Sydney Diocesan Synod defers discussion on Lay Administration

Sydney Anglican Synod passed a motion yesterday that was moved by the Rev Dr John Woodhouse, to defer the proposed discussion on lay administration [presidency]. The Synod referred the motion on the Business Paper [Motion 16:8] to the Standing Committee for further consideration.

Dr Woodhouse presented three reasons for his motion. First he suggested that the motion on the Business Paper was only recently drawn up and it could do with further consideration. Second, he said that in pre-synod publicity this motion has been presented and/or perceived to be in some way unprincipled or lacking in integrity. Finally, he argued that if the motion had been thoroughly worked over so that it was as good as it could be in terms of clarity and transparency, and if it was so well explained that it could not easily be misunderstood or misrepresented, he would be pleased to see it passed by the Synod. He urged the synod to invite the Standing Committee to do some more work on this idea.

Sections of Dr Woodhouse's speech follow:
"I was asked to move Motion 16.8 on behalf of the Standing Committee, but my procedural motion is asking the Synod to be patient once again. I know of no matter on which the synod has displayed more patience over the years! Nevertheless I am suggesting that we should do so again.

"Why? I would like to take a few moments of the synod's time to explain my reasons for this suggestion.
"The authorization of lay administration of the Lord's Supper is a development that I personally regard as important in the life of our churches for reasons that have been rehearsed in this synod many times. I am also of the opinion that the way forward proposed by Motion 16.8 " although a new idea " is a good, honourable and wise one.

"Motion 16.8 arose out of the genuine and, I suspect, intractable legal uncertainties surrounding lay administration. Synod members will recall that the Archbishop has said on a number of occasions " most recently at the General Synod " that he supports the idea of lay administration, and would authorise the practice so long as it was legal to do so.

"But what and where is the legal barrier or impediment that would need to be overcome in order to legally authorise lay administration? One answer to that question "” a surprise to many "” is that there is none. My own view is that that is the case. Others are of the opinion that there is a legal impediment to be overcome. But there is no agreement as to what it is, where it is or how it may be overcome. In that situation, Motion 16.8 was drawn up. It is a declaration by the Synod that in a matter where there may be no legal offence, and where the law is at least uncertain, it is inappropriate to take disciplinary or other legal action.

"If passed, Motion 16.8 would be a declaration of the mind of the Synod, that in these circumstances, certain actions are undesirable. It would not prevent such actions. Nor would it protect a person from disciplinary action, should such action be taken. But it would be a declaration of those of us who voted for it that we would prefer disciplinary action in these circumstances not be taken.

"Such a declaration seems to me to be sensible. Then why be patient? For three reasons. "The first reason is that the idea of dealing with the matter in this way only arose in the Standing Committee very recently. The motion you have before you was drawn up rather quickly because of the need to respond to Synod's request last year. The actual form of the motion has, I think, some room for improvement beyond what can be easily achieved on the floor of Synod. I have found that many people have found the motion difficult to understand, both in its substance and in its rationale. This is no criticism of those who have drawn it up. It is just that I believe such a significant motion could come before the Synod in a better, clearer form.

"The second reason for patience "” and the key one to my mind "” is that in pre-synod publicity this motion has been presented and/or perceived to be in some way unprincipled or lacking in integrity. Perhaps this is related to the first point. Perhaps the motion itself is unclear. Perhaps it requires fuller explanation. Perhaps the motion has been presented in this way for other reasons. The fact is that this motion has been presented and/or perceived as a call to illegality.

"I think that that is reason enough for the synod to pause. I do not believe that the motion in substance or intention is in any way improper. But I do not think that this Synod needs to act in a way that may be perceived, or could be easily presented, as improper. It will do no harm to ask the Standing Committee to spend some more time on it. Apart from anything else, it needs to be accompanied by a fuller written explanation of its background and intent.

"The third reason that I am comfortable in suggesting that we be patient with this is that the motion itself would not change anything. If there is no legal barrier to lay administration now, that is so whether or not this motion is passed. If there is a legal barrier hidden somewhere, it would still be there if this motion passed. If the motion had been thoroughly worked over so that it was as good as it could be in terms of clarity and transparency, and if it was so well explained that it could not easily be misunderstood or misrepresented, then I would like to see the Synod pass such a motion. But by being patient, the Synod has not deferred a significant change.

"I urge the synod to invite the Standing Committee to do some more work on this idea. If it is a good idea, let's do it as well as we can. A little more patience will do no harm at all.

CONTACT:
Margaret Rodgers
Ph: 61 2 9265 1507
Mobile 0411 692 499