50 years ago--a couple of items related to ecumenism

Can two walk together, except they be agreed? Amos 3:3

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. II Timothy 3:5

Manmade efforts to unite nominal Christian churches have never quite been able to succeed; could that be because God isn't behind these efforts? From back in the days when most newspapers had a religion page and/or section on Saturday, here are a couple of items that appeared on the first page of the religion section of The Edmonton Journal, April 26, 1975 (headlines in original):

Catechism joint effort

LONDON (Reuter)--A new move toward Christian unity--a joint Protestant and Roman Catholic catechism--has been introduced here.

The common catechism, published in Britain on April 21, is the first book on Christian belief to be produced by a mixed team of Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians.

It was first issued two years ago in German, edited by two Swiss theologian scholars.

The English-language translation, published by search press, has the blessing but not the official recognition of both Protestant and Roman Catholic church leaders.

Doctrinal questions such as the existence of God and approaches to faith are tackled in the catechism, which is more than 650 pages long.

The Common Catechism: A Book of Christian Faith, by Johannes Feiner and Lukas Vischer, was the work of Roman Catholic, Lutheran Church, and Reformed Church theologians, and was published in English by Seabury Press on January 1, 1975.

Union losing impetus

ORILLIA, Ont. (CP)--The moderator of the United Church of Canada says the proposed union of the United and Anglican Churches "seems to have slowed down in the past few months."

Speaking at a Muskoka presbytery rally, Dr. Wilbur Howard of Ottawa said the United Church "is waiting anxiously for a circularization in the membership of the Anglican Church to see how mwmbers of the general congregation feel about the union."

He noted that the Anglican House of Bishops recently made public a report affirming a possible union.

But, he said, "they found the plan of union unacceptable."

"In the United Church we did not seem to have a clear understanding of the role of the bishops. Also the United Church believes that women should be ordained.

"Maybe we pushed too hard and maybe we didn't listen enough. But it was a good try. Union can't be imposed, it can only come when we work for it. I think it's part of the future."

Dr. Howard also said that the United Church is including in its "design for the future" husband and wife acting as ordained ministers. He said such ministries are being considered for Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario.

As reported by Henry Overduin of the Montreal Gazette, June 20, 1975 (bold in original):

The decision this week by the Anglican synod meeting in Quebec City to reject the plan of union with the United Church is not as big a blow to ecumenism as might first be believed.

The plan of union was killed early February, when the bishops rejected it, commenting that it did not even provide a useful basis for continuing talks.

The synod, less brusquely but with the same result, confirmed the bishops' decision although accepting the plan as a study paper. But that's just a euphemism for "putting it on the shelf" where the plan of union will gather dust until some historian or archivist decides to peruse it.

LACK OF INTEREST

Lack of interest in schemes leading to organic union among Protestants is simply a fact of ecclesiastical life today.

This lack of interest, for example, is illustrated by the response to the so-called circularization of the Anglican church membership on union talks with the United Church.

That circularization--a poll--was decided on after the bishops rejected the plan of union, and something had to be done fast to assure the United Church that the Anglicans were still sincere about church union.

It was also made plain at the outset that the poll was not a referendum, that its results would not be binding on the church.

Results of the poll showed that while 72.1 per cent of eligible clergy responded, only 11 per cent of the eligible laity did.

The clergy were roughly divided half-and-half on the desirability of continuing talks--494 said yeas, and 473 said no. The general membership was also divided. A total of 33,396 favored continuation of the talks, and 28,930 were against.

But, based on the small sample and its volunteer nature, this poll hardly constituted a reliable gauge of Anglican sentiment.

As has been said before, it would be wrong to read into the synod's negative decision what is not really there, namely, that the ecumenical movement has suffeed a major setback. The concern of the ecumenical movement , in its general sense, was in fact affirmed. In this general sense, the ecumenical movement seeks to express the unity of the church in ways other than organizational charts.

NOTHING NEW

Also, the Anglican synod did go on record as favoring a continuation of talks based on a step-by-step approach to greater unity, instead of the grand plan originally proposed. But that's hardly new.

What can be expected--based on the leadership of the Church of England--is a greater movement toward unity with the Roman Catholic Church.

And, if one is to go by logic, isn't that the only sort of institutional direction the ecumenical movement can take?

The Anglican Church of Canada ordained its first six priestesses on November 30, 1976--40 years after the United Church of Canada began doing so--but formal unity of the two churches has never occurred. The two are united, however, in their increasing apostasy. The Anglican Church, according to its own 2019 survey, will be dead by 2040, and it will come as no surprise if the same isn't true for the United Church. The United Church's intention of having husband and wife as ordained ministers seems quaint in 2025; ordaining alphabet perverts wasn't on the radar screen in 1975. To see the United Church of Canada's downward slide as measured by its views on "Gender and Transgender Justice," go here and get the timeline right from the horse's mouth (or should that be the ass's butt?).