The recent decision of the Diocesan Synod of Sydney, in the Anglican Church of Australia, to allow the administration of Holy Communion””i.e., the celebration of the Eucharist””by deacons and eventually laity seems outlandish to many overseas Anglicans. It makes considerably more sense within the context of Australian Anglicanism, which has a very different history than The Episcopal Church (TEC) and its various offshoots (I will get to that later). Australian Anglicanism is exceptionally diverse as a result of that history, and its diversity has led the Anglican Church of Australia to adopt a unique pattern of organization.
Just as some Episcopalians are frustrated when other Anglicans cannot understand TEC’s particular form of synodical governance, so I expect Australians feel when outsiders try to apply their own context to matters Down Under. I write the following as an American outsider, but one who has long been fascinated enough by the local variations on the common Anglican theme to make a study of them.
Oh, it’s polity. Well, then, okay. If it’s good enough for the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC as a reason, then it’s good enough for Australia. Thanks, Archbishop Rowan and Lame-beth!
As ECUSA and like churches self destruct, it is worth monitoring events such as this in Sydney, and the ensuing conversations among orthodox Anglicans of various traditions, as this is where the future of Anglicanism is going to be hammered out.
The whole article (lengthy) and its “update”, together with the long string of comments is worth reading. Though I can’t accept the decision they’ve made, Dale Rye’s essay helps explain how it came to be. This is worth the time it takes to “read it all” as KSH always suggests!
Actually, there are a few things about the Anglican church’s history in Australia which Dale doesn’t stress enough. It is difficult for Americans to get a grip on this, but Australia as a nation is a federation of independent sovereign states formed from the original British colonies. Please remember, that prior to federation in 1901, each state had its own army and navy. The state in which I live, ‘Western Australia’ was the last to joint, and voted by referendum to leave in the 30s. (This was never enacted, but we often threaten to do it!) The ACoA reflects this, with metropolitan Dioceses founded separately in each colony under state law, and having a fierce independence. Our national Synod is made up of representatives from each diocese based on proportional representation calculated on the number of licensed clergy. So the more populous Dioceses like Sydney, have a greater number of representatives than a small (in numbers) diocese like North West Australia.
In regard to Sydney, it is the richest and most evangelical of all Australian dioceses. The issue, that started all this is sloppy legislation combined with a very congregationalist theology currently dominating Sydney. It is Sydney’s contention, that it is possible to read the ordination of deacons canon 1985 as giving deacons the right to celebrate communion. With a view which sees the priesthood as a purely functional thing (not restricted to Sydney I hasten to add.) there is no reason not to extend this to the laity.
regards,
Jon R.
A small group meets Wednesday morning in our small West MI church and we gather around the altar for Holy Communion. The priest invokes God’s blessing on the sacraments. The bread is passed from person to person. This is followed by the passing of the wine. We have never doubted that Gods presence is with us.
“The priest invokes God’s blessing on the sacraments.” And herein makes all the difference. I can bless food at the dinner table but that does not constitute the sacrament. Assuming that the “priest” is a duly ordained Anglican priest (RC and Orthodox do not recognize our orders) did the priest “bless” or consecrate the elements? Lay people can freely administer the consecrated elements as can deacons.