The CESA ordinations in the CofE: radical, not conservative

The report that a bishop of the Church of England in South Africa (CESA) ordained seven deacons on 22nd May for ministry in the Church of England has, as we might expect, raised more than a few questions. Let me say at the outset, that I have considerable sympathy for CESA. (I use this title as I think REACH-SA is rather gauche.) In our parish we had a lovely gentleman, recently deceased, who was born in South Africa and had served in the Royal Navy in the Second World War. His father was a clergyman in CESA because, he told me, "the Church of the Province was far too popish". I also have no doubt that for quite a few Irish Anglicans, worship in CESA might seem rather more familiar than in CPSA. So, yes, I do sympathy for CESA and its situation vis-a-vis the Anglican Communion. 

This sympathy, however, does not extend to refusing to ask questions about a serious breach of episcopal and canonical order by means of this intervention in the life of the Church of England.

The excellent Law and Religion UK blog has provided an account of the ordinations by a sympathetic commentator. I want to consider some of the significant questions raised by this account.

It was a joyful, celebratory occasion. The service order was remarkably simple, as was the dress code, with no cassocks or surplices in evidence. The congregation sang three classic hymns and heard two Bible readings, from 1 Timothy 3 (on the character and competence of deacons) and Luke 12 (on being ready for the return of Jesus).

The two Scripture readings are the Epistle and Gospel provided for the Ordering of Deacons in the 1662 Ordinal. This reflects a theme running through the account's description of the ordination: it was intended to be - in words used below - "closely parallel" to that in the 1662 Ordinal. Here, however, we find our first divergence from that Ordinal - the "remarkably simple ... dress code". 'Dress code' is a rather odd way of describing the Ordinal's direction that those "to be ordained Deacons" are to be "decently habited", that is, wearing the surplice. One does not have to attach some mystical meaning to the surplice to realise that it is something more than a 'dress code'. It is, rather, an expression of  the ministry received by those ordained deacon. It is a basic requirement and assumption of the Ordinal that those being ordained will be in a surplice as a matter of decency, good order, and canonical obedience. The absence of the surplice is not, then, a good start. 

We might also wonder why, if, as the picture above shows, traditional Anglican attire is appropriate for the consecration of a CESA bishop in South Africa, it is deemed inappropriate for the ordering of deacons by a CESA bishop in England.

They made diaconal promises closely parallel to those in the Book of Common Prayer, including their sense of vocation, their desire to live “according to the teaching of Christ”, and their belief in the whole Bible (“Do you unreservedly believe all the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament?”). 

It is difficult not to notice the phrase "closely parallel to those in the Book of Common Prayer". To be fair, perhaps this is recognition that the liturgy was a contemporary English version of the 1662 Ordinal, hence, "unreservedly believe" rather than "unfeignedly believe". That said, here is another problem. Ordaining ministers for ministry in the Church of England while using a form of ordination not authorised by the Church of England is a not insignificant breach of episcopal and canonical order. This leads us to another question 1662 asks of those to be ordained deacons, their commitment to "reverently obey your Ordinary".

Bishop Morrison will provide episcopal oversight from South Africa (including quarterly meetings with each deacon), though he has delegated some responsibilities to Alternative Spiritual Overseers (ASOs) in England.

One assumes that the 1662 form was not used at this point. The Ordinary for these deacons, after all, is the bishop of the diocese in which they serve: who licenses their incumbents, who is canonically responsible for discipline in the diocese, and is the minister of Confirmation and Ordination in the diocese. The Ordinary cannot canonically be a bishop in South Africa. In terms of traditional Anglican ecclesiology, it is also unacceptable that a foreign bishop arrogates to themselves jurisdiction "in this Realm".

At the point of ordination, after the laying-on-of-hands, they were each given a Bible – both Testaments, not just the New Testament – the English Standard Version, currently the best-selling translation in the world. 

Again, the provisions of the 1662 Ordinal are set aside. 1662 requires that a New Testament is given to the newly-ordained deacon, rather than the Bible given to the newly-ordained presbyter. This is a sign that the diaconate is, in the words of the Ordinal, "this inferior office". In itself, this might be regarded as a minor matter. Placed alongside the other divergences from the 1662 Ordering of Deacons, however, it establishes a pattern of disregard for the Ordinal.

In a departure from the Book of Common Prayer, there was no Holy Communion.

This is, to state the obvious, a very significant departure from 1662. The 1662 Ordinal directs that the ordering of deacons and priests, and the consecration of bishops, occurs within the context of the administration of the Holy Communion. The reflects the truth the deacons, priests, and bishops are ministers of Word and Sacrament. Deacons, the Ordinal declares, "assist the Priest ... when he ministereth the Holy Communion". Thus does the Prayer for the Church Militant petition that "Curates" - that is, parish clergy - "set forth thy true and lively Word, and rightly and duly administer thy holy Sacraments". This is why Holy Communion is integral to ordination in the 1662 Ordinal.

Some have suggested that Holy Communion is not common practice in CESA. This is a matter for CESA - although, as a friend has pointed out to me, the CESA Ordinal has a rubric stating, after deacons are ordained, "The service of Holy Communion". Those ordained deacon in London on 22nd May, however, were ordained to minister - in some form - in the Church of England. The refusal to maintain 1662's insistence that ordination occurs in the context of Holy Communion is, therefore, a breach of the sacramental order of the Church of England and of the Ordinal's teaching that those ordained are ministers of Word and Sacrament.

The new deacons have now returned to their Church of England parishes, where they will continue to minister in a lay capacity, in dioceses nationwide. Some of them are planting new Church of England congregations. Others are ministering in small churches and in economically deprived communities. Next year it is expected that Bishop Morrison will return to ordain them as presbyters. In a Church of England context, they will not exercise any of the functions reserved for the clergy – such as Baptisms, Weddings, and Holy Communions – but will pastor and teach the Scriptures as lay people. 

The words of Richard Hooker immediately come to mind:

They which have once receyved this power may not thinke to put it of and on like a cloke as the weather serveth, to take it reject and resume it as oft as them selves list ... but let them know which put theire handes into this plough that once consecrated unto God, they are made his peculiar inheritance for ever (LEP V.77.3).

Ministering "as lay people" after being ordained is an explicit demeaning of the order of deacon. It reduces ordination to a mere private experience, rather than public ministry in the congregation. What is more, to preach as a deacon is to have greater authority in the pulpit than a lay person. It does not make the exposition of holy Scripture necessarily better or more faithful, but it does carry greater authority because the order of deacon has been "committed unto thee; In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".

Why then get ordained? Their primary rationale is that it connects them with global Anglicanism and gives their ministries a form of public recognition. REACH SA orders are valid, and legally accepted, throughout the Anglican Communion.

That CESA orders, because they are bestowed by bishops in the historic succession, are valid is not a meaningful explanation of why ordination was sought at the hands of a CESA bishop. The "primary rationale", we are told, is a connection with "global Anglicanism". 'Global Anglicanism', however, is a not a Church. Anglicanism is made up of national churches in communion with one another, and it is in these national churches that persons are ordained. In the 1662 Ordinal, the newly ordained deacon is given the New Testament with the charge "to preach the same, if thou be thereto licensed by the Bishop himself"; the newly ordained priest is given the Bible with the charge "to preach the Word of God and to minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation, where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto". Ordination is not a global appointment. It is to minister within a congregation according to due episcopal and canonical order. 'Global Anglicanism' (whatever that might be) has no such provision for episcopal and canonical order: this occurs in national churches and their dioceses.

I began by saying that I had considerable sympathy for CESA. I also have sympathy for those in the Church of England unsettled by the LLF process and seeking an arrangement which allows them to minister in good conscience within the Church of England. Ordination by a foreign bishop, however, is not an answer that can be accepted by those who take traditional Anglican polity seriously. Mangling the 1662 Ordinal to suit a particular agenda and an emerging loose ecclesiastical structure is a ridiculous stance by those who, I assume, claim fidelity to the Prayer Book. Ministering as "lay people" after being ordained deacon is a theological and canonical contradiction. 

One last point. I assume that the candidates for ordination subscribed to the Articles of Religion. However, to what form of the Articles did they subscribe? The CESA website, under the title 'What We Believe', links to a particular form of the Articles of Religion, entitled 'A Restatement of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion'. Amongst the alterations to the Articles of Religion as received by the Church of England (and the Church of Ireland) we find these:

Article II - "blessed Virgin" becomes "Virgin Mary";

Article III - "so also it is to be believed that he went down into hell" becomes "so also it is to be believed that the giving up of His life was a reality";

Article VI - the books of the Apocrypha are not listed;

Article IXX - the reference to "the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch" (the latter two have significance for the Christological disputes) is omitted; 

Article XXV - "Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession" becomes "The sacraments prescribed by Christ are badges and tokens of our profession as Christians";

Article XXVII - "Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened" becomes "Baptism is a sign of the faith we profess and a mark that differentiates Christian persons from those who are unbaptized";

Note: Article XXVII,  by contrast, retains "The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves for each other", emphasising the significance of the changes in Articles XXV and XXVII.

If those who were ordained on 22nd May subscribed to the CESA form of the Articles of Religion, they did not subscribe to the Articles as received by the Church of England and to which ministers of the Church of England must assent. If this was the case, it also invites others to subscribe to their own form of the Articles, revised to suit their concerns and agenda. Likewise, being ordained according to a mangled form of the 1662 Ordinal invites others to mangle it, as they see fit.

Whatever terms, then, we might use to describe this ordination of deacons, conservative and traditional cannot be among them.