✝

ATheologicalFoundationforFullCommunionbetweenTheEpiscopalChurchandTheUnitedMethodistChurch

TheEpiscopal­UnitedMethodistDialogueTeamadopted16April2010

✝ATheologicalFoundationforFullCommunion

betweenTheEpiscopalChurchandTheUnitedMethodistChurch

Copyright©2010,TheEpiscopal‐UnitedMethodistDialogueTeamAllRightsReservedWorldwide

ThisworkislicensedundertheCreativeCommonsAttribution‐NoDerivativeWorks3.0UnportedLicense.Toviewacopyofthislicense,visit

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐nd/3.0/

orsendalettertoCreativeCommons,171SecondStreet,Suite300,SanFrancisco,California,94105,USA.

TheabovereferencedlicenseprovidesthatthisdistributionofATheologicalFoundationforFullCommunionbetweenTheEpiscopalChurchandTheUnitedMethodistChurchmaybecopiedfreelysolongasitiscopiedunaltered,withallcopyright,title,andauthorstatementsintact.

AllScripturecitationsarefromNewRevisedStandardVersionBible,copyright©1989,theDivisionofChristianEducationoftheNationalCounciloftheChurchesofChristintheUnitedStatesofAmerica.

✝

PREFATORYNOTE

Thefollowingdocument,ATheologicalFoundationforFullCommunionbetweenThe EpiscopalChurch and The United MethodistChurch, wasadoptedbytheEpiscopal‐UnitedMethodistDialogueTeamonFriday,April 16, 2010. As noted in thetext of thedocument, the documentspeaksonlyforourcurrentEpiscopal‐UnitedMethodistdialogueteamatthispoint,but it iscommendedtoourchurches forstudyanddis‐cussion. This is a preliminary printingofthedocument, butthe textthatfollows is thetextasadoptedbytheDialogueTeam. Amorefor‐malprintingwillfollowandwillbeavailablebothasahardcopybookandalsofordownload.

ThemembershipoftheEpiscopal‐UnitedMethodistDialogueTeamatthetimewhenthestatementwasadoptedisasfollows.

TheEpiscopalChurch:

TheRt.Rev.FrankBrookhart,co­chairTheRev.Dr.PaulaBarkerTheVeryRev.DavidBirdTheRev.TheodoraBrooksTheRt.Rev.PhilipDuncanMs.JanetFarmerTheRev.Dr.ThomasFerguson,staffDr.BruceMullinDr.PatriciaPage

TheUnitedMethodistChurch:

BishopWilliamOden,co­chairBishopGregoryPalmer,co­chairTheRev.Dr.TedA.CampbellTheRev.ElizabethGamble,staffTheRev.EricaR.JenkinsTheRev.Dr.DiedraKriewaldTheRev.Dr.RussellE.RicheyTheRev.JeannieTreviño‐Teddlie

TheDialogueTeamhasalsoincludedthefollowingpersonsatvariouspointsintheperiodbetween2002and2010andweweacknowledgewithgratitude theircontributions to this report: the Rev. Lois Boxill(Episcopal), the Rt. Rev. Christopher Epting (Episcopal, interim co‐chair), theRt. Rev. JohnLipscomb(Episcopal, former co‐chair), Dea‐conSunnyLopez(Episcopal),theRev.Dr.EphraimRadner(Episcopal),theRev.TreyHall(UMC), theRev. Dr. DouglasMills (UMCstaff), andBishopFritzMutti (interimrepresentativeof UMCGeneral Commis‐siononChristianUnityandInterreligiousConcerns).

4

✝

TABLEOFCONTENTS

PrefatoryNote ......................................................................................................................................... 3Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 71.OurCommonRootsandTrajectories ................................................................................ 112.OurCommonAfOirmationoftheGospelandtheChristianFaith ....................... 133.IssuesPerceivedasSeparatingOurChurches .............................................................. 17Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 43

✝

INTRODUCTION

InaccordwithourLord'sprayerthatallofhisfollowersshouldbeone(St. John17:20‐21a), and in accordwith themandatefrom our twoecclesiasticalbodies, theEpiscopal‐UnitedMethodistdialoguehassetfullcommunionasthegoalforourfuturerelationship.Inthiscase,fullcommunionisunderstoodasarelationshipbetween two distinctec‐clesiastical bodies inwhich eachmaintains its ownautonomywhilerecognizingthecatholicityandapostolicityoftheother,andbelievingtheother to holdthe essentialsof the Christian faith. Insucha rela‐tionship, communicant members of each would be able freely tocommunicateatthealtaroftheother,andordainedministersmayof‐diciatesacramentally ineitherchurch. Specidically,thisincludestrans‐ferability ofmembers, mutual recognition and interchangeability ofministries,mutualenrichmentbyoneanother’straditionsofhymnodyandpatternsofliturgy, freedomtoparticipateineachother'sordina‐tions andinstallationsofclergy, includingbishops, andstructures forconsultationtoexpress, strengthen,andenableourcommonlife,wit‐ness,andservice,tothegloryofGodandthesalvationoftheworld.1

Thepresent statementspeaksonly for our currentEpiscopal‐UnitedMethodistDialogueTeam.Ithasnotyetbeenapprovedbychurchbod‐iesbutissubmittedfortheconsiderationofourchurchesandothers.Thisisadocumentedtheological statement thatbuildsuponourear‐lier studyguideMake UsOne in Christ.Butalthoughthis redlects theconsensusofourgroupofUnitedMethodist andEpiscopalmembers,wehavemetonthreeoccasionswithleadersoftheAfricanMethodistEpiscopal Church, theAfricanMethodistEpiscopal ZionChurch, andtheChristianMethodist Episcopal Church andwe are committed tothegoal of including their churches in our dialogue and in possibleagreements for full communion. We have also consulted with ourcounterpartsintheBritishAnglican‐Methodistdialogues,andwehavekeptabreastofdevelopmentsinChurchesUnitinginChrist(CUIC)andintwoconcurrentsetsofbilateraldialogues:onebetweenTheUnitedMethodist Church and the Evangelical LutheranChurch in America,andtheotherbetweenTheEpiscopal Churchandthe two provincialsynodsinNorthAmericaoftheMoravianChurch.

1 Make Us One With Christ, the study guide produced by The Episcopal-United Methodist Dialogue Team, re-leased in 2006, 16. See also ¶ 2 of Called to Common Mission (which established full communion between the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and The Episcopal Church) and ¶ 3 of Finding Our Delight in the Lord (the proposal for full communion between The Episcopal Church and the Moravian Church).

Thefollowingaspects ofthis relationship thatwe seek deserve spe‐cidicemphasis:

• This proposal isnot aproposal for amergerofourtwo com‐munions. Eachwill retain its autonomy, and its currentstruc‐tures, precedents, andpractices, exceptatvery specidicpointsnoted in this report where, for the sake of unity inmission,specidic practicesmay be altered on the part of one or bothchurches.

• Theproposal is groundedinthefactthatAnglicansandMeth‐odists, andspecidically thepredecessor churchesofTheEpis‐copal Church andTheUnitedMethodist Church, have not, aschurches, calledintoquestionthefaith, theministerialorders,or thesacramentsoftheotherchurch.Webelievethatwecanmove forwardonthebasisof thegrace‐givengift thatwearenotworkingfromapointofdisunity that involvedany formalor corporateanathemasorexcommunicationsorother formalassertions or declarations of disunity. Our two communionshavealreadydeclaredpublicly,aschurches, thatwerecognizeeach other as part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolicchurchinwhichtheGospel isrightlypreached.2Wecomenowto dindways to make explicit andconcrete our unity in faith,sacraments,andministries.

Our quest for full communion isgroundedinourcalling to missiontoday,andwerecognize thatourcurrentstateofvisibledivision is ahindrancetoourmission.Bothofourchurches’governingdocumentstrytodedinethemissionoftheChurchincarryingoutGod’smission.TheEpiscopalChurchstates:

ThemissionoftheChurchistorestoreallpeopletounitywithGodandeachotherinChrist.3

Similarly,TheUnitedMethodistChurchafdirms:

ThemissionoftheChurchis tomakedisciplesof JesusChristforthetransformationoftheworld.4

8

2 See Resolution A055 of the 2006 General Convention and Resolution 81456-IC-NonDis of the 2008 United Methodist General Conference.

3 Book of Common Prayer of The Episcopal Church (1979), 855.

4 Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church (Nashville: United Methodist Publishing House, 2008), ¶ 120, p. 87.

We believe that our work towards full communion represents thepracticallivingintoourconsistentprayersforunity.ThisgoalofunityisstatedasapetitionintheEucharistic liturgiesofourchurches.TheEpiscopalChurchprays:

Let thegraceofthis HolyCommunionmakeus onebody,onespirit inChrist, that wemay worthily serve the world in hisname.5

Similarly,TheUnitedMethodistChurchprays:

By your Spiritmake us onewithChrist, onewitheachother,andoneinministrytoalltheworld...6

Theformofvisibleunityenvisionedhereisaconcreteexpressionoftheunitywehavelongsought;indeed, theunityforwhichChristhim‐selfprayed,

I ask not only onbehalfof these, but also onbehalf of thosewhowillbelieveinmethroughtheirword,thattheymayallbeone(St.John17:20‐21a).

A similar vision of unity is part of the description of the gatheredcommunityofChristiansintheNewTestament:

ThereisonebodyandoneSpirit, justasyouwerecalledtotheonehopeofyourcalling, oneLord,onefaith, onebaptism,oneGodandFatherofall,whoisaboveallandthroughallandinall(Ephesians4:4‐6).

A signidicant part of thework in this dialoguehas beento considerspecidic instances of ecumenical work inmission: for example howUnitedMethodists andEpiscopalians work together ina single con‐gregationinBuenaVista,Colorado,andhowAnglicansandMethodistswork together inalocal ecumenicalpartnershipinEast Barnet, Lon‐don.

9

5 Book of Common Prayer (1979), liturgy for Holy Communion, 372. The Prayers of the People in the Book of Common Prayer also have specific prayers for Christian unity (Book of Common Prayer [1979], 387, 388 390, 392) as well as assigned readings and prayers on Christian unity for the celebration of the Eucharist (Book of Common Prayer [1979], 255, 929).

6 United Methodist liturgy for Word and Table I and II in The United Methodist Hymnal: Book of United Method-ist Worship (Nashville: United Methodist Publishing House, 1989; hereafter cited as “United Methodist Hymnal (1989)”), 10 and 14. The United Methodist Hymnal (1989) also includes prayers for Christian unity: see items 556, and 564.

Thequestforvisibleunity isgrounded,moreover,inearlierecumeni‐calworkonthepartofbothofourchurches.Bothofourchurchespar‐ticipated intheprocess ofdevelopingtheWorldCouncil ofChurchesFaithandOrderconsensusdocumententitledBaptism, EucharistandMinistry,7 bothofourchurches formallyreceivedthisdocument, andtheecumenicalconsensusexpressedherebuildsontheconsensusex‐pressed inBaptism, Eucharist andMinistry. Since thattime,bothTheEpiscopalChurchandTheUnitedMethodistChurchhaveenteredintosimilar full communion agreements with the Evangelical LutheranChurchinAmerica, andthe formofvisibleunityenvisionedhereex‐tendstheseearlierecumenicalagreements.8

Thework of theUnitedMethodist–Episcopal dialoguehas also builton earlier Anglican‐Methodist discussions. In England during the1960smembers of the BritishMethodist Church and the ChurchofEngland (albeit unsuccessfully) considered proposals for merger ofthe two traditions. As part of these dialogues, essential doctrinalagreementwas reachedbetween Anglicans andMethodists, as boththeChurchofEnglandandChurchofIrelanddeclaredtheyneeded“nofurtherdoctrinal assurances”fromtheMethodists,andsimilaragree‐ment was stated in the International Anglican‐Methodist dialogue’sstatement,Sharingin theApostolic Communion.9 IntheUnitedStates,theMethodist‐Episcopaldialogueinthe1950swascurtailedas bothTheUnitedMethodistChurchandTheEpiscopalChurchwerecommit‐tedtomultilateraldialogueintheConsultationonChurchUnion.Par‐tiallyasaresultofthesuccessoftheAnglicanMethodistInternationalDialogueinthe1990s, abilateraldialoguebetweenthetwochurchesbegan to meet in 2002. Part of thework of the dialogue group hasbeentoconsultwithBritishcounterpartsconcerningthestatusofthecovenant relationshipbetweentheMethodistChurchofGreatBritainandtheChurchofEngland.

10

7 Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry, produced by the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches in 1982 and formally adopted and received by The United Methodist Church and The Episcopal Church.

8 Called to Common Mission established full communion between The Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lu-theran Church in America in 2001. Confessing our Faith Together established full communion between the ELCA and The United Methodist Church in 2009.

9 See Sharing in the Apostolic Communion, the theological statement issued by the International Anglican-Methodist Dialogue, particularly ¶ 15-17.

✝

1.OURCOMMONROOTSANDTRAJECTORIES

TheEpiscopalChurchandTheUnitedMethodistChurchshareacom‐monheritage inthebroadtraditionofEnglishChristianityaswellastheeighteenth‐centuryChurchofEngland, among other sourcesandindluences. Inthelateeighteenthcentury, aftertheAmericanRevolu‐tion, threegroupsofAnglicansinNorthAmerica10feltitnecessarytoadapthistoric Anglicanpolityandworshipinorder to face thechal‐lengesofmissionandministryintheNorthAmericancontext.Twoofthesegroupscametogetherto formtheProtestantEpiscopalChurch,nowalsoknownasTheEpiscopalChurch;theothergroupformedtheMethodist Episcopal Church, a principal predecessor church of TheUnitedMethodistChurch.BothofthesechurcheswereforcedtoadaptAnglicanpolity inordertofacethechallengesofmissionintheNorthAmerican context. The resulting churches shared much in common,includingsimilarliturgiesandepiscopallystructuredformsofchurchpolity.

From thebeginning, eachofthesegroups includedAfrican‐Americanas well as Euro‐American constituents. United Methodismbrings tothedialoguewithTheEpiscopalChurchthewitnessfromandmemoryof its roots also intheUnitedBrethreninChrist andtheEvangelicalAssociation. Leaders in these two pietist movements shared muchwithMethodismbutcame to faithasmembersofReformed(WilliamOtterbein),Mennonite(MartinBoehm)andLutheran(JacobAlbright)communities. These two episcopally ordered churches, the UnitedBrethrenandEvangelicals,unitedin1946.The1968conjoiningoftheEvangelicalUnitedBrethrenandMethodist churches into TheUnitedMethodist Church effected something ofanecumenical statement initself,aconvergence,symbolicallyatleast,ofthefourmajorProtestantReformations (Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, and Anabaptist). It isour belief that our predecessors in all of these churches would bepleasedwith our movement towards restoredvisible unity betweentheirheirs,andweenvisionaformofunityinwhichwebringourec‐clesialancestorswithusintorestoredunity.

Althoughthisreportfocusesonthemostcriticaltheologicalandprac‐ticalissuesthatwehavefacedinourquest forvisibleunity,manyof

10 A group of Anglicans predominantly in the middle colonies took steps towards forming a church in 1785 and 1786. At the same time a group of Anglicans in Connecticut had elected Samuel Seabury as their bishop to seek consecration in England. In addition, there were the Anglicans who were members of the Methodist societies. See also the discussion of these groups in Robert W. Prichard, A History of The Episcopal Church (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Morehouse, 1999), 111-114.

thefactorsthathavedividedusinthepasthavebeennon‐theologicalmatters. AmericanH. RichardNiebuhr famously wrote of the socialsourcesofdenominationalism,andwehaveseeninthedevelopmentsofourtwochurcheshowthedynamicsdescribedbyNiebuhr11causedEpiscopaliansandMethodistto livealmostparallelandseparateexis‐tences.Niebuhr’sworkarguedthatclass,nationality,region,language,and race were dedining aspects in the sources of divisions withinAmerican Christianity, which in turn hindered the witness of thechurches:“DenominationalismintheChristianChurchisanacknowl‐edged hypocrisy. It is a compromise made far too lightly, betweenChristianity and the world… It represents the accommodation ofChristianitytothecaste‐systemofhumansociety.”12

We have come to recognize especially that racial divisions have af‐fectedourchurchcommunitiesindifferingways.InitiallytheMethod‐istEpiscopalChurchinvolvedAfricanAmericansasmembersandop‐posedslaveholding.YetmanyMethodistdivisionshavehadlittletodowiththeologicalissuesorissuesofchurchpractices,andeverythingtodowithissues ofattitudes towardsslavery, withskincolorandwithenduring racial prejudice. Similarly, while The Episcopal Church onthe national level never had legislated segregation, through variousothermeans(suchasthesuffraganbishopcanonandseparateconvo‐cations of predominantly African American congregations) estab‐lished de facto segregation on the diocesan level.13 The EpiscopalChurchhasalsoformallyapologizedforitsowninvolvementinslaveryandracialinjustice,andestablishedprocesses forofferingrepentanceforitsactions.14

TheUnitedMethodistChurch's2000GeneralConferenceheldaserv‐iceofrepentanceforracistactsandattitudesinthepastthatthathadledtotheseparateexistenceofhistoricallyblackMethodistdenomina‐tions. Moreover, the UMC followed this servicewith specidic acts ofreconciliation, inclosecooperationwithleaders intheAfricanMeth‐odist Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal Zion, and ChristianMethodistEpiscopalChurches.Intheyear2004, theUMGeneralCon‐ference held a service of thanksgiving to celebrate those African‐Americanpersonswho hadremained inthe predecessor denomina‐tionsoftheUMC.

12

11 As expressed in H. Richard Niebuhr’s classic work, The Social Sources of Denominationalism (originally pub-lished in 1929; New York: World Publishing, 1972).

12 Niebuhr, Social Sources of Denominationalism, 6.

13 See subsection 3.9 below on “Experiences of Race/Racism in the Histories of our Churches.”

14 Resolution A123 from the 2006 General Convention.

✝

2.OURCOMMONAFFIRMATIONOFTHEGOSPELANDTHECHRISTIANFAITH

Theunityweseekisaunitygroundedincommonmissionandcom‐monafdirmation—asafoundationforall thatfollows—oftheoneap‐ostolicGospel,thechurches'faith

thatChristdiedforoursinsinaccordancewiththescriptures,andthathewasburied,andthathewasraisedonthethirddayinaccordancewiththescriptures(ICorinthian15:3b‐4).

Thisisthefaithexpressedinourhistoriccreeds,includingtheancientWesternbaptismalcreedthatwecommonly call theApostles’Creedandthe fourth‐century creedassociatedwith the councils ofNicaeaandConstantinople.

Thismovementtowards theologicalconsensushas beentheworkofoverfortyyearsoflabor.ItinvolvescontributionsachievedduringtheBritishMethodistandChurchofEnglanddiscussionsofthe1960sand1970s, the shared response of Anglicans and Methodists to suchdocumentsasBaptism, Eucharist andMinistry, ourcommonafdirma‐tion of elements (though not the entirety) of The COCU Consensus,(whichexpandedonthesectiononministryfromBaptism,Eucharistand Ministry) and the international Anglican/Methodist agreement,SharingintheApostolicCommunion(1996).

Signidicantly,SharingintheApostolicCommunion identidiesacommoninheritance of Christian faith between Methodist and Anglicanchurchesinthisway:

The followingcanbeafdirmedas central… doctrines thatweshareincommon:webelieveinGodtheeternalandundividedTrinity,Father,SonandHolySpirit;intheworkofGodasCrea‐tor ofall that is; inthe savingwork ofourLordJesus Christ,true God and truly human; in the sanctifying and liberatingworkoftheHolySpirit.Werecognisethefallennessofhuman‐kindandtheneedforredemption.Webelieveinthesufdiciencyof Christ's redemptive work; justidication by grace throughfaith; theChurchas thebodyofChrist; thesacramentsofbap‐

tism and the Lord's supper as instituted by Christ; the dinaljudgement;andthehopeofeternallifeinGod'sKingdom.15

AfOirmations

BothTheUnitedMethodist ChurchandTheEpiscopal Churchafdirmcommondoctrinesandpracticesonthebasisofourauthoritativehis‐toricdocumentsandformularies:

OurchurchesproclaimJesusChristasLordandSavior.

OurchurchesworshiponeGodasthedivineTrinityofFa­ther,Son,andHolySpirit,andwebaptizethosewhoenterthe Christian community in the name of the Father,Son,andHolySpirit.

OurchurchesafOirmtheHolyScripturesas“containingallthingsnecessaryforsalvation,”andastheprimaryruleforthelifeofthechurch.

Our churches afOirm and use the Nicene and Apostles’CreedsassufOicientsummariesoftheChristianfaith.

Our churches understand and practice the sacrament ofholybaptismasinitiationintothelifeofChristthroughtheChurch.

Our churches understand and practice the sacrament ofthe Eucharist (the Lord's Supper, Holy Communion) as ameansofdivinegracethatsustainsanddeepensourfaith.

Ourchurchescontinue toworshipinwaysthat reOlectourcommon liturgical and sacramental roots in our author­izedliturgies.

OurchurchesafOirm the roleofbishopsasleadersof thelife,work,andmissionof thechurch,assymbolsofunity,and as guiding and maintaining the church's apostolicfaithandwork.

OurchurchesafOirmthegiftsandministriesofallpersonsasgroundedinthegracegiveninbaptism.

Ourchurcheshaveworked in the last half century tore­storetheofOiceofdeaconasapermanentorderforservantministryinthelifeofthechurch.

14

15 Sharing in the Apostolic Communion ¶ 15.

Ourchurches afOirm the need forprayerand holinessofheartandlifeaswaysofgrowthintheChristianfaith.

Ourchurchespursue socialaction and justiceasinherentpracticesofChristiandiscipleship.

OurchurchesafOirmtheunityofthe churchasthewillofChristforthesakeofmission,serviceandevangelism.

Ourchurches afOirm that the scripturesare to be under­stoodtodayinthelightofreasonedreOlectiononourcon­temporaryexperience.

ThusTheEpiscopalChurchandTheUnitedMethodistChurchreceiveandcelebrate the Christian gospel as it has been transmitted to usthrough the sacredscriptures, theancient Christiancreeds, and thehistoric liturgies ofChristianchurches. Ourchurchesseekto liveoutthisancientfaithintoday'sworldaswesing,pray,andworkbydivinegraceforGod'skingdom.

15

✝

3.ISSUESPERCEIVEDASSEPARATINGOURCHURCHES

In addition to the convergences inour histories, our doctrines, andourconsistentpractices,therearesomeareasofchurchlifeandteach‐ingsthatare–aswellasothersthatmaybeperceivedas–churchdi‐vidingissues.Someoftheseissueshavetodowithsacramentaltheol‐ogy and practice, some have to do with issues of churchpolity, andothers have to do with our churches' responses to contemporarymoralorethicalissues.

3.1TheRelationshipbetweenBaptismandSalvation

Almost all Christian communities practice baptism as themeans bywhich persons are incorporated into the Christian community. TheEpiscopal Church and The United Methodist Church hold much incommon concerning our belief in andpractice of the sacrament ofbaptism:

• Our churches havesimilar baptismal servicesdrawnfromthe1662BookofCommonPrayer.

• Wehavebothbeenshapedbyparticipationintheliturgicalre‐newalmovementand its correspondingrecoveryofbaptismalecclesiologyandthecentralplaceofthebaptismalcovenant.

• OurchurchesafdirmandpracticethatbaptismrequirestheuseofwaterandtheTrinitarianformula(Matthew28:10);thatitisalso linkedtotheoverallprocessofChristianinitiation,includ‐inginstructioninthefaith(catechesis)andpersonalprofessionoffaith;andthededinitionofsacramentsbythebroaderChris‐tianchurchas“outwardandvisiblesignsofinwardandspiri‐tualgrace.”

• Our churches afdirmtogether that allministriesofthechurch,layandordained,aregroundedinbaptism.

• Ourchurchesafdirmthatbaptismisagraceandgiftreceivedbyfaith.

• Our churchesafdirm thatbaptismandthecovenantalrelation‐ship established through it is the doorway to the lifeof holi‐ness.

• Bothofourchurchesbaptizeinfantsaswellasadults.

• Our churches afdirm that holy baptism initiates women andmeninto theone, holy, catholic, andapostolic church. Thus, inbaptismwearealreadyunitedinChrist.

• Our churchesagree thatbaptismis not to be repeated. It is asignofourunityinChrist: “OneLord, onefaith, onebaptism”(Ephesians4:5).

TheIssues

Oneofthekeyissuesregardingbaptismhastodowiththerelation‐ship of baptism to our salvation in Jesus Christ. Historic Christianteaching—including that of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, andLutheran churches—maintained that baptism is the divinely ap‐pointedmeans bywhichhumanbeings arebornagaininChristandthrough which their sins are forgiven. Historically this has beenknown as baptismal regeneration. The Church of England and TheEpiscopalChurchfollowthislongstandingtradition.PreviouseditionsoftheserviceofbaptismintheBookofCommonPrayerhadthepriestsay,“Seeingnow,dearlybelovedbrethren,thatthisChildisregenerate,andgrafted into thebody ofChrist's Church, let us give thanks. . .”16Similarly the 1979 revisions speaks of being “reborn by the HolySpirit.”17

JohnWesleyfollowedthisAnglicanpatternofteachingaboutbaptism,especially as it wasappliedto infants. Thus,Wesley's account ofhisAldersgate‐Streetconversionexperiencebegins,

Ibelieve, till Iwasabout tenyearsold, Ihadnot sinnedawaythat“washingof theHolyGhost”whichwas givenme inbap‐tism…18

Consistentwiththis,Wesley'ssermonon"TheNewBirth"(publishedin 1760)cautions against the presumption that becauseone is bap‐tized onemust be currently in a state of regeneration. It acknowl‐edges, however, thatthegraceofregenerationdoesaccompanyinfantbaptism.19 Suchpassages aboutinfantregenerationareconsistent in

18

16 Book of Common Prayer (1928), 280.

17 Book of Common Prayer (1979), 306.

18 John Wesley, Journal for 1738:05:24, par. 1 (in W. Reginald Ward and Richard P. Heitzenrater, eds., Journal and Diaries [Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1988ff.], 1:242-243).

19 John Wesley, sermon on "The New Birth" IV:2 (in Albert C. Outler, ed., Sermons [Bicentennial Edition of the Works of John Wesley; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984-1987; 4 vols.], 2:197).

Wesley's writings, and a train of Wesley interpreters has acknowl‐edgedWesley'steachinginthisregard.20

However,inotherplaces,JohnWesleyspokeatlengthaboutregenera‐tion, scarcely mentioningbaptism. Forexample, his sermon on"TheGreatPrivilege ofThose thatareBorn ofGod"dedines regeneration,contrasts itwithjustidication, anddescribesitsrelationshiptosancti‐dication,with only thebarest mentionofthe sacrament of Christianinitiation.21 His sermonon"TheOriginal,Nature, Properties, andUseoftheLaw"makesthepointthattheseconduseoftheLawistobringbelieverstolifeinChrist(thelanguageisthesameasWesleyregularlyusestodescribethenewbirth),butdoesnotmentionbaptism.22Twoofhissermonsdescribethewayinwhichbelieverscanknowtheyareregenerate,bothbythetestimonyofGod'sSpiritandthetestimonyofhumanconscience, butonlyoneofthemmakes apassingmentionofbaptisminrelationtothenewbirth.Theprayerofferingthanksfortheworkofregenerationofaninfantinbaptism(citedabove)wasdeletedfromJohnWesley'seditionoftheBookofCommonPrayer,TheSundayServiceoftheMethodistsinNorthAmerica. Similarly,theword“regen‐eration”was omitted from the dirst drafts of the nascent AmericanEpiscopalChurch’sBookofCommonPrayerbeforebeingre‐insertedinthedinalversionapprovedin1789,andinthe1800swouldbecomeapointofcontroversybetweentheEvangelicalandHighChurchpartiesinthechurch.

Fromthenineteenthcentury,Methodist interpretersofChristianthe‐ologylaidgreatemphasisontheconversionexperienceasthenormalmeansofthenewbirthandregeneration,andtheytendedtoseebap‐tismasasignofdivinegracepreparingapersonforbeliefinChristbyincorporationintotheChristiancommunity.23

19

20 Cf. Colin Williams, John Wesley's Theology Today (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1960), 116-119; Kenneth J. Col-lins, The Scripture Way of Salvation: The Heart of John Wesley's Theology (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997), 126-127.

21 John Wesley, sermon "On the Great Privilege of Those that are Born of God" passim (in Outler, ed., Sermons, 1:431-443); Wesley mentions that the new birth is "not barely the being baptized" at I:1 (in Outler, ed., Sermons, 1:432).

22 John Wesley, sermon on "The Original, Nature, Properties and Use of the Law" IV:2 (in Outler, ed., Sermons, 2:16).

23 Richard Watson, Theological Institutes, IV:3 (ed. Thomas O. Summers; Nashville: Stevenson and Owen, 1857), 703-729; Thomas O. Summers, Systematic Theology (Nashville: Publishing House of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 1888) VII:V, 2:351-404; Miner Raymond, Systematic Theology (3 vols.; Cincinnati: Hitchcock and Walden, and New York: Phillips and Hunt, 1879), book VII, chs. IV-VI, 3:275-342; William Burt Pope, Compendium of Christian Theology, chapter on “The Church” (3 vols.; New York: Phillips and Hunt; Cincinnati: Walden and Stowe, 1881), 3:310-324; John Miley, Systematic Theology (2 vols.; New York: Hunt and Eaton, 1892-1894) V:[2]:9, 2:395-410.

AnadditionalissueforEpiscopaliansconcernsthewayinwhichcon‐dirmationrelates to baptism. Until 1967condirmation(or the desirefor condirmation)was the prerequisite for receiving communion inTheEpiscopal Church, andwas generally consideredto bewhen anindividual took herplace in thefull lifeof thechurch;popular textsoftenspokeof itasthe “ordination”ofthelaity.Withtherecoveryoftheplaceofbaptism as full inclusioninthelifeof thechurch, intheliturgicalrevisions leading to the1979BookofCommon Prayer Con‐dirmationhastakenonadifferentinterpretation.Condirmationisnowunderstoodtobethecontinuednurturingofthelifeoffaithinthebap‐tizedperson,butalsostill ispartoftheclassidicationofcategoriesofmembership.24

WaysForward

JustastheecumenicalandliturgicalmovementsindluencedMethodistviewsofHolyCommunioninthetwentiethcentury,sotheyhaveindlu‐encedMethodiststoreconsiderthesacramentofbaptism.Therevisedritual for baptism incorporated in The United Methodist Hymnal(1989)statesintheprefacetotheservice,

ThroughtheSacramentofBaptismweareinitiatedintoChrist'sholychurch.WeareincorporatedintoGod'smightyactsofsalvationandgivennewbirththroughwaterandtheSpirit.25

Althoughthismayappeartobeanunequivocalassertionofbaptismalregeneration, the framersof this statementmaintained that thesec‐ondsentencedoesnotimply thatregenerationcomesbywayofbap‐tismalone,but“throughwaterandtheSpirit”denotesthewholeworkofGodinbringingapersontoChristandintotheChristiancommunityof faith.26 The documentByWaterand the Spirit:AUnitedMethodistUnderstandingofBaptism(adoptedby the1996GeneralConference),redlectsontheissueoftherelationshipbetweenbaptismandsalvationinthisway,

Baptism is the sacramental sign of new life through and inChristby the power oftheHoly Spirit. Variously identidiedasregeneration, new birth, and being born again, this work of

20

24 See Book of Common Prayer (1979), 415-417. See also Title I, Canon 17, with the category of “confirmed com-municant.”

25 The United Methodist Hymnal (1989), 33.

26 The intent of the framers of this baptismal liturgy is documented in Ted A. Campbell, "Baptism and New Birth: Evangelical Theology and the United Methodist 'Baptismal Covenant I'" (Quarterly Review 10:3 [Fall 1990]: 34-45).

grace makes us into new spiritual creatures (2 Corinthians5:17).Wedie to our old naturewhichwas dominatedby sinandenterinto thevery life ofChristwho transformsus.Bap‐tismisthemeansofentryintonew lifeinChrist (John3:5;Ti‐tus3:5), but newbirthmay not always coincidewiththemo‐mentoftheadministrationofwaterorthe layingonofhands.Our awareness and acceptance of our redemption by Christand new life in him may vary throughout our lives. But, inwhateverwaytherealityofthenewbirthisexperienced,itcar‐riesoutthepromisesGodmadetousinourbaptism.27

TheEpiscopalChurchandTheUnitedMethodistChurchhaveplacedbaptismwithinthe overall context of theprocessofChristian initia‐tion, aprocess inwhichbaptism, traininginthe faith, personal com‐mitmenttoJesusChrist, andpublicprofessionofthefaithareallseenascritical elementsintheprocessbywhichwomenandmencometofaith in Christ and are incorporated into the Christian community.28Part of the call for The Episcopal Churchand TheUnitedMethodistChurchistocontinuetoliveseriouslyintothebaptismalcovenantasithasbeenrecoveredaspartoftheliturgicalrenewalmovement.

3.2ThePresenceofChristintheEucharist

Thecrisesof thelate eighteenthcentury that ledto the formationoftheProtestantEpiscopalChurchandtheMethodistEpiscopal Churchcenteredaroundtheneedforadministrationofthesacraments,espe‐cially theLord'sSupper, in theNorthAmericancontext after thede‐partureofasignidicantnumberofAnglicanpriestsduringtheAmeri‐canRevolution.Intheformativeperiodinthelateeighteenthcentury,bothchurchesutilizedEucharistic liturgies derivedfrom theBook ofCommonPrayerof1662andbothacceptedtheEucharisticteachingoftheAnglicantradition.

In the early nineteenth century, however, Eucharistic teachings andpractices between Episcopal and Methodist churches in the UnitedStatesbeganto diverge.TheEpiscopalChurchwas indluencedbytheOxfordorTractarianmovement (whichbegan in theChurchofEng‐landandhadbroadindluenceontheAnglicanworld),whichitselfre‐emphasizedAnglicanunderstandingsofthepresenceofChrist intheEucharist. This in turnwould eventually leadto changes inpracticeand liturgical ceremonial as part of this renewed emphasis. In thesameperiod,Methodistchurcheswereindluencedbyfrontierrevival‐

21

27 By Water and the Spirit: A United Methodist Understanding of Baptism (Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 1996), 15 under the heading “Baptism and New Life.”

28 See especially Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, paragraphs B8-9.

ismwhichtypicallyvaluedenthusiastic preachingandvividreligiousexperiences over traditional sacramental celebration. At the sametimethepaucityofordainedeldersintheMethodistEpiscopalChurchmeant that local Methodist societies (congregations) grew accus‐tomedto infrequentcelebration, althoughtheelders themselvescele‐brated frequently.29 By the early twentiethcentury many Methodistleaders—both those of traditional Evangelical piety and those withmodern liberal tendencies—explicitly claimed a memorial under‐standingoftheEucharist, eventhoughthiswasnotformallytaughtinMethodist doctrinal standards and stoodin tensionwiththe liturgythatthechurchescontinuedtouse.

TheIssues

Giventhedivergencesdescribedabove, therehas beenawidespreadperceptionofseriousdiscontinuitybetweenEpiscopaliansandMeth‐odistsconcerningthemeaningofthesacramentofHolyCommunionandconsequentlyofspecidicpracticesrelatedtothecelebrationofthesacrament.

WaysForward

The Anglican tradition has laid emphasis on the “real presence” ofChristintheEucharisticelementswhileatthesametimeacknowledg‐ing that the expression has nevertheless beencapable of a rangeofmeanings.

Bothecumenicalandliturgicalrenewalinthetwentiethcenturyhavehelped Methodists understand the depth of Eucharistic piety ex‐pressed by John and CharlesWesley, a depth of piety that has alsobeen expressed in the liturgies consistently used in Methodistchurches, including the more traditional liturgies derived from thetradition of theBookof Common Prayerand contemporary liturgiesconsistentwiththosedevelopedbyCatholics,Anglicans,andothersintheliturgicalmovementofthetwentiethcentury.Theterm“realpres‐ence”canbe used to describe theWesleys' view of thepresenceofChrist: infact, theWesleys themselvesusedthis expression twice intheir published collection of Hymns on the Lord's Supper.30 TheWesleys'EucharisticpietyendsnotinapreciseexplanationofChrist'spresence but in adoration and mystery. Speaking again of Christ's

22

29 Since elders itinerated and traveled between numerous congregations, elders would celebrate the Eucharist regu-larly at different congregations, though any individual congregation might only have the services of an elder per-haps once a month.

30 John and Charles Wesley, Hymns on the Lord's Supper (1745), hymn 66, stanza 2 (in The Poetical Works of John and Charles Wesley, ed. George Osborn; London: Wesleyan Conference Office, 1868; 3:264) and hymn 116, stanza 5 (in Osborn 3:302).

presence, theywriteofthemysteryofChrist'spresenceandpowerinthesacrament:

AngelsroundouraltarsbowTosearchitoutinvain.31

In 2004 the General Conference of The United Methodist Churchadopted a statement entitledThis HolyMystery: A United MethodistUnderstanding of Holy Communion. This statement deals at somelengthwiththeissueofthepresenceofJesusChristinthesacrament,andconcludesasfollows:

UnitedMethodists, alongwithotherChristiantraditions,havetried to provide clear and faithful interpretations of Christ’spresence in theHolyMeal. Ourtraditionasserts thereal, per‐sonal, living presence of Jesus Christ. ForUnitedMethodists,theLord’sSupper isanchoredinthelifeofthehistoricalJesusofNazareth, butisnotprimarilyaremembranceormemorial.We do not embrace the medieval doctrine of transubstantia‐tion, thoughwedobelievethattheelementsareessentialtan‐giblemeansthroughwhichGodworks.Weunderstandthedi‐vine presence in temporal and relational terms. In the HolyMeal of thechurch, thepast, present, andfutureof thelivingChristcometogetherbythepoweroftheHolySpiritsothatwemay receiveandembody JesusChrist as God’s saving gift forthewholeworld.32

AchallengeforTheUnitedMethodistChurchistocontinuetoliveintothisstatementasitsnormativepractice.

AchallengeforTheEpiscopalChurchistocontinuetostrikeabalancebetweenWordandSacrament. It is ourhope thatthroughourdevel‐opingrelationships thehistoricMethodistemphasisonthethree‐foldpresenceofChrist in thepreachedword, thesacramentoftheLord’sSupper,andinmissionintheworldcanbehelpfulforEpiscopaliansinthisregard.33

23

31 Hymn 57 from the first sequence of hymns in John and Charles Wesley, Hymns on the Lord's Supper (1745; in Osborn 3:256); in The United Methodist Hymnal (1989), no. 627.

32 United Methodist statement on This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion (Nashville: Board of Discipleship of The United Methodist Church, 2004), 13.

33 The United Methodist Church's mission statement holds that “The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world” (United Methodist Discipline [2008], p. 87). The emphasis on mission has been so strong in Methodist culture that Albert C. Outler argued that Methodists had little sense of a doctrine of the church (beyond that inherited from Anglicanism), but a consistent sense of the missional vocation of the church: cf. Albert C. Outler, “Do Methodists Have a Doctrine of the Church” (in Dow Kirkpatrick, ed., The Doctrine of the Church [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1964], 11-28).

3.3OneBread,OneCup:PracticesrelatedtotheElementsofHolyCommunion

TheIssues

A number ofspecidic practices relatedto theelements ofHolyCom‐munion(breadandwine)havedividedtheUnitedMethodistandEpis‐copalchurches.

Consistent Christianpractice following the literal words of the NewTestamenthasinsistedontheuseofbreadandwineinthecelebrationof the sacrament ofHoly Communion. Thiswas stated as a require‐mentforChristianunityintheChicago‐LambethQuadrilateral,whichheld that Christian unity on the part of Anglican churches requires“The two Sacraments ordainedby Christ Himself—Baptism and theSupperoftheLord—ministeredwithunfailinguseofChrist'swordsofinstitution,andoftheelementsordainedbyhim.”34However,sincetheearlytwentiethcentury,inthewakeofthetemperancemovementandMethodists' adoptionofthe ideal of total abstinence from beveragealcohol,Methodistchurchesusedunfermentedgrapejuiceinthecele‐bration of Holy Communion. This was formalized in the so‐called“Welch Rubric” that states that “The pure unfermented juice of thegrape shall beused”inthe celebrationofthesacrament. This rubricremainsineffectinTheUnitedMethodistChurch.35

Anotherareaofdivergencehastodowiththeuseofasinglecup(chal‐ice)forthewine.Methodistchurches,includingTheUnitedMethodistChurch,havenotspecidiedtheneedforasinglecup.ForTheEpiscopalChurch,since1979theuseofasinglecuphasbeenasymbolofunityingatheringaroundtheholytable.36

Another important issue separatingEpiscopalians andUnitedMeth‐odists concerns the treatment of the Eucharistic elements followingtheservice. For TheEpiscopal Church, any remaining bread orwinemust be reverently consumed or reserved. The joint Anglican/Methodistdocument“SharingintheApostolicCommunion”notesthisissueofreverentdisposaloftheelementsofHolyCommunion.

24

34 Lambeth Conference of 1888, Resolution 11, as given in the Book of Common Prayer (1979) of The Episcopal Church, 878.

35 The United Methodist Hymnal (1989), 6. It should be noted that early printings of this hymnal omitted the “Welch Rubric,” but the General Conference of 1992 specified that it should be reinserted, and it has appeared in the hymnals printed since that time.

36 Book of Common Prayer (1979), 407, where the rubric states that a single chalice should be on the altar. This does not preclude other chalices being nearby on another table. It should also be noted that rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer are as binding as the canons of The Episcopal Church.

WaysForward

WaysforwardontheseissueswouldbetofollowtheguidelinesdrawnupbytheUnitedMethodist‐Episcopal dialogueteam, for example, tousebread,wine,andgrapejuice,allowing localpracticetodetermineexactlyhowthisshouldbedone.UnitedMethodistsareencouragedtousede‐alcoholizedwinerather thangrape juice, and theuseof realwineinadditiontograpejuice.Anyunconsumedelementsshouldbedisposed of reverently, and a single chalice, with dlagons for grapejuiceandwinetobetouchedbythecelebrant,shouldbeplacedonthealtar.

3.4TheRelationshipbetweenBaptismandtheReceptionofHolyCommunion

TheIssues

Thecanons ofTheEpiscopal Church, consistentwith those of otherAnglicanchurchesandwiththebroadconsensusofChristiantraditionandpractice, limit the sacrament of Holy Communion to those whohavebeenbaptizedandcanrespondpositively totheinvitationgivenintheEucharisticliturgy.37

From somepoint in thenineteenthcentury, itbecame thecustomofMethodiststoinviteotherChristianstoparticipateinthesacramentofthe Lord's Supper. Although this practicewas not grounded in doc‐trinal sources—and itmay also be important to state that it is notruledout in Methodist doctrinal sources—this practice has becomenearlyuniversalinMethodistchurchesandhascomeintoexistenceasacommunal consensusarrivedatwithoutformalmeansofconsent.38Theliturgies forWordandTable inThe UnitedMethodistHymnaldospecifytermsorrequirementsforcommunion:

• loveforJesusChrist(WordandTableI,II)39

• repentanceforsin(WordandTableI,II,andIV)40

25

37 See the Guidelines for Eucharist Sharing, Resolution A043 of the 1979 General Convention; also Title I, Canon 17, Section 7: “No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Church.”

38 Scott J. Jones, United Methodist Doctrine: The Extreme Center (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 265-266; cf. Ted A. Campbell, Methodist Doctrine: The Essentials (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999), 76-77.

39 United Methodist Hymnal (1989), 7, 12.

40 United Methodist Hymnal (1989), 7, 12, 26.

• theintentiontoliveinpeacewitheachother(WordandTableI,II,IV)41

• the intention to lead a new life following God’s commands(WordandTableIV)42

UnitedMethodistBishopScottJ.Jonesstatesthattheserequirements,“basically invite thosewho areChristians to comeandparticipate inthesacrament.”43However,theUnitedMethodistDisciplineandUnitedMethodistliturgiesdonotstrictlyruleoutcommunionforpersonsnotyetbaptized, andthis raises thepossibility(howeverrare)thatcom‐munionwillbeextendedtounbaptizedpersons.

WaysForward

It should be emphasized, with respect toUnitedMethodist practice,thatcommunionoftheunbaptizedisnotanafdirmationonthepartofTheUnitedMethodistChurchbutsimplyapossibilitythatexistsdueto the lack of any explicit rubric or statement ruling this out. TheUnitedMethodist Statement of This Holy Mystery (approved by the2004GeneralConferenceofTheUnitedMethodistChurch),statesthatifunbaptizedpersonscanrespondpositivelytotheinvitationtoHolyCommunionintheliturgy, they shouldbewelcomedto thetableandcounseledtoreceivethesacramentofbaptism:

Nonbaptizedpeoplewho respond infaith to the invitation inourliturgywillbewelcomedto theTable.TheyshouldreceiveteachingaboutHolyBaptismasthesacramentofentranceintothe community of faith—needed only onceby each individu‐al—andHoly Communionas thesacrament ofsustenance forthe journey of faith and growth in holiness—needed and re‐ceivedfrequently. “Unbaptizedpersonswho receive commun‐ionshouldbecounseledandnurturedtowardbaptismassoonaspossible”(ByWaterandtheSpirit,inBOR;page814).44

CelebrationsofEucharistineachofourchurchesshouldbeguidedbythe canons or disciplinary/liturgical requirements of each church.UnitedMethodists arechallengedby theseclaimstomakeclearertolaityaswell as clergy that thetermsof communionspecidied in theUnitedMethodist liturgy presuppose Christian commitment (“thosewho love him,”i.e., Jesus Christ), andalso tomake clearer to laityas

26

41 United Methodist Hymnal (1989), 7, 12, 26.

42 United Methodist Hymnal (1989), 26.

43 Jones, United Methodist Doctrine, 266.

44 United Methodist statement on This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion, 15.

well asclergytheextraordinarynatureofthepossibilityofcommun‐ionoftheunbaptizedasexplainedinThisHolyMystery.

3.5UnderstandingsoftheHistoricEpiscopate

AprecedentinancientChristianchurcheshasbeenthatdeaconsandpresbyters were ordained by bishops who in turn had been conse‐cratedby other bishops. Thiswas seen as an important sign of thechurches'continuitywiththeteachingsandpracticesoftheapostolicChristiancommunity.Thus IrenaeusofLyons,writing inthe latesec‐ondcenturyAD,sawthesuccessionofbishopsinachurchfoundedbyoneoftheapostlesasonecriterionofapostoliccontinuityalongwiththeuseoftheOldTestament(Hebrew)scriptures,acanonofNewTes‐tament (Christian) scriptures, and didelity to the churches' “rule offaith,”thebasic announcementoftheGospelmessagethatwaseven‐tuallycodidiedinversionsoftheChristianbaptismal creed.45 Thean‐cientcanons,however, sawbishopsnotasindependent,butaspartofasynod.AstheAnglicancommentator,JohnFulton,explained,“Andasthe power of the episcopate was exercised by one bishop over thepeopleofoneparish,sothebishopsofeveryprovince, actingintheircorporate capacity, exercised the power of their united episcopateovereverybishopandeveryparishwithintheirjurisdiction.”46

TheancientprecedentoftheconsecrationofbishopsbyotherbishopswasfollowedatthetimeoftheReformationbytheChurchofEngland.Fromtheseventeenthcentury,inthemidstofthecondlictbetweenPu‐ritansandAnglicans,someAnglicantheologiansbegantoinsistontheunbrokensuccessionof bishops as anecessarysignof thedidelityoftheChristianchurchto itsapostolicorigins,althoughaconsensuswasneverreachedorstatedthatthiswasthecase.TheAmericanorganiz‐ers of the Protestant Episcopal Churchwere concerned to maintainthesuccessionofbishops.SamuelSeabury,electedbishopbyclergyinConnecticut, was refused consecration by English bishops and latersecuredepiscopalconsecrationthroughtheScottishEpiscopalChurch.WilliamWhiteandSamuel Provoost, as representatives of the earlyGeneral Conventions of The Episcopal Church, were consecrated bythebishopsoftheChurchofEngland.WiththeformationofTheEpis‐copal Church in1789 these two traditionswere incorporated into asinglechurch.

27

45 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (5 vols.; Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press, 1971–1989), 1:108-120.

46 John Fulton, Index Canonum: The Greek Text, an English Translation, and a Complete Digest of the Entire Code of Canon Law (New York, 1872), 44-45.

JohnWesley's ordinations of theRev. Thomas Cokeas a Superinten‐dent andof RichardWhatcoatand Thomas Vasey as elders in1784,whichledtotheclergyordersoftheMethodistEpiscopalChurchandeventually of TheUnitedMethodist Church, broke the precedent ofepiscopalordinationandthusofepiscopal successionforsubsequentMethodist Episcopal bishops. These acts also violated the canons oftheChurch ofEngland, althoughWesley justidied his ordinations onthese grounds: a) the need for sacramental clergy for the NorthAmericancontext,b)hisbeliefthatpresbytersheld“anessentialrighttoordain”andcoulddoso inextraordinarycircumstancessuchastheMethodist facedinNorthAmerica, andc)hisbelief thatinordainingclergy forNorthAmericahewasnot intrudingonthediocesanterri‐toryofexistingAnglicanbishops.

In his 1784 letter “To Dr. COKE, Mr. ASBURY, and our Brethren inNORTHAMERICA”introducingtheprovisionshehadmadeforthees‐tablishmentofanepiscopalchurch,Wesleyexplainedthathehaden‐deavoredtoobtaintheregulartransmissionoforder.Ithadbeenpro‐posed,henoted, “todesiretheEnglishBishops, to ordainpart ofourPreachers forAmerica.But to this I object,1. IdesiredtheBishopofLondon,to ordainonlyone;butcouldnotprevail.”Hethenaddressedforthrightly theemergencyreasoningonthebasis ofwhichheastheeffectivesuperintendentoftheWesleyanmovementinanexerciseofepiscopeproceededtotheordinations.

Lord King’s Account of the Primitive Church convinced memanyyearsago,ThatBishopsandPresbytersarethesameOr‐der, andconsequentlyhavethesamerighttoordain.Formanyyears I have been importuned from time to time, to exercisethis right, by ordaining partof our travellingPreachers. But Ihavestill refused, not only forPeace’ sake: but because Iwasdetermined, as little as possible to violate theestablishedOr‐derofthenationalChurchtowhichIbelonged.47

TheordinalthatheincludedinTheSundayServiceoftheMethodistsinNorthAmerica,48hisrevisionoftheBookofCommonPrayer,providedfor theordinationofdeacons (transitional deacons), elders (author‐

28

47 John Telford, ed., The Letters of the Rev. John Wesley, 9 vols. (London: Epworth press, 1931), 7: 237-38.

48 Curiously titled, The Sunday Service of the Methodist in North America. With other Occasional Services (Lon-don, 1784), provided a brief lectionary of lessons for morning and evening prayer; orders for morning and eve-ning prayer; the Litany; a Sunday Prayer and Thanksgiving; Communion, Baptism, Matrimony, Communion of the Sick and Burial orders; the ordinal with “bishop” replaced by “superintendent”; Wesley’s version of the Arti-cles of Religion; and two appendices.

ized to celebrate the sacraments), and “superintendents”who wereconsecratedandauthorizedtoordaindeaconsandelders.49

Theseritualspreserved, fromhis point, thesuccessionofclergy as asignofapostoliccontinuity.ThomasCokepreachedforAsbury’sordi‐nation,andthesermonwaspublishedattherequestoftheconferenceas “Substance of a Sermon preached at Baltimore, MarylandbeforeTheGeneral ConferenceofTheMethodistEpiscopal Church, Decem‐ber27,1784attheOrdinationofTheRev.FrancisAsburytotheOfdiceofaSuperintendent.”50Inthesermon,Cokeaddressedtheemergencyconditions under which the ordinations occurred, his andWesley’srighttoexercise“theepiscopalofdice”[Coke’sterm],theprecedentsofordinationby presbytersandthecaseagainst “anuninterrupted lineofsuccession.”Henotedthat “ofall theformsofchurchgovernment,wethinkamoderateepiscopacythebest.”Andhethenspentmuchofthe sermon addressing Asbury and the gathered preachers on “thecharacter ofaChristianbishop.”Thereafter, anorderlysuccessionofepiscopal consecrations has followed in the denominations whichformthemajorstreams into TheUnitedMethodistChurch. Similarly,the AfricanMethodist Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal Zion,andChristianMethodistEpiscopalchurchesaswellastheEvangelicalAssociationandtheUnitedBrethrenallmaintainedaregularsucces‐sionof episcopal ordinations from the time of their original ordina‐tions.

There has been considerablediscussion in thepastof a “break”be‐tweenMethodistsandAnglicans intheUnitedStatesduetoWesley’ssettingapartofsuperintendents.Whilenotdenyingthattheseactionssetinmotiontrajectorieswhichwouldleadtothedevelopmentofdif‐ferentchurches, wealso believethatweshouldnot overlook impor‐tantsimilarities.

Thosewho formedTheEpiscopalChurchandthosewho formedtheMethodistEpiscopalChurchbothadaptedhistoric understandingstotheirownmissionalconcerns.AtdirstthismayseemmoreevidentforMethodists. However, Episcopalians also signidicantly adaptedtheof‐

29

49 Wesley’s own consecration of Thomas Coke as superintendent amounted to a “presbyteral succession” rather than an episcopal succession of clergy (here utilizing the term preferred by Bishop Henry McNeal Turner of the African Methodist Episcopal Church). See also Nolan B. Harmon, The Rites and Ritual of Episcopal Methodism with Particular Reference to the Rituals of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, Respectively (Nashville: Publishing House of the M.E. Church, South, 1926) provides in six parallel col-umns Liturgical sources, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (1979), Wesley’s liturgies, the 1844 Methodist Epis-copal Church rituals, the 1922 Methodist Episcopal Church, South, rituals and the 1916 Methodist Episcopal Church rituals.

50 It was “Published at the desire of the Conference” and then republished (New York: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1840).

diceofbishop.Bishopswereelectedby representativebodies, hadnocivil or legal authority,werenotconnectedinany formalway to thestate,andsharedoversightofthechurchwithclergyandlaity. Indeed,intheUnitedStates,asinnowhereelseintheAnglicanworld,bishopsdonot ruleoversynods orconventionsbut areboundby theirdeci‐sions.WhilemanyofthesearenowcommonplaceinpartsoftheAn‐glicanworld, at the timethesewereconsidered innovations andde‐partures from established practice; indeed, these were some of thereasonsfortheinitialrefusalandresistancebytheChurchofEnglandtoconsecratebishopsforAnglicansintheUnitedStates.

TheIssues:Distinctionsbetween“HistoricSuccession”and“ApostolicSuccession”

AnissuehereforUnitedMethodistsmaybetheperceptiononthepartofsomethat therestorationofepiscopalsuccessionwouldamounttoan admission that theministerial orders and, by implication, sacra‐mentsofTheUnitedMethodistChurchhavebeendedicientinthepast.ItshouldbenotedthatTheEpiscopalChurchhasneverdeclaredtheministriesofanyotherchurchformallytobededicientor invalid. TheEpiscopalChurchdrawsadistinctionbetweenreconciliationandrec‐ognition of ministries. Recognition involves acknowledging the or‐dainedministrytobeanoccasionofgraceandameansbywhichthegospel is preached and sacraments administered. Reconciliation in‐volvesremovingall canonicalorconstitutional impedimentsinorderto allow for mutual service by ordained clergy in one another’schurches.Nothavingareconciledministrydoesnotimplyanykindofdediciency;TheEpiscopalChurch,forinstance,doesnothavearecon‐ciledministrywiththeRomanCatholicorEasternOrthodoxChurches.The Episcopal Church has not made any formal statements on thestatusof theordainedministriesofTheUnitedMethodistChurchoritspredecessors.

The Episcopal Church outlined its understanding of the need foragreementonthehistoric episcopateaspartoffullcommunionwithanother church in the Chicago‐Lambeth Quadrilateral (proposed bytheHouseofBishopsofTheEpiscopalChurch,1886):

TheHistoric Episcopate locally adaptedin themethodsof itsadministrationtothevaryingneedsofthenationsandpeoplescalledofGodintotheunityofHisChurch.51

This statementwas afdirmed by theLambethConferenceof Bishops(1888), reafdirmedby numerous GeneralConventions ofTheEpisco‐palChurch,iscontainedinthehistoricdocumentssectionoftheBook

30

51 Book of Common Prayer (1979), 877, 878.

ofCommonPrayer,52 andhassubsequentlybeenreceivedbythelargerAnglicancommunion.As noted above, bothMethodists andEpiscopalians went throughaprocess of adapting the historic episcopate to their particular mis‐sional contexts. TheEpiscopal Churchdidsowhileretainingthesignofthehistoricsuccessionofbishops,whileMethodistsdidnot.Hope‐fullyourtwocommunionswillbeabletohealthishistoricbreachbymutuallyreceivingoneanother’sgiftswithregardstoepiscopacy.

WaysForward

Amajorecumenicalbreakthroughhasbeenacknowledgingthediffer‐ences between “apostolic succession”and “historic episcopate.” Thetwo communionshaveafdirmedtherelationshipbetweenepiscopacyand apostolic succession as described in the seminal ecumenicaldocumentBaptism,Eucharist,andMinistry(1982):

The primary manifestation of apostolic succession is to befoundintheapostolic traditionoftheChurchasawhole…Theorderly transmission of the ordained ministry is therefore apowerfulexpressionofthecontinuityoftheChurchthroughouthistory; italso underlines thecalling oftheordainedministeras guardian of the faith… Under the particular historical cir‐cumstances ofthe growing Church inthe early centuries, thesuccession ofbishops became oneof theways, together withthetransmissionoftheGospelandthelifeofthecommunity,inwhichtheapostolictraditionoftheChurchwasexpressed.Thissuccessionwasunderstoodasserving,symbolizingandguard‐ingthecontinuityoftheapostolicfaithandcommunion.53

Themannerofthereconciliationofthetwoepiscopaciesisstillamat‐terofdiscussionand study.Aspart ofthisdiscussion, it is our hopethat with regards to a future reconciliation of episcopal ministries,EpiscopaliansandUnitedMethodistsafdirmthefollowing:

• Ourjourneytowardfullcommunionmustincludeawaytorec‐ognizeandreconcilethetwoepiscopaciesinsuchasmannerasnottocallintoquestiontheauthenticityofeachother'sordina‐tions.

• Bothchurchesafdirmthehistoricepiscopate, inthelanguageoftheBaptism,EucharistandMinistry statement, asa“sign, but

31

52 Book of Common Prayer (1979), 876-879.

53 Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry, ¶¶ M35 and M36.

notaguarantee, ofthecatholicity, unity,andcontinuityofthechurch.”

• BothchurchesagreethatthehistoricepiscopateisalwaysinaprocessofreformintheserviceoftheGospel.

• Fromtheirformativeperiodsinthecolonialagebothchurcheslocallyadaptedthehistoricepiscopateforthesakeofmission.

As a sign ofourdeveloping full communionpartnerships, wewouldhope that bishops from the Moravian Church and Evangelical Lu‐theranChurchinAmerica(butnotlimitedtothesechurches)couldbepresent andparticipate in anyhoped‐for reconciliationofministriesbetweenUnitedMethodistsandEpiscopalians.

3.6PracticesRelatedtoPresidencyatEucharist

From the fourth century AD consistent Christian practice was thatpresbyters(priests/elders)presidedatEucharistinadditionto bish‐ops.ThiscustomhasbeenfollowedbyOrthodoxchurches,theRomanCatholicChurch, andbychurchesoftheAnglicanCommunion, includ‐ing The Episcopal Church. Although John Wesley's ordinations ofMethodistpreacherstoserveaseldersinNorthAmericawereirregu‐laror illegalaccordingtoAnglicancanons (seetheprevioussection)healsorestrictedcelebrationofEucharisttothoseordainedaselders.On the other hand, John Wesley and other early Methodist leaderswouldnottolerateadministrationofthesacramentsapartfromeccle‐sial authorization. The Welsh lay evangelist and close associate ofWesley,HowellHarris,recordedthatJohnWesleytoldConferencethat“he would rather commit murder than administer withoutordination.”54 From 1808 the Methodist Episcopal Church ordained“local elders” (as contrasted with itinerant elders) who were alsoauthorizedtopresideattheLord'sSupperintheirlocalcommunities.

Methodistreorganizations in thetwentiethcenturyhave ledto somedivergences from this pattern.55 The ofdice of local elder was doneawaywithfromthetimeoftheunionof1968.Fromthatpointpersonsordainedasdeacons(atthistime,thiswasatransitionalofdiceleadingto ordination as an elder)wereauthorized to preside at Holy Com‐munion.By1976personsappointedaslocalpastorswerealsoauthor‐izedto presideatthe tableandtoperformbaptismswithinthecon‐text of their local churches. The 1996 General Conference of The

32

54 In Frank Baker, John Wesley and the Church of England (London, 1970 [2000]), 162-3, 175-9, 257.

55 The Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Protestant Church, and The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, merged in 1939 to form the Methodist Church. In 1968 the Methodist Church merged with the Evangelical United Brethren Church to form The United Methodist Church.

UnitedMethodistChurchcreatedanofdiceofpermanentdeaconanddidawaywiththetransitionaldiaconate.Atthispoint, thedenomina‐tioncreatedatransitionalcategoryof“commissioned”ministerswhoareauthorized to celebrate the sacraments if they are appointedaspastors oflocal congregations. Thishas becomeacontestedissue inTheUnitedMethodistChurch,whichhasengenderedavarietyorpro‐posals, including authorization of ordained (permanent)deacons tocelebrate sacraments andthere‐introductionof theolderMethodistcategoryoflocalelders.

Despitechangesinterminology,UnitedMethodismhassustainedinitsauthorizationofsacramental authority thepolityandpracticeunderwhichthechurchpreviouslyappointedministersanddesignatedthemas local elders. Suchpersons, earlierandnow, celebrateandbaptizeunderepiscopalappointment,licensing,andconferenceauthorization,eachrecognitionofwhichfunctionsasakindofordination.

TheIssues

For Episcopalians, presidency at the Eucharist has always been re‐strictedtobishopsandpriests. OtherprovincesoftheAnglicanCom‐munionwho have considered licensing deacons and/or lay personshaveroutinelyandconsistentlybeennearlyunanimouslyurgednottodoso.

A parallel issue for United Methodists is how to make sacramentsavailable to congregations (especially smaller congregations)servedcurrently by local pastors. This is somethingwhichalso has beenofconcerntoTheEpiscopalChurch,whichforseveralyearshadaproc‐ess often referred to as “Canon 9” priests, after the specidic canonwhichauthorizedthe practice. Canon9priestswereclergyordainedwith the intention of serving a specidic, usually rural, congregation,andhaddifferentstandards foreducation, training, anddeployment.In2003,however, thesedistinctionswereremovedwitharevisionofTheEpiscopalChurch’sordinationcanons.

WaysForward

OnewayforwardmaydependuponUnitedMethodistGeneralConfer‐enceaction in2012whenlegislationmaybeadoptedthatwouldor‐dain all (United Methodist ministers) who preside at Eucharist aselders.56Inanycase,itshouldbenotedthatthediscussionofreformintheUMContheseissuesisgoingoninthelightofourecumenicaldia‐logues, including this dialogue. The Episcopal Church is in full com‐munionwith theELCA,whichalso licenseslaypersons to presideat

33

56 A task force on the study of ordained ministry authorized by the United Methodist General Conference of 2004 and continued by the General Conference of 2008 has considered such proposals.

theEucharist,withtheunderstandingthatsuchpersonsarenotper‐mittedtoserveinTheEpiscopalChurchandarenotpartofanyformalrecognitionofministries.

3.7PracticeswithrespecttotheMinistriesoftheLaity

TheIssues

TheEpiscopalChurchholdsthattheministryofallpeopleisgroundedin baptism.57 In addition, The Episcopal Church has a variety of li‐censedofdices:Pastoral Leader,WorshipLeader,Preacher,EucharisticMinister, EucharisticVisitor, Evangelist, orCatechist.58 Requirementsfortrainingandlicensurearedeterminedatthediocesanlevel.Inad‐dition lay persons have an important role in the governance of thechurch. At the congregational level, each parish has a Vestry whichcallstheRectorandmanagestheaffairsoftheparish.59 DiocesanCon‐ventionsalsohavelayandclergyrepresentation,asdoestheStandingCommittee ineachdiocese. TheGeneralConventionofTheEpiscopalChurchhas aHouseof Bishops and a Houseof Deputies, which hasequallayandclergyrepresentation.

TheUnitedMethodistChurchlikewiseafdirmsbaptismastheground‐ingforallministry.60InadditionthereisalongstandingtraditionoflayinvolvementinWesleyanandrelatedchurchesJohnWesleyemployedlayMethodists as class leaders, stewards, exhorters, andlaypreach‐ers.TheofdiceoflaypreacherhascontinuedtobeanimportantofdiceinMethodistchurches,ameansbywhichthousandsoflocalMethodistcongregationsareenabledtohaveregularprayer,praise, andpreach‐ing. Methodist churches historically recognized other quasi‐ofdicialofdicessuchasthatofexhorter(fromthetimeofJohnWesleythroughthenineteenthcentury).TheUnitedMethodist Church todayutilizescertidiedlayspeakersandlaypastors.

WaysForward

Weseetheselicensedministries forlaypersonsasoneswhichenrichourlivesaschurches,anddonotseethemasproblematicaswemovetowardsfullcommunion.Itmaybefruitfulinenrichinglocaldialoguesbetween UnitedMethodist and Episcopal congregations to consider

34

57 See Title III, Canon 1; see also Book of Common Prayer (1979), 531 and 855.

58 Title III, Canon 4.

59 These duties of the Vestry also involve the diocesan bishop, who, for instance, must confirm the Vestry’s choice of a rector (Title III, Canon 9, Section 3) and the diocese must agree to any decisions regarding the property of the congregation.

60 United Methodist Discipline (2008), ¶ 125, p. 89.

the different ways inwhich the ministries of laypersons have beenemployedintheirchurches.

3.8IssuesofInternalDenominationalUnitythatMayHinderFullCommunion

TheIssues

Both of our churches have faced internal tensions and threats ofschisminrecentdecades, andtheseinternal tensionshavedistractedthechurchesfromtheirprimarymissionofwitnesstotheGospelandin someways these internal tensions havemade critical ecumenicaldiscussionsbetweenourchurchesmoredifdiculttosustain.TheAngli‐can CommunionandTheEpiscopal Church have seen turmoil sincethe1970s, includingthe ordinationofwomento thepriesthoodandepiscopate,prayerbook revision,andhumansexuality. Someofthesemattersaresharedbetweenoutchurches,andinseparatesectionsweshalldealwithissuesofraceandracism(section9)andhumansexu‐ality(section10) thathavebeendivisive forbothdenominations. Inthis sectionwedealwiththemoregeneral rangeofissuesraisedbyinternal disagreementswithinourchurchesandtheproblems raisedbystereotypicalimageswemayholdofeachother'schurches.

Both of our churches have evolved subcommunities withparticulartheological, social, andpolitical outlooks, many ofwhichhavebeeninstitutionalizedsincethe1970sasformallyorganizedcaucusgroupswithinthe denominations. Onemight say that there exists a liberal‐conservativespectrumineachofour churches, thoughthis takesonparticular nuances in each denomination. In The Episcopal Church,thesubcommunitysupportingatraditionallycatholicandsacramentalvisionofecclesiallifeoftendindscommoncausewithotherAnglicansofamoreevangelicalperspective.

InTheUnitedMethodistChurch, anumberof interrelatedconserva‐tiveEvangelical groupshavegreatstrength, someofthemrepresent‐ingtheHolinessmovementthathasbeenanimportantpartofMeth‐odistlifesincelateinthenineteenthcentury. Inbothdenominations,moreover, groups supporting progressive political and social issueshavebeenhighly indluential since theearly twentiethcentury. Thesesubcommunitieshavebeenasourceofstrengthforourchurchesandinsomewayshavehelpedthecauseofunity,insofarastheygivepar‐ticipants a sense of belonging and specidic vocation within the de‐nominations.Sometimes,however,partisanstrifehasleftparticipantson all sides feeling alienated from the denomination, feeling thatsomeoneelse,perhapstheother“party,”really“owns”thedenomina‐tion.Acommonsentimentexpressedbylocalparticipantsinbothde‐

35

nominations canbestatedas“Ourcongregationisdoingdine;it'sthedenominationthathastheproblem(s).”61

Therelevanceofthese internaldisagreements to ourquest for unityshouldbeobvious.Churchleadersfocusedoninternalsquabbles(andonwhateversideofthem)havelittle timeorenergyfornegotiationsbetween their denominations and others. But this is particularlytragic,becauseitistheecumenicalwitnessthroughwhich,webelieve,theHolySpiritiscallingthechurchestounityinChrist,bothinternallyand externally. We seek, in short, a form of unity between ourchurchesthatwillletusfocusourtimeandattentionontheholyGos‐pelof JesusChrist, the evangelical truth thatunites Christians,whatMartin Luther called “the church's great treasure.”62 Appropriateformsofexternal unitygroundedin theGospelandinoursenseofacommonmissionsuchasenvisionedinthisStatementoughttobeanevangelicalantidotetothepoisonofinternaldisunity.

WaysForward

Themostimportantwayforwardonissues ofinternal disunity is forall ofourwork forexternalunityto focusonthecentral truthoftheChristianmessage, thecommonmissionthatwe shareas Christians,andthecommonpractices, especiallythesacramentsofbaptismandtheEucharist, thathavealreadyunitedustoChristandtoeachother.WedonotseekanyunitygreaterthanthatwhichisgiveninbaptismandwhichiscelebratedandrealizedinHolyCommunion.

An important way forward on this issue is for local interaction inwhichmembers ofeachdenominationcancometoknow eachotheras fellow Christians called to commonmission. We continue to en‐couragelocalUnitedMethodistandEpiscopal leadersto dindwaystoenable these kinds of rich, local dialogues inwhichwe cancome toknoweachotherasChristians.A formofunitybetweenourchurchesthatismerely institutionalanddoesnotengagethiskindoflocal in‐teractionshouldberegardedasafailureandawasteofresources.

3.9ExperiencesofRace/RacismintheHistoriesofourChurches

Bothofour traditions acknowledgethat thechurchintendedbyGodanddescribed in the NiceneCreedand afdirmedby our churches is

36

61 Cf. Diana Butler Bass, The Practicing Congregation: Imagining a New Old Church (Herndon, Virginia: The Al-ban Institute, 2004), passim.

62 Martin Luther, Thesis 62 of the “Ninety-Five Theses on Indulgences.” in D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1926), 1:236. English language translation in Helmut T. Lehman, general editor, Luther’s Works (55 vols.; Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 19:31.

one, holy, catholic, andapostolic. We also acknowledgeour frequentfailurestorealizethesenotesofthechurch.Issuesrelatedtoracialdi‐visions and the historic power disequilibrium between black andwhitechurchconstituents, inparticular, havebeenevident inbothofourchurches,andconstitutefailuresofGod's intentionforourcatho‐licity. A trulycatholic churchoffers the fullness of theGospel to thefullnessofGod'sworld,includingallofthenations,races,andculturesofGod'shumanfamily.Buttheseissueshavefacedourchurchesindif‐ferentways.

TheIssues

Issues ofracehave tiedtogether our two churches almost from thevery beginning. The two individuals who led the African Americanexodus from St. George’s Methodist Church in Philadelphia in 1786were Richard Allen andAbsalom Jones. Together they organized in1787theFreeAfricanSociety.ThisorganizationwouldbetheseedbedoftheSt.ThomasAfricanEpiscopalChurch(thedirstEpiscopalparishorganizedbyAfricanAmericans)andeventuallytheAfricanMethodistEpiscopalChurch.

Someparticularformsinwhichracialissueshavefacedourchurchesarethefollowing.

AmericanMethodismbegan as abi‐racialmovement, andwhen for‐mally constituted as a church in 1784, committed itself to purgingslaveryfrom itsministryandmembership. Thatresolveproveddifdi‐cult tosustainandMethodismsufferedseveral divisionsoverslaveryand racial discrimination. Because of racial discrimination and op‐pressivepracticesintheNorthaswellasintheSouth, twoverylargeMethodist bodies – the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Churchand theAfricanMethodist Episcopal Zion (AMEZion) Church – be‐cameseparatefromtheMethodistEpiscopalChurchearlyinthenine‐teenth century, leaving a pattern of formal denominational divisionamong Methodist bodies along racial lines. This continued in 1870withtheformationoftheColoredMethodistEpiscopal(nowChristianMethodist Episcopal, CME) Church out of the Methodist EpiscopalChurch,South. Inadditionto theseseparations,manyAfricanAmeri‐cansremainedwithintheMethodistEpiscopalChurchandMethodistProtestantChurch.WhenMethodist bodies united in 1939, they created a segregated,non‐geographic Central Jurisdiction in which African Americanchurches wereplaced andwhichoverlapped divegeographically de‐dinedjurisdictions. This structurewas not fullydismantleduntil theyears following theunion ofTheUnitedMethodist Church in1968,andmanyblackandwhiteMethodistleadersfeltitwasinappropriate

37

togoforwardwiththeunionoftheMethodistandEvangelicalUnitedBrethrenchurchesprior to dealingwith theissueofsystemic racisminherentintheCentralJurisdiction.The Episcopal Church ordained its dirst African American priest,AbsalomJones, in1804, andtheearlydecadesofthe1800s sawsev‐eral African American Episcopal congregations founded in northerncities. However, thesecongregations were not givenvoteatdiocesanconventions. Insoutherndioceses, aplantationsystemofslavechap‐els was often set up, so that some dioceses had signidicant AfricanAmericancommunicants.Attheendofthenineteenthcenturyintothetwentiethcentury, thecreationofa non‐geographic diocesefor Afri‐canAmericanswasproposednumeroustimes, thoughvoteddownbyGeneral Convention. After the Civil War, some of these communitiessought to continue in The Episcopal Church andorganize their owncongregations,onlytoberefusedtohavetheirownclergyordained.While neversettingupa formally organizedsegregatedsystem, TheEpiscopalChurchineffecthaddefactosegregationofblackandwhitecongregations. Suffragan or assisting bishops were elected for “col‐oredwork”to provide episcopal oversight to AfricanAmericancon‐gregations, andsomedioceseshad“coloredconvocations”ofAfricanAmericanparisheswhichwerenotpartofdiocesanconventions.Simi‐larlyAfricanAmericanswereroutinelydeniedadmissiontopredomi‐nantly white seminaries. Early in the twentieth century an ex‐Episcopal priest, Alexander McGuire, formed the African OrthodoxChurchasanalternativetoTheEpiscopalChurch.We alsowanttonotesome areasofpositive progress in racial areasbetweenourchurchesandinthisdialogue.

· Since the 1960s African American leadership has come toprominenceinTheEpiscopal ChurchandinTheUnitedMeth‐odistChurchasa result ofdeliberateefforts to overcome thecontinuingeffectsofhistoricracialdiscrimination.

· ThereisgrowingrecognitionofthefactthatpersonsofAfricandescent now represent very large constituencies of our de‐nominations and our larger church families throughout theworld.TheUnitedMethodistChurchhasbeenhugelyenrichedbythecomingoftheMethodistChurchofCôted'Ivoireintothedenomination(between2004and2008).PersonsofEuropeanracialdescentareaminorityintheAnglicanCommunion.

· Thebilateral dialogue betweenTheUnitedMethodist ChurchandTheEpiscopalChurchhasfocusedondialoguewiththesehistoricallyblackMethodistdenominations.SessionsinAtlanta

38

inMarch,2007,attheInterdenominationalTheologicalCenter;in Dallas in October 2008 at Southern Methodist University;and in Chicago in 2009 focused on the role of racism as achurchdividing issue and involved representatives from his‐torically African AmericanMethodist Churches. The work inthesesessions has illuminatedmuchofthisStatement, anditcontinues to be the goal of the bilateral dialogue to expandthese conversations formally to include African AmericanMethodistchurches.

Anadditionalconcernis that reconciliationofepiscopalministriesaspart offullcommunionis somehowa“validation”onthepartofhis‐torically African‐American churches from historicallyEuro‐Americanchurches. The issueof“validation”relieson thebelief that AnglicanshaveheldMethodistministerial orderstobe “invalid”becauseofthelack ofhistoric episcopal succession.63 This is statedexplicitly inthe“DeclarationonApostolicSuccession”thathasappearedintheDisci‐plines of the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church since the1880s,andhaspersistedinMethodist cultureverybroadly.However,averysignidicantpartofourworkhasbeentohearconsistentlyfromEpiscopal leaders and from other Anglican leaders that Anglicanchurches have not in fact declared the ministerial orders or sacra‐mentsofotherchurchestobe invalid.Ourquest forreconciliationofministries proceeds on the assumptionof the validity ofministerialordersofeachother's churches, andseekswaysinwhichthis canbefully expressed in a relationship of full communion between ourchurches.

Nevertheless, ourdiscussionswithleadersinourchurchesandintheAfricanMethodist Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal Zion, andChristianMethodistEpiscopal churcheshaveconvincedusthat thereareveryseriousissuesofracial sensitivity involvedinthereconcilia‐tionofministriesenvisionedhere. Anyserviceofreconciliationmustmakeclearthatministriesandsacramentsofotherchurcheshaveal‐readybeenrecognizedasvalid.

WaysForward

Thedialogue has attempted to address these issues of race, racism,and the historic episcopate as church dividing ones both internallywithinourowncommunionsaswellasbetweenMethodistsandEpis‐copalians.Wehopebycontinuallyengagingtheseissueswecancometo a deeper understanding of how racism has deeply wounded thebodyofChrist,andseektodindtangiblewaysforward.

39

63 See the article by Bishop Thomas Hoyt, “A Reconciled Episcope and Racism,” Call to Unity (7: 2006), 45-49.

3.10TeachingsandPracticesrelatedtoHumanSexuality

Intheirofdicial statements, bothchurchesafdirmthesanctityofmar‐riageandthe family, aswellas chastity insingleness. Bothchurchesafdirm that all personshavedignityandsacredworth, andthereforearedeservingoftheacceptanceandpastoralcareofthechurchaswellas common human rights and civil liberties. Nonetheless, issues ofsexualityhavebecomeincreasinglycomplex in thecurrentperiod inbothofourchurches.

TheIssues

Overthelastdiftyyearsmanysocietieshavewrestledwithquestionsofsexualitysuchasdivorce,gender,andthenatureofthefamily.Longassumedpatternshavebeenquestioned,andothermodelssuggested.Our churcheshavebeencompelledtakeup thesequestions, becausethesocietyatlargewasdoingso.Butourchurcheshadafurther(andhigher)responsibilityofprovidingChristianinsight.ThisnecessitateddindingabalancebetweenarespectfortheauthorityofScripture,andaconcernfor thegospelmessageof love. Finding suchabalancehasbeenchallenging.Sincethe1990stheissuesoftheordinationofgayandlesbianpersonsandoftheauthorizationofclergytoperformunionsofgayorlesbianpersonshavebeenelevated(atleastinthepracticeofsomeconstitu‐entsandjudicatories)to statusconfessionis, thatis,thelevelofadoc‐trineorpracticethatmustbeafdirmed(ordenied)forthesakeoftheunityofthechurch. TheUnitedMethodistChurchhasdeclaredsince1972 that as a church it “do[es] not condone the practiceofhomo‐sexuality and consider[s] this practice incompatible with Christianteaching.”64Thedenominationsubsequently ruledouttheordinationor appointment of “self‐avowed, practicing homosexuals”65 and hasruledoutclergyperformingunionsofgayorlesbianpersons.66

TheEpiscopalChurchhasdevelopedavarietyofpractices. In1998,theLambethConferenceofBishopspassedaresolutionrejectingho‐mosexualpracticeas“incompatible”withScriptureandcouldnot“ad‐vise”thelegitimatizationofrites forsamesexunions.LambethReso‐lutions are advisory and not binding, however, uponmember prov‐inces. InTheEpiscopalChurch, access to theordinationprocessmay

40

64 United Methodist Discipline (2008), ¶ 161, p. 103.

65 United Methodist Discipline (2008), ¶ 304.3, p. 206.

66 United Methodist Discipline (2008), ¶ 341.6, p. 253, and cf. ¶ 2702.1, p. 754.

not be denied solely on sexual orientation.67 In reality, a variety ofpracticeshavedeveloped,withsomediocesespermitting theordina‐tionofnon‐celibategayandlesbianpersonsandsomenot.In2003,anopenly gay, partnered priestwas elected bishop ofNew HampshireandthenecessaryconsentstohiselectionweregivenbytheHouseofDeputiesandHouseofBishopsofTheEpiscopalChurch. Itshouldbenotedthere isnothingequivalentto theproscriptionofordinationorservice of non‐celibate gay and lesbian persons in the ConstitutionandCanons of The Episcopal Church as is contained inThe UnitedMethodistBookofDiscipline.

WaysForward

While these issues are important ones which touch on matters ofScriptural authority, ecclesiology, and polity, and while our twochurchescontinuetostrugglewiththeseissues,wedonotdindthistobean impedimenttowards full communion.Whiletheremaybe dif‐ferenceswithinandbetweenourtwochurches,standardsandqualidi‐cations for ordination arematters of internal polity of each church.Exchangeofclergy inany possible full communion agreement is al‐waysby invitation, andweenvisionthat inany futureagreement forfullcommunion, eachchurchwill continue to orderitsministryasitseesdit.Weseek theguidanceoftheHolySpiritinseekingawayfor‐ward.

3.11IssuesrelatedtotheNationalOriginsofOurChurchesandtheGrowinglyInternationalCharacterofOurChurchesToday

TheIssues

Both of our churches have developed into global communions. TheUnitedMethodistChurchhassignidicantmembershipinCentral Con‐ferences,68andTheEpiscopalChurchhascongregationsinsixteendif‐ferent countries. Both churches have struggledwithits US origins –particularlysincemuch(butcertainlynotall)oftheoverseaspresenceisaresultofthecolonialexpansionoftheUnitedStatesandaccompa‐nyingglobalmissionmovement. Inaddition,bothofourchurchesaremembers ofglobal communions: TheEpiscopalChurchis one ofthe

41

67 See Title III, Canon 1, Section 2 of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church: “No person shall be denied access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this church because of race, color, eth-nic origin, national origin, sex, martial status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise noted in these canons. No right to licensing, ordination, or election is hereby established.”

68 Central Conferences denote jurisdictions of United Methodist Churches outside of the United States; cf. United Methodist Discipline (2008), ¶¶ 540-548, pp. 342-351. There are seven Central Conferences on three continents: the Africa Central Conference, the Congo Central Conference, the West Africa Central Conference, the Central and Southern Europe Central Conference, the Germany Central Conference, the Northern Europe Central Con-ference, and the Philippines Central Conference

autonomous provinces of the AnglicanCommunion, and The UnitedMethodistChurchisamemberoftheWorldMethodistCouncil.Therearespecidicwaysinwhichourglobalcharacterimpactsthisdialogue.

One is that ecumenical agreements for United Methodists in theUnitedStatesareapprovedbytheCouncilofBishopsandtheGeneralConference.CentralConferencesarenotboundby theseagreements,andmaynegotiatetheirownconcordatsoffullcommunion.Thisisnotthe case in The Episcopal Church, where overseas dioceses do nothavethekindofindependentdecisionmakingauthorityinthe samewayasCentralConference,butarepartoftheGeneralConvention.

Another is thatthereareplacesgloballywhereourchurchesoverlapandwherethisfullcommunion,ifacceptedbyallparties,wouldbeineffect. However thereareplaceswheretheMethodist presencemaybenon‐UnitedMethodist, orthat theAnglicanpresencemaybenon‐Episcopal Church. Any proposal for full communion would only in‐clude The United Methodist ChurchandThe Episcopal Church, andotherpartieswouldneedtosignon.

WaysForward

Wewillneedtobeintentionallookingatwherefullcommunionmighthave themost impact inournon‐USAdiocesesandconferences, andbeincontactanddialoguewiththoseareas.

42

✝

CONCLUSION

This Theological Foundation statement represents years of reading,research,writing,discussion,andcommonprayerby themembersofTheEpiscopal‐UnitedMethodistdialogueteam.Ourgoal is topursuethegoaloffull communionbetweenourchurches,buildinguponpre‐vious dialoguebetweenAnglicansandMethodists. Asweworkedto‐getherweheardstories fromthehistoryofourcommunionsthatal‐lowedustounderstandourselvesinanewway.Wehavebeguntoseethat we are two members of the same family who responded to acommonmissionimperativeineighteenth‐centuryNorthAmerica,outofasensepassionforChristandthe church.Whileourcommunionsdivergedsincethen,wearestillafamilywithdeep,commonroots.WebelievethatthisStatementshowsusapathintothefuturewhereourtwogreatchurchescanshareinfullcommunionwhilewebothpursuethemissionChristsetsbeforeusinthetwenty‐dirstcentury.

Weknow,however, thatthisdocumentdoesnotrepresent theendofthejourney.Thisdialogueteamurgesthatourcommunions’membersreadanddigestthis report,andthatwebegintodeepentherelation‐ships we already share in our current interim Eucharistic sharingagreement.Commonprayer, study, serviceandworshiparecalledfor.Our hopeis thatthisdocumentwill assist inthisprocessofgrowingtogetherasasinglecommunityofresurrectionpeople.

Inthemeantime,thedialogueteamwillalsobegintoaddressthenextmajortask,developingaproposalforfullcommunionforactionbytheGeneral Conference and General Convention of our respectivechurches.Thistaskwilllikelyengageourteamforseveralyears.

Weremaincommittedtoouroriginalvisionofmakingmorefullyvisi‐bletheprofoundkoinonia inourbaptismsinthedeathandresurrec‐tionof our Lord. Thewriter ofEphesians eloquentlygiveswords toour vision and goal: “There is onebody andone Spirit, just as youwerecalled to theonehopeofyourcalling, oneLord, one faith, onebaptism, oneGodandFather ofall, who is aboveall andthroughalland in all” (Ephesians 4:4‐6). May we continue to move forward todeepentheunityalreadygiventousinChristJesus.