“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.
Any lessening of TEC’s position on the Eucharist and its current use of a priest as presider, would mean that I could no longer in good faith continue to fellowship with TEC and would have to seek other options. If the UMC wants to be in “full communion” then it is necessary for them to accept our rites. We need not compromise for the sake necessity.
To be perfectly clear, nothing in the proposal would change anything about eucharistic practice in the Episcopal Church. No UMC deacon serving in a TEC parish would preside at the altar, nor could a TEC deacon serving in a UMC parish do so, because of the authority of the Episcopal bishop in both cases. Because the full communion agreement is not a merger, each church has the prerogative of maintaining its own discipline and practice, while still venturing forth together in new forms of cooperation and exchange.
Sounds right to me. Thanks, Schlesinger.
Once the excitement dies down, the UMC will recognize that significant differences exist between the two denominations. From a pragmatic viewpoint, adopting the Episcopal Church’s restrictive position on eucharistic presidency would not benefit the UMC. It would exacerbate the UMC’s shortage f vocations. It also would be at odds with the UMC’s movement toward greater inclusivity.
From what I gather the UMC does not tie the validity of the sacrament to the minister of the sacrament other than that he or she is duly authorized to administer the sacrament under the provisions of The Book of Discipline. John Wesley’s abridgement of the Thirty-Nine Articles omits Article XXII, Ministering in the Congregation.
Since the nineteenth century Methodists in the United States have used as the sacramental elements–bread and grape juice.
An open table is also the practice of the UMC, admitting to the Lord’s Table “all desireous of receiving God’s grace,” unbaptized non-believers as well as baptized believers. Wesley himself taught that Holy Communion was a converting ordinance, by which the faith of the unbelieving might be aroused and awakened.
The United Methodist Church (UMC), as does the Methodist Church in Britain (MCiB), licenses lay persons–licensed local pastors in the UMC, licensed local preachers in the MCiB, after a period of training, to lead worship, preach sermons AND officiate at celebrations of Holy Communion, cosecrating the elements as well as distributing them. These licensed lay ministers are not a part of the itinerant ministry as ordained elders are in these two churches. Their ministry is limited to a particular locality–either a single church or a cluster of churches. The recent General Conference adopted a measure permitting those preparing to become licensed local pastors to receive their training entirely online, eliminating a previous requirement that they receive at least part of their training in residence at a seminary, thereby enabling more people to be traied and licensed as licensed local pastors. Like a number of denominations, the UMC suffers from a clergy shortage as ordained elders reach retirement age and fewer younger people are preparing for ordination as eders in the UMC. There are significant differences between the UMC and the Episcopal Church and the delegates to the General Conference may have overlooked these differences in their excitement in what was seen as a watershed moment in the life of the UMC.
Among the motives for adoptng the measures authorizing deacons to preside at celebrations of Holy Communion and to relax the training requirements for licensed local pastors was to enabe UMC congregations to receive Holy Commuion more frequently as John Wesley iin his sermons and writings urged the early Methodists to do.
I would hazard that the UMC view of who may preside at the Holy Eucharist is closer to the view championed by the Anglican Church of Australia’s Diocese of Sydney than it is to that of the Roman Catholic Church as has become the case in the Episcopal Church. While the two denominations may share similar views on inclusivity when it comes to sexual orientation and the like, they part company on inclusivity when it comes to who may preside at the Holy Eucharist and consecrate the elements. The UMC may prove to be too inclusive for Catholic-minded Episcopalians.
What about Bishops?
We have very different theology and practice about their ministry and authority. My understanding is that a Methodist bishop is elected for a term of service. When that term ends the person is no longer a bishop. Is that correct?
Jean Meade
How are bishops assigned?
Bishops are assigned by their jurisdiction or central conference to serve a geographical area for a four-year term. There are 46 episcopal areas in the United States and 20 episcopal areas outside of the United States. New bishops may not be assigned to the area where they were a clergy member for at least four years after their election, however, the Book of Discipline allows for this restriction to be ignored by a two-thirds vote of both the jurisdictional Committee on Episcopacy and the jurisdictional conference.
How long can a bishop serve?
In the U.S., bishops normally serve in one area for up to two terms, but they can continue for a third term with special approval of the jurisdictional conference. Bishops are elected for life and serve in their assignment until retirement (required by the Book of Discipline to be the jurisdictional conference following their 68th birthday).
In the Central Conferences, bishops are elected for a specific term. If not reelected at the end of the term, the bishop returns to the pastorate and is no longer considered a bishop. Bishops who retire while serving their term are considered bishops for life. In the Africa Central Conference, bishops who are reelected for a second term then become bishops for life.
Source: Frequently Asked Questions about the Council of Bishops
That is not correct. Bishops serve a particular Episcopal area for a term period and are limited to a number of terms, but they are then assigned to a different Episcopal area if they don’t retire. The ELCA on the order hand is what you said.
The information I posted was taken from a UMC website, not an ELCA one. The ELCA has a different structur from the UMC.It is organized into synods, not coferences.
That is incorrect. Once a UMC bishop finishes their active service, they retire as a bishop.
In the UMC, bishops are consecrated to that office but not to an order as in the Episcopal Church. However in practice UMC Bishops rarely relinquish this role and retain the title of Bishop even after they retire. UMC Bishops have a lot more power in terms of appointment of clergy than Episcopal Bishops who still approve rectors calls but can not move them out of that call (unless the clergy has done something that would call into question their ability to lead under the canons of the Church).
When it comes to ecumenism, I think we all have to follow the New Testament example and recognize that the Holy Spirit present in our brother and sister churches seems to care less about the rules we put around it than it does the heart of the Christian.
David Smith says it as I understand and believe, and that comes from my tradition. Yet the “heart of the Christian” is not an easy thing to understand and then judge.
Once a United Methodist, now Episcopalian.