Sugden - “What’s going on in Sydney?”

No, these concerns are not mission based.  This from a personal conversation with the Archbishop himself.  Most churches are not celebrating communion weekly nor are they planting churches with a communion emphasis nor are there concerns about not having presbyters in rural situations.  The emphasis has to do with biblical interpretation and how that fits Anglican understanding.  It may be a possible biblical understanding. However, it is not Anglican even from a radical Cranmerian point of view.  The Anglican church has a normative understanding of the New Testament, not regulative.  This is just plain puritanism masked as reformed presbyterianism.

Chris Sugden’s choice of words betrays a bias:

It is to be sincerely hoped that… the people of Sydney Diocese while expressing their biblical and pastoral concerns will be willing to continue to dialogue patiently [That’s the part that really gets me!] with their fellow orthodox Anglicans.

Translation: “We hope that the enlightened Sydney folks with their biblical and pastoral concerns will put up with the other folks in GAFCON who haven’t yet seen the error of their ways!”

...at the same time it is to be hoped that the Anglo Catholics will also be willing to listen afresh to Sydney and its mission-based concerns [another zinger].

Translation: “We hope those poor, benighted, recalcitrant, Anglo-Catholics will open their eyes and wake up to the new thing that God is doing!  Because unless they do, they really aren’t being sensitive to Sydney’s ‘mission-based concerns’”

I believe the appropriate British word for this is codswallop.

One further thing Mr Sugden needs to note (I hope he has been paying attention to this discussion on Stand Firm):  It is not only Anglo-Catholics who oppose lay presidency, it is evangelicals in other parts of the Communion as well.  It is the other orthodox Anglicans in the Communion, practically without exception. 

Sydney needs to listen to get the message:  this “new thing” they are doing just won’t play anywhere else in the Communion.  It is dead on arrival.  Period.  End of story.

Let’s be honest here.  The Anglican Communion is a loosely-based association of churches who descend from the Church of England in varying degrees.  Not all use the 1662 BCP. They do not all even use any edition of the BCP.  The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England has no regulatory powers at all over the churches in the “communion”.  I sometimes think that calling it a “communion” is overstating what actually exists.  So, as I started, lets be honest, the Diocese of Sydney can do this if they desire; just as TEC consecrated Bishop Robinson because they desired.  Any other province can pretty much do what they desire as well.  Unlike the Church of Rome, there is no Pope and the Anglican Communion is not a hierarchal church structure.

Unity is gone.  Increasingly, there is more and more evidence of disunity.  Saying the “Anglican Communion” is like saying the “United Nations.”  If there was once something recognized as the English expression of the church catholic it is becoming several clusters of denominational fellowships.  How very sad.  A spiritual inheritance laid waste.  May the Lord forgive us.

Hmm. Lay Presidency sounds like good news for the AngloBaptists. Or is that the BaptoCatholics?

I think we also need to consider the Holy Scriptures in this discussion and what they say, and what they do not say.  The Bible uses the words “presbyter” and “bishop” interchangeably.  Deacon is obviously a seperate order and their duties were to “wait upon the tables” (I believe is how it is phrased in the King James). What does wait upon tables really mean?  Does it mean serving food like a waiter? Does it mean preparing communion? could it mean distributing communion?

Also, good Eucharistic theology teaches us that it is not the presider who consecrates the Eucharist.  It is the prayers of all the gathered assembly joined with the prayers of the communion of saints who assist the presider in consecrating the Eucharist.  It is the action of the gathered assembly - the members of the body of Christ who ask the Holy Spirit to act upon the elements and make them the Body and Blood of Christ.  The idea that a priest has some sort of magical powers is pre-Reformation Roman clericalism reinstituted by Anglo-Catholics.  The truth is the priest does nothing but lead the prayers.  All of the people join in the prayers. It is the Holy Spirit who takes the necessary action.

The three orders of clergy are inventions of the Roman Catholic Church.  Not all branches of the church catholic had three orders.  Many ancient branches of the church had only two - Deacon and Elder.  Elders ordained other Elders and Deacons. When the Church of England, angry over loosing the Revolution, refused to ordain Elders to consecrate communion for Methodists in the colonies, this is the historical evidence Rev. Wesley, an Anglican priest, used to ordain them himself.  Interestingly, the Church of England never disciplined him for doing so either.

In Methodism today, Bishops are simply Elders who are placed in a supervisory position.  When their term as Bishop is done they are no longer a bishop.  They are consecrated for their term of service, not for life.  Considering the messes with Anglican bishops out of control, who ignore the orthodox faith, perhaps Anglicans outside of the Church of England should consider this as well.

The truth is the Church of England retained the three orders of clergy, as a holdover of Roman clericalism, because, being a state church, having clercialism easily controlled by the Monarchy was essential to controlling the state church.

In the early church there is no doubt that Apostolic Succession existed. The number of believers were small and everyone would have been ordained by someone ordained by someone tracing back to the Apostles & Disciples of Christ. Continuing this tradition is a wonderful thing that happened very informally throughout the early, primitive catholic church.

But not all branches of the primitive church had three seperate orders.  The New Testament scriptures that list the qualifications to be serve in holy orders just list two orders in each place they are given.  Remember, the words “elder” and “bishop” are used interchangeably.  Some of the most dogmatic Anglo-Catholic priests I know admit that there is no scriptural proof at all of 3 orders.

I think that Apostolic Succession, someone being ordained by someone ordained all the way back to the Apostles is a good and important thing for the church. However, most of the totally man-made rules are nothing but that - man-made rules created by clericalism and the hierarchies created through clericalism.

What I find very ugly and unattractive in modern Anglicanism is the nasty finger-pointing, and accusing clergy of other Anglican jurisdictions of being Vagantes because they violated this rule or that rule - all human made rules, not Biblical rules.  The official communion calls the Continuing Anglicans “vagantes”.  The Continuing Anglicans call official communion orders invalid because they now ordain women, etc.  It is all very ugly, unattractive, and does the cause of Christ no favors in the world where we should be trying to win souls for Christ.

What is needed desperately in Anglicanism today is civility, kindness, respect for other Christians, and some Christian charity.

The three orders of clergy are not an “invention” of the RCC.  The RCC did not even exist at the time.  The orders were established in the early years of the Church and are part of the Apostolic tradition.  They were established through the authority that Christ passed on to the Apostles.  There may have been some communities where only two branches existed; however to say that many ancient branches of the church had only two is just plain false.  There were no branches until the Great Schism and up to that point the Church was one.  Actually, I believe in some communities there were as many as 7 when you include the minor orders.  But the point is that all orders would have been recognized and accepted throughout the Church.

Where I believe Protestants jump the tracks is in dismissing Apostolic Tradition and the Early Church Fathers.  There seeems to be this notion that once Jesus ascended the Church fell apart.  No doubt there were troubles and disagreements but the Church worked through them.  In deed, some of the traditions rejected by the reformation were established before some of the Gospels were even written. 

Now, I do not challenge the need for the reformation but it was a failure because it did not reform the Church, it brought further division.  I will also agree that in very many ways the RCC still has not heeded or addressed the need for reform.  It has merely put up new layers of wallpaper without removing the old. 

But for men in the 16th Century to believe they knew better than the Apostles and Early Fathers…and especially for men and women in the 21st Century to put their trust in those men or their followers over the Apostles…that is wrong, possible even dangerous.

Of course, to consult the Apostles and Early Fathers opens the door to some form of magesterium…and we can’t have that can we?

Lay Presidency is a ruse.  There will be no lay presidency (and I will tell you I have no problem with lay presidency from a biblical point of view) - but it’s not going to happen, not in our lifetime nor in the next.  Don’t get distracted. It’s a ruse.

When Peter Akinola was deemed the international leader, we were filled with stories about him and what’s going on in Nigeria.  Now that Peter Jensen has emerged as a major leader, the attention is turned to this issue.  But it doesn’t matter because lay presidency is not going to happen.  Don’t be fooled.

The media battle is becoming far more sophisticated now. We are amateurs and the professionals are now getting involved and getting paid.  Stay alert.

bb

BabyBlue, how is it a “ruse” when Sydney’s own synod passed a resolution supporting it?!

Because it’s one synod.  One synod.  The Episcopal dioceses pass some of the wackiest stuff every year - incredible stuff - and in the end, it doesn’t matter. One diocese.  In fact, even in Virginia (which is one of the lowest dioceses in the country until lately) there was a church plant in Fairfax, Virginia in the 1960s that was not even going to have clergy!  Guess what - it didn’t work.  TOday it is Church of the Apostles - a very strong lay-empowered parish, indeed, but the clergy are intact and celebrating at the Table. Sydney should give them a call. 

No, this is a ruse.  Order a gin & tonic, toast Cardinal Newman and laugh it off.  And don’t help the TEC-flaks get paid.

bb

ToAlltheWorld, I can see how you might interpret Sugden’s words this way, but as someone who knows him personally I don’t think he is in favor of lay presidency.  I could be wrong—I have been before!—but perhaps we shouldn’t jump to conclusions.

To All The World:

RE: “Sydney needs to listen to get the message:  this “new thing” they are doing just won’t play anywhere else in the Communion.  It is dead on arrival.  Period.  End of story.”

I understand that you wish that to be so [that it is dead on arrival].  But Sydney merely has to institute it, by order of its bishop, for it to be quite alive.

And then . . . . you’ll have to see whether it is indeed “dead on arrival” within Gafcon, which has been quite interestingly silent on the subject.

My prediction—at the appropriate time, Jensen - -or of course his successor—will allow lay presidency.  And the FCA will do nothing about it, despite its being in clear contradiction of its own Jerusalem Declaration.

And then we’ll know about discipline within the FCA.

I’m with BabyBlue on this one.

This has never had Jensen’s approval.  The last time it played through he said he wouldn’t approve it if Synod did.

Since the evil Primate of Africa has not panned out for the The Evil Confederation of Usuring Attorney’s purposes, they need a new diversion to attempt to break GAFCON apart. 

Dis be’s it, ya’ll.

Because it’s one synod.  One synod.

How many consecutive synods have to formally affirm a heterodox practice for it to become a troubling sign?

I suspect that if “one synod” in New Hampshire passed a resolution rejecting baptism you wouldn’t be so cavalier about it. These things just don’t happen in orthodox dioceses—even once.

This has never had Jensen’s approval.  The last time it played through he said he wouldn’t approve it if Synod did.

And when the Diocese of New Westminster wanted same-sex blessings, Michael Ingham didn’t approve at first either….

Sarah,
I find it very curious that everyone attributes a disciplinary capacity to FCA, a subset of the Anglican Communion, that does not exist at the level of the Communion itself.  Why and how could the Gafcon primates exercise a form of discipline that the Primates meeting, Lambeth, the ACC and ++Cantaur between them do not have the power to exercise?  It is odd to me that everyone is calling upon Gafcon to discipline Sydney, but calling on the Communion to discipline TEC.  By that logic, we should leave the discipline of TEC up to those provinces that sanction SSBs and communion of the unbapized.  The issue in Sydney, just like the issue in TEC, is one that the Communion will need to deal with as an entity, if it intends to remain an entity.  The distinction (we hope) is that the Archbishop of Sydney is (so far) saying you can talk about lay presidency, but you can’t do it.  Unfortunately, he appears to be allowing diaconal presidency, which, for some reason, the Instruments of the Communion have yet to comment on.
  What amazes me about the whole thing is that the Synod in Sydney is willing to destroy Gafcon over the definition of the word “presbyter.”  That is to say, the bishop would license non-clergy and deacons to perform the Eucharist, because he REFUSES to lay hands on them and make them presbyters, because he has chosen to strictly define the word “presbyter” to mean “elder” and that he has determined that there may be only one elder in a parish, and that elder must be the rector of the parish.
Perhaps this is just one more sign that Anglo Catholicism is done in the Anglican Communion.  It has been canonically outlawed in TEC, on the verge of the same in the CoE, and it is almost impossible to see Anglo Catholic dioceses in full Communion with Sydney. We could all get together at Easter, hold one last solemn high mass, so the Anglican world would know what it had cast away, and then go en masse to Rome or Constantinople or Continuing Churches (according to individual preference, like good Anglicans).

As I said before, the Anglican Communion is not a hierarchial church body.  It does not have disciplinary powers. So likewise as said in the last post, it doesn’t seem reasonable to assume that FCA could have disciplinary powers either without major agreements by all provinces to become a hierarchial church like Rome.

I’ll state this right up front, that except in emergency situations (example: POWs in a foreign POW camp with no chaplain), I don’t believe laity should preside over communion.  I also believe that laity should only Baptize in emergency situations as has been a long-standing tradition (example: nurses in the hospital baptizing the dying when no clergy are available).

However, let us remember that ministerial situations can vary greatly around the world. For example, ministering in rural Appalachia is much different from New York City is some ways.  In most Anglican provinces of the world, marriage is defined as one man and one woman; but in some it might be one man and six or seven women.  There are cultural are ministerial differences throughout the world.

Here is the US, and much of the rest of the world, we may be about to fall off the cliff into one of the worst economic crisises in history.  Small and medium size churches may no longer have the money to pay professional clergy. In the Great Depression, professional clergy almost ceased to exist. The clergy had to go out and work, often as laborers, to exist and be clergy part time.
We do not know, what the future may bring in the coming months and years. But it probably won’t be without trials.

Closing churches,  at a time when people may need the comfort of the church the most, is not an acceptable answer.  I don’t believe in lay presidency, except in emergencies.  But, all Anglican provinces, including the formerly affluent US, may need to rethink how to provide the sacraments.

We may need to ordain more “local Priests” - godly, devout laypersons, trained in how to use the prayerbook, who are ordained strictly to give the sacraments in only their own parish. Such persons might be unpaid volunteers, without formal seminary training, who are enlisted to provide the sacrament of the Eucharist.  Perhaps instead of ordaining “local priests”, allowing Permanent Deacons (who are usually unpaid, volunteer persons) to be authorized to preside at the Eucharist.  Changing times may require ministry to be rethought in many ways.

Let us remember, it is the Holy Spirit who changes the common elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.  Presiders have no magical powers, be they priest, bishop or deacon.  The consecration is the prayer of the gathered assembly combined with the prayers of the communion of the saints (as named in the creeds).  The presider is only the leader of those prayers. The presider is not a magician.

If one studies Anglican history, prior to the Oxford Movement/Anglo-Catholic Revival, Anglican priests were always referred to as (an example) “Mr. Wesley”, “Parson Wesley”, or simply, “Parson”.  Most often, however, was the usage of “Mr. Wesley”.

Anglicans did not refer to their priests by the Roman Catholic form of “Father” or “Father Smith” etc., until after this practice was instituted by the Oxford Movement and the Ritualist Movement of the early 20th Century. 

I think this is significant for Anglicans to remember that one result of the Oxford Movement was the institutionalization of Clericalism in Anglicanism in a bigger way than just government control over the state church.  The clergy greatly enhanced their own positions in society through the Oxford Movement.  Even in evangelical parishes and low church parishes the use of “Father” has become pretty standard now.

I say this with absolutely no animosity toward clergy at all. But, I believe that the use of “Father”, what we are instructed by Christ to call God, has given many Anglicans a false impression that the priest is a magician of sorts, and not a human disciple of Christ performing a calling. The clergy are human, too.  It is the Holy Spirit that acts upn the elements of bread and wine, not any human, of whatever order - lay, religious or clergy.

We have at least two sets of apple carts that are being upset here.  We have the TEC Apple Cart that, recognizing that they will in no way stop their promotion of social innovations in church practices, seeks out a deflecting target to mask their own internal crisis.  Then we have the Institutionalist Apple Cart of those who need an issue to deflect their own extremely severe challenges of bringing reform from within the most progressive provinces in the world. 

Lay Presidency is a ruse - a deflecting target.  It has no base of support nationally or internationally.  It’s a drop in the pan, a trick, a slight of hand.  Don’t be fooled.  As Gold Five says in Star Wars, “Stay on target.”

bb

BabyBlue—continually saying that Sydney’s support of lay presidency is somehow a “ruse” of the Episcopal Church doesn’t make it so. Sydney has unfortunately chosen quite freely to inflict this wound on the GAFCON movement. If we are to “stay on target” as you say, all that’s needed is for Sydney to cast off this heterodox innovation.

19-

We may need to ordain more “local Priests” - godly, devout laypersons, trained in how to use the prayerbook, who are ordained strictly to give the sacraments in only their own parish. Such persons might be unpaid volunteers, without formal seminary training, who are enlisted to provide the sacrament of the Eucharist

Ohio Anglican- this is already commonplace in TEC- at least the second part- ie- being unpaid volunteers without benefit of seminary.  As to how Godly they are, or what training in the prayer book they actually received, well, that varies.  The majority of clergy in the diocese I currently reside in are such clergy. I believe this is covered under Title IX.  In this parish, there is an ASA of 35 give or take, 4 priests, 3 deacons, and so few others that 2 of the deacons are members of the vestry.  The future of TEC.

Sarah at #14 says:

My prediction—at the appropriate time, Jensen - -or of course his successor—will allow lay presidency. And the FCA will do nothing about it, despite its being in clear contradiction of its own Jerusalem Declaration.

Let me begin by saying, as an Anglican Evangelical, that I think the decision by the Synod in Sydney was a bad mistake which will now complicate the development of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. However, I question the statement that this decision is in clear contradiction of the Jerusalem Declaration. Here are the relevant clauses:

6.  We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.
7.  We recognise that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.

The classic Prayer Book and Ordinal assume that only priests can preside at the Lord’s Table, but do not explicitly teach this as an exclusive biblical norm. The same question can be asked with regard to women’s ordination. (Sadly, the Sydney Diocese employs a verbal sleight of hand in interpreting the rubric that deacons can “administer” Communion, in the same way the Episcopal Church said that when the BCP refers to the priest as “he,” it can be taken to mean “he or she.”)

So if the Jerusalem Declaration “clearly” rejects diaconal presidency, it also clearly rejects women’s ordination.

Which brings us to clause 12:

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.

I am saddened that the Sydney Synod did not consider the effect its recent actions would have on the wider movement. To the extent that considered clause 12, they seem to have concluded that the first half of it trumps the second half. I suspect they felt that after twenty years of building toward a conclusion, it would be wrong to pull back because of the scruples of those in a new and untested Fellowship. This does not mean, however, that Sydney will not be brought into an international debate over this (indeed that is what is beginning right here in the blogosphere with David Ould). And I believe the bishops and archbishop will be quite willing to seek the mind of Christ together with others in the FCA and the wider Communion.

As for whether the FCA Primates will “discipline” Sydney, I agree that that will not happen immediately. Just as Common Cause Partnership has had to get itself organized over a series of meetings and years, certainly FCA will have to do likewise. It is ironic that some of those demanding that the FCA Primates immediately slap down Sydney are the same folk who defend the the existing Instruments which, with all the time and money in the world, have failed to discipline wholesale deviations from faith of the Church.

tjmcmahon,

RE: “I find it very curious that everyone attributes a disciplinary capacity to FCA, a subset of the Anglican Communion, that does not exist at the level of the Communion itself.”

Not certain why you find it curious.  I had been under the impresson that—unlike the Anglican Communion—the FCA intended to be a doctrinal body agreeing to be in communion on the basis of theology.

We have a clear instance of VAST disagreement on theology in violation of the Jerusalem Declaration.  Of course, as I’ve said before, if a priest sacrificed goats on the altar, the Anglican Communion would not be capable of exercising discipline.  But I had assumed that the FCA would be holding itself to a higher disciplinary and confessional standard.

Perhaps not.

RE: “We have at least two sets of apple carts that are being upset here.”

Oh—I think there is one apple cart that is being upset—it’s the apple cart of the FCA which clearly, judging by the rhetoric, wishes to obscure and remain in denial about the clear theological disagreements—in violation of the recently agreed upon Jerusalem Declaration.  This rhetoric is precisely in line with that apple cart being upset.

RE: “Lay Presidency is a ruse - a deflecting target.  It has no base of support nationally or internationally.”

Right—it merely has a very strong—an immensely strong—base of support within Sydney.

And so some may claim that it is a “ruse”—whatever that means—conspired up no doubt by “institutionalists” like me.  But it’s Sydney that has the belief.  And Sydney that is leading the charge for the FCA.  And Sydney that signed the Jerusalem Declaration.  And Sydney’s theology which the vast vast majority of Anglicans in the Communion do not agree with . . . rather like that “ruse,” that “drop in the pan,” that “trick,” that “slight of hand,” that so few Anglicans in the Anglican Communion agree with propagated by TEC, the blessing of same-gender sexual activity.

Yeh—let’s all just concentrate on mission and ministry together and “not be fooled” by “divisive factions.”  ; > )

For the record, I hope that the FCA is successful in its intents to create its own Anglican body for those who have left TEC.  I couldn’t care less about its supposed “impact” on “institutionalists” like me and unlike the ACI believe that there is very little “impact” at all.  Those who were going to leave TEC will now have an Anglican body to be a part of, and if they had not had such an Anglican body, they would have left TEC anyway.  The net effect on those of us who are staying is zilch, except that a whole lot of people who would have been wandering around now have an ecclesial place to go if that is what they desire.

But I will continue to point out hypocrisy and denial and lack of discipline and rhetorical games and sophistry in whatever Anglican body that I find it. 

I’m pretty familiar with the dulcet sounds of that now, after all.

I confess I was uncharacteristically grumpy when I made my earlier comments (#2 & #3).  But it seems that something beautiful is about to be built here—perhaps the most significant development in Anglicanism since the Reformation.  And while some folks are busily working on the construction site, the Sydney folks are over in the dynamite shed playing with matches.

Because Sydney has an anticlerical bent, they think ecclesiology is adiaphora.  The remainder of the Communion does not regard it that way.  And if there is to be true unity in whatever new Anglican entity is developed, there needs to be mutual submission and conciliar agreement before these kinds of changes are made.  Because, as Paul reminds us, what happens in one part of the body does affect the whole (I Corinthians 12:25-26).

Mr. Neanderthal (good name, by the way, I think I’ve been address as such by at least one diocesan official),
Not to put words in BabyBlue’s mouth (she obviously is quite capable of stating her own opinions), but the point of what saying is twofold-
1) TEC is using this as justification for what they are doing- ie, if Sydney can have lay presidency (even though the Archbishop has refused authorization), then TEC can have whatever it wants.
2) TEC is, in a rather ludicrous manner, trying to tie the Evangelical movement worldwide, and Gafcon, especially in the US, to the Sydney archdiocese’s synodic resolution.  They are saying, in effect, that anyone who signs the Jerusalem Declaration supports lay presidency (and believe me, they are hammering this outright lie at the parish level).  The proposition becomes completely absurd when they try to tie Bishops Ackerman and Iker to it, but they are trying.
It was utterly foolish for the people who brought this motion to do so.  But it would be foolish for the rest of us if we allow TEC to frame the argument the way they are.  There is no North American Anglican bishop outside of TEC pushing for this (it has been kicked around TEC once or twice in small, remote dioceses).

Baby Blue,

You keep saying “Lay Presidency is a ruse” but give nothing to back up your claim. Who is doing it, and why? Who else is in on the ruse, and for what purpose? What do they hope to gain by this ruse?

Deacon David Ould has said the deacons of the Archdiocese of Sydney now have the authority to preside because they are already licensed clergy. ++Jensen can do nothing to stop this because of the wording approved in synod. All he can do is stop the laity from presiding because (1) they are not already licensed and (2) he refuses to give them license.

So what happens when ++Jensen retires and is replaced?

What happens in the meantime with deacons presiding?

You keep claiming all this is a ruse. David Ould keeps saying it is a fact on the ground, in situ, underway, and he has authority to preside. Can you give us something beyond a simple, repeated claim that would shed light on the matter to prove David wrong and you correct?

#20 My understanding is that Roman Catholic secular priests weren’t commonly titled “Father” until the nineteenth century. “Father” was used as an honorific title in some eighteenth century American Protestantism communities - perhaps initially as a term of respect for an elder.

Whilst the title “Father” is almost universal within TEC it is relatively uncommon within much of the Church of England and never used by low church or evangelical clergy.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1916

Sarah,
As with sexual orientation, I think that there is a distinction between desire and behavior.  The clergy and laity have voted a resolution stating that they “desire” lay presidency.  The discipline is exercised by not carrying through with the behavior.
It is also worth pointing out that the Gafcon primates have not met on this issue.  I do not know if it is on the agenda for their upcoming meeting (what with new NA provinces, Lambeth aftermath and what-not, I imagine they have plenty to talk about).  But I think at the very least, we owe them an opportunity to sit down and discuss the proper course of action before we assume they will not take any.  Perhaps they want to investigate the facts before they pass judgment, that sort of thing. 
  Please believe me, I am personally appalled by Sydney’s announcement.  Dean Munday has it right, they are playing with matches in the dynamite shed.  This presents an Anglo Catholic rector in Quincy with the same sort of difficulty faced by a rector in Nigeria in 2003 when called upon to explain to the congregation how he could remain in communion with a church that consecrated an active, partnered gay bishop.  I fear the answer will be the same.  We can’t remain in communion (in the communio sacris sense) with a diocese which allows lay presidency.
  But let us allow the Gafcon primates to exercise discipline before assuming that they will not.

Twenty-five years in Washington, five General Conventions, twelve diocesan councils, five years regional councils, two terms lay presidency, two terms vestry, eight years on Episcopal Church staffs, one House of Bishops, one Lambeth Conference, seven years in youth work (nothing like teens to teach us human behavior) and a partridge in a pear tree.  Because I’ve seen it before.

And then there’s the House of Bishops/House of Deputies listserve and the Anglican Covenant blog, and Episcopal Cafe, and Thinking Anglicans Online, and dear Mark Harris at Preludium.  The list goes on.  Me thinks they doth protest too much.

bb

#31 Of course, worthy opponents will use this as ammunition. Isn’t that another reason why Sydney’s proposal is so regrettable?

Yes, yes, we go back to what The HHHB shows us around the the Cafe, which indicates that the number one reason we do the things we did is because, quite frankly, if the truth be known, we’re lazy and stupid.  We didn’t think, we didn’t plan, we didn’t ask questions, we didn’t care.  Of course, Jesus said it much better.  On the cross he said, “Father forgive them, they don’t know what they’re doing.”  Same thing.

The fact remains that any success in the formation of a new North American province is due not to our strategic brilliance and diplomatic ingenuity, but rather is a testimony that despite all of our laziness and stupidity, our blunders, our brokenness, our heartbreak, and our mess - God has mercy.  Frankly, it’s a mystery - a gift - and one I would dare say we should not take for granted, even for a minute.  Want to know Jesus saves?  Look what he does with the brokenhearted and the lame, the least of these, the lonely and afraid, the least powerful, the friendless, the neediest, the lost - in other words, us.  The gathering of the Anglo Catholics and the evangelicals together is simply a miracle, a miracle.  Nothing less. We’re together because He lives.

The testimony is not how wonderful we are - we are certainly not - but how great He is.  And on that, I can boast.

bb

#29:  Thanks for your comment. I was a bit sloppy in not specifying that the use of the title “Father” becoming widespread is an American/TEC phenomenon.  In England, the usage of “Vicar” or “Parson” is still widely, and wisely (in my opinion), used.  I’m really not sure when the Roman Church began the use of the term “Father”, but it is from them that the Anglican Ritualists copied it.

And I’m sure we’ll continue in that tradition.

[26] ToAllTheWorld

Because Sydney has an anticlerical bent, they think ecclesiology is adiaphora.

I can understand why Anglo-Catholics would reject Lay Presidency.  It directly challenges the sacramental priesthood.  ACs have a clear (if scripturally invalid) answer to the question implicitly posed by Sydney: “What does a priest add to Holy Communion that is essential?”

I do not understand Evangelical resistance however.  They have provided no clear answer to the above question.  Instead, they have fulminated about Anglican order.  But it is an order predicated upon no clear binding authority.  Indeed, the hostility of the response leads one to suspect it might be driven precisely by a fear of seeing the lack of underlying authority exposed.

For ecclesiology to be other than adiaphora, it must be predicated upon some binding authority.  Scripture is the one authority that binds the conscience, but Scripture does not speak to the practice in question.  Evangelicals must therefore answer the question: “What is that binding authority?”  I haven’t seen an answer yet.  “We have always done it that way” isn’t much of an authority.

carl

I have a horrible feeling Sarah Hey is right.

“We have always done it that way” isn’t much of an authority.

Richard Hooker, amongst others, would disagree.  You are insisting on pulling off one of the legs off the three legged stool.

ACs have a clear (if scripturally invalid) answer to the question implicitly posed by Sydney: “What does a priest add to Holy Communion that is essential?”

And where in Scripture does it say that the Anglo Catholic “answer” is invalid?

This move is a major departure from Christian orthodoxy.  Why are they doing it?

I believe that the use of “Father”, what we are instructed by Christ to call God, has given many Anglicans a false impression that the priest is a magician of sorts

OhioAnglican, your vestry meetings must be vastly different from the ones I attend.

I believe that the use of “Father”, what we are instructed by Christ to call God, has given many Anglicans a false impression that the priest is a magician of sorts

One of the upsides to stodgy old Anglo Catholicism is getting the 7 Sacraments in the right order.  Confirmation before Communion.  In the parishes I grew up in, you could recite the catechism before you were confirmed. Anyone over 10 or 12 years old was very clear that the Eucharist was not some hocus-pocus, and knew what a priest was.  If people in the parish are confused about that, somebody isn’t doing their job.

Carl wrote: ““We have always done it that way” isn’t much of an authority.”

Perhaps the problem, Carl, is that when you see appeals to “Tradition” you think people are appealing to “tradition.” There is a world of difference between the upper and lower-case “T.” The former refers to the Tradition of the Church handed down from the Apostolic and Patristic eras down to the present. The latter refers to “the way we’ve always done it.” The former is what marks a Church as Catholic (even though it be Reformed and Catholic), the latter is representative of any tradition, whether it be Anglican, Brethren or Pentecostal.

Anglicanism, evangelical or otherwise, has since the time of Hooker, at least, valued Tradition as a source of authority for the Church. The Puritans argued for a theology and ecclesiology based upon Scripture alone; the Anglicans rejected that approach noting that there is a difference between something that is not found in Scripture and something that is contrary to Scripture. The three-fold ministry is an essential part of what it means to be Anglican. Even if you or Sydney manage to show that lay-presidency is not “contrary to Scripture”, you cannot show to everyone’s satisfaction that this is the Apostolic intention. And so this is divisive. And at the very worst time in our history.

BabyBlue,

I think that it is fairly clear that this move by Sydney is considered an aberration by most of the orthodox, both in North America and worldwide. While revisionists might be making capital out of this, it is unfair to blame them for something that Sydney has done.

This is a serious issue and it can’t be brushed under the carpet so the appearance of orthodox unity can be maintained. We have a choice to make now: will we follow in the footsteps of TEC et al in doing whatever seems right in our own eyes (as churches, dioceses, Provinces) or will we we be a Communion with all of the conciliar overtones that go with this?

Presbyteral presidency at Communion is something which Scripture is silent about but which tradition has passed down to the whole Anglican world.  A province or Diocese breaching this tradition is not acceptable?  It’s seems to be being suggested that it is grounds for splitting GAFCON?

Meanwhile women in leadership is something which Scripture is not silent about - and yet both the Anglican Communion and GAFCON have agreed to work with differing views?
That sounds to be the inconsistency to me!

So can anyone help me with the contradiction? 

Sarah, by drawing a parallel with the blessing of same-gender sexual activity (#25), you evidently seek to pour oil on the fire of division.  Why?  Do you want GAFCON to split over this?  If yes, be honest.  If no, what do you want?

naab00,

I am not Sarah, and what is more, my parish will almost certainly be coming under the new Province (as we are now under the Southern Cone).

I don’t know Sarah’s heart with regard to this matter—I hope she is not trying to pour oil on the fore of contention, but she is correct, I believe, with regard to there being a parallel between Sydney’s attitude in this and that of TEC.

This is a problem. And, you’re right, so is W.O. But does our having to tolerate W.O. mean we have to tolerate every other travesty that comes along? What about when Sydney realizes that, in the New Testament, episkopos and presbyteros are the same thing… when they decide to get rid of the episcopate?

[42] farstrider wrote:

Perhaps the problem, Carl, is that when you see appeals to “Tradition” you think people are appealing to “tradition.”

No, I understand the difference.  If one thinks there is a ‘capital-t’ Tradition, then he would have to define for me its content and its provenance.  In my experience, this is never done.  Instead, ‘capital-t’ Tradition is a Witch’s Brew normally composed of any content that suits the immediate need of the Apologist.

The former refers to the Tradition of the Church handed down from the Apostolic and Patristic eras down to the present.

To say something is “handed down from the Apostolic and Patristic eras down to the present” is a nice phrase, but what does it really mean?  What is the nature of Tradition?  Is it properly considered theopneustos?  If not, why is it binding?  What is its source?  What teachings are included?  How was it handed down?  How was it preserved?  How is it identified?  These questions all refer back to the missing pieces in every argument from ‘capital-t’ Tradition - content and provenance.  One cannot appeal to ‘capital-t’ Tradition until those two issues are addressed.

Now, tradition (small-t) does carry weight, but it does not carry binding weight.  Yet that is what is being asserted over and over again.  It is claimed that Sydney has violated some defined <u>binding</u> authority by asserting support for Lay Presidency.  For example, [39] physician without health wrote:

This move is a major departure from Christian orthodoxy.

But what authority of Christian orthodoxy has been contravened?  That authority is not Scripture.  There is no defined ‘capital-t’ Tradition to violate.  This would leave ‘small-t’ tradition, but that is nothing more than an appeal to “We have always done it this way.”  Surely the basis for a practice must go deeper.  If there is justification for the tradition, then it must be available for examination.  One can’t simply appeal to past practice and leave it at that if he intends to bind the freedom of a brother.

From [45]

What about when Sydney realizes that, in the New Testament, episkopos and presbyteros are the same thing… when they decide to get rid of the episcopate?

I think this reveals the hidden issue in this debate.  There is an admission - a fearful admission - that the office of bishop is not found in Scripture.  There is uneasiness about the connection of Anglican tradition to divine authority.  There is an expressed fear that unless certain questions are prohibited, the whole organization is at risk.  And that is why this whole debate has taken on the following characterization:

Sydney: “Why is Lay presidency prohibited?”

Institution: “Shut up, you Deviationist! (THWACK!) Don’t ask that question!”

Traditions can be good things.  But they must be held lightly.  Otherwise, we might end up nullifying the Word of God to establish the traditions of men.

carl

[38] tjmcmahon

And where in Scripture does it say that the Anglo Catholic “answer” is invalid?

#include “std_reformed_diatribes”

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because <u>by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.</u> Hebrews 10:11-14

I do not need a priest to intercede for me.  I have a Priest to intercede for me.

carl

I think this is a useful discussion. I would like to throw in three more quick items.

Firstly, I’m not knowledgeable enough about Elizabethan “puritanism” to make firm statements on this matter, but it seems to me that if puritans think that church order could only be determined by Scripture command, then it is difficult to see how diaconal/lay presidency can be justified. At least one Sydney proponent (John Woodhouse) seems to be arguing that presbyteral presidency was justifiable in the 16th century on pragmatic grounds but not justifiable today on pragmatic grounds. If the case is not a clear word of Scripture authority, then it seems to me we are thrown into the arena where right reason, including respect for tradition, is to be employed. Let the debate begin, but let it happen on a worldwide basis and not just within Sydney diocese. Let the new Hooker step forward to answer today’s Cartwrights.

Secondly, several of us have drawn the analogy between lay presidency and women’s ordination. This raises the idea of headship, where Scripture does have something to say. Curiously, Sydney restricts presbyteral and episcopal ordination to men, presumably on biblical authority, but seems indifferent about headship at the Table. Now to be sure, they argue that male headship is also not necessary in today’s educated society for preaching. I think this issue will have to be considered and debated more fully within the FCA. It also raises a new issue: the nature of the diaconate. In Sydney, it appears that the role of deacon and curate have been merged, since only presbyters exercise headship in a parish. Again an important matter for discussion: what is the connection between ordination to the priesthood and the headship of a parish in a day when the English country parson and parish no longer are the norm.

Thirdly, and again I disclaim any great knowledge in this area, I think there is a “conservative” strain in Anglicanism, even Evangelical Anglicanism, which manifests itself in the respect for the Fathers (Jewell, Hooker and Andrewes) and for the Establishment (Cranmer and Parker). Most of the English puritans wanted to accommodate the Crown and Mitre until the obstinacy of the King and Laud undermined them. Someone has already pointed out that John Wesley struggled with this problem before finally ordaining missionary bishops for America (before one throws stones at Wesley, imagine what the American Episcopalians might have done had the Scots not come to our aid). In East Africa, the Revival was kept in house both by the conservatism of the revivalists and the openness of the traditionalists. Today a conservative Evangelical Anglican cannot ignore the reality and even the contribution of Anglo-Catholicism. When Jack Iker marches to the barricades with us, we are we to tell him to find another barricade?

The Global Anglican Future statement concludes: “We believe the Anglican Communion should and will be reformed around the biblical gospel…” This is a time of historic reformation of the church in the Anglican tradition as it faces the mission of Christ to the nations. The FCA offers a forum by which these important issues are raised, discussed and, one hopes, resolved in some sort of new Settlement. Whether this will in fact happen is in the hands of God. Discussions like the ones raised here are vital to that process. I suspect that the parallel discussions going on with the “Communion conservatives” will add to the mix, so let’s not be quick to hurl stones across that divide.

Carl,

In re: the overlap between episkopos and persbyter you write:

I think this reveals the hidden issue in this debate. There is an admission - a fearful admission - that the office of bishop is not found in Scripture.

You misunderstand. There is no fear in this “admission.” As I’ve said elsewhere, I came to Anglicanism from the Brethren and I am acutely aware of the arguments used to support so-called New-Testament ecclesiology.

If your arguments are sound, and that Sola Scriptura (in its most fundamentalist sense) should be the basis for all doctrine and practice in the Church, then you’ll end up having something like the Brethren. You can quibble over the details (they certainly have), but more or less, that’s what you’ll get.

Most Anglicans (and Lutherans, for that matter) do not hold to a fundamentalist version of Sola Scriptura ( a version which denigrates the Great Tradition). As such, they don’t believe that the Bible dropped out of heaven without relationship to the congregations who knew the Apostles and understood the meanings which we, separated from the Apostles both culturally and temporally, might not. When the last Apostle died the memories of their unwritten teachings were not suddenly erased from the minds of the Churches that they founded and lived with. If you want a sense of what Tradition is, ask yourself (at the very least) what things do all of the historical Churches hold in common. You can include some of the heretical Churches if you like, such as the Monophysites and the Nestorians. While there will always be some dispute between the different groupings, the commonalities are very much in evidence.

We’ve often asked why the liberals don’t leave and join the Unitarians if they are so dissatisfied with Anglicanism, instead of trying to re-make Anglicanism in the Unitarians’ image. Let’s turn the question around now. If Sydney is so keen on re-making the Anglican Church into the Brethren, why not join the Brethren instead?

With regard to the three-fold ministry, it appears in the writings of St Ignatius some time around 110 A.D. He doesn’t write to explain what the three-fold ministry is, or why it is important; he writes assuming its presence. That means that the division between the offices of bishop, presbyter and deacon were well established by that time (within twenty years after the death of the last apostle, at most). If the communal memory of the Church tells us that this (the particularity of the episcopal charism) was an apostolic creation for the sake of apostolic continuity, and if we see it at such an early date, why would we not accept this?

The fact that this is relatively undeveloped in the New Testament letters is neither here nor there; the letters in question are written to missionary churches. In one of the other threads one poster asked it the doctrine of homoousiosis is clearly taught in Scripture. The answer is, “no”, although we would all agree that said doctrine does the best justice to what Scripture says about Christ. The doctrine itself, though, had to develop over time. The same could be said (and has been said) with regard to the three-fold ministry, except that it is present in our earliest non-canonical writings.

And let’s remember that our canon has come to us through the Tradition of the Church. You’ll likely say that the Church “recognized rather than made” the Canon, but so what? It is still the Tradition of the Church which tells us what was recognized.

RE: “I do not understand Evangelical resistance however.”

Most members of the Anglican Communion—evangelical or otherwise—value highly the tradition of the Church regarding order, down through the centuries.

RE: “But it is an order predicated upon no clear binding authority.”

Well . . . not “clear” or “binding” to pro-lay-presidency, anti-clericalists, yes.  But to most members of the Anglican Communion it’s clear [enough] and binding [enough].

RE: “For ecclesiology to be other than adiaphora, it must be predicated upon some binding authority.”

Not at all.  Plenty of Christians hold certain beliefs to be “other than adiaphora” without ““some binding authority.”

RE: “Evangelicals must therefore answer the question: “What is that binding authority?”

No, we mustn’t.  See above.

RE: “Sarah, by drawing a parallel with the blessing of same-gender sexual activity (#25), you evidently seek to pour oil on the fire of division.”

No, I merely pointed out the intriguing and remarkable similarity in rhetoric by the progressive activists who support same sex blessings and the conservatives who wish to deny and obfuscate the stark differences between Sydney and the rest of the Anglican Communion.  In both cases, pointing out those stark differences and saying “oh, this will need to be resolved” is likened to “a “ruse,” a “drop in the pan,” a “trick,” a “slight of hand,” that is designed to “pour oil on the fire of division.”

Richly ironic.

It’s fine, naab00, that you deem lay presidency “adiaphora”—but the stark similarity between your rhetoric and accusations of those who do NOT believe that lay presidency is adiaphora and the rhetoric and accusations of progressive activists who do NOT believe that same sex blessings is adiaphora is . . . pathetically amusing.

RE: “Do you want GAFCON to split over this?”

Well—you’ve clearly decided that you don’t want GAFCON to enforce discipline over this matter, Naab00.  Which is quite interesting.

In the face of 1) the vast majority of Anglicans who do NOT deem the practice of lay presidency to be adiaphora and 2) the Jerusalem Declaration which purported to lay out the standards and boundaries of the FCA and to which all members agreed . . . you have decided that you don’t want those beliefs honored, nor the declaration enforced or taken seriously.

And so it begins.

Maybe the FCA—with folks like you leading the charge—could redefine the Jerusalem Declaration.  You know . . . maybe say that “there is no controlling authority” or “we have no ecclesial theology” or “there is no doctrine to enforce and therefore we cannot.”

We could call it the “Righter II” Trial—or “Righter Redux.”

Just root through the past 20 odd years of TEC rhetoric, and you can come up with more luscious little postmodern, sophistic quotes to serve all of your needs.

#49.  You have made an important point.  The New Testament doesn’t mandate the 3 Holy Orders. They are something that was developed by the early church.  The church developed them. The Protestant Reformation caused some churches to reject the 3 Holy Orders; while some churches kept them.

Some churches have considered them essential, some have not.

To this point in history, Anglicans have considered the three Holy Orders essential; along with the traditional “job description” of each.  However, we may be at a new point in history where some Anglicans choose to redefine those “job descriptions”; perhaps to allow Deacons to preside at the Eucharist.  Perhaps the Diocese of Sydney is just the first to do so. Perhaps it will be the last - perhaps not. Only time will tell.

Anglicanism is currently at a cross roads. The Anglican Communion is crumbling, possibly beyond repair. New alliances are being made. Along with these new alliances, there may be changes.  Perhaps the “job descriptions” of the 3 holy orders may be among them?

I think that economic realities may affect all churches causing changes in the way ministry is conducted and the sacraments are provided.  The economic realities that hinder “business as usual” at established parishes, will shake the very foundations of young Anglican congregations struggling to make mortgage payments on new buildings purchased or built.  Like the Great Depression, congregations may no longer be able to hire and pay professional clergy.  These realities might cause many provinces to rethink who shall be presiding at the Eucharist.

Carl,
Neither the Nicene Creed (or the Apostle’s Creed, or the Athanasian Creed), nor the Book of Common Prayer, nor “Onward Christian Soldiers” is mentioned in Scripture.  I would go so far as to say you could be a Christian without them.  But you could not be an Anglican. And the role of the priest (or presbyter) in the Eucharist predates any of them.

#52. As the aforementioned poster pointed out, the doctrine of homoousiosis is also not explicitly taught in Scripture. Does that mean we can entertain contrary developments with regard to how we understand Christ’s nature as long as the “other” believes that his position is Scripturally sound? I hope you will answer “no.”

What Sydney is doing is not development of ancient Christian (and most would say, “late apostolic”) practice; it is a jettisoning of that practice.

And, incidentally, why would we have to rethink the three-fold ministry if churches were unable to pay for a full-time minister? One can make tents and still be ordained to ministry.

RE: “Now, tradition (small-t) does carry weight, but it does not carry binding weight.”

Sure it does.  In some places.  That’s precisely what’s being argued.  We’d like for this to be binding, Carl, in the Anglican Communion—acknowledging of course that you wouldn’t.

RE: “Yet that is what is being asserted over and over again.”

It’s certainly being asserted that it ought to be “binding”.  But your whole notion of “binding” is ridiculous.  Nobody’s claiming a “binding authority”.  What is claimed is that members of the Anglican Communion shouldn’t practice lay presidency because members of the Anglican Communion value the tradition down through the centuries of the Church.  Of course . . . we could also claim that members of the Anglican Communion shouldn’t indulge in the practice of sacrificing goats on the altar or substituting koolaid and doughnuts for wine and unleavened bread.  But obviously, if you’re going to claim that “we can’t believe anything bindingly because, you know, we’re the Anglican Communion” then we all cave and say “you win, Carl.”

What is being “claimed” is that most members of the Anglican Communion—evangelical or otherwise—value and should value highly the tradition of the Church regarding order, down through the centuries.

That’s what’s being claimed. 

The Jerusalem Declaration claims that as well.

But as we are apparently learning . . . the Jerusalem Declaration isn’t a “binding authority” either.

Sweet.

#54. I am not necessarily saying we have to rethink the entire 3 fold ministry. However, I an saying that we may have to ordain more “local priests”, or possibly allow Diaconal presidency to provide the sacraments to small and middle sized churches, who if we continue to slip into harder economic times, may not be able to pay full-time professional clergy.  We can continue to ordain professional, seminary trained priests.  But do you really think most professional clergy will choose to serve small parishes who can’t pay them, rather than larger, wealthier parishes who can pay them a full-time salary?  I am simply saying that unless we want to close thousands of small parishes, which I don’t see as an acceptable alternative, “local priests” and other options may need to be used.

that the office of bishop is not found in Scripture.

?

7δει γαρ τον επισκοπον ανεγκλητον ειναι ως θεου οικονομον μη αυθαδη μη οργιλον μη παροινον μη πληκτην μη αισχροκερδη 

I take it you are translating episcopon to mean something else?

sorry, the above is, of course, Titus 1:7

One more quick point following on from #48, lest it seem that all the burden falls on Sydney. They raise the question of “extended communion,” or more widely the reservation of the sacrament. This also is an issue calling for further debate. I think many Evangelicals can accept the idea of extended communion in the sense that the administration of the consecrated elements is extended in space to shut-ins (after all, where do you draw the line – what about an overflow service using closed-circuit TV?) and extended even in time (how long do you have to wait before administering it?). However, when we come to practices like veneration of the blessed Sacrament and Corpus Christi processions, there is a problem for many Evangelical Anglicans (see Article XXV).

Again at the risk of being overly generalizing, I think one could argue that there have been two traditions of Eucharistic presence in Anglicanism: “spriritual presence” (Reformed) and “real presence” (Lutheran/Catholic). Cranmer began with the latter and ended at the former, and so has the Anglican tradition from his time until the Tractarians and down to the present among Evangelicals. The Tractarians revived the “real presence” doctrine, while most who remained in Anglicanism denied transubstantiation. The essential necessity of an ordained priest is concomitant with this view. I do not see how this historic divide can be immediately bridged except in this sense that we can have common practices with divergent rationales, possibly invoking the “weaker brethren” argument from Scripture (1 Cor 8:7ff.), which of course begs the question, “Which position is “weaker?”

During this time, I think Anglo-Catholics will need to present their arguments from Scripture as well as Tradition. I do not know whether at the end of the day, one position may become normative and the other excluded. But I don’t think we should rush to judgement.

The word Bishop is found in the Bible, without a doubt. However, in Titus 1:5-9, the study notes in my copy of The New American Bible (Roman Catholic) read: “presbyters and bishops (Titus 1:5-9)the two terms refer to the same personages.” When you read the scripture cited, it is obvious that the qualifications refer to the same office, not two offices.

In I Timothy 3:1-13, the qualifications of various ministers are listed.  You will note that there are only TWO orders of ministers listed - Bishop and Deacon.

Throughout the new testament, including Acts, the words presbyter and bishops are used interchangeably.  I certainly don’t doubt that the 3 holy orders are very ancient and date to the early undivided church.  But the idea of a supervisory bishop, as a seperate holy order from the presbyter, is a man-made developement by the church, not a scriptural requirement.

Apostolic authority, passed through ordination, is very important to the church.  But the Bible itself only says that such authority is passed on by the laying on of hands and prayers for candidate to receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. 

All the rules, and the ordinals, were developed by the church to serve its purpose at that time of history.

Anglicans up until this point in history have considered those 3 holy orders, with their traditional job descriptions, essential.  In the future, maybe Anglicans will continue to do so. Perhaps some Anglicans will not continue to consider this essential.

#58. The terms “episkopoi” and “presbyteroi” are used interchangeably throughout the N.T., even in the passage that you noted above. The broader passage (vs. 4-7) reads:

4τιτω γνησιω τεκνω κατα κοινην πιστιν χαρις και ειρηνη απο θεου πατρος και χριστου ιησου του σωτηρος ημων
  5τουτου χαριν απελειπον σε εν κρητη ινα τα λειποντα επιδιορθωση και καταστησης κατα πολιν πρεσβυτερους ως εγω σοι διεταξαμην
  6ει τις εστιν ανεγκλητος μιας γυναικος ανηρ τεκνα εχων πιστα μη εν κατηγορια ασωτιας η ανυποτακτα
  7δει γαρ τον επισκοπον ανεγκλητον ειναι ως θεου οικονομον μη αυθαδη μη οργιλον μη παροινον μη πληκτην μη αισχροκερδη

Notice that the πρεσβυτερους is the same as the επισκοπον. See Acts 20:17-28 for a similar “back and forth”.

It seems that as congregations grew and the apostles were passing on certain elders/overseers were singled out from amongst their fellow elders to take on a uniquely apostolic role. At that point presbyter and episkopos took on different connotations; the bishop was indeed, at this point, an “overseer.”

Choppily written, but have to run.

ohio anglican beat me to it (I had stepped away from the computer). However…

But the idea of a supervisory bishop, as a seperate holy order from the presbyter, is a man-made developement by the church, not a scriptural requirement.

Not all agree that this is only a “man-made development,”
though, do they? The Church has always taught that the Apostles instituted the three-fold ministry. If you believe that the Spirit guided the Apostles as Jesus said he would (even as he said he would continue to build his Church), then I think we need to allow for the Spirit’s continued guidance in the development of said “apostolic Church.”

[55] Sarah Hey wrote:

But your whole notion of “binding” is ridiculous. Nobody’s claiming a “binding authority”. 

 
Then upon what grounds are people accusing Sydney of violating Christian orthodoxy?  If there is no authority to bind the conscience on the matter, Sydney is free to do as it pleases.

What is claimed is that members of the Anglican Communion shouldn’t practice lay presidency because members of the Anglican Communion value the tradition down through the centuries of the Church.

And the request comes back “Justify your obedience to the tradition in question.  What makes that tradition right?”  It is not sufficient to simply say “That is the way it has always been done.”  But that is all the justification I ever hear.  Is Anglicanism really defined by traditions it cannot otherwise defend?

David Ould has been told “Thou canst not do this thing and still remain Anglican.”  Why?  Upon what authority is this declaration founded?  Tradition (small-t)?  Fair enough.  What is the justification for the tradition (small-t)?  To what does it trace?  It does not trace to Scripture, as even my opponents on this thread admit.  But it must trace somewhere to justify the response that Sydney has received.

carl

The funny thing is, your opponents on this thread think they have answered you. From a number of different angles, even.

“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter,” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

You’ll only acknowledge the value of an argument if it is explicitly found in the letter; we are saying there is also value in holding to those teachings passed on by mouth.

[64] farstrider

You’ll only acknowledge the value of an argument if it is explicitly found in the letter; we are saying there is also value in holding to those teachings passed on by mouth.

You assume that Paul refers to different content, instead of different transmission channels.  No such claim is justified by the text.  Whether spoken or written, the teaching is the same.  In addition, I will admit that I concede the binding nature of an argument only if it is found in the letter.  I am never free to reject Scripture.  Tradition does not so constrain me.  You may convince me that following a given tradition is wise.  You may collect together a majority and cast out those who disagree.  But you should at least have the ability to defend the tradition beyond ‘Because.’

Unless of course you claim what you have just claimed.  You have asserted that the Tradition which establishes your case is theopneustos.  If you are correct, then your case is made.  But if you wish to make such a claim, then you must show me an explicit extra-Scriptural statement of either the Lord Jesus or an Apostle to establish it.  And you must establish the authenticity of that statement.  For that is what Tradition (capital-t) claims to be - the unwritten teaching of Christ or His Apostles.  You cannot simply infer such a claim from the history and development of the church.

carl

So, to be clear, you’ll believe Tradition insofar as it tells you which books belong in the canon; but you won’t trust Tradition to tell you anything else. A bit of a double-standard, isn’t it?

Admittedly, Carl, I am writing from a more Catholic perspective (as though any such admission was necessary at this point), although I consider myself both Catholic and Evangelical. Others have written from a clearly Evangelical perspective. What we all have in common is, we are committed to a body beyond our own parish, diocese, nation; body that is conciliar rather than individualistic or autonomous in focus. That means that there are certain things we don’t decide on our own, confident though we all are that our own understanding is the superior one. That way lies anarchy.

This is not the beginning of an ad hominem, by the way, but I am curious: are you Anglican?

I believe that the unlimited terms of office for bishops is really what has brought TEC and the whole Anglican Communion into the current mess.

Imagine if the presdent of the US and the congress were appointed for life, given unfettered power, and had people genuflecting to them and kissing their ring.  If we think our country is in a mess now, just imagine what it would be like then!  Their egos would be far more huge that they are now.  They would know that they could do whatever they want and no one could stop them.

Wisely the founding father of our country made them accountable to running for reelection, and through the years, terms limits have been imposed.  For the sake of our country, thanks be to God.

The United Methodist Church, for example, elects bishops to serve for a fixed term. They are consecrated, not for life, but only that term of office. When that term is finished, they generally retire, or they go back to being a parish pastor.  District Sup’ts in the UMC, likewise, serve on six year term, then return to being a pastor. The UMC has all the same controversies that the Anglican Communion has, but isn’t in the same mess.

Why? Because the General Convention is more powerful than the house of bishops who are there for only a limited term.  The bishops must answer to the General Convention.  The laity of the UMC have this system of checks and balances to keep the bishops from leading the church astray.

Life-long bishops felt free in the Roman Catholic Church to cover-up sex abuse of children, too. It is just a dangerous thing to grant unrestricted, life-long power to any human being.  There is too much room for the sin of pride to take over. Once pride takes over, the Devil has his foot in the door.

If a new Anglican Province is formed with life-long bishops, who are not subject to term limits, it won’t take long for the same problems that have destroyed TEC and the Anglican Communion to destroy FCA, a new American Province, etc.  The Continuing Churches are an example, 30 years ago they left ECUSA thinking all would be well. Sadly, other than correcting the issue which guarantees ownership of buildings to the parish, all was set up like ECUSA.  The have problems from life-long bishops too - lazy bishops unconcerned about church growth, problems with poorly educated clergy, an “us four, no more” attitude which is driving them to extinction.  All of these problems stem from life-long episcopal appointments.

If we want a newly-formed province to remain faithful to scripture, faithful to tradition (and not implement things like lay presidency), then a new province needs to never make the mistake of electing and consecrating bishops for life.

Stephen Nolls+ @24 wrote:

“It is ironic that some of those demanding that the FCA Primates immediately slap down Sydney are the same folk who defend the the existing Instruments which, with all the time and money in the world, have failed to discipline wholesale deviations from faith of the Church”

Could Nolls+ clarify the “some” that he is addressing?  Does he mean the “some” for whom discipline is a critical thing.  Given that the GAFCON primates have spoken so strongly in regard to the failure of the instruments to enforce discipline (in, for example the case of TEC), and discipline seems to be such a priority, for example in their notion of covenant, why would it seem out of order to ask them,  what they intend to do about Sydney?  By contrast, the instruments of communion of the AC have not showcased enforcement of discipline as a priority.  Does GAFCON’s leadership consider Sydney’s concerns not scriptural concerns, and, therefore adiaphora, but, TEC’s scriptural and therfore not?  Does GAFCON leadership take seriously its Jerusalem Declaration, and the 39 articles?  If not, why not?

RE: “Then upon what grounds are people accusing Sydney of violating Christian orthodoxy?  If there is no authority to bind the conscience on the matter, Sydney is free to do as it pleases.”

Of course not.

Where on earth did you get the idea that if there is no “binding authority” somebody can “do what it pleases.”  You sound more and more like TEC.

RE: “Is Anglicanism really defined by traditions it cannot otherwise defend?”

Sure—as with all denominations. 

Organizations have always had rules for membership, based on traditions.  And as I said above, which you ignored, most members of the Anglican Communion—evangelical or otherwise—value highly the tradition of the Church regarding order, down through the centuries.

I understand, Carl, that you don’t value the tradition of the Church regarding order and that’s all well and good, I suppose.

But most—the vast vast vast majority—of the Anglican Communion does.  And the Jerusalem Declaration purported to do the same.

RE: “But you should at least have the ability to defend the tradition beyond ‘Because.’”

Why?

We don’t share the same foundational worldview, Carl, that would allow us or you to defend or disallow “the tradition.” You don’t value the tradition of the church.  You value only the “infallible word of God” as your “binding authority.”  And if something isn’t in a book labelled “the infallible word of God” then you don’t value it.

That’s fine, again.  But Anglicans don’t only value “the infallible word of God.”  We have other sources that we use to set institutional standards.

We’ve chosen—though you disapprove—to value the tradition of the Church. 

So between the two foundational worldviews of Carl [my binding authority is only the infallible word of God] and most of the rest of the world’s Anglicans [we value the tradition of the Church] there can be no “defending the tradition” or convincing of either Carl or most of the rest of the world’s Anglicans. 

Your and my foundational worldviews preclude that.

I guess I’m looking at all of this, trying to understand what’s going on through Anglican eyes, but reading everything through Presbyterian eyes instead.  The Presbyterian in me objects to lay presidency for four reasons:

1)  Presbyterians also, had a crisis where the mission demands of the frontier prompted a watering-down of our distinctives, a solution which later backfired in the form of schism. 
http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/the_schism_of_1837.htm

2)  Even if all the objectors could be categorized as Anglo-Catholic, so what?  Evangelical Anglicans, and especially conservative Evangelical Anglicans, aren’t going to survive without “those” Anglo-Catholics.  I really think it would be easier to submit to them on those matters than to create dilemmas out of “freedoms.” 

And no, I’m not using the abused “weaker brother” argument.  Anyone who is a friend or a spouse eventually comes to the sober realization that every bit of toleration in the relationship they extend has usually already been met in kind.  No one is the weaker brother 100% of the time, to a stronger brother who is strong 100% of the time;

3)  If Sidney Anglicans are Evangelical-flavored, then they define the Church by the Three Marks.  This criterion is useful for determining what is and what is not ‘Church,’ but it is also a double-edge sword, for the subscriber implicitly affirms that he or she may be put under discipline, and that if that happened, they would submit to it. 

4)  Whether or not the Sidney Anglicans are to be threatened with discipline remains to be seen.  But if they were threatened, and decided to (rather than submitting) attempt to make a case to the emerging Communion, what would they say?  How would this be fundamentally different than the arguments that have “glued” the Communion to apostasy?  I’m not saying Sidney Anglicans are apostate, just asking how they would argue their case differently than collaborationists.

Carl,

I’m not aware of a Baptist denomination that affirms chapters 1-20 and 28 of the Westminister Confession of Faith, that holds to Apostolic Succession.  In fact, I’m not aware of any Baptist denominations that affirm chapters 1-20 of the WCF, and hold to Apostolic Succession. 

Actually, I’m not aware of any denominations like that, or any who are even close to that.  Do you?

60 and 61-
Please do note that my comment #57 was in answer to a quite specific charge by another poster, which was:
“that the office of bishop is not found in Scripture.”
It most certainly is found, and described. I was not arguing that there was any sharp distinction between bishop and presbyter in Scripture.

Do you want GAFCON to split over this?

NaabOO, this is rich. Do *you* want GAFCON to split over this? From your posts it sounds like you want what TEC wants - a church where theology and the Tradition of the church are irrelevant and everybody gets to do what they feel like. To urge forward a radical innovation and then complain that others want to split because you’re doing so ... appears disengenuous. And so very like TEC.

Frankly, I wouldn’t put anything past TEC, and their henchman. They always seem to start playing their divide to conquer games when they realize they aren’t getting their way. Hold fast and stay united, people. )

[73] Moot

But a Baptist who holds to the 1689 LBCF (which is almost identical to the WCF) will be able to tell you why he rejects Apostolic Succession.  What distresses me about this argument is the complete lack of rationale presented by Evangelicals for their case.  All I hear is “These are our rules.  Other rules may be found over there,  but to stay here you must give assent to these rules.”

So be it.  If that’s the extent of the apologetic offered, I cannot make them produce more.  But it does not begin to respond to the arguments offered by Sydney.  It imperiously dismisses them with “Thou art no longer Anglican. Begone!”  This is not an apologetic designed to convince anyone but the already-convinced.

carl

tjmcmahon (#74),

Sorry about that. I see, now.

No, carl.

You have been given a number of reasons why Anglicans generally use both Scripture and Tradition as their benchmarks for what is good and true. I am sure we would all freely grant you that someone coming from a fundamentalist context will not use both as sources—but Anglicanism has never really been “fundamentalist” in the modern sense of the word.

I think Sarah is probably right in saying that the problem lies in differences in foundational worldview…

So be it. We’re off to Church. God Bless, All.

RE: “But it does not begin to respond to the arguments offered by Sydney.”

Their “arguments” are that they will ignore the tradition of the Church.

That’s cool—but that’s not an “argument.”

1 Corinthians 3

1Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men?
5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

10By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

16Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? 17If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

18Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”[a]; 20and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” 21So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas[c] or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

If I understand the situation, lay presidency is currently not allowed in Sydney, right?  The synod said they want it, but ++Jensen says it won’t be implemented, correct?  Do I have a misunderstanding of their polity?

Isn’t it just possible that the best of all possible things could come from this:  the people of Sydney say they want lay presidency, but obviously sacrifice it for unity with Anglicans world wide?  Is this so far fetched?

I guess I fundamentally don’t understand:  what do the people of Sydney believe they lose by not having lay presidency?  I understand (but disagree with) their arguments, but I just don’t understand the urgency.  Is anything pragmatic driving this beyond a sense of a need to claim “rights?”.

I found it fascinating how Chris Sugden does a damage limitation over the Sydney decision to allow women deacons to be able to celebrate Holy communion. If Sydney is expelled from GAFCON, the whole structure collapses.However he carefully omits to mention that a GAFCON signatory Church, is the Church of England in South Africa, which has been operating lay celebration  for at least sixty years  ! 
I find it hard to believe that the GAFCON movement which claims to be biblical, can tolerate two contradictory interpretations of the Christian faith, and yet at the same time call this orthodoxy.  What Canon Sugden represents as being Biblical and orthodox is a confused of compteting thologies that cannot even come to an agreement or consensus as to what the Word of God teaches as regards what constitutes heterosexual marraige, divorce and adultery, let alone the position of women in ordained minsitry or who might celebrate the sacraments - yet alonw what sacraments are.
Far form being based on a solid rock, the whole GAFCON enterprize seems based on the shifting sand of human opinion.

Dialogue…discuss…debate…be patient…take time…All of these concepts are great and wonderful when discussing parliamentary procedure on the floor of the House of Reps. or the Senate.  But, Christianity is not a Democracy.  It never has been.  It never will be.  We have a King.  He is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords.  We don’t vote for Him; and we can’t overturn His laws with even a 2/3rds majority of both orders voting on paper ballots. 

LONG LIVE THE KING!

But a Baptist who holds to the 1689 LBCF (which is almost identical to the WCF) will be able to tell you why he rejects Apostolic Succession.

I don’t really care what Baptists think about Apostolic Succession.  In fact, at the end of the day, I don’t really care about what Anglo-Catholics think about it.  What is interesting, that is, if you read my post carefully, is why you care about it.  You mentioned before your concern over churches having “authority.”

The whole point being, “why does Carl care so much about Anglicans conforming to his vision of Christianity, when that vision exists, well, nowhere?”

All I hear is “These are our rules.  Other rules may be found over there, but to stay here you must give assent to these rules.”

So be it.  If that’s the extent of the apologetic offered, I cannot make them produce more.  But it does not begin to respond to the arguments offered by Sydney.  It imperiously dismisses them with “Thou art no longer Anglican. Begone!” This is not an apologetic designed to convince anyone but the already-convinced.

Actually, I offered some substantial reasons why someone who is unpursuaded about many aspects of Anglican ecclesialogy could submit to distinctives that were Less Than Evangelical.  In fact, I care little over the episopas / presbyter debate, or the question of how many offices exist;  Yet, I could submit (happily) to my Anglo-Catholic brethren on this issue. 

Every denomination requires this kind of submission, by the way - even the ones that crow Sola Scriptura! the loudest, won’t buckle to a reasonable dissent also based on reasonable Scriptural arguments.

Once again, Martin Reynolds scuttles over here to tell us all astounding news—unheard of news—the same news that we already knew about back on October 26, when he told us the same astounding, never-before-heard news then, too! that there is actually a church that was at Gafcon that believes in lay presidency [and all sorts of other wackadoo things too]:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/17283/#294182

And why . . . how shocking—it is the same astounding news that we learned from Robert Ian Williams back in June:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3958/#71920

For months and months we have kept on learning the same shocking news, which we none of us knew before we were told now a dozen times by the same old foaming-at-the-mouth revisionists as always.

Of course . . . anybody can sign on to the Jerusalem Declaration.  Even Martin Reynolds.

The difference between the progressive Anglican activists and CESA signing on to the Jerusalem Declaration is, of course, that though CESA may not be Anglican—they at least believe the Christian gospel.

Always a plus that.

[85] Moot

I entered this thread for two reasons.

1.  To draw a big, bright, red line between the demands of Scripture, and the demands of tradition.  Many are they who rushed to condemn Sydney - some for an alleged breech of Christian orthodoxy and some for an alleged breech of Anglican orthodoxy.  Those two accusations are not equivalent.  Scripture binds the conscience of man.  Tradition does not.  It must be clearly stated that Sydney has not violated a Scriptural imperative; it has not violated Christian orthodoxy.  Its offense (if offense it may truly be called) is against the traditions of men.  Those traditions may be worthy of obedience, but they are never by nature beyond question. 

2.  To see if I could get beyond the Great Harumph that constituted the sum total of Evangelical responses to David Ould’s thread.  There is no violation of Scripture in play.  So Sydney at best has violated a tradition.  I allow for the possibility that Sydney is wrong.  But if Sydney has violated only a tradition, and traditions by nature can be questioned, then Sydney should be opposed on the merits of the case supporting the tradition.  This is what I have asked for repeatedly, and this is what I have not received.  Why does Sydney’s desire for Lay Presidency represent so deep a breech of Anglican tradition that it should be disciplined unless it recants?  Why is this tradition valid in the first place?  Those questions may have good answers, but it would be nice if Sydney’s opponents actually formulated a few.

I admit that you presented a case against Sydney’s position.  But I think it is fair to characterize your arguments as practical in nature.  Those arguments are valid and probative, and constitute sound rationale for avoiding any change.  But they do not go to the heart of the main charge against Sydney - that it has egregiously offended Anglican order.  It is this question I hoped to see examined.  You are also correct that every denomination requires submission.  But I do not normally see those requirements so irrationally defended.  It is not the rules to which I object.  It is the imperious dismissal of anyone who dares to respectfully question them.  And especially so when the rules are founded only upon tradition.

I am presenting no vision at all of Anglican Order unless inviolate tradition be at the center of it. I am not arguing for or against Lay Presidency, although by nature I sympathize with Sydney.  I admit that in the absence of any compelling argument to the contrary I consider Sydney’s desire an aspect of Christian freedom.  I am instead arguing for the demotion of tradition from its status as inviolate authority.  I am arguing for the right of any man to question a tradition respectfully and not be shot in the head for it.  No tradition is beyond reform no matter how closely it might be held.  Sydney is within its rights to question this tradition. It should be treated with respect in response.

carl

I admit that you presented a case against Sydney’s position.  But I think it is fair to characterize your arguments as practical in nature.

Heh.  They’re about as “practical” as 1 Cor 12 and Romans 14;  the texts that I based my argument upon.  They’re also as practical as Presbyterian church government, which emphasizes such “practical” things as the Parity of Elders and Mutual Submission.  Really Carl, the elders at my last parish would be amused that you believe their primary and tertiary standards to be so “practical.” 

  Those arguments are valid and probative, and constitute sound rationale for avoiding any change.  But they do not go to the heart of the main charge against Sydney - that it has egregiously offended Anglican order.

They have egregiously offended Anglican order, Carl.  If I started attending a Baptist parish (with the intent to join), and they granted my request to not be re-baptized as an adult on the basis of my scriptural argument, then they would be egregiously offending their Baptist traditions.  You seem to entertain notions that Evangelicals (by definition) do not have their own traditions, and that Anglicans should ditch whatever is too Catholic for your sensibilities. 

It is not the rules to which I object.  It is the imperious dismissal of anyone who dares to respectfully question them.  And especially so when the rules are founded only upon tradition.

Actually, I think they’ve made a good case, and I read everything through Protestant eyes;  eyes not impressed with, “Well, my daddy was in that rut and his daddy before that, and before that, his daddy’s daddy’s daddy as far back as we can remember.  So dad-gum it, that’s the rut I’m agonna go in too,” arguments. 

In short, my objections are Presbyterian.  We were (strongly) discouraged from baptizing our own kids in the kitchen sink, and from ruling elders initiating Communion, because we understood the Twelve of Jesus as twelve officers.  If that’s a Catholic vestige, then it’s one that has been kept with Scriptural warrant.

I am presenting no vision at all of Anglican Order unless inviolate tradition be at the center of it.

In other words, “I will only accept those arguments that I deem acceptable.”  ..Which is precisely what revisionists have been saying for 30 or so years. 

Tsk.  What a poor excuse for Protestantism.

This is a very interesting debate, but I have to admit to reading all of the above with a great deal of sadness. I would like to add the following thoughts and questions.
1/ Do Anglo Catholics understand that a very significant portion of Gafcon members are not anglo catholics (not just Sydney)? To take this point further; they do not believe in capital T tradition? Do not believe in the transubstantiation and so on and so on? Because if being anglo catholic is a prerequisite of being a member of Gafcon, then Gafcon has failed…. completely and Immediately.

2/ What makes a Christian? Is it someone who believes in Gods magnificent gracious act in sending his only begotten Son to die alone on a cross for mankinds sin and whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life. That part of this belief includes being born again, recieving the Holy Spirit and responding with a life of repentance and obedience? I am sure no one will disagree with this, of course this statement can be increased and further explained, but at its most basic is this not the Christian faith?
3/ If point 2 is correct, then evangelical christians must surely be true christians just as anglo catholics are? I think we all agree TEC acts clearly demonstrate a complete lack of faith and trust in the Lord Jesus as the only way to the Father, hence they cannot be Christian. This is significantly different to Sydneys actions as Bishop Iker has pointed out.
4/ Would any Anglo Catholics in this discussion venture to state that Sydney Anglicans are not Christian? For my point, this involves a yes or no answer not endless statements about what the two groups agree or disagree on that skirt around the question without answering it directly. Because if they are indeed Christians and part of the body of Christ, why cant fellow christian brothers and sisters from the anglo catholic tradition accept them and their differences (at least, this is the clear impression I have from reading the above)?
5/ Why must Gafcon (which IS a diverse group) only accept the anglo catholic view if all of Gafcon are Christians and all of the members of Gafon who attended Jerusalem understood that some are from the Anglo Catholic tradition and some are from Evangelical views and so on and that there are differences?
6/ Wasnt Gafcon formed to ACT as a Christian body (of some diversity) to counter anti christian and non christian groups within the Anglican communion who were acting against Christians and in some cases persecuting the only Christians in their midst? If so, why this endless debate about Sydney’s Synod recent statements? Are the anglo catholics the only legitimate voice within Gafcon? Are anglo catholics the only ‘real christians’ within Gafcon? Should all non anglo catholics within Gafcon submit to anglo catholics views?
7/ Given all of my points above, doesnt this make a lot of this debate to be a distraction from the real task of uniting anglican christians together in order to combat satans work inside the anglican communion? Arent there enough denominations out there that it would be extremely sad if Christian Anglicans cant even work together in love and harmony without one christian group accusing the other chrisitan group of being wrong and breaking up Gafcon? I realise that some would argue that Sydney’s actions are not acting in harmony with some of the Gafcons members, but surely they are acting sincerely and in good faith as Godly Christian men and women? (I note that there has been no statements from Sydney or other evangelical Gafcon members against anglo catholics, even though there are theological differences, and no statements from evengelicals accusing anglo catholics of breaking Gafcon when they act in a manner differently to evangelical views.) I understand that they have been looking at this issue for decades and so it cant be argued that it is some new development that goes against Gafcon, although there should be some sympathy for people who disagree.

I would like to reiterate that all Gafcon members including those from TEC (or formerly of TEC)joined together as Christian brothers and sisters knowing that they each had differences, but that these differences did not stop eachother from being part of the body of christ. That a significant portion of these were from anglo catholic background, a significant portion were from evangelical background and so on. For the number crunchers, personally I dont care who is the majority and who isnt, I think there are significant numbers of each and it isnt important except to say that both make significant numbers and contributions to Gafcon.

Surely as Christian brothers and sisters we can get on with the work of Gafcon in love and mutual respect and accept eachothers diversity and that we not put whatever our version of what ‘real anglicanism’ is ahead of the real work that we carry out for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Surely as Christian brothers and sisters we can get on with the work of Gafcon in love and mutual respect and accept eachothers diversity and that we not put whatever our version of what ‘real anglicanism’ is ahead of the real work that we carry out for our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Because wouldnt that be just placing the Anglican church as more important that Christ’s church who will all be in heaven together?

OHOWY-
First, lets keep in mind that the vast majority of Gafcon, including the vast majority of its Evangelicals, are in accord that lay presidency is unacceptable.  In addition, Lambeth 98 (resolution 3:22?, not sure of the number, was looking at it the other day) specifically addresses lay presidency as outside of Anglican practice.  If Lambeth 1.10 is the “mind of the Communion”, so is the other.
Anglo Catholics are quite well aware that Gafcon is not an Anglo Catholic movement. Anglo Catholics are, at this point, a very small minority of the Communion- having been virtually eradicated from TEC, and on the verge of being thrown out of the CoE. Gafcon accepts considerable diversity.  However, it is the very fact that there are limits to diversity that caused Gafcon to come into existance. 
Anglo Catholics can tolerate many things.  A couple of things that they cannot tolerate are women bishops and lay presidency.  No matter how close Anglo Catholics are with the rest of Gafcon, a woman bishop or priest will not be licensed or ordained by an Anglo Catholic diocese. Also true of lay presiders. No lay presider will be allowed to perform those functions in Quincy. The degree of communion that can be maintained is very limited in a circumstance where the definition of Holy Communion and Holy Orders is so much different- and you cannot exchange clergy- or the people doing the job of clergy.
  For the time being, bishops in Gafcon are consent to live and let live over the WO issue.  Keep in mind that Anglo Catholics have been dealing with it for the last 30 odd years.  But, lay presidency is every bit as repugnant to us as communion of the un-baptized.  If you want us to respect you, respect us.  Lay presidency is out of bounds.  What is the point for us to be in Communion with a diocese if we cannot receive communion while there without violating, literally, things we hold sacred?

[89] Moot

In other words, “I will only accept those arguments that I deem acceptable.”

I don’t know anyone who accepts arguments they consider unacceptable. 

Continuing with [88]:

They’re about as “practical” as 1 Cor 12 and Romans 14; the texts that I based my argument upon.

You listed four arguments in [72]:

1.  Watered-down distinctives causing schism.

2.  Evangelicals and Anglo-catholics need each other to survive.

3.  Necessity of submission to discipline.

4. Implications of refusing to submit to discipline.

Exactly zero of these four points address the validity of the tradition in question.  If you think my word choice of ‘practical’ is non-descriptive, then I am certainly open to alternate suggestions.

They have egregiously offended Anglican order.

No, they haven’t.  They haven’t in fact done anything.  They have simply stated a position.  But they are being treated like they have already sold West Point to the British Army.  In any case, you ask the wrong question.  The correct question to ask is ‘Why should lay presidency be considered a violation of Anglican order?”

Actually, I think they’ve made a good case

The Anglo-catholics have made a predictably catholic response founded upon catholic assumptions.  But if the Evangelicals have made their case, I haven’t seen it.  Perhaps I am dense as stone.  Could you show it to me?

We were (strongly) discouraged from baptizing our own kids in the kitchen sink, and from ruling elders initiating Communion, because we understood the Twelve of Jesus as twelve officers.

Not surprising since the sacraments in question are sacraments of the church.  They aren’t private things at all.  When did I ever state my disagreement with this?  And what has this to do with lay presidency?

If people would engage Sydney’s arguments, perhaps a middle ground could be reached.  I doubt this because I think the real issue is a perceived threat to all of Anglican Order.  I also suspect that is why arguments against Sydney are not forthcoming. It wouldn’t be politic to say “If we allow Sydney to pull at this thread, then the whole garment might come apart.”  But I am merely speculating on this.

carl

tjmcmahon, thankyou for you response. I appreciate your comments. Whilst it is only Sydney going down this path, I would think that it is to a degree based on evangelical beliefs that communion does not involve the transubstantiation (I am not trying to get a general catholic / evangelical debate going here) and so based on this, it isnt even take that belief a step further, it is more following the same doctrinal path. My point here is, if anglo catholics for the sake of unity within Gafcon, can accept this no transubstantiation doctrine from evangelicals, then surely it really makes no difference by whom it is given. I guess for me the bottom line is what is a Christian and why cant people who accept eachother as christians accept differences? Assuming that you accept Sydney Anglicans as Christians (that is not supposed to sound sarcastic) then why couldnt you accept them within your denomination or Gafcon etc? Im not putting forward complicated and deep theological discussion here, but merely stating what I believe to be basic truths of our faith and questioning why that isnt enough or acceptable? We are all going to be in heaven together, and are through, Jesus’ gracious actions, acceptable to God. When that great day comes, is God going to be checking (so to speak)on who has had communion one way or another or on the basis of who is an Anglican, a Catholic or a baptist etc, or is the basis going to be on who has believed and repented etc?

Obviously we evangelicals will disagree with much anglo catholic doctrine on many levels and vice versa, but I dont believe if one has believed and repented that these differences should be the burning issues of the day.  Of course we can (hopefully on both sides) graciously disagree and debate etc, but we live in momentous days for the Anglican communion and surely as we are all Christians we can stand united in Gafcon. Especially if you are prepared to tolerate evangelicals belief on transubsantiation for the sake of the unity of Gafcon.

I would think, that unless Sydney’s Synod decision is seen by anglo catholics as something that is totally incompatible with the Christian faith as a whole (please do say if you think it is incompatible)and therefore Sydney anglicans are not Christians, but are damned if they follow this policy, then is it really important in light of satans work within much of the anglican church and the need for Gafcon to combat this?

Exactly zero of these four points address the validity of the tradition in question.

Hmm, that’s odd.  I’ve purported to be an Evangelical who doesn’t care, at the end of the day, about the tradition per se; and yet here I am, not defending the tradition on its own merits and arguing like an Evangelical. 

It would seem that I’ve disqualified myself from defending the tradition on its own merits on the basis of my being Evangelical, pointing to more qualified (i.e., Anglo-Catholic) Christians who can defend the tradition more to your liking.  Do you object to my honesty, integrity, or consistency? 

If you think my word choice of ‘practical’ is non-descriptive, then I am certainly open to alternate suggestions.

Very well then:  “Biblical”

The Anglo-catholics have made a predictably catholic response founded upon catholic assumptions.

..buttressed with Scripture;  And frankly, not with complete ineptitude, in spite of their “catholic assumptions,” which are doomed to be thrown out by all non-Anglican Anglican experts on Anglicanism (who are by no means biased and do not follow their own set of traditions, themselves), as it does not fit their evangelical assumptions. 

Could you show it to me?

Actually, I am already doing something like this for another very worthy individual (This week, we’re tackling Green Eggs and Ham).  Perhaps you could just read them for yourself?

OHOWY (#94),

I guess for me the bottom line is what is a Christian and why cant people who accept eachother as christians accept differences

Actually, that’s not the problem, nor is it ‘a’ problem.  Protestants, Continuers, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox etc can accept one another as Christians;  and yet, they aren’t in the same denomination.  No, we don’t need to be in the same denomination to affirm one another as authentically Christian. 

What we do need to be in the same denomination (communion, what have you) is self-restraint.  Otherwise, we’re no better than a democracy founded by three wolves and a sheep.

[95] Moot

Have a nice read.  I hope I don’t spoil the plot by telling you that Sam eats the eggs & ham in the end.

carl

Carl,

No worries.  It seems that my 2-1/2 year old cannot read your “spoiler.”

OHOWY- Moot beat me to it in 96. I would say that there are a few self proclaimed Anglicans who are not Christians.  And there are many real Christians (or perhaps “mere Christians” to use CS Lewis’ phrase) who are not Anglicans.  The fact that there are Evangelicals in Anglican churches does not make everyone who proclaims himself an Evangelical an Anglican. I think, likewise, that even among Anglo Catholics, some have so forgotten the “Anglo” that you could argue that they are not really practicing Anglicans either.  Those among us who accept Vatican I on infallibility of the Pope in matters of doctrine (for instance) are probably in the wrong denomination- since if you accept that premise, you should be in communion with him, since he says so.
  For myself, I would hold that the key doctrine is not Transubstantiation as such (although this would indeed be the doctrine I follow) but Real Presence.  I can understand that some would question whether the metaphysics of transubstantiation might be incorrect (although development of the doctrine did not end with Aquinas), but if they understand the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, I think we hold sufficient common understanding that I would not feel uncomfortable receiving Communion in their church.  And Real Presence is, to my understanding, the doctrine of the majority of Anglicans.  It has a sacred element, it is not just a memorial.
  In the end, I will do what I am supposed to do, and follow the lead of the few Catholic bishops left in the Communion on the matter of who is in communion with who on at an international level.  However, I will never, personally, receive Communion consecrated by a lay person.

I doubt this because I think the real issue is a perceived threat to all of Anglican Order.

I think for most of us there are two things we’re reacting to - lay presidency itself, something the Presbyterians I was raised with and the Baptists who surround me would never tolerate despite their own anti-clericalism - and they don’t consider themselves a part of the church catholic. Then there is the very disappointing realization that here is another nominally Anglican church going off doing its own new thing without any regard to the rest of the communion although it has proclaimed itself orthodox in belief - and the “perceived threat” there is that holding onto Anglican orthodoxy in the face of post-modernist mishmash now seems more difficult, less likely to succeed - is orthodoxy itself going to event its own “new thing” in every root and branch? Are we going to have a mere Anglican Association, sort of like the local ministerial association?

TJ writes: And Real Presence is, to my understanding, the doctrine of the majority of Anglicans.  It has a sacred element, it is not just a memorial.

When I came into the church, I was taught that this is an Anglican essential. I still believe it to be so.

[100] oscewicee

I think for most of us there are two things we’re reacting to - lay presidency itself, something the Presbyterians I was raised with and the Baptists who surround me would never tolerate despite their own anti-clericalism

If the case against lay presidency is so obvious, then why have Evangelicals been so reluctant to articulate that case beyond assertions like ‘it would never be tolerated?’  What is the Evangelical case against it?  What does a presbyter contribute to Holy Communion that is essential?  Upon what authority is this argument founded? 

Then there is the very disappointing realization that here is another nominally Anglican church going off doing its own new thing without any regard to the rest of the communion although it has proclaimed itself orthodox in belief

Sydney has in fact done nothing but state a position.  It amazes me that questioning a tradition with no discernible Scriptural warrant should elicit such an angry response.  Or perhaps it shouldn’t.  That Luther guy .. didn’t he do something similar?  At Wittenberg?

carl

Carl, I can’t state the case better than it’s already been stated - multiple times - on this and other threads. And since I am Anglo-Catholic my thinking is automatically discounted from your question.

As for being only a stated position, it appears from what David has said that Sydney has every intention of following its stated position, that they have in fact created for themselves an urgent need to do so.

To clarify, I at least am not angry, and I apologize if I have sounded that way. Disappointed and deeply concerned would be more accurate.

oscewicee (#102)

And since I am Anglo-Catholic my thinking is automatically discounted from your question.

Don’t feel bad.  After all, I’m basically a conservative Presbyterian in Anglican clothing, and he even discounts my thinking!  ..Usually when I say something positive about tradition, or more ancient pockets of Christendom. 

I was really hoping that Reformed types like me would see the similarities between now and 30 years ago;  but I guess when really important liberties are on the line (e.g., conflation of church offices, chewing tobacco at the supper table, obnoxious rap music at a funeral, etc), I am apparently obliged to defend it.

Am I getting this right?

What Sydney appears to intend is to have layfolks preside at the Lord’s Supper service. 

From what I see there are basically two reasons for them not to proceed:
1) It isn’t how its done in the Anglican Communion.
2) It isn’t proveable from scripture that public administration by laymen is consistent with the significance of the feast.

To the first point, Sydney offers that deaconate administration is a ‘fact on the ground’ in other proviences (but nothing about laymen doing so).

To the second, they claim there is no biblical injunction against it either.

Now, to my mind the first point stands well enough on its own merits.  One portion of the Communion can not on its own overturn the order of the Church as a whole and claim to remain part of that Communion.

On the second point, how can one argue against the tradition of the whole Church from silence?  My goodness, even the most congregational, most it is a memorial only, most priesthood of the believer baptists wouldn’t support the public celebration of the Lords Supper by an unordained person.

Granted, this is not as ‘plainly counter to scripture’ as certain actions by other (former) parts of the Church, it is still not proven from scripture and counter to tradition. 

Would it not be more inkeeping with Tradition and Text to ordain more Priests? Are there not worthy men willing to take the responsibility and serve as bi-vocational shepherds of the flock of God?

but I guess when really important liberties are on the line (e.g., conflation of church offices, chewing tobacco at the supper table, obnoxious rap music at a funeral, etc), I am apparently obliged to defend it.

Well, you do such a lovely job of it, Moot.

Carl. I’ll take on more crack at it and try to present a point of view that is generally Evangelical.

Sarah has already pointed out that the problems you seem to have in understanding what the evangelicals here are foundational. I’d like to begin by looking at those foundations—which I would have done earlier if you had answered my question as to whether you were Anglican or not. Now that I know you’re not…

Your first departure is that you assume a universal evangelical view in re: Tradition. This simply isn’t true. Many modern evangelicals hold to the view you seem to be espousing (that Tradition is of no consequence), but this is an ahistorical take on “Sola Scriptura”—the Reformers themselves would not recognize the belief you are promoting as their own.

Consequently, you assume that an Anglican who is “genuinely” evangelical will also believe that Scripture is the only valid authority in the Church. If you have been listening, you’ll have noticed that this isn’t the case. If you want to understand why, read Hooker or Andrewes, or even Cranmer. If you don’t like any of the above, try Luther. As for me, I’ll mention two reasons why an evangelical might value Traditon.

Firstly, Tradition is the communal memory of the Church. There are a great many doctrinal debates (including between Baptists and the historical Churches) that are mostly argued from silence. Each side believes that its beliefs are most in accord with the implicit teachings of Scripture, but neither side has any explicit statement to use to deliver the knock-out punch (so to speak). An evangelical will certainly want his/her belief to be in accord with Scripture, but given a “draw”, Tradition will tip the balance for him/her. Why? Because we suspect Ignatius or Irenaeus, close as they were to the Apostles, actually knew what their mentors meant when they were writing the Scriptures, because they knew them (or someone who knew them). Their practice was Apostolic practice.

Secondly, Tradition has always been engaged with Scripture. It is the interpretive history of the Church, informed by the aforementioned communal memory. For most Anglican evangelicals, the interpretations of the Fathers, the martyrs and the heroes of faith down through the centuries are of equal or greater value than the interpretation of some guy munching potato chips in front of his computer in the twenty first century. Tradition provides us (more or less) with the “Vincentian” interpretation that reaches across space and time, vs. an individual’s interpretation that is very much in danger of being thoroughly enculturated and anachronistic.

Finally, from a different trajectory altogether, I’d like to suggest that in all probability you are shamelessly applying to a Church that is not you own a double-standard that you would never apply to your own Church (assuming you go to one). If a group of churches within your convention decided (for example) that infant baptism was actually the best practice in light of the way God establishes covenants with his people in Scripture; if they also decided that they needed to have their leadership re-ordained by a bishop in the apostolic succession (because of their understanding of certain passages in the gospels) and they were convinced that they were obligated to do so by their understanding of Scripture… how reasonable would it be for me to jump onto your Baptist forum and start insisting that you need to recognize these moves as being compatible with Baptist theology and practice?

Make no mistake. No one here is saying Sydney Anglicans aren’t Christian. Certainly they are, and we could learn a great deal from them with regard to their love for the Word and their zeal for evangelism. We, all of us, recognize them as brothers and sisters in Christ. What we are saying is, they have made moves here that are in conflict with basic Anglican theology and practice (the latter of which is also theologically informed).

Are you really saying you can’t understand this?

I have probably come to this discussion too late (I haven’t been able to read all 104 comments). However, I have been struck once again by the vast gulf between orthodox American Anglicanism and orthodox English Anglicanism - and I find myself wondering if people realize how much Sydney Anglicanism is a product of the latter, not the former.

I also find myself wondering how familiar American Anglicans are with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which is the liturgical heritage for English - and particularly (Conservative) Evangelical - Anglicanism.

The Prayer Book rubrics to the Communion Service state, for example, “that no adoration ... ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine ... or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances ... and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ’s natural Body to be at one time in more places than one.”

Cranmer’s 1552 Prayer Book is so stripped of any possible misunderstanding on this point that I have referred to him holding a doctrine of “real absence”. Until recently, Evangelicals in England would thus have agreed that the doctrine of the ‘real presence’ is something the Prayer Book guarded them against! Indeed, in the chapel at Moore College in Sydney, the text over the Communion Table is Luke 24:6 (“He is not here. He is risen.”)

My point is that in England, Anglican Orthodoxy seems to deny much of what is asserted here as precisely that! And Sydney Anglicanism stands in the English tradition.

However, if you want to see a really bad argument against lay presidency - and also to understand the prevailing confusion on these shores - read Eucharistic Presidency: A Theological Statement by the House of Bishops of the General Synod, published in 1997 and reviewed here by myself many moons ago.

John (107).  I am not American. I am now in Canada, but I began my Anglican journey in England. If you think that Anglo-Catholicism is an American peculiarity, spend some time in the Diocese of Chichester, or drop by any of the Forward in Faith churches. There is no great gulf between England and the States on that account; in both countries there are many shades of Anglicanism.

Sydney’s move towards lay-presidency would be unacceptable to the majority of orthodox Anglicans that I knew in England. The majority of conservative Evangelicals would not approve, even though they might appreciate the sentiments behind Sydney’s arguments; the “Open Evangelicals” have already voiced their disapproval; the Anglo-Catholics… well, that goes without saying.

Hi Farstrider #108. As it happens, I was brought up an Anglo-Catholic, transubstantiation, real presence and all, in a church in South East London. Thus I’m not saying there is no Anglo-Catholic tradition in England, but rather highlighting what retired Bp Colin Buchanan said when he was tutor in liturgy at St John’s Nottingham, that it is the Episcopal Church which has no real Evangelical tradition as it would be known in the UK.

Now I am not saying this puts Americans in the wrong - only that I wonder how much they understand what goes on in Sydney, which stems directly from an English context.

On the question of lay celebration itself, I am not sure that Conservative Evangelicals would, as you suggest, be opposed. I am certainly not, and in our parishes we have quite often had lay people lead a ‘communion’ (albeit not from the formal liturgy). Indeed, I think support for lay presidency (and Sydney’s position) would be quite widespread in this constituency.

Hi John,
I should have realized you were that John Richardson. Cheers! By the wording of your original post I had assumed you were in the States.

John, you raised the issue of the 1662 Prayer Book. What about the 1662 Act of Uniformity, then, which states fairly explicitly that, ‘No person whatsoever… shall presume to consecrate and administer the holy sacrament of the Lord’s Supper before such time as he shall be ordained priest.’

With regard to Cranmer, I agree that he tended towards Zwingli more than, say, Calvin on the “mechanics” of the Eucharist. I am not sure that the Prayerbook is to be completely identified with Cranmer’s own views, though. I hope William won’t mind me lifting a quote from one of his posts on this thread:
<ahref=“http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/17979/#306466www…”>Anglicanism_Down_Under</a>

He writes:

  It should be noted Rev. (or, Deacon?) Ould, what Bishop   Guest (who was a primary author of this particular portion of the 28th Article and who was also one of the Bishops who revised the 1552 BCP to the standard 1559 BCP) states regarding this Article:

  “I told him plainly that this word only in the foresaid Article [Article 28] did not exclude ye presence of Christ’s Body from the Sacrament, but only ye grossness and sensibleness in ye receiving thereof: For I said unto him though he took Christ’s Body in his hand, received it with his mouth, and that corporally naturally really substantially and carnally as ye doctors do write, yet did he not for all that see it, feel it, smell it, nor taste it.”
  “Then ye may saye it in ye Sacrament His very Body is present yea really that is to saye, in deede, substantially that is in substance, and corporally carnally and naturally, by ye wich words is ment that His verye Bodye His very flesh and His very humane nature is there not after corporall carnall or naturall wise, but invisibly unspeakeably supernaturally spiritually divinely and by waye unto Him onlye knowen.”

and

Now, Bishop Guest initially objected to the later inclusion (almost 10 years later) in the 39 Articles of St. Augustine’s statement on the wicked not feeding on Christ in the Sacrament in the newly added Article 29—because of the concern of a possible denial therein of Christ’s “spiritual, heavenly” presence in the Consecrated Elements—but he withdrew this initial objection within a few days.

Of course, Article 29 does not deny the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Rather, it simply affirms with St. Augustine and others that regardless of whether the Sacramental presence of Christ may be said to come in judgment with the Sacrament into the wicked or not, yet His Sacramental presence is not truly feed upon, that is, in the soul/heart or “inwardly”...

At the end of the day, Anglicanism is something more than a footnote to Cranmer’s personal theology (godly man that he was). While Hooker and the Divines were by no means believers in transubstantiation, they were true sacramentalists. They have given Anglicanism just as much of its shape as the first Reformers did.

I knew I was going to bollocks up the link—I am technologically inept. I was trying to link to the “Anglicanism Upside Down Down Under? Understanding Lay Administration” thread, anyway. I don’t appear to be able to help you get to it. Sorry.

[106] farstrider

(assuming you go to one.)

Gratuitous.  Unkind.  False.  Whatever progress you might have gained, you immediately lost.  In the 30 months I have posted on this blog, I have never seen this level of animosity.  Perhaps it is time for me to withdraw from this thread.

carl

Carl,

You have misread me entirely! I was not meaning to be unkind in any way and I freely apologize for not choosing my words more carefully—I just didn’t want to assume. A good friend of mine from another forum is not currently attending any place of worship because there are no good churches in her area. I was trying to be diplomatic, but obviously put my foot in it from another direction. I am genuinely sorry.

Lest you wonder why I felt any need to be diplomatic, when I asked earlier whether you were Anglican you did not answer. I thought you might be Baptist because of a quotation you used, but didn’t want to presume anything. Alas.

I would very much like to know if you understand the differences in perspective that I tried to map out, though.

As a member of the Sydney Synod and the Rector of a Sydney parish I have found the discussion here interesting. However, with the exception of Carl I get the impression that few if any have actually read the arguments that Sydney puts forward for lay and diaconal administration (the very word “presidency” is in question). I had hoped that I could put up some links to some of the essays that set out our concerns but the best I can do at the moment is this link http://www.australianchurchrecord.net/ where you can order the book “The Lord’s Supper in Human Hands” which was distributed at the Synod to set out some of the arguments. If I, or others, can find links to the individual essays I will try to post them.
I read a lot here about pragmatics in this blog. Sydney Diocese is a growing Anglican Diocese in the midst of many that are struggling. Assuming that it is the Spirit who is bringing people into our churches, one has to ask what it is that we are doing right and I have to say that I think Carl has it right, we are seeking to be true to Scripture and while tradition has its place, it must always be secondary to what the Spirit has ensured is the authoritative word of God.

(#105)
Thanks! ... I think(?)
Reminds me - I need to start pestering the Powers That Be to set up an off-topic clean jokes thread, one of these days! 

bjlee (#115)

As it turns out, your strongest supporter isn’t an Anglican in any sense of the word.  Your second-strongest supporter (Matt Kennedy+) agrees with you, but questions the timing.  The remainder of your supporters have views of the offices that are rejected by the loosest of Congregationalists. 

In contrast, Sydney’s actions have been met with dissent from both Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Anglicans.

[113] farstrider

You have misread me entirely!

Thank you for that.  This hasn’t been a particularly fun thread for me, and nerves can get raw.  I genuinely appreciate that apology.  Let me go through your last post carefully.

Sarah has already pointed out that the problems you seem to have in understanding what the evangelicals here are foundational.

Sarah used that as a reason to evade.  Most of the people with whom I argue on these subjects have a different foundational worldview (e.g. Athiests, Mormons).  The purpose of an apologetic is to engage people outside your worldview.  Understanding is often all that can be achieved. 

I’d like to begin by looking at those foundations—which I would have done earlier if you had answered my question as to whether you were Anglican or not. Now that I know you’re not…

It is true I do not attend an Anglican church.  I have not made a secret of it, and have explained the matter on previous threads.  But there is no rule on SF that “Only Anglicans need apply”, and after 30 months I believe I have earned the right to state my case with confidence.  I didn’t answer your question because I have received many more replies then I could possibly answer.  I tried to respond to broad themes as best I could.

Many modern evangelicals hold to the view you seem to be espousing (that Tradition is of no consequence)

I did not say this, and do not believe it.  I said that tradition is a subservient authority to Scripture. Tradition is not theopneustos and therefore finds its origin in men. The significant implication here is that tradition - any tradition - may be questioned. Sarah said that I sounded ‘like TEC.’  The difference is that TEC has repudiated many scriptural imperatives. There is no scriptural injunction against lay presidency.  The Word of God cannot be overturned.  The words of men are not so sacred.

you assume that an Anglican who is “genuinely” evangelical will also believe that Scripture is the only valid authority in the Church.

Close.  I presume an Evangelical will recognize Scripture as the only authority in the church that can bind the conscience.  There is a difference.  A bishop cannot do it.  A council cannot do it.  Church history cannot do it.  If this is not true, those Episcopalians who oppose the actions of TEC have a lot of explaining to do.

Tradition is the communal memory of the Church.

  But what is the content of this communial memory?  If I ask Robert Sungenis for the content of the communal memory of the Church, will I get the same answer as I would from you?  He will tell me the Marian dogmas are part of the communal Memory of the church, and so I should give assent to them.  He will tell me I should read scripture in light of them.  Should I give to this communal memory that much authority?  And what evidence do you have that the practices in question are in fact traceable to apostolic commands?  This is a terrific leap in logic upon which to justify binding the behavior of a brother.  Is it not just as likely that the practices in question are innovations of the ECFs to the conditions of the early church filtered through the dominant presuppositions of the day?

the interpretations of the Fathers, the martyrs and the heroes of faith down through the centuries are of equal or greater value than the interpretation of some guy munching potato chips in front of his computer in the twenty first century.

The ECFs were hardly uniform (or orthodox) in their understanding, nor were they free of their own biases.  There is importance in reading the understanding of people external to your own culture.  But I do not assign to the ECFs any particular priority over other exegetes of Scripture.  I could argue that the ECFs are less reliable because many did not know the original languages of the autographs.  But to be consistent, I cannot give priority to Luther or Calvin or Owen or Edwards either.  Each man has his own blind spots.

how reasonable would it be for me to jump onto your Baptist forum and start insisting that you need to recognize these moves as being compatible with Baptist theology and practice?

First off, I didn’t just jump into this forum.  I have been here a long time.  I am one of the older posters on this board.  Second, I have made no secret of my affiliation.  Third, I have made no such demand that anyone recognize moves as being compatible with Anglican theology.  (Need I point out that the person who initiated this conversation is David Ould, and will you deny he is an Anglican?)  I have argued that the assertion of tradition needs to be accompanied by some rationale for the tradition - especially when that tradition is questioned.

You have argued for the legitimacy of tradition is general.  I am asking you to defend the tradition of “presbyter-led communion only” in particular.  This is the missing piece in the argument.  And trust me in this.  If you have nothing to offer Sydney but “This is not Anglican!” you will never persuade them that you are right.

carl

Second, I have made no secret of my affiliation. 

Carl, just an aside, but I have been reading and posting here since - well, at least a couple of years, I think, and had not realized that you are not Anglican. I know there are many here who are not - I only interject this because I think it is not always easy to keep people and their affiliations clear - especially if you have not had much interaction with them. Well, if your mind is as old as mine, it’s not.

[118] oscewicee
Long story short.  I do not attend an Anglican church because there isn’t one within 150 miles.  Before I came to this board, I would never have considered it.  Because I did, I would now.

carl

[116] Moot

As it turns out, your strongest supporter isn’t an Anglican in any sense of the word.

I would respond, but ... why?  I recommend ‘Horton Hatches the Egg.’ It’s my personal favorite.

carl

While I am not an Anglican, but an interested evangelical Christian observer of the current Anglican crises and transformation, I am curious, especially in the light of this thread, as to how the REC - which is a Common Cause partner - will reconcile some of its closely held principles with the larger Anglican Common Cause body. I refer specifically to the The Declaration of Principles Of the Reformed Episcopal Church, #4, which reads:

This Church condemns and rejects the following erroneous and strange doctrines as contrary to God’s Word:

- First, that the Church of Christ exists only in one order or form of ecclesiastical polity:
- Second, that Christian Ministers are “priests” in another sense than that in which all believers are a “royal priesthood:”
- Third, that the Lord’s Table is an altar on which the oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ is offered anew to the Father:
- Fourth, that the Presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper is a presence in the elements of Bread and Wine:
- Fifth, that regeneration is inseparably connected with Baptism.

Would not this Principle #4 - if still adhered to by the REC member churches -  make said churches a bone of contention every bit as much as Sydney is now?

Carl - however much we may disagree on this issue, I’m glad you came here and that you post here.

oscewicee (#118 & #122),

First you are most generous man.

Second, you raise an interesting point.  Your observation “if your mind is as old as mine” resonates.

There is an old saying “consider the source”.  On these blogs we are denied the opportunity to do that much, maybe most, of the time.  I acknowledge that if you go to my SF member record, you won’t find much.  I am giving consideration to changing that, but I am conflicted about it.  Privacy is such an important issue on the internet.

I have read lots of Carl’s comments.  I still don’t know any more about him than he knows about me, which is probably not much.

It is difficult to consider the source.

We must form our opinions of the validity of commenters views based on what they say here.  That may be an imperfect, indeed faulted, criterion.

Web 2.0, blogs, social networks, are an enigma.  Let’s keep our guards up!

God bless.

Carl,
[117]  Thank you for your post.  I have a slightly differing take on the role of tradition.  While I agree that scripture is a foundational authority for Christians.  Its authority is as a witness to the Risen Christ, and its authority arises in that its is divinely inspired by through the agency of the Holy Spirit.  It is the same Holy Spirit which was given to the apostles and later fell on a wider range of disciples.  The Holy Spirit has guided the church through the course of its history (for without the Holy Spirit what is the church other that a human society).  The Holy Spirit is active in the composition and understanding of scripture, and the same Spirit is with and in the church.  All that the Holy Spirit does bears witness to the Lordship of Christ and the work of the the triune God.

There is a distinction between the church’s tradition and the history of the church.  It traditions are those aspects of the church’s existence in which the activity of the Holy Spirit is perceived - activities which are congruent with the work of the Holy Spirit in and through scripture.  Church history is the whole experience of the church, the good, bad, and ugly.

Scripture and tradition should be understood as both being the result of the Holy Spirit’s activity.  To assume that only the scriptures are the work of the Holy Spirit is to miss the activity of the Holy Spirit in the church as its guide and guarantor. 

Can Christians (and the church) misunderstand the work of the Holy Spirit by mis-interpretation of “tradition?”  Yes, but the same holds truth for scripture.  It is the continuing work of the Holy Spirit to guide and instruct both individual Christians and the Church in understanding both tradition and scripture.

I am reminded that in early America some individuals and groups that eventually formed the Unitarian denomination identified themselves as “Bible Christians.”  They held that only what was clearly taught in scripture was to be believed and tradition was without moral or doctrinal authority.  I am not suggesting that everyone who holds church tradition suspect is or will become unitarian, but it is illustrative of the diversity to which a reject of the witness of apostolic tradition can lead.

[114] farstrider

I thought you might be Baptist because of a quotation you used.

OK, I wasn’t going to ask this, but I can’t help myself. What did I say that led you to this conclusion?  I have gone over this thread, and can find no potential suspects.  Curiosity is eating me alive.

carl

[122] oscewicee
Thank you for the kind sentiment. 
carl

Carl,

Thank you for your gracious response—I thought for an appalling moment that I had driven you away.

You ask, Carl, about the content of the communal memory and rightly note that the Fathers differed with one another in a number of different areas. Perhaps I can deal with these in reverse order. It is true that the Fathers were inclined towards some speculation; that’s human nature. Yet there is also a remarkable overlap in their writings. This overlap (together with early liturgy) embodies—or at least points to— what Irenaeus called the regula fidei, the “rule of faith.” This rule of faith is nothing less than the correct and public interpretation of Scripture transmitted to the Church by the heirs of the apostles. This public witness is what distinguished the Church from the Gnostics, for example, who held to their own peculiar and supposedly secret interpretations

So where is the content to be found? Firstly, in the writings of the Fathers. Yes, there is some sorting to be done of chaff and wheat, but taken together the Fathers give us a pretty definitive answer as to how the earliest church understood the teachings of the Apostles. Secondly, the content is found in the Creeds and Councils of the undivided Church (the same Council that gave us the word homoousios, incidentally, also forbade deacons from presiding at the Lord’s Table. A later Council—at Carthage—would nail down the canon of Scripture for us). Thirdly, the content is found in the praxis of the ancient Churches (reflected in the shared praxis of Rome, Constantinople, Canterbury and others).

You write:

I did not say this, and do not believe it.  I said that tradition is a subservient authority to Scripture.

And immediately following, you write:

Tradition is not theopneustos and therefore finds its origin in men. The significant implication here is that tradition - any tradition - may be questioned. Sarah said that I sounded ‘like TEC.’ The difference is that TEC has repudiated many scriptural imperatives. There is no scriptural injunction against lay presidency.  The Word of God cannot be overturned.  The words of men are not so sacred.

If it is a subservient authority it is still an authority. How is it a subservient authority if it is not in any way binding? And denying the validity of lay-presidency in no way “overturns Scripture”.

I presume an Evangelical will recognize Scripture as the only authority in the church that can bind the conscience.  There is a difference.  A bishop cannot do it.  A council cannot do it.  Church history cannot do it.  If this is not true, those Episcopalians who oppose the actions of TEC have a lot of explaining to do.

Why on earth would TEC be justified by the recognition of Tradition as an authority in the Church? Tradition and Scripture are both unequivocal in re: sexuality.

In re: the ECF’s and the original languages, they were nearly universally Greek speakers. Tertullian was the first to write in Latin if memory serves (or it may have been Augustine), so they were reading the Scriptures in their own language (the early Church’s O.T. being the LXX).

In re: you and the forum, my real issue was not with your being here (I’m glad you are). My issue was with your insisting that Anglicans use a method that is foreign to historical Anglicanism to adjudicate an essentially Anglican matter in a way that you would not expect us to do if situations were reversed.

>>>>I thought you might be Baptist because of a quotation you used.<<<<<
OK, I wasn’t going to ask this, but I can’t help myself. What did I say that led you to this conclusion?  I have gone over this thread, and can find no potential suspects.  Curiosity is eating me alive.

Check out #75. Not a quotation, but a reference. It struck me as the kind of thing an insider would be especially likely to know.

It’s only a fact, Carl.  It doesn’t go to work, pay on a mortgage, lead a toddler to the crapper, love, grieve, or even rant.  It just, “is.” 

You wish you could be a member of an Anglican church.  And because you do, I wish you could, too.  But the shiftless, loveless, remoresless fact remains, you aren’t Anglican.  That’s not to say that you have no place here;  just that your opinions aren’t Anglican.  Many times I’ve found that they fall short of even Anglicanism’s red-headed step-cousin, Presbyterianism. 

You’ve proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that someone who isn’t remotely Anglican can be supportive of Sydney’s conflation of church offices.  I would congratulate you, except.. it doesn’t bode well for Sydney. 

No, not really.

[127] farstrider

So let me clear up a few stray ends. 

Why on earth would TEC be justified by the recognition of Tradition as an authority in the Church? Tradition and Scripture are both unequivocal in re: sexuality.

TEC wouldn’t be.  I was making a more narrow point.  If a bishop (for example) could bind the conscience, then many in TEC would have to explain why they rebelled against their bishop.  Instead they are free to appeal to Scripture over against their bishop.  Scripture is the one authority that cannot be appealed. 

If it is a subservient authority it is still an authority.

  Agreed.  My only qualification is that it is not an authority beyond either question or appeal.  This means that blanket appeals to tradition are not by definition legitimate.  I can say “It is written” when referring to Scripture.  I cannot say “It is written” when appealing to ECFs, or church practice, or early liturgies.  Or even (he says through clenched teeth) John Calvin.    An appeal to tradition must be accompanied by a justification of the tradition.

How is it a subservient authority if it is not in any way binding?

It would be binding.  This was the exact question that I asked early in my participation in this thread - a notion that was called ‘ridiculous.’  What binding authority has judged this particular tradition valid, and why?  What binding authority has determined this particular tradition to be essential to the definition of Anglicanism, and why?  That is the field on which this argument must be fought.  This does not seem to be a closed question.  (In fact, I maintain no tradition can ever be truly closed off from evaluation.) Sydney’s arguments are not without merit.  But they have been summarily dismissed.

And denying the validity of lay-presidency in no way “overturns Scripture”.

This is correct.

My issue was with your insisting that Anglicans use a method that is foreign to historical Anglicanism to adjudicate an essentially Anglican matter in a way that you would not expect us to do if situations were reversed.

The proper use of tradition is to me a general issue for all Christians.  I didn’t see this a peculiarly Anglican question.  What I saw was a legitimate position swept aside with the back of the hand, and without so much as an explanation.  The mantra was quickly established: “That’s not Anglican.”  To me that is an improper use of tradition against a position with no firm Scriptural impediment.  All I tried to do was get the other side to engage.  But this they have steadfastly refused to do.

As for your comments on tradition, I think I will let them stand unopposed.  There is a whole separate Catholic/Protestant argument
in that comment, and I don’t think the thread should be diverted.  Besides which, I am tired at the moment.

Re:  Languages.  My understanding is very few of the ECFs read Hebrew, and later ECFs worked exclusively in Latin.  I suspect it might depend on your definition of ECF, but I will concede the point on Greek. 

Re: 1689 LBCF.  In retrospect, I guess it was obvious.  I happen to know some Reform Baptists.  It was a convenient example.

carl

[128] Moot

Or ‘Horton Hears a Who.’  I always liked Horton.

carl

(#130) Carl,

And that’s fine, so long as you understand that Horton isn’t real.

- Moot

You wish you could be a member of an Anglican church.  And because you do, I wish you could, too.  But the shiftless, loveless, remoresless fact remains, you aren’t Anglican.  That’s not to say that you have no place here; just that your opinions aren’t Anglican.

This won’t hold any weight with the rest of them Carl, but from Sydney’s point of view you are more Anglican than they are. It depends on how you define Anglican. We would argue that you do so on the basis of the 39 Articles and the theology of the 1662 Prayer Book. See particularly Articles 8, 20 and 34 and “Of Ceremonies” in the prefaces of the Prayer Book.
I still don’t see any indication that those who are critical of Sydney’s stand have actually engaged with the arguments for it or are even familiar with them.