Tuesday, 10 August 2004

lay presidency in Sydney

Update Thursday
As noted by Margaret Rogers in her comment below, the full text of this draft resolution has now been published here, prefaced by an explanatory note.
——

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Sydney has been considering this issue again. They have come to the realisation that any attempt to pass diocesan legislation at diocesan level to authorise lay/diaconal presidency (which in Sydney parlance is called “lay administration”) would be held to be illegal at Australian national church level, and so, after very long discussion, the Standing Committee decided at its 9 August meeting to put to the next diocesan synod a proposal to ignore the law, in the form of a “declaration” which would have moral rather than legal force, but would have the practical effect of protecting anyone in the diocese from legal action by the diocese itself. The effect of the declaration is to give the synod’s approval, if the motion is ultimately adopted, to such law breaking as might be involved in lay and diaconal presidency at the eucharist. Since it involves no legislation and the archbishop is required neither to assent to the motion nor to issue any licences, no illegality by the diocese or its synod or officials can be alleged.

The key paragraphs of the draft proposal are as follows.

DECLARATION OF THE SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF SYDNEY CONCERNING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER

The declaration begins with a series of recitals A to K that support lay and diaconal administration and set out the legal problem. It then proceeds to make its declaration, in these words:

  • (3) This Synod believes and urges that, until such time as any necessary change in the law can be effected by an appropriate process (or it can be determined by an appropriate process that no change in the law is needed), no disciplinary or other action should be taken against any person merely because the person, in accordance with this Declaration:
    • (a) authorizes or permits, or purports to authorize or permit, a deacon or lay person to administer the Lord’s Supper, or
    • (b) being a deacon or lay person, administers, or purports to administer, the Lord’s Supper, or
    • (c) is involved in the administration , or purported administration, of the Lord’s supper by a deacon or lay person.
  • (4) This declaration is intended to have application only to the administration of the Lord’s Supper by a deacon or lay person and not to any other area of doctrine or worship, or of faith, ritual, ceremonial or discipline, applicable to and in force within this Diocese.
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Tuesday, 10 August 2004 at 9:25 PM GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion
Comments

This appears to be in direct contradiction to the English House of Bishops 1997 Statement “Eucharistic Presidency”. If the measure allows for non-presbyteral presidency how can we say the the Diocese of Sydney remains “in Communion” with the rest of the Anglican Communion?

Posted by: Paul Barlow at August 11, 2004 04:06 PM

Does this mean that lay presidency is what it means to be part of the Anglican Mainstream? Or does it not matter so long as the lay president is straight?

Posted by: simon at August 11, 2004 04:52 PM

This is a very cunning plan. I have to take my hat off to the lawyers who thought it up. I wonder if it has other applications?

Posted by: Martin Reynolds at August 12, 2004 12:24 AM

You have only posted portion of the Sydney Standing Committee motion which they are taking to Synoid in the latter part of October this year. Being a motion it only has the force of being the opiniuon of those present and voting on the day. It is not binding on anyone.
Read the complete text of the motion plus an introductory statement on www.anglicanmedia.com.au and please folks, make sure you have read it all before you jump to any conclusions

Posted by: Margaret Rodgers at August 12, 2004 04:01 AM

This has to be the Margaret Rogers who was once CEO of Anglican Media and is now the personal media mouthpiece for the Archbishop of Sydney. I’m afraid she does her boss little credit, as a friend from Australia puts it: “The full text is so pretentious as to make the whole business laughable. Still, that’s what happens when the ideologues take over.”

Posted by: Martin Reynolds at August 12, 2004 01:58 PM

I support Margaret Rodgers plea for the whole declaration to be read before commenting. Not only will readers be able to see the full context of the declaration but they will avoid unfortunate errors. For example they will read that “the change in the law can be effected”, not affected.

Posted by: Doug Philpott at August 12, 2004 11:51 PM

I am sure that as “Thinking Anglicans” you will want to read the full text of the resolution, which sets out logically the clear reasoning behind it, rather than being fed someone else’s abbreviated version.

Posted by: Philip Selden at August 13, 2004 12:09 AM

I am not generally a supporter of the views of the Diocese of Sydney, but in this case I cannot see why other are so upset. There is nothing in scripture that could possibly prevent lay people from celebrating communion together. Nor is there anything that requires a ‘president’ to ‘administer’. (I say this as someone who has made a study of this matter). The Anglican standard is that we should make a fixity of nothing that cannot be proved by scripture. Jesus gave his Supper to all of us.

Posted by: Brian McKinlay at August 16, 2004 05:27 AM