Journeyman

2 comments for “MJ on Lay Presidency”

1. David Owens says:

   February 14, 2011 at 10:38 am

   Will,

   My question would be when? I suspect the evidence is in and the “when” is actually never. This is no argument for “holding back” it is an argument for never, and it is unreasonable and inconsistent. It also keeps the issue “live” when it could have been done years ago with far less angst.

   “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.” – from Jensen’s article.

   Why should the internal administration of communion in the diocese of Sydney be an issue for other dioceses? The same arguments as were put for ordaining women surely hold for communion? There is a part of me which remains bemused at the effrontery that can bishop a woman, with a largely “suck it up” attitude to Sydney, but will then call on Sydney to (in Sydney) not undertake Communion in a particular way??? Sydney ought not to fall in to the trap of continuing to debate the change. The debate is published, those who will be convinced are, those who will never be convinced remain just so, next. Why should Sydney live with Australian women priests and bishops, and then not have Lay Presidency (internal to Sydney) when it has been the clear and consistent wish of Sydney synod for decades?

   This is not some esoteric argument where unity should trump a move to a more biblical practice. The life of a congregation is impacted by an extra-biblical view of the role of priest and his/her exclusive power in officiating at communion. In fact the correct biblical understanding of a priesthood of believers is being subverted. For half a lifetime Sydney has wanted to move to (as they understand it) a more biblical model of communion.

   There is a very real irony that at some time in the future a woman will officiate a communion in an Australian Anglican church. In some areas she will be an ordained priest and this will be necessary for a “good order” communion, in Sydney she will be lay and this will also be a “good order” communion. I should be clear that this has never been the “Sydney argument” as I have heard from those pews for 30 years for Lay Presidency.

   More than 10 years ago, I argued at Sydney synod, “Just Do It” rather than approve yet another incremental step towards Lay Presidency, when Standing Committee had failed to (as specifically instructed) return to the Synod with a well formed set of legislative changes to allow Lay Presidency in Sydney Diocese. I remain of that view. The ongoing angst caused by this pending issue is greater than if Sydney had simply done it years ago.

   Reply
   • Will says:

     February 14, 2011 at 3:55 pm

     Hi David,

     A quick response making three(ish) observation/points:

     1) I make no comment on MJ’s practicality points (his fifth section). These are contextual and a matter of utility. They count as argument only when paired with his first point which gives a “practical” (non-sacerdotal) view of Communion. Presbyter-only Presidency is clearly “extra-biblical.” But I think the “extra-biblical” allows room for MJ’s discussion. “Non-biblical” (i.e. heretical) wouldn’t – it would be a first-order issue that would trump all other cards.

     2) The “When” question you raise is important. I’m not so pessimistic as to assume the answer of “never.” Two aspects that interact with timing issues:

     a) Observation #1: there is an element of now/already.

     Diaconal Presidency is also an (Anglican) ecclesiastical novelty yet is now a real part of Sydney. You already have the bemusing idiosyncracy of a woman who could celebrate communion in Sydney as a deacon and in other dioceses as presbyter. This reality has not yet crossed the ordained/not-ordained conceptual divide, for sure, but it does have at least of whiff of precedence to it.

     b) Observation #2: At one level a turning point / opportunity is (almost) upon us.

     One key argument (MJ’s fourth and sixth points touch on it) for holding back interacts with Anglican Communion tensions. Maybe it wouldn’t have a decade or so ago (I agree with you last point, it may have been better if Sydney had placed all its chips on the table then), but now, for better or worse, it is caught up in the turmoil of Anglicanism.

     Of course, part of the argument in those tensions has been the high-road/low-road argument relating to process and catholicity/unity. This is not a bad argument. Both sides have (and should have) played the “If you believe/do that you can no longer be part of us” card. It’s just that the reasons given “for no longer being part of us” are based on completely different assumptions of biblical authority etc.

     The “When” question here interacts with this entanglement of issues. It’s not about “When do we stop playing the unity card and start playing the gospel card?” You can’t do one without the other! The “When” question is “when do we have nothing left to argue about?” It’s when we share so little gospel in common that there is nothing to call the other to. Until that time, self-restraint is generally admirable. After that time there is either resolution (commonality has been found) or separation (you walk apart) – there is opportunity.

     My point is that there IS evidence at the global Anglican level that the opportunity of a nothing-left-to-argue-about point is fast approaching. Or perhaps: it has clearly begun and will reach a point of completion soon. The rejection of the Instruments of Unity the increasing importance of other networks, relationships and structures are all material evidence of this.

     I can, with hope, foresee the disentanglement of lay presidency from other recent issues. This would be an opportunity for Sydney.

     3) However, there are other complexities – complexities that are realities and that Sydney does need to deal with. I’m not saying it can’t, or shouldn’t – and it probably should have dealt with these 30 years ago! But I don’t think it’s wise for the lay presidency switch to be flipped before addressing issues of catholicity with dioceses/provinces that Sydney DOES want to be in communion with. Until these are dealt with I am with MJ’s “not in the foreseeable future”:

     a) Firstly – those around the world who do agree with Sydney on pretty much everything (including, many of them, the ministry position of women), except non-presbyteral presidency. The Fellowship of Confessing Anglians (still always called GAFCON for some reason) and the Global South are examples. In this situation the question of whether offence would be caused is a very valid consideration to make and it is of practical relevance to a some significant things Sydney wants to achieve as a diocese. I’m not saying it’s a roadblock (“This is who we are, you’re going to have to take that into account” is a valid point to make) but in this climate it where there are a LOT of issues are a stake, it needs to be handled as with friends, not assumed.

     b) Secondly – Australian dioceses. I assume Sydney wishes to remain part of the Anglican Church of Australia (although it needn’t). I have not been able to catch up on reactions to last year’s Appellate Tribunal. But, assuming General Synod remains antagonistic to Sydney’s plans for non-presbyteral presidency the issue for Sydney gets wrapped up in constitutional issues and the implications of “defying” GS. This is not because the ACA or GS are sacrosanct – but because they exist and are a reality.

     W.

     Reply