THE Sydney Anglican Church has revived its radical push to let church elders preside over Holy Communion despite strident opposition from Australian Anglicans and the worldwide church and at the risk of antagonising international churches it has courted to stop the consecration of gay bishops.
A committee of church officials has urged the Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, to amend the licenses of senior lay people and deacons to enable them to preside over Holy Communion, a right at present restricted to ordained priests and bishops.
The principal of Moore Theological College, John Woodhouse, a leading advocate of lay presidency – an issue of contention in the Australian and the worldwide church – has suggested the diocese could make use of existing church laws.
This would avoid the diocese having to apply for special legal authority of the national church which would likely be voted down by opposing dioceses.
Gosh, on one hand Bp Jensen is planning such a great task as the distribution of the Gospels to the people, and then turns around and attacks the role of the clergy in the consecration of the Eucharist. As ‘Uncle Jed’ used to say “somebody needs to have a loooooong talk with that boy!”
Now I don’t know what to think!
Jim Elliott
Kendall:
Agreed, a very, very bad idea. (I would say at any time, though!)
Great idea.
Terrible timing internationally – just when the world-wide alliance needs strengthening.
That they would progress this at this time is bewildering…….
Everyone needs to remember, that TEC is in “Eucharistic Fellowship” with the United Methodist Church. The UMC makes regular use of non-ordained “local pastors” who are not ordained and yet celebrate the sacraments in their appoinments. In most annual conferences local pastors make over 50% of the “clergy.” Most local pastors do not have any theological training beyond a few weeks in a licensing course. Even recent seminary grads in the UMC serve three years in a non ordained status, all the while celebrating the sacraments. Wesley the good Anglican evangelical would certainly cringe at such practices. Why go to seminary to celebrate the sacraments? Get licensed by a Methodist bishop in your area and you’re good to go.
This is indeed extremely poor timing for a bad idea. It’s just another reason why I have been extremely skeptical about Sydney’s support of American reasserters.
JimT [#4] writes: “Why go to seminary to celebrate the sacraments?”
Why indeed.
Kendall, could you maybe point us to, or summarize, the main arguments in favor of restricting the eucharistic “franchise” to the ordained? Three years ago, “John Wilkins” suggested a couple of arguments in his comment to this blog posting on the subject:
I would think the concerns John expressed could be addressed handily by requiring lay people to be licensed by the bishop to celebrate the Eucharist. It’d be much the same as requiring an episcopal license to serve as a lay reader (do they still call them that?) of Morning- and Evening Prayer.
It appears that this is precisely what Sydney is proposing to do. What’s wrong with it? Is there a presbyterial fear of being marginalized, of losing one’s privileged status? It’d be a shame if that were the case, because it wouldn’t reflect a servant heart.
How does Jensen view the Sacrament of Holy Communion? If as strictly a symbol, as in the Zwinglian fashion, then his idea makes sense. But even so, this idea risks dividing the body of Anglican Evangelicals and is not a good idea.
DC, indeed, after all it’s just bread and wine. Anyone can serve that. I even do that in a restaurant.
DC, one argument in favour of ordained ministry is that the ministry itself is a symbol of universality. You know that wherever you go you will find clergy trained to more or less the same standards, preaching the same gospel, teaching the same doctrine, and with broadly compatible expectations of what pastoral ministry should be.
I might add that I don’t even need a license.
Worry not dear Kendall!
We have been here before.
Despite the pressure from those he loves and respects the great Archbishop of Sydney will very publicly demur.
Not even in our most “evangelical” moments during the reign of Edward V1 have our leaders proposed lay presidency. Neither the Lutheran nor Calvinist Reformers proposed lay presidency. To jump back to a new interpretation of biblical evidence, one not mooted before or received in our tradition seems to employ exactly the same method of biblical interpretation in vogue amongst those who would dream away those biblical passages they find objectionable. If the Diocese of Sydney proceeds it will lose what ever influence it has among orthodox Anglicans.
wvparson, I concur. To do this without consulting the rest of the Global Anglican Communion is to do the same thing in essence as ECUSA does when it strikes out on its own. Jensen should back down on this one…
[blockquote] To jump back to a new interpretation of biblical evidence, [/blockquote]
Wvparson, pray tell what is the biblical evidence either for or against lay presidency? The first mention of presidency I find in ancient documents is Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrneans at the dawn of the second century, which allows only bishops or those licensed by bishops to preside at Eucharist.
This is a clossally bad and stupid idea.
Full disclosure: I am not ordained yet have, and probably will so again, celebrated communion at a Congregational church. Hypocrisy? Not at all. When it Rome, do as the Romans. When in Geneva, etc. I don’t know which city should stand for Congregational churches. Boston, maybe.
Anyway, it’s their polity and I am being obedient to it, such as it is. As far as I can tell the only locus for apostolic and episcopal authority in that polity resides with the pastor, so when he asks that I do it in his stead I see myself as “ordained”, in a provisional sort of way, to do so by the next best thing to a bishop there.
But that is a Congregational church. Jenson is in the Anglican Communion. This action violates our established polity. If his view of the eucharist is high it should enforce the need for ordination in order to celebrate it.
Yet…If his view of the eucharist is low…then why in God’s name is he risking the unity of the orthodox within the communion over a mere memorial service????!!!! If it isn’t important enough to have an ordained minister for its own sake then it is uniportant enough to require waiting for one for the sake of the rest of the church.
I think the Article on Original Sin should have an asterick noting that it includes Original Stupidity.
Eucharistic Sharing with the UMC does not denote full communion. See Dr Radner on this subject…
This is not really surprising. All of Western Christianity (from roughly the 900’s) is a tale of theological and doctrinal innovation. This is just the latest chapter in a long book. Nothing new here… moving on.
I hope this post isn’t off-topic.
I have to say (as a left-leaning moderate) that I really do not understand why liberals are pushing on things like this and communion w/o baptism. They really ought to step back and ask themselves what battles they really hope to win. And what would the cost be if they were to lose the current battles badly?
My attitude is that the key battle of my lifetime – maybe even of this century/millenium – is the ordination of women. Considering the fact that this has NOT been won yet in the universal church, and history is against the liberals on the question, why would they risk that to fight other things? Really, that they do is just amazingly bad strategy. They have no sense of history at all.
@18:
You are mistaken. Sydney is not liberal, but is generally quite conservative on other issues, particularly homosexuality.
It does make one wonder on what basis they can criticize ECUSA for its actions if they go and do something like this. As others already pointed out, not even the lion’s share of Protestants believe in lay presidency (Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. all insist on ordained ministers). So it’s shocking that an Anglican church claiming the historic episcopate would even consider the idea, let alone try to force it through for 30 years over the loud objections of other churches.
Just curious. Why do I have to be ordained to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in the Anglican church, but not to preach God’s Word? If we are even permitted to preach one time without being ordained, how can we defend restricting celebration of the Supper to the ordained? It sets up, in my mind, a “this is more important than that” type of situation. It makes the Eucharist appear “magical” when a priest must celebrate it, while the preaching of the Sacred Word ordinary. Could it be that the present Anglican crisis derives from this error? We value the Eucharist so much more than the Word in practical terms? Restrict BOTH to ordained ministers or licensed minister only and I’ll see the biblical consistency.
@20:
The reason is that preaching/teaching and priesthood never were the same mission. According to Anglican understanding (and Catholic and Orthodox as well), priesthood specifically derives its authority from the sacrificial or sacerdotal act of Christ Himself by way of Holy Orders (that is, ordination) transmitted through a valid apostolic succession or episcopate.
A priest certainly will preach, but a preacher isn’t necessarily a priest. Deacons and, depending on the jurisdiction, laity may also preach, but may not lead a Eucharist, because they do not have the Holy Orders ordained by Christ. That’s been the teaching in the Church Catholic (to which we Anglicans believe we belong) since the earliest days: that the sacerdotal rite of the Eucharist is reserved to the presbyterate (i.e. priesthood).
Hard to say what will happen. My guess is that there will be objection to this move, however it will be smaller, less viseral and probably not communion splitting. Why? Even though one could talk about theology, biblical intrepretation and tradition to prove this practice unwarranted- it isn’t the same as an openly Gay Bishop or blessing of same-sex unions. This won’t hit at the core of human identity and won’t result in the same level of emotion. Just a thought.
Isn’t this a case of, “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it”?
Or is something broken I do not see? I fail to see the purpose in this move. What is gained? Larry
For once I’m on the side of the majority of commenters. My Roman Catholic wife says that I am the most Anglican person she knows, and I am certainly rooted in the tradition on this one. I cannot accept lay presidency over the Eucharist. It would be a distinctly un-Anglican departure. Keeping the celebration of Holy Communion in the hands of priests and bishops as our Reformation fathers did kept the Church of England rooted in the apostolic tradition. Anglicanism should remain there.
I am sympathetic to the concern that there are not enough priests in that diocese to offer the Eucharist regularly, but I don’t think that lay presidency is the answer; there are other ways to address that problem. The RC Church is fast approaching the same dilemma, but you can darn well bet they will take other measures (e.g., married priests) before the Vatican calls a Council to change this tradition.
One side of this issue not mentioned above is that Sydney is one of the few Australian dioceses that will not ordain women to the priesthood. This move would eliminate the pressure to change that position from women who are currently exercising lay ministries that would benefit if they could celebrate the Eucharist with those in their care. This legislation would enable them to do so without any implication of pastoral oversight over men.
@25:
If anything Sydney’s harsh criticism of ECUSA regarding women’s ordination and homosexuality makes its approving such a measure (even over the objections of sister Anglican churches) all the more inexplicable. One has to ask, if ECUSA is to be criticized for supposedly departing from Anglican tradition and Scripture and threatened with expulsion from the Anglican Communion, how is this [i]not[/i] departing from Anglican tradition and Scripture?
If anything this is even clearer than the issue of homosexuality (at least as pertaining to specific Anglican tradition). Anglicanism defined itself by retaining the priesthood and apostolic succession, over the vehement objections of the Non-Conformists, Puritans and other radical reformers. It was even a further reason for the estrangement between the Scottish Covenanters and English Parliamentarians during the English Civil War. The priesthood is thus an integral part of what it means to be Anglican. It’s hard to think of something [i]more[/i] integral to Anglicanism vis-a-vis other strains of Christianity.
They have a shortage of ordained Anglican priests in Australia? That’s interesting; I keep hearing that TEC has a glut of priests.
Methinks I sense a solution to both problems…
A really, really bad idea. +Jenson needs to have his head examined if he goes along with this. It would be as bad a WO, if not worse. Just another departure from the catholic faith and an ultra-protestant demeaning of the Sacrament out of all sympathy with holy tradition.
I don’t see why he doesn’t explore the option of having a person in the office of permanent deacon DISTRIBUTE the pre-consecrated host in the liturgy of Morning Prayer. I attended a mission church in Wyoming that had a travelling priest — every other week he came to that congregation, alternating with a congregation further south. In the ‘between’ weeks, a deacon would say morning prayer, read a pre-prepared sermon, and distribute the eucharist. It seemed to work out fine.
Jim Elliott
Sydney is one of the few Australian dioceses that will not ordain women to the priesthood. This move would eliminate the pressure to change that position from women who are currently exercising lay ministries that would benefit if they could celebrate the Eucharist with those in their care. This legislation would enable them to do so without any implication of pastoral oversight over men.
Another reason why it shouldn’t be done. Doing something to make it easier not to have to deny people something they want is always a bad motivation. The essence of good leadership lies in being willing to tell people what they don’t want to hear, not in looking for ways to tell them want they want to hear.
No. 29 – Not a bad idea as far as its being a practical solution goes. However, such an idea, distribution of a consecrated host, would be understood as rank idolatry in ultra-Protestant Sydney.
Ross (#27) – is there a glut of Episcopal priest? Then, can some of them be prized out of the cities and sent into the country, where they are needed?
#32:
So I’ve been told; I don’t have numbers to prove it one way or the other, unfortunately. Perhaps one of the more clerically-connected commenters can weigh in.
Re. Kendall’s comment:
Agreed. We have met the enemy, and it is us.
w.w.
In the early German Reformation, Luther and his associates held that bishops were unnecessary for ordination, and that the office of bishop was not required in Holy Writ. They held that priests could ordain others to the sacerdotal role. And, in the event that there were no priests available for ordination, the elders of the congregation itself were empowered to call and ordain their own pastors. Lay presidency in emergencies or for extremely isolated parishes might be a logical step, so that scattered small groups might be able to partake on a regular basis if ordained clergy were quite distant. Just my thoughts.
Charles,
That is where my point about the permanent diaconate comes into play as a solution. There is also the possibility of a ‘canon IX’ priest (I think that’s the right canon) where a person is ordained in an emergency situation to minister only to that congregation or to a specific area. If they want to go beyond that, they must go through seminary. (I’ve only heard about this, so have no first hand knowledge.)