I too saw the story in today's papers announcing that British Methodism will soon be dead.
Certain people are running around trading the Methodist Church property portfolio to fund their pension scheme, because this is what it all about. The secular New Statesman blog reminds us what Methodism has achieved in the past.
I want those people to know that Methodism is not for sale. There is a reason why I am a Methodist. I didn't leave the Church of England to rejoin it forty years later as some desperate act of survival.
Wherever two or three are prepared to gather in His name there is every possibility that Methodism as a movement will continue.
Please take the buildings, the accumulated cash, the shares, the long winded rules, the bloated toy town Parliament of Annual Conference, the constant discouragement, and the pension scheme
We Methodists will carry on. We don't need you. Go.
Perhaps without some of the baggage we have acquired since Wesley, we may have a chance of becoming a serious Evangelistic church again
Goodbye.
PS: don't forget to take your candles and the daft advice in the new worship book about the colour of the cloth on the Lord's Table - what on earth have we been thinking about for the last thirty years?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Totally agree with you. I am a young (24-year-old) Methodist and am feeling very dishearted by what I've read today. I feel increasingly that democracy is vanishing from Methodism as an ever more autocratic clergy impose their negative decisions on the connexion. I only wish we were graced with a modern-day Hugh Bourne and William Clowes who would stand up to such people and allow the Spirit to lead.
Well Jonathan that is two of us.
Let us pray for a third.
You mention Hugh Bourne and William Clowes. When the "Prims" joined the Wesleyans all sorts of assurances were given. Where are the Prims now?
The same will happen to Methodism if we go in with the Church of England.
Within a generation, possibly less,Methodism and all we stand for, will be forgotten.
The stationing system that caused the problems in 'An Island Parish' that you have documented will come to a grinding halt. Mainly, because it really will be a parish.
A solution will be found for women bishops - they'll all be methodists!
What makes you think that it will leave behind a purified and evangelical Methodist church? it wll leave behind people who refuse change at any price. Some will be genuine evangelicals, but many will be people who want to run their own church - Tat Bankers.
The LPA could reinvigorate and reform lay involvement in the CofE.
The CofE is far more democratic than you realise. Indeed, it is probably more democratic then Methodism (not difficult).
Methodism has disappointed the 'Prims' and you. You have blogged that you do not trust the system. So where is the problem in getting rid of it?
Methodism will NOT be forgotten. Not all Methodists left the CofE. Today, it is known as the Evangelical wing. Try reading some Bishop Ryle.
This is knee-jerk ecclesiology. What matters is the mission; not the building, not the tradition, certainly not the system! What matters is the Great Commission. To that end we should be prepared to sacrifice the CofE, Methodism, the local church building, our pre-conceptions etc. etc.
The truth is that Methodism is a dead system. We must look elsewhere for what the Wesleys, Bp. Ryle, St. Paul - or even Our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ would recognise as authentic Christianity.
I see that there is a less than enthusiastic support for Methodist suicide in County Durham:
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/5006272.Methodist_change_claims_receive_mixed_response/
I agree that mission is vital. The problem I see is how a merger will actually help that. I despair of the Methodist infrastructure at times, of its endless meetings, and wish it would be more of a 'doing' instead of a 'talking' church. Thing is, will that change?
I think calling a negative reaction to the proposals a 'knee-jerk' is unfair. There is a reason why I go to a Methodist church and not the CoE. The reason is not that I love the institution but that I love what it stands for at a grass-roots level. Ultimately my concern with what's been said is with the manner in which it has been done and the motives behind it. I'm afraid I do not fully believe that mission is the sole motive (although I hope that it is), but rather that desparation, negative leadership and a lack of ideas at the top have played their role. I hope I am wrong.
There have been some threads about this on Facebook.
Some other Methodist bloggers - or do I now mean "Methodist" bloggers - have been hailing David Gamble's speech.
This is not going to be a push over. There are several comments about poor leadership within Methodism and about the Anglican Church itself.
One pertinent question: if we unite with the CoE, which particular faction are we uniting with? Jumping from a leaking but floating vessel into a flooded lifeboat does not make sense.
Jonathan we are not alone. No wonder certain people are trying to close down discussions on the internet about Methodism. (See "Blogger Beware" series of posts).
Those dales chapels, be they Methodist, Baptist or Independent have always had far more 'vital' Christianity that you find in the towns in the same area. It is strange thing, but you do find generations of born-again Christians in the farming community.
Your pertinant question is an excellent one and I think that like would attach to like. The real struggle has always been between the liberals and the evangelicals, with addition complications from other groups. Whatever happens, that battle is unlikely to go away.
I think the word for the Northern Echo article is 'considered' rather than 'less-than-enthusiastic'. Dales folk are very slow to change opinions but once convinced they tend to remain convinced.
I was a very young minister in my first appointment on Tyneside when we considered the 1983 Covenant. One of the old boys in my Church Council said "I remember when the Wesleyans took over, and we're not doing that again." I was a little taken aback, until I remembered that something which for me was church history was memory for them. I tried to explain that it wasn't a Wesleyan takeover, but that 1932 was a very careful balancing compromise between the principles of the 3 participating churches - he wasn't persuaded; he had grown up in North Durham, and there it definitely felt like a Wesleyan takeover. (There wasn't an 80-year-old ex-Wesleyan available to tell me what it had felt like for them, but elsewhere it did feel like a Prim or UM takeover - it depends on where they were coming from, and who was in the local majority when changes happened.)
There is no prospect of a merger. There is little prospect of any movement on unity. Too many people on both sides only want it on their terms. And most of us who have had anything to do with the structures would really rather run a million miles than try to work through the legalities of whatever a merger would be.
The only viable way forward is bottom-up ecumenism - for local congregations to see what they can do together, to work and pray together, to mission together, and see how closely they can live together. If that leads to merging of congregations and denominations, so be it. But the priority must be the local ife and mission - 'top-down' has been tried (1969, 1983), and has demonstrably failed. That's why I couldn't agree with Leslie Griffiths on R4's "Sunday" programme today - he seemed to want to pick up where 1969 left off and resurrect it (I know, too much of a caricature, but he was the one who mentioned it); the time for that sort of scheme has passed. Let's get on with the job of discipleship, and mission, and see where it leads us.
Thanks Tony for those wise words.
I'm off to preach now but will be back online later when I will take up the points you raise.
Post a Comment