Anglican/Episcopalian vs Methodist

[Irrkunst]

I am interested in learning about the differences between the Episcopalian Church and the Methodist Church. How are they similar and how are they different? Why would you (or I) choose to be a member of one over the other?

I was raised Catholic and have recently attended a UCC church. I am especially interested in hearing from those of you one the more moderate/liberal side of the spectrum.

 

[Cjwinnit]

Bishops and robes?

We generally emphasize Holy Communion more than other protestant churches as well.

I grew up in a "United Reform" church in England (i.e. presbyterian) but went to an Anglican school and joined the church when I was 16. I think the holiness of the services really got to me and I guess I couldn't resist.


Love the avatar by the way

 

[ContraMundum]

I am interested in learning about the differences between the Episcopalian Church and the Methodist Church. How are they similar and how are they different? Why would you (or I) choose to be a member of one over the other?

I was raised Catholic and have recently attended a UCC church. I am especially interested in hearing from those of you one the more moderate/liberal side of the spectrum.

I am not from the liberal/moderate end of the spectrum but I am also far from those on the extreme conservative end too.

The difference between the Methodist church and the Episcopal Church would be difficult to ascertain with any solid line in the sand. Methodism is basically Anglican in theology and maintains a large amount of Anglican practice. However, Methodism grew and spawned the holiness movement and in more recent times the two have (re?)merged into new denominations like the Church of the Nazarene and the Wesleyan church. These newer groups don't hold so firmly to the Anglican practices of Methodism so if you look at them their worship styles are far more modern and Americanised.

OTOH, liturgical Methodism is alive and well in Britain and much of the US. This would be a close kin to the Anglican mother church in many ways, and in fact in the UK the Church of England and the Methodist church entered into a Covenant agreement which is an outstanding development.

It is no secret that I would be a Methodist tomorrow if the chance came about and I could find a conservative enough church. For me, the Methodist vision is "Anglicanism on fire", and typically the divorce between the Methodist movement and the Church of England and the Anglicans in the US is based more on the religious authoritarianism of Anglican bishops than it is on the evangelical revivalism of the Methodists. In a nutshell, overly religious people always find fault with real Christians, and this is one example in history where resisting the Spirit was the earmark of the religious establishment.

I don't think a reunion of mainline Methodists and Anglicans in the USA is far off.

 

[TheCunctator]

Love the avatar by the way

Hahaha, I just got that. Brilliant.

Did Queen Victoria actually even say that?

 

[New_Found_Faith]

In my experience TEC is more "high Church" than the UMC. Also, most UMC churches have communion monthly or bi-monthly in my experience, whereas TEC celebrates the Eucharist at every service/mass.

 

[Albion]

There isn't much similarity between the two in the part of the USA where I live, or in other regions of the country where I have lived. Methodism is slightly more formal than your nearest non-denominational church. In fact, the one that is the nearest to my home now has a "come as you are" policy, advertises that its rock and roll "praise band" is tops in the area, makes as much of its coffee bar as it does its sanctuary, and is casual to a fault. That's not a typical congregation, I realize, but it suggests the difference generally. Even the most liberal Episcopalians have always seemed to me to be more devout or respectful in church than the average Protestant, and the trappings are normally much more conventional.

 

[boswd]

I am not from the liberal/moderate end of the spectrum but I am also far from those on the extreme conservative end too.

The difference between the Methodist church and the Episcopal Church would be difficult to ascertain with any solid line in the sand. Methodism is basically Anglican in theology and maintains a large amount of Anglican practice. However, Methodism grew and spawned the holiness movement and in more recent times the two have (re?)merged into new denominations like the Church of the Nazarene and the Wesleyan church. These newer groups don't hold so firmly to the Anglican practices of Methodism so if you look at them their worship styles are far more modern and Americanised.

OTOH, liturgical Methodism is alive and well in Britain and much of the US. This would be a close kin to the Anglican mother church in many ways, and in fact in the UK the Church of England and the Methodist church entered into a Covenant agreement which is an outstanding development.

It is no secret that I would be a Methodist tomorrow if the chance came about and I could find a conservative enough church. For me, the Methodist vision is "Anglicanism on fire", and typically the divorce between the Methodist movement and the Church of England and the Anglicans in the US is based more on the religious authoritarianism of Anglican bishops than it is on the evangelical revivalism of the Methodists. In a nutshell, overly religious people always find fault with real Christians, and this is one example in history where resisting the Spirit was the earmark of the religious establishment.

I don't think a reunion of mainline Methodists and Anglicans in the USA is far off.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
Theologically there really isn't much diffencence at all. The biggest difference is the Episcopalians have a much stronger (and IMO much better) emphasis on the Eucharist. Though there is a movement to bring the Eucharist to a weekly event.

Anglicans are Apostolic as where Methodist aren't.

The most noticiable difference is in service style. Methodist services can range from a high liturgical to really not much different then your nearest contemporary service Church.

Albion hit on a very good (and very distressing) point. Many UMC church's are resorting to the happy clappy, praise music style of service. Though most will still offer two types of services, Traditional and Contemporary. With the Traditional being the early service.
It's too bad. The Church I grew up in was a very nice somewhat high liturigical Church.
They are still out there but depending on what part of the country they are starting to become the minority.

 

[Albion]

Not that it adds to the discussion one way or the other, but I'm going to have to find one of these "high" Methodist churches. The first time I read someone on these boards say that they exist, I thought that was an exaggeration or else the person didn't quite know what the term implied. But I've read it so many times, or something like it, along with other comments about Methodism that I know for a fact are true, that I've come to think this must be correct. It might, however, require some hunting.

 

[ContraMundum]

Albion, there's always Epworth Chapel on the Green.

I have heard of a Methodist Order called the Order of St Luke. If you can find a church where the minister is a member or something you might be going in the right direction to find a "high" Methodist church.

 

[Wildcat48]

I agree with Albion and others. In the SE United States, Methodist churches tend to be much more low church in practice. Infrequent communion, unbalanced emphasis on the pulpit rather than the altar, sometimes praise music, etc. They seem much more similar to Southern Baptist or Presbyterian services than to Episcopal services around here. I think there would definitely be a clash between Low Church Methodists and High Church Episcopalians (probably Broad Church Episcopalians as well). And Methodist bishops don't have valid apostolic succession.

 

[Markus6]

Couldn't have said it better myself.
Theologically there really isn't much diffencence at all. The biggest difference is the Episcopalians have a much stronger (and IMO much better) emphasis on the Eucharist. Though there is a movement to bring the Eucharist to a weekly event.

Anglicans are Apostolic as where Methodist aren't.

The most noticiable difference is in service style. Methodist services can range from a high liturgical to really not much different then your nearest contemporary service Church.

Albion hit on a very good (and very distressing) point. Many UMC church's are resorting to the happy clappy, praise music style of service. Though most will still offer two types of services, Traditional and Contemporary. With the Traditional being the early service.
It's too bad. The Church I grew up in was a very nice somewhat high liturigical Church.
They are still out there but depending on what part of the country they are starting to become the minority.

The "happy clappy, praise music style of service" is very common in church in the Church of England. The church I grew up in had a traditional, organ based worship service at 9, a family service with a mix of contemporary and ancient music at 10.45 and a fully contemporary "happy clappy" service at 6. The church I attended whilst I was at University was very similar.

Theologically there's quite a range as well, you'll get the full spectrum of beliefs on the eucharist, though being Church of England means a certain amount of liturgy is always present.

 

[Albion]

The "happy clappy, praise music style of service" is very common in church in the Church of England. The church I grew up in had a traditional, organ based worship service at 9, a family service with a mix of contemporary and ancient music at 10.45 and a fully contemporary "happy clappy" service at 6. The church I attended whilst I was at University was very similar.

From everything I hear, you are quite right about that. The Episcopal Church in the USA, for all its liberal drift of late, has yet to get so far into that. And the fast-growing "Anglican" churches here are less so.

Meanwhile, the Methodists are feeling, even more keenly than the Episcopalians, the challenge of declining attendance and membership.

Anyway, the point's a good one that we need to keep in mind which country the person lives in when it comes to comparing Methodists and Anglicans.

 

[ContraMundum]

The "happy clappy, praise music style of service" is very common in church in the Church of England.

The more I think of it the less I see being happy and praising God with uplifting music a problem. I know a lot of us Anglicans have some kind of aversion to it, but we need to stop being the "frozen chosen" too.

 

[ContraMundum]

And Methodist bishops don't have valid apostolic succession.

The irony here is that Apostolic Succession doesn't seemed to have helped Anglican bishops much either. In fact, come to think of it, all the arch-heretics in early church history all had valid Apostolic Succession. I'm beginning to think it's overrated.

 

[Wildcat48]

The irony here is that Apostolic Succession doesn't seemed to have helped Anglican bishops much either. In fact, come to think of it, all the arch-heretics in early church history all had valid Apostolic Succession. I'm beginning to think it's overrated.

My comment about lacking valid apostolic succession wasn't positive or negative in connontation, just merely pointing out a difference.

Apostolic succession doesn't prevent one from teaching error, but it does link us to our history and, in many eyes both in our communion and in others, it gives our episcopate sacramental authority and ability.

 

[Timothy]

The more I think of it the less I see being happy and praising God with uplifting music a problem. I know a lot of us Anglicans have some kind of aversion to it, but we need to stop being the "frozen chosen" too.

I'm slightly smug about the fact that it is the happy clappy churches which are growing. When the liberal, non-committal part of the Anglican church dies off, we'll be delighted. Because we'll stop having to pay your bills as well as our own. Guess which churches in my diocese are the ones that support all the liberal churches which have wealthier congregations, but far less money taken in the collection?

Tim (Who goes to a church with some of the best giving in the diocese and we don't EVER take a collection, because we never want to ask guests to put money in it--all money comes from church members)

 

[Yab Yum]

Vanilla versus Pistachio.

 

[ContraMundum]

My comment about lacking valid apostolic succession wasn't positive or negative in connontation, just merely pointing out a difference.

I took it that way, yes.

Apostolic succession doesn't prevent one from teaching error, but it does link us to our history

and, in many eyes both in our communion and in others, it gives our episcopate sacramental authority and ability.

I think that point is the weak link in the Apostolic Succession doctrine. I know many Anglicans seem to rely onit as a lever to win points over other Christians, and this is certainly the paradigm of the Orthodox and the RCs, but it really doesn't seem to hold up under the scriptures or the Vincentian canon. I actually think it is largely a psychological argument.

 

[ContraMundum]

I'm slightly smug about the fact that it is the happy clappy churches which are growing. When the liberal, non-committal part of the Anglican church dies off, we'll be delighted. Because we'll stop having to pay your bills as well as our own. Guess which churches in my diocese are the ones that support all the liberal churches which have wealthier congregations, but far less money taken in the collection?

Tim (Who goes to a church with some of the best giving in the diocese and we don't EVER take a collection, because we never want to ask guests to put money in it--all money comes from church members)

Well said.

 

[Albion]

The irony here is that Apostolic Succession doesn't seemed to have helped Anglican bishops much either. In fact, come to think of it, all the arch-heretics in early church history all had valid Apostolic Succession. I'm beginning to think it's overrated.

Good point, but I would offer that the true Anglican POV on that matter is not what most people think it is. Apostolic Succession is not discussed in the Articles of Religion, and in the Quadrilateral the term used is Historic Episcopate, not Apostolic Succession. We retained the lineage--which gets us into disputes with the Roman Catholics saying we did not--but not the same understanding of it. We retained it for practical and historic reasons, not because it is essential for legitimacy.