It is a bit of a deadly dull read, and I must admit that I find myself a bit ambivalent about the issues given my long association with Churches of Christ where it is almost the case that only the laity preside at the Lord's Supper.
In some respects I am a pragmatic Anglican rather than one by conviction, but I think that to belong to a particular tradition you must allow for things to be done in ways that are consistent with the particular orders and ecclesiology that marks out that church among the many.
As a result, I have no difficulty pointing to the issue of Orders in the Anglican Communion as a basis for maintaining that Presidency is not an issue that can easily be extended to the Diaconate or Laity if one wishes to remain Anglican.
This has to do with the essence of the relationship between the Bishop and Deacons and Priests. In the catholic tradition the Bishop is the primary minister of the church, and in the history of the development of the three orders of ministry in the church, it was the Deacons who were first appointed, supporting those who were to become the episcopal leaders of the church. So it was that the Deacons took their place at the right hand of the Bishop when he was presiding - their table ministry was assisting the bishop.
Next in the developing orders of ministry were the priests, and the nature of their relationship to Bishops was vicarious - they stood in the place of the Bishop within the plurality of congregations that by then meant that a Bishop could not be present for all for whom he was responsible. So the table ministry of the Priest was the same as the Table Ministry of the Bishop - to preside and the Deacon's place at table is beside the priest. It is interesting to note that in parishes where both a priest and deacon are present, it is the Deacon, not the Priest, who assists the Bishop at table when he or she visits.
The ecclesiology of the Anglican Communion also has bearing on this matter, and it somewhat overlays the issue of Orders. The Anglican Church is Diocesan not Congregational. The Churches of Christ of my earlier Christian life were Congregational and all instruments and authority necessary to constitute the Church were seen to be present in the congregation. The basic unit of church in the Anglican Communion is the Diocese and the primary minister of the Diocese is the Bishop. It is the Bishop and only those who stand vicariously in the Bishop's place that are authorised in the Anglican Communion to preside at the Lord's Supper.
For me, these are sufficient grounds to say that the issue being pressed for by the Anglican Diocese of Sydney is indeed eccentric, despite the protestations. They have argued that their contention for lay presidency is wide-spread and long-standing but they offer evidence of this controversy spanning a mere forty years of debate in Australia and and glimpses of it elsewhere in provinces in Africa, India as well as England over a period of a few more than a hundred years. These are hardly significant in time and scope given the 2000 year history of a global church.
An observer on Facebook recently commented that the Diocese of Sydney has systematically rejected all aspects of "Popishness," for want of a term, from their expression of the Church - no chasuble for priests, affirmation of the 39 Articles as foundational expressions of Anglican Doctrine (including the repudiation of Roman Catholicism) and much more - and that the move towards lay presidency would be the final step.
I would regard it is indeed the final step for once taken this Diocese would no longer be Anglican but rather a new Protestant Church in the Reformed Tradition. I sometimes jokingly refer to such evangelicals a "wannabe Baptists" for if they had their way they would elevate the Ministry of the Word so far about the Ministry of the Sacrament that they would only rarely celebrate the Lord's Supper.
Any thoughts?
