Moving Forward in Covenant

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday I posted about the main proposals in the Joint Implementation Commission 2 (JIC2) report, Moving Forward in Covenant.  In this post I will review the remaining material in the report, to be debated at Methodist Conference 2011. 

Part 1 of the report reviews the history of the covenant and then, in paragraphs 17 - 30, summarises some of the developments over the first couple of years of JIC2.  One of the major developments has been  the inclusion of Welsh and Scottish Methodists, as well as representatives from the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, on JIC2.  This section also covers the development of relations between all these churches and the United Reformed Church (para 21).

These paragraphs go on to mention other examples of collaboration, for example:

• Church leaders have addressed General Synod and Methodist Conference (para 22)
• Collaboration between the Church of England's Mission and Public Affairs Division and the Joint Public Issues Team (23)
• A joint working party addressing the ecclesiological implications of emerging expressions of church (24)
• Increased collaboration about schools, further, higher and adult education (25)
• Increased collaboration over local partnership through the joint Methodist Anglican Panel for Unity and Mission (MAPUM) (27)
• Collaboration over safeguarding (28)
• Joint training of local preachers and readers (29)
• Working together in ministerial training (30)

A major development has been joint work on the diaconate. This included a major consultation from 21 - 23 April 2010. There is a full report from the consultation available for those who are interested.

The remainder of the report is devoted to what JIC2 describes as 'causes for concern'.  These include 'patchy' implementation and the reasons for this are elaborated in paragraph 34.  The reasons relate to oversight (episcope), episcopacy, as well as restructuring and budgetary retrenchment in both churches.  Also, as mission has become the overall priority, 'the necessary link between unity and mission ... needs to be grasped afresh'.

The report reviews progress with the move towards women bishops in the Church of England and towards the historic episcopate in the Methodist Church.  Both moves are essential for interchangeability of ministry and have been slower than originally anticipated.  The report reviews progress with both these and concludes, in paragraph 52, that 'while the Church of England's process regarding female bishops continues and while there is no clear outcome within the Methodist Church with regard to episcopacy, there is inevitably a sense of hiatus in the structural implementation of the covenant.'

Related articles

• A Major Development in Shared Ministry (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Methodist Responses to Embracing the Covenant (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Methodist Anglican Panel for Unity in Mission, April 2011 (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Methodist Conference 2011 (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Ministerial Oversight with Other Denominations (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Archbishop of Canterbury at Methodist Conference 3 (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

Unity in Oversight

At a recent meeting of National Ecumenical Officers, a number of theological issues engaging ecumenical conversations were highlighted.  In this and two further posts I will outline these issues.  These are currently live issues, which means they have not been resolved.  So, any comments you make will be passed to relevant people for their consideration.

The issue of shared episcope has been on everyone's agendas for many years.  The Anglican Roman Catholic conversations (ARCIC) have come up with the term 'unity in oversight' which at least dispenses with the Greek!  Oversight is the term used by the churches to describe how authority is exercised within the traditions.  So, in episcopal churches, oversight is exercised through the Bishops, whilst in connexional churches it is exercised through Conference (illustrated).

If accountability is one end of a spectrum; is the other end complete independence? There is a need to identify the different points on the spectrum of the ways in which churches relate to each other.

So, what do we mean by 'unity in oversight'?  Basically, it is concerned with common decision making that remains true to faith in the current age.  This applies equally to churches with a strong liturgical tradition and those with a mission agenda.

In formal bilateral and multilateral conversations, difficulties are often encountered because those involved are shaky about how decisions are made in their own traditions.  Sometimes, where issues such as sexuality challenge internal cohesion, further difficulties are experienced between traditions.  Where there are tensions within a particular tradition, it can become difficult to address matters to do with the historic episcope (where the authority of Bishops is traced back to the original apostles) because there is no agreed framework on which discussions can be based.

Some people have suggested a change of emphasis from the idea of 'full visible unity' to 'full visible communion'.  This is a change from organisational to organic unity. Problems are encountered when these are confused.

It would be good to hear your views on unity in oversight, particularly where it impacts upon relationships between local churches. 

Related articles

• Ministerial Oversight with Other Denominations (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Archbishop of Canterbury at Methodist Conference 3 (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Ecumenical Identity (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)

Women Bishops and the Methodist Church

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Ken Howcroft, Ecumenical Officer to the Methodist Church, has written this exclusive response to the Church of England General Synod's recent decision about women bishops. 

I have been reflecting about the further steps taken in the General Synod this week towards the ordination of women bishops. The Methodist Church has long seen it as important that the leadership and oversight of the Church is enriched by the ministry of women as well as that of men in all parts of the Church’s life and therefore in all forms and aspects of ministry, lay or ordained. The ministry of women is part of Christ’s gift to the Church and, through the Church, to the world. The controlling scripture is “in Christ there is no male or female” [Galatians 3:28]. Even those British Methodists who do not like the idea of having bishops are likely to think that a Church which does have them should allow women to exercise the role as well as men. So Methodists are likely to rejoice at the progress being made.



At the same time it is agonising to watch and stand alongside Anglican sisters and brothers as they struggle to find ways of remaining together in unity when matters of deep conviction divide them. We are in covenant with all parties to this debate, even those with whom we profoundly disagree or who profoundly disagree with us. The matter raises important questions of how Christians can live together with contradictory convictions and continue to worship and participate in mission with each other. That really tests our praying for Christian unity. It is, of course, also a phenomenon we have to face within our own Church as well as between Churches.


We can understand the concern which appears to be reflected in the Synod’s votes on various proposals and amendments that if women are appointed as bishops, their authority should not be undermined by alternative arrangements being put in place. But at the same time that very emphasis re-enforces the idea that the diocese is the primary manifestation of the local church. This is increasingly said to us by Anglicans. The weight of Anglican understanding about the Church is on the diocese and the local parish. For Methodists it is the local church for worship and fellowship, but it is the connexion and the circuit in so far as the provision of ministry and resources for mission are concerned. Moreover as a gathered church we do not have the same relationship to territorial jurisdiction. So although we do not approve of the reasons why some alternative patterns of oversight were being canvassed in the Church of England, those actual models might provide a way in which Methodist can mesh more fully with traditional Anglican structures.


Finally, now that the Church of England is on the move about women bishops, there may be pressure on Methodists to consider accepting the historic episcopate. These were not “tit for tat” demands on each other in the lead up to the Covenant, but people have often acted and talked as if they were. But that is another story!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Joint Implementation Commission Update (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Archbishop of Canterbury at Methodist Conference 2 (ecumenicalissues.blogspot.com)
• Church of England takes a step toward women bishops (cnn.com)
• Archbishop warns against delay over women bishops (guardian.co.uk)