Graham Kings Comments on the Jerusalem Declaration and the Diocese of Sydney Actions

Isn’t this an example of arguing over who can put out the the deckchairs while the Anglican ship is sinking? There are more important issues at stake in the Church of England - such as the authority of Scripture, the uniqueness of Christ and our gospel mandate - that unites us as Orthodox Anglicans and divides us from those promoting a false gospel and new religion (ABC & TEC). The Jerusalem Declaration and Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans is increasingly defining and uniting Orthodox Anglicans world-wide. I hope and pray Fulcrum will stop complaining, join the crew and help us rescue the Anglican Communion, or at least as much of it as wishes to hold to the Scripture, Articles and Ordinal.

Stephen, this sounds a bit like Gene Robinson’s ‘why can’t we all just get along?’!!

As an ardent Gafconite, who has very little time for Fulcrumites who grasp any opportunity to have a pop at Gafcon, I have to say with regret that I agree with Graham Kings on this one.

I am astounded at what Sydney has done, and am very unhappy about it.  But the arguments have been very well rehearsed on earlier threads.

“Lay presidency” is an independent innovation, on par with “women’s ordination”; if one can be started in rebellion, and then “regularised” later, and then “imposed on all” still later, why not the other?  Both innovations began/are beginning in rebellion against historic Anglican order and identity.  The Synod of the Diocese of Sydney, in its evangelical fervour, seems to have decided to depart from the rest of the Anglican Communion on the essential point of “who and what constitutes ‘the ordained ministry’ and to what end?” at the very moment when unity on essentials is needed.  Even the Americans haven’t tried on “lay presidency” (for now).  But if an “orthodox” province can blithely “go its own way” without discipline or repercussions, then TEC and ACoC are in the free and clear.  Yes, the Archbishop of Sydney owes the Communion an explanation and a disavowal of this uncanonical, unhistorical, and divisive innovation, at LEAST to those whom he is claiming to lead in the old paths of “Classic Anglicanism.”  And if his fellow primates do not demand these from him, then the GAFCON/CFA enterprise is over now.  The ruckus for over a decade has been how TEC and ACoC have not been disciplined for their innovations by the Communion.  The decision of the moment is “will the Diocese of Sydney be disciplined for innovations of equal importance and divisiveness?”  If not, then, why would anyone bother attempting to revive an “orthdox Anglicanism” which cannot or will not discipline its erring members? 

Archbishop Jensen, we’re waiting on your timely response.

Sydney is no more Anglican than the Baptist church down the road.  In fact, they appear to be less so.  There arguments advocating lay presidency are completely unconvincing and appear to me to nullify any distinction between ordained clergy and layity.  Plymoth Bretheren perhaps, but not Anglican.  It’s scary that the FCA is in Sydney.

StephenSizer,
I agree with your emphasis on the issues of importance; however to me we have to prevent current errors, even while we pursue a restoration of the fundamentals of our Christian faith.  In many ways, it reminds me of the military non-coms who guard against slackness in all areas (uniform, fitness, discipline, etc) even though the mission objective may be far beyond that.

Stephen Sizer has a point but I disagree that the ABC is “those promoting a false gospel and new religion”.  Of all people Archbishop Tutu takes almost the opposite view of him.

I will join him in his wish that evangelicals stop squabbling and work together respectfully to represent that very large evangelical group that there is in the CofE.

Evan, your #4
“It’s scary that the FCA is in Sydney.”

Your statement is what’s truly scary.
I won’t bother repeating what I’ve been saying on the other thread. 
To have had the Anglican Communion in such a fantastic mess, not to mention particular provinces like TEC and yes the Church of England - and to presume to disparage the Bretheren defies me.

The new life that is emerging in Anglicanism through evangelicals at the moment is by no means secure or certain: if we obsess over something like this (new) issue, the seed of new life will simply be crushed before it has taken root.
SCARY!

The new life that is emerging in Anglicanism through evangelicals at the moment is by no means secure or certain: if we obsess over something like this (new) issue, the seed of new life will simply be crushed before it has taken root.

Then why introduce this innovation now? What is the compelling reason that this must be done now?

Is lay presidency another attempt to bring the rest of our theology “in line with our baptismal theology”?

#8 oscewicee: I agree!

And though they have pronounced, I don’t believe they have yet acted - they have been convinced for some time and have held back before, I hope they will continue to do so.

But whatever, we should not obsess on it - I believe it is something there are arguments for and against. 
Besides, should we not remember: Semper Reformanda?

#7
I think we’re entering territory much like Sarah describes in dealing with some of our Worthy Opponents. It appears we simply have basic assumptions about what it means to be Anglican that are too far apart for further discussion to be profitable.
And I in no way disparage the Bretheren.  They are fine people, as are the Southern Baptists, but I have no desire to become either.

Maybe I should mention I’m Anglo-Catholic? As for not obsessing over it - TEC’s creep toward the mess we are in began with things we shouldn’t obsess over, we should just get along over. I suppose that makes us acutely sensitive to attempts/intentions of radical innovation.

#12 oscewicee
“Maybe I should mention I’m Anglo-Catholic?”
Never mind, I won’t tell anyone

Thanks,  Pageantmaster.

Well as far as I can make it out part of this rests in the way the Australian church sneaked women bishops through without proper debate on the grounds that nothing in the canons prohibits it.

Sydney has said well there is nothing in the canons prohibiting lay presidency.

So there we are.  Hopefully Sydney will consider the requests of the rest of the Communion to make decisions together with them whatever the Archbishop of Didgerydoo has done.

Sydney has brought about a state of impaired communion by its actions regarding diaconal presidency.  It seems to me the question is one of identity here:  is your primary self-identification that of Anglicanism or that of a reformed evangelical Protestantism?  If the latter, there isn’t, to my mind, any point in a Communion.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  I believe those here arguing for Sydney have the best of intentions but that they are fundamentally wrong to make the argument as Anglicans.  Apparently, Anglicanism in Australia needs to be and will be sifted even as Anglicanism in the United States.  By definition, the Church is catholic (from the Greek word roughly meaning ‘universal’) and apostolic.  When we move apart from these, we begin to depart from the Church. It is nonsense such as this that caused me to depart from Anglicanism altogether although I wish you all the very best…God’s Kingdom.  There never seems to be an end to these unilateral deviations. I’ve now made my opinion all too clear so I will end.

#16 Monologistos
“Sydney has brought about a state of impaired communion by its actions regarding diaconal presidency.  It seems to me the question is one of identity here:  is your primary self-identification that of Anglicanism or that of a reformed evangelical Protestantism?  If the latter, there isn’t, to my mind, any point in a Communion.”

Not quite sure that I agree with that.  We quite comfortably encompass those whose views are close to Pentacostals, Roman Catholics, Calvinists and even some like our Archbishop who have sailed pretty close to Byzantium.

That said we do have an identity in our roots, and one of those is that we see ourselves in the Apostolic tradition with bishops and priests.  For me this is part of what defines us in our church.  One of the problems with such a large Communion no longer holding to one prayerbook, the 1662 as it largely was in my youth is that there are pressures in different parts to not look beyond local issues and boundaries.

What may have been a reaction by Sydney to the back door slight of hand by the rest of the Australian Church led by Archbishop Aspinall to shovel women bishops past the most populous and growing part, Sydney, it has much wider implications in such a Communion.  Two wrongs don’t make a right and although I appreciate the joke in tweaking Aspinall and others tails for their dishonesty I think that it would be a good idea for Sydney to take a rain check on this one.

Perhaps a little historical analogy will shed some light here.  As I’ve mentioned before at SF, it’s worth recalling that John Wesley was thoroughly and sincerely convinced that there was no real bibilical justification for regrading bishops and presbyters as separate orders, and therefore he had as much right to ordain people as any bishop (Jerome back in the 4th century held similar views).  And he could point to Titus 1:5 & 7 as support for this, where the terms overseer/bishop/episcopos and elder/presbyter/prebyteros are used interchageably.

Nonetheless, despite the fact that his rapidly growing Methodist movement desperately needed more ordained leaders, for many years John Wesley stoutly resisted calls from within his own ranks to ordain men as ministers to shepherd the swelling numbers of people in the incipient Methodist movement, which at that point was still trying to exist as a church within the C of E.  For over three decades, Wesley refused to act on his firm convictions and to ordain anyone, knowing full well how that would doom any chance of Methodism staying within Anglicanism.

But finally, toward the end of his long and fruitful life, in 1784 (IIRC), John Wesley finally gave in to pressure and the constraints of the situation in America, and ordained two men to lead the Methodist movement in the new republic, one of whom was the famous Francis Asbury, perhaps the greatest circuit rider of all time.  Thus the Methodists gained their first American “bishops” about the same time as we Anglicans did (Samuel Seabury was also ordained a bishop in 1784).

But my point is this: It was largely inevitable and only a matter of time before circumstances drove John Wesley to act on his deeply held and cherished notion that there was no essential difference between bishops and presbyters in terms of divine authority.  What’s surprising is NOT that Wesley finally acted on his beliefs on that score, but that he waited so long to do so.  But in the end, it was entirely predicatable that he would start ordaining leaders for his thriving movement.

And I think that it’s similarly entirely normal, natural, and predicatable that Sydney will eventually act on their deeply held and cherished notions that there is no essential difference between the clergy and the laity (in their Reformed, anti-sacerdotal zeal).  Of course, I think that Sydney is totally wrong, just as John Wesley was also totally wrong.  I firmly believe that POST-biblical developments like the three-fold ordering of ministry that emerged in the second century can nonetheless be BINDING and NORMATIVE (and Sydney types would vehemently disagree, of course).

But we shouldn’t be surprised when Sydney acts as it has just done, with ++Peter Jensen approving DIACONAL “administration” of the Sacrament of the Altar or Lord’s Supper.  What is rather so surprising, and commendable actually, is how long Sydney has waited already before starting to act on its convictions in this controversial area.

And of course, by invoking the analogy of Methodism here, I am indeed suggesting that it’s pretty much inevitable that the extreme Reformed type of Anglicanism that Sydneyh represents is probably doomed, or should I say “predestined?,” to go its own way.  That is sad, and indeed tragic, but not surprising at all.

David Handy+

RE: “It appears we simply have basic assumptions about what it means to be Anglican that are too far apart for further discussion to be profitable.”

I agree.

But one of the things that is missing from all the discussions is further explorations about why Sydney is doing this.  And I don’t think some have been listening thoroughly.  Not only do we have different assumptions about what it means to be Anglican, we also have different assumptions about what it means to be Christian.

The reason—stark, plain, and simple—as to why Sydney has chosen to embark on the path of lay presidency, despite all the division it has and will bring, is because if they did not, it would be antithetical to their gospel.

So—they must continue on down this path.  There will be no stopping it.  If they were to stop it would be in violation of their gospel.

I’ve said the same thing about TEC for years, on another matter that is near and dear to TEC’s heart.  Were they to cease “being divisive” with their practices and theology, they would disappear in a puff of smoke.

Were Sydney to cease moving down the path towards lay presidency, Sydney would no longer believe their gospel.

It would be a bit like a Christian believer being a part of, say, another sect that did not believe in praying, and their wondering why on earth that weird guy persists in praying all the time, as well as promoting it to others.  Can’t he just stop for the good of the fellowship?

Well, no.

So it’s not something that, if Sydney would just excercise a little discipline and self-control, it could stop and cease being divisive.  They can’t.  It’s a symptom of their basic foundational worldview—how they view clergy and lay, how they view the sacraments, how they view the essence of the church, how they view scripture, how they view tradition.

Ok Sarah, but given all that, what do YOU think should be the response of those in the Anglican Communion or even Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans that disagree?  Work to convince Sydney to hold back, try to change their mind, ignore it, split, or something else (and if you say “something else” say which something else)?

I’m curious about how your comment indicates that TEC’s path is irreversable.  Surely I am misunderstanding, because otherwise there would seem little reason to stay in TEC and try to reverse their path.

RE: “Ok Sarah, but given all that, what do YOU think should be the response of those in the Anglican Communion or even Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans that disagree?  Work to convince Sydney to hold back, try to change their mind, ignore it, split, or something else (and if you say “something else” say which something else)?”

AndrewA, the solution is one that seems highly unlikely.  And that is for the Anglican Communion to establish a strong identity, boundaries to provincial behavior, and consequences if those boundaries are breached.

As I said—that seems unlikely to happen.  But make no mistake—Sydney has been and will continue to be for LESS of that happening, and MORE of an Anglican Federation.  The past five years have been immensely helpful for Sydney’s stances—because the more the ties can be loosened, and the less structure, the fewer CONSEQUENCES for their practices.

I don’t presume to give advice outside of the Anglican Communion.  I’m not a part of the FCA and they will have to determine if they wish to have a federation themselves or a communion, and if the latter, what boundaries and consequences for the breach of those boundaries will occur. 

Regarding staying in TEC and reversing “their path” . . . . I’ve stated over and over and over and over clearly that I do not believe that the *national* church will be salvaged.  I’ve written essays about why.  So my staying in TEC has zip to do with the fantasy that the *national* structure will be reformed.

#18
Excellent points all, as usual, Fr. Handy.

Lay and Diaconal presidency at the Eucharist is a truly hard issue. In theory, I oppose it. However, there are countervailing issues as well. One is availability of priests when needed. Must an isolated congregation go without Mass for an extended period of time? And what about informal gatherings in private homes? Perhaps the solution is to lower the barriers to ordination. Maybe a three-year seminary program is not necessary for all ministries. Maybe the ordination process itself has become too political and subjective. Maybe the ordination process has become too lengthy. The problem is we have ministry commissions and discernment committees that operate with no definable standards who have complete discretion. Also, the journey to ordination can take up to five to seven years in total. What I would advocate is objective standards for ordination. If you complete a basic training course in the seven canonical subjects, pass the General Ordinatation Examination, and pass a background check, you should be able to get ordained. A seminary degree could be required for specific kinds of ministries where that level of training is needed, and an extensive vetting process would be necessary for, example, a rectorship of a large parish. What we need is more non-stipendiary clergy available for those situations where Holy Orders is necessary but a full-time seminary trained priest would be overkill. This would allow the Church to achieve a greater spread in its evangelistic and outreach endeavours. The present ordination canons in the USA are nothing but a hindrance to that and constitute simply an effort to maintain an elite club which is inappropriate for effective Christian ministry.

Although I find it personally distressing that in all probability, the Sydney diocese has begun a journey that sunders it entirely from the Anglican Communion, I think it is a useful example and thought experiment for us all.  It is important to understand the mistakes that led good people in TEC and Sydney into the current situations ... that they are not repeated ad infinitum.I’m kind of weary of the distress caused here by arguing the Sola Scriptura thing but I would remark, hopefully for progressive purpose rather than as a “gotcha”, that it looks to me that it is precisely the Sola Scriptura position that is the principle weakness in Sydney’s argument.  If not, what do the lights, and I include you all here, within Anglicanism see as the fatal flaws (sin being a given but not sufficient explanation to my way of thinking.)I think it is impossible to attempt to live according to the letter of the law ... and the Articles of Religion (39 Articles) not to mention Scripture, back me on that.  What we seem to get when we try to appeal to Scripture alone is a picking and choosing which is often often more reflexive than reasoned.  For this reason, I have not looked to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral for a sufficient statement of Anglican identity ... but I would agree that these are necessary.  Right now, I’m not sure we actually have an Anglican Communion that is something more than a federation.  Given that assumption, it may be necessary to begin with “ecumenical” dialog between partners in this federation (I would suggest GAFCON has begun this work) and talk of a list of fundamentals ... which brings us back to picking and choosing lists, the initial work of the Reformation that brought about the terrible splintering of fellowship throughout Protestantism.  An understanding that can be an Anglican Communion understanding, where the Communion is understood in William’s sense of being a Church, cannot rest there with minimum standards.  No necessary list will be sufficient ... and lists tend toward being local Confessions ... much like the Quicunque Vult ... rather than creeds.  Again, I would bring to your attention the distinction between a confession and a creed as a means to illuminating something which is very important here.Some years ago, I was interested in the question of what constitutes a “liberal arts” education. We held meetings and listened to educators and examined the tradition in famous universities on the matter.  It was concluded that a core curriculum was required.  Then resting upon that necessity, a certain sufficiency was assumed, enabling universities to proceed with dedicating money to what amounts to other growth opportunties such as technical training and still market itself as “liberal arts”.Where I’m going with this example is making an illustration that growth is not the same thing as evangelism.  Sure Sydney is experiencing rapid growth.  So are megachurches with little foundation or participation in the organic catholic and apostolic worship that has been symbolized and guarded by apostolic succession.  Rapid numerical growth can be a curse.  Do your churches have a catechetical program sufficient to all that?  I’m not suggesting laying hurdles for the sake of vetting newcomers.  I’m suggesting that intellectual and spiritual formation is required, even as it is required of seminarians.  Both Orthodox and Catholics have recognized the serious difficulty of assimilating great numbers of new members and instituted guidelines for training including a year of formation before receiving the Church’s sacraments.  This may seem counterintuitive for a generation which has conflated “the world” with “the Church” and been told “ad nauseum” about how it is more catholic to include more people.  Understanding “inclusion” is a real difficulty at hand.

I’m suggesting that intellectual and spiritual formation is required, even as it is required of seminarians.  Both Orthodox and Catholics have recognized the serious difficulty of assimilating great numbers of new members and instituted guidelines for training including a year of formation before receiving the Church’s sacraments.

I think this is the missing element, and it has been missing a long time in TEC, at least. Intellectual and spiritual formation have been cast by the wayside - I am painfully aware of my own lack and recognize it in the people who should be leaders of and defenders of the church.

Sarah #19, you say:

Were Sydney to cease moving down the path towards lay presidency, Sydney would no longer believe their gospel.

I do not follow this. There is only one Gospel, and Sydney Anglicans are Gospel-men and women. How is that English Evangelicals and North American Evangelicals and Ugandan Evangelicals see a legitimate distinction between presbyters presiding at the Lord’s Supper and Sydney Evangelicals do not. As I mentioned on the other thread, they are appealing not only to Scripture but to the Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer. So why can’t they be persuaded they are mistaken? I think you are taking a predestinarian view of this matter.

I won’t venture to clarify Sarah’s words here (I’m still crushed that my vote didn’t elect her for president) but one possible reading could be this:  those who depart from catholic order essentially claim a unique apprehension of the Gospel (some even claim a new dispensation.)  So it is not that there is more than one Gospel but that some choose to elevate their personal reading of it above that of the Church.  By my lights that would make these heterodox at minimum; however, since *all* of us tend to pick and chose both our battlegrounds and our choice of essentials, we ought to see how we ourselves fall short and grant that all are worthy of compassion and forgiveness if not support for the agenda.

What we need is more non-stipendiary clergy available for those situations where Holy Orders is necessary but a full-time seminary trained priest would be overkill.

We USED to have this.  It was called “monasticism” and it allowed for the catechesis and sacraments for millions of people who could not afford a “Seminary priest,” (let alone his -post-Reformation- wife and family).  “Look to the rock from which you were carved”.

Not exactly, rwrightman.  Monks can not preside over eucharist unless they are ordained priests.  They could teach however.

RE: “I do not follow this. There is only one Gospel . . . “

I agree.  I used the word “gospel” which is somewhat different.  ; > )

But I was quite clear about what I meant in this paragraph: “So it’s not something that, if Sydney would just excercise a little discipline and self-control, it could stop and cease being divisive.  They can’t.  It’s a symptom of their basic foundational worldview—how they view clergy and lay, how they view the sacraments, how they view the essence of the church, how they view scripture, how they view tradition.”

They really must ultimately engage in lay presidency, or Sydney theology and gospel would have to cease, just as [but in no other way parallel or equivalent], quite inevitably, a TEC foundational worldview would lead to the consecration of Gene Robinson.  It had to happen, in order for the leaders of TEC to be able to maintain their gospel identity.

True enough, Andrew, but they could be trained for the priesthood “in house” and ordained by an episcopal overseer, and then sent on their “merry” (if you count the certainty of martyrdom as being “merry”) way to evangelize, to preach, teach, baptize, and all the other sacraments.  My point was rather (and I really should have made it more explicit) that one did not need to be sent off for an expensive seminary education far from one’s monastic family, but rather that one was both educated and spiritually formed by the priests and abbot of one’s community, and that this resulted in more clergy available to minister to the Faithful.  Monastic clergy seemed to have been better educated than their diocesan brethren, who famously jumbled the Words of Consecration “Hoc est corpus Domini” to “Hocus pocus dominocus,” but then they also had to plow their own fields and work as hard as any other peasant farmer, so memories of “Saying the Mass 101” were bound to be a bit hazy after a day spent shovelling out the stalls and slopping the pigs.  Perhaps the point I was really trying to get to was that, IF one was expected to preside at the Eucharist, then one was expected to be ordained in the Church and to be responsible to the Church, and that this carried a commitment to a lifetime of sacrifice, prayers, and being truly “set apart” (holy) on behalf of the Christian faithful.  One did not simply license the wealthy and respectable lawyer who had served on the vestry three times, but regrettably has some questionable investments on aboriginal land, and then in a year or two, license someone else, say his second wife.  It’s all about accountability before God and that accountability has to lie in the hands of the bishops, and the hands of the bishops hold a tradition of two thousand years which is not able to be cast aside simply because one wants to be a “Prayer Book Baptist” rather than a “Prayer Book Catholic”  without “tearing the the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level.”  If we want discipline for TEC and ACoC, then we have to insist on the same discipline for the Diocese of Sydney.  It’s that or we all take our vestments and simply go home to “play church” on our individual terms.

Sorry, if this comes across as ‘nasty, brutish, and lengthy,’ but I’m not feeling all that well and probably silence would have been a better choice, but we’ll let the conversation go on, hoping to have clarity of mind and charity of heart all round.

RNW+

evan (#22),

Thanks for your kind words, as usual.

David Handy+

Let’s be clear that Peter Jensen has not been convinced that lay presidency is legal under the Australian canons, and so he has not approved it. Diaconal presidency is officially allowed in the Diocese of Sydney, as the Synod and the Archbishop has accepted legal advice that the canons permit him to license deacons to administer communion..
But legalities aside what appeals to me about the Sydney position is the appeal to scripture. If it could be shown that lay or diaconal administration was against Scripture none of us in Sydney would support it.
The chief motivation for Sydney’s stance is to avoid presiding at communion being seen as somehow more special than preaching. If deacons can preach then why can’t they administer communion?

#34 obadiahslope

It is certainly arguable from scripture that the instruction to eat and drink in His name is something we are all enjoined to do, priest, deacon, bishop and lay person.

However, as far as celebrating the Anglican liturgy of Eucharist is concerned, it is not ‘Anglican’ to do so without the priest as celebrant, although a deacon may certainly distribute pre-consecrated elements.  Nor is it in the understanding of the church as Anglicans have received it. 

Now of course, it is perfectly possible for Sydney to take a different understanding, but since other Anglicans do not recognise it, don’t be surprised if Sydney is no longer in communion with other Anglicans, in the same way as it is perfectly possible for TEC to marry bishops in same sex relationships, but it is not Anglican.

What Sydney canons say, much as what TEC canons say is irrelevant to this issue.  Do you want to be part of the world-wide Communion?  That is the issue for TEC and for that matter for Sydney if they go off the deep end into some other non-Anglican practise.  There are plenty of other church groupings to join if one no longer accepts that which is distinctive in Anglicanism.

In the American, and I’m sure the Canadian churches….including most if not all of the jurisdictions of the ACNA….there are and have been instances where a deacon often officiates during the Eucharist, using pre-consecrated elements in the absence of a priest, so this is not at all unusual.