Exploring Ecumenism

Anglican Methodist Covenant 3: The Common Cup

I do not find Chapter 5 of In the Spirit of the Covenant terribly helpful.  This first report of the Joint Implementation Commission for the Anglican Methodist Covenant, includes the chapter 'The Bread and Wine of Holy Communion'. In it, from section 5.4.12, the question of the use of the common cup in communion is raised.

As far as I can remember, the first trays of small communion cups were imported from the United States during the first decade of the twentieth century.  Today the overwhelming majority of Methodist churches use them. As the report says, the reason is probably non-alcoholic communion wine, introduced around the turn of the century and fears of contacting some infection without the sterilizing effect of alcohol.  It appears such an infection from a single common cup is remote, at least it was in 2005.  Perhaps swine flu has raised the question again.

Anglican Methodist Covenant 2: Interchangeability of Ministry

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.

Anglican Methodist Covenant: Outstanding Issues

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.

On the Nature of Covenant

In yesterday's post I referred to covenant as a type of mutual support.  Today I want to develop this further.  What I will say also links to an earlier post where I referred, towards the end, to the mutuality implicitly in the commandment to love your neighbour as you love yourself.

The word 'covenant' is often encountered in ecumenical practice although it is perhaps the Anglican Methodist Covenant that has recently increased interest in the idea.  But it is not, despite the annual Methodist Covenant Service, the sole preserve of these two traditions.  Local Ecumenical Partnerships, in Britain, where several local churches agree to work together without becoming a single congregation are sometimes referred to as 'covenanted partnerships'.  A good introduction to covenant in the Bible and in Christian History can be found in the first chapter of the first interim report of the Anglican Methodist Covenant's Joint Implementation Commission, 'In the Spirit of the Covenant'.

The bilateral talks between the Church of England and the Methodist Church were almost over when the decision was taken to call the agreement a covenant.  The first interim report opens up the idea to a degree and I want to open it up a little further.

My first observation is that it is easy to see the covenant as a step on the way to visible unity.  Whilst this may be a helpful idea it seems to me that it has a weakness because it implies that if visible unity is not achieved, then the covenant is a failure.  A covenant is a binding agreement, it means that despite set-backs neither party to the covenant can leave it.  It is a commitment to a long term relationship which might result in visible unity but could easily result in something different.

I like to visualise the covenant as a landscape, where there are things to explore, things to try and perhaps commitments to take up jointly.  Seen this way it is hard to see why it has to be bilateral but it does mean the 2 traditions can explore the meaning of covenant together in the company of other traditions.  As all learn together maybe a wider multilateral covenant will in time be possible.

My second point is that covenant implies a mutual relationship.  Mutuality is a difficult concept for modern western people .  The motivation for mutuality is neither selfishness nor altruism, but self-interest.  It is the understanding that when I love another, not only do they benefit but so do I.  This may seem to be calculating but it is not.  It is the ethics of the poor or disadvantaged.  I can survive only where I share with others like me.  We are interdependent.  We must trust each other because without trust we cannot share.  If I have food today and share it, I trust that on the day I have no food, someone else will share theirs with me. 

This type of ethic underlies all communities, where there is genuine sharing.  And of course where there is relative wealth it becomes less important.  Furthermore where there are major differences in wealth there cannot be this type of mutual support.

Some might see this type of arrangement between churches as a sign of weakness.  Of course it is, but at the same time it is a sign of strength.  To stand alone as a tradition might be a sign of strength but could equally be a spiritual malaise showing dependence upon material success rather than upon God through the love of other people.