Today I was asked whether I thought lay presidency was a 'winner', after all, it was being promoted by the hyper evangelical Australia which must mean it was 'sound'.
In something of an Orwellian, "Four legs good, two legs bad," approach it was obvious that my inquisitor worked on the premise , "Australia good, TEC bad," and so even though they didn't understand the issue had assumed it must be right.
Sadly, in this case I do not think that this is so for a number of reasons (job security being the least of them).
The members of DACE (Diaconal Association of the Church of England) who are ordained as deacons and see themselves complete in this role (rather than deacon being merely being a transition on the way to priest). Some deacons, having a non-eucharistic ministry, have an understanding that upsidedown world is lacking here!
The reality that those denominations who practice lay presidency are (or so it appears) generally going down the tubes as they blur and diminish the presidential role of ministry speaks of the order and structures and the perils of removing them.
I'm an evangelical and I see nothing 'Catholic' in the ontological approach to priesthood and presidency. Being a priest should have the reality of difference and the orders within the Church of England are balanced, right and proper as I understand them.
One of the arguments 'For' as I understand it is that this would provide churches who would otherwise have none, with a Eucharistic minister. A rather hollow argument, for if we were to call out someone to be the lay president, then surely they could equally be called out to ordination too. This does come back to the OLM situation whereby what someone called 'Super Readers' are ordained. Surely this would maintain the orders within the C of E and satisfy this apparent need?
The logical implication of this situation, if we were to see deacons presiding, is that it would assume (or make reality) of the fact that word and sacrament are one. If a deacon is compelled to 'read the Gospel in the Church and preach the same' whilst the priest is compelled to "preach the Word of God, and to minister the holy Sacraments'. Two very different acts and two very different roles - which should not be eroded for convenience, or flawed theological extrapolations, sake.
My considered view is that in looking as they do at lay ministry, the Australian church is in grave danger of weakening and undermining vocation in general and ordination in particular and of being very much less Anglican in the same way that TEC is often regarded as being.
6 comments:
This is not just a problem in ecclesiastical circles. It's seems to be rife in society.
"Lay" people taking on professional occupations. You are likely to see a nursing auxillary at your Doctors surgery,who may know "how" but not "why". A classroom assistant can teach your children and a civilian take your statement at a police Station.
I wonder if the word "vocation" sadly has much meaning these days.
Maybe an NVQ in mechanics could be used in the operating room?
I have to take issue with you here as well.
Ultimately, as evangelicals, our authority is the Bible, and I see nothing in the Bible to support restricting who can celebrate communion. Additionally, I see very little in it that supports ordination as we understand it today.
Ultimately, refusal to allow lay presidency suggests that there are two classes of christian, which is contrary to the teaching of the Bible.
Seems we'll disagree here in that what we are looking at is an Anglican thing and it would be something that wasn't an issue if we were merely evangelicals. But of course we're evangelicals in an Anglican setting and this is the difference.
Then again, oh some many evangelicals (in an Anglican setting) appear to think that paedobaptism is wrong, wonder why they're Anglicans (must be the training, stipends and glorious housing ;)).
I don't think it is about classes of Christian and in fact see the deacon, priest, bishop as bringing much to the party as after all the greatest calling is that of laos anyway.
Hey ho - thanks for the comments though, always good to be made to stop and think, not enough of that around these days.
My understanding of this issue has developed considerably over time. As I have written elsewhere, one of the things I consider my ordination does is connect the local congregation with the wider church. In other words, my presidency at the Eucharist is not simply the decision of one local congregation but has been recognised and approved, through the bishop, by the Church of England and the wider Communion. This means that a Communion service is more than simply the act of a single group of people, but "connects into" the worship of the whole Church.
There, I've gone quite catholic in my late middle age, though I think there is plenty of scriptural justification for this. Lay presidency makes sense if one takes a congregational view of the church (which in effect many Anglicans do, just as many take a Baptist view of baptism). But if we take an episcopal view of ecclesiology, then it seems to me to make no sense at all.
And again I find that even in differing there is coalescence :)
Thanks,
V
Vic, Just as a question, how does one reconcile being evangelical with being Anglican? It's something that I've never quite got my head around, and I'm an Anglican evangelical!!
Post a Comment