Dr John Woodhouse's speech to Synod regarding the motion on Lay Presidency (Administration)

Mr President,

I have pleasure now in moving the third reading of the ordinance before us.

While there is much that I would like to cover in this brief speech, I propose to address two questions that I in fact addressed in the second reading speech 5 years ago:

Why do this?

Why do it like this?

Why do this?

What is the motivation in the diocese of Sydney to move towards removing a perceived prohibition that has a long history and a fairly well established place in the life of Anglican churches?

Five years ago I put it to the Synod that there are times when you have to change to stay the same.

In order words, in order to stay true to fundamentals, to our foundation, to the faith of our fathers, there are times when forms must change. Forms which performed one function at one time must be open to change if that same function is not to be obscured or distorted at another time.

The Book of Common Prayer itself insists that forms need to change: "There was never anything by the wit of man so well devised, or so sure established, which in the continuance of time hath not been corrupted." The BCP wisely recognised that there are things that "at first were of godly intent and purpose devised, and yet at length turned to vanity and superstition."

The proposal we have been considering tonight is a proposal to change one of our forms according to this principle.

The function of this form today is very different from its function in the 16th and 17th centuries in the Church of England.

At that time all public ministry in church was restricted to clergy. Part of the reason for that was, no doubt, an attempt to ensure competence. Part of the reason in 1662 was fear of an all too competent laity. Nevertheless what is clear is that the reason was not that only priests have the power to administer the Lord's Supper.

Today we have developed a wide range of lay ministries, including public lay ministries in which. We are not in the 16th or 17th century situation. The hedge that used to be around all public ministry has now been reduced to a hedge around this one activity.

What is the function of that hedge today?

It is difficult to answer that question. And no doubt there are different answers.

But what is absolutely clear is that for many in the Anglican Church of Australia the prohibition is absolutely vital to protect and preserve and express an understanding of the priesthood and the sacrament that I have to say, with as much courtesy and respect as I can manage, but also as much emphasis, is totally unacceptable - and would have been utterly unacceptable to the likes of Thomas Cranmer.

There is on the ACA website a discussion paper for General Synod members in which it is argued that a priest is essentially, by definition, one who leads the offering of sacrifice in some sense, and that those proposing that lay people might administer the sacrament ought to take warring from the story of Korah in Numbers 16 where divine punishment was instantly imposed who presumed to seek the priesthood for themselves.

Be very clear, the strong objections to this proposal are strong, precisely because they are deeply theologically motivated, from a sacerdotal view of the priesthood and from a sacrificial view of the sacrament.

I have not time here to demonstrate that these are precisely the views that the Reformation and the reformed Church of England repudiated. Priests are presbyters, and the Lord's Supper is not itself a sacrifice, but the sacrament (or sign) of our redemption by Christ's one oblation of himself once offered, that full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.

And so we have a form (the absolute restriction of the administering of the Lord's Supper to ordained priests) which has changed its function. Today - largely because of the expansion of lay ministries in all other areas - it suggests one or more of the following:

there is something about an ordained priest that gives him the power to pray the prayer of consecration effectively - a power which a lay person cannot have;

Higher qualifications are needed for the administration of the Lord's Supper than for preaching the Word of God - lay persons can often do the latter, but never ever the former;

the validity of the Supper depends somehow on the person administering it - a priest (any priest!) is needed to make the occasion authentic;

ordination has more to do with the sacrament than with preaching - a priest can share his preaching ministry with competent godly lay persons, but not his ministry of administering the Lord's Supper;

a priest is essential to the conduct of the Lord's Supper - though not essential for any other event in church life.

In each of these ways, the prohibition on view, while once "of godly intent and purpose devised" now contradicts, or at least obscures the gospel we preach. It has "at length turned to vanity and superstition".

Do not misunderstand.

I am not suggesting that there would be anything wrong if lay administration and diaconal administration were only very occasional things, and only in a few places. The problem is the absolute prohibition.

This Synod has recognised, or at least suspected, for over 20 years that there is no sound reason to retain the prohibition, and very good reasons to change. Numerous Doctrine Commission and Legal and other committee reports have explored the matter in extraordinary theological, pastoral, legal and practical detail. And the long process has brought us to this point, with this ordinance.

Why do it like this?

Very briefly, this ordinance contains the following principles:

Preaching he Word of God and administering the sacrament are kept in close relationship. Only persons who are deemed appropriately mature, gifted and trained to preach would be authorised to administer the Lord's Supper. In no way, therefore is the importance of the sacrament diminished.

A person will only be so authorised by the Archbishop at the request of the minister of the church with the agreement of the Parish Council and the churchwardens. If any of these parties deems the person unsuitable in any way, he/she will not be so authorised.

Lay or diaconal administration of the Lord's Supper will only be introduced to a particular congregation (say the 7.15pm Sunday Congregation) with the agreement of the Parish Council and the churchwardens. If either of these, or the minister, consider it inappropriate for that congregation, it will not happen.

The effect of the ordinance is not to impose a change in practice on any congregation. No one is saying that there is anything wrong at all with a church where it remains always the priest who administers the Supper. The problem is with the perceived absolute prohibition, with the idea that a priest is necessary.

My own view is that this ordinance, and the manner in which this Synod has proceeded on this matter, could hardly be more responsible, cautious, conservative and orderly. There is nowhere in the world where this matter has been explored with more care and thoroughness.

CONTACT:
Margaret Rodgers
mrodgers@anglicanmediasydney.asn.au

Stephen Liggins
sliggins@anglicanmedisydney.asn.au