Forum Thread
Diocese of Sydney breaks with Jerusalem Declaration

I don’t actually think we are disagreeing here Celinda.  You talk of the headship of the rector in terms of ‘protection’ – I would totally agree that someone in the parish has to have the authority to let people when they are dominating, being territorial, aggressive, passive or ‘churchy’ as opposed to ‘godly’.  Someone who can be a still point of reconciliation amid the inevitable conflict that belonging to a church necessarily entails.  (unfortunately conflict resolution and knowledge of group dynamics features little in ministerial training) I also agree that their training and experience are invaluable and the other chief reason why we have ministers – as I said – the rest of us our too busy either to do or to learn to do well the various specifically religious bits like preaching, leading worship, praying day in day out for the parish in all its complexity.  But here may well be other people in the congregation who do  have the experience and training and we should use their gifts too.  For example, at one time in my parish we had a woman who heavily involved in the production and editing of Common Worship (the C of E prayer book), another woman whose book of collects is widely used throughout the church and indeed at least one is included in common worship itself,  a published poet, someone with a theology degree etc etc.  it would be crazy to confine preaching and worship to the priest with such a wealth of experience in our midst! . Obviously if it were the funeral of someone dear to us we would want someone who knew what they were doing liturgically and pastorally and not someone on a rota! While there is a certain psychological comfort in having one person in representing God to us and for us at key moments in our lives,  in my (catholic) experience this becomes fetishised so that it is felt  necessary  rather than just sometimes useful for the priest to do this for us.  Both priests and lay people can become addicted to either the prestige or the passivity in so doing and therefore miss the chance to actually encounter the living God for themselves, directly, at the core of their being (which is what the priesthood of all believers is about – us not needing intermediaries).

It is also important to have someone with lead pastoral oversight – I just wouldn’t use the term ‘headship’ to describe this and I can imagine circumstances where this is done by a lay person or religious who is a trained counsellor – for example or where this is chiefly delegated to the curate.

By comment about having a rota to decide who presides was a little flippant -  in the normal course of things it makes sense for the priests to celebrate.  But during our interregnum, I found the situation whereby an endless succession of priests were shipped in to preside for us rather farcical – especially since some of them were the sort of evangelicals who rarely worship eucharistically and had no idea how to do it (let alone cope with the ritual of a catholic parish!) when out church wardens could have easily done it better.  I don’t think you need a vow to take something seriously and reverently.

There may be some cultural differences here.  You speak of ‘hiring’ the rector.  That to my mind is very refreshing – does that mean the vestry can also sack him/her too if things don’t go well – that for me is the key question?  In the C of E the rector is more or less foisted on us (maybe 2 lay people get a say) and impossible to get rid of unless they do something outrageously scandalous (and sometimes not even then). Saying that the rector has ‘headship’ in these circumstances is a recipe for disaster. Whereas I would be much happier to do this if we could get rid of our ‘head’ should that be necessary. When rectors are our employees, then perhaps it is safe to delegate ‘headship’ to them on our behalf.

this is a little off-thread - if we want to continue shall we start a new one on the role of priesthood?

priests provide 'headship' in a parish?!  I though this was the sort of hierarchical nonsense that us catholic types needed to move away from.  The best thing about evangelical Christianity is its belief in the importance of lay Christians.  Whatever happend to the priesthood of all believers? Priests are there to serve us and to help us 'be' church and not the other way around.  The idea that the vicar is in some way our boss and we are his/her employees brings me out in a cold sweat.

Priests are their to hold us all accountable to our shared vision, to do lots of churchy stuff that the rest of us our too busy to do or to learn how to do well (eg preaching, pastoral stuff, worship stuff, representing the church to the world) and to make sure there is fair play between different lay people.  And they are walking advertisments for the church. Surely their ultimate aim is to help us to realise our own priestly potential and need to exercise headship only insofar as so doing undermines our need for headship?

personally I don't see why presiding is not on the same sort of roat we have for reading ot leading the intercessions, but I accept that this is never likely to gain much popularity with my coreligionists.

Further wise words from Stephen Noll on Sydney's innovation in a comment on the Stand Firm thread, 22 November 2008:

...I would like to throw in three more quick items.

Firstly, I’m not knowledgeable enough about Elizabethan “puritanism” to make firm statements on this matter, but it seems to me that if puritans think that church order could only be determined by Scripture command, then it is difficult to see how diaconal/lay presidency can be justified. At least one Sydney proponent (John Woodhouse) seems to be arguing that presbyteral presidency was justifiable in the 16th century on pragmatic grounds but not justifiable today on pragmatic grounds. If the case is not a clear word of Scripture authority, then it seems to me we are thrown into the arena where right reason, including respect for tradition, is to be employed. Let the debate begin, but let it happen on a worldwide basis and not just within Sydney diocese. Let the new Hooker step forward to answer today’s Cartwrights.

Secondly, several of us have drawn the analogy between lay presidency and women’s ordination. This raises the idea of headship, where Scripture does have something to say. Curiously, Sydney restricts presbyteral and episcopal ordination to men, presumably on biblical authority, but seems indifferent about headship at the Table. Now to be sure, they argue that male headship is also not necessary in today’s educated society for preaching. I think this issue will have to be considered and debated more fully within the FCA. It also raises a new issue: the nature of the diaconate. In Sydney, it appears that the role of deacon and curate have been merged, since only presbyters exercise headship in a parish. Again an important matter for discussion: what is the connection between ordination to the priesthood and the headship of a parish in a day when the English country parson and parish no longer are the norm.

Thirdly, and again I disclaim any great knowledge in this area, I think there is a “conservative” strain in Anglicanism, even Evangelical Anglicanism, which manifests itself in the respect for the Fathers (Jewell, Hooker and Andrewes) and for the Establishment (Cranmer and Parker). Most of the English puritans wanted to accommodate the Crown and Mitre until the obstinacy of the King and Laud undermined them. Someone has already pointed out that John Wesley struggled with this problem before finally ordaining missionary bishops for America (before one throws stones at Wesley, imagine what the American Episcopalians might have done had the Scots not come to our aid). In East Africa, the Revival was kept in house both by the conservatism of the revivalists and the openness of the traditionalists. Today a conservative Evangelical Anglican cannot ignore the reality and even the contribution of Anglo-Catholicism. When Jack Iker marches to the barricades with us, we are we to tell him to find another barricade?

The Global Anglican Future statement concludes: “We believe the Anglican Communion should and will be reformed around the biblical gospel…” This is a time of historic reformation of the church in the Anglican tradition as it faces the mission of Christ to the nations. The FCA offers a forum by which these important issues are raised, discussed and, one hopes, resolved in some sort of new Settlement. Whether this will in fact happen is in the hands of God. Discussions like the ones raised here are vital to that process. I suspect that the parallel discussions going on with the “Communion conservatives” will add to the mix, so let’s not be quick to hurl stones across that divide.

Graham, I am sorry I have no idea how the Archbishop of Sydney voted. I dont live in Australia. I will try to summarise my concern in this way. In Anglican tradition word and sacrament go together. If we allow deacons and lay readers to preach why cant they then preside/administer at communion. In Anglican tradition word and sacrament go together, surely. Grace and peace Bob Marsden

Thanks, Bob. The answer to your question, it seems to me, is no.

I don't think Jack Iker, Stephen Noll and Chris Sugden would have a problem with lay people preaching and leading services either.

They, and I, and countless others around the Anglican Communion - not just Anglo Catholics - do have a problem, for varying reasons, with Sydney now authorizing deacons to preside at Holy Communion (and in principle lay people too).  

Could you please inform us, if you know, how the Archbishop of Sydney voted in the motion in question?

Graham, have we failed to uphold the 'classic Anglican ordinal' in allowing lay people to preach and to lead services? Grace and peace to you all, Bob Marsden

Thanks, Nersen. As I have written before, the Diocese of Sydney, in allowing deacons, and (also in principle) lay people, to preside at Holy Communion, are breaking point 7 of the Jerusalem Declaration, which specifically upholds the ‘classic Anglican Ordinal’.

The Jerusalem Declaration is about belief. The Sydney Synod, and the Archbishop, are clear in their belief in Diaconal and Lay Presidency at Holy Communion. Therefore paragraph 7 (concerning the classical Anglican ordinals) and paragraph 4 (concerning the 39 Articles) of The Jerusalem Declaration have been broken.

Yet another thread on Stand Firm on this subject has started, 'Sugden - What's going on in Sydney', which links into Chris Sugden's article of the same title in Evangelicals Now (December 2008) which questions the wisdom of the Sydney innovation. Again the comments so far are against this innovation.

Here is an example by Francis:

No, these concerns are not mission based.  This from a personal conversation with the Archbishop himself.  Most churches are not celebrating communion weekly nor are they planting churches with a communion emphasis nor are there concerns about not having presbyters in rural situations.  The emphasis has to do with biblical interpretation and how that fits Anglican understanding.  It may be a possible biblical understanding. However, it is not Anglican even from a radical Cranmerian point of view.  The Anglican church has a normative understanding of the New Testament, not regulative.  This is just plain puritanism masked as reformed presbyterianism.

So Jack Iker, Stephen Noll, Chris Sugden and endless commentators on Stand Firm question the wisdom of the innovation. The Archbishop of Sydney has remained silent. When will he try to explain the contradiction between the Jerusalem Declaration and the Sydney innovation?

Has ++Jensen authorised "lay presidency" in his diocese?  I had not heard if he has..... and if he has not, I think we should wait to see what he does before rushing to judgment  -  he may well not authorise "lay presidency" despite the wishes of his synod, even though it is compatible with scripture, in order to maintain unity in the AC and GAFCON.

Stephen Noll has posted a very significant comment, copied below, against the Sydney innovations. This is on the Stand Firm thread discussing David Ould's article which attempted to defend the innovations.

Stephen Noll, a theological mission partner from the USA, is vice chancellor of the Uganda Christian University, Mukono (formerly the Bishop Tucker theological college, Mukono). He was the secretary of the drafting group of the Jerusalem Declaration and, together with Peter Jensen, briefed the press on it at GAFCON, the night before it was released.

He seems considerably worried about the effect the Sydney innovation, and the strong reactions against it on the Stand Firm site and around the Anglican world, will have on the public profile of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and refers to my comment, copied by Sarah Hey as a Stand Firm item.

It would be helpful to know if he thinks - as seems implied but not actually stated - that the Sydney innovation has contradicted paragraph 7 of the Jerusalem Declaration. The Honorary Secretary of the FCA is Archbishop Jensen.

I copy below Stephen Noll's comment in full and have highlighted particular key points:

I was not being flippant in suggesting we continue the dialogue, though I was contrasting the true meaning of the phrase with the manipulative way it has been used in TEC.

I think diaconal presidency is a fait accompli for the moment in Sydney and maybe in some other places in the Anglican Communion. There is nothing “we” can do about it. There is not even anything the Archbishop of Sydney can do about it in the short run. In this regard it is a lot like women’s ordination elsewhere.

The difference is this. Those who have promoted this practice in Sydney believe it is in accordance with Scripture and not at odds with classic Reformed Anglican teaching, and they have now put forth their reasons in all seriousness (available so far as I can see only through the Anglican Church League). I think they are mistaken and that a large majority of Anglican Evangelicals (and others) would disagree with them. However, the issue has been localized in Sydney, and Sydney itself has seen itself on the periphery of the wider Communion, even among the churches of the Global South.

With the entry of Abp. Jensen and others into the GAFCON movement, that position on the fringe is changing, though some in that diocese are acting as if it weren’t. What Sydney does now matters to Uganda and Nigeria and many others in the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. The positive news is that the FCA has a substantive basis (the Jerusalem Declaration and the authorities it recognizes) and a body (the Primates Council) by which its members can deliberate on issues of importance to the wider church.

I hope and trust that biblically and historically informed arguments to the effect that this innovation is unwarranted may be presented to the promoters in Sydney. But to do this one needs to understand their position. I believe that in the long run they will conclude either that this is a misreading of God’s will in Scripture and history or at least that it is an indifferent matter whose time has NOT come. In the short term, I think the Archbishop will prevent the diocese from authorizing lay presidency and the practice by deacons will be limited. (David, any statistics on how many deacons there are, how many are leading congregations, and what the male/female breakdown is?)

So this is what I mean by continuing the dialogue. The appearance of this issue is not only a public relations problem for FCA (see Graham Kings), but an initial test as to whether the GAFCON movement is prepared to practice what it preaches (again I cite JD clause 12). Because the issue is inter-connected with other questions of ecclesiology, such as the ordination of women and the nature of the 3-fold order of ministry, I think it is an opportunity as well as a threat.