Forward in Faith regrets the recent decision of the Synod of the diocese of Sydney with regard to lay and diaconal presidency at the Eucharist, both of which are clearly contrary to the foundational documents of Anglicanism. It trusts that the Archbishop of Sydney will use those powers available to him to ensure that such innovations are not set forth, in order that further division is not thereby introduced into the life of the Communion.
The Diocese of Sydney, in allowing deacons, and (also in principle) lay people, to preside at Holy Communion, are breaking point 7 of the [url=http://www.gafcon.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=79&Itemid=12]Jerusalem Declaration[/url], which specifically upholds the ‘classic Anglican Ordinal’. This particular point needs noting.
[blockquote]7. We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.[/blockquote]
The secretariat of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans is based in the Diocesan Offices of the Diocese of Sydney. The Honorary Secretary of the FCA is the Archbishop of Sydney. It would be good to hear an explanation of this contradiction…
Here again the hopelessness of the Anglican Communion is displayed. Unity on either side, progressive or traditional, is impossible. A confederacy with no unified thinking on vital parts such as ordination is bound for further confusion. What is Anglicanism anyway?
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. “
COLUMICIL, unity is always possible by excluding those with whom unity is impossible. That’s how Orthodoxy and Catholicism and any number of other doctrinal systems work, after all. Well, actually how they work is that people prevaricate or ignore doctrinal requirements, but that’s another story.
#2: I suppose the answer to your question “What is Anglicanism, anyway?” would provoke a separate string. At the risk of diverting, let me just suggest that John Henry Newman devastatingly portrayed the weakness of “Anglicanism” as a religion made of paper (i.e. tracts and statements, with little trace of catholic consistency or wholeness). Certainly, the current disarray and failure to find an authoritative head (ABC, Primates, Instruments, etc.) makes the AC appear to be a splintering protestant denomination, rather than a reformed cathlolic communion. On the other side, the phenomenon of an American Roman Catholic Church which is ahead…not behind…TEC in its compromises with post-modernity…offers no great encouragement to take Newman’s step!
Various people have thrown Newman’s critique at me, as if I should go with him rather than (say) Keble. When I look at actual Catholics, however, what I see is that there’s not really an authoritative head there either. As Smith says, Catholics disagree with their hierarchy; they just for the most part do it quietly and routinely.
Behind all that is this notion that Anglicanism ought to be this rigorously systematic thing that pops out clear answers. Surely there are lots of people who are Anglicans because Anglicanism doesn’t do any such thing!
Graham Kings (#1),
Bullseye. You nailed that one. This is indeed a major problem, but we’ll see how it plays out. I’ll just add that it’s also problematic that Sydney has sent, or isi sending out, copies of a book length defense of their proposed radical innovation, called “The Lord’s Supper in Human Hands.” Dr. Stephen Noll has promised to release a critique of it soon.
OTOH, it’s good that Sydney is trying to make the theological case for lay and diaconal presidency at the eucharist in a serious way, which TEC’s leaders never even tried to do with their promotion of the “gay is OK” delusion.
I further note the irony that with Sydney allowing women deacons, it’s now possible for women in the Sydney archdiocese to celebrate communion, since ++Peter Jensen has approved the half-way measure of diaconal administration of Holy Communion. But then, life is strangely full of ironies.
David Handy+