To be fair to the Diocese of Sydney re some recent postings here by me (and some comments elsewhere) it is important to keep reading and thinking about the issue of lay presidency from all sides. Here is an excerpt from a longer address by Archbishop Peter Jensen:
"It is commonly suggested that the development of lay administration of the Holy Communion is contrary to the very being of Anglicanism. Certainly it would have to be agreed that non-priestly administration would be quite contrary to some expressions of Anglicanism. But the assertion that it is contrary to the ethos of the Anglican Church really speaks for one side of the Church only. It suggests that one particular view of priesthood and of communion, and one only, is of the essence of the Eucharistic theology. Without going into the question of whether there is only one valid opinion, it is empirically true that at least two views have been evident in the Church for a very long time. According to the thinking of one such view, lay administration is impossible. Accordingly to the other view it is possible, although opinions differ as to whether it is advisable. From my point of view, the second opinion is a genuine and legitimate development of the theology of the Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles. Admittedly, however, that depends on your reading of Anglican history.
The magisterial biography of Cranmer by Diarmaid MacCulloch locates our great Archbishop thus:
‘Standing as he did in the developed Reformed tradition of Europe in the 1550s Cranmer’s conception of a “middle way” or via media in religion was quite different from that of later Anglicanism. In the nineteenth century, when the word “Anglicanism” first came into common use, John Henry Newman said of the middle way (before his departure for the Church of Rome) that “a number of distinct notions are included in the notion of Protestantism; and as to all these our Church has taken a Via Media between it and Popery.” Cranmer would violently have rejected such a notion: how could one have a middle way between truth and Antichrist? The middle ground which he sought was the same as Bucer’s: an agreement between Wittenberg and Zurich which would provide a unified vision of Christian doctrine against the counterfeit being refurbished at the Council of Trent. For him, Catholicism was to be found in the scattered churches of the Reformation, and it was his aim to show forth their unity to prove their Catholicity.” (617).
As far as the Eucharist is concerned, he identifies the mature Cranmer with a variety of Reformed theology which he labels (following B A Gerrish), ‘symbolic parallelism’. He quotes the Archbishop:
‘And although Christ be not corporally in the bread and wine, yet Christ used not so many words, in the mystery of his holy supper, without effectual signification. For he is effectually present, and effectually worketh not in the bread and wine, but in the godly receivers of them, to whom he giveth his own flesh spiritually to feed upon, and his own blood to quench their great inward thirst’ (614-15).
In Cranmer’s thought, the word of God is that which gives the sacrament its power and substance, and this in its turn shapes the ordinal. Word and sacrament belong indissolubly together, and that is why it is reserved to the priest who is the preacher, indeed, the priest who is ordained to be the pastor of the congregation, the one responsible for ‘the cure of souls’.
The question of who administers Holy Communion is one of order: ‘As in a prince’s house the offices and ministers prepare the table, and yet other as well as they, eat the meat and drink he drink; so the priests and ministers prepare the Lord’s supper, read the gospel, and rehearse Christ’s words, but all the people say thereto, Amen. All remember Christ’s death, all give thanks to God, all repent and offer themselves an oblation to Christ, all take him as their Lord and Saviour, and spiritually feed upon him, and in token thereof they eat the bread and drink the wine in his mystical supper’ (Cranmer, 350).
Holy Communion is not a priestly act as such, but an ecclesial one. This is the significance of the absence of any direction about who is to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament. The Eucharist is an activity of the whole congregation; the Lord himself is the focus as he was in the Last Supper; We focus on the priest, Cranmer on the congregation; we focus on the elements, Cranmer on the eating and drinking; we think of Christ coming to us, Cranmer thinks of us going to Christ in the lifting up of our hearts.
Our understanding of the BCP ordinal is that it grants recognition and authority to those who are ordained priest by the Bishop to exercise a pastoral – as opposed to a sacerdotal - ministry of word and sacrament in a community setting. That is to say, the role of incumbent, of the cure of souls is the end to which the service points, although priesthood may be exercised as an assistant, and it may be exercised across parish and Diocesan boundaries. This also reflects the first hundreds of years of Christian leadership, where ordination was not thought of as a priestly mediating ministry, arising from an ontological change, but a ministry arising from the community:
‘We may therefore conclude that a situation in which a community was unable to celebrate the Eucharist because there was no bishop or presbyter present was unthinkable in the early Church…On the basis of the right of the community to the Eucharist, the leader of the community also had the right to lead in the Eucharist…If there is no leader, it chooses a suitable candidate from its own ranks.’
(Edward Schillebeecx). In other words, priesthood must be understood in connection with the Christian community which is being served."
The link to the full address is part of a whole web page developed by the Diocese of Sydney called 'Whose Supper?'
There is a lot to be discussed here but, causa brevitatis, I will confine myself to a few observations!
(i) there are undoubtedly merits to the Jensen case: notwithstanding the non-equivalence of the ministry of the word and of the sacrament, there is no doubting the Cranmerian concern to keep the two ministries close together, and thus permitting lay people to preach raises a real and serious question of why lay people may not preside.
(ii) attendance at a Roman Mass yesterday reminded me of one response: that we (like the Romans at eucharistic services) only permit priests to preach!
(iii) I do not see any recognition of what it might mean to be part of the Anglican community (noting the emphasis on 'community' at the end of the excerpt): being part of that community might mean those keen on lay presidency constrain desire for it out of love for our anglo-catholic brothers and sisters. A similar point is made by acknowledging that although in theory the Cranmerian via media between Geneva and Wittenburg might have led to lay presidency, in practice it did not: the path of Anglican history led away from it and not towards it and thus the 'order' of our ministry became fixed around priestly presiding, even as it became flexible around preaching.
(iv) the argument for lay presidency is framed as an argument against a sacerdotal priesthood, but (I suggest) it is unaware of a (presumably) unintended consequence, that the point of a separate ordained priesthood is undermined. In its place would develop a (kind of) licensed priesthood (i.e. licensed lay presiders).
I appreciate that Archbishop Peter Jensen here puts forward a theological argument for lay presidency which can be considered on its merits, out of context of other Anglican matters. But when we look at the context of other Anglican matters, and observe that essentially only one diocese in the world is pushing publicly for lay presidency, the question arises about the nature of Anglican structures: are provinces and dioceses able to decide matters germane to core characteristics of being Anglican without reference to the wider Anglican church? If Sydney seeks an affirmative answer to that question then I struggle (as a fellow conservative) to see how that answer cannot also apply to (e.g.) TEC approving Gene Robinson's consecration or New Westminster approving liturgical blessing of same sex partnerships. (This point, please note, does not involve the fallacy of equating a moral issue with a non-moral issue. It involves the observation that in different places Anglican local authorities are seeking to vary accepted Anglican order.)
Monday, November 24, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Battling for the soul of Anglicanism
Here is a taster from a larger - technically demanding - article by eminent British historian Jonathan Clark in the Church Times:
"CONTROL of the Reformation means control of a commanding height of the historical economy. The early Reformation continues to be a battleground, and the polarity between Diarmaid MacCulloch and Eamon Duffy seems on the surface to reassert an older conflict of opposites. Yet, when examined more closely, the two are saying similar things.
Professor Duffy presents a deeply Roman Catholic populace on whom the Reformation was imposed. Pro fessor MacCulloch explains how far-reaching were the intentions of early Refor mers, especially Cranmer, and emphasises the extent of the transfor mation they effected. Both argue for a radical discontinuity, and, by implication, for a wholly new Church.
Yet, arguably, Professor MacCul loch has won: many more Anglicans now see the Reformation as a new departure, a licence to pursue a per son al spiritual pilgrimage, uncon strained by scripture or tradition.
Two generations of historians, from Patrick Collinson to Peter Lake, have argued for the deeply Calvinist nature of the later Reformation and the Church it created. Professor Collinson has termed the idea of the Church of England’s treading a via media a “persistent myth”.
This interpretation leads naturally to the Civil Wars, now widely viewed — thanks especially to John Morrill — as wars of religion, triggered by militant sectarianism. This moves the 1640s away from the old secular story of parliamentary liberty defended and vindicated, into a lurid scene of bigotry and fanaticism: many 17th-century Anglicans seem to have had much in common with the Scots Covenanters.
Two English literary figures have been displaced in the opposite direction. Most controv ersially, William Shakespeare has been presented as a covert recusant or “Church Pap ist”; Samuel Johnson has been depic ted as a Nonjuror. If so, the Church of England has lost two of its greatest icons.
From being loyal, patriotic, deeply English (and so, by implication, sound churchmen), they now stand to some degree outside English society in their day, offering coded critiques of it. The more that figures of this calibre aff irmed alternatives, the less Anglican ism looks like the natural, timeless bedrock of national consciousness and character it once seemed.
TRUE, much was restored in 1660, and the continuum that lasted into the early 19th century now appears as one characterised by the long-delayed intellectual hegemony of the Church. It was the era of sound scholarship, especially patristics, the clergy of the Church of England deservedly winning the accolade stupor mundi. But this formidable intellectual and social foundation was broken down, begin ning in the 1830s. Why?
Political historians have illumin ated Protestant Nonconformity’s part in swamping an Anglican hegemony in 1828-32. Anglo-Catholicism now seems more a political response to this social bloc than a plausible assertion of a powerful Catholic strand within the Church of England. Increasingly, 19th-century liberal ism looks like Nonconformity mobil ised for action, a challenge to which the Church of England failed adequately to reply.
Peter Nockles’s influential account has recast the Oxford Movement. From being an expression of the continuity of a Catholic element in Anglicanism, the Tractarians are now presented as indebted to pre-Tractarian High Churchmen, reas serting key elements of their hege mony of c.1660-1832. It all looks less securely Catholic, and more political.
Appropriately, there has been renewed interest in John Henry Newman from scholars such as Ian Ker and Sheridan Gilley.
Historians have emphasised the emergence of parties within the 19th-century Church of England, and the lasting importance of this dynamic; but High Church, liberal, and Low Church or Evangelical parties now seem locked in a civil war that gravely damaged each party rather than ex pressing a happy pluralism."
For more views/responses go to Thinking Anglicans for links.
"CONTROL of the Reformation means control of a commanding height of the historical economy. The early Reformation continues to be a battleground, and the polarity between Diarmaid MacCulloch and Eamon Duffy seems on the surface to reassert an older conflict of opposites. Yet, when examined more closely, the two are saying similar things.
Professor Duffy presents a deeply Roman Catholic populace on whom the Reformation was imposed. Pro fessor MacCulloch explains how far-reaching were the intentions of early Refor mers, especially Cranmer, and emphasises the extent of the transfor mation they effected. Both argue for a radical discontinuity, and, by implication, for a wholly new Church.
Yet, arguably, Professor MacCul loch has won: many more Anglicans now see the Reformation as a new departure, a licence to pursue a per son al spiritual pilgrimage, uncon strained by scripture or tradition.
Two generations of historians, from Patrick Collinson to Peter Lake, have argued for the deeply Calvinist nature of the later Reformation and the Church it created. Professor Collinson has termed the idea of the Church of England’s treading a via media a “persistent myth”.
This interpretation leads naturally to the Civil Wars, now widely viewed — thanks especially to John Morrill — as wars of religion, triggered by militant sectarianism. This moves the 1640s away from the old secular story of parliamentary liberty defended and vindicated, into a lurid scene of bigotry and fanaticism: many 17th-century Anglicans seem to have had much in common with the Scots Covenanters.
Two English literary figures have been displaced in the opposite direction. Most controv ersially, William Shakespeare has been presented as a covert recusant or “Church Pap ist”; Samuel Johnson has been depic ted as a Nonjuror. If so, the Church of England has lost two of its greatest icons.
From being loyal, patriotic, deeply English (and so, by implication, sound churchmen), they now stand to some degree outside English society in their day, offering coded critiques of it. The more that figures of this calibre aff irmed alternatives, the less Anglican ism looks like the natural, timeless bedrock of national consciousness and character it once seemed.
TRUE, much was restored in 1660, and the continuum that lasted into the early 19th century now appears as one characterised by the long-delayed intellectual hegemony of the Church. It was the era of sound scholarship, especially patristics, the clergy of the Church of England deservedly winning the accolade stupor mundi. But this formidable intellectual and social foundation was broken down, begin ning in the 1830s. Why?
Political historians have illumin ated Protestant Nonconformity’s part in swamping an Anglican hegemony in 1828-32. Anglo-Catholicism now seems more a political response to this social bloc than a plausible assertion of a powerful Catholic strand within the Church of England. Increasingly, 19th-century liberal ism looks like Nonconformity mobil ised for action, a challenge to which the Church of England failed adequately to reply.
Peter Nockles’s influential account has recast the Oxford Movement. From being an expression of the continuity of a Catholic element in Anglicanism, the Tractarians are now presented as indebted to pre-Tractarian High Churchmen, reas serting key elements of their hege mony of c.1660-1832. It all looks less securely Catholic, and more political.
Appropriately, there has been renewed interest in John Henry Newman from scholars such as Ian Ker and Sheridan Gilley.
Historians have emphasised the emergence of parties within the 19th-century Church of England, and the lasting importance of this dynamic; but High Church, liberal, and Low Church or Evangelical parties now seem locked in a civil war that gravely damaged each party rather than ex pressing a happy pluralism."
For more views/responses go to Thinking Anglicans for links.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Insights from opportunities
I find that when given the opportunity to speak on something I learn and receive new insights and gain a new perspective on a matter. Last night I had an opportunity to address a meeting at a local parish on the topic of the Anglican Communion and Sexuality. This morning I had opportunity to join with Archdeacon Robin Kingston to speak to a conference of Diocesan Secretaries/Registrars from Australasian dioceses about the Communion and developments within it. Out of those two occasions, including the inevitable post-delivery conversations, I have been led to reflect on two (possible) keys to the future of the Communion.
One is the need for some of us to become a little broader in our theology, churchpersonship, interpretation of Scripture, and general openness to others (including that they may be right and we may be wrong). A case in point is the vexed relationship between CEs (conservative evangelicals) and OEs (open evangelicals) within the Church of England. Last Saturday at an important consultation (NEAC) something went badly wrong with an attempt to gain support for a motion seeking to support beleaguered Anglicans (read the plethora of comments here to get the flavour). Admittedly from a distance, the attempt seems to involve a narrow outlook which would have been successful with a bit more width.
Another is a need for some of us to become less broad in our theology etc, and to acknowledge constraints and limitations to the diversity appropriately, if not also legitimately containable within Anglicanism. A case in point is the cause of Anne Holmes Reading, an Episcopal priest of some 25 years standing who is on the way to being defrocked because she is also a Muslim and sees no incompatibility with also being a Christian. I say 'cause' because Anne herself is being disciplined by TEC - though the cynic in me wonders if this would have been so, say, 10 years ago. That cause is now taken up by St Matthews-in-the-City, a notable if not controversial Anglican parish in Auckland, NZ. Thus Glynn Cardy in a thoughtful piece takes up the cause, as does at least one other Anglican priest in the comments which follow. At the core of the case advanced is an unwillingness to recognise ultimate difference between Islam and Christianity. Oddly, of course, such refusal is scarcely possible from the Islamic side of things! Now all sorts of things can be said at this point, and I am sure Glynn would capably respond to them. My simple point is that an Anglicanism this broad is not an Anglicanism that is going to find an agreed solution to its present difficulties.
Neither will an Anglicanism as narrow as that experienced last weekend at NEAC when a motion was proposed and opportunity to amend it was denied!
One is the need for some of us to become a little broader in our theology, churchpersonship, interpretation of Scripture, and general openness to others (including that they may be right and we may be wrong). A case in point is the vexed relationship between CEs (conservative evangelicals) and OEs (open evangelicals) within the Church of England. Last Saturday at an important consultation (NEAC) something went badly wrong with an attempt to gain support for a motion seeking to support beleaguered Anglicans (read the plethora of comments here to get the flavour). Admittedly from a distance, the attempt seems to involve a narrow outlook which would have been successful with a bit more width.
Another is a need for some of us to become less broad in our theology etc, and to acknowledge constraints and limitations to the diversity appropriately, if not also legitimately containable within Anglicanism. A case in point is the cause of Anne Holmes Reading, an Episcopal priest of some 25 years standing who is on the way to being defrocked because she is also a Muslim and sees no incompatibility with also being a Christian. I say 'cause' because Anne herself is being disciplined by TEC - though the cynic in me wonders if this would have been so, say, 10 years ago. That cause is now taken up by St Matthews-in-the-City, a notable if not controversial Anglican parish in Auckland, NZ. Thus Glynn Cardy in a thoughtful piece takes up the cause, as does at least one other Anglican priest in the comments which follow. At the core of the case advanced is an unwillingness to recognise ultimate difference between Islam and Christianity. Oddly, of course, such refusal is scarcely possible from the Islamic side of things! Now all sorts of things can be said at this point, and I am sure Glynn would capably respond to them. My simple point is that an Anglicanism this broad is not an Anglicanism that is going to find an agreed solution to its present difficulties.
Neither will an Anglicanism as narrow as that experienced last weekend at NEAC when a motion was proposed and opportunity to amend it was denied!
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Further confirmation that Sydney is out on a limb
Hat-tipping to Stand Firm: Sarah Hey, incorporating comment from Dan Martins, further confirms that Sydney re lay presidency etc, has made a very bad move, with little or no support from those in North America who saw New Hampshire etc as a very bad move. Along the way, David Ould's attempt to justify Sydney's action is given short shift!
Sarah points to an excellent response in a comment posted by 'boringbloke' on David Ould's article re the Sydney notion that preaching is equally important as the sacrament so if lay people can preach then they can also preside. I particularly like this sentence in the comment:
"If you feel so strongly that you have to proceed with this, then form your own new church rather than rewriting the rules of ours".
As Sarah Hey points out, that church has already been formed and is called the Plymouth or Open Brethren!
Incidentally David Ould simply does not get the objection to Sydney's decision which is that it is contrary to the BCP Ordinal which is expressly upheld by the Jerusalem Declaration - a commenter makes this point but his response is inadequate.
Final note: lay presidency is not an opening up of the presbyterate to the laity but a replacement of the presbyterate. If Sydney Diocese proceeds on this path it will be a 'new' church.
Sarah points to an excellent response in a comment posted by 'boringbloke' on David Ould's article re the Sydney notion that preaching is equally important as the sacrament so if lay people can preach then they can also preside. I particularly like this sentence in the comment:
"If you feel so strongly that you have to proceed with this, then form your own new church rather than rewriting the rules of ours".
As Sarah Hey points out, that church has already been formed and is called the Plymouth or Open Brethren!
Incidentally David Ould simply does not get the objection to Sydney's decision which is that it is contrary to the BCP Ordinal which is expressly upheld by the Jerusalem Declaration - a commenter makes this point but his response is inadequate.
Final note: lay presidency is not an opening up of the presbyterate to the laity but a replacement of the presbyterate. If Sydney Diocese proceeds on this path it will be a 'new' church.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
What does it mean to be Anglican in North America?
In early December it is almost certain that the accumulation of parishes and dioceses which have been breaking away from TEC and ACCan will formally announce that they have formed a new Anglican province in North America and that this province will be recognised by GAFCON's Primates Council. An important question will then be whether the new province is recognised as a province within and fully in fellowship with the Anglican Communion and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Technically such recognition requires the assent of the Anglican Consultative Council and the consent of the majority of (all the) Primates.
(As per a recent posting on the Fulcrum Forum) I support this new formation, albeit with some reluctance, including some wariness about the agenda within GAFCON and the limitations of its vision for Anglicanism, and with a simultaneous continuing support and admiration for conservative Anglicans who remain committed to working within TEC and ACCan. I personally know conservative Anglicans on both sides of this particular equation and want to trust the judgement of those who are breaking away and will be forming the new province. My general sense is that they are worn out by the continual process of both North American churches forwarding a liberal agenda without regard for how conservatives, minority though they undoubtedly are in respect of voting numbers, might be honourably included within their fellowship. (This, of course, is to say nothing of the pursuit of this liberal agenda in the face of countervailing opinion in the Communion, in the presidential addresses of the ABC at Lambeth 2008, and in the general thrust of the tradition of Anglicanism and the universal church since the days of the apostles).
(As per a recent posting on the Fulcrum Forum) I support this new formation, albeit with some reluctance, including some wariness about the agenda within GAFCON and the limitations of its vision for Anglicanism, and with a simultaneous continuing support and admiration for conservative Anglicans who remain committed to working within TEC and ACCan. I personally know conservative Anglicans on both sides of this particular equation and want to trust the judgement of those who are breaking away and will be forming the new province. My general sense is that they are worn out by the continual process of both North American churches forwarding a liberal agenda without regard for how conservatives, minority though they undoubtedly are in respect of voting numbers, might be honourably included within their fellowship. (This, of course, is to say nothing of the pursuit of this liberal agenda in the face of countervailing opinion in the Communion, in the presidential addresses of the ABC at Lambeth 2008, and in the general thrust of the tradition of Anglicanism and the universal church since the days of the apostles).
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
What does it mean to be Anglican?
In my most recent post I join with many Anglicans who think that its difficult to be 'Anglican' and subvert our orders of ministry as hitherto understood. But there are many other challenges these days concerning what it means to be Anglican. Bosco Peters in a recent post [latter addition: raises questions which could be construed as offering support to] a thesis congenial to many that the Anglican church is logically committed to blessing same sex partnerships, indeed should allow such partnerships to be called 'marriages'. I disagree: as Anglicans we have defined marriage through our liturgies through the centuries as a relationship between a man and a woman - the fact that (say) the emphasis on the procreative potential of marriage has changed does not diminish the significance of marriage as that which joins the diversity of male and female into 'one flesh'. Further afield, as various machinations, almost daily, take place on the North American stage, towards the establishment of a new Anglican province there, the sense that being Anglican is about being 'catholic' (as well as 'reformed') is taking a battering.
But yesterday I was privileged to be part of a eucharist in Bishopdale Chapel (here in Nelson - the chapel was once the chapel of the Bishop's residence in Nelson, now it is a chapel available for occasional services), held as part of a gathering of diocesan secretaries from Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia. Together, saying the well worn and worthy words of the Gloria, Creed, Lord's Prayer, hearing the Scriptures, praying, and breaking bread together, we affirmed this at least about what it means to be Anglican: it is to worship God together with words and actions which join us with the prophets and apostles, with all the saints, and with Jesus Christ, united under one ordained president, but without accretions and additions unfounded in Scripture.
But yesterday I was privileged to be part of a eucharist in Bishopdale Chapel (here in Nelson - the chapel was once the chapel of the Bishop's residence in Nelson, now it is a chapel available for occasional services), held as part of a gathering of diocesan secretaries from Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia. Together, saying the well worn and worthy words of the Gloria, Creed, Lord's Prayer, hearing the Scriptures, praying, and breaking bread together, we affirmed this at least about what it means to be Anglican: it is to worship God together with words and actions which join us with the prophets and apostles, with all the saints, and with Jesus Christ, united under one ordained president, but without accretions and additions unfounded in Scripture.
Monday, November 17, 2008
More on Sydney tearing the fabric of the Communion
Have been able this morning to catch up a little on Communion news and views. Sometimes in my posts I feel that I may be sticking my neck out re the conclusions I reach, so I am always grateful when I find someone somewhere confirming something I have said!
Hat-tips to Fulcrum (for first alert), Stand Firm, Titus One Nine etc:
Here is Bishop Jack Iker on the significance of Sydney's recent declaration re lay presidency being valid for an Anglican Diocese (I have emboldened some words):
Greg Griffith: Moving from the general to the specific, one recent and troubling development has been the decision by the diocese of Sydney to authorize lay presidency. That appears to contradict the Jerusalem Declaration by GAFCON, of which Sydney is a member. Two-part question: 1) How easy is it going to be for a Jack Iker to live with lay presidency, and 2) What does this portend for unity within GAFCON in particular and the orthodox movement as a whole?
Bishop Iker: Well, obviously lay presidency or diaconal presidency of the eucharist is not Anglican, and I regret to see them moving in that direction, because it does mean further division among the orthodox. That's not something that Anglicanism is able to accept or affirm. So in a sense, Sydney is causing a similar kind of tear in the fabric of the communion as the Episcopal Church did by moving ahead with ordaining a practicing homosexual as bishop. So I hope they pull back from that, but it's not something that a reformed, catholic religion can affirm or accept. We've always said that the Anglican church is a reformed, catholic body owing to the unbroken faith and practice of the historic church, and this is certainly a departure from that.
Greg Griffith: If Sydney does not pull back from lay presidency, and if it's true that Sydney is tearing the fabric of the communion in a way that's comparable to what TEC has done, and if the GAFCON primates continue to agree to have Sydney as one of its members, doesn't that undercut GAFCON's objections to the actions by TEC and Canada regarding homosexuality?
Bishop Iker: I suppose the difference between the two is that one is a moral issue, and the other is not - it's more of a sacramental/theological issue. But the effect is the same - to break communion and cause division.
Greg Griffith: What is your suggestion to your colleagues - to your fellow American bishops, to the GAFCON primates - as to how to address that?
Bishop Iker: I think we just have to speak the truth in love, to say that this does not further our cause, our unity, our mission; and to ask Sydney to reconsider that development. I don't know that it's restricted to Sydney - there may be other parts of the communion where evangelicals are more supportive of that development - but you wouldn't find that support obviously among any of the Anglo-Catholic bishops or dioceses.
One objection to my initial posts re the Sydney decision was that it was 'just a motion'. But it is not so, as this correspondent on Titus One Nine makes clear:
"norton wrote:
The Archbishop of Sydney has already authorized Diaconal and Lay Presidency! Here is a posting by the Rev’d Adrian Stephens, Rector of the parish of Christ Church St Laurence in Sydney (http://www.ccsl.org.au):
“During Synod 2008 a particularly dishonest motion was carried which purported to be a statement of policy concerning Lay and Diaconal Presidency at the Eucharist. The motion was presented on the basis that it was not meant to permit any particular activity, but rather simply stated what Sydney Diocese believed.
The end result is this. The Archbishop has been quoted as stating that he would not license any Lay person or Deacon to celebrate the Eucharist. However a letter was immediately despatched by regional Bishops stating that Lay presidency was problematic, but Diaconal Presidency would be approved by regional bishops on request. Sadly I received such a letter from our regional bishop."
For the record my point in posting on this matter, at risk of diminishing respect and affection for the great Diocese of Sydney, is this:
Scripture may permit lay and diaconal presidency (being unclear on precisely who should preside at the eucharist), local synods may have authority to vary matters of Anglican practice, so, as an Anglican well aware of the potential of Anglicanism both to embrace considerable diversity and of the importance of respecting local autonomy, I do not object to Sydney acting in the way it has as a distinctive Diocese following its unique heritage. BUT I do object to inconsistency: I find it difficult, if not impossible to reconcile Sydney's commitment to GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration with its recent Synod decision re lay and diaconal presidency, since its decision is inconsistent with any plain reading of the meaning of the Jerusalem Declaration, and the commitment of its bishops to proceed with diaconal presidency is at variance with the demands of GAFCON fellowship which requires solidarity with fellow Anglicans about widely agreed matters of Anglican theology and practice. Logically I must, and will gladly withdraw all criticism if Sydney does the honourable thing and withdraws either its resolution or its membership and involvement with GAFCON. If Sydney wants to pursue its particular vision of Anglicanism, fine; but please do not think it's compatible with also supporting conservative Anglicans around the world!
Hat-tips to Fulcrum (for first alert), Stand Firm, Titus One Nine etc:
Here is Bishop Jack Iker on the significance of Sydney's recent declaration re lay presidency being valid for an Anglican Diocese (I have emboldened some words):
Greg Griffith: Moving from the general to the specific, one recent and troubling development has been the decision by the diocese of Sydney to authorize lay presidency. That appears to contradict the Jerusalem Declaration by GAFCON, of which Sydney is a member. Two-part question: 1) How easy is it going to be for a Jack Iker to live with lay presidency, and 2) What does this portend for unity within GAFCON in particular and the orthodox movement as a whole?
Bishop Iker: Well, obviously lay presidency or diaconal presidency of the eucharist is not Anglican, and I regret to see them moving in that direction, because it does mean further division among the orthodox. That's not something that Anglicanism is able to accept or affirm. So in a sense, Sydney is causing a similar kind of tear in the fabric of the communion as the Episcopal Church did by moving ahead with ordaining a practicing homosexual as bishop. So I hope they pull back from that, but it's not something that a reformed, catholic religion can affirm or accept. We've always said that the Anglican church is a reformed, catholic body owing to the unbroken faith and practice of the historic church, and this is certainly a departure from that.
Greg Griffith: If Sydney does not pull back from lay presidency, and if it's true that Sydney is tearing the fabric of the communion in a way that's comparable to what TEC has done, and if the GAFCON primates continue to agree to have Sydney as one of its members, doesn't that undercut GAFCON's objections to the actions by TEC and Canada regarding homosexuality?
Bishop Iker: I suppose the difference between the two is that one is a moral issue, and the other is not - it's more of a sacramental/theological issue. But the effect is the same - to break communion and cause division.
Greg Griffith: What is your suggestion to your colleagues - to your fellow American bishops, to the GAFCON primates - as to how to address that?
Bishop Iker: I think we just have to speak the truth in love, to say that this does not further our cause, our unity, our mission; and to ask Sydney to reconsider that development. I don't know that it's restricted to Sydney - there may be other parts of the communion where evangelicals are more supportive of that development - but you wouldn't find that support obviously among any of the Anglo-Catholic bishops or dioceses.
One objection to my initial posts re the Sydney decision was that it was 'just a motion'. But it is not so, as this correspondent on Titus One Nine makes clear:
"norton wrote:
The Archbishop of Sydney has already authorized Diaconal and Lay Presidency! Here is a posting by the Rev’d Adrian Stephens, Rector of the parish of Christ Church St Laurence in Sydney (http://www.ccsl.org.au):
“During Synod 2008 a particularly dishonest motion was carried which purported to be a statement of policy concerning Lay and Diaconal Presidency at the Eucharist. The motion was presented on the basis that it was not meant to permit any particular activity, but rather simply stated what Sydney Diocese believed.
The end result is this. The Archbishop has been quoted as stating that he would not license any Lay person or Deacon to celebrate the Eucharist. However a letter was immediately despatched by regional Bishops stating that Lay presidency was problematic, but Diaconal Presidency would be approved by regional bishops on request. Sadly I received such a letter from our regional bishop."
For the record my point in posting on this matter, at risk of diminishing respect and affection for the great Diocese of Sydney, is this:
Scripture may permit lay and diaconal presidency (being unclear on precisely who should preside at the eucharist), local synods may have authority to vary matters of Anglican practice, so, as an Anglican well aware of the potential of Anglicanism both to embrace considerable diversity and of the importance of respecting local autonomy, I do not object to Sydney acting in the way it has as a distinctive Diocese following its unique heritage. BUT I do object to inconsistency: I find it difficult, if not impossible to reconcile Sydney's commitment to GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration with its recent Synod decision re lay and diaconal presidency, since its decision is inconsistent with any plain reading of the meaning of the Jerusalem Declaration, and the commitment of its bishops to proceed with diaconal presidency is at variance with the demands of GAFCON fellowship which requires solidarity with fellow Anglicans about widely agreed matters of Anglican theology and practice. Logically I must, and will gladly withdraw all criticism if Sydney does the honourable thing and withdraws either its resolution or its membership and involvement with GAFCON. If Sydney wants to pursue its particular vision of Anglicanism, fine; but please do not think it's compatible with also supporting conservative Anglicans around the world!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)