THE NORTH INDIA-PAKISTAN PROPOSALS FOR UNIFICATION

WILLIAM STEWART

The Bishop of Bristol’s article, “Ordination in a Divided Church,” in the July, 1962, issue of the Ecumenical Review awakens fresh hope that a deadlock in the way towards visible unity may be nearer to being broken than had recently seemed possible. It also awakens the hope that, in the light of what it contains, there may be a fresh attempt to grasp the precise proposals of the Plan for Church Union in North India and Pakistan (third edition, 1957) and to realise their worth.

Bishop Tomkins reminds us of the profound concern of the Anglican that, within any accepted plan of union, there be full provision for the continuance of those values which he associates with the “historic episcopate.” That the Anglican regards this as so vital that he cannot contemplate a union which would question or cast doubt upon it, has long been clear in all our discussions. Consequently plans of union have been so framed as to ensure that the united churches should give full place to the episcopal tradition, which will have its effect throughout their life. Nevertheless, as we contemplate not so much our common life after union but the act of union itself, we must recognise that our great object is not the handing over of particular “gifts” as if they were viable entities in themselves. Rather, the great object is an act of mutual acceptance, an entering into visible unity in which we shall be truly committed to one another, as befits those who are reconciled in Christ and who, therefore, are properly joint participants in the common life of his body, the Church. And will it not be as we share in this common life that God, in his goodness, will enable us to enter into a richer heritage in which we shall experience directly many things of which at present we can hear only at second hand? Certainly for the non-Anglican the longing has not been to receive something abstract called “the historic episcopate”, but has been rather to enter into visible unity with brethren who are Anglicans, knowing full well that they will bring with them

174 THE ECUMEMCAL REVIEW

their witness to the values of that episcopate, but also so much more! And may not the Anglican on his part, take comfort from the remarkable extent to which, in a common life in the Church of South India, so many different traditions have apparently come to set high value on that historic episcopate ?

Dr. Tomkins shows a deep concern to testify to the riches of God’s grace to be discovered in the historic episcopate. This concern must be fully respected. What is, however, essential, is to find a way whereby this positive witness can be given without binding to it as a corollary a negative judgement on others, the kind of judgement which he finds implied in the negative terms - “schism,” “invalid,” “unordained” and the like -listed at the foot of page 466. Can we give a positive testimony without passing negative judgement on the testimony of others?

Three preliminary remarks may be made concerning the Anglican testimony :

(i) It is of the nature of a testimony or confession of faith made by persons who stand within the episcopal tradition : it is not in the nature of a logical demonstration which compels the assent of those who are outside it. The Anglican declares his experience of God’s grace which has come to him through particular channels, and under no circumstances can he deny this witness. The non-Anglican must hear this testimony with respect ; but that does not mean that he is convinced by objective historical evidence cited to establish an exclusive claim for episcopacy, nor should this be expected of him.

(ii) The Anglican who gives testimony to his experience of divine grace through an episcopally ordered ministry cannot dismiss as unreliable the equally sincere testimony of others who have had their own experience of the divine gifts and their participation in the apostolic ministry of the Church through other means.

(iii) For this reason, while we respect the

“sense in which, in Anglican eyes at any rate, it is not possible unequiv- ocally to say that all ministers are equally ordained” (p. 465)

we must also request respect for the judgement that nevertheless it is possible that they are ! Positive testimony to the reality of divine gifts supplied through an episcopally ordered church does not authorise one to deny the possibility that God may have found other means to bestow the same gifts in and through other branches of the Church.

THE NORTH INDIA-PAKISTAN PROPOSALS FOR UNIFICATION 175

Unfortunately, since the formulation of the Lambeth Quadrilateral in 1888, the positive Anglican witness to the values of the historic epis- copate has been burdened by an implied negative judgement on others which has frustrated many earnest attempts to reach understanding with them. For example, the generous recognition of other ministries contained in the 1920 Appeal to all Christian People was qualified by the words :

“May we not reasonably claim that the episcopate is the one means of providing such a ministry?”

Again, Lambeth, 1958, found itself compelled

“to believe that a ministry to be acknowledged by every part of the Church can only be attained through the historic episcopate.. .” (2.22).

It is this kind of conviction which leads the committee reporting on Anglican-Presbyterian relations to pass from the ringing positive of :

“It is the committee’s opinion that the Anglican churches ought to be ready to recognise the Presbyterian churches as true parts of the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and that the spiritual effectiveness of their ministerial orders ought not to be implicitly or explicitly ques- tioned. . . ” (2.43)

to the sadly explicit verdict that it is impossible

“to envisage the establishment of fully reciprocal intercommunion at any stage short of the adoption of episcopacy by the churches of the Presbyterian Order. . . ” (2.44).

This makes it clear. It is not just the judgement that other ministries are “different ,” nor yet the conviction that Anglicans themselves must adhere to their tradition ; it is the repeated implication that in this matter others must change their practice before there can be a coming together ; that is, it is not just acceptance of episcopacy within a united church, as a positive element, wholeheartedly given and shared in a richer whole ; it is instead, laid down as a choice which must be made, of something which will replace a treasured practice, if there is to be any coming together at all. This is the demand, which sounds so seriously like a desire for the “absorption” of the non-episcopalian, which has interposed such difficulty in the way.

We also cannot ignore the fact the guarded language of official statements has all too often been supplemented with sweeping statements

176 THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

from fervid advocates of episcopacy which have grievously offended others. Non-episcopalians have heard their celebrations of the Holy Supper referred to as simulacra of the sacraments ; nor is such language unknown even today. Also, the Anglican practice regarding intercommu- nion has led to abstentions from the Lord’s Supper, even on occasions of joint conference with a view to union, when the minister has been a non-Anglican ; and many an Anglican layman, resident for years in a territory where the only organised church is of another tradition, has believed himself to be advised to prefer total abstention from sacramental life to the dangers of participation when the minister is not episcopally ordained. It is circumstances like these, not those of an English country- side plentifully supplied with a variety of denominations, which express that negative judgement on others which has caused deep hurt to many non-episcopalians whose consequent indignant rejection of episcopal claims has in turn given pain to many episcopalians.

A common lack?

Dr. Tomkins refers to the views of the late Canon Quick who sought to interpret the problem in a way less offensive to others, by suggesting that

“all ordination is made to some extent defective by the very fact of the Church’s division” (p. 470).

Developing this theme slightly he himself says :

“its (the Church’s) ministries are both full ministries of Christ in his Church and yet are in some sense damaged.”

Can we accept this approach to the problem?

First, there is of course no aspect of our life, individual or corporate, which is not marred by sin. From this condition we shall be set free only “when that which is perfect is come.’’ Till then we shall continue daily to pray for forgiveness and shall confess with the Apostle that we have not yet attained. But it is just in this condition, “till he come,” that God in his mercy has provided us with those means of grace by which we live and which include ministry and sacraments. It is in the place of our pilgrimage that these are given to us. There will be no need of them when we shall see Him as He is. It would therefore be rash indeed to imagine that, by overcoming our divisions, acquiring a ministry

THE NORTH INDIA-PAKISTAN PROPOSALS FOR UNIFICATION 177

more fully acknowledged throughout the Church, we should have establ- ished a surer claim on the grace of God.

It must also be remembered that Canon Quick’s suggestion does not just set a question mark against our recognition of the sacraments in another denomination ; it applies to any celebration of the sacrament at all. But here we find ourselves reassured by the words quoted from Archbishop Ramsey, commenting on earlier words of Archbishop Temple :

“there is not a trace here of any theory that the divisions of Christen- dom have made that authority relative or ambiguous” (p. 469).

No, indeed ; for here, in all humbleness but with deep conviction, we can each bear testimony to the mercy of God granted to us in all our imperfections - imperfections more grievous even than those of the church in Corinth. And here, too, is the reminder of a humbleness which must remain in reverent gratitude before God even in a reunited church, for when we have done all we must still confess that we are unworthy servants (Luke 17.10).

Presumably, it is this suggestion of Canon Quick’s which has underlain attempts to solve the problem by some “mutual commissioning”, some imparting to others of a particular, partial authorisation which each divided church has known. Dr. Mascall seems to have revived this kind of suggestion, and we may trace its influence in Archdeacon Sully’s attempt to distinguish between “ordination” and “episcopal ordination.” But it cannot be sustained. God’s grace is not so bound to the correctness of our acts, nor have we been made so privy to his counsel, that we can dogmatise on the differences of the gifts he may have given to others. The trouble also is that, since it is invariably from the episcopal side that such suggestions are brought forward, it leads to a conviction that the real object is to convey to others the values of “episcopal ordination,” a gift which others do not necessarily see that they require.

We are thus brought back to the problem, that in an act of union it has seemed to be necessary to provide such means of coming together that the integrity of the Anglican heritage shall be preserved and made open to others, but yet which will not carry with it a negative judgement on other traditions which would do violence to the convictions of those who have shared in them, and also which would not commit the Church to an unproved theory of defective orders. Can such means be found?

178 THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

The North India-Pakistan proposals

It was certainly the common opinion of those who shared in the Pachmarhi Conference of 1957, which adopted the third edition of the North India Plan that means had at last been found to provide for just this. As we shall see in a moment, the vital modifications accepted at this stage have not been generally realised, but a careful study of the plan itself, without the presupposition that it proposes a form of “mutual commissioning,” will reveal its character.

It proposes, first, an act of union, an act of mutual acceptance before God, through which the uniting churches are declared to have become one. It then proposes the formation, from those who are already ordained in the pre-union churches, of a unified ministry authorised within this united church. This “unification” is, indeed, the first act within the united church after union, and the method is as follows :

First of all, three ministers (one of them a bishop) shall be solemnly authorised to officiate as ministers of the united church. They will be authorised not by representative ministers drawn from uniting churches other than their own (as would be required if this were a “supplementing” of their ordination) but by representative ministers drawn from all the pre-union churches, signifying the totality of the church’s turning to God in what is done. These three, then, having been so authorised, officiate in the remainder of the service in which all participating ministers in turn are presented before God and receive a new commission with prayer and the laying on of hands. No discrimination is made among these ministers save that the church in which they were originally ordained is named in each case, and in prayer God’s gifts are sought for the ministry of each as bishop or as presbyter respectively.

The plan explicitly declares the confidence that God will so answer their prayers that “by this means” any difference which there may have been between episcopal and non-episcopal ministries will be transcended ; it is also careful to provide that one officiating minister shall be a bishop, thus leaving open a door which in Anglican eyes must on no account be closed ; and the terms of the prayer and formula have been weighed with scrupulous care to make the intention clear and inclusive. Yet the service does not presume to ask for a diversity of gifts according to the previous ordinations received, nor does it in any other way imply an essential distinction based on different traditions. The positive witness is not saddled with any negative judgement. Thus the way is left open

THE NORTH INDIA-PAKISTAN PROPOSALS FOR UNIFWATION 179

for the fulness of that positive witness which the Anglican desires to make, while the whole church humbly commits itself to God that he may give whatever gifts, grace or authority he sees each to need. The avowed, common intention is thus not to secure for anyone a particular kind of ordination, as if this is known to be a necessity for him; it is to present the whole ministry to God, thankfully acknowledging his gifts in our divided past, and humbly praying that he will continue these gifts, granting to each of his servants whatever he knows him to require for his further ministry as presbyter or as bishop of the Church of God within the now united church.

Such is the plan, but we must note in passing that the Ceylon Scheme did not pass through any corresponding amendments, and its proposals throw greater responsibility on the acts of the bishops alone incommission- ing the ministry. This fact may have given colour to the assumption that the intention is to secure for all something of the nature of episcopal ordination, and Anglican critics may therefore have been led to say, “If this is the intention, why not say so?”

Writers from Ceylon will no doubt answer, but here we are concerned with the North India plan. The common tendency to deal with North India and Ceylon as just two versions of a single proposal may, however, have obscured for some the importance of the 1957 edition of the North India plan. It is certainly clear that the Lambeth Conference of 1958 failed to take full note of what the plan proposed. It assumed so unquestioningly that what was meant was still some kind of “mutual commissioning,” some kind of adding together separate, partial and distinguishable contributions, that it not only included in its analysis of what was proposed the words :

“Thus every church may be satisfied that all of its inheritance has been faithfully conveyed to and shared by the ministry of the united church” (p. 2.37)

but it also committed itself to the following undocumented statement :

“Moreover it is clearly stated that the intention of the rite is that all may receive through all, whatever each has to contribute and whatever each may need.. .” (2.32).

With such an understanding of the purpose, it is easy to make the further assertion that “from the Anglican point of view” the rite must be intended to convey the “tradition of episcopal ordination.” Coming in such an

180 THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

authoritative document as a Lambeth Report these statements have been widely quoted as a proper evaluation of the plan, and even Bishop Newbigin’s quotations in the critical introduction to the second edition of his Reunion of the Church may have helped to establish them as the proper interpretation. It is clear, however, that the whole interpretation is rooted in an unshaken conviction that what is intended is some method of “adding” together a diversity of gifts among which it is firmly held not only that Anglicans have a particular gift in the shape of “episcopal ordination” but that others must be willing to receive this.

There is little doubt that this Lambeth reading of the plan had its influence on the General Council of the Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon in January 1960, where the idea that what was intended was a means whereby each would be used to give to others some specific gift, led to the announcement that from the point of view of the Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon it was “episcopal ordination” which was to be conveyed. This was a serious backward step. It injected again into the proposal a declared “intention” which could only be unambiguous and meaningful if it were shared by those to whom the gift was to be conveyed ; yet at no stage in the negotiations had non-episcopalians announced it to be their intention to seek “epis- copal ordination.” Actually the plan had found the way to declare a unanimous and unambiguous intention in which all could be at one, namely to seek from God whatever gifts he might find it necessary to give, yet without presuming to tell him in advance what in fact none of us know, that these gifts must necessarily take different forms for different categories of persons. It is indeed unfortunate that the Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon, was not content to leave the matter so. The sad thing is that, having been led to assert once more this kind of one-sided interpretation, the church has observed with dismay that the interpretation is rejected by others as strongly as the suggestion that what they need is “episcopal orders” has ever been, and in terms which make the Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon feel that a door is being slammed upon them. The real truth of the matter is that it is by re-introducing this particular interpretation that they have dragged back that negative judgement on others which has always brought frustration.

There is hope if we can but return to the 1957 plan itself, ridding ourselves of unwarranted presuppositions as to what it intends and seeking in it a means whereby divided ministries may be accepted together

THE NORTH INDIA-PAKISTAN PROPOSALS FOR UNIFICATION 18 1

under the gracious hand of God. Three vital aspects may then be pond- ered :

(i) The plan provides for each minister sharing in the service to give unequivocal testimony to his conviction that by the mercy of God he is already, within the Church of God, an ordained minister of Christ’s Word and Sacraments. The way is open for the Anglican, as for others, to bear this positive witness, assured also that in the common life together the episcopacy he loves will have its full and honoured place, but without negative comment on others.

(ii) It provides for unequivocal recognition on the part of the church as a whole that these men have in fact already been ordained. Without such recognition it would be no plan for union or unification, but at best a skilful scheme to admit to the ministry persons previously outside it. This declaration will demolish the lurking suspicion that, in fact, there has not been any mutual recognition, yet it is given in terms which commit no one to the unproved assertion that all have “equally” been ordained. It recognises thankfully the rich and gracious gifts of God through these ordained ministries, without falling into the trap of making comparative judgements by either asserting or denying their “equality.”

(iii) Lastly, it provides for the humble submission of all to God that he may give to each one what he sees him to need ; it provides that episcopal hands shall be used so that, if it be God’s will that some partic- ular gift is given by these means, then the means are there and the prayer that they be used. Yet it does not build upon the unproved assumption that only by such means has God been able to give his gifts.

It is plain that we cannot meaningfully share in this service unless we are heartily willing to commit ourselves to God without prior dogmatis- ing as to what we can and what we cannot receive ; nor can we do so and thereafter hesitate heartily to receive as fellow ministers the others who share in the same service. But this being understood, what can one legitimately ask beyond this placing of the whole issue in the hands of God ? In our separation he has been merciful to us ; on that mercy we shall still depend in our union. Here is a proposal which provides for positive witness and for the humble receiving of God’s gifts, but which excludes those negative judgements on others which there is so little to justify, and which have frustrated so many brave endeavours in the past.