Interchangeability of Ministry is a fascinating problem because it is almost invisible. Let us say we have a Single Congregation Local Ecumenical Partnership between the Church of England and the Methodist Church. A Methodist Minister regularly presides over Communion in the Parish Church, with the permission of the Bishop and using the Church of England rites. Nevertheless this service is Methodist and not Church of England. Similarly a Church of England Minister's communion services are Anglican, whatever the venue and rites.
Most people when they hear this find it difficult to understand what is happening. What difference does it make? Both churches recognise each other's communion as valid, so what exactly is the problem?
In practice, the problems are few and far between. If a Methodist Minister has pastoral charge of a Single Congregation Partnership, which is the only Anglican Church in the Parish, there is a technical need for an Anglican Communion service to be available to the Parish a few times a year, eg at Christmas, Maundy Thursday, Easter Sunday, Ascension Day and so on. A resolution to General Synod from Ely Diocese a few years ago was supposed to resolve this matter but seems to be bogged down in legal matters and I'm not sure where it has got to.
More generally, it means that Methodist Ministers are not technically able to take pastoral charge of a parish church. Once this barrier is removed, the major obstacle to full visible unity will be out of the way. This would not mean the two churches would necessarily become one church but they would be able to act as if they are one church.
The two main issues to be resolved is that the Methodist Church would need to have Bishops and the Church of England would need to accept women Bishops.
The former matter is non-negotiable from the Church of England's perspective. For them personal episcope, exercised through Bishops is an essential way of ensuring accountability of the ministry. It seems the fear is that small Protestant congregations are in danger of being led by unaccountable charismatic leaders, who at worst might exploit their followers in various ways.
Some Methodists point out this function is carried out by Methodist Conference. It is they argue difficult to see what Bishops would bring to a system which works perfectly well as it is. No-one is saying communion or baptism is somehow invalidated by not having Bishops, so why do we need them? This is a difficult question to answer.
Women Bishops are non-negotiable from the Methodist perspective. The Methodist Church has had women ministers since the seventies and male deacons since the eighties. It is unthinkable, should the Methodist Church ever have Bishops, that all would be male. If the aim of Methodist Bishops is unity with the Church of England, it would be hard to see the point should the Church of England be unable to recognise some Methodist Bishops. Furthermore, Methodists fear, with interchangeability of ministers, women Methodist Ministers would be unwelcome in parishes that reject women priests.
I recently described the reasons for the divisions between the Catholics and Protestants over communion. The sharing of communion between Catholics and Protestants is forbidden. Much the same reasons, the question of authority, prevents an exchange of ministries between Protestant denominations.
Comments