Marks of the Church: Retraction and Clarification.

Just so you know, my readers are good. I have been offered a potential correction concerning the Anglican position on Baptism from the 39 Articles, articles 25 and 27. They read:

XXV. Of the Sacraments.

Sacraments ordained of Christ, be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession; but rather they are certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God’s good will towards us, by which he does work invisibly in us, and does not only quicken, but also strengthens and confirms our faith in him. 

   There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. 

   Those five, commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be computed for Sacraments of the gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. 

   The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be guessed upon, or to be carried about; but that we should duly use them. And in such only, as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation; But they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as St. Paul says.

XXVII. Of Baptism.

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened:  but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby as by an instru­ment, they that receive baptism rightly, are grafted into the Church:  the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the holy ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed; and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.  The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

It is not often that I am called to task for an issue like this, but I must confess that I have been spending so much time in the Reformed world, that I may have missed this point. The Anglican position on Baptism may be exactly the same as the Lutheran position and regeneration is assumed with Baptism, but this will require further study.

As I work through this again, I expect Luther might be the best to read on the subject, but I will be open to suggestions. The issue of the perseverance of the saints is at stake and it will require much prayer and consideration. 

In the mean time, let us assume that I hold to the positions that I have stated whether the Anglican Church does or not, and I will also ferret out the position of the Reformed Episcopal Church within the Anglican Church of North America. 

-Troll-

A Debate on the Marks of the Church: First Hypothetical

The response to my last post from the Monroe Doctrine author (MDA) can be found here. Please take a moment to read it, because I would affirm the assumptions made by MDA in his opening paragraphs. I think that this is a fair series of statements that do well in framing the discussion. Prior to getting to the first hypothetical, I would take a moment to respond to the five points listed.

1.       Concerning sacramental rites, while these are not true sacraments in the sense of Baptism and the Eucharist, they warranted preservation in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) as useful rites. Indeed, a church without marriage would just not do at all. But even marriage is not a true sacrament, a view shared by both sides in this debate. While the language to which MDA referred may be confusing, the terminology is no more than a nod to our Romish roots. There are only two sacraments.

2.       Concerning Chapter 27.3 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, I would refer you to Article 26 of the 39 Articles, remembering that it predates Westminster, and you will see similar language. The issue of Christ in the sacrament is a slippery slope and I would question MDA here on the meaning a “pneumatic presence” that I understand to be the Presbyterian position. Anglicans use of “real presense,” while clearly not meaning transubstantiation, has come to mean something very akin to Lutheran consubstantiation. Nonetheless, my personal view, although admittedly in the minority of all Anglicans, but likely the majority of my Reformed Episcopal Church (REC,) would be more in line with the “pneumatic presence” as I understand it and described before. Here, I must admit to Anglican heterogeneity while defining my position within the most Reformed branch of the stream.

3.       Concerning point 3 and regeneration, this is clearly going to be a lynchpin of our discussion and one in which I will have to be careful to observe stringent definitions during our debate. Much of what will follow later will hinge upon these differences. I do think that MDA has correctly understood what I have suggested as a position consistent with most Anglican theologians on this point.

4.       Concerning point 4, there is not much here to discuss, I am charged with underestimating Presbyterian valuation of the Lord’s Supper, and that may be true. But relative to the Anglican position in terms of theology, service order, architecture, frequency and emphasis, any non-catholic (small “c” intended) view of the Eucharist will seem to be a devaluation. So, I will concede the point.

5.       Concerning the episcopate, it might be helpful here to draw parallels on the issue of parity. Bishops have been the seat of authority in the church since at least the third century. The Holy Sees of the early Church are mentioned in kind if not specifically by that name in Revelation. It was common to use the term bishop to refer to the seat of authority within that principality. Of course, parity among bishops was an Eastern assumption, one that Rome countermanded leading to the Great Schism in 1054. Anglican history, in addition to issues over theology, is far better known for this issue of parity. While the Archbishop of Canterbury has a place of honor among bishops, it is still a place among equals. There exists within Anglican hierarchy absolute independence of authority between diocese. An Archbishop is an administrative position over a province, but has no greater authority than the other bishops. This is probably similar to a Metropolitan in the Eastern Church. Clergy are ordained to be the local agents of the bishop. As such, they perform the sacraments by authority of their bishop. This is why there is a hierarchical distinction between bishops and priests. Nonetheless, this parity of elders that is so highly valued by the Presbyterians is not unlike the Anglican parity of bishops. Indeed, the idea of parity has been preserved from the early church and is consistent with the Eastern side of the Great Schism.

First Hypothetical

In order to flesh out this discussion, it would seem best to follow through a number of hypothetical situations and then comment on the theology at work at each step. It will be necessary in this regard to make assumptions, but this is acceptable within the world of hypotheticals. Nonetheless, the viewpoint of man will need to be considered necessarily as a part of this debate, and I will be harping on this issue to some degree. Let us begin with the easiest situation.

Describe the theological sign posts of a covenant child, baptized at infancy (obviously on or after the eighth day,) brought up in the church, who becomes a member in good standing in his church where he lives throughout his life until his death. I’ll go first as both example and a starting point for debate.

This child has communicant parents in the church. What can be said about the parents is that they are certainly covenant members and have the appearance of being among the elect. Covenant membership through baptism is reasonably extended to children of covenant members without much reservation. The Baptismal Covenant set forth in the BCP, assigns responsibility for the proper Christian education of the child, not only to the parents and godparents, but also to the whole congregation present. Whether this plays out in practice is another issue, but the words set forth in the sacrament are clear on this point. Theologically, that child is a covenant member. Through the doctrine of election, there are two possibilities. If the child is elect, the view of baptism becomes similar temporally to Lutheran theology. This is still not the same as the Lutherans, as the moving of the Holy Spirit cannot be known to act in one way or the other for the Anglican, while the Lutheran assumes that the Holy Spirit gives through the sacrament what is promised by the sacrament. Regeneration is in this case simultaneous with the sacrament. This is an important point if the child were to die. We stand in agreement with Lutherans on this issue.

If, instead, the child were not of the elect, by baptism, he is still deserving of all the rights and privileges of covenant membership. He might still be raised in the church and indeed spend his whole life in the church. The difference is regarding the lack of regeneration. Instead, by baptism, he has essentially blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, sealing his fate from the start. In every appearance, he may seem to be elect from the perspective of man, and yet there is a hidden and unknown to man lack of repentance and true faith. He has taken Communion thousands of times and his fate cannot be clearer to God.

Both children go through confirmation classes, essentially a catechism though not called that. Confirmation is the laying on of hands by the bishop conferring upon the individual full standing within the church. This is the transfer of responsibility for one’s own Baptismal vows back to the individual in the case of both children and adults. Adults who are baptized in the church will also go through Confirmation as their Baptismal vows are also jointly held by the congregation at the time of Baptism. This transference by the laying on of hands also confers apostolic succession from the Bishop to his charges, making the person in communion with the one catholic and apostolic church on this earth. However, this is, importantly, not a true sacrament in the Protestant world as it is in the Roman world. As a part of fencing the table, first Communion is usually at this time for Roman Catholics.

In contradistinction, Anglicans hold to the controversial practice of paedocommunion, the giving of communion to children before confirmation. I am calling this controversial, as it was introduced to the Episcopal Church (USA) about 40 years ago, about a decade after the ordination of women. To be fair, I’ll have to ask my current priest or bishop whether this is even done in the REC. Nonetheless, to follow through this process logically, I will start with the adult who is baptized. We invite all baptized Christians to our table. This includes adults before they have received confirmation. The theological position of a child aged 9 who has not been confirmed is similar to the adult who has not been confirmed. Separate classes or instruction are given through Sunday School to children, usually at around first or second grade, for the receiving of communion. This is not akin to confirmation in any way. The elect child receives the benefits of the sacrament, while the non-elect child receives all of the dire consequences of 1 Corinthians 11. But to all appearances, these children would be of the same situation. The adult who is baptized but not yet confirmed is in the same boat. The emphasis here is on the sacrament of Baptism. By inclusion into the visible church, the assumption is made that the person is worthy to receive Communion. We cannot know otherwise from the viewpoint of man.

Rather than introduce a specific sin at this point, I’ll yield the floor to MDA for his response. This will certainly have generated a number of issues to which he will likely want to respond.

- Troll -

A Debate on the Marks of the Church: First Clarification

By now, if you are reading this at all, you are aware that this is a series of posts on two blogs that are interacting with each other. At the beginning of each future post in this series, there will be a link to The Monroe Doctrine so that the prior post to which I am responding will be available to my readers. Please take a moment to read the post entitled “Church Discipline: an opening response.”

After carefully reading my foil’s opening remarks, it is evident that I did not adequately present the historical Anglican position. In my desire to reflect the mood of what is actually taught to the laity, I missed proper emphasis on what is taught to clergy. Since this will be a series about ideal ideas as opposed to the relative strengths of particular parishes, I will do well to stick to doctrine over practice. In my own future, I will certainly endeavor to make these two congruent. The issue at hand prior to embarking upon the great issue of discipline is the sacraments.

In a discussion of the marks of the Church, it comes as no surprise that each will impact the others in some manner. Therefore, a clear understanding of the theology behind each will shed light on future remarks. We have little disagreement on the correct preaching of the Word. The only differences arise from the different methods of selecting passages from which the sermons are based. Theologically, it is a wash; by emphasis, however, there is a difference that needs to be underscored.

The Monroe Doctrine author (MDA) asks for clarification on the issue of the sacraments. Let us begin with the issues raised regarding the number of sacraments. While it is true that Anglicanism inherited seven from Rome, it is also true that the Anglican Communion holds that only two were instituted by Christ and are worthy of the full status of sacrament. The other five, which I listed before, are worthy only of the title of “sacramental rites.” This is important because the implication here is that there is an involvement of the Holy Spirit in sacraments.

This brings me to my first key point on Anglican sacraments. The 39 Articles join with the Lutheran Augsburg Confession in rejecting the Zwinglian view of sacraments as anthropocentric ritual. By their very institution by Christ, Anglicans affirm that sacraments do not do any work, but rather God the Holy Spirit works on us through the sacraments. The sacraments are a gift from Christ whereby God does something, as opposed to them being a God-given way for us to declare something to Him or man. This is an important distinction, consistent with the views of Augustine, but one that may not be afoul of Presbyterian thinking.

In terms of Baptism, the laity often view Baptism as an open sacrament because of our (mutual) paedobaptism. In actual fact, far more adult baptisms are performed annually than infant baptisms in the Anglican Church. For the Anglican, this idea of an open sacrament is simply not the case, nor do I image that it is for the Presbyterian. As Baptism is a sacrament, a person who is baptized but does not repent and receive regeneration is as much bringing damnation upon himself as is a person who does not rightly receive the Lord’s Supper. The language of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 is echoed in terms of both sacraments. Interestingly, Calvin states a similar position in his sermon on Ephesians 2:11-13, including Baptism on equal footing with the Lord’s Supper as sacraments that condemn the reprobate. Articles 25 and 26 predate and actually predict the position of the Westminster Confession on this issue and the next.

The specific issue raised by MDA concerns regeneration. Following John Donne in the seventeenth century is Bishop Arthur Lake who developed the covenant model of Baptism within the Anglican Church. A full understanding of covenant theology in terms of Exodus 19 was outlined. What was also emphasized, however, is that election and covenant inclusion are not synonymous. This speaks directly to the issue of regeneration. While regeneration and Baptism are simultaneous in the elect, this does not deliver the same view of the sacrament as the Lutheran view. Covenant inclusion does not guarantee election, as that is involved in predestination. Many Anglicans will be surprised to find this Calvinist idea in their heritage, but one only has to study the divines to see that this is consistent. Lake is clear to strike at the Armininian idea of free will, preferring the liberation of will through grace that Calvinists will recognize. It is fair to say that this is not espoused by all Anglican clergy, but it is important in our discussion to look at the roots of the denomination for the answers to doctrinal issues. It is clear that Anglicanism has developed a doctrinal mud on this issue, but the roots are more crystalline. The 39 Articles clearly promote a view consistent with the later Westminster Confession.

I think that this puts MDA and me on similar footing concerning the issue of falling from grace. This is simply not possible within the context of a truly regenerated saint. The thought process that led me to that earlier quote was one of appearances concerning the practice of discipline. In good time, we will pound out our differences concerning the reprobate within the covenant community.

Returning to the issue of fencing the table, as MDA has reminded me of that expression, we now have another issue to consider. If Baptism is not only a covenant initiation ritual, but also a true sacrament through which God the Holy Spirit operates, then the reprobate is already condemned from the moment of Baptism. This follows logically from the definition of sacrament. Often, the Anglican laity will produce this terse definition: a sacrament is an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual and invisible grace. This definition is an Anglican truth, but it leaves much on the table for discussion. While not often spoken, the implication of the Holy Spirit being at work in the sacrament is all that Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11. But since the reprobate has already been condemned in Baptism, what further purpose is served by fencing the table?

Again, here is where the view of the Lord’s Supper demonstrates both differences in theology as well as differences in purpose. Because of the activity of the Holy Spirit in sacraments, the role of the Holy Spirit in the Lord’s Supper is sanctification. While this is similar to the view of Rome, the economy of grace is vastly different. This is not a finite particle of grace for the repudiation of a particular sin as in the Roman Catholic system, but rather more like a recharging of the battery. The Anglican needs this sacrament and feels unhealthy when going too long between. But I would refer you back to the service order for references concerning the confession and absolution that occur just prior to the prayer of consecration. While this may just be a lot of words to some of the laity, the clergy and certainly Anglican theologians take that portion of the service seriously. The absolution is as efficacious in fencing the table as need be, since the reprobate have already condemned themselves in Baptism.

One final point of clarification is the episcopate. While excommunication is among the possibilities of censure from a bishop, I have not heard of it being used with near the same frequency (as in never) relative to the Presbyterian system, again, my point of reference being my conversations with pastors. The bishop is far more likely to deal with the clergy under his charge in a censure than any laity. The issue of parity among ordained elders is a non-issue under the 39 Articles. The authority resides in the position, not the man. A retired bishop has no more authority than any Joe in the pew. We all Western Protestants fell from the same Romish tree. Anglicans feel less compelled to throw out the baby with the bath water as it were. Rejecting apostolic succession has more to do with political expediency than any theological determinative that I can see at this point.

In closing, I have a humorous observation. While I have chosen to use Luther as my source for the uses of the Law, MDA has selected the same from Calvin. There is little difference other than the ordering of the three. But here is also Luther’s quote on the abuses of the Law.

There are three ways in which the Law may be abused. First, by the self- righteous hypocrites who fancy that they can be justified by the Law. Secondly, by those who claim that Christian liberty exempts a Christian from the observance of the Law. "These," says Peter, "use their liberty for a cloak of maliciousness," and bring the name and the Gospel of Christ into ill repute. Thirdly, the Law is abused by those who do not understand that the Law is meant to drive us to Christ. When the Law is properly used its value cannot be too highly appraised. It will take me to Christ every time.

– Troll –

(I have not footnoted this blog post as it is not my custom in this blog.)

A Debate on the Marks of the Church: Part 2 of Opening Salvo

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--

The ThirtyNine Articles: Summary

After doing all of this work, where are we in this discussion?  The first generality that we can make is that the Church of England was founded in the sixteenth century on reformed doctrines.  There are some ideas intermixed that are clearly the result of the relationship between church and state that doesn’t exist in this country to the same degree.  There are only a few issues that remain unanswered.

The Church of England began as a reformed faith with reformed doctrine.  The 39 Articles affirm several ideas that are central to the reformed understanding of Christianity.  The Trinity is supported both by the uplifting of the Trinitarian creeds and by the specific doctrinal statements concerning the Trinity.  The Arian heresy is specifically renounced by affirming that Jesus is wholly God and wholly man.  The only question for me is the issue of Christ’s entering into hell.  It is what we should call a second order issue, not a first order issue.  The actual bodily resurrection is affirmed and the Holy Spirit is affirmed as a part of the Trinity.

The Creeds and the Canon are affirmed.  Of note, my interrogatives concerning the Athanasian Creed revealed a less than practical affirmation of this particular creed.  The other two are also Trinitarian creeds, though not as detailed.  They have the benefit of lacking the works righteousness comments.  When perusing the Books of Common Prayer over the last several hundred years, one finds that the other two creeds are preferentially used.  Therefore, it can be inferred that the specific articles dealing with righteousness are thought to supersede those two lines of that creed.

The Church of England affirms the reformed definition of justification.  Pelagius is denounced by affirming the doctrine of original sin.  Free will is tainted by original sin, so that only by the action of God in the person of the Holy Spirit is faith given as a gift to the elect.  We see specifically, again, the Roman practice of indulgences and supererogation to be contrary to scripture.  This section is a full break with Rome and places the Church of England clearly in the crosshairs of Trent.

The role of Baptism and Election is discussed.  The reformed positions of both doctrines are affirmed.  PaedoBaptism is accepted for the children of Baptized believers as admission into the Covenant of Grace.  Justification occurs at Baptism when it is the mark of true faith.  We are simultaneously justified and sinners as per the older, reformed view of Romans 6-8, because we are simultaneously members of this Age and the Age to Come.  Finally, salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone to the Glory of God alone through Grace alone as revealed in Scripture alone, the five solas of the reformation.

There are bits about church government and authority where the sacerdotal model is shown not to be completely abandoned.  The Church of England did, after all, keep an Episcopate that is remarkably similar to the Roman College of Cardinals.  The specific authority of the church gets cluttered with references to the royalty.  But these second order issues do not deflect from all that has come before.

The section on the Sacraments has some vital pieces of information.  First, the doctrine of Transubstantiation is specifically rejected.  The formal definition of sacrament is introduced and the two are named.  Withholding of the cup from believers is forbidden.  The sacraments are valid in terms of the office of the church that administers them, not in terms of the individual who administers them.  Therefore, the imperfections and sin of the minister have no reflection on the validity of the sacraments.  This is no small issue, and likely answers the concerns of many laymen throughout the centuries.

The two books of Homilies are discussed, and I will be starting the Homily series in the near future.

The last group are a collection of odds and ends that only is remarkable in the doctrine of separation expressed as excommunication.  This sounds like an exceedingly works based remnant of the Roman Church, but again, this is of second order importance.

Therefore, in summary, it can be confidently asserted that the Church of England, at least at its inception, could be counted among the reformed family of churches.  That is of some relief to me personally, as it gives insight to me as to why these doctrines might be intellectually appealing to me, independent of the arguments that are very compelling.  I am never one to defer the historical knowledge and record to warm feelings; that was not my meaning.  I instead mean that it is nice that my warm feelings align with the intellectual appraisal of the church.  There are clearly issues to discuss, but they are all of second order importance.  Despite the numerous second order issues, I am confident that the Word and Sacraments of this denomination of the reformed church can be believed to uphold faithfully the Gospel, at least historically.  There are also the grounds for members of the Episcopal church to take back the doctrines of the church in a new reformation based on the historical documents of the church.  In these 39 Articles, we can continue forward as Episcopalians with some hope for the denomination.

--Troll and Ogre--

The ThirtyNine Articles: the rest, Civil matters

In this section, we will look at the remaining articles.  There are some interesting tidbits contained within, but I will develop some of them more than others.

XXXII. Of the marriage of Priests.

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s law either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage. Therefore it is lawful also for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

It is interesting that this issue has exploded in the New York Times last week.  Here is a response by Al Mohler to the NYT piece.  In fairness, Mohler was mentioned in the NYT piece, thus his response is appropriate.  I mention it here because it is topical and interesting to this particular Article.  The most remarkable thing to notice is that while this article is neutral, practice might be exactly opposite of the Roman model.

XXXIII. Of excommunicate persons, how they are to be avoided.

That person which by open denunciation of the Church, is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church,  and  excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful as an Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church by a judge that has authority thereto.

Wow!  The dangling question is one of authority.  This article has historical precedent to be sure, but I am very uncomfortable with worldly declarations of God’s ultimate judgment.  As Luther said, there are going to be some surprises both ways on Judgment Day.

XXXIV. Of the traditions of the Church.

It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like, for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to  the  diversity  of Countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s word. Whosoever through his private judgment, willingly and purposely does openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that other may fear to do the like) as he that offends against the Common order of the Church, and hurts the authority of the Magistrate, and wounds the consciences of the weak brethren. 

   Every particular or national Church has authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by mans authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

I can see a lot of Pauline authority for this article, and I think that it is reasonable as written.  Practice and word must be in alignment, of course.

XXXVI. Of consecration of Bishops and ministers.

The book of Consecration of Archbishops, and Bishops, and ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, does contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering:  neither has it anything that of itself is superstitious or ungodly. And therefore, whosoever are consecrate or ordered according to the rites of that book, since the second year of the afore named king Edward, unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same rites, we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

Here we go with authority.  This is what theocracy means.  Clearly, this article has no business in the articles of a church.  I can understand such an article appearing in the laws of man, in so much as churches must deal with the laws of the nations in which they reside, but I find it difficult to understand any authority being granted to civil authorities or monarchies.  The break from Rome is in part responsible for this article and the next.  Viewed in the context of foreign control, i.e. Roman authority, these make more sense in the world of man and his politics.

XXXVII. Of the Civil Magistrates.

The Queen’s Majesty has the chief power in this Realm of England, and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes does appertain, and is not, nor ought to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction. 

   Where we attribute to the Queen’s Majesty the chief government, by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended: we give not to our princes the ministering either of God's word, or of Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen, does most plainly testify: But that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself, that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers. 

   The bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction in this Realm of England. 

   The laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences. 

   It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magis­trate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.

Following from the previous article, this article fleshes out the issue of authority, particularly in regards to the long arm of Rome.  The particulars of these itemized points are interesting on their own merits, but beyond my purposes at this time.

XXXVIII. Of Christian men’s goods, which are not common.

The riches and goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding every man ought of such things as he possesses, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

So, England will not be a commune such as the situation in Acts 4-5.  By the end of Acts, it is clear that this was not meant as a social model for the whole world.  So, no big deal here.  I’ve talked about Acts 5 in the past (although I can’t find that section at the moment,) and I have nothing to add now.

XXXIX. Of a Christian man’s oath.

As we confess that vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian men by our lord Jesus Christ, and James his Apostle:  So we judge that Christian religion does not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requires, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the prophets teaching, in justice, judgment, and truth.

OK, so we can swear to tell the truth in Court.  Nice.

As I said, this section were a collection of odds and ends that describe the relationship of the church and its members with the state.  The application of some of this language to the US Episcopal church is obviously lacking.  Again, it behooves the church to either accept or rewrite these articles if there are issues.  The Episcopal Church USA supports these Articles as written.

In the last post of this series, I will summarize the 39 Articles and discuss their legacy in the Episcopal Church.

--Troll--

The ThirtyNine Articles: 35, Homilies book 2

This is going to be surprisingly short.  The reason is that I think these are so good, and so lost to the Anglican laity, that they need to be brought out of mothballs and read.  I’m going to do both books of Homilies as series after the current series on the 39 Articles.  There will be a substantial requirement to translate out of Old English which will require time, but I believe this to be worth the time.  In areas where pietism seems to be running rampant, I’ll be sure to blow the whistle.  But the fact that I am a cradle Episcopalian and had never heard of either the 39 Articles until 7 years ago and the Homilies until last week, requires, no demands, that they be investigated.  The depth and riches of our Anglican heritage is nearly lost.  We need to understand our Reformation roots and reevaluate our current direction.

Below is Article 35 concerning the second book of Homilies.  Take a look at the titles.

XXXV. Of Homilies.

The second book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this article, does contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times, as does the former book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the sixth: and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers diligently, and distinctly, that they may be understood of the people. 

Of the names of the Homilies. 

1 Of the right use of the Church.
2 Against peril of Idolatry.
3 Of repairing and keeping clean of Churches.
4 Of good works, first of fasting.
5 Against gluttony and drunkenness.
6 Against excess of apparel.
7 Of prayer.
8 Of the place and time of prayer.
9 That common prayers and Sacraments ought to be ministered in a known tongue.
10 of the reverent estimation of God’s word,
11 of alms doing.
12 of the Nativity of Christ.
13 of the passion of Christ.
14 of the resurrection of Christ.
15 of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.
16 of the gifts of the holy ghost.
17 For the Rogation days.
18 of the state of Matrimony.
19 of repentance.
20 Against Idleness.
21 Against rebellion. 

There is a mixture of piety issues and doctrine that contains some juicy topics and some rather obscure topics.  With current climates in the Episcopal Church USA, one wonders whether there are bishops who are aware of Homily 18.  With Holy Week about to start, it will be fun to read 13-16 from book two as well as 3-6 and 8-10 from book one.  There are some words I’ll need to learn like Rogation.  Passion is used in the same manner as the Roman Catholics in reference to the Stations of the Cross.  In all, this will make a good series.

Therefore, nothing more about the Homilies now, except that it is interesting how these 39 Articles are exploded into so much more information with these hidden Homilies.  It’s one of those documents where the Appendices are far larger than the actual document.

The next to last post on the 39 Articles will be about the last group.  The last post will be a summary of the 39 Articles, putting them into the context of the current state of the Anglican Church.  I hope to engage some Anglican clergy in this discussion at that point.

--Troll--

The ThirtyNine Articles: 22-31, Sacraments and such

I have listed this next set of ten together, though there are some odds and sods mixed into the group.  For the most part, these are about the conduct of worship and the Sacraments.  There is little to discuss for most of them, if you hold a high view of worship and the Sacraments as I do.  I will try to anticipate areas of discussion as best I can.

XXII. Of Purgatory.

The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration as well of images, as of relics, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God.

If you have a works based system of justification and/or sanctification, then purgatory makes some sense.  If you believe that Christ came into the world to introduce a Covenant of Grace, then a doctrine of purgatory is unnecessary.  In addition to this, find a single mention of purgatory either by name or inference in the Bible.  Go ahead.  I dare you.  I’m waiting.  I’ll be here, under the bridge, eating roast mutton.

XXIII. Of ministering in the congregation.

It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.

Whoops!  I guess Joel Osteen cannot be an Anglican preacher.  I’ve been involved in the calling of two priests, and I found it to be wholly unsatisfying.  The issues that laity bring to this office of calling a priest can be completely irrelevant.  But my opinions of the respective clergy I will defer to Article 26.

XXIV. Of speaking in the congregation, in such a tongue as the people understand.

It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God, and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understood by the people.

We don’t like speaking in tongues?  Of course not!  Now, back off, my Pentecostal friends.  That isn’t what this is about.  Anglicans expect to understand the language of the worship service.  It is repugnant to use a language other than one understood by the people.  In other words, no more services in Latin.  I think all Protestants can feel good about this one.

XXV. Of the Sacraments.

Sacraments ordained of Christ, be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession; but rather they are certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God’s good will towards us, by which he does work invisibly in us, and does not only quicken, but also strengthens and confirms our faith in him. 

   There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. 

   Those five, commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be computed for Sacraments of the gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. 

   The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be guessed upon, or to be carried about; but that we should duly use them. And in such only, as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation; But they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as S. Paul says.

I could say so much more about the Sacraments here, but the last line is such a loud statement that I will work mostly on it.  The question before us is how does one receive the Sacraments unworthily, purchasing to himself damnation.  There are discussions of true and saving faith that come into play here.  It is interesting to keep this one line in mind as we read the next article.

XXVI. Of the unworthiness of the ministers, which hinder not the effect of the Sacraments.

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief action in the ministration of the word and Sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not do the same in their own name but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their ministry, both in hearing the word of God, and in the receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men. 

   Nevertheless, it appertains to the discipline of the Church, that enquiry is made of evil ministers, and that they are accused by those that have knowledge of their offences: and finally being found guilty by just judgment, are deposed.

This is a huge point that cannot be overemphasized.  If the priest, pastor, minister, deacon or bishop is not genuine in his faith, it does not matter to the believer who receives the Sacraments from this person.  The actions of the priest in the office of priest are done in the name of Jesus.  As such, their effects are in His name, acting on His behalf, and are as effective as if Jesus Himself were administering the Sacraments.  Therefore, if a person is Baptized by a person who later demonstrates that his faith was not genuine, that Baptism is still a true and effective Sacrament for that believer, because it is the office of priest that is important, not the individual fulfilling that role.

XXVII. Of Baptism.

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened:  but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby as by an instru­ment, they that receive baptism rightly, are grafted into the Church:  the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the holy ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed; and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.  The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

I don’t want to do the Baptism debate in this post.  Just read it and accept that Anglicans seem to think PaedoBaptism is still a good thing.  What is important is that Baptism for the true believer seals them into the Covenant.

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper.

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the life that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another: but rather it is a Sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death. Insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing, is a partaking of the blood of Christ. 

   Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of scripture, overthrows the nature of a Sacrament, and has given occasion to many superstitions. 

   The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner: And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is faith. 

   The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Read the first section, and then read the rest.  Transubstantiation was what I thought I was taught in confirmation.  This Article explicitly states that transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain words of scripture.  The last statement is equally interesting.  We do not worship the elements, because we do not find transubstantiation to be scriptural.  I understand and agree with this perspective, but I now wonder at the catechism that I received.  Obviously, I have more discussions ahead of me with the Anglican clergy.

XXIX. Of the wicked which do not eat the body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper.

The wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine says) the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: yet in no wise are the partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

This basically says that Grace is only given to the believer through the Sacraments, while going through the motions is damning.  I would argue that a lack of faith is sufficiently damning without heaping this issue on the pile, but the Anglicans seem to take particular affront to wasting the Communion elements.  This makes it sound suspiciously as if transubstantiation was perhaps lurking in the church theology despite the previous article.

XXX. Of both kinds.

The cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people. For both the parts of the Lord’s Sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

I’ve seen this behavior as a choice of the person, but never by the church.  If you consider the practice of using unfermented grape juice as a wine substitute as some churches will do, perhaps this is what is being referenced.  Intinction is often used by some people to receive the Blood of Christ and is actually taught in some confirmation classes.  I’ll have to ask more about this issue as well.  There seems to be some undiscovered history at play here.

XXXI. Of the one oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.

The offering of Christ once made, is the perfect redemption, propitiation, satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in which it was commonly said that the Priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead; to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

Again, this obviously has historical context of which I am not aware.  The idea that a Sacrament held the same power as the actual resurrection seems completely foreign to me.  Any Anglican confirmed in any church that I’ve attended knows by rote the definition of a sacrament.  It should not surprise me that there is historical reason for that definition to have been so soundly drilled into us.  For the benefit of non-Anglican readers, a Sacrament is an outward visible sign of an inward spiritual truth.  Role that over Baptism and Communion and you will see how that is applied.

The next section will be over the homilies, and I’m not sure how long it will be.  There are about 20 homilies and they are long.  I’m probably going to read them and summarize them, explicitly remarking on only the surprises and irregularities that I perceive. 

--Troll--