« Back to Issue 36

Anglican Clergy & Methodist Ministers: Differing Views on Baptismal & Marriage Practice

By Lewis Burton.

Abstract Discussions on the Covenant between the Church of England and the Methodist Church need to take into account the attitudes and practices of clergy and ministers in the parishes and the circuits if the ministries of the two churches are to come together in some way in the future. This article is the result of an enquiry into the convergence and divergence of pastoral practice regarding marriage and baptism between the two groups of ministers.Since both the Church of England and the Methodist Church are now considering the development of the Covenant which was signed between them on All Saints Day, 2003, it would seem appropriate to consider some of the differences which exist between the practitioners of both churches, Anglican clergy in the parishes and Methodist ministers in the circuits. An opportunity occurred to do this when the results of a recent larger survey of all Methodist ministers in the York and Hull Methodist District and all the clergy in the parishes of the Diocese of York responded to a questionnaire. The response rate was just over one half for both samples. From these responses it was possible to ascertain the opinions of both sets of working clergy to their pastoral practice regarding marriages and baptisms.In summary the conclusions were these:-

1. the popular perception of the parish church is that it is a more attractive venue for marriage and baptism than the Methodist chapel;
2. a large majority of both Anglican clergy and Methodist ministers have an open policy for marriage and for baptism. 
3. Anglican clergy are inhibited in complete openness to applications for marriage and baptism by the parish system of the Church of England.
4. among Anglicans there is still a proportion of clergy who would deny marriage in church to those who had been divorced.
5. it may be that Anglican clergy are more restrictive than Methodist ministers in marriage and baptismal policy for faith reasons.

These conclusions are drawn from differing views which appeared between clergy and ministers, but also those which existed between individuals within their own ranks. There was convergence between the Methodists and the Anglicans, but also divergence between those in each set of respondents. It is necessary therefore to say more about the general results of the enquiry and to give some value to the various responses which were made. In this closer view it is more understandable first to look at pastoral practice regarding marriage, and then at baptism. Marriage Regarding marriage, proportions of two thirds of both sets of clergy, but slightly more Anglicans than Methodists, agreed strongly that all those who wished to be married should be offered a church wedding. This indicated the openness of both groups to applications for Christian marriage. There were also restrictions to this openness. The first was connected with geographical location and indicates the difference which the structure of both churches makes to clergy attitudes and pastoral practice. One third of the Anglicans felt strongly that they should only marry those who dwelt within the parish boundary. Among the Methodists, not inhibited in the same way by geographical constraints, there was only a very small proportion who felt that they should only marry applicants from the immediate locality of their church building. Other restrictions came from ideological concerns regarding the suitability of some applicants for marriage in church. Regarding the re-marriage of those who had been divorced, there was an obvious remnant of over one tenth of Anglicans who still maintained that they would not re-marry such persons. None of the Methodists were prepared to put any obstacle in the way of the re-marriage of those who had been divorced.   Other restrictions were concerned with the faith status of applicants. There were some indications (10% of respondents) that Anglicans were only prepared to admit couples for a wedding in church who could confess Christian faith, and a small proportion denied their services to those who did not attend church regularly. Among the Methodists there was a smaller proportion who required Christian faith from those who presented themselves for marriage, but none at all who required them to be church attenders. This confirms the openness of the larger proportion of ministers in both churches who support an open policy towards applicants for marriage, with the Anglicans being slightly more restrictive on faith issues than the Methodists.Baptism Similar attitudes to openness and evidence of restrictive policies were seen in the matter of baptism. Both sets of clergy seem to have no inhibitions about their open policy towards candidates for baptism. Anglicans felt more able to welcome candidates for adult baptism than Methodists, with proportions of two thirds as against just over half for the latter. Both churches have an open policy regarding the baptism of adults who have not been baptised before as children. The difficulty comes, however, when an adult requests re-baptism in believers' baptism, when he or she has already been baptised as an infant. Denominational prohibitions about re-baptism then come into play. Looking at the results of this enquiry one can conjecture whether it is that Methodists sit tighter to the rules about re-baptism, or whether the Anglican respondents, who have a more evangelical persuasion than the Methodist respondents, which was observed in other parts of this study, are less rigid in their attitudes. More detailed research is needed to tease out a definitive answer. In the case of parents applying for infant baptism, both sets of clergy were even more open in their baptismal policy than with adult baptism, with just over three quarters approving without restriction. This implies that just under one quarter did feel that there should be some restriction on complete openness. This seems to be associated with parental faith, especially for the Anglicans. A proportion of two fifths of Anglicans restricted infant baptism to parents who could confess a personal faith, while only one tenth of Methodists were in the same position. By contrast there was only 5% of clergy in both denominations who would restrict the baptism of infants only to parents who regularly attended church.The Anglicans seem to be a little less inhibited by the parish boundary than is the case with marriage, three tenths against one third, possibly because requests for infant baptism come from parents who were married in the church and now live away, or parents who themselves grew up in the parish. Methodists, surprisingly, are less generous than with the restriction associated with their acceptance of locals for baptism than they were for marriage, with a slightly higher proportion preferring candidates for baptism to come from the neighbourhood of their churches, though still being more welcoming than the Anglicans on this particular issue. The generous attitude of an open policy of around two thirds of both Anglicans and Methodists who would accept candidates for adult baptism, and the three quarters of both sets of clergy who would freely offer infant baptism to those parents who request it, sits a little oddly with the high proportions of both sets of clergy who place restrictions on baptism regarding faith issues. Perhaps one could understand this contrast by assuming them to be saying "Yes, I will baptise you, but ..".  It seems to be axiomatic that those presenting themselves for adult baptism should confess their faith, which would make sense of this restrictive policy on the part of both clergy and ministers. Almost all clergy and ministers make the stipulation that those adults who present themselves for baptism should be believers. One might also think that they might be required to be church attenders, but only about half of the two groups expect this. With the restrictions for infant baptism, there is the stipulation from over two thirds of the Anglicans that parents should be believers, and from Methodists only half of this proportion. A very small proportion of both groups stipulate that parents should be church attenders. Thus there is some variation in the restrictions which both clergy and ministers apply which indicate that there is not an absolute openness attached to their baptismal policy.Adherence to denominational guidelines Both churches offer official guidelines for the direction of clergy and ministers relating to marriage and baptism, and it seems that both sets of ministers adhered to these official principles of pastoral practice. Both clergy and ministers were keen to conform to the rules of both their churches in the matter of both marriage and baptismal discipline. Almost three quarters of Anglicans and two thirds of Methodists agree with the party line for marriage discipline, and for baptisms slightly less, with two thirds of each clergy group in agreement. These high proportions in both churches seem to be quite content with the denominational discipline in these matters, and the fact that most of them agree with the position which their churches take indicate that rebels must be few. It is interesting to note that central church discipline seems to be supported more strongly in the case of marriage rather than in the case of baptismal policy. Are there more rebels where baptisms are concerned? The fact that so many do acknowledge the discipline of the denominational line sits rather oddly with some of the responses describing their actual pastoral practice. It is also worth noting that there is a substantial minority in both denominations, around a third for both marriage and baptismal policy, who do not follow the denominational guidance. Can they be regarded as mavericks? If this is so, there are slightly more Methodists who prefer their individual choices than Anglicans.Work load for clergy and ministers The 126 Anglican respondents compared with the 46 Methodists within much the same geographical area indicate that the former are much thicker on the ground than the latter. It follows, then, in terms of absolute numbers that the Anglicans must both marry and baptise more people than the Methodists in total. A confirmation of this lies in the fact that the average number of both marriages and baptisms carried out by an Anglican clergyperson is almost twice that of the average Methodist minister. This shows without doubt the popularity of the Church of England for rites of passage. The data of the study indicated that this was also true of funerals. People seem therefore to believe that a parish church is the place to preside over these family ceremonies, and still perceive the Church of England as the church in England. Methodism therefore comes in as an "also ran" in the popular mind, probably drawing for rites of passage on that population which has some contact with the Methodist Church through their own belonging, family connections or some other association. Summary This discussion both confirms and highlights those points made about the pastoral practice of Anglican clergy and Methodist ministers at the beginning of this article. The overall impression which is given is that there is indeed a convergence of practice regarding marriages and baptisms between the two groups, but that divergent views remain associated with faith issues and church structures for the Anglicans.  In some ways Methodists are slightly less restrictive on both counts. Both sets of clergy on the whole say that they are working within the discipline of their churches, but their account of what they do seems to be at odds with that perception. There is also a substantial minority who follow their own individual policies for both marriage and baptismal practice. Further Reading C of E (2000) Marriage in the Church after Divorce, London, Church House            Publishing C of E (2005) www.cofe.anglican.org/info/papers C of E (2005) www.cofe.anglican.org/lifeevents/baptismconfirm Conference (1998) Christian Preparation for Marriage (A Methodist            Conference Statement) Peterborough, Methodist Publishing            House. Conference (2005) www.methodist.org.uk/index/information CPD (2004) Constitutional Practice and Discipline of the Methodist Church,           Peterborough, Methodist Publishing House. Dixon, Neil (1979) Troubled Waters London, Epworth.