戦間期イギリスにおけるエキュメニカル運動とウィリアム・テンプル

Abstract

戦間期、ヨーロッパを中心としてキリスト教会の再一致を求めるエキュメニカル運動が急速に進展した。イギリスにおいてこの運動を指導したのは、イングランド国教会の聖職者テンプルであった。彼はまた一方で、教会の世俗社会への介入を推進するキリスト教社会主義運動の指導者でもあった。本稿では、従来「教会再一致」という教会史的な関心から扱われてきたエキュメニカル運動が、この時期キリスト教社会主義運動と密接に関連しながら展開したことを示す。この二つの運動の相互作用的な展開は、テンプルが新たな時代に相応しい教会の姿として描いた、超教派的(エキュメニカル) な国民教会というヴィジョンを具現化する上で不可欠の要素となるのである。また彼の教会観は、同時期ドイツにおいて隆盛したナチズムとある種「等価的」な性質を持つものであった。本稿では、このナチズムとの関係にも醤及しつつ、テンプルの教会観の内容と意義を考察する。

In the inter-war period, one of the most characteristic features of the Christian world was the ecumenical movement. This movement aimed for the reunion of Christian denominations that had long been separate. The modern meaning of the term ecumenical movement rose from the World Missionary Conference at Edinburgh in 1910. After the First World War, conferences on "Faith and Order" and "Life and Work" were held, and they served as the new channels in which the ecumenical movement rapidly developed. The most vigorous leader of this movement was William Temple (1881-1944). He was an Anglican bishop of Manchester (1921-29), Archbishop of York (1929-42) and of Canterbury (1942-44). He was also a leader of the Christian socialist movement in England. This movement urged the church to intervene in social problems of the secular world and aimed to move the church away from its introspective concern with spiritual salvation. In prior studies, these two movements (the ecumenical movement and the Christian socialist movement) have been interpreted as disparate and treated separately. The ecumenical movement has been taken as worldwide reunion of churches within the sphere of ecclesiastical history, and the Christian socialist movement has been evaluated in terms of its political or economical effect in the secular world. The purpose of this article is to understand and treat the interaction of the two movements. The ecumenical movement has played an important role not only in the ecclesiastical sphere but also in the secular sphere, and the Christian socialism movement gave shape to the ecumenical ideals. This mutual relationship in the inter-war period began with the Conference on Christian Politics, Economics and Citizenship (COPEC) held in Birmingham in 1924. At COPEC, many social topics, including "Politics and Citizenship" and "Industry and Property, " were taken up for discussion and the church was urged to intervene in social problems. What is important is that the agent of this intervention was to be "the Church, " not the Anglican Church. In this sense, COPEC has great importance not only in the history of Christian socialist movement but also in the ecumenical movement. Moreover, COPEC became a basis for Temple's activities in the interwar period. The intervention in the coal dispute of 1926 exemplified his movement. Temple and other churchmen set up the Standing Conference of Christian Churches on the Coal Dispute to intervene and mediate between capital and labour. This mediation was important as a case of intervention by the Christian church in social matters, however, it was even more important in that the Standing Conference included many nonconformist priests. The intervention itself thus had an ecumenical meaning. This intervention demonstrated Temple's strategy of presenting "the Church" through social action. The Oxford Conference in 1937 also had great significance. This was the second conference on "Life and Work, " and it was tinged with a Christian socialist cast. At this conference, the formation of the World Council of Churches was proposed. The Oxford Conference was a watershed for the ecumenical movement tipping it in the direction of Christian socialism. Such reciprocal developments between the two movements were indispensable in realizing Temple's vision of a new Church that was both ecumenical and national. This idealized vision of the church is, in some sense, equivalent to Nazism in character. Temple himself recognized this when he stated that political faiths such as Nazism played the same role as the church in presenting "fellowship" to the nation. Needless to say, there were many differences between these two systems of thought, especially in their understanding of the role of the state. Recognizing such essential differences, but also noting the similarities, one sees that Temple's view of the church played all important role in the history of the period.