“Grant that all those who do confess thy holy Name may agree in the truth of thy holy Word, and live in unity and godly love.” These words from the traditional “Prayer for the whole state of Christ’s church” offers an excellent vision for ecumenism: not mere institutional unity, or even unity of good will, but unity in the truth of the gospel, the faith once delivered to the saints. To make this the aim is not to presume that one denomination is entirely correct about that truth. Nor does it presume that the doctrinal formulae of any one tradition demands rigid adherence (on this point, see George Lindbeck’s The Nature of Doctrine). Certainly, even as divided Christians, we have much to learn from each other, but seeking the truth of the gospel does require the importance of agreement on doctrinal matters and the practices that flow from them.
Recently the General Conference of the United Methodist Church voted to adopt “A Gift to the World,” the proposed full communion agreement with the Episcopal Church. As of now, our General Convention is only considering a resolution (A049) to continue the dialogue with a goal of full communion, which means a final acceptance on our end might not happen until 2027 at the earliest. Assuming the current resolution passes, our task in the next triennium will be to engage in further prayer, study, and discernment over whether to accept the full communion arrangement outlined in “A Gift to the World.” Meanwhile, the same General Conference of the UMC approved another measure that should take center stage in these deliberations: the decision to allow deacons to preside regularly at the Eucharist.
This development is disconcerting to many Episcopalians because the proposed agreement is predicated on the idea that our two churches have compatible understandings of ordained ministry. Indeed, “A Gift to the World” speaks of agreement that “the threefold ministry of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in historic succession will be the future pattern of the one ordained ministry shared corporately within the two Churches in full communion” (lines 326-28). Regarding the diaconate in particular, it states, “There are persons ordained to a ministry of Word and Service, serving as icons of the servant ministry of Jesus Christ. As a result of the actions taken by both churches … we affirm the mutual interchangeability of deacons, aways according to the standards and polity of each church” (lines 267-70).
So the document claims that its aim is “one ordained ministry” between the two churches, with each respective office mutually interchangeable. But the diaconate is here defined as “a ministry of Word and Service,” not of Sacrament. Moreover, in the Anglican tradition — and in accordance with the catholic tradition of the undivided church — eucharistic presidency is not a ministry proper to the order of deacons; indeed, such a celebration would typically be seen as invalid. This is the theology of ordination that the Episcopal Church has received historically, and that continues to be enshrined in our prayer book ordinal.
In permitting deacons to preside at the Eucharist (whatever might be said about the validity of the sacrament), the UMC is effectively blurring any distinction between the offices of deacon and presbyter. As a matter of fact, this very point was raised by some within the General Conference, but it did not dissuade the majority from voting in favor of the change.
At first glance, it may seem that allowing deacons to preside at the Eucharist is not of great consequence, and certainly not a dealbreaker in moving toward full communion. After all, we have a full communion agreement with the Moravians, who also allow deacons to preside at the Eucharist. Indeed, the UMC already allowed for deacons to preside occasionally, along with licensed lay ministers, and this was addressed in “A Theological Foundation for Full Communion between The Episcopal Church and The United Methodist Church” (2010), which said, “The Episcopal Church is in full communion with the ELCA, which also licenses lay persons to preside at the Eucharist, with the understanding that such persons are not permitted to serve in The Episcopal Church and are not part of any formal recognition of ministries” (3.6). Moreover, “A Gift to the World” specifically states that clergy serving in the other church would be subject to the respective rules of polity. In other words, Methodist deacons serving in Episcopal congregations would not be permitted to preside there, nor would Episcopal deacons serving in Methodist congregations (still being subject to their bishops). Is the problem, then, far more theoretical than practical?
While this is a legitimate question, we must bear in mind that the practical logically follows from the theoretical, i.e. the doctrinal and theological. Thus, if our churches diverge in understandings of both ordination and sacramental theology, is there truly a sufficient ground to claim “full communion,” or (in traditional terminology) communio in sacris? In other words, is it enough that our doctrine and discipline do not change, or should we ask that a full communion partner church adopt the same practice on this point as well? And indeed, should we ask if some of these same issues remain unresolved in other full communion agreements?
If I may conclude on a personal note, I am not at all opposed to full communion agreements as such, nor to the goal of working toward such an agreement with the United Methodist Church in particular. In fact, as I write this, I am preparing to enter a call to ministry at a combined Episcopal-Lutheran congregation, which would not be possible without “Called to Common Mission,” our full communion agreement with the ELCA. Such agreements can open rich possibilities for shared ministry, especially when resources are limited — to say nothing of their value as interim steps toward even greater Christian unity.
But this does not change that we must have sufficient agreement on the very points on which such arrangements depend. If we are to acknowledge the faith and order of our respective churches, we need to make sure we have a clear understanding and agreement on what those mean. As we continue our dialogue with the United Methodist Church, we should make it a priority to consider and address these issues in the next triennium.
The Rev. Dr. Matthew Kemp is beginning his service as vicar of St. John’s Episcopal Church and Redeemer Lutheran Church in Centralia, Illinois. He holds a Ph.D. from Loyola University Chicago, and has taught theology at universities in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Kansas. He and his wife, Alethea, have five children.
