In recognition of the 1,600th anniversary of the Nicene Creed in 1925, the Church of England offered dramatic evidence of its interest in the Eastern Orthodox churches. In attendance at a festival Eucharist at Westminster Abbey were two patriarchs and six other Orthodox bishops including a representative of the patriarch in Constantinople. The Eastern prelates did not participate in the liturgy, but that seemed inconsequential. Their presence signaled the prospect of rapprochement between Anglicans and Orthodox. Various religious and social forces were drawing the churches together, and vigorous leaders pressed for some form of recognition. How these forces converged and the hopes they fostered were frustrated frames Bryn Geffert's narrative.
Anglican fascination with Orthodoxy has been palpable, albeit vague, for nearly two centuries. Liturgical reformers such as John Mason Neale saw Orthodoxy as analogous to Anglicanism: both traditions cited their ancient lineage and their distinction from Rome. Since the early nineteenth century, Anglicans have taken more initiative than the Orthodox to build ties. Typically isolated individuals sought to promote mutual sympathy with little result. But between the world wars interest broadened and became compelling.
Geffert has made remarkable sense of complex issues, diverse movements, and intricate personalities. His research has been thorough to the extent of incorporating primary sources in various languages, probing intra-Orthodox dynamics, and explaining English Roman Catholic assessments. In fact, Geffert uses English Catholic commentary to good effect; the Catholic view foresaw the difficulty, and the challenge to Rome, if Anglicans and Orthodox found effective means of cooperation.
Geffert's focus on the period between world wars and his appreciation of social as well as theological dynamics make the narrative thorough and balanced. As a result he depicts two branches of Christianity somewhat thrown together and trying to build appreciation and achieve cooperation. But cooperation on whose terms was never clear and the differences in the agendas of each side became stark. Anglicanism proved riven with fault lines: Anglo-Catholics relished the prospect of mutual recognition; evangelical Anglicans eschewed it. As personal ties warmed, the differences surfaced and could not be overcome. Anglicans linked Orthodox recognition to the wider ecumenical movement that included Protestants with whom Orthodox had little in common. Orthodox sought aid for their refugees from communism and unity against Rome. But in the end, Orthodox proved as factionalized as Anglicans.
Geffert astutely notes that hopes for some measure of formal cooperation rose when the focus of discussion shifted from theological categories to mutual forms of practice. But fragmentation in both camps continued to frustrate hopes. Orthodox leaders were dismayed by the parliamentary debates over Prayer Book revision in 1927. Not only was liturgical revision made a matter of state, but the defeat of a revised Prayer Book emphasized tensions among Anglicans. Orthodox leaders wondered who spoke for Anglicans, and with what authority. But similar factions were apparent among the Orthodox. The varieties of Orthodoxy made unified agreement with Anglicans impossible. Furthermore, personality conflicts among Orthodox leaders, notably between Bulgakov and Florovskii, hurt chances for overlooking theological differences and focusing on intercommunion and forms of cooperation. Meetings of Russian and Anglican students in 1927 also left both sides puzzled. It became unclear what cooperation might achieve if it could be mustered.
In the end, Anglican and Orthodox remained fascinated with one another. But formal reunion failed because of “a chasm of theological differences between the two confessions” and because of “the intrusion of ecclesiastical politics, nationalism, and territorial aims” (219). World War II interrupted discussions, and Anglican developments after the war, notably the ordination of women, widened the gulf. Centrifugal tendencies, Geffert wisely concludes, could not be overcome. Still disappointing to some, this conclusion has not diminished mutual fascination. But it has tempered large-scale initiative. Geffert's work superbly illustrates a moment when institutional alignment seemed possible, but failed. Despite the outcome, his book deserves close attention for the sources it probes and the era it depicts.
