In our recent discussion about the sacramental authority of licensed local pastors, Tony Mitchell brought up one of the touted drawbacks of licensed local pastors serving the sacraments: that this practice is foreign to the Episcopal Church USA, and therefore prevents a full merger between the UMC and the ECUSA. Tony writes:
The issue of whether or not local pastors can offer communion is not one of theology but rather one of merger. My reading of the report on the ordained ministry (which I wrote about in "The Future of the Methodist Church")is that the church wants only elders to be able to "do" the sacraments so that merger talks with the Episcopal church may proceed.
Well, I suppose. But despite the historical roots of the UMC and ECUSA and how good it is to build Christian unity whenever possible, I'm not sure that this is a profitable direction for the Kingdom. I mean, the ECUSA is hemorrhaging in membership (even boasting of it), undergoing schism, is separated from the Anglican Communion, and has violated all of Christian history and practice by electing a homosexual bishop. Do we want to make major changes in our polity to satisfy our brothers and sisters in the ECUSA?
Why would we want to chain ourselves to a ship that may not make it back into port?
Surely revival should be a far more critical concern for both the UMC and the ECUSA than re-arranging our deck chairs.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I would think that, perhaps, we are more talking about a full communion relationship with ECUSA, rather than an actual merger
My understanding is like Wesley's, that we are seeking to enter into a full communion relationship, not just with the ECUSA but with some others as well.
The following statement:
"My reading of the report on the ordained ministry (which I wrote about in 'The Future of the Methodist Church')is that the church wants only elders to be able to "do" the sacraments so that merger talks with the Episcopal church may proceed."
Does not, at least to me, in any way suggest that Tony was talking about a "full communion relationship", but rather a business deal. I find it strange that I see that and John saw it, but no one else does....that has mentioned it.
PAX
JD
JD,
If the issue is Tony is talking about merger between UMC and ECUSA, then yes, he is. However, my reading of the Study of Ministry Commission report never once talks of merger with anyone.
Question 47 (of the report) mentions the "mutual recognition of ministries among communions and traditions with whom United Methodism is in dialog." It is my understanding (and the report language appears to support me) that the dialog that we are having, not just with ECUSA, but with ELCA and others is dealing with mutual recognition of our ordination and other purposes.
I'm not aware of any talks of "merger" between the two churches but there have been ongoing discussions of "full communion" for quite some time. I believe that's what the ministry study document is referring to.
I would not be in favor of such a merger either. It seems to me that the larger issue for the ECUSA would be apostolic succession.
TN Rambler, I have not read the report. I really am going on the above statement regarding a merger. As a Christian, we should all be uncomfortable of the whole process of "full communion" in the sense that, Christ wants for His church to be united and having rules, regulations and otherewise that limit "membership" to varying denominations is really bad for the overall church. Can't we just all get along and follow Christ? :-)
PAX
JD
Not that it would be any great loss to the UMC, but if we merged with the ECUSA on Monday, I would turn in my credentials on Tuesday.
S'okay, Dale. I'll apply for your job on Wednesday ;)
I don't see any evidence of a merger, either. Only efforts at full communion, which is quite different.
Post a Comment