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.
Carys
quote:
Originally posted by Weslian:
Does it matter? Is anyone interested? Should this be a priority for the two denominations?
No.
No.
No.
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
No.
No.
No.
Scintillating as ever, Father.
Now, of course, 'does it matter' is perhaps kind of a daft question to ask, because if it didn't matter, Weslian wouldn't be asking in the first place. Besides, I imagine it would matter an awful lot to a large number of Methodists and Anglicans alike if the denimonations merged, because surely it would necessarily mean changes in one or both denominations... wouldn't it?
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 disagree. How wonderful it would be to have the fold back together again in one piece rather than divided.
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).
bb
Of course the Evangelical Anglicans would find the High Church Methodists hard to deal with 
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.)
Will someone more knowledgeable please comment about how later Methodists moved in a direction other than could have been predicted from the writings of John Wesley?
Bene
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.
Methodism split from Anglicanism over 200 years ago. It has developed its own traditions and emphases since then, which cannot simply be brushed away. Methodists would see at least some of these developments to have been under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. To suggest that it is simply a welcoming back by Anglicanism of some errant sect that has finally seen the error of its ways, which Coot's attitude seems to imply is not on. I hope I have got Coot wrong, and we might be able to celebrate the equal value and complementarity of our traditions together.
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
The other major problem with Unity is that the Methodists believe in representative ministry rather than having Manager Leaders. So again I say Methodism cannot merge with Anglicanism because it is far to High Church and the Evangelicals wouldn't like it.
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]
[ 16 December 2001: Message edited by: babybear ]
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]
[ 16 December 2001: Message edited by: babybear ]
So I have decided, I am a High Church Weslyan who decided to become an Anglican as an act of Ecuminism.]
By the way Weslyan how is your entire sanctification coming on?
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. 
Angel
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.
The Methodist Tradition has a lot of stuff the CofE needs.
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.
bb
------
Disclaimer: These are just a few quick thoughts of mine. While I am an employee of the Methodist Church, these are soley my thoughts on the matter.
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.
Carys
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.
Love
Angel
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!
Methodism like Anglicanism embraces a huge range. It's ecclesiology can be interpreted as High or Low, much as Anglicanism's can be.
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.
angel
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!
Carys
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:
I'm sure there are more but they escape me at the moment.
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?
Carys
I'll leave an Anglican to say what aspects of Anglicanism are good
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.
Carys
quote:Well you've probably quite accurately described the Diocese of Sydney - except they don't celebrate communion as often, and no-one cares a fig about oversight as long as +Peter is getting what he wants. So I think even the low church Methodists will fit in fine.
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?
But when it comes to official conversation with the people who make the decisions: our own anarchic elements are doing a good job of trying to destroy the Communion, so I don't think non-acceptance of the 3-fold ministry and practice of lay presidency will go down too well.
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.
How can this major sticking point be surmounted?
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.
At local level, I think there is more acceptance of lay presidency, and my own preference would be for it to be extended, under appropriate oversight, but I can see that if we are to move closer to Anglicanism this may be a real problem.
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).
So at a local level the 2 denominations can be merged successfully but I can see at a national level there would be more politics involved.
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
Written by Bill Bowder (nice chap).
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.
Angel
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:
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 that I have looked at in some depth. Any discussion of it has to relate the nature of the Eucharist, and here Methodists and Anglicans agree ...
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).
Carys
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.
Well as Weslian claims to be a Weslian I will leave him to further expound Total Sanctification. 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.
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!
Carys
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.
Arise, O God, maintain thy cause,
The fullness of the nations (gentiles) call,
Lift up the standard of thy cross,
And all shall own thou diedst for all.'
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.
Carys
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?]
Finally, I know I'm a bit slow responding to this (which was raised in a post early in this thread), but wasn't is Charles Wesley who stayed in the fold (and wrote lots of hymns) and John Wesley who left the fold (started Methodism and wrote fewer hymns), or am I missing the point?
Having looked at a (what seemed a fundamentalist) Wesleyan website, I was worried that the concept of Total Sanctification has a focus on personal morality and purity. Alarm bells ring in my mind, because a short step away is the fixation with sexual morality and the inevitable homo reviling. This is very far removed from John Wesley preaching about the animating spirit of Love.
The concept of Holiness certainly can lead to moral absolutism, and there is still some of that, but on the whole the official Methodist line on issues like sexuality, abortion, is one of the most liberal of any churches. Although this is a cause of great concern to more conservative members.
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,
Charles certainly urged his brother NOT to ordain clergy at his own hands, and pressed him to remain in the Church. 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.
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.
Many thanks.
btw I note City Road Chapel was opened in 1778 and Wesley died in 1791, so I assume that though it was central headquarters(?) of the Methodist Connection, they weren't strictly non-conformists until after his death and the separation from the Anglican church.
Anyway, Wesley most certainly did not ordain anyone bishop. He sent those people over to America to minister as, well, ministers . Unfortunately once they got over the other side of the Atlantic their heads got a little big and they started calling themselves bishops. Cue all hell breaking loose.
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
Coot - I think England had excommunicated America, or something.
Erm, no.
The Church in the American colonies was under the oversight of the Bishop of London. Wesley had been to the American colonies and ministered there, and wanted to send clergy. The bishop of London refused to ordain his candidates, so he did it himself.
I'm sorry that I cannot find a good on-line source for the Fr Wesley info. I'm citing (from memory) from the 1930s biography of him by Bonamy Dobree.
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
Was it the case that at the time there were no bishops in America and England would not send any or ordain any for America? Wesley needed priests there but could not get any home grown ones. So he unfortunately 'ordained' his own when the CofE wouldn't ordain any for him.btw I note City Road Chapel was opened in 1778 and Wesley died in 1791, so I assume that though it was central headquarters(?) of the Methodist Connection, they weren't strictly non-conformists until after his death and the separation from the Anglican church.
If JW was still in the CofE, then he, I assume, would have seen his ordination of priests as ordination by the CofE (as may those ordained?).
City Road Chapel would have been non-conformist in the sense that it was not an Anglican Church and the graveyard would not have been, in Anglican eyes, consecrated ground, hence his brother's displeasure at his being buried there. I believe there is a story of a visitor to the site asking about whether it was consecrated ground and being told that is was consecrated (or sancitifed, I can't remember which) by holding the bones of John Wesley.
However, I am also working from memory (of about 20 years) so this is somewhat unreliable. I shall also continue looking for an online reference.
quote:
Joan the Dwarf said:
Unfortunately once they got over the other side of the Atlantic their heads got a little big and they started calling themselves bishops. Cue all hell breaking loose.
Yes . . . John Wesley was said to have been displeased at them for it, and Charles was horrified.
In regard to the recognition of clergy thing - could some service of recognition of clergy or something be come up with? For example, such that all Anglican Priests could be received as Methodist ministers, and vice versa? or am I missing the point?
quote:
Originally posted by sacredthree:
well seasick there was the idea where all clergy would be reordained in the other lots style to make up anything lacking in eithers ordination, but this to my mind is a fudge.
Seasick if you can you find another way round it that respects the integrity of both traditions, you'll find yourself on the unity committee. What do you suggest???
I am in favour of Women Bishops, so the methodists damnds in that area are no great deal, however I have questions about lay presedency. Whatever Happens I hope the Methodists and Anglicans can accept oneanother as they are.
BTW I got some info from the Methodist Sacramental Fellowship. Looks like Jolly Good stuff.
quote:
sacredthree said:
I am in favour of Women Bishops, so the methodists damnds in that area are no great deal, however I have questions about lay presedency.
It wouldn't grieve me at all to lose lay presidency. The report points out that it would be less necessary too (it being allowed now only in cases of Eucharistic deprivation) as with a united Church there would be more clergy floating around.
Even having read the covenant I'm still unsure as to what the problem over irresistible grace is. This is discussed in sections 113-7 of the report but it doesn't really manage to say anything. It admits that it is a division between Arminians and Calvinists and notes that it is a much a tension within as between the denominations. I think that it comes down to what is said in sections 115 and 116 which talk about the historic formularies of the CofE and the Doctrinal Clause of the Methodist Union and Wesley's sermons, the former of which can be seen as tending to Calvinism while the Wesley's sermons are definetly Arminian though there is no statement on it in the Doctrinal Clause.
I think one of the biggest problems is confirmation. Both Churches have this rite (and contrary to a letter writer in the Church Times last week, it is not merely reception into membership in Methodism) but the difference is that within Methodism it is presbyteral rather than episcopal. Therefore whilst Methodism accepts those who have been confirmed as Anglicans as having been confirms and does not 're'-confirm them but receives them into membership (usually done with confirmation) but a confirmed Methodist who sought ordination or a license (e.g. as a Reader) within the Church of England would strictly speaking need to be confirmed. I'm not at all sure about this. It raises various questions about the nature of confirmation. Why is it that baptism can be administered by a priest (and in extremis a lay person) but confirmation cannot? This distinction is why (AIUI) baptism and confirmation became separated in the Western Church, but why is it the case?
I think that there is much to be said for the Methodist idea of membership rather than the Anglican system of electoral roles (although that is to a large degree tied up with the situation of the CofE as the Established Church). Having the idea of being received into membership means that someone moving from Anglicanism to Methodism can be received into membership without the need to be confirmed, but there is not an equivalent ceremony in Anglicanism so to an extent confirmation ends up fulfiling this role, and is seen by some merely in that way.
For example a friend of mine who became a Christian at University and who worshipped at an Anglican church was baptised but not confirmed and the reason she gave for this was that confirmation was only about membership of the Anglican Church. I asked because to me it makes sense for baptism and confirmation to be administered at the same time for adult converts (this occasion was particularly odd as she was baptised by immersion (in Elim as the Anglican Church in question doesn't have a baptistry) in the afternoon after the parish confirmation service had happened in the morning). Admittedly the Anglican Church in question did not have a high sacramental theology or a particularly strong Anglican identity - it was more an Evangelical Church which happened to be Anglican.
Carys
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Why is it that baptism can be administered by a priest (and in extremis a lay person) but confirmation cannot? This distinction is why (AIUI) baptism and confirmation became separated in the Western Church, but why is it the case?
Carys
In the early centuries of church history , admission to membership became an elaborate affair with immersion in water, annointing with oil (often two separate annointings), excorcisms, laying on of hands etc. As the church grew it became increasingly difficult for the bishop to administer all these rites.(as was usual) so the immersion got delegated to presbyters/priests as an exception to the normal practice. The bishop would do the other bits when he got round to visiting the area (which, as the church spread throughout Europe, might be years later). Priests were seen as "assistants" to bishops, who were the main "clerical persons", for want of a beter term .
So baptism became separated from the confirmation of baptism (it is the Bishop who confirms, it is not, as commonly thought, the candidate that confirms their faith). Hence in the RC/Anglican tradition confirmation must be by the Bishop (only the Bishop has the power to lay on hands and transmit the Holy Spirit, it seems).
Adult candidates for baptism in the CofE should be confirmed as soon as possible after baptism (Canon B23 section 3).
Personally, I don't agree with the CofE's position on Baptism/Confirmation, but I do understand why it holds that confirmation must be by a Bishop.
Your friend who was confirmed and then baptised must, I presume, have been baptised as an infant (as well as by immersion as an adult) or something very irregular was going on.
I hope this helps.
BTW, Love your sig - have you followed the references to this hymn in "Epiphany" in MW.
quote:
Your friend who was confirmed and then baptised must, I presume, have been baptised as an infant (as well as by immersion as an adult) or something very irregular was going on.
That's not what I meant. She was not confirmed at all though other candidates from the parish had been that morning. I found going to confirmation in morning and baptism in the afternoon strange (and felt it would have been better had she been baptised by immersion the previous week and confirmed in the morning rather than not being confirmed at all).
Thanks for the historical info on baptism confirmation, I thought it was something like that. Re the other bits, in the CW baptism rite, you get an exorcism I'm told, and then the babe is signed with the cross in oil, before the baptism and then annointed with a perfumed oil (alpha and omega). I suppose these had basically been lost and have been reintroduced into the Baptism service whereas the laying on off hands has continued. What is the situation in Orthodoxy? Does the bishop have to be involved at baptism?
This brings up the question of the role of priests versus bishops. Apparently Wesley argued that in NT times there wasn't a distinction between the two, therefore a priest could ordain (and confirm).
When did the two orders diverge? Should they have done so? Or is a bishop just a priest with a different role?
Which links in with Methodism in that district chairs and even the president of conference are not different from the newest minister - there is no pay differential for example - they have different roles but not different status. Something I personally think is a good thing.
(RE: my sig, yes I have seen the conversation,I too like the hymn but don't remember singing it much, I think people are put off by the number of times it uses manifest!)
Carys
Does our concept of membership make us an exclusive members club rather than a church, or does it help our pastoral life and our sense of belonging? (I tend to the latter belief).
I am reminded of an essay title I saw once in a liturgy paper: " 'Confirmation is a rite in search of a theology.' Discuss" !!
So far we have had a URC minister leading weddings, a Methodist baptising, and for communion Presby, Elim, URC and Methodist.(Although we would probably be quite happy with Anglicans, Congregationalist and Baptists too).
It has been a very visible sign to the church that the Church is one. We may be a little Presbyterian church in North Wales, but we are part of the Church universal. It is a very comforting notion.
During the baptism the retired Methodist minister prayed over the baby in Welsh, it really brought it home to me that the Church is not about where we live or in what century we live, or which languages are used.
I am still not sure about whether the beaurocracies of the Methodist and Anglican churches can actually get anything sorted out. But whilst churches and ministers are working in partnership then I am not too concerned.
bb
However, that working together has to be based on an equal partnership, and for many Anglicans, if we are not confirmed or ordained by bishops that equal partnership is impossible.
I would love this to be sorted out, but at times I am not sure that it is worth all the effort of time and resources to sort it out.
An LEP between the Methodists and the Anglicans for 15 years, the methodists are now formally leaving Watford circuit, and joining with the anglicn church.
How they've got round the confirmation problem - the priest is a former methodist, and acceptable to both the anglicans and methodists. Bimboy said he'd give me the details later.
Angel
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:This brings up the question of the role of priests versus bishops. Apparently Wesley argued that in NT times there wasn't a distinction between the two, therefore a priest could ordain (and confirm).
When did the two orders diverge? Should they have done so? Or is a bishop just a priest with a different role?
Carys
In the medieval church a doctrine grew up that priests and bishops are different types of the same order of ministry. The reasoning behind this came from a “high” view of the Eucharist. The thinking went something like this:
quote:
Acting as priest at the Eucharist, and thus representing Christ to His Church, is the highest form of ministry to which anyone can aspire (there can be no higher role than representing Christ on earth).The Episcopy cannot therefore be higher order of ministry than the priesthood.
Bishops and priests are therefore not different orders of ministers, they are the same order of ministry, but they are different types of minister within that order.
I believe John Wesley used something like this idea to justify him ordaining priests (a function normally reserved for Bishops). His argument was that he was, ipso facto, in the role of a “Bishop” to the fledgling Methodist church. He had not been ordained to the place of Bishop, but if Bishops and Priests are the same order of ministry then there is no requirement for “ordination” to the Episcopy.
One possible way for the Anglican Church to recognise Methodist orders without the need for “re-ordination” would be to decide that John Wesley was right, and therefore Methodist ministers are “proper” priests. There would, however, be strong objection to this from some quarters.
I don’t know how widespread this idea of Bishops and Priests being the same order of ministers was or is (I have a feeling that the more Orthodox and Catholic shipmates may have something to say about it). But I find it interesting that, for example, the Canons of the CofE (IIRC), talk about “these orders of ministry, Bishops, Priests and Deacons”, without specifically stating that there are three different orders (but I could be accused of hair-splitting here). The BCP and ASB (again IIRC) refer to “Consecrating or Ordaining” Bishops, with “Consecrating” getting used more often. If Bishops are the same order of ministry as Priests then it would make sense to talk of consecrating, rather than ordaining. It may be that the CofE has, as usual, left itself some “wriggle room” on this issue.
*************************
Sorry about my mis-understanding of your friend’s situation, my fault for jumping to assumptions.
quote:
Originally posted by the Angel of the North:
An interesting case study is St Mary's Rickmansworth.An LEP between the Methodists and the Anglicans for 15 years, the methodists are now formally leaving Watford circuit, and joining with the anglicn church.
I don't understand the leaving the circuit bit.Does that mean they cease to be Methodists? It's like saying Anglicans are leaving the diocese.
The church I used to go to is becoming an official Anglican/Meth shared church on Jan 20th, with Bishop and Chairman in attendance; but it will belong to both diocese and circuit.
The confirmation thing there is that all new members/confirmands, will have hands simultaneously laid on them by bishop and a methodist minister, and they will have joint membership, being both Anglicans and Methodists. The existing members retain their single denominational label, and they don't really know how to lose it, although many would like the joint appellation.
In response to the points about priest/presbyters and bishops:
Methodism is committed, at some stage, to taking episcopacy into its system. Some of us will do that through somewhat gritted teeth, but for the good of the church universal.
The debate is just beginning about what a British Methodist bishop would look like. Some think she/he should simply be what our Chairmen of the Districts are now, with a similar role to an Anglican diocesan, some think it ought to be the Circuit Superintendent (one in four ministers), so that they don't get too high and mighty.
My personal preference is for a sort of spiritual director figure, whose sole responsibility is spiritual direction, pastoral care (of the clergy and others) and ordinations; leaving superintendents and chairmen to get on with their business.
Now, "bishop" in the Ang, O and RC traditions carries not only the original meaning of oversight but also jurisdictional and administrative concepts borrowed from the Roman adminstrative system. Bishops, socially, join the ranks at the same level as secular magistrates and develop an element of social standing which is not, per se, related to anything they actually do in the church. Hence the role becomes part of and evolves within mediaeval fudalism.
But, if we keep in mind that "episcope" is "overseer", not "liege lord", we can see that other churches have "bishops" as well - often elected and short-term, but a Moderator, a Chair of the Association and countless other officers who will participate in the pastoral and disciplinary functions of the Church, are "overseers".
How are they getting round the problem of thsoe people confirmed Methodist? This is probably not am immediate problem, but will become one if any of them want to train as a reader or whatever.
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
No.
No.
No.
Rather, Yes, Yes, Yes.
Does it matter? Yes, because it at least demonstrates that we are serious about unity.
Is anyone interested? Yes, as the continued presence of this thread shows. And there are many who are concerned with working together across the denominational boundaries, for whom this is very important.
Should it be a priority? Yes. Not necessarily the highest, but a significnat priority, in nothing else because it focusses the mind on what we are, what it means to be anglican, and what is important to us.
I think Anglican and Methodist union is 1) a good thing and 2) going to happen. It will only happen by both sides being prepared to give a lot, and make it work. But i have no doubt that the breadth of the Anglican church is more than capable of handling the Methodists, and the desire of the methodists is big enough to accept the Anglicans. ANd let us hope that the result is better than either of the constituent parts.
I am an Anglican, but was brought up a Methodist, so I have experience in both camps.
quote:
The BCP and ASB (again IIRC) refer to “Consecrating or Ordaining” Bishops, with “Consecrating” getting used more often. If Bishops are the same order of ministry as Priests then it would make sense to talk of consecrating, rather than ordaining. It may be that the CofE has, as usual, left itself some “wriggle room” on this issue.
The interesting thing here is that I'd always heard (and used) consecration of Bishops but recently (since introduction of CW) I've heard ordination used consistently. Don't know how significant this is - whether it reflects a change in CW (but as I still haven't bought myself a copy I can't check) or whether it is just coincidence.
quote:
The debate is just beginning about what a British Methodist bishop would look like. Some think she/he should simply be what our Chairmen of the Districts are now, with a similar role to an Anglican diocesan, some think it ought to be the Circuit Superintendent (one in four ministers), so that they don't get too high and mighty.My personal preference is for a sort of spiritual director figure, whose sole responsibility is spiritual direction, pastoral care (of the clergy and others) and ordinations; leaving superintendents and chairmen to get on with their business.
This is an intersting question. Discussing it the other day we decided that the District Level was too high up (too few districts) but the circuits were too low down (too many of them). I think that this point is probably a good time for a whole scale re-think on diocesan boundaries (some of which are very odd, for example Peterborough Cathedral is barely within it's diocese, cross the river and you're in Ely) and that dioceses could be made small and more manageable, this would also have the advantage that some (most? all?) of the new dioceses could have a Methodist church designated as the Cathedral for the diocese which would allay possible tensions.
One other point I'm interested in is how these discussion relate to Wales, Scotland and Ireland, something which is only mentioned in passing in section 73
'The reactions of all our ecumenical partners will b important for further progress towards visible unity in Great Britain and Ireland and particularly for relations between Methodists and Anglicans in Wales, Scotland and Ireland'
The situation is furthered complicating in Wales as I believe the MEthodists are involved in the talks about uniting the Free Churches. It would be very strange were Methodists in Wales to unite that way whilst there fellows in Engalnd unite with Anglicanism.
Carys
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
The interesting thing here is that I'd always heard (and used) consecration of Bishops but recently (since introduction of CW) I've heard ordination used consistently. Don't know how significant this is - whether it reflects a change in CW (but as I still haven't bought myself a copy I can't check) or whether it is just coincidence.
Carys
As yet there is no CW service for making/ordaining/consecrating/whatevering Deacons, Priests and Bishops, so the ASB services are still in force.
Presumably this is a coincidence, therefore.
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
On a side note, in my church we are currently without a minister. This has meant that when any of the sacraments are 'wanted' we have to bring in a dog-collared bod.So far we have had a URC minister leading weddings, a Methodist baptising, and for communion Presby, Elim, URC and Methodist.(Although we would probably be quite happy with Anglicans, Congregationalist and Baptists too).
It has been a very visible sign to the church that the Church is one. We may be a little Presbyterian church in North Wales, but we are part of the Church universal. It is a very comforting notion.
During the baptism the retired Methodist minister prayed over the baby in Welsh, it really brought it home to me that the Church is not about where we live or in what century we live, or which languages are used.
I am still not sure about whether the beaurocracies of the Methodist and Anglican churches can actually get anything sorted out. But whilst churches and ministers are working in partnership then I am not too concerned.
bb
The whole business of 'only the bloke in the dog-collar can do communion' is really just the ministry's own restrictive practices - the rail unions have nothing on them!
Lay-readers, local preachers and similar all have a de-facto priestly and prophetic function - that is, they represent the congregation to God, and God to the congregation. And that, as John Wesley would say, 'makes them as good an episkopos as any other!'
John
<GETS OFF HIGH HORSE AND PRACTISES SOME DEEP BREATHING>
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
I think a way around the issue with "bishops" (which will effect many denominations seeking closer union) is to remember that just because you don't us the word "bishop" doesn't mean you don't have any.Now, "bishop" in the Ang, O and RC traditions carries not only the original meaning of oversight but also jurisdictional and administrative concepts borrowed from the Roman adminstrative system. Bishops, socially, join the ranks at the same level as secular magistrates and develop an element of social standing which is not, per se, related to anything they actually do in the church. Hence the role becomes part of and evolves within mediaeval fudalism.
But, if we keep in mind that "episcope" is "overseer", not "liege lord", we can see that other churches have "bishops" as well - often elected and short-term, but a Moderator, a Chair of the Association and countless other officers who will participate in the pastoral and disciplinary functions of the Church, are "overseers".
In Methodism we are led to believe that only the historic episcopate will do, and that in some way we need to get them into the apostollic succession for a real recognition by Anglicanism. For the sake of the weaker brethren, and sisters, who see this as important, I am just about prepared to grasp it.
As to lay presidency: this is again something deeply held in me that I know I have to be prepared to give up if unity is to be possible. In fairness I don't think it is clergy asking for a restrictive closed shop, it is the tyranny of the majority (RC, Orthodox, Anglican, lay and ordained) who all hold to the view that lay presidency is invalid, that means those of us who hold a different view, but still long for the unity of the whole church have to compromise.
I would like to know from some Anglicans, what deeply held beliefs of theirs they are prepared to sacrifice in the cause of unity.
The more I think about this proposition, the more offensive and illogical it seems; especially since baptism is regarded as valid no matter by whom it is performed.
I take a very 'high' view of communion - probably much higher than most Methodists - and for me lay presidency simply confirms my belief that God can work through everyone, not just those with the appropriate qualifications or body parts.
John
I am very much in agreement with Umbrella that there are a whole list of difficulties which will prevent union for many years. The issues regarding women in ministry and lay leadership, particularly Local Preachers, are major. Methodism is a connexional church, which means that the local church is representative of the whole. So any minister and Local Preacher is to be equally accepted in every other church. Apply that to a united church, we would expect that every minister (deacon, presbyter, or bishop), male and female, would be recognised as such by every other church - no opting out, no flying bishops. Similarly, any lay preacher would expect to be similarly recognised, and not depend on whether the local presbyter(s) wanted to use them.
One issue that has not been mentioned so far is disestablishment. As non-conformists there are problems with the idea of joining the establishment. The new Methodist Service Book is very unpopular amongst many congregations because there is too much liturgy. There would be difficulties in Methodism accepting that we had to follow liturgy simply because there is an act of Parliament that says so. I can imagine the reaction the reaction of many congregations I know to being told that they have to recite the creed every time we have communion.
And of course there'll be a huge debate on whether it should be non-alcoholic or alcoholic communion wine
DavidG
quote:
Originally posted by DavidG:
And of course there'll be a huge debate on whether it should be non-alcoholic or alcoholic communion wine
Yes!!
If it became a rule that we had to use alcoholic communion wine and a chalice, I estimate that about half the church I go to would abstain from wine at communion.
The alcoholic/non-alcholic debate seems to be completely frivolous and pointless - why not leave it to the discretion of the individual Church Council/PCC? Then the best solution for the needs of the society in that place can be found. I hardly think that a great deal of theology is dependent on whether or not there is ethanol in the wine offered to God at the Eucharist.
(I, as a Methodist, regularly receive in a chapel where alcoholic wine is used, and churches where non-alcoholic is used. I fail to see why it should be an issue.)
In my own church, I have asked that we use a chalice for evening communions, when we could pass it to each other, and everyone else there feels strongly we must stick with little glasses.
To me it is frivolous and unimportant, but if Methodists are made to use alcohol and chalices, then it will hit the average member much more than any issue about bishops and ordination.
The situation in Wales is a little different from what it is in England, and I'm sure that most Methodist congregations feel much closer to the other free churches than to the Church in Wales. This gives the Conversations an air of unreality for many of us; the people that we would most easily join with are precisely those to whom we aren't (officially) talking.
The new Methodist Service Book is very unpopular amongst many congregations because there is too much liturgy.
Which is perhaps why I rather like it - but it does weigh a ton, especially the bilingual English / Welsh version!
Some of the objections that I've heard seem rather like the Covenanters in Scotland objecting to Charles II's new Service Book, though no-one in Wales as far as I know has taken to throwing chairs at the minister
John
Seasick is clearly "Higher" than I have ever been, and Weslian is clearly "Lower" than I have ever been. As an ex Free Church, now Anglo-Catholic, I think this prooves the point that the Breadth of the Anglican and Methodist churches is about the same.
I remember at school our Chaplain was High church methodist and would always vest (cope and all at special occasions)Our Headmaster was a Low Anglican minister who might slip a dog collar on if it was a really special occasions.
Remember the Church is England in neither Catholic or Reformed more of an ongoing argument...
quote:
Originally posted by sacredthree:
Reading your discussion is making me smile.Seasick is clearly "Higher" than I have ever been....
Indeed.Quite so.Is it true that even Fr.Cosmo would find him altogether sound?
I must admit I've never heard of a Methodist robed in cope over here,and the (admittedly few) Methodist churches I've been in seem a lot closer to the other Free Churches such as the Presbyterians.However perhaps things are different in England.I'm surprised though that the doctrine of "final perserverance " is an issue,as I thought both churches were more Arminian than Calvinist........
Your experience in the US matches mine in the UK. I have never encountered a Methodist church where people robe up and process in. Having said that there are more ministers in cassocks than there were 30 years ago, but of course the majority of Methodist services are taken by Local Preachers.
Generally, we are closer in practice to other Free Churches in style and practice. Certainly there is nothing to compare with anglo-catholic practice that I read about here. (The differences in theology of course may not be so marked.)
And speaking of Methodism, my understanding is that we are Arminian - at least that's what my college principal keeps telling us.
DavidG
quote:
How are they getting round the problem of thsoe people confirmed Methodist? This is probably not am immediate problem, but will become one if any of them want to train as a reader or whatever.
from talking to david the situation of laying on of hands of minister and bishop takes place. The minister in question is an anglican priest and a methodist minister by training and is acceptable to both.
I think this is an excellent idea and should be used at all anglican confirmations.
they're ceding from the circuit. the church building is a CofE one anyway.
Brolly wrote:
quote:
I speak from the inside, a Methodist who trained alongside Anglicans, and this is very much my view.
I don't mind us walking down the road together hand in hand but would hate to think of us getting married!
There are issues surrounding Methodist ordination.
The ordination of women.
Bishops who are women.
Leadership factors.
Use of lay people - the reader system amd Local Preachers are NOT the same thing at all!
Lay ministry.
Church governance.
On top of that - some time ago Carys mentioned preference for the Paerish system which cares for all within a given area regardless of where they go to or don't go to church ------
EXCUSE ME
but my role in this community is seen very much as the Methodist minister for the whole community rather than the Methodist minister for the Methodist churches in this area.
Maybe Seasick or similarly enlightened individuals can tell me what the requirements are of a methodist minister towards the area. An anglican priest is required to minister to the whole of his parish. AIUI the methodist minister has some discretion in this. Carys and I aren't talking about how individual people feel, but what the regulations say.
My personal feeling is that Methodist-Anglican unity would allow for a far greater breadth of services in both churches, and a lot of anglican churches would be happier with less liturgy. Service of the Word is almost indistinguishable from a methodist "Hymn Sandwich."
Church governance - I see this whole thing as an opportunity (strange how unity comes into that word). In certain areas the idea of a circuit of anglican/methodist churches would be an ideal. In others a more anglican model would be better. I think it's up to each deanery to decide.
I don't think anyone ever said that Lay Preachers and Readers were the same. Similar in function.
As for flying bishops etc - My personal feeling is that the CinW should be granted oversight of ABC parishes and have done with it. I can remember the passion of the debate in the anglican church - was there any difficulty with women's ministry in the methodist church? And what were the arguments about?
If you haven't seen the struggles that some people went through and are going through over this, then I don't think it is fair to dismiss it so lightly. People are not so fixed in their ways as it appears - they're still struggling with is, 7 years later.
Women as CofE bishops will be a reality in the next 10 years. It won't be nearly such a problem as the ordination of women to the priesthood.
I've moved around a bit in the last few years, and I'm now digging up methodist friends and demanding information. The role of a lay reader in yorkshire is near identical to what Bimboy will be doing as a lay preacher in Watford. thing is, that we look sideways - "well, they don't do it like we do it, not in our local area" when in the wider communion/connexion there are distinct parallels. Lay readers and lay preachers, however, in yorkshire do completely different jobs. Ditto in Watford.
churches have evolved to be complementary in an area. Interesting question raised by brolly's point. Would you leave the communion/connexion if unity came about, with all that that entails, and go to a "continuing" church.
Angel
quote:
On top of that - some time ago Carys mentioned preference for the Paerish system which cares for all within a given area regardless of where they go to or don't go to church ------
EXCUSE ME
but my role in this community is seen very much as the Methodist minister for the whole community rather than the Methodist minister for the Methodist churches in this area.
Sorry, I'm might have been more thinking of the attitude of more evangelical churches with the idea of the 'gathered' congregation more than a geographical one. An attitude that is creeping into Anglicanism I feel, I know of people who bypass their small struggling 'dead' (INTHO!) parish church to go into the local town and a big charismatic evangelical church. But I suppose what I really meant with the Parish system is the fact that it divides the whole country up between the churches; though I will admit that parish boundaries are in dire need of reform in many (if not most) places. The fact that Methodists think in this way too shows how close the two denominations are.
Andras wrote,
quote:
The situation in Wales is a little different from what it is in England, and I'm sure that most Methodist congregations feel much closer to the other free churches than to the Church in Wales. This gives the Conversations an air of unreality for many of us; the people that we would most easily join with are precisely those to whom we aren't (officially) talking.
Aren't you? That presumably answers my question as to whether you are involved in the unity talks between various free church denominations. I agree that what happens in Wales is an interesting one not covered in the document produced. However my very limited experience in Wales is of very close relations between the local Methodist church (St Paul's) and one of the local Anglican ones (Holy Trinity) and at times feeling that the Methodists were out Anglicaning the Anglicans (particularly one joint evening service around Easter 3 when we used MWB Evening Service and sang Easter hymns, which we hadn't at Trinity that morning). But I admit that that is just one town.
Angel said
quote:
My personal feeling is that the CinW should be granted oversight of ABC parishes and have done with it.
Oy, why should we get lumbered with them? It might have escaped your notice but CinW has women priests too. Admittedly slightly later than in England although I believe we had women deacons first.
As to Readers (the lay has been dropped I believe) and Local Preachers, there roles are different in many ways but on the whole they reflect differences in the churches. One major difference is that Readers are only licensed to one Parish (on the whole, I'm not sure what happens in Team ministries though, and I know a Reader who is employed as a Lay Missioner to two parishes and therefore licensed to both) rather than to the circuit. But that reflects the difference in approach, parish versus circuit - personally I quite like the idea of the circuit, I think it probably gives people a much broader range than you get in many parishes (though I know of a few with a breadth of view amongst their clergy).
Another difference is that Local Preachers have more responsibility it terms of planning the whole service and taking it on their own. But that again is to do with difference between the churches, Anglicans generally have a set service.
The third major difference is a numerical one. There are a lot more Local Preachers (per church). The Covenant gives figures. The Methodist Church has over 6,000 churches and nearly 10,000 Local Preachers whilst the CofE has approximately 16,000 parish churches and 10,000 Readers. I think the Methodists probably have it more right. They also seem to encourage people to think about it younger, I know students who are beginning the process of training as LPs but very few Readers in their twenties.
As to Lay Presidency, I think that deserves its own thread in Purg which I'll go and start now.
Carys
I haven't checked the website, but the article may also be online - www.churchtimes.co.uk
quote:
Oy, why should we get lumbered with them? It might have escaped your notice but CinW has women priests too. Admittedly slightly later than in England although I believe we had women deacons first.
to be fair - I heard it mooted by someone else, and repeated so it really is a slap on the wrists.
Angel
quote:
the Angel of the North said:
from talking to david the situation of laying on of hands of minister and bishop takes place. The minister in question is an anglican priest and a methodist minister by training and is acceptable to both.
Yes, that's all well and good for new confirmands, but what about those who have been confirmed in the Methodist Church in the normal fashion?
quote:
the Angel of the North said:
Maybe Seasick or similarly enlightened individuals can tell me what the requirements are of a methodist minister towards the area. An anglican priest is required to minister to the whole of his parish. AIUI the methodist minister has some discretion in this. Carys and I aren't talking about how individual people feel, but what the regulations say.
God forbid any clergyperson from ministering to me because the regulations tell him/her to. I think that every Methodist minister I know, have known or will know, would minister to anyone who came, or who needed it. Not because the regulations say so, but because it is the work of Christ. The Good Samaritan didn't say 'Do you live in my parish?'. John Wesley said 'The world is my parish'. A good maxim for any Christian IMO.
I think Choristers point misses the fact that Local Preachers also take a long time to train. Admittedly they can serve while in training, but they are limited as to how much they can do. We have a thing called a Worship Leader too, but from what I've seen of it, it seems to be a second rate option for people who are too lazy to do Faith & Worship (the Local Preachers' course). I hope that there are more positive examples of this ministry around.
I think the resolution ABC parishes question is the interesting one. DavidG made the point that ministers, local preachers etc. are, and need to be, recognised in all churches in the connexion. I would be very uncomfortable with a situation in which this was not possible.
I'll agree with andras that I like the new service book (and about its weight in the bilingual edition), though IME very few places actually use the resources therein to anything like their full potential. Sad, really. Try opening it, and seeing what's in there - you might like it
There does seem to be some residual presupposition amongst Anglicans (and I am one) that somehow other denominations aren't committed to their area, which may be true to some of the more sectarian-minded groupings, but not true of Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians or whatever, who are as aware of their role in serving the local community as any Anglican.
)But the situation outside the big(gish) towns in Wales is different; rural Church in Wales congregations too often take the view that they are right about all things, and that anyone who wants to join with them just needs to stop doing whatever they are doing now and start doing it the 'right way'. No names, no pack-drill, but I've actually been thrown out of one Church in Wales church in Ceredigion for not having the 'right views'.
The idea that local preachers are some sort of second-best to a 'real' minister is sad, and certainly not true to Methodist ideals. Indeed, although there are still some local preachers with pretty minimal qualifications around, most of the ones I know have better qualifications than most full-time clergy, and their preaching is of a quality to prove it; they certainly don't need to read out someone else's words!
The church is not - please God - a device to find out what gifts of the spirit people have been blessed with and then stop them using them; though it sometimes feels like it
John
When I looked at the Methodist Communion Service wording and that of a local Baptist church, it was almost word for word the same as our Anglican version. Also when I went to a Catholic cathedral I recognised most of the service as being the same. So Eucharistically is there really much difference? Surely the difference is in the managerial structure of each denomination rather than at individual church level?
I think that although the words are the same, the way in which the Eucharist is done would differ:
1. for example, in how strictly the liturgy is used. In ordinary time in our church for example, we only tend to pick up the written liturgy at the prayer of thanksgiving, the preacher choosing their own prayers of adoration and confession at the beginning, and perhaps playing around with the order of readings, sermon etc.
2. In the way the liturgy is presented, i.e. in the way that the leader of the worship dresses, in the amount of ceremony, in whether a chalice or cups, bread or wafers, alcoholic or non-alcoholic wine is used.
These seemingly peripheral things actually shape the liturgy and its meaning as much as the words in the book.
quote:
Weslian said:
These seemingly peripheral things actually shape the liturgy and its meaning as much as
the words in the book.
I agree, I might even say that they shape it and its meaning more than the words. To take two extreme examples, I could sit round with the liturgy, some friends, a packet of crisps, and some orange juice, read the liturgy and then eat and drink the aforementioned foods. Alternatively I could go to solemn high mass using the same liturgy. Yet the meanings would be entirely different. Fortunately for unity purposes we're generally not as far apart as the examples I have taken here, but the point is there.
I characterise this as the difference between PR and constituency systems. Not that people are doing XY or Z because they have to. After all, an english MP shouldn't go into it, if they're not prepared to represent all people in their constituency. A Euro MP may find that they can only represent some of the area, and find themselves representing those closest to themselves, and people falling through the net. Neither is a fool proof system.
It's not that simple. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Hence my comment that it should be up to each deanery/circuit to choose.
quote:
Originally posted by DavidG:
StephenYour experience in the US matches mine in the UK. .)
DavidG
Ummmm.......I'm Welsh,not American...
quote:
re: parish/circuit
I characterise this as the difference between PR and constituency systems. Not that people are doing XY or Z because they have to. After all, an english MP shouldn't go into it, if they're not prepared to represent all people in their constituency. A Euro MP may find that they can only represent some of the area, and find themselves representing those closest to themselves, and people falling through the net. Neither is a fool proof system.It's not that simple. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Hence my comment that it should be up to each deanery/circuit to choose.
Huh? I might just be being thick here, but I can't quite see what this is related to. What should each deanary/circuit to choose? How does the constituency thing fit into the debate?
Carys
To take two extreme examples, I could sit round with the liturgy, some friends, a packet of crisps, and some orange juice, read the liturgy and then eat and drink the aforementioned foods. Alternatively I could go to solemn high mass using the same liturgy. Yet the meanings would be entirely different.
Putting aside for the moment the canonical requirements which insist on the juice of the grape and of bread, and assuming that the 'sitting around' isn't to suggest that you're doing this lightly, in what way exactly would the meanings be different?
Japanese prisoners of war and others in difficult circumstances have frequently held communion services using water and grains of rice - for example - and I'd never dare to suggest that these were not perfectly 'valid' - whatever that means.
That old high-churchman Malcolm Muggeridge used to speak of holding daily communion services at home for himself and his wife using wine and bread over which he himself spoke the Anglican words of consecration. Good for him, say I.
John
quote:
Originally posted by Weslian:
I would like to know from some Anglicans, what deeply held beliefs of theirs they are prepared to sacrifice in the cause of unity.
Responding to your challenge on another thread about this, I would firstly say that I don't think you should give up lay presidency for the sake of unity with Anglicans. Anglicans should move towards an acceptance of it, as we are ( in our slow way ).
As an anglican, what would I give up for unity? Wine at communion, even the communal cup, if this was an issue.
Besides, a swallow of communion wine (the real sort) clears away my cough so I can sing the anthem better!
I went to a church once where they used Sainsbury's grape juice. If we have to stick with non-alcoholic, I wish more Methodist churches would go that way rather than use the sickly, and I suspect very expensive, stuff that we are stuck with at the moment.
The question is: Do Methodist Churches admit Children to Communion? It is now an option for churches in the CofE, and once admitted at one church a child can not be refused at another.
The thought is this: Regarding the Apostolicity of the Methodist church, if their was ever a candidate for having an Apostolic ministry it was John Wesley. If Paul or Priscilla or any of the other many Apostles in the NT, named and unamed, could ordain why couldn't he?
quote:
Originally posted by sacredthree:
I have one question and one thought.The question is: Do Methodist Churches admit Children to Communion? It is now an option for churches in the CofE, and once admitted at one church a child can not be refused at another.
The thought is this: Regarding the Apostolicity of the Methodist church, if their was ever a candidate for having an Apostolic ministry it was John Wesley. If Paul or Priscilla or any of the other many Apostles in the NT, named and unamed, could ordain why couldn't he?
To the question:
Our practice is pretty much the same as the Anglicans. The church council makes the policy, which the minister is bound by. In the end I suspect it comes down to the parents. In our church we have an open invitation to children, but only a few families actually receive, the majority still go up for a blessing.
The thought: Amen!
So far though that has been the major issue to come up where I think the CofE needs to give.
So Weslian - and any other Methodists out there (seasick) - are there any other things where you think that Anglicanism needs to be prepared to change?
Carys
quote:
I have to say that I'd like to see an end to the requirement to use authorised liturgy
Again this shows the breadth of the denominations - certain chunks of the CofE would love this whereas others would be up in arms and I'll sit on the fence!
There has been a move away from only using the authorised liturgy over the past few years. There is now the concept of the 'Service of the Word' which gives a structure for a service - what it should contain - confession Lord's prayer, readings etc - but no written liturgy and there's a lot more - these or other suitable words may be used.
I like the liturgy a lot - and find it far easier to worship with it than without it - but I'm not sure that only using authorised liturgy is a deeply held belief and I could probably do without it. Though I do get annoyed with a church who use liturgy not authorised in their province regularly - but I think that is more to do with Church order than authorised liturgy per se. Currently authorisation is important so this church's ignoring of this is another example of its tendency towards congregationalism which is not the way the Church in Wales is governed.
Not always using authorised liturgy might also encourage people to think about liturgy and what it is. Bad liturgy or badly done liturgy - gabbled with seemingly no attention to what your saying for example - is probably worse than no liturgy. If your going to do something do it well.
Carys
However there is nothing stop you using other liturgies, as long as the main service is an authourised form.
I love liturgy.
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
The problem with the current use of the Service of the Word is that it only seems to be used in Evangelical establishments (though if anyone wants to give a counter-example, I'd be more than pleased to hear of it).
Sorry - why is that a problem?
quote:
andras said:
Putting aside for the moment the canonical requirements which insist on the juice of the grape and of bread, and assuming that the 'sitting around' isn't to suggest that you're doing this lightly, in what way exactly would the meanings be different?
What I'm trying to say is that the way people act at the Eucharist often says an awful lot about their Eucharistic theology. This example perhaps wasn't the best as it had the same person each time.
To take another example, consider the exposition of the host at Mass:
Behold the Lamb of God, Behold him that taketh away the sins of the world.
This text in a slightly different form has found its way into a lot of liturgies - it appears in the Methodist Worship Book in a number of places (we used it on Sunday).
Jesus is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.
In chapel here, at this point, the actions of the celebrant are generally the same as in places where the first one is used (i.e. holding up the host and chalice and showing them to the people) whereas in Methodist circles it's generally used as an invitation to communion. I think it's the actions here which betray the difference in people's thoughts.
quote:
andras said:
Japanese prisoners of war and others in difficult circumstances have frequently held communion services using water and grains of rice - for example - and I'd never dare to suggest that these were not perfectly 'valid' - whatever that means.That old high-churchman Malcolm Muggeridge used to speak of holding daily communion services at home for himself and his wife using wine and bread over which he himself spoke the Anglican words of consecration. Good for him, say I.
Despite my opinions against lay presidency I don't presume to declare communions valid or invalid. You made the point about canonical requirements for the elements - I see that the important thing is that we offer God what is available, be that rice and water or whatever. Think the widow and her two coins. However, if it is possible to have the appropriate elements then this is to be preferred, I think.
quote:
Steve said:
Sorry - why is that a problem?
It's not in an absolute sense, just that I'd be disappointed if that remained the case after unity (if it happens) as I like services where the preacher/minister can do as they like, but I generally don't get on with Evangelical theology.
I don't think we should have to give anything up for the sake of unity. Unity is an attitude of mind rather than practice - our practice should remain diverse, as it already is within denominations as well as between them.
I think this is very true - the variation between denominations now is generally at least as great as the difference between them. And Paul's attitude of 'going along with what the other person thinks in order not to cause them to be upset in any way' has an enormous amount to commend it. As Screwtape says somewhere, if this had been properly understood, the church would have been a hotbed of humility.
Weslian's point about the dire quality of non-alcoholic communion wine is spot on. It's the preservatives that make it so foul, of course.
We did use 'proper' grape juice at our church for a while until someone objected on the bizarre grounds that it's not 'real communion wine', and there have been a few occasions since then when it's been a fairly decent Merlot, but don't tell the Methodist church authorities about that! Mostly we have the awful non-alcoholic cr*p.(But we may have wafers soon!)
In answer to Carys' point about what Anglicans ought to change, I can only suggest that it's the persistent notion that they're right about everything, which some of us find rather intimidating.
Seasick said:
In chapel here, at this point, the actions of the celebrant are generally the same as in places where the first one is used (i.e. holding up the host and chalice and showing them to the people) whereas in Methodist circles it's generally used as an invitation to communion. I think it's the actions here which betray the difference in people's thoughts.
The Anglican Common Prayer service, thanks to Cranmer, neatly sidesteps the transubstantiation issue by proclaiming both 'The body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ' and 'Take and eat remembering that..' (my wording may be slightly awry, but basically the two statements validate both the notion that the elements are indeed Christ's body and blood and the notion that Communion is a re-enactment or memorial).
I've been to Communion services at Church in Wales churches where the officiating priest used the then-current RC Mass service in its entirety, and others which were so 'low' that I felt unhappy because due reverence wasn't being paid to the sacrament. The variety of usage is, I think, an absolutely good thing, because probably none of us have quite the same doctrine of the atonement or of 'what happens' in Communion.
John
I have virtually no objection to what goes on liturgically in Anglicanism. I wouldn't want them to change, but I would want the same recognition for our liturgical practices:
e.g. varieties of clergy dress, from tea shirt to cope,
non-alcoholic communion wine and individual glasses,
using the written eucharistic liturgy as a guide and not a chain,
frequent use of extempore prayer,
the use of the lectionary as an option not a rule.
It strikes me that unity at local level is about full acceptance of our diversity, not cramming everyone into the same pattern.
If an AC could have respect for my use of non-alcoholic wine and little glasses, and I could respect the practice of Benediction (with which I struggle!) without any attempt to impose on the other, then we would be getting somewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by Weslian:
I think I am with Seasick in that what I would want Anglicans to give up is the sense that one can impose liturgical practice on a church by regulation.
This may just be my non-Anglican background, but I fail to see any reason why liturgical practice needs to be imposed by regulation. I see the Church basically from the congregational level, and as such see the primary purpose of a congregation to minister to those who worship in that congregation and the community(ies) in which they live. If that ministry is best achieved by using a variety of liturgies or no liturgy then that is what should be used; likewise if that congregation is better for having monthly or quarterly communion rather than weekly, or using non-alcoholic wine then they are not being the Church in their area to the best they can be if forced from above to adopt a different practice than that.
If in some future union between Methodists and Anglicans, I feel the Anglican church should sieze the opportunity to free itself from the imposition of practices on congregations that may not be the best for those congregations.
As I said, my background is Methodist and now URC/Congregational (there being very few Methodist churches in Scotland), so perhaps there is some good reason for the imposition of liturgical practice that I fail to see.
Alan
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
at the risk of sounding too me-too-ish, me too.This may just be my non-Anglican background, but I fail to see any reason why liturgical practice needs to be imposed by regulation. I see the Church basically from the congregational level, and as such see the primary purpose of a congregation to minister to those who worship in that congregation and the community(ies) in which they live. If that ministry is best achieved by using a variety of liturgies or no liturgy then that is what should be used; likewise if that congregation is better for having monthly or quarterly communion rather than weekly, or using non-alcoholic wine then they are not being the Church in their area to the best they can be if forced from above to adopt a different practice than that.
If in some future union between Methodists and Anglicans, I feel the Anglican church should sieze the opportunity to free itself from the imposition of practices on congregations that may not be the best for those congregations.
As I said, my background is Methodist and now URC/Congregational (there being very few Methodist churches in Scotland), so perhaps there is some good reason for the imposition of liturgical practice that I fail to see.
My personal feeling is this - if you are going to have a communion/connexion, and certain theological views are particularly espoused by said communion/connexion, then the services need to reflect this. I'm thinking where specific exclusions are made, rather than inclusions.
The problem with saying "you can't do this, and you can't do that" is that the exclusion list gets longer and longer.
Far simpler to have some loose boundaries of regulation, for good church order.
And to my mind, any liturgy that is going to be used regularly ought to be "authorised" - I'm not talking one off services, but where a church worships like that week in, week out.
Before someone lodges themselves in my throat. I'm not saying that all services should follow an authorised pattern, but that if you are going to use a liturgy with any regularity, then it should be authorised. Ideally the list would be fairly long to start with, and anyone could submit a liturgy to be listed as an available resource.
Does that make the difference clear?
Angel
[tidied ubb]
[ 16 January 2002: Message edited by: babybear ]
This is a very moving intimate service, and if we were banned from doing that I would find it really difficult.
quote:
Originally posted by Weslian:
What about the tradition of extemporised communion? At our church, Sunday evening communions are always done without any written liturgy at all. Our worship book gives an outline of the required elements, and that is kept to, but the words are different every time as the presider feels led?
And curiously reminiscent of the bit in the Didache (c. 80-150CE) about how a prophet should be allowed to celebrate the eucharist. Far more in tune with the primitive church than the Oxford Movement
quote:
Originally posted by Weslian:
What about the tradition of extemporised communion? At our church, Sunday evening communions are always done without any written liturgy at all. Our worship book gives an outline of the required elements, and that is kept to, but the words are different every time as the presider feels led?This is a very moving intimate service, and if we were banned from doing that I would find it really difficult.
speaking for myself, I have no problem with that. And I agree re: it being moving. (Angel remembers st sim's)
the reason I get bugged about liturgy, is that, more than anything, it needs to be theologically "right" (broadest possible meaning of the term). I'd be a bit annoyed if I went to an anglican church and heard chick-type christianity in the liturgy week in, week out. similarly with certain RC marian theology.
it's one thing for it to be preached - that's bad enough. It's another for it to be in a formalised pattern.
Angel
quote:
the Angel of the North said:
the reason I get bugged about liturgy, is that, more than anything, it needs to be theologically "right" (broadest possible meaning of the term). I'd be a bit annoyed if I went to an anglican church and heard chick-type christianity in the liturgy week in, week out. similarly with certain RC marian theology.
Surely this comes down to whoever is leading the service? I think in both Methodism and Anglicanism, people who regularly lead worship have to be themselves in some way authorised (e.g. by being admitted a local preacher), which certainly in the Methodist case, involves assenting to 'the doctrines of the Christian faith as this Church has received them' (apologies if the quote isn't exact - I haven't got an MWB here to check it).
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Surely this comes down to whoever is leading the service? I think in both Methodism and Anglicanism, people who regularly lead worship have to be themselves in some way authorised (e.g. by being admitted a local preacher), which certainly in the Methodist case, involves assenting to 'the doctrines of the Christian faith as this Church has received them' (apologies if the quote isn't exact - I haven't got an MWB here to check it).
Sadly, in the anglican case, just because they assented to it at one time, doesn't mean they believe it now. not entirely certain of this. - maybe one of the learned fathers could tell us? (or carys )
Angel
In practice, this rarely, if ever happens. The only theolgical issue on which people have been forced to leave the ministry in recent years has been over a failure to be prepared to administer infant baptism, and a willingness to baptise adults who had already been baptised as infants.
A few years ago a minister was expelled for heresy for writing a Cupitt style book, but I only know of one instance and that was 25 years ago.
quote:
Originally posted by Weslian:
but I would want the same recognition for our liturgical practices:e.g. varieties of clergy dress, from tea shirt to cope,
non-alcoholic communion wine and individual glasses,
using the written eucharistic liturgy as a guide and not a chain,
frequent use of extempore prayer,
the use of the lectionary as an option not a rule.
Ahem, these sound fairly normal for a Low Anglican church.
I really wish everybody would stop talking about the Anglican church as if it were homogeonous. Steve and I (for example) are both Anglican but have very different views on things.
My views are coloured by being an ex non-conformist who has discovered a bit of the old religion, I may claim that my particular brand of progressive liberal catholicism offers a valid path for the Anglican church, but I can't claim that it is the Anglican Church.
There seems to be some Paranoia.
The reason Anglicans can have such an attitude is they are constantly defending themselves from attacks (real or imagined) from within their own denomination.
The Evangelicals are out to get the Catholics
The Catholics are out to get the Evangelicals
The Liberals ....
And so forth and so on.
I think the Methodists and Anglicans will get on just fine then. If you are really lucky Weslian you will be invaded by a group of 50 Conservative Evangelicals who will then take over the church.
On average I would guess that the Anglican church is a little more catholic and a little more evangelical than the Methodist.
quote:
Originally posted by sacredthree:
If you are really lucky Weslian you will be invaded by a group of 50 Conservative Evangelicals who will then take over the church.
I presume you are joking!!
The things I was asking for freedom to do come from my free liberal standpoint, not a Conservative Evangelical one.
quote:
Sadly, in the anglican case, just because they assented to it at one time, doesn't mean they believe it now. not entirely certain of this. - maybe one of the learned fathers could tell us? (or carys )
Not entirely sure what I'm supposed to be answering. Whether people still assent to what they assented to at one time? How should I know? Actually I think this can be a problem, what do you do if you move away from the faith as set out in the creeds?
But I think what Angel was actually asking was the position about people being authorised in the CofE. Yes they do, Readers are licensed and admitted and I seem to recall they have to make a declaration of intent as do those being ordained, which doesn't involve assenting to the 39 articles (thank goodness their tone is too calvinist for me), but acknowledging their existence at least.
Carys
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
But I think what Angel was actually asking was the position about people being authorised in the CofE. Yes they do, Readers are licensed and admitted and I seem to recall they have to make a declaration of intent as do those being ordained, which doesn't involve assenting to the 39 articles (thank goodness their tone is too calvinist for me), but acknowledging their existence at least.Carys
"acknowledging their existence at least" reminds me of the story of the bloke here in Queensland who was candidating for the Methodist ministry. He was supposed to read Wesley's Forty Four Sermons before fronting up to a committee. It was the night before, and he hadn't even started!
So he took a drill and bored a hole through the book. When asked if he had read the 44 Sermons, he truthfully replied, "I've looked through them"!
"acknowledging their existence at least" reminds me of the story of the bloke here in Queensland who was candidating for the Methodist ministry. He was supposed to read Wesley's Forty Four Sermons before fronting up to a committee. It was the night before, and he hadn't even started!
So he took a drill and bored a hole through the book. When asked if he had read the 44 Sermons, he truthfully replied, "I've looked through them.
He missed a treat. Here in the UK, Local Preachers are expected to read them through and to be able to talk intelligently about them - and there's some pretty powerful stuff there, I can tell you!
John
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
He missed a treat. Here in the UK, Local Preachers are expected to read them through and to be able to talk intelligently about them - and there's some pretty powerful stuff there, I can tell you!John
Bimboy (just starting this week on LP) doesn't have to know the sermons particularly. In fact, he was saying he could get through his course, without having to refer to them at all. To be fair, he also said that wesley's words aren't nearly heard enough.
Angel
