The Primates of the Anglican Communion have issued as tough a statement as you are likely to see in response to TEC (the US Episcopal Church). The call for discipline means a strengthening of the hand of the Communion itself to deal with errant dioceses. Sounds great, but:
This could be Sydney diocese.
If we go ahead with lay presidency - though it seems inconceivable from our point of view that the communion would care - we will be disciplined as TEC has been.
Is it really worth it? Worth risking all our property for? Worth risking our ties with Anglicans in Africa and Asia and England?
I don't think so.
34 comments:
Within the context of the Anglican Communion, lay presidency looks awfully like a suicide pill.
Yes, I'm fine with it in principle. But at the end of the day I'd rather not offend other Christians for whom Christ died.
If there's a genuine need for more people able to preside at communion, some sort of lightweight OLM-type structure should probably work fine.
As you say, lay presidency really isn't worth it.
Why would our property be in danger?
I don't think property will be in danger, but there will be the question of churches in the Sydney Anglican Diocese who don't want to leave the mainstream communion. eg Christchurch St Laurence, St Albans Epping.
I'm actually all for the Sydney Diocese splitting from the rest of the communion and having a diocese that covers the world.
Lay presidency is good.
But keeping Bishops is bad.
Yes, but you're a Presbyterian! You have to say that! You have already split from the rest of the communion... Presbyterians are great splitters! ;-)
The question would be: if Sydney is no longer recognised as Anglican by the Arch of Canterbury and all other Anglicans, then can the property given to the church on the basis of it being an Anglican church still authentically belong to it? There are Anglicans in Sydney of more liberal persuasion who have already put this argument out there...
Suicide pill is a great phrase!
Liquidate the assets, place wives' names, swiss bank account, invest in shopping malls - we'll show arch of cant who's tough. You can have your lay president (whoever that is) and eat it too.
Forgive my ignorance - never having really attended an Anglican church - but isn't the Anglican Church established by an Act of Parliament? Wouldn't the ownership of property ultimately be governed by that?
I'm with OSA on the bishop thing.
"Worth risking our ties with Anglicans in Africa and Asia and England?"
But surely the fundamental tie is the unity that exists in Christ, and that isn't going to be damaged by organization splitting or discipline.
Well, yes: and that is why some of my best friends are Presbyterians!
BUT: there are other Anglicans for whom this is an enormous stumbling block, with whom we are able to exercise leadership and ministry and have fellowship. This would be impaired. It would place our missionaries in an awkward position, for example.
I'd rather go with "local priesting" where a regularly ordained priest is not available.
I actually think the whole lay communion push is driven, in part, by the ghosts of Knox's anti-sacramentalism.
...as opposed to a pragmatic need, I mean.
I too like the "suicide pill" description, and agree with Craig that a form of local ordination is a better option. This isn't about the merits of lay presidency - restricting presidency to ordained ministers is a matter of good order rather than divine institution.
However, to introduce lay presidency, whatever the merits of the arguments involved, would be a communion-breaking act, because many Anglicans in good standing would then find it impossible to participate in good faith in such Communion services. You may think those Anglicans are wrong to take that position, but being a member diocese of the Anglican Communion involves accepting certain restraints and disciplines in order to maintain intercommunion with other Anglicans.
If some in Sydney consider there are gospel imperatives that ought to override those disciplines and restraints, then fine. But the consequence of that is that Sydney will no longer be Anglican. That may well be where Sydney's convictions are logically driving it, and there is no dishonour in taking that road. But to try to remain Anglican while having lay presidency - to try to have the benefits of being part of the Anglican Communion while declining to accept the restraints and disciplines that go with that - is to try to have one's cake and eat it, as TEC is now learning to its cost.
YOu have put it very well.
Alas, our synod has voted in favour of it several times. I can only hope that they lose interest and the whole matter goes away.
Hi Michael. Just can across this article (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/48338/) and thought you may be interested. Regards... Jason
Michael,
I guess it does come down to where are your most important ties. First question -who would it offend. 2nd Question who would it enhance unity with...? 3rd Question -what theologically is the absence of lay presidency doing? Does it enhance, diminish or is it neutral about the split between clergy and laity?
If your going to remain within the Anglican Communion then it seems to me that it's only worth you being in there if you are reforming and if you are making a nuisance of yourselves
As for the Presbytarians being splitters -what do you think the Anglican church is? Us free church people learnt it from the best!!!
Oh and on the point of property -I remember a briefing article a long time ago arguing that the best thing you Aussies could do was escape from your existing buildings with all the restrictions and build nice ugly utilitarian buildings that everyone would want to knock down in 20 years time
Now, come on, we don't really believe anything in the Briefing!
You are right to ask those questions I think. But I don't think the answers change anything, not really. No-one actually notices in Syd churches. The whole obsession with this issue has more to do with marking out territory than any real theological matter. And it is a huge waste of time and money when both are in short supply.
Anglicans are "splitters"??? The whole current drama shows how reluctant we are to split.
Put 6 presbyterians in a room, and they will form 7 denominations before the day is out...
Yes, we split over important things... like getting kings a good divorce...
Michael,
Someone here suggested there are proper and legal ways already of doing lay presidency -is that right
I guess there is another question
Maybe lay presidency isn't needed (yet)
But in what ways can we show the priesthood of all beleivers and remove the idea in some churches and in popular culture of the difference.
There might be - in fact, other dioceses practice it for all intents and purposes.
But: who ACTUALLY is complaining? A far greater danger to the P of all B is the way we hog the pulpit and behave like autocrats...
Good point and that applies equally to many "free churches" although I've personally been blessed with churches where that wasn't so.
On the other hand I have a friend who thinks they might want to be a priest -have even done a theology degree but never yet preached...
Some great comments in this thread!
A far greater danger to the P of all B is the way we hog the pulpit and behave like autocrats
I actually think the whole lay communion push is driven, in part, by the ghosts of Knox's anti-sacramentalism.
Amen and amen.
Michael and John H have expressed the point well: There is potentially a very high cost to pushing for lay presidency that most of the proponents haven't adequately considered.
Has anyone else ever wondered whether Sydney's push for lay presidency has more to do with oneupmanship over the rest of the church doing things that Sydney doesn't like (eg ordaining women or avowing decidedly un-Protestant and un-Reformed sacramental theologies) than it does with a perceived theological imperative for lay presidency at the Lord's Table? It seems to me that Sydney is shaking it's fist (as it were) at the rest of the Church and saying "two can play at that game".
Well, if Sydney continues to go down the path to lay presidency it may just learn the hard way that two *cannot* always play at that game. There are plenty of Anglicans who would be glad to see the back of us and would love any excuse to force us out of the Anglican fold. Unfortunately it seems as if most Sydney Anglicans couldn't care less whether or not they belong to the Anglican Church of Australia (and hence the worldwide Anglican Communion). I for one actually think there is much to be gained by staying in and I wish Sydney would just drop the whole matter of lay presidency. It really is an unnecessary debate. There are far more important things that are worth contending for at the present moment.
Yes: perhaps we ought to find out just how much these debates COST before we embark on another round of committees and legal tribunals etc etc etc. And I just pray that this generation does not poison the well for the one coming after it...
One question that needs to be answered is what are the actual doctrinal objections to lay presidency?
Well they seem mysterious to me. I guess you have to have church order. No-one is advocating a free-for-all! - And that church order is part of our historic identity as Anglican and Catholic...
But there are surely ways of maintaining that order and avoiding a free for all? Sorry this is one I really don't understand as I've spent most of my life bar three years at Christ Church Fulwood and now weekdays at Oak Hill in non conformist churches so I really don't get why it is such a hot potato. Indeed even at most Anglican communions I go to nowadays it is a lay person actually putting the bread and cup in my hands and saying the special words to me...so what exactly is the problem...sorry to be so slow!
Well, I don't have a sacerdotal understanding of the ministry, so like you I find it hard to make sense of the objection...
'Tradition', if you hold tradition as authoritative, is a powerful card to play.
So -will Sidney be on their own if they progress with this or will it provide leadership for Anglicans elsewhere to move ahead with a reform -I guess that's the question.
I wonder if Sidney are so unpopular in the wrong circles that anything they do will be seen as one upmanship.
I also wonder if the fear here is that you will lose your anglo-catholic co-beliggerants. But doesn't this actually help blow the hole in the idea of a third province of Evangelicals and catholics -we can end up mistaking co-beliggerants as fully paid up allies.
You have got to temper my comments with the fact that I would jump for joy if Sidney led an exodus of Evangelical Anglican Churches out of the CofE and into an ever closer partnership with other Evangelicals!
Well: not being a Donatist, I can't agree! ;-) I think being Anglican has actually given us enormous strengths and resources that we don't even appreciate, really.
The problem is that it's always a "what if" -what would the church have looked like if Stott hadn't led Evangelical Anglicans to "stay in" 40 years ago -would those resources have been lost or would the wider Evangelical "communion" have been stronger...answer don't know -so in the end personally I would go on the what is right in principle more than the what is pragmatic. It's Cramner and Calvin all over again -oh of course Cramner was an Anglican case solved
Yes, though thank goodness Stott did... because it was right in principle.
We evangelicals would have been bickering about some other thing before the afternoon was up, in any case.
Yes Dave I'm afraid we're not going to let you get away with that "right in principle"/"pragmatic" distinction, which was just a teeeeeensy bit unexplored.
If ordnung muss sein but the form of that order is not given in Scripture for all time, then why exactly is lay presidency "right in principle"? Sticking with it if you have it, and some manner of keeping order: that is fine. But changing to it? I am a conservative. If you want me to fix something, you must first convince me that it's broken.
As discussed elsewhere, there's something to be said for the view that perseverence is good and unity is good and that schism is bad; and it won't do to make out that unity is only of value if you agree with everyone about everything. I don't see the point of a relationship that imposes no obligations.
Let's not be too dismissive of Anglo-Catholics either, co-belligerent or otherwise. There is more to life than being an evangelical: we (or "you", if you want to put me outside the fold for the purposes of the discussion) are supposed to believe in being Christian, not in being evangelical; or if it comes to that, to believe in Christ, rather than any thing about our own tradition, at least in the first instance. And so let us take our brothers and sisters as we find them --- as the Lord also teaches.
but the argument was being set in pragmatic terms hence my point -I appreciate some may think that Stott's view was right in principle -I don't but I think he was acting on principled not a purely pragmatic basis -don't make me say more than I was saying (even if I did tease a bit)! The point is have the debate on principled reasons if you think lay presidency is wrong argue it -but don't say "We will get kicked out of the Anglican Church" because the response is "so what if you lose all them resources -the church isn't dependent upon them."
Secondly -I'm not being dismissive of Anglo Catholics -just asking that you (yes it's you because that is an anglican issue not because you are outside of the fold) don't put too much emphasis on unity with "distant cousins" at the expense of closer relatives.
Thirdly there is a difference between saying that anglo-catholics have some good points to make or that there are Christians who are not Evangelicals -e.g. Roman Catholics and saying that you can share a platform (a denomination) because what you say on the gospel is the same thing and doesn't undermine you.
Post a Comment