It goes without saying that Canadian churches are interested in the movements towards church union south of our border.
We have, of course, our own fascinating share in such matters. Several years ago the Anglican and United Churches presented a draft basis of union, and discussions have been proceeding since then. Canon Ralph Lattimer and Dr. Robert B. Craig, representatives of the two churches, have set up a joint office with a common staff in the United Church head office in Toronto.
But there are problems. The climate has changed somewhat—this on the authority of the primate of the Anglican Church. The proposed uniting of the two publishing arms has been postponed. Originally this had been set for 1970. Now, it is to await the presentation of a definitive plan of union.
Moreover, at public meetings organized to discuss merger, there is an apparent preponderance of Anglicans who object to union. At one held recently in Hamilton, Ontario, 350 persons heard both sides of the matter presented by committed men. Anti-union sentiment was strong.
A further cause for disquiet to those who favor union as soon as possible has come from Winnipeg, where a fund has been established to assist Anglican priests who do not wish to enter any united church. The assistance planned is in the form of grants for further education or for the taking of new courses with a view to a more highly specialized form of ministry. It has been noted that in the recent trial run in England, Anglicans did not attain the necessary 75 per cent vote in favor of union with the Methodists, and there is much speculation about what percentage the essential favorable vote will be set at in Canada.
Sentiment against the merger also seems to be growing in the United Church. A highly-respected denominational voice, Dr. W. G. Berry of Ottawa, recently uttered particularly significant warnings against the proposal (see news story on page 34 in this issue). Dr. Berry favors ecumenicity, but doesn’t feel that this plan advances it.
There are now expressions of dismay in widely scattered areas of the country over the fact that in neither church is there to be any vote at the local or parish level. In the United Church, decision will be taken at presbytery level; in the Anglican Church, in the deaneries. This has been public knowledge for a long time, but only now have the implications of such an undemocratic procedure been forced on the consciousness of many. During his moderatorship, Dr. Lockhart went on record as saying that the United Church had learned its lesson in 1925 and did not intend to make the same mistake again. It is inevitable, nonetheless, that many should be asking this question and wondering by what authority any church court can rule on behalf of all its members in matters of such momentous import.
It is worth noting that at the Uppsala meeting of the World Council of Churches, the delegation from the Presbyterian Church in Canada strove manfully to have a full review made of the Canadian experience before and after 1925. Dr. Louis H. Fowler, clerk of the Presbyterian General Assembly, sought in vain to have a motion to this effect. Only now has his report been issued to the church in Canada, and it makes an enlightening commentary on the determination with which organic union is presented as the ultimate and principle end of the redeemed family of God. This all-too-brief report from the Presbyterian delegation must be studied along with whatever other plan or plans may emanate from the Anglican or United Church communions.
Meanwhile, the movement for greater unity amongst evangelicals goes from strength to strength. The representative of the Christian Reformed Church from British Columbia, who attended as an official observer at the recent convention, has urged that “we wholeheartedly support the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. We cannot afford to remain aloof.” The editor of the Mennonite Brethren Herald, Harold Jantz, writing of the same convention, says:
Eighteen denominations were present—all the way from Anglicans to Pentecostals, with a few Mennonite Brethren thrown in to balance the mixture. Most striking about this convention was the unabashed evangelical stance that it took, combining a deep and conscious commitment to historic Christianity with an eagerness to engage the rampant secularism of Canadian society. It is my strong conviction that Mennonite Brethren ought to get behind the EFC with all the resources they can bring to it.
Only a few days ago, a member of the editorial staff of the prestigious Globe and Mail, Toronto’s morning paper, told me that in large measure they were finding it was among the evangelical groups that the real action was taking place. This was certainly evident when Toronto’s well-known chief of Police used an evangelical platform to expose a power struggle going on between labor unions in the building industry that already had done nearly three-quarters of a million dollars’ worth of destruction. That remark blew up banner headlines in all the city papers and raised questions in the Ontario legislature. All this was an indicator of the power of the evangelical voice.
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada is bent on creating an awareness of evangelical strength and deepening the springs that feed all true Christian fellowship. It is persuaded that the reviving of the people of God in Canada is dependent not on any form of organic church union but on the renewing of the first love of the people of God for their Lord and Saviour and in a new awareness of the power of the Holy Spirit. It is among the most fascinating of today’s experiences to see this fellowship growing and to see Christians of every denomination uniting in a great act of witness to the nation—uniting, too, for concerted endeavor in promoting renewal of the life of the Church. Clearer than ever is the fact that evangelical Christians are overdue participants in the modern dialogue. Clearer than ever we see that in Canada an evangelical confrontation of the spirit of this generation must take place, not only at scholarly levels, but also at journalistic frontiers, where the man in the street and the many in the uncomfortable pew need and are asking for theological help. All this the Evangelical Fellowship is determined to provide.
This is the unity we seek. It is a unity of faith and love, a unity made colorful by the great diversity of its membership. We believe it to be the unity for which Christ prayed. For such unity we too will pray—and work.
WILLIAM FITCH
