Look, if you don't want to read what I write below, there is a stimulating post here you might like to take a squiz at, "The End of Evangelicalism and the Possibility of Reformed Catholicism." It doesn't hugely move my theo-ecclesiological boats, but it may do so for yours ...
Alternatively, Bishop Kelvin Wright has posted a lovely reflection on the meaning and content of prayer, "Prayer as Relationship."
Otherwise, unless you stop reading now, you're stuck with me!
The Other Cheek reports here that in Australia eight Uniting Church ministers [conservatives feeling unable to continue in that denomination] have been welcomed into the Diocese of the Southern Cross [a new development in Australian Anglicanism whereby a Diocese of Sydney supported venture with no recognition/status within the Anglican Church of Australia, but naming/claiming to be "Anglican", including having an overseeing bishop, retired Archbishop of Sydney, Glenn Davies].
This post is not about the reasons for the Uniting ministers joining Southern Cross nor the reasons for the formation of the Diocese of the Southern Cross.
This post is about the intriguing claim - a technical-theological-ecclesiological question - that the newly joining ministers' (from a church which does not have bishops) need not be re-ordained by a bishop but simply be recognised as fully functioning "presbyters" within Southern Cross:
"Bishop Glenn Davies presided at a service titled “The Service of Recognition of Ministers of the Word and Sacramentsts.” The Ministers newly recognised as “presbyters” are ... The “recognition” of these ministers is distinct from “ordaining” them which would indicate that they are becoming ministers. Instead the term “recognition’ is used to indicate that they have already been serving as ministers in a different denomination.
“Our sister and brothers, have already been baptised into Christ and have formerly been ordained as Ministers of the Word and Sacraments, under the rules of the Uniting Church of Australia, ” the Bishop said in a liturgy welcoming them. “They now wish to have their orders recognised by the Diocese of the Southern Cross and seek our prayers in the fellowship of this Church.”
Turning to the Minsters, Bishop Glenn continued “”My brothers and sister, we give thanks that you have been lawfully ordained to the office and work of a Minister of the Word and Sacraments in the Church of God.
“I have therefore resolved to recognise you as Presbyters in the Diocese of the Southern Cross.
“That we and this congregation may know that you desire, by God’s grace, to continue this ministry in the Diocese of the Southern Cross, I ask you these questions.” Each minister was asked a series of questions, the key one being, “Do you embrace the faith of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church as described in the Fundamental Declarations and the Jerusalem Declaration?”
The diocese points out that this procedure is not novel. “Similar expressions of episcopal welcome with laying on of hands occurred in the establishment of the Churches of North and South India, and were also contemplated in the Anglican-Methodist conversations in England last century.”"
Now, in a further "not", this post will not attempt to settle questions herein raised - partly because a post on a blog is not a synod let alone a general synod, and mostly because the questions raised by this action have been and are lively questions for a church such as my own and more generally for the Anglican Communion:
- "lively", when, for example, as mentioned above, the Churches of North and South India were established (and the Church of Pakistan also?) - see further below;
- when, for example, in my own church, ACANZP, we engage in dialogue with NZ Presbyterians and NZ Methodists about the status in our eyes of ministers ordained as presbyters/ministers of Word and Sacrament for those respective denominations;
- when, for example, also occasionally happening hereabouts, a ministers seeks appointment as a Vicar, but their ordination as presbyter/priest has taken place in, say, the Free Church of England or the Church of England in South Africa (now = REACH-SA) - churches with bishops.
The word "lively" applies because from time to time in ecumenical dialogue the question is raised and discussed and exploration takes place of how things might change (or not).
(Simpler, by the way, is recognition of, say, a Roman Catholic or Old Catholic priest seeking to become a licensed priest in ACANZP, or a minister ordained by a bishop in an episcopal-Lutheran church. (See appendices below from our canons.)
There is also the fascinating question, in respect of the report above, whether a bishop may make such a decision re recognition alone, without synodical support - but this is not a question this post is concerned to discuss.
Back to the question du jour:
When I first noted this report I posted a comment on Twitter (along the above lines) and invited Bosco Peters to respond, which he did: (read from bottom upwards):
In other words, our church, other Anglican churches of the Communion (i) find everything most straightforward when recognition of ministry orders is
(a) according to the principle that ordination is by a bishop and not otherwise, even by churches we are close to, such as the Presbyterian and Methodist churches of Aotearoa NZ;
(b) according to the canons and standing resolutions of our church (i.e. as governed synodically, and in particular not at the determination of bishops acting alone);
(c) in coherency with decisions made elsewhere in the Anglican Communion (e.g. from below, re the Porvoo Concordat 1992);
and, (ii) find things somewhat messy (ecclesiologically speaking) and thus requiring considerable working through when (a) to (c) are not aligned (cf. Bosco Peters' point about it taking considerable time for orders for one of the Indian churches to be recognised in contrast to the other).
Back to the Diocese of the Southern Cross and the report above:
(1) Insofar as this decision may be hailed as "Anglican" it would appear to be subject to critique as not, in fact, being a particularly Anglican way of going about things (lack of recognition of local synodical authority, lack of reference to the wider Anglican Communion).
(2) From another perspective, this decision could be hailed as "ecumenical" because it is a decision to treat the same, within the one church, the ordinations of bishops and the ordinations which are not of bishops.
Logically, (2) implies that the Diocese of the Southern Cross may be a new, ecumenically oriented church, yes, with Anglican roots, but not with an emerging, developing Anglican character (because in it ecumenical concern to welcome theologically like minded ministers and their congregations, it has taken an essentially ecumenical and not Anglican step in this recent announcement).
Does this matter?
As is often the case, Yes and No!
No, it doesn't matter particularly what a church, even one calling itself a "Diocese" does re recognition of ministries. Churches make decisions! And, in this case, as a safe harbour for conservatives in Australia, this decision (so to speak) widens the harbour to welcome a variety of ships from more than one navy.
Yes, it potentially matters if the Diocese of the Southern Cross claims some kind of Anglican-moral high ground. Then the question arises why a specifcially Anglican claim (e.g. that Anglicans here and there have ceased to be properly Anglican because, well, you know, That Topic) has relevance when other aspects of being Anglican are playing fast and loose with.
Appendices: (derived from here)
Title G Canon 13
"
|
6.
|
Admission of Clergy of Churches in
Communion with this Church
|
|
|
6.1
|
The Anglican
Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia recognises as being in full
communion with itself (a relationship of
unrestricted communio in sacris including the mutual recognition of
ministries) these Churches, namely:
The Church of England and all other Churches of the Anglican
Communion, and such other Churches as shall be recognised by General Synod
from time to time as being in the same full communion.
6.1.1 The Lutheran Churches of the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran
(Episcopal) Churches, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada, and the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as listed in the Third Schedule are
recognized by the General Synod / te Hīnota Whānui in terms of clause 6.1.
|
Churches in full communion.
2008
|
|
6.2
|
A Bishop may
permit any Bishop, Priest or Deacon from a Church in full communion with this
Church as defined in clause 6.1 to officiate in any church, parish or
congregation for one or more services upon being satisfied that the person is
duly ordained.
|
Permission from Bishop.
|
|
6.3
|
Any Bishop,
Priest or Deacon from a Church in full communion with this Church as defined
in clause 6.1 of this Canon shall be eligible to be licensed or issued with a
Permission to Officiate pursuant to Title A Canon II, or to hold office as a
Bishop in this Church.
|
Eligibility for licence.
|
|
7.
|
Admission of ministers ordained by
Bishops not in Communion with this Church.
|
|
|
7.1
|
When a
Priest or Deacon ordained by a Bishop of the (A) Roman Catholic Church or
other Church in communion with the See of Rome or (B) 15 Autocephalous (self
governing) and 4 Autonomous (self ruling) Orthodox churches as listed in the
Third Schedule, or other such Church
as shall be recognised by General Synod for the purposes of this Canon shall
apply to a Bishop of this Church to hold office in the same, that person
shall produce to the Bishop:
|
Other churches.
|
|
|
(a) Letters of Orders to the priesthood or diaconate;
|
Requirements
|
|
|
(b) Testimony of character and quality of life
from persons specified by the Bishop;
|
|
|
|
(c) A signed Declaration of Baptism and
membership in the form set out in the First Schedule to this Canon or to the
like effect.
|
1998
|
|
7.2
|
The Bishop
shall be satisfied that such a person meets the requirements set out in
Clause 5 of this Canon.
|
Role of Bishop
|
|
7.3
|
The person
to be licensed, in addition to subscribing the Declaration required by Part C
clause 15 of the Constitution, shall renounce all recourse to any other
ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
|
Declaration
|
"
"THIRD
SCHEDULE
Lutheran
Churches
The Church
of Denmark, the Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Evangelical Lutheran
Church of Finland, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland, the Evangelical Lutheran
Church of Latvia, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Lithuania, the Church of Norway,
the Church of Sweden, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in Canada.
Orthodox
Churches
The
Autocephalous (self governing) Orthodox Churches namely the Churches of
Constantinople, of Alexandria, of Antioch, of Jerusalem, of Russia, of Georgia,
of Serbia, of Romania, of Bulgaria, of Cyprus, of Greece, of Albania, of
Poland, of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, and in America; and the Autonomous
(self ruling) Orthodox Churches; namely The Churches of Sinai, of Finland, of
Japan, and of Ukraine"
and, from Standing Resolutions on Intercommunion, in respect of Title G Canon 6 Section 6.1 above: "such other Churches as shall be recognised by General Synod from time to time as being in the same full communion.":
This includes: churches such as the Old Catholic Church (SRIC 1) and various other churches in SRIC 2-10) then:
"
|
SRIC 11. RECOGNITION OF BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND DEACONS
FROM OTHER CERTAIN CHURCHES
|
|
Adopts the Porvoo Concordat of October
1992 (between the Anglican Churches in
Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England and The Nordic and Baltic Lutheran
[Episcopal] Churches); the Waterloo Declaration of 2001 (between the Anglican
Church of Canada and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada); and the
Concordat of Agreement / Called to Common Mission of January 2001 (between
the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and The Episcopal Church of the
U.S.A) for the limited purposes of recognition in terms of Title G Canon
XIII clause 6.1, to officiate in terms
of clause 6.2; and to be licensed within this Church in terms of clause 6.3
for any bishop, priest of deacon from
the churches (not being within the
Anglican Communion) parties to these Concordats and Declaration, namely the
Church of Denmark, the Estonian Evangelical-Lutheran Church, the
Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland, the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of
Iceland, the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Latvia, the Evangelical-Lutheran
Church of Lithuania, the Church of Norway, the Church of Sweden, the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church
in Canada: [2008]
|
"
