Lay Presidency: Time for Change?
In recent generations almost every area of the Church of England's worshipping life has been opened up to lay leadership. But one domain remains the exclusive privilege of the clergy - presiding at Holy Communion. Our canon law insists: 'No person shall consecrate and administer the holy sacrament of the Lord's Supper unless he shall have been ordained priest by episcopal ordination' (Canon B12).
In previous centuries this restriction made good sense, in the days when church leadership was a one-man-band. But in today's Church of England, where theologically-trained and authorized lay leaders are given considerable responsibility for Bible teaching and public worship, to forbid them from leading the Eucharistic prayer is inconsistent and incoherent.
It is time for change. This old and restrictive canon has long since outlived its purpose. There is no hint in the New Testament that presidency at communion must be restricted to episcopally-ordained presbyters. Jesus doesn't mention the subject in the Gospels. Paul gives no ruling on the question, even when writing to the disorderly Corinthians. His instructions for presbyters and deacons in the Pastoral Epistles don't mention the Lord's Supper even once. It is certainly probable that the early Christian leaders normally presided over their corporate worship, but there is nothing in the New Testament to prevent this ministry being shared with others.
When the Church of England enforces strict canonical rules over areas where the Bible allows flexibility, then theological distortion is inevitable. We naturally infer our doctrine from our liturgy, so the ban on lay presidency leads to several theological misunderstandings.... To read more, click here.
12 comments:
There was a time when I would have disagreed. But since the Anglican Communion has fragmented into a million sects its time that Reformed and Evangelical Anglicans formed their own congregations with or without an ordained presbyter. Obviously the proper administration of the sacraments is a vital part of congregational life so lay presidency might be necessary at this time.
So the logic here is that since lay ministers are preaching, then they should administer the sacraments also. Otherwise it is inconsistent. Unfortunately, the same logic might well lead one to the opposite conclusion, that lay ministers ought NOT to preach. Not very convincing in either case. If someone wants to make the argument for lay presidency from Scripture, go ahead, but engaging with the devils of situational ethics is a slippery slope from which a church cannot recover its integrity.
Since the Bible teaches the priesthood of believers all Christians can preach the Gospel provided they understand it properly and that they preach from the Scriptures.
The idea that there needs to be a "professional" ministry leads to elitism. Of course we want ministers who know the Scriptures. But as the article points out we live in a time when lay ministers often have theological training. As Wycliffe once said, when the plow boy knows the Scriptures better than the pope (read professional ministers) then we have something. As it is all we have are hirelings more worried about their own concerns than about the souls of their flock.
And let's not forget that most of the current ministers and congregations are not properly administering the sacraments to begin with.
"Priesthood of all believers".... yes. Calling of all believers to be priests.... no. That would be anarchy. In our 39 Articles, it is clear that congregations are to call (or send) ordained ministers in an orderly fashion. A believer cannot call or send himself under any circumstances. The manner of that calling, whether for example there needs to be a "bishop" involved, is open to considerable flexibility, but under no conditions is God's church permitted to be unruly.
The question of theological training is a red herring, a matter of tactics but not of principle. I would only advise to avoid amateurism (c.f. "Pastors' College" of Sovereign Grace Ministries).
Readers in the Anglican Church of Australia and the Church of England undergo two years of intensive training before they are commissioned and licensed by the bishop of the diocese. A number of them have a university education. Readers are generally non-stipendiary but some readers may receive a stipend for conducting services and preaching sermons in remote, out-of-the-way places.
In the sixteenth, seventeenth, and even eighteen century readers with this much training would have qualified for ordination and might have been appointed to what were then referred to as "lectureships." During that period in English Church history only candidates for ordination who were assured a benefice, or church living, were ordained. A lectureship was not a benefice but it carried a stipend and therefore a candidate for ordination offered a lectureship might be ordained. The Puritans, when the minister of the parish, was not a member of their party, often found a way round this barrier through the endowment of a lectureship.
I do not think the primary issue in the case of the readers in Australia and England is their training or ministerial qualifications but rather that if they were ordained, it would create a new class of non-stipendiary clergy, clergy who are bivocational and supporting themselves by secular employment. This might eventually lead to a reduction in the number of stipendiary positions and less employment opportunities for those who have invested not only in a university education but three or more years training at a ministry training school or theological college. It is this possibility that to a large extent lies behind resistence to the licensing of readers to administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper or to ordain them as non-stipendiary, auxiliary clergy--at least in the evangelical wing of the Anglican Church. Readers are licensed to administer the sacrament of baptism.
As for the third year of training that can be provided after ordination. Even a minister ordained after three years of training in a ministry training school or theological college can benefit from continuing education throughout his ministry and an agreement that he will avail himself of continuing education opportunities should be a part of his contract and his compliance with this agreement should be a part of his annual performance review.
Readers in the Episcopal Church do not receive the level of training that they receive in Australia and England. This also appears to be the case in the ACNA, which adopted the pattern of the Episcopal Church, which replaced the office of reader in the 1980s with a plethora of lay ministries for which the level of training required was not as high as it had been for readers in the Episcopal Church in the past.
Only candidates for ordination at one time could be licensed as readers in the Episcopal Church. Licensing them as readers enabled them to conduct services and preach sermons before their odination and to use their spiritual gifts and to develop their ministry skills. As the need for readers grew, the office was opened to those not preparing for ordination. However, the majority of deacons were recruited from the ranks of the readers in a diocese.
The REC at one time licensed deacons to administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper--as late as the early 1980s. The Presiding Bishop of the CESA may authorize on a one-time basis a reader to administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper under extra-ordinary circumstances. A number of Lutheran denominations authorize lay pastors to administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The Congregationalists have historically practiced lay administration of the Lord's Supper. The person administering the sacrament must be authorized by the congregation for whom he is administering the sacrament, the congregation ultimately being the body that has public authority to call and send men into the Lord's vineyard in a Congregationalist polity.
The Episcopal Church also ordains those without a college education. David Paul Knox did not have a college education when he decided to go to seminary at Regent College. He was granted an M.Div. without having completed his bachelor's degree--or so he says.
Given the fact that many lay ministers like myself are more than qualified for ordination, it's a bit silly to refuse to let lay ministers preach and administer the sacraments.
The reasons I am not ordained with either The Episcopal Church or Anglican Church in North America should be obvious. I would not be welcome in either denomination due to the fact that I'm a consistent Protestant and Calvinist. Basically, semi-pelagian Anglicanism is hostile to the religion of the original English Reformers and the Anglican Formularies.
The fact is having a minister who has been "officially" ordained in a denomination is no guarantee of orthodoxy or faithfulness to Scripture, particularly when the denomination as a whole is not faithful to Scripture.
I would add that there is no such thing as a "priest" in the sacerdotal sense of the word. The word "presbyter" is much more faithful to Scripture.
Charlie
Men do not call men to preach. Either a man is called of God or he is simply a hireling. Being ordained by a visible church is no proof that the man has been chosen and sent by God. There are many false prophets and false teachers in the world today.
Charlie,
The canons of the Episcopal Church do permit the ordination of candidates who do not have an undergraduate degree provided that they meet certain requirements. I am not familiar with the degree programs at Regency College to comment upon its requirements.
Robin, that being the case it is certain that the laity is as educated as many so-called "ordained" ministers. What matters is theological and biblical precision, not who laid hands on the person.
i know this is an old posting. but i thought lay (even licensed lay) persons were only suppose to administer baptism under extreme circumstances? (life and death, and/or no access to a deacon or priest)
I'm not so sure that "extreme circumstances" is the issue so much as it is important for whoever baptizes a child, lay or ordained, to make sure that the child's representatives (parents and/or godparents) are themselves faithful ministers who understand the implications of their promise. Without that reasonable declaration of intent, there is no baptism even if it includes water and the right words.
Baptism is a sacrament only where there is faith present. The outward sign is an empty sign if the person baptized is not elect, regenerated, and given the gift of faith. In the case of infants the god parents stand in surety to guarantee the child is taught the doctrines of the Scriptures and the Christian faith. If the child does not exhibit true repentance and faith after reaching an age of understanding and having been catechized then regardless of who did the baptism the child is not a Christian but a reprobate.
The bottom line is that what counts is faith, not who does the baptism. Where there is no right preaching of the Law and the Gospel there can be no true faith or understanding and no salvation. A true congregation is one where the Gospel is rightly preached and where the sacraments are rightly administered. Both are necessary to true faith.
Also, since there are no Reformed Anglican congregations for all practical purposes, the only option is that believers join with another Reformed denomination or stay home. The other option is to plant an Anglican church.
Most presbyterian churches are no longer properly administering the sacrament since they are following human traditions rather than Scripture. The Scriptures clearly advocate the elements used by Christ, being unleavened bread and fermented wine. I might mention that Christ used a common cup as well.
Post a Comment