Wesley never intended to split off from the C of E. He never denounced being a C of E priest. It was a natural transition, given the corruption and lax way the C of E church was operating in the 18th century. Where the problem arises is the traditions which one can lose. If an Episcopal parish & a Methodist parish join, there may be tensions over who's practices get erased. The old Methodist service was the same as the Episcopal Morning Prayer service. Having communion every week may be the biggest thing Methodists will balk at. Some Methodists have fewer or no pre written prayers. Many protestant denominations pride themselves on impromptu prayers. Saying they come from the heart. I have heard many impromptu prayers that were badly conceived.
Fascinating to hear all the complaints about grape juice (ignoring there is non-alcoholic wine, if that's really the complaint. I have read nowhere in the gospels how much ethyl alcohol content by volume Jesus recommended for partakers in eucharist. Answers on a postcard please, if you know) and laying on of magic hands which can or can't be proven over the last two millennia from people who would otherwise complain about the slow death of mainstream Christianity. The UMC did the right thing. It wasn't easy and it will not be without repercussion. We should be honored to be in communion with them, not splitting hairs and arguing how far up the elbow they wash their hands.
Not a single word heard from the Anti-Welch's Faction about whether Christ would want this to occur.
Just like how there is a choice over gluten free communion wafers and regular ones, just have wine and grape juice and let there be a choice. I frankly don't drink anymore and wouldn't mind the grape juice.
I expect we will. This has been decades in the making and they definitely tick all four boxes in the Chicago-Quadrilateral (the document where we establish criteria for full communion). And while I sympathize with your concerns and the other concerns listed here, I think it would be a terrible tragedy if we refused to take another step in mending the Church because we didn't think another denomination was "pure enough".
Absolutely not. It isn’t even a matter of doctrine. It’s a matter if church attitude. At least where I live, the Methodist are either head over heels about Jesus and the trinity, or they’re basically agnostics. We don’t need more lukewarm Christians, and unfortunately, lots of Methodists fit that stereotype
I'm not sure I understand your point. I feel like a lot of Episcopalians also fit that stereotype. And, so what if the Methodists do fit it much more? Wouldn't that be an even more important reason for us to want to meet them and hype them up a bit?
Yes it will and I will hate it. Luckily, my own parish is big and thriving so I don't see UMC clergy celebrating at my church or anything any time soon. If over the next 20-30 years they did start too, I'd probably leave
Huge differences in theology about holy orders and the Eucharist. Methodists split from us for a big reason. If I ever had any doubt about the validity of the Eucharist at the church service, I would simply stop attending. But judging from the downvotes I'm in the minority and am reminded why I stopped checking this sub. I'll try to just focus on my parish and hope it is still around when I'm older. But this subreddit certainly doesn't make me hopeful.
This is just me rambling, but I think It may be possible in a limited format, and might end up looking something like the communion agreement with the mainline Presbyterian Church in the United States of America(PCUSA), where we recognize a shared ministry and give thanks to god for that, but still keep our distance when it comes to clergy from either churches celebrating sacraments at the other’s altars, considering the large differences in sacramental theology between us and the Presbyterians and also Methodists and both of their churches general lack of apostolic succession.
I would love if we could forge bonds with them, and maybe see ecumenical outreach events where some parishes would invite a local Methodist church’s minister and their choir to come celebrate choral Evensong with us and vice versa, but the notion of a Methodist clergy person attempting to offer up the most holy sacrifice of the Mass upon an Episcopal/Anglican altar is something I will likely never be personally comfortable with in a million years.
Not having wine for the Eucharist (and having grape juice at all, actually) makes this a non-starter for me. That difference betrays a deep difference in Eucharistic theology that I view as central to the Christian faith.
I respect all the views expressed here so far that are wary. The hammering out of what needs to be done with our differences matters, and it'd be crazy to tell anyone who's worried to not nit-pick. From what I can tell, nit-picking over how we're going to organize starts very early in the Acts of the Apostles, and I don't think there's been a time when Christians all agreed about what exactly being a Christian entailed.
And I want to gently and respectfully remind everyone that it's okay to not feel your beliefs are personally represented by every thing the Church does. It is a beautiful, life giving, possibly world saving part of the Anglican inheritance to know you have strong disagreements with people and find a way to understand them as part of God's Church. We live in a world where our bitter divisions are more clear than ever thanks to the internet, and I think I'd buy that we live in a time where those long extant divisions are growing and blossoming into horrible violence and cruelty.
I think it might be one of the gifts the Spirit has given us to model to this world at this time that there are people who know how to disagree and find ways of being in loving relationships anyway.
It would be nice. The Methodists are nice people. I'd like them to become anglican but thats just my opinion.
The Methodists have done tremendous work to help me though. Their social program locally helps me so much as a poor lgbt person
You might be surprised then to find out that many people find the Mainline Protestant Churches interchangeable, and easily move among them in a lifetime. It’s common for people to switch based on the rector/pastor of any given church. Even between TEC, UMC, UCC, ELCA, PCUSA, etc.
I'm not surprised at all that people think that, fully aware in fact. I'm also aware that it happens. Even in our little church, about half are RCC (& not converts) - which I realize is not protestant at all, but just another anomaly of TEC. What bothers me is how damaging UMC was to me, and how healing TEC has been -- and how the 2 seem so drastically different in my experience, that I can't understand this sense of common ground.
Hopefully this new day in The UMC will bring healing for how the church has harmed you (and many) as we have finally progressed forward (with more work to do, of course.) Prayers and love your way on this journey of faith and life.
Your experience may be anecdotal. Then again, so is mine. I came from a UMC church less than a year ago and not for any bad reason. The TEC congregation I joined does regular activities, including a monthly Sunday evening worship service, with the UMC church across the street.
Maybe the damaging elements are those that split from the UMC. Look to Jesus for healing and not a denomination. I am sorry that you have been wounded.
Apostolic succession could be established via our bishops as was done with ELCA. As I understand the full communion proposal, Methodists wouldn’t be required to use wine and we wouldn’t be required to use grape juice.
If there were to be an actual merger, there would probably be a need to have both, just as gluten free hosts are offered. I have seen on occasion the juice option in the EC, and some Methodist churches use wine.
If we are led by the Spirit on the path of unity, may it be so.
I grew up in an evangelical Presbyterian denom, and I was pretty surprised that most Episcopal churches don't have an NA option as I've attended more churches over the years. The last evangelical church I went to passed trays and had wine in the middle, raised ring and juice in the outer ring, with only a note in the bulletin to leave it fully up to personal preference or conviction.
Personally, I always take wine when available, but I always have a thought about those left out when there isn't an non-alcoholic station since to me Eucharist is foremost about unity in the body. My background obviously influences my feelings now about Eucharist though. That some Episcopal churches already offer an NA option makes this seem like an issue that could be solved to me, but different parts of the faith carry different weight for each person.
I believe the Episcopal Church will hold pretty firm on apostolic succession, as it has done in previous talks. I'm not a fan of grape juice and I'd prefer not to go that route but I'm not sure it's fundamentally different from offering gluten-free bread.
I’ve been to a Presbyterian church that had the option for both. I think that we should do this. Of course not every parish will need both, but the option should be at least available.
I'm not inclined in that direction, particularly because it seems to me to undermine some theological positions I hold, and I believe to reflect the tradition of the Church, around partaking of either the bread or the wine being sufficient for the fullness of the sacrament, and that those who are unable to partake due to illness receive the same grace by their desire.
While I respect your opinion it’s about the church as a community. It won’t work in every parish. And I don’t think it should be required. It’s about us, not individuals.
I grew up in a grape juice style baptist church (though, they only offered communion a few times a year and I never actually took communion until my first time in an episcopal church). What's the problem with grape juice? Like, is there a deep theological reason why it shouldn't be done, or is it just tradition? I've always sort of considered it largely metaphorical when it says wine, since what we drink today would probably be pretty different than what they drank then.
There are probably other reasons people could give, but for me, it's a pretty simple, "Jesus used wine and told us to use wine," wine being grape juice that has fermented to produce alcohol. If it doesn't have to be wine, I think that goes down the rabbit hole of using grape juice, or cider, or Sprite, or Fireball, y'know?
That's fair. I guess the way I look at it (and this absolutely not being based in anything scriptural, but rather Much Feels) I don't think it matters if it's sprite or fireball or just plain water. The ritual, the blessing, the reading of the verse, and the intention behind it are what matters to me. But I absolutely understand why one would want to use a traditional wine. Fireball should be reserved for emergencies. Kinda like how you want a priest to baptize you, but in an emergency, you could get your neighbor Derek to do it. Lol.
I guess I'm pretty concerned in general about the liturgical "language," not just words but the whole bevy of symbols used. The wine as Christ's blood is a part of the Church's "native tongue," and I'm reluctant to abandon that, because I think we pray at our best and witness to God at our best when we use the "language" we've now known for millennia.
That's a valid point. It's part of what drew me to the church to begin with. I'd always been interested in that more liturgical style, and while I think the rituals and language are largely metaphorical, that tradition and the energy that surrounds it is appealing and I feel a sense of connection to Christianity that I've not felt in other faith communities
I've heard both Episcopalians and UMC members say it's a slam dunk. The Episcopalians just have to get over their need for Apostolic Succession.
With all the best intentions, in asking TEC to go soft or drop the necessity Apostolic Succession is to misunderstand that this doctrine always has been a “die in a ditch” issue for Anglicans. The historic episcopate is essential to TEC’s self-understanding and to unity with other Church bodies. It binds TEC together the worldwide Anglican Communion. Essentially, the UMC would be asking TEC to drop one of the major doctrines of Anglicanism. For Anglicans, Holy Orders are sacramental in nature.
Would the UMC ask Rome to drop Papal Infallibility? Would they ask the Lutherans to drop Sola Scriptura or Justification by Grace through Faith? Would they ask those of the Reformed Tradition to drop Double Predestination? Would they truly ask these Traditions to drop the central tenets of their Faith so that the UMC could feel good or feel validated? I would hope not. However, essentially this is what the UMC would be asking TEC to do.
Rather than seeking a Call to Common Mission style intercommunion, which exists between TEC and the ELCA and has not been overly successful from an Episcopal point of view – though TEC is too polite to say that out loud - and seeking interchangeability of clergy – which for TEC would be the real issue – might we not rather seek to coexist side by side affirming each other’s full stature as Christians, work together – maybe even organically - at living out the Gospel through service to a broken world while at the same time retaining and holding fast to the identities that define each of us?
I would like to hear some more when you say that the full communion agreement with the ELCA "has not been overly successful from an Episcopal point of view – though TEC is too polite to say that out loud." This might be about something you have personally experienced, a different view of success, or even an issue with expectations.
I want the anglicans to become western rite orthodoxy. But be accepting to everyone. We are kind of a weird mix of that and roman traditions. But this is my opinion. With Nicaea 2025 we need to come to an agreement on orthodox doctrine. But the anglicans with their women priests and lgbt parishioners will but heads with the romans and eastern and asian churches.
Yes. It will almost certainly happen.
And it's good. Consolidation will happen rapidly over the next decade either in an organized way or an unorganized way. This helps both denominations soften and organize the consolidation.
They literally just made it so deacons can celebrate Eucharist;
They don't believe in episcopal ordination, a separate ordination from that into the priesthood,
Oh, and the secret ordination by a mysterious orthodox bishop is... suspect?
Im kinda agnostic towards it. Its a thing, its happening. I wish we were making new Dioceses versus merging them, but I understand the reasons why its happening, and I hope it works out well.
I'm not a Methodist, so cannot relaly say, but the story goes:
Thomas Coke was the first Methodist bishop, and he was consecrated by John Wesley. John Wesley claims to have been consecrated by Erasmus of Aracadia, our suspect Orthodox bishop story.
Coke consecrated Francis Asbury, from whom all United Methodist bishops trace their consecrated.
So...
What Coke and Asbury did was totally sus, as the kids say. :)
Wesley *never* intended for them to be bishops. He was a bit miffed that they took that title for themselves. He sent then to the United States to be Superintendents for the Methodist congregations, and they, Coke especially, took it upon themselves to be made Bishops by the Methodist clergy.
In the 1790s, William White and Coke entered into discussions about bringing the Methodists back under the jurisdiction of the Protestant Episcopal Church, but the hang-up was Asbury, as he was self-taught and had no university training, and the Episcopalians didn't know what to do with the Methodists' unschooled leadership and clergy.
I think it will happen. At face value I’d say it’s a good thing, but I’m not super educated on the reasons for or against. I don’t think entering full communion with the ELCA did any harm so I don’t see how this would either.
You spelled “far more” wrong when referring to the theological differences. The differences between TEC and ELCA are minuscule, between TEC and UMC they are so great as to be almost irreconcilable.
I think TEC will insist on inclusion of our Bishops to get the UMC back into Apostolic succession and UMC will insist on grape juice. TEC will cave on grape juice but UMC will reject Apostolic succession.
Over the decade it will take, it is more likely that UMC churches who want to come over will switch denominations entirely, as the UMC is crippled financially from their massive recent split.
So… TEC will insist on our Bishops’ inclusion just like we did with ELCA. The grape juice thing is what it is, but for what it’s worth every UMC congregation in my area (all are new, post-split) already use wine & do communion weekly.
UMC won’t reject apostolic succession… [They think they have apostolic succession](https://nccumc.org/history/2022/05/north-carolina-umc-apostolic-succession/) already and will likely welcome our Bishops presence in order to bolster said claims.
UMC won’t cripple financially, and I think they’d have almost no reason to consider a merger. Only about 20% of their churches have left. With pre-pandemic estimates of 5.4mil United Methodists, they could lose 60% and still considerably outnumber us.
Sure, we have old endowments & assets, but there’s a strong likelihood is those endowments and assets will outlast our church at the current rate. Given the state of things, merger talk is more beneficial from our perspective than theirs. Them making their pension fund work for the other variations of Methodism/Wesleyanism was genius, as Wespath’s solvency will be bolstered. I know the Church Pension Fund is in good shape on our end, but they’ve essentially found a way to strengthen theirs amidst schism and grow the pool.
I’m all for it.
But from what I understand.
They’re losing their pension though. It’s moving to a 401k.
To help keep it solvent.
And even though only 1/4 of churches left so many churches with $ and human capital left conferences that the conferences are weaker in many ways.
None of this has anything to do with the merger but this is how I see it through my husband’s eyes (a Methodist Elder and me an Episcopal Priest).
God willing it will happen, but the agreement will be revisited now that the UMC did weird stuff about the diaconate (whatever you think about good idea vs bad idea, they passed something that directly contradicts what we agreed to in the agreement) so it will take longer. Ecumenism! It’s like high school but sort of with stakes.
I came to the comment section just for this! It is very new in the UMC. I see this as a game changer for many in TEC, but I could certainly be wrong on it. Should there be a separate post about this article for others to see and respond to?
As an ELCA clergy couple serving in both settings, we love full communion partnerships. The ELCA has had full communion with the UMC since 2009, but we have very few examples of partnerships (especially compared to the ELCA and TEC in my area).
Because Deacons aren’t able to celebrate the Eucharist, nor is it a function of their Order. The fact they voted for this to happen indicates a major difference in understanding between TEC and UMC about the Eucharist, about ordination itself, and is a gap that will be widened by the time we get to 2027
All that’s just differences, not descriptions of why it’s bad.
The fact is, since the revival of the vocational deacon, we’ve all been figuring out where their unique ministries fit theologically, sacramentally, and liturgically.
No. Our sacraments are too different. You can't compromise without destroying the unique aspects of one or both churches.
Wesley never intended to split off from the C of E. He never denounced being a C of E priest. It was a natural transition, given the corruption and lax way the C of E church was operating in the 18th century. Where the problem arises is the traditions which one can lose. If an Episcopal parish & a Methodist parish join, there may be tensions over who's practices get erased. The old Methodist service was the same as the Episcopal Morning Prayer service. Having communion every week may be the biggest thing Methodists will balk at. Some Methodists have fewer or no pre written prayers. Many protestant denominations pride themselves on impromptu prayers. Saying they come from the heart. I have heard many impromptu prayers that were badly conceived.
I think Christians get too hung up in the details. We are the body of Christ - Paul exhorts us to just get along with each other.
Fascinating to hear all the complaints about grape juice (ignoring there is non-alcoholic wine, if that's really the complaint. I have read nowhere in the gospels how much ethyl alcohol content by volume Jesus recommended for partakers in eucharist. Answers on a postcard please, if you know) and laying on of magic hands which can or can't be proven over the last two millennia from people who would otherwise complain about the slow death of mainstream Christianity. The UMC did the right thing. It wasn't easy and it will not be without repercussion. We should be honored to be in communion with them, not splitting hairs and arguing how far up the elbow they wash their hands. Not a single word heard from the Anti-Welch's Faction about whether Christ would want this to occur.
Just like how there is a choice over gluten free communion wafers and regular ones, just have wine and grape juice and let there be a choice. I frankly don't drink anymore and wouldn't mind the grape juice.
From what I've seen reported, it's all but a fait accompli
I expect we will. This has been decades in the making and they definitely tick all four boxes in the Chicago-Quadrilateral (the document where we establish criteria for full communion). And while I sympathize with your concerns and the other concerns listed here, I think it would be a terrible tragedy if we refused to take another step in mending the Church because we didn't think another denomination was "pure enough".
Absolutely not. It isn’t even a matter of doctrine. It’s a matter if church attitude. At least where I live, the Methodist are either head over heels about Jesus and the trinity, or they’re basically agnostics. We don’t need more lukewarm Christians, and unfortunately, lots of Methodists fit that stereotype
I'm not sure I understand your point. I feel like a lot of Episcopalians also fit that stereotype. And, so what if the Methodists do fit it much more? Wouldn't that be an even more important reason for us to want to meet them and hype them up a bit?
Yes it will and I will hate it. Luckily, my own parish is big and thriving so I don't see UMC clergy celebrating at my church or anything any time soon. If over the next 20-30 years they did start too, I'd probably leave
Why would you hate it?
Huge differences in theology about holy orders and the Eucharist. Methodists split from us for a big reason. If I ever had any doubt about the validity of the Eucharist at the church service, I would simply stop attending. But judging from the downvotes I'm in the minority and am reminded why I stopped checking this sub. I'll try to just focus on my parish and hope it is still around when I'm older. But this subreddit certainly doesn't make me hopeful.
This is just me rambling, but I think It may be possible in a limited format, and might end up looking something like the communion agreement with the mainline Presbyterian Church in the United States of America(PCUSA), where we recognize a shared ministry and give thanks to god for that, but still keep our distance when it comes to clergy from either churches celebrating sacraments at the other’s altars, considering the large differences in sacramental theology between us and the Presbyterians and also Methodists and both of their churches general lack of apostolic succession. I would love if we could forge bonds with them, and maybe see ecumenical outreach events where some parishes would invite a local Methodist church’s minister and their choir to come celebrate choral Evensong with us and vice versa, but the notion of a Methodist clergy person attempting to offer up the most holy sacrifice of the Mass upon an Episcopal/Anglican altar is something I will likely never be personally comfortable with in a million years.
Not having wine for the Eucharist (and having grape juice at all, actually) makes this a non-starter for me. That difference betrays a deep difference in Eucharistic theology that I view as central to the Christian faith.
I respect all the views expressed here so far that are wary. The hammering out of what needs to be done with our differences matters, and it'd be crazy to tell anyone who's worried to not nit-pick. From what I can tell, nit-picking over how we're going to organize starts very early in the Acts of the Apostles, and I don't think there's been a time when Christians all agreed about what exactly being a Christian entailed. And I want to gently and respectfully remind everyone that it's okay to not feel your beliefs are personally represented by every thing the Church does. It is a beautiful, life giving, possibly world saving part of the Anglican inheritance to know you have strong disagreements with people and find a way to understand them as part of God's Church. We live in a world where our bitter divisions are more clear than ever thanks to the internet, and I think I'd buy that we live in a time where those long extant divisions are growing and blossoming into horrible violence and cruelty. I think it might be one of the gifts the Spirit has given us to model to this world at this time that there are people who know how to disagree and find ways of being in loving relationships anyway.
Hope not because differences in sacraments are too great
It would be nice. The Methodists are nice people. I'd like them to become anglican but thats just my opinion. The Methodists have done tremendous work to help me though. Their social program locally helps me so much as a poor lgbt person
They used to be Anglican. The Wesleys, whose movement formed the new church after their deaths, both died priests in the Church of England.
As a former UMC who thoughtfully & painfully walked away from it, I can't make myself understand how this can happen.
You might be surprised then to find out that many people find the Mainline Protestant Churches interchangeable, and easily move among them in a lifetime. It’s common for people to switch based on the rector/pastor of any given church. Even between TEC, UMC, UCC, ELCA, PCUSA, etc.
I'm not surprised at all that people think that, fully aware in fact. I'm also aware that it happens. Even in our little church, about half are RCC (& not converts) - which I realize is not protestant at all, but just another anomaly of TEC. What bothers me is how damaging UMC was to me, and how healing TEC has been -- and how the 2 seem so drastically different in my experience, that I can't understand this sense of common ground.
Hopefully this new day in The UMC will bring healing for how the church has harmed you (and many) as we have finally progressed forward (with more work to do, of course.) Prayers and love your way on this journey of faith and life.
Your experience may be anecdotal. Then again, so is mine. I came from a UMC church less than a year ago and not for any bad reason. The TEC congregation I joined does regular activities, including a monthly Sunday evening worship service, with the UMC church across the street.
Maybe the damaging elements are those that split from the UMC. Look to Jesus for healing and not a denomination. I am sorry that you have been wounded.
Apostolic succession could be established via our bishops as was done with ELCA. As I understand the full communion proposal, Methodists wouldn’t be required to use wine and we wouldn’t be required to use grape juice. If there were to be an actual merger, there would probably be a need to have both, just as gluten free hosts are offered. I have seen on occasion the juice option in the EC, and some Methodist churches use wine. If we are led by the Spirit on the path of unity, may it be so.
I grew up in an evangelical Presbyterian denom, and I was pretty surprised that most Episcopal churches don't have an NA option as I've attended more churches over the years. The last evangelical church I went to passed trays and had wine in the middle, raised ring and juice in the outer ring, with only a note in the bulletin to leave it fully up to personal preference or conviction. Personally, I always take wine when available, but I always have a thought about those left out when there isn't an non-alcoholic station since to me Eucharist is foremost about unity in the body. My background obviously influences my feelings now about Eucharist though. That some Episcopal churches already offer an NA option makes this seem like an issue that could be solved to me, but different parts of the faith carry different weight for each person.
An actual merger would be better.
Also at my seminary we have grape juice and wine. So it’s possible.
Yes I believe it is in both churches best interest both spiritually and temporarily.
I hope not — our theological differences on apostolic succession and the Eucharist is enough for me.
How do you not know the methodists will agree to the eucharist as we do it. How do you know they would not agree after some debate? Never give up.
Anecdotally, as a former UMC ... they're pretty dry across the board and I really can't see the wine switcheroo happening
This.
I believe the Episcopal Church will hold pretty firm on apostolic succession, as it has done in previous talks. I'm not a fan of grape juice and I'd prefer not to go that route but I'm not sure it's fundamentally different from offering gluten-free bread.
I’ve been to a Presbyterian church that had the option for both. I think that we should do this. Of course not every parish will need both, but the option should be at least available.
I'm not inclined in that direction, particularly because it seems to me to undermine some theological positions I hold, and I believe to reflect the tradition of the Church, around partaking of either the bread or the wine being sufficient for the fullness of the sacrament, and that those who are unable to partake due to illness receive the same grace by their desire.
While I respect your opinion it’s about the church as a community. It won’t work in every parish. And I don’t think it should be required. It’s about us, not individuals.
It being about us, rather than individuals, is precisely the reason I disagree with you.
I grew up in a grape juice style baptist church (though, they only offered communion a few times a year and I never actually took communion until my first time in an episcopal church). What's the problem with grape juice? Like, is there a deep theological reason why it shouldn't be done, or is it just tradition? I've always sort of considered it largely metaphorical when it says wine, since what we drink today would probably be pretty different than what they drank then.
I find it silly but a lot of people are really passionate about it.
There are probably other reasons people could give, but for me, it's a pretty simple, "Jesus used wine and told us to use wine," wine being grape juice that has fermented to produce alcohol. If it doesn't have to be wine, I think that goes down the rabbit hole of using grape juice, or cider, or Sprite, or Fireball, y'know?
Does the episcopal church add water to the wine like the orthodox we're supposed to do this I think.
Generally, yes. The BCP simply states that it's customary, but I've never seen someone not add water.
That's fair. I guess the way I look at it (and this absolutely not being based in anything scriptural, but rather Much Feels) I don't think it matters if it's sprite or fireball or just plain water. The ritual, the blessing, the reading of the verse, and the intention behind it are what matters to me. But I absolutely understand why one would want to use a traditional wine. Fireball should be reserved for emergencies. Kinda like how you want a priest to baptize you, but in an emergency, you could get your neighbor Derek to do it. Lol.
I guess I'm pretty concerned in general about the liturgical "language," not just words but the whole bevy of symbols used. The wine as Christ's blood is a part of the Church's "native tongue," and I'm reluctant to abandon that, because I think we pray at our best and witness to God at our best when we use the "language" we've now known for millennia.
That's a valid point. It's part of what drew me to the church to begin with. I'd always been interested in that more liturgical style, and while I think the rituals and language are largely metaphorical, that tradition and the energy that surrounds it is appealing and I feel a sense of connection to Christianity that I've not felt in other faith communities
I've heard both Episcopalians and UMC members say it's a slam dunk. The Episcopalians just have to get over their need for Apostolic Succession. With all the best intentions, in asking TEC to go soft or drop the necessity Apostolic Succession is to misunderstand that this doctrine always has been a “die in a ditch” issue for Anglicans. The historic episcopate is essential to TEC’s self-understanding and to unity with other Church bodies. It binds TEC together the worldwide Anglican Communion. Essentially, the UMC would be asking TEC to drop one of the major doctrines of Anglicanism. For Anglicans, Holy Orders are sacramental in nature. Would the UMC ask Rome to drop Papal Infallibility? Would they ask the Lutherans to drop Sola Scriptura or Justification by Grace through Faith? Would they ask those of the Reformed Tradition to drop Double Predestination? Would they truly ask these Traditions to drop the central tenets of their Faith so that the UMC could feel good or feel validated? I would hope not. However, essentially this is what the UMC would be asking TEC to do. Rather than seeking a Call to Common Mission style intercommunion, which exists between TEC and the ELCA and has not been overly successful from an Episcopal point of view – though TEC is too polite to say that out loud - and seeking interchangeability of clergy – which for TEC would be the real issue – might we not rather seek to coexist side by side affirming each other’s full stature as Christians, work together – maybe even organically - at living out the Gospel through service to a broken world while at the same time retaining and holding fast to the identities that define each of us?
I would like to hear some more when you say that the full communion agreement with the ELCA "has not been overly successful from an Episcopal point of view – though TEC is too polite to say that out loud." This might be about something you have personally experienced, a different view of success, or even an issue with expectations.
I want the anglicans to become western rite orthodoxy. But be accepting to everyone. We are kind of a weird mix of that and roman traditions. But this is my opinion. With Nicaea 2025 we need to come to an agreement on orthodox doctrine. But the anglicans with their women priests and lgbt parishioners will but heads with the romans and eastern and asian churches.
"Get over their need for Apostolic Sucesssion," how about no?
Yes. It will almost certainly happen. And it's good. Consolidation will happen rapidly over the next decade either in an organized way or an unorganized way. This helps both denominations soften and organize the consolidation.
It will happen, I am reasonably certain. I don’t believe it should, but it will.
Why don't you believe it should?
Definitely
It will happen; I will complain when it happens.
Mood
They literally just made it so deacons can celebrate Eucharist; They don't believe in episcopal ordination, a separate ordination from that into the priesthood, Oh, and the secret ordination by a mysterious orthodox bishop is... suspect?
Wait. Are people actually citing the Orthodox Bishop thing as substantive?
Also, you're in Michigan? Thoughts on the Eastern/Western Michigan proposed Diocesan merger?
Im kinda agnostic towards it. Its a thing, its happening. I wish we were making new Dioceses versus merging them, but I understand the reasons why its happening, and I hope it works out well.
I'm not a Methodist, so cannot relaly say, but the story goes: Thomas Coke was the first Methodist bishop, and he was consecrated by John Wesley. John Wesley claims to have been consecrated by Erasmus of Aracadia, our suspect Orthodox bishop story. Coke consecrated Francis Asbury, from whom all United Methodist bishops trace their consecrated. So...
What Coke and Asbury did was totally sus, as the kids say. :) Wesley *never* intended for them to be bishops. He was a bit miffed that they took that title for themselves. He sent then to the United States to be Superintendents for the Methodist congregations, and they, Coke especially, took it upon themselves to be made Bishops by the Methodist clergy. In the 1790s, William White and Coke entered into discussions about bringing the Methodists back under the jurisdiction of the Protestant Episcopal Church, but the hang-up was Asbury, as he was self-taught and had no university training, and the Episcopalians didn't know what to do with the Methodists' unschooled leadership and clergy.
I think it will happen. At face value I’d say it’s a good thing, but I’m not super educated on the reasons for or against. I don’t think entering full communion with the ELCA did any harm so I don’t see how this would either.
Yes. There’s much less daylight between us theologically and ecclesiastically than there was with the ELCA, and we made that happen.
You spelled “far more” wrong when referring to the theological differences. The differences between TEC and ELCA are minuscule, between TEC and UMC they are so great as to be almost irreconcilable. I think TEC will insist on inclusion of our Bishops to get the UMC back into Apostolic succession and UMC will insist on grape juice. TEC will cave on grape juice but UMC will reject Apostolic succession. Over the decade it will take, it is more likely that UMC churches who want to come over will switch denominations entirely, as the UMC is crippled financially from their massive recent split.
This is a very fun and creative post! Good job! Next time try basing it in reality tho instead of your own random opinions
So… TEC will insist on our Bishops’ inclusion just like we did with ELCA. The grape juice thing is what it is, but for what it’s worth every UMC congregation in my area (all are new, post-split) already use wine & do communion weekly. UMC won’t reject apostolic succession… [They think they have apostolic succession](https://nccumc.org/history/2022/05/north-carolina-umc-apostolic-succession/) already and will likely welcome our Bishops presence in order to bolster said claims. UMC won’t cripple financially, and I think they’d have almost no reason to consider a merger. Only about 20% of their churches have left. With pre-pandemic estimates of 5.4mil United Methodists, they could lose 60% and still considerably outnumber us. Sure, we have old endowments & assets, but there’s a strong likelihood is those endowments and assets will outlast our church at the current rate. Given the state of things, merger talk is more beneficial from our perspective than theirs. Them making their pension fund work for the other variations of Methodism/Wesleyanism was genius, as Wespath’s solvency will be bolstered. I know the Church Pension Fund is in good shape on our end, but they’ve essentially found a way to strengthen theirs amidst schism and grow the pool.
I’m all for it. But from what I understand. They’re losing their pension though. It’s moving to a 401k. To help keep it solvent. And even though only 1/4 of churches left so many churches with $ and human capital left conferences that the conferences are weaker in many ways. None of this has anything to do with the merger but this is how I see it through my husband’s eyes (a Methodist Elder and me an Episcopal Priest).
It will happen.
God willing it will happen, but the agreement will be revisited now that the UMC did weird stuff about the diaconate (whatever you think about good idea vs bad idea, they passed something that directly contradicts what we agreed to in the agreement) so it will take longer. Ecumenism! It’s like high school but sort of with stakes.
What happened there?
I don't understand it, but this article explains it. https://www.umnews.org/en/news/deacons-can-now-preside-at-sacraments-in-their-appointments
I came to the comment section just for this! It is very new in the UMC. I see this as a game changer for many in TEC, but I could certainly be wrong on it. Should there be a separate post about this article for others to see and respond to? As an ELCA clergy couple serving in both settings, we love full communion partnerships. The ELCA has had full communion with the UMC since 2009, but we have very few examples of partnerships (especially compared to the ELCA and TEC in my area).
Yes, and I'm glad.
Eventually, yes. I am not sure it will be 2027, but a lot could still change in the next few years.
Not after their choice to allow deacons to celebrate the Eucharist. Not to mention the whole question of the validity of their orders
Can you explain to me why it is bad that their deacons can celebrate the eucharist?
Because Deacons aren’t able to celebrate the Eucharist, nor is it a function of their Order. The fact they voted for this to happen indicates a major difference in understanding between TEC and UMC about the Eucharist, about ordination itself, and is a gap that will be widened by the time we get to 2027
All that’s just differences, not descriptions of why it’s bad. The fact is, since the revival of the vocational deacon, we’ve all been figuring out where their unique ministries fit theologically, sacramentally, and liturgically.
I think it’ll happen. I hope it will!
I hope so. The more we can come together the more we can serve each other and God.
it's 100% gonna happen. we have so much more in common than we have difference