, see W.J. Noble (ed.), Towards an United Church (London, 1947); E.L. Mascall, The Convocations and South India (London, 1955); Andrew Chandler and David Hein, Archbishop Fisher 1945–61: Church, State and World (Farnham, 2012), 79–81. 16 John A. Hargreaves, A Warmed Heart and a Disciplined Mind Perfectly Joined: Sister Dorothy Hincksman Farrar (1899–1987) and the Evolution of Women’s Ministry in Methodism (Buxton: 2005). 17 O.A.B. (Oliver Beckerlegge) in DMBI. 18 J.H.L. in DMBI. 19 That north includes the counties of Cheshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire as well as those English counties further north. The seven who made up the majority were Davison, Farrar, Jessop, Lee, Race, Roberts and Snaith. Of these, Roberts and Davison had moved south. Snaith did the same when he retired before the end of the first phase. The additional member, Monahan, was born in India and had spent more than 20 years there, before returning to minister in South London in 1950. 20 Outlines of appointments in J. Henry Martin and J. Bernard Sheldon (eds), Ministers and Probationers of the Methodist Church (London, 1963); Davison had one year in the Camelford Circuit, but this was in 1927–8; Roberts was Superintendent of the rural Ipswich Circuit 1941–6; Farrar in Ilkley, Race in Lincoln, and Jessop in Hull, were all used to preaching in different rural chapels many Sundays. 21 See Martin Wellings, ‘Methodist Evangelicals in the Twentieth Century’, in M. Smith (ed.), British Evangelical Identities Past and Present, I (Milton Keynes, 2008), 46–60, esp. 49–50. The under-representation was remedied later by the appointments of Meadley and Barrett, so that in the second part of the first phase non-Wesleyans were over-represented. 22 Roberts’ relatively few publications included The Mission and Message of Methodism and The Missionary Obligation of the Church (London, 1955). 23 Reflected in the fact that Monahan was the only one of the original 12 not to serve as President or Vice-President of the Conference. 24 This next section is largely based on the Fisher papers and the Bell papers at LPL. See also Chandler and Hein, Archbishop Fisher, 100–1. 25 Fisher to Bell, 17 October 1955, LPL, Fisher Papers, vol. 161, 31. 26 The further delay was partly caused by the illness of Archbishop Garbett, who died in December 1955, and the consequent wait for a successor to be appointed to approve the nominations from the Northern province. 27 Fisher to Bell, 17 October 1955, LPL, Fisher Papers, vol. 161, 31. Bell had offered himself as a member as early as 13 August 1955: Bell to Fisher, LPL, Fisher Papers, vol. 161, 25. 28 On Bell’s ecumenical experience, see Ronald C.D. Jasper, George Bell, Bishop of Chichester (London, 1967), 56–69, 315–38; and on the Conversations, 352–4. 29 Philip Race, Old Chariot (Richmond College magazine), 1968, 35. 30 Bell to Fisher, 23 February 1956, LPL, Bell Papers. 31 LPL, Fisher Papers, vol. 179, 221, and, for a short list, 17 October 1955. 32 Bell to Fisher, 6 October 1955, LPL, Fisher Papers. See also Alan P.F. Sell Four Philosophical Anglicans (Farnham, 2010), 203–73. 33 The quotations are from Fisher to Bell, 17 October 1955, LPL, Fisher Papers, vol. 161, 31.

98  John Lenton 34 Henry Chadwick, ‘Stanley Lawrence Greenslade’ in Proceedings of the British Academy, lxxii (1986), 409–22, at 409 and 419; W. Purdy The Search for Unity Relations between the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches from the 1950s to the 1970s (London, 1996); Sykes to Bell, 23 February 1956, LPL, Bell Papers. 35 Randle Mainwaring, From Controversy to Coexistence: Evangelicals in the Church of England 1914–1980 (Cambridge, 1985), 124. 36 Peter Webster, ‘Archbishop Michael Ramsey and the Evangelicals’, in Andrew Atherstone and John Maiden (eds), Evangelicalism and the Church of England in the Twentieth Century (Woodbridge, 2014), 179. 37 ‘New Dean of Carlisle’, Times, 4 November 1959, 14. 38 Garbett to Fisher, 29 October 1955, LPL, Fisher Papers, vol. 161, 34; Loach only attended two of the final six meetings. 39 Fisher to Bell, 17 October 1955, LPL, Fisher Papers, vol. 161, 31. 40 A trend which accelerated under Taylor’s successor: Andrew Atherstone, ‘Rescued from the brink: the collapse and resurgence of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford’, in Kate Cooper and Jeremy Gregory (eds), Revival and Resurgence in Christian History (Studies in Church History, 44) (Woodbridge, 2008), 354–64. 41 Guardian obituary, accessed 24 December 2018; Kemp Papers in Lambeth Palace Library. 42 Eric Kemp, Shy But Not Retiring (London, 2006), 123. Kemp’s memory of places and people 40 years before was not always reliable, e.g. his statement that Sykes was ʻnot involved in the conversationsʼ, Shy But Not Retiring, 158. 43 Fisher to Bell, 3 February 1956, LPL, Fisher Papers AMC LP 044; in the next letter, Fisher apologised to Bell for not telling him about the others and says who they were: Fisher to Bell, 9 February 1956. 44 J.S. Bezzant, ‘Norman Sykes’, Proceedings of the British Academy, xlvii (1963); Jasper, George Bell, 74, 76. 45 The lectures, delivered in 1953–4 and 1954–5, were published as Old Priest, New Presbyter (Cambridge, 1957). 46 Bell explained to Sykes the Methodist background of Hodges: Bell Correspondence. 47 Fisher to Bell, LPL, Fisher Papers, vol. 161, 31. 48 Kemp, Shy But Not Retiring, 159. 49 See, for example, Roberts to Baker, 25 October 1958, about the forthcoming meeting in December: JRULM, Harold Roberts Papers, MA 2011/04/5/2. 50 Carpenter ‘Nature of the Church of England’ (Meeting 1); Eric Baker ‘Methodist Church – History, Ethos, Organisation and Worship’ (Meeting 1); Rupp ‘The Historic Episcopate’ (meeting 2); Roberts and Carpenter wrote Papers 1/7 and 1/8 on Ordination and the Methodist and the Anglican Approach for Meeting 3. At the same meeting were read: Taylor on Priesthood, Sangster’s ‘Memo with comments’ (on ministry) and Davison ‘On the Priesthood of All Believers’. Jessop wrote a paper on ‘Non-Theological Factors in our Division’. Many of these later became bases for the interim report. 51 Carpenter, Du Toit and Riley were meant, but Kemp, the fourth AngloCatholic, was not present at the third meeting. Cf. Sykes’ earlier letter to Bell, 22 February1956, LPL, Bell Papers. 52 Douglas Harrison was an Evangelical who had been Vice-Principal of Wycliffe Hall and was Archdeacon of Sheffield. Bell suggested him to Fisher, but he did not get beyond the short list. 53 Sykes to Bell, 27 June 1957, LPL, Bell Papers, vol. 174, 186–7. Bell did not agree with Sykes, replying: ʻI did not feel (nor did Harold Roberts) that the Anglo-Catholic element was entirely dominantʼ and asking Sykes to make a full contribution; 190.

The Anglican–Methodist Conversations  99 54 Kemp Shy But Not Retiring, 158. 55 For example, Roberts to Bell, 13 June 1957, remarking that acceptance of episcopacy should not be described as a ‘recovery’, but ‘another way’ of expressing ‘what we already hold’: LPL, Bell Papers, AMC volume. 56 Bell to Fisher, July 1957, LPL, Fisher Papers, vol. 191, 235. 57 Underlined by Bell in the original. 58 Bell to Fisher, 12 December 1957, LPL, Fisher Papers, vol. 191, 235. 59 Kemp, Shy But Not Retiring, 158. 60 John A. Newton, A Man for All Churches Marcus Ward 1906–1978 (London, 1984), 78–81. Ward was Roberts’ close colleague from 1955 and influenced his thinking, but did not attend until December 1958. 61 Kemp, Shy But Not Retiring, 159. See Secretary’s Correspondence file formerly at C of E Record office at Bermondsey, AMC/COR/1. 62 Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church: An Interim Statement (London, 1958). 63 Interim Statement, 40–1; R.E. Davies, ‘Since 1932’, 372–5. 64 Interim Statement, 41–4, especially 42 and 44. 65 For Barrett, see below; Parkin was a New Testament Tutor at Headingley College from 1953. 66 Wakefield, Flew, 201–43, esp. 243. 67 Kemp, Shy But Not Retiring, 159. Carpenter was replaced by Stopford for the final phase in 1965. 68 The Fisher papers show fewer (and shorter) letters from Carpenter than from Bell. 69 Kemp, Shy But Not Retiring, 157–8. 70 Allison, from 1961 Bishop of Winchester, first attended a meeting in December 1958 and never missed a subsequent meeting: JRULM, Harold Roberts Papers, MA 2011/04/5/2. 71 W.L. (William Leary) in DMBI. 72 Meadley was present from Meeting 6 onward: T.D. Meadley to the author, 1987; JRULM, Harold Roberts Papers, MA 2011/04/5/2/A-C; Sangster, who was ill from 1957, became a supernumerary in 1958 and resigned after the seventh meeting in April 1959. 73 See G. Howard Mellor Cliff More than a College (Calver, 2005), 527–30. 74 DAMUC papers and letter from Barrett to the author, 1987. 75 Letter from Meadley to the author, 1987: see note 73. 76 See, for example, DAMUC/KB5/1, letter 9 April 1961. 77 See the Kemp correspondence, including letters from Eric Mascall praising his drafting of the service. 78 Two members of the majority were not ex-Wesleyans: Leslie Davison and Bill Lee. 79 Kemp, Shy But Not Retiring, 163–4. 80 Jessop was 67 in 1963 and had written no religious articles after 1959: see Hull University Archives; Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church. A Report. (London, 1963), 62. 81 Theology: T.W. Manson, Ministry and Priesthood Christ’s and Ours (London, 1958); Church History: Arnold Ehrhardt, The Apostolic Ministry (Scottish Journal of Theology Occasional Papers no. 7) (Edinburgh, 1958); Sociology: W.S.F. Pickering (ed.), Anglican Methodist Relations: Some Institutional Factors (London, 1961). 82 John Kent, ‘Episcopacy in Church and Society’, in Pickering, Anglican Methodist Relations, 83–113; it was published rather late to influence the eventual Report, which Kent supported: see J.H.S. Kent, Federation or Union? Epworth Conversations Booklets no. 18 (London, 1965).

100  John Lenton 83 Lloyd, Church of England 1900–65, 590. 84 This was partly because of the balance of power shifting to the Evangelicals. See Chapter 8 and Randle Mainwaring, From Controversy to Coexistence: Evangelicals in the Church of England 1914–1980 (Cambridge, 1985). 85 For who said what and how much, Bell’s notes on the actual discussions are the only real evidence: Bell Papers, LPL, AMC 174. See also Kemp’s tribute to Du Toit and Riley for their help with the Ordinal: Shy But Not Retiring, 160. 86 DAMUC papers, passim, Meadley’s letter to author (see note 73) and Chapter 7. 87 ʻI have heard and read so many accounts … which are inaccurateʼ: Rupert Davies, ʻThe Postponement of Unity: A Personal Account, in J.M. Turner (ed.), Methodism and Ministry (Peterborough, 1993), 29–42, at 32; Wikipedia (accessed 10 November 2018) says that the Methodists initiated the Conversations.

6

Theology, Providence and Anglican–Methodist Reunion The case of Michael Ramsey and E.L. Mascall1 Peter Webster

It was while Michael Ramsey was Archbishop of Canterbury that the Church of England tried twice, and twice failed, to agree to reunion with the Methodist Church. Three decades earlier, it had been the Church of England that had made the first move, in Geoffrey Fisher’s so-called Cambridge Sermon of 1946.2 In July 1969, the Methodist Conference agreed to a union that involved the most radical recasting of church order: the incorporation of episcopacy into a system that had never known it. Ramsey thought it ‘an event in history of an almost incredible kind’ that one of the Free Churches should have agreed to such a union.3 On the same day, however, the Church Assembly of the Church of England narrowly rejected the Scheme. Ramsey thought it right to try again, since the Anglican ‘no’ had to be set against the Methodist ‘yes’. But the General Synod, the successor body to the Church Assembly, was once again to say ‘no’, in 1972. The failure of the Scheme was perhaps the greatest disappointment of Ramsey’s time as archbishop. There is as yet no comprehensive account of the process as it unfolded, though the present volume will do much to address that lack.4 But the central issue (at least on the Anglican side) is well known: the nature of the ordained ministry. For Anglo-Catholics, there could be no valid sacramental ministry without episcopal ordination. How, then, could they accept the ministry in a united Church of Methodist ministers who had not been so ordained?5 In order to circumvent this obstacle, a Service of Reconciliation had been devised, through which all ministers would pass at the inception of the united Church. It involved the laying on of hands, but did not address the precise question of how the status, before God, of either Anglican or Methodist ministers was to change. Was it an ordination, or not? The Service was certainly similar in structure to the ordinations that Anglicans were used to seeing, and so it rather looked like one. For some, it mattered a great deal what one believed the answer to be; for others, it mattered little. For some, it also mattered that men might undergo the Service while being allowed to understand its significance in varying ways. Its advocates had been explicit that the important thing about the Service was neither the starting point, nor what happened on the journey, DOI: 10.4324/9781003119210-6

102  Peter Webster but the destination.6 This agnosticism was too much, however, for a significant minority of evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics, who together were to oppose and ultimately twice defeat the Scheme.7 For Ramsey, both groups risked throwing away the only realistic form of union that would serve their respective interests. Conservative evangelicals, perversely in Ramsey’s view, seemed prepared to pass up the prospect of unity with Methodist evangelicals for the sake of a single service which could be read to imply a view of priesthood that they did not share, although it in fact did not affirm such a view. Ramsey was also convinced that the Scheme ‘conserves in essence the very things which the Catholic movement has borne witness to’ (the centrality of the historical episcopate). ‘Hence the double tragedy of two sections of our Church being ready to throw away the things which they most care about through fear of losing their theological tidiness’.8 This chapter is concerned with the basis of just this theological tidiness on the Anglo-Catholic side of the argument. It examines the relationship between Michael Ramsey and E.L. (Eric) Mascall, one of the most prominent voices in the campaign against the Scheme. It shows that although in more certain times the thought of the two men appeared to be very closely aligned, the pressure of the 1960s revealed that they drew on different sources and thus reached fundamentally different conclusions.9 Though on the surface the dispute seemed to be about episcopacy and ecclesiology, lying beneath it were the relations between optimism and pessimism, between clarity and uncertainty, and between tradition and providence. To examine the careers of Michael Ramsey and Eric Mascall is to reveal striking parallels and key differences. Born a year apart (Ramsey in 1904 and Mascall in 1905), both studied at Cambridge, Ramsey reading theology and Mascall mathematics, both emerging with first class honours. Neither had come to Cambridge intending to be ordained, but Ramsey left directly for training at Cuddesdon College; Mascall spent three unhappy years as a schoolteacher before entering Ely Theological College. Both served their time in parishes – Ramsey in the north-west, Mascall in London – before entering academic life. Both served as sub-warden of Lincoln Theological College: Ramsey from 1930 to 1936, Mascall from 1937 until he left for Christ Church, Oxford, in 1945. Mascall was to move only once more, from Oxford to King’s College London in 1962, to be Professor of Historical Theology, from which position he retired in 1973. Ramsey, after having occupied, first, the Van Mildert Chair of Divinity at Durham, and then the Regius Professorship in Cambridge from 1950, thought he too had reached his last job. By the time he retired in 1974, however, he had been successively Bishop of Durham, Archbishop of York, and (from 1961) Archbishop of Canterbury.10 Ramsey and Mascall had very significant sympathies in theological outlook, and the two have often been bracketed together. Adrian Hastings placed them both in a ‘high summer of Anglo-Catholic theology’, in the

Anglican–Methodist Reunion 

103

company of others such as Gregory Dix, Gabriel Hebert, Lionel Thornton and Austin Farrer.11 Public sympathy was matched with private warmth. Ramsey contributed a preface to Mascall’s Grace and Glory (1961), finding in it ‘theology for everyman, like all true theology profound in thought and simple in language’.12 Two years later, Ramsey published Image Old and New, a response to John A.T. Robinson’s controversial book Honest to God, and Mascall wrote with his congratulations: ‘It is the best thing that has come out from the See of Canterbury since Cur Deus Homo!’13 Amid the sympathies there were also differences. It is likely that Mascall’s most lasting contribution to English theology was his engagement with the thought of Thomas Aquinas, of which he was the foremost English exponent, equalled only by French scholars such as Jacques Maritain and Etienne Gilson.14 Mascall himself was less than comfortable with the label of Thomist, lest it suggest too slavish a dependence on the Angelic Doctor’s many words.15 That said, his theology was pursued philosophically, with Aquinas providing the philosophia perennis with which he could work, in works such as his first book, He Who Is (1943). Mascall was careful to stress the limitations of what might be known, and the unavoidable element of mystery with which Christians must live.16 But in practice, Mascall’s thought is tenacious, logical, rigorous and tends towards the systematic; a confidence pervades his work that reason will confirm revelation. That confidence was reflected in Mascall’s work as critic and apologist, which became a particularly prominent part of his output from the early 1960s, in Up and Down in Adria17 (a response to the 1962 volume Soundings), and then in relation to Honest to God.18 It would not do to argue that because the deep mysteries of religion are, of their very nature, profound and obscure, we may legitimately indulge in obscurity in our discussion of them…. God indeed moves in a mysterious way his wonders to perform, but in this respect the theologian is not called to imitate him.19 There is in Mascall’s apologetics a certain briskness, indeed an impatience with the clumsy grappling of others with matters that he himself thought that he saw clearly. A reading of Michael Ramsey’s more apologetic works reveals a rather different mode of engagement.20 In 1950, Mascall was one of two other names considered for the vacant regius chair at Cambridge, which Ramsey was to fill. It is possible that some in Cambridge thought Mascall’s Thomism a retrograde step for English theology, but Ramsey divided the electors too, for a different reason. Where Mascall was logical, there was a streak of apparent irrationality in Ramsey that worried the philosophers among the electors.21 The Gospel and the Catholic Church (1936) dates from the point when Ramsey was most under the influence of Karl Barth.22 Though Ramsey passed through that particular phase, he later in life recalled ‘a kind of theological dark night in which I felt I saw humanism, liberalism, ecclesiasticism

104  Peter Webster and devotional pietism as all being under divine judgment’.23 Barth and his school had ‘uttered afresh the message of God’s otherness and sovereignty and His mighty act in the Resurrection’, provoking Christians ‘in every land and tradition to face once more the transcendental and catastrophic themes of the New Testament’.24 For Mascall, in contrast, Barth represented the most brutal rejection of the kind of natural theology at which Mascall aimed: [W]ith all that [Barth] has written about the uniqueness and supreme importance of the Revelation that is in Christ we can heartily agree. But we cannot conclude, as he does, that truth about God acquired in other ways is therefore irrelevant and to be despised.25 Barth represented the extremity of contemporary Protestant theology, against which Mascall came to define himself. Despite the theological kinship between Ramsey and Mascall, then, there were underlying it differing apprehensions of what theology could hope to achieve, and of the points at which it must remain, if not silent, then at least provisional in its conclusions. It was in the 1960s that the question of what to do when those limits were reached came into sharpest relief. But the unsettlement of Anglo-Catholic thought in relation to Anglican–Methodist unity was only part of a general and rapid overturning of things that had seemed certain between the wars. This unsettlement had three key elements, one of which was the inauguration of the Church of South India in 1947, which split the party. Formed from a group of Anglican dioceses with Methodists and the United Church of South India, its church order was episcopal and thus episcopal ordination was to be the norm. But those ministers who had not been Anglicans were to be recognised as ministers of the new Church without any formal reconciliation of the ministries.26 Speaking in 1968, the theologian Donald Mackinnon – a critical but well-informed and sympathetic witness – thought the AngloCatholic reaction in England a campaign of the ‘harshest and most intransigent bigotry’, marked by a destructive attitude of ‘rigorously exclusive superiority towards members of non-episcopal churches’.27 Mascall steered a middle way among Anglo-Catholics as the Church of England gradually made up its mind as to what its attitude to the new Church should be. But the approach taken, he wrote in 1955, was no sound basis for anything, fatally compromised as it was by its separation of faith and order; it was ‘thoroughly undesirable and ambiguous’, and fell ‘under the condemnation which moral theology passes upon those who do evil that good may come’.28 The resulting resolution of the 1948 Lambeth Conference – that to avoid such discord, some kind of unification of ministries would be necessary in any future schemes of union – laid down a principle that flowed through into schemes elsewhere in India, in Nigeria and (as we shall see) in England.29

Anglican–Methodist Reunion 

105

Under way at the same time as events in India was a worldwide debate about generalised intercommunion between churches, as a precursor to reunion. For most Anglo-Catholics, this was to place the cart very firmly before the horse. In the Church of England, pressure built for a revision of the existing guidance, a restrictive resolution of the Convocations from 1933. The Lambeth Conference in 1958 largely affirmed the conservative view, but a commission was set up in 1965 to look at the issue afresh.30 Mascall was vigilant in watching for infractions of the rules at home and also developments abroad. In 1961, with Ramsey barely settled in Lambeth Palace, Mascall uncovered details of regular open communion services at Immanuel College, the new Anglican–Methodist theological college at Ibadan in Nigeria. Ought Ramsey to do something, he asked?31 Shortly after, Mascall wrote again, this time about a controverted open letter on intercommunion from a group of English theologians, concerned that the liberal view in the letter might be thought internationally to be the official view of the Church of England.32 Ramsey, for his own part, had known the positive effect of a carefully controlled intercommunion at a local and symbolic level. But as Archbishop, he was cautious. Full intercommunion was the result of unity, rather than its cause. Strategically, he realised that schemes of unity such as that with the Methodists were a means of ecumenical progress that preserved the Catholic order that he and Mascall thought essential. Without such schemes, Anglo-Catholics risked being swept away in stronger currents towards intercommunion detached from historic order.33 The development that most sent Anglo-Catholic compasses spinning, however, was the startling movement within the Roman Catholic Church, particularly during the Second Vatican Council (1962–5). Many AngloCatholics had from the outset defined themselves in terms of Rome: ‘a foster-mother-fixation, a curious love-hate emotion’, in the words of John Gunstone in 1968, in which some Anglo-Catholics had ‘depended on Rome’s aloofness and immobility as a means of self-identification’.34 Now Rome had seemed to move so far towards the other churches, where did it leave them? Ramsey as Archbishop had privileged access to reports of the deliberation of the Council, but Mascall was also watching keenly from a greater distance. Ramsey wrote to Mascall in 1964 of the ‘very widespread and apparently spontaneous eruptions of the new and different theological standpoint in so many parts of the Roman Communion’.35 Mascall found in the Council’s final statements ‘an extraordinary and altogether unexpected readiness … to open up questions that had long been thought of as unalterably settled … and to subject the most cherished institutions to quite drastic criticism’.36 Such was the climate of unsettlement in which Anglo-Catholics had to respond to the Anglican–Methodist Scheme. Adrian Hastings, who was both a Roman Catholic participant in the theological scene and later its historian, thought that by the end of the 1960s, the Anglo-Catholic party in England had been devastated. The Church of England had by and large

106  Peter Webster digested some aspects of its critique, while spitting out the elements it found unpalatable. The opposition to the CSI ‘seemed now actually un-Catholic and rather foolishly archaic’.37 Writing in 1968, John Gunstone noted the same sense of derangement and decline, and thought some older expressions of Anglo-Catholicism to be dead or dying: ‘its sense of exclusiveness, its finical legalism and its demand for a type of theological and liturgical conformity’.38 As the campaign against the Anglican–Methodist Scheme demonstrated, however, that particular strain of Anglo-Catholic opinion was not quite dead. The progress towards Anglican–Methodist union was documented in a series of reports, each marking a stage of greater development of the proposals.39 As Bishop and then Archbishop, Ramsey had privileged access to the discussions, both those of the representatives and those that went on informally around them. But even before the Conversations began in earnest in 1956, Ramsey was already urging the two Churches towards unity. Speaking to a Methodist audience in his diocese of Durham in 1953, he spoke of his admiration for John Wesley, the ‘tragedy’ of the original separation and of the ‘shame of denominationalism’. ‘Is it a dream’, he asked, ‘that one day Methodists will have Bishops as a means of sharing in a visible unity greater than any of us at present enjoy?’40 Mascall, too, was committed to the general idea of unity, as indicated by his involvement (from 1963) with the group of influential Anglicans and Methodists named Towards Anglican–Methodist Unity.41 However, well before the Scheme took its final form, he had become well known as a critic of the general drift of ecumenical efforts with the other Protestant Churches. In 1955, a year before the Conversations began, he referred to an ‘extreme and unbalanced movement of the Church of England towards the Protestant bodies’, which had led the Church already ‘to the point of disruption’ and internal disunity; he called for a pause in the process.42 He was a member of the General Council of the Society of Mary, which resolved to welcome the 1963 Report of the Conversations but with some concern.43 His letters to the canon lawyer Eric Kemp at the same time reveal the anxious attention Mascall was paying to both the official Conversations and the ways in which they were being received.44 By 1965, in the summer of which year the Convocations received reports on clerical and lay opinion around the country, and from other Churches overseas, his anxiety was becoming acute. In January of that year, his information from Nigeria was that the scheme for a united Church there now involved a ‘service of mutual recognition of ministries’, and a working assumption that intercommunion between that Church and the wider Anglican Communion would be in no way impaired by such a procedure. Mascall pressed Ramsey directly to call a halt to all the various movements towards union, at least until the Second Vatican Council had ended, after which the whole situation could be reassessed.45 No such halt was called, and indeed the drift seemed to continue. Later in 1965, Mascall thought he detected similar assumptions about

Anglican–Methodist Reunion 

107

intercommunion in documents associated with moves towards union with the Church of Scotland.46 The Consultation on Church Union, set up in the United States in 1960 and involving some ten Churches of 25 million members in total, was on the verge of publishing a set of ‘Principles for Church Union’. Mascall, writing in 1966, thought the ‘Principles’ had failed to take union with either Rome or the Orthodox Churches seriously, and would be (for Anglicans) a reversal of movements towards those Churches.47 As the point of final decision approached, Mascall became known as a leading critic of the Scheme for England in particular.48 He was asked to give evidence to the Anglican–Methodist Unity Commission in the summer of 1967.49 In January 1968, he (along with Graham Leonard, Bishop of Willesden) provided amendments to the draft Service, which were largely accepted in the final Scheme published in April 1968.50 Despite this, and partly under pressure from the ‘Catholic “right”’ to show his hand, he was later that year to come out in settled opposition to the Scheme.51 An article appeared in C.R., the journal of the Community of the Resurrection at Mirfield, one of the more liberally orientated outposts of Anglican Catholicism, alongside another, in favour of the Scheme.52 In his address to the Convocation of Canterbury in January 1969, seven months before the first defeat, Ramsey singled this article out (to Mascall’s surprise) as the most reputable and impressive criticism of the Service, in order to disagree.53 Mascall’s position as a leader of the dissent was cemented when, in the spring of 1969, Mascall joined a group of four – two evangelicals, two Anglo-Catholic, the other being Graham Leonard – which submitted a statement to the Convocations in May, and a second in July on the eve of the crucial vote.54 The group was later (in 1970) to publish Growing into Union, an alternative scheme for reunion.55 So had Ramsey and Mascall, despite their long friendship, ended up diametrically and publicly opposed in relation to an existential question facing the Church of England. What were the issues at stake, and what does their disagreement reveal about their deeper theological and emotional difference? Were the late 1960s a time for optimism, or for pessimism and a rejection of the direction in which the church seemed to be heading, a retreat into older certainties? Ramsey came later to regard 1966 as the point at which debate within the Church of England began to deteriorate;56 a souring of the tone was visible in his own relations with Mascall by late 1968. But an exchange of letters from 1966 showed the difference in mood beginning to open up. Mascall wrote on the basis of their long friendship and what he took to be their agreement on essentials. Where, he asked, was the future of Catholicism to be found? The Second Vatican Council had seemed to change the Roman church beyond all possible hopes of an AngloCatholic of his generation; there seemed to be little now barring the way to unity. By contrast, the trend of ecumenical thinking among Protestants seemed to be towards creating Churches where catholicity was not of the essence of the Church, but simply one option among many. Mascall feared

108  Peter Webster the Anglican element being ‘submerged in a vastly preponderating mass of Protestantism’.57 Replying, Ramsey thought that Mascall overestimated the prospects in relation to Rome, and caricatured the nature of contemporary Protestantism. But there was a more fundamental issue: [T]he relation between the divine and the human factors in the Church of God. The human factors are provided by the sinfulness and fallibility of the Church’s members, and the divine factor is provided by the presence of the Risen Lord and the Holy Spirit: our belief that the divine factor continues to overcome the vagaries of the human factor can be helped by the sort of calculating consideration which I have set out, and it can be hindered by the sort of gloomy pessimism of which your letter is full …. But the belief is surely at bottom an act of faith that the Church is God’s and not ours, and that He is taking care of it.58 Here were two aspects of Ramsey’s view of the Church in play together. The Catholic tradition had focused on the Church in its visible orderliness, its continuity, a gift of God to man. In contrast, the Barthian Ramsey had written in The Gospel and the Catholic Church of a Church not possessing philosophical certainty, but ‘scandalous and unintelligible to men’, that could do nothing in its own strength to answer ‘the question-marks set against it by bewildered men’ but point to the Cross.59 But at the same time, Ramsey had a very vivid sense of the action of God’s providence in history. Even if the Church could do little by its own efforts, Ramsey, a keen student of history, was sure that the gates of hell would indeed never prevail against it. The Old Testament was ‘the record of the mighty acts of God’ that had given the apostolic Church a ‘heightened sense of history’, the force of which Ramsey himself continued to feel.60 In the height of the Honest to God storm in 1963, a parish priest in Ramsey’s former diocese of Durham wrote on behalf of ‘we poor priests’, tasked with answering the questions that Robinson had raised. The Church, Ramsey replied, was a true part of the Catholic Church ‘not because it is free from some terrible sins and follies, but because it is able to overcome them by the strength of the Divine life which is present with it’. Things equally as distressing as the Honest to God episode had been seen before, but ‘God took care of His Church’.61 For Mascall, the ecumenical project was one of recovery: of the paring away of later accretions to reveal the essentials of the true Church, around which all could unite. When it came to church order, the Roman Catholic Church still had within it everything that was essential, even though it was encrusted with much that was not, which could and should be chipped away. Protestant Churches (of which Mascall would assert the Church of England was not one) were and would always remain defective in certain essentials, most particularly in relation to episcopacy and the nature of the priesthood. This sense appears in Mascall’s writings in both higher and

Anglican–Methodist Reunion 

109

lower keys, depending on the context. Writing in 1955 about the precise status of the Church of South India, Mascall directly addressed the question: ‘Is C.S.I. part of the Catholic Church?’ The notion of membership of the Church was complex, he argued, and a question of degrees rather than of a division between Churches that were within and those which were without. The grace of God was to be found operative in individuals outside the ‘catholic’ Churches, and indeed outside any Christian body: ‘it is not God who is bound by His ordinances but we’. However, Mascall’s language remained always one of imperfection and disability: ‘part of a body can be alive without being fully healthy or perfectly developed … an organism can live in an incomplete or maimed condition’.62 It is when his position is set in its highest key that the completeness of that disability emerges. Mascall’s most robust assertion of the necessity of Catholic order is The Recovery of Unity, published in 1958.63 Thoughtful Protestants would not be able to resist the fundamental Catholic principles of the apostolic ministry, Mascall believed, if only they could be expressed properly. Episcopacy was not simply a sign of the historic nature of the Church, symbolically useful without being essential. Neither was it merely an ideal without which an imperfect Church could get along well enough if it had to. Although Mascall was polite enough not to explicitly unchurch his Protestant interlocutors, his manner of asserting the necessity of episcopacy has that effect; episcopacy in the succession of the apostles takes on what looks very much like an ontological necessity; without it, there could be no Church and no valid sacramental life. But what if (as one Protestant critic asked) in circumstances of extreme pressure the Church was unable to maintain the episcopate? Did it cease to be the Church? Did that group of people cease to be members of the Body of Christ? Mascall, always ready to dissect the slips and ambiguities of others, sidestepped the point: ‘anyone who believes that the apostolic succession is essential to the Church’s existence will also be convinced that God will not allow it to be altogether cut off’.64 In 1958, Mascall very clearly thought that his view and that of Ramsey were very close indeed, based on the exposition in The Gospel and the Catholic Church and subsequent writings.65 Ramsey had indeed set out a very strong view of episcopacy: by the whole pattern of ministry in the New Testament and the early Church, ‘we are led’, he argued, ‘to affirm that the Episcopate is of the esse of the universal church’.66 But there is, even here, a recognition of the gap between the ideal and the reality of the contemporary Church, a difference from Mascall noted at the time by Adrian Hastings.67 ‘All who are baptised into Christ’, wrote Ramsey, ‘are members of His Church, and Baptism is the first mark of churchmanship’. Rather than an ontological necessity without which all life in the Church was set to naught, the episcopate was the symbol of a fullness of church life which was yet to be. ‘The growth of all Christians into the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ means their growth with all the saints in the unity

110  Peter Webster of the one body, and of this unity the Episcopate is the expression’, Ramsey wrote. In the meantime, ‘those who possess it will tremble and never boast, for none can say that it is “theirs”’; the episcopate spoke ‘of the incompleteness of every section of a divided Church, whether of those who possess [it] or of those who do not’.68 One critic argued, in 1958, that Mascall’s ‘static clarities’ (in relation to the Church of Scotland) were no longer appropriate for the ‘new and dynamic challenge’ presented by the ecumenical movement, for which existing theologies of Church and ministry had so far been inadequate: ‘A theology of the trenches may not be able to handle successfully a campaign of movement’.69 Ramsey’s idea of the relation of the Churches, whilst as firmly rooted in the idea of catholicity, had a more dynamic aspect. The 1947 report Catholicity, of which Ramsey was the principal author, had argued that unity could not be achieved by a mere ‘fitting-together of broken pieces, but must spring from a vital growth towards a genuine wholeness or catholicity of faith, thought and life’.70 It was not a simple absorption of some Churches into others; none would remain unchanged by the process. Twenty years on, the same sense of forward dynamic was present in Ramsey’s thought, but with an added urgency. ‘Today the earth is being shaken’, Ramsey told the 1968 Lambeth Conference, and ‘many things are cracking, melting, disappearing; and it is for us who are Christians to distinguish the things which are shaken and to receive gratefully a kingdom which is not shaken, the kingdom of our crucified Lord’. There would shortly appear ‘United Churches not describably Anglican but in communion with us and sharing with us what we hold to be the unshaken essence of Catholicity’.71 But this was not a prospect to be faced with alarm. God would surely preserve the Church in such times of difficulty, but it would also be changed, in ways that might once have seemed unimaginable. Existing structures and understandings were not ends in themselves, but witnesses to the reality of the universal Church. For Ramsey one such understanding was the absolute necessity to the existence of a Church under all circumstances of ordination by bishops. For most of 1968, the two Churches had in hand the final Scheme and the Service of Reconciliation. In his 1968 article for C.R., Mascall concluded that the Service would produce a validly ordained ministry – it really was an ordination, whether Methodists or Anglican evangelicals liked it or not – but by a ‘series of tortuous evasions’ the Commission had left it ‘open to anyone to hold any view of the services that appeals to him’. It was possible, he thought, to believe – and at least some people did believe – that both Anglicans and Methodists were being ordained, or that only the Methodists were, or that no one was. This, for Mascall, gave rise to the gravest reservations on the ground of plain morality. Can it be morally right … for a bishop deliberately to ordain to the priesthood a

Anglican–Methodist Reunion 

111

man who has no desire to be so ordained and who would repudiate the intention of the bishop if the latter openly expressed it?72 The conservative evangelical, James I. Packer, one of the Growing into Union group, though far apart from Mascall in other ways, shared his brisk impatience with apparent obscurity in theological writing. One of the appendices of Growing into Union danced gleefully on what the authors hoped would be the Service’s grave, its ‘magnificent double-think’ buried in a ‘bog of illogic’.73 Though the appendix is not individually signed, its expression bears the fingermarks of both men. Not all the opponents of the Scheme had gone quite so far, but their criticism of the Service in particular was trenchant nonetheless, on two related counts, the first of which was this supposed ambiguity.74 Ramsey preferred the term ‘agnostic’, since the proceedings ‘are clear in what they affirm and clear in what they shrink from affirming’.75 The status of the Methodist ministers who would take part was different in some degree to his own, he thought, but they were clearly ‘ministers of the word and sacraments of a sort and I cannot regard them as laymen’. Whatever he or they believed about their current status (and they would likely have disagreed), the Service was to ask God to give both Anglicans and Methodists ‘whatever he knows them to need in authority and the gifts of the Spirit to make our ministries equal and identical as presbyters in the Church of God’.76 Their current status relative to each other was not defined, and it did not need to be defined. Such conscious agnosticism was not to be equated with disingenuity, and if there was one thing guaranteed to provoke Ramsey, it was any such suggestion of disingenuity, or that he was sacrificing theological principle for pragmatic reasons. Writing to the Growing into Union group shortly after the first defeat of the Scheme, he observed that there has been a deep lack of understanding between those who believe the Service of Reconciliation procedure to be theologically sound both in general and in this instance and those who believe it to be a rather disreputable ‘dodge’ for getting round a theological and practical difficulty. The latter have said some harsh things about the former, for the words ‘common honesty’ are harsh words. However, it would not do, he argued, to ‘dismiss those who have the “other” view on this issue, including myself, as being a set of pragmatists who can be ignored’.77 In the same letter, Ramsey noted ‘that a mutual lack of theological comprehension exists’. The issue was ‘not the analysis of the content of belief so much as of the ways of looking at theological truth’.78 In exceptional circumstances, how far were Anglicans prepared to live with things, the theological rationale for which they found hard to articulate? Mascall and Ramsey were at one in their belief in the necessity of episcopacy, which

112  Peter Webster the united Church would, in time, have. For now, Ramsey argued that ‘the scheme provides something unprecedented to deal with the unprecedented situation of the two churches coming together’. In such circumstances, with regular orders assured for the future, Ramsey was not shocked by a temporary anomaly, ‘and I believe that God could and would overrule such anomalies’.79 Episodes such as the discontinuity in the succession of bishops in third-century Egypt, or the gradual success of Catholic faith and practice in South India convinced Ramsey that God could bless and had blessed Churches where such anomalies had existed as a matter of historical fact. Ramsey’s view of the Church and of God’s providence, then, allowed him to deal with the Service in a way that Mascall could not. Writing in 1955, before the Vatican Council, Mascall had argued that to discount the prospect of any thaw in relations with Rome was to show a ‘lack of trust in the power of God to bring about changes that are beyond our own power; [it assumed] that we can at this moment envisage all the possibilities that lie hidden in the womb of the future’.80 However, Mascall’s reactions to the Scheme showed the limits of what he could imagine the providence of God ever in fact intervening to do. The insistence on theological ‘tidiness’ which characterises his reactions to the ecumenical movement was not merely a scruple, or a failure to grasp the wider issues (as Ramsey supposed), but fundamental, a matter of metaphysical necessity. ‘Have we really any right to expect’, he asked of the Scheme, ‘that God will reconcile logical contradictions?’81 Though Providence was necessarily capable of all possible things, there were for Mascall some things that it could not do by virtue of its nature.

Conclusion The disputes within the Church of England over the Scheme generated a great deal of heat and only limited light. Michael Ramsey and Eric Mascall both saw, more clearly than most, through the passions stirred by the debate to the fundamental issues beneath. They agreed that the long-term shape of any united church had to be episcopal, but their disagreement over the means to create it was fundamentally about the nature of God’s sovereign action in the world. Over a long career, Mascall saw the confident project of a fresh synthesis of theology and philosophy that he began in the 1940s overtaken not so much by rival theologies as by the abandonment of theology tout court, of which the illogicality of the Scheme was but one example.82 As a result, from the early 1960s onwards, the expansive theology of He Who Is gave way (although without wholly ceding the field) to the kind of polemical defensiveness visible in Up and Down in Adria (1963) and The Secularisation of Christianity (1965). To the end of his life, Mascall believed that, despite the infection (as he saw it) of the churches with relativism, and a kind of institutional pragmatism without principles, the Catholic tradition

Anglican–Methodist Reunion 

113

still contained a coherent framework for the whole of human existence.83 His solution to that crisis, though he grew less and less confident that it would be recognised as such, let alone adopted, was a clearer restatement of that core doctrine. In its fundamentals, it had not changed, and could not change; it needed only to be recovered. The Scheme, as with other movements towards other Protestant Churches, put the understandable emotional impetus towards union ahead of theological soundness. It was not merely undesirable to try to create a catholic united Church on such a basis, he thought; it was impossible, a metaphysical contradiction of the true nature of the Church – the mystical Body of Christ – as the tradition understood it. Ramsey held just as fast as Mascall to the reality and sufficiency of the revelation available to the Church. But he felt more keenly the difficulty of articulating that framework in its fullness in a way that did not leave much unsaid, and indeed unsayable. In addition, he retained a confidence that the unsettlement that so concerned Mascall was not merely a symptom of decline and loss of nerve; in that shaking of the Churches, the action of God was to be discerned. Though he had come to downplay his debt to Barth, Ramsey retained a vivid sense that God was sovereign over history; things that had been thought immoveable could change in ways beyond comprehension, if it was God’s will that they so changed. As he told the Convocation in January 1969: [O]ur present understanding of the episcopate and of the Eucharist may be but a shadow of the understanding that may be ours in the future plenitude of the Church. It is in these ways that I think a voice is saying ‘Speak to the children of Israel that they may go forward’.84 And to many in the late 1960s, and not only Ramsey, it seemed clear what that way forward was. ‘Nothing in the world matters more’, Ramsey wrote in 1946, ‘than the fulfilment of the prayer of our Lord “that they may all be one”’,85 and the Scheme was the single most significant attempt of his career at that fulfilment. Though the years that have since elapsed have served to throw the ecumenical euphoria of the period into a colder and clearer light, it was at the time possible for Ramsey to see in the Scheme – or rather, the movement of which it was the product – a profound move of God. It was this that Ramsey felt, and Mascall did not; Mascall’s hopes were placed elsewhere, in the outworking of the effects of Vatican II. For Mascall, the Scheme was not so much part of a rising tide, but a flood against which the defences had thankfully held.

Notes 1 My thanks are due to Alec Corio and to the editors for their comments on various drafts of this chapter.

114  Peter Webster 2 The sermon, usually titled ‘A step forward in Church relations’ is given in full in Andrew Chandler and David Hein, Archbishop Fisher, 1945–1961. Church, State and World (Farnham, 2012), 163–8. 3 Ramsey to Cecil Northcott, 17 July 1969, at Lambeth Palace Library (hereafter, LPL), Ramsey Papers 166, f. 248. 4 See, inter alia, P.A. Welsby, A History of the Church of England 1945–1980 (Oxford, 1984), 78–82, 166–73; on Ramsey’s role, see Peter Webster, Archbishop Ramsey: The Shape of the Church (Farnham, 2015), 41–7, upon which this chapter draws and expands. 5 On the debate as a whole, see Owen Chadwick, Michael Ramsey: A Life (Oxford, 1990), 334–6; on the Anglo-Catholic position, see Ivan Clutterbuck, Marginal Catholics (Leominster, 1993), 179–97; on the evangelicals, see Andrew Atherstone, ‘Evangelical Dissentients and the Defeat of the Anglican–Methodist Unity Scheme’, Wesley and Methodist Studies 7 (2015), 100–116; Peter Webster ‘Archbishop Michael Ramsey and Evangelicals in the Church of England’ in Andrew Atherstone and John Maiden (eds), Evangelicalism and the Church of England in the Twentieth Century (Woodbridge, 2014), 162–82. 6 The 1968 Report of the Anglican–Methodist Unity Commission includes a chapter responding directly to each of the major objections. Anglican Methodist Unity. Report, Part 2: The Scheme (London, 1968), 128–35. 7 See, inter alia, James Packer (ed.), Fellowship in the Gospel: Evangelical Comment on Anglican–Methodist Unity and Intercommunion Today (Abingdon, 1968), and E.W. Trueman Dicken, Not This Way: A Comment on Anglican–Methodist Unity (London, 1968). 8 Ramsey to David L. Edwards (Church Times), 20 February 1969, at LPL, Ramsey Papers 165, ff. 185–86. The letter is reproduced in Webster, Archbishop Ramsey, 213–4. 9 Other scholars have made Ramsey and Mascall into exemplars of certain approaches, notably Robin Gill. This chapter works out some brief observations by Robin Gill to their full effect. Robin Gill, ‘Michael Ramsey – A Theological Speculation’, in Robin Gill and Lorna Kendall (eds), Michael Ramsey as Theologian (London, 1995), 176–95. 10 For details, see Chadwick, Ramsey, passim; E.L. Mascall, Saraband: The Memoirs of E.L. Mascall (Leominster, 1992), passim. 11 A. Hastings, A History of English Christianity, 1920–1990 (London, 1991), 298. Hastings made the same association at the time in his One and Apostolic (London, 1963), 38. 12 Ramsey, ‘Preface’ in Mascall, Grace and Glory (Leighton Buzzard, 1961). 13 Cur Deus Homo was one of the major works of Anselm, written in the last years of the eleventh century. Mascall to Ramsey, 26 April 1963, at LPL, Ramsey Papers 50, f. 140. 14 On Mascall’s Thomism, see John Macquarrie, ‘Mascall and Transcendental Thomism’, in Macquarrie, Stubborn Theological Questions (London, 2003), 49–63. 15 On the appropriateness or otherwise of the label of ‘Thomist’ in Mascall’s case, see H.P. Owen, ‘Eric Lionel Mascall, 1905–1993’, Proceedings of the British Academy 84 (1994), 409–18, at 412. 16 Mascall, Saraband, 379. 17 London, 1963. 18 Mascall’s response to Robinson (amongst others) was his The Secularization of Christianity: An Analysis and a Critique (London, 1965). 19 Mascall, Secularization of Christianity, 106–7. 20 On Ramsey’s engagement with the Honest to God controversy, see Webster, Archbishop Ramsey, 108–12.

Anglican–Methodist Reunion 

115

21 Chadwick, Ramsey, 68–9. 22 Chadwick, Ramsey, 28–9, 49–50. 23 A letter to James Lemler, as quoted in James E. Griffiss, ‘Michael Ramsey: Catholic Theologian’, in Gill and Kendall (eds), Michael Ramsey, 40. 24 Ramsey, The Resurrection of Christ, revised edition (London, 1961), 119–20. 25 Mascall, He Who Is A study in traditional theism (London, 1943), 24. 26 On the dispute in general, see Hastings, History of English Christianity, 468–9; Welsby, Church of England, 89–91; Chandler and Hein, Fisher, 79–81. For the internal history of the Anglo-Catholic group, see Clutterbuck, Marginal Catholics, 133–4; Michael Yelton, Anglican Papalism: An Illustrated History, 1900–1960 (Norwich, 2005), 4–6, 59–60. 27 The occasion was the Gore Memorial Lecture in Westminster Abbey in November 1968, published as ‘Kenosis and Establishment’ in Mackinnon, The Stripping of the Altars (London, 1969), 20–1. 28 Mascall, The Convocations and South India. What Did the Convocations Decide, and How Does Their Decisions Affect the Catholicity of the Church of England (London, 1955), 18, 5. 29 Resolution 56b on further approaches to reunion reads: ‘The unification of the ministry in a form satisfactory to all the bodies concerned, either at the inauguration of the union or as soon as possible thereafter, is likely to be a prerequisite to success in all future proposals for the reunion of the Churches’. The resolutions of the 1948 Conference are available at https://www​.anglicancommunion​.org​/ resources​/document​-library​.aspx​?tag​=Lambeth​+Conference 30 The Commission’s report appeared in 1968: Intercommunion Today (London, 1968). 31 Mascall to Ramsey, 17 September 1961, at LPL, Ramsey Papers 21, ff. 247–8. 32 Mascall to Ramsey, 4 November 1961, at LPL Ramsey Papers 8, f. 209. 33 On Ramsey’s dealings with the issue as archbishop, see Webster, Archbishop Ramsey, 36–40. 34 John Gunstone, ‘Catholics in the Church of England’, in John Wilkinson (ed.), Catholic Anglicans Today (London, 1968), 183–204, at 196. 35 Ramsey to Mascall, 31 January 1964, at LPL Ramsey Papers 62, f. 102. 36 Mascall, ‘Vatican II on the Church and Ecumenism: An Anglican Comment’, New Blackfriars 46.538 (1965), 386–95, at 395. 37 Hastings, English Christianity, 554. 38 Gunstone, ‘Catholics in the Church of England’, 196–7. 39 The first of these was Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church: An Interim Statement (London, 1958). 40 The occasion was a celebration of the bicentenary of Methodism in Darlington: Ramsey, ‘The Methodists and the Church of England’, in Michael Ramsey, Durham Essays and Addresses (London, 1956), 70–1. 41 Typescript manifesto and list of signatories, dated September 1963, at LPL Ramsey Papers, 45, 316–7. 42 Mascall, The Convocations and South India, 19. 43 Memorandum from the Society of a meeting on 30 May 1963, at LPL Ramsey Papers 45, ff. 308–10. 44 See, among others in the same location, Mascall to Kemp, 25 June 1963, at LPL MS 3555, f. 51. 45 Mascall to Ramsey, 1 Jan 1965, at LPL Ramsey Papers 85, ff. 65–6. 46 Mascall to Ramsey, 12 December 1965, at LPL Ramsey Papers 85, f. 162. 47 Mascall, ‘A View from the Church of England’ in John Macquarrie (ed.), Realistic Reflections on Church Union (no publisher, 1967), 41–6. 48 Mascall, ‘Collegiality, Reunion and Reform’, Theology 69.551 (1966) 201–8, and 69.552 (1966), 255–62.

116  Peter Webster 49 Anglican–Methodist Unity: 2. The Scheme, 2; Colin Buchanan, E.L. Mascall, J.I. Packer, Graham Leonard, Growing into Union: Proposals for Forming a United Church in England (London, 1970), 16. 50 Graham Leonard to Eric Kemp, 4 January 1968, at LPL MS 3556, f. 225. 51 Mascall to Eric Kemp, 7 February 1969, at LPL MS 3557, f. 183. 52 The two articles appeared together under the title ‘The Anglican Methodist Scheme’ in C.R. 263 (Christmas 1968), 19–26. Mascall’s section was subtitled ‘Reasons for rejection’. The authors of the first part were the theologians Geoffrey Lampe and Lorna Kendall. 53 ‘Church unity to rest on 75 pc vote’, The Times, 15 January 1969, 3; Ramsey to Mascall, 16 January 1969, at LPL Ramsey Papers 165, f. 84; Chronicle of Convocation, IV-10, 14 January 1969, 3. 54 Growing into Union, 16. 55 On the making and significance of Growing into Union, see Andrew Atherstone, ‘A Mad Hatter’s Tea Party in the Old Mitre Tavern? Ecumenical Reactions to Growing into Union’, Ecclesiology 6 (2010), 39–67. 56 Webster, Archbishop Ramsey, 215. 57 Mascall to Ramsey, 1 March 1966, at LPL Ramsey Papers 103, ff. 107–10. 58 Ramsey to Mascall, 18 March 1966, at LPL Ramsey Papers 103, ff. 111–3, reproduced at Webster, Archbishop Ramsey, 184–7. 59 Michael Ramsey, The Gospel and the Catholic Church (London, 1936), 4–5. 60 Ramsey, The Authority of the Bible (Edinburgh, 1962), passim. 61 Ramsey to Raymond Hooper (Middlesborough, St Columba), 27 March 1963, at Ramsey Papers 50, f. 77, reproduced at Webster, Archbishop Ramsey, 155. 62 Mascall, The Convocations and South India, 12–14, 6. 63 Mascall, The Recovery of Unity: A Theological Approach (London, 1958). 64 Mascall, Recovery of Unity, 182. 65 Mascall, Recovery of Unity, 171–2. 66 Ramsey, The Gospel and the Catholic Church, 84. 67 Hastings, One and Apostolic, 44–6. 68 Ramsey, The Gospel and the Catholic Church, 84–5. 69 H.E.W. Turner, ‘Dr Mascall and the Anglican-Presbyterian Report’, Church Quarterly Review, July–Sept 1958, 351–6, at 356. 70 A.M. Ramsey et al., Catholicity: A Study in the Conflict of Christian Traditions in the West (Westminster, 1947), 10. 71 The sermon is reproduced in full in Webster, Archbishop Ramsey, 204–8. 72 ‘Reasons for Rejection’, 25. 73 Appendix 5: ‘A Bog of Illogic, or the Service of Reconciliation and the Law of Non-Contradiction’, in Growing into Union, 193–207. 74 The critics included Geoffrey Fisher, in his Covenant and Reconciliation: A Critical Examination (Oxford, 1967), 12. 75 Ramsey to Margaret Deanesly, 15 July 1968, at LPL Ramsey Papers 143, ff. 10–13, reproduced at Webster, Archbishop Ramsey, 203–4. 76 Ramsey to Andrew Blair, 31 October 1968, at LPL Ramsey Papers 143, ff. 149–51. 77 Ramsey to Mascall et al., 24 July 1969, at LPL Ramsey Papers 165, ff. 275–6. 78 Ramsey to Mascall, 24 July 1969. 79 Ramsey to Margaret Deanesly, 15 July 1968, at Ramsey Papers 143, ff. 10–3, reproduced at Webster, Archbishop Ramsey, 201–4. 80 Mascall, The Convocations and South India, 18. 81 ‘Reasons for Rejection’, 25.

Anglican–Methodist Reunion 

117

82 This sense of crisis is most fully articulated in his Theology and the Gospel of Christ: An Essay in Reorientation (London: 1977), in particular 1–62. 83 See, for instance, the late statement in Mascall, Saraband, 380. 84 Chronicle of Convocation, IV-10, 14 January 1969, 5. 85 A.M. Ramsey, The Church of England and the Eastern Orthodox Church: Why their Unity is Important (London, 1946), 3.

7

Evangelical Dissentients and the Defeat of the Anglican– Methodist Unity Scheme Andrew Atherstone

Preaching before the University of Cambridge in November 1946, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher, proposed an innovative ‘step forward’ in church relations. To stimulate ecumenical progress in post-war Britain, he suggested that Nonconformist denominations take episcopacy ‘into their own system’ and ‘try it out on their own ground first’. This would open the door to intercommunion with the Church of England and perhaps also, in due course, to organisational unity.1 It was one of the more creative proposals during the ecumenical heyday of the mid-twentieth century, as many began to advocate the reunion of all Britain’s mainstream denominations. The Methodist Conference of 1953 was the first to take up Fisher’s challenge, leading to a long series of conversations over the next decade. The result was a slim report, published in February 1963, proposing a twostage process. At Stage 1, Methodism would become episcopal and existing Anglican and Methodist ministries would be harmonised through a special ‘Service of Reconciliation’, akin to ordination, during which an Anglican bishop would lay hands on the heads of the Methodist ministers with the words, ‘Take authority to exercise the office of a priest’, and a Methodist presiding minister would lay hands on the heads of the Anglican bishops and priests with the words, ‘Take authority to exercise the office of a minister’. Stage 2, at an indeterminate future date, would see the two Churches joined in full organic union.2 After further clarification, and the setting up of a new Anglican–Methodist Unity Commission, the final scheme was published in April 1968.3 All was now ready for the plunge into what would surely be one of the twentieth century’s most momentous ecumenical achievements. The Methodist Conference voted overwhelmingly in favour. The Anglicans, notoriously, got cold feet at the last moment and pulled out. Twice it was brought forward for official Church of England approval – to the Convocations in July 1969, and to the new General Synod in May 1972. Both times it failed to achieve the necessary majority. Anglican–Methodist unity was dead in the water, and the Methodists were left embarrassed and in the lurch. The prospect of ecumenical triumph had dissolved into ecumenical farce.4 Through the 1960s and early 1970s, evangelical Dissentients, both Methodist and Anglican, played a major part in helping to defeat the DOI: 10.4324/9781003119210-7

Defeat of Anglican–Methodist Unity Scheme  119 scheme. Their voices were prominent among the thousands of published pamphlets, platform speeches, symposia, journal articles, newspaper articles and open letters which engulfed both Churches for a decade. These exhausting debates raised for evangelical commentators a number of significant questions about the theological identities of Methodism and Anglicanism. This chapter examines the rhetoric of two groups of Dissentients, one from each denomination – the Voice of Methodism Association, and the Calvinist circle around J.I. Packer and Latimer House, Oxford, an Anglican evangelical research institute. It shows that although their objections to the union scheme were broadly similar, focused upon its Catholic ecclesiology, they both criticised the theological tone of the other denomination. Both believed the proposed scheme was detrimental to evangelicalism, but approached it from contrasting Wesleyan and Calvinist perspectives. The chapter concludes that although these Dissentients portrayed themselves as close evangelical allies, they fought on separate fronts with minimal contact, and had less in common theologically than they assumed.

Methodist Evangelical Views of Anglicanism Four Methodist representatives dissented from the initial Conversations Report – Kingsley Barrett (professor of divinity at Durham University), Thomas Jessop (emeritus professor of philosophy at Hull University), Thomas Meadley (principal of Cliff College near Sheffield) and Norman Snaith (former principal of Wesley College, Headingley). They believed the unity scheme, although ‘well-intentioned’, to be ‘in principle sectarian and exclusive’, leading to certain division within Methodism and possibly within Anglicanism too.5 They argued that the Methodist Church was evangelical, as laid down by the 1932 Deed of Union which stated that ‘in the Providence of God Methodism was raised up to spread Scriptural Holiness through the land by the proclamation of the Evangelical Faith’.6 In contrast, they said, the Church of England was far from evangelical. If Methodism were absorbed by Anglicanism, the evangelical cause in Britain would be ‘fatally weakened’: The more scriptural Church order would have been swallowed up by the less, and the exclusiveness which bars the Lord’s people from the Lord’s Table would have strengthened its grip. … It is indeed true that there are questions of minor importance on which divergent opinions may properly be held within one body, but there are also matters of great moment where divergent opinion can only be a sign of weakness and of doctrinal levity. … [T]o move from a Church committed to the evangelical faith into a heterogeneous body permitting, and even encouraging, unevangelical doctrines and practices, would be a step backward which not even the desirability of closer relations could justify.7

120  Andrew Atherstone In particular, Barrett and his associates objected to the imposition of the ‘historic episcopate’ (an ambiguous phrase) which they dismissed as ‘completely without support in the New Testament’, claiming in their defence none less than John Wesley himself who once wrote that uninterrupted apostolic succession was ‘a fable, which no man ever did or can prove’.8 Indeed, in the scriptural sense, Methodism already possessed episcopacy, since the word episkopos was used in the New Testament to denote a minister. Furthermore, they believed that the Service of Reconciliation implied an ordination to ‘the office of a priest’ and therefore ‘casts an intolerable (though certainly unintended) slur on Methodist ordinations and ministries in the past’. As far as the Dissentients were concerned, the Church of England could keep its bishops and its sacrificing priesthood for itself: ‘For what outward continuity may be worth, most Methodists would prefer to be visibly one with the Churches of the Reformation than with medieval and un-reformed Christendom’.9 It was a damning indictment, suggesting the incompatibility of Methodist and Anglican identities, which assumed that Anglo-Catholicism was representative of Anglicanism. Their strictures were dismissed by a fellow Methodist as ‘flimsy’ and ‘emotive’, nothing more than a fearful assault upon ‘a few Anglican Aunt Sallys’ and ‘the porcupine fringe of Anglo-Catholics’.10 Yet outside the constraints of their minority report, the Dissentients felt able to express themselves even more freely. The Voice of Methodism Association was founded in response to the Conversations Report, and in a letter read to its inaugural conference at Westminster Central Hall in January 1964, Snaith proclaimed: My reason – the basic reason – for not signing the Report is quite simple. I believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone and I believe, with Luther and John Wesley, that the very essence of the Gospel is to be found in Ephesians 2.8: ‘For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God’. This is ‘the Word of God in the Bible’. It is the essence of Protestantism and it is the Gospel.11 Snaith reminded his hearers that Methodism had come into existence precisely as a result of Wesley’s discovery of grace alone through hearing Luther’s introduction to the Book of Romans at Aldersgate Street. He likened Anglicans, in contrast, to the very Judaizers against whom Paul wrote in Romans and Galatians, and concluded: I say, as a Methodist, as a Protestant, as a Christian who knows that he can be saved only by grace and only through faith – I say that I cannot sign this Report. I believe that to sign this Report is not only a denial of Methodist doctrine: it is a denial of my own religious experience.12

Defeat of Anglican–Methodist Unity Scheme  121 The Voice of Methodism Association (VMA) was just one of several small and diverse Methodist groups which were brought together by their opposition to the union scheme. They collaborated with members of the Methodist Revival Fellowship (founded in 1952), the National Liaison Committee (an umbrella group for Methodist Dissentients, founded in 1965), and Conservative Evangelicals in Methodism (CEIM, founded in 1970).13 The VMA was the most outspoken, having been established specifically to promote ‘uncompromising opposition’ to the scheme,14 which it saw as ‘a betrayal of our Protestant and Free Church heritage’.15 The organisation described its own purpose as ‘working to revive the cause that Wesley founded … to prevent Methodism being lost for ever’,16 believing that ‘the smothering of this “Voice” will profoundly affect the cause of Evangelical Christianity throughout the world’.17 It complained that the proposed scheme ‘subordinates the pulsating Pentecostal power of the Holy Spirit to a pale and rigid and pre-Christian ecclesiasticism’.18 Oliver Beckerlegge (literary secretary of the VMA) suggested that it was fallacious to assume that Anglicans and Methodists were divided just because they belonged to separate communions. There was already deep union between evangelicals across denominational boundaries, he insisted: ‘we have never been estranged from our evangelical brethren, and therefore have no need to be reconciled to them. Christian repentance demands many things, but it does not demand a sentimental confession of the sins one has not committed!’ Conversely, Beckerlegge argued, it was impossible for evangelicals ever to be reconciled with the ‘error and superstition’ of non-evangelicals – as demonstrated by the internal divisions within both Churches, between the Methodist Sacramental Fellowship and the Methodist Revival Fellowship, and between the Anglo-Catholics and the Kensitite preachers of the Protestant Truth Society.19 Another Dissentient, Frank Ockenden, worried that Methodism itself had become ‘progressively Anglo-Catholicised’ since the 1940s and was in danger of departing ‘from true Evangelical Christianity’. Union with the Church of England, he warned, would be a ‘giant stride’ towards pre-Reformation theology. Grace would no longer ‘abound’ but be ‘canalised through a non-Scriptural priesthood. A smothering ecclesiasticism will everywhere prevent the right of humble access direct to the Saviour’.20 In stark terms, Ockenden prophesied ‘seven certainties’: 1. Union with the Church of England would be the end of Methodism. 2. The Government of the Church would be by ‘Bishops’ and ‘priests’. 3. Eventually only confirmed members would be permitted at the Holy Communion. Unconfirmed Christians of other denominations would be barred. 4. Village Methodism would disappear. 5. Liturgical worship would increase and become universal. 6. The ministry of the Local Preacher would be ‘run down’ and cease to be. 7. The simplicity and warmth of Methodism would be lost FOR EVER.21

122  Andrew Atherstone Much of the VMA’s polemic was dedicated to a vociferous attack upon Anglicanism as unevangelical and unreformed, and therefore incompatible with Methodism. Page after page of the bimonthly Voice of Methodism bulletin was filled with examples of Anglicanism’s Romeward leaning. For instance, in 1964, the Church of England legalised stone altars and medieval vestments for the first time since the Reformation, despite Protestant objections that these symbolised a sacerdotal priesthood.22 In every town, it was claimed, there was an Anglican church which could be mistaken for a Roman Catholic church – holy water at the porch, stations of the cross around the walls, the reserved sacrament and confessional booths, statues and shrines.23 After describing an Anglican pilgrimage to the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham – an event ‘replete with error and superstition’, dominated by the ‘flummery of ecclesiastical haberdashers’ – the Voice of Methodism asked, ‘What communion has light with such darkness?’24 Beckerlegge, the Voice of Methodism editor, studied Anglo-Catholic magazines in search of further evidence of ‘heretical’ teaching, such as Mariolatry.25 He also alerted readers to local examples of Anglo-Catholic exclusivism, such as the vicar in Yorkshire who told his parishioners it would be ‘an act of disloyalty’ if they received communion from their Methodist neighbours,26 and the clergyman in Sussex who refused to give the sacrament to a dying Methodist in hospital because she had not been confirmed.27 With Anglo-Catholics laying down the terms of union, Methodist priorities like evangelism would inevitably be swamped by ‘a welter of elaborate ritual unknown in the Church of the New Testament’.28 Meanwhile, Archbishops of Canterbury enjoyed audiences with the Pope, and an Anglican delegation was sent to Rome to observe the Second Vatican Council.29 The VMA feared that if Methodists joined with Anglicans, they too would soon be swept into the Church of Rome. They saw the union scheme not as an exciting step forward but as a disastrous lurch backwards towards medievalism.30 One speaker warned a VMA rally in Rotherham in November 1964 that ‘a vote for this scheme is, logically and ultimately, a vote for Rome’.31 Other Dissentients understood Methodism to be bound up not only with evangelical doctrine and anti-Catholic sentiment, but with social status. There were cultural and educational barriers separating chapel and church.32 One Methodist complained about the Conversations Report: It is full of abstruse verbosity and complicated theological phrases. And there are words in it that the average Methodist has never even heard of, let alone used in ordinary conversation. Thousands of loyal and faithful Methodists up and down the country have never matriculated at a university or been to college or public school. They have never studied theology. They have not learned Latin and Greek. Amongst them are housewives and typists, farm labourers and barrow boys, jobbing gardeners and shop assistants. Who is to blame them if they find the Report quite unintelligible.33

Defeat of Anglican–Methodist Unity Scheme  123 The General Election victory in October 1964 by Labour’s Harold Wilson, who played upon his ‘plain man’ image in opposition to Tory aristocrat Sir Alec Douglas-Home, was seen as political vindication that ‘God is no respecter of persons’. Yet the British Weekly felt that the Church of England still had to learn that theological lesson in its ecumenical dealings.34 Some Dissentients believed that the Methodist hierarchy had forgotten their humble roots and been sucked into social climbing. Union with the Church of England would improve their establishment connections and social standing, winning them bishoprics, deaneries, archdeaconries and other ecclesiastical dignities. These class tensions were highlighted by the Voice of Methodism in limerick: From bishops I hold me aloof, Tho’ my friends think I’m rather uncouth. Yet tho’ I’ve lost status And episcopal gaiters, At least I’ve held on to the truth.35 Episcopacy bore the brunt of Methodist protests, despite the fact that many branches of global Methodism already had bishops. To English Dissentients, a Methodist bishop was an oxymoron. Another contributor to the Voice of Methodism offered a parody of Samuel Stone’s hymn, The Church’s One Foundation, presumably to be sung in the new united church. It began: The Church’s one foundation Is the Episcopate; It is no new creation, Though magnified of late; To glorify the prelates The Saviour taught and died; To honour priestly zealots Our Lord was crucified. Though of your sins repenting, In love and charity Your enmity relenting, Christ’s guests you fain would be: Yet to the Holy Table Your way you’ve wrongly wormed; To taste you are not able, Unless you’ve been confirmed.36 Beckerlegge called episcopacy ‘the modern circumcision’. Anglicans who insisted upon it as a prerequisite to Christian fellowship should read Paul’s rebuke of the Judaizers in Galatians, he declared in language echoing

124  Andrew Atherstone Norman Snaith.37 Franz Hildebrandt, another leading Dissentient, went further and stated that for Methodists to accept episcopacy was ‘an open betrayal of the Reformation and of the Gospel itself’. He proclaimed: ‘Wesley changed order for the sake of the Gospel; we change the Gospel for the sake of order’.38 Disillusioned by these developments within Methodism, Hildebrandt resigned from Methodist ministry in 1968 and joined the Church of Scotland.39 The National Liaison Committee did not advocate secession, but it began to plan for ‘a continuing Methodist Church’ in the likely event that the Methodist Conference accepted the reunion scheme.40 In Lancashire, several evangelical ministers and congregations resigned from Methodism en masse in 1971 to form the Free Methodist Church.41 Union with Anglicanism was a prospect they could not countenance under any circumstances.

Anglican Evangelical Views of Methodism From the other side of the divide, from an Anglican evangelical perspective, the prospects seemed equally bleak. Their campaign against the scheme was led by J.I. Packer (warden of Latimer House, a research institute founded in Oxford in 1960), who spoke often and published widely on the question. He was the only Dissentient invited on to the Anglican–Methodist Unity Commission in 1965 and refused to subscribe to its final report.42 Packer was particularly influential among younger clergy within the resurgent ‘conservative evangelical’ movement in the Church of England, and Gordon Rupp (one of the Methodist conversationalists) caustically observed, ‘among his fellows he is evidently Sir Oracle, and he does not so much argue as utter “ex cathedra” pronouncements’.43 Alister McGrath, in his biography of Packer, claims that Anglican evangelicals opposed the scheme because in their view ‘Methodism had become deeply influenced by a theological liberalism which they had no desire to see spread in the Church of England’.44 There is some truth in this assessment of Anglican evangelical motivation, as will be seen, but it was far from their dominant concern. In fact, that perspective was hardly ever expressed in public by Anglican evangelical Dissentients. Admittedly they worried about advice in the Conversations Report that the united church should not be ‘bound too strictly by doctrinal and other such formulations which may quickly be out of date’.45 Colin Buchanan (tutor at the London College of Divinity from 1964) wondered whether this was ‘a covert attack on the Thirty-Nine Articles’ and believed that the Church of England’s doctrinal formularies were ‘one of the richest contributions that Anglicans can make to a future united church’.46 Was doctrinal subscription now to be abandoned? Likewise, Roger Beckwith (Packer’s deputy at Latimer House) later described the union scheme as one in which ‘everything distinctively Anglican (and indeed everything theological) seemed liable to perish’.47 Yet the Anglican evangelical Dissentients showed little hostility towards

Defeat of Anglican–Methodist Unity Scheme  125 Methodism per se, and often reiterated their keen desire for urgent reunion of the Churches, if only the right scheme could be found. Their two major reasons for opposition had nothing to do with Methodist liberalism. Instead they argued, first, that it was the wrong scheme theologically – that it rested upon ‘a sectarian understanding of episcopacy’ which would ‘undermine the gospel of free grace’ by imposing an Anglo-Catholic view of ordained ministry.48 And second, that it must be rejected because it would split the Methodist denomination since many evangelical Methodists would refuse to countenance the united Church.49 Instead, they looked for a viable model to the Church of South India where no quasi-reordination was required for non-episcopal ministers (advocated in 1965 in All in Each Place) or to piecemeal reunion between local congregations (advocated in 1970 in Growing into Union).50 They wanted the conversations reopened, not merely between Anglicans and Methodists, but including other Protestant denominations like Congregationalists and Presbyterians. What then of McGrath’s claim that Anglican evangelicals were troubled by Methodism’s theological trajectory? There was an appreciation that Methodism was changing. For example, Packer wrote: It is not long since the great body of Methodists were looking askance at the Church of England as an ecclesiastical Esau, lured by AngloCatholic Jacobs into selling its Protestant birthright for a mess of sacramentalist pottage … Therefore the enthusiasm of so many Methodists for the proposed scheme of organic union is startling.51 The Methodist Conference in Plymouth in July 1965 reaffirmed its desire to seek closer relations with the Church of England, but evangelical minister Roland Lamb (who seceded from Methodism in 1967) attempted to bring in an amendment requiring ‘three fundamental principles’ to be ‘unambiguously affirmed’ in any union scheme, namely the ‘supreme authority’ of Scripture, justification by grace through faith alone and the priesthood of all believers.52 ‘True Christian unity’, Lamb argued, ‘could only be experienced and manifested by born-again believers willing to be ruled by the Word of God both in faith and practice’. By submitting to Anglican sacerdotalism, they were being asked to form a Church which taught ‘two diametrically opposed doctrines to the way of salvation’ and would soon find themselves ‘bound with the chain from which Luther and his successors had broken free’.53 Yet Lamb’s pleas fell on deaf ears and his amendment was overwhelmingly rejected by the Conference, which troubled Anglican evangelicals watching on from a distance. The English Churchman, a Calvinist Anglican newspaper, saw it as proof that evangelicalism carried little weight in modern Methodism which was guilty of ‘liberalistic disparagement of Biblical authority’ and had lost sight of basic Reformation doctrine. It concluded that Methodism in the 1960s had ‘elected to retrogress to the “wilderness state”’ once occupied by John

126  Andrew Atherstone Wesley in his early sacerdotalist phase, ‘before God brought him out into evangelical light’.54 Nevertheless, these criticisms were rare. Most Anglican evangelical commentators continued to accept Methodism’s evangelical credentials at face value – or at least were too polite to question them in public.55 Some even saw this heritage as a strong reason to support the scheme, since to combine forces would bolster the evangelical cause. Towards Anglican–Methodist Unity (TAMU) was a cross-denominational grouping, founded in 1963, to encourage dialogue about the reunion proposals. Its secretary, Peter Morgan, argued that because Wesley and his followers were ‘thoroughgoing Evangelicals’, therefore ‘Evangelical Anglicans ought to be way out in front leading the movement towards Anglican–Methodist unity, not digging trenches in the rear and preparing to defend non-essentials to the last shot’.56 Likewise, Martin Parsons (vicar of Emmanuel Church, Northwood) wrote: The Methodist Church … has a heritage which the Church of England badly needs. The distinctive doctrines of the Wesleys, such as the witness of the Spirit and sanctification by faith, and not least their buoyant confidence in the power of the gospel to save even the dregs of humanity, are sorely lacking today. It may be argued that they are not noticeably prominent in present-day Methodism either, but the fact is that they form part of the tradition of that Church, and in unity we may all recover together the former zeal for evangelism.57 Parsons was convinced that the reconciling of the Churches would bring new hope to our country. Anglicanism at its best has dignity and order, and deep devotion, as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. Methodism at its best has fire and zeal, and a passion for holiness, as enshrined in the Methodist Hymn Book. Combine the two, and things will happen.58 Parsons was one of an influential group of 16 ‘convinced Evangelical churchmen’ who wrote to The Times appealing for their evangelical friends to support the scheme wholeheartedly, because ‘Our two churches are one in Christ, one in the Gospel, and joint-heirs of the Evangelical revival’.59 A fellow signatory, Frank Colquhoun (chancellor of Southwark cathedral), likewise tried to persuade his Anglican evangelical readers: On one point we are surely agreed. We all desire to achieve a larger measure of unity with our Methodist brethren. We are already close to them in matters of faith. Both they and we owe an immeasurable debt to the Wesleys, and as heirs of the Evangelical Revival we stand together in the same biblical and reformed tradition.60

Defeat of Anglican–Methodist Unity Scheme  127 However, there was little assessment of the divergent expressions of evangelicalism within Methodism and Anglicanism. It is doubtful, for example, that many Wesleyans would have agreed with Colquhoun that they stood within the ‘reformed tradition’; nor would many Calvinists have agreed with Parsons that evangelicalism could be distilled as ‘zeal for evangelism’. This mismatch of expectations among Dissentients about evangelical identity was usually ignored, though sometimes it surfaced. Amos Cresswell (minister of Cheadle Hulme Methodist Church in Cheshire, and himself a Dissentient) explained to the Church of England Newspaper that an evangelical, from a Methodist perspective, was someone ‘who practises evangelism in any and every way that is biblical, sincere and feasible’. There was no parallel in Methodism to the church parties of Anglicanism; therefore in a united Church, Methodists would ally themselves ‘with any group where the preaching of the gospel is number one priority’, rather than those who subscribed to particular doctrines of the Bible or the Atonement.61 Yet this was precisely what perturbed some Anglican evangelical Dissentients. Richard Hindley had once been a Methodist layman, but was ordained in 1963 as an Anglican clergyman. He defined evangelicalism as a commitment to the absolute supremacy of Scripture as the revealed Word of God, the centrality of the cross as a substitutionary and completed work, and the necessity of New Birth. Do not be fooled, he warned his Anglican friends – by this definition Methodist evangelicals were ‘a tiny and scattered minority’. To unite with Methodism would not strengthen the evangelical cause, but weaken it, he argued. Hindley acknowledged that Wesley’s FortyFour Sermons and Notes on the New Testament were ‘thoroughly evangelical’, but observed: ‘The lamentable fact is that this standard of doctrine means as little to most Methodist ministers as the 39 Articles do to many Anglicans’.62 Hindley carried his analysis further, offering three main reasons for the scarcity of Methodist evangelicals. First, the influence of nineteenthcentury liberalism upon all the Nonconformist denominations. Second, the Methodist system of training for ministers and local preachers, which was ‘liberal right through’ and ‘weeds out many evangelical candidates’. Third, the structure of the Methodist Circuit which ‘can make life very difficult for an evangelical’ and prevented the establishment of an evangelical tradition in any locality. It was no surprise, concluded Hindley, that ‘evangelicals are so thin on the ground in Methodism. No man can be blamed for succumbing to four years in a liberal college, followed by circuit work in a liberal team, with the nearest evangelical miles away’. He acknowledged that Anglicans could learn from the Methodist spirit of devotion and fellowship, but not their doctrine.63 Beckwith also criticised Methodist theology, though his point of attack was different, reminiscent of the VMA’s anti-Catholicism. He discerned a leaning towards Rome not only among Anglo-Catholics, but also among contemporary Methodists. For example, the 1963 Conversations Report included a

128  Andrew Atherstone statement on sacramental doctrine which was said to be ‘fairly representative of Methodist teaching’ and an indication of close doctrinal agreement with the Church of England.64 Beckwith published a scathing critique, suggesting that the Methodist conversationalists were ‘naïve’ and had misunderstood both historic Methodism and historic Anglicanism. If their view of Methodist identity was correct, he explained, then it was clearly incompatible with the reformed Church of England. He lambasted their statement as not what one would expect from a church which stems from John Wesley and which still, in its Deed of Union, acknowledges John Wesley as its great norm of orthodoxy. The authors seem rather to have attempted to work up historic Methodist teaching into something as much like Anglo-Catholicism as they can. … [T]hey are under the misapprehension that the nearer they get to the views embraced by AngloCatholics, the nearer they will get to the teaching of the Church of England. Whereas the reverse is in fact the case. The nearer they get to Anglo-Catholicism, the further they stray from the official teaching of the Church of England, expressed in its authorised formularies.65 Beckwith was surprised that the Methodists should ally themselves with ‘those who favour Tractarian novelties’ and found it hard to believe they ‘would be so disloyal to the Evangelical heritage which the Methodist Church and the Church of England have in common, as to be willing to fall in with changes which would tend to undo the Reformation’.66 In particular, he discerned in the Methodist teaching on eucharistic sacrifice a direct dependence on Gregory Dix and Eric Mascall, two leading Anglo-Catholics.67 The Conversations statement described John and Charles Wesley’s Hymns on the Lord’s Supper as ‘an indispensable exposition of Methodist eucharistic doctrine’,68 and yet gave them an Anglo-Catholic spin as if Wesley and Pusey were in agreement, which Beckwith saw as ‘a complete anachronism’.69 He praised those hymns as ‘perhaps the greatest collection of eucharistic hymns that Christendom can boast’, yet warned that because of the pervasive influence of Tractarianism, even within Methodism, they were now ‘so liable to misconstruction that it is hardly expedient for Protestants to use them today’.70 Elsewhere he summed up the Methodist statement on baptism as ‘not Methodist, Anglican, or New Testament teaching: it is the teaching of the Church of Rome’.71 The most vociferous and cutting response to the Anglican evangelical Dissentients came from the pen of Gordon Rupp, who rebuked them for their ‘inability to think beyond their own evangelical jargon’72 and for ‘putting the interests of an ecclesiastical party before the welfare of the whole Church of Jesus Christ’.73 He warned that these Anglican Dissentients, with their love of the Thirty-Nine Articles, wanted to bind Methodists within ‘the prison house of evangelical legalism’74 and to drag the church back into ‘the petrified forest of Victorian Anglicanism’.75 Playing on the parallels with the Voice of Methodism Association, Rupp declared:

Defeat of Anglican–Methodist Unity Scheme  129 Despite their claim to be the Voice of ‘historic’ Anglicanism, there are many signs of a minority complex, and a capacity for detecting hidden plots which recalls the persecution mania of the older Protestant Underworld.76 Dr Packer and his friends are better at laying down the law than the gospel, and nothing is more depressing than their willingness to write off any appeal to the grace of God as mere verbiage, ecumenical good manners, or even theological agnosticism. Methodists have not so learned their Bibles or their Charles Wesley.77 In particular, Rupp argued that Anglican evangelical Dissentients and Methodist evangelical Dissentients had little in common. The Anglicans were ‘conservative evangelicals’ schooled within the Inter-Varsity Fellowship, rigid Calvinistic puritans and ‘wooden fundamentalists’ who treated the Bible as ‘propositional revelation’ and believed in its ‘infallibility’. Their rejection of the union scheme would be ‘cold comfort’, predicted Rupp, to urbane biblical scholars like Professor Barrett and his Dissentient allies within the Arminian tradition.78 After a scathing and mocking critique which pulled no punches, Rupp concluded with a backhanded compliment: ‘I am not being mealy-mouthed when I say that I should nevertheless covet to live in the one household of faith with Dr Packer and his friends. I am sure they are more pleasant than their opinions would suggest’.79

Conclusion: Pulling Together? Although evangelical Dissentients within Anglicanism and Methodism were united in their antipathy to Catholicism, and their desire to see the reunion scheme fall, they did not occupy the same theological ground. There was little dialogue across the denominational divide and most of their campaigning work was directed towards opposing the scheme within their own Churches. There was some limited collaboration between the two sides, but only towards the end of the 1960s. For example, Barrett and Packer spoke on the same platform at the Oxford Conference of Evangelical Churchmen in September 1968,80 and again at a prominent VMA rally in Birmingham in July 1969. In that rare address to the Methodist Dissentients, Packer proclaimed their spiritual unity under a broad but undefined ‘evangelical’ banner: There are many thousands of Evangelicals in the Church of England who wish to affirm their fellowship with you. If the scheme goes through, there will be complete understanding if Methodists feel compelled to pull out, and we extend to you the right-hand of fellowship.81 Collaboration was also promoted by Gervase Duffield, a vocal Dissentient in the Church of England’s House of Laity. He welcomed Methodist

130  Andrew Atherstone contributors to the leading Anglican evangelical journal, The Churchman, which he edited. As proprietor of Marcham Manor Press near Oxford, he also published some Methodist Dissentient works,82 and supported the miscalculated attempt of Oliver Beckerlegge to revive the historic Methodist Magazine which the Conference discarded in 1969.83 Nevertheless, the relationship between the Dissentients was not an equal one. Anglican evangelicals saw themselves as riding gallantly to the aid of their weaker and more beleaguered Methodist brethren. For example, when five representatives of the Church of England Evangelical Council (led by Packer) met at Cheadle Rectory in September 1967 with eight representatives of ‘Minority Methodism’ (led by Barrett), Packer encouraged the Methodists, ‘Hold fast, for help is near!’84 Methodist Dissentients felt sidelined and silenced within their own denomination. There were persistent complaints that Methodist officialdom (as represented by the Conference and the Methodist Recorder) was ‘gravely out of step with the rank and file of the Methodist people’.85 Some Dissentients warned that the union scheme was being forced through by ‘ministerial and Conferential despotism’,86 and reported bully-boy tactics such as ‘brow-beating, vilification, distortion of facts, closing of chapels to critics, refusal to hear them in journals’.87 One Anglican evangelical commentator, Colin Brown (senior tutor at Tyndale Hall, Bristol), claimed that members of the Church of England enjoyed ‘a liberty which Methodists have good cause to envy’. He went so far as to liken Methodist governance to Khrushchev’s Kremlin.88 These accusations were vigorously contested by the Methodist hierarchy, but the disillusioned Dissentients remained powerless to stop Conference approving the scheme. Their only hope was that their Anglican allies would ‘save Methodism from the most dangerous step in her history’ by voting it down in the Convocations of Canterbury and York.89 It was not so much a case of Methodist and Anglican Dissentients fighting side by side in the same battle, but two battles in two Churches with two minority armies, in occasional contact. Methodist evangelical Dissentients were defeated again and again within Conference. Anglican evangelical Dissentients were finally victorious in the Church of England, after a surprise alliance with traditional AngloCatholics who also believed the scheme was insufficiently doctrinal. There was remarkably little dialogue between Anglicans and Methodists over the nature of the evangelical identity they reputedly held in common, apart from a nod in the direction of John Wesley and the eighteenth-century revivals. The scheme was only stopped when Calvinist and Catholic Dissentients within Anglicanism hammered out an agreed ecclesiology in Growing into Union.90 The theological unity between evangelical Dissentients across the two denominations was frequently proclaimed and was an important part of their rhetorical strategy in defeating Anglican–Methodist reunion, but was never put to the test.

Defeat of Anglican–Methodist Unity Scheme  131

Notes A shorter version of this chapter was published in Wesley and Methodist Studies 7 (2015), 100–16, and the material is reproduced here with permission. 1 Geoffrey Fisher, A Step Forward in Church Relations (London, 1946), 10. 2 Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church: A Report (London, 1963). The proposed ‘Service of Reconciliation’ is at 37–47. The conversationalists had previously published Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church: An Interim Statement (London, 1958). 3 Anglican–Methodist Unity, Part 1 The Ordinal (London, 1968), Part II The Scheme (London, 1968). The commission had previously published Toward Reconciliation: The Interim Statement of the Anglican–Methodist Unity Commission (London, 1967). 4 For overviews of these debates, see George Thompson Brake, Policy and Politics in British Methodism 1932–1982 (London, 1984), 99–150; John Munsey Turner, Conflict and Reconciliation: Studies in Methodism and Ecumenism in England 1740–1982 (London, 1985), 194–214. 5 ‘A Dissentient View’, in Conversations Report (1963), 57. 6 Deed of Union, paragraph 30, in Harold Spencer and Edwin Finch (eds), The Constitutional Practice and Discipline of the Methodist Church, 4th edn. (London, 1964), 276. 7 ‘A Dissentient View’, 62. 8 John Wesley to Charles Wesley, 19 August 1785, in John Telford (ed.), The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley (8 vols, London, 1931) vii, 284. The Dissentients were rebuked for misleadingly equating ‘historic episcopate’ and ‘apostolic succession’: Richard G. Jones, The Dissentient Mystery (London, 1964), 9. 9 ‘A Dissentient View’, 58–60. 10 Jones, The Dissentient Mystery, 9, 13–14, 22. 11 Norman H. Snaith, ‘Why I Did Not Sign the Report’, Voice of Methodism 1 (February 1964), 8. 12 Snaith, ‘Why I Did Not Sign’, 9. 13 See further, Arthur Skevington Wood, The Kindled Flame: The Witness of the Methodist Revival Fellowship (Ilkeston, 1987); Martin Wellings, ‘Renewing Methodist Evangelicalism: The Origins and Development of the Methodist Revival Fellowship’, in Kate Cooper and Jeremy Gregory (eds), Revival and Resurgence in Christian History (Woodbridge, 2008), 286–96; Robert J. Kitching, ‘The Conservative Evangelical Influence in Methodism, 1900–1976’ (MPhil thesis, Birmingham University, 1976). 14 ‘Declaration’, Voice of Methodism 1 (February 1964), 2. 15 Bertrand J. Coggle, ‘The Voice of Methodism and Democratic Procedure’, Voice of Methodism 4 (August 1964), 8. 16 James Bristow, ‘Our Name’, Voice of Methodism 4 (August 1964), 4. 17 ‘What is the “Voice of Methodism”?’, Voice of Methodism 1 (February 1964), 5. 18 ‘Editorial’, Voice of Methodism 1 (February 1964), 3. 19 Oliver Beckerlegge, ‘Church Relations and Some Popular Fallacies’, Voice of Methodism 6 (January 1965), 4. 20 Frank Ockenden, ‘Unity in the Gospel’, Voice of Methodism 11 (November 1965), 14. 21 Frank Ockenden, ‘Seven Certainties’, Voice of Methodism 6 (January 1965), 11. 22 John Maiden and Peter Webster, ‘Parliament, the Church of England and the Last Gasp of Political Protestantism, 1963–4’, Parliamentary History 32 (June 2013), 361–77.

132  Andrew Atherstone 23 ‘The Risk of Reunion’, Voice of Methodism 2 (April 1964), 12. 24 ‘Editorial’, Voice of Methodism 4 (August 1964), 2. 25 ‘Editorial’, Voice of Methodism 15 (July 1966), 2. 26 ‘United Service, But …’, Voice of Methodism 7 (March 1965), 15. 27 ‘Inasmuch …’, Voice of Methodism 13 (March 1966), 13. 28 Harold Westlake, ‘Cyprian and the Anglo-Catholics’, Voice of Methodism 6 (January 1965), 14. 29 John Moorman, Vatican Observed: An Anglican Impression of Vatican II (London, 1967). 30 ‘Editorial’, Voice of Methodism 5 (November 1964), 3. 31 ‘Extracts from Speech by J. Carver’, Voice of Methodism 6 (January 1965), 12. 32 Robert Currie, Methodism Divided: A Study in the Sociology of Ecumenicalism (London, 1968). 33 James Bristow, ‘Confusing the Issue’, Voice of Methodism 3 (July 1964), 5. 34 George Thompson Brake, ‘New Objectives for Church and State’, British Weekly, 29 October 1964, 3. 35 Voice of Methodism 5 (November 1964), 11. 36 ‘The Church’s One Foundation’, Voice of Methodism 2 (April 1964), 7. 37 ‘Editorial’, Voice of Methodism 20 (June 1967), 2–3. 38 Franz Hildebrandt, ‘Are Methodists Still “One People the World Over”?’, Voice of Methodism 2 (April 1964), 10–11. See also, Franz Hildebrandt, Critique of Two Reports (London, 1964). 39 See further, Amos Cresswell and Max Tow, Dr Franz Hildebrandt: Mr Valiantfor-Truth (Leominster, 2000). There is also a German biography, Holger Roggelin, Franz Hildebrandt: ein lutherischer Dissenter im Kirchenkampf und Exil (Göttingen, 1999). 40 National Liaison Committee statement, April 1968, in G.E. Duffield, (ed.), Anglicans and Methodists (London, 1968). 41 Derek Tidball, ‘“Secession is an Ugly Thing”: The Emergence and Development of Free Methodism in Late Twentieth-Century England’, in David Bebbington and David Ceri Jones (eds), Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism in the United Kingdom during the Twentieth Century (Oxford, 2013), 209–29. 42 ‘A Note by the Reverend Dr J.I. Packer’, Anglican–Methodist Unity, Part II, 182– 3. See also, J.I. Packer, (ed.), Fellowship in the Gospel: Evangelical Comment on Anglican–Methodist Unity and Intercommunion Today (Marcham, 1968). 43 Gordon Rupp, Consideration Reconsidered (London, 1964), 26. 44 Alister McGrath, To Know and Serve God: A Life of James I. Packer (London, 1997), 113. 45 Conversations Report, 52. 46 Colin Buchanan, ‘Ends and Means’, in J.I. Packer (ed.), The Church of England and the Methodist Church (Marcham, 1963), 55. 47 R.T. Beckwith, ‘Keele, Nottingham and the Future’, in D.N. Samuel (ed.), The Evangelical Succession in the Church of England (Cambridge, 1979), 102. 48 Open Letter Concerning Anglican–Methodist Unity, June 1968, in Duffield (ed.), Anglicans and Methodists. See also Open Letter of February 1964, in J.I. Packer (ed.), All in Each Place: Towards Reunion in England (Marcham, 1965), 15–6. 49 See, for example, Philip Crowe (ed.), Keele ’67: The National Evangelical Anglican Congress Statement (London, 1967), paragraph 98. 50 C.O. Buchanan, J.I. Packer, E.L. Mascall and G.D. Leonard, Growing into Union: Proposals for Forming a United Church in England (London, 1970). See further, Andrew Atherstone, ‘A Mad Hatter’s Tea Party in the Old Mitre Tavern? Ecumenical Reactions to Growing into Union’, Ecclesiology 6 (January 2010), 39–67. 51 J.I. Packer, ‘Wanted: A Pattern for Union’, in Packer (ed.), All in Each Place, 17.

Defeat of Anglican–Methodist Unity Scheme  133 52 ‘The Basis of the Debate’, Methodist Recorder, 8 July 1965, 16. 53 ‘The Debate Makes History’, Methodist Recorder, 8 July 1965, 15. 54 English Churchman, quoted in ‘Methodist Conference in Retrospect: As Evangelical Anglicans See Us’, Voice of Methodism 11 (November 1965), 12. 55 For reflections on Methodist evangelicalism, see Martin Wellings, Evangelicals in Methodism: Mainstream, Marginalised or Misunderstood? (Ilkeston, 2005); Martin Wellings, ‘British Methodism and Evangelicalism’, in William J. Abraham and James E. Kirby (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Methodist Studies (Oxford, 2009), 155–70; Martin Wellings, ‘Methodism and the Evangelical Tradition’, in William Gibson, Peter Forsaith and Martin Wellings (eds), The Ashgate Research Companion to World Methodism (Aldershot, 2013), 307–24. 56 Peter Morgan (ed.), The Anglican–Methodist Conversations: An Evangelical Approach (London, 1964), 6. 57 Martin Parsons, ‘The Service of Reconciliation’, in Morgan (ed.), Anglican– Methodist Conversations, 28. 58 Parsons, ‘The Service of Reconciliation’, 31. 59 ‘Anglican–Methodist Reunion: The Debate Continues’, letter from Russell B. White and others, The Times, 2 June 1969, 9. 60 Frank Colquhoun, Evangelicals and Methodist Unity (London, 1969), 26. Colquhoun’s essay was published as a combined pamphlet with Eric W. Kemp’s The Anglican–Methodist Unity Scheme. 61 Amos Cresswell, ‘But What Do You Mean By an “Evangelical”?’, Church of England Newspaper, 26 June 1970, 7. 62 Richard Hindley, ‘Three Reasons Why They Are So Scarce’, Church of England Newspaper, 26 June 1970, 7. 63 Hindley, ‘Three Reasons’. 64 Conversations Report, 29. 65 R.T. Beckwith, Priesthood and Sacraments: A Study in the Anglican–Methodist Report, Latimer Monographs No.1 (Appleford, 1964), 49. 66 Beckwith, Priesthood and Sacraments, 49–50. 67 Beckwith, Priesthood and Sacraments, 79–83. 68 Conversations Report, 31. 69 Beckwith, Priesthood and Sacraments, 62. 70 Beckwith, Priesthood and Sacraments, 68–9. 71 R.T. Beckwith, ‘The Gospel and the Sacraments’, in Packer (ed.), The Church of England and the Methodist Church, 21. 72 Rupp, Consideration Reconsidered, 9. 73 Rupp, Consideration Reconsidered, 58. 74 Rupp, Consideration Reconsidered, 45. 75 Rupp, Consideration Reconsidered, 49. 76 Rupp, Consideration Reconsidered, 10. 77 Rupp, Consideration Reconsidered, 12. 78 Rupp, Consideration Reconsidered, 7–8, 15–16, 58. 79 Rupp, Consideration Reconsidered, 59. 80 J.I. Packer, ‘The Church of South India and Reunion in England’, The Churchman 82 (Winter 1968), 249–61; C. Kingsley Barrett, ‘Anglican–Methodist Relations: A Question of Conscience’, The Churchman 82 (Winter 1968), 262–77. See further, Andrew Atherstone, ‘The Cheltenham and Oxford Conference of Evangelical Churchmen’, in Andrew Atherstone and John Maiden (eds), Evangelicalism and the Church of England in the Twentieth Century: Reform, Resistance and Renewal (Woodbridge, 2014), 109–35. 81 ‘Report of the Conference Rally of the Voice of Methodism Association’, Voice of Methodism 32 (November 1969), 16.

134  Andrew Atherstone 82 See, for example, T.E. Jessop, Not This Way: A Methodist Examination of the Union Scheme and a Plea for Integrity (Marcham, 1969). 83 ‘The Methodist Magazine’, Voice of Methodism 32 (November 1969), 12–3; ‘The Methodist Magazine’, Voice of Methodism 41 (October 1972), 3; ‘Editorial’, The Churchman 83 (Winter 1969), 255–6. 84 ‘Report of Meeting Held 18/9/67 at Cheadle Rectory between Representatives of the Church of England Evangelical Council and “Minority Methodism”’, Voice of Methodism 23 (February 1968), 15. 85 Bertrand J. Coggle, ‘Differ and be Brothers’, The Churchman 85 (Spring 1971), 43. 86 Coggle, ‘Differ and be Brothers’, 44. See also Coggle, ‘The Voice of Methodism and Democratic Procedure’, 7–8. 87 Oliver Beckerlegge, ‘Bureaucratic Juggernaut’, in Duffield (ed.), Anglicans and Methodists. 88 Colin Brown, ‘Some Practical Problems’, in Packer (ed.), The Church of England and the Methodist Church, 47. 89 Coggle, ‘Differ and be Brothers’, 45. 90 Atherstone, ‘A Mad Hatter’s Tea Party’.

8

Fighting for Methodism’s Soul The Voice of Methodism Association, 1963–721 Claire Surry

When the Anglican–Methodist Unity Commission published its final report (Report of the Anglican–Methodist Unity Commission. 2. The Scheme) in April 1968, detailing a two-stage programme for Anglican–Methodist Union, there was a palpable sense among the Commission that union was a genuine and imminent prospect. For the writers of the report, the future prospects of the Church hinged upon the decision to accept or reject the Anglican–Methodist Union scheme. ‘To go back on this at the present time would be a major disaster’, they wrote, ‘not merely for the cause of unity, but for the Christian mission itself’.2 These sentiments encapsulate why the twentieth century, particularly since the Second World War, has been considered ‘the great century of Christian union’.3As this volume demonstrates, although Methodism was at the forefront of ecumenical trends, the interrelationship between unity and division within the Methodist Church could be complicated. This chapter explores the presence of division during the period 1963–72 through the lens of the Voice of Methodism Association (VMA), an often controversial group which formed to provide ‘uncompromising opposition’ to the Anglican–Methodist Union scheme.4 This opposition was never greater than when two of its officers, the Rev. Bernard Barker and Henry Wanstall, issued an Originating Summons against the President and Secretary of the Methodist Conference in order to stop the union scheme. For the Rev. A. E. Clucas Moore, Vice-Chairman and founder member of the VMA, the soul of Methodism was at stake. ‘What shall it profit a Church if it gain the whole world and lose its own soul?’, he wrote. ‘We are perilously near losing our soul and finding a great organisation’.5 Scholars of religion have often mused on what gave such impetus to the ecumenical movement in the twentieth century. The push factors involve plunging Church attendance figures, the acceleration of social change and the rise of secularisation;6 while the pull factors include the development of thought on the doctrine of the Church which led many to question its separated status and thus to contemplate its unity. Whether the Church aimed to strengthen its fragile position in society or to discover a fuller sense of its theological identity, the social and theological ecosystem of the twentieth century has often been considered a moment ripe for the ecumenical movement DOI: 10.4324/9781003119210-8

136  Claire Surry to thrive.7 Yet other studies have muddied this narrative by highlighting the complexity of relations within the Church at that time. In his study of Anglican and Methodist evangelicals who opposed Anglican–Methodist Union, Andrew Atherstone has shown how, despite their mutual association with evangelicalism, many VMA members shared less theological common ground with their evangelical counterparts in the Church of England than was assumed, and there was little inter-denominational co-operation and cohesiveness between the evangelical wings of the two churches.8 Others have observed that dividing lines between denominations became increasingly permeable as the twentieth century progressed, and any assumptions that denominations were basically cohesive, or that divisions sat primarily along denominational boundaries, have grown convincing.9 The most deepseated divisions can lie as much within denominations as between them. Studying the VMA offers an insight into how intra-denominational divisions existed alongside the Methodist Conference’s aspiration to bring about greater inter-denominational unity. After exploring the wider social and theological factors which gave rise to the VMA amid prevalent trends towards ecumenism, the chapter considers the origins of the group and the immediate basis of its opposition. Its legal action in 1969–70 provides an ideal source for revealing differences between the VMA and the Methodist Conference in terms of their conception of the Methodist Church, particularly its constitutional basis, doctrine and polity. The chapter concludes that, while the existence of the VMA complicates the ecumenical narrative which dominated this period, its impact was nevertheless limited because it was out of kilter with many who saw ecumenical unity as an essential spiritual value.

The Origins of the VMA Much writing on this period has been concerned with understanding the social and theological factors that gave rise to ecumenical initiatives, but other factors should also be considered to aid understanding of the issues that shaped the VMA’s antagonistic stance towards Anglican–Methodist Union. Three factors are suggested here. The first is the VMA’s concern that the theological trajectory of the wider ecclesiastical scene was heading away from Protestantism towards Roman Catholicism, epitomised for the VMA by the ecumenical movement itself. ‘One is condemned for upholding Scriptural truth’, complained one VMA member, ‘[e]cumenism now means: Unite with Rome; but disassociate from evangelical Protestants’.10 The Church of England’s interactions with the Roman Catholic Church in the 1960s – the Archbishop of Canterbury met with the Pope in 1966, and an Anglican delegation attended the Second Vatican Council – partly fuelled misgivings that Anglican–Methodist Union might be a stepping-stone to a broader union with Rome. Other day-to-day signs, such as stone altars, prayers for the dead and the wearing of rich clerical garb, also served as daily

Fighting for Methodism’s Soul  137 barometers of the Church of England’s attraction to Roman Catholicism.11 The Methodist, and former Anglo-Catholic priest, the Rev. Rowland Jones, observed that the cope and mitre had become ‘normal ecclesiastical dress’ for bishops, whereas 30 years previously it would have been considered ‘very “Catholic”’.12 The prospect of entering into a union with a Church that seemed (at least to them) increasingly at ease with Roman Catholicism was a source of anxiety for VMA members. A second factor influencing the VMA was its lack of belief in the view that ecumenism would be a catalyst for mission amid the social upheaval of the 1960s. Advocates of union such as the Secretary of Conference, the Rev. Eric Baker, emphasised mission as the overriding motivation for Anglican– Methodist Union.13 VMA leaders similarly recognised the need for effective evangelism. Uneasily observing changes in social morality in 1960s Britain, Clucas Moore viewed it as ‘a pagan land … [where] moral good is no longer accepted as primary’.14 But VMA members were doubtful – and even opposed to the suggestion – that ecumenism was a remedy for this. Rather, they concluded the reverse lesson from the past: ‘The strange and disturbing lesson of history’, wrote Clucas Moore – citing as evidence the Reformation and the Evangelical Revival – ‘is that division and not unification has brought in a season of growth’.15 Indeed, VMA leaders questioned whether the movement for Church union was even a particularly spiritual undertaking at all. The rise of the ecumenical movement was at least partly accounted for by ‘the weakening of strong personal convictions’, a ‘mood of defeatism’ and ‘a lack of faith in God’s power to enable His Church to meet the needs of a new age’.16 Instead, they urged the Methodist Church to return to ‘the kind of Gospel our fathers preached’, rather than supporting a ‘pathetic attempt to find salvation in human organisations’.17 The prevailing view that Anglican–Methodist Union would be a spur to evangelism in 1960s Britain was discounted by the VMA as fundamentally unspiritual. A third factor shaping the VMA’s outlook was the memory of Methodism’s own ecumenical experience in 1932, when three separate Methodist churches – the Wesleyan Methodist Church, the Primitive Methodist Church and the United Methodist Church – united. At that time, many Methodists expressed a fervent hope that revival would follow once union had been achieved, for they believed numerical growth to be an obvious corollary of union.18 Such optimism proved anticlimactic in the years that followed: the 25th anniversary of Methodist Union in 1957 passed without celebration or commemoration.19 Amid plummeting membership and chapel closures, VMA members reflected on how ‘pathetic’ the high hopes of revival through union now seemed.20 In their view, ‘a small brick-built self-supporting Methodist Chapel’ was always more likely to be demolished over ‘an ancient and probably well-endowed stone-built Parish Church’.21 There were also signs that the Wesleyan, Primitive and United Methodist Churches had not fully bonded since 1932. Norman Snaith, one of the four Methodists on the Anglican–Methodist Conversations Committee to dissent

138  Claire Surry to the 1963 Report, complained in his 1969 affidavit to the court during VMA members’ legal action that Maldwyn Edwards (the 1961 President of the Methodist Conference) and Eric Baker’s affidavits only took notice of Wesleyan traditions, and ‘entirely ignored’ those of the Primitive and United Methodists.22 The lingering differences and disappointed hopes during the years after 1932 left many in the VMA feeling jaded about the prospect of another ecumenical venture. Reflections on the religious life of Britain in this period have often concentrated on ecumenical factors that were unique to the twentieth century. Yet the factors mentioned here – encompassing social and theological elements, as well as past experience – were equally important to twentieth-century religious life, and complicated ecumenical progress. The VMA was formed in November 1963, a year of notable developments in the Anglican–Methodist Union conversations. The previous February had seen the publication of the 60-page report of the Joint Committee, Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church: A Report. It was met with disgruntlement in some quarters of the Methodist Church, one particular source of complaint being the low level of scrutiny the Report had received at the 1963 Methodist Conference, and in September of that year rumours began to circulate that lay supporters of union had been requested to form groups to promote its acceptance.23 When the Methodist Recorder announced in October that the group ‘Towards Anglican–Methodist Unity’ (TAMU) had been formed in the previous July, those who opposed the union sensed foul play. They suspected TAMU of ‘rigging the ballot’ by forming local committees to influence the selection of representatives at Conference in favour of those who supported the Scheme.24 Consequently, over 40 letters appeared in the Methodist Recorder, calling for the founding of a group to provide scrutiny and opposition to the union proposals.25 Taking note of the letter writers’ names, Clucas Moore arranged an informal meeting in Birmingham on 8–9 November, when ten ministers and laymen met together and the VMA was formed.26 Another such meeting followed in December, at which an invitation to a formal inaugural meeting to be held in Westminster on the 25th January 1964 was issued. The inaugural meeting attracted an attendance of 400–500, of whom 60 were ministers.27 The Rev. Dr Leslie Newman was appointed Chairman, Clucas Moore became Vice-Chairman, and the Rev. A.E.D. Clipson, General Secretary. As noted above, the VMA’s main aim was to provide ‘uncompromising opposition’ to the Anglican–Methodist Union scheme.28 Initially it relied on its successful stream of leaflets, but in 1964 it launched a regular Bulletin, edited by the Methodist historian, Rev. Dr Oliver Beckerlegge. In its publications, the VMA demonstrated its wider aim to urge the Methodist Church to regain its evangelistic mission and to rekindle its fervour for soulwinning. As such, it naturally embraced evangelicalism; one Bulletin noted that ‘evangelical’ had become ‘the normal prefix’ for those Methodists who

Fighting for Methodism’s Soul  139 stressed the importance of the doctrinal statements in the 1932 Deed of Union (the document which formed the basis of the Methodist Church), and ‘episcopal’ for those who accepted episcopal ordination.29 For many VMA members, evangelical beliefs were at the heart of what it meant to be Methodist, in accordance with the Deed’s commitment to ‘the proclamation of the Evangelical Faith’.30 To them, Anglican–Methodist Union was a distraction from ‘the sense of urgency, the yearning after the lost’ that they felt was so quintessentially Methodist.31 Nevertheless, there was disagreement within the VMA about whether such aims would be best realised within or without the Methodist Connexion. The VMA became increasingly divided between those who wanted to remain part of the Methodist Church and those, such as the VMA’s earliest treasurer John Eastwood, who hoped that an independent Methodist Church would be formed in the event of Anglican–Methodist Union.32 Support for separation from the Methodist Connexion seemed to be less common among ministers, however; one VMA member cautioned in 1970 that, in the event of the Methodist Church splitting, ‘we continuing Methodists may find ourselves short of Ministers’.33 The VMA was generally shunned by the wider Methodist Church: its leaders complained that they ‘suffered ignominy and abuse, misrepresentation and misunderstanding’.34 This was often sparked by the VMA’s courting of controversy, not least through the choice of the association’s name. 30 possible names for the group were considered at the meeting in November 1963.35 The selection of ‘Voice of Methodism’, first suggested by Bernard Barker, was underpinned by two main considerations: firstly, because it alluded to a determined commitment to uphold the doctrines of the Methodist Church as detailed in the 1932 Deed of Union; and secondly, because the Association desired to be a ‘voice’ for all Methodists who opposed the union.36 From the outset, VMA leaders were conscious of the criticism that the name might attract, but were nevertheless insistent that it ‘did not carry a negative meaning’.37 Many others disagreed, however, regarding the name as insensitively dismissive of views held by other Methodists. In response to the criticism, the VMA took out an advertisement in the Methodist Recorder which quoted clause 30 (the doctrinal statements) of the 1932 Deed of Union to prove that Anglican–Methodist Union endangered these doctrines.38 When the then President of Conference, Rev. Dr Frederick Greeves, wrote to the Methodist Recorder requesting the VMA to reconsider its name, VMA leaders voted almost unanimously to keep it; a fitting decision, they thought, since the name ‘Voice of Methodism’ conveyed their belief that the Methodist Conference was not the true ‘voice’ of Methodism. Their reply to Greeves informed him emphatically that the name would not be changed.39 Alongside its choice of name, the VMA’s use of language also caused controversy. Pamphlets and articles berated support for Anglican–Methodist Union as inconsistent with Methodist teaching. In a number of instances, support for union was depicted as antithetical to foundational Christian

140  Claire Surry doctrines. A pamphlet written in 1968 specified that the group’s aim was to ‘perpetuate those fundamental Christian principles which we believe are now in jeopardy’.40 Similarly, a Bulletin article written in 1970 urged readers to pray for the future of Methodism, assuring readers that ‘God will bless His true Church this year, however men may harm it’.41 The differentiation between those who opposed the Scheme as God’s ‘true Church’ and supporters of the Scheme who ‘harm[ed] it’ indicates how divisive the VMA’s feelings could be. At times, language could be even more overtly contentious. In urging members to take action, the VMA’s Manual for Members warned that ‘[inactivity] … may be as great a betrayal and denial of our Lord as the silence of Peter’.42 Beckerlegge later conceded that VMA members were prone to putting forward their views ‘with more vigour than charity’.43 Unbridled language helped gain the VMA a reputation as a ‘lunatic fringe’, yet it was a deliberate tactic, intended to rouse passive Methodists by presenting itself as a courageous David taking on the Goliath of the Methodist hierarchy. These feelings seemed to intensify throughout the 1960s, culminating in the legal action in 1969. The VMA’s rhetoric often presented itself as the representative of the ‘grassroots’ of Methodism, in contrast to the ‘power-seeking hierarchy’ of the Methodist Conference.44 VMA leaders prided themselves that their organisation was ‘completely and fully democratic’, for all members were able to attend the annual Conference, vote on every issue and stand for election to the general committee.45 As all sympathisers were welcomed and there was no formal membership subscription, the overall membership numbers are unclear. When Rev. Norman Valley became membership secretary, he was thought to distribute membership papers to everyone who received the Bulletin. In later years, he excused this decision by claiming that the publication of membership lists would have unmasked those, particularly Methodist ministers, who wished to keep their membership of VMA secret from their Superintendents.46 While this might suggest that the bulk of VMA adherents were suspicious of Conference leadership because of their Primitive or United Methodist background, it is important to note that there were others, Clucas Moore for instance, whose roots were Wesleyan Methodist.47 Despite the scruples of some of them, the VMA was led by its minister members. In 1972, the majority of roles on the executive committee were held by ministers, with lay committee members mainly holding roles relating to finance or administration.48 Lay members were also encouraged to contribute articles to the Bulletin, which became a key means of hearing members’ opinions and ensuring that ‘the voices of Methodists may be heard and not stifled by officialdom’.49 Readers seemed to respond enthusiastically: the VMA handbook reported that it had published almost 250,000 leaflets and pamphlets in six months.50 The VMA’s apparent success was accompanied by its members’ sense of victimisation. While the VMA could certainly hinder its own cause,

Fighting for Methodism’s Soul  141 members of the group were determinedly confined to the ‘lunatic fringes’ by many fellow Methodists, whose language could at times be contentious and harsh: the Association was given the nickname ‘Vomit’ by some Methodists (allegedly including some Methodist college lecturers).51 VMA speakers were denied platforms: physically in the sense of using church halls and pulpits, and politically, as within the Methodist Recorder, which refused to grant the VMA advertising space.52 By 1970, Leslie Newman doubted that the VMA would ever ‘overcome the effective smear campaign that was waged against us’.53 Certainly, the VMA bore some responsibility for its rejection, but to some extent its members’ sense of victimisation was justified. The VMA collaborated with other Methodist opposition groups, including the more moderate National Liaison Committee (NLC). The NLC even offered some support to the VMA’s legal action, though hesitantly, for Kenneth Mackenzie, Secretary of the NLC, believed that the VMA was ‘unwise’ to launch legal action, cautioning that ‘a defeat here could conceivably weaken our hand later’.54 Nevertheless, since the step had been taken, he felt it was ‘not improper’ to offer advice.55 At several points, the VMA was receptive to union with the NLC, yet the relationship was always intertwined with tensions. In April 1968, Bernard Barker, the VMA’s Secretary, left an NLC Committee meeting in ‘sad mood’ following a discussion on uniting their groups. He offloaded his feelings to NLC leaders, Kenneth Mackenzie and Professor Kingsley Barrett, opining that amalgamation would be ‘fatuous’, since the NLC had ‘nowhere … [taken] into consideration what VMA has done, or is doing, or plans to do … There is a blank refusal to tackle normal problems together’. Consequently, VMA representatives had often ‘gone home disgusted’ from NLC business meetings. In Barker’s view, the NLC’s reasoning ‘that people on either side sometimes say or write stupid things which annoy us’ was not reason enough to justify the NLC’s reluctance to co-operate.56 These exchanges offer an insight into how the VMA was viewed by the wider Methodist Church, including other groups that opposed Anglican–Methodist Union. The VMA was frustrated that the NLC would not, as some felt, ‘“dirty their hands” by engaging in ecclesiastical politics’, while the NLC often viewed the VMA’s conduct and writings as embarrassing or extremist.57 The VMA’s association with evangelicalism was coupled with a belief that Conference’s Protestant principles had weakened. As Andrew Atherstone has shown, Dissentients to the Scheme often saw Anglo-Catholicism as typical of the whole Church of England.58 In the VMA’s eyes, Conference’s approval of the Scheme was essentially a move towards Anglo-Catholicism. It thus presented Methodist opposition or support as a sharp dichotomy between Protestantism and Catholicism. John Munsey Turner’s comment that many Methodists were ‘intellectually far closer to liberal Catholicism’ than they were to the evangelical wing of the Church of England is worth noting here.59 The language used by the VMA in its literature often framed opposition to the Anglican–Methodist Union Scheme as a re-contestation of

142  Claire Surry the Protestant reformation. In one Bulletin, readers were urged on in their opposition with the encouragement that ‘God is with us now as truly as He was with the Reformers when 400 years ago they challenged the domination of their ecclesiastical authorities’.60 The VMA considered itself a bastion of Protestantism; the ‘ecclesiastical authorities’ mentioned here refer to Conference rather than Catholicism, revealing the degree to which VMA polemic questioned Conference’s Protestant convictions. Following the publication of the Conversations Report in 1963, the VMA worked to consolidate its opposition to Anglican–Methodist Union, while other Methodists worked to bring it closer. The Anglican–Methodist Unity Commission was set up in 1965. Comprising 12 representatives from the Methodist Church and the Church of England, its brief was to build upon the 1963 Report to produce a detailed Scheme for bringing Anglican– Methodist Union to fruition. The Commission published its final report: Report of the Anglican–Methodist Unity Commission. 2. The Scheme, in April 1968. It consisted of two parts: the first contained the Ordinal; the second part detailed the Scheme, which consisted of two stages. Stage 1 sought to unify the ministries of both churches, culminating in the Service of Reconciliation in which the ministries of Anglicans and Methodists would be mutually acknowledged in a formal liturgical ceremony. Stage 2 envisaged full organic union between the two churches, though at an unspecified date. Methodists debated the details of the Scheme during their 1969 Conference in Birmingham. The Rev. Dr Harold Roberts, leader of the Methodist representation in the Unity Commission, opened the debate, while Leslie Newman, leader of the VMA, presented the opposing view. Newman reminded Conference of former assurances that plans for unity would not be forced through if there was substantial opposition. He highlighted the results of the March 1969 Quarterly Meetings, where 38,651 votes were returned in favour of union, 31,908 voted against, and 2,314 were neutral, indicating that almost half (47 per cent) of Methodists at grassroots level were not in favour of the Scheme.61 Following the debate, the resolution stating that ‘this Conference … gives its approval to the inauguration of Stage One of the Anglican–Methodist proposals’ was voted for by 77 per cent of Conference, thus signalling Conference’s intent to take a step closer towards union with the Church of England on the basis of the 1968 Scheme.62 This resolution was the catalyst for what was arguably the VMA’s most divisive action.

The Lines of Division between the VMA and the Methodist Conference The VMA’s courting of controversy and divisiveness peaked in the years 1969–70, following Conference’s resolution in the summer of 1969. That September, an Originating Summons was issued in the Chancery Division

Fighting for Methodism’s Soul  143 of the High Court of Justice by two VMA officer members: Rev. Bernard Barker, General Secretary of the VMA, and Henry Charles Wanstall, the VMA’s solicitor. The defendants were the President and Secretary of the Methodist Conference: Rev. Brian Stapleton O’Gorman and Rev. Eric Wilfred Baker. Although the VMA emphasised that this was a private action instigated by Barker and Wanstall as individuals, the VMA was associated directly, because, even though it recognised the contentiousness of taking legal action, its fervent desire was for the court to declare the Scheme ultra vires.63 The VMA’s general committee formally approved the issuing of Summons, and appeals were issued to members for donations to a ‘Fighting Fund’ for incurred legal expenses.64 Its insistence that an Originating Summons was ‘not a hostile action’ and that there was ‘nothing unchristian or unbrotherly’ about legal action, nevertheless implicitly reveals an awareness that suing the President and Secretary of Conference would be regarded by the wider Methodist Church as an antagonistic course of action.65 The case was heard by Mr Justice Megarry on 11, 12 and 15 June 1970. Barker and Wanstall put three main questions to the Court regarding Conference’s actions. The first asked whether ‘upon the true construction of the … Act and Deed of Union, the resolution passed by the Methodist Conference … was ultra vires’; the second asked whether ‘upon the true construction of the … Act and Deed of Union, the Methodist Conference has power to appoint any Methodist Ministers to be bishops’; and the third asked whether the Methodist Church could use its funds and property to obtain legislation authorising Conference to proceed with the proposals.66 What does the legal action reveal about where the dividing lines lay between the VMA and Conference? The affidavits submitted offer a window into the VMA’s conception of the Methodist Church and highlight how the VMA’s view of what Methodism should be diverged from Conference in three particular ways: constitutional basis, doctrine and polity. Barker and Wanstall’s interpretation of the Methodist Church’s constitutional documents was central to their legal argument, illustrated in the oft-repeated refrain, ‘the true construction of the Act and Deed of Union’ in their questions to the court. Their interpretation of those documents was thus crucial, since their case relied on convincing the court that the documents did not sanction Conference’s approval of the Scheme. The type of Summons that Barker and Wanstall issued – an Originating Summons – is issued when the interpretation of documents (as opposed to facts) is disputed. One of their main contentions was that Conference’s 1969 resolution should be declared ultra vires because it ‘constitute[d] an alteration of the fundamental doctrines set out in the Deed of Union and the Model Deed’.67 Significantly, Barker and Wanstall based their argument on the meanings of the Methodist Church Union Act 1929 and the Deed of Union 1932. Methodist Union in 1932 was itself the product of ecumenical negotiations between the Wesleyan Methodist Church, the Primitive Methodist Church and the United Methodist Church: Churches which, despite their common

144  Claire Surry parentage, had their own distinct identities and theological emphases, particularly regarding the Bible and Church governance.68 Despite the diversity of doctrinal convictions, the 1932 Deed of Union provided the basis for the three churches to unite. Less than four decades on, however, the document that underpinned Methodist Union in 1932 was at the heart of Barker and Wanstall’s legal action against union. By the 1960s, the Deed of Union had gone from being the basis of union among Methodists to the basis of divisions among them. Barker and Wanstall, along with the VMA, believed that the future of the Methodist Church was being shaped by Conference’s misguided reading of Methodism’s constitutional documents. The ‘true construction’ of the Deed of Union, they argued, dictated that Conference should reject the Anglican–Methodist Union scheme. A second area where the VMA diverged from Conference was concerned with doctrine. If the foundation of Barker and Wanstall’s legal case was the Methodist Church’s constitutional documents, doctrine was the substance of it. Church governance emerged as a key area of disagreement, particularly regarding the status of laymen and the administration of the sacraments, and was a factor in the contentious Anglican–Methodist Service of Reconciliation. Supporters of the Scheme, such as Dr Maldwyn Lloyd Edwards (President of the Methodist Conference in 1961), argued in his affidavit that although ministers and laymen might share certain functions, it ‘must never be taken to mean that … they therefore have the same status’.69 He believed that following the laying on of hands by the President at ordination, a minister was thereafter ministering ‘in a way that is not open to the laity’, particularly in administering the sacraments.70 On the other hand, Norman Snaith, one of the four Dissentients to the 1963 Conversations Report, took issue with Edwards’ view that laymen had a different status: while unordained Methodists were not automatically permitted to administer the sacrament, this was never the exclusive domain of ministers.71 In accepting the Scheme, the plaintiffs believed that Conference was adopting a stance on Church governance which excessively curbed the role of the laity. What was at stake for the VMA in espousing different convictions on Church governance and the role of the laity? In the first place, the official view appeared to insinuate that members of the laity were deficient in some way. Indeed, some in the VMA wished for the distinction between the roles of ministers and laity to be obscured even more. One VMA member argued that all Methodists ‘ought to believe in the Ministry of All Believers’, with laymen sharing the bulk of ministry responsibilities.72 Although this was not the VMA’s official position, it provides an insight into the appetite of some members for greater commonality of roles, in contradistinction to greater emphasis on their distinctiveness. Others saw significant theological implications emanating from the doctrine of Church governance. To Snaith, the doctrine was ‘fundamental’ because ‘all other issues are influenced by it’.73 For him, the idea that Christ’s authority could be transmitted through a bishop was not only ‘impossible from the point of view of Methodist

Fighting for Methodism’s Soul  145 doctrine’ but also ‘contrary to the Gospel of Christ’. His core belief was that ‘every human being has equal access to the throne of grace and there is no intermediary … other than our Lord Jesus Christ himself’ to be at stake.74 While Conference approved the Scheme, other Methodists thought that the doctrines it espoused not only contradicted Methodist teaching, but were also against the grain of core Christian doctrine. Issues relating to polity were a third cause of division between the VMA and Conference, particularly the extent to which Conference consulted lay members. Since almost half (47 per cent) of votes in the 1969 Quarterly Meetings were cast against the Scheme, Barker and Wanstall urged the Court to order a referendum of the whole Methodist Church. They complained that numerous memorials (requests for topics to be discussed at Conference) had been rejected by the Memorials Committee (the body appointed by Conference to consider such requests) from 1964 to 1969 on the ‘illogical grounds’ that there is no provision for a referendum in the Methodist Constitution. Wanstall also complained that a memorial from his own Southend-on-Sea Circuit had been mishandled, leading him to speculate on how many others had been ‘similarly suppressed’.75 Such suspicion of Conference was widespread in VMA circles. One supporter likened the legal action to ‘the demand made by the weak against the tyranny of the strong exemplified in the Magna Carta’.76 This view of Conference meant that the language used in relation to the polity of the Methodist Church frequently extended beyond the theological into the political sphere. Barker and Wanstall argued that lay members were poorly represented in the Methodist Church, since neither Conference nor District Synods nor Quarterly Meetings were ‘representative bodies’ or ‘democratically elected’.77 In failing to call a referendum, Conference was depriving lay members of ‘an inherent fundamental right … to determine their own destiny and their own form of Church government’.78 The framing of their case in these terms signified how both doctrinal differences on Church governance and different interpretations of Methodist constitutional documents gave rise to the VMA’s fundamental distrust of Conference’s leadership and decision-making. In the end, the VMA’s understanding of the constitutional documents, doctrine and polity of the Methodist Church failed to win over Mr Justice Megarry. He ruled against Barker and Wanstall, upholding Conference’s 1969 resolution. His reasoning was based on the 1932 Deed of Union’s statement that Conference was ‘the final authority … with regard to all questions concerning the interpretation of its doctrines’.79 As such, when Conference passed the resolution in 1969 for the inauguration of Stage 1 of the Anglican–Methodist proposals, it had, in doing so, implicitly decided that such a resolution was compatible with the doctrinal standards of the Methodist Church.80 Megarry consequently concluded that the principle of Conference being the final authority in the interpretation of Methodist doctrine therefore applied to all issues covered in the resolution, be it ‘the power to appoint bishops, the proposed requirement of episcopal ordination, the

146  Claire Surry proposed abandonment of the power of dispensation, or any of the other matters discussed before me’.81 The basis of Barker and Wanstall’s case – the doctrinal statements of the 1932 Deed of Union – proved their undoing, for the document itself declared Conference to be the final authority on all matters regarding the interpretation of doctrine. Ultimately, the tactics of the VMA’s leaders undermined their cause. In the days following the conclusion of the case, some began to question the wisdom of putting complex theological issues before a civil court. In an exchange of letters, in which Kenneth Mackenzie of the NLC consulted with Graham Ross-Cornes (famous as the solicitor of Mary Whitehouse) over the legal action, Mackenzie reflected that although the Court was ‘of the highest quality’ when handling legal matters, it ‘wallowed’ when discussing theological issues.82 The civil court was not a suitable forum to discuss theological nuances, he argued; hence its unwillingness to decide on such matters.83 Taking the matter to court thus actually weakened the VMA’s cause; matters of doctrine were the jurisdiction of the Methodist Conference, not of a civil court, and Mr Justice Megarry was unsurprisingly reluctant to overrule Conference on such issues. Writing to the Secretary of the Charity Commission, Mackenzie questioned the logic of making Conference ‘judge and jury in its own case’. He likened the situation to the League for the Abolition of Cruel Sports promoting cock-fighting simply because their executive committee interpreted their constitution that way.84 For Mackenzie, ‘the legality’ of Conference approving the Scheme and ‘the moral position’ of doing so were two different things.85 The Scheme may have been technically legal, he argued, but it was ‘alien’ to Methodism’s doctrines.86 In this sense, the Court’s decision only further aggravated the concern and disquiet of those who opposed the Scheme because it formally affirmed the stance of Conference, which they believed to be ‘alien’ to Methodism. The decision was an official recognition that the VMA’s conception of the Methodist Church was mistaken. This blow was also accompanied by the subsequent financial consequences: Barker and Wanstall were ordered to pay costs amounting to over £4,000.87 Later that month, the VMA general committee wrote to VMA members, appealing for them to ‘pull out the cash and meet the bill’.88 Despite the decision against them, VMA leaders avowed that they ‘[did] not intend quitting the fight’.89 Their tactics did shift, however, to embrace a wider focus. The VMA offered fellowship and support to those who found the position of the Methodist Church ‘so intolerable’ that they could no longer remain part of it, and also to Dissentients who continued to remain part of the Methodist Church.90 It did not actively pursue separation from the Methodist Church, though VMA leaders wrote privately that they would be ‘pledged to help’ should such plans be afoot.91 Consequently, tensions with Conference continued to simmer; forewarnings of division continued to feature prominently in VMA messaging, which warned Conference later in 1970 that ‘separation, much as it may be regretted, may be made inevitable’.92 Leslie Newman, Bernard Barker, Bertrand

Fighting for Methodism’s Soul  147 Coggle (a member of the VMA general committee) and Oliver Beckerlegge’s letter to the Anglican General Synod in 1972 (where the Scheme was voted down) maintained that the Anglican–Methodist Unity Scheme was inherently contradictory. The Scheme threatened to ‘result in further divisions rather than in solving the problem of unity’, they argued, even if they neglected to reflect on the extent to which the VMA’s actions had exacerbated those divisions.93

Conclusion In a time renowned for the increased momentum of ecumenism, the actions of the VMA offer an insight into the tension and conflict that dogged its progress, demonstrating how internal Methodist Church divisions could be pronounced: struggles over identity, beliefs and future direction raged while Conference was on the pathway to union with the Church of England. Overall, however, despite its best endeavours, the influence of the VMA was limited, merely nuancing the narrative rather than changing it. VMA was largely viewed as a controversial and divisive fringe group within the wider Methodist Church, its unsuccessful legal action demonstrating that it had signally failed to achieve its main aim: that of stopping the Anglican– Methodist Union Scheme. By 1972, it was difficult to perceive the VMA as the future of Methodism; moreover, many of the leaders were aging; four of them died before the re-election of leaders in 1972.94 Why was the impact of the VMA so limited? A significant part of the answer lies in changing notions of spirituality in this period, particularly regarding ecumenical unity. For many Methodists, the pursuit of ecumenical unity was a spiritual virtue, whereas the VMA believed that Anglican– Methodist Union imperilled the essence of Methodism. In the first edition of the Bulletin, Oliver Beckerlegge wrote that although Methodism had previously faced ‘changes, splits and amalgamations … never have we before been asked to face extinction’.95 For the VMA, ecumenism threatened to alter its own brand of Methodism beyond recognition, even to abrogate it completely: Anglican–Methodist Union might produce a greater organisation, but at the cost of Methodism’s soul. On the other hand, proponents of union saw ecumenical unity as a more significant and far-reaching spiritual virtue than denominational survival. Stephen Neill, one of the negotiators for a united Church in South India, conceded in 1962 that acute sacrifice is involved in a union between churches of different denominations. Here ‘there is a real death to the old for the purpose of awaking into the new’.96 Methodists who favoured union saw this denominational ‘death’ as a truly Christian pathway. In 1963, the Rev. Rupert Davies, a member of the Anglican–Methodist Union Commission, looking to the future of the Methodist Church, applied Christ’s teaching that ‘except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone’.97 This principle led him to pose the question: ‘Is the Methodist Church prepared, if

148  Claire Surry necessary, to die in order to live?’98 In his view, the ecumenical process was inherently spiritual because, despite entailing sacrifices for the Methodist Church as a denomination, it mirrored the new birth. Similarly, while the VMA regarded strident opposition as an appropriate response to Anglican–Methodist Union, proponents of union saw tolerance and flexibility as the most spiritual approach to the negotiations. Davies reflected on the failure of the Anglican–Methodist Union Conversations again in 1975, writing that the union negotiations required ‘a certain kind of spirituality … which includes the willingness to refrain from imposing one’s own interpretation of every point on all who participate’.99 The nature of the VMA’s opposition – its divisive tactics and rigid notion of Methodist identity and doctrinal emphases – made it both incompatible and incongruous with the spiritual values that were shaping the approach of fellow Methodists. As the ecumenical movement grew, notions of spirituality evolved along with it, and ecumenical unity became an essential element of the spiritual landscape. Many Methodists saw the compromise and sacrifice required for the ecumenical movement to succeed as innately spiritual. In its divisive tactics and rigid notion of what Methodism should be, the VMA was antithetical to the spiritual values of many at this time.

Notes 1 This chapter’s endnotes deliberately draw attention to the unique combination of printed and archive materials on Anglican–Methodist Union to be found at the Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History (OCMCH). 2 Anglican–Methodist Unity, Part 2: The Scheme (London, 1968), 7. 3 Stephen Neill, ‘Towards Christian Unity’, in Stephen Neill (ed.), Twentieth Century Christianity: A Survey of Modern Religious Trends by Leading Churchmen (London, 1962), 340; David Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London, 1989), 255; Adrian Hastings, A History of English Christianity, 1920–1985 (London, 1986), 540–1. 4 Constitution (n.p., n.d.), Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History (hereafter OCMCH), DAMUC/VMA1. 5 Rev. A. E. Clucas Moore, What is the Voice of Methodism? (n.p., n.d.), OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA2/1. 6 Callum G. Brown, Religion and Society in Twentieth-Century Britain (Harlow, 2006), 264–70; Robert Currie, Methodism Divided: A Study in the Sociology of Ecumenicalism (London, 1968), 14; Bryan R. Wilson, Religion in Secular Society: A Sociological Comment (London, 1966), 128; Darril Hudson, The Ecumenical Movement in World Affairs (London 1969), 14; Harvey Cox, The Secular City: Secularization and Canopy: Elements of Sociological Theory of Religion (New York, 1967), 141; G.I.T. Machin, Churches and Social Issues in Twentieth-Century Britain (Oxford, 1998), 213; Hastings, A History of English Christianity, 552. 7 Neill, ‘Towards Christian Unity’, 352; Rupert E. Davies, Methodism (Harmondsworth, 1963), 194–5. 8 Andrew Atherstone, ‘Evangelical Dissentients and the Defeat of the Anglican– Methodist Unity Scheme’, Wesley and Methodist Studies 7 (2015), 100–16.

Fighting for Methodism’s Soul  149 9 Grace Davie, Religion in Britain since 1945: Believing without Belonging (Oxford, 1994), 51; Grace Davie, Religion in Modern Europe: A Memory Mutates (Oxford, 2000), 185; Brian P. Flanagan, ‘Communion Ecclesiology and Ecumenical Experience: Resources for Inner-Denominational Otherness’ in Gesa Elsbeth Thiessen (ed), Ecumenical Ecclesiology: Unity, Diversity and Otherness in a Fragmented World (London and New York, 2009), 143–4; John Kent, The Age of Disunity (London, 1966), 179–80; Gesa Elsbeth Thiessen, ‘Introduction’ and ‘Seeking Unity: Reflecting on Methods in Contemporary Ecumenical Dialogue’, in Thiessen (ed), Ecumenical Ecclesiology, 1, 39. 10 ‘Memorials from Quarterly Meetings and Synods’, VMA Bulletin, 20 (June 1967), OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA2/2 (for all citations of the Bulletin below, see OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA2/2). 11 VMA Bulletin, 30 (June 1969), 4. 12 Rev. W. Rowland Jones, ‘The Conclusions of an Ex-Anglo-Catholic Priest’ (n.p., n.d.), OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA2/1. 13 Rev. Eric Baker, Affidavit, 15 December 1969 (5f) in ‘Barker and Wanstall v. O’Gorman and Baker’ (1969), in ‘Failed Legal Action by the Voice of Methodism Association to Determine the Validity of the Scheme for Anglican–-Methodist Union (1966–1970)’, OCMCH, DAMUC, VMA1. 14 Moore, The Voice of Methodism? 15 A.E. Clucas Moore, Ex-Wesleyans and the ‘Conversations’ (London, n.d.), 5, OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA2/1. 16 Moore, What is the Voice of Methodism? 17 Moore, What is the Voice of Methodism? 18 ‘The Primitive Methodist Conference’, Methodist Recorder (hereafter MR), 23 June 1932, 5. 19 John C. Bowmer, Methodist Union: A Historical Survey (WHS North East Branch Occasional Publication, 5, 1982), 13. 20 Moore, Ex-Wesleyans, 4; A Word to All Members of Quarterly Meetings (n.p., 1968), OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA2/1. 21 ‘The Voice of Methodism’: A Manual for Members (n.p., n.d.), 5, OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA1. 22 Norman Snaith, Affidavit, n.d. in ‘Barker and Wanstall v. O’Gorman and Baker’ (1969). 23 Moore, The Voice of Methodism? 24 Rev. Kenneth R. Brown, This Thing I May Not Do: An Objection to the Conversations Report (London, n.d.) 4, OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA2/1. 25 Moore, What is the Voice of Methodism? 26 ‘How the V.M.A. Runs’, VMA Bulletin 34 (May 1970), 14. 27 Moore, What is the Voice of Methodism? 28 Constitution: VMA. 29 ‘Names!’ VMA Bulletin (June 1969), 8. 30 ‘Deed of Union of the Methodist Church’, Minutes of the Uniting Conference Held in London, September 20th–23rd 1932 (London, 1932), 302. 31 Moore, What is the Voice of Methodism? 32 John Eastwood to Bernard Barker, 10 December 1976, OCMCH, VoMT/4/1/1/12. 33 ‘Are You a Minister?’, VMA Bulletin 33 (March 1970), 10. 34 ‘The Way Forward with God’: A Statement on VMA Policy (June 1970), OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA1. 35 Moore, What is the Voice of Methodism? 36 Moore, What is the Voice of Methodism? Oliver Beckerlegge, A Methodist Life (Loughborough, 2000), 155. 37 Beckerlegge, A Methodist Life, 155. 38 Beckerlegge, A Methodist Life, 155.

150  Claire Surry 39 Beckerlegge, A Methodist Life, 155. 40 A Word to All Members of Quarterly Meetings, VMA. 41 ‘Editorial’, VMA Bulletin (March 1970), 3. 42 Manual for Members, 7. 43 Beckerlegge, speech on the retirement of Leslie Newman (c. 1982), OCMCH, VoM/7/9/1/1-5/5. 44 ‘How the V.M.A. Runs’, 15. 45 ‘How the V.M.A. Runs’, 14. 46 Membership Form, n.d., OCMCH, VoMA/1/1/7; Fox to Thixton (contained in a letter from Fox to Beckerlegge), 15 April 1992, OCMCH, VoM/7/5/5/19; Fox to Beckerlegge, 24 April 1992, OCMCH, VoM/7/5/5/20. 47 Moore, Ex-Wesleyans, 5. 48 List of Officers etc. appointed at the VMA AGM, 26 June 1972, OCMCH, VoMA/1/1/18. 49 ‘An Appeal to Our Members’, VMA Bulletin (March 1970), 12. 50 Manual for Members, 7, VMA. 51 Rev. Norman Valley to Malcolm Sutton of the Charity Commission, 5 October 1995, OCMCH, VoM/2/1/3/18. 52 Rev. Kenneth Mackenzie to W. E. Pigott, 9 March 1966 (enclosing Mackenzie’s letter of 25 January 1966), OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC1. 53 Leslie Newman to Kingsley Barrett, 9 July 1970, OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA5. 54 Mackenzie to Graham Ross-Cornes, 6 May 1970, OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA1. 55 Mackenzie to Ross-Cornes, 6 May 1970, OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA1. 56 Bernard Barker to Mackenzie and Barrett, 24 April 1968, OCMCH, DAMUC/ VMA5. 57 Beckerlegge, A Methodist Life, 160. 58 Atherstone, ‘Evangelical Dissentients’, 103. 59 John Munsey Turner, Conflict and Reconciliation: Studies in Methodism and Ecumenism in England, 1740–1982 (London, 1985), 205. 60 VMA Bulletin, 27 (November 1968), 4. 61 Bernard Barker and Henry Charles Wanstall, Affidavit, 27–28th October 1969 (33), in ‘Barker and Wanstall v. Brian O’Gorman and Eric Baker’ (1969). 62 ‘Unity: Judgement in the High Court: Mr Justice Megarry’s Findings in Full’, MR, 23 July 1970, 11. 63 The Truth about the Pending Legal Proceedings (London, n.d.), OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA2. 64 The Truth about the Pending Legal Proceedings; VMA Bulletin, ‘How the V.M.A. Runs’ (May 1970), 13. 65 Memorandum on Legal Action (n.p., n.d.), OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA1; The Truth about the Pending Legal Proceedings. 66 ‘Unity’, MR, 11. 67 Barker and Wanstall, Affidavit (23), in ‘Barker and Wanstall v. Brian O’Gorman and Eric Baker’ (1969). 68 Bowmer, Methodist Union, 6; Clive Field, ‘A Sociological Profile of English Methodism, 1900–1932’, Oral History 4.1 (1976), 85. 69 Rev. Maldwyn Lloyd Edwards, Affidavit, 6 April 1970 (5), in ‘Barker and Wanstall v. O’Gorman and Baker’ (1969). 70 Maldwyn Lloyd Edwards, Affidavit, 6 April 1970 (5), in ‘Barker and Wanstall v. O’Gorman and Baker’ (1969). 71 Snaith, Affidavit (5), in ‘Barker and Wanstall v. O’Gorman and Baker’ (1969). 72 ‘Are you a Minister? VMA Bulletin (March 1970), 11–2. 73 Snaith, Affidavit (2), in ‘Barker and Wanstall v. O’Gorman and Baker’ (1969). 74 Snaith, Affidavit (2), in ‘Barker and Wanstall v. O’Gorman and Baker’ (1969).

Fighting for Methodism’s Soul  151 75 Barker and Wanstall, Affidavit (33–34), in ‘Barker and Wanstall v. O’Gorman and Baker’ (1969). 76 Anon., letter to Leslie Newman entitled, ‘Random Thoughts on the Vote’, July 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA5. 77 Barker and Wanstall, Affidavit (31), in ‘Barker and Wanstall v. O’Gorman and Baker’ (1969). 78 Barker and Wanstall, Affidavit (30), in ‘Barker and Wanstall v. O’Gorman and Baker’ (1969). 79 ‘Deed of Union’, 1932 Uniting Conference, 303. 80 ‘Unity’, MR, 14. 81 ‘Unity’, MR, 14. 82 Mackenzie to Ross-Cornes, 17 June 1970, OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA1. 83 Ross-Cornes to Mackenzie, 3 July 1970, OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA1. 84 Mackenzie to the Charity Commission, 17 June 1970, OCMCH, DAMUC/ VMA1. 85 Mackenzie to Ross-Cornes, 17 June 1970. 86 Mackenzie to the Charity Commission, 17 June 1970. 87 Bernard Barker and Henry Wanstall: letter to VMA members entitled, ‘The Voice of Methodism Association & The Legal Action’, 27 June 1970, OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA1. 88 Barker and Wanstall to VMA members, 27 June 1970. 89 VMA, The Way Forward with God: A Statement on VMA Policy, June 1970. 90 VMA, The Way Forward with God. 91 Barker to Barrett, 3 January 1971, OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA1. 92 The Voice of Methodism Association. Statement. Press Release (8 November 1970), OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA1. 93 ‘A Letter to Members of the General Synod of the Church of England from a Group of Methodist Dissentients’, 3 May 1972, OCMCH, DAMUC/VMA1. 94 Beckerlegge, Speech on the retirement of Leslie Newman (c. 1982). 95 ‘Editorial’, VMA Bulletin (March 1970), 2. 96 Neill, ‘Towards Christian Unity’, 370. 97 Bible, King James Version, John 12.24. 98 Davies, Methodism, 208. 99 R.E. Davies, ‘The Spirituality of Ecumenism’ in Peter Brooks (ed.), Christian Spirituality: Essays in Honour of Gordon Rupp (London, 1975), 320.

9

‘An Umbrella for all Dissenters’? The National Liaison Committee, 1965–82 Martin Wellings

In October 1982, a small group of Methodists gathered for an overnight stay and business meeting at the Melfort Hotel, Colwyn Bay. The meeting was convened and organised by the Revd Kenneth Mackenzie, by this time a supernumerary minister, and it comprised most of the surviving members of the executive of the National Liaison Committee (NLC), a body formed in the late summer of 1965 in order to co-ordinate opposition to the Majority Report of the Anglican–Methodist Conversations. The Colwyn Bay gathering agreed to disband the NLC and to donate its remaining funds to the Voice of Methodism Association, thus ending the institutional history of a group which had once aspired to be ‘an umbrella for all dissenters’1 from the 1963 Majority Report. The purpose of this chapter is to outline the antecedents and history of the NLC from 1965 to 1982, and to assess the effectiveness of its campaign against the Majority Report. The principal source used here is the rich archive of letters and memoranda bequeathed by Kenneth Mackenzie, the NLC’s founding secretary, and the accompanying papers of its instigator and chair, C. Kingsley Barrett, supplemented by reports in the denominational press and biographies of some of the key protagonists.

Background and origins The background to the founding of the NLC was shaped by the history of ecumenical discussions in Great Britain stretching back at least as far as the 1920 Lambeth Conference’s ‘Appeal to all Christian People’.2 The ‘Appeal’ gave rise to talks described by G.K.A. Bell as ‘a series of remarkable joint conferences … unprecedented in the history of the Church of England and of the Nonconformist Churches’. Bishop Bell admitted, however, that the scope of the discussions was limited, and that the 1930 Lambeth Conference witnessed ‘an unfortunate setback’ to the cause of Home Reunion.3 A new round of talks was stimulated by Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher’s 1946 Cambridge University sermon, A Step Forward in Church Relations. Fisher famously invited the Free Churches to ‘take episcopacy into their systems’ and thus accomplish a significant step towards full communion ‘without the fearful complexities and upheavals of a constitutional union’.4 DOI: 10.4324/9781003119210-9

‘An Umbrella for all Dissenters’?  153 The Archbishop’s representatives and representatives of the Evangelical Free Churches in England met, and produced a report, Church Relations in England, published in 1950. In his survey of official replies to the 1920 Lambeth Appeal, George Bell noted that one of the most ‘constructive’ responses came from the Wesleyan Methodists.5 Approaching the subject from a very different standpoint, B.L. Manning, describing for his fellow Congregationalists in 1933 ‘the gloomy view of life which takes one at three o’clock in the morning’, spoke of the danger of Methodism returning ‘on terms’ to Anglicanism, by accepting ‘the yoke of legalistic episcopalianism’.6 Twenty-two years later, the Methodist Conference accepted an invitation to enter consultations with the Church of England, and the ‘Conversations’ began in July 1956.7 An Interim Statement was published in 1958, and the final Report, Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church, appeared in February 1963. The Report offered ‘outline proposals for the coming together of [the] two Churches in two stages’: a period of full communion, inaugurated by the integration of ministries and the acceptance by the Methodist Church of the historic episcopate, and then, following a period of growing together, ‘union in one Church’.8 The Report was presented to the Archbishops and to the Methodist Conference, with the recommendation that by 1965 the two Churches might be ready to accept the proposals and ‘proceed to their practical implementation’.9 The authors of the Report hoped for ‘a prolonged period of prayer and study’ between February 1963 and the summer of 1965.10 In fact, the two years between the publication of the Report and the deliberations of the Conference and the Convocations witnessed intense and acrimonious debate about the proposals, fuelled by the inclusion of a ‘Dissentient View’ over the signatures of four of the Methodist participants in the Conversations and exacerbated by the advocacy for the scheme of the group Towards Anglican–Methodist Union and against it of the Voice of Methodism Association. Methodist Circuit Quarterly Meetings and District Synods in March and May 1965 were asked to vote on the principle of closer relations with the Church of England and to give a verdict on the ‘broad outlines’ of the scheme proposed by the Conversations.11 Opinions were divided, but majorities favoured the proposals, and the Methodist Conference, meeting in Plymouth in July, gave ‘general approval’ by 488 votes to 137, prompting a front-page headline in the Methodist Recorder: ‘Unity: The Conference says “Yes”’.12 Although the most vociferous and provocative grassroots opposition to the Conversations within Methodism had been co-ordinated by the Voice of Methodism Association, there were significant and influential critics of the proposals who were not drawn to the VMA. These included the ‘Four Dissentients’ of 1963: Norman Snaith, a Past President of the Conference and former Principal of Headingley College; T.E. Jessop, a former VicePresident, and Emeritus Professor of Philosophy in the University of Hull;

154  Martin Wellings T.D. Meadley, Principal of Cliff College; and C. Kingsley Barrett, Professor of Divinity in the University of Durham. Barrett in particular had been a trenchant opponent of the introduction of the historic episcopate into Methodism at least since the mid-1950s,13 and he seems to have taken the lead in drawing together an informal network of Methodist scholars, initially including George Anderson,14 Michael Skinner,15 and Franz Hildebrandt,16 unhappy with the proposals. After a preliminary meeting in York in September 1964, a ‘liaison committee’ of ‘Barrett’s group of scholars’ and representatives of the VMA and the Methodist Revival Fellowship first met in January 1965, six months before the Plymouth Conference;17 a fortnight after the Conference vote, this group convened a larger gathering, and, crucially, secured the involvement as Secretary of Kenneth Mackenzie, Superintendent of the Morecambe and Heysham Circuit and an independent critic of the Conversations.18 With Barrett as Chair and Mackenzie as Secretary, the National Liaison Committee was launched on its campaign to prevent the implementation of the union scheme through the second half of the 1960s, as proposals were published, debated, and revised, before ultimately failing to achieve the necessary majorities, first in the Convocations in 1969 and then in the General Synod in 1972.

Strategy and Activities The guiding aim of the NLC was to frustrate the implementation of the recommendations of the 1963 Majority Report. Its strategy began by seeking to unite opponents of the Conversations in a common organisation. This was in itself no mean task. The Voice of Methodism Association was already in the field, with a national committee, a membership base, and a magazine, but the VMA’s stridently polemical tone and its reputation for knee-jerk opposition to every proposal made it an awkward ally. Of the ‘Four Dissentients’, Kingsley Barrett and Tom Meadley were known to be unenthusiastic about the VMA, and had declined to join it;19 Norman Snaith privately described the VMA committee to Mackenzie as ‘more like a prize-fight with all the spectators in the ring than anything else’.20 Meanwhile, the conservative evangelicals of the Methodist Revival Fellowship, as will be seen later, had their own grievances against the Methodist establishment, and the ecumenical enterprise was not their overriding concern. Faced with this motley collection of groups and individuals, Mackenzie crafted a structure which gave the VMA and the MRF official representation on the NLC’s executive and general committees, and he worked hard to maintain good relations with their leaders, even when the VMA struck out on its own and the MRF consistently failed to attend meetings. He presented the NLC as ‘an umbrella for all dissenters’, making the case for an organisation which could appeal to mainstream Methodists who would shy away from the VMA’s ‘odd-bods’21 and the MRF’s ultra-evangelicals.

‘An Umbrella for all Dissenters’?  155 The NLC’s first step in mobilising and unifying the opposition to the Majority Report was to circulate a printed Statement over the names of the ‘Four Dissentients’ and to invite Methodist ministers and lay members to subscribe to it. The Statement was published in the Methodist Recorder on 30 September 1965 and was also sent by post to every Methodist minister in Great Britain and overseas, thanks to the good offices of Frank Cumbers, the Connexional Book Steward.22 The Statement was cast as a positive affirmation of Methodist principles drawn from the Deed of Union: the supremacy of Scripture, the priesthood of all believers, and the fundamental principles of the Protestant Reformation. The Ordinal in the Book of Offices was quoted to affirm the validity of Methodist orders, and John Wesley’s sermon ‘Justification by Faith’ was deployed to underscore faith as the only necessary condition of justification – and therefore of Christian fellowship and intercommunion. The consequences for the continuing Conversations were spelled out: If union can be proposed on the above lines, which are of the essence of Evangelical Christianity in general and of Methodism in particular … we shall rejoice to enter into closer relations with the Church of England. If union is urged on the present ‘Catholic’ lines, and if a Conference again sets aside the convictions of a considerable proportion of the Methodist people, that Conference must bear the responsibility if division in the Church ensues. The Dissentients expressed the hope that recipients, while eschewing ‘drastic action’ would ‘keep in touch with one another’ and ‘consider how to meet all eventualities’. They were asked to sign the Statement as an expression of ‘general sympathy’ with its sentiments and were urged to form groups at local, Circuit, and District level.23 It would seem that the September Statement was intended to serve at least three purposes. The first was to prevent a piecemeal secession of Methodists dismayed by the Plymouth Conference’s decision to continue with the Conversations: a real concern among evangelically inclined Methodists in the summer of 1965.24 The second purpose was to gauge the strength of the opposition, in the hope that a significant response might bring pressure to bear on the deliberations of the Anglican–Methodist Unity Commission: in the heady early days, Mackenzie hoped for 1,000 ministerial signatures.25 The third purpose was to attempt to create a shadow structure for a Continuing Methodist Church. This alarmed Tom Meadley, who publicly withdrew his support for the Statement within days of its publication.26 Meanwhile, although Mackenzie was kept busy sending out copies of the Statement, ministerial signatures were slow in coming. In mid-October, Amos Cresswell, one of Barrett’s ‘scholars’ and a tutor at Cliff College, suggested that once 600 ministers had pledged support, ‘we can begin to let it out’, but he went on to warn, ‘Anything less will be fatal’.27 A month

156  Martin Wellings later the total was 257, and by the end of August 1966 it had reached only 338, or just under 8% of the Methodist ministry.28 For obvious reasons, this disappointing statistic remained a closely guarded secret within the NLC executive, and it deterred Mackenzie and other NLC leaders from espousing the sort of grand gesture of mass secession advocated in his more excitable moments by Franz Hildebrandt, who dreamed of ‘an exodus’ akin to the Scottish ‘Disruption’ of 1843.29 From gathering signatures, the NLC turned to lobbying through Circuit Quarterly Meetings, District Synods, and the annual Methodist Conference to secure the amendment or rejection of the scheme. Methodist polity allowed Quarterly Meetings to send memorials to the Conference, and this mechanism was used to bring concerns about the Conversations before the wider Church. Circuit memorials were employed in 1967, for example, to urge upon the Conference the need to consider a contingency plan to deal with the eventuality of a schism in the Connexion if the unity scheme was approved.30 In 1969, when the Quarterly Meetings were required to vote on the final scheme, NLC leaders in the Manchester and Stockport District organised a ‘teach in’ to brief Quarterly Meeting members and Local Preachers on the issues and on constitutional procedures.31 Voting figures in the Circuits were anxiously collected and carefully tabulated, and Mackenzie’s quest for information irked some of his fellow Superintendents, who resented the NLC’s interest in the outcomes of their Quarterly Meetings.32 NLC members discussed when or whether to seek election as District representatives to Conference – an uncertain matter, made more difficult when the timetable for final decisions on the scheme was also in doubt. Public meetings and rallies were organised in the vicinity of the Conference, often in somewhat uncomfortable collaboration with the VMA. In order to keep the Conversations debate before the wider public, the NLC sought outlets through the press. By the 1960s, Methodism was only able to sustain one denominational weekly newspaper, the Methodist Recorder. Owned by an independent company, the Recorder was free of official control, but still open to official influence, and at times the NLC expressed exasperation at its editorial tone and policies. The Recorder did, however, publish numerous letters from critics of the Conversations,33 and it reported NLC statements and rallies, even if for a period it declined to take pugnacious advertisements from the VMA.34 NLC leaders longed for a newspaper of their own, but regretfully came to accept that this was beyond their resources.35 Neither George Artingstall’s cyclostyled and short-lived Methodist Standard nor Gervase Duffield’s relaunched Methodist Magazine succeeded in covering production costs,36 and the only Dissentient publication to endure was the VMA’s Voice of Methodism. Reluctant to throw in its lot entirely with the VMA, the NLC turned instead to other religious newspapers, particularly to the British Weekly, a long-established non-denominational publication, and to The Christian, a title acquired by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association,

‘An Umbrella for all Dissenters’?  157 linked to Christianity Today, and edited by J.D. Douglas. Mackenzie negotiated with Douglas to publish Franz Hildebrandt’s critique of the 1967 Interim Statement Towards Reconciliation in The Christian, and to make copies available to the NLC for mailing to Methodist ministers.37 From time to time the Conversations attracted the interest of the secular press, and George Thompson Brake advised Mackenzie on the protocol of press releases and press conferences. Mackenzie developed a particular rapport with Baden Hickman, the Churches correspondent of the Guardian,38 and saw Hickman as a sympathetic conduit for NLC news and opinions. When the Methodist Recorder vetoed VMA advertising, Mackenzie suggested sending the news to Hickman – ‘a very good contact on the Guardian’ – and Hickman thanked him for the tip-off.39 Beyond seeking publicity through the denominational and secular press, the NLC also explored advocacy within Methodism. Kingsley Barrett was in demand as a speaker at local and regional meetings, and in September 1966 Hildebrandt, who was taking a sabbatical year from Drew, was appointed ‘travelling agent’ for the NLC, charged with the task of strengthening the organisation.40 Hildebrandt gave some high-profile speeches, telling a rally in Preston that only a miracle could prevent an open separation in Methodism in 1968–69,41 but, as will be seen later, the NLC’s base of committed support remained slender. Although the NLC’s natural constituency was Methodist Dissentients from the Majority Report, its leaders were aware of the potential for tactical co-operation with Anglican opponents of the union proposals. Hildebrandt suggested contacting Anglican Evangelicals as early as August 1965, and Mackenzie agreed that ‘an effective pincer movement’ would help the cause.42 Mackenzie and Barrett corresponded with J.I. Packer and Gervase Duffield:43 Packer was the most prominent Evangelical critic of the measures, and the only Dissentient from the 1968 Scheme,44 while Duffield worked to co-ordinate opposition within the Church of England’s decisionmaking bodies and to publish dissentient materials through his Marcham Manor Press. In September 1967, co-operation moved beyond correspondence, and a meeting took place at Cheadle between Methodist Dissentients and representatives of the Church of England Evangelical Council. Barrett, Mackenzie, Cresswell, and Henry Greaves represented the NLC, together with John Job, Wilbert Putnam, and Ron Taylor of the MRF. The Anglicans were positive about the situation, citing Fisher’s intervention against the scheme and the antagonism of the Anglo-Catholics. Mackenzie expressed the view that ‘secession was the only possibility for Methodist Dissentients if the present scheme was persisted with’, but ‘[o]ther Methodists seemed to disagree’.45 Methodists whose misgivings about the Conversations turned on objections to the historic episcopate were less likely to find common ground with Anglo-Catholics, but there was some contact between the NLC and the Bishop of Willesden, Graham Leonard, a leading Anglo-Catholic opponent

158  Martin Wellings of the proposals.46 Methodist Dissentients were inclined to comment that Anglo-Catholic clarity about episcopacy and (re-)ordination was preferable to the ambiguities of the Service of Reconciliation proposed by the Scheme. For Franz Hildebrandt in particular, strengthening links with Methodism beyond Great Britain was an important strand in the NLC’s strategy. Through his teaching at Drew from 1953, and through the Wesley Society founded in 1955, Hildebrandt had extensive connections with the Methodist Church in North America,47 and he was among the representatives nominated by the World Methodist Council to attend the Second Vatican Council as an ecumenical observer.48 Hildebrandt was therefore keen for the Dissentient voice to be heard in World Methodism. He looked for opportunities to make the Dissentient case in gatherings where otherwise an official pro-Conversations line might be taken as read,49 and he urged his NLC colleagues to meet American and World Methodist leaders when they were visiting Britain. Thus, in January 1966, Hildebrandt wrote to Barrett and Mackenzie, hoping that they would be able to meet an American delegation,50 and although this was not achieved, in the summer, an American group attending the World Methodist Council met NLC leaders and sympathisers at the St Ermin’s Hotel, Westminster.51 The intention behind these gatherings was threefold. First, as already noted, the NLC wanted to make World Methodist leaders aware of the existence of dissent from the Conversations. Second, for Hildebrandt and perhaps for others, the unity of World Methodism, or of British and American Methodism, was a real alternative to inter-denominational unity within Great Britain. This was not an eccentric option, because the strengthening of denominational or ecclesiastical traditions across the world was being canvassed as another model of ecumenism. Such an approach was the burden of Hildebrandt’s article ‘Should British and American Methodism Unite?’, published in World Outlook in February 1965, and picking up a proposal made by the Pittsburgh General Conference of the Methodist Church the previous May. Third, NLC strategists kept in mind the possibility that a Continuing Methodist Church in Great Britain might find a new identity as an outpost of the Methodist Church, looking to North America for oversight and resources.52 The final plank in the NLC’s strategy was planning for the eventuality that the scheme might be approved by the Conference and the Convocations. The VMA spent a considerable amount of time and money preparing to launch a legal challenge to the Conference’s power to take such a decision, and the NLC kept in touch with this option, mainly through Henry Greaves, who attended the VMA’s legal subcommittee on its behalf. Mackenzie was more concerned, however, to prepare for secession. From the outset, with the September 1965 Statement, the NLC had worked to consolidate support and to create an embryo structure for a Continuing Methodist Church. The challenges were formidable: first, to energise the timid and the complacent to commit to secede, while reining in the eager until the right moment; and

‘An Umbrella for all Dissenters’?  159 second, to address the practical questions of organisation and finance. As Mackenzie wrote to Hildebrandt in July 1966, ‘My delicate task is to hold all Dissentients together’.53 This was no mean feat. It involved stiffening the resolve of instinctive loyalists, reassuring the frustrated, keeping open channels of communication with the VMA, and sympathising with those who found the VMA’s polemics deeply distasteful. Meanwhile, Mackenzie and Barrett raised the question of the ‘peaceful division’ of the Methodist people in the event of the acceptance of the scheme, with a corresponding division of assets. This idea was canvassed in memorials to the Conference in 1966 and 1967, and pursued in correspondence with Connexional leaders. Here there was a change of attitude. In 1966, Eric Baker, the Secretary of the Conference, dismissed the question of dividing assets as a hypothetical issue, and the memorials presented in 1967 were turned down.54 In late December 1970, however, the President of the Conference, Rupert Davies, convened a meeting of supporters and opponents of the Conversations, and the outcome was the creation of a committee to draft contingency plans to provide for those unable to accept the scheme.55 For a while this seemed to make secession a viable option, at least to some NLC leaders, although Norman Snaith remained very doubtful of the practicalities.56 In the event, the General Synod vote in the summer of 1972 rendered this exploration unnecessary.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the NLC’s Position Before looking at the effectiveness of the campaign, some assessment may be made of the strengths and weaknesses of the NLC’s position. Beginning with strengths, four interwoven strands may be mentioned. The first was a sense that Methodist energies should be devoted to making a full reality of the 1932 union of the Wesleyan, Primitive and United Methodist Churches. Despite the euphoria and rhetoric of union, it was soon recognised (or admitted) that bringing the national structures of the three denominations together was a small task in comparison with achieving effective local unity. ‘Overlapping’ chapels and Circuits continued well into the 1950s and 1960s, to the frustration and despair of those who wanted to release resources tied up in surplus buildings for work in new towns. Linked to this, secondly, was a commitment to the renewal of Methodism and to its calling to engage in mission. Supporters of the 1932 union had argued for a new ‘Forward Movement’ in the 1930s, and this initiative, checked by the Second World War, emerged again after 1945, articulated in the report The Message and Mission of Methodism (1946). W.E. Sangster, in particular, championed the emphasis on evangelism through the 1950s, promoting the World Methodist Year of Evangelism in 1952–53, while Bill Gowland was an eloquent advocate for industrial mission, developing bespoke training for this at Luton. Sagging membership figures in this period added urgency to the call to prioritise evangelism.

160  Martin Wellings Thirdly, opposition to the Conversations could call on local and regional antagonism to top-down, centralising, or London-initiated projects. Nineteenth-century Methodism saw plenty of examples of conflict between the Conference and the Circuits, and the memory of local resistance to ‘them’ in London could easily be reawakened. Fourthly, more important than achieving Methodist union, or renewal, and more significant than local independence, there was a significant degree of disquiet in Methodism about the proposals brought forward through the Conversations long before the NLC came into being. A lengthy period of separation between Methodists and Anglicans, diverging trajectories during the heyday of the Oxford Movement, and the development of a common Free Church platform, the legacy of local rivalries and half-remembered causes célèbres, all contributed to instinctive grassroots suspicion. To this could be added a difference of ethos, socially between ‘church’ and ‘chapel’, theologically and liturgically between ‘Catholic’ and ‘evangelical’, even politically between liberal and conservative, as well as ethically on the neuralgic issues of temperance and gambling – traditional Methodist taboos – and the marriage of divorced persons – where Methodists offered a welcome and Anglicans were required to excommunicate. This difference was summed up provocatively in a flyer circulated in November 1965 under the heading ‘Jesus didn’t jump’, bearing a photograph of a bishop and two clergymen sharing a celebratory drink at the Anchor Tavern, in Southwark, following an ordination service. ‘Methodists might well wonder’, commented the text, ‘at the spiritual poverty of a Church whose dignitaries seem as much at home in a pub as in a pulpit, and whose clergy evidently see nothing incongruous in marking their dedication to the service of God with the same “celebration” as a win for the home team’.57 The NLC winced at this material, but it expressed, albeit in extreme language, a profound sense of difference between the two Churches, and this could be fertile soil for cultivating dissent. It is very easy to write off the opposition to the Conversations as a combination of ignorance and prejudice, and no doubt there was a good deal of both in the VMA and NLC constituencies. It should not be forgotten, however, that critics of the proposals included heavyweight theologians like Snaith, Barrett, and Hildebrandt; academics like Jessop, Victor Murray, and W.R. Ward; and other eminent figures like W.F. Lofthouse and Benson Perkins. There was, therefore, an informed and principled opposition to the scheme, particularly to the acceptance of episcopacy and to the perceived ambiguities around the Service of Reconciliation which would inaugurate Stage One of the union. A case could be made for the opposition, and even supporters of the scheme acknowledged that some of the proposals were unclear or unhelpful. If the opposition to the Conversations could call on some significant strengths, these were far outweighed by challenges and weaknesses. Six may be mentioned.

‘An Umbrella for all Dissenters’?  161 Firstly, the Conversations of the 1950s and 1960s emerged from more than half a century of ecumenical endeavour, encompassing the work of the Student Christian Movement, the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910, the 1920 Lambeth ‘Appeal’, and the evolving Faith and Order and Life and Work movements, strands which contributed to the creation of the British Council of Churches in 1942 and the World Council of Churches in 1948. The goals of intercommunion and visible unity were widely shared. In a leading article entitled ‘Prayer for Christian Unity’ in January 1958, the Methodist Recorder affirmed: ‘We believe that the Ecumenical Movement is of God, and though obstacles for which man is responsible may delay the final fulfilment, nothing can prevent its ultimate consummation’.58 On the international stage, the pioneering creation of the Church of South India in 1947 was followed by union schemes in North India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka in the late 1950s;59 by proposals for union in Nigeria in 1965;60 by ecumenical conversations in the United States,61 Canada, the West Indies, and Zambia; and by the ecumenical optimism fostered by Vatican II.62 In England, the Nottingham Faith and Order Conference of 1964 set the goal of unity by Easter 1980,63 and the religious press carried regular reports of joint study groups and youth clubs, ecumenical services, and inter-denominational missions.64 Ventures in sharing church buildings were hailed as forerunners of the future, while the Evangelical Alliance’s continuing support for a traditional understanding of the ‘spiritual’ or ‘invisible’ unity of individual believers was disdainfully dismissed as old-fashioned and inadequate.65 Although the hopes of the 1950s and 1960s did not all bear fruit – the Nigerian scheme, for example, collapsed in acrimony in 1966 – there was great energy and excitement in ecumenism in these years, and the basic premise of visible unity was broadly accepted. The NLC therefore had to make its case, to its own supporters as well as to the wider Connexion, amidst a groundswell of support for the ecumenical project. Rather than rejecting visible unity in principle, opposition had to focus on the narrower grounds of objections to the details of a particular scheme. Hence the careful wording of the September 1965 Statement, welcoming union on ‘Evangelical’ lines. Secondly, if the ecumenical climate was unpropitious to the NLC, the movement suffered from the chilly discouragement of Methodist officialdom, many of whose leading figures were enthusiastic advocates of the Conversations. The Methodist representatives on the original working group included Harold Roberts, Eric Baker, Leslie Davison, W. Walker Lee, and Gordon Rupp, all past or future Presidents of the Conference. More significantly, Baker, as Secretary of the Conference from 1951, exerted an unrivalled and unchallenged authority over the decision-making processes of the Connexion. Mackenzie privately admitted to a degree of paranoia about the attitude and machinations of the Connexional hierarchy,66 but it was the case that very few Connexional secretaries or District Chairs opposed the scheme, at least, in public. Hubert Luke, Chairman of the

162  Martin Wellings Cornwall District, expressed reservations in a speech to his September Synod in 1965, but declined Mackenzie’s request to allow the NLC to publish it;67 Reg Bedford, Secretary of the Methodist Association of Youth Clubs, signed the NLC Statement; and Frank Cumbers used the Book Room’s mailing system to send the Statement to all ministers in September 1965 – but this earned him a Presidential rebuke, and the facility was not made available again.68 Methodism in this period fostered a culture of loyalty and unity, under which ministers who resigned were expected to ‘go quietly’. The assumption of deference and obedience was expressed by Mackenzie’s District Chair, Gordon Maland, who told North Lancashire Synod members that division ‘must not be’ and reminded Superintendents that ‘no public meetings opposing the decisions of Conference can be held on our trust premises’.69 The NLC collected examples of local Superintendents and trustees prohibiting Dissentient meetings on Methodist premises,70 and in February 1969 Leslie Gaimster, Superintendent of the Durham Circuit, in a letter published in the Durham County Advertiser, criticised Kingsley Barrett for his opposition to the Conversations, accusing him of ‘disloyalty’.71 Given Barrett’s eminence and his popularity in the Circuit, this was a clumsy mistake, but the NLC sensed the weight of official disapproval, and feared that ministers who publicly stood with the Dissentients might face discrimination when seeking new appointments, while Circuits might suffer the withdrawal of grants.72 Thirdly, the constitutional structures of Methodism did not assist the Dissentients. Although views could be freely expressed in letters to the Methodist Recorder, in local gatherings, in Circuit Quarterly Meetings and District Synods, in memorials to the Conference, and in debates on the floor of the Conference, power and prestige remained with Superintendents, District Chairs, and the Conference platform. Hildebrandt urged the NLC to nominate an alternative candidate for President, and to challenge Eric Baker’s annual re-election as Secretary of the Conference,73 but this seems never to have got beyond the private consideration of possible names. Moreover, the indirect system of representation, under which Quarterly Meetings elected members of the Synods, and Synods elected representatives to Conference, tended to filter out dissidents and minorities. There was undoubtedly greater opposition to the scheme in the Quarterly Meetings than the Synods, and in the Synods than the Conference, but the careful tabulating of statistics by the NLC to demonstrate this, while showing the extent of disquiet, also underlined the failure of the Dissentients to muster support where it really mattered. Calls for a referendum of all Methodist members reinforced the point that dissent could not carry the day in the Conference. The ecumenical climate, the weight of opinion in Methodism and the structures of the Connexion did not help the NLC. Nor, fourthly, did its chronic lack of resources. In November 1965, Mackenzie described the infrastructure of the NLC in a cheerful letter to Franz Hildebrandt. He had, he wrote, turned a spare bedroom in his manse into an office, cut down old

‘An Umbrella for all Dissenters’?  163 cardboard boxes for filing trays, and was managing his burgeoning correspondence on an Oliver No. 10 typewriter, ‘a survival, I am told, from the First World War. But we are coping’.74 Mrs Mackenzie’s support with the secretarial work was acknowledged by an honorarium of five guineas, approved by the General Committee in September 1966.75 Over the next five years, and beyond, the NLC continued to depend heavily on the Mackenzies to maintain the organisation’s fragile structure. Although consideration was given at intervals to the need for a full- or parttime salaried secretary, this was never feasible, and Mackenzie dealt with the administration alongside his work as a Superintendent Minister, first in Morecambe and Heysham, and then, from 1969, in Kirkby Stephen, Appleby and Tebay, in rural Westmorland. From time to time, an acknowledgement of health problems or sheer overwork emerges in the NLC archive, perhaps nowhere more starkly than in a letter to Hildebrandt in December 1969, beginning ‘I have never known a quarter like the one just passed’, before detailing a heavy load of NLC correspondence (500 letters in the first week), on top of managing a preaching plan for 39 places, chairing missionary and trustees’ meetings in 14 chapels, and auditing all the accounts, to say nothing of hospital visits to Carlisle, a round trip of more than 60 miles. Mackenzie confessed, ‘I am a spent force’.76 Unlike the VMA, the NLC never set out to be a mass-membership organisation, choosing instead to operate as a co-ordinating body with a very slender structure. Whereas the VMA had an office at the Whitechapel Mission and a salaried Organising Secretary, J.M. Carruthers, the NLC relied on the Mackenzies, with support from Barrett, Hildebrandt, and Henry Greaves, all in full-time occupations. Nor did the NLC levy a subscription, depending instead on occasional donations. A legacy of £1,000 from one of Mackenzie’s Morecambe members in August 1966 placed the organisation’s finances on a sounder footing,77 but resources remained sparse. Fifthly, given these drawbacks and challenges, it is not surprising that the NLC achieved only patchy regional coverage. The original plan in summer 1965 had been to establish liaison committees in every Methodist District, if not every Circuit, but the reality was very different. The Manchester and Stockport District had an active committee, led by Malcolm Bowron and Donald Clerc, both lay members at Cheadle Hulme.78 In the Sheffield District, where Henry Greaves was a Superintendent, there was a committee.79 North Lancashire could muster strong support for the NLC, as could the North East. But despite the best efforts of Hildebrandt as travelling agent, and Tom Meadley, Superintendent of the Newton Abbot Circuit from 1965, the NLC failed to establish an organised presence in the Midlands or the South West – Meadley complained that ‘unless I do the pushing, nothing happens’,80 while London and the South East remained largely untouched, although there were individual sympathisers in these areas.81 Norman Snaith, in retirement at Thetford, and Edward Houghton, in Norwich, were NLC supporters in East Anglia, but the archives offer

164  Martin Wellings little evidence of collective action, and a gathering planned for Norwich in February 1967 had to be cancelled.82 Sixthly, the NLC’s raison d’être, as Mackenzie put it, was to be ‘an umbrella for all dissenters’, but here the movement faced significant challenges. As already noted, the Voice of Methodism was the first organised expression of Methodist dissent from the Conversations, and a body of VMA supporters and committee members persisted in asking why a separate structure was needed. Why did the Four Dissentients and their allies simply not join the VMA? Mackenzie struggled with the VMA’s aggressive polemics, with its idiosyncratic personalities, and with its tendency to publish sensitive or confidential material,83 to say nothing of its failure to consult its ostensible allies before taking action. In his correspondence with the VMA, Mackenzie managed to remain eirenic, even under severe provocation, but the general feeling among NLC leaders was that the VMA was always likely to alienate moderate supporters and play into the hands of the Connexional establishment. The other branch of the Dissentient alliance, the Methodist Revival Fellowship, presented problems of its own.84 Formed in 1952 by a group of Methodists committed to pray for revival, the MRF came to represent a conservative evangelical constituency within the Connexion, at a time when ‘party’ organisations were frowned upon. Under the leadership of the Revd and Hon. Roland Lamb, the MRF became involved in the Conversations debate, publishing its own critique of the 1963 Report and scheme. In an open letter to the President and Vice-President of the Conference in September 1964, the MRF General Committee described the scheme as ‘retrograde and schismatic’.85 Key issues for MRF were the relationship between Scripture and tradition as authorities in the Church, the implications of ministerial priesthood and the historic episcopate for an evangelical understanding of justification by grace through faith, and the toleration of a breadth of opinion and practice in the Church of England which included Anglo-Catholicism and ‘South Bank’ theology. Within the Fellowship itself, however, opinions varied. Howard Belben and John Job broadly supported the scheme, but this was a minority view.86 Some were attracted by the advocates of a ‘continuing Methodist Church’, organised through the NLC and the VMA, but the stricter evangelicals increasingly expressed concern that nostalgic loyalty to the denomination was masking fundamental differences of theology: Lamb suspected the VMA of ‘treating Scripture as authoritative when it suits them, ignoring it when it doesn’t’, while Skevington Wood reported that the VMA ‘envisaged … a new Methodism which doctrinally would be no better than the old’.87 Others therefore favoured secession to local independent evangelical congregations, while still others hoped for a new nationwide evangelical denomination, and were attracted by Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ call at the National Assembly of Evangelicals in October 1966 for evangelicals to withdraw from ‘mixed’ churches.88

‘An Umbrella for all Dissenters’?  165 For Mackenzie and the NLC, the MRF was a tantalising potential ally. The MRF’s solid membership – more than 200 ministers by April 196589 – could add vital weight to the NLC’s Statement of opposition to the Conversations, and there was much common ground between the MRF’s doctrinal critique and the wording crafted by the Four Dissentients. However, the MRF’s internal debates over the way forward made collaboration very difficult. As Barrett wrote to Mackenzie in September 1965, after receiving a missive from Roland Lamb, ‘I’m afraid MRF are not going to be easy’.90 Lamb, who resigned from the Methodist ministry in 1967, was already doubtful about Methodism’s Connexional polity as well as its loyalty to evangelical truth, and in November 1965 he confirmed to Barrett and Mackenzie that MRF would not take up the invitation to be represented officially on the NLC, because it was not confident that the NLC could ‘wholeheartedly affirm the doctrinal basis’ of the National Assembly of Evangelicals.91 Thereafter the MRF pursued its own policy, much to the NLC’s frustration and disappointment.

Impact, Outcomes, and Aftermath Given its sorely limited resources of personnel and finance, and the challenges it faced, the NLC achieved considerable success in articulating opposition to the Conversations in the press and in the Conference. It was, however, never more than a small group of committed activists, seeking to unite and to represent a rather disparate body of people who had reservations about the scheme. Despite Mackenzie’s Herculean efforts and voluminous correspondence, the proposals were approved by substantial majorities in the District Synods and in the Conference. It was only the failure to win sufficient support in the Church of England’s decision-making bodies that stopped the scheme taking effect. Of the NLC leaders, only Franz Hildebrandt left the Methodist Church.92 Mackenzie stayed, giving evidence to a parliamentary committee alongside VMA members objecting to the 1976 Methodist Church Act,93 and contributing to the opposition to the scheme Towards Visible Unity: Proposals for a Covenant, published in 1980.94 The failure of the Covenant in the General Synod in 1982 may have indicated to the surviving members of the NLC that they could safely dissolve the organisation, as, in Lesslie Newbigin’s words, ‘the whole movement which had begun with the Lambeth appeal of 1920 seemed to have come to a dead end’.95

Conclusion In the mind and hands of Kenneth Mackenzie, the NLC had a clear strategy and a simple purpose: to bring together and to hold together Dissentients of all kinds; to lobby persuasively and effectively for the substantial modification or defeat of the scheme embodied in the Conversations; and, if

166  Martin Wellings unsuccessful, to prepare the way for a Continuing Methodist Church, supported by a fair division of the Connexion’s resources. Most of the strategies achieved only limited success. Different constituencies opposed the scheme for different reasons, and holding together the VMA, the MRF, Kingsley Barrett’s ‘scholars’ and a range of other individuals, proved extraordinarily difficult. The NLC’s lobbying was persistent, but ultimately not persuasive, and the scheme was resoundingly endorsed by the Methodist Conference. Whether plans for a Continuing Methodist Church would have borne fruit remains doubtful: Norman Snaith, for one, observed that the Dissentients were predominantly in small rural churches, and feared that they would not be able to sustain a nationwide organisation or the infrastructure of departments and colleges needed by a new denomination.96 That this option was not tested was due to decisions taken elsewhere, in the Convocations and the General Synod. Before writing off the NLC as a footnote in the story of unsuccessful ecumenical endeavours, it is worth remembering that there were real points at issue in the Conversations, ones which in the mid to late 1950s seemed genuinely to hang in the balance, before the weight of Connexional leadership and opinion came down in favour of the Majority Report. Moreover, the NLC, like the VMA, gave expression to beliefs, feelings, experiences and stories which were deeply embedded in Methodism, and no whit less powerful for being part-truths or myths. In the Anglican–Methodist Covenant of 2001, a section on the ‘healing of memories’ bore witness to this significant strand in the ecumenical endeavour.97 Without such careful reconciling work in the 1960s, perhaps a vote in both denominations for the Conversations might have produced not harmony and energy in unity, but unintended damage and further fractures.

Notes 1 Phrase used by Kenneth Mackenzie in a letter to Franz Hildebrandt, 27 November 1965, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History, Documents of the Anglican–Methodist Union Collection (hereafter OCMCH, DAMUC) NLC 1/2. 2 Alan M.G. Stephenson, Anglicanism and the Lambeth Conferences (London, 1978), 140–1, 144. 3 G.K.A. Bell, Christian Unity: The Anglican Position (London, 1948), 110, 113, 115. 4 ‘A Step Forward in Church Relations’, in G.K.A. Bell (ed.), Documents on Christian Unity, fourth series (Oxford, 1958), 48–9. The sermon was also printed as part of the report Church Relations in England (London, 1950), 1–12. 5 Bell, Christian Unity, 114. 6 Bernard Lord Manning, ‘Church Union: The Next Step for Congregationalists’, in Essays in Orthodox Dissent (London, 1939), 144–5. 7 Accounts of the ‘Conversations’ may be found in John Munsey Turner, Conflict and Reconciliation: Studies in Methodism and Ecumenism in England 1740– 1982 (London, 1985), 194–214 and George Thompson Brake, Policy and Politics in British Methodism 1932–1982 (London, 1984), 100–44.

‘An Umbrella for all Dissenters’?  167 8 Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church: A Report (London, 1963), 8–9. 9 Conversations, 11. 10 Conversations, 11. 11 ‘Conversations: Reconciling Word’, Methodist Recorder (henceforth MR), 7 January 1965, 2. 12 ‘Unity: The Conference Says “Yes”’, MR, 8 July 1965, 1. 13 See, for example, his letter ‘Methodists and Unions’, British Weekly, 3 November 1955, 9. 14 Professor of Old Testament Literature and Theology at the University of Edinburgh. 15 Tutor at Wesley House, Cambridge. He did not support the NLC. 16 Professor of Systematic Theology at Drew University, Madison, New Jersey, and a strong supporter of the NLC: see Amos Cresswell and Max Tow, Dr Franz Hildebrandt. Mr Valiant-for-Truth (Leominster, 2000), 171–90. 17 Bernard Barker to Mackenzie, 26 October 1965 and B. Kingston Soper to Mackenzie, 3 June 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/2. 18 Minutes of the NLC meeting, 23 July 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 7/1. For Mackenzie, see Minutes of the Methodist Conference 1983, 70–71. 19 B.J. Coggle to Mackenzie, 20 July 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/2. 20 Norman Snaith to Mackenzie, n.d. [1967?], OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/4. 21 In Norman Snaith’s words, letter to Mackenzie. 22 ‘Union Dissentients Issue Statement of Principles’, MR, 30 September 1965, 1–2; Frank Cumbers to Mackenzie, 21 September 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/ NLC 1/2. 23 National Liaison Committee: A Statement, in OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/2. 24 See, for example, C. Reginald Priest to Mackenzie, 19 August 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/2. 25 W. Jess Besley to Mackenzie, 27 August 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/2. 26 ‘Correction’, Meadley to editor, MR, 28 October 1965, 4. 27 Cresswell to Mackenzie, 15 October 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/2. 28 In 1966, there were 3,361 ministers, probationers and students in the Methodist Church, and 1,016 supernumerary ministers. The NLC had collected signatures from 338 ministers and 9 students by 31 August 1966. See minutes of the NLC General Committee, 9 September 1966, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 7/1, and Minutes of Conference 1966, 105. 29 Hildebrandt to Mackenzie, 12 August 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/2. 30 NLC General Committee minutes, 20 September 1967, OCMCH, DAMUC/ NLC 7/1. 31 J.A. Everton to Mackenzie, n.d. [1969], OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/6. 32 Russell Blizzard to Mackenzie, 20 March 1969, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/6. 33 See Paul Ellingworth’s summary of the correspondence, MR, 20 February 1964. 34 John Eastwood to Mackenzie, 28 August 1965 and Mackenzie to Eastwood, 1 September 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/2. 35 See, for example, George Thompson Brake to Mackenzie, 6 August 1965, and Mackenzie to Hildebrandt, 6 June 1966, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/2 and 1/3. Mackenzie estimated that launching a newspaper would cost £5,000. 36 Artingstall to Mackenzie, 16 May 1966, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/3. 37 Peter Smuts to Mackenzie, 6 December 1966, and Mackenzie to Smuts, 4 March 1967, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/3 and 1/4. 38 Mackenzie to Hickman, 19 August 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/2. 39 Mackenzie to Eastwood, 1 September 1965; Hickman to Mackenzie, 3 September 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/2.

168  Martin Wellings 40 Minutes of the Executive Committee, 30 September 1966, OCMCH, DAMUC/ NLC 7/1. 41 ‘Dr Franz Hildebrandt on “Pretence” of Unity’, MR, 29 September 1966, 1. 42 Hildebrandt to Mackenzie, 12 August 1965 and Mackenzie to Hildebrandt, 16 August 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/2. 43 Packer to Mackenzie, 21 September 1965 and Mackenzie to Packer 22 September 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/2 Packer to Mackenzie, 23 May 1967 and Mackenzie to Packer, 24 May 1967, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/4. 44 Alister McGrath, To Know and Serve God: A Biography of James I. Packer (London, 1998), 112–5. 45 ‘Meeting of representatives of CEEC with representatives of “minority” Methodism’, 18 September 1967, in OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/4. 46 Henry Greaves to Mackenzie, 22 January 1969, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/6. 47 In 1939, three Methodist denominations in North America: the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church South, and the Methodist Protestant Church, united, forming the Methodist Church. 48 Cresswell and Tow, Hildebrandt, 149–61. 49 Hildebrandt to Mackenzie, 5 and 21 April 1966, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/3. 50 Hildebrandt to Barrett, 14 January 1966, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/3. 51 Mackenzie to Hildebrandt, 4 August 1966, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/3. 52 Hildebrandt to Mackenzie, 3 December 1966 and Mackenzie to Hildebrandt, 5 December 1966, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/3. 53 Mackenzie to Hildebrandt, 30 July 1966, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/3. 54 ‘Memorials on the Conversations’, MR, 7 July 1966, 18. 55 Minutes of the Executive Committee, 15 March 1971, OCMCH, DAMUC/ NLC 7/1. 56 Snaith to Mackenzie, 18 January 1971, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/7. 57 ‘Jesus Didn’t Jump’, filed with The Signpost, November 1965, and covering letter J.R. Ayre to Mackenzie, 14 January 1966, in OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/3. 58 ‘Prayer for Christian Unity’, MR, 16 January 1958, 8. 59 ‘Church Union in a Disunited Ceylon’, MR, 14 August 1958, 1, and ‘Church Union in North Indian and Pakistan’, MR, 21 August 1958, 3. 60 ‘Stormy Debate in Nigeria Conference. But Union Scheme Goes Through’, MR, 25 February 1965, 7. 61 ‘Union Talks in America’, MR, 9 October 1958, 19. 62 Adrian Hastings, A History of English Christianity 1920–1990 (London, 1991), 540–1. 63 Hastings, A History of English Christianity, 541–2. 64 For instance, the report of an inter-denominational mission in Elland, Yorkshire, ‘No Time for Unity Talks Here!’, MR, 20 November 1958, 9. 65 ‘Wider Unities’, MR, 6 February 1958, 8. 66 Mackenzie to Barrett, 1 February 1967, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/4. 67 Luke to Mackenzie, 25 November 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/2. There is a typescript of the statement filed with this correspondence. 68 Cumbers to Mackenzie, 21 September 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/2; Cumbers to Mackenzie, 27 September 1966, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/3. 69 ‘Union: “Be loyal to Conference” Plea’, MR, 26 August 1965, 1. Compare Mackenzie to Maland, 26 July [sic] 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/2. 70 For instance, Mackenzie to Malcolm Bowron, 27 January 1966 and Bowron to Mackenzie, 3 February 1966, about Manchester Central Hall and correspondence between Tom Booth and Mackenzie, 4 and 14 February 1966, about Lune Street, Preston, with copies of letters from Preston trustees enclosed, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/3. 71 Correspondence in the OCMCH, DAMUC/KB 5.

‘An Umbrella for all Dissenters’?  169 72 Snaith to Mackenzie, 17 June 1968, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/5. 73 Hildebrandt to Mackenzie, 2 April 1966, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/3. 74 Mackenzie to Hildebrandt, 6 November 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/2. 75 Minutes of the General Committee, 9 September 1966, OCMCH, DAMUC/ NLC 7/1. 76 Mackenzie to Hildebrandt, 1 December 1969, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/6. 77 Mackenzie to Hildebrandt, 4 August 1966, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/3. 78 See, for example, Bowron to Mackenzie, 3 February 1966, with enclosures from the District Liaison Committee, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/3. 79 For references to the Sheffield committee, see J. Carver to Mackenzie, 20 August 1966, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/3. 80 Meadley to Mackenzie, 13 December 1966, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/3. Compare Meadley to Mackenzie, 14 February 1967, NLC 1/4. 81 Like Jim Carver, who moved from Doncaster to Tunbridge Wells in summer 1966: Carver to Mackenzie, 20 August 1966 and 2 March 1969, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/3 and 1/6. 82 Hildebrandt to Mackenzie, 7 February 1967, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/4. 83 Mackenzie to Oliver Beckerlegge, 3 November 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/ NLC 1/2. 84 For background on the MRF, see Martin Wellings, ‘The Methodist Revival Fellowship 1952–87’, Proceedings of the Wesley Historical Society 57.3 (October 2009), 89–107. 85 ‘An Open Letter’, Towards a United Church (Braintree: MRF, 1964), 13. 86 John Rylands University Library of Manchester, MARC DDX 57, John Job, report to ecumenical subcommittee, January 1966. 87 MARC DDX 57, ‘MRF and the Liaison Committee: A Chronological Review by Rev. Hon. Roland Lamb, MA’, 8 October 1965, quoting letter to Wood, 6 Oct 1964 and letter from Wood, 23 July 1965. 88 D.W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain (London, 1989), 267. Among other accounts of this celebrated incident, its interpretation and its consequences, see Iain H. Murray, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith, 1939–1981 (Edinburgh, 1990), 522–28; Timothy Dudley-Smith, John Stott: A Global Ministry (Leicester, 2001), 65–71. 89 Sound of Revival, July 1965, inside back cover. 90 Barrett to Mackenzie, 24 September 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/2. 91 Lamb to Barrett, 13 November 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/2. 92 Cresswell and Tow, Hildebrandt, 186–90. 93 ‘House of Lords Select Committee Minutes: Methodist Church Bill, 1976’, 6 April 1976, 64–71, and 15 July 1976, 1–13, in OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 4. 94 Turner, ‘The Churches’ Unity Commission – The Covenant’, in Conflict and Reconciliation, 215–25; drafts of speeches by Mackenzie, undated, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/8. 95 Lesslie Newbigin, Unfinished Agenda. An Autobiography (London, 1985), 250. 96 Snaith to Mackenzie, n.d. [1967?], OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC 1/4. 97 An Anglican–Methodist Covenant (Peterborough, 2001), 14–5.

10 Grassroots Methodism and the Anglican–Methodist Conversations Jane Platt

Preface: what do we mean by the term ‘grassroots’? It is generally agreed that the term ‘grassroots’ is a cliché. The number of current publications containing ‘grassroots’ as part of the title, but with no attempt at a general definition within, only underlines the term’s ubiquity.1 It may take varied meanings, but it is often used of ordinary people – the rank and file – particularly when contrasting them with the elite of a political party or social organisation. It might also refer to the agricultural and rural areas of a country or the people living there, especially if they form a particular group; or it might suggest the primary element or part of something. Its use grew in parallel with the growth of socialism in the twentieth century, reaching a highpoint during the 1950s and 1960s, coinciding with the period of the Anglican–Methodist Conversations.2 The term has often been adopted to the point of tedium by the press to comment on the political opinions of those at some distance from the centre of government policymaking.3 It is also common currency among those writing about Christian churchgoing.4 In terms of Methodism, ‘grassroots’ often describes a local congregation in which people are focused on narrower issues than the broader life of their denomination; a small local church, as distinct from a large one; or a rural church, as against an urban or suburban one. The term might also suggest a predominantly workingclass membership, as against a more socially diverse, or more affluent one; or churches in remote places far from London and the south-east of the country. It sometimes refers to a particular system of belief and those who maintain its flame. It can also suggest lay leadership working in partnership with, or sometimes in opposition to, ministers. Such meanings as these tend to overlap, and when people appeal to ‘the grassroots’ they may mean all or any one of them.

Introduction While other chapters in this book examine Anglican and Methodist theologies, this chapter draws mainly on Methodist documents deposited at the DOI: 10.4324/9781003119210-10

Anglican–Methodist Conversations 

171

Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History (OCMCH) to focus on the opinions and actions of local worshippers, in an exploration of ‘grassroot’ Methodist reactions to ecumenism during and just after the Anglican– Methodist Union Conversations of the 1950s and 1960s. As Martin Wellings has already argued, the period was not unique; it mirrored other tumultuous times in the life of the Methodist Church, which has often experienced tensions between local autonomy and central authority, and after the union of its several strands in 1932, such tensions did not disappear.5 Thus, the chapter examines evidence from numerous sources, including Methodist Circuits in several Districts, to consider whether there were differences in attitudes to Anglican–Methodist union between the centre and the peripheries of the Methodist Church; between Methodists living in the geographical north or south; in rural areas or towns; in small chapels or large churches; and among those who attended chapels in areas which had once been strongly Primitive or United Methodist, compared with those whose churches had been traditionally Wesleyan.

Methodism: a grassroots movement? Contemporary Methodism proclaims the importance of its ‘grassroots’ tradition, as seen here in the Church’s 2019 marketing material. A Grassroots Movement: The Methodist Church6 Methodism is a grassroots movement. It is a strong feature of Methodism that ordinary lay people play a major part in the running of the Church … At all levels of the Methodist Church, lay people are involved in decision making, and the vice-president of the Conference is always a lay person or deacon. This emphasis goes back to the roots of Methodism. John Wesley was very much a folk theologian who wanted to speak ‘plain truth to plain people’. He took seriously the working people of his day. He addressed his preaching to them, and drew great crowds in the street or on hillsides. He also trusted them with responsibilities. In building the local Methodist groups or ‘societies’, he trained many lay people who then maintained the meetings and gave pastoral care and challenge to the members. He also trained preachers, who led worship locally, rather than travelling the country like himself. The implication of the parochial system of the Church of England is that every person in the country is part of it, and that the Church has pastoral accountability for everyone. Methodism, on the other hand, began life as a series of evangelical field-preaching forays into Anglican parishes. There is evidence which proves that, at times, this difference has impacted negatively on the Methodist Church; in times of local or national crisis, for instance, Anglican clergy have felt ‘both a responsibility and a

172  Jane Platt right to minister to anyone’, whereas Methodist ministers have been seen to be much more hesitant in making an approach to non-Methodists.7 Nevertheless, according to the Connexional website quoted above (published by Methodist Church House), the Methodist Church is very sure that its earliest evangelical impulse caused it to become a fundamentally ‘local’, ‘ordinary’, ‘plain’: ‘grassroots movement’. The statement asserts the equality of all members within an essentially folk religion, pointing to the Church’s past history as evidence that all Methodists are essentially grassroots members, drawn from the same root-stock. This view is a cherished one. The well-known minister, Donald English, is as yet the only Methodist to have been twice President of Conference since union in 1932, yet he regarded his Methodism as informed not by his status, but by his family roots, succoured in the north-east, in the working-class town of Consett (Figure 10.1). He described his earliest chapel-going memories in the following terms:

Figure 10.1 Donald English visiting Consett when President of Conference in 1978, OCMCH, DEP/K/PB3/3.

Anglican–Methodist Conversations 

173

The worshippers were mostly – apart from my parents – uncles and aunts of mine, either by blood or by adoption. I watched their various activities with fascination … The memory of my uncles, a male nurse and a shop assistant, taking round the bread and wine – a practice which I fancy would not wholly thrill all who are here gathered – conjures up for me an atmosphere which I can feel and smell as well as see. The green and brown paint so beloved of church interior decorators of earlier days; the dark brown stained pews on which one sat uneasily and to which one stuck noisily … the communion area with its small table, a pulpit behind it with its huge cushion on which the Bible and hymn book nestled … and behind that the greatest glory of all, the small pipe organ with its mysterious sliding glass compartment, opened only by Uncle George’s key, and for the rest of the time protecting … the stops from small exploring hands – all these represent my early experience of Christianity’.8 Despite the affection of his tribute to Consett’s grassroots Methodism, Donald English used an ostensibly throwaway comment to acknowledge specific theological disputation among Methodists, commenting that lay administration of the sacrament would not ‘wholly thrill’ some of his audience: a gathering of students at Bristol’s Wesley College. Such differences of theology and practice among the inheritors of Methodism’s several denominations also affected the main Methodist dissentients to the Anglican–Methodist Union Conversations, who tended to hold views echoing the perspectives of their Primitive or United-Methodist forebears.9 Professor Kingsley Barrett’s father, Fred Barrett, was a Devon United Methodist, but he also served Circuits in London and Manchester, among other places;10 and though Kingsley Barrett had spent time among Anglicans at Cambridge and Durham Universities, and ministered for much of his life in parts of the north-east that had been staunchly Primitive Methodist, it was the determinedly United-Methodist views of the father which continued to live on in the son.11 In conversation with Pippa Catterall in 1991, Barrett explained his belief in the priesthood of all believers by using a well-known shipwreck analogy: I have decided that … the United Methodist ethos [was] broadly speaking, right. My … problem, in a way, is to know … what exactly ordination means… I take a very Lutheran view on this, that the ministry is a function, that – in the famous old image – if you have a crowd of people shipwrecked on a desert island, it would be entirely up to the Christians to say, we will have you for our minister. I mean … here is somebody whom the Christians in this spot regard as a suitable person for the preaching and pastoral office. He shall be our minister… If you can’t apply your theology to actual situations like that, there’s something wrong with your theology … The Wesleyans are more clerical, than I should ever wish to be.12

174  Jane Platt As Professor of Divinity at Durham University, Barrett consistently brought international fame to his department.13 Nevertheless, he was regarded as a lesser Christian by some of those who embraced traditional Anglican doctrines, such as the denomination’s strict rules on intercommunion. During the 1950s, for instance, Barrett and a Nonconformist colleague were invited to a special Durham cathedral communion service, to be followed by a celebration lunch. As they entered the cathedral, they encountered the Principal, who after greeting them, whispered, ‘The Dean has said that if you like to go to communion, he will not notice’. At this, the two Nonconformists decided that they would enjoy the lunch but boycott the service.14

The Conversations: top-down leadership Despite the ubiquity of such incidents, Christian ecumenism advanced during the years after the Second World War, creating an environment in which large-scale organic union between all the Christian Churches was considered or assumed by many Christians to be God’s will: anything less (if not purely temporary) was considered intolerable to him.15 Thus, when Anglican leaders proffered their invitation to partake in union Conversations, Methodist leaders accepted with alacrity. ‘We have been led with impressive unanimity to the conviction that nothing short of organic unity … should be our final goal’, averred the Conversations Interim Statement of 1958. The final paragraph suggested that there was no time to waste: ‘We cannot allow ourselves to forget that we are on the King’s business and that it requires haste’.16 During their meetings, the chosen participants planned a form of union with which Anglican and Methodist churchgoers were expected to agree.17 However, the growing radicalism of the times, while encouraging ecumenism, also led churchgoers to question authority; they queried why ecclesiastical rules (such as those experienced by Barrett at Durham), and decisions (such as the resolution to work towards complete Church union), were being imposed on them from above.18 To believers, there are probably few things more destructive than to be told by Church leaders, either that God wants them not to do something in which they believe or to do something that they believe to be intrinsically flawed. Yet, if organic Church union is the ‘declared will of God’, as the Church leaders who signed the Anglican– Methodist Unity Scheme of 1968 suggested, how dare the individual believer disagree?19 To some extent, the signatories to the Unity Scheme deserve our sympathy, for, however much they may have tried to execute due process, it is perhaps inevitable that some of those who opposed them from the pews would accuse them of high-handedness. Nevertheless, a sense of anger at being herded into submission emerges strongly in dissentient correspondence. An Anglican correspondent of Kenneth Mackenzie (Secretary of the National Liaison Committee) spoke for many when she remarked that the Conversations were proof that Methodist and Anglican Church hierarches considered their congregations to be simply ‘pawns’.20

Anglican–Methodist Conversations 

175

Reactions to dissentient views Throughout their years of opposition to Church union, several of the leading Methodist dissentients reiterated that they were not opposed to the growth of Church unity. In his short book, Not This Way, T.E. Jessop contended that visible unity between Christian Churches did not have to be institutional.21 He argued that the Churches rightly consisted of different families, and the larger an institution became, the more unpleasantly complex and bureaucratic its rules were likely to be. But such dissentient views were not well received by the Church authorities involved, and, during the years of the Conversations debate, some of the dissentients became convinced that the leaders of the Methodist Conference were conspiring against them.22 In support of their suspicions, they cited deliberate attempts to silence them through the withholding of both debating space in Methodist buildings and column inches in the Methodist Recorder, while conversely the case for union was permitted ‘from every platform’.23 Writing to the editor, Kenneth Mackenzie attempted to moderate his annoyance through humour when noting that he had ‘ceased to count [his] epistolary gems which [had] never seen the light of day and of which the anthologies of the future [had] been cruelly deprived’.24 Kingsley Barrett was characteristically careful not to comment publicly, but in later conversation with Pippa Catterall he revealed his certainty that neither Harold Roberts nor Eric Baker had desired his presence at the Conversations meetings. In common with another well-known dissentient, Dr Norman Snaith, Barrett suspected that the Methodist Conference was being ‘guided’ into its decisions by those leaders whom some dissentients accused of …just want[ing] to be bishops … Harold Roberts, Eric Baker and so on, Leslie Davison; they are very obviously the people who would be consecrated bishops on the Methodist side if [union] were to happen, and they would like it. … It may have been true … I’m not saying that, but it certainly was said.25 Emotions ran particularly high in 1968, around the time of the publication of the Anglican–Methodist Unity Scheme. In October 1968, writing to Kenneth Mackenzie, Franz Hildebrandt likened Eric Baker, secretary of the Methodist Conference, to an unpleasant character in an ‘x’-rated film, Wait Until Dark; a month later, Norman Snaith, also writing to Kenneth Mackenzie, judged the Connexional leaders to be ‘astute and devious’.26 Frequently military in language and tone, dissentients’ letters suggest their engagement in a titanic struggle for freedom from oppression, in which Eric Baker was portrayed as a creature of the night, with more than a whiff of sulphur about him.27 Some dissentients writing to Kingsley Barrett contrasted the opinions of the Connexional leadership with those of the membership, urging the

176  Jane Platt dissentients to take their case against union to the Methodist people. Franz Hildebrandt advised that ‘we must give every spare ounce of our time and energy to the battle now, battle at the grassroots, while there is still time’.28 After the Methodist Conference of 1965, a minister wrote to Kingsley Barrett thanking him for his stand against union. Previously, he had feared that ‘the grassroots [were] not being heard’.29 Around the same time, the Rev. Amos Cresswell called for moves against the Methodist establishment by seeking support from members of the Local Preachers’ Mutual Aid Association, particularly ‘James Carr of Doncaster … a brave little man who attacked the President’s team as not representing the “rank and file”’.30 These men were responding to the fact that the case for union was being actively pressed by the leaders of the Connexion, despite wide differences of view among Methodist members, while even the President of Conference believed that the Church was divided ‘exactly in two’ by it.31 Though their views appear extreme, the opinions and behaviour of dissentients suggest comparisons with contemporaneous reactions to Jabez Bunting’s leadership style. Indeed, when discussing the roots of Methodism, Robert Currie goes even further by arguing that the seeds of conflict between a centralised clerical elite and the ordinary members of the local societies were sown by Methodism’s autocratic founder, John Wesley himself.32 And yet, as we have seen, Methodism is presented as a religion purely of the grassroots, with John Wesley as a folksy man of the people. There is an obvious dichotomy here between a desire for local autonomy, as exemplified in the Congregationalist and Baptist traditions, and submission to Wesley’s centralised Connexional model. One suggests a Church controlled by local inhabitants: its grassroots; the other, a Church existing within a tight national structure which controls (however humanely) from above. Is Methodism really a grassroots organisation, or does the reality of its Connexional organisation – though ostensibly supportive and representative – trap its members in a straight-jacket?

Resignations from the Methodist Connexion What were Methodists at the local level doing and feeling during and just after the Conversations debate? According to the official Conference voting figures, Methodists in favour of union with the Church of England won fair and square, with nearly 78 per cent of the vote, despite considerable opposition to union during the previous months and years.33 Rupert Davies (a supporter of the scheme) has described the almost unbearable tension as Methodists waited in the Conference hall to hear the Church of England voting figures which would seal their fate, and a sense of ‘deep disappointment and compunction’ when the Anglican clergy and laity failed to accept union in sufficient numbers to allow the scheme to go ahead.34 Even though union could not then occur, the years of bitter argument had proved too much for some dissentients to the scheme. In 1971, Methodist churches in Heysham, Winstanley and Garstang in the north-west of England (some 100 members)

Anglican–Methodist Conversations 

177

resigned to form a Connexion that would eventually join the Free Methodist Church.35 This was a great cause of concern to an eirenic Methodist like Donald English.36 Though a conservative evangelical at heart, he took part in union talks so that he could voice sympathy for those Methodists who felt unable to accept union, while also calling for their support. As a new member of the Anglican–Methodist Liaison Commission, meeting to find a way forward after the defeat of the union scheme, he wrote to Kenneth Greet: I am a little concerned about whether this Commission will adequately represent those who take the various dissentient positions … there are many people who genuinely want union but who find this present scheme a hindrance … nearly a quarter of the Conference votes on each crucial occasion were registered against the scheme, and … in terms of Quarterly Meeting votes nearly half the people were against it. I think we would neglect this at our peril.37 Aware that the Anglican–Methodist Liaison Commission was intent on approaching union with the same top-down approach that had failed to carry a large number of voters during the years of the Conversations, English was at pains to point out that many of the Methodists who had voted in their localities had not been in favour of union with Anglicans. Such people needed to be treated carefully, for, according to Derek Tidball, pro-union Methodists either ignored dissentients or regarded them with rather lofty disdain.38

Dissentients and evangelicalism There were other reasons why ‘grassroots’ Methodist ministers and members felt disenfranchised during the union debates. The Methodists in Lancashire who eventually joined the Free Methodists blamed the schism on the furore over union; nevertheless, this was actually the last straw in a long-continuing estrangement involving disillusion with ministerial stationing, for if ministers with liberal theological views entered their Circuits, such stationing could interfere with uninterrupted evangelical teaching,39 They were grassroots Methodists and found the influence of liberal approaches to the Bible destructive … They were leaving Methodism so they could continue to be Methodist.40 Derek Tidball regards ‘grassroots Methodists’ as those who consider that Methodism has bequeathed its people a purely evangelical – particularly biblical – heritage. Martin Wellings has used the term ‘folk fundamentalism’ to describe theology and worship practice which, refusing to countenance new ideas, contributed to ‘enduring conservatism at grassroots level’.41 The clash between folk fundamentalism and the Methodist Church’s tight form of connexionalism, together with what Tidball terms northern ‘stubbornness and independence’, casts light on the chapter’s discussion of the overlapping meanings of ‘grassroots’ Methodism. The breakaway Methodist

178  Jane Platt churches of Lancashire were focused not only on local matters but also on theological issues connected to their form of conservative evangelicalism, their lay leadership and disillusioned ministers working together to oppose what they saw as errors perpetrated by an estranged Methodist Connexion, situated elsewhere. Such disputes were found very threatening; thus, when faced with the challenges of the Anglican–Methodist unity scheme, these folk fundamentalists submitted to what James Dingley and Pippa Catterall have termed ‘ontological insecurity’: fear that outside challenges would damage and eventually destroy long-cherished ‘organic structures and processes’.42

The Conversations and ‘ordinary’ churchgoers Could those lay Methodists who voted for and against union be considered ‘grassroots’ Methodists? The distance, both geographical and psychological, from each local society through various committees to the Methodist Conference, is a long one. It demands an element of self-selection among the laity, and Conference representatives may have very different ambitions and opinions from regular churchgoers who have never sought committee membership. Grace Davie has pondered this matter as related to the Church of England. ‘What about the ordinary churchgoer that [committee members] are supposed to represent?’ she has asked.43 In discussing synodical government, she has noted that, at an unknown point, the idea of the local church as a microcosm begins to give way to government based on expertise. Yet ‘relatively few churchgoers are attracted by committee, let alone synodical life’, she avers. This might be equally true of Methodists. The Methodist Conference representatives who actually voted for Anglican–Methodist union formed a small and particular proportion of the whole membership; in fact, the Conference votes in 1969 represented one thousandth of the total. The District Synods represented about a hundredth of the total membership, which in May 1969, also voted for union in large numbers. At a more local level, however, opinion on union was frequently far less positive. Leslie Newman (leader of the VMA) spoke for many at the 1969 Methodist Conference when he expressed his view that to continue with plans for unity in the face of substantial opposition would be wrong. In Circuit Quarterly Meetings the previous March, 350,824 had said yes to union, 292,220 had said no, and 20,665 had been unsure. Newman could not believe that the Conference would wish to ignore the judgements of people at the grassroots, almost half of whom had said it was not a scheme on which they wanted to proceed. It was not an anti-Anglican vote; what they were saying was, ‘not this way’.44

Geographical differences in voting patterns Scotland and Wales voted decisively against union in 1969,45 but, as noted in Tables 10.1a and 10.1b, the votes of English Circuit Quarterly Meetings

Anglican–Methodist Conversations  1a. Examples of London and S.E. For % Local Voting Patterns, 1969

179

Against %

London N.E.

58.04

38.39

London N.W.

64.16

33.28

London S.W.

70.28

27.68

London S.E.

65.43

32.12

Southampton

53.75

43.60

Oxford and Leicester

55.49

41.41

1b. Examples of N., SW. and E. Local Voting Patterns, 1969

For %

Against %

Cornwall

37.52

58.80

Darlington

42.16

54.27

East Anglia

47.11

50.62

Newcastle upon Tyne

40.37

57.25

North Lancashire

42.73

54.64

Plymouth and Exeter

46.34

50.68

Tables 10.1a. and b. Local voting patterns, 1969.

differed greatly, both between and within Districts according to locality. Most parts of England where Methodism is relatively strong lie at the farthest limits of the country (Table 10.1b).46 In 2017, membership statistics noted that it was in such far-flung places that Methodism approached and sometimes even exceeded a high of one per cent of the resident population; thus, it is instructive that in 1969, support for Anglican–Methodist union was weakest in these areas, though in Lincolnshire – the home county of the Wesleys – 18 Circuits voted for union, and only four against, this county having enjoyed long-standing warm ecumenical relations between Anglicans and Methodists.47 However, in many parts of Cornwall, Devon and the far north of England, support for union was lukewarm at best. Conversely, in 2017, in many Methodist Circuits in London and the South East, membership per resident population comprised less than 0.2 per cent or even 0.1 per cent;48 yet it was here that, in 1969, local voting for union was particularly strong. Clearly, Methodists living in far-flung areas, many of whom voted against merging with the Church of England, have remained more loyal to the Methodist Church than their metropolitan counterparts, who voted for union and whose membership has declined faster than elsewhere.

180  Jane Platt Why should this be? In terms of those who left Methodism, it might be that, having expended its energies during its long-drawn-out bid for union, the Methodist Church had little left to give to its urban and suburban members after hopes of immediate union had died; also that secularisation has had a more devastating effect on churches in large conurbations than in the countryside, despite frequent ‘mission’ activity. In terms of the Methodists in far-flung locations who stayed, it might be that the character of these spaces had always encouraged conservatism, self-reliance, loyalty to community and a tendency towards congregationalism,49 as already noted of the breakaway Methodist churches of Lancashire. Hence, it is not unexpected that the conservative Free Methodist Church should have been successful in Cornwall, the ‘traditional heartland of Methodism’.50 If we take another far-flung region, the county of Cumbria, an examination of voting in the Carlisle District (Table 10.2) demonstrates that while seven of 16 Circuits voted in favour of union and nine voted against, votes in favour centred mainly on the larger, more urban Circuits and prosperous tourist centres.51 Circuits voting against union were predominantly rural; most were market towns with village hinterlands where there were large numbers of small chapels, sometimes at risk of redundancy.52 The more rural the Circuit, the greater the number against union. It is arguable that, compared to its sense of the overwhelming importance of mission to large urban centres of population, the Methodist Church has lacked enthusiasm when dealing with country Circuits containing scattered members and too many rundown chapels. Between the wars, the problem was thought almost insuperable.53 In 1932, the realities of working in rural Methodism were described as ‘cycling out ten miles in the slush to preach to three old women’,54 and, as David Clark has noted, there has often been tension between rural Methodists and their ministers, based on a ministerial perception that the laity’s love of their local chapel was both myopic and worldly. As an example, he quotes the judgement of an exasperated superintendent at Staithes in Yorkshire: I doubt whether some of [the people] have any faith at all. They’re worshipping the building, that’s all – the bricks and mortar. If someone came to Staithes and wanted to go to church, I couldn’t recommend them to come here … they’d just be trying to get money out of them to keep their ‘chapill’ going. It’s pathetic really.55 In 1956, the largest problem in rural Methodism was thought to be lack of finance, as a result of which some ministers of calibre were refusing a rural stationing. At the same time, the ‘low competence of many local preachers’ caused consternation,56 so much so that in 1956, rural Methodism appeared to be in permanent decline. In 1966, Norman Povey, Superintendent of the

Anglican–Methodist Conversations 

Circuits in Cumbria

Membership 1968

No. voting at Circuit Qu. M.

% in favour

% against

Carlisle

1823

188

55.3

42.6

2.1

Whitehaven

1098

137

54.0

46.0

0.0

Barrow

951

94

60.6

39.4

0.0

Kendal

882

156

39.7

56.4

3.9

Kirkby Stephen, Appleby & Tebay

825

170

21.2

68.2

10.6

Workington

774

58

56.9

31.0

12.1

Ulverston

731

115

36.5

59.1

4.4

Keswick & Cockermouth

621

89

62.9

36.0

1.1

Wigton

513

83

6.0

85.5

8.5

Maryport

507

52

40.4

57.7

1.9

Penrith

500

63

34.9

65.1

0.0

Brampton

337

24

37.5

62.5

0.0

Sedbergh

335

60

26.7

70.0

3.3

Kirkoswald

329

102

35.3

62.7

2.0

Millom

289

19

94.7

5.3

0.0

Ambleside & Windermere

222

46

76.1

23.9

0.0

181

% neutral

Table 10.2 Circuit Voting in Cumbria, 1969.

Methodist Great Yarmouth and Gorleston Circuit, had so little hope for the village chapels that he was looking to turn them into secular community centres for holiday makers. By then, the slogan ‘buses not buildings’ had begun to infect Norfolk Methodism.57 Thus, it follows that Anglican– Methodist union was seen by many Methodists as a badly needed solution to an age-old problem. Nevertheless, as Adrian Hastings has remarked, topdown instructions related to ‘cost-effective efficiency’ may be irrelevant to Methodists living and worshipping in small communities.58

182  Jane Platt

Methodist heritage: Primitive Methodism Unsurprisingly, loyalty to local buildings and concerns continued to live on after Methodist union. For example, Table 10.2 notes that the Brampton Circuit in Cumbria voted decisively against union in 1969. Some Methodists living there still proudly tell a tale handed down to them since 1932. The story goes that when the Primitives had worshipped in their own chapel for the last time, they were instructed to march through the town to the Wesleyan chapel, to take part in an official joint service. When the marchers reached the Wesleyans’ door, however, some wheeled about and processed smartly to their own homes.59 This state of affairs also occurred in Northampton, where the largest and most prosperous Methodist chapel in the town was ex-Primitive Methodist, and where the ex-Wesleyan and ex-Primitive Circuits united only in the late 1950s.60 When Rev. Henry T. Wigley wrote to Kingsley Barrett from Northampton in 1963, he offered the dissentients his unqualified support while also sending a copy of his pamphlet on The Bible and Total Abstinence, an embrace of Biblicism and a strongly traditional approach to liquor, which is suggestive of Primitive Methodism.61As noted in Table 10.3, Northampton Circuit voted against union by 112 to 75 votes in 1969: evidence that there were many pockets in otherwise union-minded Methodist areas which retained a sense of independence based on their denominational roots. As Adrian Hastings has also observed of Methodists in Staithes, dominant concerns in Brampton and Northampton included the Primitive Methodist community’s ‘surviving consciousness’, pride in their building and a continuing desire to maintain sectarian difference.62 Nevertheless, not all members of ex-Primitive-Methodist churches voted against union. Until 1966, Raunds in Oxford and Leicester District (see Table 10.3) had contained both a Wesleyan and a Primitive church. Pride in the Primitive church is demonstrated in Figure 10.2, where Raunds Primitive Methodists are seen celebrating the completion of renovations, circa 1953. In 1966, however, the Primitive church closed, the congregation joined the Wesleyan Methodists, and the building was sold; the funds were used to refurbish the schoolrooms in 1970. Despite affectionate memories of Primitive Methodism, the voting in favour of Anglican–Methodist union in Raunds was 39 to 15 in 1969.63

Attitudes of ministers and local personalities The attitudes of Methodist Circuit leaders towards union were often informed by the beliefs and behaviour of their ministers and vice versa. For example, though the London Methodist Districts generally embraced union, there were pockets that did not. Luton South Circuit (in London

Anglican–Methodist Conversations 

Oxford and Leicester District Circuits 1969

Votes for union

Oxford

140

45

3

Wantage and Abingdon

87

42

6

Witney and Faringdon

68

56

0

Chipping Norton and Stow

20

26

3

Banbury

63

92

11

Buckingham and Brackley

19

45

2

Leicester Central Mission

29

16

0

Leicester North

55

35

1

Leicester South

109

62

5

Leicester East

84

32

2

Leicester West

120

93

3

Loughborough

72

45

4

109

47

4

Melton Mowbray

58

72

3

Northampton

75

112

10

Rugby

52

68

0

St Neots

30

20

6

Higham Ferrers

59

53

1

Raunds

39

15

0

Wellingborough

45

51

0

Daventry

8

14

1

Kettering

55

22

4

Corby

23

14

2

Market Harborough

24

17

1

Peterborough

86

41

16

Stamford

32

30

0

Hinckley

Votes against union

Table 10.3 Oxford and Leicester District Circuit Votes, 1969.

183

Neutral

184  Jane Platt

Figure 10.2 Primitive Methodists celebrating the completion of their church renovations at Raunds, c. 1953.

North-West District) rejected it in 1969 by 62 votes to 45. The Rev. R.A. Letch of Luton, writing to Kingsley Barrett in 1963, offered to help the dissentients in any way he could, commenting that he opposed the union scheme, first, because it was ‘vague’, and second, because ‘Methodism rejects priestly hierarchy’; if it were agreed that a minister was ‘essentially different from a local preacher’, he would leave Methodism.64 The history of Lancashire Methodism shows that stationing could enable Circuits to engage those ministers who agreed with their own views. Kenneth Mackenzie, for instance, was stationed at Morecambe and Heysham during the Conversations. He then moved to another determinedly anti-union Circuit: that of Kirkby Stephen, Appleby and Tebay in Carlisle District.65 Key lay personalities could have influence on stationing and much else at Circuit level. Matthew Brown, a local preacher and steward of the Wigton Circuit in Cumbria, was one such. Infuriated by Eric Baker’s perceived indifference to the supremacy of Holy Scripture, justification by faith and the priesthood of all believers, he became a determined follower of the dissentients and frequent letter-writer to Kingsley Barrett and Kenneth Mackenzie.66 In 1969, his Circuit voted against union by 85.5 per cent (see Table 10.2). Other local preachers also wrote to the NLC, offering support. Tom Booth, a local preacher from Hutton near Preston, became the organisation’s treasurer. His letters to Kenneth Mackenzie document his frequently obstructed attempts to spread the dissentient cause by securing Methodist premises in which to hold meetings during the difficult circumstances which eventually produced Lancashire Methodism’s schism of 1972.67 Other local preachers were also instrumental in setting up local NLC groups.68

Anglican–Methodist Conversations 

185

Methodists and Anglicans: local relations Some Methodists were influenced by their relationships with neighbouring Anglican churches. John Huggon, a Carlisle teenager at the time of the union votes, describes what it was like to attend a suburban Methodist church in the 1960s: Decisions [on Union], were taken at Conference and the Anglican Synod, and were of no interest compared to what was happening in the chapel itself. Wigton Road was a busy, successful, suburban church. On Sunday nights the gallery was packed with young people. The church had Cubs, Brownies, Guides and Scouts. It was optimistic and thriving: the most successful of the Carlisle Methodist churches. We had very good relations with the nearest Anglican churches … There were joint services and much interactivity at congregational level. But things change when clergy or ministers move on and then new incumbents don’t get on. After a change of vicar, the good work went out of the window. The Anglicans looked down on Methodists, so rejected close union at parish level.69 It seems that Wigton Road’s ‘grassroots’ worshippers were primarily concerned with local issues, but this focus also encompassed their perception of, and relationship with, local Anglicans. Their opinions would not have been elevated by close observation of Carlisle’s cathedral clergy at work. As one of its canons remembered: The uncanny resemblance between the Cathedral Chapter and the T.V. series of the time, ‘[All] Gas and Gaiters’, has often been remarked upon. The Archdeacon [Charles Nurse] dispensed his sherry liberally, and was bullied by the Dean [Lionel du Toit]. There were chapter meetings at which Charles had to be awakened in order to vote. There were hilarious occasions in the cathedral as when … an escaped heifer got into the Abbey and chased both Dean and Archdeacon around the latter’s parked car. Though Charles’s reluctance to accept any change was tiresome, most of one’s memories are of his friendliness … and his fund of amusing stories from the past.70 Friendly, bullying, amusing, reluctant to accept change: whatever their perception of local Anglican clergy, Carlisle Circuit ministers took different sides in the union debate, some of them writing to Kingsley Barrett denouncing his anti-union stance.71 However, during a meeting with Norman Snaith in 1974, Dean du Toit – a participant in the Conversations – commented that while Methodist opposition to the union scheme in Carlisle had been considerable, those who favoured it had been the more influential ‘Connexional officials and suburban Methodists’. He echoed the views of

186  Jane Platt others (see Kingsley Barrett above) when he accused some Methodist ministers of desiring the ‘social prestige’ of becoming bishops.72 Carlisle voted for union by just over 55 per cent in 1969 (see Table 10.2), underlining the antagonism between the two sides noted by Kingsley Barrett, detected by young John Huggon and observed by Dean du Toit.73 Suspicion of Anglo-Catholicism also had an effect. If the local Anglican church were perceived to be too ‘high’, Methodists might then embrace the dissentient cause. The minister of Cheadle, David Bridge, had a warm working relationship with his neighbouring Anglican vicar, an evangelical, but both viewed High-Church Anglicans with suspicion. ‘The existence of strong free churches [is] a powerful antidote to Anglo-Catholicism’, Bridge wrote to Kingsley Barrett in 1963.74 A number of Kingsley Barrett’s correspondents expressed anxiety that, after Anglican–Methodist, Methodism would no longer remain close to the Free Churches. Matthew Brown of Wigton articulated what others also thought, that if union took place, ‘for a village Methodist … living in a town with alternative Free-Church worship, the answer would be elementary’; the Preston minister, George Artingstall, was exercised as to how to ‘secure a way to perpetuate the free ministry as against the Priesthood’; a Durham minister commented that the ‘best way to Christian unity would be first a unity of the Free Churches’; James Peters, a Methodist from Eccles, thanked Barrett for his ‘divinely guided’ opposition, remarking that he favoured closer links with the Free Churches instead of ‘the menace of organic union’ with the Church of England.75 Similar comments were made by Methodists in Lincoln and Ireland and by a Methodist chaplain at RAF Lineham.76

Local church loyalty and congregationalism Though the Methodist Connexion meant a great deal to Methodists, the traditions of their own churches and neighbourhoods often meant a great deal more. Churchgoers like John Huggon were enormously loyal to their local church and its building, for many city and suburban Methodist churches were tended just as lovingly as their village counterparts.77 Though obviously Methodist, such churches were not necessarily regarded by those who attended them as Conference property, because they had been built and paid for by local Methodist societies. Local Methodist members (even if reduced to three old women) embraced their churches as their own particular concern. Thus, during the Anglican–Methodist Union debate, full-blown union, with the possibility of losing their Victorian chapel to the ancient Anglican church down the road, represented a step too far for many Methodists. It took a Baptist to explain this kind of mindset to the Methodists and Anglicans who met at a ‘Talks about Talks’ Church-Unity committee meeting in December 1973. In a paper entitled, ‘What Is Organic Union?’ Dr Kenneth Greet described the failure of the union talks as being basically ‘a vote against change’. However, the general secretary of the Baptist Union,

Anglican–Methodist Conversations 

187

Dr D.S. Russell, saw the problem as being between local churches and an authority situated elsewhere. Independents, he explained, held that authority rightly lay with local churches. People who held these views feared ‘lest in any organisational structuring, an imposed authority might appear which would be contrary to the nature of the gospel as they saw it’.78 This is undoubtedly not Methodist ecclesiology, but its existence in local Methodist churches can be palpable. Sue Rodd has described the Methodist Church as much more ‘congregational’ in style than the Church of England, noting that, in the ecumenical outreach group of her Wiltshire village, relations were sometimes complicated ‘by the [Anglican] need to refer back to the PCC for ratification, whereas the four Methodist members are empowered to take decisions on behalf of their congregation’. She sees ‘a disparity between an empowering Methodist style of governance and the more structured, hierarchical style of the Anglicans’.79 During the Conversations debate, some Methodists began to fear the loss of their local autonomy, as noted earlier in the discussion on the Lancashire Free Methodists and individuals like Matthew Brown of Wigton. But Brown’s case also exemplifies the contradictions involved in rejecting union and espousing localism, as his highly valued position existed only as a result of his involvement in Connexional Methodism, which had offered him opportunities to preach, not only in his home village but also throughout the Circuit. Yet he was prepared to lose all of this by resigning his offices: ‘Apart from the local village chapel, I do not want anything to do with Methodism ‘higher up’ – 90 per cent of our preachers in the Wigton Circuit oppose [union]’, he wrote.80

Anglicans and Methodists: local attitudes to worship and ecumenism What were the actual beliefs and denominational practices of grassroots churchgoers like Matthew Brown during the period of the Conversations? As already noted, they might be conservative, traditionalist and evangelical.81 In seeking out the grassroots, Grace Davie looked for churchgoers who represented the microcosm of a denomination. Methodist members who represent their local Society at their Circuit Quarterly Meeting would seem to fit that template to a certain degree; those living in rural Circuits most definitely so. A survey of local Methodist church representatives in the Oxford Circuit in 1955 found that in the more rural of the Societies, most of the members had perforce taken on leadership roles – often more than one – because of the small numbers of churchgoers involved. Though in urban and suburban churches there were fewer opportunities for leadership because of the greater number of members, the Oxford Circuit Quarterly Meeting list of 1955 suggests that, as a group, such leaders provide us with a level of Church government which is as near to the grassroots as we can find.82

188  Jane Platt In 1962, such local representatives were involved in an enquiry into Anglican and Methodist attitudes in the town of Rugby. The survey was then repeated in the geographically and socially disparate towns of Bromley, Ellesmere Port and Trowbridge. The collated results are contained in a booklet entitled, Survey of Anglicans and Methodists in Four Towns, by David B. Clark.83 The author admits that, as an early foray into social research, his findings are not statistically faultless, but nevertheless his work provides a very useful picture of churchgoers in the early 1960s.84 Those who answered the enquiry’s questionnaire were members of either Anglican Parochial Church Councils or Methodist Leaders’ (Circuit) Meetings.85 The findings are too extensive to list in their entirety, but the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from them is that during the early 1960s, the views of Methodist and Anglican worshippers differed significantly. Though male Methodists and Anglicans often held similar middle-class or lower-middle-class occupations, their beliefs nevertheless followed traditional denominational lines. Anglicans preferred formality, symbolism, and ritual, in which Holy Communion was the focal point; Methodists appreciated hymn-singing, the sermon, free prayer by the minister and salvation through grace. Anglicans thought their Church the true and ancient Catholic Church of England, tracing its history through ordinations back to apostolic times; Methodists believed in justification by faith, individual dedication and Christian service. When consulted on their views of the role of their minister, Anglicans liked the status bestowed by the apostolic succession and the laying on of hands by a bishop, but Methodists focused on function: the Methodist minister was said to be a servant of the churches, who largely from administrative convenience accepted special duties.86 One question was particularly illuminating. When asked their opinion on the existence of different denominations within the Christian Church, the collated answers were as shown in Table 10.4.87 43 per cent of Methodists deemed denominationalism unavoidable, and 11 per cent thought it a good thing. On reviewing this evidence, it seemed to Dr Kenneth Crosby, Methodist Chairman of the Manchester

To be deplored

Unavoidable

To be deplored but unavoidable

Of no importance

A good thing

Other choices

No answer

A 48

A 29

A6

A7

A7

A1

A2

M 32

M 40

M3

M5

M 11

M1

M8

(A = Anglicans; M. = Methodists; answers expressed as percentages)

Table 10.4 Question, ‘Do you think that the existence of the different denominations within the Christian Church is …?’ Survey of Anglicans and Methodists in Four Towns, by David B. Clark.

Anglican–Methodist Conversations 

189

and Stockport District, that, ‘for many Methodists, the ecumenical age has not yet dawned’.88 E.R. Wickham, Anglican Bishop of Middleton, agreed, responding to the survey by commenting that ‘people tend to like what they know and what they know is heavily conditioned by their tradition, [yet] Anglicans and Methodists … show wide religious tolerance and if narrow sometimes, they are free of bigotry’.89 There were equally interesting differences between the various Methodist Circuits consulted in Clark’s survey. Taking two, Rugby (Oxford and Leicester District) and Bromley (London South-East District): in 1969 the Rugby Circuit voted 68 to 52 against union (Table 10.3), while the Bromley Circuit voted 111 to 17 in favour.90 Clark’s information on Rugby was derived from four Methodist churches: two ex-Wesleyan, one ex-Primitive and one built after 1932. In Bromley, two Methodist churches were involved: one ex-Wesleyan and one independent of pre-1932 denominational bias. At the time, Rugby was an industrial town of well-paid workers and a smaller number of families connected with Rugby school. Relations with the Church of England there were said to be complicated by the dominance of its Anglican churches. In contrast, Bromley was a commuter town where Anglicans and Methodists were said to work well together. Comparisons between the views of Rugby and Bromley Methodists are illuminating in the light of their voting pattern: one for union, the other against. Though the views of both sets of Methodists broadly paralleled the results of the survey, there were some interesting differences between the two. Rugby Methodists were more traditional in mindset than Bromley Methodists. Most thought that communion should be taken monthly (85 per cent); that saying the Creed was helpful rather than essential (82 per cent); and that having a minister wear special dress was either inessential (42 per cent) or ‘no help at all’ (61 per cent). Similarly, a gowned choir was thought to be irrelevant by 76 per cent. More Rugby Methodists than Bromley Methodists thought the Bible the infallible word of God (63 compared to 21 per cent). 13 per cent of Rugby Methodists thought that the existence of different denominations was a ‘good thing’, while no Bromley Methodists took that view. In fact, 42 per cent of Bromley Methodists thought that denominationalism was to be deplored, while only 25 per cent of Rugby Methodists did so. While both Circuits felt that Congregationalist worship had most in common with Methodism, a quarter of Bromley Methodists expressed support for ‘historic’ links with the Church of England, as compared with 15 per cent of Rugby Methodists. When asked questions on contemporaneous political and social policy, however, the two Circuits showed remarkable similarity, generally disapproving of gambling, alcohol and unfettered immigration, with a majority in each Circuit expressing neutral views on nuclear disarmament and the Common Market. The main differences were religious ones: Rugby Methodists (some from a Primitive Methodist tradition, in an environment dominated by Anglican churches) appeared conservative; Bromley Methodists (with a mainly Wesleyan heritage and a good relationship with

190  Jane Platt Anglican churches) were more open to change. Thus, it is not surprising that one Circuit voted against union, while the other embraced it.

Areas of Ecumenical Experiment and Local Ecumenical Partnerships It will be remembered that T.E. Jessop had contended for Church unity rather than the imposition of Church union. After the failure of the Conversations, his argument was taken up by others. The Guardian reminded its readers: The Church is a secular as well as a sacred institution… The divisions within it reflect, at a secular level, the cultural preferences of worshippers as well as what churchmen would see as different paths towards the same divine summit. It may be that the Churches have been oversensitive to the criticism that they do not speak in one voice … For churchmen to despair after the defeat … would be as ill-judged as to regret that the New Testament has four gospels instead of one.91 However, local ‘cultural preferences’ are not necessarily liked, trusted or even recognised by Church authorities. The act of leaving the parent Church to found new bodies more suitable to particular local needs has been a recurrent feature of Protestantism, as the history of Methodism demonstrates. The anxiety felt by Church hierarchies over individual agency has been particularly evident in the sometimes fraught area of ecumenical experiment. Areas of Ecumenical Experiment (AEEs) and Local Ecumenical Partnerships (LEPs) were formal experiments in shared worship which gradually proliferated during the 1970s after it had become clear that topdown planning for organic union between the Church of England and Methodism had failed.92 Whereas local ecumenical partnerships are now widely accepted, during the 1970s, meetings of the Anglican–Methodist Joint Liaison Commission were regularly punctuated by anxious queries over whether ecumenical congregations were enjoying their freedoms too much. It was genuinely feared that such partnerships might split from their parent body altogether, to become congregations in their own right. The success of the charismatic movement, which often led to the formation of independent house-groups, exacerbated such fears still further,93 while, at the same time, Church authorities seemed virtually unable to offer coherent advice on how to conduct ecumenical experiments, for each denomination was hindered by its own stringent rules: a situation particularly true of the Church of England. As usual, Donald English gave clear expression to the problem. Two ecclesiologies were competing, he reported: One wherein authority is seen as vested in the local congregation, and one wherein authority is vested somewhere else. This debate only prolongs the inclination of those who feel the present state is the best, and

Anglican–Methodist Conversations 

191

wish to preserve it … Decisions must not be taken as if from static positions from those at the top.94 Clearly, many senior Church leaders saw ecumenism as the essential way forward, but how did joint worship or church-sharing work out in practice in the 1970s, given the very real differences of view held by worshippers of the two denominations? During the early part of the decade, the Anglican– Methodist Liaison Commission received a number of official reports on local ecumenical projects. One of these was labelled ‘confidential’, because it offered the Commission a personal view of what ecumenical worship was like in practice.95 The confidential report described a shared-church agreement in Cwmbran New Town, Monmouthshire. Originally built as a new Methodist church in 1965, Fairhill Church remained a member of the Connexion under the provisions of the Methodist Model Deed, but a shared agreement (based on the Shared Churches Act of 1969) gave full legal usage of the premises to Anglicans as well as Methodists, as part of the formation of a parish of the Church in Wales, in Cwmbran.96 In the pure legal sense, there were two communions entitled to full use of the building for their own distinctive life and practices, but, ideologically, ‘sharing’ was expected to promote a deeper unity. From November 1971, the church was officially known as Fairhill Methodist/Anglican Shared Church, Cwmbran. So much for the official top-down planning, but there were difficulties in implementation. As D.M. Daymond found when exploring reactions to ecumenism in the two Methodist Circuits of Swindon and Marlborough and the Forest of Dean, such schemes were vulnerable, ‘There is … a danger – in joining two unwilling groups – of ending up with three: the combined forces, plus disaffected wings’.97 Fairhill Church’s Methodist minister sent a gloomy report to the Commission one year into the scheme. He made numerous points (see Table 10.5), but the dominant theme was that the imposition of unity from on high had resulted in unresolved tensions, exacerbated by the difficulties of living within a blended family. To the minister, living together in harmony was an impracticable task based on an impossible premise. Anglicans insisted that everything Methodist should be regarded as joint, even though few Anglicans showed interest in Methodist concerns; yet, wishing to retain their own identity, the Anglicans sought to impose their own ethos on anything Methodist. In the minister’s judgement, the Anglicans and Methodists should openly admit that they were ‘separated communions’ using the same building. ‘Nationally’, he wrote, ‘you have two Churches with an entirely different ethos that keeps them apart’. How much, he asked, can two Churches at a local level ever be regarded as one? Such frustrations were shared by other Methodist ministers working in various ecumenical situations. At an earlier date, William Gowland, of Luton Industrial College, had signalled his dislike of Anglican high-handedness in the field of industrial chaplaincy. As he wrote to Kingsley Barrett in 1955, ‘They have entered factories where a

192  Jane Platt

Problems involving shared worship at Fairhill Church, Cwmbran, 1971-72 1. The imposition of unity from on high 2. The difficulties of living in a blended family 3. The restrictions of organic union 4. Need for local freedoms 5. Anglican arrogance 6. Anglican encroachment and Methodist circuit responsibilities 7. Anglican unwillingness to share on an equal basis 8. Introduction of non-Methodist practices 9. Conclusion. The necessity of grassroots-led unity

Table 10.5 Problems involving sharing at Fairhill Church, Cwmbran, 1971–2.

[Methodist] chaplain is already doing his job and not even intimated that they were going to make an approach’.98 During the 1970s, ecumenical projects were attempted during a period of unprecedented fall in the numbers attending traditional forms of religious worship. The decline continued. In 2001, a research project undertaken for the Church of England in Carlisle Diocese by Canon Brian Dawson noted that the slide had accelerated in both rural areas and towns, when compared with the growth of local house-groups and ‘folk religion’. ‘Folk religion’, he noted, was manifested in the large numbers still attending weddings, funerals, the harvest festival and services at Christmas, while the numbers attending weekly church-services were falling dramatically year on year.99 Meanwhile, the diocese was short of money and there was a scarcity of candidates for the priesthood. As a result, the Anglican parishes of rural East Cumbria had been obliged to link together to create vast geographical units, while also seeking Church Unity. This had allowed most parish churches to remain open, but a similar loss of Methodist members had caused many East-Cumbrian Methodist chapels to close (see Table 10.6). Nevertheless, despite the pressing urge to unite the local Christian Churches, Dawson admitted that some Anglicans, including himself, continued to hold their specific beliefs and traditions dear. Anglican–Methodist union was not a concept to which they could readily assent, and they feared its implementation. As Dawson ruefully recalled from experience, ‘It is one thing to make a statement in an international document, and quite another to have it accepted and put into effect locally’.100

Anglican–Methodist Conversations 

193

Number of Methodist Chapels in the Penrith Rural Deanery Area, 1951-91 1951 48 1961 45 1971 41 1981 28 1991 21

Table 10.6 Extract from Brian Dawson, ‘The Past, Present and Future Strategies of the Church of England Parishes and Churches in Mid-East Cumbria’ (2001).

Conclusion This discussion of grassroots ecumenism has concentrated on, first, Methodism’s own view of itself as a grassroots organisation; second, the difficulties of imposing top-down church union on people at local level who cherish a combination of congregationalism, local tradition and individual freedoms; third, the high-handedness displayed by large religious groups towards smaller groups thought somehow less worthy; and fourth, the very real divisions between the religious centre and the periphery, the urban church and the rural, and between Anglican and Methodist worship traditions. Additionally, the chapter has demonstrated that grassroots religion can mean many different but interwoven things. The doughty figure of Matthew Brown of Wigton appears throughout the narrative because his letters to Kingsley Barrett and Kenneth Mackenzie reveal his angry denunciation of Anglican–Methodist union as inimical to the traditions and individuality of his own locality. Yet, despite the failure of the Conversations and return to the status quo, this stalwart local Methodist eventually resigned from Methodism completely. Other influences – those of evangelicalism, conservatism and tradition – cannot be disregarded in any discussion of grassroots opinion; for Brown’s final disaffection came about, not because of continuing anxieties over Church union, but because of plans to ordain women into the Methodist ministry, a development he could not condone. According to local records, he joined the Church of England.101 Yet, whatever prejudices such grassroots churchgoers of the Conversations period might have held, or whatever accommodating changes they might have made in their worship practices, the fact remains that there are now fewer of them. Despite the Church’s brave talk of mission, the grassroots are now subject to what appears to be an unending Christian drought.

194  Jane Platt

Notes 1 Google Books Search, ‘grassroots’. 2 www​.collinsdictionary​.com​/us​/dictionary​/english​/grassroots (accessed 3 June 2019). 3 During the year in which this chapter was written, the term was almost ubiquitous in discussions of ‘Brexit’ (Britain’s exit from the European Community): for example, ‘Conservative Grassroots turn against their MPs over Brexit’, Sunday Times, 27 January 2019. 4 For example, see the I. Newspaper, 6 July 2018, 27: ‘At grassroots level there are already many vibrant examples of churches working together’. 5 Robert Currie, Methodism Divided: A Study in the Sociology of Ecumenism (London, 1968), Chapters 2 and 7, particularly 256, 263, 309. 6 https://www​.methodist​.org​.uk​/about​-us​/the​-methodist​-church​/what​-is​-distinctive​-about​-methodism​/a​-grassroots​-movement/ (accessed 1 August 2019). 7 See Sue Rodd, ‘“With One Accord?” A Case Study in Twenty-First Century Rural Ecumenism: An Exploration of Existing and Possible Ecumenical Collaboration in a Wiltshire Village, as perceived by the Community’, MA in Ministry thesis, Oxford Brookes University, Ripon College Cuddesdon (May 2011), 5. 8 From the typescript of a talk given by Donald English to Wesley College Forum, 7 December 1990: Oxford Centre for Methodism and Church History (henceforth OCMCH), Donald English Papers (henceforth DEP), /K/1/3. 9 See Chapter 5 by John Lenton. 10 https://www​.thebritishacademy​.ac​.uk​/sites​/default​/files​/01​%20Barrett​.pdf. 11 Kingsley Barrett Obit., Daily Telegraph, 6 September 2011. 12 Transcript of a recording of a conversation conducted between Kingsley Barrett and P. Catterall, 5 June 1991, OCMCH, DAMUC/PC5. 13 Barrett Obit., Daily Telegraph, 6 September 2011. 14 Transcript of a conversation between Barrett and P. Catterall, 5 June 1991, OCMCH, DAMUC/PC5. 15 Adrian Hastings, A History of English Christianity 1920–1990 (London and Philadelphia, 3rd edition, 1991), 391–5, 466, 520, 530–1, 540–1. 16 Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church: An Interim Statement (London, 1958), 41, 45. 17 Report of the Anglican–Methodist Unity Commission: Anglo-Methodist Unity 2. The Scheme (London, 1968), see OCMCH, DAMUC/PUB1/1 (Authors A-P). 18 Callum Brown charts the cultural and psychological shifts in religious attitudes in post-war Britain, particularly from the 1960s, in The Death of Christian Britain (Oxford, 2001); for an overview, see his Introduction, 1–15. 19 Anglican–Methodist Unity, 2. The Scheme (1968), 181; see also discussion of Methodist union in 1932, in Currie, Methodism Divided, 189. 20 Margaret Reid to K. Mackenzie, 6 May 1967, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC1/4, 1967. 21 T.E. Jessop, Not This Way (Oxford, 1969), OCMCH, DAMUC/PUB1. 22 See Kingsley Barrett correspondence, 1961–1991, e.g. 22 February, 31 March, 10 July 1965; 19 May, 5 June, 21 September, 12 October 1967, 10 December 1968: OCMCH, DAMUC/KB5. 23 For suspicion of the motives of the Methodist Recorder (henceforth MR), see OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC1, 25 January, 1 July 1966. For refusal to offer a speaking platform, see DAMUC/NLC1/2, letters: 29 October 1965, 24 January, 14 February 1966. There were complaints that the case for union was

Anglican–Methodist Conversations 

195

being presented everywhere: see letter circulated among young Methodists in the Fylde area of Lancashire, 1 July 1966, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC1. 24 Kenneth Mackenzie to W.E. Pigott, ed. MR, 10 September 1968, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC1/5, 1968. 25 Transcript of a conversation between Barrett and P. Catterall, 5 June 1991, OCMCH, DAMUC/PC5. 26 Mackenzie to Franz Hildebrandt, 5/8 October 1968; Norman Snaith to Mackenzie, 11 November 1968, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC1/5. 27 Hildebrandt to Barrett, 13 November 1964, 24 April 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/KB5/3. Roland Lamb to various dissentients, 14–17 April 1967; Snaith to Barrett, 5 June 1967; Hildebrandt to Barrett, 21 September 1967, OCMCH, DAMUC/KB5/6. 28 7 August 1964, OCMCH, DAMUC/KB5/3. 29 Gilbert Blackburn to Barrett, 17 August 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/KB5/4. 30 Amos Cresswell to Barrett, 13 July 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/KB5/4. 31 Snaith to Mackenzie, 21 December 1966, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC1/3, 1966. The President (1966) was Douglas W. Thompson. 32 Currie, Methodism Divided, 311. 33 The vote was as follows: 524 in favour; 153 against (77.4% in favour). Clergy and laity of the Church of England failed to reach the required 75% vote (aggregate 69%), see George Thompson Brake, Policy and Politics in British Methodism 1932–1982 (London, 1984), 134–5. 34 Rupert Davies, ‘Since 1932’, in Rupert Davies, A. Raymond George and Gordon Rupp (eds), A History of the Methodist Church in Great Britain, vol. 3 (London, 1983), 362–90, at 378. 35 Atherstone, ‘Evangelical Dissentients’, 107; http://www​.freemethodist​.org​.uk​ /about​-us​/background​-and​-history​-of​-the​-fm​-denomination (accessed 3 June 2019). 36 He made his conservative-evangelical views and his consequent anxieties about union very clear in an undated essay entitled, ‘My Dilemma’, OCMCH, DEP/H/1/1. 37 November 1971, OCMCH, DEP/H/1/8. 38 Derek Tidball, ‘“Secession is an Ugly Thing”: The Emergence and Development of Free Methodism in late twentieth-century England’, Wesley and Methodist Studies 3 (2011), 55–79, at 57–8. 39 Tidball, ‘Secession is an Ugly Thing’, 58–9. 40 Tidball, ‘Secession is an Ugly Thing’, 59, 60. 41 Tidball, ‘Secession is an Ugly Thing’, 59; Martin Wellings, Evangelicals in Methodism: Mainstream, Marginalised or Misunderstood? (Ilkeston, 2005), 35; Martin Wellings, ‘Evangelicalism in Twentieth-Century Methodism’, in Mark Smith (ed.), British Evangelical Identities Past and Present, vol. 1 (Milton Keynes, 2008), 55. 42 James Dingley and P. Catterall, ‘Language, Religion and Ethno-National Identity: The Role of Knowledge, Culture and Communication’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 14, https://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1080​/01419870​.2019​.1587309 (accessed 5 September 2019). 43 Grace Davie, Religion in Britain since 1945 (Oxford, 1994), 172. 44 Brake, Policy and Politics, 133; The Grass Roots? Facts and Figures of the Methodist Voting (‘LTC’, Bolton, 1969), ‘Reproduced by Kind Permission of the Church of England Newspaper and The Record’, 1. 45 Grass Roots: Facts and Figures, 30–3. 46 Voting results in Tables 10.1a, 10.1b and 10.3 were taken from the votes of English Circuit Quarterly Meetings, published in Grass Roots: Facts and Figures; for Table 10.3, see 25.

196  Jane Platt 47 See John Newton’s biography of Bishop Edward King: Search for a Saint: Edward King (London, 1977), 82. 48 ‘Statistics-for-Mission’, pdf, Methodist Conference, 2017. 49 This is suggested by Hastings, English Christianity, 622–3. 50 Tidball, ‘Secession is an Ugly Thing’, 62. 51 Information given here and in Table 10.2 was collated from local records and the MR Supplement, 10 April 1969, by Cumbrian Methodist, Ralph Wilkinson. I would like to thank him for his help. The chart omits Alston as being geographically and culturally more similar to the north-east of England: it is the only Cumbrian Methodist Circuit situated within the Anglican Diocese of Newcastle. 52 On redundancy, see Martin Wellings, ‘Renewal, Reunion and Revival: Three British Methodist Approaches to “Serving the Present Age” in the 1950s’, Methodist History (53.1), October 2014, 21–39, at 26. 53 See P. Catterall, Labour and the Free Churches, 1918–1939 (London, 2016), 88–90. 54 Currie, Methodism Divided, 194. 55 David Clark, Between Pulpit and Pew: Folk Religion in a North Yorkshire Fishing Village (Cambridge, 1982), 80. 56 Brake, Policy and Politics, 416–7. 57 MR, 21 April 1966; I would like to thank Pippa Catterall for offering this information. 58 Hastings, English Christianity, 622. 59 Local information, Brampton Circuit. 60 ‘Northampton Miracle’, MR, 1 October 1959. The Northampton situation was described as ‘one of the most intractable of all the problems of amalgamation’, see Wellings, ‘Renewal, Reunion and Revival’, 26. For another example of the longevity of Primitive Methodism (in Wiltshire), see Sue Rodd, ‘With One Accord’, 13. 61 Henry T. Wigley to Barrett, 15 July 1963. OCMCH, DAMUC/KB5/2. 62 Hastings, English Christianity, 622; see also David Clark, Between Pulpit and Pew, 81–8. 63 https://www​.rushdenheritage​.co​.uk​/Villages​/Raunds​/raunds​-primitivemethodist​.html 64 Rev. R.A. Letch to Barrett, 22 November 1963, OCMCH, DAMUC/KB5/2; Rev. R.A. Letch to Mackenzie, 30 August 1965, DAMUC/NLC1/2. 65 Mackenzie (1912–83), appointments from 1952: Wesley College York (1952– 57); Bolton Mission (1957–64); Morecambe and Heysham (1964–69); Kirkby Stephen, Appleby and Tebay (1969–77). Special Interests, ‘Ecumenical Follies’: Garlick’s Methodist Registry (London, 1983), 223. 66 See Matthew Brown to Mackenzie, 17 March 1967, OCMCH, DAMUC/ NLC1/4. 67 24 January, 14 February, 12 September 1966, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC1/3. 68 James Carver of Tunbridge Wells to Mackenzie, 25 March 1967, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC1/4. 69 Conversation with John Huggon of Wigton Road Methodist Church, Carlisle, 27 February 2017. 70 Carlisle Cathedral Broadsheet, Dec. 1981: Carlisle Cathedral Archive: CCA/W/19/9. 71 For example, Rev. Harold W. Sendall to Mackenzie, 25 January 1966, OCMCH, DAMUC/NLC1. 72 Snaith to Barrett, 8 February 1974, OCMCH, DAMUC/KB5/9. 73 See also P. Allen, ‘One Village Church: Is there an appropriate ecumenical perspective for local churches in rural Oxfordshire?’ (MA dissertation, Oxford

Anglican–Methodist Conversations 

197

Brookes University, 2004). The dissertation ‘considers interactions between Methodist and Anglicans in six rural villages, finding that these flourish best in an atmosphere of supportive collaborative leadership, a readiness to allow churches to act independently without feeling threatened, and an absence of patriarchal influences’, quoted by Sue Rodd, ‘With One Accord’, 22. 74 David Bridge to Barrett, 6 March 1963, OCMCH, DAMUC/KB5/2. 75 15 July 1965, 18 April 1963, 8 July 1965, 24 July 1965, 30 August 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/KB5. 76 18 April 1963, 11 July 1964, 17 October 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/KB5. 77 See the large number of Methodist-building images to be found at OCMCH, www​.academia​.edu​/38207982​/British​_Methodist​_Buildings​_promotional​ _material​_2019_ 78 ‘Talks about Talks’, Mansfield College Oxon, committee meeting minutes, 19 December 1973, OCMCH, DEP/H/1/43. 79 Sue Rodd, ‘With One Accord’, 14–5. 80 Matthew Brown of Bolton-Low-houses, Wigton, to Barrett, 30 July 1965, OCMCH, DAMUC/KB5/4, 1965. 81 In the language of Cultural Dynamics, he and the Lancashire breakaway Methodists might be termed ‘settlers’, see http://www​.cultdyn​.co​.uk​/valuesmodes3​.html. 82 Taken from Oxford Circuit leaders’ meeting members list, 1955, courtesy of Rev. Dr Martin Wellings. Leaders’ meetings were first constituted in Bristol in 1739 but in the 1974 restructuring of the Methodist Church, leaders’ and trustees’ meetings were taken over by the Church Council: John A. Vickers (ed.), A Dictionary of Methodism in Britain and Ireland (Peterborough, 2000), 200. 83 David Clark, Survey of Anglicans and Methodists in Four Towns (London, 1965). 84 Email correspondence between Jane Platt and David B. Clark, September 2018. 85 Leaders’ meetings included both lay members and ministers. For the composition of the leaders’ meeting during the time of the Conversations, see Harold Spencer and Edwin Finch (eds), The Constitutional Practice and Discipline of the Methodist Church (London, 1951, and subsequent revisions), 1, 4. 86 There was a similar divergence in a Wiltshire village in 2011: see ‘Sue Rodd, ‘With One Accord’, 67. 87 Clark, Survey, 71. 88 Clark, Survey, 103. 89 Clark, Survey, 3–4. 90 Ellesmere Port voted in favour: 43 to 12, as did Trowbridge: 48 to 32: see Grassroots: Methodist Voting. 91 Manchester Guardian, 4 May 1972, 14. 92 For an introduction to AEEs and LEPs, see Local Church Unity: Guidelines for Local Ecumenical Projects and Sponsoring Bodies (London, 1985). 93 See Alan Munden, ‘Encountering the House Church Movement: ‘A Different Kind of Christianity’, https://biblicalstudies​.org​.uk​/pdf​/anvil​/01​-3​_201​.pdf (accessed 4 June 2019). 94 ‘Talks about Talks’, 5 February 1974, OCMCH, DEP/H/1/46. 95 New Town Ministers’ Conference. Report on Methodist/Anglican Church, Fairhill, Cwmbran New Town Monmouthshire, 1971–72, OCMCH, DEP/H/1/57. 96 Though disestablished in 1920, the Church in Wales is the Anglican Church in Wales. It is an independent member of the Anglican Communion, https://www​

198  Jane Platt .anglicancommunion​.org​/structures​/member​-churches​/member​-church​.aspx​ ?church​=wales (accessed 5 September 2019). 97 D.M. Daymond, ‘Ecumenism and Methodism: An Exploration of Its Application in Two Contrasting Circuits, Swindon and Marlborough and the Forest of Dean’, M.Th. dissertation, University of Oxford (2000), 70. 98 William Gowland to Barrett, 16 November 1955, OCMCH, DAMUC/KB4/2. 99 Canon Brian Dawson, ‘The Past, Present and Future Strategies of the Church of England Parishes and Churches in mid-East Cumbria’, M. Phil. thesis, University of Newcastle (2001), 124. Sue Rodd also notes this phenomenon in Wiltshire, ‘With One Accord’, 52–3, 74. 100 Dawson, ‘Church of England … mid-East Cumbria’, 16; conversations between Brian Dawson and Jane Platt, 2018. I would like to thank Canon Dawson for his help during the preparation of this chapter. 101 Telephone conversation with John Huggon of Wigton Road Methodist Church, Carlisle, 27 February 2017. I would like to thank John Huggon for his help during the writing of this chapter.

11 Anglican–Methodist Relations in the Context of the British Army Peter Howson

Introduction Writing in his monumental history of army chaplaincy, Professor Michael Snape, the Michael Ramsey Professor of Anglican Studies at Durham University, noted that since the creation of the Army Chaplains’ Department in 1796, it has ‘both reflected and driven ecclesiastical, theological and pastoral trends in the British churches’.1 He commented further that, ‘The long-term ecumenical dividend that accrued … may well be incalculable but it was no doubt very considerable’.2 As this chapter will show Snape’s assertion was indeed borne out in the experience of some, though not all, of those who served as chaplains in the two World Wars. The need to find pragmatic solutions became one of the features of chaplaincy in the army, especially when serving outside the United Kingdom. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the sharing described in memoirs of the earlier conflicts was also true during the deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq that took place in the early years of the twenty-first century. While the experiences of unity during conflict may have been a common experience of some who shared in the early days of Anglican–Methodist Conversations, little thought was given to how unity in chaplaincy situations might be expressed. As will be shown, without guidance from the Churches, and under pressure from the army, the Royal Army Chaplains’ Department followed a separate path to create a theologically dubious ‘all souls’ ministry.

The Long Shadow of Two World Wars The generation of men, and it was almost exclusively men, who entered into the discussions between Anglicans and Methodists in the 1950s and 1960s was one that had been shaped by the two World Wars. For many, there were memories that went back to the First World War. New situations encountered in that war called for a response which sometimes challenged conventional thinking. The Anglican chaplain to a hospital ship in the Mediterranean recorded his response to the situation that faced him.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003119210-11

200  Peter Howson This afternoon I had an extra Communion service for the men – held it in the dining room. Twenty-seven fellows turned up – another ‘Kikuyu’3 gathering. There were some members of the Church of England, Wesleyan, Presbyterian, a Baptist, one Catholic apostolic and two Congregationalists.4 Another Anglican chaplain in a similar position was more worried about the consequences of such an action: B… and I find ourselves in agreement when it comes to the question of admission to the service of Holy Communion. We admit earnest men of all persuasions. It is against all B…’s theories, but when it comes to a question of practice he owns that he throws theory on one side. I personally am not troubled by any qualms of conscience. Shall we both be excommunicated by our Right Reverend Fathers in God when we return home?5 Both experiences were noteworthy because they were so different from the normal experience in civilian life. It is also likely that to most these would have been unacceptable to those in positions of authority within the Churches. Linda Parker has examined the influence of their experiences as military chaplains on a number of bishops and leading Churchmen.6 While she had nothing to say about any direct contribution to the ecumenical debate, her comments on the formation of the TocH movement have made it clear that relations between the Churches were never the same after the war was over. Some of the ecumenical experiences both during the war and in the immediate aftermath, have been discussed in a study of army chaplaincy during the First World War.7 Once the 1920 Lambeth Conference ‘Appeal to All Christian People’ had failed to provide a route to any formal conversations between Anglicans and Wesleyans, the process of unifying the three branches of Methodism directed energy away from wider ecumenical discussions. It is noteworthy that Archbishop Fisher’s 1946 Cambridge sermon that invited the Free Churches to consider ‘taking episcopacy into their system’ was delivered in the aftermath of the Second World War. An example of Anglican–Methodists relations from that conflict can be found in the experiences of the notorious Oflag 4c prisoner of war camp at Colditz castle. A Methodist chaplain, the Reverend J. Ellison Platt, stayed with some of the wounded who were not evacuated at Dunkirk. He arrived at Colditz in December 1940 and remained there until it was liberated in April 1945. During the whole of his time as a prisoner, he managed to keep a diary, much of which was later published.8 In it there were a number of references to acts of worship. These most frequent comments relate to services at the major festivals of Christmas and Easter. Although Platt often differed from

Anglican–Methodist Relations 

201

his two Anglican colleagues, preferring a non-sacramental service when they wished to hold a Eucharist, the three British chaplains frequently co-operated in holding a united service. The two World Wars had brought Christians in the forces into contact with one another in a way that had been impossible before 1914. With the continuation of National Service until 1960, and with much of the army located in West Germany and thus solely reliant on army chaplains for their spiritual care, it should be no surprise that inter-church relation was a noteworthy topic during that period. The following comments are from Methodist sources. The Wesleyan and then after 1933, the now united Methodist Church had maintained a department that handled military chaplaincy, reporting annually to the Conference. For most of the period, there was no such centralised expression within the Church of England. Indeed, the Anglican Bishops’ Committee on Army Chaplaincy, founded during the Second World War, was abolished as unnecessary by Archbishop Michael Ramsey. Until the reorganisation of Methodist central structure in the early 1990s, the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force Board of the Methodist Church (henceforth Forces Board) reported annually to the Conference. As early as 1961, before ‘Conversations’ had officially begun, it was noting the importance of ecumenical contacts. This part of the report [of the Forces Board] would not be complete without reference to the inter-denominational co-operation that is increasingly practised in all three services. In this respect the Church in the Forces has never been behind its civilian counterpart, and it is good to report that in these days of fast-improving interdenominational relationships we are maintaining our place. One of our ministers speaks of the team-work by the chaplains concerned, whereby they plan their approach together, frequently meeting for prayers with each other. Another tells of the co-operation of both Anglican and Roman Catholic colleagues on a closed-circuit radio. It would seem that the Church in the Forces is impressed with the urgency of a united witness to its Lord.9 With the end of National Service Methodist army chaplains, who lacked the formal linkage with the Church of Scotland and the Free Churches that their colleagues experienced in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, would need to consider whether their task was minister to the scattered small groups of declared Methodists across the army or to take on a more local role as the ‘Man of God’ in a particular unit or garrison.10 The latter might have something to offer to the wider church in its thinking about shared ministry to an increasingly secular world. It also made sense in the British Army of the Rhine where there were insufficient chaplains to meet the needs of the whole community.

202  Peter Howson

The Involvement of the Military in Formal Talks between Anglicans and Methodists The experience of Anglicans and Methodist working together and alongside each other in the services over the years would suggest that some recognition of that activity might be expected in formal discussions between the two Churches. As a result, there was in the 1968 Scheme a mention of military chaplaincy in the section on the Methodist Church under ‘Church, Community and State’.11 Reference was made to ‘paid chaplaincies in hospitals and the armed forces’. A similar reference was made to chaplaincies in the paragraphs covering the Church of England where reference was made to ‘the chaplaincy system in the armed forces, prisons and more recently hospitals’.12 No specific mention was then made of the future relations within the armed forces. The report rather concentrated on newer areas, declaring, ‘There must be a ministry of identification with, and service to, both sides of industry, together with a planned policy towards radio, television, other mass media and the arts’.13 The military community was already being sidelined. Had the memory of wartime colleagueship already faded? Did the willingness to work together in ways that could not be countenanced in the United Kingdom mean that the experience in the army was too dangerous to rate a proper discussion? In subsequent documents, references to experiences in the army became even sparser. By the time of the 2001 Covenant, there was no mention of the involvement of either Church with the military community. Looking at the sections of the Covenant where there might have been a mention of the armed forces revealed the following: Paragraphs 26–32 described the Methodist Church as it saw itself. These contained no mention of Methodist involvement with the forces. Paragraphs 33–36 described the Church of England as it saw itself. These made mention of involvement with education but made no reference to any work with the forces. Paragraphs 46–49 were part of a Section on ‘Working Together’. They dealt with what was headed ‘In Local unity’. There was no mention in this section of any working together in the non-parochial situation and no reference to the forces.14 While the Methodists who helped to draw up the document might be forgiven for being unaware of the involvement of their Church with the army, the understanding of the Church of England as the established ‘National’ Church should surely have required some discussion of how the two Churches interacted in non-local situations. Given the experiences of many chaplains, both on operations such as the First Gulf War and in the British cantonments across the northern part of Germany, such an omission reflects a sadly diminished view of the mission of the Church to the wider community. It might also reflect the reality that since the 1960s, the British mainstream Churches had

Anglican–Methodist Relations 

203

been becoming ever more functionally pacifist and that discussion of work with the armed forces had been increasingly sidelined. The lack of inclusion of military chaplains in the discussions over the years has been symptomatic of a wider exclusion of those working out with the Parochial or Circuit system, other than in theological education or the leadership of the Church.

The Reaction to the Conversations within the Armed Forces The disappearance of Chaplaincy in the forces from national debates about ecumenical activity did not mean the end of such experiences in the army. Military chaplains continued to experience opportunities to work together, and after the 1968 Scheme was published, in some cases to make their own plans. The next part of this chapter will consider what took place within the army community. The Forces Board Report to the 1969 Methodist Conference noted that the Services were a unique community: Anglican Methodist Conversations: Owing to the closely integrated system under which Chaplains in the Services work, this is a matter of the deepest interest, not only to the Chaplains of all denominations concerned, but also to the Services. We are grateful to the Revd Dr Eric W Baker MA, who accepted an invitation to a conference of Church of Scotland and Free Church Chaplains of the Royal Navy, and also to the Revd Leslie Davison, who addressed a conference of Methodist Chaplains stationed in the United Kingdom and BAOR. Many questions arose, and it was recognised that special attention will need to be given to the unique situation in the Services, if the Churches are to proceed.15 The following year saw a comment about how different chaplains could be to their civilian counterparts. It also presaged what would happen over time. Denominational boundaries are continually crossed and increasingly Chaplains are judged by what they are rather than by their denominations …. At Bovington,16 a Methodist Chaplain has been charged with the spiritual welfare and instruction of everyone in a regiment of 120 permanent staff and 100 boys.17 As has been noted, the ‘special attention’ was not forthcoming. What did occur was an increase in situations such as that described at Bovington where either an Anglican or a Methodist chaplain would be the single point of spiritual care. There was, however, one attempt to apply the development of the new concept of ‘Local Ecumenical Projects’ in the army.

A Case Study: Experience at Catterick Garrison When Catterick Camp was built during the First World War, it had been provided with two large Anglican churches, St Oswald’s and St. Aidan’s,

204  Peter Howson both built in the style of Bavarian barns. The decision to retain the camp after the war, as a centre for military training, resulted in the building of additional churches. Among them was a Wesleyan church. The opportunity was taken by the Forces Board to erect a building that would serve as a memorial to the Wesleyans who had died during service in the First World War. Initially, as with the two Wesleyan churches that served the military community in Aldershot, Grosvenor Road and North Camp, it remained the property of the Wesleyan Church. Unlike them it attracted few civilians to worship, located as it was in the centre of an army camp. With the general rundown of the army in the late 1920s and early 1930s, the upkeep of the building became an expense that it was increasingly difficult to bear. As a result, in 1936, the building was handed over to the War Office. Apart from the source of funding, little else changed until 1960 with the exception that ‘Wesley Memorial Church’ had the melancholy additional responsibility to serve as a memorial to all the Methodists who had died during the Second World War.18 The final disappearance, in the early 1960s, of the last men who had been serving their time on National Service saw a decrease in the numbers in the congregation attending garrison churches. That was especially true at Wesley Memorial. The Methodist chaplain stationed in Catterick in 1960 was the Rev. C.W.R. Gilbert. He noted that the end of National Service saw a sudden and large drop in the size of the congregation. Also, where there had previously been musically talented men, there was now no choir and no guarantee of a soldier being able to play the organ for services. Instead of ministering to a group based on the church who looked to it as a point of contact with their civilian lives, Gilbert now found that he had to go looking for soldiers who had declared themselves ‘Methodist’ on their documents but who might have little interest in attending church. The recruits arriving in Catterick for training were also less and less likely to have had previous contact with the church as Methodist membership and congregations outside the Army dwindled in numbers.19 St Martin’s Garrison Church, which had always been served by an Anglican chaplain, had had similar problems. It, too, had been built in the days of compulsory church parades. It had at least 1,000 seats and was attended by only a few people each Sunday. It was also a less substantial structure. As it was adjacent to the Wesley Memorial Methodist Church, there was every encouragement to form close ties, especially when the respective Churches were developing a unity scheme. That sudden drop in church attendance in the army also coincided with a wider collapse of church attendance during the 1960s.20 Thus, it made sense that at the same time as the wider Anglican–Methodist scheme for union, a plan was worked out in this garrison for a permanent union of congregations. It led to results that were very different from those that had been originally intended. Despite the eventual failure of the Conversations between Anglicans and Methodists to produce an acceptable plan for the union of the two Churches,

Anglican–Methodist Relations 

205

formal discussions between the congregations of the Wesley Memorial (Methodist) Church and St Martin’s (Church of England) Garrison Church began in 1973. Two years later, these led to an agreement being drawn up for the two congregations to share the Methodist building.21 Signed on 2 April 1975, it was a simple one-page document. It set out the background to the position as it was at the time and then laid down four conditions. The statement began by recognising the symbolic importance of the Methodist church building. The symbolism was clear both from its history and from what was understood by the Methodist Forces Board as agreed at the time of its handover to the War Office. The Wesley Memorial Church, Catterick Camp, is the only Methodist Garrison Church in the British Army. It is a memorial to the Wesleyan Chaplains, sailors, soldiers and airmen who gave their lives in the 1914– 1918 War. The Church organ was installed as a memorial to those who gave their lives in the 1939–1945 War. This Church is now the property of the Ministry of Defence, having been handed over to the War Department by the Methodist Church on condition that provision would always be made for Divine Services according to the Methodist tradition and usage. The Chaplain General is responsible for the staffing and care of the Church.22 The sharing document recognised the value of the Conversations that had been taking place between the congregations of Wesley Memorial and St. Martin’s. The agreement stated the importance of giving official recognition to what it saw as a local partnership that had developed. As it was an experiment, the agreement was to run until 1979, before which time it could only be altered with the agreement of both the Chaplain General and the Methodist Forces Board. How the agreement would work was covered in three short paragraphs: (b) That the building to be used shall be the Methodist Memorial Church, and its future name/title shall be suggested by the local congregations to the Chaplain General, who will consult with the Secretary [of the Forces Board]; (c) That the Chaplain General undertakes to appoint a Church of England Chaplain and a Methodist Chaplain, who are prepared to work in partnership, to the Ministry of this Church; (d) Services shall be arranged with the due regard to the Anglican and Methodist traditions and needs. There shall be separate Anglican and Methodist Services of Holy Communion.23 The lack of an agreed title for the partnership indicated that there were still outstanding issues. More significantly, the agreement failed to make any reference to an important issue in army chaplaincy. The RAChD had a hierarchical structure. One of the chaplains appointed to the church would

206  Peter Howson inevitably have to be the senior. As actually happened, he might also hold a senior post among the chaplains in Catterick. This gave him potential leverage in the issues that still needed to be solved. As the Anglican chaplains came from an Established Church, in an army that at that time took such a status seriously, there would also be issues to be faced that would not occur in any similar civilian agreement. In its report to the Methodist Conference of 1975, the Board was cautious about the success of the project. It stated that, ‘the Board feels that whilst the principle is right there is much that must be tested and tried before making a final evaluation of such a joint project’.24 The success of the sharing agreement, as the original agreement indicated, ultimately required the appointment of chaplains who were prepared to work together. At the end of the 1970s, it would appear that two chaplains were posted to Catterick who interpreted working together in one church as taking alternative services according to their own tradition.25 I do not feel that this was truly an ecumenical experiment …. Services continued throughout my time on an alternative CofE/Methodist basis. When it was an Anglican service I sat in the congregation – when it was Methodist, the Anglican sat in the congregation. Nor was there any real attempt to bring the two congregations together.26 At the same time, a more general reorganisation of churches within Catterick was proposed. In addition to the Methodist and Anglican Churches, the United Board, the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church had also provided buildings for the permanent garrison that developed after the First World War. In 1982, following a request from the Church of England chaplain that the Anglicans take over the use of Wesley Memorial Church, the garrison Commander took the decision that there was a requirement for only three churches. The Roman Catholics were allowed to remain in their building. The Church of England was allowed sole use of what had been renamed ‘Garrison Memorial Church’, and all others were to use St Aidan’s. This was a building originally provided by the Church of Scotland, which, like the Methodist building, had passed into War Office control when the cost of maintaining it became too great. The Methodist Forces Board reported the situation to the Methodist Conference of 1982, arguing that it had accepted the change because of ‘the failure of several attempts and experiments’, and because ‘Methodist worship in the Army is more in line with the Church of Scotland than that of the Church of England’.27 The Church of Scotland accepted the changes, noting that The Convenor and Hon. Sec. were authorised on behalf of the Church of Scotland to approve the proposals that the Methodist Memorial Church should be handed over to the Church of England, that St Aidan’s Church of Scotland should become the Church for the Church of Scotland and

Anglican–Methodist Relations 

207

Free Churches in the Garrison and that St John’s Baptist Church should be closed.28 The minutes of the Forces Board showed a curious lack of interest in the subject; the Memorial Church had already been renamed and the United Board Garrison Church known as ‘St John the Baptist’ had already been closed. Of interest was the way that the Committee seemed prepared to countenance the existence of a Church of Scotland and Free Church grouping within the army. Such was the norm in both the Royal Navy and the RAF, but had not been so in the army. Indeed, in a posting in the late 1970s, the author had been refused permission to attend the Kirk Session associated with the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards while serving as their chaplain.

Other Experiences of Anglican–Methodist Relations in the Army The outcome of the Catterick situation appeared to owe more to pragmatism than to any policy on ecumenism within the Royal Army Chaplains’ Department. This was equally true of the position in the British Army of the Rhine where a culture had developed by the 1970s of accepting the ministry of whatever chaplain was in station. This was inevitably reinforced by a sequence of postings that did not lead to a consistency of denomination in one station. The final three chaplains stationed in Birdwood Barracks, Bünde, before its closure in 1992, and thus responsible for St Peter’s Garrison Church, were an Anglican, followed by a Baptist, and then another Anglican. As Thiede noted of his experiences of the British military churches, there was always, in his experience, an ‘open table’ and that intercommunion had never been a problem.29A review of ecumenical activity carried out in 1987 in one area of the British army’s footprint in Germany showed that, apart from the garrison at Bergen-Hohne, and not including the Catholic chaplaincy, one church was provided for the military population.30 As the review commented: All experience a mixed congregation. Even the [Free Church] chaplain in a station with an Anglican chaplain nearby had 20% who were Anglicans. The others report 50% and 60% of their congregations as Anglicans. The Free Church chaplains report the highest percentages of those from non-RAChD denominations.31 In one case this was 40%. Another records 5%. This figure is matched by two Anglicans, and indeed surpassed by one who records a figure of 10%. It may be that Anglican chaplains are less able to recognise the existence of representatives of small denominations and include them in the Free Church total. It is also possible that they do not attract them to the services which they hold. To put this in context it has to be pointed out that the majority of chaplains do not always know, or indeed ask, the denomination

208  Peter Howson of those who come to church. Indeed, in a station where there is only one Garrison Church, and a service by a visiting Roman Catholic chaplain, it often seemed pointless to ask.32 The same review sought to understand how chaplains regarded their actions with respect to guidance received from their own Church. Somewhat surprisingly, despite the experiences of ministering to far from homogeneous congregations, the chaplains did not record an overwhelming belief that the RAChD had anything to offer to the civilian church in the area of ecumenical activity. There were three who felt that there was ‘a great deal’ to offer from their army experience and a further eight who felt that it had ‘something’ to offer. One chaplain felt strongly enough to indicate that in his opinion, there was ‘very little’ for the civilian church to learn from the army on ecumenism.33 The chaplains were also asked about how far they were governed in their actions by the directives of their own denominations in working with Christians from other Churches than their own. In the answers given to the question, over two-thirds indicated that they would be strongly guided by their denominational guidelines. In follow-up interviews, this subject was raised to test the validity of these responses. The following comment was made, that showed an inevitable tension between what people say and what they do: It became clear in later interviews that a number of chaplains were not at all clear on the rules for ecumenical co-operation laid down by their denomination. Even those that were acknowledged that, in the army, they were rarely applied. They might also seem inappropriate.34 Chaplains could be forgiven some sense of bewilderment about their denominational views on the ecumenical scene in the Army as their experience appeared to count for little in the deliberations of the civilian Churches.

The Royal Army Chaplains’ Department takes an Independent Line As has been shown, the experiences of non-local situations attracted almost no attention in the creation of the 2001 Covenant between the Church of England and the Methodist Church. At the same time, integration of chaplaincy services in the army had received a further stimulus. It came from the army in the form of the Spiritual Needs Study: An Investigation into the Need for Spiritual Values in the Army carried out in 1999.35 As has been shown, it was a step in the change of the balance of control of army chaplains away from the Church leaders and towards the military commanders.36 Among the recommendations was an integration of army chaplaincy into a unified structure. The intention was to remove the parallel administrative

Anglican–Methodist Relations 

209

and command structure of Catholic chaplains to that of what was known as the ‘Unified Department’. It was to have more wide-ranging effects. When the time came, in 2004, to produce guidelines for a fully integrated Royal Army Chaplains’ Department, the official line went further than merely administrative integration. It stated that the chaplains would now offer spiritual care in the situation to which they were posted. The Chaplain General declared: The aim of the new organisation is to create a one-department structure in which denominational issues are untangled from military chaplaincy; furthermore, all chaplains exercise an ‘all souls’ ministry within their respective ecclesiastical parameters and all are under the military authority of the Chaplain General.37 Leaving aside the fact that there had already been Jewish chaplains in the army for nearly a hundred years at that point, it suggested a different model of chaplaincy from that which had existed heretofore. The report did add a rider to the effect that no chaplain would be ‘asked to undertake something that would not meet with the approval of their parent church’, and that denominational integrity would be preserved. Quite how that might happen was not indicated. The new position was outlined on the Ministry of Defence website as follows: Discussions were successfully concluded on 4 May 2004 and a onedepartment structure was declared to be in place from 5 May onwards. This means that there is now one Head of Service who is the Chaplain General. He will exercise leadership of his department through a unified chain from major headquarters to unit. The new structure will allow the Chaplain General to make best use of all his people with duplication of posts at Brigade and Division being phased out as incumbents’ tours end. It will also separate, where appropriate, denominational issues from the delivery of chaplaincy. This will allow chaplaincy posts to be independent of denomination. Chaplains will provide spiritual, moral and pastoral care to our soldiers and their families irrespective of the denomination of those individuals.38 Assurance was given that chaplains would not be asked to ‘undertake something that which would not meet with the approval of their parent church’.39 There were also to be ‘safeguards’ built into the mechanism, although what there were to be was not disclosed. The policy was to become known colloquially as ‘All souls ministry’. The term was given wider credence in 2006 by the Chaplain General to Her Majesty’s Land Forces in an article in The Pennant, the magazine of the Forces Pension society.40 The holder of the office was by then the Reverend David Wilkes,

210  Peter Howson a Methodist chaplain and the first English Free Church minister to be Chaplain General. His immediate predecessor had been the Venerable John Blackburn, an Anglican. While careful to indicate that chaplains would still remain responsible for the specific sacramental and liturgical needs of their own faith communities, he commented that ‘they will also embrace the task of providing spiritual, moral and pastoral support for all those in their care’.41 Given the intention to move to a one chaplain to each unit model, it might have been thought that the potential for problems to arise between the two potentially conflicting roles required that a set of guidelines should have been produced. Methodist and Anglican chaplains appear to have been relaxed about the new arrangements despite the absence of any agreed statement of interchangeable ministries in the civilian Churches. More opposition came from within the Catholic Church. While in theory the agreement meant facilitating the faith needs of others by finding a chaplain of their denomination in practice, this was often difficult, if not impossible. Catholic chaplains appear to have found the change harder to accept than did others. A report in The Tablet in September 2009 found a degree of unhappiness among Catholic army chaplains about the fact that they no longer ministered solely to Catholics. Three were said to have left the army as a result of the new policy. Monseigneur Stephen Alker, the Principal Catholic Chaplain and Vicar General of the Army, who had overseen the Catholic integration commented, ‘It is about balancing the primary role of chaplains to care for Catholics but also be ecumenical in caring for others’.42 He also believed that the scheme needed to be ‘watched’ to see how it was working. Despite Monseigneur Alker’s expectation that the new arrangements would be under review, there does not seem to have been any subsequent evaluation of the impact of the scheme. While it removed an administrative anomaly that had existed in the Royal Army Chaplains’ Department since the Creedy Settlement of 1920,43 it implied a closer integration of ministry than previously. Without any doctrine of chaplaincy agreed between the army authorities and the Churches from which chaplains have been recruited, and by whom their ministry is endorsed, it is uncertain as to what might be expected of any individual chaplain. Since the new policy came at the same moment as most chaplaincy requirements were to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the priorities for individual chaplains rarely brought into question any conflict with the practices of their own Church. They were not absent but largely subsumed under the more pressing needs of the operations. One chaplain who believed that the repatriation service at Camp Bastion was the opportunity for preaching a sermon may have reflected his attitude to the role of Christian ministry in the face of death but found himself rebuked by the Commander who saw the event as a ceremony and not a service.44 In what ways the Church of England and the Methodist Church understand their clergy to be representing them in the army in terms of the regulations applied to their civilian colleagues is at present not clear.

Anglican–Methodist Relations 

211

This lack of clarity has had an added dimension with two things happening in the recent past: the end of large-scale deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the return of the army from Germany to the United Kingdom. By the end of 2019, almost all of the army was based in the United Kingdom. This is the first time in the modern era that this has been true. There was an added dimension to this new situation. Since the introduction of the Military Salary in 1972, the army is comprised mostly of married officers and soldiers. Whereas those corps of the army, such as the Royal Army Medical Corps and Royal Army Dental Corps, that had a responsibility for the care of families overseas but no such general responsibility when in the United Kingdom, the Royal Army Chaplains’ Department has considered itself as having a duty of care to both the soldier and his family wherever they happen to be. There is no evidence that the number of chaplains on the establishment of the Royal Army Chaplains’ Department has ever been calculated with that in mind. Thus, there is now a situation in which there is potential confusion within the larger garrisons such as Catterick and Salisbury Plain where the Methodist presence is non-existent, and the Church of England has been spread thinly in a series of united benefices. When serving in the United Kingdom and relating to families, are army chaplains to be perceived as priests or ministers of their own denomination or as acting in some form of ‘all souls ministry’? Given that the chaplains have a primary responsibility to serve where the soldiers serve, does the desire to maintain a ministry to the military families resident on the expanded housing areas around Salisbury Plain mean that should all the chaplains be required to deploy, there would be a sudden collapse in spiritual care being provided for dependents and a default to an expectation that the civilian Church would then provide such care? Given that deployments might involve casualties, and thus need extended pastoral care for dependents, the problems facing the Methodist Church and the Church of England in such a situation would be considerable. The interface in the United Kingdom between army chaplaincy as ‘all souls ministry’ and as representative of a denomination as the sending Church has a different dimension in Aldershot. While the Ministry of Defence has provided three garrison churches, the Anglican All Saints Royal Garrison Church, St Andrew’s Presbyterian Church and the Catholic cathedral church of St Michael and St George, the North Camp Methodist Church has been owned by the Aldershot Methodist Military Trust.45 North Camp has been the Methodist garrison church. Originally it was for North Camp alone, but it has served the whole of the military town in Aldershot since the closure, in the 1970s, of Grosvenor Road Methodist Church, a building that had also been owned by the Trust. Until the 1990s, any Methodist chaplain posted to Aldershot, and until that point there had always been a Methodist chaplain posted to Aldershot, was attached to either Grosvenor Road or North Camp Church and expected to be part of the ministry team at that church. For the last 20 years, Methodist chaplains have either not had a

212  Peter Howson church affiliation, or have been responsible for St Andrew’s, or shared the ministry at the Royal Garrison Church. With the possibility of an increase in the number of chaplains posted to the Aldershot area, it remains to be seen who will be responsible for their attachment for Sunday services: whether it will be the responsibility of the Royal Army Chaplains’ Department or of the sending Church. If Anglican and Methodist chaplains are viewed interchangeably for services at the Royal Garrison Church, then it will be a different situation from that which is understood by the current Covenant discussions. The return of the army to the United Kingdom would appear to reignite a smouldering debate that has concerned some chaplains for many years. Briefly summed up, it is whether the Royal Army Chaplains’ Department oversees the Church in the army or is in effect the Church of the army. Interchangeability of ministry would suggest that without the full understanding or agreement of the sending Churches, it has become the former overseas and is imposing the same model of church on the military community in the United Kingdom. For both Anglicans and Methodists, this has implications for mission and membership as well as ministry.

Conclusion The lack of interest in the non-Parochial/Circuit situations in succeeding rounds of ecumenical discussions has been depressing for those who have served in such appointments. The experience of military chaplains can no doubt be paralleled by those in other chaplaincies such as residential schools, higher education, prisons and the National Health Service. There is an urgent need for those involved in discussions between the Church of England and the Methodist Church to be informed of what has been happening in such situations. Are such ministries harbingers of what the future is to be, and thus to be used as examples of the way forward for the Churches, or are they to be regarded as somewhat eccentric manifestations of particular responses to situations that have nothing to offer to the wider Churches? It would appear that the attitude among those involved in formal discussions between the Church of England and the Methodist Church over the past 50 years has been the latter. If the Churches have had little to offer the military community on the subject of ecumenical activities, let the last word be from a soldier who saw a comparison between army and Church that offered an insight into what it can mean to be at the same time distinct and united. As Field Marshal Wavell wrote in the 1930s: I have sometimes traced a parallel between the various sects of the Christian religion and those of the armed forces. In my parallel the Catholic Church corresponds with the Brigade of Guards, with perfect discipline, much ceremony, and strict adherence to the book in creed and drill. National Churches, such as the Church of England represent

Anglican–Methodist Relations 

213

regiments of the Line, with less discipline, less ceremonial, less absolutism than the Guards. Then there are the Territorials (Wesleyans, Baptists and the like), considered as mere amateurs perhaps by the Guards and the Line, but stout and earnest fighters for the cause. Finally come the Irregulars, who may own no Church and subscribe to no orthodox religion, but whose sniping, ambushes and pandourades against evil in the slums and dark places of life may be sometimes more effective than all the Church goings of the regulars.46 The various cap badges in the army have a long history of valuing their own status and in peace being somewhat mocking of others, but when fighting starts they readily combine into a single force.

Notes 1 M. Snape, The Royal Army Chaplains’ Department 1796–1953: Clergy Under Fire (Woodbridge, 2008), 362. 2 Snape, Royal Army Chaplains’ Department, 362. 3 The ‘Kikuyu crisis’ of 1913 was sparked by the participation of two Anglican missionary bishops in a Presbyterian service of Holy Communion. This was considered ‘heretical’ by some fellow bishops, notably the Bishop of Zanzibar, Frank Weston. See Eugene Stock, History of the Church Missionary Society iv (London, 1916), 409–24. 4 ‘The Padre’, Fifty Thousand Miles on a Hospital Ship (London, 1917), 163. 5 Fifty Thousand Miles on a Hospital Ship, 212. 6 L. Parker, Shellshocked Prophets: Former Anglican Army Chaplains in InterWar Britain (Solihull, 2015). 7 P.J. Howson, Muddling Through: The Organisation of British Army Chaplaincy in World War One (Solihull, 2013), 196–8. 8 J.E. Platt, Padre in Colditz – The Diary of the Reverend J. Ellison Platt (London, 1978). 9 Agenda of the Methodist Conference 1962, 32. 10 Commissioned full-time army chaplains were all men until 2002. 11 Anglican–Methodist Unity Commission, Anglican–Methodist Unity: 2 The Scheme (London, 1968), 95, § 296. 12 The Scheme, § 294. 13 The Scheme, § 301. 14 An Anglican–Methodist Covenant: Common Statement of the Formal Conversations between the Methodist Church of Great Britain and the Church of England (London, 2001). 15 Agenda of the Methodist Conference 1969, 19. 16 The Dorset home of the Royal Armoured Corps. 17 Agenda of the Methodist Conference 1970, 254. 18 ‘A Wesleyan Roll of Honour’, Methodist Recorder, 3 May 2019. See also www​ .mymethodisthistory​.org​.uk​/category​/topics​-2​/war​_memorials​/a​_further​_204​ _late​_returns 19 Information supplied in a letter to Rev. P.J. Howson from the Rev. C.W.R. Gilbert. 20 For a discussion of the impact of the 1960s on the British Churches, see Callum G. Brown, The Death of Christian Britain (London, 2001). 21 ‘Catterick Garrison – Shared Church’, copy of the agreement signed on 2 April 1975, in the possession of the Rev. Dr Peter Howson.

214  Peter Howson 22 ‘Catterick Garrison – Shared Church’. 23 ‘Catterick Garrison – Shared Church’. 24 Agenda of the Methodist Conference 1975, 143. 25 The information about the Catterick situation is from a letter dated 20 January 2002 to the Rev. P.J. Howson from the Methodist chaplain who served in Catterick 1979–81 (name redacted). 26 Quoted from the letter referred to in note 25. 27 Agenda of the Methodist Conference 1982, 106. 28 Minute 224 of meeting of Committee on Chaplains to HM Forces of the Church of Scotland held on 17 February 1982, held by the Convenor of the committee. 29 C.P. Thiede, ‘The Church of England in Germany: Aspects of Continuity in Army Chaplaincy’, Publications of the Institute of Germanic Studies 70 (1997), 246. 30 P.J. Howson, ‘Pragmatism or Policy? Ecumenism in the 1st Armoured Division’, a dissertation prepared for the Mid-Service Clergy Course at St George’s House, Windsor Castle (1998). 31 Such denominations included those like the Salvation Army that were not represented among the chaplains in the RAChD. 32 Howson, ‘Pragmatism or Policy?’, 16. 33 Howson, ‘Pragmatism or Policy?’, 18. 34 Howson, ‘Pragmatism or Policy?’, 17. 35 Ministry of Defence, ‘Spiritual Needs Study: An Investigation into the Need for Spiritual Values in the Army’, unpublished internal study in possession of the author (1999). 36 For a detailed discussion of this trend, see P.J. Howson, ‘The Nature and Shape of British Army Chaplaincy 1960–2000’, PhD diss., University of Aberdeen (2006). 37 Letter MOD Chaps (A)/60/1/6 to all Chaplains, 16 August 2004, obtained under a Freedom of Information request. 38 http://www​.army​.mod​.uk​/servingsoldeir​/career​/mcmdivs​/rached​/whatsnew​/ss​ _cmd​_mc (accessed 16 December 2004). 39 http://www​.army​.mod​.uk​/servingsoldeir​/career​/mcmdivs​/rached​/whatsnew​/ss​ _cmd​_mc (accessed 16 December 2004). 40 The Pennant: The Journal of the Forces Pension Society 145 (May 2006), 18–9. 41 Pennant, May 2006, 18–9. 42 ‘Catholic Army Chaplains to quit over Merger’, Tablet, 5 September 2009, 35. 43 Howson, Muddling Through, Chapter 9. 44 Based on information shared with the author during his teaching on the MTh in Chaplaincy Studies at the University of Cardiff, 2004–14. 45 The author is secretary of the Aldershot Methodist Military Trust. It was created in 1859 to provide for the then Wesleyan work in new camps created at Aldershot. It began work in a very different era where conflict rather than cooperation between the Churches was the dominant motif. For a detailed history of the early Wesleyan work in Aldershot and the problems with the Church of England, see O.S. Watkins, Soldiers and Preachers Too (London, 1906). 46 A.P. Wavell, Soldiers and Soldiering (London, 1953), 94.

12 The Anglican-Methodist Service of Reconciliation and the Ordinal of 1968 Phillip Tovey

The second phase of the Anglican–Methodist Conversations, guided by a Unity Commission appointed by the denominations in 1965, led to the development of two liturgical texts. One was the much-debated and muchcriticised ‘Service of Reconciliation’, which because of the collapse of the scheme was never used.1 The other was the Anglican–Methodist Ordinal of 1968, which not only gained a positive reception at the time, but also had a major and lasting impact within Anglicanism and within British Methodism.2 So, while the Service of Reconciliation did not come to pass, the Ordinal was something with an enduring impact, even to the present day. This chapter will therefore look briefly at the Service of Reconciliation before spending more time on the Ordinal.

The Service of Reconciliation The ‘Acts of Reconciliation’ in the 1968 Scheme comprised two principal parts. There was to be a national service – a ‘Central Service of Reconciliation’, led by the President of the Methodist Conference and the archbishops of Canterbury and York, and then a series of ‘local’ services. The liturgical texts for these central and local services were virtually identical. The Service had six elements: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

A declaration of intention An act of penitence An act of thanksgiving The renewal of the covenant Representative acts of reception into either Church A joint confession of faith and thanksgiving

The authors of the final report observed ruefully that ‘the Service of Reconciliation has been a subject of sustained controversy in both our Churches since 1963’.3 The text had undergone substantial revision over the five years of debate. Robin Woods, dean of Windsor and joint secretary of the Commission, told the Church Times in April 1968 that the group was DOI: 10.4324/9781003119210-12

216  Phillip Tovey ‘battered’ by responses to the draft Service of Reconciliation presented in its 1967 interim statement Towards Reconciliation, and that this ‘had forced the members to re-examine the whole structure of the service’.4 The revised text was welcomed by some and accepted by others. In April 1968, for example, the Church Times printed a full-page article by Eric Kemp affirming ‘Unity Commission has answered the Critics’.5 A month later, the newspaper’s leader column opined that the accusations of ‘calculated ambiguity’ levelled at the Service of Reconciliation were unjust, citing and endorsing the Methodist Harold Roberts’ careful choice of the historic Anglican term ‘comprehensive’ to describe the Service.6 The most controversial section of the liturgy was the representative act of reception. There were a number of acts of reception in the Service: a welcome into fellowship, a pledge to closer unity, a thanksgiving and prayers, followed by the laying on of hands with a welcome. A phrase in the Confession of Faith and Thanksgiving, said jointly by all the officiating ministers, was often quoted: We offer ourselves wholly to thee, asking that thou wilt renew in us thy blessings already given, and that thou wilt transcend the differences of our calling and make us one by bestowing upon us what thou knowest us to need for thy service.7 The last phrase was taken by critics to mean some sort of topping up of incomplete ministries. The wording at the laying on of hands was as follows: We welcome you into the fellowship of the Ministry in the Methodist Church/Church of England, to preach the word of God and minister the holy Sacraments among us as need shall arise and you shall be requested so to do. We repeat our pledge that we will serve with you as fellowworkers in Christ and that we will never rest until we have found that fuller unity in him which we believe to be God’s will.8 The President of Conference and other ministers were to say this first, while laying hands on the archbishops and bishops. The Archbishop of Canterbury and four priests were then to lay hands on the Methodists and say the same words, adjusting the Church wording. This replaced the 1963 version of the Service, in which an Anglican bishop would lay hands on each Methodist minister with the words, ‘Take authority to exercise the office of a priest’, and the Methodist presiding minister would lay hands on the head of each Anglican bishop and priest with the words, ‘Take authority to exercise the office of a minister’.9 The 1968 Service followed, in modified form, the model of the Church of North India, seeking to avoid a generation of ministerial disunity leading to full unity, as happened in South India, but including an undefined ‘topping up’ of each of the uniting ministries. The needful extra

The Anglican–Methodist Ordinal of 1968  217 grace was not specified and was therefore left up to God. But those certain of their orders on both sides found this approach vague if not deceitful. Vocal criticism of the Service came from ‘fervent spirits at both ends of the ecclesiastical spectrum’.10 From the Anglo-Catholic side, Graham Leonard, Bishop of Willesden, told a press conference in June 1968: The proposals for reconciliation [i.e., of the ministries of the two Churches] involve an intentional ambiguity which makes the prayers of the Service of Reconciliation irrelevant or irreverent.11 Kingsley Barrett, one of the original Methodist Dissentients and Professor of Theology at Durham, writing in the Evangelical journal The Churchman, condemned the Service: A rite which those who so desire can believe to be the ordination of Methodist ministers, but which others can deny to be any such thing. On paper this is a brilliant idea, worthy of Alice: all have won and all shall have prizes.12 Geoffrey Willis, vicar of Wing, another Anglo-Catholic and Assistant Synodical Secretary, questioned ‘ordination by “reconciliation”’,13 regarding Methodist ministers as laymen and the Service an ‘uncertain method’ of reconciling ministries. He suggested four different approaches and disliked any sort of ‘top up’ view of orders. He also disliked the proposals because he was unsure what type of bishop the Methodist bishops were to be. Evangelicals also criticised the Service. Since the publication of the original 1963 liturgy, they had echoed the complaint of ambiguity. Thus, Colin Buchanan described the 1963 rite as ‘distasteful, unacceptable, perplexing and even dishonest’.14 He started from the position that a Methodist minister was ‘a true and well-ordered minister of word and sacrament’.15 Thus, any re-ordination or supplementation was not required. By 1968, although Buchanan still held that the scheme was ‘pretty misty’,16 Evangelical opposition focused less on the ambiguity of the Service of Reconciliation than on its assumption that episcopal ordination was essential to a valid ministry. Far from being ambiguous, the Service was all too clear in endorsing ‘episcopal exclusiveness’.17 J.I. Packer, the only Anglican Dissentient member of the second phase of the Conversations, appended a brief ‘Note’ to the 1968 Report, explaining his objections. Commending the Methodist ‘Dissentient View’ of 1963 in its rejection of the historic episcopate, Packer affirmed that full communion should not require the integration of ministries: for him, therefore, the Service of Reconciliation was ‘strictly superfluous’.18 This position was supported in an Open Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, signed by 52 leading Evangelicals and published in June 1968.19

218  Phillip Tovey The Voice of Methodism Association, representing those Methodists who were most sceptical about the Scheme, found the proposals clear: characterising and opposing them as •• •• •• ••

Creating unity around episcopacy, not Christ20 Dividing Methodism21 Effecting an Anglican takeover of Methodism22 Containing an ambiguous Service of Reconciliation23

The VMA and other opponents of the Scheme floated the suggestion of creating a ‘Continuing Methodist Church’. There were some Anglo-Catholic Anglicans who wanted unambiguous ordination for Methodist ministers – this was, for instance, the position of the Anglo-Catholic Society of the Holy Cross24 – but Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, was not one of them, telling the Canterbury Diocesan Conference in October 1968: I am frankly agnostic about a great deal of the Methodist ministry, knowing that it is not identical as my own, but also being perfectly certain that they are not just laymen.25 These were the words of someone who was convinced that this was the right step for the Church of England to take and was also convinced that the rejection of the Scheme was a failure of leadership by the Established Church. The Lambeth Conference of 1968 considered the scheme and resolved: We judge that the proposed Service of Reconciliation is theologically adequate to achieve its declared intentions of reconciling the two Churches and integrating their ministries.26 If the trajectory of the service was away from ordination to ‘representative acts of reception’, then it is not entirely clear what this was conceived to be. This was one of the problems. Perhaps too much was asked of the service. It was after all trying to do something, the reconciliation of ministries, that had not been done before. Ordination was perhaps the only category available when considering the issue, but perhaps it was an inadequate one. The Ordinal Anglicans and Methodists in Britain share a common history for the ordinal and a common turning point in the development of thinking and practice for ordinations. This may be examined in three phases. The first is based upon the ordinal of the Book of Common Prayer. The second is the radical transformation of the ordinal based on The Ordinal of the Church of South India of 1958 and the Anglican–Methodist Ordinal of 1968. The third phase

The Anglican–Methodist Ordinal of 1968  219

BCP 1662

BCP 1928

Sunday Service… North America 1784

…Ordination Service Wesleyan Methodists 1848

Book of Offices 1936

The Methodist Service Book 1975

The Methodist Worship Book 1999

Common Worship: Ordination Services 2007

CoS Ordinal 1954

CSI Ordinal 1958

Anglican – Methodist Ordinal 1968

The Alternative Service Book 1980

Figure 12.1 Methodist and Anglican Ordinals.

is the ordinals produced after 1968 in both Anglicanism and Methodism, which might be called those influenced by the Liturgical Movement (see Figure 12.1). The Book of Common Prayer The ordinal in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer was based on the previous editions of that book, i.e., the 1552 Prayer Book and the 1550 Ordinal. Paul Bradshaw has convincingly shown that the ordination prayer in the service for priests and bishops was based on one prayer composed by Martin Bucer.27 As the intention of the Bucerian service was to provide for a single ordered ministry, Cranmer differentiated bishop, priest and deacon by including imperative formulae and symbolic gifts for each order. In 1552, the number of symbolic gifts was reduced to consist simply of a New Testament or Bible. This was later used to lend weight to Puritan assertions that there was little if any difference between a priest and a bishop, so in 1662 some minor modifications were introduced to make the ordinal more clearly supportive of a threefold ministry. Thus, the Church of England’s tradition was of an ordinal with mediaeval roots but significantly modified by a Bucerian prayer of ordination/consecration which had as its primary symbolism Ephesians 4:11: [Jesus] ascended into heaven, and sent abroad into the world his Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Doctors and pastors.28 This was the Prayer Book that was taken around the world with the development of empire and mission and translated into a large number of

220  Phillip Tovey vernacular languages. There were suggestions of minor modifications in the 1928 Prayer Book, in particular by providing a prayer for the ordination of deacons. This was also taken up in interwar liturgical revision in Anglicanism. John Wesley’s Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America included the form and manner of making superintendents, elders and deacons.29 The ordaining of deacons had the superintendent using the imperative formula, ‘Take thou authority’, and the giving of the Bible, as in the Book of Common Prayer. The ordaining of elders had the Bucerian prayer with a modified imperative formula. The ordination of superintendents again followed the Prayer Book pattern with the modified Bucerian prayer. Thus, apart from the titles of the order of ministry, the other minor change was in the imperative formula for elders, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of an Elder in the Church of God’. This is a strong continuation within the Prayer Book tradition. Wesleyan Methodists continued in this close relationship to the Book of Common Prayer and to John Wesley’s abridgment.30 The ordination service as used by the Wesleyan Methodists from 1848 for their single order of ministry, has three prayers said by the President, the second of which is the Bucer prayer based on Ephesians 4.31 The laying on of hands occurs during what in the Prayer Book would be an imperative formula, here modified to a precatory prayer: ‘Mayest thou receive’. Of course, in this ordination service, the word ‘priest’ is avoided, and ‘minister’ used instead. Following Methodist Union in 1932, the 1936 Book of Offices included services for the ordination of deaconesses and of ministers.32 This book has one prayer of ordination for the minister based on the Bucer-BCP prayer and the laying on of hands in the form set out above. The minister is called a ‘Christian Minister and Pastor’ and it is clear that he is to preach the Word and administer the sacraments. In light of this strong tradition with common elements rooted in the mediaeval Church and in the Reformation, with a particular debt to the work of Martin Bucer, it is of significance that as the Anglican–Methodist Unity scheme evolved, and an ordinal was discussed, this common tradition was not continued but rather abandoned by both Churches. This was because of a liturgical development that had occurred in South India, which now needs to be considered.

The Church of South India Ordinal, 1958 The Church of South India, which included both Methodists and Anglicans, was formed in 1947, the result of many years of ecumenical negotiation. The ordination of bishops that occurred in the inaugural services was based on the Anglican ordinal in India at the time.33 However, they were clear that the new Church needed fresh thinking and a new ordinal for a new Church. They were in fact to produce something revolutionary.

The Anglican–Methodist Ordinal of 1968  221 The Prayer Book tradition had been based on two elements: 1. Structurally for bishops and priests, there was a prayer of ordination by the bishop, followed by the laying on of hands with an imperative formula (or in Methodism a modified version thereof). 2. Thematically, the prayer was based on that of Martin Bucer with the root metaphor based on Ephesians 4. The Church of South India was to transform, in particular, the first element. If ordination is prayer with the laying on of hands, the question is: what is the relationship between these two elements? Different Churches have done this in different ways. Cranmer seemed to prefer a loose association between the two, as can be seen in the ordination of deacons, where there is simply an imperative formula, but this suggests the question: where is the element of prayer? Paul Bradshaw sees the answer in the specific additional petition in the litany for the ordination of deacons, but the answer is perhaps easier to see in the ordination prayer of priests and bishops. Modern Roman Catholic revision has the laying on of hands in silence before the ordination prayer.34 In both cases, this is a way to deal with a number of candidates in one service. In early and Eastern traditions, for example in the Apostolic Tradition, the bishop lays hands on the candidate and then recites the whole prayer while hands are still on the head. This is on the assumption that ordinations are only of one candidate to one ministry at one time. Garrett, commenting on the services, makes clear that the context was one in which there would be a multiplicity of candidates: how would the new Church handle this?35 Following the Ordinal and Service Book of the Church of Scotland,36 in 1958 the Church of South India decided to proceed with the pattern of the bishop beginning the ordination prayer, in the middle of which he was to recite a short formula and lay hands on each of the candidates separately. This was to be followed by a prayer over all the candidates, finishing with ‘Amen’. This new structure was a novel way of dealing with the practical problem, and one that was to prove very attractive in the post-war period. Although developed by the Church of Scotland, it was popularised by the Church of South India, not least because the component denominations were looking carefully at what was happening in the south of the subcontinent. The 1958 ordinal had three ordination prayers, one for each order, but all based on this structural pattern.37 There was, perhaps, less thematic development, in that the first part of the ordination prayer for presbyters was dependent upon Ephesians 4. However, the section with the laying on of hands for each individual introduced an epicleptic prayer: ‘send down thy Holy Spirit upon thy servant’, which had not been seen in the Prayer Book tradition before. This showed an Easternising trend, perhaps with some cognizance of the West Syrian tradition in South India and of patristic texts. While the delivery of

222  Phillip Tovey the Bible was done in a similar way to the Book Common Prayer, the right hand of fellowship and a declaration of ordination was included, incorporating more of a Free Church tradition. A notable omission is the imperative formula. It was realised that these were in fact late mediaeval additions to ordination services and that more significant and traditional was a longer ordination prayer with the laying on of hands. Thus, the examples from the early Church structurally formed the model for the ordination prayers in the Church of South India. The Ordinal of the Church of South India was kept under close scrutiny by members of the Church of England. Anglo-Catholics were unhappy with the CSI scheme, and when the Church of England officially recognised the CSI in 1955, spiky notices were put on church noticeboards to say that a particular local church was not in communion with the Church of South India.38 However, those with some liturgical understanding could see that a revolution had occurred in this service. It was highly commended by E.C. Ratcliff in a famous essay in Theology in 1960. He made comments such as follows: Let it be said at once that the Church of South India is eminently fortunate in its liturgy texts. To compose a rite is easy enough; but to compose one well is the reverse of easy. The composers have produced rites, the meaning and content of which echo those of the rites of the ancient church. The composers seem rather to have found the straightforward liturgical methods of Christian antiquity to be those most in accord with the tradition of the New Testament, and also best suited to local circumstances. The hope may be expressed that any church of the Anglican Communion proposing to revise its ordinations rites will turn for guidance to the rites of South India.39 This praise helped to consolidate the view that something significant had happened in the 1958 Ordinal and this was to have a big impact on the Ordinal of the Anglican–Methodist Unity scheme.

The Anglican–Methodist Ordinal of 1968 The Anglican–Methodist Ordinal includes services for the ordination of deacons, presbyters and bishops.40 The ordinal committee included the Anglicans Eric Kemp and E.C. Ratcliff, and the Methodist Raymond George; Ratcliff, who died in 1967, was credited posthumously by Kemp with the greatest role in the drafting.41 In light of Ratcliff’s positive appraisal in his 1960 Theology article, it is unsurprising that the Church of South India Ordinal proved to have such an important part in the Anglican–Methodist scheme.

The Anglican–Methodist Ordinal of 1968  223 In each service, there is an ordination prayer following the structure of South India, with an introductory paragraph where the bishop extends his hands, an epicleptic section where hands are laid on each of the candidates, and a continuation of the prayer finished with ‘Amen’. The ordination of presbyters (also called priests) thematically still follows Bucer with Ephesians 4 being the root biblical metaphor but with a considerable reworking of that tradition. This was a major shift in both of the traditions away from the Book of Common Prayer and towards its metamorphosis in South India. The commentary on the draft ordinal does not immediately acknowledge the influence of the Church of South India but simply states that both Churches are in a stage of liturgical reform.42 However, once discussion of parts of the ordinal begins, there is more frequent dialogue with the Church of South India than with any other Church.43 Thus, it is clear that the South India Ordinal had been a major part of the thinking of the curators of the 1968 Anglican–Methodist Ordinal. The degree to which this dialogue had occurred can be seen in the definition in the commentary of an ordination prayer. This says that the prayer consists of three parts: 1. An Address and Thanksgiving (to God) 2. The petition for the Holy Spirit 3. Prayer for grace in relation to some particular duties of the relevant order of ministry.44 This precise definition of an ordination prayer cannot be found in the comments made by the South Indian liturgy texts, but is in fact a summary by the Anglican–Methodist liturgy compilers, and a convincing one which distils the South Indian model. While noting that the laying on of hands may be performed at different points, the commentary on the Anglican–Methodist Ordinal sees the pattern of doing this as being found in the Church of South India Ordinal. No mention is made of the Church of Scotland. The commentary concludes that the practice of laying hands during the prayer is ‘in principle the best’.45 The commentary is critical of the use of both an ordination prayer and an ordination formula, either imperative or precatory, which is suggestive of some lack in the ordination prayer. Indeed, the laying on of hands at this point might be seen to undermine the ordination prayer or give the impression that it is not the most important element in the service. In making this criticism, the commentary has rejected the inherited tradition of both the Church of England and Methodist Church up to this point.46 The ordination prayers produced are not a simple copying of the Church of South India but they follow them as a model very closely. In terms of content, there had been criticism of the prayer’s reference to the Epistle to the Ephesians, so this received some modification in the Anglican–Methodist Ordinal. However, a very strong family resemblance can be discerned

224  Phillip Tovey between the Church of South India’s Ordinal of 1958 and the Anglican– Methodist Ordinal of 1968. The reception of the Anglican–Methodist Ordinal was mostly very positive. Geoffrey Willis, who had been so critical of the Service of Reconciliation, wrote a very neutral chapter on the Ordinal.47 He liked the return to a simpler approach, his only criticism that it had not gone far enough in removing mediaeval and Lutheran accretions. Colin Buchanan, writing two decades later, saw the Ordinal as a key document in the development of Anglican ordinals, commenting that it enabled the move away from 1662 and was of lasting impact.48 Thus, two commentators who were critical of the Service of Reconciliation were and remained positive about the Ordinal. Because of the collapse of the Unity scheme, the Ordinal was never actually used, but it remained a highly influential piece of liturgical work. It was significant because it was an agreed ordinal between the Church of England and the Methodist Church. It was also significant because it accepted the paradigm shift emanating from the Ordinal of the Church of South India. As such it was a part of the Liturgical Movement which emphasised the use of patristic models in liturgical revision and an ecumenical approach in writing new services. The Anglican–Methodist Ordinal ticked all the boxes in terms of these values. It is therefore highly appropriate to look at the impact of this Ordinal on Methodism and on Anglicanism beyond the ‘Conversations’.

The Impact of the Anglican–Methodist Ordinal of 1968 Since 1968 both the Methodist Church and the Church of England have had two rounds of liturgical revision, both including ordination services. The Methodist Church produced The Methodist Service Book in 1975 and The Methodist Worship Book in 1999.49 The Church of England published the Alternative Service Book in 1980 and Common Worship: Ordination Services in 2007.50 The Methodist Service Book of 1975 only includes a service for ‘The Ordination of Ministers also called Presbyters’.51 The ordination prayer closely follows that of the Anglican–Methodist Ordinal, but it is recast into modern English and has a certain simplification of the sentences. The epicleptic section talks about the office and work of a ‘minister’ rather than a ‘presbyter’, but the theology is substantially the same.52 The Methodist Worship Book 1999 has two ordination services: one for ‘presbyters’ (usually called ministers) and one for deacons.53 The ordination of presbyters shows again a slight loosening of the language but still basically follows that of the Anglican–Methodist Ordinal with perhaps some more freedom in the third section of the prayer. The epicleptic section talks about the Spirit coming for the office and work of a presbyter in God’s Church.54 The prayer for the ordination of deacons follows the structure

The Anglican–Methodist Ordinal of 1968  225 of the Church of South India, but the content is considerably different and seems to be an original composition.55 The ordination prayers of the Alternative Service Book of 1980 closely follow those of the Anglican–Methodist Ordinal. The official commentary on the ordinal notes that the key change was to put the service into modern English, as had happened with the Methodist Service Book.56 Both structurally and textually, there was a strong dependence on the common ordinal. However, it should also be noted that the ordination prayers of the Alternative Service Book were taken up in other Provinces in the Anglican Communion. The Province of Central Africa for a while used these services, and from time to time they continue to do so. The Province of SouthEast Asia, inaugurated in 1996, continues to use the Alternative Service Book prayers for its ordination services.57 Thus, a mediated version of the Anglican–Methodist Ordinal has been a direct impact in at least three Anglican Provinces: England, Central Africa and South-East Asia. Common Worship: Ordination Services 2007 modified various aspects of the three ordination services but within the Church of South India paradigm. The text of the ordination prayer has shown some development, but the primary changes were around other parts of the service in the adoption of what is called a baptismal ecclesiology.58 The ordination prayer for presbyters incorporated the use of Colossians 1 alongside that of Ephesians 4 as the root metaphor, borrowing from the Episcopal Church in the United States. However, despite these changes, the strong influence of the Anglican– Methodist Ordinal is still found. As in the Alternative Service Book, some overseas Provinces have utilised the Common Worship ordination prayers, not least in the recent Episcopal consecrations in Peru. Indeed, there has been a strong movement of liturgical revision in ordinals in the Anglican Communion which sets the Anglican–Methodist Ordinal in a wider context.

Developments in Anglicanism The Lambeth Conference (1958) had a significant report on liturgical revision which endorsed the process and the principles of the Liturgical Movement.59 The Church of South India pioneered many of these developments and there were other unity schemes in Canada, Australia, Nigeria and New Zealand, all of which failed, but the newly compiled ordinals of most of them were influenced by South India. Despite the ecumenical failure, individual Provinces continued to revise their ordinals (see Figure 12.2). Figure 12.2 shows most of the new ordinals since 1958. It will be observed that the Anglican–Methodist Ordinal influenced two rounds of liturgical revision. However, there were other Provinces more directly influenced by the Church of South India, and these can be seen in Figure 12.2. This is not to say that the rest of the Anglican World was not influenced by the Anglican–Methodist Ordinal, but that the primary influence was from

226  Phillip Tovey SEA99 CAF85 HKG85 ENG80

FLK80 BMU80

AMO68 ACSA82 USA79

CAR82

CSI06

CUB82

BGD06

MEX82

WIN95

PHL99

IRL04 ENG07

PER15 FLK07 BMU07

AUS95 CAN07 CSI58

MUS18

CAN85 JPN86 WAL84 SCT84

SCT06

NZL80

NZL88

ZAF89

ZAF18

MEL74

MEL99

CNI74

CNI83

COD98 LKA08

CNI95

Figure 12.2 The influence of CSI 1958 on Anglican Ordinals

the Church of South India. What this does is to set the Anglican–Methodist Ordinal in a wider context of liturgical revision within Anglicanism and indicates that it had a direct influence on the ordination practice of a number of Provinces. Thus, 12 Provinces have revised the ordinal in light of the Church of South India. However, the Anglican–Methodist Ordinal precedes all these revisions, so it is likely to have had an indirect influence in some of them. The Anglican–Methodist Ordinal had a direct influence on the Alternative Service Book, and this was adopted by three provinces and two extra-provincial dioceses. It also influenced the Church of Ireland ordinal in turn

The Anglican–Methodist Ordinal of 1968  227 influencing the 2007 Common Worship services and their use in other dioceses worldwide. The Anglican–Methodist Ordinal had a clear and discernible impact within both English Methodism and the Anglican Communion. While the scheme did not succeed, the Ordinal has had a lasting influence.

Conclusion The Service of Reconciliation of the Anglican–Methodist Unity Scheme was never used and perhaps had too much and too diverse a weight of expectations placed upon it. There was sustained criticism of it in its day, and the demands on the rite were impossible to reconcile. The Anglican– Methodist Ordinal, which had a much more positive reception, continues to have influence up to the present day. Ordinations of presbyters at a cathedral or at the Methodist Conference display strong roots in the Anglican– Methodist Ordinal, evident in the text of the service and the arrangement of the prayers, and drawing on the Ordinal of the Church of South India which shifted the paradigm for Anglicans and Methodists in their approach to rites of ordination.

Notes 1 Report of the Anglican–Methodist Unity Commission. Part 2: The Scheme (London, 1968), 146–78. 2 Report of the Anglican–Methodist Unity Commission. Part 1: The Ordinal (London, 1968). 3 The Scheme, 121. 4 ‘Referendum: Convocation must decide’, Church Times, 5 April 1968, 1. 5 ‘Unity Commission Has Answered the Critics’, Church Times, 5 April 1968, 13. 6 ‘Year of Decision’, Church Times, 10 May 1968, 10. 7 The Scheme, 158. 8 The Scheme, 159. 9 ‘Service of Reconciliation’, in Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church. A Report (London, 1963), 37–47, at 43 and 47. 10 ‘Dissenting View’, Church Times, 10 May 1968, 10. 11 ‘Anglican Attacks Unity’, Catholic Herald, 21 June 1968, 2; ‘Bishop’s Massive Onslaught on Reunion Scheme’, Church Times, 21 June 1968, 1. 12 C.K. Barrett, ‘Anglican–Methodist Relations: A Question of Conscience’, Churchman 82.4, (1968), 270. 13 M. Deansley and G.G. Willis, Anglican–Methodist Unity: Some Considerations Historical and Liturgical (London, 1968). 14 C.O. Buchanan, ‘The Service of Reconciliation’, in J.I. Packer (ed), The Church of England and the Methodist Church (Marcham, 1963), 42. 15 Buchanan, ‘The Service of Reconciliation’, 41. 16 Colin Buchanan, Taking the Long View: Three and a Half Decades of General Synod (London, 2006), 107. 17 ‘Dissenting View’, Church Times, 10 May 1968, 10. 18 J.I. Packer, ‘A Note’, in The Scheme, 182–3. 19 ‘Evangelical Opposition to Scheme’, Church Times, 21 June 1968, 1 and 20. 20 Voice of Methodism Bulletin 6 (January 1965), 14.

228  Phillip Tovey 21 Voice of Methodism Bulletin 13 (March 1966), 5. 22 Voice of Methodism Bulletin 6 (January 1965), 9. 23 Voice of Methodism Bulletin 13 (March 1966), 8. 24 Owen Higgs, ‘Postwar and Pre-crisis’, in William Davage (ed), In This Sign Conquer: A History of the Society of the Holy Cross (Societas Sanctae Crucis) 1855–2005 (London, 2006), 145–95, at 164–5. 25 O. Chadwick, Michael Ramsey: A Life (Oxford, 1990), 339. 26 Section III, ‘The Renewal of the Church in Unity’, The Lambeth Conference 1968. Resolutions and Reports (London, 1968), 131. 27 P.F. Bradshaw, The Anglican Ordinal: Its History and Development from the Reformation to the Present Day (London, 1971), 18–36. 28 Ordination of Priests, The First and Second Prayer Books of Edward VI (London, 1960), 457 (Spelling modernised_. 29 J. Wesley, and J. F. White, John Wesley’s Prayer Book: The Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America (Cleveland, OH, 1991). 30 David M. Chapman, Born in Song: Methodist Worship in Britain (Warrington, 2006), 246–8. 31 Wesleyan Methodist Church, Order of Administration of the Lord’s Supper and Baptism, with the Forms of Solemnization of Matrimony, Burial of the Dead and Ordination of Ministers; as Used by the Wesleyan Methodists (London, 1864). 32 Methodist Church, The Book of Offices: Being the Orders of Service Authorized for Use in the Methodist Church (London, 1936). 33 Church of South India, Order of Service for the Inauguration of Church Union in South India, with the Form of Consecrating the First New Bishops, and the Order of Service for the Ordination of Presbyters (London, 1947). 34 Roman Catholic Church, The Rites, vol. 2 (Collegeville, 1991). 35 T.S. Garrett, ‘The Ordinal of the Church of South India’, Scottish Journal of Theology 12.4 (1959), 400. 36 Church of Scotland, Ordinal and Service Book for Use in Courts of the Church (London, 1954). 37 Church of South India, The Ordinal: Order for the Ordination of Deacons, the Ordination of Presbyters, the Consecration of Bishops: Authorized by the Synod, January 1958. (London, 1958). 38 Michael Yelton, Anglican Papalism: An Illustrated History, 1900–1960 (Norwich, 2005), 59–60. 39 E.C. Ratcliff, ‘The Ordinal of the Church of South India’, in A.H. Couratin and D.H. Tripp (eds), Liturgical Studies [of] E.C. Ratcliff. (London, 1976), 180–1. 40 The Ordinal (London, 1968). 41 Geoffrey Wainwright (ed.), A. Raymond George: Memoirs Methodist and Ecumenical (Buxton, 2003), 182–3; Eric Kemp, ‘Introduction to Commentary’, The Ordinal, 3. 42 ‘A Commentary on the Draft Ordinal’, in The Ordinal, 4–10, at 4. 43 ‘A Commentary’, 6, 7 and 10. 44 ‘A Commentary’, 7. 45 ‘A Commentary’, 7. 46 ‘A Commentary’, 7. 47 Deansley and Willis, Anglican–Methodist Unity, 65–99. 48 Colin Buchanan, Modern Anglican Ordination Rites, Alcuin/GROW Liturgical Study 3 (Bramcote, 1987), 10. 49 Methodist Conference Office, The Methodist Service Book (Peterborough, 1992); The Methodist Worship Book (Peterborough, 1999). 50 Church of England, The Alternative Service Book (Cambridge, 1980); Church of England, Common Worship: Ordination Services (London, 2007).

The Anglican–Methodist Ordinal of 1968  229 51 Methodist Service Book, 231–45, at 231. 52 Methodist Service Book, 241. 53 Methodist Worship Book, 297–328. In 1986, the Methodist Church resumed recruitment to the Methodist Diaconal Order and in 1993 recognised two orders of ministry, presbyteral and diaconal: S.R.H. [Susan Howdle], ‘Diaconate’, in John A. Vickers (ed), A Dictionary of Methodism in Britain and Ireland (Peterborough, 2000), 93–4. 54 Methodist Worship Book, 305–6. 55 Methodist Worship Book, 320–1. For a commentary on the crafting of The Methodist Worship Book, see ‘The Making of The Methodist Worship Book’, in Neil Dixon, Wonder, Love and Praise: A Companion to the Methodist Worship Book (Peterborough, 2003), 5–15. 56 Liturgical Commission, The Alternative Service Book: A Commentary (London, 1980), 143. 57 Phillip Tovey, Anglican Ordination Rites (Amazon, 2019). 58 R.L. Dowling and D.R. Holeton, Equipping the Saints: Ordination in Anglicanism Today (Dublin, 2006). 59 Resolutions 6 and 73, and ‘Progress in the Anglican Communion – B: The Book of Common Prayer’, in The Lambeth Conference, 1958 (London, 1958), 33, 47 and 78–94.

13 Developments since 1972 David M. Chapman

The failure of the Anglican–Methodist Unity Scheme to receive the required majority in voting in the newly constituted General Synod of the Church of England in 1972 was a traumatic outcome to lengthy conversations absorbing a significant amount of institutional time and energy.1 Yet, despite this devastating setback, Anglicans and Methodists in Britain have continued to seek closer bilateral relations towards healing their historical estrangement and encouraging greater effectiveness in mission and ministry. This chapter examines developments in Anglican–Methodist relations since 1972 under six headings: (1) Local ecumenism in Britain; (2) Theological dialogue; (3) An Anglican–Methodist Covenant; (4) The reconciliation of ordained ministries; (5) The global context; and (6) Future prospects.

Local Ecumenism in Britain In 1964, the Nottingham Faith and Order Conference, organised by the British Council of Churches and comprising representatives of a broad range of Churches, issued an appeal for Church unity in Britain by Easter Day 1980. While an appeal of this kind was always unrealistic, a more enduring legacy of the conference was its recommendation that the Churches establish ‘areas of ecumenical experiment’. Progress was slow, but several joint church buildings accommodating single congregations — often involving Anglicans and Methodists — were established in new towns and housing estates in anticipation of Church unity in the foreseeable future. In response to a growing desire among the Churches to move ‘from cooperation to commitment’, the Sharing of Church Buildings Act (1969) legislated for the investment of denominational resources in ecumenical projects in the form of single congregations occupying property owned by one of the partners. A steady increase in the number and variety of Local Ecumenical Projects (later Partnerships) or LEPs in the 1970s and 1980s can be attributed to an exceptional constellation of aspiration, opportunity and encouragement.2 The heady days of post-Vatican II ecumenism inspired grassroots enthusiasm for Church unity, often accompanied by a desire for greater effectiveness in Christian witness to the local community. The timely provisions DOI: 10.4324/9781003119210-13

Developments since 1972  231 of the Sharing of Church Buildings Act encouraged an imaginative, if ultimately modest, rationalisation of surplus building stock dating from a more competitive era. For local churches saddled with costly repairs, the 1969 Act provided a dignified means of closing buildings without loss of ecclesial identity. Regional Church leaders saw LEPs as a cost-effective means of maintaining a visible Christian presence in local communities and extending the Church’s mission into new areas. The formation of ecumenical councils (subsequently ‘Churches Together’ groups) at county level as ‘sponsoring bodies’ proved an effective tool in expanding — though less so in supporting — the cohort of LEPs. Underpinning these developments was a pioneering spirit that quickly established LEPs in the vanguard of the ecumenical movement. Single-congregation LEPs, it was assumed, were a pledge and foretaste of the visible unity to come. As the goal of Church unity receded into the distant future as a result of the failure to resolve substantial theological differences through dialogue at national and world levels, so the Churches’ commitment to ecumenism cooled throughout the 1990s, hastened by the struggle for survival in the face of secularisation and declining Christian allegiance. LEPs, once at the forefront of ecumenism, have become anomalous in an unfavourable ecclesiastical landscape. Marginal to their parent Churches, some have become semi-detached from denominational moorings, forging new ecclesial identities through an independent outlook. In other cases, there has been a weakening of shared ecclesial identity under the subtle influence of one or other ecumenical partner. Accordingly, it is not uncommon nowadays for long-standing sharing agreements and LEPs to be dissolved, leading to unforeseen financial issues stemming from claims for the return of capital investment. Yet there are also LEPs that have successfully negotiated the complexities of shared ecclesial life, though they remain vulnerable to destabilising forces unleashed by changes in ordained and lay leadership. The Church of England and the Methodist Church, respectively, have continued to refine their ecumenical legislation in support of LEPs and to accommodate a growing desire for less formal means of sharing in mission and ministry without recourse to burdensome constitutional arrangements. The most significant development in this regard has been the establishment of several ‘extended areas’ of ecumenical partnership involving Methodist Circuits and Anglican Deaneries or, in the case of Cumbria, an entire Church of England Diocese and Methodist District. To some, the possibility of sharing in ministry and mission across an extended area is itself a sufficient objective for the ecumenical movement, rendering structural integration an unnecessary distraction. This popular perspective denotes a retrenchment from the classical ecumenical goal of ‘organic union’, which at various times drew in other churches besides the Methodist Church and the Church of England, notably the newly formed United Reformed Church (a 1972 union of English Congregationalists and Presbyterians) and the Baptist Union.

232  David M. Chapman The expansion of local ecumenism in Britain in the 1970s prompted a short-lived return to multilateralism under the auspices of a body set up in 1974 called the Churches’ Unity Commission. Adopting a fresh approach, the commission proposed that the participating Churches establish a covenant relationship, thereby committing themselves to a gradual process of deepening unity. The intention was that joint ordination services and shared pastoral oversight would eventually lead to structural integration. The commission’s report, Visible Unity: Ten Propositions (1976), invited responses from the Churches.3 Methodists responded unenthusiastically to this latest initiative, weary at the prospect of yet another costly failure.4 In its formal response, the Methodist Conference suggested that any meaningful covenant among the Churches would require the participation of the Church of England.5 Accepting the unspoken challenge to make up for lost time, the General Synod signalled its willingness to covenant with other Churches, provided that a number of conditions were met. Putting down a significant marker for the future, the Synod declared that ‘recognition of ministers in other covenanting churches will follow upon the acceptance by those churches of the historic episcopate by the consecration of bishops at the inauguration of the covenant’.6 The proposed covenant differed little in effect from the state of ‘full communion’ that would have constituted the first stage under the failed Anglican–Methodist unity scheme. Sensing sufficient support among the Churches, a Churches’ Council for Covenanting was established which produced Towards Visible Unity: Proposals for a Covenant (1980). Once again, however, it was the General Synod of the Church of England which brought the process to a halt in 1982, ten years after the demise of the Anglican–Methodist unity scheme.7 Yet, despite this second major setback in a decade, the prospects for Anglican–Methodist relations in Britain were soon revitalised through informal contacts, as a result of which the impetus shifted from local ecumenism to the highest authorities of the global Anglican and Methodist communions.

Theological Dialogue The Lambeth Conference of 1988, recording its ‘thanks to Almighty God for the 250th anniversary of the conversion of John and Charles Wesley, and for the influence and witness of the Methodist Church’, requested the Anglican Consultative Council to initiate conversations with the World Methodist Council with a view to engaging in bilateral theological dialogue.8 In 1991, the World Methodist Council, meeting in Singapore, formally accepted an invitation to constitute a joint Anglican–Methodist International Commission ‘to consider the common tradition shared by Methodists and Anglicans, and to consider ways the two churches might, in our time, forge new relationships that will signal greater unity and more effective Christian witness to the world’.9 The commission’s final report,

Developments since 1972  233 Sharing in the Apostolic Communion, was presented to the 1996 World Methodist Council and the 1998 Lambeth Conference.10 Sharing in the Apostolic Communion acknowledges ‘large areas of agreement’ between the two world communions, reflecting ‘a growing together of Anglicans and Methodists in recent years’ (§3). Since ‘a degree of communion already exists between Anglicans and Methodists’ (§10), their objective must be to develop ‘fuller communion in faith, mission and sacramental life as a stage towards the visible unity of all Christians’ (§7).11 The essential elements of visible unity are identified as: agreement in core Christian doctrines; common baptism and the mutual recognition of membership; Eucharistic communion; the mutual recognition and interchangeability of ordained ministries; and common structures of decision-making nationally, regionally and locally. Concerning agreement in doctrine, Sharing in the Apostolic Communion endorses the response of the Church of England to the covenanting proposals of the 1980s, which required no further doctrinal assurances from Methodists beyond those vouchsafed in the ill-fated unity scheme. Drawing on the current state of ecumenical agreement as represented by the World Council of Churches’ Faith and Order Commission convergence statement Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982), the report identifies theological convergence between Anglicans and Methodists concerning the Church and sacraments, ordained ministry, pastoral oversight and the historic episcopate. On the strength of theological convergence in these key areas, the Anglican–Methodist International Commission invited the World Methodist Council and the Lambeth Conference to adopt a resolution containing mutual ecclesiological affirmations: •• •• ••

Both Anglicans and Methodists belong to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ and participate in the apostolic mission of the whole people of God. In the Churches of our two Communions, the Word of God is authentically preached and the Sacraments instituted by Christ are duly administered. Our Churches share in the common confession and heritage of the apostolic faith (§95).

A second resolution called for the establishment of a joint working group to prepare, in accordance with these ecclesiological affirmations, ‘guidelines for procedures whereby the competent authorities at appropriate geographic levels would be enabled to implement’ four distinct stages on the way to full communion, namely: ‘The mutual recognition of members; Eucharistic Communion going beyond mutual hospitality; Mutual recognition and interchangeability of ministries and rites; Structures of common decision-making’ (§95).

234  David M. Chapman The World Methodist Council meeting in 1996 readily adopted these resolutions. However, the Lambeth Conference of 1998, while expressing ‘appreciation’ for Sharing in the Apostolic Communion, reacted more cautiously, inviting Churches of the Anglican Communion to study the report and, where appropriate, develop ‘agreements of acknowledgement’ relating to its ecclesiological affirmations. This left the Churches of the Anglican Communion individually to determine their own approach to relations with Methodists. Crucially, whereas the Anglican–Methodist International Commission had proposed the ‘mutual recognition’ of Churches, the Lambeth Conference amended the joint working group’s terms of reference to include the preparation of guidelines for ‘moving beyond acknowledgement to the reconciliation of Churches and, within that, the reconciliation of ordained ministries and structures for common decision-making’.12 Despite this setback to Methodist expectations, the resolutions adopted by the Lambeth Conference were sufficiently promising for Anglicans and Methodists in Britain, Ireland, New Zealand and the United States to continue their respective national bilateral dialogues within the broad framework of the ecclesiological affirmations proposed in Sharing in the Apostolic Communion. After a lengthy hiatus caused by ‘general congestion in ecumenical and other commitments on both sides’, a joint working group was finally established in 2007 under the auspices of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations and the World Methodist Council.13 Renamed the Anglican–Methodist International Commission on Unity in Mission (AMICUM), the joint working group was tasked with monitoring and resourcing Anglican–Methodist bilateral dialogues and relationships around the world, evaluating agreements and theological statements, and proposing pathways towards unity. Its final report, Into All the World: Being and Becoming Apostolic Churches, was published in 2014.14 In considering what it means to be apostolic Churches, Into All the World adopts the definition of the apostolic tradition contained in Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, where the essential features of the Church’s apostolicity are said to be continuity in witness to the apostolic faith, the celebration of baptism and the Eucharist, and the orderly transmission of ministerial responsibility. Into All the World offers a series of assertions regarding the ordained ministry on which, so it claims, Anglicans and Methodists are agreed. Citing the evidence of previous bilateral conversations, the report airily concludes that ‘there are no church-dividing differences between us in faith, in ordered ministry, in the succession of such ministries, and in the value of episcopacy’ (§124). But what precisely this somewhat vague statement means is open to interpretation. Moreover, ‘church-dividing differences’ are those that in fact divide Christians, irrespective of what theologians believe need necessarily be the case. That Anglicans and Methodists together recognise ‘the value of episcopacy’ obscures substantial theological differences in their respective understanding of the nature and significance of the episcopate.

Developments since 1972  235 Into All the World describes the goal of unity between Anglicans and Methodists in terms of ‘full visible communion between Methodist and Anglican Churches throughout the world’ (§39). Visible unity as a relationship of communion ‘respects the distinctive identity of the participating Churches and disarms any fears that one could be merged with or absorbed by the other’ (§39). Since the Churches would retain their distinctive ecclesial identity in such a relationship, ‘A common, interchangeable ordained ministry is crucial in making the intrinsic unity of the Church visible’ (§129). By the time Into All the World was published, important developments were already underway in Britain and elsewhere in the form of bilateral covenant relationships between Anglicans and Methodists.

An Anglican–Methodist Covenant Even before Sharing in the Apostolic Communion was published in 1996, informal conversations between Anglicans and Methodists in Britain in the early 1990s suggested that the time was right to establish formal talks that would produce a ‘Common Statement’ affirming agreement in faith and ‘A Declaration of mutual recognition and solemn commitment to live a more closely shared life’.15 At the same time, the informal conversations identified an extensive set of theological issues that would require further study: (1) initiation and membership; (2) authorisation of lay persons to preside at the Eucharist; (3) the threefold ministry; (4) the nature and role of the diaconate; (5) the nature and style of the office of bishop; (6) the ordination of women to the episcopate;16 (7) the reconciliation of ordained ministries; (8) structures of authority, oversight and government; (9) the relation of church and state; (10) relations to our world communions.17 In the event, the Common Statement of the formal conversations deferred several of these issues for future study but still managed to make a series of theological Affirmations based on the fruits of previous dialogue, including Sharing in the Apostolic Communion.18 The following Affirmations are particularly significant since they constitute the intended theological framework for investigating the issues identified as requiring further study: •• ••

••

We affirm one another’s Churches as true Churches belonging to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ and as truly participating in the apostolic mission of the whole people of God. We affirm that one another’s ordained and lay ministries are given by God as instruments of God’s grace, to build up the people of God in faith, hope and love, for the ministry of word, sacrament and pastoral care and to share in God’s mission in the world. We affirm that there already exists a basis for agreement on the principles of episcopal oversight as a visible sign and instrument of the communion of the Church in time and space.19

236  David M. Chapman To establish a favourable context for continuing dialogue, the Common Statement returned to the concept of ‘a new relationship in the form of a covenant’ between the Church of England and the Methodist Church comprising the mutual Affirmations together with six joint Commitments. In particular, the two Churches ‘commit ourselves, as a priority, to work to overcome the remaining obstacles to the organic unity of our two Churches, on the way to the full visible unity of Christ’s Church’ (§194). Curiously, whereas Sharing in the Apostolic Communion envisages the goal of unity in terms of ‘full visible communion’, the Common Statement retains the classical objective of ‘organic unity’. How organic unity can be squared with the desire to ‘harvest our diversity’ and avoid ‘a monochrome unity’ is not explained (§42). Nevertheless, the Common Statement looks forward ‘to the time when the fuller visible unity of our Churches makes possible a united, interchangeable ministry’ (§194). Altogether, the Common Statement contains a number of ambiguous assertions that at the time were not subjected to rigorous scrutiny by the respective Faith and Order bodies since the mood in both Churches was to press forward in the belief that goodwill and determination would lead to the resolution of outstanding theological differences. However, what exactly was meant by ‘agreement on the principles of episcopal oversight’ was open to interpretation, thus allowing conversations to continue on the basis of unexamined assumptions and mutual expectations in the absence of a shared understanding regarding the ecclesiological significance of the historic episcopate. Nevertheless, after receiving the necessary three-quarters majority in the General Synod and the Methodist Conference, an Anglican– Methodist Covenant was formally signed on 1 November 2003. A Joint Implementation Commission (JIC) was tasked with ‘monitoring and promoting the implementation of the Covenant’, a remit that underestimated the significance of those theological issues identified in the informal conversations as requiring further study. Between 2003 and 2013, the JIC produced five reports addressing some of these issues and presenting proposals.20 In 2014, after ten years of labour with few substantive results and following extensive consultation within the two Churches, the JIC presented its final report to the Methodist Conference and General Synod of the Church of England.21 The consultation had revealed serious questioning of the goal of ‘organic unity’, frustration at a lack of progress towards the interchangeability of ordained ministry, and ineffectiveness in applying existing ecumenical legislation to support local initiatives in shared mission and ministry. Responding to these concerns, the JIC outlined a fresh vision of visible unity, offered recommendations to develop local ecumenism, and challenged the Churches to adopt ‘bold initiatives’ that would lead to the reconciliation and interchangeability of ordained ministries. Both the Methodist Conference and the General Synod voted strongly in favour of adopting the JIC’s proposals. Henceforth, the Methodist–Anglican Panel for Unity in Mission would encourage local churches to make full

Developments since 1972  237 use of existing ecumenical provisions.22 The JIC was succeeded by a Joint Advocacy and Monitoring Group tasked with evaluating the progress of Faith and Order discussions and other developments under the Covenant, as well as promoting new initiatives to facilitate closer relations between Anglicans and Methodists in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. The most significant development was for the respective Faith and Order bodies of the two Churches to work together to bring forward proposals for: (1) the Methodist Church to consider afresh expressing the Conference’s ministry of oversight in a personal form of connexional, episcopal ministry and the Church of England to recognise that ministry in the Methodist Church as a sign of continuity in faith, worship and mission in a church that is in the apostolic succession; (2) the Church of England and the Methodist Church to address the question of reconciling, with integrity, the existing presbyteral and diaconal ministries of our two Churches, which would lead to the interchangeability of ministries.23 The joint Faith and Order working party presented its recommendations to the Methodist Conference and the General Synod under the title Mission and Ministry in Covenant (2018).24 In a sign of increasing concern at what was being asked of both Churches, the Methodist Conference and General Synod requested further work in order to clarify the report’s proposals concerning the reconciliation of ordained ministries.25

The Reconciliation of Ordained Ministries Since the commencement of Anglican–Methodist conversations in the 1960s, the reconciliation and interchangeability of ordained ministries has been predicated upon the Methodist Church adopting the historic episcopate so that its presbyters (and deacons) are ordained by a bishop. Mission and Ministry in Covenant awakened recurrent fears among Methodists about the historic episcopate, while the report’s recommendations regarding the status during a transition period of those Methodist presbyters (and deacons) who had not been episcopally ordained caused alarm among Anglicans. To many Methodists, the fact that Methodist presbyters are permitted to preside at the Eucharist in Anglican churches under the Church of England’s ecumenical canons suggests that interchangeability is already a reality. Why, then, should the reconciliation of ordained ministries be insisted upon, requiring the Methodist Church to become episcopally ordered with potentially far-reaching implications for Methodist ecclesiology? From the Church of England’s perspective, however, when a Methodist presbyter presides at the Eucharist at an Anglican altar under the ecumenical canons, this necessarily constitutes a Eucharistic celebration of the Methodist Church since canon law stipulates that only those presbyters ordained by a bishop in the historic

238  David M. Chapman episcopate may be authorised to exercise such a ministry in the Church of England. Essentially, the theological issues at stake have not changed since the conversations leading to the abortive Anglican–Methodist unity scheme, which foundered over proposals for the reconciliation of ordained ministries through prayer and the mutual imposition of hands. The proposed service of reconciliation, being ambiguous in its intention and effect, proved unacceptable to an unlikely alliance of Anglican Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics for diametrically opposed reasons. Whether the proposed imposition of Anglican episcopal hands on a Methodist presbyter’s head constituted ordination — an interpretation unacceptable to Methodists and Anglican Evangelicals but essential to Anglo-Catholics — intentionally remained an open question, allowing participants to interpret the service of reconciliation to their own theological satisfaction. Despite approval by the Methodist Conference, many Methodists retained misgivings that the service would be widely interpreted as involving ordination, thereby denying the efficacy of ordination in the Methodist Church. To avoid a rerun of this painful episode in Anglican–Methodist relations, the joint Faith and Order working group ruled out a service of reconciliation, proposing instead that the Church of England and the Methodist Church enter into a relationship of communion upon the first Methodist bishop being ordained — signified by episcopal co-presidency at a joint celebration of the Eucharist held to mark the occasion. To secure the full interchangeability of presbyteral ministries, the working group appealed to the principle of ‘bearable anomalies’ so that in a transition period following the inauguration of a relationship of communion between the two Churches, the large number of Methodist presbyters who had not been episcopally ordained would still be eligible to exercise sacramental ministry in the Church of England by invitation. The requirement that an invitation be extended by an appropriate authority would effectively ensure that individual presbyters could not be imposed on Church of England parishes against their will. The alternative — that such presbyters would remain ineligible to exercise ministry in the Church of England — is unacceptable to Methodists because it would compromise the integrity of the ordained ministry by creating a two-tier presbyterate. As AMICUM observed, ‘Any agreement for communion between Methodist and Anglican churches will honour the ecclesial integrity of ministerial orders in both Churches’; for this reason, ‘Certain anomalies may be bearable as the Churches concerned enter into deeper unity over time’. 26 The principle of ‘bearable anomalies’ was first established by the 1998 Lambeth Conference, which affirmed that the process of moving towards full, visible unity may entail temporary anomalies … some anomalies may be bearable when there is an agreed goal of visible unity, but … there should always be an impetus towards

Developments since 1972  239 their resolution and, thus, towards the removal of the principal anomaly of disunity.27 The justification for bearing certain anomalies rests on the historical precedent of permitting ‘dispensations’ from canonical norms for the sake of a higher good.28 By implication, not all anomalies are bearable, though Anglicans have yet to propose criteria for applying this principle in particular situations. To avoid temporary anomalies becoming the accepted norm, Anglicans look for clear commitments concerning when and how anomalous situations will cease to exist. So far as the Anglican–Methodist covenant in Britain is concerned, such commitments are embedded in the proposals contained in Mission and Ministry in Covenant. Seeking to break the logjam through the kind of bold initiative envisaged by the JIC, Mission and Ministry in Covenant poses a question to the two Churches: [C]an one crucial element of the proposals in this report — welcoming all Methodist presbyters as eligible to serve, including those not episcopally ordained, at the point where the Church of England and the Methodist Church enter into a new relationship of communion with one another as Churches — be properly described as an anomaly that can be borne together on this journey towards unity, rather than the giving up of a long-standing principle? (§60) Given the sensitivities on both sides, it is perhaps not surprising that an appeal to the principle of bearable anomalies should receive a mixed response. A fear among some bishops of the Church of England — seldom recognised, let alone appreciated, by Methodists — is that the anomaly of non-episcopally ordained presbyters exercising ministry in the Church of England constitutes the thin end of an unacceptable wedge in terms of ecclesiastical polity. Already, there are calls in certain quarters of the Church of England for lay persons to be authorised to preside at the Eucharist. Permitting non-episcopally ordained Methodist presbyters to preside at the Eucharist would, it is claimed, establish a precedent for individuals other than episcopally ordained presbyters (and bishops) to exercise such a ministry in the Church of England. Those with a high regard for the history of the Church of England are acutely aware that the requirement for the episcopal ordination of presbyters has been preserved at a heavy price. Following a turbulent period caused by the English Civil War, the 1662 Act of Uniformity insisted upon episcopal ordination for all deacons, priests and bishops in the Church of England, the Puritans having relaxed many such norms during the Commonwealth. Against this historical backdrop, it becomes theologically and morally indefensible to relax a canonical requirement imposed (or else re-established) in the seventeenth century at great personal cost to those clergy ejected from

240  David M. Chapman their living for refusing to conform. To this way of thinking, it is vital to uphold the integrity of canonical order for the preservation of peace and unity in the Church of England. That there is no commonly accepted theological understanding among Anglicans of the meaning and significance of episcopal ordination makes it even more necessary to retain the practice.29 For those Methodists unconvinced by assurances that the anomaly refers to the situation rather than the individual, the prospect of Methodist presbyters being looked upon as a ‘bearable anomaly’ holds little appeal, while the idea of receiving the historic episcopate continues to cause unease. Whether sufficient members of the Methodist Conference and the General Synod will eventually vote in favour of the proposals contained in Mission and Ministry in Covenant remains to be seen, though the signs are not promising. In 2019, the General Synod called for additional theological work before the legislative process can begin. The Methodist Council, on behalf of the Conference, declined to undertake this work until the General Synod begins the legislative process. In the face of apparent stalemate, a brief survey of developments in other parts of the world sheds light on the prospects for Anglican–Methodist relations in Britain.

The Global Context In parallel with developments in Britain, Anglicans and Methodists in Ireland, the United States and New Zealand also responded to the invitation issued by the Lambeth Conference and World Methodist Council to develop closer bilateral relations. In these territories, the challenges that face Anglicans and Methodists in Britain have played out in different ways, according to the varied circumstances. In Ireland, for instance, relations between Anglicans and Methodists have apparently reached an advanced stage, though the specific nature of the relationship is unlikely to yield proposals that can be applied elsewhere. Ireland Anglican–Methodist dialogue in Ireland has its origins in quadripartite talks in the 1970s involving Congregationalists and Presbyterians, who subsequently withdrew because they could not accept the historic episcopate. In the 1990s, a joint theological working party was tasked with applying Sharing in the Apostolic Communion to Anglican–Methodist relations in Ireland and making recommendations that would lead towards visible unity.30 In September 2002, the Church of Ireland and the Methodist Church in Ireland signed a covenant committing them ‘to share a common life and mission’ and ‘to grow together so that unity may be visibly realized’.31 A Covenant Council was charged with monitoring and facilitating the implementation of the covenant and with continuing theological dialogue

Developments since 1972  241 concerning episcopacy and the interchangeability of ordained ministries.32 In 2014, the General Synod of the Church of Ireland formally discerned ‘consonance’ between the office and function of bishops in the Church of Ireland and the office and function of Presidents and past Presidents of the Methodist Church in Ireland.33 Since then, on the strength of this landmark development, Presidents of the Methodist Church in Ireland have been ‘consecrated’ (initially by bishops in the historic episcopate) as ‘episcopal ministers’ as a sufficient basis for the interchangeability of ordained ministries. However, it is doubtful whether the ‘consonance’ between the office and ministry of the President of the Methodist Church in Ireland and a bishop of the Church of Ireland would enable the Church of England to recognise an ‘episcopal minister’ as a bishop in the historic episcopate. As things currently stand, a presbyter of the Methodist Church in Ireland ordained by an episcopal minister is not eligible to serve in the Church of England under the measures applying to overseas clergy. Furthermore, that presidency at Methodist ordination services is not necessarily restricted to episcopal ministers consecrated as such provides no guarantee of a limited transition period and thus fails to satisfy Church of England conditions for a bearable anomaly. While the terms of the Anglican–Methodist Covenant in Ireland suit the Irish context, they are not readily transferable. The United States The setting for relations between Anglicans and Methodists in the United States differs from that in Britain and Ireland in two respects. The United Methodist Church (UMC) is far larger than the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA), while neither enjoys the entitlement of a state Church. Secondly, both the UMC and ECUSA are episcopally ordered, though UMC bishops do not exercise the same ministry as Episcopalian bishops; nor do they claim to belong to the historic episcopate. In 1784, John Wesley ordained Thomas Coke, a fellow presbyter of the Church of England, by prayer and the imposition of hands for the office of superintendent in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Coke was promptly dispatched to the United States with instructions to ordain Francis Asbury for co-superintendency. For reasons of expediency, though contrary to Wesley’s express intention, Coke and Asbury swiftly assumed the title of bishop, thereby establishing a succession of bishops in American Methodism and its global offshoots. In the UMC, the episcopate is an office within the presbyterate and not an order of ministry. Theological dialogue with the goal of establishing ‘full communion’ between the UMC and ECUSA began in 2002 in response to the 1998 Lambeth Conference. In 2006, the two Churches initiated a relationship of ‘interim Eucharistic sharing’.34 In this relationship – also described as a Covenant – the two Churches recognise each other as members of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. Interim Eucharistic sharing permits

242  David M. Chapman the joint celebration of the Eucharist with the agreement of the respective area bishops. In 2017, a ‘Proposal for Full Communion’ between the UMC and ECUSA was published for consultation in both Churches.35 This has met with strong resistance from some Episcopalians for reasons similar to those voiced within the Church of England in relation to its Covenant with the Methodist Church of Great Britain.36 Internal tensions within the UMC and ECUSA concerning human sexuality further erode the prospects for establishing full communion. New Zealand Conversations between Anglicans and Methodists in New Zealand in the 1970s quickly established common ground. In 1976, the General Synod of the Anglican Church in New Zealand formally acknowledged the Methodist Church to be part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, and its ministers as exercising a real ministry of word and sacrament. Four years later, the two Churches announced the mutual recognition of baptism and church membership, while expressing their commitment ‘to seek a unification of ministries’. In 1986, the General Synod acknowledged that the Methodist Church exercises a ministry of episkope and that its ordained ministry has ‘apostolic content’. Referring to these developments as ‘landmarks on the journey’, the Methodist Church of New Zealand and the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia signed a covenant in 2008, in which they made various common affirmations and shared commitments, similar to those in Britain and Ireland.37 The most significant commitment is to ‘develop a safe ecumenical space in which there is opportunity to explore together uncomfortable questions’ and to continue dialogue concerning ‘the meaning and exercise of episkope in both our Churches’. The aim is a ‘united and interchangeable ministry’ to express the visible unity of the two Churches. However, the Covenant admits: ‘We are not sure at this time what this [unity] would look like, or what its implications might be for our two Churches’. At present, the Anglican–Methodist Covenant in New Zealand appears to have stalled on the issue of the historic episcopate as the sine qua non for the interchangeability of ordained ministries.

Future Prospects The ordained ministry remains the neuralgic point in relations between Anglicans and Methodists. Despite covenant relationships and mutual commitments to overcome remaining obstacles to visible unity, the current state of theological convergence concerning ordained ministry has advanced little since the 1960s. Admittedly, there have been significant developments during the past half century: Anglicans and Methodists now ordain women to the presbyterate and the episcopate (where present in Methodism); the

Developments since 1972  243 liturgical movement has led to significant convergence in sacramental rites and practices; and the WCC Faith and Order Commission has reached broad ecumenical consensus concerning the nature of the Church, sacraments and ordained ministry.38 Nevertheless, theological and practical differences relating to the nature of ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, continue to impede the reconciliation and interchangeability of ordained ministries. Surveying the current state of theological agreement from the perspective of Anglican and Methodist ecumenical methods reveals where the challenges remain. For Anglicans, the four Articles of the 1888 ChicagoLambeth Quadrilateral have consistently formed the theological basis and ecumenical method for establishing visible unity with other Christians: (1) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as ‘containing all things necessary to salvation’, and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith. (2) The Apostles’ Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith. (3) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself – Baptism and the Supper of the Lord –ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him. (4) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.39 Methodist doctrinal standards easily satisfy the first three Articles, except that Anglicans and Methodists interpret differently the ‘elements ordained’ by Christ for the celebration of the Eucharist: Anglican canons require the use of fermented juice of the grape as the authentic interpretation of Christ’s will, whereas Methodists use non-alcoholic wine for historical reasons. In Britain, the JIC under the Anglican–Methodist Covenant made several recommendations concerning the bread and wine of Holy Communion but did not address the underlying issue of how Anglicans and Methodists, respectively, approach matters of authoritative discernment.40 While different practices in relation to the elements of Holy Communion may seem relatively insignificant, the contrasting ways in which Anglicans and Methodists respectively interpret Christ’s will in this regard touches upon Christian truth and what it means to be faithful to the Lord’s command. Similarly, Anglicans and Methodists are not fully agreed as to who may legitimately preside at the Eucharist. Whereas Anglicans restrict Eucharistic presidency to presbyters (and bishops) for theological reasons, Methodists cite different theological reasons for authorising named individuals other than presbyters to preside at the Eucharist in specific situations where the faithful would otherwise be deprived of receiving the sacrament reasonably frequently. In their respective ways, Anglicans and Methodists intend to be faithful to the will of Christ. Likewise, underlying their differences in

244  David M. Chapman understanding the nature of the episcopate is a shared intention to be faithful to the will of Christ. However, if Methodists in conscience cannot accept what Anglicans in conscience cannot renounce as being the will of Christ for the church, then the prospects for reconciliation must inevitably fall short of visible unity. In theory, though not necessarily in practice, Methodist ecumenical method is more flexible than the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral since ‘Methodists accept that whatever is properly required for the unity of the whole of Christ’s Church must by that very fact be God’s will for his Church’.41 Accordingly, British ‘Methodists rule out no development compatible with our ethos which strengthens the unity and effectiveness in mission of the Church’.42 However, the problem with this seemingly accommodating ecumenical method lies in discerning what is ‘properly required’ for the unity of the Church. A recurring complaint in Methodist circles is that Methodists are usually the ones expected to adapt for the sake of others’ unequivocal convictions. Once again, contrasting perspectives on the historic episcopate illustrate the theoretical virtues and practical shortcomings of Methodist ecumenical method. Whereas Anglicans regard the historic episcopate as belonging to the plene esse (or even the esse) of the Church, Methodists follow John Wesley in regarding all forms of ecclesiastical order as secondary to the salvific work of the Church.43 For Methodists to adopt the historic episcopate would be consistent with Methodist doctrinal standards and demonstrably strengthen the unity of the Church. To the chagrin of the Church of England, however, overtures in this direction consistently meet with ambivalence among Methodists, despite several statements by the Methodist Conference signifying willingness to receive the historic episcopate.44 The requirements of Anglican ecumenical method were responsible for the JIC’s recommendation, subsequently proposed in Mission and Ministry in Covenant, that the office of President of the Methodist Conference become that of president-bishop within the historic episcopate. Presidentbishops would be ordained as such by bishops in the historic episcopate. Since the objective in adopting the historic episcopate would be to achieve the reconciliation and interchangeability of ordained ministries, attention has centred on the role of a president-bishop in presiding at Methodist ordination services. However, the ministry of a bishop in the Church of England is much broader than presiding at ordinations and involves greater authority than Methodists generally have been willing to attribute to anyone exercising personal oversight. The General Synod’s request for further theological work is therefore intended to ensure that the proposed office and ministry of president-bishop sufficiently resembles that of a bishop in the Church of England to safeguard the integrity of the episcopate. The Methodist Conference is equally concerned to ensure that the office of president-bishop represents the historic episcopate ‘locally adapted in the methods of its administration’ to Methodist ecclesiology and polity.

Developments since 1972  245 Such concerns overshadow substantial progress in other areas. The 2001 Common Statement of the Anglican–Methodist Covenant, noting the respective practices and intentions of Anglicans and Methodists in ordaining deacons, concluded that ‘There seems to be a need for further theological convergence on the diaconate’ (§147). Whereas the diaconate in the Church of England is mostly a transitional order, the Methodist Church has a permanent diaconate, which is also a religious order with a rule of life. Methodists ordain directly to the presbyterate, whereas Anglican priests are first ordained deacon. These practices diverge so much as to suggest a lack of shared theological understanding concerning the nature of the diaconate. Nevertheless, the Methodist Conference in 2019 adopted a teaching document on The Theology and Ecclesiology Underpinning the Diaconate and the Methodist Diaconal Order.45 Drawing on this teaching document, as well as the present ordinals of the Church of England and the Methodist Church of Great Britain, it is possible to conclude that there are no substantial theological obstacles to prevent the interchangeability of Anglican and Methodist deacons, though the relationship between the diaconate and the presbyterate requires further study.46

Conclusion Henry Chadwick’s tongue-in-cheek description of ecumenical dialogue seems particularly apt in the case of Anglican–Methodist relations: Ecclesial bodies appoint commissions of reasonably informed theologians who, like military engineers, try to make safe old battlefields plentifully sprinkled with rusty cannon and elderly landmines, some of which show an astonishing propensity to remain dangerous.47 Despite the Affirmations and Commitments of the Anglican–Methodist Covenant, subsequent work to overcome the remaining obstacles has revealed how theological minefields once thought to have been neutralised retain their power to impede progress. A recurring feature of Anglican–Methodist relations has been a tendency on both sides to misunderstand the core ecclesiological convictions of the other and to underestimate the theological significance of differences in their respective ecclesial practices and ecumenical method. For Anglicans, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral remains the theological foundation for visible unity. For Methodists, intentional continuity in the apostolic mission will always be of more significance for the mutual recognition of ministries than the presence of specific ecclesial structures. While the corresponding ecumenical methods are not necessarily irreconcilable, the differing perspectives involve contrasting emphases and priorities that can frustrate the dialogue process. Nowadays, ecumenical dialogue must compete with other pressing demands for scarce ecclesiastical resources. It remains to be seen

246  David M. Chapman whether the Anglican–Methodist covenant in Britain has finally run into the sand or merely halted temporarily on an erratic journey towards the visible unity of the Church.

Notes 1 A narrative account of the conversations from an Anglican perspective can be found in Owen Chadwick, Michael Ramsey: A Life (Oxford, 1990), 333– 46; and from a Methodist perspective in John Munsey Turner, Conflict and Reconciliation: Studies in Methodism and Ecumenism in England 1740–1982 (London, 1985), 194–225, and George Thompson Brake, Policy and Politics in British Methodism 1932–1982 (London, 1984), 99–150. 2 By 1977, there were 104 Anglican–Methodist LEPs alone. Methodist Conference Agenda (1977), 119. 3 See also, The Ten Propositions: Clarifications Issued by the Churches’ Unity Commission (London, 1978) and Final Report on the Churches’ Response to the Ten Propositions (London, 1978). 4 An extensive consultation among Methodist Districts and Circuits recorded a widespread mood of ‘unenthusiastic acquiescence’ caused by weariness; Methodist Conference Agenda (1978), 8. 5 Methodist Conference Agenda (1978), 10. 6 Cited in Brake, Policy and Politics,148. 7 See The Failure of the English Covenant: An Assessment of the Experience of the Churches’ Council for Covenanting (London, 1982). 8 Lambeth Conference 1988; Resolution 9 ‘The Methodist Church’. https://www​ .anglicancommunion​.org​/resources​/document​-library​/lambeth​-conference​/1988​ /resolution ​ - 9​ - methodist​ - church​ ? author​ = Lambeth​ + Conference​ & year​ = 1988 (accessed 8 June 2020). 9 Sharing in the Apostolic Communion Report of the Anglican–Methodist International Commission to the World Methodist Council and the Lambeth Conference (Lake Junaluska, NC, 1996) §1. 10 https://www​.anglicancommunion​.org​/media​/102809​/Sharing​-in​-The​-Apostolic​ -Communion​.pdf (accessed 8 June 2020). 11 This formulation is derived from the stated goal of Methodist–Roman Catholic dialogue: ‘full communion in faith, mission and sacramental life’; Towards a Statement on the Church Report of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the World Methodist Council and the Roman Catholic Church (Lake Junaluska, NC, 1986) §20. http://www​.vatican​.va​/roman​ _curia​/pontifical​_councils​/chrstuni​/meth​-council​-docs​/rc​_pc​_chrstuni​_doc​_1986​ _church​-nairobi​_en​.html (accessed 8 June 2020). 12 Resolution IV.17. 13 ‘A Report to the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion and the Standing Committee on Ecumenics and Dialogue of the World Methodist Council’ (2007). Sarah Rowland Jones (ed), The Vision Before Us: The Kyoto Report of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations 2000–2008 (London, 2009), 162–4. 14 https://wor​ldme​thod​istc​ouncil​.org​/wp​-content​/uploads​/2014​/10​/Into​-All​-The​ -World​-AMICUM​-Report​-2014​.pdf (accessed 8 June 2020). 15 Commitment to Mission and Unity: Report of the Informal Conversations between the Methodist Church and the Church of England (London, 1996), 14. See also, Conversations on the Way to Unity 1999–2001: The Report of the Informal Conversations between the Church of England, the Methodist Church

Developments since 1972  247 and the United Reformed Church (London, 2001). The United Reformed Church later withdraw from the trilateral process. 16 The Church of England’s decision in 2014 to ordain women to the episcopate removed this item from the list of theological topics requiring further study. 17 Commitment to Mission and Unity, 8–13. 18 An Anglican–Methodist Covenant: Common Statement of the Formal Conversations between the Methodist Church of Great Britain and the Church of England (London, 2001). One of the Anglican participants, Rev. Angus MacLeay, an Evangelical, dissented from the Common Statement. Angus MacLeay, ‘A different perspective on the Anglican–Methodist Formal Conversations’, Unity Digest 25 (2002), 4–8; cf. Martin Davie, ‘“Yes” and “No”: A Response to Angus MacLeay’, Unity Digest 25 (2002), 9–17. 19 An Anglican–Methodist Covenant, §94. 20 In the Spirit of the Covenant (2005); Living the Covenant (2007); Embracing the Covenant (2008); Moving Forward in Covenant (2011); The Challenge of the Covenant (2013); http://www​.anglican​-methodist​.org​.uk​/jic/ (accessed 8 June 2020). 21 Confusingly, the JIC’s final report is also entitled The Challenge of the Covenant. https://www​.methodist​.org​.uk​/downloads​/conf​-2014​-21​-challenge​-covenant​ -uniting​-mission​-holiness​.pdf (accessed 8 June 2020). 22 The Methodist–Anglican Panel for Unity in Mission (MAPUM) was established in 2009 through the merger of the Local Unity Panel of the Church of England’s Council for Christian Unity and the Methodist Church’s Committee for Local Ecumenical Development. 23 The Challenge of the Covenant (2014), §46. 24 http://www​ . anglican​ - methodist​ . org​ . uk​ / wp​ - content ​ / uploads ​ / Mission ​ - and​ -Ministry​-in​-Covenant​.pdf (accessed 8 June 2020). 25 http://www​.anglican​-methodist​.org​.uk​/wp​-content​/uploads​/2019​/06​/MMiC​ -areas​-for​-further​-reflection​-0619​.pdf (accessed 8 June 2020). 26 Into All the World, §129. 27 Resolution IV.1, https://www​.anglicancommunion​.org​/media​/76650​/1998​.pdf (accessed 8 June 2020). 28 On the canonical foundations, see Will Adam, Legal Flexibility and the Mission of the Church: Dispensation and Economy in Ecclesiastical Law (Farnham, 2011). 29 For a contrary view, see Diarmaid MacCulloch, ‘Why Anglicans who object to reconciliation with Methodists should read more history’ in Christianity Today, 6 February 2018; https://www​.christiantoday​.com​/article​/why​-anglicans​-who​ -object​-to​-reconciliation​-with​-methodists​-should​-read​-more​-history​/125402​ .htm (accessed 8 June 2020). 30 Peter Thompson, Working out the Covenant: The Journey So Far (Dublin, 2007), 24, 31. 31 The text of the covenant can be found in Thompson, Working Out the Covenant. 32 ‘Interchangeability of Ministry and Episcope: Key Issues for the Churches. Interim Report to the General Synod of the Church of Ireland and the Conference of the Methodist Church in Ireland’ (2007). 33 Into All the World, §156. 34 ‘Common Guidelines for Bishops, Clergy and Laity for the Implementation of Interim Eucharistic Sharing between the Episcopal Church and the United Methodist Church’ (2006). https://episcopalchurch​.org​/files​/Common​_ Guidelines​.pdf (accessed 8 June 2020).

248  David M. Chapman 35 A Gift to the World: Co-Laborers for the Healing of Brokenness. The Episcopal Church and the United Methodist Church (2017). https://episcopalchurch​.org​/ files​/documents/​_a​_gift​_to​_the​_world​.pdf (accessed 8 June 2020). 36 For example, see the closely argued article by H. Jefferson Powell, ‘The Brokenness of A Gift to the World: Why the Episcopal Church should reject the recent proposal for full communion with the United Methodist Church’. http://www ​ . anglicansonline ​ . org ​ / resources ​ / essays ​ / misc ​ / broken ​ _ gift ​ . html (accessed 8 June 2020). 37 https://episcopalchurch​.org​/files​/documents​/angmethcvtleaflet​.pdf (accessed 8 June 2020). 38 The Church: Towards a Common Vision (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2013). https://www​.oikoumene​.org​/en​/resources​/documents​/commissions​/faith​ -and​-order​/i​-unity​-the​-church​-and​-its​-mission​/the​-church​-towards​-a​-common​ -vision (accessed 8 June 2020). 39 Lambeth Conference 1888, Resolution II. On the significance of the Quadrilateral, see J. Robert Wright (ed), Quadrilateral at One Hundred: Essays on the Centenary of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral 1886/88–1986/88 (Cincinnati: Forward Movement Publications, 1998). 40 ‘The Bread and Wine of Holy Communion’, in In the Spirit of the Covenant (2005), 36–49. 41 Towards a Statement on the Church, §58. 42 Called to Love and Praise: The Nature of the Church in Methodist Experience and Practice (London, 1999), §4.6.11. https://www​.methodist​.org​.uk​/media​ /1993​/fo​-statement​-called​-to​-love​-and​-praise​-1999​.pdf (accessed 8 June 2020). 43 On Methodist ecclesiology, see David M. Chapman, ‘Methodism and the Church’, in Paul Avis (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ecclesiology (Oxford, 2018), 317–34. 44 ‘Episkopé and Episcopacy’ (Methodist Conference, 2000); https://www​.methodist​.org​.uk​/downloads​/conf​-episkope​-and​-episcopacy​-2002​.pdf (accessed 8 June 2020). 45 https://www ​ . methodist ​ . org ​ . uk ​ / downloads ​ / conf ​ - 2019 ​ - 25 ​ - Theology ​ - and​ -Ecclesiology​-Underpinning​-the​-Diaconate​.pdf (accessed 8 June 2020). 46 David M. Chapman, ‘Towards the Interchangeability of Anglican and Methodist Deacons’, in Ecclesiology 16 (2020), 34–55. 47 Henry Chadwick, ‘Anglican Ecclesiology and its Challenges’, in Anglican Theological Review 76 (1994), 274–84, at 274.

Index

Act of Uniformity (1662) 69, 239 Afghanistan 199, 210, 211 alcohol and non–alcoholic wine 66, 189, 243 Aldersgate Street 120 Alker, Monseigneur Stephen 210 All Gas and Gaiters, television comedy series 185 Allison, Falkner S., bishop of Winchester 71, 92 ambiguity 7, 47–77, 92, 94, 104, 109, 111, 120, 158, 160, 217, 218, 236, 238; ‘calculated ambiguity’ 216; ‘deliberate ambiguity’ 73; ‘intentional ambiguity’ 217 American Church 30, 32, 33, 52, 54, 158, 241; and the American Civil War 30, 35, 52; and the Chicago General Convention (1868) 30; and the Chicago Quadrilateral: Episcopal Church Chicago Convention (1886) 31; and consultation on Church Union (1960) 107; ecumenical conversations between the UMC and the ECUSA 241–2; Episcopal Church (ECUSA) 30, 52, 241–2 Anderson, George 154 Anglican Alternative Service Book (1980) 224 Anglican Church Congress (1867) 20 Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia 242 Anglican Consultative Council 232 Anglican dioceses: in the Church of South India 104; Crown nomination to 53; financial difficulties of 192; liaison between Anglican dioceses and Methodist districts 67; scarcity of candidates for the priesthood 192; see also Carlisle; Durham

Anglican encroachment on Methodist responsibilities 191–2 Anglican Evangelicalism 6, 33, 57, 60, 68, 73–4, 88–90, 92, 124–30, 136, 141, 157, 186, 217, 238; Church of England Evangelical Council 157; conservative evangelicals 96, 102, 107, 111, 154, 177; Keele Congress of Anglican Evangelicals (1967) 74; and moderate Calvinism 3; Oxford Conference of Evangelical Churchmen (1968) 129 Anglican General Synod 7, 77, 166, 244; (1969) 5; (1970) 52, 75; (1972) 1, 5, 24, 25, 75, 118, 147, 154, 159, 230; (1982) 232; (2003) 236; (2014) 236; (2018) 11, 24, 237; (2019) 24, 240; and formal signing of an Anglican–Methodist Covenant (2003) 7, 11, 24, 236 Anglicanism 3, 29–30, 43, 52, 53, 71, 74, 126, 129; and arrogance 20, 52, 104, 174, 191–3; and attitude to Methodist worship traditions 119–24, 127–8; and benefices, as separate trusts 70, 72; as a ‘bridge’ Church 29; and canon law 72, 88, 106; and definition in terms of catholicity and apostolicity 33; and dissentients within 124–30; and exclusivity 34–5; and geographical dominance of Anglican churches 180, 189; and global reach 32, 34–5, 53, 240–5; as ‘the mother of us all’ 3, 17, 18; nominal 19; and ‘pure Anglicanism’ 52; and reunion with Rome 18, 25, 38, 105, 107–8, 112, 122, 127, 136; and social status 122–3, 175, 185–6, 188, 206; as a ‘via media’ Church 29

250 Index Anglican laity 57, 72, 87, 129, 176, 178, 185–93; and preferred patterns of worship 187–90 Anglican–Methodist ‘reunion’ 1, 2, 7, 19–23, 29, 31, 36–40, 47, 49, 59, 64, 66, 89, 95, 101–13, 118, 124–6, 130 Anglican–Methodist Union: grassroots opinion 2, 5–7, 24, 52, 95, 140, 142, 153, 160, 170–93, 230 Anglican–Methodist Union Collection (DAMUC), documents of 2 Anglican–Methodist Union schemes: Anglican–Methodist International Commission on Unity in Mission (AMICUM), Final Report: Into All the World: Being and Becoming Apostolic Churches (2014) 234–5; Anglican–Methodist Joint Liaison Commission 177, 190–1; Anglican– Methodist Unity Commission, Stage 1. 69–72, 74–5, 83–96, 118, 145; Anglican–Methodist Unity Commission (1965–68) Final Report 124, 135, 142, 215; Commitment to Mission and Unity: Report of the Informal Conversations between the Methodist Church and the Church of England (1996) 235; Conversations (1955–72) 1–8, 11, 23–4, 47–77, 83– 96, 106, 118–20, 122, 124–5, 127–8, 137–8, 142, 144, 148, 152–62, 164– 6, 170–1, 173–5, 177–87, 193, 199, 201, 203–12, 215–18; (after 1972 24, 230, 232–6, 242); Covenant for England (2003) 11; Final Report, The Scheme (April 1968) 73, 74, 107, 110, 113, 118–30, 135, 138–47, 153, 156–60, 165–6, 174–8, 202–3, 215, 217–18; International Commission to the World Methodist Council and Lambeth Palace Final Report, Sharing in the Apostolic Communion (1996) 232–3; legality of 49, 52, 65, 69–70, 72, 106, 135–47, 158, 191; local and regional antagonism to 145, 160, 170–93, 238; Majority Report (1963) 91, 152, 154–5, 157, 166; Rejection of Final Report 74, 101, 107, 118–30, 135–48, 156, 161–2, 175–80, 182–93, 217–18; Scheme (Stage 2) 66, 69–70, 72, 118; top-down schemes 6, 24, 48, 160, 174, 177, 181, 190–1, 193 (and local suspicion of centralised authority

52, 123, 130, 140, 145, 160–2, 171, 174–5, 184, 187, 190–1, 200) Anglican–Methodist Union Scheme voting patterns: altered by Anglican– Methodist relations 185, 189–90; Circuits 6, 142, 145, 156, 177–86, 189; geographical differences in 178– 84; Methodist (1969) Conference 6, 118, 142, 176–8 Anglican pilgrimage to the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham 122 Anglo-American episcopate and heritage 33 Anglo–Catholicism 5–7, 19, 23, 29–30, 32–4, 39–42, 52, 54, 58–9, 61, 63, 68, 70–4, 87–8, 102, 104–7, 120, 122, 125, 128, 130, 141, 157–8, 186, 217–18, 222, 238; and Catholic order 23, 105, 109; and the Church of South India 38–42, 59–60, 108–9, 112, 222; decline of 105–6; and E.B. Pusey 41, 128; and Evangelicals 5–7, 23–4, 60, 74–5, 89, 92, 102, 107, 125, 238; and position of 62–3, 70–4, 102–3, 107, 157, 217–18, 222, 238; prominence of 19, 23, 29, 32–4, 39, 42, 52, 54, 58, 61, 128, 141; and union with ‘Rome’ 18, 25, 38, 105, 107–8, 112, 122, 127, 136–7 anti-Anglo-Catholic sentiment 19, 20, 59, 61, 68, 74, 120–2, 125–6, 128, 136, 186 Apostolicity 33, 234; and apostolic authority 19, 61; and the apostolic Church 108, 188, 200, 223, 234, 235, 241, 242; and apostolic faith 233; and Apostolic Fathers 41; and apostolic ministry 39, 66, 109; and apostolic mission 235, 245; and apostolic rite 33, 48, 54–5, 221; and apostolic succession 32, 54–6, 58–9, 62–4, 68, 109, 120, 188, 237; and Into All the World: Being and Becoming Apostolic Churches (2014) 234–6, 240; and Sharing in the Apostolic Communion 223, 234 Aquinas, Thomas 103 Archbishops of Canterbury, relations with the pope 122, 136 Arminianism 3, 129 Arnold, Thomas 21, 41 Artingstall, George 156, 186 Asbury, Francis 241

Index  Athenagoras, Metropolitan of Thyatira 71, 73 Atherstone, Andrew 6, 136, 141 authority, its various meanings 19, 22, 34, 39, 42, 47–77, 111, 118, 125, 144–6, 161, 171, 174, 187, 190–1, 200, 209, 216, 220, 235, 238, 244 autonomy of congregations 3, 171, 176, 187 Azariah, V.S., bishop of Dornakal 36 Baker, Eric 63, 67, 69, 75, 83–4, 89, 90, 92–3, 95, 137, 138, 143, 159, 161, 162, 175, 184, 203 Baker, Frank, John Wesley and the Church of England (1970) 12 baptism 21, 30, 37, 52, 56, 66–7, 109, 128, 233–4, 242–3 Baptists 19, 20, 53, 55, 60, 176, 186, 200, 207, 213 Baptist Union 186, 231 Barker, Bernard 139, 141, 143–6 Barrett, C. Kingsley 2, 59, 61, 63, 65–70, 76, 92–5, 119–20, 129–30, 141, 152–66, 173–6, 184–6, 191, 193, 217 Barrett, Fred 173 Barth, Karl 103–4, 108, 113 BBC 60, 185, 202 Beckerlegge, Oliver 121–3, 130, 138, 140, 147 Beckwith, Roger 124, 127–8 Bedford, Reg. 162 Bell, G.K.A., bishop of Chichester 3, 5, 59–65, 76–7, 83, 87–92, 152–3 Bengal 35–6 Benson, Joseph 15 Bergen-Hohne, garrison 207 Bible, the 33, 108, 127, 129, 144, 173, 177, 222; biblical authority 93, 94; infallibility of 189; literary-critical readings of 21; undenominational teaching of 18 Bible and Total Abstinence, The 182 Bible Christians, The 3, 22 Bible Society 25 biblicism 182 Billy Graham Evangelistic Association 156 Birdwood Barracks Bünde: St Peter’s Garrison Church 207 bishoprics and the lure of ‘social prestige’ 123, 175, 186 Blackburn, John 210

251

Bolton Central Hall 85 Bonn Agreement (1931) 54 Booth, Tom 184 Bovington, Dorset home of the Royal Armoured Corps 203 Bowmer, John 14 Bowron, Malcolm 163 Bradburn, Samuel, The Question, ‘Are the Methodists Dissenters?’ Fairly Examined 15 Bradshaw, Paul 219, 221 Brake, George Thompson 157 Brampton Primitive Methodists 182; see also Methodist Circuits Bray, Jeremy 70 Bridge, David 186 Bristol 16; bishop of 65, 92; and Tyndale Hall 130; and Wesley College 173 British Army 200–13; British Army of the Rhine 201, 207; return to the UK 211–12 British Commonwealth and the Anglican Communion 33 British Council of Churches (1942) 161; (1964) 230 British Empire 33, 35; and imperialism 34 British Weekly 123 Broad Church theological influence 21, 41, 86 Brown, Colin 130 Brown, Matthew 184, 186–7, 193 Bucer, Martin, and the Bucerian service 219–21, 223 Buchanan, Colin 6, 73, 124, 217, 224 Bunting, Jabez 176 Calvinists 127, 129–30; and Congregationalists 19; and The English Churchman 125; at Latimer House Oxford 119; moderate 3 Cambridge University 84, 89, 102–3; Ridley Hall 88, 92; Selwyn College 62; sermon (1946) A Step Forward in Church Relations 4, 23, 57, 101, 118, 152, 173, 200; sermon series on The Approach to Christian Unity 5 Camp Bastion repatriation service 210 Canadian ecumenical plans 161, 225 canon law 72, 88, 106 Canterbury, see of 103: (1969) 107, 130, 153; Archbishops of 11, 56, 71, 87, 101, 102, 119, 122, 136, 215–18;

252 Index Canterbury Diocesan Conference (1968) 56, 218; Convocation of (1953) 58, 61 Carlisle 185; cathedral 185; dean of 88, 185; diocese 192–3; Methodist Circuit 185; Methodist District 163, 180, 184; union votes (1969) 180–1, 186; Wigton Road Methodist Church 185 Carpenter, H.J., bishop of Oxford 60–6, 77, 88–90, 92, 95 Carr, James 176 Catholic ecclesiology 34, 119 Catholic Emancipation (1829) 34 Catholicism 19, 32, 34, 107, 122, 127, 129, 136–7, 141, 142, 201, 206, 208, 221 Catholic Parish and People 88 Catterall, Pippa 2, 4, 173, 175, 178 Chadwick, Henry 245 Chapel-going 172, 185 Chapels (Methodist) 13, 19, 20, 122, 130, 160, 163, 171, 186, 187; chapel interiors 173, 185; and closure 6, 86, 137, 182, 192–3, 206, 211, 231; see also Chapels (Methodist); rationalisation; and ‘overlapping’ chapels 159; and redundancy 6, 86, 137, 180–1, 192–3; see also rationalisation Chaplaincies, non-military 191, 212 Chaplaincy (military) 199–213, 235 Chaplain General 205, 209–10 Chapman, David 7 Chapman, Mark 2 charismatic movement, the 190 Cheadle 130, 157, 186 Cheadle Hulme 127, 163 Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral Conference (1888) 2, 21–2, 34, 243–5 Chicago-Quadrilateral Conference USA (1886) 2, 30, 31, 35 choirs, gowned 189 Christian, The 157 Christian Frontier Newsletter 60 Christianity, post-denominational 34, 36, 40 Christianity Today 157 Christian Perfection 19–20 Christian unity 5, 8, 24–5, 51, 53, 76, 90, 125, 161, 186 Christian witness 62, 126, 201, 230, 232, 234

Christmas 192, 200 Church, the: doctrine of 49, 56, 57, 125, 136, 233 (Anglican 35, 51, 63, 124; Anglo-Catholic 31–2, 63, 101– 13; Methodist 21, 51, 55–6, 119–20, 125–8, 139, 143, 144–5, 189); governance 17, 130, 144–5, 187 (and the rights and status of the laity 22, 50, 56, 67, 72, 144, 170–93); hierarchies 190 (Anglican 174, 184, 187; Methodist 15, 123, 130, 140, 161, 174; as an invisible fellowship of believers 25, 56, 216); leaders 2, 5, 7, 21, 24, 51, 174, 191, 208, 231 (Anglican 48, 65, 87, 107, 218; lay 170, 178, 187–8, 231; Methodist 14, 86, 90, 95, 140, 142, 145, 158–9, 164, 166, 175–6, 182; NLC 141, 156–9, 165; VMA 137–47, 178); and tight structural control 5, 13–14, 16, 47, 49, 95, 105, 127, 130, 162, 176, 187, 208, 245 Church and the secular state 15, 17, 18, 34, 39, 49–52, 55, 65, 69–70, 142–47, 202–13, 235 Church Assembly (1919) 52; (1960) 66 Church Assembly Overseas Council (1956) 62 church attendance: Methodist 17, 19; and numerical decline 6, 135, 192–3, 204 church-building: in military camps 204; New Housing Areas (Church Buildings) Measure (1954) 72; nineteenth-century boom in 21 Churches: and inter-communion 22, 23, 42, 50–9, 61–3, 65–6, 72, 74–5, 77, 90–1, 105–7, 118, 155, 161, 174, 207; mutual recognition of ministries in 7, 11, 23, 24, 51, 56, 233–5, 242, 245; and pulpit exchanges 51, 52, 63; as transnational bodies 48 churches (local) 6, 12, 17, 20, 164, 170–93, 222, 236; as a community resource 180, 182, 191, 204; and individual agency 33, 160, 171, 176, 187, 192; and local issues 25, 160, 170–93; see also LEPs Churches’ Council for Covenanting, Towards Visible Unity: Proposals for a Covenant (1980) 24, 232 churches in Northampton 182, 183 Churches of North India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka 61, 67, 161, 216

Index  ‘Churches Together’ 7, 231 Churches’ Unity Commission 24, 232; Report: Visible Unity. Ten Propositions (1976) 24 churchgoing 4, 170, 188–90, 193; and Anglican congregations 6, 33, 34, 36, 38, 42, 57–9, 185, 188–90, 192; and combined worship 6; see also church premises; LEPs; and committees 178, 187; congregational spirit of 6, 19–20, 48, 176, 180, 185–7, 193; and congregations as ‘pawns’ 174; and individual freedom 174–5, 190, 192–3; and loyalty 16, 122, 162, 164, 180, 182, 186–7; and tradition 6, 23, 90, 93, 186, 188–9, 192–3 Church in New Zealand, the 225, 234, 240, 242 Church in Nigeria, the 104–6, 161 Church in Wales 51, 178, 191, 237 Churchman, The 130, 217 Church Missionary Society 40 Church of England: in the eighteenth century 13, 49, 89, 91, 93, 130; Evangelical Council 130, 157; general synod 7, 166, 244, 77 ( (1970) 52, 75; (1972) 1, 5, 14, 147, 154, 159, 230); (1982) 232; (2003) 236; (2014) 236, 241; (2018) 12, 24, 237; (2019) 24, 240); House of Laity 129; liturgical practice 3, 19, 35, 57, 72, 88, 106, 121, 142, 210, 215–17, 243; and medieval vestments 122; in the nineteenth century 34, 35, 40, 75; and women lay readers 73; and women priests 72, 235, 242 Church of England Newspaper 127 Church of India, Burma and Ceylon 38, 65, 92 Church of North India 61, 67, 161, 216 Church of Scotland 35, 107, 110, 124, 201, 203, 206–7, 221, 223 Church of South India 3, 5, 33, 40, 42, 55, 85, 91; and Anglo-Catholics 59, 109; and bishops 54; and ecumenical influence 125, 161, 223–7; formation of 104; ordinal 220–3 church order 14, 37, 41, 48, 50, 56, 57, 67, 93, 102, 104, 108, 119 Church parties 5, 95–6, 127 church premises 180, 182, 186; on housing estates 72, 74, 230; New Housing Areas (Church Buildings) Measure (1954) 72; shared 72, 161,

253

191, 205, 231; Sharing of Church Buildings Act (1969) 191, 230–1; withholding of access to dissentients 162, 175, 184 Church Times 215–16 Church unity 34, 35, 50, 53, 90, 175, 190, 192, 230–1; and quest for organic unity 1, 2, 5, 7–8, 66, 75–6, 91, 119, 125, 142, 174, 186, 190, 192, 231, 236; and visible unity 3, 11, 19, 23–5, 41, 47, 106, 161, 165, 175, 231–3, 235–6, 238, 240, 242–6 Clark, David 180 Clerc, Donald 163 clerical elites, centralised and autocratic 176 clericalism 61 Clerical Subscription Act (1865) 49 Cliff College 71, 119, 154, 155 Clipson, A.E.D. 138 Cocksworth, Christopher, bishop of Coventry xi, xiii Coggle, Bertrand 146–7 Coke, Thomas 15, 241 Colditz prisoner of war camp 200 Coleridge, S.T. 21 Colquhoun, Frank 126–7 Common Statement of the Formal Conversations between the Methodist Church of Great Britain and the Church of England (2001) 11, 235–6, 245 Community of the Resurrection, The (journal) 107 Congregationalists 6, 7, 19–20, 35, 36, 41, 55, 60, 68, 72, 84, 125, 153, 176, 189, 200, 231, 240 Congress of the Free Churches, Manchester (1892) 20 consecration of bishops 37, 219, 225, 232 conservatism 6, 177, 180, 193 Consett 172–3 Continuing Methodist Church 124, 155, 158, 164, 166, 218 Conversations between the Anglican and Methodist Churches (1956–63): 2nd meeting 63; 2-stage scheme to unity 1, 5, 23, 66, 76, 91, 119, 135, 142, 153; 3rd meeting (June 1957) 63–4, 89–90; 4th meeting (December 1957) 90–1; 8th meeting (December 1959) 65–6; 9th meeting (April 1960) 66; 11th meeting (March 1961) 66;

254 Index Conversations (1956–62) 84–96; Final Report, Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church (1963) 95, 124, 153; An Interim Statement (1958) 65, 91–2, 174; Scheme (planning for Stage 2) 66, 69–70, 72, 118; Scheme (Stage 1) 23, 66, 69–72, 74–5, 83–96, 118, 142, 145, 160, 232; teams, the 84–96 Convocations of Canterbury and York 21, 59–60, 71, 87–9, 92, 96, 130, 153, 158, 166; (1933) 105; (1953) 58; (1955) 61; (1958) 92; (1963) 1, 5, 7; (1965) 106; (1969) 1, 24, 74, 107, 113, 119, 154; (1972) 5 Cornwall 16; and Cornwall District 161, 179; and the Free Methodist Church 180; as Methodism’s traditional heartland 180 Countryman, William 43 C.R., journal of the Community of the Resurrection, Mirfield 107, 110 Cranmer, Thomas, and ordination 219, 221 creeds 33, 42, 52, 57; Apostles’ and Nicene 21, 37 Cresswell, Amos 76, 127, 155, 157, 176 Crosby, Kenneth 188 Cuddesdon Theological College 102 cultural and educational barriers separating chapel and church 47–8, 57–8, 122–3, 185–6 Cumbers, Frank 155, 162 Cumbria ecumenical partnership 192, 231 Cur Deus Homo? St Anselm of Canterbury 103 Currie, Robert 8, 176 Darwinism 20 Davidson, Randall, archbishop of Canterbury 22, 89 Davie, Grace 178, 187 Davies, Horton 1 Davies, Rupert, E. 1, 8, 70, 147, 159, 176 Davison, Leslie 4, 64–5, 85, 86, 95, 161, 175 Dawson, Brian, ‘The Past, Present and Future Strategies in the Church of England Parishes and Churches midEast Cumbria’ (2001) 192–3

Day, Lal Behari 35, 36 Daymond, D.M. 191 denominations: and the denominational press 152, 156–7; and interdenominational activity 2, 21, 50, 118, 158; and inter-denominational relationships 18, 25, 35, 55, 126, 189; and intra-denominational divisions 6, 12, 39, 121, 125, 129, 130, 136, 173, 182; John Wesley’s’ Reasons Against a Separation from the Church of England 18; and post-denominational Christianity 34–6, 40; and reconciliation between 7, 8, 12, 23, 40, 54, 106, 166; and separation 3, 12–15, 23, 48, 106, 139, 146, 157, 160, 190; and survival 25, 34, 147–8, 190–3 Devon 173, 179, 245 diaconate 235, 237; and The Theology and Ecclesiology Underpinning the Diaconate and the Methodist Diaconal Order (2019) 245 Dingley, James 175 dissent 12, 13, 64, 107; Methodist 162, 164; Old Dissent 3, 19, 49 Dissenters 18, 152; Evangelical 119; Methodist 6, 14–17, 23, 61, 66, 137, 154, 158, 160 District Synods 145, 153, 156, 162, 165, 178 disunity 4, 32, 36, 48–77, 216, 219 Dix, Gregory 103, 128 doctrine 12, 21, 49, 51, 56, 57, 113, 119, 135, 140, 145, 233; of apostolic succession 31, 32; of the Atonement 127; of the Bible 127; and Church governance 144–6; of episcopacy 35, 63; evangelical 122; of the merged body 51; Methodist 120, 126–8, 136, 139, 143–6; Reformation 125; sacramental 128, 144 Douglas, J.D. 157 Douglas–Home, Sir Alec 123 Drew University 158 Driberg, Tom 40 Duffield, Gervase 68, 129, 156, 157 Durbin, Henry 16 Durham: bishops 35, 102; cathedral 174; county 85; diocese 106, 108; Durham County Advertiser 162; Methodist Circuit 162, 186; university 65, 88, 119, 154,

Index  173–4, 217; Van Mildert Chair of Divinity 102 du Toit, Lionel M.S. 60, 73, 88–9, 185–6 early Church, the 41, 62, 64, 109, 222 East Anglia 163, 179 Easter 1, 161, 200, 230 Eastern Orthodox Churches 33, 71, 221 Eastwood, John 139 Eccles 186 ecclesial identity 3, 15–17, 29–35, 39, 41–2, 127–8, 130, 147–8, 158, 191, 231, 235 ecclesiasticism 3, 103, 121 ecclesiology 21, 34, 63, 102, 119, 130, 187, 225, 237, 245 ecumenism: and Anglican–Methodist local relationships 170–93; and commitment 3, 7, 11, 22, 34, 230, 231, 235, 236, 239, 242, 245; and co-operation 2, 23, 35, 40, 50, 56, 58, 74, 157, 201, 208; and cultural challenge 20, 25, 48, 51, 61, 122, 190, 207; and disappointment 1, 2, 6, 7, 24, 102, 124, 130, 138, 176–8; and the ‘ecumenical century’ 1; ecumenical councils at county level see ‘Churches Together’; and ecumenical dialogue 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 43, 48, 54, 83–96, 126, 129, 130, 223, 231–6, 240–2, 245; and enthusiasm 1, 3, 5, 47, 51, 125, 161, 231, 232; and experiment 7, 24, 72, 190–3, 205–6, 230–2; and ‘extended areas’ of ecumenical partnership 231; see also Cumbria; Methodist Ecumenical Committee 84; and ‘ontological insecurity’ 178; rise of 1–5, 137, 161, 174; and vagueness 32, 184, 217, 234; see also ambiguity Eddy, G.S. 36 education, and denominational issues in the nineteenth century 18–19 Education Act 1902 20 Edwards, Maldwyn Lloyd 71, 138, 144 Egypt, third-century, and the discontinuity in the succession of bishops 112 Eliot, T. S., pamphlet Reunion Destruction 39 Ellesmere Port 188 Ely Theological College 102

255

Empires: Austrian, German and Turkish 33 England, the north 86, 162–3, 171, 179, 181 England, the south 86, 94, 163, 170, 179, 182–3, 189 English, Donald xiii 6, 172–3, 177, 190 English, Paul and Richard xiii English Churchman, The 125 episcopacy 7, 11, 15, 24, 234, 241; and Anglican Evangelicals 125; Conversations’ discussions on 89–94, 102, 108–9, 111; and ecumenism 47–77; and the Free Churches 22; and Methodism 13, 23, 120, 123–4, 158; and VMA and NLC opposition 160, 218 Episcopal Church, America 30, 225, 241 Episcopal Church (Methodist), America 241 Episcopal Churches Unity Commission 48 episcopal confirmation 58 episcopal ordination 54–6, 58–9, 61, 63–4, 67, 74, 75, 90–1, 93, 101, 104, 139, 145, 217, 237–40 episcopate 90, 109–10, 113, 123, 234, 242, 244; ordination of women to 235 episcopate (historic episcopate) 29–43, 54, 58, 64, 93–4, 102, 120, 153–4, 157, 164, 217, 232–3, 236, 240–4 episcope 94 episkopos 120 Epistle to the Ephesians 223 Epworth 12 esse of the Church 29, 40, 54, 64, 109, 244 Established Church see Church of England Eucharist, the 37, 39, 55, 74, 91, 113, 128, 201, 233–5, 237–9, 241–3 European Common Market 189 Evangelical Alliance, the 161 evangelicalism 6, 36, 119, 125, 127, 136, 138, 141, 177–8, 193; and the National Assembly of Evangelicals (1966) 165; see also Anglican Evangelicalism evangelicals (conservative) 96, 102, 107, 111, 154, 177; and Conservative Evangelicals in Methodism (CEIM) 121 Exeter Hall 40

256 Index Fairhill Church, Cwmbran 191–2 Faith and Order 3, 104, 161, 236–8; conference, Nottingham (1964) 1, 7, 161, 230; conference Lausanne (1927) 57; Faith and Order Movement 22; joint Faith and Order working party, Mission and Ministry in Covenant (2018) 237; Methodist Faith and Order committee 58, 61; World Council of Churches Faith and Order Commission 88, 243; World Council of Churches’ Faith and Order Commission convergence statement Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982) 233 Farrar, Dorothy 85–6, 94 Farrer, Austin 103 Fenn, C.C. 40–3 First World War 32, 36, 42, 163, 199–200, 203, 206 Fisher, Geoffrey, archbishop of Canterbury 4–5, 56–8, 60, 65, 71, 75, 84, 87–90, 94; Fisher’s Cambridge sermon: A Step Forward in Church Relations (1946) 152; Fisher’s invitation to Nonconformist Churches to ‘take episcopacy into their systems’ 4, 23, 101, 118, 152, 200; Fisher’s opposition to the Conversations Report (1963) 73–4, 76, 91, 92, 157 Flew, Robert Newton 3, 7, 92; and The Approach to Christian Unity 5 folk fundamentalism 177–8 folk religion 172, 176, 192 Foot Nash, David 68, 70 forces’ chaplains see chaplain Free Churches 3, 4, 6, 19–20, 22–3, 26, 49, 51, 54, 57–8, 65, 76, 101, 121, 160, 186, 203, 207, 210, 222; Anglican and Free Church Reunion Councils (from 1892) 21; Free Church Congress, Manchester (1892) 20; Free Church Council Movement 20; Free Church Movement 19–20; National Council of the Evangelical Free Churches (1896) 20, 50; Outline of a Reunion Scheme for the Church of England and the Evangelical Free Churches of England, February (1938) 56; Report, Church Relations in England (1950) 57, 60; World Council of Churches representation 21–2

Free Church of Scotland 35 Free Methodist Church 124, 180 Gaimster, Leslie 162 gambling 160, 189 Garbett, Cyril, archbishop of York 87, 88 Garrett, T.S. 221 General Council of the Society of Mary 106 General Synod of the Church of England see Church of England George, K.M. 36 George, Raymond 222 German liberal biblical scholarship 33, 177 German Tanganyika 33 Gibson, William xii Gilbert, C.W.R. 204 Gilson, Etienne 103 Glorious Revolution 1688–9 49 God’s providence 101–13, 119 God’s word, infallible 120, 125, 189, 216, 233 Gore, Charles 42 Gospel, the 8, 23, 35, 37, 41, 53, 55, 68, 76, 120, 124, 126, 127, 129, 137, 145, 187, 190; The Gospel and the Catholic Church (1936) (Michael Ramsey) 108; and the ‘gospel of reconciliation’ 25; and the ‘gospel of salvation’ 36 Gothic revival 21 Gowland, William, and Luton industrial mission 159, 191 grace: God’s grace 43, 57, 109, 120, 129; grace and justification/ salvation (Equal access to 145; The gift of grace 19, 55, 188; and the ‘gospel of free grace’ 125; justification by faith through grace alone and the priesthood of all believers 125; Wesley and Methodism: Saved by grace alone through faith alone 120, 121, 164); grace and ordination (Common Statement: ordained and lay ministries are given by God as instruments of God’s grace 235; God’s grace given in the laying on of hands 54; grace in Anglican– Methodist Ordinal (1968) 217, 223; grace in episcopal ordination 54, 58, 62–3; ‘no grace in you’ 31)

Index  grassroots religion 2, 5–7, 24, 52, 95, 140, 142, 153, 160, 170–93, 230 Great Ejection (1662) 3 Great War see First World War Greaves, Henry 157, 158, 163 Greenslade, Stanley 60, 63, 65, 88–90, 95 Greet, Kenneth 6, 177, 186 Greeves, Frederick 139 Gregory, Benjamin 21 Gregory, Jeremy 12 Grindelwald, reunion conference for Anglican and Free Church leaders (1896) 21 Growing into Union: an alternative scheme of reunion (1970) 74–5, 77, 111 Guardian, The 157, 190 Gunstone, John 105, 106 Harrison, A.W. 12, 23, 25; and The Evangelical Revival and Christian Reunion, Fernley-Hartley Lecture (1942) 23; and The Separation of Methodism from the Church of England, Wesley Historical Society lecture (1945) 23 Harrison, Douglas 90 Hastings, Adrian 1, 7, 24, 102, 105, 109, 181, 182 Headingley College, Leeds 85, 153 Hebert, Gabriel 68, 103 Hempton, David 14 Henson, Hensley, bishop of Durham 35 Hereford Cathedral 52 Hickinbotham, J.P. 57–8 Hickman, Baden 157 High Church (Anglican) 3, 12, 19, 21, 30, 40 Hildebrandt, Franz 53, 124, 154, 156–60, 162–5, 175–6 Hindley, Richard 127 Hinduism, divisions in 36 historic episcopate see episcopate Hodges, Herbert A. 60, 67, 87, 89 Holy Communion 12, 14, 16, 200, 205, 243 Holy Spirit, the x, 37, 53, 58, 63, 108, 121, 221, 223 ‘Home Reunion’ 19, 21, 22, 25, 30, 35, 152 Hood, Frederic 29, 32, 38 Hooper, J.S.M. 61–2 Houghton, Edward 163 house groups, independent 190, 192

257

housing estates 72, 74, 211, 230 Howdle, Peter xi, xiii Huggon, John 185, 186 Hughes, Hugh Price 20, 21 Huntington, William Reed 31, 52 hymns 128; and hymn-singing 62, 188; and the Methodist Hymnbook 126; and the Wesleyan General Hymnary (1889) 21 identity 147; Anglican 29, 30, 32, 42, 191; denominational 17, 29, 35, 41, 188; ecclesial 16, 231, 235; episcopal 32, 34, 39; evangelical 127, 130; Methodist 3, 15; postdenominational 34; Protestant 34; theological 136 Immanuel College, Ibadan, Nigeria 105 immigration 189 independent Methodist Church 139 industry and industrialisation 17, 159, 189, 191 inter-communion 22, 23, 48, 50–9, 61–3, 65–6, 72, 75, 91, 106, 118, 155, 161, 174; and Intercommunion Today 74, 77; Interim Statement section ‘Unity and Intercommunion’ (1958) 91; and the ‘open table’ 73, 105, 207; partial 90 Interim Statement, Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church (1958) 65, 91–3, 174 Interim Statement, Towards Reconciliation (1967) 157, 216 Inter–Varsity Fellowship 129 Iraq 199, 210, 211 Ireland 186, 226, 234, 237, 240–2 Isaac, Daniel, The Pulpit Defended; Five Essays (1815) 16 Jessop, Thomas E. 62, 68, 86, 88, 93, 119, 153, 160, 190; and Not This Way (1969) 175 Jesus Didn’t Jump: flyer (November 1965) 160 Job, John 157, 164 John Rylands University Library 83 Joint Advocacy and Monitoring Group (2014) 237 Joint Council for Anglican–Methodist Unity (JCAMU) 71, 73 Joint Implementation Commission for the Anglican–Methodist Covenant

258 Index (JIC) Final Report (2014) xi, xiii; Methodist–Anglican Panel for Unity in Mission (2009) 236 Joint Working Group to explore ways forward for the Conversations. Report (1971) 75 Jones, Rowland 137 justification by faith 184, 188; and John Wesley’s sermon ‘Justification by Faith’ 155 Kemp, Eric 58–60, 62–4, 67–9, 71, 73, 75–7, 83, 88–9, 91, 93, 95, 106, 222 Kensitite preachers 121 Kent, John 94 Kent, Sir Harold 72 Kikuyu Kenya see mission overseas, international missionary movement Kilham, Alexander 16 King, Peter, Lord 13 Kirk, Kenneth, bishop of Oxford 58, 60, 64 Kirk Session 207 Knight, Frances 19 Lamb, Roland 125, 164–5 Lambeth ‘Appeal to All Christian People’ (1920) 1 Lambeth Conference 21, 40, 43, 233, 240; (1888) 21, 29–31, 42, 52; (1920) 5, 29, 42, 52, 152, 200; (1930) 152; (1948) 38, 104; (1958) 62, 65, 91, 92, 105, 225; (1968) 75, 110, 218; (1988) 232, 238; (1998) 233, 234, 241 Lambeth Palace Library 83 Lancashire 162, 163, 184; and breakaway Methodist churches 124, 177–8, 180, 184, 187; and union votes (1969) 179 Lang, Cosmo, archbishop of Canterbury (1932) 56 Lawrence, John 60–1 laying-on-of-hands 33, 54–5, 63–4, 67, 68, 73, 101, 144, 216, 220–3 League of Nations 51; and ‘league of nations for the churches’ 34 Leeds University 88 Lenton, John 5 Leonard, Graham, bishop of Willesden 6, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 107, 157, 217 LEPs (Local Ecumenical Projects/ Partnerships) 7, 24, 190–2, 203, 230–1 Levett, T.A.R. 72

liberalism 33, 103; in Anglicanism 21, 86, 88, 105; in Catholicism 107, 141; and evangelicals 92; Liberal Party 18, 20, 160; in Methodism 125, 127; in the nineteenth-century 127; and theology 124, 177 Lidgett, John Scott 3, 21, 22, 51, 52 Life and Work movement 161 Lightfoot, J.B. bishop of Durham 41–3 Lincolnshire 86, 88, 179, 186 Lincoln Theological College 102 Lister, Susanna G. 87, 89 liturgy xi, 3, 12, 14, 19, 35, 52, 57, 67–72, 88, 106, 121, 142, 160, 210, 215–26, 242–3 Lloyd, A. Kingsley 69 Lloyd, Roger (and The Church of England 1900–1965) 11, 94 Lloyd-Jones, Martyn 164 Loach, John Vaughan 88–9 local issues 8, 12, 17, 20, 23, 31, 36, 41, 71, 75, 138, 159, 215; and costly church repairs 180, 231; and desire for autonomy versus central authority 48, 96, 160, 162, 164, 171, 176, 187, 190–1; and ecumenism 178–81, 187–90, 230–2, 236; and the importance of memories 4, 160; in local churches 6, 40, 53, 105, 122, 127, 170–2, 182; and local clergy and ministers 51–2, 182, 184–7; and local ecumenical projects (later partnerships) LEPs 7, 24, 74, 190–2; and local narratives 25, 93, 182, 190, 193; and local preachers 72, 121, 156, 180, 184, 187; and loyalty 16, 122, 162, 164, 180, 182, 186–7; in Staithes, Yorkshire 180–2; and suspicion of other worship traditions 6, 160, 186, 222 Lofthouse, W.F. 160 London, King’s College 102 London Missionary Society 17 Luke, Hubert 161 Lunn, Henry 19–22 Luther, Martin 20, 125, 173, 224; and ‘Introduction to the Book of Romans’ 20 Lutherans 58 Luton Industrial College 159, 191 Mackenzie, Kenneth 141, 146, 152–66, 175, 184, 193 Mackinnon, Donald 104

Index  Macmillan, Harold 48, 67 Madras 36, 37 Maland, Gordon 162 Manchester 20, 156, 163, 188–9; and Manchester University 83 Manning, B.L. 153 Marcham Manor Press, Oxford 68, 130 Mariolatry 122 Maritain, Jacques 103 marriage 70; Marriage Act (1949) 72; marriage and burial acts 70; marriage of divorced persons 160 Martin, Clifford A., bishop of Liverpool 88 Mascall, Eric 6, 74, 101–13 Massie, John 20 Mather, Alexander 15 Maurice, F.D. 21 McGrath, Alister 124–5 Meadley, T.D. 92–5, 119, 154–5, 163 Megarry, Mr Justice 143, 145–6 Mergers, industrial and commercial 4, 48; and of churches and circuits 48, 50; see also rationalisation Methodism: and Anglo-Catholicism 6, 7, 19–20, 23, 52, 59, 61, 70, 72, 75, 122, 125, 127, 141, 218, 238; as a bulwark against the Church of England 4, 186; Congregationalist culture of 6, 19–20, 48, 72, 180, 186–7, 189, 193; early 11–19; and ‘Fighting for Methodism’s Soul’ 136; and the ‘grassroots’ see grassroots religion; and holiness 64, 119, 126; and Nonconformity 3, 12, 15, 17–19, 50, 55, 58, 59, 61, 174; in northwest England 162, 163, 176–8; rural 6, 20, 86, 163, 166, 171, 180, 187, 192–3; and separation from the Church of England 3, 12–15, 18, 23, 91, 106, 121–2, 160, 191; suburban 86, 170, 180, 185–7; urban 17, 86, 170, 180, 187, 193; village 20, 121, 180, 181, 186, 187; world 158, 159, 232–4, 240 Methodism, Wesleyan 3–4, 11–22, 50–2, 55, 94, 119, 127, 137–8, 140, 143, 153, 171, 182, 189, 200, 204–5, 213, 220 Methodist/s: and alcohol 66, 89, 182, 189, 243; and anti-Catholicism 3, 122, 127; bishops 67, 69, 217; Book of Offices (1936) 220; ‘Church Methodists’ and dual commitment

259

15, 16; identity as an outpost of the Methodist Church in North America 158; and liberal Catholicism 141; liking for ‘historic’ links with the Church of England 189; Methodists as Dissenters (1790s) 14–16; ‘Old Connexion’ 17; simplicity 62, 121, 173, 224 Methodist Association of Youth Clubs 86, 162 Methodist Central Hall, Westminster 1, 84, 85, 120 Methodist Church: Church Act (1976) 165; Church Union Act (1929) 143; and democratic election 138, 140, 145, 156, 162, 178; and itinerant preachers 12–14, 171; and the Lichfield Plan (1794) 15; and local preachers 72, 86, 127, 156, 180, 184, 187; and the Local Preachers’ Mutual Aid Association 176; and Lord Sidmouth’s attempt to curtail itinerant preaching (1811) 16; Primitive Methodist Church 3, 4, 13, 17, 20, 22, 23, 50–1, 61, 75, 85, 86, 137–8, 140, 143, 159, 171, 173, 182, 184, 189; United Methodist Church 3, 59, 86, 137, 143, 171, 173–4; United Methodist Free Churches and union (1907) 22 Methodist church buildings and the Gothic Revival 21 Methodist Circuits 181–3; Banbury 183; Bromley 188–9; Darlington 179; Great Yarmouth and Gorleston 181; Luton South 182; Newton Abbott 163; Southend-on-Sea 145; Swindon and Marlborough; Forest of Dean 191 Methodist Conference 12, 23, 54, 67, 95, 124, 136, 139–40, 143, 146, 156, 175, 215, 227, 244; (1939) 56, 57; (1953) 118; (1955) 4, 83; (1957) 60, 86; (1961) 138, 144; (1963) 1, 153; (1965) 70, 125, 153, 176; (1969) 6, 24, 102, 166, 178; (1975) 206; (1976) 232; (1982) 206; (2003) 11, 236; (2014) 236; (2018) 237–40; (2019) 245; Deed of Declaration (1734) 13–14; as the final authority on questions concerning the interpretation of doctrines 145; Memorials Committee, memorials dismissed 145, 156, 159, 162; and

260 Index property 13, 17, 72, 143, 186, 191, 204; statement, The Nature of the Christian Church (1937) 55 Methodist Connexion 5, 13–18, 20, 22, 69, 84, 139, 156, 159, 161–2, 164–6, 175–6, 178, 185–7, 237; resignations from 124, 162, 165–7, 176–7, 193 Methodist Dissentients 2, 6, 23, 61, 68, 173–6; in the Conversations team 84, 94–5; and denial of platforms and advertising space 141, 157, 162, 175; Dissentient View, and its four Dissentients 93–5, 153, 217; see also NLC; and evangelical identity 125–30, 177–8; and loyalty to older traditions see Methodist Church, Primitive Methodist Church; and paranoia at the machinations of the Connexional hierarchy 175; use of combative language 139–42, 160, 175; and withdrawal of appointments and grants 162, 184; see also NLC; VMA Methodist Districts 67: (Cumbria) 180– 1, 193; (London) 182; (Manchester and Stockport) 156, 163, 188–9; (Oxford and Leicester) 183; (Sheffield) 90, 163; (Wolverhampton) 85; District superintendents 140, 156, 162, 220; District Synods 145, 153, 156, 162, 165, 178 Methodist ecclesiology 237, 244, 245 Methodist Holy Communion 205, 220, 233, 238, 243; and administration by laymen 12, 14, 16, 144, 173; and the open table 73, 200 Methodist Home Missions Secretaries, Leslie Davison and William Sangster 1, 4, 85 Methodist Magazine, The 156 Methodist membership figures 17, 179–80; falling figures 137, 159, 204 Methodist ministers, stationing of 6, 54, 84, 177, 180, 184 Methodist mission 4, 14, 16–17, 22, 24, 55, 68, 86, 137–8, 159, 180, 193, 202, 212, 219, 230–1, 233, 235–7, 244–5; and The Message and Mission of Methodism (1946) 159 Methodist Model Deed 13, 143, 191 Methodist ordinal see ordinal Methodist preferred worship (1950s) 173, 187–92

Methodist property see Methodist Conference Methodist Recorder 65, 92, 130, 138–9, 141, 153, 155–7, 161–2, 175 Methodist Revival Fellowship (MRF) 154, 157, 164–6 Methodist Sacramental Fellowship 121 Methodist Service Book (1975) 224–5 Methodist Standard 156 Methodist Times 20 Methodist trustees 14, 162–3 Methodist Union (1932): Deed of Union 23, 69, 72–3, 119, 128, 139, 143–6, 155; Intra-Methodist discussions (1907) 22, 50; proposed scheme of union (1929) 37 Methodist Worship Book (1999) 224–5 ministries, mutual recognition of 7, 11, 23–4, 51, 56, 223–4, 235, 242, 245 Ministry of Defence 205, 209 mission 4, 7–8, 20, 55, 136, 230–1, 233, 235–7; Commitment to Mission and Unity Report (1996) 7, 24; Mission and Ministry in Covenant. Report from The Faith and Order bodies of the Church of England and the Methodist Church (2017) 239–40, 244; see also AMICUM; Methodist mission mission overseas: and ecumenism 35–43; international missionary movement 21; London Missionary Society 17; Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society 17; World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh (1910) 1, 21, 161 ‘mixed churches’ and evangelicals 164 Monahan, C. Dermott 85, 91 Moore, A. E. Clucas 6, 135, 137–8, 140 Moravian Church 12, 24 Morgan, Peter 73, 126 Murray, Victor 160 Nagercoil Christians 41 National Education League 18 National Liaison Committee (NLC) 2, 6, 121, 124, 141, 146, 152–66, 184 Newcastle upon Tyne 16; and local voting patterns (1969) 179 Newman, Leslie 138, 141, 146, 178 New Testament, the 30, 50, 53, 55, 59, 61, 76, 104, 120, 122, 190, 222, 243; and John Wesley’s Forty-four

Index  Sermons and Notes on the New Testament 127 Non-conformist Churches regarded as voluntary bodies 49 Nonconformity 49, 52, 53, 55–9, 69, 119, 127, 153, 174; and Methodism 3, 12, 15, 17–20, 50, 61 Norfolk Methodism (1966) 181 nuclear disarmament 189 Nurse, Charles 185 Ockenden, Frank 121 O’Gorman, Brian Stapleton 143 Old Catholic Churches 54, 57, 59, 71, 73 Oldham 16 Old Testament, the 30, 108, 243 ordinal xi, 7, 38, 61, 245; Anglican– Methodist (1968) 215–27; in the Book of Common Prayer 66, 219– 20; of the Church of Scotland 221; of the Church of South India (1958) 220–2, 227; Report of the Anglican– Methodist Unity Commission: Part 1: The Ordinal (1968) 73, 142 ordination 89, 160, 188, 218, 238; in Anglican Common Worship: Ordination Services (2007) 219, 224, 225; episcopal 33, 37, 43, 54, 56, 58, 61, 63, 67–8, 75, 90, 92–3, 101, 104, 110, 139, 145, 239–40; and the Free Churches 22; joint services of 232; joint training for at The Queen’s College, Birmingham 1970 75; ‘Lutheran view of’ 173; Methodist 13–15, 23, 55, 64, 120, 218, 220, 241, 244 (in the Book of Offices 155, 220; and John Wesley’s Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America 220); and ‘re-ordination’ 11, 23, 65, 67–8, 125, 158, 217; and the Service of Reconciliation 68–9, 74, 94, 101, 118, 217; of women 7, 74, 235; see also ordinal organic union, goal of 5, 66, 119, 125, 142, 174, 186, 190, 192, 231 Originating Summons against the President and Secretary of the Methodist Conference 136, 142–3 orthodoxy 31, 59–60, 128, 213 Oxford 30, 39, 58, 130; Centre for Methodism and Church History at Oxford Brookes University (archive 2, 84, 170–1; conference (November

261

2018) 2; Colleges 68 (Christ Church 102; Exeter 88; Keble Mansfield 20, 85); Conference of Evangelical Churchmen (1968) 129; and John Wesley 12, 13; Latimer House 119, 124; Oxford and District Free Church Council 20; Oxford and Leicester Methodist District 179, 182–3; Oxford Circuit Quarterly Meeting (1955) 187, 189–90; Pusey House 30, 42; St Barnabas’ Church 20; Wycliffe Hall 88 Oxford Movement 160; and Keble’s Assize Sermon (1833) 19; and Tracts for the Times 19 pacifism 203 Packer, J.I. 6, 67–8, 74, 76, 111, 119, 124–5, 129–30, 157, 217; All in each Place: Towards Reunion in England (1965) 125; ‘Open Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury’, signed by 52 leading Evangelicals (1968) 217 Palmer, Edwin James, bishop of Bombay 37 Papal Bull Apostolicae curae (1896) 54 Parish, Anglican 13, 19, 102, 108, 171, 203, 238; and Methodists 52, 171, 185; parish church 14–16, 18, 19, 137; and parishioners 122, 188–92; parochial church councils (PCCs) 188 Parker, Linda 200 Parkin, Vincent 92 Parliamentary involvement 17–18, 49–50, 52, 55, 69, 70, 72, 142–8, 165, 191 Parsons, Martin 126–7 Paton, David 73 Paul, Leslie 66 Pawson, John 15 Peake, A.S. 22, 51, 55 Pennant, The, magazine of the Forces Pension society 209 Penrith rural deanery, Methodist churches in 193; see also Methodist Circuits Perkins, Benson 160 Peters, James 186 Phillpotts, Henry, bishop of Exeter 19 pietism 12; Pietists 104 pipe organ 173 Pittsburgh General Conference of the Methodist Church (1964) 158 Platonism 54

262 Index Platt, J. Ellison 200 Plymouth Methodist Conference (1965) 125, 153–5 Pollock, Bertram, bishop of Norwich 52 Povey, Norman 180 Prayer Book (1552) 219 Prayer Book (1928) 220; and debates (1927–28) 52 Prayer Book (Alternative and Other Services) Measure (1965) 72; Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England 49, 66, 72, 73, 126, 218–20, 222–3; and John Wesley 3, 12 prayer x, 3, 5, 25, 53, 58, 62, 64, 113, 153, 201, 216, 219–25, 238, 241; ‘for Christian Unity’(1958) 161; for the dead 136; extempore 16, 188; in the Service of Reconciliation 217; Women’s World Day of Prayer 88 Presbyterians 7, 35, 36, 41, 49, 125, 200, 211, 231, 240; and Presbyterian ‘bishop’ 38 presbyters 11, 55–7, 73, 221–5, 227, 237–45 Price, Richard 15 priesthood 23, 39, 58–9, 66, 71, 89, 102, 108, 110–11, 120–1, 164, 186, 192; priesthood of all believers 125, 155, 184; priesthood of all believers: shipwreck analogy 173; and ‘priestly hierarchy’ 184; and priestly ‘zealots’ 123; sacerdotal 122 Priestley, Joseph 15 Protestant Episcopal Church’s Unity Commission 48 Protestantism 29, 35, 108, 120, 136, 141–2, 190; and Protestant Churches 19, 31, 48, 50, 106, 108, 113 Protestant Truth Society see Kensitite preachers pulpit exchanges see churches puritan influences 129, 219, 239 Pusey, E.B. 41, 128 Putnam, Wilbert 157 Race, Philip 86–7 racialism 40; see also British Empire Radcliffe, Lord 70 radicalism 174 radio see BBC Ramsey, Michael, archbishop of Canterbury 6, 24, 101–13, 199, 201 Ratcliff, E.C. 222

rationalisation: of church and chapel provision 159, 181, 182, 204, 206, 231; of circuits after union (1932) 50–1; by the State (1662) 49; see also Chapels (Methodist) Reading University 87 Reformation, the 20, 48, 51, 120–2, 124–5, 128, 137, 141–2, 155, 220 religious tolerance and intolerance 13, 20, 148, 189 Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts (1828) 34 Review of the Churches (1892–96) 21 Richmond College, London 60, 84, 91 Rigg, J.H. 12, 19 Riley, Harold 60, 62, 66, 73, 88–9 Rinkel, archbishop of Utrecht 71, 73–4 ritual 38, 122, 188 Robarts, Richard 16 Roberts, Harold 4, 60–1, 63–6, 69, 74–5, 77, 83–6, 89–93, 95, 142, 161, 175, 216 Robinson, John A.T., bishop of Woolwich, and The New Reformation? (1965) 3; and Honest to God (1963) 103, 108 Rodd, Sue 187 Rogers, Guinness, and ‘A Congress of the Free Churches’ 20 Roman Catholicism 25, 30, 32, 70, 105, 209; Catholic Emancipation (1829) 34; and church order 108; and interactions with the Church of England 122, 136–7, 201, 206, 208, 210–12; ordinal revision 221; and the Pope 4, 136; and ‘popery’ 18; Second Vatican Council (1962–5) 105–7, 112–13, 122, 136, 158, 161, 231; Vatican Council (1870) 30 Ross-Cornes, Graham 146 Rouse, Ruth 21 Routley, Erik 68 Royle, Edward 16 Rugby, Anglican churches in 188–9 Rupp, E. Gordon 49, 63, 85–6, 88, 89, 95, 124, 128–9, 161 rural areas and the Anglican–Methodist Union debate 6, 86, 163, 166, 171, 180–1, 187, 192–3 Russell, D. S. 187 sacraments 21, 30, 38, 57–9, 62, 66, 91–2, 216; dominical 33, 37; and Methodism 14, 56, 111, 144,

Index  220, 223; see also baptism; Holy Communion salvation see grace Sangster, W.E. 84–6, 93, 159 schism 13, 24, 37, 47–50, 52, 56, 59, 156, 177, 184; and ‘schismatics’ 53, 59, 164 Scotland 13, 178 scriptures, the 21, 30, 37, 52–3, 120, 243; authority and supremacy of 125, 127, 155, 164, 184; nonscriptural priesthood 121; scriptural church order 67, 119; scriptural holiness 119; scriptural piety 12; scriptural truth 136 secession from the Methodist Connexion 7, 16, 124–5, 155–9, 164, 177, 180, 184; from the Church of England 40; from the ‘Old Connexion’ 17 Second World War 56, 84, 135, 159, 174, 200, 201 sectarianism of student organisations 68 secularisation 4, 8, 76, 135, 180, 201, 231 Service of Reconciliation 23, 64, 66–7, 69–76, 93, 101, 110–11, 118, 120, 158, 160, 215–18, 224, 227, 238 sharing in worship 74, 190–3; and in ministry 106, 110, 114 Shaw, Thomas 16 Simpson, William Sparrow 32 Skinner, Michael 68, 70, 154 Slater, W.F. 21 Snaith, Norman 6, 66, 70, 84–6, 88, 90, 93, 95, 119–20, 123–4, 137, 153–4, 159–60, 163, 166, 175, 185 Snape, Michael 199 social change 4, 15, 69–70, 135–7; see also secularisation social diversity 160, 170, 172, 188 socialism 170 Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 40 Society of the Holy Cross 6, 218 Southampton local voting pattern 179 ‘south-bank’ theology 164 South of England 86, 88, 92, 94, 145, 160, 163, 171, 179, 182–3, 189–90 Stephenson, T.B. 50–1 Stone, Samuel: parody of his hymn The Church’s one Foundation 123 Stopford, Robert, bishop of London 71 St Paul’s cathedral 22

263

Stubbs, William, bishop of Oxford 30 Student Christian Movement (SCM) 21, 161; and Swanwick Conference 2–3 Survey of Anglicans and Methodists in Four Towns, David B. Clark 188 Sykes, Norman 49, 54, 58, 60, 64, 89, 91–3, 95 Synodical government 178, 217 Tablet, The 210 ‘Talks about Talks’ Church-Unity committee (1973) 186 Taylor, Francis (F.J.) 88–90, 95 Taylor, Ron 157 Taylor, Thomas 15 television see BBC temperance 160, 182 Temple, William, archbishop of York 3, 55–6 Ten Propositions, The (1976) 24, 232 theology: and affirmations 235–6; and conformity 106; and convergence 242, 245; and dialogue 66, 93, 101–13, 124–5, 230–35, 240–1; and differences between Anglican and Methodist evangelicals 129–30, 136, 177; and expertise 95; and groupings 86, 104; and issues 103, 123, 136, 144, 146, 173, 178, 235–40; Methodist 62, 122, 124–5, 243; and mutual incomprehension 245; and practical difficulties 243; and ‘tidiness’ (Anglican) 102, 112; and tone 119; see also ambiguity Theology (1960) 222 Thiede, C.P. 207 Thirty-Nine Articles, the 124, 128 Thompson Brake, George 157 Thornton, Lionel 103 Tidball, Derek 177 The Times 126 Tinnevely 41 Tomkins, Oliver, bishop of Bristol 65, 70, 92 top-down planning 6, 24, 48, 67, 160, 174, 177, 191, 193 Tovey, Phillip 7 Towards Anglican Methodist Unity (TAMU) 8, 69, 96, 106, 126, 138 Trowbridge 188 Turner, John Munsey 141 twentieth century, as ‘the great century of Christian union’ 135

264 Index United Methodist Church see Methodism United Reformed Church 7, 24, 231 United States, Churches of see American Church Universities’ Mission to Central Africa 40 Valley, Norman 140 visible unity 3, 19, 23–5, 47, 161, 165, 175, 231–3, 235–6, 238–9, 242–5 Voice of Methodism Association (VMA) 2, 4, 5, 70, 119, 120–3, 128–9, 136–48, 152–3, 154, 156, 164, 218 Wait until Dark (1967) 175 Wales 51, 178, 191–2, 237 Walker Lee, W. 85, 161 Waller, E.H.M., bishop of Madras 37 Wand, William, bishop of London 88 Wanstall, Henry 135, 143–6 Ward, A. Marcus 5, 91 Ward, W.R. 160 War Office 204 Watson, Richard 18 Weatherhead, Leslie 60, 83–4, 86–7 Wellings, Martin x, xi, 4, 6, 171, 177 Wesley, Charles 12, 129; An Epistle to the Rev. Mr John Wesley 13; John and Charles Wesley’s Hymns on the Lord’s Supper 128; 250th anniversary of the conversion of 232 Wesley, John 1, 3, 12–15, 18, 49, 55, 61, 106, 120–1, 126–7, 128, 130, 155, 171, 176, 220, 232, 241, 244; Letter to John Smith (1746) 14; Reasons Against a Separation from the Church of England 18; sermon, ‘Justification by Faith’ 155 Wesley, Samuel and Susanna 12 Wesleyan Conference 13–16, 18 Wesley and Methodist Studies xii Wesleyanism and the Free Churches 19 Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society 17 Wesleyan Methodists (to 1932) 3–4, 15–22, 50–5, 137, 143, 153, 159, 200, 201, 204, 205, 220 Wesleyan Sunday and day schools 17 Wesleyan tradition 127, 138, 140, 171, 189

Wesley Historical Society 23 West Germany 201 West Indies 161 Westminster Abbey 1 Westminster Central Hall 1, 84 Westminster Laymen’s Movement (1954) 86 Westmorland 163 Weston, Frank, bishop of Zanzibar 39 West–Syrian tradition in South India 221 Whitechapel Mission 163 Whitehead, Henry, bishop of Madras 36 Wickham, E.R., bishop of Middleton 189 Wigglesworth, W.S. 68–9 Wigley, Henry T. 182 Wilkes, David 209 Wilkinson, Alan 75 Williams, N.P. 39 Willink, Sir Henry 69 Willis, Geoffrey Willis 217, 224 Wilson, Harold 123 Wiltshire 187 women priests see ordination; Church of England Women’s World Day of Prayer 87 Wood, Arthur Skevington 164 Wood, Stella 21 Woodhouse, Henry 49, 69–70, 72, 73, 75 Woods, Robin, dean of Windsor 215 Wordsworth, Christopher, bishop of Lincoln 19 World Council of Churches 1, 22, 60, 87, 88, 161 World Council of Churches’ Faith and Order Commission convergence statement, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982) 233 World Methodism 158 World Methodist Council 158, 234, 240; meeting (1991) 232–3; meeting (1996) 234; Report, Sharing in the Apostolic Communion (1996) 233 World Methodist Year of Evangelism (1952–53) 159 World Outlook (1965) 158 worship 6, 14, 23, 36, 38, 49, 57, 73, 121, 171, 177, 180, 186–93, 200–1, 204, 206, 219, 224–5, 227, 237 Yorkshire 16, 122, 180