I think it should be a fairly high priority for the denominations involved. It has been tried before and I think was accepted by Conference but not by Synod.

In many ways there's not that much difference between the denominations, I think that there is more variation within the denominations than between them. Or at least that's been my experience, but then again at uni I went to an Anglican Church that had far closer links with the Methodists than with the other Anglican churches in the Parish, and on occasion the Methodists felt more Anglican than the Anglicans! And I've spent this term hanging round with Methodists, some of whom have very similar ideas to me on most things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weslian:

Does it matter? Is anyone interested? Should this be a priority for the two denominations?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fiddleback:
No.
No.
No.

---

Scintillating as ever, Father.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
It is not too late to follow the example of the High Church Anglican divine, John Wesley - liturgical, sacramental, evangelical - who remained in the Fold. How wonderful it would be to have them back!

---

The Methodists have a far better chance of merging with the Welsh churches, and the Scottish ones than with the CofE. (and making it work).

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
It is not too late to follow the example of the High Church Anglican divine, John Wesley - liturgical, sacramental, evangelical - who remained in the Fold. How wonderful it would be to have them back!

---

I am far from an expert on Methodist doctrine, yet, for all that Wesley himself may have been sacramental and liturgical (... mystical, ascetic, whatever...), my limited acquaintance with anyone who is Methodist gave me the impression that his later followers had rather different emphases.

I agree that establishing better relations is a better idea. I shall just state, cryptically, that I would never have embraced being Anglican had that meant being Methodist. (No slur on our Methodist brothers and sisters - it just would not be my own inclination.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
It is not too late to follow the example of the High Church Anglican divine, John Wesley - liturgical, sacramental, evangelical - who remained in the Fold. How wonderful it would be to have them back!

---

There can only be Union between two churches that give each other equal parity, and the united church must be a new church, not simply an assimilation of Methodism into the Church of England.

High Church Roots of Methodism

Although unashamedly restorationist (in the pre charismatic sense).

Here we see a typical (US) Methodist church discussing the use of incense:

Peachtree Road United Methodist

quote:

---

Weslian said:
There can only be Union between two churches that give each other equal parity, and the united church must be a new church, not simply an assimilation of Methodism into the Church of England.

---

I would like to see Methodist welcomed back to the CofE as Methodists, to make the CofE whole again. There is less dividing us than the CofE and FiF.

[ubb code]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sacredthree:
So again I say Methodism cannot merge with Anglicanism because it is far to High Church and the Evangelicals wouldn't like it.

---

I think this must be a comment that reflects the American rather than the British situation. In Britain on the whole Methodism is less liturgical and less clergy centred than Anglicanism, but not always. I have recently visited an Anglican church, where there was no consecration prayer at the Eucharist, just a recitation of the words of institution. This would be against Methodist practice, which explicitly states that even if you extemporise a Eucharistic prayer you must include 'a prayer for the coming of the Holy Spirit that the gifts of bread and wine may by, for those who are participating, the body and blood of Christ'. But I wouldn't have thought this instruction makes us too High Church for the Anglicans!

[ubb code]

So I have decided, I am a High Church Weslyan who decided to become an Anglican as an act of Ecuminism.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weslian:
I think this must be a comment that reflects the American rather than the British situation. In Britain on the whole Methodism is less liturgical and less clergy centred than Anglicanism, but not always. I have recently visited an Anglican church, where there was no consecration prayer at the Eucharist, just a recitation of the words of institution. This would be against Methodist practice, which explicitly states that even if you extemporise a Eucharistic prayer you must include 'a prayer for the coming of the Holy Spirit that the gifts of bread and wine may by, for those who are participating, the body and blood of Christ'. But I wouldn't have thought this instruction makes us too High Church for the Anglicans!

---

I would! At least for some it would.

theologically Methodism seems to bridge the split between EP and AC in the Anglican church.

And I agree that it would be the uniting of a divided fold. I find I'm easier in myself in methodist churches, than in certain anglican churches.

Babybear - why don't you think it can happen?

I'm curious, because I've just been designated CT rep for church.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the Angel of the North:

theologically Methodism seems to bridge the split between EP and AC in the Anglican church.

---

With the Methodists out Anglican Evangelicalism was left to the Calvinists and Puritans that Wesley was no fan of. High Church Methodists also remind us that one doesn't have to be Anglo-Catholic to be High Church.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the Angel of the North:

Babybear - why don't you think it can happen?

I'm curious, because I've just been designated CT rep for church.

---

I presume that 'CT' is 'Churches Together'.

Why don't I think it can happen.... Well, I don't think that it can't happen. I just think it unlikely. (Please remember that I don't know about the English scene, only the Welsh.)

There is the whole thing about Apostolic sucession. Whatever the people at the top decree, I think that there will be people who will not see 'fromer Methodists ministers' as being 'grade 1' priests.

I fear it would be an unequal union, and that the Methodist would get swamped by the Anglicans. I worry about the attitude, or perceived attitude about 'the heretics returning to the fold'. The Methodist have come quite a way in the past 200 years, that needs to be recognised, and celebrated, as does the CofE.

There are bound to be church building closures. It would be a huge waste of resources to keep open two buildings when one would be enough to serve the congregations and communities. People get very defensive about 'their' buildings, especially the nominal/occassional worshippers. It can be a very difficult thing to merge two congregations.

I also worry about the Methodist chapels where the laity have been used to doing the majority of the work. How will they cope with a more 'priest-led' set up.

The Church of England website doesn't seem to make any reference to it, but that possibly reflects the way the website is structured.

Having read the press releases I'd say that merger isn't really the aim, and certainly not reabsorbing the Methodists as though nothing had changed.

Babybear wrote,

quote:

---

The Methodists have a far better chance of merging with the Welsh churches, and the Scottish ones than with the CofE. (and making it work).

---

What makes you think that, bb? I'd say that the Methodists are far closer to Anglicanism than the Welsh churches. For a start they are far more liturgical and also their roots are different - both linguistically and theologically, Calvinism being strong in Wales - which divides them from the Welsh non-conformist tradition.

Both the Methodist Church and the Anglican Church are pretty broad and so this could cause problems, but also could be an advantage because it means that the traditions overlap as.

It won't be easy and yes there probably will be issues about churches/chapels in the same place but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by babybear:
I presume that 'CT' is 'Churches Together'.
Why don't I think it can happen.... Well, I don't think that it can't happen. I just think it unlikely. (Please remember that I don't know about the English scene, only the Welsh.)
There is the whole thing about Apostolic sucession. Whatever the people at the top decree, I think that there will be people who will not see 'fromer Methodists ministers' as being 'grade 1' priests.
I fear it would be an unequal union, and that the Methodist would get swamped by the Anglicans. I worry about the attitude, or perceived attitude about 'the heretics returning to the fold'. The Methodist have come quite a way in the past 200 years, that needs to be recognised, and celebrated, as does the CofE.
There are bound to be church building closures. It would be a huge waste of resources to keep open two buildings when one would be enough to serve the congregations and communities. People get very defensive about 'their' buildings, especially the nominal/occassional worshippers. It can be a very difficult thing to merge two congregations.
I also worry about the Methodist chapels where the laity have been used to doing the majority of the work. How will they cope with a more 'priest-led' set up.

---

interesting. I think a merger could work. Looking at some places with the URC, there are two churches close together, and thriving on their differences, yet working together.

It depends on the way it's handled. Some of the methodist churches are far more authoritarian (minister-led) than their anglican counterparts.

I think that a "conversion" course could be useful, going both ways. ex-CofE wishing to work in former Methodist chapels should do some training, as should those going the other way. As long as the training can be held up as equivalent in terms of theology and pastoral training, then it shouldn't matter.

This all requires tact and diplomacy. Which the CofE is lacking rather.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the Angel of the North:

It depends on the way it's handled. Some of the methodist churches are far more authoritarian (minister-led) than their anglican counterparts.

---

And vica versa!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weslian:
I have to confess I find the idea that Methodism is too high church for some Anglicans difficult to credit. There are (some) high church Methodists, mostly ministers, but they are a small minority. I don't know how one defines high church, but most Methodist services do not use a service book; two thirds are led by lay people, at most churches communion is celebrated at the main service only once a month; clergy dress as they please, and oversight is exercised by a democratically elected Conference and not individual bishops. For me it is the fear that these (low church?) practices will not be respected that concerns me in any move towards union.

---

A lot of EP anglicans would be ecstatic at these sort of arrangements, believe me.
As for laity leading services - a lot of rural parishes use lay readers (c.f. lay preachers) for leading services.
Methodist services are more 'organised' than some EP services in the anglican church, judging from recent (i.e. todays) forays.
My reading of the briefing I just got off Glyn on churches together, suggests that the methodists locally are far closer than certain 'anglican' churches. And they're not particularly 'high' methodist churches (communion as main service once in 3 months, though far more often as a minor service).

In the anglican church, I would not look at frequency of communion as a guide to "height" relative to methodism. And also if you took a look at numbers, rather than numbers of churches, then I don't think the balance is so far apart as it seems at first glance.

I'm no expert on methodism, but have been rather overdosed on it the last couple of months . It strikes me that the obstacles to unity are in the mind, not the heart, on both sides of the divide.

quote:

---

It strikes me that the obstacles to unity are in the mind, not the heart, on both sides of the divide.

---

Yes, and this has been acknowledged in the conversations, to quote from the press release on the Methodist site:

'The report revisits the interlocking histories of the two churches over two and a half centuries and seeks to dispel the stereotypes and caricatures each church holds of the other.'

Seems about right to me.

quote:

---

I have to confess I find the idea that Methodism is too high church for some Anglicans difficult to credit. There are (some) high church Methodists, mostly ministers, but they are a small minority.

---

Yes, very high church Methodists might be a rare breed, but there are some very evangelical (which isn't necessarily the same as low church) Anglicans who might regard the general tenor of Methodism (which while it isn't that high compared to much of Anglicanism) as being higher than them. For example, St Paul's, the Methodist Church in Aberystywth, though it isn't very high on the whole (and has quite an evangelical wing), pays far more attention to the Lectionary than does St Mike's which is the largest Anglican Church in the Parish, they probably use authorised liturgy more too!

I think that the unity scheme is to be welcomed, but that it will have to be implemented carefully, for the sake of both Churches. There are emphases of Anglicanism which I think would be helpful within Methodism and also vice versa.

It is certainly true that those of us of higher church persuasions tend to be less visible but we do exist! I tend not to be obviously high when I'm at home (at the afore-mentioned St. Paul's) because I know people would find it off-putting, but will generally be more myself at Wesley, Cambridge (MWed recently) because the church there is generally higher.

Anyway, for a quick guide to things you might not expect to see in a Methodist church, but that I have seen in British Methodist Churches:

• Votive Candles
  
• Paschal candle
  
• Eastward celebration
  
• Gospel acclammation
  
• Gospel procession
  
• Sign of the cross at the blessing
  

quote:

---

This Methodist is quite high church for a Methodist (and certainly higher than some Anglicans he could think of . . .).

---

Just slightly, seeing as you're probably higher than all the clergy in the parish of Aberystwyth (well all the paid ones anyway) and most of the members of the congregations too! Given that you're about as high as I am and that's what I found there.

Both seasick and sacredthree have commented about emphases which the two denominations have which would benefit the other. What are these?

The thing I worry about with these conversations is that although it will be discussed at Synod and Conference most local churches will ignore it. And it's the sort of thing that people need to be aware of, but how many ordinary members of the congregation pay much attention to Conference or Synod? And for that matter how many of the clergy are that bothered?

• Itinerant ministry
  I have seen too many Anglican Churches where the Parish Priest/Vicar/Rector seems to have been there since the year dot and it shows. I think if the clergy are kept moving around it does the Church good.
  
• The circuit system.
  On a day to day basis this means that a minister will be involved in more than one church in the area, and not every church has to have its own minister - this has particular benefits I feel in rural areas.
  
• The idea of the 'society in that place'
  A particular Church is actually the society in that place, and is essentially run by its congregation. The minister has the task of leading worship and caring for the people. I think that this leads to a better governed church. Of course in practice it's not quite as simple as this.
  

quote:

---

I think good Methodist emphases that should be kept are:

Itinerant ministry
I have seen too many Anglican Churches where the Parish Priest/Vicar/Rector seems to have been there since the year dot and it shows. I think if the clergy are kept moving around it does the Church good.

---

That can be a problem, although the alternative argument is that it gives time for people to build up relationship and carry things through long term.

However, I'd say the move is away from this within Anglicanism. Particularly with the growth of team ministries and the like because these tend to lead to the suspension of the living and having priests-in-charge who are then licensed for a set period, say 5 years, which is not that different from the Methodist system - except that the license can be renewed everytime.

Within Methodism, who decides where people move to? Is it that the clergy apply to places or is there some body who makes appointments?

quote:

---

The circuit system.
On a day to day basis this means that a minister will be involved in more than one church in the area, and not every church has to have its own minister - this has particular benefits I feel in rural areas.

---

Again, team ministries are in some respects moving in this direction. However, this isn't always popular with members of the congregation who see it as their right to have a vicar in their church.

quote:

---

The idea of the 'society in that place'
A particular Church is actually the society in that place, and is essentially run by its congregation. The minister has the task of leading worship and caring for the people. I think that this leads to a better governed church. Of course in practice it's not quite as simple as this.

---

In what way does this mean it is better governed? You get even more committees?

One thing I think is good about Anglicanism is the Parish system. That the Church is not just there to serve those who attend but to minister to everyone who lives in the area, and with the division into parishes everyone is included.
The problem here is that parish boundaries haven't kept up with demographic changes and with increasing population mobility people have lost the idea of going to your parish church. You get people travelling into a big town to go to the 'successful', lively charismatic evangelical Church, while the Church in their village struggles. Or equally A-C churches can draw people in too. Or you get towns with so many churches it's impossible to predict what the parish boundaries are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weslian:
I don't know how one defines high church, but most Methodist services do not use a service book; two thirds are led by lay people, at most churches communion is celebrated at the main service only once a month; clergy dress as they please, and oversight is exercised by a democratically elected Conference and not individual bishops. For me it is the fear that these (low church?) practices will not be respected that concerns me in any move towards union.

---

My first post was a bit tongue in cheek, yes. However I'd be very excited for our Communion to be invigorated by High Church Methodists - evangelical preaching + tat - what more could a girl want?

However, from what I've read perviously on this matter, if full union were to be achieved it would be necessary for methodist clergy to be "re-ordained" by an bishop (in the apostolic succession).

This would be unacceptable I am sure to many methodists but without it many anglicans could not consider these clergy as valid priests.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot:
I don't think non-acceptance of the 3-fold ministry and practice of lay presidency will go down too well.[/QB]

---

Officially, Methodism in Britain is committed to taking episcopacy into our system, (we already have an ordained, permanent, diaconate), we are just trying to work out the model. So, theologically we have no problem with a three-fold ministry. We would, however, want to challenge the hierarchical way it is exercised in other churches. Hence, the debate as to what role, and what sort of oversight a bishop would have. (My personal hope is for a Spiritual Director sort of model, rather than the Chief Executive model that seems to be the norm in Anglicanism, with their £9M per annum expense account.)

Lay presidency is a greater problem. There is already a real tension in Methodism about this. The Conference is about equally split between those who would want to extend lay presidency, to anyone (such as a deacon) in pastoral care of a church, those who would like to abolish the very limited amount of lay presidency that does exist (on grounds of eucharistic deprivation), and those who are happy with the status quo.

I have also heard of the 2 denominations comming together in other parts of the country particulaly in rural areas where it was seen to be better to merge 2 small congregations and have the benefit of more resources and fewer overheads (ie only one building).

Their are differences, the Methodist doctrine of Total Santification, and the Anglican Legacy of Irresistable Grace are obvious theological issues for thos who care. However as few methodists or anglicans are aware of either doctines, or don't hold them Im sure they won't be a problem.

Lay Presedency is a problem however, and something that having come from a church background with no eucharistic liturgy at all, just some occasional ribena and french stick, to a more sacramental position. Both Methodism and Anglicanism hold (according to the report)

quote:

---

“Christ is present within the eucharistic action, through the operation of the Holy Spirit.”

---

Anyway the Church Times Feature is here:

New plan for unity with Methodists

quote:

---

Officially, Methodism in Britain is committed to taking episcopacy into our system, (we already have an ordained, permanent, diaconate), we are just trying to work out the model. So, theologically we have no problem with a three-fold ministry. We would, however, want to challenge the hierarchical way it is exercised in other churches. Hence, the debate as to what role, and what sort of oversight a bishop would have. (My personal hope is for a Spiritual Director sort of model, rather than the Chief Executive model that seems to be the norm in Anglicanism, with their £9M per annum expense account.)

---

There are people within the CofE that are looking towards this model, where a bishop is the vicar to the vicars in a town, and looks after their welfare and *that's it*. No great expense accounts - except in large rural dioceses (York for example). More bishops, but paid less, and doing less.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sacredthree:
Lay Presedency is a problem however, and something that having come from a church background with no eucharistic liturgy at all, just some occasional ribena and french stick, to a more sacramental position.

---

Didn't finish the sentence. Should be:

quote:

---

Their are differences, the Methodist doctrine of Total Santification, and the Anglican Legacy of Irresistable Grace are obvious theological issues for thos who care. However as few methodists or anglicans are aware of either doctines, or don't hold them Im sure they won't be a problem.

---

I have a vague idea about the doctrine of Total Sanctification (though more info would be good) but what do you mean by the Anglican Legacy of Irresitible Grace. The Church Times article says 'Two areas of theological tension remain: the first is whether divine grace is irresistible — whether Christ died for all or only for the elect.' Is that standard Anglican doctrine? It's rather Calvinist.

From the Church Times article

quote:

---

But, over women bishops, the Methodists are immovable. “Any failure to recognise and accept the full ministry of women would constitute a serious theological obstacle to full visible unity.”

---

Good. But that's something that Evangelical Anglicans would have a problem with (Headship and all).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
I have a vague idea about the doctrine of Total Sanctification (though more info would be good) but what do you mean by the Anglican Legacy of Irresitible Grace. The Church Times article says 'Two areas of theological tension remain: the first is whether divine grace is irresistible — whether Christ died for all or only for the elect.' Is that standard Anglican doctrine? It's rather Calvinist.

---

quote:

---

The Irresistable Grace thing is the I of TULIP, and is very calivinistic and isn't really Anglican doctrine. To be frank the 39 articles are very calvinistic.

---

If it isn't really Anglican doctrine why is it such an issue between us and Methodism? It's a reaons why Methodism isn't more likely to unite with the Welsh Churches as PCW (in particular) is Calvinist. Yes, there is a strand of Calvinism running through the 39 articles but that's one way that Anglicanism has moved on since the 17th Century. Wesley after all was an Arminian Anglican!

In my experience those few Methodists who talk about Total Sanctification do so when talking about the docrtine of Perfection. However Wesley himself in later years stepped back from the belief that all Christians should be able to reach total perfection. He began to talk about Perfect Love instead.

In his sermon on Christian Perfection he also says that Christian Perfection 'is only another term for holiness.' and in this sense I think it probably ceases to be exclusively Methodist.

As often in Methodism, the best explanation comes in a Charles Wesley hymn, where doctrine and experience come together. I may have doubts about the doctrine intellectually, but experientially I want to pray this prayer:

'That I thy mercy may proclaim,
That all mankind thy truth may see,
Hallow thy great and glorious name,
And perfect holiness in me.

GIve me a new, a perfect heart,
From doubt, and fear and sorrow free;
The mind which was in Christ impart,
and let my spirit cleave to thee.

Now let me gain perfection's height,
Now let me into nothing fall,
Be less than nothing in thy sight,
And feel that Christ is all in all.'

I hope that helps!

To me the Wesleyan doctrine that I really would want to preserve is the Arminianism, and I was surprised to see the Calvinism of Anglicansim surfacing in this thread.

The fact that the gospel is for all is central to my Christian understanding, and again Charles Wesley explains it best

'Help us thy mercy to extol,
Immense, unfathomed, unconfined,
To praise the Lamb who died for all,
The general savriou of mankind.

quote:

---

and I was surprised to see the Calvinism of Anglicansim surfacing in this thread.

---

So was I, seeing as I'm definitely not a Calvinist and I'm an Anglican and I do not know many Calvinist Anglicans. (Most of the Calvinists I know seemed unsure about Anglicanism - viewing it as rather dead I think).

quote:

---

The fact that the gospel is for all is central to my Christian understanding

---

And me. I've never been able to accept Limited Atonement, it doesn't fit with what I know of God, and if God is like that I don't want to know him.

As for Methodist (or "formerly Methodist") ministers being regarded by some as "second class" priests, no doubt much the same thing was/is said about women priests. It shouldn't be allowed to derail the process. If "the powers that be" are convinced about the validity of Methodist orders, then they need to make sure that they persuade the more sceptical in the CofE.

And being less parochial about this, the Church of South India (CSI) is a union of Anglicans, Prebyterians, Congregationalists
and Methodists. They came together with a single ordination rite but initially kept seperate rites for other services. The "ground roots" feeling, however, was that greater uniformity in services was wanted (somewhat to the surprise of the Church leaders, who thought everyone would want to keep their own services) and more "common" liturgy is being produced. The CSI is currently one of the strongest sources of liturgical development (which often means returning to traditional forms, not making up new ones) within the Church.

The current Church Times also has an item (sadly not appearing on its web site) about Local Ecumenical Projects (LEP) between Anglicans and Methodists, which to me seems possibly more important than the high-level discussions. I note that one of the Methodist ministers involved says that the only opposition he has come across is because his sermons last longer than eight minutes - plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose [sorry about the lack of accents - how do you do them?]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weslian:
John Wesley certainly tried to keep within the Anglican communion, but when he ordained two missionaries to America, the church authorities did kick him out.

---

Whether Fr Wesley's decision to ordain his own clergy for America (after the Bishop of London declined to do so) effectively removed him from the Church of England is a debatable.

However,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

John himself, until the end of his life, counseled his followers in England to remain within the Established Church, and he died in the Church of England, and was buried in his Anglican vestments.

---

This hardly seems to fit with him having been buried in a non-conformists' graveyard at City Road Chapel - presumably at his own request (expressed before he died ).

Could someone provide a source for details of his burial.