At the national bishops’ meeting, it was agreed that there needs to be some system of alternative episcopal oversight to deal with the fact that many Anglicans will struggle to accept a female bishop. While at first, this seems like a positive way forward for more conservative parishes in more liberal dioceses, I have some real worries about it.

If we establish a system of alternative oversight, are we not effectively undermining the authority of all of our bishops and thereby compromising the integrity of our episcopal ordering? You see, I’m worried that once we allow people to refuse the oversight of their bishop because of their gender, we may be opening the doors for others to refuse the oversight of their bishop on other grounds. What if I don’t like being disciplined by my bishop - can I choose alternative oversight then? What if I think my bishop is driving my diocese in the wrong direction with respect to mission - is this good enough grounds for me to seek alternative oversight? What if I have no theologial problem with my bishop’s gender, but would just feel more comfortable with someone of the opposite gender - can I ask for that under the alternative oversight guidelines?

So I guess the questions are 1. Under what circumstances will a parish be permitted to seek alternative oversight? and 2. How will the alternative options be limited so as to protect some of the authority built into the episcopal system?

I have a fear that if alternative oversight becomes a reality, then individuals and parishes who don’t wish to put up with sound doctrine may then be at liberty to accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires (2 Tim 4:3). I have a fear that this could really lead Australian Anglicanism towards terrible ill-discipline and substantial internal chaos.

Could this turn into an even bigger problem than consecrating female bishops in the first place?? I think that decision was rash - we’re now having to think through all of the implications on the fly.

G’day Timothy.

I think that if it is good for the goose it is good for the gander!
And some of the more liberal parishes may well want to go with alternative oversight just as some more reformed do.

Whats not clear is if the alternative oversight comes from another Bishop within the same Diocese or if it will come from another Diocese. If it comes from within the same Diocese then I don’t see a great deal of problems. However if it comes from another Diocese then I do see problems occurring in regards to Synod meetings and how that will affect individual dioceses.

Yet the problem with alternative oversight is not just on a local level, it is something that has worldwide ramifications.
Some of the problems I see will be that what happens say if a more liberal parish in Sydney wants oversight by a more liberal diocese. Say Canada which then licenses an active homosexual male or female minister to minister in that parish? Or if a parish wants to come under the oversight of a female Bishop?

I’m not advocating for those things to happen and I pray that it will not - but if the precedence goes ahead for alternative oversight in Canada for the reformed parishes then the reverse can also happen elsewhere.

I think our Synods would be worse of if our more liberal brothers in Sydney joined another Synod and so would they be. In my 10 years of Synod involvement I think they brought about a lot of softness and awareness of needed justice within the Diocese. [ When I say liberal I don’t believe we have any preachers in Sydney who deny Christ and the Cross and thats not what I mean]

Are the actual protocols for alternative oversight available yet? Will there be a draft for comment or anything like that?

The issue that Timothy’s raised is one that the Sydney Diocese will have to start to confront at the 2008 Synod. The latest proposal regarding Women’s Ordination as Presbyters/Priests (WOAP) from Chris Albany asks Synod to, in effect, have two policies regarding WOAP. Effectively, the argument from the pro-WOAP camp is:
“We understand that a consistent majority in Synod have voted against the Ordination of Women. However, there’s a minority who do believe that the WOAP position is in line with Scripture, so please let pro-WOAP churches have Women as their priests.”

If this was passed, the division that we now see regarding presbyters between dioceses would be replicated at parish level within the diocese. How this would work at Synod, given Peter Jensen’s stated opposition to WOAP, is anybody’s guess.

Semi-serious suggestion: can we open the way for WOAP supporters to enjoy alternative episcopal oversight (and even allow them transfer their property to the “new” diocese and be members of that diocesan Synod)? I presume that is what we would like to see for our Canadian and American brethren who can’t accept the stance of their dioceses…

A danger and benefit of alternate oversight is the obvious.  If you have two sets of churches within the same geographic area under the authority of different bishops, they are no longer part of the same network or organisation.

A good thing of this is that it makes clear what people often feel, can lead to a branding of churches, and lead to outsiders having a better idea of where an individual church stands on a particular issue before they walk in the door.

However because you then finish with two (or maybe more) different groups, administered seperately and under the oversight and care of different people (bishops), the effect that this could have on relationships and fellowship between churches and members of churches who are currently working together, would suggest entering into the oversight arrangements after much care and thought, and only after significant relational breakdown. 

But then again, a Christian charity that looks beyond simply the denominational framework and instead looks to God as head of any faithful Christian church would hopefully lead to less stress and strain where well intended churches choose to go their seperate ways (a bit like a relationship between the Anglicans, Presbyterians and Baptists for example at the moment that might exist).

It would be interesting to know whether a more liturgical but biblically conservative group would form under these circumstances.

Michael Robinson - 14 April 2008 01:32 PM

Semi-serious suggestion: can we open the way for WOAP supporters to enjoy alternative episcopal oversight (and even allow them transfer their property to the “new” diocese and be members of that diocesan Synod)? I presume that is what we would like to see for our Canadian and American brethren who can’t accept the stance of their dioceses…

Hi Michael,
It seems to me you are echoing the command of our Lord Jesus:

Jesus said:
In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets.
[Matthew 7:12, NET bible]

Grace & peace,
Terry

Hi Michael,

Re your suggestion:

Semi-serious suggestion: can we open the way for WOAP supporters to enjoy alternative episcopal oversight (and even allow them transfer their property to the “new” diocese and be members of that diocesan Synod)? I presume that is what we would like to see for our Canadian and American brethren who can’t accept the stance of their dioceses…

My understanding of Peter Jensen’s position is that he believes that Sydney’s theological mates in Canada, etc. deserve Alternative Episcopal Oversight (AEO) because their diocese have adopted an “innovative” theological position re WOAP or gay blessings which the dissenting parishes feel is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. He’d argue that the situation in Sydney Diocese isn’t the same - the dissenting parishes aren’t in a position where something new is being forced on them that they object to.

This could mean that we might have to allow AEO for dissenting parishes if Sydney Diocese ever passed Lay Presidency.

the dissenting parishes aren’t in a position where something new is being forced on them that they object to.

Good point. If people chose to move away from orthodoxy, maybe that option shouldn’t be granted them. Although I fully support Short and co, and our Diocese’s majority position on WOAP (terrible acronym btw!), I would hope we would treat dissenters more charitably than certain OS bishops seem to do…

An RC model of Alternative Episcopal Oversight within a particular communion which might be worth examining is that of a personal prelature (so far seen solely in Opus Dei.) While to some extent their liaison with local RC hierarchies has been assisted by a curial bureaucracy in the Vatican which we (quite understandably) lack an equivalent to, it nonetheless strikes me that much of the dynamics they have had to face would be similar to those of various persons and congregations amongst us (particularly in North America) who are considering seeking Alternative Episcopal Oversight.

Michael Robinson - 14 April 2008 11:26 PM

the dissenting parishes aren’t in a position where something new is being forced on them that they object to.

Good point. If people chose to move away from orthodoxy, maybe that option shouldn’t be granted them. Although I fully support Short and co, and our Diocese’s majority position on WOAP (terrible acronym btw!), I would hope we would treat dissenters more charitably than certain OS bishops seem to do…

Really, what about those parishes where the prayer books are hidden or at least not used, where the minister doesnt vest (as for example ABps Loand and Robinson required them to) and where the public worship of God is referred to as (at best) a meeting?

Is that orthodoxy?

Is that orthodoxy?

I take your point: at Blacktown we have one service on Sunday where we use prayer books and robes. I believe it is important to provide services that are culturally sensitive. It is one of our values: Theological soundness with cultural sensitivity. That is why at our other services we don’t use prayer books and robes - and our Sudanese service isn’t even in English.

I guess I was using the term orthodoxy in a more limited sense to refer to theological/doctrinal/biblical orthodoxy, rather than to long-standing cultural traditions. I think that is a distinction allowed by our prayer book: “ It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly alike; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s word.” (Art XXXIV)

BTW - I am comfortable with the term “service” even though I don’t find it in the Bible. The church is an ekklesia - an assembly. I dislike the term “meeting” to translate ekklesia, because for me it has connotations of an activity that takes minutes and wastes hours. I prefer “gathering”, which for me has connotations of what a family does on special occasions… but as I say, service is a term “understanded of the people” outside the church as a term for what we do in church.

oh dear oh dear. or in Latin O tempora, o mores

The prayer book is not a cultural matter. Its doctrine. Its sound teaching. Its godly discipline.
Doctrine
I can do no better then quote the Constitution of this church

This Church, being derived from the Church of England, retains and approves the doctrine and principles of the Church of England embodied in the Book of Common Prayer together with the Form and Manner of Making Ordaining and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons and in the Articles of Religion sometimes called the Thirty-nine Articles but has plenary authority at its own discretion to make statements as to the faith ritual ceremonial or discipline of this Church and to order its forms of worship and rules of discipline and to alter or revise such statements, forms and rules, provided that all such statements, forms, rules or alteration or revision thereof are consistent with the Fundamental Declarations contained herein and are made as prescribed by this Constitution. Provided, and it is hereby further declared, that the above-named Book of Common Prayer, together with the Thirty-nine Articles, be regarded as the authorised standard of worship and doctrine in this Church, and no alteration in or permitted variations from the Services or Articles therein contained shall contravene any principle of doctrine or worship laid down in such standard

section 4 of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia

ITeaching

I had hoped to find a quotation from CS Lewis which appears on the Reformed Episcopal Church’s webpage but that page is not available (its been moved or something). So I’ll do my poor best.
The services -and I am using that word because that’s what the book uses- teach us what is important.

I dont want to have to work through a service entirely but if you look at the communion service you will see it teaches us
our sin
our need to repent
true repentence brings forth fruit which is visible in our lives and visible to those around us
that we are saved through faith and through Jesus’s one oblation of himself once offered

Godly discipline
using the daily services and lectionary (in say AAPB) means one reads the whole of the new testament, most of the old testament each year. it also means you pray for a series of specific things which covers (if used properly) just about the entirity of what we should pray for.

ITs not cultural

I have a fear that this could really lead Australian Anglicanism towards terrible ill-discipline and substantial internal chaos.

Hi Tim
I fear it may be too late.

why not just reform and start a new association. let churches realign, put it to rest and get on with it?

in all this we seem to obsess about the institution that will never be the same again.

also I wonder how much sympathy there really is for episcopal authority amongst evangelicals. even whilst St John shaunessey was under michael inghams oversight - I doubt there was much respect for his authority or office or whatever.

episcopacy seems fairly out of favour even among evangelicals who have faithful orthodox bishops.

ITs not cultural

My dear brother, I fear you are conflating content and form.

I agree that the prayer book enshrines “sound teaching and godly discipline.” The teaching and discipline are part of “theological soundness”. The precise forms of the prayer book, together with robes, is not the only way of expressing sound teaching and godly discipline. Surely, these forms are largely cultural expressions (I do not use the expression in a pejorative sense) of truth.

I appreciate that prayer books and robes are an appropriate and helpful expression for you in your church cultural background (they part of my upbringing and cultural heritage as well). And I empathise with your grief that less and less people appreciate these forms. But they are not everybody’s culture.

In my context, we seek also to apply the sound teaching and godly disciple expressed in the prayer book in new ways that are sensitive to the culture of people who do not share our cultural background. Like missionaries to non-English/European contexts have been doing for longer than my lifetime!

PK
The part of constitution you quote implies that it is permissible to change the forms, so long as appropriate processes are followed and the fundamental principles (which I take to catch up doctrine, teaching and discipline) are not violated.

I guess a point of dispute could well be whether or not those processes and principles have been observed and preserved in the introduction of any new forms. (But I don’t intend to get into that debate at the moment.)

MR