One of the key things about being part of the Anglican Church is that we belong to a 'worldwide communion'. Technically, this means we ought to be bound by a common set of doctrinal beliefs, but as Anglican world events have shown over the past decade, this ideal has gone (and its passing has, of course, raised the big questions as to whether or not we're really all part of the same church at all!).
But at an organisational level, there are still a few things that bind us. In particular, we can't escape our shared history, we have our common instruments of communion (even if some would argue that they're ineffective) and we still broadly acknowledge the equivalence of ordination.
Equivalence of ordination means that when someone is ordained as an Anglican 'deacon' or 'priest' or consecrated as an Anglian 'bishop' in say, Melbourne, that ordination / consecration is recognised across the Anglican world. So, when an Anglican church in say, Mexico, advertises for a senior pastor and is looking for an Anglican priest to fill that role, then someone who was legitimately ordained as Anglican priest in say, Malaysia, meets that criterion.
This makes sense of the reason that some Anglican dioceses get nervous about ordaining anyone to the priesthood for a very specialised role. For example, ordaining someone as priest who only has plans to serve as a school chaplain, may make lots of sense in that they'll be able to personally serve communion to believers in the school, rather than needing to call someone else in to do that for them.* However, it could prove awkward down the track if that person decides that they want to apply for the aforementioned job in Mexico. They could be appointed to that job on the understanding that because they're a 'priest', they'll know how to run a local church - bread and butter priest-work - but it may turn out that they really have no idea at all.
So then, is it a good thing to allow autonomous Anglican dioceses or provinces to be flexible in who they ordain for the sake of mission and modern-day ministry? Or, is it better not to redefine something that makes sense a certain way all around the communion? Once we start shifting definitions and expectations in one area, what's to stop us doing it in others? It all probably depends somewhat on the way that you primarily think about the Anglican Church - as a local gathering, a diocese or a worldwide communion.
* Anglicans have rules about who can and can't oversee the Lord's Supper - and though there's a good argument to say that some of those rules are too strict, there's also some good sense behind them too.
Thoughts on Theology-in-Practice for Anglicans and Episcopalians - plus some other stuff.
Hasn't Sydney got a pretty strict rule about this. ie must have done MTS and gone to Moore College? I guess the Archbishop must have some disgression here? I know some CMS people who were ordained in dioceses overseas who have their orders recognised, but won't be considered for parish posiitons in Sydney. I understand this rule is helpful for keeping the diocese's evangelical position intact, but does it go against the diocese's wider participation in the Australian church and Communion?
ReplyDeleteThe Sydney situations is interesting. Is it true that they won't accept anyone who hasn't done MTS / Moore? I suspect (thought I may be wrong) that this is more likely a guideline than a formal policy.
ReplyDeleteI think Sydney's drive for a purity does sometimes risk losing the health that comes from cross-polination. I understand and respect their motives though, especially given the enormous variability - including theological variability - that now exists around the Anglican world.