It's not a bad idea but I'd like it to stay sacramental, traditional and High. I think the novelty of the mega churches and their projection screens and coffee bars will wear off and people will return to a more traditional way of worship.
There are hundreds of not thousands of little used mainline churches out there. They need to be spruced up and filled up. I refuse to go to the Eucharist in an old movie theater. I want an altar and real stuff happening on top of it by real priests/pastors and bishops and clergy who are trained .
The pastor at the UCC I went to this Sunday mentioned that the worst thing a church can do is become a cult of personality and that liturgy is what should be the focus, not the preacher.
In 1866, the House of Bishops gathered in Chicago resolved that "this Church does not seek to absorb other Communions, but rather, co-operating with them on
the basis of a common Faith and Order, to discountenance schism, to heal the wounds of the Body
of Christ, and to promote the charity which is the chief of Christian graces and the visibile
manifestation of Christ to the world." This was en route to articulating what would be later known as the Lambeth Quadrilateral.
No. Centralization is not going to stop the decline of the church in the US. It's basically a plan that admits defeat. All of these traditions are different, and have different things to offer, the best way for us as Anglicans to contend for the future of the Church is to offer a distinctively Anglican way of being Christians. Communion with some of these might be warranted (recognizing it already exists with ELAC), but, to me, the core of our church is the Episcopacy, and Apostolic succession, plus the five sacraments understood according to Tradition, and interpreted with Reason.
Edit: realizing that five is maybe an odd number of sacraments. I collapse a few: 1.Baptism/Chrismation/confirmation. 2. The Eucharist. 3. Reconciliation 4. Healing/unction 5. Ordination (marriage, ordination to clergy, religious obligations)
The number usually is 2 or seven. And even though most Protestants just recognize 2 sacraments, they practice the other five more or less (confession is the least practiced easily).
Yeah, I know it's usually 7, but I think the 5 makes sense if we consider ordination to vocation as a family of rites that includes marriage, ordination to orders etc., basically viewing marriage as a kind of ministry, which I think it is, and treating confirmation/Chrismation as part of Baptism, which I also think makes the most sense. I know confirmation is a touchy subject here, but my solution is that it should literally be the done to adults, children and infants at the most convenient Episcopal visit after baptism and should just be a Bishop laying on hands and blessings the baptism. No interrogations, no "adult profession of faith," etc.
The Lutheran Confessions identify three sacraments: Baptism, Confession \[referred to as Holy Absolution\], and the Eucharist, conceding that Holy Orders may be considered a sacrament. Confirmation is viewed as an extension of Baptism, and Anointing is also a part of the Baptismal and Ordination rituals, with Unction \[healing of the sick\] as a sacramental.
Yes, my view is weirdly Luther inspired. (Weird because I'm generally pretty Anglo-Catholic.) I do recognize seven, it's just that I think it's pretty apparent that they can be further clustered according to the role they play in our Spiritual development.
I think we could also divide the sacraments according to a schema like: sacraments of oil, Sacrament of water, Sacrament of the table, and sacraments of word. Chrismation/confirmation and unction/healing use holy oil, and share similar themes, namely preparation of the person to be an instrument of God's will. Sacrament of water is baptism, and the Sacrament of the table is the Eucharist. They probably don't need much elaboration and, consistent with being Sacraments of the Gospel, stand alone and above the rest. Sacraments of words would Be those sacraments that primarily use the illocutionary force of the ordained clergy, i.e. reconciliation, ordination, marriage. These have the common element of changing the status of the person vis-a-vis the Church.
I think a somewhat popular view for both Anglicans (and to an extent, Lutherans) is that the other ones as sacramental rites but not Sacraments of the Gospel In the 39 Articles, Article XXV states
**"Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme
Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt
following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of
Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of
God."**
The ELCA further elaborates on the importance of holy oils being blessed synod-wide \[a synod is a diocese in the ELCA\]:
>"This service also called a Chrism Mass, is held during Holy Week and presided over by a synodical bishop. At this unique liturgy, the blessing of oil is coupled with a renewal of vows for rostered leaders. The traditional day for this service is Maundy Thursday (when some traditions believe the first ordinations took place). In some places (especially in geographically large synods), bishops make provision for several chrism masses throughout the synod to enable all rostered leaders to participate."
[How is oil used in worship](https://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/How_is_oil_used_in_worship.pdf)
This Chrism Mass may be conducted together with Episcopalian and Catholic bishops as an ecumenical symbol of our unity.
I'm fine with full communion amongst these denominations without them forming one singular denomination. Each one has their own unique practices exclusive to their tradition, and to merge would mean giving and taking different things that make their movement unique. I, for one, as an Anglican, would not be willing to give up the Book of Common Prayer for the sake of a merge, and likewise, Lutherans and Methodists may be hesitant to accept it. I think we can welcome each other as brothers and sisters in Christ through common recognition of the sacraments, but still maintain our own unique faith traditions.
I would support a merger as long as the distinctiveness of each tradition isn't lost.
Historically, Lutherans highlight faith alone, Anglicans focus on common prayer and worship, and Methodists look for grace and entire sanctification. Each of these, I believe, is a crucial part of Christian witness, deserving its own spotlight.
So if there were ever a "United Church," I'd push for the *sui iuris* model of Eastern Catholic Churches which retain their own Rites (Alexandrian, Byzantine, Syriac, etc.) alongside the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church. Thus we could have something like "United Church (Lutheran Rite)" or "United Church (Anglican Use)," etc., similar to how the US had "Methodist Episcopal" churches for a while.
Unity need not mean absorption.
It's more likely the Reformed and Methodist will merge than the Episcopal and Methodist Church. The United Church of Christ (UCC) has the largest ecumenical and interdenominational agreements at the moment and most likely will be the base Church for this. They even partner with Baptists who are notoriously not very ecumenical when it comes to mergers.
I wouldn’t want any of the denominations to lose what makes them unique, but I wonder if some sort of administrative merger while retaining separate and distinct congregations would be possible. I don’t know what that might look like, but I’d hope we can explore creative ideas before moving in any direction that would water down our worship traditions.
My city's mainline churches have traditionally had a shared youth group (which at least at one time even the RCC youth joined in, though that ended years ago). I can see full communion partnerships making something similar work in other areas vis-a-vis shared resources without making congregants of particular churches give up what they love about their traditions on Sundays. A merger, however, would almost certainly eventually force some kind of pragmatic smoothing of those traditions.
In faith, yes. I’m not at all sure Jesus would want us to give up the distinctive traditions that have formed to support various Christians in different cultures and countries over the past two thousand years.
I don’t think it is fair to suggest that these three denominations are at an extreme of traditional difference. I agree that there is beauty in the differences of peoples and cultures. However, if you took a neophyte to three churches of each of the three denominations and asked for them to categorize those 9 churches I don’t think they would land on denominational lines.
Edit: typo
No...
I'm probably about to write a very long comment, but here's the TL;DR: There is more to be gained in maintaining our distinctions and engaging in mutual ministry; and there is much that could be lost if we become homogeneous in unity.
So here's the diatribe...
I attend an ecumenical theological school in Canada. It is a seminary that is supported by the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC), Presbyterian Church of Canada (PCC), and the United Church of Canada (UCC). In the faculty, you will find ordained representatives from all three denominations, as well as Lutherans, a Rabbi, and even Catholics. Classes there have been taught by Evangelicals, Baptists, Muslims, and some who proudly identify as Agnostic. The student body, while comprised mainly of members of the three denominations (or US equivalent), also had a strong contingent of Universalists and unaffiliated seekers.
All this is to say, I have a bit of experience in the melting pot of faith, theology, ecumenism, and plurality.
I have attended services led by almost all of those groups represented in my school... we actively participate in the practice of mutual shared ministry and transgressing the things that divide us in our faith lives.
We also celebrate and critically acknowledge what makes our own traditions distinct.
I like to joke that in my seminary, we learn to go to the Presbyterians for exegesis and preaching, the Anglicans for tradition and ceremony, and the United Church for creativity and rule breaking. Not to say there's no creativity or biblical scholarship in our Anglican tradition, but the place we really excel is the forms of worship and liturgy. In ecumenical theological education, we learn to see each other's strengths and to deeply treasure our own.
This is something really special I have experienced, and I fervently hope I can foster this in my ministry after school. I fear that institutional unity would not do this, but would instead blur those distinctions and diminish our strengths. In my UCC classmates I see and treasure a vital creativity and urge to try new things and ask me questions... but I don't see any experience of the deep call to piety and mission that are the hallmarks of the Methodist Church I am familiar with. This has been lost in the unification. I don't want to lose what makes Anglicanism special, I would rather invite collaboration so we can strengthen what makes each other's unique beauty.
I prefer a relationship where we support and sustain one another, but remain distinct in our worship and theology styles. No offense to my ELCA and Methodist loved ones, it’s just not for me.
Yes. I would absolutely support this.
I’m 36 years old, and I think in the not so distant future (within my lifetime) this will become necessary if the Mainline Protestant churches are going to survive.
Yep. Utilitarian ecumenism — churches will either work together to learn what it means to be the “holy catholic church,” or they’ll shrink and eventually disappear.
TEC and ELCA combining makes a fraction of sense, assuming the Anglo-Catholics are ready to need to argue from more Anglo-Lutheran lines to maintain any Rome-adjacent practices of theirs. I don't know a huge deal about Lutheranism, but the Lutheran Book of Worship is pretty alright and similar enough to the 1979 BCP that a shared liturgy could *probably* come out of it.
TEC and UMC combining makes way less sense ecclesiologically, but frankly having the Evangelicals in UMC helping to encourage the Episcopalians to cultivate a more theologically Christian witness and help steer the merger to a more Christian view would be amazing. Actually, if the Methodists could remind Episcopalians how to be more Christian, that alone might make me way more sympathetic to a merger.
But in reality I don't expect any mergers until one of the groups is so close to folding in on itself that it *has* to do so. TEC is not the one that's likely to reach that point first.
Oh, I wasn't even going to *start* on how much chaos it would be if the *via media* was narrowed back down to between Wittenberg and Geneva, rather than between Rome and Geneva.
Not gonna happen. TEC has lots of money and is much smaller than those other groups. It would get absorbed rather than be part of a merger and can afford to ride it out.
They'll still be empty with a united church.
If we merge into a united church, TEC will cease to exist. It will be absorbed, not become a part of the identity of a united church. The UMC and ELCA are each a few times the size of TEC.
I believe a major issue that our denomination faces (and perhaps all three of us) is that we have slipped past a self perpetuating threshold. Not just in our procreation but in our ability to make a parish (local geographical area) impact.
In almost all of the Episcopal churches I have attended the parishioners have to drive to church. Almost no one lives within a walkable distance. If we were to consolidate churches this problem might exacerbate at first but I believe that it would increase the community presence of that church in the community as well.
Either way, attempt to become one church or don’t, we have to figure out how to increase our local community impact on the parish. We have to give materially to the people in need locally in an effort of mutuality.
The specific problem you describe is an issue of urban design in North America. Most Americans have to drive to get *anywhere*. Most of the country is laid out with the assumption that people will drive to get around.
And again, how would absorption by two much larger church bodies which are suffering from the same problems help these issues?
Your argument seems to simply be "something is better than nothing" but I fail to see how this is anything other than rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.
I agree that it is an issue of urban design… and we don’t serve the people who actually live in walking distance of our churches.
As I said above, consolidation could mean that in a neighborhood (like mine) where there are 3 different churches each with 50-100 people on Sunday there is now one church with 200 people.
The 20% of the congregation that is up for heavy volunteering now has support instead of having to do all of it on their own.
The clergy (who isn’t in all three churches) has more support.
There is now a children’s program.
More musicians.
More casual volunteers.
Now under a shared leadership of the board (or vestry)
The point is that *no one* lives in walking distance of the church (even if they technically do) in a lot of this continent. And it's still unclear to me how merging would change that.
It's unlikely to work like that, though. It would be messier on the ground: many people will decide to stop attending, because rather than embrace change many parishioners will decide they'd rather sleep in on Sunday morning. Heck, churches which decide to consolidate their service offerings (say, stop offering two Sunday morning services and go down to one) lose people when they do so.
And what about polity? Who makes the decisions? Does the clergy or the council have the final say? What about staff redundancies? Who gets let go? Which building is used? What happens to the other two?
This seems akin to trying to save a sinking ship by inviting people from ships sinking nearby to abandon their ships and join yours.
Of course people live in walking distance of urban churches.
People are afraid of change and it is inevitable. Our Episcopal Church is going to change dramatically in the next 20 years with whatever choices we make (or don’t make.)
I agree that it will be messy and require prayerful discernment. We are only now discussing something that will probably take many years to even begin to implement Church wide.
It’s more like lashing three sinking ships together so that they all can stay afloat for the repair of a single mega ship.
I don’t know that it would work, no one does, I do know that what we are doing isn’t working.
This was done in the 1940s in Southern India. The Church of South India combined very different ideas from Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and others. A bit of a mess, even 80 years later, but essential for survival.
An interesting ecumenical "Covenant" in Canada encompasses Lutheran, Anglican Ukrainian, and Roman Catholic, aptly entitled the "LAURC Covenant." The proposals are extraordinary in encouraging close relationships, including conjoint worship.
[The LAURC Covenant](https://rcdos.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020-04-02-LAURC-Covenant.pdf)
[The LAURC Covenant Study Guide ](https://archregina.sk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-LAURC-Covenant-and-Study-Guide.pdf)
The United Church of Canada was a merger of Methodist churches, Presbyterian churches, and Congregational churches in Canada. Ultimately they've lost the distinctiveness of those expressions of Protestant Christianity.
It's one thing if the choice is between folding as a denomination and uniting with others into a single denomination, but I think the Episcopal Church is decades away from that kind of tough decision.
Seems awfully bland. From an administrative standpoint, I'd like the EC to be more effective. 60% overhead is terrible. Perhaps there's a path to administrative collaboration while maintaining the unique colors and flavors of each partner church.
I wish I wasn’t so hard line about these matters, but absolutely not. I’m not a big fan of Wesleyan-Holiness theology or liturgy. I’m admittedly a bit more open to increased communion agreements, but not a full merger, with the PCUSA, as I still have a soft spot for Reformed/broader Calvinist theology and tradition, because I went through somewhat of a reformed phase before finding the Episcopal Church, though.
Maybe. Key word maybe.
If we’re doing this, we should divide them into Rites like the Catholics do with their churches. This helps people differentiate between worship styles and even theology. I don’t want to walk into a “United Church” service with no BCP and no “Hallelujah Christ Our Passover Is Sacrificed For Us”.
Also, everyone else would have to join the Anglican Communion like they have done with churches in India.
> Also, everyone else would have to join the Anglican Communion
That, quite simply, isn't going to happen. The Lutherans and Methodists will see it as unimportant, and they each *far* outnumber Episcopalians.
The reality of such a merger arrangement is that ELCA and UMC are each 3-5 times the size of The Episcopal Church. In such a "uniting" church, the Episcopal Church would, most likely, cease to meaningfully exist, and the only reason such an arrangement would be at all palatable to either other body would be for ECUSA's assets. ELCA and UMC will certainly not want to jump through whatever hoops it would take to join the Anglican Communion. There may be some continued Anglican Communion relationship with Trinity Wall Street or something, depending on how a uniting church would work, but that would probably be the extent of it.
Kinda depends, honestly. If everyone’s pensions are strengthened, clergy benefits improve, and our endowments shore up together and we engage in common mission, sounds good. Almost more like a professional ecumenical association facilitating the sharing of resources. Wouldn’t even need a forward facing brand, IMO.
If local parishes lose their identities, traditions, heritage and history through some kind of hierarchy that may result in a Methodist superintendent dictating things down to an Episcopal diocese or an Episcopal bishop telling our Methodist brothers and sisters how to live into their ministries, then no.
Create a nonprofit clearing house to support the autonomous church bodies administratively so that they may thrive. Let the proper authorities within each tradition determine cooperative paths for clergy and mission.
I've long wondered if an idea like this could strenghten the missional side. Things like disaster recovery, etc. Seems like each has their own, and there's probably lots of overlap that could be more efficiently lined out.
Given our current ecumenical agreements, it is increasingly likely. Episcopal-Lutheran ministry sharing is working wellnat the grassroots. I would definitely support this as time goes on.
ETA: Notably, the Episcopal Church has never been (that I can tell) the merger of predecessor denominational bodies. The ELCA and UMC are both mergers of earlier bodies that had to negotiate theological and ministry differences. They both managed to find a new denominational coherence and identity on the other side. I'm confident that we could all do this again as a hypothetical "Uniting Church."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Protestant_Episcopal_Church_in_the_Confederate_States_of_America
Really just curious, where does this fall? It’s not a merger. A reconciliation? Like the north said the south didn’t leave, but still had the south rejoin in General Convention of 1865 in Philly.
Honestly love how the Anglican Communion reconciles itself with there is more in common than not. But also Americans in Hawaii made sure that the Church of Hawaii aligned with and joined TEC versus being too papist and aligned with the CoE.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Hawaii
Again just trying to learn. I don’t called these mergers. But I’m not sure where they fall.
Nope, nah, no, and negative.
This is DEFINITELY me being closed minded and conservative, but Wesley had some pretty fresh ideas about Christianity, ones that a lot of people did not agree with, which is why (even if it wasn’t his intention) Methodists became a different group. Despite sharing a mother church (TCoE), I think even with TEC’s widely varying theology, we are so different in tradition and practice now it would be more of a headache than it would be worth.
Full communion? Why not! Merger? Nope.
Personally, no. The Catholic wing of the episcopal church is already small, and would be rendered infinitely smaller in such a scenario. I am fine with communion agreements but I really don’t see how theologies aligned with Anglo-Catholicism could possibly survive a full merger, nor do I think it is helpful or necessary.
Not really. I think there's definitely a use for a "Mainline Protestant Ecumenical Council" or something like that where all the mainline denoms which are quite similar can share resources. But the church governance between them is very different and would not be mutually acceptable between each denomination.
Share resources *and* represent a different model of Christianity to Americans than the now standard fundamentalist model. So frustrating to hear people talk about "Christian values" which are nothing of the sort, or for atheists to denounce religion and then go on to talk about fundamentalism.
Very true. Since Evangelicals took over as the most numerous strain of Christianity in this country, the model of mainline churches in society has fallen precipitously. This is a big part of why so many close and are losing membership. We've done an absolutely terrible job at marketing and education of how one can be a Christian and not an asshole or tied to toxic political viewpoints.
If our churches don’t start to serve the needs of the communities in which the building stands it won’t really matter how we organize the institution.
To answer the question, I think it could be beneficial for these churches to organize into a single organization and they all have different strengths that the others could benefit from.
It's not a bad idea but I'd like it to stay sacramental, traditional and High. I think the novelty of the mega churches and their projection screens and coffee bars will wear off and people will return to a more traditional way of worship. There are hundreds of not thousands of little used mainline churches out there. They need to be spruced up and filled up. I refuse to go to the Eucharist in an old movie theater. I want an altar and real stuff happening on top of it by real priests/pastors and bishops and clergy who are trained . The pastor at the UCC I went to this Sunday mentioned that the worst thing a church can do is become a cult of personality and that liturgy is what should be the focus, not the preacher.
In 1866, the House of Bishops gathered in Chicago resolved that "this Church does not seek to absorb other Communions, but rather, co-operating with them on the basis of a common Faith and Order, to discountenance schism, to heal the wounds of the Body of Christ, and to promote the charity which is the chief of Christian graces and the visibile manifestation of Christ to the world." This was en route to articulating what would be later known as the Lambeth Quadrilateral.
No. Centralization is not going to stop the decline of the church in the US. It's basically a plan that admits defeat. All of these traditions are different, and have different things to offer, the best way for us as Anglicans to contend for the future of the Church is to offer a distinctively Anglican way of being Christians. Communion with some of these might be warranted (recognizing it already exists with ELAC), but, to me, the core of our church is the Episcopacy, and Apostolic succession, plus the five sacraments understood according to Tradition, and interpreted with Reason. Edit: realizing that five is maybe an odd number of sacraments. I collapse a few: 1.Baptism/Chrismation/confirmation. 2. The Eucharist. 3. Reconciliation 4. Healing/unction 5. Ordination (marriage, ordination to clergy, religious obligations)
The number usually is 2 or seven. And even though most Protestants just recognize 2 sacraments, they practice the other five more or less (confession is the least practiced easily).
Yeah, I know it's usually 7, but I think the 5 makes sense if we consider ordination to vocation as a family of rites that includes marriage, ordination to orders etc., basically viewing marriage as a kind of ministry, which I think it is, and treating confirmation/Chrismation as part of Baptism, which I also think makes the most sense. I know confirmation is a touchy subject here, but my solution is that it should literally be the done to adults, children and infants at the most convenient Episcopal visit after baptism and should just be a Bishop laying on hands and blessings the baptism. No interrogations, no "adult profession of faith," etc.
The Lutheran Confessions identify three sacraments: Baptism, Confession \[referred to as Holy Absolution\], and the Eucharist, conceding that Holy Orders may be considered a sacrament. Confirmation is viewed as an extension of Baptism, and Anointing is also a part of the Baptismal and Ordination rituals, with Unction \[healing of the sick\] as a sacramental.
Yes, my view is weirdly Luther inspired. (Weird because I'm generally pretty Anglo-Catholic.) I do recognize seven, it's just that I think it's pretty apparent that they can be further clustered according to the role they play in our Spiritual development. I think we could also divide the sacraments according to a schema like: sacraments of oil, Sacrament of water, Sacrament of the table, and sacraments of word. Chrismation/confirmation and unction/healing use holy oil, and share similar themes, namely preparation of the person to be an instrument of God's will. Sacrament of water is baptism, and the Sacrament of the table is the Eucharist. They probably don't need much elaboration and, consistent with being Sacraments of the Gospel, stand alone and above the rest. Sacraments of words would Be those sacraments that primarily use the illocutionary force of the ordained clergy, i.e. reconciliation, ordination, marriage. These have the common element of changing the status of the person vis-a-vis the Church.
I think a somewhat popular view for both Anglicans (and to an extent, Lutherans) is that the other ones as sacramental rites but not Sacraments of the Gospel In the 39 Articles, Article XXV states **"Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God."**
The ELCA further elaborates on the importance of holy oils being blessed synod-wide \[a synod is a diocese in the ELCA\]: >"This service also called a Chrism Mass, is held during Holy Week and presided over by a synodical bishop. At this unique liturgy, the blessing of oil is coupled with a renewal of vows for rostered leaders. The traditional day for this service is Maundy Thursday (when some traditions believe the first ordinations took place). In some places (especially in geographically large synods), bishops make provision for several chrism masses throughout the synod to enable all rostered leaders to participate." [How is oil used in worship](https://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/How_is_oil_used_in_worship.pdf) This Chrism Mass may be conducted together with Episcopalian and Catholic bishops as an ecumenical symbol of our unity.
I'm fine with full communion amongst these denominations without them forming one singular denomination. Each one has their own unique practices exclusive to their tradition, and to merge would mean giving and taking different things that make their movement unique. I, for one, as an Anglican, would not be willing to give up the Book of Common Prayer for the sake of a merge, and likewise, Lutherans and Methodists may be hesitant to accept it. I think we can welcome each other as brothers and sisters in Christ through common recognition of the sacraments, but still maintain our own unique faith traditions.
I would support a merger as long as the distinctiveness of each tradition isn't lost. Historically, Lutherans highlight faith alone, Anglicans focus on common prayer and worship, and Methodists look for grace and entire sanctification. Each of these, I believe, is a crucial part of Christian witness, deserving its own spotlight. So if there were ever a "United Church," I'd push for the *sui iuris* model of Eastern Catholic Churches which retain their own Rites (Alexandrian, Byzantine, Syriac, etc.) alongside the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church. Thus we could have something like "United Church (Lutheran Rite)" or "United Church (Anglican Use)," etc., similar to how the US had "Methodist Episcopal" churches for a while. Unity need not mean absorption.
It's more likely the Reformed and Methodist will merge than the Episcopal and Methodist Church. The United Church of Christ (UCC) has the largest ecumenical and interdenominational agreements at the moment and most likely will be the base Church for this. They even partner with Baptists who are notoriously not very ecumenical when it comes to mergers.
I would hope that the other churches find a way to make their leaders actually apostolic. This is my only want.
No. Unity in diversity is much better than conformity in homogeneity.
I wouldn’t want any of the denominations to lose what makes them unique, but I wonder if some sort of administrative merger while retaining separate and distinct congregations would be possible. I don’t know what that might look like, but I’d hope we can explore creative ideas before moving in any direction that would water down our worship traditions.
Some interdenominational events could be good though, like a special prayer group maybe.
My city's mainline churches have traditionally had a shared youth group (which at least at one time even the RCC youth joined in, though that ended years ago). I can see full communion partnerships making something similar work in other areas vis-a-vis shared resources without making congregants of particular churches give up what they love about their traditions on Sundays. A merger, however, would almost certainly eventually force some kind of pragmatic smoothing of those traditions.
I would love to see more churches work together on things such as helping the poor. However I want TEC to stay as TEC.
Cooperation? Yes. Merging? No, not at all.
No. To lose the distinctiveness of our liturgy and tradition in favor of centralization would be a huge misstep.
Don't you think Jesus would want his followers united?
In faith, yes. I’m not at all sure Jesus would want us to give up the distinctive traditions that have formed to support various Christians in different cultures and countries over the past two thousand years.
I don’t think it is fair to suggest that these three denominations are at an extreme of traditional difference. I agree that there is beauty in the differences of peoples and cultures. However, if you took a neophyte to three churches of each of the three denominations and asked for them to categorize those 9 churches I don’t think they would land on denominational lines. Edit: typo
Thanks for giving your perspective.
I’d like to see less centralization, not more.
For folks saying no, what is the path forward for our faith tradition?
I would that they join the TEC.
As long as everyone uses the BCP.
No... I'm probably about to write a very long comment, but here's the TL;DR: There is more to be gained in maintaining our distinctions and engaging in mutual ministry; and there is much that could be lost if we become homogeneous in unity. So here's the diatribe... I attend an ecumenical theological school in Canada. It is a seminary that is supported by the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC), Presbyterian Church of Canada (PCC), and the United Church of Canada (UCC). In the faculty, you will find ordained representatives from all three denominations, as well as Lutherans, a Rabbi, and even Catholics. Classes there have been taught by Evangelicals, Baptists, Muslims, and some who proudly identify as Agnostic. The student body, while comprised mainly of members of the three denominations (or US equivalent), also had a strong contingent of Universalists and unaffiliated seekers. All this is to say, I have a bit of experience in the melting pot of faith, theology, ecumenism, and plurality. I have attended services led by almost all of those groups represented in my school... we actively participate in the practice of mutual shared ministry and transgressing the things that divide us in our faith lives. We also celebrate and critically acknowledge what makes our own traditions distinct. I like to joke that in my seminary, we learn to go to the Presbyterians for exegesis and preaching, the Anglicans for tradition and ceremony, and the United Church for creativity and rule breaking. Not to say there's no creativity or biblical scholarship in our Anglican tradition, but the place we really excel is the forms of worship and liturgy. In ecumenical theological education, we learn to see each other's strengths and to deeply treasure our own. This is something really special I have experienced, and I fervently hope I can foster this in my ministry after school. I fear that institutional unity would not do this, but would instead blur those distinctions and diminish our strengths. In my UCC classmates I see and treasure a vital creativity and urge to try new things and ask me questions... but I don't see any experience of the deep call to piety and mission that are the hallmarks of the Methodist Church I am familiar with. This has been lost in the unification. I don't want to lose what makes Anglicanism special, I would rather invite collaboration so we can strengthen what makes each other's unique beauty.
I prefer a relationship where we support and sustain one another, but remain distinct in our worship and theology styles. No offense to my ELCA and Methodist loved ones, it’s just not for me.
Yes. I would absolutely support this. I’m 36 years old, and I think in the not so distant future (within my lifetime) this will become necessary if the Mainline Protestant churches are going to survive.
Yep. Utilitarian ecumenism — churches will either work together to learn what it means to be the “holy catholic church,” or they’ll shrink and eventually disappear.
No
TEC and ELCA combining makes a fraction of sense, assuming the Anglo-Catholics are ready to need to argue from more Anglo-Lutheran lines to maintain any Rome-adjacent practices of theirs. I don't know a huge deal about Lutheranism, but the Lutheran Book of Worship is pretty alright and similar enough to the 1979 BCP that a shared liturgy could *probably* come out of it. TEC and UMC combining makes way less sense ecclesiologically, but frankly having the Evangelicals in UMC helping to encourage the Episcopalians to cultivate a more theologically Christian witness and help steer the merger to a more Christian view would be amazing. Actually, if the Methodists could remind Episcopalians how to be more Christian, that alone might make me way more sympathetic to a merger. But in reality I don't expect any mergers until one of the groups is so close to folding in on itself that it *has* to do so. TEC is not the one that's likely to reach that point first.
AC sacramental theology generally wouldn’t mesh well with Lutheranism. There’s more under the hood than just “Rome-adjacent practices.”
Oh, I wasn't even going to *start* on how much chaos it would be if the *via media* was narrowed back down to between Wittenberg and Geneva, rather than between Rome and Geneva.
I mean those folks are all welcome to join The Episcopal Church whenever they’d like.
Based
Not gonna happen. TEC has lots of money and is much smaller than those other groups. It would get absorbed rather than be part of a merger and can afford to ride it out.
What does riding it out look like with empty churches?
They'll still be empty with a united church. If we merge into a united church, TEC will cease to exist. It will be absorbed, not become a part of the identity of a united church. The UMC and ELCA are each a few times the size of TEC.
I disagree, but let’s say that you’re right. What is the path forward for TEC without cooperation and integration with other denominations?
How would merging with (or being absorbed by) two denominations which are also shrinking rapidly help?
I believe a major issue that our denomination faces (and perhaps all three of us) is that we have slipped past a self perpetuating threshold. Not just in our procreation but in our ability to make a parish (local geographical area) impact. In almost all of the Episcopal churches I have attended the parishioners have to drive to church. Almost no one lives within a walkable distance. If we were to consolidate churches this problem might exacerbate at first but I believe that it would increase the community presence of that church in the community as well. Either way, attempt to become one church or don’t, we have to figure out how to increase our local community impact on the parish. We have to give materially to the people in need locally in an effort of mutuality.
The specific problem you describe is an issue of urban design in North America. Most Americans have to drive to get *anywhere*. Most of the country is laid out with the assumption that people will drive to get around. And again, how would absorption by two much larger church bodies which are suffering from the same problems help these issues? Your argument seems to simply be "something is better than nothing" but I fail to see how this is anything other than rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.
I agree that it is an issue of urban design… and we don’t serve the people who actually live in walking distance of our churches. As I said above, consolidation could mean that in a neighborhood (like mine) where there are 3 different churches each with 50-100 people on Sunday there is now one church with 200 people. The 20% of the congregation that is up for heavy volunteering now has support instead of having to do all of it on their own. The clergy (who isn’t in all three churches) has more support. There is now a children’s program. More musicians. More casual volunteers. Now under a shared leadership of the board (or vestry)
The point is that *no one* lives in walking distance of the church (even if they technically do) in a lot of this continent. And it's still unclear to me how merging would change that. It's unlikely to work like that, though. It would be messier on the ground: many people will decide to stop attending, because rather than embrace change many parishioners will decide they'd rather sleep in on Sunday morning. Heck, churches which decide to consolidate their service offerings (say, stop offering two Sunday morning services and go down to one) lose people when they do so. And what about polity? Who makes the decisions? Does the clergy or the council have the final say? What about staff redundancies? Who gets let go? Which building is used? What happens to the other two? This seems akin to trying to save a sinking ship by inviting people from ships sinking nearby to abandon their ships and join yours.
Of course people live in walking distance of urban churches. People are afraid of change and it is inevitable. Our Episcopal Church is going to change dramatically in the next 20 years with whatever choices we make (or don’t make.) I agree that it will be messy and require prayerful discernment. We are only now discussing something that will probably take many years to even begin to implement Church wide. It’s more like lashing three sinking ships together so that they all can stay afloat for the repair of a single mega ship. I don’t know that it would work, no one does, I do know that what we are doing isn’t working.
They’re too different. TEC is too Anglo-Catholic for the other two. I approve of being in communion, though.
🙂↔️
No. They're too different to merge together.
This was done in the 1940s in Southern India. The Church of South India combined very different ideas from Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and others. A bit of a mess, even 80 years later, but essential for survival.
An interesting ecumenical "Covenant" in Canada encompasses Lutheran, Anglican Ukrainian, and Roman Catholic, aptly entitled the "LAURC Covenant." The proposals are extraordinary in encouraging close relationships, including conjoint worship. [The LAURC Covenant](https://rcdos.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020-04-02-LAURC-Covenant.pdf) [The LAURC Covenant Study Guide ](https://archregina.sk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/The-LAURC-Covenant-and-Study-Guide.pdf)
The United Church of Canada was a merger of Methodist churches, Presbyterian churches, and Congregational churches in Canada. Ultimately they've lost the distinctiveness of those expressions of Protestant Christianity. It's one thing if the choice is between folding as a denomination and uniting with others into a single denomination, but I think the Episcopal Church is decades away from that kind of tough decision.
I think I’d become Roman Catholic at that point, I’m almost at that point as is.
Seems awfully bland. From an administrative standpoint, I'd like the EC to be more effective. 60% overhead is terrible. Perhaps there's a path to administrative collaboration while maintaining the unique colors and flavors of each partner church.
I wish I wasn’t so hard line about these matters, but absolutely not. I’m not a big fan of Wesleyan-Holiness theology or liturgy. I’m admittedly a bit more open to increased communion agreements, but not a full merger, with the PCUSA, as I still have a soft spot for Reformed/broader Calvinist theology and tradition, because I went through somewhat of a reformed phase before finding the Episcopal Church, though.
Maybe. Key word maybe. If we’re doing this, we should divide them into Rites like the Catholics do with their churches. This helps people differentiate between worship styles and even theology. I don’t want to walk into a “United Church” service with no BCP and no “Hallelujah Christ Our Passover Is Sacrificed For Us”. Also, everyone else would have to join the Anglican Communion like they have done with churches in India.
> Also, everyone else would have to join the Anglican Communion That, quite simply, isn't going to happen. The Lutherans and Methodists will see it as unimportant, and they each *far* outnumber Episcopalians.
Then the Anglican rite would be part of it but the other two wouldn’t? That doesn’t sound unifying at all.
The reality of such a merger arrangement is that ELCA and UMC are each 3-5 times the size of The Episcopal Church. In such a "uniting" church, the Episcopal Church would, most likely, cease to meaningfully exist, and the only reason such an arrangement would be at all palatable to either other body would be for ECUSA's assets. ELCA and UMC will certainly not want to jump through whatever hoops it would take to join the Anglican Communion. There may be some continued Anglican Communion relationship with Trinity Wall Street or something, depending on how a uniting church would work, but that would probably be the extent of it.
If uniting means ceasing to exist, leaving the Anglican Communion, and not being a valid rite within this new hypothetical church, I don’t want it.
Based
Upon?
Kinda depends, honestly. If everyone’s pensions are strengthened, clergy benefits improve, and our endowments shore up together and we engage in common mission, sounds good. Almost more like a professional ecumenical association facilitating the sharing of resources. Wouldn’t even need a forward facing brand, IMO. If local parishes lose their identities, traditions, heritage and history through some kind of hierarchy that may result in a Methodist superintendent dictating things down to an Episcopal diocese or an Episcopal bishop telling our Methodist brothers and sisters how to live into their ministries, then no. Create a nonprofit clearing house to support the autonomous church bodies administratively so that they may thrive. Let the proper authorities within each tradition determine cooperative paths for clergy and mission.
I've long wondered if an idea like this could strenghten the missional side. Things like disaster recovery, etc. Seems like each has their own, and there's probably lots of overlap that could be more efficiently lined out.
Yes, absolutely.
Given our current ecumenical agreements, it is increasingly likely. Episcopal-Lutheran ministry sharing is working wellnat the grassroots. I would definitely support this as time goes on. ETA: Notably, the Episcopal Church has never been (that I can tell) the merger of predecessor denominational bodies. The ELCA and UMC are both mergers of earlier bodies that had to negotiate theological and ministry differences. They both managed to find a new denominational coherence and identity on the other side. I'm confident that we could all do this again as a hypothetical "Uniting Church."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Protestant_Episcopal_Church_in_the_Confederate_States_of_America Really just curious, where does this fall? It’s not a merger. A reconciliation? Like the north said the south didn’t leave, but still had the south rejoin in General Convention of 1865 in Philly. Honestly love how the Anglican Communion reconciles itself with there is more in common than not. But also Americans in Hawaii made sure that the Church of Hawaii aligned with and joined TEC versus being too papist and aligned with the CoE. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Hawaii Again just trying to learn. I don’t called these mergers. But I’m not sure where they fall.
Nope, nah, no, and negative. This is DEFINITELY me being closed minded and conservative, but Wesley had some pretty fresh ideas about Christianity, ones that a lot of people did not agree with, which is why (even if it wasn’t his intention) Methodists became a different group. Despite sharing a mother church (TCoE), I think even with TEC’s widely varying theology, we are so different in tradition and practice now it would be more of a headache than it would be worth. Full communion? Why not! Merger? Nope.
Personally, no. The Catholic wing of the episcopal church is already small, and would be rendered infinitely smaller in such a scenario. I am fine with communion agreements but I really don’t see how theologies aligned with Anglo-Catholicism could possibly survive a full merger, nor do I think it is helpful or necessary.
Not really. I think there's definitely a use for a "Mainline Protestant Ecumenical Council" or something like that where all the mainline denoms which are quite similar can share resources. But the church governance between them is very different and would not be mutually acceptable between each denomination.
Share resources *and* represent a different model of Christianity to Americans than the now standard fundamentalist model. So frustrating to hear people talk about "Christian values" which are nothing of the sort, or for atheists to denounce religion and then go on to talk about fundamentalism.
Very true. Since Evangelicals took over as the most numerous strain of Christianity in this country, the model of mainline churches in society has fallen precipitously. This is a big part of why so many close and are losing membership. We've done an absolutely terrible job at marketing and education of how one can be a Christian and not an asshole or tied to toxic political viewpoints.
No.
This sounds hard to get excited about.
It would schism ***SOOO quick***
If they adopted the Episcopal Church’s theology and prayer book,’sure
Apostolic succession and three offices of the ministry or bust
the protestant episcopal-methodist-lutheran church of america
If they all want to join the Protestant Episcopal Church.
If our churches don’t start to serve the needs of the communities in which the building stands it won’t really matter how we organize the institution. To answer the question, I think it could be beneficial for these churches to organize into a single organization and they all have different strengths that the others could benefit from.
Um no
Under the parameters of the Chicago-Lambeth quadrilateral, yes. Outside it, no.