In his response he takes up a position which may be described as the twenty-first century equivalent of that of the “puritans” in the Church of England in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. In fact, if he and I were to debate it would be (yet without the great learning) in content like the famous debates between the Puritan/Presbyterian W. Travers and the Anglican divine, Richard Hooker.
Hooker’s Law of Ecclesiastical Polity is as it were my answer to the position taken by Dr Jensen, his brother (the Archbishop of Sydney), and others in the archdiocese of Sydney concerning the authority and use of Scripture in the Church.
Jensen wishes to set aside the position of the Church of England as it is defended by Bishop Jewel in his Apology and then by Hooker in his Polity and given clear expression in the Formularies of 1662 (BCP, Ordinal & Articles) and to seek to stand solely on what may be most clearly proved from the Scriptures by modern conservative exegesis, as well as by the exegesis of certain reformers of the 16th century.
Lay Celebrancy, favored and defended in Sydney, is wholly against the Order that the Church, which collected and approved the Canon of Scripture in the early centuries, actually believed was the will of God and required by Scripture. And the traditional Church of England position stated in the Elizabethan period with great clarity is – ONE Canon of Scripture, with TWO Testaments, whose content is summarized in THREE Creeds, and whose doctrine as dogma is set forth in FOUR Ecumenical Councils, and whose intent and provisions are seen in FIVE Centuries of developing evangelization, worship, doctrine, discipline and order. On this basis one accepts the Threefold Ministry as God’s Order in the church and as consonant with Scripture, but one does not have to believe in it to be saved by grace.
(The lecture that I gave in the University of Sydney against Lay Presidency I still have as a file and may be able it to send to any who wish to read it.)
Following response is from the Dean of Sydney, Phillip Jensen – to Dr Toon’s paper on the Primates as Guardians of the Faith as that is received in the Anglican Way
Dear Dick
I am happy that this be known to be written by me as the Dean of Sydney seeing that Peter has specified the diocese of Sydney as one that needs to be disciplined.
Peter's requirement that the Primates make statements consonant with scripture is a minimalist position. Rather we should require that they make statements which are the teaching of Scripture. However like all minimalist positions Peter's position is used to legalistically add to scripture – for it will be said that though scripture does not speak on an issue if it did it would say and therefore people should be excluded who do not agree.
Take the three issues that Peter wants clear immediate statements from the Primates on. The first sexual purity is clearly taught in scripture. The second lay administration of the Lord's supper is nowhere discussed in Scripture. The third the ordination of Women is not itself in scripture, as ordination is not explicitly in scripture, though the issue of women in authority is explicitly in scripture.
By introducing the two issues that are not explicitly addressed in scripture into the same category of discussion as the immorality that would exclude someone from the kingdom of God, Peter is confusing the issues, dividing the mainstream, and giving opportunity to the Primates to throw dust and confusion into the air.
Worse still than the bad politics and pragmatic considerations of his call, he is in error for he wishes to exclude God's people from fellowship because of a view of ordination that cannot be sustained from Scripture. Unless our fellowship is something more precious than salvation in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Peter's call is contrary to Article 6 and is in danger of following the example of Diotrephes.
Because of scriptures' teaching I am opposed to sexual immorality in the laity let alone in the clergy. Because of Scriptures' teaching I am opposed to women exercising the same authority and teaching roles as men in the church and therefore in our heritage of ordaining them to the priesthood as the chief teaching ministry of the church. Please notice the difference in logic between these two positions.
But then try to think where the Bible teaches the ordination to a priesthood that has the sole authority to administer the Lord's Supper. It is not only totally absent from the teaching of Scripture but is against the tenor of the unique mediatorial work of the Lord Jesus Christ and the consequential priesthood of all believers.
Please understand the importance of Peter's call - for to exclude the archdiocese of Sydney will end my participation in a circle of friends such as this - is that what you want? You cannot call for our exclusion and remain in fellowship with us. That you wish to exclude unrepentant adulterers and the sexually immoral is one thing (they are excluded from the kingdom of God), but do you want to place those of us who are earnestly seeking to apply God's word to our church life in the same category of sinfulness? How quickly will godly discipline turn into human tyranny.
Phillip
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.),
No comments:
Post a Comment