Revised Post: Pastoral Letter To The Methodist People - and on more timely responding...

Following the recent controversy over the address by the President and Vice-President of Conference to the Church of England’s General Synod (covered here on this blog and in numerous other places), a pastoral letter has today been issued to the Methodist people by the President, Vice-President and Secretary of Conference to clarify the position. I am pasting it below. It will be in the Methodist Recorder this Thursday, and copies will be read out or given to congregations this Sunday. Comments, as usual, are welcome.

via bigcircumstance.com

I think David Faulkner was the first to blog on this letter.  [In fact, I didn't get a copy until I went into the office today and asked for one...other ministers, officers and so on were sent one by email yesterday.  Just one of those accidental coincidental ironic things.  I am not getting paranoid - what was that? what did you say?]  

It's a good letter with some punch to it.  It outlines the key reasons for making the statement at the end of the Presidential Address:

We were gently but urgently asking the General Synod whether the Church of England was prepared to make the same commitment and allow itself to be transformed for the sake of the Gospel...

Interesting - and a reminder that this point was picked up on by The Church Mouse at the time.

Up to date, there has been no official response from the Church of England. I suppose everyone is waiting, with bated breath, to hear what the Archbishop of Canterbury will say when he comes to the Methodist Conference.

Well, I suppose there has been an unofficial response in the exchange about Colin Buchanan's challenge to the continuation of the Covenant in the Church Times (End this gutless enterprise) and the co-chairs of the Joint Implementation Commission decided to make a swift and immediate response.  (Thanks to the amazing Dave Walker for enabling the links to these two pieces).  Colin Buchanan's impatience is heart felt and it is met with a rather muted response.  Chris Coxsworth and Peter Howdle respond by pointing to the invisible unity which prophetic voices like Colin Buchanan and Leslie Griffiths find so frustratingly slow.  However, there was a new point - the creative use of Canon B44 which won't mean much to Methodists but basically, as it says here, allows for area-wide local ecumenical partnerships:

One way in which the Covenant is being cashed in locally is through local covenant partnerships. Canon B44 enables parishes to enter into a covenant partnership with Methodist (or other) local churches and to experience an advanced form of shared ministry and mission. The JIC believes that there is huge untapped potential here.

WHEN the President and Vice-President of the Methodist Confer ence addressed the Synod last week, they drew on a background of Methodist experience and thinking that the desire to glorify God and to carry out God’s will is paramount. The demands of mission and the Kingdom must take pre­cedence over all else, including, if necessary our cherished institutions and structures. We must be willing to be transformed as we respond to the gospel of grace. That applies to both our Churches. When two parties form a good relationship, both are enriched and both are changed.

They ended by challenging both Churches to continue to live up to the commitments they have made. In both, there is a new missionary urgency and much imaginative thinking about the shape of the Church: the Covenant is precisely on this wavelength. We should act as one in every possible way until, by God’s grace, we are one.

But I was pondering over how we ('they'?) decide what to respond to?  

To the Presidential address there is no response.  JIC don't feel it necessary to issue a response and the Church of England don't seem to be about to make any response - and I think it would be too late now in any case. [So, no surprise, when I was in Church House yesterday, I did ask a couple of people, just in passing and without quoting or identifying them, about whether a response was on its way and there was a genuine feeling that no response was needed. End of story.]  

I don't agree with Colin Buchanan's argument but he makes a similar point in his 'tirade':

I was struck in Christian Unity Week last year that the Archbishop of Canterbury, when writing to commend the various ecumenical dialogues and agreements of the past two decades, emphasised how vital bilateral agreements could be. Yet he failed to mention this near-at-home bilateral Covenant.

It was not that it was unknown or unwelcome to him — no, it was simply below the threshold of visibility. It has caused no ripples whatsoever. Yet the Commission sits for an other five years, till 20 years will have passed, and no one will have found anything to oppose. And that meaningful word “Covenant” has been cheapened almost beyond recovery.

But then when the moment comes and a leader makes a big statement - we are met by a seemingly deafening silence - or polite acceptance - or comments about coming back into the fold.  Silence speaks volumes.  But I also note what the pastoral letter says about such an end...and I applaud the words but I do hope it doesn't get to this...

So what happens if other churches are not prepared to be changed in order to become more effective in mission with us?  Rather than being groups of Methodist people in a new and wider church, we shall continue as a Methodist people in a separate Methodist Church faithfully trusting in God's continuing leading of us...But even as a separate church we shall have to continue with our commitment to co-operate with others in mission wherever possible and to whatever extent it is possible.

Good words but I feel a little saddened to think we might have just missed the boat a little.  Can we redeem the opportunity or not?  Probably too late and we need to wait for the next boat to arrive.  And so we wait for some more timely responding...

Pete

p.s. Ian commented on my facebook account:

I find your blog entry so true and so sad. Our new vicar, coming into a situation where we have a local covenant, says openly that his dream is for the ecumenical youth service, that happens in a non-denominational youth centre, to come happen in the parish church, and while he respects the local covenant, (and is in most ways a really lovely colleague) he sees that we have a 'problem', as he sees himself as deputed by his bishop to grow the Anglican church, and assumes am expected by Methodism to grow the Methodist church.  I have to challenge him on this, and David's speech gives me the ammunition to do it, putting the kingdom first, but I am not sure of his response

Comments

[Bigcircumstance]

Pete,

Thanks for this. I've updated my post (to which you kindly link above) to include a reference to this post and raise the question about whether this means that once again it's Methodism making all the running.