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.

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

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!)

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

*************************

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

---

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!'

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.

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.

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

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!!

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.

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.

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

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sacredthree:
Reading your discussion is making me smile.

Seasick is clearly "Higher" than I have ever been....

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

quote:

---

Weslian said:
These seemingly peripheral things actually shape the liturgy and its meaning as much as
the words in the book.

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidG:
Stephen

Your experience in the US matches mine in the UK. .)

DavidG

---

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?

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.

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 ).