Methodists and the Episcopal Willy Wonka

The public announcement of the new proposed Full-Communion agreement between the Episcopal Church and the United Methodist Church was officially released yesterday, and the response on social media has been… interesting.

As a person who has been working for years inside the faith and order side of ecumenism for the Episcopal Church, it has been painful to see some of the old bugaboos of classism that is a hallmark of the Episcopal Church come to the surface. In addition, there has been some unwitting or sometimes apparently willful ignorance about both historic Episcopal and Methodist theology. I thought I might be able to get to the bottom of some of this by having a conversation with that most mercurial of fictional Episcopalians, Willy Wonka.

Willy, thank you for joining me today. I was actually not aware you are an Episcopalian!

Well, of COURSE I’m an Episcopalian! I’m privileged and I live in a dream world of my imagination, served by an entire set of people I have “saved.” What did you think I was, a Presbyterian?

Ok, Good Point.. and here I was thinking Saruman was the most prominent fictional Episcopalian… Anyhow, So I understand you have some concerns about the full-communion agreement with the Methodists.

YES! Many virulent, fantabulous ones! I HAZ FEELZ! First of all, I don’t like the whole idea of merger with another church! I’m an Episcopalian for a reason! It’s the only way I can maintain the ecclesiastical fantasy world that parallels the one in my factory.

This is a full-communion agreement, not a merger. It enables shared ministry by allowing clergy of one denomination to serve in the other without re-ordination. It does not propose sustantive changes in liturgy, practice or governance (Other than mutual particpation in ordinations)for either church.

But I don’t want to be forced to have a Methodist clergy person serving in my factory! They might baptize the Ooompa Loompas and then they’d get uppity.

This agreement would ENABLE shared ministry, not require it. Any Episcopal or Methodist bishop gets to vet any clergy person from the other denomination before they could serve in their jurisdiction, just as they do currently.

But Methodist clergy are not REAL clergy. I mean, they haven’t been ordained with the Marvelous Magic Hands our bishops have from the Succession Apostolik that goes back to Jesus!

There are three terms that often get confused in Ecumenical discussions. The first is Apostolic Tradition. To quote Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (Issued 1982, officially received by the Episcopal Church at General Convention 1985) from the World Council of Churches,

In the Creed, the Church confesses itself to be apostolic. The Church lives in continuity with the apostles and their proclamation. The same Lord who sent the apostles continues to be present in the Church. The Spirit keeps the Church in the apostolic tradition until the fulfilment of history in the Kingdom of God. Apostolic tradition in the Church means continuity in the permanent characteristics of the Church of the apostles: witness to the apostolic faith, proclamation and fresh interpretation of the Gospel, celebration of baptism and the eucharist, the transmission of ministerial responsibilities, communion in prayer, love, joy and suffering, service to the sick and the needy, unity among the local churches and sharing the gifts which the Lord has given to each. (p. 34)

The second is Apostolic Succession,

The primary manifestation of apostolic succession is to be found in the apostolic tradition of the Church as a whole. The succession is an expression of the permanence and, therefore, of the continuity of Christ’s own mission in which the Church participates. Within the Church the ordained ministry has a particular task of preserving and actualizing the apostolic faith. The orderly transmission of the ordained ministry is therefore a powerful expression of the continuity of the Church throughout history; it also underlines the calling of the ordained minister as guardian of the faith. Where churches see little importance in orderly transmission, they should ask themselves whether they have not to change their conception of continuity in the apostolic tradition. On the other hand, where the ordained ministry does not adequately serve the proclamation of the apostolic faith, churches must ask themselves whether their ministerial structures are not in need of reform. (p. 35)

The third is the Historic Episcopate, which is often what Episcopalians mean when they use either of the above terms. This is the process of a bishop being ordained by the laying of of hands of three other bishops who were themselves ordained in the historic episcopate. Some still claim, as you appear to Willy, that this succession is unbroken back to the apostles and Jesus. Few historians accept this as plausible. It is at best a pious legend. Ironically, Anglicans put far more emphasis on this than the Roman Catholics or Orthodox, whom would never rest their claims for apostolicity purely on serial ordination.

In churches which practise the succession through the episcopate, it is increasingly recognized that a continuity in apostolic faith, worship and mission has been preserved in churches which have not retained the form of historic episcopate. This recognition finds additional support in the fact that the reality and function of the episcopal ministry have been preserved in many of these churches, with or without the title “bishop”. Ordination, for example, is always done in them by persons in whom the Church recognizes the authority to transmit the ministerial commission. (p. 37)

The historic episcopate IS a powerful sign of the passing down of the Apostolic Succession in a tangible, material way. BUT, it is important not to mistake the sign for the thing signified. Flipping it on its head so that the apostolic succession is predicated on the continuity of the historic episcopate alone is theologically perilous due to the wide gaps in our knowledge of serial succession. It is also such a functionalist definition that it threatens to curtail the role of the Holy Spirit within the life of the church. Many Methodists welcome the symbol the historic episcopate (as our church has received it) provides, as long as we accept the apostolicity of their current bishops and elders with their own consistent succession. We cannot maintain the position that Methodist orders are invalid due to lack of historical pedigree without calling our own orders into question.

OK, Whatever. I like my definition best, no matter what history says. But can I once again say how much I am against this fiendish merger?

Um, once again, it’s not a merger. Why do people not get this? I can’t even… OK. Let’s try another tack.

We’ve been in full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) for over fifteen years now through the agreement Called to Common Mission (CCM). There are many places in which CCM has led to some really great ministry. Some new church plants have been created together. In small towns, unsustainable separate congregations have been able to be served by one minister. Campus ministries have been able to be started or sustained in cooperation. In my diocese, we’ve been able to use some really great Lutheran clergy as supply or interim and vise versa. But for the vast proportion of churches, both Episcopal and ELCA, you don’t see “Blended” worship or changed polity. That’s not what a full-communion agreement is about.

In addition, for those who still cling to a strict, functionalist view of apostolic succession, this creates a situation of temporarily suspending requirements for the long-term health of the institution. Since the ordination of ELCA bishops now requires the presence of bishops in the serial historic episcopate (From us, or from baltic Lutherans who never got rid of theirs, or from the Moravians) all ELCA pastors who are ordained now share in the symbol of that historic succession. Within a generation, that whole argument will be functionally over. Should the agreement pass, the same will happen with the Methodists. The argument will be over without either view having “won.”

But what about the grape juice? As a professional confectioner, I simply cannot abide this lesser vessel for Jesus!

OK. Let’s stop for a moment here and talk about history. This difference between wine and grape juice has NOTHING to do with theology, and has everything to do with history.

We and the UMC are siblings. We are BOTH descendants of the Church of England (CofE) as it existed in the colonial period. Before the revolution, American Methodist societies were still considered part of the Anglican establishment. It was not always an easy co-existence, but John Wesley (Who was a CofE Priest) encouraged Methodists to still be a part of their CofE Parish.

When the revolution came, it was not clear to anyone that the former CofE would survive in ANY form. John Wesley commissioned superintendents (who were later called bishops in America) to keep the Methodist societies operating in America. (Note that this was not an unusual arrangement for oversight in Colonial American Anglicanism. Since America had no bishops, Commissioners, who were priests, exercised authority on behalf of the Bishop of London.) Over 50% of CofE churches closed during the war and over 50% of CofE priests fled to Canada. When the war was over, the remainder struggled to organize, considering several different models. William White, who would later become one of our first three bishops, even suggested that ordination of priests by other priests might be considered for an interim solution, which is functionally the same solution John Wesley instituted. Meanwhile, the Methodist structure, which was less mauled by the revolution, began to flourish and expand in mission. Thus, we are actually both equal descendants of the colonial CofE.

The grape juice thing is another piece of history that has nothing to do with theology. In the early 1800s, most Americans drank a lot of small beer and wine. Technological advances in distilling in the late 1800s replaced much of this consumption with gin, which led to social changes that alarmed the country. Temperance was a large pan-protestant movement, and it included almost all protestant denominations EXCEPT for us and the Lutherans. At the same time, pasteurization of grape juice became possible, so temperance and preservation technology combined to make most protestant denominations switch to non-alcoholic grape juice.

There is NO DIFFERENCE as an issue of Anglican sacramental theology between grape juice and wine. They are both fruit of the grape. As Episcopalians, it is hard for us to say that Jesus CANNOT be present in grape juice. Methodists have never said Jesus cannot be present in wine. We can debate the merits of using one or the other, but those are matters of discipline, not of doctrine. Since this is a full-communion agreement AND NOT A MERGER, Episcopal Churches would continue to follow their discipline and use wine, while Methodist churches would continue to use grape juice. Occasional combined celebrations would offer both, as they currently do under the Interim Eucharistic Sharing Agreement.

But Methodists don’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They are naughty.

That is an incorrect myth. Methodists inherit their Eucharistic theology from the CofE just like us. Episcopal theology has changed over the last 100 years to make our theology more “catholic.” (Although often in bizarrely inconsistent ways) Just ask Bl. James DeKoven who was denied episcopacy on the basis of upholding an “advanced” doctrine of Real Presence. Official UMC Eucharistic doctrine has its roots in that of the CofE at the time of the revolution. This Holy Mystery, A document passed by the UMC in 2004 states:

“United Methodists, along with other Christian traditions, have tried to provide clear and faithful interpretations of Christ’s presence in the Holy Meal. Our tradition asserts the real, personal, living presence of Jesus Christ. For United Methodists, the Lord’s Supper is anchored in the life of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but is not primarily a remembrance or memorial. We do not embrace the medieval doctrine of transubstantiation, though we do believe that the elements are essential tangible means through which God works. We understand the divine presence in temporal and relational terms. In the Holy Meal of the church, the past, present, and future of the living Christ come together by the power of the Holy Spirit so that we may receive and embody Jesus Christ as God’s saving gift for the whole world.”

That is at least as high a view of Real Presence as many Episcopalians hold today, and higher than the church has held in some regions and times in the past.

I went to a Methodist church once, and I didn’t like it, so this is a bad idea. <Takes out recorder and begins playing>

I wish I could document the number of times I’ve heard that about Episcopal Churches. One might argue that the BCP assures some level of quality, but that is sadly untrue. I spent one year worshipping in a Methodist church with weekly communion, great music, biblical preaching and consistent, good liturgy. I have been to Episcopal services that have made me cringe. A denominational stamp of any kind is no assurance of quality.

Isn’t this just really about the saucy problems with human sexuality the Methodists are having? Why don’t they just come back to us if they are unhappy?

No. This dialogue has been in process for fifty years. It is now just coming to fruition. Yes, the Methodists are facing their moment with human sexuality just like we did with the Righter Trial and the General Conventions of 2003 and 2015. But telling them to just give up their identity and “come back to us” (as if we are not equal siblings of the revolution) has roots in the biggest thing that divides us — our historic class division. (Side notes: Both denominations have had and continue to have problems with racism, so I am not going to touch that here. Likewise, while TEC has certainly made what I consider progress on LGBTQ issues, we still have eight dioceses who do not allow clergy in same-sex marriages to serve, while there are many LGBTQ clergy in the UMC who serve under very difficult circumstances. We don’t have a “higher ground” to stand on regarding this.)

Vance Packard, in his 1959 book “The Status Seekers” notes that Americans then were much more likely to attend churches that corresponded to their social class than with any sort of doctrinal focus in mind. At the top of the heap were Episcopalians, who were the church of the ruling class. The often-repeated fact that 11 of our presidents have been Episcopalian while we represent less than 1% of the population is but one indicator of that historic truth.

Packard notes that “Methodism probably comes closer to being the choice of the average American than any other.” While these class distinctions have started to erode since 1959, they still exist. In the church I was baptized in during the 1980s, we would pull our 10 year old Honda Civic into a parking lot filled with newish BMWs, Jaguars and Cadillacs. As Episcopalians, we don’t need to be ashamed of this. It’s simply our history. But we do need to be sensitive to it. Any call for Methodists to “Come home” not only has the doctrinal and historical overtones of say, Roman Catholics calling for US to “Come home,” but plays itself out in felt but often subconscious reverberations of American class and status.

All of our major “differences” with the Methodists are non-theological, but have to do with history, class, and custom. None of these should preclude a full-communion agreement which relies on our essential unity in Jesus Christ.

I hear you, but I am still against this merger! I am off to work on my gobstoppers, and then to solemn benediction, which has ALWAYS been an essential part of Episcopal worship.

IT’S NOT A MERGE… Oh never mind….

The Rev. David Simmons, ObJN was raised a “None,” became a Christian in the Episcopal Church in the 1980s, and is a priest in the Diocese of Milwaukee and a self-identified Anglo-Catholic. He is national president of Episcopal Diocesan Ecumenical and Interreligious Officers (EDEIO) and despite his Gen-X snark, loves the Episcopal Church, Solemn Benediction and Everlasting Gobstoppers.

Note: Since the publication of this post, Tom Ferguson (aka the Crusty Old Dean) has published a blog post of his own. Tom has been on the Episcopal/UMC dialogue for over ten years and was one of the primary drafters of the agreement as well as the theological document that underpins it.