Thread: Anglo-Methodist movement Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022671
Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :
 
Padre Joshua and I have been tossing around the idea of creating an order to advance Anglican liturgical and sacramental scholarship and practice in United Methodist churches in our Conference. A tentative name PJ has thrown out is the Order of St. George.

Our premise is that Methodism is and should be considered an Anglican church (though not necessarily in the Anglican Communion) by virtue of Wesley's connection, our direct descent, and common theology in many respects. Our liturgy, when we choose to follow it, is derived to a large degree from the BCP.

Because the "United" in our name has little to do with our liturgical practice, we'd like to encourage fellow Methodists to be more intentional in having at least an Anglican flavor in their liturgies.

Since an idea is of little use unless tossed about a while I thought I would toss this one to you fine folks and hear your thoughts. PJ may be along before long to add his two cents.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on taking this on.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Ok. But what are you going to do with the Uniting Church of Australia, the Churches of South India, North India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and the United Church of Canada, all ecumenical unions which are now the local representative of Methodism in their respective areas? A coherent position would be appreciated by your cousins up north here.

What about the fact that British Methodism and its offspring in Canada and Australia don't have bishops? How are you going to deal with the AS arguments?

Lastly can I post the Sung Communion service with its Great Thanksgiving I compiled from our service book, Celebrate God's Presence?
 
Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :
 
I wasn't planning to do anything with or about those groups, SPK. It has nothing to do with their polity or whether they have bishops or the price of tea in China. And we are not speaking in terms of making anybody do anything.

We are speaking in terms of Anglican liturgy. And we are speaking first in terms of our own Conference, with the possibility of future growth.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Take a look at Highland Park United Methodist Church in Dallas, Texas.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Just seeing if you'd take me as a long-distance subscriber. [Razz]

It sounds good but "Anglican" means different things in different places too. TEC has its Prayer Books which are descended from the Scots Episcopalians while other places have Anglican churches that hew more closely to 1662 and old-time CoE practice.

It would be best is you expect a diversity in worship materials, particularly if you get submissions from sympathizers in Canada or England over the internet. Be prepared for some puzzled looks if you show a wonderful British Methodist or Church of England material to your American colleagues and the Prayer Book references don't match what they expected because they are referencing different Prayer Books.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Wesley used the 1662 BCP. So, the Anglo-Methodist thing to do would be to base your liturgies on the 1662 BCP. On the other hand, John Wesley was a fan of William Law. So...I guess you could base your liturgies on the Scottish BCP of whatever year it was.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
As a former Methodist turned Anglican, I wish you well in this endeavor, though in the name of ecumenism I recommend you also tie up along with it a move towards a three ordered ministry and restoration of apostolic succession to Methodism.

Zach
 
Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Circuit Rider:
PJ may be along before long to add his two cents.
Like white on rice. [Big Grin]

I could see this possibly fulfilling one or more roles:


I understand that not everyone particularly likes liturgy. That's perfectly ok. God is an unimaginably huge God, and there's room for many worship styles in the Kingdom. But I will not deny the fact that some do love liturgy, for varying reasons, and I believe that finding other, like-minded people with whom to connect and from whom to learn can only be a good thing. I don't want to promote schism or division, but growth and depth.

I'm still thinking, so I may add more later.


_____
*Think what you will, but if you're going to be a pastor in a certain denomination, it seems logical to require that you believe the majority of said denomination's doctrine. That cannot always be said of licensed local pastors in The United Methodist Church.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
And most Americans are familiar with the TEC's 1928 or 1979 BCP. Circuit Rider has used the 1979 BCP on occasion, AIRC. Practical access to the 1662 is more problematic for Americans. Comfort is something else too.

If the Order of St. George made a point of educating its members on Prayer Book diversity (while avoiding value arguments about which one is superior) you'd have a larger selection of material to use.

1662 wins on historic authenticity but 1979 wins on access, familiarity and ease of use grounds. Remember, you're Methodist, don't be afraid of experience! Or practicality! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
(while avoiding value arguments about which one is superior)
1549 is out. [Frown]
 
Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :
 
Correct on both points, SPK. We like the 1979 because of its language and use it frequently, but the 1662 is more historical. In fact, Wesley gave us our own version (he called it the "Sunday Service" with excerpts from the BCP. In the preface he wrote, "I believe there is no Liturgy in the world, either in ancient or modern language, which breathes more of a solid, scriptural, rational piety than the Common Prayer of the Church of England." We promptly threw the Sunday Service into the garbage can and forgot about it for more than 200 years.

While in England last fall I bought a Methodist Worship Book and have used some of the liturgies in it in my congregation at home.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
(while avoiding value arguments about which one is superior)
1549 is out. [Frown]
That would be the Anglo-Catholics, not the Anglo-Methodists.
 
Posted by Mary Marriott (# 16938) on :
 
This is very interesting, and deeply thought through, and felt.

I am sure you value the inheritance of Methodism too. It is a wonderful tradition in so many ways.

Surely, given its great value, part of your plan or at least complementary to it, is that Anglicanism become more Methodist. More consciously appreciative of it.

I value the apostolicity of Methodism as it stands, and its historic witness. I do not think bishops = 'apostolicity' or 'guarantee' anything much.

As a child in our village, the vicar was decidedly low church and the Methodist minister decidedly on what we took to be the high side!

[ 13. April 2012, 01:53: Message edited by: Mary Marriott ]
 
Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :
 
With regard to Methodism,the American branch is often more High Church than its counterpart in England, coloured stoles,albs,and even chasubles are found in many of its churches.
The same applies to the Episcopal Church.
I cannot share the judgement that the Church of England is getting more Methodist.
I have just spent Holy Week and Easter in London,and the worship in the major Churches St.Paul's,Westminster Abbey or Southwark Cathedral is in many ways, richer and more catholic than 40 years ago.Especially the Holy Week Liturgies.
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
How high is high within the Anglo-Methodist movement? Is incense used?
 
Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
How high is high within the Anglo-Methodist movement? Is incense used?
Well, it's not really a movement yet, so far as I can see. CR sent me a text message yesterday as I was mowing grass; that was the beginning of the conversation.

As for your question on how high is high: We used incense on Christmas Eve and Ash Wednesday. Alb and stole for celebrant, albs for the rest of the altar party. No chasubles in sight. Sung congregational responses in Eucharistic prayer, and chanted Psalm. Digging out the old "Ecclesiantics Meter", I'd say we're firmly MotR by CofE standards, but edging into High by UMC standards. Hit us on a Sunday in July, however, and you'll find us a bit more relaxed.

[ 13. April 2012, 12:06: Message edited by: Padre Joshua ]
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
(while avoiding value arguments about which one is superior)
1549 is out. [Frown]
That would be the Anglo-Catholics, not the Anglo-Methodists.
Some of us hope they aren't mutually exclusive! If the Methodists recover their Anglican liturgical heritage, I'd like to see us become more intentional about our Wesleyan heritage in the Anglican church.
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
As someone who is very proud of her Wesleyan roots in the UMC and tries to bring as much of that to her fellow travelers in the TEC, might I humbly suggest a focus on a form of the Daily Office?
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
I would like to see UM pastors use the wonderful Eucharistic liturgy that has been approved by the General Conference. I believe that the liturgy itself conveys deep meaning and does so without being pompous or self-righteous, and as a connectional denomination we should not be allowed to run willy-nilly as we have been. Further, the published liturgy shares many similarities with ELCA, TEC, and even RC Eucharistic prayers, thereby connecting us to the Church as a whole.
The canon, itself, is taught as an exemplar in a nearby Roman Catholic seminary. Yes, it is excellent.
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
How high is high within the Anglo-Methodist movement? Is incense used?
Well, it's not really a movement yet, so far as I can see. CR sent me a text message yesterday as I was mowing grass; that was the beginning of the conversation.

As for your question on how high is high: We used incense on Christmas Eve and Ash Wednesday. Alb and stole for celebrant, albs for the rest of the altar party. No chasubles in sight. Sung congregational responses in Eucharistic prayer, and chanted Psalm. Digging out the old "Ecclesiantics Meter", I'd say we're firmly MotR by CofE standards, but edging into High by UMC standards. Hit us on a Sunday in July, however, and you'll find us a bit more relaxed.
Thanks for factual response. I would make it clear that I am a lover of incense, rather than the opposite and indeed, I am an experienced thurifer.
 
Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
As someone who is very proud of her Wesleyan roots in the UMC and tries to bring as much of that to her fellow travelers in the TEC, might I humbly suggest a focus on a form of the Daily Office?
One of the things I've gained from being in the Order of Saint Luke has been an in-depth study on the importance of the Daily Office. We covenant together to pray as much of it as we can. Lauds, Matins, Terce, Sext, None, Vespers, and Compline. I will definitely be sharing these gems with my new congregation, and with any Anglo-Methodist movement that may arise.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've heard that there's something similar already within UK Methodism, but it's regarded with some distaste and unease by the rest of them. Perhaps a Methodist shipmate can elucidate?

There is a 'high-church' movement within UK Methodism but I've not come across anyone who is involved with it. That said, most Methodist churches these days appear to be slightly 'higher' up the candle than when I first encountered Methodist services back in the early 1980s - although robed choirs and preaching gowns were common back then.

Is it just me, though, but other than the grand old Wesleyan hymns am I alone in finding UK Methodist services generally pretty deadly? Neither one thing nor another, neither fish nor fowl ...

There can be good and thoughtful preaching there though.
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
quote:
Is it just me, though, but other than the grand old Wesleyan hymns am I alone in finding UK Methodist services generally pretty deadly?
No you're not. IME the circuit system severely limits the development of congregational identities. I think this leads to a lot of flat lowest common denominator worship, but I know other people who value its potential for unity and uniformity.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
How high is high within the Anglo-Methodist movement? Is incense used?
Well, it's not really a movement yet, so far as I can see. CR sent me a text message yesterday as I was mowing grass; that was the beginning of the conversation.

As for your question on how high is high: We used incense on Christmas Eve and Ash Wednesday. Alb and stole for celebrant, albs for the rest of the altar party. No chasubles in sight. Sung congregational responses in Eucharistic prayer, and chanted Psalm. Digging out the old "Ecclesiantics Meter", I'd say we're firmly MotR by CofE standards, but edging into High by UMC standards. Hit us on a Sunday in July, however, and you'll find us a bit more relaxed.
Up North the United Church of Canada does not use incense. You just won't find it. Canadian Methodism was and is lower down the candle, Methodism gets higher the further south you go in North America. Up here you have former Bible Christian and Primitive Methodist places that really are prayer shacks, one former Primitive place is delightfully named "Temperanceville United Church".

On the other hand I do have a nice Communion service prepared with sung communion responses, there are four sung settings in our hymn book (of course we never use them, nobody ever does). I got the Service Book complement and picked a Great Thanksgiving prayer to go with it. It was a challenge, something we can do in theory but never get around to doing in practice.

The United Church of Canada has a miserable history with Anglican Chant, we're much more comfortable with the Scots Psalter when it comes to psalms. Every family has its eccentric cousins.

The UCCan has just doesn't run to church parties very often. I put it down to trying to heal the seams after 1925 and it worked. Besides on one hand we've got snake-bellow low Bible Christian or Primitive Methodist places as well as snake-belly low Congregationalist places, then on the other hand we have High Auld Kirk places and really high former Wesleyan Methodist places. All of these churches have their distinctions and a low Congregationalist place isn't the same as a low Primitive Methodist shack. So we just gave up trying to distinguish and decided to be mellow.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Tell you what,SPK. You send me your sung communion service and I'll add instructions for the proper use of incense, the ringing of bells and maybe a few suggestions for manual acts. Then, we can submit it to the Order of St. George for use as their official communion liturgy. Sound like a plan?
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Your wish is my command.

Though you'll never get me to use incense. You just won't.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
The Order of St. George already uses incense. [Razz]

Though their church makes exactly two UMC churches I know for sure use incense at all.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
quote:
Is it just me, though, but other than the grand old Wesleyan hymns am I alone in finding UK Methodist services generally pretty deadly?
No you're not. IME the circuit system severely limits the development of congregational identities. I think this leads to a lot of flat lowest common denominator worship, but I know other people who value its potential for unity and uniformity.
As a lifelong British Methodist I would agree that the circuit system is problematic. It does instil a sense of unity, but it also reduces the likelihood that a church will develop a distinct form of worship and churchmanship to suit its own circumstances. Only the most self-confident of congregations will insist on doing worship very differently from the others in the same circuit, not least because this will inconvenience the visiting preachers, most of whom are getting on in years, and who don't expect to have to deviate significantly from their usual modes of practice. (Even something like switching to modern worship music takes a long time, because the preachers probably don't know many of the songs, and they're the ones expected to choose the music when they preach.)

So an individual British Methodist congregation would be unlikely to switch to High Anglican styles of worship or liturgies, unless the congregation in question had a certain amount of clout, and a history of doing things their own way.... However, if a whole circuit were of the same mind, that would make things easier. (The same would be true if any significant changes in worship were under consideration.)

Each congregation will have its own flavour, and its own dynamic, of course. This is noticeable when you have a single circuit that straddles very different areas. However, as circuits get bigger and bigger due to financial and staffing issues, the danger is that it'll become even harder for individual churches to be distinctive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that High Anglican liturgical worship tends to require the presence of a priest. Does it work if the person in the pulpit is a lay preacher, e.g. a loquacious retired headmaster in a suit, or a 40 year old blonde in a yellow dress and red nail varnish? I don't mean to be funny - I'm just trying to visualise how the '1662 BCP' works when your minister is only present once or twice a month.

I believe that the UMC abandoned the circuit model a long time ago, and that each American Methodist church has its own minister. These are significant differences from the British Methodist Church.

(BTW, I've heard that Wesley's Chapel is quite High. But I don't how it compares to High CofE churches.)
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

(BTW, I've heard that Wesley's Chapel is quite High. But I don't how it compares to High CofE churches.)
It doesn't. No central aisle and the holy table blocked from view by the pulpit.

It does have a communion service every Sunday, but I believe that is not well attended.

So no eucharist as principal Sunday service, no servers, no candles on altar, no vestments, no icons/statues, no incense...

Take it from this High CofE.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
I dearly hope you've saved that text, Padre Joshua! Just think of where the Oxford Movement would be if they saved the very letter that started it all. "Yes people, it all started one hazy Thursday afternoon while I was cutting grass and I received this message! It was inspired!!!"

[Razz]
 
Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I believe that the UMC abandoned the circuit model a long time ago, and that each American Methodist church has its own minister. These are significant differences from the British Methodist Church.
Almost... There are many small churches which share a pastor with several others, but the largest circuit I've ever heard of was five churches, and of those two were so small that they only met twice a month. There are a handful of pastoral charges in north Alabama which have three on the circuit (one meets at 8:00, one at 9:30, and the third at 11:00), but there are many more charges with two churches on a circuit.

But yes, there are many more station churches in the UMC than in the British Methodist Church.

Morning prayer can be led by a layperson, though. And the UMC has a very large contingent of local pastors (lay preachers in the UK). So maybe the answer for a really small church would be to have MP three weeks a month and HC the fourth.

To top all this off, I'm certain that there are a large number of small congregations that have no intention of ever changing the way they do anything. Is it a coincidence that they're dying, or is there a connection?
 
Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :
 
I feel the need to add that I don't want to just copy and paste the CofE or TEC onto any UMC congregation. That would be a disservice to all involved. Instead, the idea is to reconnect with our Anglican roots in a Wesleyan manner. Worship is an important part of this, because worship is a reflection of our theology. But worship isn't the only thing in the UMC that needs tinkering with. I don't want a cookie-cutter church, either. Each congregation is unique, because the people who go there are unique. However, we claim to be connectional, so we do need some strong commonalities.

Worship and liturgy are two things about which I am very passionate. I began on the more “contemporary” side of the spectrum, but as I have matured in my walk with Christ I have found myself drawn more and more to a more traditional liturgical style. I find myself most at home in classic Anglican style worship. On the other hand, I can and do lead worship in very informal settings, such as at summer camp. So I am able to see both sides of the coin, so to speak. I am a member of the Order of Saint Luke, which is “a religious order in the United Methodist Church dedicated to sacramental and liturgical scholarship, education, and practice.” (OSL website, www.saint-luke.net). As part of my vows I am bound to learn all I can about liturgy and the sacraments and then use this knowledge to teach others, with the end view of drawing people ever closer to Christ and into a deeper understanding of his redeeming work in the cross and resurrection.

Methodist worship is by nature very diverse. This rich diversity of expression allows each congregation to show its own unique personality and to be flexible in reaching out to the community in which it is placed. With this flexibility, however, comes the responsibility to remain faithful to the uniqueness that is our Anglican heritage, as transmitted to us through John Wesley, Francis Asbury, and Thomas Coke. While Methodism has in many ways fallen away from the Anglican styles, there remains a solid common thread and definite pattern to worship that I strongly believe must be present.

I believe there are several reasons to use traditional liturgical worship patterns. Most important is the fact that we profess to believe in the communion of saints and in the catholicity of the Church. Since God is timeless, he is receiving worship from us at what we perceive to be the present moment, and simultaneously is receiving worship from our great-great-grandparents and from our great-great-grandchildren. We join our voices in harmony with those who have gone before and with those whom have not yet been born. I believe that because of this, it is important that we harmonize as closely as possible to the traditions of the Church through the ages, in the reciting of the creeds, in the patterns of worship, and in the breaking of bread at the Eucharist. If we are one Church, and if we do join in with all the saints from all ages, then our worship should reflect that.

Additionally, the United Methodist Church is a connectional church, and I believe that as such we should hold more worship patterns in common than we do in current practice. If Methodism’s strength lies in flexibility, its weakness lies there as well. Being flexible is wonderful until we begin to stray too far from the framework of tradition. It is a difficult middle ground: We need to remain flexible, but we also need to remain faithful to the framework that tradition provides.

A quick word about tradition: It is easy for us to define tradition by what we did as children, or what our parents and grandparents did. However, tradition is not limited to living memory. Tradition encompasses over two thousand years of Christian practice, prayer, and worship. As we seek to find a more traditional style, we may well be breaking away from what our parents and grandparents remember. However, it puts us more in line with what the early Church was doing, and allows us to recover helpful worship practices that have been lost in recent years.

The other thing is that traditional styles are making a comeback. Based on my reading and studying of current worship patterns, what we call “contemporary” is about 20 years behind the times, and as a whole is on the way out, or at least to a place of less importance. As Generation Y comes of age, especially the latter half of it, I expect to see a resurgence of traditional styles, but done in a way that fits the personality of each congregation. We are already seeing this in the “emerging church” movement. (Three good books about the emerging church trend are They Like Jesus But Not the Church, Emerging Church, and Emerging Worship, all by Dan Kimball, and all available on Amazon.) I find it notable that the largest United Methodist congregation in the U.S. has no contemporary services at all. Where traditional services have failed has not been in the tradition itself, but in the theology of the congregation and in the abject failure of churches to minister to the communities in which they are located. All politics aside, I submit that government welfare would not be necessary if the Church would simply do what Jesus commanded us to do. Instead, we find ourselves acting like cruise liners and country clubs, existing solely for the comfort and happiness of those who have been members all of their lives.

This impacts worship because worship is the expression of the gathered community. If the gathered community is unfriendly, their worship reflects that. If they are prideful, their worship reflects that. We have to make sure our worship reflects our true selves, and helps newcomers join into that uniqueness that makes each congregation special.

The "Order of St. George" (I was teasing when I suggested the name, but it's as good as any at the moment) could be instrumental in bringing real and lasting reform to the United Methodist Church and to other Methodist denominations worldwide. It will require many people working together to make it happen, though.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've heard that there's something similar already within UK Methodism, but it's regarded with some distaste and unease by the rest of them. Perhaps a Methodist shipmate can elucidate?

There is a 'high-church' movement within UK Methodism but I've not come across anyone who is involved with it. That said, most Methodist churches these days appear to be slightly 'higher' up the candle than when I first encountered Methodist services back in the early 1980s - although robed choirs and preaching gowns were common back then.

Is it just me, though, but other than the grand old Wesleyan hymns am I alone in finding UK Methodist services generally pretty deadly? Neither one thing nor another, neither fish nor fowl ...

There can be good and thoughtful preaching there though.
Yes there are high church methodists in UK - and not necessarily that rare. The development of the current Worship Book has been seen to be influenced by this end of the spectrum. Basically those who like liturgy already are the once likely to volunteer/get picked for such reviewing committees.

The Methodist Sacramental Fellowship is the gathering point for many high methodists, I wouldn't say that it is treated with disdain by others any more than any other group that caters for a corner of our broad field.

I suspect that US methodism is higher as its roots (AFAIK) are from the Wesleyan branch whereas UK Methodist at the moment has a wider heritage including strong influences from the Primitives who were very low church. Many places that still think of themselves in terms of 'chapel' have prim roots. Though history can surprise, one of my churches that is as non-conformist as they come (they have never brought service books!) actually turns out to have been built as a Wesleyan church, but an island among Primitives so changed over time.

Ministers seem more likelyto were robes now than when I was younger - or at least back then their robes were more distinct from CoE priests, eg I recall grey cassocks not black.

We are more open to such things as candles in church - without fear of being dragged to the tiber (I'm told that at one time doing anything done by higher churches was seen as a sign of being dragged towards them!)

I have not been in any UK Methodist church that regular used the full communion service as laid out in the book, usually people refer to the book from the peace onwards (page B12 in old money) except for the covenant service which should be done in full once a year (even my book less church allows that, and because it is so different to their norm they value it in a particular way).

As I hear more of the UMC I suspect I would not be a natural liturgical home for me. Too much of a non-conformist!!
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I would add that British Methodism is already quite liturgical. Our minister used to say that during ecumenical services our Catholic and Anglican brethren were quite surprised at how liturgical we were.

I haven't really noticed an increasing taste for clerical robes, but as I say, I can only speak for my circuit. Other circuits might have developed a taste for that sort of thing!
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
I would like to see UM pastors use the wonderful Eucharistic liturgy that has been approved by the General Conference. I believe that the liturgy itself conveys deep meaning and does so without being pompous or self-righteous, and as a connectional denomination we should not be allowed to run willy-nilly as we have been. Further, the published liturgy shares many similarities with ELCA, TEC, and even RC Eucharistic prayers, thereby connecting us to the Church as a whole.
The canon, itself, is taught as an exemplar in a nearby Roman Catholic seminary. Yes, it is excellent.
Whenever I have encountered a communion liturgy in a Methodist setting, the full Great Thanksgiving has been utilized, albeit with everything spoken, Sanctus included.

Additionally, it tends to be the season-appropriate Great Thanksgiving as featured in UMBOW.

Maybe this is just Midwestern phenomenon.

The full Order of Service at the beginning of the UMH is an artfully-done minimalist Mass that would be easy to follow by any used to the "Western Rite," and yet it is written in a manner that allows enough flexibility that practically any church could use it with a simple rearrangement of what they already do.

[ 13. April 2012, 23:40: Message edited by: Martin L ]
 
Posted by St.Silas the carter (# 12867) on :
 
If the local Methodist shacks were like This I might have ended up somewhere else.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
I have died and gone to Methodist Heaven.

[Overused]
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
It doesn't. No central aisle and the holy table blocked from view by the pulpit.

It does have a communion service every Sunday, but I believe that is not well attended.

So no eucharist as principal Sunday service, no servers, no candles on altar, no vestments, no icons/statues, no incense...

Take it from this High CofE.
Wesley's chapel was very closely based on the Anglican churches of its day. The pulpit was originally higher and the arches beneath it were intended to allow for sight-lines to the original Holy Table. However, it has been lowered over the years and that is no longer possible. Now though there is a raised area in front of the pulpit on which a new Holy Table stands, which was certainly adorned with two candles the last time I was there. You might also be able to find a statue or two of Mr Wesley...! High Methodist churches may be higher than some Anglican churches but don't approach the dizzy heights of Anglo-Catholic shrines.

As to the thread more generally, I wish the Order of St George well, but for my money, I'm always more interested in seeing Methodism "claim and cherish its place in the Holy Catholic Church" than in seeing it trying to be Anglican. In fact, to me often one of the problems in being a sacramental Methodist is that people think you're just a wannabe Anglican. I think there's also a certain anachronism in claiming post-Oxford movement liturgical practices as being part of a Wesleyan heritage...
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Thank you, seasick. I have twice attended services at Wesley's chapel, but the table in front of the pulpit was not used and no candles lit. (MOTR Anglicans would light altar candles during non-eucharistic service.) So I didn't notice them.


I know you're right about the central pulpit being an Anglican thing in it's day. I was replying to svit's question about Wesley's chapel.

I hope the reason why Anglican churches have changed to be more catholic is not because they want to be exotic and funny Anglicans. It is because they want to claim their place in the Catholic Church, although you may disagree with the strategy.

[ 14. April 2012, 06:43: Message edited by: venbede ]
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
I don't have any problem with the recovery of catholic practice in the Anglican church - quite the reverse in the fact! My point is that I don't see any particular virtue in Methodism trying to start using the BCP (or Common Worship or whatever) - I would like to see us using our own liturgy well (and that means not only picking it up at the peace!) within the catholic heritage of the wider church to which we belong. So I think I would probably want to make exactly the same argument for Methodism that you might make for Anglicanism in terms of becoming more catholic.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
[QUOTE]! If the Methodists recover their Anglican liturgical heritage, I'd like to see us become more intentional about our Wesleyan heritage in the Anglican church.
I agree. There is little difference on many points, and if the Anglican churches could recover the evangelism (not Evangelism) of the Wesleys........
 
Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :
 
M'learned brethren might find this essay to be of interest:


quote:
Wesley and the Anglo-Catholic Revival (1905).
AV

[ 14. April 2012, 09:04: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
[QUOTE]! If the Methodists recover their Anglican liturgical heritage, I'd like to see us become more intentional about our Wesleyan heritage in the Anglican church.
I agree. There is little difference on many points, and if the Anglican churches could recover the evangelism (not Evangelism) of the Wesleys........
I can't see this working in the British context. Is a highly liturgical form of church likely to be evangelistic? I suppose one could mention the development of inner city Anglo-Catholicism. I don't know how successful this form of church was in terms of church growth. Have highly liturgial forms of church been evangelistically successful in the USA?

Wesley was deeply committed to the rites and liturgies of the CofE - but his own religious movement didn't have to focus on that, because Methodists were expected to access all the official rites and liturgies at their local Anglican church.

Maybe it would make sense simply for Methodists to rejoin the Anglican Communion while retaining the ethos of a 'holiness movement'. In the UK at least, this is more likely to happen than any kind of internal shift within Methodism to become more liturgical.
 
Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
M'learned brethren might find this essay to be of interest:


quote:
Wesley and the Anglo-Catholic Revival (1905).
AV
That is of interest. I believe it captures what I've been driving at; a return to Wesley's original leadership in the area of worship.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Is a highly liturgical form of church likely to be evangelistic? I suppose one could mention the development of inner city Anglo-Catholicism. I don't know how successful this form of church was in terms of church growth. Have highly liturgial forms of church been evangelistically successful in the USA?
A church service, whether nose-bleed high or happy-clappy, is not what I would term "evangelism". Instead, I see evangelism as being closely related to (and dependent upon) local mission work.

I am a missionary in Northeast Alabama. I work for Upper Sand Mountain Parish, a cooperative ministry of eight small-membership United Methodist congregations. We do many, many things -- too many to list here -- in an area that's about 1,000 square miles. Very rural, very poor.

Evangelism cannot exist without mission. People don't give a pair of dingo's kidneys about how loud your music is, how "spontaneous" your service is, or how "seeker-friendly" your congregation is, unless you have shown them that you love them. Not tell them that you love them, for words are cheap. Show them with your actions.

When I go into a home to repair a ceiling or install a wheelchair ramp, I am preaching the Gospel, even if I don't speak a word. And quite often enough I get asked, "Why are you doing this? What are you getting out of it?" My reply is that I'm doing because Jesus said to, and that can then open doors for conversation. I do not force my beliefs on anyone, but I am delighted to talk about them to interested people.

To expect a worship service to be the main entrance to the church is to place an unhealthy and (in my mind) unChristlike burden upon it, which it was not designed specifically to bear. Instead, I see the main front door of the church as missional work of the members being done within the wider community.

So yes, a church can be higher than the Pope himself in worship and still be evangelical. A church can be snake-belly low in worship and still be self-centered and repulsive to newcomers. I've been to both, actually.

[ 14. April 2012, 11:50: Message edited by: Padre Joshua ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Thanks to venbede and Seasick for your comments on Wesley's Chapel and High Church Anglicanism.

My last visit to the Chapel was many years ago. It's difficult for me to visualise precisely what people mean when they talk about High Church Anglicanism because I never attend those churches. Where I live, I'd probably have to go into the city centre and attend a service at the cathedral for that sort of thing.

quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua
A church service, whether nose-bleed high or happy-clappy, is not what I would term "evangelism". Instead, I see evangelism as being closely related to (and dependent upon) local mission work.

I am a missionary in Northeast Alabama. I work for Upper Sand Mountain Parish, a cooperative ministry of eight small-membership United Methodist congregations. We do many, many things -- too many to list here -- in an area that's about 1,000 square miles. Very rural, very poor.

Evangelism cannot exist without mission. People don't give a pair of dingo's kidneys about how loud your music is, how "spontaneous" your service is, or how "seeker-friendly" your congregation is, unless you have shown them that you love them. Not tell them that you love them, for words are cheap. Show them with your actions.
[...]
To expect a worship service to be the main entrance to the church is to place an unhealthy and (in my mind) unChristlike burden upon it, which it was not designed specifically to bear. Instead, I see the main front door of the church as missional work of the members being done within the wider community.

So yes, a church can be higher than the Pope himself in worship and still be evangelical [evangelistic?]. A church can be snake-belly low in worship and still be self-centered and repulsive to newcomers. I've been to both, actually.
Padre Joshua, my question about evangelism and high church liturgy was inspired by Gee D, who seemed to imply that evangelism and liturgical Sunday worship could be combined in the same package. I wouldn't have considered posing my question had he not made that assumption.

I accept your point that service in love is essential for evangelism, and that many different kinds of worship can find participants if a congregation is known for its practical commitment to and love for the community.

Nevertheless, many churches find it hard to translate their care and commitment into more people developing an interest in Christianity and eventually entering into faith. In fact, re British Christianity, it's often said that church commitment to the social gospel has unfortunately become a kind of replacement for evangelism, rather than an integral part of evangelism. (And in Latin America, as we know, Catholic Liberation Theology and its attendant form of church practice didn't prevent the spread and growth of alternative theologies and practices, namely Pentecostalism.)

In other words, I don't think it's accurate to say church practice and churchmanship are entirely irrelevant to the evangelistic endeavour. But clearly, there will be variable cultural factors that make one form of church attractive or unattractive depending on the context, as well as the role of the church in providing care and support for people in the community.
 
Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Tell you what,SPK. You send me your sung communion service and I'll add instructions for the proper use of incense, the ringing of bells and maybe a few suggestions for manual acts. Then, we can submit it to the Order of St. George for use as their official communion liturgy. Sound like a plan?
Too late. We already have a sung communion service, written in part by none other than His Grace, The Rt. Rev. Dr. William H. Willimon. [Biased]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
You need more than one. SPK has already sent me the communion service. It's a very solid communion liturgy that's more in the tradition of the 1979 BCP than 1662 BCP. I'll add some manual acts and bells. Incense wouldn't be appropriate for use with this eucharistic prayer. However, you could use smoke during the processional, gospel, offertory, and recessional.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
(while avoiding value arguments about which one is superior)
1549 is out. [Frown]
Thank God!

My Granny's chapel in Lincolnshire was recognizably Prayer Book. The Communion service was 1662 with a few very minor changes, and the Morning and Evening services were, for want of a better term, pseudo-BCP in that it followed the basic order of MP and EP whilst omitting some things and adding others. I think I could easily have dropped into Wesleyan Methodism, however, the local Methodists were moving away from their traditional service towards a straight forward hymn sandwich.

PD
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Tangent alert

Does anybody know if the Wesleyan church is on the low end or the high end? I'd always assumed they were on the low end. Never been to one.
 
Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :
 
In a NZ Methodist context there are those of us who are more liturgically minded. I am presently on a commission producing a new book resource book for celebrating the Eucharist. The liturgical element has possibly been strengthened as Methodists and Anglicans have trained together for years now.
However the two ordination programmes are now diverging and the growing parts of our church seem to be the Pacific communities - which have a very Protestant and conservative ethos - and other immigrant Evangelical groups. So I worry somewhat about the future of the 'Wesleyan' liturgical tradition here. In the meantime I'll carry on burning palms, blessing oil and lighting a fire on Easter morning. Working up to incense!!!

[ 14. April 2012, 19:03: Message edited by: Matariki ]
 
Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Tangent alert

Does anybody know if the Wesleyan church is on the low end or the high end? I'd always assumed they were on the low end. Never been to one.
As far as I know, they tend toward happy-clappy.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
At present I recall Wesleyans are higher than Primitives but I have forgotten the third strain and that might be higher or lower or in the middle.

Jengie
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
At present I recall Wesleyans are higher than Primitives but I have forgotten the third strain and that might be higher or lower or in the middle.

Jengie
British Wesleyanism was the main Methodist body. There were plenty of breakaway churches, but they were usually looking to get further away from Anglicanism, not closer to it. So the Wesleyan Connexion would have been the highest of all the Methodist churches.

According to Wiki, the Methodist union of 1932 united the Wesleyans with the Primitive Methodists and the United Methodists. (The latter were the result of a previous union of certain other Methodist groups). Some historians claim that by this point, the Prims were already rather less brash than they had been earlier because their social composition was changing. But it's also implied that union tended to favour the higher style prefered by the Wesleyans. This must be because, in a village or area with both a Wesleyan and Prim church, it was usually the Prims who lost their building. They would have had to join with the Wesleyans, and I suppose this meant modifying their churchmanship.
 
Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on :
 
JJ, if memory serves me right in the UK the third stream was the New Connexion, they formed the Methodist Church of Great Britain with the Wesleyans and the Primitives. I could not really place them on the high low Methodist spectrum but I think their prinary difference with Wesleyans was that the New Connexion allowed greter lay leadership. of the denomination. Another offshoot was the Bible Christians, who were strong in the West Country and were very much in the Primitive tradition.
 
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
Gosh, visting St Ives in Cornwall, I saw chapels for both the Bible Christians (noticeboard: Christ paid the penalty for our sins) and the Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion, who had had a serious charismatic makeover: (noticeboard: Community Church where everyone is someone and Jesus is Lord.)

I had thought both those bodies were extinct.

I felt more sympathy for the Countess' Connexion.

PS I'd have thought the big issues with all these bodies in the C19 wasn't theology or liturgy but class, and as an Anglican I am ashamed that the Church of England was clearly alien to the vast amount of the articulate working class.

[ 14. April 2012, 20:30: Message edited by: venbede ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Here is a readable article that gives a brief sketch of the history of British Methodist churchmanship, and also provides a handy timeline of Methodist schisms and unions. The author is a Unitarian, and is not especially complimentary towards Methodism.

http://www.change.freeuk.com/learning/relthink/methodists.html
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
The congregation I had contact with was formerly United Methodist and they were when I attended snake belly low.

I still remember me and one of their members giggling through out a sermon on the sanctity of the communion table. The thing was every time the preacher mentioned the communion table he actually pointed to the pool table which was covered to disguise what it was in a religious drape.

The communion table itself was a small scruffy side table stored at one side of the room. I am not making this up.

Jengie
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Venbede, you may or may not be aware that the presence of a plaque or inscription saying 'Primitive Methodist Chapel' or 'Bible Christians' or 'Methodist New Connexion' does not imply that these bodies are extant in the UK - it simply means that the buildings were erected by these groups when they were first commissioned.

I'm surprised at Padre Joshua's assertion that Wesleyans are 'happy-clappy'. That might be the case elsewhere but it generally isn't in the UK.

SvitlanaV2 has it about right, I think. The Wesleyan's were the main Methodist body here in the UK and gradually reabsorbed most, but not all, of the various splinter groups. I wouldn't describe them as 'high' but they would have been more 'Anglican' in feel than the Bible Christians and the Prims.

As far as I know, there weren't any substantial differences between the Wesleyans and the New Connexion other than the way they organised themselves.

The whole Methodist thing became very Protestant in the 19th century and generally took a very dim view of anything that looked too 'catholic'. The influential Brunswick Chapel in Leeds (now demolished) had a grievous split in the 1840s over the introduction of an organ - which many saw as a 'Papist' innovation.

I agree with SvitlanaV2 about the liturgical nature of Methodist services. You can be liturgical without being 'high'.

To confuse the issue, I would suggest to SvitlanaV2 that there is also a difference between 'high' and 'Anglo-Catholic' ... the terms aren't coterminous.

At one time there were plenty of 'high and dry' Anglicans of a rather Calvinistic bent who were 'High Church' without being ritualists.

There are grades of 'catholicism' within the 'higher' end of the spectrum in Anglicanism. There are two Anglican parishes in our town. One is very , very low indeed - lower, perhaps, than many Methodists - and the other is what the vicar there calls 'catholic-lite' ie. liberal-catholic in theology and with an informally 'catholic' feel - ie. hempen hassocky cassocks and bright, white linen and so on - incense generally, bells and the elevation of the Host, but nothing at all 'superstitious' about any of these actions.

Get to a service, SvitlanaV2. You might enjoy it.

I'm very naughty and often find myself chuckling at your reactions to matters Anglican. I suspect if you attended Anglican services more often you'd find them not a million-miles apart from what you're used to for the most part.
 
Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm surprised at Padre Joshua's assertion that Wesleyans are 'happy-clappy'. That might be the case elsewhere but it generally isn't in the UK.
I'm sorry; I misunderstood. I assumed we were talking about the Wesleyan Church, which one mainly finds in the American midwest. There are a few congregations here in my neck of the woods, and as I understand it, they are very happy-clappy. It was originally a split from the Methodist Episcopal Church. Here is the Wikipedia article about it.

The 1939 merger in the US that Svitlana referenced was between the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and most of Methodist Protestant Church, thereby forming The Methodist Church. I believe the MPS was the primitive branch.

In 1968, The Methodist Church merged with the Evangelical United Brethren to form The United Methodist Church.

And that's more than you ever wanted to know about American Methodism. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... I'm surprised at Padre Joshua's assertion that Wesleyans are 'happy-clappy'. That might be the case elsewhere but it generally isn't in the UK. ...
Padre Joshua is more than likely thinking of the North American denomination. He also has in mind a particular congregation with which he is familiar that does tend to the "happy-clappy" side of things. Formerly known as the Wesleyan Methodist Church, they tend to be conservative (almost fundamentalist-holiness) and lower down the candle.
 
Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :
 
quote:
Just posted by Padre Joshua:
I'm sorry; I misunderstood. I assumed we were talking about the Wesleyan Church, which one mainly finds in the American midwest. There are a few congregations here in my neck of the woods, and as I understand it, they are very happy-clappy.
See? Cross-posted with PJ at the same time. How 'bout that?

[ 14. April 2012, 21:52: Message edited by: Circuit Rider ]
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Circuit Rider:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... I'm surprised at Padre Joshua's assertion that Wesleyans are 'happy-clappy'. That might be the case elsewhere but it generally isn't in the UK. ...
Padre Joshua is more than likely thinking of the North American denomination. He also has in mind a particular congregation with which he is familiar that does tend to the "happy-clappy" side of things. Formerly known as the Wesleyan Methodist Church, they tend to be conservative (almost fundamentalist-holiness) and lower down the candle.
I was talking about that Wesleyan Church.
 
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :
 
In Canada, if you want real Methodist Episcopalians, you pretty much are left with black congregations, either of the British Methodist Episcopal Church, or the African Methodist Episcopal parent body in the US from which it sprang (Canadian ministers before the Civil War were wary about crossing the border for conferences when they could be apprehended). The BME church in Toronto is right across the street from an Anglican church/retirement home, making morning Communion and evening chapel a breeze!
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:

The 1939 merger in the US that Svitlana referenced was between the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and most of Methodist Protestant Church, thereby forming The Methodist Church. I believe the MPS was the primitive branch.
Sorry if I confused you, but I was referring to the merger in 1932 in the UK rather than the one in 1939 in the USA.

I don't know as much as I should about American Methodism. My main interest in it derives from the fact that one of the first Methodist bishops and the 'pioneer bishop of American Methodism', Francis Asbury, grew up not so very far away from where I live. In fact, I've visited his house! I wonder what he thought about liturgies? The fact that he wished to set up an episcopate for the American Methodists suggests that he was, perhaps, quite high himself. (Do you realise that British Methodism never took to the idea of having bishops?) But I haven't read his bio yet, so I can't say more about that.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To confuse the issue, I would suggest to SvitlanaV2 that there is also a difference between 'high' and 'Anglo-Catholic' ... the terms aren't coterminous.
[...]
I suspect if you attended Anglican services more often you'd find them not a million-miles apart from what you're used to for the most part.
I understand that. To judge from what venbede has said, even a really high Methodist church like Wesley's Chapel doesn't compare to a high Anglican church, though. So there's not much similarity at that level. From a Methodist point of view, a really High Anglican church and an Anglo-Catholic church are probably equally exotic! And since Anglicanism is so broad, I can well imagine that some Anglican churches are lower than some Methodist ones.

It's probably at 'middle of the road' level that Anglican churches and 'traditional' Methodist churches meet.

quote:
Get to a service, SvitlanaV2. You might enjoy it.
The one I know best describes itself as 'liberal Catholic'. (Yes, I do realise that doesn't mean Anglo-Catholic!) Friendly people, and I know the lady vicar. Not hugely different from the Methodist churches I know. The differences are subtle, but perhaps as a former church steward I notice them more.

quote:

I'm very naughty and often find myself chuckling at your reactions to matters Anglican.
Thanks for the hint.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Tangent alert

Does anybody know if the Wesleyan church is on the low end or the high end? I'd always assumed they were on the low end. Never been to one.
In England, the Wesleyan Methodists were the 'High Church' end of things. Services modelled after MP and EP in the BCP, black gown, bands and tippet; monthly Communion both morning and evening - a little more frequently in big congregations. Whether than holds elsewhere I do not know.

PD
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Circuit Rider:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... I'm surprised at Padre Joshua's assertion that Wesleyans are 'happy-clappy'. That might be the case elsewhere but it generally isn't in the UK. ...
Padre Joshua is more than likely thinking of the North American denomination. He also has in mind a particular congregation with which he is familiar that does tend to the "happy-clappy" side of things. Formerly known as the Wesleyan Methodist Church, they tend to be conservative (almost fundamentalist-holiness) and lower down the candle.
I had to do a double-take when I saw that they called themselves the Wesleyan Church, and my eyes jumped out of my head when I saw they formerly called themselves the Wesleyan Methodist Church.

In Canada, the (original) Wesleyan Methodist Church was the main, British-inspired stream of Methodists of the five streams. Many, many churches in Ontario, including my current one, are Wesleyan Methodist in origin. A neighbouring church has "Wesleyan Methodist 1864" carved into its steeple. The other four streams were the Methodist Episcopalians, the Primitive Methodists, the Bible Christians and the Free Methodists. The Wesleyan Methodists, ME's, Bible Christians and the Prims merged in 1885 to form the Methodist Church of Canada which itself merged into the United Church of Canada in 1925.

The Methodist Church of Canada did not have bishops.

So the United Church of Canada are the original Wesleyan Methodists and the Wesleyan Church are (American) newcomers. They are using the name but are not the same thing.

Speaking of the BME Church, there is one on Highway 11 south of Orillia.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
IIRC, the Methodist Church in Britain has 'Superintendents' which conveys the very much same idea as 'bishop' from the practical end of things.

PD
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
The UMC has superintendents but they are more like rural deans than anything.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
IIRC, the Methodist Church in Britain has 'Superintendents' which conveys the very much same idea as 'bishop' from the practical end of things.

PD
With the ever enlarging circuits maybe they would be. We tend to compare our Districts to the Dioceses so making the Chair of district the nearest to a bishop role in theory.

However when comparing our church structures in college it became clear that whilst Methodists and CoE may look like having shapes that are equivalent the place of authority is different in each. Eg the bishop and the chair may have a conversation about a project but have different abilities in terms of being able to personally make it happen.

As for the Wesleyan name confusion I offer another variation. In the Welsh language communities Wesley left the methodist style revival to people like Howell Harris who like his friend Whitfield were Calvinistic. This led to the birth of Calvinistic methodists - now the Welsh Presbyterian church. However having claimed the Methodist label early when a arminian methodism began in Welsh it was called Wesleyan to distinguish them.

Though in reality the Welsh speaking Methodist Chapels are these days more non-conformist than anything else and more resistant than other branches of UK Methodism to printed litugy, candles etc (but don't change their usual order of events in the service! And don't say Amen until you are very definitely finished what you are saying - it is cue for them to begin the Lord's Prayer and then the stewerd will automatically bob up for notices and offering.)

Even high Methodists in the UK are a long way down the candle from High Anglican traditions - when I first began training alongside moderately high anglicans I needed translation facilities and was dealing with major culture shock in the college chapel.
 
Posted by Circuit Rider (# 13088) on :
 
I have enjoyed watching this tread, appreciated the thoughts and the humor, as well as insights into the many ways we have splintered Methodism into our own unique variations along the way.

I am also noticing the tangents and the lean more toward polity than worship and want to observe, before we get locked or booted to Purg, that our thoughts follow this path ...

United Methodism is a direct offshoot of British Anglicanism, directly instituted by John Wesley himself only when the Bishop of London refused to ordain elders for the work in America.

Wesley provided a basic liturgy, The Sunday Service, a toned down version of the Book of Commmon Prayer. This indicates he intended American Methodism to have the liturgical resemblance of Anglicanism even if its polity was different.

Beginning with American frontier revivalism we disrespected Wesley's wishes, threw away The Sunday Service, and went our own merry way. Now we are almost totally ignorant of our liturgical heritage and happy being like those around us. That means in the South most Methodist churches are actually Baptist churches with colored cloth on the pulpit. In other regions of the country we are Catholic, or Lutheran, or something else. Interspersed among us are those who want to be like Hillsongs or Saddleback or the latest megawonderchurch. We have a decent Book of Worship which we largely ignore as we pretend to be something other than who we are. We have "United" in our name but liturgically we are anything but.

OSG may never get off the ground. But the idea is to encourage, in our neck of the woods, looking again at our rich liturgical heritage, explain why we do certain things, and taking on a more Anglican flavor (not wannabes or look-alikes) in our liturgical expression.

Thanks one and all for your input.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:

As for the Wesleyan name confusion I offer another variation. In the Welsh language communities Wesley left the methodist style revival to people like Howell Harris who like his friend Whitfield were Calvinistic. This led to the birth of Calvinistic methodists - now the Welsh Presbyterian church. However having claimed the Methodist label early when a arminian methodism began in Welsh it was called Wesleyan to distinguish them.

Though in reality the Welsh speaking Methodist Chapels are these days more non-conformist than anything else and more resistant than other branches of UK Methodism to printed liturgy, candles etc (but don't change their usual order of events in the service! And don't say Amen until you are very definitely finished what you are saying - it is cue for them to begin the Lord's Prayer and then the stewerd will automatically bob up for notices and offering.)
Another church that is o the wooly edge of British Methodism is the Free Church of England, which sarted out as an offshoot of the Countess of Huntington's Connexion. This Connexion was basically the English version of Calvinistic Methodism and owed it start to George Whitefield and William Heweis, as well as the Countess. As the Connexion started to drift into a more normal non-conformist worship pattern and congregational polity, then the Free Church of England evolved as the mirror image of these movements becoming more firmly liturgical and episcopal in its habits.

The FCE started out as a liturgically minded sister church to the Connexion, and as the latter embraced an increasingly congregational polity, the FCE incresingly went its own way and elected a superintendent, referred to as the bishop after 1863, and drifted away from the Countess' Connexion eventually breaking with it somewhere around 1876.

The original FCE had a less clearly "Anglican" identity than the English branch of the Reformed Episcopal Church, or the Reformed Church of England that strang from it. That said, it was still a Prayer Book Church, but the Bishop was beholden to the annual conferences. I guess you could say that the denomination's structure was about halfway between that of Methodism and that of the Church of England.

One odd fact is that Benjamin Price, the first FCE bishop had been chairman of the Conference in the Free C's more Methodist days. He was a Welsh speaking Calvinistic Methodist, but had accepted a Connexion chapel in England that was on the liturgical end of things and eventually ended up in the FCE.

When the FCE and the REC merged in England it generally adopted REC practice in the way the Church was run. As a result the denomination tended to play up its Anglo-Catholic bashing origins and American ties and quietly 'forget' about the Connexion until John Fenwick wrote his new History of the FCE in the late 1990s. In some respects, the FCE-REC merger strengthened the position of the bishops somewhat, but it still retained an annual conference with teeth. The BCP adopted at the merger was the FCE which owed is origins to Lord Ebury's proposals for a revision to the 1662 made c.1870 when the Tories were trying to put down Popery in the C of E.

PD
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
I have seen just a few of Free Church of England Churches on my travels and went on one occasion to one such church many years ago.

From my knowledge of this very small denomination, it is in "flavour" conservative evangelical with communion celebrated at the north end.

It was founded in opposition to he "high church" tendencies of the then Bishop of Exeter a couple of centuries ago, because they rejected the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration and of the nature of the ordained ministry, believing that a minister is not a priest in any other sense than the priesthood of believers.

[ 15. April 2012, 15:00: Message edited by: Ecclesiastical Flip-flop ]
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
Sorry to double-post, but it should read above, Priesthood of all believers.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
I have seen just a few of Free Church of England Churches on my travels and went on one occasion to one such church many years ago.

From my knowledge of this very small denomination, it is in "flavour" conservative evangelical with communion celebrated at the north end.

It was founded in opposition to he "high church" tendencies of the then Bishop of Exeter a couple of centuries ago, because they rejected the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration and of the nature of the ordained ministry, believing that a minister is not a priest in any other sense than the priesthood of believers.
That's very much the Bishop Vaughan version of the Free C of E's history. He chose to emphasize the denomination's second wave in the form of churches that came about as a protest again the parish church going Anglo-Catholic. I believe he felt that it was more respectable to be anti-Tractarian than an offshoot of Methodism. He chose to elevate James Shore incident - when he was not relicensed by "Old Harry" and the subsequent reregistering of Bridgetown Chapel as a Dissenting Meeting House - into being *the* moment when the Free Church of England came into being. In fact the whole of his 1927 history seems to go out of its way to hide the "Methodist" side of the FCE's origins, mainly due to the fact that Vaughan was from the REC side of the united church.

There were actually two convergent streams behind the founding of the FEC.

The older is that associated with the Countess of Huntington's Connexion, and the group of ministers within that denomination that wanted to remain with the original vision of a Free, Calvinist, Prayer Book, and Evangelical body. This had been Thomas Heweis' vision for the Connection which he had inherited from George Whitefield and the Countess. However, by the 1830s and 40s, it was being replaced with a more conventionally non-conformist ideal.

The other stream is the "James Shore" track - ani-Tractarianism. After the Bridgetown Chapel incident, a few congregations were formed as 'free chapels' using the BCP liturgy under solidly Evangelical ministers. One was in Barnstaple, another in Tottington, Lancs. These were the foundation of the second wave that strengthen the hand of those who wanted a free, Episcopal Church in the UK. Later examples of this anti-tractarian tendancy are the foundation of both Christchurch, Tue Brook, and Christchurch, Teddington both of which came into being alongside Anglo-Catholic parish churches.

The FCE/REC also made a stab at serving the needs of Irish evangelicals in Scotland and had two, mainly Irish, parishes in Glasgow prior to WW2. These were both bombed out.

Fenwick's New History of the FCE published in 2005 tends to emphasize the C of H Connexion roots of the FCE, the old Vaughan history the Bridgetown incident and the anti-Tractarian side of the FCE. I think in order to have a balanced view one needs to read both.

Yours,
PD
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
I appreciate PD's further information about the FCE, which I have encouraged from him.

It was at St. Jude's Balham that I attended a Sunday Evening service once, which was informal and not BCP rooted. I have seen their Church in Morecombe, Lancs, where the Minister there at the time, appeared to be also the Diocesan Bishop of the Northern Diocese in England. There is the Southern Diocese as well, making just two English dioceses.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
EFF, IIRC that is/was Dr Gretason's parish, so you were rather out of luck in not getting a BCP service. The situation when I was in the FCE was that you had to use the BCP for the main morning service, and you had only limited discretion with regard to other services. Most churches kept pretty scrupulously to that, even Christchurch, Exmouth, which was a bit of an oddball kept its 11am service "BCP and robes" even though they did other things at 9.30am and 6.30pm. In the overall scheme of things to do BCP in the morning and something else in the evening is a throw back to early Methodism so perhaps is not alien to the genius of the FCE as Thoresby and +Price would have understood it.

The more strictly BCP side was the RECUK/RCE of the united denominations. That was also the side of the movement that had a few closet 'Protestant High Churchmen' in it along with some old-fashioned High Church Evangelicals.

I think Bishop Vaughan must have been at least a High Church Evangelical, as in the denomination Handbook produced around 1928 it comes out that he had a high view of the historic episcopate and the sacraments. For example, he pointed out that it was not against the traditions of the FCE-REC to have a daily Communion, and that a very great blessing would accrue to any congregation so placed as to be able to do so. I take it from that remark that he had a high view of the sacraments. I am trying to think what an FCE daily Communion, if it ever happened, would look like, but it probably have been MP and "Stay Behind."

I have a lot of respect for the old Evangelicalism that does not neglect the sacraments and the Prayer Book. A lot of Bishop Vaughan's comments were lapped up by me as a 27/28 year old who was attracted by a strong sacramentalism but put off by Anglo-Catholic. There was a downside to Vaughan but that never showed in his writing, nor in his leadership of the church up until about 1950 when his years were beginning to catch up with him. When I was briefly in the FCE some of the senior clergy had been ordained when Frank Vaughan was Primus and remembered him quite clearly. However, by that time he was very ancient - he died in office at 93 in 1963!

PD

[ 16. April 2012, 16:43: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Another Methodist denomination but I can't recall their previous name although I did know it once. Given their training college it looks as if there were once three Methodist training colleges in South Manchester!

Jengie
 
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :
 
Thanks PD for your further interesting information about the FCE. I no longer frequent Balham, nor do I go anywhere where a FCE church is situated.

I have googled FCE and yes, Dr. Gretson is still at St. Jude's Balham. No Sunday evening service is indicated at St. Jude's now and it was something like 20 years ago that I had my one-off visit.

I have also looked up Emmanuel Morecambe and I see that the Rt. Revd. John McLean is still the Minister there and apart from once a bishop always a bishop he has been replaced by Rt. Revd. John Fenwick as the Northern Diocesan Bishop, who also has a churh of his own as the minister.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Thanks PD for your further interesting information about the FCE. I no longer frequent Balham, nor do I go anywhere where a FCE church is situated.

I have googled FCE and yes, Dr. Gretson is still at St. Jude's Balham. No Sunday evening service is indicated at St. Jude's now and it was something like 20 years ago that I had my one-off visit.

I have also looked up Emmanuel Morecambe and I see that the Rt. Revd. John McLean is still the Minister there and apart from once a bishop always a bishop he has been replaced by Rt. Revd. John Fenwick as the Northern Diocesan Bishop, who also has a churh of his own as the minister.
I hope that Morecambe is not going to "coffin" with Bishop MacLean - he must be in his mid-80s by now. That happened to rather too many FCE parishes in the 1960s, which is when the denominaton experience major shrinkage.

Bishop Fenwick came into the FCE when I was hanging around in those circles in the mid-1990s. By now he should have gone native, but when I knew him he still smelled a little too "C of E" to be acceptable to the more isolationist side of the FCE. It did not help that he was on the C of E side when the FCE - C of E negotiations were going on in the early-1990s. I had a better impression of him, though, than Dominic Stockwood, who, like a lot of converts, seemed determined to piss on everything he formerly believed.

The unfortunate dispute between the FCE and the FCE-EC was the result of a conflict between some of the more uncompromising characters in the denomination holding office at the same time. One of my favour expression "they could put two stones to fighting" got a lot of use at that time. I hate that sort of ecclesiastical internecine conflict, especially when I have friends on both sides. The net result for me was that I had to get out of the FCE as the stress was destroying my ability to function as a minister. I have long since stopped being surprised b clergymen who play politics, but I have never been able to accept it as being a normal party of the church doing business.

PD

[ 17. April 2012, 19:37: Message edited by: PD ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I had a better impression of him, though, than Dominic Stockwood, who, like a lot of converts, seemed determined to piss on everything he formerly believed.
No relation to the great and mighty (and late) +Mervyn, surely?
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
Interesting although the tangent on the FCE and other related groups is, I think it is beginning to seriously detract from the original purpose of this thread viz-a-viz the planned Anglo-Methodist Order.

As there is already a thread on the FCE in Purgatory, I would suggest that general discussion be moved there, or a new thread started in Eccles is anyone wishes to focus on their worship practice.

Many thanks for your co-operation as ever!

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
This thread intersects with the Sober Preacher's Grandkid's Baptism thread.

It was an Anglo-Methodist event as well as a Scoto-Catholic event. And a very nice event it was too!

*sips tea and munches on a square*
 
Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
This thread intersects with the Sober Preacher's Grandkid's Baptism thread.

It was an Anglo-Methodist event as well as a Scoto-Catholic event. And a very nice event it was too!

*sips tea and munches on a square*
I would have thought the two would be mutually exclusive.

I'm assuming there were copious libations of both sherry and GIN...
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Sherry, GIN, at a Methodist service or celebration thereof? Heaven forfend such backsliding!

Besides we are a Sober Preacher family!

Besides, in Canada Anglo-Methodists and Scoto-Catholics are very often the very same people.

[ 25. April 2012, 02:05: Message edited by: Sober Preacher's Kid ]
 
Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :
 
I thought this was kind of interesting. I didn't learn anything new here, but it was great to post on Facebook. What captured my attention was the bibliography at the end.

Enjoy.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Although I admire SPK's enthusiasm and give due respect to the history of the UCC, ISTM that the situation south of the border is culturally different, in that the UMC is more or less the generic mainline protestant church in the USA in much of this country, but has roots much more organically close to the CofE in the US and the subsequent Episcopal Church in the USA. Down here, Presbyterianism seems to have followed a somewhat different course. This doesn't mean that we all won't meet up together pretty soon, as has already been the case with TEC and the ELCA. It's easier with the UMC, which already has an episcopal polity, although not one that is recognised as possessing unbroken, historic episcopal succession. The solution to this will be the same as the solution worked out between the ELCA and TEC. However, in the case of the PCUSA and likewise the UCC (United Church of Christ, i.e. the Congregationalists and Evangelical Reformed merger), there will need to be some sort of recognition, I would think, of a different form of ministry of oversight that is reconciled to the historic episcopate in some fashion. I'm being purposely vague here because I don't know what the solutions to that would be, although I'm sure they are being worked on.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
I was trying to leave that alone. Things did develop differently up here. The last member who remembered my congregation as a Methodist place died this year. She was 9 in 1925. Pre-union has passed out of living memory.

Seeing as the Church of England signed a covenant with the Methodist Church of Great Britain (bishopless) this can be worked out. Perhaps it will result in ordination of Ministers as bishops in recognition of Reformed Minister's ordination role.

The authority for ordination in the UCCan is conducted at Conference level but individual ministers lay on hands.

I am hoping that that ELCIC, the ACC and the UCCan can develop a communion agreement. The major issue is everyone's favourite Dead Horse. We took that Horse to the Glue Factory in 1988.

That and the others are afraid that we will assimilate them and add their theological and liturgical distinctiveness to that of our own.

We tried to merge with the Anglicans in the 1970's but it didn't work and it burned everyone out for a generation.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0