Reputation and Scholarship
In the early twentieth century, there was probably no more ubiquitous character in the movement for Christian unity than Archbishop William Temple (1881â1944). His indefatigable efforts have led to a seemingly indelible association between his name and the ecumenical movement. Surprisingly, considering the stature of Temple, there is relatively little scholarly analysis on his effort to apply his theology in the practice of church unity. This monograph focuses on that lacuna. It demonstrates that the portrayal of Temple in this area has been largely caricature, either positive or negative, that fails to account appropriately for the complexity of Templeâs context and the multifaceted approaches he took in the various situations which he faced. This study shows that Temple was motivated by deep convictions but that, paradoxically, in some aspects, those convictions were detrimental to his ultimate goal. It explores the politics and practice of Templeâs ecumenical theology both nationally and internationally and evaluates the contribution Temple made to the ecumenical cause.
Templeâs stature within Anglicanism and his work towards church unity have been widely acknowledged. Matthew Grimley proclaimed Temple as âthe pre-eminent Anglican leader of the inter-war period, and indeed of the whole twentieth centuryâ.1 Kenneth Hylson-Smith goes even further, declaring him âOne of the most outstanding churchmen not only of the twentieth but of any centuryâ.2 Temple was held in such high regard, one theologian even described the biblical prophet Isaiah as being âthe William Temple of his dayâ because of his âmetropolitan sphere of influence, his close contacts with the king and court, his grasp of national policies, and his ability to speak effectively and unmistakablyâ.3 One aspect that has led to such claims was Templeâs ecumenical concern. Only months before he died, the Church Times described the goal of Christian reunion and the ecumenical movement as ânearest to the Archbishopâs heartâ.4 Soon after his death, his achievements in this regard were praised. Cyril Garbett claimed that Temple probably did more than any one man had ever previously done for Christian unity.5 Alec Vidler stated, âTemple played a leading part ⊠in all aspects of the ecumenical movementâ, while Roger Lloyd described him as its âarchitectâ.6 These early assessments have been reiterated in recent years. Stephen Spencer has described Templeâs role in the ecumenical movement as âcrucialâ, while David Carter labelled it as âkeyâ.7 Suffice to say, Temple is widely held in high esteem both within Anglicanism in general and as an early ecumenist.
In the 70 years since his death, Templeâs reputation has remained largely unsullied. Recent biographers of Cosmo Gordon Lang and Geoffrey Fisher have contrasted the honour surrounding Templeâs memory with the prevailing perception of Lang and Fisher.8 Nevertheless, Temple has certainly not been without critics; yet even detractors have acknowledged the profound influence he had. For example, Edward Norman described Templeâs social thinking as âunoriginalâ and âineptâ, though he does admit Templeâs views achieved âan ascendency in the Church of his dayâ.9 Likewise, John Kentâs biography is rather critical, yet he still labelled Temple âthe undisputed world leader and major statesman of the ecumenical movementâ in the period between the wars.10 One of the key weaknesses of Kentâs work, however, has been that it does not adequately answer how highly one should rate Templeâs achievement in his work for the ecumenical movement.11 As this book explores Templeâs theology and practice of church unity, it will also fill the void left by Kent and offer an assessment of Templeâs achievements in this field.
Templeâs achievements may appear more impressive on account of the ecclesiastical situation of today. Rodd has pointed out that while it was in the ecumenical movement that Temple âis commonly regarded as having his greatest successâ, his statements about the movementâs success and momentum appear âsadly datedâ and âalmost quaintâ.
12 The Tablet in 1990 published an article entitled âThe Winter of Ecumenismâ, which stated that âthe restoration of unity with any Church, let alone all, still seems a distant dreamâ, belonging to a naĂŻve and over-optimistic earlier time.
13 Gillian Evans speaks of the repeated dashing of ecumenical hopes, leading to âecumenical gloomâ among leaders of the movement.
14 Likewise, Paul Avis has contrasted the excitement linked to ecumenism of Templeâs day with its âhumdrumâ and âdrearyâ association today.
15 While there have been ecumenical advances over the last 25 years, such as the Porvoo and Reuilly Agreements, they pale in comparison with the earlier optimistic hopes of organic reunion. Avis points out that there is now much uncertainty, doubt and heart-searching about the movementâs future.
16 He states:
It seems to many observers that the ecumenical movement has reached a watershed. Its momentum slowed noticeably in the last decade of the twentieth century. In the first decade of the new century it has definitely been faltering. The dreams that marked the heyday of ecumenismâthe dream of âthe coming great churchâ and the dream of visible unity by the year âwhateverâ now look naĂŻve, if not foolhardy. All our ecumenical endeavours seem to be shot through with doubt and uncertainty now.17
The same trend can be demonstrated within Anglicanism. Temple and his contemporaries often described a growing sense of unity within the denomination in the period between the wars.18 This can be contrasted with Avisâ observation that today, âthe Anglican Communion appears to be racked by internal argument and conflictâ and the âword âsplitâ is seldom absent from any headline or news report on the Anglican Communionâ.19 Kenneth Locke has also recently argued that, through the twentieth century, Anglican âparty lines and various theological emphases and concerns became even more pronouncedâ.20 In 2008, almost 300 bishops from around the Anglican Communion gathered in Jerusalem for a conference perceived by many as a rival Lambeth Conference.21 In the last 20 years, the Church of England has been divided over issues of human sexuality and womenâs ordination, and novel structures have been implemented, such as Provincial Episcopal Visitors.22 It is true to say that global Anglicanism is an impaired communion, as various ministries and ordinations are recognised by some jurisdictions and not by others.23 Perhaps todayâs turmoil inclines Christians to view Temple and his period with ârose coloured glassesâ, not an accurate portrayal of the events of his time. Indeed, this monograph demonstrates that there were similar internal Anglican tensions and threats of secession in the early twentieth century and ecumenical advances were, likewise, difficult to achieve.
It has been an easy criticism of the ecumenical movement that it was motivated by sociological factors, and in particular, increasing secularisation. Wilson offered the critique that the ecumenical movement was a reflection of the weakness of religion in an increasingly secularised society and that church reunion involved compromise, a sign of further weakness.24 The increasing secularisation of England was o...