Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
LORDS SUPPER
IN
HUMAN HANDS
EPILOGUE
P ETER
E DITORS
G . B OLT, M ARK D. T HOMPSON , R OBERT T ONG
Edition:
1st ed.
ISBN:
978-0-9803769-7-5 (eBook)
Subjects:
Other Authors/Contributors:
Bolt, Peter, 1958
Thompson, Mark (Mark Donald)
Tong, Robert.
Dewey Number:
264.03036
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
2. The Minority Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
3. Diaconal Administration of the Lords Supper and
The 2010 Opinion of the Appellate Tribunal . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
4. The Constitution, the Appellate Tribunal
and other things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
5. The theological necessity of lay administration . . . . . . . . . . . .44
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
No t e o n C o n t r i b u t o r s
Peter G. Bolt is the head of New Testament and Greek at Moore College, a
member of the Sydney Doctrine Commission, a member of General Synod,
and the editor of the Australian Church Record.
Glenn N. Davies is the Bishop of North Sydney, a member of Sydney
Synod Standing Committee and a member of the General Synod Doctrine
Commission.
Mark D Thompson heads the Department of Theology, Philosophy and
Ethics at Moore College, chairs the Sydney Doctrine Commission, and is
President of the Anglican Church League. He is a member of the Sydney
Synod and Standing Committee as well as the General Synod and its
Doctrine Commission.
Robert Tong AM has long experience in the governance structures of the
Anglican Church at diocesan, national and international levels. He has published and spoken on Anglican constitutional and legal issues.
1
Introduction
| 5
Sydney Diocese (and elsewhere) for over forty years. That volume was
an attempt to share some of the theological thinking and the history
of various decisions made by the Sydney Synod in favour of removing
the prohibition restricting the administration of the Lords Supper to
priests only. It highlighted the silence of Scripture, a silence which
opens up the possibility of freedom of action in this matter. Yet such
freedom should be exercised responsibly and ought to be shaped by
sound theological reflection. It is this conviction which explains why
in Sydney there has been extensive discussion of the issue, producing
at least six major reports concluding in favour of lay and diaconal
administration.
The Lords Supper in Human Hands responded to a number of the
charges made by opponents of this measure. One such charge is that
the Diocese of Sydney has taken an eccentric position which is out of
step with the rest of the Anglican world and with Anglican history.
In response the 2008 volume gathered the evidence from a wide
variety of sources which demonstrates that the Sydney discussion
was not isolated and certainly was not held secretly or in a corner.
For well over 100 years the issue of non-priestly administration of the
sacramentsespecially in mission contextshas been given voice
from various places around the globe (including England, India, Africa
and Australia).
It has also been suggested that the Diocese of Sydney was advocating
anarchy, with any lay person or deacon being permitted to administer
without any authorization whatsoever. However, as the 2008 volume
demonstrated, all the proposals from Sydney have been for duly and
properly selected, appointed and approved persons exercising this
responsibility. This adjustment to church order is constructive, not
destructive; it does not provoke a crisis, but attempts to solve one.
Some have sought to compare this proposal with the action of
others who have fractured the Anglican Communion by flagrant
disregard of the expressed mind of Scripture in the area of human
sexuality (confirmed once again in statements by representatives of
6 | T H E LO R D ' S S U P P E R I N H U M A N H A N D S E P I LO G U E
That is, the legislative authorization for lay persons and deacons to
administer the Lords Supper, according to the Appellate Tribunal, is
consistent with the Constitution, but requires a Canon of General
Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia before a diocesan synod
INTRODUCTION
| 7
All members of the Appellate Tribunal considered the Reference: The Hon Mr Justice
Peter W Young, AO, President, Mr Max Horton OAM, Deputy President, The Hon Justice
David J Bleby, The Hon Keith Mason AC QC, The Most Rev Phillip Aspinall, Archbishop
of Brisbane, The Most Rev Roger Herft Archbishop of Perth and The Rt Rev Peter Brain,
Bishop of Armidale. For Appellate Tribunal opinions, see the http://www.anglican.org.au.
INTRODUCTION
| 9
The canons involved in this reference are, in chronological order, the Lay Assistants at
Holy Communion Canon 1973, the Ordination of Deacons Canon 1985, the Authorized Lay
Ministry Canon 1992 and the Canon Concerning Services 1992.
3 In the interest of sharing Sydneys thinking on the issue with others in the Communion,
the resolution also requested that the Diocesan Secretary to send a copy of The Lords Supper
in Human Hands to all bishops who attended the GAFCON.
2
10 | T H E LO R D ' S S U P P E R I N H U M A N H A N D S E P I LO G U E
2
The Minority Report
Pe t e r B o lt
| 11
| 13
Bishop Brain explained that he raised these issues to ask the question:
do we want the Anglican Church of Australia to be a Church that
operates as a fellowship-grace model or one that functions on a
litigious antagonistic model? [125]. In addition, he noted that:
14 | T H E LO R D ' S S U P P E R I N H U M A N H A N D S E P I LO G U E
ENDNOTES
This is an edited version of Bishop Brains opinion, which at some points summarizes
and at other points expands the original text in order to render it more readable as a standalone contribution. The original paragraph numbers are provided in square brackets [ ].
2 The opinion of the majority of the Appellate Tribunal, expressed in its opinion given on
1
| 15
16 | T H E LO R D ' S S U P P E R I N H U M A N H A N D S E P I LO G U E
3
Diaconal Administration
of the Lords Supper and
The 2010 Opinion
of the Appellate Tribunal
G l e n n N. Dav i e s
Introduction
1. On 10 August 2010 the Appellate Tribunal reported to the Primate
on their opinion concerning six questions brought to them by
over 25 members of the General Synod, in accordance with
the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia. While the
questions ranged over a number of aspects relating to diaconal and
lay administration of the Lords Supper, the answer to Question 3
is the concern of this article.
2. Question 3 asked whether the Ordination Service for Deacons Canon
1985 permitted or authorised deacons to administer the Lords
Supper. The majority opinion of the Appellate Tribunal (Bishop
Peter Brain dissenting) answered No.
D I A C O N A L A D M I N I S T R AT I O N O F T H E L O R D S S U P P E R
| 17
| 19
at http://sydneyanglicans.net/ministry/seniorclergy/bishop_davies/
articles/submission_to_appellate_tribunal_by_bishop_davies.
| 21
| 23
| 25
| 27
| 29
times past but had become so due to the licentiousness of the late
times. It also recognised it would be a useful service for baptising
natives on the Plantations, but once the anomaly of unbaptised
members of the Church of England had been remedied, the norm
of infant baptism would return. That the Ordinal was not expressing a theological statement that deacons could not baptise adults
is clearly refuted by its reference to Philip as a member of the
order of deacons, who baptised the adult Ethiopian eunuch
(Acts 6:5; 8:38). Rather, it was expressing the perceived lack of
necessity for deacons to baptise persons other than infants, once
the anomaly introduced during the years of the Commonwealth
had been erased. Yet times had changed by 1985. A permanent
diaconate was contemplated as well as women assuming and
remaining in that office. Hence, despite Dr Aspinalls claim to the
contrary, the radical revision of the Ordinal in 1985, by the
omission of any reference to infants was expanding the age of the
baptismal candidates, in light of the changed conditions, as
referred to in the report from the Liturgical Commission in
presenting the canon to the General Synod.
31. However, another aspect to the authorisation of deacons to
baptise candidates other than infants is the Canon Concerning
Baptism 1992. It is widely recognised that this canon allows
deacons to baptise candidates of any age. Indeed this is the
widespread practice in many dioceses for 20 years, although it is
also true that some diocesan bishops do not allow deacons to
baptise adults, notwithstanding the canon being in force in their
diocese. However, it should be noted that the canon does not
expressly authorise deacons to baptise, rather it speaks of the
minister, which in context is the ordained minster (including
deacons), in the same way that the Solemnization of Holy
Matrimony 1981 includes deacons (see paragraph 22 above). With
the lack of express authorisation and the weight of the BCP
30 | T H E LO R D ' S S U P P E R I N H U M A N H A N D S E P I LO G U E
D I A C O N A L A D M I N I S T R AT I O N O F T H E L O R D S S U P P E R
| 31
Conclusion
36. It is difficult to predict how the synod of the Diocese of Sydney
will react to this advisory opinion of the Appellate Tribunal. As
the then Primate, Archbishop Rayner, stated in his Presidential
32 | T H E LO R D ' S S U P P E R I N H U M A N H A N D S E P I LO G U E
ENDNOTES
In my view it is impermissible to define the orders of bishops and priest and deacons in
terms of function. Nor is it correct to interpret the section, as the assessors do, by forbidding
this Church from altering the basic functions of bishops, priests or deacons. Young J, 1997
Appellate Tribunal Opinion Concerning Diaconal and Lay Presidency, at 27.
1
D I A C O N A L A D M I N I S T R AT I O N O F T H E L O R D S S U P P E R
| 33
[I]t is a highly dubious matter to contend that the Fundamental Declarations demand
the retention of any particular practice of the primitive church, including any primitive
practice of who may be permitted to preside at the eucharist. Clearly the intention of the
Fundamental Declarations here, as a knowledge of our contentious Constitutional history
will bear out, is simply to preserve Apostolic Faith and Doctrine. Nothing is said about
practice. The Bishop of Bathurst, ibid, at 81.
3 Handley J, ibid, at 22.
4 Cited in Pearce & Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 6th ed, at 2.28. If a gap
is disclosed, the remedy lies in an amending Act and not in a usurpation of the legislative
function under the thin guise of interpretation. Lord Simmons in Magor and St Mellons RDC
v Newport Corp [1952] AC 189 at 191, also cited by Pearce & Geddes, ibid.
5 Ibid, at 2.29. Pearce & Geddes also cite at 2.29 the opinion of Kirby J in James Hardie
& Coy Pty Ltd v Seltsam Pty Ltd (1998) 159 ALR 268 at 288: Lord Diplocks approach to
statutory construction now prevails, not only in England, but also in Australia and
throughout the common law world. Today, unless driven to the result by unyielding words,
no judicial satisfaction is to be derived from concluding that the manifest target of legislation
has been missed.
6 Craies on Statute Law, 5th ed, 1952 at 133, cited approvingly by the New South Wales
Arbitration Commission in Bridge v Mattis [1953] 52 AR (NSW) 49 at 56-7, cited by Pearce
& Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 6th ed, at 3.33.
7 Hill v William Hill (Park Lane) Ltd [1949] AC 530, at 546-7.
8 Pearce & Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia, 6th ed, at 2.36.
2
34 | T H E LO R D ' S S U P P E R I N H U M A N H A N D S E P I LO G U E
4
The Constitution, the Appellate
Tribunal and other things
R o b e r t To n g
n this chapter I set out under several headings some short notes
to help the reader reflect on the statement by the Sydney Synod that
the Lords Supper in this Diocese may be administered by persons
other than presbyters.
The constitution
In 1787, the Home Office appointed the Reverend Richard Johnson as
Chaplain to the new penal colony of New South Wales. The evangelical
Eclectic Society and John Newton played a part in securing the
appointment. Thus Christianity in its official Anglican expression
arrived with the First Fleet as part of the apparatus of government.
Johnsons official position in the Colony was unique: while a clergyman
of the Established Church he was on the payroll of the government and
he was a military chaplain appointed by commission in the same way
as the other senior officers. Johnson and his immediate successor
chaplains also held the office of civil magistrate. These early chaplains
T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N , T H E A P P E L L AT E T R I B U N A L A N D O T H E R T H I N G S
| 35
| 37
Book worship. The final form of the constitution preserves the primacy
of the diocese over the General Synod.
The compromise in the constitution is twofold. The 1662 Book
of Common Prayer became constitutionally the only authorized
service book for the Australian Church, however Section 4 of the
constitution gives power to a diocesan bishop, on a request from a
parish, to authorize variations. This allows ritual practices which are
variations to BCP to be authorized at the diocesan level.
Secondly, safeguards are built into the canon making process.
Normally canons of General Synod take effect within a month of
passing. However, any canon of General Synod which deals with
ritual ceremonial or discipline does not become part of the law of a
diocese until adopted by ordinance of that synod. Any canon adopted
can later be excluded.
Additionally, if a canon states that it affects the order and good
government of a diocese, then that canon requires adoption by a
diocese before it takes effect in that diocese. Where a canon does not
contain that statement, a diocese can form the opinion that the canon
affects the order and good government or church trust property of the
diocese. If the Standing Committee of General Synod agrees with this
opinion the canon does not take effect in the diocese. If the General
Synod Standing Committee does not agree with the opinion of the
diocese, they refer the question to the Appellate Tribunal for decision.
The 1961 Constitution created a new entity known as the Church
of England in Australia which changed its name to the Anglican Church
of Australia in 1982. The text of the 1961 Constitution is set out as a
schedule to acts of parliament of the various states and territories of
Australia. The various State and Territory covering acts are similar
but not identical. This means that the reach of the constitution may
vary from state to state. In New South Wales, the Court of Appeal
held in Scandrett v Dowling6 that the 1961 Constitution was binding
in respect to property. That is, the court would uphold property
decisions made pursuant to provisions of the constitution. Other
38 | T H E LO R D ' S S U P P E R I N H U M A N H A N D S E P I LO G U E
| 39
or senior lawyers in their own diocese, may well have provided advice
on the question. Diocesan bishops are constitutionally members of
the General Synod and most of the lawyer members of the tribunal
are or have been elected representatives. They participate in the
making of legislation which will then be tested in the tribunal of
which they are members. There have been occasions when members
of the tribunal have entertained requests to stand down because of
perceived bias but so far no member has done so.
How final or binding is a decision or opinion? In a discipline case
the tribunal is limited to imposing one of the five sentences stated in
section 60 of the constitution and even then the sentence is only a
recommendation to the relevant bishop. While the bishop is bound
to pronounce the sentence on the guilty clergyman, the bishop is at
complete liberty to impose a lesser penalty or none at all. Hardly a
decision which is final or binding! On the section 63(1) answers,
there is no legislative obligation on the General Synod to follow the
answers and answers given by the Tribunal do not restrict the ambit
of the legislative powers of the General Synod. Again hardly final or
binding. There is no General Synod apparatus to enforce answers
without resort to the secular courts.7
On the wider canvas of Australian jurisprudence, and despite
some efforts, advisory opinions, as a present function of the judicial
arm of government is almost unknown. With a domestic tribunal, a
function to interpret and construe the meaning of words in the
constitution of an association is of practical utility. However, if this
useful constitutional provision is exploited to require answers to
questions which should be properly determined by the rule making
body of the association the process becomes politicized so that the
persuasive power and moral force of advisory opinions is significantly
weakened and compromised.
Omitting the one discipline appeal, set out below are short
references to the opinions delivered by the tribunal. There is no
uniform recording of the opinions or agreed method of citation.
T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N , T H E A P P E L L AT E T R I B U N A L A N D O T H E R T H I N G S
| 41
ENDNOTES
The conference is reported in Giles R, The Constitutional History of the Australian Church,
Skeffington & Son Ltd, London, 1929
2 Gorham v Bishop of Exeter 1850 Moore's Special Reports 462. See Chadwick O, The
Victorian Church Part One 1829-1859, SCM Press Ltd, London, 1987 p 250-271 for background
and analysis.
3 Long v Cape Town (Bishop of) (1863) 1 Moore NS 411;15 ER 756; Re Natal, Lord Bishop of
(1865) III Moore NS 115;(1865) 16 ER 43; Bishop of Natal v Gladstone (1866) 3 Ch 1; The
Bishop of Cape Town v The Bishop of Natal (1869) 6 Moore 204
4 Long v Cape Town (Bishop of) (1863) 1 Moore NS 411; 15 ER 756 at 774
5 Giles R, The Constitutional History of the Australian Church, Skeffington & Son Ltd,
London, 1929 has a chapter on the nexus opinions.
6 Scandrett v Dowling (1992) 27 NSWLR 483
7 Scandrett v Dowling (1992) 27 NSWLR 483 at 542 citing Long v Cape Town (Bishop of)
(1863) 1 Moore NS 411 at 461-462; 15 ER 756 at 774-775
T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N , T H E A P P E L L AT E T R I B U N A L A N D O T H E R T H I N G S
| 43
5
The theological necessity of
lay administration
1
Ma r k Th o m p s o n
44 | T H E LO R D ' S S U P P E R I N H U M A N H A N D S E P I LO G U E
| 45
the ability to teach it to others. The apostle did not identify a separate
liturgical or sacramental function which would distinguish the
ministry of the elder from that of others. Eventually the Anglican
Ordinal would pick up this connection and seek to reflect it in the
charge to presbyters to be a faithful dispenser of the word of God and
of his holy sacraments (AAPB).
This connection of word and sacrament, along with the priority
the New Testament so obviously gives to teaching, renders deeply
problematic any suggestion that a distinguishing mark of the
presbyter is the authority (and/or capacity) to administer the Lords
Supper. It also raises important questions about a willingness to
allow others to preach while insisting that only the presbyter may
administer the Lords Supper. The encouragement of lay preachers
has been a very welcome development over the last two centuries or
so. It has enriched the life of the churches and given due recognition
to the fact that while presbyters must be gifted and capable teachers,
they are not the only ones. However, if unordained people are
permitted to preach, with all the importance the New Testament
places on that function, why are they forbidden to administer the
Lords Supper? By retaining such a prohibition, do we not elevate the
Lords Supper above preaching the word of God? Is such a conclusion
not made all the more plausible by a willingness to allow laypeople to
lead other parts of the liturgy, to pray and read the Bible, and yet
refuse permission for them to administer the Supper?
The separation of word and sacrament in this way raises further
questions about the nature of the church. It is possible to give great
importance to the practice of baptism and the Lords Supper without
suggesting that these constitute the Christian gathering. Christian
churches are not, first and foremost, sacramental entities. They are,
instead, gatherings of those God has called to himself to live together
under his word. Disciples of Christ are brought together by the Spirit
to hear what God has to say to his people and to pray together to our
heavenly Father. In such a context the practice of baptism and the
T H E T H E O L O G I C A L N E C E S S I T Y O F L A Y A D M I N I S T R AT I O N
| 47
| 49
A fuller account, summarising the theological arguments that have been used over the
course of the debates, is found in M. D. Thompson, Lay Administration: The Theological
Considerations, in The Lords Supper in Human Hands: Who Should Administer? (ed. by P. Bolt,
M. Thompson & R. Tong; Camperdown, NSW: Australian Church Record, 2008), pp. 2135.
2 This has been the conclusion of a number of reports from the Sydney Doctrine
Commission, and it has been made by many others as well. T. Lloyd, Lay Presidency at the
Eucharist? (Grove Liturgical Studies 9; Bramcote: Grove, 1977), p. 29.
3 There is some debate about what was in fact going on in 1 Corinthians 11 and the extent
to which it mirrors the Holy Communion as it is structured by the Book of Common Prayer
and later Anglican prayer books. That debate only marginally impacts the question we are
considering (that of lay and diaconal administration of the Lords Supper). However, it is
striking that in a passage in which Paul is undoubtedly seeking to deal with disorder in the
congregational remembrance of the Lords death associated with some kind of meal, he
1
50 | T H E LO R D ' S S U P P E R I N H U M A N H A N D S E P I LO G U E
T H E T H E O L O G I C A L N E C E S S I T Y O F L A Y A D M I N I S T R AT I O N
| 51
6
Conclusions
The next step in this discussion will come at the annual meeting of
the Sydney Synod in October 2010.
We said in the Introduction that our purpose in publishing this
booklet is to help members of the Sydney Synod consider the
advisory opinion of the Appellate Tribunal in broad context as that
opinion intersects with synod resolution 27/2008.
We have drawn attention to the opinion of Bishop Peter Brain
(Chapter 2). The reasoning of the majority opinion of the Tribunal
can also be questioned, as is evident in Bishop Davies response to the
publication of the Tribunals opinion (Chapter 3).
The Appellate Tribunal and its opinions need to be set against the
history and constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia, and
against some weaknesses in the way the Appellate Tribunal presently
operates, as Robert Tong has argued (Chapter 4).
But, far more importantly, as Mark Thompson has argued
(Chapter 5), the narrow legal questions need to be set in the more
significant context of the biblical and theological understandings and
directions. The conscience of Gods people is not duty-bound to
anything other than the Word of God and, on the issue of who
administers the Lords Supper, Gods word is silent. This opens up an
area of freedom.
The arguments put forward by the Diocese of Sydney over the last
40 years have been shaped by our commitment to Scripture as the
ultimate authority in all matters. Our theology should be determined
by the teaching of Scripture and our practice, together with the legal
C O N C LU S I O N S
| 53
54 | T H E LO R D ' S S U P P E R I N H U M A N H A N D S E P I LO G U E