Reform, as a grass roots movement, envisages action coming from members who have thought, studied, discussed and agreed. Discussion papers such as this one are written by individual members for the council of Reform and the wider church. The author alone is responsible for the paper. This paper may be copied freely.

Lay presidency at the Lord's Table

Donald Allister

Contents

Introduction

For some years I have been concerned that our present Anglican rules on who should preside at the Lord's Table are not only unbiblical, but are also increasingly wrong. As lay people are involved in more and more aspects of Christian ministry it becomes apparent that this is the only thing they are not allowed to do: the only functional distinction between laity and priests. That makes Holy Communion into something unique and unparalleled in our faith, and thus tends to denigrate or undermine everything else we do as Christians. It also makes priests into Communion presidents (mass priests?) as their primary role, since everything else they do can also be done by someone else. Both the elevation of Communion (pun intended) and the narrowing of the priestly role go against what Scripture teaches and what Anglicanism has always taught.

I have campaigned to get the rules changed, and seen our Deanery Synod approve a motion from our PCC, sending it to the Diocese. It has yet to be discussed at that level! I give more details of this in chapter 4 below. I wrote an article arguing for lay presidency in the Church of England Newspaper over 10 years ago, and have been meaning to argue the case more closely ever since then. I am therefore grateful to three groups for prodding me recently: the Rochester Diocesan Evangelical Fellowship and the Manchester Diocesan Evangelical Union have both asked me to speak on the subject, and friends on the Council of Reform have suggested I write a discussion paper.

I am very conscious that some of the key words in this debate are divisive or unfortunate. Should we talk about Eucharist, Holy Communion or Lord's Supper? Should we refer to priests or presbyters? Should we use the word "lay" to exclude clergy, who are still part of the laos, the people of God? Should we think of celebrating, presiding, leading or consecrating? Whatever we do is liable to be criticised. My personal preference is to think of elders ministering (or serving) at the Lord's Supper. But on this occasion I am passing the buck, by using the words in the title given to me by the first group to invite me to deal with the subject. The Rochester Diocesan Evangelical Fellowship asked for a talk on Lay Presidency at the Lord's Table, so (for good or ill) those are the words I shall mainly use. I will also refer to priests, in line with the Book of Common Prayer and with Canon Law, but I gladly make it clear that I use the word in the New Testament sense of presbyters or elders rather than the Old Testament sense of sacrificing priests.

I am conscious too that this is a difficult subject for evangelicals to theologise about, because it is not mentioned in the Bible. If only we could find a proof text (in context), or a passage (with agreed interpretation) it would be so much easier. My view is that Scripture does not tell us who should or should not preside because the matter is of very little importance. But I cannot prove that!

The present situation

It is clear that as early as the time of Ignatius of Antioch, in the early 2nd century AD, the "bishop" was the normal or the only President. Of course "bishop" in Ignatius's day meant the senior elder, what we Anglicans would call the Incumbent, the Rector or Vicar. Ignatius may have been trying to tighten up the rules by insisting on the bishop as the only proper celebrant, or he may have been describing what was already accepted, but later church history usually looks back on him as giving this definitive interpretation.

Rome has tended to stick with this, even saying that the parish priest only presides as the bishop's representative, and failing to recognise that today's diocesans are not the same as first or second century bishops. But Rome (and Anglicanism by derivation from Rome) also allowed assistant clergy, as long as they were in priests' orders, to preside.

The present rule in the Church of England is that only an episcopally ordained priest may preside at the Lord's Table. Canon B 12.1 of The Canons of the Church of England (5th edition 1993) states that: "No person shall consecrate and administer the holy sacrament of the Lord's Supper unless he shall have been ordained priest by episcopal ordination ... ." It seems likely that this Canon is stricter than the intention of the 16th century reformers, who were willing to recognise the ministry of non-episcopally ordained ministers from the European Protestant churches - and even to allow them to teach and minister within the Church of England.

Over the last century, and particularly in the last 30 years, there has been increasing involvement of lay people in the Church of England's public worship, including Holy Communion. Lay readers have been with us for 125 years, and nowadays we have numerous lesson readers, leaders of intercessions, and even lay people ministering the wine (and in some dioceses the bread). Similarly the whole congregation is more involved, saying together parts of the service originally restricted to the clergy: the opening collect, the confession and the prayer of humble access.

Now we have reached the situation where the prayer of consecration (or thanksgiving) at the Lord's Supper is the only part of any service which has to be said by a priest alone. This gives out several wrong messages. It makes it seem that this prayer in this service is different in kind from every other Christian act or word. It makes it seem that priests have a power or authority not available to any other Christian except by episcopal ordination. It makes it seem that bishops (and priests ordained by them) are essential to the life of the church. It makes it seem that the laity are forbidden to pray a particular prayer, or to obey a particular command of the Lord. It makes it seem possible to be a minister of the word without being a minister of the sacraments. But none of these perceptions is consistent with Scripture, and several of them are clearly refuted by the Bible.

Those in rural areas, and perhaps some "urban priority" areas, may see the same problem in a different way. A shortage of clergy, or of the money to pay them, combined with our tradition and rule about weekly Holy Communion in all parish churches, means that in some places one incumbent has charge of several churches and is required to preside at the Lord's Table in all of them. The necessity to lead four, five, six or more communion services every Sunday makes the Anglican priest much more like the Roman one, effectively destroys any possibility of profitable pastoral contacts, and is bound to undermine his main role as preacher. It also makes clear that the lay reader, although fully accepted as a preaching minister, is nothing more than an assistant at the Lord's Table. I shall return to the problem of shortage of clergy in rural areas at the end of chapter 5.

Why lay presidency is so important

At the reformation a crucial change was made to the ordination service. Instead of being given a chalice as a sign of his sacramental role, the new priest was given a Bible to show that he was to be a preacher. The reformers understood that the sacraments derived from the word, and that ministering the word also involved ministering the sacraments.

Since those days the ministry of the word has been broadened to include lay readers, and more recently other people in occasional or emergency capacities. This has happened for a variety of reasons, including increasing population, decreasing clergy numbers, rediscovery of the role of the laity, and recognition of gifts and skills. Similarly the administration of Baptism, a sacrament deriving from and controlled by the word, may be by a deacon, lay reader, or indeed anyone in an emergency.

But the ministry of Holy Communion has not been so extended, which suggests either that this rite is a super-sacrament, or that Baptism is a lesser sacrament, or that Baptism and Communion are not the same kind of thing at all. It does seem peculiar that a nursing sister can administer Baptism in an emergency to a dying child or adult, but that Communion is unavailable without a priest.

To allow lay people, and particularly lay readers, to preside at the Lord's Supper, especially in the absence of a priest, would not be a matter of undermining the ordained ministry. It would rather be a recognition that all lay people share that priestly ministry, and that those chosen, trained and authorised to do so may appropriately share it in a public and regular way.

As Anglicans we believe that ordination is primarily to a word ministry. Other responsibilities, including the sacramental and pastoral roles, stem from the word. We believe that sacraments cannot properly be ministered without the word. We ought, therefore, to be consistent and permit all those authorised to preach the word also to preside at either or both of the two sacraments.

What's wrong with lay presidency? (evangelical objections)

So far I have been giving the impression that all evangelicals (and indeed all Anglicans) will agree with me that lay people should be allowed to preside. We know that this is not the case. I cannot here give the anglo-catholic objections, though I think I understand them and I certainly respect some of them. But I do need to give some space to serious objections raised by evangelicals. I think these fall into three main groups.

First, some argue that a move to allow lay presidency will create disunity within the church, especially between evangelicals and anglo-catholics. The argument may go on to say that liberalism is the real enemy in the church, that we gladly ally ourselves with catholics against adoptionist bishops, pantheist clergy and new age eco-theology, and that to break this believing alliance would be both foolish and wrong.

Second, others say that the proper evangelical doctrine of ministry is a high reformed doctrine (as opposed perhaps to a lower revivalist view): this insists on the dignity of the ministry which would be undermined by allowing lay people to preside at the Lord's Table. Another version of this view describes the incumbent or pastor as the leader of God's family or the under-shepherd of Christ's flock: the one who ought to preside at the family meal, who ought to feed the Lord's sheep.

Third, there is a real concern that such a radical proposal as we are suggesting will further rock the boat, create instability, and cause confusion in a church already reeling from too much and too rapid change. The world is changing so fast that the church needs to provide security. The church is changing so fast that it is not always easy to see which changes are for the better, or to predict their long-term consequences.

We need to answer these objections, and can only do so satisfactorily if we take them seriously. They are all saying important things. Our alliance with catholics on such matters as Christ's virgin birth and bodily resurrection is not to be shattered without very good reason. We do agree with them on these extremely important issues. We also agree with many of them on justification by faith: the best anglo-catholics are really Lutherans more than anything else, and although Cranmer clearly took the same line as Calvin on the Lord's Supper, both those men acknowledged Luther as a brother, a man of God, and a genuine leader of the church. We may regret, as Luther did, that Calvin was not able to chair a conference of all the Protestants on this matter. We may legitimately hope and work for the day when we and anglo-catholics agree together on a biblical understanding of the sacraments. But if we are honest we will say that the present anglo-catholic stress on sacraments, sometimes almost to the exclusion of the word, is hostile to the Gospel. Certainly our chief battle within the church today is against liberalism (the world), but close behind that comes the battle against Romanism with its increasingly guilt-inducing papacy and its absolute insistence on the converting and reviving power of sacraments. Part of the battle against Rome must include a stand against Romanising sacramentalism within the Church of England. I certainly hope this fight can be won by brotherly persuasion from the Scriptures - but it must be fought.

I am more than happy to own a high reformed doctrine of ministry, and see this as not only Biblical, but with an excellent Anglican pedigree going back at least to William Perkins, a great 16th century Anglican Puritan who taught so clearly about ministry (as well as other subjects). The dignity of the preaching office, and the power of the preached word, are indeed important. But those who use this to argue against lay presidency seem to forget that we have opened the preaching office to lay readers, unknown in Perkins's day. Are we to say that there is a lesser sort of preacher who may not lead the Lord's people in the remembrance of his death? Perkins would not have stood for that! Anyone elevated to the office of preacher has the highest human rôle in the church.

The proposal to allow lay presidency will indeed rock the boat, and cause great consternation. Brigadiers from Brighton will probably fulminate against stupid trendy parsons who are trying to do themselves out of a job and (much worse) to sink the Church of England. I don't mean to be flippant. It is true that stupid trendy parsons have done much to sink the C of E in this generation. But the alternative to sinking a ship is not just to keep it at anchor. If we are real reformed Anglicans we will believe and rejoice in the reformation principle of semper reformanda - that a church, however reformed, will need to keep on looking in the mirror of Scripture to find the inevitable new blemishes and colouration that need to be put right. (The Prayer Book's second preface, "Concerning the Service of the Church" tells us that "There was never any thing by the wit of man so well devised, or so sure established, which in continuance of time hath not been corrupted: As, among other things, it may plainly appear by the Common Prayers in the Church.") The need for continual reformation does not mean change for the sake of change, but it does mean continual, or at least regular and frequent, change. The church is not to be an unchanging museum piece (much as English Heritage might like our buildings to be): it is a living organism, always growing, breathing, moving, reproducing, changing. In its history the Church of England has nearly died several times, each time because of standing still. The fact that there have been some wrong moves in recent years does not mean that we should avoid right moves. And if people look to the church for unchangeability we need to point them instead to Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever, and discourage their "ecclesiolatry".

Possible ways forward

For those of us who want to see lay presidency there are several options. I am going to describe them under the headings of "legal", "illegal" and "synodical". That is not because I think of any synod as outside or above the law. By legal I mean things we may legally do already. Illegal means what it says. Synodical options involve changing the law. But please note: it seems to me that in places the boundary between legal and illegal is unclear. You may disagree with me as to what is legal: I leave that to your conscience under Scripture - which I trust rather more than I do church lawyers.

I judge three different options, or groups of options, to be legal today. These are, in shorthand terms, "lay concelebration", "housegroup celebration", and "church hall communions". All need explaining.

As I pointed out earlier, when using the Prayer Book service we now take for granted that the people join with the priest in saying some parts which according to the rubric are for him alone. Custom varies from church to church, but it is now normal for at least two out of these three to be said together: the opening collect for purity, the confession, and the prayer of humble access. Indeed I venture to suggest that most of us, except for the avid rubric readers, did not realise that these prayers are restricted to the priest. We happily share them together, because they are obviously prayers of the whole church. Other intercessions we allow lay people to lead without the priest's involvement at all. What then is wrong with the whole congregation saying together the prayer of consecration? In law the priest, standing at the Table and leading the prayer, would still be presiding. He would be breaking no rules - and (it is at best questionable whether Canon Law binds the laity) I do not think the lay people would either. Most clergy will know the experience of taking communion services with the sick or housebound and hearing them say these words with us anyway. It comes naturally to the believer who loves the service and is steeped in it. Are we saying that the words are too holy for lay people to say with us?

This could be taken a step further. If the priest is absent and a lay reader takes most of the service, why may the people together not say the prayer of consecration? The reader could even make a point of joining the congregation at that moment, so as not to be mistaken for a priest or thought to be impersonating one. Who would have broken any rules? If this is done by a congregation used to saying the words with its priest it would not seem unnatural at all.

A second legal option is the housegroup celebration, which arguably comes closer to the original Lord's Supper than any formal service in a church building. As far as I am aware there are no Canon Law rules governing what prayers or actions may legally be done by a group of lay people in a private home. Clearly the priest would be breaking a rule if he asked a lay person to preside at the Lord's Table in church, but if a housegroup decides it wants to share bread and wine together as a memorial of the Lord's death, and one of the leaders uses a prayer from the Prayer Book or the ASB, or indeed other suitable words, what has been done wrong?

A third possibility is the church hall service. Again this would need to be in the absence of the priest, to avoid charges of illegality. But if, during an interregnum or the priest's absence sick or on holiday, the PCC decided to invite the congregation to share in the Lord's Supper other than in the church building, someone suitable preached, one or two recognised leaders presided, or the whole congregation said the prayer together, no rules would have been broken-- and it is at least possible that the Lord's people would have been fed.

Illegal

Now to illegal options (in fact I suspect that these are probably more commonly practised than the legal ones I have outlined!) Again I see three groups: "reservation", "extension", and "going all the way".

Most of us know that reservation (keeping consecrated bread and wine and taking them as communion to people even several days later) is both illegal and common in the Church of England. It is practised by some who believe the presence of the consecrated elements in the church to be important, by many who find it more convenient to take communion to the sick or others without having a full service at each bedside, and by a growing number of other priests (including evangelicals) who send lay people out with the consecrated bread and wine to minister in hospitals, retirement homes, and elsewhere. I want to argue that all this is not only illegal but also wrong. If we want the sick or housebound to share in Holy Communion it is surely right for them to hear the all-important prayer of consecration. A service need not be long, and perhaps it need not involve a priest, but it should include something from the word of God, and a suitable prayer over the bread and wine.

Communion by extension is really reservation by another name, for evangelicals with tender consciences about reservation. The idea is that straight after the communion service lay people are given consecrated bread and wine to take immediately to those unable to be present. Of course it is well-meaning, but I judge still far from the best we could offer. It also suggests an odd doctrine of Christ's presence among his people. Do we really think that the Lord is more present to bless when a congregation gathers than when two or three are present? Are the bread and wine more holy if they have been on the Table in church than if they are prayed over on a bedside table? Yes, send lay people out with bread and wine, but get them to share a shortened version of the sermon, to pray over the bread and wine, and to share Holy Communion with the sick.

The third illegal route is simply to go all the way, getting lay people to preside at the Lord's Table in the presence of the priest before the normal Sunday congregation. I can see no justification for this at all. The ordained minister is called to be the under-shepherd, the spiritual leader: when he is present it is right for him to preside.

Synodical

If we believe that the present rules are wrong (even though we can live with them or even circumvent them) we will want to see them changed. This can only be done by getting Amending Canons passed through General Synod and eventually to Royal Assent. If we choose to take this route we should know in advance that it will be long, tedious, blocked at innumerable places - and that it will make us very unpopular. Like the campaign to ordain women as priests it will probably be rejected several times before it prevails. But as long as we are committed to the Church of England, and believe this cause to be right, we will continue to work for it.

The motion which our PCC and Deanery Synod passed was as simple as I could make it, and yet tried to include the essential theological point. We resolved that all those with the bishop's licence to preach should also be permitted to preside at Holy Communion. I am told by the diocese that as this stands it is too vague for diocesan synod. I had thought that anything referred from a deanery had to be discussed at the diocese. Recently I have been elected to the Bishop's Council, and have discovered that that body can postpone or refuse such discussion. I wanted a slightly vague resolution, as it would simply deal with the theology without getting too bogged down in practicalities.

I think now that a more pragmatic compromise is the way forward. So I intend to follow up with the straightforward suggestion that deacons and lay readers who have been licensed to a parish for a year or more should, at the request of the incumbent and PCC, receive a licence from the bishop authorising them to preside at Holy Communion in the absence of the priest at his invitation or that of the churchwardens. Obviously this will be hotly disputed at various points: I would be glad to hear of suggestions to improve it, or of other initiatives happening elsewhere.

For both pragmatic and theological reasons I think it right to restrict a request for lay presidency to deacons and readers - and to exclude those just ordained or new to a particular church. They need to be seen and recognised as those who share in the incumbent's word ministry before they can lead in this sensitive aspect of it. We also need to safeguard against the idea that any lay person could preside without proper authorisation. In our present situation I judge that such authorisation should come from incumbent, PCC and bishop.

Further questions

I have six questions which I think need to be discussed by evangelicals who agree with the principle of lay presidency. The last four of them are also important for those who do not agree. I shall offer my own provisional views on them, but hope they will stimulate useful debate.

Which lay people should be allowed to preside?

My view, already stated, is that this should be restricted to deacons and lay readers of some seniority. I also argue that in the context of housegroups or similar meetings leaders recognised by the church and the group should be able to preside at informal communion services.

Should lay women be allowed to preside?

One prominent evangelical incumbent in our deanery voted against my motion on the grounds that it would allow women readers to lead communion services. My reply to this was and is that if it is appropriate to have women readers and to let them lead and preach, there is no reason why they should not also preside at the Table. I don't expect popularity or thanks for my view, which is that evangelicals sold the pass on this long ago by not objecting to the introduction of women readers in the 1960s. I have exercised my right as an incumbent not to allow women readers, because I cannot square my conscience with women preaching. With no women readers the question of their presidency would not affect me. But for the sake of peace in the church, and respecting the views of those who differ on women readers, I would say that if a church and its leaders accept women preachers those women should be allowed to preside.

What does ordination give that licensing as a reader does not?

It would be interesting to know whether clergy, lay readers and other lay people give the same answers to this question. I find a tension here. I do believe in a high doctrine of the ministry. Leading a church is a position of great responsibility and importance. And I believe in the appropriateness, whenever possible, of team leadership. But I cannot see the lay reader as on a lower level than the curate. Probably he will be available to preach much less frequently. In practice some lay readers may have been ordained in order to give greater help as non-stipendiary ministers. Yes, there are practical differences in whether a man is full-time or not, paid or not. My tentative conclusion is that the incumbent is given a unique responsibility and charge, but that lay readers share the same ministry on the same basis as assistant clergy.

When should we break the law?

The law to which I refer is the Church of England's Canon Law, but the same principles will apply more widely. Some will say if the law is wrong we should break it to force changes: this is what anglo-catholics have successfully done on a number of issues, and it is what Martin Luther did more than once, even saying that he married neither for love nor lust, but to spite the pope! Others say we should break it if it hinders the gospel: that is all very well, but can be a subjective judgment to make. I think I want to say that if we can legally circumvent a foolish law that is reasonable, but that the course of greatest integrity is to try as hard as we can to get bad laws changed.

How does Holy Communion differ from other church services?

The present rules encourage the belief that the Lord's Supper is somehow different in kind from Morning or Evening Prayer. Some evangelicals have given up robing at non-sacramental services, but not at communion. Others have taken to wearing different robes for communion. What is all this saying? Surely it is the word which is first and foremost. If we need to dress up or colourfully for anything it must be for that. But if we should not robe, or only robe modestly, for other services, how can we justify doing so for communion. Is communion a different kind of event from every other church service?

How often and when should we celebrate the Lord's Supper anyway?

I am still far from persuaded by the parish communion movement. In both churches where I have been incumbent I have increased fortnightly 8.00 am communions to weekly and decreased main communions. Now I am delighted to report that we have no communions at 11.00 am or 6.30 pm on Sundays. Communion follows Morning Prayer once a month and Evening Prayer once a month. On Maundy Thursday and Christmas Eve it is at 8.00 pm and only advertised to regular worshippers. I hold a communion service every Sunday, and teach the Prayer Book rubric "that every Parishioner shall communicate at least three times in the year, of which Easter to be one". But I wonder whether communion properly belongs in the parish church as a public service rather than in smaller informal meetings. And I wonder what the Lord meant by "Do this, whenever you drink it": did he mean on every occasion we eat and drink with other believers or (as I suspect) whenever you celebrate the Passover, that is once a year?

I simply ask the question. But I cannot help observing that the reintroduction of guaranteed non-sacramental main services has helped outsiders and fringe members to perceive the church as much less self-centred and much more user-friendly.

Copyright © Donald Allister, 1993. This paper may be copied freely.