Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Meanwhile, Across the Tasman

Possibly in order to distract from the Australian rugby team being thrashed, yet again, by the All Blacks, a discussion is arising about the consistencies of the Australian Anglican legal approaches to certain questions of the day. Cunningly, the recent election in Australia, producing a hung parliament - somehow appropriate following the 'political execution' of Kevin Rudd - has also been contrived in order to distract from this imminent thrashing. The lengths some people will go to ... :)

Anyway, the Anglican discussion is well captured by David Ould and posted on Stand Firm. In essence it boils down to this question: has the 'Tribunal' level of examination of the question of women bishops taken a generous view of the wording of the canons of the Anglican Church of Australia to permit women assistant bishops*, but taken a miserly view of the wording of the canons to prohibit diaconal presidency at communion? (*I understand that no amount of expansive interpretation of the canons could support women diocesan bishops. All agree that this would require actual change to the canons by synodical process of the church).

Naturally, a dispassionate, overseas Australophile observer such as myself is intrigued by this discussion.

Intrigue (1): the Sydney Diocese, via its Synod, has also been very keen on lay presidency, but this does not seem to figure in the discussion. Why not? If lay presidency and diaconal presidency are being supported on the basis (as I understand it) that Scripture does not prohibit both and so neither should the canons of the church, why a concern that focuses only on diaconal presidency?

Intrigue (2): is the matter important to the Diocese of Sydney? It has been noticed on the blogosphere that the person fronting the Sydney case has been [Assistant] Bishop Glenn Davies, not Archbishop Peter Jensen himself. Perhaps one rather than the other is inconsequential. But is it at all possible that Archbishop Peter's credibility in the wider Communion needs him to be less rather than more associated with diaconal presidency? If so, is it possible that one day Sydney might 'get' the point that priestly presidency is Anglican, diaconal presidency is, well, something else?

Intrigue (3): Why the focus on the minutiae of canonical interpretation? Is there not a bigger theological picture here? Surely the two questions the Australian church should focus on, in a spirit of Anglican collegiality and communion, is whether (a) bishops being male, and (b) presidents at communion being priests or bishops is essential to being an Anglican church or not?

Still I may be misunderstanding things here. Including this fourth intrigue:

Intrigue (4): Is the Australian Anglican church one church made up of dioceses or a collection of dioceses which functions from time to time as one church?

Keen on the Communion as I am, and hopeful that one day we might become a worldwide church, even I have to recognise that if the answer to the question immediately above is the latter rather than the former, then the future unity of the Communion has a very, very long way to go, because, perhaps, it first has to start in Australia.

Perhaps if we let them win the next rugby test they will feel better about things and more open to change ... :)

6 comments:

John Sandeman said...

Peter,
A good look at The Anglican Church of Australia constitution will answer your question. It is a denomination which gives dioceses wide powers to do things differently from each other. General synod canons are only binding on dioceses if the diocese assents to them.
The dioceses only came together reluctantly in 1962. Two dioceses reserved the right to withdraw from the national church - and no it wasn't the evangelical dioceses!

Andrew Reid said...

Peter, when you start and finish an article with digs at the Wallabies, on principle I have to disagree with everything you've said in the article..;) Don't worry, by the next World Cup we'll have it sorted out and cause 4 more years of anguish and recriminations amongst the All Blacks.

Intrigue 1: While Sydney agrees in principle with lay presidency, Peter Jensen has stated that he will not licence lay people to preside. I think he realises he faces an uphill battle for diaconal presidency, so he's prepared to let lay presidency go.

Intrigue 2: This is a real intrigue, although it's a bit different to how you phrased it. Bishop Glenn Davies appeared in a personal capacity, not on behalf of the Diocese of Sydney. Why the diocese chose not to appear before the tribunal is the real intrigue. They have said in the past that the matter is important practically, because their deacons are often involved in church planting, and they want them to be able to carry out the "full range" of activities at these church plants, rather than having to call in the vicar from the sending church to do communion services. Maybe as you suggest they don't want to cause problems with their GAFCON and Global South friends by pushing this too hard.

Intrigue 3: When you involve the Appellate Tribunal, it's a lawyer's world. Also, no one presented theological arguments. The AT in its report complained that they wanted to address theological issues, but the arguments presented were canonical rather than theological. Like a judge in a court, they can only deal with the arguments presented.

Intrigue 4: This is where we hit the nub of the issue. Sydney argues that the women's ordination and consecration decisions changed the nature of the Anglican Church of Australia. They and a few other dioceses (evangelical and Anglo-Catholic) felt their genuine doctrinal objections were over-ridden in those decisions. They argue that whereas we used to be a national church, we are now a looser federation of dioceses. Therefore, they argue that if it's ok to move ahead in a matter of doctrine (women's ordination and consecration) while others object, it should be ok to move ahead in a matter of church order (diaconal presidency) while others object. Because of our disparate geography and different theological convictions of the bishops who founded the dioceses here, we have always been a very diverse province. However, unlike the US, so far we've managed to keep everyone inside the tent.

Andrew Reid said...

Peter, when you start and finish an article with digs at the Wallabies, on principle I have to disagree with everything you've said in the article..;)

Intrigue 1: While Sydney agrees in principle with lay presidency, Peter Jensen has stated that he will not licence lay people to preside. I think he realises he faces an uphill battle for diaconal presidency, so he's prepared to let lay presidency go.

Intrigue 2: This is a real intrigue, although it's a bit different to how you phrased it. Bishop Glenn Davies appeared in a personal capacity, not on behalf of the Diocese of Sydney. Why the diocese didn't appear is the real intrigue. Maybe as you suggest they don't want to cause problems with their GAFCON and Global South friends by pushing this too hard.

Intrigue 3: When you involve the Appellate Tribunal, it's a lawyer's world. Also, the AT in its report complained that they wanted to address theological issues, but the arguments presented were canonical rather than theological. Like a judge in a court, they can only deal with the arguments presented.

Intrigue 4: This is where we hit the nub of the issue. Sydney argues that the women's ordination and consecration decisions changed the nature of the Anglican Church of Australia. They and a few other dioceses (evangelical and Anglo-Catholic) felt their genuine doctrinal objections were over-ridden in those decisions. They argue that whereas we used to be a national church, we are now a looser federation of dioceses. Therefore, they argue that if it's ok to move ahead in a matter of doctrine (women's ordination and consecration) while others object, it should be ok to move ahead in a matter of church order (diaconal presidency) while others object. Because of our disparate geography and different theological convictions of the bishops who founded the dioceses here, we have always been a very diverse province. However, unlike the US, so far we've managed to keep everyone inside the tent.

Peter Carrell said...

'Tent', Andrew?
I thought Australia was so lovely, warm and dry that you camped outdoors!

When ++Schori came to Oz was she in the tent, or just in the campsite?

Anyway, thank you for helpful clarifications ...

David Ould said...

thanks for the link Peter.

Will have a go at briefly answering your 4 queries

1. As others note, there is no lawful practice of lay presidency in Sydney. The Archbishop has made it abundantly clear that he will not license anyone to carry out this practice.

2. I think it is clear that the matter is important to the diocese, not least as a theological principle of freedom but, more than that, a simple conviction that to ban diaconal presidency is to proscribe something that the Scriptures place no limit upon and that, in and of itself, is wrong.
Given the above, one has to ask why they did not appear before the tribunal. I would venture that the answer is there is a singular lack of confidence in the partiality of that tribunal. I think that the evidence I present only serves to back up that theory.

3. The minutiae is something that the Tribunal peered into. It was, granted, part of the original argument at Diocesan Synod but certainly not to this level of detail. But then that's what happens when the lawyers get involved.

4. Others have answered this adequately. At the end of the day nothing that the tribunal, let alone General Synod, decides will actually affect Sydney.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi David,
Thanks for very clear replies! But I do not find that certain intrigues re Sydney go away from this situation.

(1) Accepted there is no lawful practice of lay presidency in the Sydney Diocese, but it is rumoured that there is unlawful practice. If this is so, is this likely to be the subject of discipline?

(2) Stating "to ban diaconal presidency is to proscribe something that the Scriptures place no limit upon and that, in and of itself, is wrong" raises a question or two. (a) Lay presidency is not limited by Scripture either. Why pursue one and not the other? (b) Wearing chasubles is not limited by Scripture, but the Sydney Diocese (so I understand) proscribes their use. Is that inconsistent (I wonder)?