From the Bishop of Down & Dromore
Sir, - May I be allowed to add some important information to
your report (News, 20
June) of the recent installation of the President of the
Methodist Church in Ireland?
The report mentions that the two Archbishops and I participated
in the installation ceremony. This is true. Our particular role,
however, is not mentioned. The three Church of Ireland bishops were
invited to be involved in the laying on of hands, during the prayer
of consecration when the new President was consecrated as an
"episcopal minister". This development came after many years of the
Irish Covenant between the Methodist Church in Ireland and the
Church of Ireland. The Covenant was signed in 2002.
As we have progressed in our relationship together, we have
recognised that there is "sufficient consonance" in our
understanding of personal episcope to move forward in this
way. The development has been received well by IASCUFO (the Inter
Anglican Standing Commission on Unity and Mission) and also by
AMICUM (the Anglican-Methodist Commission on Unity in Mission), of
which I was co-chair, and which is finalising its report at the
moment.
The next stage is for the President of the Methodist Church in
Ireland and/or former Presidents to participate in the laying on of
hands when a new Bishop of Limerick is elected and consecrated,
probably later this year.
At that point, interchangeability of ministries comes into
place.
HAROLD MILLER
The See House
32 Knockdene Park South
Belfast BT5 7AB
From the Revd Matthew Duckett
Sir, - I appreciate the Revd Will Adams's careful exposition of
the "bold and generous" steps proposed by the Anglican-Methodist
Covenant's Joint Implementation Commission (Comment, 27 June), but
feel that he passes too lightly over their controversial
nature.
The recognition that currently exists between our two Churches
does not mean that they are the same, or have an equivalent
ministry, otherwise we would not need a covenant to work towards
visible unity.
Anyone looking seriously at the Methodist Church could hardly
doubt that the Holy Spirit equips Methodist ministers for their
ministry. But this ministry nevertheless derives from the Methodist
Conference, which adopted the practice of ordaining ministers only
in 1836, more than 40 years after its separation from the Church of
England.
To this day, it is still the Conference that ordains. Perforce,
the Methodist Church has developed a theology of ministry very
different from that of historic Catholic Churches. Given this, it
is not surprising that many in the Methodist Church see no need to
adopt the historic episcopate, and resist the proposal that they
should.
For Anglicans, the historic episcopate should be about more than
"valid orders". It is a sign of the continuity of the Church, a
community of eucharistic communities spread through time and space,
but united by that sign with the first eucharistic community of the
upper room.
The visible historic nature of the Church is a first-order issue
in ecclesiology, and one of the great dividing lines of the
Reformation. The Catholic view appeals to the New Testament: the
incarnation is visible and historic, and the Church is always the
"body", not the "spirit", of Christ. In Acts, the Church, after the
ascension, is seen taking the place of Jesus as the visible
proclamation of the Kingdom in the world. There is no local church
in the New Testament which was not superintended either by the
Apostles themselves or by others they had appointed.
Of course, the inward grace can exist without the outward sign,
but, if the Church is in its essence a visible body, then the
visible sign of the historic episcopate belongs to its fullness as
much as wheat bread and grape wine (also historic and visible)
belong to the eucharist.
The Church of England, in her formularies and in her praxis in
receiving ministers from other Churches, has always maintained that
historic episcopal ordination must be supplied where it is lacking.
But a visible sign can be received only by actually being received,
and not by some wishful thinking that it had really been invisibly
present all along without anyone noticing until now.
The proposal of the JIC for interchangeability of ministry
without supplying episcopal ordination, like the arrangement
recently entered into in Ireland, would have the effect of setting
aside the Catholic understanding of the Church as a visible body,
and would cause great difficulty to those for whom this is a core
issue.
To suspend belief for a "period of anomaly", which would in
effect be for a lifetime, would be no different from ceasing to
believe. It is the task of the JIC to propose ways forward, but it
is equally the responsibility of both our Churches to be entirely
clear and truthful about what we hold as core convictions.
MATTHEW DUCKETT
Little Ilford Rectory
124 Church Road
London E12 6HA