The Church of England and the British Methodist Church are flirting again. After previous attempts at unity in 1972 and 1982, when Methodism was left standing at the altar, rejected at the last moment by her Anglican suitor, the two churches are once more chatting each other up with a view to coming together.
This time the churches are taking a softly-softly approach. They held talks about whether they should even hold talks, began formal conversations in 1999 and now a proposed Anglican-Methodist Covenant of mutual affirmation and commitment is to be voted upon by the Methodist Conference today and the Church of England's General Synod on Saturday.
This document sets out the common ground, leaving the contentious issues to be addressed later. If approved by the Methodist Conference and the General Synod, the document will be discussed at local levels, after which the Conference and General Synod will decide next year whether or not to enter into the Covenant.
For many involved in ecumenical partnerships at a local level, the document does not go far enough. For others the outstanding issues of difficulty throw a shadow.
The Church of England as the state Church, the recognition of each other's ministries, matters concerning the Eucharist - these are just some of the thorny issues to be grappled with in the future. However, it is the subject of women bishops that is frequently cited as the major stumbling block.
The Church of England, unlike some other branches of Anglicanism, does not yet permit women to become bishops. In British Methodism the affirmation of women's ministry in all parts of the Church is something that cannot be fudged. The Methodist co-chairman of the conversations, the Rev Dr John Taylor, said: "For Methodists this is non-negotiable."
However, women bishops are part of a much larger problem. Even if the Church of England were to accept women bishops, for many Methodists the real difficulty, the status of women priests, would remain. The Church of England may have admitted women to the priesthood but there are still those within it who do not believe that this is the will of God. Such people are kept within the Church by being allowed to remain free from the "contamination" of women priests.
Methodism may not always treat its women ministers as well as it might, but it does not give official sanction in its doctrines and rules to those who do not recognise the validity of women's ordination. That such attitudes and beliefs are enshrined within the Church of England is a tension which will prove difficult to resolve.
Nor can it be assumed that all Methodists will be happy with the concept of bishops, even if the position is open to both genders. The Methodist Conference may have accepted the concept of episcopacy, but on the whole this has not registered with people in the pews. For many Methodists the term "bishop" means the Anglican model, and is one that they find undesirable. Other models will have to be developed if they are to support the idea of bishops.
There are suspicions that the bigger Church of England would absorb the smaller Methodist Church, rather than join together as equal partners. A former Methodist leader once referred to the Church of England's "effortless sense of superiority" and this is a concern which must be addressed.
The Anglican co-chair of the conversations, Bishop Barry Rogerson, likened the Covenant to "an old-fashioned form of engagement". However, even if an engagement is agreed, there is still a long way to go before there can be any hope of a marriage ceremony. A long period of cohabitation seems much more likely. The debates and votes today and Saturday will give a clue as to whether this looks like being a match made in heaven or just another case of whispering sweet nothings.