Australian Church Tribunal Opinion on Diaconal Administration: An Inconsistent Ruling?

24 Aug

 

We've already reported on the recent Tribunal ruling on this matter. The 2008 Sydney Synod motion which recognises that there is no legal barrier to diaconal or lay administration of the Lord's Supper was ruled as illegal by the Tribunal. Well, technically, they gave their opinion.

The detailed ruling is interesting reading. Available now online [pdf] it is well worth working through. Not least because the Tribunal appears to have switched their reasoning when compared to another recent high-profile case.

First, the opinion sets out the main argument:

28. The submission is that it is legal for deacons to administer the Holy Communion within the Anglican Church of Australia where they have been made deacon under the 1985 Canon which authorises deacons to assist the priest in administering both sacraments.
 
29. Dr Davies fleshes out that submission by saying:-
(1) This Tribunal has ruled that diaconal administration of the Holy Communion is consistent with the Constitution;
(2) This Tribunal has ruled that a General Synod Canon authorising such practice would be required before any diocese could make provision for diaconal administration of Holy Communion;
(3) The 1985 Canon contained a new service for the Ordination of Deacons, which was a radical revision of the Ordinal of the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), alternative to the conservative revision that was published in An Australian Prayer Book (AAPB) in 1978.
(4) The 1985 service departed from the text of both AAPB and BCP with expanded functions for the deacon, notably with respect to preaching and the administration of baptism and Holy Communion.
(5) Unlike the Ordinal of BCP, the deacon's responsibilities were not delineated separately with respect to each sacrament (baptise infants in the absence of the priest; help the priest in the distribution of the Holy Communion), but were coupled together in the expression "to assist in the administration of his holy sacraments", without any further qualification concerning the presence or absence of the priest.
(6) The function of the deacon was thereby expanded to allow the deacon to baptise not only infants, but candidates of any age (regardless of the absence of the priest), although such baptisms would only be conducted under the aegis of the priest, whom the deacon was to assist.
(7) The function of the deacon was also expanded to allow the deacon to administer Holy Communion with the same authority the deacon had to administer baptism, likewise in an assisting capacity under delegation from the priest.
(8) There are occasions when canons have valid legal effects which are not recognised until some time later, as was the case with the change in definition of canonical fitness for bishops in the Constitution. The fact that
the 1985 Canon was not previously recognised as authorising deacons to assist the priest in administering Holy Communion does not override the plain reading of the text of the service, in accordance with the principles of statutory interpretation.
(9) The 1985 Canon satisfies the conditions of the Appellate Tribunal to permit diaconal administration in any diocese which ordains deacons in accordance with the service in the 1985 Canon.
(10) Therefore the Ordination Service for Deacons Canon 1985 of General Synod constitutes an alteration in the ritual or ceremonial of this Church for the purposes of s71(1) of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia in conformity with which a synod of a diocese may make an alteration in the ritual or ceremonial of the Church so as to permit, authorise or make provision for a deacon to preside at, administer or celebrate the Holy Communion.
Trust all that makes sense. The ordination service says that the deacon is the assist in the administration of the sacraments. That has always been understood to include baptism, so why not the Lord's Supper? There is, the argument goes, no distinction made in the canons.
 
Now, this is how the opposing argument is described by the Tribunal's ruling:
36. ...the Supporting Parties put that, not only are there no words in the new service expressly authorising a deacon to preside at the Eucharist, what there is suggests that the new deacon is to take his or her place in the service of Holy Communion. The Supporting Parties suggest that that means the traditional place of the deacon. We agree.
37. The Applicants also do not agree that the 1985 Canon should be construed as expanding the liturgical function of deacons in a radical way as contended by Dr Davies.
The logic is that, the argument from Sydney notwithstanding, the understanding in the Church always was that only a priest would administer Communion. To suggest otherwise would be a "radical expansion".
 
Further, the Tribunal gets really picky about the meanings of words...
57. The Supporting Parties say that it is significant that the words used are “assist in”. Whilst it may be that one can assist X by doing Y when X is not present, this cannot be the case where what is required is that Z assist X in what X is doing. This submission is logically correct.
58. In their reply, the Supporting Parties make the further valid point that there is a real difference between “assist by” and “assist in”. They note that a child may assist his or her father in washing the car, but it is a different matter to say the child assisted by washing the car. In the present context the deacon is to assist in the administration.
59. The Applicants say that one sees the proper sense of the word when one compares the wording of the service for making deacons with the wording of the service for ordaining priests. They say that the clear distinction is made between the priest who is to administer the sacrament in the sense of presiding, consecrating and celebrating and the deacon who is to play a subsidiary role.
60. We cannot see any answer to this submission.
Again, note the argument being made here. As the Tribunal picks through the various legislation and liturgies they are concerning themselves with what they think was originally intended, not with what the legislation might be generously allowed to include, even if not the original intention.
 
And "fair enough" we might say. They must, after all, have a consistent and sustainable way of working this issue through.
 
But here comes the rub. In September of 2007 the Tribunal issued an opinion on whether women could be consecrated as Bishops. The full report may be read here [pdf]. Again, it is fascinating reading, especially given the argument we have seen from the Tribunal above.
 
First, it is noted that previously there was a clear gender requirement...
33. Phillimore deals with the ordination of priests and deacons in a separate chapter from his discussion about bishops. It is here that he states the wellknown propositions about the incapacity of unbaptized persons and women to be ordained. It is pertinent to set out the first two paragraphs of a lengthy passage (p93):
There are only two classes of persons absolutely incapable of ordination; namely, unbaptized persons and women. Ordination of such persons is wholly inoperative. The former, because baptism is the condition of belonging to the church at all. The latter, because by nature, Holy Scripture and catholic usage they are disqualified.
Though an absolute incapacity be confined to these two classes, yet the canon law, having regard to the great importance of the subject, has been careful to prescribe the qualifications, and to set forth the disqualifications of candidates for holy orders. The law enjoins that the candidate be of sufficient age and learning, and of good reputation. That he be not afflicted by any corporal infirmity which would impede the exercise of his spiritual functions, and tend to repel and alienate the laity. That he be born in lawful wedlock. That he be not engaged in secular occupations inconsistent with devotion to the spiritual calling. Disqualifications of this kind constitute what, since the twelfth century, have been canonically termed irregularitates, and may upon sufficient grounds be removed by the dispensation of the bishop. There are irregularitates ex defectu and ex delicto.
34. The context and language of this passage and of the two pages of text that follow show that the author was addressing ordination to the diaconate or priesthood. But, in so observing, I am not suggesting that the various personal disqualifications were inapplicable to the episcopate as a matter of canon law. The contrary is the case because (as Cripps noted) “every bishop prior to his ordination is already an ecclesiastical person” (see also Phillimore p22). I observe below that a gender restriction was an aspect of canonical fitness and that the majority of the Tribunal held in 1991 that the inherited canon law of the Australian dioceses as at 1962 included a prohibition upon a woman being consecrated. (my emphasis)
However, there were subsequent canons (just as there were with respect to the ordination of Deacons). Here is how the opinion takes up these "changes"...
50. The Canon and Bill [of 1995] explicitly altered the Constitution as regards canonical fitness: see their long and short titles and compare the terms of the old and new definitions. Like its predecessor, the current definition purports to be exclusive in its effect (“Canonical fitness means” etc). The language chosen is gender-neutral (“as regards a person”). It is used with reference to a bishop-elect who will doubtless be in priest’s orders. The terms “bishop” and “priest” in the Constitution do not convey any implicit gender tag (see below).
Again, note the flow of the argument. Previously, it was assumed by everyone that bishops could only be male and the canons backed it up. But, now the canons are non-gender-specific.
 
But hang on, isn't this exactly the argument put forward by Bishops Davies above? That the new canons opened up the possibility of a different understanding of Deacons "administering" Communion? On that occasion the Tribunal knocked him back because, remember, even though the language was now looser the original intent was never that Deacons would administer Communion.
 
So, surely, in this prior ruling the Tribunal will go the same way? Granted, the canonical language is looser, but the original intent in this matter was always that bishops should be men and only men. Sure bet, you would think. Well, put your wallet away - you don't want to waste your money.
64. Those who prepare or promote legislation (or any other formal instrument) have the opportunity to frame it in their own terms, but they have no additional control over its interpretation. After all, they are not the lawmakers.
...
69. The Tribunal has also held that the words bishops, priests and deacons in s3 of the Constitution do not import the masculine gender so as to engage some implied prohibition deriving from s74(6) (see Reports of 1980 and 1981; Opinion and Reasons relating to the Ordination of Women (1985); Report and Opinion of the Tribunal on eleven questions (1991)).
...
101. ...
Question 1: Is there anything in the Constitution which would now prevent the consecration of a woman in priests’ orders as a bishop in this Church in a diocese which by ordinance has adopted the Law of the Church of England Clarification Canon 1992?
Answer: As regards diocesan bishops: No, provided that the woman has been duly elected as the diocesan bishop and has had her election duly confirmed in accordance with the criteria for canonical fitness set out in s74(1) of the Constitution.
As regards assistant bishops: There is nothing in the Constitution itself that would preclude the consecration of a woman appointed in accordance with the law applicable in the diocese concerned.
However, such consecration could not take place in a diocese in which the Assistant Bishops’ Canon 1966 is in force so long as it remains in force in that diocese in its present form.
And there you have it. In the matter of Diaconal administration the Tribunal argues original intent against the new looser canons. In Consecration of Women it argued against original intent since the new canons were looser.
 
But, of course, on each occasion it took the position proposed by the more theologically-liberal side of the Australian Anglican Church against the Biblically-conservative Sydney Diocese.
 
General Synod is coming up in September and I will be attending. Sydney Diocesan Synod follows in October. Should be a lot of fun. Watch this space.
 

Nehemiah 3-4 Sermon

02 Aug

Is now up online. You can listen here.


CofE - 15 Anglo-Catholic Bishops Write Open Letter

02 Aug

From here but increasingly being picked up in many places,

These are grave times in the Church of England especially for those of us unable in good conscience to accept that any particular church has the authority to admit women to the episcopate. While we certainly accept the good faith of those who wish to make this change believing it to be God's will, we cannot rejoice with them, not least because of the disastrous cost to Catholic unity. Our concerns are not only about sacramental assurance though that is of profound importance. If the legislation now proposed passes, it will not provide room for our tradition to grow and flourish. We will be dependent on a Code of Practice yet to be written, and sadly our experience of the last almost twenty years must make us wonder whether even such an inadequate provision will be honoured in the long term. Neither the Report of the Revision Committee nor the legislation itself shows a proper understanding of our reservations, however carefully these have been presented through the consultation process and in the College and House of bishops. It remains a deep disappointment to us that the Church at large did not engage with the excellent Rochester Report and paid scant attention to the Consecrated Women report sponsored by Forward in Faith. We must now accept that a majority of the members of the Church of England believe it is right to proceed with the ordination of women as bishops, and that a significant percentage of those in authority will not encourage or embrace with enthusiasm the traditional integrity or vocations within it. Nor is it their intention or desire to create a structure which genuinely allows the possibility of a flourishing mission beyond this generation. ... We are all bishops united in our belief that the Church of England is mistaken in its actions. However, we must be honest and say we are not united as to how we should respond to these developments. Nevertheless we are clear that each of the possibilities we have outlined has its own integrity and is to be honoured. We are resolved to respect the decisions made by laity, bishops, priests and deacons of our integrity, and call on you to do the same. It would be a sad and destructive thing indeed if we allowed our happiness and wondering to drift into unguarded or uncharitable criticism of those who in good conscience take a different path from our own. We must assume the best motives in one another, and where there are partings let them be with tears and the best wishes of Godspeed.

So, yet another example of conservatives pointing out what is being blindly ignored by so many - that they accept that there will be women bishops, but that many of those who propose the innovation (for that is what it is) will not accept their own integrity of position. And, again, this despite clear assurances made by the General Synod in previous years.


I’m tired of people wasting pulpits

31 Jul

If you are, too, then you'll appreciate this...

 

 
via Gospel-Centered Musings

thebandwithnoname - The4Points

31 Jul

Just finishing off tomorrow's sermon and listening to my newly purchased best-of album from thebandwithnoname

Here, The4Points. No, not North South East & West.

  • God's love
  • Our sin
  • Jesus' cross
  • a choice to make

 


Jane Austen Fight Club

30 Jul

Like it says. Enjoy...

 


Nehemiah 3-4 - Which Walls are We Building?

30 Jul

We've started a sermon series in Nehemiah and this week I'm preaching on chapters 3-4.

As with any other Old Testament text, one of the key questions is that of the hermeneutic that we use. Here in the 21st Century we are not living in the Israeli city of Jerusalem, trying to fend off attacks from our opponents. How, then, do we apply these events of almost 2,500 years ago? What are the walls that we're meant to be building? Are we even meant to be building walls?

Australians have been building walls for a long time. Home ownership (and construction) is deeply embedded in the Australia psyche, as a recent SBS Documentary "The Australian Dream" clearly shows. One of Australia's cult films also shows us how fundamental this "value" is to Australian self-definition...

 

 
Clearly (or at least I would think it is clear), the gospel calls us to set aside our own dreams and, instead, align ourselves with building not our own kingdom but God's.
 
And what of Jerusalem? Some modern-day dispensationalists place a great emphasis on the current city of Jerusalem. But is that right? It seems to me that Jerusalem has had its day in God's economy. As with many of the Old Testament cults, locations and practices, it has served its purpose in pointing us forward to the true realities.
 
Hebrews 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect,
The Jerusalem we belong to and have a deep emotional investment in is, therefore, not the lump of ground in the Middle East but something "heavenly". In which case, building the walls of that Jerusalem is going to be something more than hard yakka with bricks and mortar.
 
Watch this space .

Debating Calvinism - inevitable recursion

17 Jul

Hands up everyone who's had that one happen to them. Usually, not even a hint of panic, nor reference of the actual facts of the matter.

 

h/t Sacred Sandwich


Getting the Gospel Right - Defining the Crisis

14 Jul

It strikes me that the main problem in Christian churches today, where they have gone astray, is that they have failed to both understand and proclaim what the real crisis is.

So, what is the real crisis in the Scriptures? It is not so much that man is "lonely" or just that his relationship with God is "broken". It is far deeper than that.

The crisis in the Scriptures, from almost the first page, is that God hates sin. Without this in place any remedy that we offer is as useless as a doctor who has misdiagnosed cancer as a "passing tummy bug - it will all feel better in a few days".

 

The Church has always known this. Perhaps nowhere is the great tension of sin and judgement seen more clearly than in the medieval and later Requiem masses. For all the erroneous additions, at the core of the Sequentia Dies Irae lies a clear theology of the dilemma that a returning Holy God brings to the people of the World.


Verdi captured it perfectly...

 
Dies iræ! dies illa
Solvet sæclum in favilla:
Teste David cum Sibylla!
 
Quantus tremor est futurus,
Quando iudex est venturus,
Cuncta stricte discussurus!
 
The day of wrath, that day
Will dissolve the world in ashes
As foretold by David and the sibyl!
 
How much tremor there will be,
when the judge will come,
investigating everything strictly!
Mozart also portrays the sheer terror of that day...
 
 
Get the diagnosis wrong and you will always provide the wrong cure. If a doctor did that consistently they would be struck off.

Women Bishops in the CofE - Voting at General Synod

11 Jul

Saturday 10 July 2010 saw probably the most tense voting yet on this thorny subject at the Church of England General Synod.

Over the course of the day, Synod voted to note the report of the Revision Committee which we have written about previously. The Committe, remember, were unable to agree on legislation to provide statutory protection for dissenters and ended up recommending a Code of Practice - a solution which both Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals had pointed out (on numerous occassions) were simply insufficient and reneged on previous guarantees and promises made by General Synod.

Next, debate and voting moved to 3 amendments put forward by various parties. In some senses these provided a range of choices for Synod.

The first (512a), advocating for seperate dioceses, was defeated; 134 in favour, 285 against and 8 abstentions. The vote for was, perhaps, higher than had been expected and caused renewed interest.

The second amendment (513a), called for an equivalent of TEA (Transfer of Episcopal Authority) - ie a woman diocesan bishop would, at request of a parish, transfer her authority to a male bishop suitable to the parish. This was defeated in houses Bishops 10-28-2 (aye-no-abst), Clergy 52-124-3, Lay 73-118-4.

Finally, amendment 514a was put forward by Canterbury and York. This was seen as a middle ground, essentially providing for a "sharing" of authority between diocesan and alternate bishop. The mood in the chamber was, some have reported, conciliatory - on both sides, it might be noted. However the amendment was defeated in houses with Bishops (25-15-0) and Lay (106-86-4) voting in favour, but clergy voting against 85-90-5.

Further amendments lapsed through lack of the 40 members needed to call a discussion and vote.

One major sentiment in the Synod was shock that the Archbishops' amendment had been defeated. Certainly the coming days will be interesting.

As expected, various parties have already released statements.

Women and the Church (WATCH):

Full Steam Ahead for Women Bishops
Church can Move Forward at Last

WATCH is delighted that the Church has today affirmed its wish to appoint women as bishops on the same basis as men.

The General Synod, meeting in York, re-iterated its decision of July 2008 that when women are appointed bishops they will be in charge of their entire Diocese. Amendments suggesting that there should be separate dioceses for those opposed, or permanent flying bishops, or that parishes should automatically be transferred to another bishop, were all rejected by the Synod.

Hilary Cotton, Vice-Chair of WATCH, said, ‘We are absolutely delighted that Synod has stuck with its decision of two years ago and wants women to be bishops with full authority. This is good news for all women, not just women in the Church.’

Rachel Weir Chair of WATCH said, ”This has been an agonisingly slow journey and the Church has rightly wanted to do all it could for those who find this difficult, but we are delighted that Synod has made the right decision in the end”. Now at last the Church can move forward and accept the wonderful gifts of leadership that our women bring.”

On Monday the Synod will decide what minor amendments to make. It will also be given the opportunity to vote for the simplest possible legislation, in other words that ‘the Church will appoint male and female bishops’. Arrangements for those opposed would then be entrusted to individual bishops under a Code of Practice that will be drawn up in the near future.

This is not the end of the journey. The wider Church will now be invited to debate the proposals and if approved General Synod will have a final vote on them in about eighteen months time.

(This via Thinking Anglicans - original not yet on WATCH website.)

Anglican Mainstream, claiming to represent both evangelicals and catholics, have this:

ANGLO- CATHOLIC AND EVANGELICAL GENERAL SYNOD MEMBERS SEEK ‘URGENT’ MEETING WITH ARCHBISHOPS FOLLOWING THIS AFTERNOON’S DEBATE ON WOMEN BISHOPS

ANGLO-CATHOLIC and Evangelical members of the Church of England’s General Synod, meeting in York this weekend, have asked for an “urgent” meeting following Synod’s defeat of the Archbishops’ amendment on the Measure which would allow Women to be Bishops in the Church of England.

The Archbishops’ put forward an unprecedented amendment to the Women Bishops Revision Committee’s recommendations , which they felt would help maintain unity within the church and be pastorally sensitive to those who, from theological and conscience issues, cannot accept the Episcopal ministry of women.

Despite a majority of synod voting FOR the Archbishops’’ amendment, it failed on a “procedural device” of requiring a two-thirds majority in all three houses: Bishops, clergy and laity. In the House of Clergy, the vote was split 50/50.

The subsequent crisis in the CofE, and its Synodical and Episcopal leadership has led senior Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical leaders this evening to request and urgent meeting with both Archbishops to discuss the matter before Synod resumes its Women Bishop debates on the issue on Monday morning.

In the meantime, leaders of the two groups within the CofE are asking parishes to pray earnestly this weekend for grace and wisdom for the General Synod as they seek God’s will for His church.

and this:

The debate in synod is not about gender equality. It is about the liberty to hold within the Church of England two views about leadership in the church which are compatible with scripture and tradition.  Most have accepted that there will be women bishops in the Church of England.

The problem the Archbishops were trying to address was trying to address was the problem of monoepiscopacy, the belief that only one bishop can have jurisdiction in one geographical area. Synod was trying to find a way in which

i)      all bishops would be of equal status and
ii)     would provide a way in which those who, on grounds of scripture and theology, cannot accept women as bishops, can continue to flourish within the Church of England without diminishing the status of women bishops.

So far we have yet to find a solution. Further meetings to address this will take place.

Philip Giddings
Chris Sugden

Forward in Faith have this:

Forward in Faith notes that the amendment to the draft Measure to permit the ordination of women as bishops standing in the names of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York failed to gain approval today by just five votes in the House of Clergy, despite the fact that a significant majority of the members of Synod voted in its favour.

We naturally share the Archbishops' disappointment at this turn of events and will now take counsel together, as we await the resumption of the debate on Monday.

And the Catholic Group on Synod this:

We deeply regret that the General Synod has decided to ignore the leadership of the chief pastors of the Church of England Archbishops of Canterbury and York.

The voting was by the three Houses of Synod separately, with support from the Bishops and Laity but not from the Clergy. In total, 216 people voted in favour and 191 against with 9 abstentions - so there was support for the Archbishops' amendments.

By rejecting the opportunity for unity that the Amendments they proposed would have achieved, it has made it very difficult for those who in conscience cannot accept the ministry for women priests and bishops.

The process in General Synod is not over and we would wish to be involved in the ongoing discussions as to a way forward that includes all loyal members of the Church of England.

So where are we at? Debate continues on Monday, although it goes without saying that there will be pretty involved conversation today (Sunday). Stay tuned. And pray.

We'll do our best to keep you updated from across the oceans. For a breadth of coverage you might also want to peruse Anglican Mainstream and Thinking Anglicans.

 


« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Web Statistics