Holding back on lay administration

Sydney Anglicans have with great patience and restraint argued their case for lay administration over many years. They have marvelled at the way in which this has been equated with the open endorsement of a form of immorality against which Scripture directly speaks in other Anglican churches. They have been astonished at the passionate response to this attempt to change church order, when significant challenges to orthodox doctrine and ethics - and indeed, church order - go unremarked. They have been surprised at the innovations contemplated in the name of equality and mission, but resisted on this particular matter. If lay administration is a second order issue, as even Nicholas Taylor will admit, then why has it elicited so much hostility?

Despite all of this, I would like to argue that Sydney ought not go ahead with lay administration in the foreseeable future. I don’t think that there are any theological objections insofar as I would (and have) happily receive the Lord’s Supper in a Baptist church from a lay person and consider that the sacrament was in no way deficient – in fact, I would find it offensive were any Anglican to suggest it was in some way incomplete celebration. However, I do think it is not wise or necessary to proceed with this innovation at this time. I have six reasons.

First, despite what some of its proponents claim, it is not in fact a ‘gospel issue’. Calling it a gospel issue posits an either-or that is simply not accurate. It confuses gospel issues with church order issues. The reason for calling it a gospel issue is that reserving the act of administration at the Supper for the ordained priest/presbyter allegedly communicates a view of the sacrament which sets it apart from the Word and makes it a special means of grace in addition to the gospel in some way – along the lines of a Roman Catholic theology of the sacraments. However, there is no sense in which a Communion service run in the evangelical parishes of the diocese of Sydney could ever be confused in that way. The usual practice communicates anything but a sacerdotal view of the Supper - and there is no evidence that anyone thinks that it does. The ministers do not normally robe or even wear collars these days. The locally authorised liturgies specifically rule out a sacerdotal interpretation of the Communion. Who administers at the Supper becomes then a matter of church order rather than of the gospel itself.

Second, Sydney diocese has an enormous opportunity for a leadership of service within the Anglican Communion in the first decades of the twenty-first century – in countries where it is often difficult to be a Christian such as Egypt, Madagascar and Myanmar. Anglicans in these countries may class themselves as ‘evangelicals’ but may often just understand themselves to be ‘Anglican’ without reference to a party. They are conservative in theological outlook and looking for help in mission. They are reluctant to accept it from the liberal wing of the church, especially from the Episcopal Church of the USA which they feel has become morally compromised since consecrating two actively homosexual bishops. They are concerned that the same spirit of private judgement and self-legislation without wider consultation is at play in Sydney. Perhaps in Sydney we may quibble with their judgement on this matter. And yet cooperation with these churches is an opportunity for proclaiming Jesus. Can we not bear with the brethren on this matter for the sake of the good it might bring? Is it really of such importance in our own context that we cannot hold back? Is it really affecting our mission here in Sydney?

Third, evangelicals in other parts of the Anglican Communion aren’t calling for it with any enthusiasm. At present, many evangelicals look to Sydney for support and to see what might be achieved by evangelicals within an Anglican framework. That relationship would certainly be compromised by pushing ahead with lay administration. Sydney-trained clergy in other parts of the world would be given fewer opportunities and viewed with greater suspicion as a result of this change. In fact, Sydney-trained clergy serving outside Sydney have often called on Sydney to exercise restraint in this matter.

Fourth, simply as a matter of tactics lay administration is ill-advised. Currently, the North American liberals are tearing the Anglican Communion apart with their innovations. They have acted precipitously and selfishly. They have severely compromised the integrity of the Anglican Communion. The Sydney diocese does not share, as a matter ecclesiological conviction, the view of the unity of the Communion that others do. However, moving forward with lay presidency offers a chance for people to compare the two kinds of innovation and to view them as equivalent. A Communion wanting to appear even-handed may expel Sydney just as it expels ECUSA. Far better to allow the crisis over homosexual bishops to play itself out in the Communion and see what new state of play eventuates then to give those whose hatred of Sydney is implacable a cause to move against it.

Fifth, it is simply the case that no practical necessity drives lay administration in Sydney. There are plenty of candidates for ministry, and plenty of serving presbyters – certainly compared to other dioceses. The current practice is for a monthly communion or perhaps less. Almost every practical concern could be overcome. The current policy of only ordaining as presbyters those who are rectors is perhaps an obstacle, in that congregational leaders may frequently not be presbyters. I would be in favour of returning to the old system. Nevertheless, diaconal administration - which is currently in place – has made this need less urgent.

Sixthly, even though in my judgement no real case of any substance has been put against lay administration, the arguments have singularly failed to convince the wider Anglican Communion even slightly, let alone others in the Australian church. Many of those not convinced would count themselves as dear friends of the Sydney diocese. Whatever one’s opinion of the matter, this is precisely the opposite of the case with women’s ordination, where a clear majority of the Australian church were in favour. It may seem that almost four decades is a long time to be considering a change such as this. But more work is needed from the Sydney point of view to convince others of the pressing need – if pressing it is – for this change. It is telling that no significant monograph from a Sydney theologian has appeared in support of lay administration. Could Sydney really push ahead with the change without majority approval at a national level?
This may seem like a surprising conclusion. However it is arguably more consistent with the Christian gospel, which enjoins us not to insist on our own rights but to consider the needs of others. For a chance of sharing with the Anglicans of Myanmar or Egypt or Chile in their call to preach the gospel, I would readily lay down my insistence on a particular change of church order on which nothing of consequence hangs (if we are to be honest about it). Though no substantial arguments have appeared to counter lay administration at a theological level, here is an opportunity to show patient endurance for the sake of others. Are we mature enough as an institution to take that opportunity?