|
|
|
The report of the informal conversations between the
Church of England, the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church Church of England The Rt Revd Colin Buchanan (Co-Chair) United Reformed Church The Revd Robert Andrews (Co-Chair) Methodist Church The Revd Peter Whittaker (Co-Chair) Ecumenical participant, appointed by Churches Together in England Mrs Faith Bowers Bill Croft, Hilary Cooke, Paul Avis, Keith Reed and Sheila Maxey were also part of the Formal Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church as members, co-secretaries and ecumenical participant respectively. The 20th century has often been called the ecumenical century of the Christian Church. During it, and with gathering momentum, churches long separated, often with bitterness and violence, began to approach one another, talk together, work together and even re-unite. In 1961, at the World Council of Churches Assembly in New Delhi, a vision of unity was set down in terms which have sustained and challenged the ecumenical movement to this day. 'We believe that the unity which is both God's will and his gift to his Church is being made visible as all in each place who are baptized into Jesus Christ and confess him as Lord and Saviour are brought by the Holy Spirit into one fully committed fellowship, holding the one apostolic faith, preaching the one Gospel, breaking the one bread, joining in common prayer and having a corporate life reaching out in witness and service to all and who at the same time are united with the whole Christian fellowship in all places and all ages in such wise that ministry and members are accepted by all, and that all can act and speak together as occasion requires for the tasks to which God calls his people.' These conversations have been one way in which the participating churches, who already share so much common life, have sought to continue to be obedient to God's call to full, visible unity. The immediate context of these Trilateral Informal Conversations 1 In 1994 the Methodist Church invited the Church of England to explore, through informal conversations, the possibility of formal conversations which had organic unity in view. The Church of England accepted the invitation and Informal Conversations began in March 1995. 2 In 1995 the United Reformed Church invited the Church of England to enter into Informal Conversations on three particular matters: > developing ecumenical relations in the European context > the implications of the 1984 international Anglican - Reformed text, God's Reign and our Unity, for current ecumenical relations > the reconciliation of memories of 1662, the date of both the Act of Uniformity and the Book of Common Prayer During five meetings held between 1995 and 1997 those conversations also discussed the responses of the two churches to the Churches Together in England process, Called to be One, the exercise of oversight in the two churches and Church and State relations. Once Commitment to Mission and Unity, the report of the Informal Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church, had been published in July 1996 it too was discussed. 3 The recommendation of those Informal Conversations to the Ecumenical Committee of the United Reformed Church and the Council for Christian Unity of the Church of England was that Informal Conversations should be continued in order to explore the possibility of formulating "a common statement of our understanding of the nature and purpose of the Church, our existing agreements in faith and what sort of diversity would belong to a visibly united church"(final report, para.52). Neither church took up the recommendation because, by 1997, the proposals for Formal Conversations between the Methodist Church and the Church of England had taken centre stage. 4 In July 1996 Commitment to Mission and Unity, the report of the Informal Conversations between the Methodist Church and the Church of England, was published. It proposed that, given that the two churches believed they shared a common understanding of the goal of visible unity, they should enter into Formal Conversations while taking into account the wider ecumenical relationships of the two churches. The report listed ten issues, of varying degrees of difficulty, to be resolved between the two churches and proposed that Formal Conversations should address those issues and then proceed to prepare a Common Statement similar to the Meissen and Fetter Lane Common Statements. (see appendix) 5 In September 1996 the Chairman of the Council for Christian Unity, the Rt Revd David Tustin, Bishop of Grimsby, and the Secretary of the Methodist Conference, the Revd Brian Beck, wrote to every member church of Churches Together in England asking for comments on the report and stating that the responses would help to inform the debates and the decision-making processes which lay ahead. 6 Several partner churches responded. The Baptist Union Faith and Unity Executive Committee, after some debate about the appropriateness of bi-lateral conversations within the overall context of the multi-lateral Called to be One process, felt the time was right for these bi-lateral talks. However, it expressed concern for the position of the United Reformed Church in view of the number of Local Ecumenical Partnerships in which it was a partner with one or both of the churches involved. The Roman Catholic Church emphasised the need for consistency with the work of the Anglican - Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) and pressed hard questions about ordination in relation to paragraph 27 in the section on the reconciliation of ordained ministries. 7 In July 1997, the United Reformed Church at its General Assembly endorsed the following response made on its behalf by the Ecumenical Committee. "As a church committed to the search for the organic unity of the Church, the United Reformed Church welcomes the recommendation of the report of the Informal Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church that they now enter Formal Conversations. Encouraged by the extent of local sharing in mission, worship and service which the United Reformed Church already enjoys with both the Church of England and the Methodist Church, and bearing in mind the Scottish Church Initiative for Union and the Welsh Covenant (Enfys) in which the United Reformed Church shares with the Methodist and Episcopal churches in Scotland and Wales, we hereby express our interest in becoming a full participant in the process of Commitment to Mission and Unity. Our particular contribution to Formal Conversations would be insights from the Reformed tradition, notably the conciliar expression of the apostolicity of the Church and the shared ministry of the Elders. We await with interest the responses of the Church of England Synod and the Methodist Conference to the recommendations of the report, assure them of our prayers, and look forward to the contribution the United Reformed Church may be able to make to this process from our united traditions." (resolution 28) 8 Some of the effects of consultation with ecumenical partners, and of extensive consultation within the two churches, can be seen in the proposals which were presented to the November 1997 General Synod of the Church of England by the Council for Christian Unity. The task of the Formal Conversations, as set out in its report to the General Synod (GS1266:30), would now be to prepare a Common Statement which would include a description of visible unity, an exploration of outstanding issues of difference, and a declaration of acknowledgements and commitments. Out of the ten issues listed in Commitment to Mission and Unity, these particular conversations would concentrate on the nature and style of the office of the bishop, and the ways of exercising authority, oversight and governance in the Church. It was acknowledged that difficult issues, such as the integration of existing ordained ministries, would not be resolved during a first series of Formal Conversations. Neither church was committing itself at this stage to a scheme for organic union. The General Synod supported the proposal for Formal Conversations, as set out in GS 1266, by a comfortable majority. 9 The proposals for Formal Conversations, set out in GS 1266, included (in paragraph 31) the hope that there might be an informal trilateral conversation which included the United Reformed Church "in order to consider the two subjects which the United Reformed Church has indicated as needing exploration, namely the conciliar expression of the apostolicity of the Church and the shared ministry of the Elders." Paragraph 31 continues: "It would be important to keep Formal Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church in close contact with the work of any informal trilateral conversations." 10 Another development during the consultation period was that the 'ecumenical observers' (Roman Catholic, Baptist, Moravian and United Reformed) became 'ecumenical participants' and the United Reformed Church request that it should have two ecumenical participants in the Formal Conversations was granted. 11 The proposal that the Church of England and the Methodist Church enter into Formal Conversations, including the hope of Trilateral Informal Conversations involving the United Reformed Church, was presented to the 1998 Methodist Conference in precisely the same terms as to the 1997 General Synod. The Secretary to the Conference, the Revd Brian Beck, in his presentation made special reference to the United Reformed Church when he spoke of the role of the ecumenical participants in the proposed talks. He said: "But the URC especially must be at the table because they and the Methodist Church are particularly close in some areas, though not in all. But in some respects there is a separate agenda with the URC, and a distinct, though linked, set of talks is proposed." The proposal that the Methodist Church should enter into Formal Conversations with the Church of England received overwhelming support from the Conference. 12 The Trilateral Informal Conversations first met in April 1999, following the first meeting of the Formal Conversations in February 1999. The agreed terms of reference were that their consideration of the two issues raised by the United Reformed Church in response to Commitment to Mission and Unity would be set within a developing understanding of the sort of visible unity required for effective mission and the experience of shared living already enjoyed, particularly in Local Ecumenical Partnerships. It was also agreed that the Trilateral Informal Conversations would meet between the meetings of the Formal Conversations. This would enable a constructive relationship to be established and regular reports exchanged so that each group could reflect on the progress of the other and contribute to it as appropriate. 13 By the second meeting the Trilateral Informal Conversations, recognising they had their own integrity and dynamic, felt free to move beyond the two topics raised by the United Reformed Church in order to deepen understanding of each other's churches and to examine more closely both what united and what divided the three churches. The meeting also considered it had a responsibility to try to ensure that bi-lateral progress in the Formal Conversations did not damage Local Ecumenical Partnerships involving the United Reformed Church and one or both of the other churches, or the wide range of shared life and work at regional and national level. As churches in three nations, the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church had also to bear in mind their ecumenical relations in Scotland and Wales. A further consideration was that the work of the Trilateral Informal Conversations might enable the United Reformed Church to enter into three-way Formal Conversations at a later stage. 14 The group met four times residentially between April 1999 and December 2000 and twice for one-day meetings in January and March 2001. The size of the meeting - twelve members and one ecumenical participant - meant it was possible to build relationships and establish a dynamic quite quickly.
The broader ecumenical and historical context of the Trilateral Informal Conversations 15 The foundation documents of all three churches make it clear they regard themselves as part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Preface to the Church of England's Declaration of Assent states: "The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons." (Canon C15 1(1) The Canons of the Church of England) The Doctrinal Standards of the Methodist Church state: "The Methodist Church claims and cherishes its place in the Holy Catholic Church which is the Body of Christ. It rejoices in the inheritance of the apostolic faith and loyally accepts the fundamental principles of the historic creeds and of the Protestant Reformation. It ever remembers that in the providence of God Methodism was raised up to spread scriptural holiness through the land by the proclamation of the evangelical faith and declares its unfaltering resolve to be true to its divinely appointed mission." The Basis of Union of the United Reformed Church states: "The United Reformed Church confesses the faith of the Church catholic in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It acknowledges that the life of faith to which it is called is a gift of the Holy Spirit continually received in Word and Sacrament and in the common life of God's people. It acknowledges the Word of God in the Old and New Testaments, discerned under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as the supreme authority for the faith and conduct of all God's people." (Basis of Union para 12) 16 All three believe themselves to be firmly committed to the goal of the full visible unity of that Church. In recent years all have restated that commitment. In 1996 the General Assembly of the United Reformed Church reaffirmed the commitment made in its Basis of Union of 1972 to take "wherever possible, and with all speed, further steps towards the unity of all God's people." (Basis of Union para.8). At that Assembly it resolved, virtually unanimously, to continue to express that commitment through resource sharing, active involvement in ecumenical bodies, the development and support of Local Ecumenical Partnerships and United Areas and, most significantly, in "active participation in initiatives leading towards organic union." (GA1996 resolution 31) 17 Commitment to Mission and Unity (1996), the report of the Informal Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church, set out the two churches' common understanding of the goal of visible unity. The report states, in a chapter entitled Our Common Goal of Visible Unity, their shared conviction that "the Church is called to make visible God's gift of unity in both space and time." It also maintains that "the visible unity we seek to live out together is a stage on the way to the full visible unity which we hope to realize with the whole Christian family." 18 The search for full visible unity has led the three churches along various paths, sometimes in company with each other and sometimes in company with others. Over the past 30 years, important international ecumenical work in which some or all of the three churches have been involved has assisted and encouraged that search. Of particular importance have been the 1982 World Council of Churches' Faith and Order Commission paper, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, the 1984 report of the Anglican-Reformed dialogue, God's Reign and our Unity, and the 1993 Interim Report of the Anglican - Methodist International Commission, Sharing in the Apostolic Communion. 19 Between 1978 and 1982 the three churches, together with the Moravian Church, tried and failed to covenant for unity in England. For many in all three churches this was a bitter blow to ecumenical hopes. But out of that failure a complex and rich ecumenical life has developed in which all three churches are inextricably involved. One of the grass-roots responses to the failure of the covenant for unity at national level was the establishment of many new Local Ecumenical Partnerships, involving all three churches. All three were centrally involved in the birth of the new ecumenical instruments and in the Called to be One process of Churches Together in England. Joint theological education became increasingly the norm, especially between these three churches. As ecumenical life in England has developed, all three churches have come to exercise, along with other partner churches, some degree of shared oversight at the level of the county sponsoring body, especially in relation to Local Ecumenical Partnerships. 20 The United Reformed Church (created through the 1972 union of the Congregational Church in England and Wales and the Presbyterian Church of England) continued, during this period, to seek further organic unions. In 1981 it united with the Re-formed Association of the Churches of Christ and in 2000 with the Congregational Union of Scotland. Since 1973, both the United Reformed Church and the Methodist Church have committed themselves to work for full visible unity in Wales through the Commission of Covenanting Churches, known as Enfys. The 1998 Methodist Conference and the 2000 General Assembly gave preliminary support to the Commission's proposal for an ecumenical bishop in East Cardiff. The United Reformed Church and the Methodist Church are also both committed to search for a basis for union in Scotland with the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Episcopal Church. There too, bishops are part of the proposed basis for union. 21 The relationship between the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church is particularly close at the local level where there are nearly 200 joint churches and three united areas. (United Areas function as both United Reformed Church District Councils and Methodist Circuits.) A national liaison committee has existed since the 1970s. It seeks to make the life of the joint churches more bearable while the parent churches remain disunited. However, when in 1990, by means of a questionnaire, the two churches were canvassed for support for exploring the path to closer union, there was not a sufficient majority of responses in favour in either church to warrant proceeding further. One of the reasons for both United Reformed Church and Methodist Church lack of support for bilateral talks was a preference for the multi-lateral approach through the new ecumenical bodies. Another factor in both churches was that the supporters of the Covenant which had failed in 1982 still looked for a way forward which would include the Church of England. 22 In 1975 the United Reformed Church, because of its close relationships (from both its congregational and presbyterian traditions) with many Reformed churches in mainland Europe, became a member of the Leuenberg Fellowship. The 1973 Leuenberg Agreement between European Lutheran, Reformed and United churches defined church fellowship in terms of a common understanding of the Gospel, a setting aside of past doctrinal condemnations, and a granting of fellowship in word and eucharist including mutual recognition of ordination. In 1995 the Methodist Church also became a member. Ninety-nine churches, mostly European but including a few in Latin America, are now members of the Leuenberg Fellowship. Some of the Baltic and Nordic Lutheran churches, including some signatories to the Porvoo Declaration have signed the Agreement. (These various agreements are described in the appendix) 23 During this period, the Church of England was seeking full visible unity through a 'steps and stages' approach to particular partners, or groups of partners. It turned, at first, to the Evangelische Kirche, Deutschland (EKD) - an umbrella body which holds together the Lutheran, Reformed and United churches of Germany. There was a long-standing relationship on which to build, and as large, national churches they had much common ground. The resulting Meissen Common Statement of 1989 set the pattern for future agreements in which the Church of England was involved. The agreed Common Statement claimed that full, visible unity must include the following characteristics: > a common confession of the apostolic faith in word and life > the sharing of one baptism, the celebrating of one eucharist and the service of a reconciled, common ministry > bonds of communion which enable the Church at every level to guard and interpret the apostolic faith, to take decisions, to teach authoritatively, to share goods and to bear effective witness. These bonds will possess personal, collegial and communal aspects. The signatories committed themselves "to share a common life and mission. We will take all possible steps to closer fellowship in as many areas of Christian life and witness as possible, so that all our members together may advance on the way to full, visible unity." 24 The Fetter Lane Common Statement (1996) between the Church of England and the Moravian Church and The Reuilly Common Statement (1999) between the British and Irish Anglican churches and the French Lutheran and Reformed churches followed much the same pattern, the former being the first to involve an English partner. Each agreement led to a formal mutual recognition of one another as churches, and a commitment to continue to seek full visible unity together. These agreements did not lead to interchangeability of ordained ministry. 25 In the case of both the Meissen Agreement with the EKD and the Reuilly Agreement with the French Lutheran and Reformed Churches the United Reformed Church already had long-standing partnerships with those churches, and was in pulpit and table fellowship with them through the Leuenberg Agreement. The United Reformed Church was, as a result, invited to send an observer to both the German and the French conversations. 26 The Porvoo Agreement (1993) between the British and Irish Anglican churches and some of the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran churches was, however, able to offer interchangeability of ordained ministry because the signatories were able to declare: "we acknowledge that the episcopal office is valued and maintained in all our churches as a visible sign expressing and serving the Church's unity and continuity in apostolic life, mission and ministry." This, in turn, led to the signatories being able to commit themselves: "to welcome persons episcopally ordained in any of our churches to the office of bishop, priest or deacon to serve, by invitation and in accordance with any regulations which may from time to time be in force, in that ministry in the receiving church without re-ordination;" (Together in Mission and Ministry, p30) The mandated topics: conciliarity 27 The first meeting considered a United Reformed Church paper on The Conciliar Expression of the Apostolicity of the Church in the United Reformed Church. It concluded its descriptive section with a quotation from the 1997 unpublished report of the United Reformed Church - Church of England Informal Conversations: "In the United Reformed Church continuity is carried in the totality of our common life expressed in the councils of the Church." This 'whole body ecclesiology' of conciliarity involving representation, constitutionality and consent was readily recognisable in the other two churches. 28 For the United Reformed Church the primary expression of 'whole body ecclesiology' is the Church Meeting, a monthly or quarterly meeting of all the members of a local congregation. There members exercise mutual oversight, as well as oversight of the whole life of the local church as they... "have opportunity through discussion, responsible decision and care for one another, to strengthen each other's faith and to foster the life, work and mission of the Church" (The Structure of the United Reformed Church 2.(1)) However the essential connectedness in both time and space between the local and the universal is also made clear: "Participating in the common life of the Church within the local church, they (i.e. members) enter into the life of the Church throughout the world. With that whole Church they also share in the life of the Church in all ages and in the Communion of Saints have fellowship with the Church Triumphant." (Basis of Union para.16) 29 The District Councils, Synods and General Assembly also express 'whole body ecclesiology" as they each exercise their appropriate conciliar oversight through representatives, both ministers and elders. However, it is the General Assembly which embodies the unity of the United Reformed Church, acts as the central organ of its life and is the final authority, under the Word of God and the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit, in all matters of doctrine and order. (see The Structure of the United Reformed Church 2.(5)) 30 For the Church of England "Conciliarity refers to the involvement of the whole body of the faithful - bishops, clergy and laity - in consultation, normally through representative and constitutional structures, for the sake of the well-being of the Church and God's mission in the world. Conciliar life sustains all the baptized in a web of belonging, of mutual accountability and support." (Bishops in Communion p 21) Within this conciliar structure, the bishop has a particular role as the (1980) Ordinal states: "A bishop is called to lead in serving and caring for the people of God and to work with them in the oversight of the Church." This describes the relational way in which oversight is to be exercised by the bishop in synod, and the House of Bishops in relation to the General Synod. The importance of the personal role of the bishop as a focus of unity in both time and space has no clear equivalent in the other two churches. 31 Methodist ecclesiology lays particular emphasis on "relatedness" as essential to the concept of 'Church' (see Called to Love and Praise 4.7.1) and this finds expression in the 'connexional principle'. This means that all the structures of fellowship, consultation, government and oversight express the interdependence of all churches. Alongside this, as the natural corollary of connexionalism, local churches, Circuits and Districts exercise the greatest possible degree of conciliar autonomy in order to be able to respond to local calls to mission and service. However, their dependence on the larger whole is also necessary for their own continuing vitality and well - being (see Called to Love and Praise 4.6.2) and it is the Conference which is the final arbiter on matters of policy and doctrine. It is also through the Conference that faithful continuity is kept with the apostolic faith. 32 Within its practice of 'whole body ecclesiology' the Methodist Church gives a special place to those who are ordained representative persons (see Called to Love and Praise 4.6.6) while recognising that it is ultimately the whole people of God, through their representatives on the relevant decision - making bodies, who must decide on the strategies placed before them (see Called to Love and Praise 4.6.6) The Methodist Church's connexional understanding of the Church recognizes the need for ministries of unity and oversight within the universal fellowship of believers, whether exercised personally, collegially or communally. (see Called to Love and Praise 4.6.9) It seemed that all three churches were conciliar, all were connexional, but in different ways. Conciliarity involving representation, constitutionality and consent could be seen in all three churches. All exercised oversight through councils as well as through personal leadership and all saw their life as in faithful continuity with the apostolic church. 33 Careful listening to one another led to a new recognition of common ground. However, differences began to emerge when it came to considering the place of personal episkope in the various ways in which the three churches understood apostolic continuity. More work is needed to examine together how far the different ways in which personal episkope relates to apostolicity are contingent and how far they are a matter of theological principle.
The mandated topics: eldership 34 The shared ministry of ministers and elders in every council is of particular value to the United Reformed Church. It demonstrates a collaborative understanding of leadership, exercised corporately in an atmosphere of mutual accountability. The ministry of minister and elders is distinct but complementary - each is incomplete without the other. This is faithful to the spirit of the Geneva Reformation but the practice has evolved over the years with different emphases in different Reformed churches throughout the world. 35 Calvin's concern was to ensure the good ordering of the Church on a scriptural basis. In the Institutes, 4.3.8, he advocates that each church have 'a senate' of ministers and elders, whose classic role was 'in pronouncing censures and exercising discipline'. This disciplinary system was taken up in the Westminster Confession and Form of Church Government, 1646, which became the standard for the Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian churches throughout the English-speaking world. 36 For Calvin, pastoral care, in the narrower sense of care for the needy, was the responsibility of deacons. But towards the end of the 16th century, elders were tending to assume the functions of deacons in relation to the poor - a model of eldership that was revived by Thomas Chalmers in Scotland in the 19th century and which is integral to the United Reformed Church practice today. The Elders' Meeting also sees that public worship is regularly offered and that the sacraments are duly administered. This emphasis is also found in Calvin, but it has been enhanced by insights inherited from the Churches of Christ tradition in this country, where elders played an important role in leading worship and preaching as well as in pastoral care. 37 Every local United Reformed Church has an Elders' Meeting consisting of men and women over the age of eighteen, who have been chosen by the whole membership for their Christian maturity to share with the minister in the oversight and pastoral care of the church. At the heart of both the ministry of Word and Sacrament and the ministry of the Elder today is the equipping of every member for his or her calling. Elders are ordained by the local congregation to their ministry of shared leadership, pastoral care, and the equipping of the people of God. That ordination is for life and is recognised throughout the United Reformed Church. The wider councils of the church normally consist of ministers and elders. 38 The gift of eldership came to the United Reformed Church from the Presbyterian Church of England. The Congregational Church had a similar ministry exercised by deacons but they were not ordained, although many served for long years and a fewwere honoured with the title 'life-deacon'. Today, elders rarely serve for an unlimited, continuous period. In most churches, elders serve for a limited term and are then expected to take a sabbatical period as non-serving elders. When, after a period as a non-serving elder, an elder is called again to serve a particular church at a particular time, he or she is inducted to that new period of service, not re-ordained. The elders are the faithful core of the church's life. 39 Certain ecclesiological and pastoral principles seemed to emerge from this presentation of the principles and practice of eldership in the United Reformed Church. > the ministry of the elder emerges from the ministry of the whole people of God as elders are chosen by the members. > their representative ministry is exercised in all the councils of the church. Such representative ministry is valued in all the churches. > the Elders Meeting is a good example of shared authority and collegiality of oversight and it embodies a formal commitment to corporate responsibility. > the ministry of the elder is specifically intended to be an enabling ministry, to equip all the people of God in their particular ministries > elders are chosen for their Christian maturity rather than for any specific gifts or skills. Their term of office as serving elders may be of several years' duration and they may serve several terms. The church often receives from its elders a maturity and continuity of leadership. The Church of England and Methodist members were able to identify various lay ministries and forms of church government in the life of their churches which also expressed these principles. All three churches were able to affirm these as sound and desirable ecclesiological and pastoral principles for local church leadership. 40 The United Reformed Church practice of ordaining elders presented difficulties. The Church of England, in particular, sees ordination as necessarily including the ministry of Word and Sacrament. The United Reformed Church, in common with most of the Reformed family, sees ordination as also being appropriate for other ministries. In Eldership in the Reformed Churches Today (Studies from the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, no. 22, 1990) the ordination of elders is described as follows: "Ordination is an act of consecration to service through a particular office or ministry. It is an acknowledgement by the Church that the person ordained has been empowered and equipped for that ministry by the Holy Spirit and has been recognized and called to that ministry by the Church."(8a) 41 It was noted that, although elders are ordained into a ministry of the whole United Reformed Church, the local congregation has full authority to choose and ordain them and they are accountable to the local congregation alone. No training is required before ordination and, although most synods and district councils offer in-service training, it is neither accredited nor obligatory. The comments made by the Church of England and Methodist members about the lack of authorisation of elders by the wider church showed that more work was needed on the three churches' understanding of 'local' and 'Church'. The questions pressed on the voluntary nature of the training and the lack of formal accreditation (which would probably not have been asked in relation to Methodist Stewards or Church of England Church Wardens because they are not ordained) indicated the need for further work on the different understandings of ordination. The fact that the wider councils of the United Reformed Church normally consist solely of ministers and elders seemed to the Methodist and Anglicans members to limit the ministry of the whole people of God. 42 A paper on Representative Ministry, which had been presented by Paul Avis to the Formal Conversations, proved very relevant to this discussion. The paper sought to find a way of valuing the great variety of ministries within the ministry of all the baptized, yet without equating ministry with every aspect of Christian discipleship. Two of the concerns expressed by the Methodist Church and the Church of England about elders in the United Reformed Church - that their ordination opened the door to a whole range of possible ordained ministries, and that councils of ministers and elders limited the ministry of all the baptized - had clear connections with this paper's attempt to wrestle with how to recognise and value the full range of particular ministries within the whole ministry of the people of God. 43 The issue of eldership, although potentially divisive, in fact led to considerable convergence. It was recognised that each tradition located oversight and authorised ministries at what it believed to be an ecclesiologically appropriate place. However, in response to the need for a contemporary missionary strategy, all three churches were developing new forms of lay leadership alongside the traditional ones, and expanding the role of locally ordained ministers or ministers in local appointment. As the group talked of the traditional roles of Local and Lay Preachers, Elders, Stewards, Pastoral Visitors, Church Wardens, Sidesmen, Readers, Licensed Lay Workers, Lay Pastoral Assistants, Church Army Officers and Church Related Community Workers, and the new emerging roles of Local Church Leaders, Mission Enablers, Worship Leaders and Evangelists, it was clear that there was considerable convergence in both ecclesiology and practice. 44 The pattern of shared leadership between such lay ministers and those ordained to the ministry of Word and Sacrament also seemed to be changing. In both the Methodist Church and the Church of England the growing number of ministers ordained only to a local appointment raises new questions. Deacons in the Methodist Diaconal Order, who play a significant role in the leadership team of some local churches, are ordained to the ministry of Christ's Church, but not to a ministry of Word and Sacrament. Ordained ministry in the Church of England is developing in several ways, for example in the work being done on issues related to a distinctive diaconate. More work is needed on the place of ordination and authorisation in this range of ministries. 45 Commitment to Mission and Unity, the report of the Informal Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church, begins with the words: "We believe that our churches share a common understanding of the goal of visible unity." It goes on to describe the four characteristics of a visibly united church as: > a common profession of the one apostolic faith grounded in Holy Scripture and set forth in the historic creeds; > the sharing of one Baptism and the celebrating of one Eucharist; > a common ministry of word and sacraments; > a common ministry of oversight. This portrait of unity is similar to that in the Meissen Common Statement and, with some variation of wording, is found in all the ecumenical agreements which the Church of England or the British and Irish Anglican Churches have signed in the last few years. Its origins lie both in the Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 and in World Council of Churches Faith and Order statements. 46 The Church of England members explained their 'steps and stages' approach to the goal of full visible unity. Methodist and United Reformed Church members found it difficult, from their church perspective, to understand the distinction between the stage of formally acknowledging the other churches, with whom these agreements had been made, as true churches, and the further stage of interchangeability of ordained ministry. 47 It became clear at the first meeting that the other two churches had some questions about the willingness of the United Reformed Church to express its commitment to the full visible unity of the Church in the terms agreed between the Methodists and Anglicans in Commitment to Mission and Unity. (see 45 above) The United Reformed Church representatives had taken for granted that their church's commitment to the goal of an organically united Church, as re-stated most recently at the 1996 General Assembly when it resolved to express that commitment through "active participation in initiatives leading towards organic union" was recognised as equivalent. 48 In order to make it clear that the United Reformed Church shared "a common profession of the one apostolic faith grounded in Holy Scripture and set forth in the historic creeds" (see 45 above) its representatives drew attention to the Statement Concerning the Nature, Faith and Order of the United Reformed Church, which is read at the ordinations and inductions of ministers and elders, and which states: I. "The United Reformed Church confesses the faith of the Church catholic in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit II. The United Reformed Church acknowledges that the life of faith to which it is called is a gift of the Holy Spirit continually received in Word and Sacrament and in the common life of God's people III. The United Reformed Church acknowledges the Word of God in the Old and New Testaments, discerned under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as the supreme authority for the faith and conduct of all God's people IV. The United Reformed Church accepts with thanksgiving the witness borne to the catholic faith by the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and recognises as its own particular heritage the formulations and declarations of faith which have been valued by Congregationalists, Presbyterians and members of the Churches of Christ as stating the Gospel and seeking to make its implications clear." It is not common for formal credal statements to be said by the congregation during Sunday worship. However, whenever new members are received or elders or ministers ordained, all these are required to publicly affirm or re-affirm their trinitarian faith in a form of words laid down by the General Assembly. 49 The United Reformed Church representatives maintained, firstly, that the common understanding of visible unity, set forth by the Church of England and the Methodist Church in chapter 2 of Commitment to Mission and Unity, fell clearly within the intention of the 1996 General Assembly resolution. There the United Reformed Church resolved to express its commitment to the unity of all God's people through "active participation in initiatives leading towards organic union" Secondly, they suggested that there might be other, equally faithful, approaches to the unity of all God's people than the one set out in Commitment to Mission and Unity. They pointed to the Leuenberg Agreement as one example of an alternative approach. 50 The original purpose of the Leuenberg Agreement, made in 1973, was to reconcile the European Reformation churches which derived from Luther and from the Genevan reformers, and also the churches of the 'first Reformation' - the Church of the Czech Brethren and the Waldensian Church. The Agreement is based on the Reformation understanding that there is a difference between the essential nature of the Church and its shape. 51 For the churches of the Leuenberg Fellowship, pulpit and table fellowship follows agreement in faith, and does not depend on a common ministry of oversight. The pulpit and table fellowship found in the Leuenberg Fellowship is seen as a visible expression of the invisible unity already given by God. The Agreement begins: "The Church is founded upon Jesus Christ alone. It is he who gathers the Church and sends it forth, by the bestowal of his salvation in preaching and the sacraments." (Leuenberg Agreement 2) The 1995 Leuenberg text on Sacraments, Ministry, Ordination adds: "Differences in structure do not impede a "church fellowship" in the sense of pulpit and table fellowship. The reciprocal acknowledgement of ministry and ordination is not impeded so long as the question of church leadership remains subordinate to the sovereignty of the word." (Sacraments, Ministry, Ordination p 114) 52 The 1973 Agreement also states that the question of organic union between particular churches must depend on their situation. The Agreement goes on to express anxiety that such organic unions might either suppress diversity or oppress minority churches. However, the 1996 document, The Church of Jesus Christ, shows a willingness to promote dialogue on episcopal ministry and the historic apostolic succession if that serves the extension of church fellowship. Nevertheless, it continues to hold "that no single historically arisen form of church leadership and ministerial structure can or may be laid down as a prior condition for fellowship and for mutual recognition." (Church of Jesus Christ pp98ff) 53 In contrast to Leuenberg, the United Reformed Church's commitment to the full visible unity of the Church, believing that unity to be an expression of the koinonia to be found in the Godhead, does not depend on the situation. Commitment to the full visible unity of the Church is part of its very being. Nevertheless, it shares the conviction of the Leuenberg Fellowship that where churches mutually recognise one another - where there is the right teaching of the Gospel and the right celebration of the sacraments - that should be expressed in 'fellowship in word and sacrament'. (Leuenberg Agreement 29). This includes "the mutual recognition of ordination and the freedom to provide for inter-celebration," (Leuenberg Agreement 33) Although the documents produced by the Leuenberg Fellowship are cautious about the road to organic union which lies beyond that fellowship in word and sacrament, the United Reformed Church has made it abundantly clear through its successive unions that it is committed to the visible, organic unity which lies beyond such fellowship. Recent documents considered by these conversations 54 Following on the initial focus on the United Reformed Church, its two particular insights from the Reformed tradition, and on the nature of its commitment to the full visible unity of the Church, the group decided to consider recent documents from the other two churches which bore on these matters. The three chosen were the Methodist Conference Statement on the Nature of the Church, Called to Love and Praise (1999), the Church of England House of Bishops paper, Bishops in Communion: collegiality in the service of the Koinonia of the Church (2000) and the report of the Faith and Order Committee of the Methodist Church to the Conference in 2000, Episkope and Episcopacy, with its attendant guidelines. 55 After a Methodist presentation of the report, Called to Love and Praise, which emphasised that it was the first authoritative statement on the nature of the Church by the Methodist Church since 1935, the other two partner churches responded. Having welcomed the considerable extent to which they could endorse the statement, discussion focussed on areas of difference or disagreement. 56 Some of the challenges posed by the Church of England response could equally well have been addressed to the United Reformed Church. It commented on the inclusive understanding of the unity already given by God (3.1.2) - a unity which apparently included those churches where the sacraments of Eucharist and Baptism were not celebrated. The Methodist use of the phrase "the priesthood of all believers" was noted (4.5) and the question asked as to whether there was in Methodism, as in Anglicanism, an intrinsic link between the ordained ministry and the ministry of Word and Sacrament. Called to Love and Praise speaks of the ordained ministers as "representative persons" (4.5.10), meaning that they represent the people before God. 57 Both the Church of England and the United Reformed Church members sought further explanation of what it meant to say that the connexional principle enshrined a vital truth about the nature of the Church. (4.6 ) More work is needed on a shared understanding of the nature of the Church. More work is also needed on the different understandings of the way to full visible unity. 58 Although Bishops in Communion takes koinonia in its very broadest sense as its starting point, relating the koinonia of the Church to the communion of the Trinity and to God's mission to the whole of creation, the document's primary purpose is to describe how the collegiality of the episcopate can serve the koinonia of the Church. 59 A United Reformed Church response to Bishops in Communion led the group into important areas of difference and convergence, mainly but not only, between the Church of England and the United Reformed Church. The heart of the difference lay in the understanding of the nature of representative ministry within the context of the ministry of the whole people of God. This pointed to a discussion which went beyond episcopacy. There appeared to be considerable convergence in practice in the work of a Church of England bishop, a United Reformed Church synod moderator and a Methodist District chair. However, the bishop's role as chief minister of Word and Sacrament in the area of his jurisdiction, together with his ministry of personal episkope, seemed to differentiate him from the synod moderator and the district chair. Because of the different histories and different ecclesiologies which lie behind the three synods and the personal ministries related to them in the three churches, there are considerable differences as to when and how authority is exercised personally and when and how synodically. 60 A Methodist member introduced the report, Episkope and Episcopacy which had been presented to the Methodist Conference in 2000. Of particular importance was the fourth of the guidelines which were adopted as a summary statement of theMethodist Church's position on episkope and episcopacy. It states: "In the furtherance of the search for the visible unity of Christ's Church, the Methodist Church would willingly receive the sign of episcopal succession on the understanding that ecumenical partners sharing this sign with the Methodist Church (a) acknowledge that the latter has been and is part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church and (b) accept that different interpretations of the precise significance of the sign exist." 61 At present, it is the President of Conference who most clearly exercises a role of personal episkope comparable to that of a bishop in the Church of England. The President (and Past-Presidents) ordain new ministers and act as a focus for the unity of the Methodist Church. However, Presidents serve for only one year. The model of episcopacy being explored by the covenanting churches in Wales, and by the Scottish Church Initiative for Union, where the emphasis is on leadership in mission and the exercise of pastoral care for ministers and people, points more obviously to the role of Methodist District Chair or United Reformed Church Synod Moderator. The third of the guidelines adopted at the Methodist Conference in 2000 states that the Methodist Church believes a key function of episkope is to encourage the Church's participation in God's mission. 62 In the context of this report, the United Reformed Church members were asked how willing the United Reformed Church would be to accept these guidelines. They replied that the world-wide Reformed tradition already had bishops, and valued personal leadership, but it looked for apostolic continuity through the whole Christian community rather than through the bishop. In the context of the Scottish Church Initiative for Union, episcopacy and eldership were being offered as gifts from particular traditions to the united church and as such were being studied and developed. The United Reformed Church and the Methodist Church were fully committed to that process. Further work is needed on the ways in which personal episkope is officially understood and actually practised in the three churches. Because the Methodist and United Reformed Churches are in three nations, it would be useful to include the episcopal churches in Scotland and Wales in this work. 63 The three churches' traditional understandings of membership and how these were evolving were discussed in relation to several documents: the Churches Together in England 1997 booklet, Baptism and Church Membership; the section on Belonging in the report from the Church of England Statistics Review Group, entitled Statistics: a tool for mission; a Methodist discussion paper What should membership mean?; and a United Reformed Church discussion paper for local churches entitled Celebrating Church Membership. 64 The Methodist and United Reformed churches' understanding of church membership had much in common. Both understood membership in terms of mutual responsibility within the local fellowship and the wider church. Only members could exercise communal oversight. Nevertheless both churches also regarded baptism as the sacrament of entry into the Church. The Church of England's approach to "membership" was based on baptism and on its history of being the church for the whole community. However, in order to participate in the general government at parish, deanery, diocesan and national levels, it was necessary to be confirmed and to be on the electoral roll. 65 Some convergence between the churches had taken place under pressure from local ecumenical life. Members in good standing with the Methodist or the United Reformed Church who habitually worship in a Church of England parish church can now declare themselves also members of the Church of England. The Methodist Conference 2000 began the process by which membership of the Methodist Church can be granted to members in good standing in the other churches who are partners with them in a Local Ecumenical Partnership. The United Reformed Church has recently recognised that the Church Meeting (or equivalent) of a Local Ecumenical Partnership which is a local church of the United Reformed Church has the authority to receive into membership those who are members of the other partner churches in the Local Ecumenical Partnership. 66 In these changing times all churches were re-examining the various ways of belonging to the Church. Although for the Church of England baptism remained the basis of belonging to the Body, participation and commitment were receiving a new emphasis. For both the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church, traditionally gathered churches, a renewed mission emphasis in the face of numerical decline meant that any kind of participation or link with the community was being valued and the importance of the old, clear line between being a member and being an adherent was being questioned. More work is needed on the question of the relationship of baptism to membership, and membership to the ministry of the whole people of God. Relations with the Formal Conversations 67 The Trilateral Informal Conversations were set up to respond to the fact that the United Reformed Church had expressed an interest in being part of the Commitment to Mission and Unity process. It had offered to that process two particular insights from the Reformed tradition, namely the conciliar expression of the apostolicity of the Church and the shared ministry of the Elders. (see 7 above) At the first meeting it was agreed that consideration of these two issues "would be set within a developing understanding of the sort of visible unity required for effective mission and the experience of shared living already enjoyed." (see 12 above) It was expected that the Informal Conversations would interact with the Formal Conversations. Both conversations were within the one circle of confidentiality and aide memoires were exchanged. Papers from the Formal Conversations came to the Informal once they had reached a certain level of maturity. The Informal Conversations played a privileged role in the reception of those papers and note was taken of their comments on them. The overlap in membership meant that those who were members of both could bring a sense of the nature of the Formal Conversations and could represent the views of the Informal Conversations to the Formal. However, it had not been anticipated how far the whole process would have had to be prolonged for the exchange of documents between the two sets of conversations to be really effective. 68 The members of the Informal Conversations had the opportunity to comment on a draft of the report from the Formal Conversations. They welcomed the particular place which the United Reformed Church was given in the report's recommendations. They also hoped that the consistently trilateral note of the recommendations at the end of this report would be heard as both reports are widely discussed and further steps proposed. 69 This pattern of two sets of conversations, proceeding in parallel in terms of meetings, overlapping membership and some exchange of papers, but being asymmetrical in terms of goal, partners and status, was untried. Whereas the Formal Conversations had the clear goal of producing an agreed Common Statement between the two churches, the Informal Conversations had, by their very nature, no such goal. They existed in relation to the Formal Conversations but there was a lack of clarity as to the nature of that relationship. As a result, there was a variety of interpretations within the group especially as to how far the Informal Conversations could expect to affect the outcome of the Formal Conversations. If such a pattern is proposed on another occasion, the mutual expectations of the two sets of conversations should be more rigorously explored before the meetings begin. 70 A common commitment to the full visible unity of the Church and a common recognition that all three churches faced the same urgent missionary situation were the basis of and the motive for the conversations. 71 However, through these conversations a significant degree of common ground was also found in two particular areas. Firstly, as stated following paragraph 32 above: "It seemed that all three churches were conciliar, all were connexional, but in different ways. Conciliarity involving representation, constitutionality and consent could be seen in all three churches. All exercised oversight through councils as well as through personal leadership and all saw their life as in faithful continuity with the apostolic church." 72 Secondly, all three churches were able to identify with the various pastoral and ecclesiological principles for local church leadership which had emerged from the discussion on eldership. They were, in summary:- 1. that such ministries should emerge from the local congregation and exercise a representative ministry in all the councils of the Church: 2. that such ministries should demonstrate shared authority and collegiality of oversight and a commitment to corporate responsibility: 3. that such ministries should be exercised with maturity and, if possible, with continuity: 4. that such ministries should seek to enable and equip the whole people of God. (see 39 above) 73 A number of ecclesiological issues emerged as needing further work as the three churches journey towards the goal of visible unity. These have been noted in heavy type as they arose in the account of the conversations and are re-stated below: 1. More work is needed to examine together how far the different ways in which personal episkope relates to apostolicity are contingent and how far they are a matter of theological principle. 2. More work is needed on the place of ordination and authorisation in this range of ministries, (this refers both to the eldership and to the many forms of lay leadership in the three churches) 3. More work is needed on a shared understanding of the nature of the Church. More work is also needed on the differing understandings of the path to full visible unity. 4. Further work is needed on the ways in which personal episkope is officially understood and actually practised in the three churches. Because the Methodist and United Reformed Churches are committed to Christian unity in three nations, it would be useful to include the episcopal churches in Scotland and Wales in this work. 5. More work is needed on the question of the relationship of baptism to membership, and membership to the ministry of the whole people of God. Recommendations 74 All three churches believe that the calling of the Church to be one is a Gospel imperative. Christian obedience demands that the Church continues to strive for that unity of the followers of Christ for which he prayed so earnestly on the day before he was crucified. The urgent missionary situation in which the churches find themselves today also calls for a united witness. Many of God's gracious gifts of unity have already been received in shared local congregational life, in joint training of ordinands, in the sharing of resources, in the convergences discovered in these conversations and, not least, in the oneness in Christ we have experienced in worship together. In gratitude for the gifts of unity already received and in obedience to the continuing call to seek the unity for which Christ prayed we bring the following recommendations. I. We give thanks for - the bi-lateral initiatives which have flowed at every level and in many places from the Formal Conversations between the Church of England and the Methodist Church, some of which are described in the publication Releasing Energy. - the long-standing and wide-ranging bi-lateral ecumenical life which exists between the United Reformed Church and the Methodist Church and which manifests itself, for example, in nearly 200 joint churches, three United Areas and a national Liaison Committee. and recommend that appropriate tri-lateral structures be set up to enable these bi-lateral relations to become, where appropriate, fully tri-lateral II. We recommend that the three churches, together, carry forward study of the ecclesiological issues identified as needing further work in order that progress may be made in the search for the full visible unity of the Church. III. We recommend that, given the commitment of all three churches to the full visible unity of the Church of Christ, our three churches explore together (but with an openness to other partners) what further steps would be necessary to make an English covenantal relationship between them. The valued presence of an ecumenical participant was a reminder that, through Churches Together in England, all three churches were ïpilgrims together' with many others, including those with whom one or more of the conversation partners had a particular bi-lateral relationship - the Baptist Union, the Roman Catholic Church, the Moravian Church. These deep and fruitful conversations were fully three-way. In other words they were not a matter of the United Reformed Church on one side and the other two on the other. Rather, as in a country dance, there was a forward and backward movement of agreement and disagreement between the churches and among the representatives of each church. Partners changed according to the issue and as fresh light was shed on the matter under discussion. From time to time a harmonious circle was formed, foretaste of things to come. A further personal proposal by Bishop Colin Buchanan While as a co-chairman I take my own share of responsibility for the agreed report above, I dissent from the recommendations in paragraph 74. I have believed throughout that it was our task to shadow the Formal Conversations, to relate our work to their final report, and to look for ways to engage the United Reformed Church in the next steps on from the Formal Conversations. However, the recommendations in paragraph 74 ignore the Formal Conversations. Instead they suggest a sequence of trilateral initiatives without any context in the implementation of the Formal Conversations report. I therefore propose, in place of the recommendations above, the following: 1. that the Church of England and the Methodist Church, in receiving the report of the Formal Conversations, should at the same time formally request a response from the United Reformed Church, such as to bring that church also into any resulting agreement or relationship between them. 2. that the United Reformed Church should then match the timetables of the Church of England and the Methodist Church, and should mirror the processes of those two churches, so that all three churches, in or through their central bodies a. should remit the report of the Formal Conversations to their membership for study and response; b. within the context of such a study and response, should address together the theological and ecclesiological issues identified in this present report; and c. should, if they accept the Formal Conversations report, join together to pursue the next practical steps in the implementation of those proposals. Published material The Basis of Union of the United Reformed Church 1972. The Structure of the United Reformed Church 1972. Called to Love and Praise: a Methodist 1999 Conference Statement on the Church. Episkope and Episcopacy: a report to Methodist Conference 2000. Bishops in Communion: collegiality in the service of the Koinonia of the Church:a House of Bishops occasional paper, 2000. Commitment to Mission and Unity: 1996 report of the informal conversations between the Methodist Church and the Church of England. Baptism and Church Membership: a 1997 report of a working party of ChurchesTogether in England.The United Reformed Church service for the ordination and induction of elders (1985). Releasing Energy: how Methodists and Anglicans can grow together: Flora Winfield (2000). Papers prepared for these conversations The Conciliar Expression of the Apostolicity of the Church in the United Reformed Church. The Ministry of Elders in the United Reformed Church, with Church of England and Methodist responses. A United Reformed Church view on Visible Unity. Lay Ministry in the Church of England. Lay Ministries in the United Reformed Church. Church of England and United Reformed Church comment on Called to Love and Praise. A United Reformed Church reflection on Bishops in Communion. The Leuenberg Agreement In 1973, the Leuenberg Agreement gave rise to a fellowship of churches of the Reformation. The greater number of these are minority churches which often carry out their mission in difficult conditions. Among the 99 member churches, otherwise European, are five Protestant churches in South America, deriving from early immigrant communities. There is consensus among the signatories on two main points. The Gospel is seen as a message of justification of the godless through God's free grace. Each local church is understood to be a congregation based on Word and Sacrament, engaged in common witness and service. This consensus makes it possible for signatories to recognise one another as Church while accepting as legitimate the diversity of ways in which that Church manifests itself locally. The Leuenberg Declaration of Church Fellowship was the start of a continuing process by which that fellowship is realised. A General Assembly is held at least every six years to give momentum to the continuing work. The most obvious advances are in the field of theological work. The document The Church of Jesus Christ is of particular ecumenical significance, but important work has also been undertaken on social issues since the Vienna Assembly in 1994. Above all, the Leuenberg Church Fellowship sees itself not as a Protestant enclave but as a loosely structured ecumenical fellowship of Christian churches - a step on the way to visible Church unity. Additional urgency comes from the knowledge that if the churches are to have their say in the process of European integration, they must agree on the message they wish to convey. Meissen, Fetter Lane, Reuilly and Porvoo In recent years, the Church of England has entered into several theological agreements with other Christian churches throughout Europe. In the Meissen Agreement (1988) the Church of England and the Evangelical Church in Germany acknowledge one another as churches belonging to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, with authentic ministries of word, sacrament and pastoral oversight. They also commit themselves to share a common life and witness and to strive together towards full visible unity. Similar acknowledgements and commitments were made in the Fetter Lane Agreement (1996) between the Church of England and the Moravian Church in Great Britain and Ireland and in the Reuilly Common Statement (1999) between the British and Irish Anglican Churches and the French Lutheran and Reformed Churches. However, a major step forward was taken in the Porvoo Agreement (1992) when the British and Irish Anglican churches entered into communion with a number of Nordic and Baltic Lutheran Churches. This Agreement goes beyond Meissen, Fetter Lane and Reuilly as it allows the signatory churches to regard the baptised members of all the other churches as members of their own church and allows for interchangeability of ministers within the churches. It also allows shared forms of oversight.
|
appendix 12 contents
|