C.        Addressing the Obstacles

Groups identified three main ways to address the obstacles previously identified:
1. A Focus on Mission
2. An attentiveness to God
3. Greater local freedom to ‘get on with it’

Various other suggestions were also made.

C.1.a        A Focus on Mission

Most discussion centred around mission. "Mission," declared one group "is wider than simply increasing congregation and wider than church buildings."

Several groups therefore argued that our two Churches would grow closer through "jointly tackling community needs," "listening to people's needs," "Distribution of food for needy," and tackling "areas of social injustice" and developing "sustainable communities". As one group put it, "Social action issues are a great catalyst for multi-lateral action."

Many groups, however, took this argument one step further. By "seeking community links" the way forward is to "build up an identity beyond church membership for church members." Missionary engagement and a deepening covenant relationship between our Churches needed to happen outside the churches - "in the pub! (pray and play together)" - "being involved together in projects not focused on the church" - "developing the area without a 'sense of church', meeting in homes, using the school, getting all churches working together, etc".

Groups talked about "working alongside rather than within structures," "working through house groups," operating "beyond parochial and circuit boundaries," "making full use of section 106 agreements," "offering 'fresh expressions' of church."

"Ecumenism isn't big enough," asserted one group, "we must see it in a mission perspective. It needs a bigger picture." And another group emphasised, "Ecumenical activity is not restructuring but building relationships and community."

A number of related points were made: One group offered an ecumenical policy - for "a cell in every village, a congregation in every town and a celebration in every city." Another highlighted the potential of the sub-regional planning processes - and the need to "know how to tap into authority funding and social provision." Another group pointed out that "Renewal movements have always been seen as a threat," but "All renewal movements are in some ways a process of recovery of a previous vision."

One group highlighted the important role of lay people in fresh expressions. Another highlighted the importance of working with groups rather than individuals. And a third drew special attention to the hospitality we can offer to Christians from abroad - especially asylum seekers.

One group emphasised the need for conversations to work out 'what are we here for?" - and another group pointed out that "What works somewhere doesn't always work somewhere else."

C.1.b           The Bigger Picture

Various groups stressed the bigger picture within the Christian family.

Within the Christian family, one group pointed out that the Roman Catholic Church "deals with ecumenism in a bigger picture - at an international level and spanning through time." Roman Catholics, as another group pointed out, have said "Everything we do, we should do with other denominations."

Several groups emphasised the importance of lively 'Churches Together Groups' especially at intermediate ('county' or 'city') level.

One group warned that "An Anglican/Methodist Covenant could be seen as exclusive and not include other denominations." As if in response, however, another group affirmed, "our need to recognise that covenant is freely offering self - and often is helped by outside mediators (e.g. URC, Salvation Army etc). Another group asserted "The URC role can be catalytic."

Other comments included, "Empower deaneries - we can learn from Methodists" - "We should expect to learn from and give permission to - as the best pattern."

C.1.c           Projects

For several groups joint projects are an obvious way to enable a covenant relationship to grow.

Groups spoke of youth provision, sharing resources and courses of study. We should "focus on things we are able to do together." Suggestions included, "Jointly tacking community needs," "projects not focused on the church," "common issues e.g. Christian Aid at a local level."

A group of Ministry Training Officers saw the value of creating "windows of opportunity to work creatively where it is possible."

One group highlighted a different approach: The way forward, it was argued, is "Trust: Don't all do everything all the time. Trust others to do/say on behalf of all."

C.1.d           Share good practice

All this may be easier if we acknowledge good practice.

We can "identify what is happening already." For example "Positive contributions are being worked out in various Chaplaincies where structures are less inhibiting."

A group pointed out that we can make the most of what's possible - e.g. The Covenant means a bishop can now more readily allow Anglican clergy to preside at Communion regularly in Methodist churches. Methodists have created a new category of Associate Minister.

We can emphasise successes - e.g. a joint ecumenical Youth and Children's worker.

One group argued for a "pack of ideas that have been tested elsewhere" - "seeds for beginnings" However, another group warned "What works somewhere doesn't always work somewhere else."

C.1.e           Shared vision

Six groups spoke in terms of developing shared vision. A shared vision within congregations will "enable personality issues to be overcome."

One group asked, "Are we seeing church in business terms, just two churches coming together to 'rationalise' or is it deeper than that?" It then answered its own question: "Unless we are a united Church we are a defective Church."

Other groups spoke of "catching imaginative ideas" and of agreeing "terms of reference - basis of belief." Ministers, argued another group, "need to engage and discuss issues more to find common ground."

C.1.f           Sharing resources

Just two groups picked up the potential of sharing resources. One referred to the value of the Midlands Missioners’ meeting.

back to top

C.2.a          Attending to God

"We don't know where we are going except that it is God's journey, not ours." This comment sets the tone for a large cluster of responses that suggest that a covenant commitment is inclusive, about the quality of relationships, and is unstructured and essentially prayerful. "We must remind ourselves it is a covenant between ourselves and God (as well as denominations)."

These responses do not spell out specific practical steps, but they do indicate essential qualities and behaviour that are required to faithful disciples.

The quality most mentioned by the groups is inclusiveness. "Enable people to be part of decision-making," recommended one group. And another commented "Decision-making processes need to include all the Christians in any locality and not for people to feel that decisions are being thrown upon them from on high." A third commented "We need to get congregations to see the whole agenda in a positive light."

This last group also implied that many congregations are starting a long way back. "What do we do not just to develop relationships but to establish relationships? Ecumenical activity is not restructuring but building relationships and community."

Several groups expect progress to lie outside structures. "Perhaps the great variety of developments and unstructured activities has to be the way forward." We need to be "working alongside rather than within the structures." "Openness" is a key; as one group asserted "the greatest ecumenical work is where the label isn't being used."

Among several generalised references to "prayer", one group highlighted the role of "'saints' - often elderly who pray. Help them to widen their prayers to include ecumenical."

Other important - but highly generalised -characteristics that were mentioned include "trust" and "humility".

Comment: The problem with most of the comments in this cluster is that they are undoubtedly wise and true, but they are essentially aspirational. The hard 'how to' question, in the face of the reality of 'power-broking' within all human communities, goes unanswered.

C.2.b           Education

Education is offered as one solution to the 'how to' question.

We can educate: "People need to be educated and trained to recognise why ecumenism is essential- and then put it into practice."

At a practical level, ignorance can be dispelled: In dioceses "by exploring clearly the flexibility currently available." In local churches, "by meeting and talking about basics, why we do things the way we do e.g. Methodist cubed bread." By learning about "each other's culture and traditions, and our own."

More teaching is needed about covenant relationships, claimed one group. All existing training, claimed another "should provide more opportunities for ecumenical exposure."

The training is needed for clergy as well as lay, claimed several groups - specifically mentioning new ministers and clergy as they arrive in a developed ecumenical partnership.

More joint training is called for by several groups - "of lay leaders as well as ministers". Joint training initiatives ought to be possible locally for pastoral visitors, Local Preachers and Readers, and hose working with children and young people."

Comment: What is already happening is patchy. It could become the norm - even after allowing that the role of Local Preachers and Readers is not identical and there are issues of validation. What about refresher courses, and ongoing study?

However, while the opportunities for joint learning are many and are not being exploited nearly enough, neither the covenant vision nor the ecumenical vision (when seen in the context of God's mission) will never be communicated by education alone. People first have to be motivated so that they choose to learn.

C.2.c           Sharing a common life

Another well-favoured response to the 'how to' question was 'greater experience of a common life.'

Options suggested include "house groups" "sharing a building" "food - an effective way of gathering people together" "Joining together for daily 'offices' (prayers)"

"Sharing in services should become normative and not exceptional. Becomes frequent if expected."

Ingredients in the common life will include "partnership between lay and clergy" and the psychology attributed by one group to the Roman Catholic Church "Everything we do, we should do with other denominations."

Other comments show how much all this depends on people's willingness to enter into the experience - "a willingness to meet, talk, pray and recognise each other." "a willingness to build relationships across boundaries."

"Chemistry" observed one group "is as important as covenant relationships." "As relationships develop so trust develops, being able to face difficult truths enables forward movement."

Comment: In this section the discussion quickly reverts to the aspirational and includes a fair dose of 'wishful thinking'. Trust depends on trustworthiness - and on a recognition of another's integrity despite cultural difference. There seems to be little evidence of serious commitment or appreciation of the cost involved. Living in Christian community is deeply challenging, as any monk or nun will acknowledge!

back to top

C.3.a          Freeing people

How can we improve our relationships as the body of Christ?" asked one group - and answered "The covenant enables us to have the freedom."

The way forward, declared another group, is "as locally as possible with an enabling structure." Although another group added, "Much is to be done also at intermediate level, in enabling things to happen at local level."

"Informal agreements are important," declared one group, "based on trust" "Give people permission," this group added, "to think new thoughts."

Comment: As with many of the earlier responses, the overriding impression is that, if given freedom, people in our local churches will be freed up to be good - to dialogue, to get together lovingly, to know and trust people. There is curiously little sense of responsibility for a costly discipleship, or that all this love and trust and acceptance is counter-cultural both in the institutional Church and in society.

Not than manipulation or control or complex regulation will do any better!

Throughout all the data there is an alarming lack of commitment to a Gospel purpose beyond ourselves. It could be, of course, that those who thought they knew what their Gospel purpose was - whether or not their definition of evangelism was adequate - were too busy getting on with the job to bother turning up at a roadshow! But this seems unfairly critical of those who did turn up, and offers an improbably rosy picture of those who didn't!

‘How to’s in the exercise of this freedom include:

C.3.b        Finding the right people to relate to

At this point a few groups recognised the potential of deanery/circuit relationships – although, in one case, archdeaconry/circuit was suggested. “... close enough to the ground but with authority in each.”

Comment: The inherent problems of mismatched responsibilities were not addressed – nor the potential of building on their complementary strengths. Work to tease these out could be helpful and might release energy.

C.3.c      Ensuring cross-representation at all levels

Here also, the focus was deanery/circuit.

C.3.d      By being willing (or allowed) to stop doing something and be more radical

Two groups spoke wistfully about a freedom to be radical – but a picture of what a radical approach might entail is nowhere to be found.

back to top

C.4           Other possibilities

C.4.a           Deployment

Seven groups recognised the potential for joint staff deployment

We can think strategically together "wherever appointments are made - with relationships with partner churches in mind."

We can appoint people ecumenically "from within existing deployment rather than seek more funding."

We can "work together to share resources and be effective in mission and ministry."

"Some circuits find ministers who from their appointment fulfil ecumenical roles."

We can "address barriers in ministry - Associate Ministers (Methodist) and the Bishop's licence."

We could appoint an "individual in our Churches to take responsibility for complex issues (legal, property etc) facing congregations" [Such people exist in both Churches - but locating them can sometimes be challenging!]

Outside formal appointments we can "set up joint pastoral visiting teams to work across churches but in a given context e.g. a village setting."

C.4.b           Better communication

This is widely regarded as desirable – but the only specific suggestion was “an idiot’s guide to how the Church of England works”! [Some Anglicans might feel the same about the Methodist Church!] One group spoke about “greater transparency”. [This is important as decisions are often not actually made where the system suggests they should be.]

C.4.c           Intermediate level

While one group blandly suggested that the obstacles to covenant commitment need to be dealt with “at all levels”, a number of groups emphasised the importance of action at ‘intermediate level’ - “close enough to the group but with authority in each.” This might be deanery/circuit, diocese/district or archdeaconry/circuit. One group insisted that initiatives needed to be “as local as possible” and by contrast two groups placed the responsibility in the hands of connexion/synod and with “national leadership”. It was recognised that “issues (faith and order stuff) e.g. of episcopacy have to be done at the top”.

C.4.d           Boundaries

Four groups wanted to see action on boundaries – e.g. “looking at making circuit and deanery similar” [This may be the most immediately practical suggestion – although if Methodism goes for bigger circuits, they may look more like archdeaconries]

But “conquering mismatched boundaries” was seen by one group to be “a long way down the line”. Another group did, however, ask the JIC “to put pressure on to change these issues” – with special reference to Church of England structures.

C.4.e           Consultative procedures

Three groups see the need for more effective consultative procedures e.g. when making (or re-organising) stipendiary appointments. [Extra effort and serious attempts at give and take are needed – even over such simple things as the timetable of when meetings are scheduled – if our two Churches are to take each other seriously as we make these routine decisions.]

C.4.f           Other suggestions

Two other individual suggestions emerged – a) some kind of system for auditing initiatives [This idea was not explained] – and b) encouraging dual membership [This is already a possibility for Methodists because of the definition of ‘membership’ used by the Church of England – viz: the right to vote synodically when one’s name is on the Church Electoral Roll. But Anglicans could consider Methodist membership as well – although there would be a moral obligation to an increased financial commitment in support of both traditions.]

back to top