by ACL President Bruce Ballantine-Jones
At last year's Sydney Synod, an ordinance was passed, almost unnoticed, which could turn out to be the most radical development in the liturgical life of our Church in 400 years.
I am referring to what is called the Canon Concerning Services Ordinance 1998. This ordinance originated with the General Synod. How it came to that body I do not know.
The ordinance endeavours to tidy up rules about the frequency and advertising of Sunday services. It requires that services be in English or another language intelligible to the congregation. It requires that a sermon should be preached at least once on a Sunday. The minister must determine what parts of a service are said or sung and what instruments are used. The minister may not exorcise without permission of the bishop. Several Canons of 1603 are declared to be no longer in operation.
All this is just housekeeping, so what is it that makes me believe this is so radical?
The answer lies in Clause 5. This clause states:
"5 (1) The minister may make and use variations which are not of substantial importance in any form of service authorised by Section 4 according to particular circumstances.
(2) Subject to any regulation made from time to time by the Synod of a diocese, a minister of that diocese may on occasions for which no provision is made use forms of service considered suitable by the minister for these occasions.
(3) All variations in forms of service and all forms of service used must be reverent and edifying and must not be contrary to or a departure from the doctrine of this Church.
(4) A question concerning the observance of the provisions of sub-section 5(3) may be determined by the bishop of the diocese".
Now consider what this is saying. Section 4 of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia is that part which lays down procedures and conditions for variations from authorised services. They involve the bishop giving approval, the support of a vestry meeting and the minister and the proviso that any changes must not contravene any principle of doctrine and worship as laid down in BCP and the 39 Articles.
Clause 5 (1) modifies this slightly to give the minister the power to vary any Section 4 variations in matters which are not of substantial importance. What constitutes a matter of no substantial importance is not defined so, over time, significant changes to ceremonies are likely to flow as judgments on what is of substantial important change.
Now look at 5 (2). This appears to give the minister enormously wide powers to use forms of service for occasions for which no other provision is made. The only limitation, other than regulations made by the synod, is that such forms of service must be reverent, edifying and not contrary to or a departure from the doctrine of the church.
Does this mean that a minister can now write a service for any occasion he likes since any service can have elements in it, "for which no provision is made"? Does it mean that at last there is a simple way for there to be family, youth and guest services, etc. without "breaking the rules"? Does it mean that a minister can create services for special occasions or create new occasional services, say baptism or funeral services, to meet particular circumstances? Does this mean that the bishop and the vestry no longer have a say?
There are many circumstances where this new streamlined approach will be welcomed, especially in times of rapid change. Of course, it is open to the synod to manage these wide powers by regulation and, since the synod is made up of the representatives of the parishes and their ministers, this is a very reasonable provision. Nevertheless as things stand, there appears to be enormous scope for parishes to experiment in forms of worship and, provided this freedom is not abused, much good could come.
Does this allow Lay Adminstration?
But this ordinance may give even greater liberty than I have already mentioned. I have heard it said that this ordinance could authorise lay administration at the Lord's Supper.
The argument, as it has been put to me, runs this way &endash;
i) The Appellate Tribunal, in its 1997 opinion, has declared that lay administration is not contrary to the 1961 Constitution, that is, it is not a departure from the doctrine of the Church. There is no provision now for occasions when the Lord's Supper is celebrated in the absence of a presbyter, but, so it is argued, 5(2) covers precisely such situations.
ii) The 1997 opinion stated that, even though lay administration is not contrary to the Fundamental Declarations or Ruling Principles of the Church, it believes that General Synod legislation to authorise it would be necessary. The argument for lay administration on this point runs that the General Synod can authorise a practice two ways, either by nominating in legislation the specific practice it wishes to authorise (say in this case, lay administration) or by passing a canon which gives a blanket approval to any form of service as long as it meets certain criteria, such as being reverent, edifying and not contrary to the doctrine of the Church. The Services Canon, so it is said, is an example of this second kind of legislation &endash; and Sydney has adopted it.
It is asserted by those who believe this ordinance allows lay administration that it was the intention of the General Synod to allow any practice in the church as long as it is reverent, edifying etc. They say that it was the intention of the legislation to create a whole new era of liturgical freedom and to change the face of the church to give real teeth to the often stated slogan, 'unity in diversity'. People knew there could be unforeseen developments arising from this clause. That was what they wanted as long as these developments were reverent, edifying and not contrary to the doctrine of the church.
Also they say, if that was not the intention, how would we ever know? The principles of interpretation of legislation must go first to what the words actually say and if they are not clear to questions of intention, but in the case of church law that would be impossible to discover.
It is certainly possible, so the supporters of the above view say, that a service, allowing for lay administration could be devised which is edifying, reverent and not contrary to the doctrine of the Church, so why shouldn't people feel free to proceed? Just because large sections of the Anglican Church do not agree with lay administration is beside the point now that the laws of the Church have been widened to give far greater freedom than there has ever existed before.
Most radical development in 400 years?
This is what made me think that this ordinance could turn out to be the most radical development in 400 years.
So does this ordinance open the door to virtually any form of service as long as it is reverent, edifying and doctrinally consistent and for occasions where no other provision made?
Does this ordinance, subject to regulation, sideline the bishop in determining what may or may not be done in church as long as it conforms to clause 5(2)? Has the congregation lost the right to veto changes because 5 (2) gives so much power to the minister? Are the words "on occasions for which no provision is made" so wide as to make it possible to authorise lay administration now?
I am sure that many people will welcome what appears to be a very flexible and non-bureaucratic process which will legitimise much of what has been going on in our churches for years. And I am sure others will be horrified that this ordinance could open up a pandora's box of possibilities which could take our national Church to even greater levels of diversity than we presently have.
Whatever our feelings, one way or the other, the possible implications of this ordinance cannot be ignored and perhaps should be further examined so as to clarify for everyone what the situation is now.
Canon Bruce Ballantine-Jones is President of the Anglican Church League and Rector of Jannali.
Document added 31 May 1999
Anglican Church League, www.acl.asn.au
