Abstract
Eugene Schlesinger is committed to the Episcopalian (Anglican) tradition and a scholar of Catholic ecclesiology, both of which are evident in the shaping of his argument. The first line of the introduction notes, “Never has any organization been so content to act against the express wishes and instructions of its founder as the Christian church” (xiii). S.’s project is to argue that this division is a scandal that we cannot ignore. The argument unfolds in five chapters, plus a brief conclusion.
Chapter 1 dispels the notion of a golden age of unity. At the start there was a diversity of stances among the various churches that constituted the “Church.” Rather than view this as problematic, S. suggests an original goodness to this diversity. Problems arise when diversity leads to enmity. “The advent of sin brings about a diversity lived as enmity” (8). As S. points out, the movement from diversity to diversity lived as enmity is a decision, through a failure to love. God’s work of salvation points the way: enmity is overcome through the offer of friendship “while we were still sinners.” This effects “the formation of a new community, in which the hostility between humans and God, and between different human factions, has been overcome” (14). The Church’s unity “can and should encompass dissensus even on matters that are not indifferent” through “the conflictual process whereby these matters are adjudicated” (25, emphasis original).
Chapter 2 begins, “this work is an ecclesiology of love and love’s refusal” (29). S. rejects any soteriology that portrays God as “furious and want[ing] to kill you because of your sins” (35). We must distinguish between the attitude of Jesus and those of his murderers, between “Christ crucified” and the “lynched Jesus” (32–33). Sacrifice involves a “disposition of charity” (36). “Love, not suffering, not death, constitutes the Christian meaning of sacrifice” (36). S. considers three historical examples—the Donatist crisis, the Great Schism, and the Reformation—to illustrate his point. But are there limits to this charity? Are there situations where communion must be split? S. argues that the struggle for accountability in such cases “is properly located within the communion of the church” (51).
Chapter 3 returns to the theme of crucifixion, from the side of the crucifiers. Is ecclesial unity built upon crucifying the other? Whereas Augustine’s teaching about love is central in the Donatist crisis, his ultimate response is to force them to return; he has become a crucifier, failing in the very love he proclaimed. Who then are the victims of our demand for ecclesial unity? Here S. draws on his Anglican tradition to explore the ways in which the Anglican churches have struggled to maintain communion around LGBTQ issues and the ordination of women and openly gay ministers in the face of opposition from member churches. He concludes that the “immolation of the individual for the collective is not a valid ecclesiological principle” (93).
Chapter 4 considers the nature and possibility of union. S. argues that union must be a visible communion of churches. He rules out the once common “ecumenism of return” (106). The union must not be a “crucifying union” which further marginalizes or excludes, but rather one that embraces the other. Again, S. draws in the Anglican experience of a union that is incomplete and provisional as a possible way forward. He also finds helpful elements in the teaching of Vatican II that the Church of Christ “subsists in the Catholic Church,” claiming that it makes a “vital contribution to ecumenical endeavour . . . for it means that in our divisions we have not simply lost the church” (118). On the other hand, he is critical of the Uniate model of union with Rome and the establishment of an Anglican “ordinariate.” One model that offers some hope is that of “uniting churches” where different ecclesial communities enter into an agreement of mutual recognition.
Chapter 5 considers the obstacles to union. The greatest is the weight of tradition, which is both indispensable and ambiguous. The ambiguity arises from the difficulty in discerning what is truly essential and what is culturally limited, illustrated in questions such as the ordination of women and the papacy. To be clear, S. regards the papacy as an “authentic development” and does not ask the Catholic Church to surrender it. But neither can Rome ask other traditions to deny their own developments in ordaining women. As a path towards a communion of churches S. suggests the minimal assent to the “Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral:” Scriptures, sacrament, creedal faith, and episcopacy (in some form). As the author notes, similar proposals have been made by Karl Rahner and Heinrich Fries. All this can only function where charity takes precedence over disagreement. The brief epilogue returns to the central theme of love.
The work is well written and clear. S. draws from Lonergan’s framework on sin, grace, and redemption, but not in an intrusive manner. He grounds his analysis in the empirical reality of the churches while refusing to accept the status quo as definitive. I found it personally helpful and challenging in facing the reality of a divided church, the “ruptured body” of Christ.