I may regret posting this, due to the many high church views here, but I'd like to get your thoughts and views on the Diocese of Sydney. I disagree with them in a couple of their views -- ordination of women, and Calvinism -- but I mostly agree with their positions, such as lay presidency, and their ecclesiology. I don't really totally identify with any one "party" in the church, but I am definitely not Anglo-Catholic.
Never regret posting anything! We can work things out. I am unsure about lay presidency, against Calvinism, and agree with them on womens' ordination. It's hardly a lasting phenomenon though, is it? Peter Jensen may be an ultimate evangelical-reformed protestant type, but he's just one bishop. Once he retires this July, the major force that opposes W.O. & Arminianism will be removed. We shall see how distinctive "Sydney Anglicanism" is. They certainly have a strong sense of evangelism. That's something, in this age of "reconciliation councils", banners, childrens' liturgies, and other silly things. They're serious.
Thank you for your conciliatory and helpful reply. Consular, forgive me if I've overlooked this, but what church body are you a member of?
Sydney Anglicanism is fascinating. Jensen never calls out 'papists' at Romans, or any other such things. Do you know anything about the archdiocese in the years before Jensen? Wasn't it founded by Methodist-like, or Puritan-leaning clergymen? How did it become so specifically "reformed" that it can claim to be its own metonym? Not relevant... but, just for clarity's sake ... I am a baptized, confirmed, and communicating member of the Anglican Church of Canada, est. 1955, out of the Church of England in Canada - the first service of which took place in late summer, 1578, in what is now the province of Nunavut. I call myself a "Catholic Christian" because (as Archbishop Jensen actually said a few years ago) I adhere to the Catholic faith of the Scripture, which was expounded by Fathers, and understood in the Nicene Creed. Jensen himself said "history belongs to me as a protestant". He says Evangelicalism belongs to the Sydney diocese as well as "Catholicism", because of these things. That's the key, and in that, I agree with Sydney Anglicanism.
I must say I am surprised at the responses so far. I thought I would get a lot of stuff like, "The Sydney Anglicans are not true Anglicans, they are impostors, they have departed the faith", etc.
They have not thrown the episcopate out; they use the Book of Common Prayer; they adhere to the 39 articles. There's very little to "catch" them on, except perhaps the Puritan theology.
Why is that funny? Don't you believe in the scriptural doctrine of the priesthood of believers? Do you think that the laity are not holy enough to administer the sacraments, that they are second-class Christians, that administration/consecration of the sacraments is reserved and restricted to priestly mediators between the believer and God? Just wondering.
The Lord already set aside Israel as a royal priesthood and a holy nation in the Old Testament; was it in the Exodus? Anyway, it didn't stop Him from specifically appointing the Priests, the Levites, and the men of Aaron's seed to be clerics. Every Israelite was (supposed to be) a royal "p"riest, but there were also the scribes & "P"riests. Can one not have a priesthood of all believers in the sense that they are able to enter into the Heavenly Court through Christ's priesthood, without human mediation, by prayer? Can one not also have, simultaneous with this, an order of clerical ministers who help guide, direct, and order the mass of priests, prophets, and kings? Remember when Paul said, "Let everything among you be done in good order"? Perhaps that is the reason? Remember that "priest" has three different meanings among Christians today: 1. he who is a priest because he is a believer (all Christians), 2. he who is a priest because he re-sacrifices Christ (the Greeks, Slavs & Romans), and 3. he who is a priest as one that offers the sacrifice of praise, the reasonable service, the offering of thanksgiving, for everyone in his congregation - so that all may be done in good order (Anglicans, and others).
Lay administration actually makes a whole lot more sense from an Anglican perspective than does the Tractarian conception of a sacrificing priesthood.
I gather that although Sydney is against the ordination of women as Priests, they have, since 2006 ordained women to the Diaconate despite a report in the early 1990's where it was argued that women could not be ordained to that Order. The recent proposals to authorise the Diaconate/Laity to preside at HC would have allowed women to fulfil this role; apparently this would not be perceived as going against the principal of male headship. This could perhaps be construed as a means of avoiding the issue of women's ordination to the Priesthood. The Appellate Tribunal in Australia ruled that both Diaconal and Lay presidency at the Eucharist were not permitted under existing General Synod Canons despite the claims of a resolution by the Sydney Synod in 2008. There has been an assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Sydney that has permitted Diaconal presidency, including that of women priests that were Priested in other Dioceses but only recognised/licensed at Deacons in Sydney.
Perhaps in cases of emergency, lay presidency may be allowable for certain sacraments such as baptism, and maybe even absolution, but if lay presidency is allowed across the board, not only are you overthrowing nearly 2000 years of church order and tradition, you are elliminating any place for ordained ministry at all. Why have a threefold ministry at all if anyone can perform the sacraments? I can't see any "catholic" church conceding this ground. Why not just relax the requirements for priests instead? Seminaries are prohibitively expensive and all but insures that it will be filled by upper incomers and those who are too indebted to make bold strikes at evangelism and church planting.
I'd say emergency baptism and that's all. Lay presidency at the Eucharist says a number of heretical things: 1. There is no need for clergy. 2. There is no need for the Church. 3. Christ did not entrust the Church with any sacramental responsibilities. 4. In fact, there is no Church. It's just a big collection of laypeople who like to hear each other talk. 5. Scripture does not establish offices such as apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher, bishop, priest, deacon, etc. 6. The BCP is wrong about ordination and sacraments. 7. Your favorite Anglican theologians are wrong about ordination and sacraments. 8. For 2000 years, the Church was wrong about ordination and sacraments. 9. We know more about the proper celebration of the Eucharist than the Early Church. They were pretty ignorant, apparently. 10. There's no point in going to worship at a church with clergy. We can just stay home. lay presidency lol
Are the lay presidents leading communion under the authority of the bishop? If this is the case it seem to me to be an orderly way of doing it, and still respectful of the bishop's authority, no?