Interesting thread, and great response. I just have one question: How do any of the above points distinguish Methodists from Anglicans? I understand there's a deep and serious historical connection there (as well as a relationship between Methodists and the Continental Lutheran Pietist movement), so you'd expect a lot of commonality. But I'm curious not only what makes them different but, in an age when United Methodists and Episcopals can preach at each other's pulpits and commune at each other's altars, what keeps these two denominations from basically merging (as they have in India)?
Well you're sort of asking two questions there.
We have communion sharing agreements with other denominations; but a communion sharing agreement, or a full communion agreement, essentially means that we are of one mind on the Eucharist and largely, on the divinity of Christ. It's not diplomatic, it's simply a recognition that we don't realistically differ on those understandings. And it's a recognition that both validly ordain; which is a part of that sacramental understanding. When the churches come to an understanding that both are of one mind on the sacraments and who may preside at them; then it's reasonable that there's no theological, ecclesiological, ethical, or moral reason not to have an agreement. It doesn't mean the churches are identical.
As to anglicanism, that's part-political, part-ecclesiological, and the smallest part theological. There's very little theological difference, if any of any importance, between 18th century Methodism and Anglicanism. Methodism began as a society within Anglicanism. If you will; a large-scale Bible study group. They were expected to get their butts into an Anglican church on Sunday and receive the Eucharist. It was later, and in many ways to the chagrin of John Wesley and Charles Wesley, that the Methodist societies elected their first Bishop, ordained their first Pastors, and became their own church. It wasn't a "split" like the protestant reformation; so much as it was a 'natural transition'. Much like the colonies, who didn't feel they could be governed by an island thousands of miles away; the Methodist Societies no longer felt a part of the Church of England. It goes deeper than that; but some of it comes down to something as simple as the Revolutionary War and the political climate leading up to that. There's a reason that Anglicanism isn't popular in North America. Remember, part of what the founding fathers were fighting for was the freedom to choose ones religion; and Anglicanism, in the minds of some, represented one of many historic traditions prescribed to the English people to follow. In Englands history, you might wake up one morning and suddenly the queen has decided you're Catholic now.
Maybe some of our more astute historians around here can give you a deeper picture; but largely, don't think of the Anglo-Methodist disconnect as an angry split by feuding parties; though certainly it had it's opposers. It was more of a natural transition. Like the head chef of a restaurant leaving and opening his own.
As to the differences; Anglicans have a more developed hierarchy, with Archbishops, a Holy See, and some connection still to Englands government and Royal Family. Though largely ornamental, the Church of England is still intertwined with the English Government. At one time, and it might be still (I'm not sure); Anglican Priests had a requirement to swear allegiance to the crown (another reason Anglicanism wasn't going to survive in the new United States.) There's some differences in terminology (Vicar, Priest, Father; vs. Pastor, or in the south, commonly 'Preacher', occasionally Reverend; especially up north. But never Vicar, Priest, OR Father!). Anglican priests generally wear the collar 'to bed' whereas Methodist clergy rarely do, and fewer and fewer wear one at all.
Theologically though; very similar. But the DNA of our churches is different, and I don't think a 'merger' is likely to ever happen. Anglicans have been in some ways a bit more conservative than the UMC; having only VERY recently (this year) allowed female Bishops.
As to the Episcopal church, they are much more congregational. They are also much more liturgical and more 'prescribed'. Episcopal parishes (and Anglican parishes alike) don't have the same freedoms in worship that Methodist churches enjoy. Some appreciate that; they appreciate the continuity of their churches. Much like the Roman Catholic Church; you know what to expect when you walk through the door. Like a chain fast food joint; they, for the most part, all look the same and offer the same thing. Even if the people in them are different. Now, clearly, there are unique components of every church. But I have attended mass, funerals, and other worship opportunities at a variety of both Episcopal and Roman Catholic churches; and it was largely the same. I could travel just about anywhere I want to, worship in a RCC or Episcopal (or, Anglican, in some respects) church and more/less know what's going on in worship and know what to expect. I serve two United Methodist Churches 10 minutes from each other and worship is very different in the two; and another 15 minutes down the road and you'll find one far more different than my two! Some will prefer the former, others the latter. But that's one noticeable 'on the surface' difference you'll find. Simply this interesting dynamic where Episcopal churches are more independent in their local governance and the hiring of their own Pastor; whilst UMC congregations are more independent when it comes to worship. That doesn't mean UMC congregations don't have to fit within the Book of Discipline when it comes to worship (for example, they don't have the freedom to have closed communion), but unlike our more liturgical brothers and sisters we aren't mandated to follow the lectionary, specific liturgies, or patterns of worship.
The differences are small but they are there. United Methodist believe ecumenicalism is the answer. With respect to my RCC brothers and sisters; many I've met feel the solution is to re-absorb all of the Protestant churches. But we Methodists don't think everyone is supposed to be a Methodist. We think the Methodists are supposed to work WITH the Episcopals, Anglicans, Catholics; heck, even the Baptists! And that's really why there will never be a 'merge' of similar denominations. Because, frankly, we don't think we NEED to be one giant church. We think we can be what makes us unique; and still work together as connected Catholic (universal) churches. We are all part of the Holy Catholic Church (meaning, the Universal church). We ARE a part of the same church- Christ's church. For much the same reason that I serve two churches just 10 minutes apart and everyone could easily drive to the other if we shut one down; we won't. Both are growing, vibrant churches with their own unique missions and DNA, and we can accomplish more for the kingdom of God with them operating as two connected churches; than one 'combined' church. Likewise, the kingdom of God can do extraordinary things with one Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church that is represented in dozens of ecumenical denominations working closely together.
