"the Reformation as an incomplete work and the Elizabethan settlement as a bit of a Laodicean compromise. The real interest in “lay administration” lies, for them, in carrying through a principled protestant disposal of catholic accretions upon a supposed New Testament model of ministry and worship."

And others believed this way HUNDREDS OF YEARS ago, and LEFT to become Baptists (and other Free Church-ers).

For God's sake, why can't these Aussie Prots travel that same well-worn path, instead of trying reinvent the wheel (from the same material, so to speak, as we Anglicans are currently using for our altars)?

Or is it not enough to simply BE Protestants---they actually have to DESTROY Catholicism? Is that the end-game?

An interesting discussion of lay presidency is taking place on te Sydney Anglican Forum..go to Sydney media and then to the forum.

If you genuinely want to " listen " and see
where Sydney comes from..this is well worth a visit.

the thread at the Sydney site starts here

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/forums/viewthread/3674/

The short answer as to why the Sydney hard-liners don't leave the Communion is quite simple: Sydney is very, very wealthy, and the National Constitution prevents them taking the assets with them.

Beneath this lays the additional fact that they honestly do see their Reformed quasi-gnosticism as being the "real" Anglicanism, and as such by seeking to stamp out all other manifestations they are fulfilling both their ordination vows and the Great Commission itself.

"The real interest in 'lay administration' lies, for them (Moore College, Sydney, and ther Sydney Diocese), in carrying through a principled protestant disposal of catholic accretions upon a supposed New Testament model of ministry and worship." - Andrew McGowan, Trinity College, Meb.

Andrew's take on the Sydney abberation concerning Anglican Church tradition, polity and Eucharistic doctrine is, I believe - and in the belief of so many Australian Anglicans, as well as others of us around the Communion - almost entirely due to the recessionist teaching of the early lecturers at Moore College, Sydney.

Moore is the mecca of many an evangelically- inclined would-be theolog, whose spiritual grounding has been exclusively in the sola-scriptura tradition, and who is inclined towards the more dogmatic understanding of Law versus Grace.

The sacramental aspects of the Church's ministry, in that institution, is seen as secondary to the task of preaching - dogmatic, rather than the sort that engages in hermeneutics. This is why, in many Sydney churches (including Saint Andrew's Cathedral), the emphasis is on the pulpit rather than the altar.

The recent cynical attempt to allow women deacons to 'preside' at the Eucharist - in keeping with the Sydney determination to prevent the priesting of women - demonstrates the fact that Sydney sees the office of priesthood as being more to do with the exercise of power over the congregation, than with sacerdotal ministry at the altar.

This imbalance has led to the extraordinary situation where Sydney may well find it's coalition partners in GAFCON, CANA and FOCA, are no longer willing to link arms with the Sydney Diocese, whose movement towards Lay-Presidency at the Eucharist is anathema. This matter of Church Order, which is fundamental to most Anglicans, may be the straw that breaks the GAFCON Camel's back.

JCF, it might be worth reminding you that the Diocese of Sydney has a dedicated trading room in the Sydney Stock Exchange. Leaving the current upheavals on the market to one side for a moment, doesn't this suggest something to you about their fervent desire to stay within the fold while simultaneously *tearing at the fabric* as much as possible?

Andrew McGowan puts things in a very neat nutshell. People should read him very closely.

Andrew does have a very insightful analysis.

Before I went to seminary, my parish had a priest-in-charge who was an advocate of lay presidency (and on Sundays when he was on vacation pushed the limits by allowing lay readers to officiate at a "deacon's mass"). His rationale was that presiding required no great training, while preaching was the function for which seminary education was required. In that, he was not far from the Sydney position.

The disturbing aspect of this reasoning, if Andrew is correct, is the power dynamic of placing the authority to preach and interpret Scripture in the hands of an elite (all-male, educated at Moore College, Jensenist). Indeed, how is this different from medieval Roman Catholicism, in which the Scriptures were available only in Latin and preaching was limited to a few select divines, while ordinary parish priests simply said Mass and the offices?

Jim Pratt please remember Elizabeth the first only allowed a tiny number of preachers and the rest of the clergy had to read from the Book of Homilies! Read these homilies, and there you will see the unequivocal Protestantism of the Elizabethan settlement.

Using lay presidency to purge diversities of existing believers inside the big tent - even the Australian version - is just another typical example of the weaponizing of doctrines and of the necessary targeting such weaponizing involves. Is any iteration of conservative realignment we can observe so far not innately involved with weaponizing, targeting, diminishing, and happenstance power grabs?

The surprise is that non-Jensenist-Prot believers (inside or outside of Oz) are surprised, at all.

More or less the same means of preachments and power moves, justified by the same ethically dodgy ends, that have been used to target and diminish, - say, queer folks or women or progressive believers? - will now be used freely and exquisitely against A-Cs.

All the rest of us Anglican big tent believers are supposed to be frozen helpless, like deer caught in the oncoming fast headlights of the huge Jensenist realignment luxury SUVs. This is fundamentally (pun intended) just how the realignment leaders see us, and how those leaders encourage all realignment-obedient followers to see and define us.

Wait, I think the realignment leaders are driving down upon us in a mighty caravan of new Hummers. My bad, I get vehicles mixed up, a sort of automotive-vehicular dyslexia.

I had a bit of a read of the discussion on the Sydney Anglicans website and was struck by two things:

1. how little nuance there is in the discussion of what "ordination" might mean.

It seems that there's no room for anything between

(a) the kind of RC/AC ontologically turbo-boosted "priest forever in the line of Melchizedek" version of ordination, and

(b) a kind of flattened-out Plymouth Brethren version of the priesthood of believers.

2. They don't really seem to have read anything that Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Zwingli or Bullinger have to say about the importance of order and the sacraments in the church.

Even Luther's famous thought-experiment about Christians stranded on a desert island without a priest still involves the baptised delegating ministerial office to one of their number.

And because Word and Sacrament are so closely bound together in Reformation thought, the notion that one can separate out the two ministries as the Sydneyites appear to be doing is just, well, un-Protestant.

The idea that the linkage of ordination and sacraments was some kind of Elizabethan fudge or filthie relique of cursèd papistry bears no historical scrutiny.

In Reformation Scotland (scarcely fertile ground for fudging) there were office-bearers such as elders, deacons and readers in most parishes (and elders and deacons were considered ordained) but the two sacraments were only celebrated where a duly ordained "minister of Word and Sacraments" was available.

"Even Luther's famous thought-experiment about Christians stranded on a desert island without a priest still involves the baptised delegating ministerial office to one of their number."

I do remember asking the former chaplain at the University of Texas, the Rev. Chris Hines, what Christians stranded on a desert island would do for the Sacraments, if they didn't have a priest.

"Are there rocks on the desert island, Billy?"

"Um, yes."

"Then I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up priests."

"The idea that the linkage of ordination and sacraments was some kind of Elizabethan fudge or filthie relique of cursèd papistry bears no historical scrutiny."

Since when has historical accuracy meant a row of beans to conservative Evangelicals? Remember, these are people who sincerely believe that the radical innovations of the Reformation are somehow "traditional" Christianity, that this "biblical Christianity" is somehow more pure, despite its recent invention, than that preached by those who heard the Gospel from God literally in the flesh, and that Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a core doctrine of the faith! If they can convince themselves of this, they can convince themselves of anything. I could have a lot more respect for them if they would just acknowledge that many of their beliefs are radical innovations not more than 5 or 6 centuries old. This does not imply in any way that these beliefs are wrong, though I admit I believe they are, but they can't even accept that. Rather reinvent history, all the while calling those who don't "reassessors' and "innovators" than admit the truth: the Reformation and many of the ideas coming out of it were far more radical than anything TEC is trying to do today. But then they'd have to acknowledge that many of their heros were actually "innovators" and "radicals" and "reassessors", and, well, where would they be then?

"The idea that the linkage of ordination and sacraments was some kind of Elizabethan fudge or filthie relique of cursèd papistry bears no historical scrutiny."

Could be paraphrased to "We won't explore the idea that the linkage of ordination and sacraments was some kind of Elizabethan fudge or filthie relique of cursèd papistry."

Because, to do so would be to acknowledge that ordination and sacraments are rituals and offices designed to bring peace and order, and that they can be moulded to suit the needs of the people at that time. To do so is to acknowledge that Christianity did not always have priests per se, that women's role within the church and its communities has been varied throughout the eons. It means contemplating the possibility that rituals and offices can be reconsidered in light of current needs and issues. It means that the scriptures are open for examination and re-evaluation and that new forms can come forth to suit humanity's evolving needs.

God works like that. God created "Creation" from nothingness, moulded a planet that can sustain life, created living beings (including multiple genders), created sentience and free will, created the prophets and Judaism, brought forth Jesus, allowed the unseen to part of the annointment of Jesus (including the cloud of the Divine Presence).

God is unrepentant on any of these things and just as capable of repeating any and all of these transactions, so there is no point voiding any of God's existing covenants. In fact, there is a need to restore many that have been neglected or violated e.g. to women or eunuchs. As well as to return to the bible to re-learn that Jesus' missive was meant to be for ALL the soulS of ALL the nationS - including women and eunuchs, Jews and gentiles, human and beast, seen and unseen.

If the sacraments and rituals need to be modified to return to that which should be, then so be it.

Interesting article about what passes for orthodoxy among the Jensenites:

http://www.melbourne.anglican.com.au/main.php?pg=news&news_id=4052

Is it Gnosticism yet, or does it need to simmer a bit more?

JPM, the teachings of Sydney Anglicanism concerning the Bible, as presented in the article you link to, remind me a lot of those of the (mostly American) Protestant group called the Church of Christ.

http://church-of-christ.org/

I disagree, Sydney is rooted in Reformation Anglicanism..for them it is Administration of the Lords supper..the words presidency, celebration and eucharist are not BCP 1662 language.

Enough already, RIW. We get it: you have no idea what the magisterial Reformers actually believed.

"the words presidency, celebration and eucharist are not BCP 1662 language."

Quite true -- 1662 was not 2008 -- but the 1662 ordinal requires that the person presiding at the Holy Communion service be ordained to the priesthood by a bishop.

BillyD, I have friends and family who are members of the Church of Christ, and they are good people.

As for the Jensenites, I'm sure they are also good people, but they have not been Anglican in any meaningful way in a very long time.

Their attitude toward the Holy Eucharist seems to be, "Well, this doesn't really mean anything, of course, but He said we're supposed to do it now and then, so let's just get it over with and get back to the PowerPoint."

Doesn't sound very Anglican to me.

"BillyD, I have friends and family who are members of the Church of Christ, and they are good people."

I'm sure they are. My mother's people all belonged to the Disciples of Christ, which either left the CofC or the CofC left it, depending on who you talk to. The only thing that strikes me as a similarity between them is the extremely rational approach to Scripture (and, I suspect, worship - except that the CofC has weekly communion and Sydney doesn't).