Authorisation of Ministers of Other Churches

Image by clevercupcakes via Flickr

Yesterday, I introduced the supplementary ecumenical report, presented to Methodist Conference on 7 July 2011.  Then I focused upon the legislation to amend Standing Orders to enable ecumenical partnerships in extended areas.

The supplementary report also included legislation to enable sharing of ministry with ministers of other traditions.  Resolution 60A/4 reads:

The Conference adopts the recommendations in paragraphs 13-16 of the Supplementary Ecumenical Report and directs the Methodist Council, in consultation with the Faith and Order Committee, to undertake further work to clarify, develop and open up new ways in which people exercising authorised ministry in a Church with which the Methodist Church has a close partnership, where that Church-to-Church partnership is embodied in local partnerships, can be automatically granted recognition and authorisation to serve in and on behalf of the Methodist Church.

The paragraphs alluded to in the resolution, read as follows:

13. The Deed of Union and Standing Orders currently provide for those ordained in other Churches to be recognised and regarded as admitted into full connexion with the Conference, or authorised to serve the Methodist Church as a presbyter or deacon, or granted the status of associate presbyter or deacon.

14. Paragraphs 92-96 of the report Moving Forward in Covenant make suggestions of ways in which those provisions could be further clarified and developed so that where the Conference is in a close partnership with the equivalent authorities of another Church, and that partnership is then embodied in some local expression of it, such as a Covenanted Partnership in an Extended Area or a United Area of the Methodist and United reformed Churches, presbyters and deacons of the other Church should automatically be granted an appropriate status and authorisation without the need for the detailed vetting of individual applications by a number of different bodies.

15. It is also proposed that it be made possible for those granted the status of associate presbyter and deacon to be authorised to serve as Associate Superintendents or Chairs of District. As Associate Superintendents and Associate Chairs they would not have responsibility for or control over Methodist resources or governance bodies, which would remain autonomous. However they would be able to co-discern, co-decide and co-deploy the resources of their own Church and cofulfil their own responsibilities together with the Methodist Superintendent and Chair.

16. The Methodist Council concluded that, if viable, such developments would be of benefit in many ecumenical situations. It has therefore recommended that the Conference commission the necessary explorations of the issues with a view to any resulting proposals being brought to a future Conference.

Related articles

• A Major Development in Shared Ministry (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Methodist URC Liaison, July 2011 (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Ecumenical Conference Report on the Methodist Church in Scotland (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Methodist Conference 2011 (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Wales Ecumenical Report to Methodist Conference (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Moving Forward in Covenant (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Ministerial Oversight with Other Denominations (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• New President and Vice-President on Ecumenism (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Contemporary Methodism: a discipleship movement shaped for mission (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

Ecumenical Report at Methodist Conference 2011

Image via Wikipedia

I have in earlier posts (starting here) covered the main ecumenical report to Conference.  Conference considered this report and a supplementary report at the debate on Thursday 7 July (this link includes a video of the debate).

The supplementary report addresses further issues around the interim report of JIC2, and some of the original resolutions in the main report have been amended or added to.


So, Conference approved a new resolution 60A/2 (replacing Resolution 60/3):

The Conference receives the Interim Report of the Joint Implementation Commission entitled “Moving Forward in Covenant”, commends it for study and directs the Faith and Order Committee and the Methodist Council to consider the issues raised in it.

This is followed by a resolution to amend Standing Orders to enable ecumenical partnerships in extended areas.  I won't copy those here as they are fairly repetitive - they're at the end of the report if you want to check them out.  I reproduce here those parts of the supplementary report that provide the rationale for the amended Standing Orders:

8. Some circuits and districts have already sought to create local expressions of the Covenant with the Church of England or establish other partnerships with partner Churches in their area. It is interesting to note that, as indicated in Moving Forward in Covenant, such a step is already being sought by the relevant authorities of the Church of England, the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church in the geographic area of Cumbria.

9. The Methodist Church is engaged in a growing number of different types of ecumenical partnership in the various parts of the Connexion with a variety of other Churches. Some rough categories for those partnerships can be defined as follows:
(a) Church to Church (i.e. denominational) partnerships;
(b) district-wide or other regional embodiments of (a);
(c) other district-wide or regional partnerships;
(d) circuit-wide or other partnerships involving a number of local Methodist churches;
(e) formal Local Ecumenical Partnerships [of which there are a number of sub-types, and which normally have detailed constitutions].

10. In each case it is important to establish who in the Methodist Church needs to know about the partnership; who needs to approve the form of the partnership; and who in the Methodist Church in Britain is committed to what in the partnership. This has not always proved easy. There are varying levels of authority or permission for the different types of partnership in the foundational documents of the Church, Standing Orders, and Resolutions of the Conference. Irrespective of whether regulation of them is a good thing or bad thing, there are varying levels of regulation.  There are varying levels of connectedness [i.e. “connexion”] between the varying partnerships; and it is not always completely clear who in the Methodist Church in Britain is committed to what within them.

11. It is important that (without becoming over-regulatory or too bureaucratic) clarity is sought about these matters as steps are taken to implement the Ecumenical Vision Statement adopted by the Conference of 2009, with its encouragement to live in and develop ecumenical partnerships. It is also important to ensure that any such partnerships are not suffocated by additional bureaucracy, whilst at the same time ensuring that they are ‘connexional’ in the sense of being coherent across the whole of the Connexion. At the moment, Standing Orders only provide for local ecumenical partnerships (LEPs) and require that each of them has a full-blown constitution that is vetted and approved at both district and connexional levels of the Church [eg Standing Orders 334, 412 and 434]. The underlying model seems to be that of a single congregation LEP, which by its very nature requires a formal and detailed constitution.

12. The Methodist Council has therefore recommended that some minor amendments need to be made to Standing Orders to enable extended covenanted partnerships or other types of partnership over extended areas to be formed to facilitate the sharing of mission and ministry without the need for additional constitutions or extended vetting procedures. A resolution to this effect is set out below.

Related articles

• Wales Ecumenical Report to Methodist Conference (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Ecumenical Conference Report on the Methodist Church in Scotland (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Methodist Conference 2011 (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• A Major Development in Shared Ministry (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Moving Forward in Covenant (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

A Major Development in Shared Ministry

Perhaps the most significant ecumenical initiative at this year's Methodist Conference is to be found in part 2 of the JIC2 report Moving Forward in Covenant.  In this post I will outline the proposals.  If this interests you I strongly recommend you read the report to get the full picture.

The resolution 60/03 Conference will be asked to consider is as follows:
The Conference receives the Interim Report of the Joint Implementation Commission entitled “Moving Forward in Covenant”.

This means the necessary legislation, mentioned in the report, will take place at a future Conference, presumably after members of the Methodist Church have had time to reflect on the proposals.

There are two main proposals in the report at paragraphs 61 and 65.  They read as follows:

A Covenant Partnership in an Extended Area would be made by the bishop of the diocese and the appropriate authority of the Methodist Church, establishing a local ecumenical partnership within the whole, or part of the area of the diocese and the appropriate Methodist circuits (and the district(s) of which they are part). This would enable the bishop to authorise shared ministry within the provisions of Canon B 44.4. In Methodist terms, it would also allow for shared ministry, by identifying the places where Anglican priests and deacons can be appointed by the Conference to serve the Methodist Church as associate presbyters or deacons under Standing Order 733A.

Approval has also been given to standardised procedures and proformas for Church of England parishes and Methodist churches to establish local covenant partnerships within the provisions of Canon B 44. The bishop can take the initiative and approve the use of these standardised procedures in his diocese, and encourage parishes to take up the initiative locally.

The section on covenanted partnerships in extended areas describes how the provisions of Canon B44 can be extended to cover whole dioceses or parts of dioceses.  This is coupled with the Methodist Church extending its provisions for associate ministers to allow appropriately qualified people to become associate Superintendents or Chairs of Districts.

Whilst this would not result in interchangeability of ministry, it would significantly simplify the co-ordination of shared ministry across a large area.  There would be no need, for example, for every Anglican priest assigned to work with Methodists to apply for associate minister status.  The extended area arrangement would be an agreement between churches and so the role of ministers assigned by either denomination to the extended area would automatically be recognised.

In this post I've tried to summarise the main points in the proposal.  I will follow this proposal over the current months, highlighting developments as they happen.  This will be a highly significant development and comments with your thoughts would be welcome and helpful.  There are likely to be questions and issues specific to certain areas and I would be happy to respond to them.

Related articles

• Methodist Conference 2011 (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Methodist Anglican Panel for Unity in Mission, April 2011 (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Methodist Responses to Embracing the Covenant (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• A Glimpse into the Future (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Ministerial Oversight with Other Denominations (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

Interchangeability of Ministry

Image via Wikipedia

The third theological question raised at a recent meeting of National Ecumenical Officers is: where may interchangeability of ministers be found?

There is a distinction between shared ministry and interchangeability of ministry.  Shared ministry is where one tradition helps out another, but the original tradition still has pastoral responsibility.  With interchangeability, the traditions would be able to collaborate over the deployment of ministers.

Theoretically there is interchangeability between the Methodist, United Reformed and Baptists churches.  All the primary issues have been addressed and agreed but in practice it doesn't happen because secondary criteria make sure it doesn't.

It seems that as first order questions are addressed, the second order questions become first order.  Interchangeability, even in the world Methodist communion, tends to be blocked by erection other criteria.

So, what do we mean by interchangeability?

Please comment on this issue, as it is currently under discussion and your views might swing the balance!  All comments will be passed to relevant people and views from a local perspective are particularly welcome.

Related articles

• Ministerial Oversight with Other Denominations (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)