The Anglican Methodist Covenant was signed on 1 November 2003. The photo is from the signing ceremony. The Covenant commits both churches (the Church of England and the Methodist Church of Great Britain) to a closer working relationship. It is an example of bilateral ecumenism and so I intend to write a a few posts about it as a case study of ecumenism in England. As most of the outstanding issues that separate the two churches relate to communion, one way or another, it seems appropriate to discuss the Covenant here.
In considering the Covenant it is important not to rush to sweeping conclusions. Over five years on, it is tempting to say progress has been slow and the anticipated merger hasn't happened. It is equally easy to say the whole enterprise has been a waste of time and so dismiss it out of hand.
These views are not terribly helpful because they are based upon a misunderstanding of what the Covenant is. It is not a stepping stone to full visible unity. To see it in this way devalues the Covenant, which is a relationship in its own right.
The Covenant is a relationship both churches have made with each other under God. The primary relationship is with God and is not to be devalued by possible future changes.
As I understand it the Covenant was requested by local churches who were finding their relationships in parishes and circuits made difficult by the incompatibility of the ecclesiologies of the two churches. The Covenant should be seen therefore as a commitment on both parts to make every effort at all levels to simplify local relationships. This commitment does not require changes in legislation in either church although it is not unreasonable to expect such changes in time.
The Covenant is a present and living relationship, it has its own integrity and should be a reality in every Circuit and Parish. Views as to whether or not the two churches might at some stage become one church should not be allowed to prevent closer working relationships. Such views can only undermine the Covenant for no practical purpose. If there is a time when the two churches become one church, it may be the end of the Covenant because there will no longer be a need for a relationship between two churches.
So, the outstanding issues should not in my view be seen as barriers to full visible unity but as barriers to the practical mission of the two churches as local churches.
There are many such outstanding issues, and they are covered in the three reports produced by the Joint Implementation Commission during the last 5 years. For my present purposes, I will be taking a closer look at three issues that relate to Holy Communion.
Comments