Methodist vs. Anglican

[Jabronie]

Greetings.

I can't quite understand what the actual theological differences between Methodist and Anglicans are. Can somebody put it in laymen's terms for me?

Thanks!

[Cjwinnit]

Greetings.

I can't quite understand what the actual theological differences between Methodist and Anglicans are. Can somebody put it in laymen's terms for me?

Thanks!

The main differences (until recently) aren't theological as far as I can work out.

[cristianna]

I'm not equipped to help you on this one, but hopefully someone will be around shortly. :)

[GraceSeeker]

Seeing as Wesley bascially lifted the Methodist Articles of Religion from the Anglican Church, the differences are more with regard to form (from our frontier experience) than substance.

[Texas Lynn]

There's very little differences between the Mainline Churches. Mostly it's procedural.

[Speculative]

The Anglicans actually listened to Wesley by not starting their own denomination :D

[footprints1973]

Speaking of Anglican/Episcopalian churches, are the closer to the Catholic church format (very structured and liturgical). Is there a such thing as "contemporary service" at an Anglican church like we have in UM churches? I have no clue...I was going to ask on the Anglican board, but was afraid I would sound silly (seeing as I'm holding an electric guitar).

Laura

[Redheadedstepchild]

My understanding is there is "High Church" which is very formal (or more formal) and "Low Church" which is more casual, though I don't know that it's exactly contemporary.

I'm sure there are electric guitar playing Anglicans around. ;)

[longhair75]

I belong to a medium sized Episcopal Church in the midwestern US states. We have a very traditional Rite I service and a very liturgical rite II service. We also have a Contemporary service with a band consisting of five of the finest Jazz musicians in the area.

[Cjwinnit]

Speaking of Anglican/Episcopalian churches, are the closer to the Catholic church format (very structured and liturgical). Is there a such thing as "contemporary service" at an Anglican church like we have in UM churches? I have no clue...I was going to ask on the Anglican board, but was afraid I would sound silly (seeing as I'm holding an electric guitar).

Laura

Depends on the individual church. Many of the churches that do contemporary services also do more traditional ones (so the morning service might be more traditional than the evening service for example) My church generally does this; the Praise & Worship group play quite often in the evening.

[GraceSeeker]

There's very little differences between the Mainline Churches. Mostly it's procedural.


In some ways this is very true. Yet, there have actually been wars fought over some of those differences in the past. So, I guess it all depends on perception as to what is "very little" and what isn't. I heard a Baptist radio preacher who is very scholarly, very well respected, widely published and listened to by many United Methodists say somethings on his nationally syndicated show last night that to me were so far off the mark but he was hammering his point home with great vigor simply because he knew that Methodists like me would say that he was off the mark.

[Texas Lynn]

In some ways this is very true. Yet, there have actually been wars fought over some of those differences in the past. So, I guess it all depends on perception as to what is "very little" and what isn't. I heard a Baptist radio preacher who is very scholarly, very well respected, widely published and listened to by many United Methodists say somethings on his nationally syndicated show last night that to me were so far off the mark but he was hammering his point home with great vigor simply because he knew that Methodists like me would say that he was off the mark.

That seems odd.

Are you familiar at all with Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift, an Anglican priest? The shipwrecked Dr. Lemuel Gulliver arrived at a land of Little People called Lilliput, which was faced with war with another island of Little People called Blefescu. Gulliver, ever the diplomat, asked what the war was about. The King of Lilliput explained they were going to war with Blefescu because the Lilliputians believed in opening eggs at the small end but the Blefescuans believed it opening eggs at the big end. Gulliver proposed a solution: "Why not open the egg in the middle?" The King considered it and tried it and got egg all over himself, so the war was on. All of Swift's work thinly satirized British and other European politicians.

[Speculative]

I believe there is no Liturgy in the World, either in ancient or modern language, which breathes more of a solid, scriptural, rational piety than the Common Prayer of the Church of England..

[Joykins]

Greetings.

I can't quite understand what the actual theological differences between Methodist and Anglicans are. Can somebody put it in laymen's terms for me?

Thanks!

The original Methodists were reformers/revivalists as a movement within the Anglican church. The separation came later and (in America at least) partially had to do with the unavailability of Anglican clergy during the Revolutionary War.

The Anglo-Catholic movement within the Anglican churches is something that I don't think has a parallel in Methodism but I could be wrong...I am new at being a Methodist.

[Texas Lynn]

The original Methodists were reformers/revivalists as a movement within the Anglican church. The separation came later and (in America at least) partially had to do with the unavailability of Anglican clergy during the Revolutionary War.

The Anglo-Catholic movement within the Anglican churches is something that I don't think has a parallel in Methodism but I could be wrong...I am new at being a Methodist.

Mostly no; but we have the "Renewal" or "Confessing" movement which is basically a right-wing caucus within the UMC. I envy the Episcopals that have Anglo-Catholics instead.

[sinner/SAVED]

One difference is the fourth element of what we Methodists call the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral", experience.

The Quadrilateral (Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience) lists the the four sources of our belief or doctrine.

The first three were in the Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church. Wesley added experience, for which he was ostracized by many of his fellow Anglican Priests.

[seeking.IAM]

As a United Methodist in exile, I have found a home in the Episcopal Church. I find no significant theological differences. The primary differences I experience are the form of worship, different language (e.g. rector, vestry, etc.), and the central place of the eucharist in worship. It was a very easy transition for me.

[ContraMundum]

Methodism tends to play less emphasis on the episcopate and doesn't hold to Apostolic Succession- an emphasis important to at least some Anglicans.

Oddly, the Anglo-Catholics have much more in common theologically with Methodists than evangelical Anglicans. A rejection of Calvinism by Anglo-Catholics as well as the belief in the absolute neccesity of personal holiness and a belief in the doctrine of grace being free for all and more than merely imputed is clearly a common ground between Methodists and Anglo-Catholics.

It would also appear that the Wesleys held a high view of the sacraments and Wesleyan sacramental theology is clearly closer to the Anglo-Catholics than the Calvinist/Evangelical/Low Church party.

Actually, after the Methodist revival, it was a common saying that the Church of England had Calvinist Articles and Arminian clergy. This is (debatably) as a result of the revival itself.

:)

[Texas Lynn]

One difference is the fourth element of what we Methodists call the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral", experience.

The Quadrilateral (Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience) lists the the four sources of our belief or doctrine.

The first three were in the Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church. Wesley added experience, for which he was ostracized by many of his fellow Anglican Priests.

And that's the most significant of the 4 legs of the 4 legged stool there.

[GraceSeeker]

And that's the most significant of the 4 legs of the 4 legged stool there.

No. Scripture is the most significant, but without experience we would be talking about using a three-legged stool, that's what is significant about the fourth leg.

Let me illustrate with an instance from my church's life:
I was talking to a parishoner yesterday who doubted her salvation. The reason, she felt like she had blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, and as she read scripture and had recalled hearing other sermons in other churches, she understood that anyone who did that was beyond the reach of salvation for they had done something unforgiveable.

Well, I tried to share with her how I didn't think that the verse applied to her experience. (There is that key word.) But she was still stuck where she was, and feeling (which is also an experiential term) lost. Well, while we were visiting several others stopped by. There was a friend who was able to identify with some of her lostness. Another preacher in town (a free Methodist, i.e. of Wesleyan theology) came by, and I just simply asked him for his understanding of that verse, and he affirmed what I had already said, that God never rejects those who are open to him in their lives. But what seemed to make the difference was not Scripture, generations of church tradition (and teaching), or any amoung of reason. What made the difference was when I shared some of Marycita's story. (Hope you don't mind, Mary.)

The story of another person's experience helped her see that God would not only accept back, but gracious welcome with open arms, those who loved him regardless the past. She had spent years under the other understanding (which I think is a a misapplication of that particular scripture), but just one simply story, a story that was based in another person's lifestory of experiencing God's grace, relieved her of all her anxiety like nothing else was able to do. And that is why we Welseyans include experience as one of the legs of our stool, because in practical ways it helps us to get it right when we don't understand properly from using some other sort of stool.

[cristianna]

Yay to Mary's story helping others! :clap:

[sinner/SAVED]

And that's the most significant of the 4 legs of the 4 legged stool there.

I don't think that Wesley would have thought any of them more significant than the others. Remove any and you are back to a wobbly three-legged stool.

[GraceSeeker]

I don't think that Wesley would have thought any of them more significant than the others. Remove any and you are back to a wobbly three-legged stool.


Sorry, I disagree. Given Wesley's view of Scripture, I do think that he consider it more important than the other three, but he did prefer a 4-legged chair to 3-legged stools.

[contriteheart]

If I have understood some things that I've heard about this correctly, the fourth leg of the Wesleyan quadrilateral was not something prescribed by Wesley as a means of determining correct doctrine or praxis, but was rather more of an observation about how people in real life actually go about working out what they believe.

If that's true, I think that this shift in focus from a means of describing what people do, to a part of the formula for ascertaining truth has hurt us. Leaning heavily on experience can lead us to a wide variety of incorrect beliefs and practices, IMO. But, heck, I feel that way about the reason leg, too! :)

I'll be the first to admit that I am not well-educated on this subject though, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Joykins]

I don't think that Wesley would have thought any of them more significant than the others. Remove any and you are back to a wobbly three-legged stool.

Three-legged stools are much more stable than 4-legged chair. a 3-legged stool will never wobble because 3 points define a plane.

I prefer the quadrilateral theologically; the point above is purely geometric.

[Texas Lynn]

I don't think that Wesley would have thought any of them more significant than the others.

I ain't him.

[Texas Lynn]

Leaning heavily on experience can lead us to a wide variety of incorrect beliefs and practices, IMO.

I have problems with the concept one can somehow "know" which beliefs are "incorrect" in this sort of formulation.

But, heck, I feel that way about the reason leg, too!

I don't get the distrust of reason and experience.

[ContraMundum]

Wesley himself never actually taught a "Wesleyan Quadrilateral"- it's a term coined by Albert Outler, a Wesleyan theologian. So all this discussion about chairs would realistically be foreign to Wesley. It's clear he took scripture as his source of theology, but consulted other sources in determining its meaning. :)

[sinner/SAVED]

If I have understood some things that I've heard about this correctly, the fourth leg of the Wesleyan quadrilateral was not something prescribed by Wesley as a means of determining correct doctrine or praxis, but was rather more of an observation about how people in real life actually go about working out what they believe.

If that's true, I think that this shift in focus from a means of describing what people do, to a part of the formula for ascertaining truth has hurt us. Leaning heavily on experience can lead us to a wide variety of incorrect beliefs and practices, IMO. But, heck, I feel that way about the reason leg, too! :)

I'll be the first to admit that I am not well-educated on this subject though, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Actually, Wesley thought that experience was the only way that truth could be revealed to the illiterate, unchurched masses. He did not believe that the common man could ever grasp an understanding of theology and unless they were in church they would never learn from tradition.

[Texas Lynn]

Actually, Wesley thought that experience was the only way that truth could be revealed to the illiterate, unchurched masses. He did not believe that the common man could ever grasp an understanding of theology and unless they were in church they would never learn from tradition.

I think this is somewhat correct but not in the elitist sense some might think it to be. Despite the Wesleys' middle class background they were not snobs. They did not disdain the oppressed and they certainly would not be very much impressed by the Reaganite-Thatcherite "I've got mine and if you don't have yours, too bad for you" ethos.

[Joykins]

I think this is somewhat correct but not in the elitist sense some might think it to be. Despite the Wesleys' middle class background they were not snobs. They did not disdain the oppressed and they certainly would not be very much impressed by the Reaganite-Thatcherite "I've got mine and if you don't have yours, too bad for you" ethos.


In fact, the Wesleys had a ministry with prisoners, championed prison reform, and often went with the condemned in the cart to the gallows. Snobs they were not.

[Texas Lynn]

The Wesleys would not have associated themselves with such aggregations of the opponents of social change as "The Moral majority" either. They would be aghast at efforts to use churches to build political machines as well.

[cavell]

Seeing as Wesley bascially lifted the Methodist Articles of Religion from the Anglican Church, the differences are more with regard to form (from our frontier experience) than substance.
Absolutely. "All one in Christ Jesus" A good question but Jesus alone is the Saviour.......good to talk, but this is the important thing.

Many ways lead to Christ, but only Christ the Door...leads to God

[contriteheart]

Many ways lead to Christ, but only Christ the Door...leads to God

Interesting thought.