I must admit I did wonder why there was such a rush to get through the disastorous paper on "social media" .
Clearly some in leadership in our church want to silence the newer forms of communication that by-pass the house newspaper, the Methodist Recorder, which can be relied upon to censor grass roots views.
David Gamble's ill advised comments that "we are prepared to go out of existence" were purely personal. The "we" don't agree, "we" haven't really been consulted. One or two "house bloggers" (no names, no pack drill) have hailed the speech but the rest of the Methodist blogsphere has been overwhelmingly underwhelmed.
"Furious" was how the membership of the church where I preached this morning described their reaction. At a church in the South West, the Minister told the congregation not to worry as it will come to nothing.
I can't make a comment about David Gamble. I have never met him. I know people who work with him, who assure me that he is a gracious man, so this is not a comment about him: I do however know some of those most keen for the Methodist Church to be taken over by the Church of England.
Their problem seems to stem from having a fairly tenuous grasp of Christianity, they are therefore unable to understand the distinctive life, mission and purpose of the Methodist Church as part of the universal Body of Christ. Many committed Anglicans do understand, respect, and honour this difference. It is sad that some in Methodist leadership can't.
However disbanding the Methodist Church will not be easy. It will not be a matter of a simple majority at Annual Conference.
The legal entity of the present Methodist Church was established by a private Act of Parliament in 1932. There will have to be enabling legislation. Those opposed to the merger may be able to get the matter onto the floor of both Houses of Parliament. At the very least they would propose amendments that would enable individual congregations to remain independent of the Methodist Church.
For example the former Wesleyan Connexion paid not a penny towards our church, it was all locally funded. We could make a powerful case for it not being transferred to the Church of England without our agreement. The Connexion has 5000 churches and chapels. We could have 5000 complex legal cases. Only the lawyers will win and not one person will have been won for Christ.
Obviously we need to ensure that any Methodist Ministers wishing to remain serving as a Methodist minister outside of the merged church should have their pension rights retained. That alone would make a series of very interesting legal cases.
And if the powers that be get their way? We don't have to be a member of the present Methodist Connexion and its successor body in a merged church to be a "Methodist". There is no question of Methodism going "out of existence" and it is an overweening arrogance to believe that this power rests exclusively with the major Methodist Connexion.
Firstly those churches that stay out of the merger could form a "continuing Connexion". It may be as that as Churches work out what it means to be a Christian and what it means to be a Methodist, new spiritual life will flow into our body. In other words the trauma of merger and seperation may be good for those of us who stay.
The other alternative is that churches, or new congregations if we are dispossessed of our buildings, could link up with other existing Methodist connexions: The Wesleyan Reform Union, the Independent Methodists, the Free Methodists, the Wesleyan Holiness Church or the Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion - and wouldn't that be a turn up for the book!?
So I suspect that my friend in the South West has got it just about right - it will come to nothing.
Let's forget David Gamble's comments as quickly as the media apparently have and get on with the job of saving souls. Those who want to leave the Methodist Church for the Anglicans, especially those Ministers prepared to accept the "conditional ordination" on offer, may do so. Go with our blessing. Leave us to continue the distinctive work for the Gospel of the Methodist Church.
Meanwhile those privaledged to be called into leadership of our Connexion should focus on supporting those of us who believe we are on a mission to proclaim the Good News. Please don't waste anymore time in talking the Methodists down.
Posts
4 comments:
Yuu're forgetting the Methodist Church Act 1976, which transferred the trusteeship and ownership of every chapel from the local Trustees Meeting to the Trustees For Methodist Church Purposes. Your local church council are the trustees, but they are only managing trustees. The chapel is owned by the Methodist Church.
So any congregations deciding to secede from the Connexion must hand over the keys and account books to the superintendent, and walk away. Forming another denomination, a new New Connexion, would mean starting from scratch. Charity law would mean you could not even have a church which is about to close make a donation from its funds to the new bank account of a new society - the money must be used for the purposes for which it was given, not the purposes of a competitor body.
As for the authority of Conference - well, Conference could enact legislation to take us out of existence, but the process would need Provisional Legislation, which takes two years and involves voting at every level of the church. (It's all in CPD, in the even more boring bit, which will cure any insomnia...)
I wouldn't worry too much - I told my West Yorkshire congregation this morning that they weren't about to be taken over by the Anglicans. Until the Anglicans get their act together and behave like one church, and until more Methodists at District, Circuit and local level are persuaded, there won't be any radical changes. Look what happened with the bishops debate - the powers that be thought they'd got it sorted, and the people said no. Basically, we are a more or less democratic church. Don't look so surprised...
Thanks Tony - wise words again!
I think David Gamble and the Vice President for all intents and purposes tried to stage the ecclesiastical equivalent of a military coup on Friday.
The feedback from around the country is that it has failed.
Where things work on a local level, no problem, though I hear very mixed reports of LEPs -basically one of the partnership congregations simply disappears.
I think the next conference needs to make an unequivocal declaration that we are still in business and put the last few days well and truly behind us.
There is much wrong with the Methodist Church but I find it difficult when our own President and Vice President talk the denomination down.
I appreciate what you say about the 1976 Act, but there could be a very interesting court battle ahead. I think I know someone who may be prepared to make an initial legal sorte on a pro bono basis.....
There WAS an interesting court battle, back in 1976 - it was hugely controversial at the time, because it cost the Methodist Church thousands to defend itself. They (we) won. The objection to the Act was thrown out.
I still think this is all a bit premature. There is no immediate prospect of any 'merger' with the CofE. And if there were, it would involve the requisite consultation at every level of the church (see above about Provisional Legislation). Not convinced there remain any grounds for legal challenge, to be honest.
By te way, the Countess of Huntingdon's connexion followed after Whitfield rather than Wesley and so is Calvinist rather than Arminian. In that respect, it is closer to the CofE.
Post a Comment