In beginning of our discussion of the Presbyterian third mark
of the Church, it helps from the outset to know that this is not a subject that
is viewed lightly or without a very substantial history of vigorous debate. The
Westminster Confession of Faith has a section on this topic, and the debate at
the Westminster convention or court is interesting reading. There are books on
this topic. But first, let me set out a general pattern.
As a pastor described to me, the idea is that most instances
are resolved at the first or second level and never get to the last level. What
are these levels? First, there is the concerned fellow covenant communicant or
church member, but there should be two. They would confront a communicant over
an issue of sin, hopefully to guild that person towards counseling with a goal
of repentance. The next level of intervention would be the elders, who would
similarly seek to correct the communicant, with the goal being restoration of
that person by repentance. Finally, things get to the pastoral level and
subsequently and organized process of courts within the church that resembles
the legal system. This is the last resort and is usually reached only by the
communicant either refusing to admit their sin or to be willing to turn from
it.
While I will leave it to my friend to polish this process as
much as he feels is necessary, I want to focus on the model of Church
membership that drives this system. The covenant community has a door in that is baptism and a door out that is excommunication. What
follows in the typical Presbyterian discourse on the subject is a lot of
discussion about 1 Corinthians 5 and Matthew 16:19. “Binding and loosing” are
translated as “forbid and allow,” and there is an implication of oversight based
upon a standard. The Westminster
Confession emphasizes that the Church is a Kingdom, the representation of the
Lord’s Kingdom in the already, but not yet; the inter-advental time in which we
live. Kingdoms have laws, judges and authorities to implement determinations.
This is the justification for their system, and all of it has some Biblical
footing.
The Anglican Marks of the Church
Before I can point out my differences, I should first
describe my system. We will require an understanding by all parties as to the
position from which I debate. The Anglican view of the Church and its authority
has been described as a three-legged stool, the legs of which are scripture,
history and reason. The ultimate authority in the Anglican Church is scripture.
The notable distinctives of the Anglican Church are the Book of Common Prayer,
the Liturgy (including the lectionary) and the episcopate (that claims
apostolic succession.)
The Book of Common Prayer is a misunderstood document. One
common criticism is that we use a secondary source for our services rather than
the Bible. Actually, the Book of Common Prayer is about 90% Biblical quotation,
and about 10% creeds and catholic tradition. Therefore, the criticism is
unfounded. The beauty of the Book is that there is little difference between Anglican
churches. There is a tradition and a familiarity to any Anglican service to its
members, regardless of where they might attend on a given Sunday while
traveling. Later, I will address the theology behind this tradition and the
similarities and differences with Rome.
The lectionary is a three year cycle of scripture that is
read each week. Necessarily, this means that not all areas of the Bible are
covered completely. However, the criticism often leveled against the Anglican
is that they are Biblically illiterate. Actually, though, they know far more of
the Bible than they realize. They just don’t necessarily know where it came
from in the Bible or how to find it. The lectionary also means that the same
scripture is being read in every Anglican church on any given Sunday.
The episcopate is the most germane point to our topic. All
authority in the church is held by the bishops or episcopate, who in turn serve
all of their parishes. We will explore in later posts how that authority is used as we
now have seen a takeover in the Episcopal Church by utilizing the avenues of
power within that body.
Anglican Preaching
While it can certainly vary, the idea is that the sermon is
based upon one of the readings for that day. Each day there is a first reading,
which can be from any place in the Bible, an Epistle, most often from Paul as
you would expect, but the other New Testament letters are not neglected, and a
Gospel reading. Most sermons that I have heard have been based on the Gospel.
The readings are laid out so that there is a vein of cohesion between them each
week. The best sermons find that vein and lay it bare for the congregation. The
theology of the preaching of the Word is the same in theory, but in practical
application, there is far more importance placed in the sacraments. If I were
to ask a random Anglican which is most important, most would point to the
sacraments. I wonder and fear if this is a commentary on the quality of the
sermons. Still, at root, this is a Calvinist group, born of the Reformation,
and shaped largely by Thomas Cranmer. Cranmer was responsible for the creation
of the BCP. A perusal of the various versions of this document will reveal a
drift in theology from time to time, but a solid foundation particularly in the
1928 version, known as a return to the roots version.
Anglican Sacraments
This section will be a bit confusing for a Presbyterian. The
traditional number of sacraments is seven. However, it is recognized that
Baptism and the Eucharist are the only two that were instituted by Jesus. The
others have been downgraded in some Anglican provinces to sacramental rites.
For completeness, those other five sacraments are Confession and Absolution,
Holy Matrimony, Confirmation, Holy Orders (ordination) and Holy Unction
(anointing of the sick.) Although I was actually taught differently with
Evening Prayer substituting for Confirmation, the five I’ve listed here are
straight from the 39 Articles and the definitive answer to the question.
There is a decided difference to how Anglicans view the
sacraments. Starting with Baptism, let us cover the common ground. Paedobaptism
is the rule and the reasoning is the same. It is offered to the children of
saints. While the historical background for this practice is both Catholic and
Reformed, the theology is not taught in the same manner as the heritage from
which it came. It is simply said that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Because
of the near miss of a concordat between the Episcopal Church and the
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, it might be justly argued that the
Episcopal position on Baptism more closely resembles Lutheran theology than
covenant theology. In practice, this might be the case, but I wonder whether
this is consistent through all of the provinces. Again, the issue of the
Lutheran theology on Baptism that is troublesome is the apparent falling away
from the Church that is seen from time to time and its implications to the
sacrament.
The real difference, though, is seen in the Eucharist. The
first, most obvious distinctive is the location of the altar. It is always the
centerpiece of the church, whether raised at the East end of the church or
raised in a more central position. This architecture speaks volumes as to the
importance of the Eucharist in the life of the Anglican Church. You will not
attend many Anglican services that do not involve the Eucharist, the notable
exception being evening prayer. The Anglicans view both of the sacraments
instituted by Jesus as necessary for salvation, and therefore the Eucharist
holds an important position. Looking back on our scale of Roman Catholic to
Baptist, the Anglicans are much closer to Rome than perhaps any other church of
the Reformation. You will hear the phrase “real presence” here, but not with
the same meaning as with the Roman Catholics. Transubstantiation is
specifically condemned in the 39 articles, but there is a reliance upon
“mystery” as an explanation for the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
It is certainly much more than the pneumatic presence of which the
Presbyterians speak. This is not just a memorial, this is a sacrament every bit
as mystical and important as Baptism.
The next point is that the Eucharist is open to all baptized
Christians. This has huge implications to the Presbyterian, as I have outlined
previously, but this is just not the issue to the Anglican. The Eucharist is
necessary and vital to their sanctification. The full theology of the service
order will be explored later, including the role of the Eucharist and its
climactic position in the service order. What is important here is that the
Eucharist is open; therefore, there is a clear difference in theology at work.
In my discussions about these differences with a
Presbyterian pastor, his remarks were that Anglicans sounded as if they were
guilty of sacerdotalism. Sacerdotalism is the view that priests are given
special spiritual authority to mediate between God and man. Firstly, one read
of the 39 Articles will put this view to rest. There is explicit language that
the authority of the bishop is in the office of bishop, not the man.
Incidentally, we saw this recently in the retiring of Pope Benedict and his
view of his current position. It was a refreshingly Biblical return for Rome. Secondly,
there is no mediation in play here; there is the administration of a sacrament.
The distinction is important. The priest is in the role of servant to his
congregation, while each participant in the Eucharist communes directly with
the elements and His real presence. Any Anglican clergy would dismiss this
charge resolutely.
Anglican Service Order
I must spend a few moments on this subject because it sheds
much light on the issue of sin and repentance from the Anglican perspective.
The service is modeled on the ancient ritual handed down through our Roman
Catholic antecedents. It must be stated from the outset that the economy of
grace supported by Rome is not in any way followed by the Anglican Communion.
Therefore, some of this will seem odd at first as there is a symmetry of action
with Roman Catholicism. In fact, a Roman Catholic would find an Anglican
service familiar to a degree. The whole service is modeled as a prayer, as worship
is an extension of prayer. If you follow one of the acronyms of prayer such as
ACTS, then you will recognize some of the pattern. The full measure of the service order, though, has much more depth and breadth.
The service begins by proclamation and invitation. We are
announcing to God that we have come to His house to worship Him, and we invite
Him to be present with us. There is an exhortation to the congregation to focus
on the worship before them. This is followed by the either the Decalogue or the
summary of the law. It must be said that the Reformed Anglicans do the full
list far more frequently, usually monthly. Next, the service moves to the readings
for the day. This is followed by the Sermon, as you would expect.
What follows is vitally important to our discussion. After
the sermon, the Nicene Creed is recited. This is followed by the prayers for
the whole church and any specific supplications of the congregation. Next,
there is a corporate confession of sin. Anglicans have a preserved sacramental
rite of personal confession as do the Roman Catholics, but Anglicans generally
stick with the corporate prayer of confession. The instruction is to hold your
personal sins in mind as this prayer is recited. The next step is crucial to
the discussion. The priest or bishop delivers an absolution to the
congregation. In Rome, there is penance attached to this step in accordance to
their economy of grace. The Anglican view is that penance of that type is in
error and a represents the main point of departure of the Reformation. The
absolution is corporate and it is taken very seriously in a theological
perspective.
After the peace and offertory, the Eucharist Prayer begins. This
is led by priest and there is all of the ritual that you would expect from the
Roman Catholics. There is usually the ringing of what are called Sanctus Bells
at particular moments of the prayer to draw the attention of the congregation
and emphasize that what is happening is solemn, mystical and special. The
prayer has a solid overlay of good Calvinist doctrine that can be discussed at
some point in the future. Finally, after the Great Thanksgiving, there is a post-communion
prayer, benediction and exhortation.
As you can see, the placing of the confession and absolution
directly before the Eucharist has a purpose that is akin to the reasoning
behind the closed sacrament of the Presbyterians. We will certainly have to
evaluate the validity of this absolution at some point in the discussion, and
we will also need to understand why the Eucharist holds so much prominence in
the theology.
What is clearly missing here is the issue of church
discipline. While there are standards to which clergy are held (think of clergy as equivalent Biblically to Elder,) censure coming from
the bishop if necessary, there is generally speaking counseling available, but
no formal move to excommunicate. Again, this sounds a bit Lutheran, as while
there is a door in, there is really
no formal door out. We fully recognize that people drift away from
the Church, but I think that there is a lack of clarity as to whether these
people fall from faith or if they rather did not have genuine faith from the
start. I’ll be working through this critical point as we go.
This concludes my opening salvo. I will leave it to my
friend to clarify where he feels it is necessary and to ask questions as
needed. Then, when he is ready, we will progress to particular Biblical
references and try to work through them in both systems.
--Troll--
No comments:
Post a Comment