I'm inclined to agree that option (c) seems remarkably broad. However, once grip is loosened on the BCP as being the formal 'standard' I'm not sure how it can be avoided. Even 'authorised' services will come to look less and less like traditional Anglicanism. Is this what Synod desires, and if not how will they guard against our services turning even more into a liturgical/theological free-for-all.

Another point: will new ordinands still be required to give assent to Anglican doctrine (BCP, 39 Articles, Ordinal) somewhere else in the service? The new text you've given us makes it sound like this requirement is also dropped.

Note to Synod Organisers - Craig is unhappy with his showbag. Put an extra Bertie Beetle in next year to keep him a happy boy.

Not sure how to take your last line - but I will assume it was meant in good humour! :-)

Even 'authorised' services will come to look less and less like traditional Anglicanism.

That's true, though it's not really what I'm concerned about. It's more about the loss of a common vision and understanding of worship, even if that is evolving. In a diocese where there is such a remarkably high theological consensus, it's quite surprising that we can't get our act together on some sort of new common liturgy. But we cannot - it has been tried a few times and has never succeeded.

Humour was indeed intended. You did, however, say your Synod show-bag was 'boring'. Some levity, in the form of a chocolate beetle, might be the solution! :-)

Is it the case that just because a new common liturgy has not succeeded before that is an unachievable goal? When we realised in times past that our music, for example, could have been better we started conferences and made sure good resources were available for people to try. Is there a way we could use some of the processes that have worked before in other areas to help us reconstruct our liturgical life?

I am with Luke - is this an end to assent to the 39 Articles? How do we know what is 'consistent with the doctrine of the Anglican Church of Australia'? Unless you have some kind of agreed confessional standard, you are right in saying that this licenses a free for all. Just saying 'agreeable to the Word of God' isn't enough - as five minutes study of Church History will tell you.

Yikes.

@Michael - good point. Lack of a reference to the 39 articles is surprising, to say the least. Look around our country, I'm not sure if I'd like the "doctrine of the Anglican Church of Australia" very much or not!

@Luke - oh yeah, I believe it is achievable. But the only way to get a new liturgy to work is to win over the hearts and minds of the rectors. In the past it seems a liturgy committee has been formed, some liturgy written (some of it very good), then they go and try and sell it in parish land.

This top down approach has failed. You would really need a Synod wide liturgy conference, that all rectors attend, and start to build a consensus from there.

The thing, the main thing, that made this Church instantly recognisable over the world until very recently was the Prayer Book. Everywhere, whether you were in Australia or Argentina, India or Indiana, the BCP or some close variant of it was the worship of this Church. And it was how people -including me- leant doctrine. Consider for example the communion service. We knew it was not a mass because every time the service was celebrated the priest (yes thats what the book called him) told us "Our Lord Jesus Christ to suffer on the Cross, who made there by His one oblation of Himself once offered a full perfect and sufficent sacrifice for the sins of the whole world" and we knew from the same text that the doctrine of limited atonement was wrong. And those who wanted to learn more could do so, there were several books (particularly from the Church Book Room Press- which was the first to print Sir Marcus's books) which explained the prayer book in detail.

And AAPB was much the same- for it had the long and the short form of daily service (and it encouraged us to use it daily even in individual worship) and the first and second order of Communion.

And yes the BCP together with AAPB and -though not in some dioceses APBA - are authorised and are the only authorised forms of worship.

And that has been in the past a guardian of doctrine even to the point of bringing actions in the civil courts against certain bishops in this country who authorised other services.

This change if it happens is the end of the worship of this Church as I knew it. I might as well join the baptists or -perhaps more likely -the Wesleyan Methodists

Interestingly, the original form of the declaration notes the doctrinal content of the BCP in addition to the articles... we don't see our 'liturgy' as expressing a theology in quite the same way tehse days.

Craig - you have been quite selective in your quoting of the ordinance!

I'll post it i full: you can see that the 39 articles are definitely staying.

11. In this Diocese, the current form of declaration and assent is set out in the Schedule to the General Synod – Form of Declaration and Assent Canon 1973 Adopting Ordinance 1973 as follows –

“The Anglican Church of Australia, being an Apostolic Church, receives and retains the Catholic Faith, which is grounded in Holy Scripture and expressed in the Creed, and within its own history, in the Thirty-nine Articles, in the Book of Common Prayer and in the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

Accordingly, I……………. do solemnly make the following declaration –

I firmly and sincerely believe the Catholic Faith and I give my assent to the doctrine of the Anglican Church of Australia as expressed in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons; I believe that doctrine to be agreeable to the Word of God; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use the form in the said book prescribed, and none other, except as far as shall be ordered by lawful authority.”

12. In place of the current form of declaration and assent, it is proposed that the following forms of solemn promise be given –

“I……………., firmly and sincerely believing the Bible to be the Word of God and the doctrine of the Anglican Church of Australia to be agreeable to the Word of God and the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, solemnly promise to teach and uphold the Word of God and that doctrine as expressed in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer.

I…………….solemnly promise only to conduct –

(a) authorised services, including those contained in the Book of Common Prayer, or

(b) services authorised by ordinance of the Synod for use in the Diocese, or

(c) other services of public worship which are agreeable to the Word of God and consistent consistent with the doctrine of the Anglican Church of Australia,

pursuant to the General Synod – Canon Concerning Services 1992 Adopting Ordinance 1998.”

Phew (that last sentence was crucial.)

So, in answer to Craig's question: 'Does it spell the end of a distinctly Anglican worship in our diocese?'

the answer is

No.

Michael and peter's comments about liturgy and doctrine are interesting. We fret about the theological shallowness of our congregations. We worry about how to teach doctrine. We wonder about how to make doctrine come alive and penetrate into the lives of our churches. This isn't just a question of style or preference. It is about the perseverance of our people in the faith.

My feeling is, use the book, unless you have a super thought through, creative idea for that week.

Phew - Thanks Michael. Removing the theological basis for conducting services in the first place would have been a mistake

“I……………., firmly and sincerely believing the Bible to be the Word of God and the doctrine of the Anglican Church of Australia to be agreeable to the Word of God and the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, solemnly promise to teach and uphold the Word of God and that doctrine as expressed in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer.

While in some respects that clause looks stronger than its preceding version, I'm curious as to what effect omission of reference therein to the Ordinal has (perhaps its drafters took the Ordinal as encapsulated within the Prayer Book, which, in all fairness, is how it's usually been printed for at least a couple of centuries.)

Michael, thanks for making it clear to people that the 39A & BCP are staying as our standards. The proposed change - which of course is subject to debate, amendment before rejection or acceptance at Synod - is rightly bringing the language up to date and also the situation about what forms of services are legitimately possible.

A couple of other things.

1. Sunday Services published by Youthworks has also been authorised in this diocese for some time.

2. Craig is right that Synod is not really boring (at least not all the time) and in fact, for some it is "strangely compelling" - good phrase. For those who are not persuaded, thank God that there are others willing to do the hard and sometimes tedious work of maintaining (and reforming and improving) the denominational infrastructure and ensuring our evangelical capital (I am not just talking about money) invested in our Anglican denomination in Sydney diocese is not frittered away or inadvertantly left to others.

3. Anyone interested can read all the reports and business papers etc openly published here

4. I encourage every Synod member reading this thread to bring Craig a Bertie Beetle sometime over the five days we sit!

Guys, unfortunately having a solemn promise and using the BCP is no guarantee the theology and worship will be sound. I have just returned from a trip to England and on the last day there attended a sung Evensong in Westminster Abbey. Sitting in the choir stalls as we were, we were encouraged to turn to face the "High Altar" which puzzled me because there is no mention of an altar in the Prayer book and the theology of the Prayer Book and the 39 articles would seem to preclude one. There was very little that the congregation could participate in with a very clear discouragement from joining in the responses, which I always understood were specifically there to encourage congregational participation. The service was more a performance than anything else. True worship can be lost with or without the prayer book.

As far as I can tell, that crucial last sentence means that the three categories of service mentioned in the declaration amount to those categories of service allowed by ordinance. Have I read it rightly?

That doesn't seem controversial to me?

I have a rather pedantic question regarding the section of this ordinance about clerical dress.

The Explanation Document says that:

The undertakings currently required of clergy are as follows –

“I................, being desirous of obtaining a Licence to perform the office of a Minister in the Diocese of Sydney, hereby solemnly undertake that so long as I hold any such licence, I will neither by myself nor by others permit the use of the Chasuble or other vestment in any Church, Chapel or other place in this Diocese in which I may officiate."

However - I was under the impression that the undertaking was that "I will use the Surplice in all ministrations to the extent required by law" ... then it goes on to talk about Chasubles etc...

Does anyone know when it was changed to remove reference to the Surplice?

FWIW, those 1604 canons declared inoperant read as follows:

36. Subscription required of such as are to be made Ministers.
NO person shall hereafter be received into the Ministry, nor either by institution or collation admitted to any Ecclesiastical Living, nor suffered to preach, to catechize, or to be a Lecturer or Reader of Divinity in either University, or in any Cathedral or Collegiate Church, City, or Market-town, Parish-church, Chapel, or in any other place within this realm, except he be licensed either by the Archbishop, or by the Bishop of the diocese, where he is to be placed, under their hands and seals, or by one of the two -Universities under their seal likewise; and except he shall first subscribe to these three Articles following, in such manner and sort as
we have here appointed.
I. That the King's Majesty, under God, is the only supreme Governor of this realm, and of all other his Highness's dominions and countries, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes, as Temporal; and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, within his Majesty's said realms, dominions, and countries.

Cont...

II. That the Book of Common Prayer, and of ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God, and that it may lawfully so be used; and that he himself will use the form in the said Book prescribed, in publick Prayer, and administration of the Sacraments, and none other.
III.
That he alloweth the Book of Articles of Religion agreed upon by the
Archbishops and Bishops of both provinces, and the whole Clergy in the Convocation holden at London in the year of our Lord God one thousand five hundred sixty and two; and that he acknowledgeth all and every the Articles therein contained, being in number nine and thirty besides the Ratification, to be agreeable to the Word of God.
To these three Articles whosoever will subscribe, he shall, for the avoiding of all ambiguities,subscribe in this order and form of words, setting down both his Christian and Surname, viz. I N. N. do willingly and ex animo subscribe to these three Articles above mentioned, and to all things that are contained in them. And if any Bishop shall ordain, admit, or license any, as is aforesaid, except he first have subscribed in manner and form as here we have appointed, he shall be suspended from giving of orders and licences to preach; for the space of twelve months. But if either of the Universities shall offend therein, we leave them to the danger of the law, and his Majesty's censure.

Cont...

Cont...

37. Subscription before the Diocesan.
NONE licensed, as is aforesaid, to preach, read, lecture, or catechize, coming to reside in any diocese, shall be permitted there to preach, read lecture, catechize, or minister the Sacraments, or to execute any other Ecclesiastical function, (by what authority soever he be thereunto admitted,) unless he first consent and subscribe to the three Articles before mentioned, in the presence of the Bishop of the diocese, wherein he is to preach, read, lecture, catechize, or administer the Sacraments, as aforesaid.

- Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical of the Church of England, 1604.

@Michael - hopefully I'll have time to reply in greater detail later. I certainly didn't mean to be selective in my quotation, and I would have linked to the whole ordinance if I'd known it was online.

I still feel that option (c) is very broad. I'll discuss at further length this evening.

Ben, can't answer your question directly, but the two ordinances relevant to the surplice are the 1977 Use of the Surplice Canon Adopting Ordinance, which describes various circumstances when the surplice may be dispensed with, and the Announcements of Divine Service and Clerical Vestures Ordinance 1949 which indicates the surplice should be worn and forbids wearing the alb, the chasuble, the dalmatic, the tunicle, when celebrating Holy Communion, which are all mass vestments.

I find the change to the original statement clumsy. It's sorta still saying the same thing, but splits things up and reorders them such that it's much more complex to read; hearing it would be even worse.

The second pledge is also un-recitable.

Why not simply drop the reference to Orders from the first part and make it three sentences?

I'm also curious as to the removal of the "in public prayer and administration of the sacraments" qualifier. As written, the second pledge is now unbounded in scope. I'm sure it's not intended to claim that the ordinand will not (say) run a bible study or seminar, but as written you'd need to do quite a bit of work to show that a bible study either fits into category C or that a bible study or seminar is outside the scope of the pledge.

I haven't seen the entire document, so I assume that there's surrounding text that defines what a "service" is and what public teaching/leading activity is outside the scope of (as opposed to proscribed by) the pledge?

Thanks to everyone for commenting - I always enjoy Synod inspired discussions on this site. Synod often prompts us to look at things we might not otherwise.

I'm sorry if anyone else feels my quotation of the bill was selective. In hindsight, I should have quoted the declaration as well as the solemn promise, as the two together were replacing the original declaration and assent.

In my defence, my point was not that the solemn promise eliminated the 39 Articles. Rather, my point was that clause (c) was perhaps too flexible. When I spoke about a "distinctly Anglican worship", I was thinking more stylistically than theologically. The new bill effectively makes "home grown" liturgy the norm, and I wonder if we haven't lost something in that shift.

Having said all that, I support the bill and will be voting for it, for reasons of conscience that I outlined in my post. I still think a clergy conference on the matter would be a good idea. "Sydney Anglican Worship 2011" anyone?

Oh, and Bertie Beetles will be gratefully accepted, along with Freddo Frogs or equivalent. I usually sit in the back left corner of the hall at Synod. Come over and say g'day, with or without confectionery.

I love Sydney Anglicans' fora/ums. Who needs to attend Synod when one can read much of the discussions on the web before they occur. :-)

Coming from Mexico (aka Melbourne) it's always educational reading these discussions. The principles behind local issues like this are relevant elsewhere.