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 (1881–1944). 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 Temple’s 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 Temple’s ecumenical theology both nationally and internationally and evaluates the contribution Temple made to the ecumenical cause.
Temple’s stature within Anglicanism and his work towards church unity have been widely acknowledged. Matthew Grimley proclaimed Temple as “the pre-eminent Anglican leader of the inter-war period, and indeed of the whole twentieth century”.1 Kenneth Hylson-Smith goes even further, declaring him “One of the most outstanding churchmen not only of the twentieth but of any century”.2 Temple was held in such high regard, one theologian even described the biblical prophet Isaiah as being “the William Temple of his day” because of his “metropolitan sphere of influence, his close contacts with the king and court, his grasp of national policies, and his ability to speak effectively and unmistakably”.3 One aspect that has led to such claims was Temple’s ecumenical concern. Only months before he died, the Church Times described the goal of Christian reunion and the ecumenical movement as “nearest to the Archbishop’s heart”.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, “Temple played a leading part … in all aspects of the ecumenical movement”, while Roger Lloyd described him as its “architect”.6 These early assessments have been reiterated in recent years. Stephen Spencer has described Temple’s role in the ecumenical movement as “crucial”, while David Carter labelled it as “key”.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, Temple’s reputation has remained largely unsullied. Recent biographers of Cosmo Gordon Lang and Geoffrey Fisher have contrasted the honour surrounding Temple’s 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 Temple’s social thinking as “unoriginal” and “inept”, though he does admit Temple’s views achieved “an ascendency in the Church of his day”.9 Likewise, John Kent’s biography is rather critical, yet he still labelled Temple “the undisputed world leader and major statesman of the ecumenical movement” in the period between the wars.10 One of the key weaknesses of Kent’s work, however, has been that it does not adequately answer how highly one should rate Temple’s achievement in his work for the ecumenical movement.11 As this book explores Temple’s theology and practice of church unity, it will also fill the void left by Kent and offer an assessment of Temple’s achievements in this field.
Temple’s 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 “is commonly regarded as having his greatest success”, his statements about the movement’s success and momentum appear “sadly dated” and “almost quaint”.12 The Tablet in 1990 published an article entitled “The Winter of Ecumenism”, which stated that “the restoration of unity with any Church, let alone all, still seems a distant dream”, belonging to a naïve and over-optimistic earlier time.13 Gillian Evans speaks of the repeated dashing of ecumenical hopes, leading to “ecumenical gloom” among leaders of the movement.14 Likewise, Paul Avis has contrasted the excitement linked to ecumenism of Temple’s day with its “humdrum” and “dreary” 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 movement’s 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 ecumenism—the dream of “the coming great church” and the dream of visible unity by the year “whatever” now look naïve, 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 Avis’ observation that today, “the Anglican Communion appears to be racked by internal argument and conflict” and the “word ‘split’ is seldom absent from any headline or news report on the Anglican Communion”.19 Kenneth Locke has also recently argued that, through the twentieth century, Anglican “party lines and various theological emphases and concerns became even more pronounced”.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 women’s 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 today’s turmoil inclines Christians to view Temple and his period with “rose coloured glasses”, 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...