Delivered on 19-22 October 1999

(Note that these were not the exact words - Bishop Barnett spoke without his notes. Nor was there reference in the speech as given to the matter of 'abuse of priesthood and sacrament')

Much as I admire the skill and dedication of John Woodhouse and Barry Newman I stand to speak against them.

I do not find the 'abuse of the priesthood' argument convincing though I accept with regret that there is such abuse and that it is widespread.

Abuse of priesthood and sacrament is not new. Indeed it was the norm at the time Cranmer reformed the English church. Yet Cranmer was so keen to express a deep love of the Lord's Supper that he restricted its administration to those ordained and licenced to teach the Gospel in the churches. Such abuse has been prevalent in our church for more than a century since the rise of the Anglo-Catholic Movement. Yet great evangelicals like J.C. Ryle were staunch Anglicans, who defended our Order. Successive leaders of our Diocese - clergy, laypeople and bishops - have held firmly to our order despite alternative and false views held and practiced elsewhere. They have always taken the view that classic and historic Anglicanism in the BCP and Articles was on our side and that others had departed from it.

So the administration of the Lord's Supper is a matter of 'order' not of doctrine. Doctrinally I find no objection to Lay Administration and as a member of our Doctrine Commission I supported the report along those lines.

Theologically, then, it is 'lawful.'

But as Paul twice said to the Corinthians, 'All things are lawful, but all things are not helpful.'

We suffer greatly from our isolation in Sydney. Often we are not able to see a bigger picture, a world perspective.

At this time the Christian world is in theological crisis, comparable with the crisis of the 300's when Arianism swamped the church.

Our crisis is also about the person of Christ. It is the 'new quest' for the historical Jesus. In the last few years 300 + major books from scholars have been written about Jesus of which a mere handful are true to the Jesus of historic Christianity. The 'Jesus Seminar', Spong, Thiering, John Dominic Crossan and others are devastating the world with their teachings about a merely humanistic Christ.

Their teachings are capturing the minds and hearts of people everywhere.

Present & future generations of theological students are being swamped with presentations of Jesus, The Jesus I Never Knew, as in Philip Yancey's book title. Morna Hooker recently retired chair at Cambridge has recently portrayed Jesus historically as a prophet and nothing more.

The battle for Christ is being lost worldwide while we are preoccupied locally with this relatively small matter.

Yet Sydney diocese and Moore College among the very few places in the developed world within Anglicanism to hold to orthodox and biblical view of Jesus, and to do so based on genuine scholarship as well as effective evangelism.

Whole denominations are being lost to a humanistic view of Jesus. Europe. US. Canada. Great Britain.

I am saying that the wider Christian world needs us. Fellow Anglicans world-wide need us.

Yet many liberals in church leadership will be very happy for us to go.

Sydney clergy are having a huge impact in Britain and North America as theological educators, preachers and personal mentors.

Do you think liberal leaders abroad will licence ministers from a diocese that has instituted Lay Presidency. Liberal leadership is probably hoping we will do this, to give them a perfect excuse. 'Oh, you are from Sydney. You people are not Anglican.'

Lay Administration may be 'lawful,' doctrinally speaking, but will it be 'helpful' for the work of the Gospel?

The Lambeth Conference showed that the churches in the developed world had lost their way, but that the churches in the 'two thirds' world have not.

The bishops of Africa and Asia saved the day on the sexuality issue helped by a handful of orthodox bishops from the developed world.

And those churches in the developing world are BCP churches. Not all the clergy have had extended training. The BCP has helped keep them on track, theologically.

They are orthodox, but they are conservative liturgically.

Part of that conservatism is Anglican Order - Bishop, Priest, Deacon - and the role of the ordained person. Ordination agrees culturally with the natural hierarchies in Africa and Asia. Lay presidency will be mystifying in that part of the world where Anglicanism is growing and where the future lies.

Yet, they too, need us:

• Our partnership in mission.
• Our exchange of ministers and people.
• Our theological leadership at a time when liberalism is making deep inroads.
• Such financial help as we can give.

In the coming years they may well see wisdom in Lay Administration. But I doubt that the time has come. If we take this step these dioceses and their Bishops will look to UK and US and not to us for theological educators. Liberal bishops from the cash rich US can use money and influence to cascade heresy through poor churches in the 'two thirds' world.

Do we wish to take ourselves out of providing godly help to those who need us? Is the theological point we are seeking to make worth making if this is the cost? Is it worth doing this if it means, in effect, becoming cut off from world-wide Anglicanism? But the rest of the world sure does need us as we need the rest of the world. So let us be mature. Statesman-like. Aware of the wider world.

'Is it theolically lawful?' Probably, 'Yes.' Will it be 'helpful'? Probably, 'No.'

I do not think we should do it.