As one senior Syd Anglican said to me last week, we are now ‘in the custard’ over lay & diaconal presidency - caught between what people on the ground in Sydney want/need to do missionally and the politics of global Anglicanism.

I note the very strong comments on Stand Firm by Bishop Iker of Fort Worth as he takes his Diocese out of the Episcopal Church

Greg Griffith: Moving from the general to the specific, one recent and troubling development has been the decision by the diocese of Sydney to authorize lay presidency. That appears to contradict the Jerusalem Declaration by GAFCON, of which Sydney is a member. Two-part question: 1) How easy is it going to be for a Jack Iker to live with lay presidency, and 2) What does this portend for unity within GAFCON in particular and the orthodox movement as a whole?

Bishop Iker: Well, obviously lay presidency or diaconal presidency of the eucharist is not Anglican, and I regret to see them moving in that direction, because it does mean further division among the orthodox. That’s not something that Anglicanism is able to accept or affirm. So in a sense, Sydney is causing a similar kind of tear in the fabric of the communion as the Episcopal Church did by moving ahead with ordaining a practicing homosexual as bishop. So I hope they pull back from that, but it’s not something that a reformed, catholic religion can affirm or accept. We’ve always said that the Anglican church is a reformed, catholic body owing to the unbroken faith and practice of the historic church, and this is certainly a departure from that.

Greg Griffith: If Sydney does not pull back from lay presidency, and if it’s true that Sydney is tearing the fabric of the communion in a way that’s comparable to what TEC has done, and if the GAFCON primates continue to agree to have Sydney as one of its members, doesn’t that undercut GAFCON’s objections to the actions by TEC and Canada regarding homosexuality?

Bishop Iker: I suppose the difference between the two is that one is a moral issue, and the other is not - it’s more of a sacramental/theological issue. But the effect is the same - to break communion and cause division.

Greg Griffith: What is your suggestion to your colleagues - to your fellow American bishops, to the GAFCON primates - as to how to address that?

Bishop Iker: I think we just have to speak the truth in love, to say that this does not further our cause, our unity, our mission; and to ask Sydney to reconsider that development. I don’t know that it’s restricted to Sydney - there may be other parts of the communion where evangelicals are more supportive of that development - but you wouldn’t find that support obviously among any of the Anglo-Catholic bishops or dioceses.

Obviously Bp Iker is not GAFCON.. But to what extent have we been naive about how others in GAFCON would respond?

Is ‘lay presidency’ a principle issue we need to stand on - whatever the consequences?

Or do we think others in GAFCON will ‘come round’ to Sydney’s position. If so, how will that happen?

The last lay presidency thread got killed because it got personal.

This thread is only about GAFCON and lay presidency.

So please keep on topic and do not make comments about individuals (including Bishop Iker) that breach our posting guidelines.

Not naive - but sadly just determined to go ahead any way. (I had a speech prepared but didn’t get the call!)

I take some comfort in the fact that it is recognised that it is not a moral issue.

One of the big question-marks/concerns people had about Gafcon - speaking as an outsider to the Anglican world - was if it papered over real differences between evangelical and Anglo-Catholic. That is reflected in Iker’s reported comments here (in the last comment quoted).

Again as an outsider: I would be concerned to see Anglican evangelicals making policy decisions based on possible reactions from those with a significantly different theological approach.

Jeremy you asked a good question.

I think we owe it to the martyred reformers of the past, to the early church, to be authentically Biblical people and to the future of Christondem to go ahead with lay presidency.

I brief look at history will show that communion for the average Joe Blo has always been a sticky point within the church. Many people died in the cause to be able to share both the bread and the wine at one time, in which the priests only partook both.

Then there’s the rebel priests and movements centuries before Luther who freely preached and gave communion without being licenced to do so, and who were burnt or executed by other means for doing so.
The question has to be asked, and it has to be answered. For whom did Christ die for? Did he die for the church (organisation) or did he die for the people!

By continuing down the track that Anglicanism is going in restricting lay / diaconal presidency, it is continuing the churches history of denying the rightful right of God’s people to freely partake in communion.

“Everything is permissible” but not everything is beneficial, wrote Paul. There may be times (and I believe this is one) where there will be greater advantage for the cause of the Gospel itself in simply staying silent. (All things to all people - that we may win some etc.)

It’s good that this crack is appearing. GAFCON is a political alliance between people who share certain objections to the direction in which some Anglicans are moving, but to pretend that the group is theologically unified is foolish. Moving ahead with lay presidency will highlight division, but it won’t create it. The division already exists.

By the way, this is wrong:

Moving from the general to the specific, one recent and troubling development has been the decision by the diocese of Sydney to authorize lay presidency

There was no such decision; just a recognition that lay presidency has been legal for some time now. The stable door has been off the hinges for quite a while. Now, the horse just needs to saunter out and start munching. No bolting required.

Yes, I noticed that too Gordo. Bit of a communication problem me thinks.

Article 12 of the Jerusalem Declaration says:

We celebrate the God-given diversity among us which enriches our global fellowship, and we acknowledge freedom in secondary matters. We pledge to work together to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us.

Is lay administration a secondary matter? Yes.

Excellent post Michael. I guess this will test whether people actually see it as a secondary matter.

The problem as I see it is predominantly with start-up churches which don’t have the resources to support a presbyter (I still prefer ‘priest’). I think the diocesan structure needs to be flexible so that church congregations can be “affiliated” with and receive support from the diocese without becoming a formal parish and without voting rights in synod etc. This way the diocese can continue to conform with the wishes of the wider communion while still assisting start-up congregations.

yes - but this has nothing to do with the reason our synod has discussed and wanted this for 30+ years!

Mark Calder - 17 November 2008 01:35 PM

yes - but this has nothing to do with the reason our synod has discussed and wanted this for 30+ years!

Yes but as you so aptly reminded us - while “everything is permissible” (1 Cor 10:23) not everything is beneficial. So my point is that while there are workable ways to accommodate the wishes of wider communion without significantly hampering church growth, we should continue to patiently put our case to that communion and avoid unnecessary division.

I’m not sure that putting our case to that communion will/would ever achieve any thing.... and waste gospel energy and resources.... I reckoned we should just get on with our ministry and let the issue go. (And like with other issues, some churches will just do it - like dropping liturgy and robes.  We never made an official pronouncement: many churches dropped both, and there was no issue with the wider communion.)

Mark,
It would be good to have the case for lay administration presented on the internet. Having raised the issue, it would be helpfuI and courteous of us to make it simple for people to find out what our synod believes.
I have found nowhere to point people who inquire about the Sydney debate to. I can’t find more than one or two of the doctrine commission papers - it would be good to have an up-to-date link to those, and any other significant documents such as the legal report that the lay administration motion refers to. Can anyone help?

or an online version of the ACL booklet??

That would be a good start....