I’ve been looking around for info, but so far haven’t come up with any details, so I thought it best to ask the question here. There’s a rumour travelling around the traps that the Archbishop has vetoed the lay presidency motion of synod. Does anyone know if this is true, incorrect or scurrilous?
The Archbishop has no power to veto a motion of the Synod. He has the right to enter the debate at any time if he so wishes, and if he did so (which is rare) his opinion would likely hold considerable ‘weight’. What the Arch CAN do is not assent to an ordinance, in which case it lapses. But there was no ordinance regarding lay administration, so that doesn’t apply here.
What I suspect you are referring to is the fact that, in order to administer Communion in an Anglican church a person needs to be licenced by the Arch, just as they do to lead services, baptise, preach, etc. In his speech in favour of the motion, Glenn Davies made it clear that he did not expect that the Arch would licence any lay people to administer Communion as a result of the motion being passed. The Arch did not say anything to contradict Glenn’s view!
You say a licence is also needed to preach. I have preached in Sydney Anglican churches but am not Anglican nor do I hold a licence as far as I know. How does that work then?
Hi Phil
Many clergy in the diocese ignore the licencing requirement for occasional / one-off preachers. And if you are speaking as a representative of a missionary organisation you may be covered anyway—my memory is a bit fuzzy on that one. I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. :-)
Bob
Thanks for the info. I was a bit mystified when someone asked me about it this morning, and didn’t think it was possible to veto a non-ordinance!
What you’re saying makes sense about licensing, though. I guess it might be a little bit much for the GAFCON relationship if it suddenly became open slather.
Rumour mills are such great sources of “accurate” info, aren’t they? (not)
For non-ordained people to lead a service of the Lord’s Supper of Holy Communion, it would appear that a Canon from General Synod would be needed allowing such a move (although some dispute this and say it only needs a licence from the Archbishop). It would appear that the 1985 Canon concerning Deacons is so worded that it can be understood as giving approval of deacons leading such a service should the Presbyter (priest) of the parish allow, thus the Archbishop does not need to approve this additionally, as it is already in the wording of the 1985 canon. They can also lead the other service of a sacrament, viz they may baptise.
The motion in synod accepted a report which noted this distinction, and as stated above, Bishop Davies acknowledged that our Archbishop is not likely to licence lay people to lead such a service at this point in time.
I am sure that despite GAFCON, there are many people in Sydney Diocese who are glad that the Archbishop will show such restraint. For whether we like it or not, & whether it is legal or not, there are people who will stumble at such a new departure from traditional Anglican practice. They are already scratching their heads at the new move to allow Deacons the responsibility and privilege of such a ministry. I am told that we are not the first Diocese to allow this.
I am working out the best pastoral way to help some parishioners through this new step in our Diocese.
The Biblical material is silent on the issue, apart from Jesus leading the Last Supper. I am currently considering the roles of “who does what in church” according to the 1549, 1552, 1662 prayer books & other reformation time documents.
Rob,
Others of us take a different view. We think it is a scandal that our current practice suggests in so many people’s minds that the Anglican Order of Presbyter is defined principally in priestly terms, for people see that only presbyters (and now ordained deacons) are allowed to administer the Lord’s Supper. This is a terrible situation. I have nothing but deep admiration and respect for our archbishop. He is a man of the word and of great wisdom. For these reasons I would urge him (not that he needs such urging) to continue to reflect on what the way forward might be in this matter.
The argument that we ought not proceed with this much needed and overdue reform because of the weaker brother/ sister does not have any validity at all, in my opinion. The Apostle Paul was concerned that Jews with scuples about keeping the food laws of the good law of God not be offended by gentile Christians exercising their freedom and imposing their freedom on these Jews. Such Jews needed time to understand how our Lord’s coming fulfiled the good law of God.
Now this is not analagous to the situation here. Rather, we are seeking to reform an unbliblical practice, a practice that teaches false doctrine. When Cranmer wrote the prayer books he knew many would not like the new practices he established. But this did not deter him. And so he wrote concerning his principle of making change that his priority was ‘how to please God.’ He then set forth his reasons for change.
We need to do the same. We need to set forth the reasons for lay and diaconal administration NOT PRESIDENCY! and make this reform.
The argument that we ought not proceed with this much needed and overdue reform because of the weaker brother/ sister does not have any validity at all, in my opinion.
Not that Rob argued on this basis anyway.
The Apostle Paul was concerned that Jews with scuples about keeping the food laws of the good law of God not be offended by gentile Christians exercising their freedom and imposing their freedom on these Jews. Such Jews needed time to understand how our Lord’s coming fulfiled the good law of God.
Actually Phil, I think that Paul’s concern was not just with offending others (which was something he was more than prepared to do!), but with the stronger brother acting in such a way that the weaker brother might follow him in that action and thus sin against their own conscience. [Mind you, the 1 Corinthians and Romans passages on this matter are not identical with regard to the way Paul argues.] Not that I’m agin you on this matter—just don’t agree with your exegesis.
I agree that sinning against one’s conscience is on view, and certainly to sin against God’s good law is a very serious matter. That the law has been fulfilled by the Lord Jesus means those believing eating certain food is wrong will come to a different view over time. But again, the weaker brother is seeking to obey something from God in the first place.
When it comes to Lay administration of the Lord’s Supper there is no law from God that prohibits this practice. There is no risk of idol worship if a lay person administers the Lord’s Supper (the 1 Corinthians situation regarding food). Rather, without Lay administration our practice teaches something that is dangerously wrong, which undermines the doctrines of the cross and the priesthood of all believers.
We need to make this reform! By the way, it would be a wonderful contribution to GAFCON were we to make this reform! What an opportunity to talk with our friends, all of us with our Bibles open, about the how we think about church and the sacraments.
When it comes to Lay administration of the Lord’s Supper there is no law from God that prohibits this practice.
Nor is there one which requires it.
Philip Griffin - 27 October 2008 04:20 PM
Rather, without Lay administration our practice teaches something that is dangerously wrong, which undermines the doctrines of the cross and the priesthood of all believers.
Thanks for the info. I was a bit mystified when someone asked me about it this morning, and didn’t think it was possible to veto a non-ordinance!
Hi Kresten
This is most likely a long way from where you herd this rumour - but our previous archbishop (Goodhew) did say in 1987 that he would not give his assent to any ordinance “purporting to authorize Lay Presidency” (Available on SDS web site, happy to give link if you want).
This was after the Synod indicated it wanted Lay Presidency.
It’s a shame that this has been discussed for so many many many years, and the Synod has again and again expressed its desires for Lay Presidency, and all the different Standing Committee reports, and all the different doctrinal commissions, and legal groups etc have all indicated there is not much of a problem - yet over 20 years later we still can’t do it.
This is most likely a long way from where you herd this rumour - but our previous archbishop (Goodhew) did say in 1987 that he would not give his assent to any ordinance “purporting to authorize Lay Presidency” (Available on SDS web site, happy to give link if you want).
I think that this event actually happened in 1997.
I think that this event actually happened in 1997.
Ah-ha! I’ve been looking for that! I remember something like that happening, but I can’t find the records, so I couldn’t work out if it was just my imagination (which can be somewhat wild at times!).
If you have a link to the docs - I would love that!
(I’ve been trying to work out what’s happened with the lay debate over the decades)
Rob,
Others of us take a different view. We think it is a scandal ....
...When Cranmer wrote the prayer books he knew many would not like the new practices he established. But this did not deter him. And so he wrote concerning his principle of making change that his priority was ‘how to please God.’ He then set forth his reasons for change.
We need to do the same. We need to set forth the reasons for lay and diaconal administration NOT PRESIDENCY! and make this reform.
1. Brother, I felt the teeth of a bull-terrier ripping into me as I read your post.
2. Did you notice that in my post I did not identify my own position on who should have the privilege and responsibility of leading the service? Rather I was depicting the dismay felt by a reasonable proportion of our own brothers and sisters in THIS diocese, let alone be concerned about those in what we know as GAFCON (but it should more accurately be termed FCA (Feloowship of Confessing Anglicans) now the conference is over.
3. How was my stated position any different to what you stated about Cranmer? Did I not say that I was
working out the best pastoral way to help some parishioners through this new step in our Diocese
& then stated what material I was looking at in doing such a thing?
4. Identifying a pastoral issue is not the same as regretting the changes, merely pointing out that we, the strong if you like, who know the freedoms that are surely ours, need to treat with care, kindness and compassion, the weaker ones who cannot accept our freedoms, until they accept the teaching from the Lord’s Word.
5. We also need to do reforms legally. Cranmer was in a position where he could introduce some changes, but Henry refused to allow others. He had to wait those agonising years until the time was right. It does the cause of the gospel no good to unnecessarily upset others by the method of change. I applaud the new book, & the distribution of that book. Education helps pave the way for acceptance of the proposed changes.
I agree that sinning against one’s conscience is on view, and certainly to sin against God’s good law is a very serious matter. That the law has been fulfilled by the Lord Jesus means those believing eating certain food is wrong will come to a different view over time. But again, the weaker brother is seeking to obey something from God in the first place.
When it comes to Lay administration of the Lord’s Supper there is no law from God that prohibits this practice. There is no risk of idol worship if a lay person administers the Lord’s Supper (the 1 Corinthians situation regarding food).
Phil
No problem with this as far as it goes. But again, you seem to arguing against a position that nobody has taken (unless I’ve missed something).
Bob
Edit: I think Rob’s last post makes my point even clearer—we need to read what people say, carefully. (I freely acknowledge that I have not always done so either.)
