Why I am Orthodox
Would you call yourself ‘Orthodox’? Rhys Bezzant, at Ridley College in Melbourne explains why he insists on using that label for himself –
“I am an Orthodox Christian. In a place like Melbourne, calling myself Orthodox could of course easily be misunderstood: people might think I mean Greek or Russian or Serbian Orthodox. Calling myself Orthodox is however more than tracing an ecclesiological line back to Eastern Europe. Read more
Peter O’Brien on Hebrews — coming soon
From Don Carson’s preface to Peter O’Brien’s forthcoming commentary on Hebrews in the Pillar series –
“Among commentary readers Dr. O’Brien is doubtless best known for his commentaries on Paul’s prison epistles, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. The volume on Ephesians, of course, is published in the Pillar series, and it has become one of the “standard” works on that letter, not least for those preparing to teach and preach the text. Here Dr. O’Brien branches outside the Pauline corpus. The most recent six years of his life have been devoted to Hebrews, a book not always easy to understand but demonstrably important for Christians who want to know how first-century believers read the old covenant Scriptures. Such inquiry is the first step in building up a profoundly biblical theology, a profoundly canonical theology. It would be difficult to find a more helpful guide than Dr. O’Brien, or a guide better endowed with his combination of competence and genial wisdom. It is a pleasure to commend this work by a dear friend.”
– It’s worth reading all of Dr Carson’s comments, in the 77 page excerpt from the book on the Westminster Books website (PDF file).
(h/t Andy Naselli via Michael Bird. Photo: Ramon Williams.)
Update: Justin Taylor writes:
“Here’s one tried and true rule of thumb for buying New Testament commentaries: If it’s written by D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, or Peter O’Brien, buy it. It’s never failed me yet.”
A matter of Trust(s)
Here’s an excerpt from the weekly update from Bishop David Anderson, President of the American Anglican Council –
Beloved in Christ,
As we went to press last week there was breaking news of the decision of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, finding in favor of the local parish of All Saints’, Pawley’s Island and against the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and The Episcopal Church (TEC). Among the findings of the court is that the so-called “Dennis Canon” is illegal in SC and has no effect. The basis for this is that one person can’t establish a trust on someone else’s property. It is the person who owns the property that is the one to establish a trust, if they wish to. Makes sense, doesn’t it? As the court stated in the finding, “It is an axiomatic principle of law that a person or entity must hold title to property in order to declare that it is held in trust for the benefit of another or transfer legal title to one person for the benefit of another.” Read more
ACL Centenary Dinner Address
The Rev. Ed Loane gave this reflection on the history of the Anglican Church League at the ACL’s Centenary Dinner on Thursday 3rd September 2009:
I’ve been asked this evening to offer some account of the work of the ACL over the last 100 years. So I humbly put on my amateur historian hat – and amateur should be read in capital letters in light of present company – and I offer these reflections…
It has often been claimed that Sydney Diocese, with its pervasive and dominant conservative evangelicalism, is unique within the Anglican Communion – particularly within western Anglicanism. One of the chief questions that this situation raises is ‘how did this come to be?’ Read more
9Marks eJournal on Church Discipline
“Western culture doesn’t seem to understand tough love. Love today means unconditional acceptance. If you love me with conditions, you don’t love me. You’re judgmental and intolerant.
God knows better. He knows we’re finite and fallen. Therefore, his love challenges us at the very points of our finitude and fallenness for our good, and that’s not comfortable.
Church discipline is just such an uncomfortable act of tough love, which is why 9Marks would like to spend two issues of the eJournal considering this important topic…”
– Jonathan Leeman introduces the current 9Marks eJournal – on the seldom-addressed topic of church discipline. Worth reading – it’s available as a 420kb PDF file.
Challenges we face — 2009 AGM
ACL President, Dr Mark Thompson, spoke at last night’s ACL Annual General Meeting —
The clarity which Peter Jensen’s leadership has given us on the priority of evangelism and necessity of directing our resources to this end is something for which we can thank God. As we face the end of his episcopate, the challenge is not only to maintain that priority but to build on the strategies put in place over the last eight years which have given expression to it. We certainly do not want to go back, but we can’t afford to stand still either. We need to press ahead, thinking creatively about how to maximise our opportunities to proclaim Christ in a rapidly changing culture.
Bus stop gospelling
“How many people are willing to talk? Well, I have not recorded the stats, but based on a rough estimate from my limited memory, I would say at least a third of the people who I approach are willing to talk …”
– Paul McDonald in Toronto shares an idea worth considering. (h/t Tim Challies.)
Peter Jensen: The Jerusalem Declaration – why it matters
An address to the FCA UK launch by Archbishop Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney.
“Many are still angry that the Jerusalem GAFCON was held. Some of the most angry are those who agree with the theology of the GAFCON movement but cannot accept that a moment for decisive action had arrived. To such persons I say, I admire you and honour you as brothers and sisters in the Lord. But it seems to me that every day that has passed since the GAFCON has only vindicated the decision to hold it.”
Jim Packer is one of the giants of the real world-Anglicanism. Amongst the wise of this world he is disdained, but his praises are sung in all the churches. Astonishingly, in the eyes of his institutional church he is no longer one of us. He has chosen to separate himself from what he has called the sanctification of sin.Is he still an Anglican?
When we can seriously ask that question, something is deeply wrong. We are at a watershed, at a parting of the ways. Decisions have to be made. Read more
Opinion: This is not authentic Christianity
Opinion, from Dr. Mark Thompson:
Last night the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (operating as its Supreme Court) voted 326 to 267 to confirm the call of a practicing and openly gay man to be the minister of the congregation of Queen’s Cross in Aberdeen.
The decision comes at a time when the same issue has critically divided the Anglican Communion. A non-celibate gay man is Bishop of New Hampshire in the United States, his appointment confirmed by all but a small minority in The Episcopal Church. His presence at the inauguration of President Obama was nothing less than a presidential imprimatur. The Canadian churches are pushing ahead with the liturgical blessing of same-sex unions. Powerful gay lobbies are operating in many Anglican provinces around the world, including here in Australia. Meanwhile the Archbishop of Canterbury, caught between his published private opinions and the official position of his church, keeps trying to hold everyone together.
Other denominations both in Australia and beyond have also been dealing with various levels of gay activism within their membership.
The statement released by the Fellowship of Confessing Churches states the issue with unusual succinctness: this vote ‘sends a clear signal to the world that our denomination has departed from the teaching of the Christian Scriptures, upon which its very existence depends’. This statement resonates with the stated concerns of orthodox Christians around the world and in various denominations. The written word of God states repeatedly and unambiguously that homosexuality is a contradiction of God’s creational design for human sexual expression; to use the words of the Fellowship’s statement again, ‘the clear Scriptural pattern that recognises the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman as the only proper place for sexual intimacy’.
To acknowledge the Bible’s teaching on this matter as the true expression of God’s mind is not in any way to condone violence against homosexual persons. Such violence is itself a failure to take seriously the teaching of Scripture. Christians completely repudiate any such violence against anyone with whom we might disagree and where violence has been perpetrated in the name of Christ or of his people we need to acknowledge it and genuinely repent of it. What is more, homosexual persons are entitled to certain protections under the law (e.g. the right to live free of a fear of violence, the right to own property, and the right to be paid the same salary for the same work). However, these protections should not extend to insisting that all must agree with their decisions or behaviour. It is not an act of violence to say that something is wrong or morally repugnant.
Nor is this a sign of some psychological weakness, a ‘homophobia’ which is little more than giving way to our own fears and insecurities. This psychologising of dissent or opposition is a common enough tactic in modern debates. In the popular media and in liberal circles, it is used to suggest that there is something seriously deficient in those who disagree with the consensus they are promoting. It can also be a way of avoiding serious engagement with the arguments of your opponents. After all, if their opposition is borne out of pure irrational bigotry then surely it is appropriate just to marginalise and ignore them. However, the Christian opposition to homosexual behaviour over the past two thousand years has not arisen out of fear or ignorance. It arises from God’s clear expression of his mind and purposes for human beings. It is carefully reasoned and grounded firmly in God’s revelation.
The advocates of the right of actively homosexual persons to be recognised as faithful Christians and entrusted with Christian leadership of various kinds have also sometimes argued that their opponents are all captive to naïve and fundamentalist readings of Scripture which cannot be taken seriously in the twenty-first century. They point to other practices condemned in Scripture (almost invariably the Old Testament) which Christians do not take seriously and in fact have not taken seriously for a very long time. The food and clothing laws of Leviticus are often cited in this regard. So too is the insistence in the same Old Testament book that adultery should be punishable by death. Christians once justified slavery on the basis of biblical teaching, so the argument goes, and excluded women from leadership in the Christian congregation.
However, even a basic understanding of biblical theology demonstrates the difference between most of these cases and the issue of homosexual behaviour. The food and clothing laws of the Old Testament relate to the distinct national identity of Israel as God’s chosen people. With the advent of Jesus the situation is quite different. Indeed, it is Jesus himself who declares all foods clean. Adultery, however, is very different, as the repeated denunciations of it in the New Testament testify. It is no less serious an affront to God as it was in the Old Testament, since it still involves the repudiation of God’s intention for a faithful life-long union between a man and woman. Yet the Old Testament demand for judicial execution is replaced by congregational discipline: a call to repent and temporary exclusion with the goal of full restoration. Here is an appropriate analogy with the New Testament perspective on homosexual behaviour.
The appeal to the Christian attitude towards slavery as a precedent is to a certain degree disingenuous. After all, it was evangelical Christianity, motivated by obedience to the Scriptures rather than a desire to set them aside in favour of a contemporary public consensus, which overturned the slave trade in Britain. That abominable trade in human misery had been wrongly equated with the slavery found in Israel under the Old Covenant. Furthermore, the bonds of brotherhood in Christ took precedence over all social station and effectively undermined the practice of slavery as it existed in the first century Mediterranean world (as Paul more than hints to the slave-owner Philemon).
The case of women and Christian leadership is nowhere near as straightforward. It is certainly a matter of demonstrable fact that there is no universal Christian consensus on what kinds of leadership are appropriately exercised by women and what are not. There are many who insist that women are to be considered in every way equal to men and yet that this equality is not at all compromised by recognising men and women as complements of one another rather than duplicates. Yet others prefer an undifferentiated egalitarianism. The New Testament clearly considers gender an important issue when it comes to how we should behave within the Christian congregation. Yet debate continues as to how giftedness and opportunity are related to the very few restrictions on the appropriate ministry of women in the apostolic writings.
The push for what is euphemistically called ‘homosexual inclusion’ is sometimes portrayed as the next chapter in the history of enlightenment and emancipation. The prejudices of the past and the morally bankrupt practices which arose from them have one by one been overturned as knowledge replaced ignorance and freedom overcame oppression. The mistreatment of those who were different in race or gender to those with power was rightly exposed and action was rightly taken to eliminate it. Now, we are told, there is one further kind of discrimination which needs to be overcome: discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet such a picture cloaks a raft of differences.
Most important of these is the simple fact that the Christian objection focuses on behaviour rather than the inward struggle with temptation. Each of us is tempted to seek fulfilment, pleasure or meaning apart from God and his good word to us. We could rightly speak about our orientation or attraction to selfishness, pride, greed, anger, promiscuity and so forth, and of our responsibility to seek God’s help to resist that orientation. Those troubled with homosexual temptation need support and care rather than repudiation. And part of that support may well be to help such people avoid circumstances which would provide opportunity to surrender to that temptation.
Nevertheless, the issue in New Hampshire, Canada, Scotland and elsewhere is homosexual activity, indeed the embrace of an actively homosexual lifestyle while claiming to submit to the Lordship of Christ.
The sad but unavoidable truth is that any Christianity which endorses homosexual activity is not authentic Christianity. It cannot appeal to the universal teaching of the Christian churches over the past two thousand years. It can lay no claim to the mandate of Scripture. It cannot legitimately suggest that Jesus overturned the teaching of the Old Testament on this issue. Indeed, when speaking to the Pharisees about divorce he explicitly reiterated God’s creational intention: ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.’ (Matt. 19:4–6)
It is important for Christians to be vocal in their opposition to moves such as that just made in Aberdeen. We need to insist that this is an aberration which is inauthentic. The lobbyists will certainly try to use it as evidence that there is no Christian consensus on this issue. This will no doubt be part of the debate in the House of Lords this week as activists try to wind back religious exemptions to the laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet we continue to say ‘no’ and to argue that homosexual practice is morally repugnant because God has made this clear in the Scriptures. And the good word of the good God who made us all is always worth living by.
Dr. Ashley Null on Thomas Cranmer
In September 2001, ACL News spoke with Dr. Ashley Null while he was visiting Moore College.
Here’s what we published (in two instalments) at that time –
Un-noticed by many Anglicans around the world, 2002 brings the 450th anniversary of the publication of the second Prayer Book of Thomas Cranmer (pictured), the Reformation Archbishop of Canterbury.
It was the Prayer Book of 1552 (with minor modifications) that was used in the Church of England during the reigns of Elizabeth I, James I and Charles I. With further modifications, it was to become the most widely used edition of the Book of Common Prayer, that of 1662, which is still the standard for all Anglican worship. In the light of the uncertainty among many over what constitutes genuine Anglicanism, it’s more important than ever to know something of the origins of the Anglican Church.
Dr. Ashley Null is an ordained Episcopal minister of the Diocese of Western Kansas. He holds a Cambridge Ph.D. and did his initial theological work in Yale Divinity School. His special area of interest is Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, and primary author of the Book of Common Prayer.
ACL News caught up with Dr. Null while he was in Sydney lecturing on Thomas Cranmer at Moore Theological College. After leaving Sydney he went on to Germany to begin a long term research project producing a critical edition of Cranmer’s private theological notebooks.
(Questions in italics.)
———–
Who was Thomas Cranmer and why is he important for Anglicans?
Thomas Cranmer was born in 1489 and baptised into the medieval catholic church. He studied at Cambridge, receiving a Doctorate of Divinity in 1526, and served there as a don.
As a theologian, Cranmer was very much influenced by Erasmus’ emphasis on going back to the original sources for the Christian faith, in particular, of course, the Bible.
In the late 1520s, the authority of Scripture was at the centre of the most pressing English political issue of the day – Henry VIII’s divorce case.
The king and his scholars argued that the Pope did not have the authority to set aside a clear Scriptural commandment against a moral sin. Since Leviticus 20:21 specifically forbids taking the wife of one’s brother, Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon was invalid, despite having received papal approval. True to his own theological convictions on Scripture, Cranmer agreed.
Once Henry learned of Cranmer’s views on the subject, he invited the Cambridge don to join his team of scholars. In 1532, as part of that effort, Henry sent Cranmer to Germany as his ambassador to the Emperor.
While in Germany, Cranmer came under the influence of Protestantism. Not only did he acquire a new wife – who was the niece of the wife of the German reformer Andreas Osiander – but he also acquired a clearly protestant understanding of justification.
His commitment to Scripture and to the early Church Fathers, like Augustine, helped Cranmer to grasp the Protestants’ emphasis on salvation by grace alone. His Erasmian studies, therefore, laid the bridge for him to cross over from being a catholic to a protestant.
Then, quite unexpectedly, Henry VIII called Cranmer back to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury. Naturally, he was quite reluctant. No doubt, though, he accepted the position because he saw it as his task to use such a powerful position to restore the English Church to its scriptural roots. And, of course, that’s what Cranmer did for the rest of his life as the Archbishop of Canterbury – seeking to bring the Church of England back to a sound, biblical faith.
Under Henry’s successor, the boy king Edward VI, he was primarily responsible for the three key formularies of the Church of England: the Book of Homilies, the Book of Common Prayer and the Articles of Religion. Therefore, understanding Cranmer’s theology is essential for understanding the theological origins of the Anglican Communion.
Justification by faith alone is the key
The Homilies are very much neglected in the experience of most Anglicans. How do they fit into the scheme of things?
Most people don’t realise that the first liturgical change Cranmer made was to insist on good solid biblical preaching in every Sunday church service. To ensure that, he and others gathered together a set of Homilies that were to be read in course throughout the year.
The first six of these sermons explain how one comes to a biblical understanding of having Jesus Christ as your Saviour by faith alone – and the gratitude that one receives from knowing God has saved you, even though you are not able to make yourself worthy of salvation.
That gratitude means that you live your life in service of him and of other people. God’s divine gracious love, shown in saving the unworthy, inspires a grateful human love, by which we serve God and other people.
For Cranmer, the glory of God is to love the unworthy – that’s his fundamental theological tenet. He understood that medieval theology, despite its clear intellectual breadth and brilliance, had a distinct Achilles’ heel – its insistence that you had to be made personally worthy for salvation before God could accept you.
Cranmer believed that this emphasis on merit produced only two possible alternatives – either you had great pride that you were worthy – or you had great despair that you never could be worthy. Neither one, of course, inspired loving obedience.
So this is the key to justification by faith.
Exactly.
As he sought to reform the Church, how much of it was a solo effort?
Although Cranmer had tremendous authority as the Primate of All England, sixteenth-century English society consisted of interlocking relationships.
Above him was, of course, the king as supreme head of the Church, and for a time, even Thomas Cromwell, the king’s vice-regent in matters spiritual, and an invaluable ally for Reformation. Below Cranmer were the bishops and clergy and their Convocations of Canterbury and York. Working alongside him under the king were the members of the king’s Council and the members of Parliament, all of whom also had a voice in the religious policy of the kingdom.
As a reformer, therefore, Cranmer had to work with like-minded individuals in all these various governing institutions of the kingdom to bring about change. By the time a formulary such as the Prayer Book had made its way to final parliamentary approval, Cranmer’s contribution would have long since been subject to committee contributions.
Nevertheless, the formularies clearly reflect the stamp of Cranmer’s personal theology, as one would expect, since he was the driving theological force behind them.
Slow, but steady, reform
Over the centuries, all sorts of Anglicans have wanted to claim Cranmer as their own.
The Anglo-Catholics, for example, argue that it is in the 1549 Prayer Book that we see the real Cranmer. In the 1552 Prayer Book, they say, Cranmer was influenced by more ‘extreme reformers’ and was unable to resist. What would you say to this notion?
If you stop and think about the liturgical changes under Edward VI, you can see a steady pattern of gradual change in an increasingly, clearly protestant direction. Is 1549 the first liturgical change that Cranmer made? No. In 1547, his first year under Edward VI when he at last had the freedom to promote his own theological convictions – he brought in a clearly protestant understanding of justification by faith.
That’s in the Homilies?
Right – and when was it required to be read? During the liturgy. So the Homilies were the first liturgical change – and it was a clearly protestant change. Stephen Gardiner, the Bishop of Winchester, had no misunderstanding about what Cranmer was up to. He furiously objected to the Homilies precisely because they brought in justification by faith.
The next year – 1548 – Cranmer made another small step toward changing the liturgy. He inserted a set of English prayers into the traditional Latin Mass about preparation, confession and other things. So now Sunday worship had both an English sermon and some English prayers.
The next year – 1549 – Cranmer introduced a completely English Prayer Book. Although the eucharistic liturgy looked very much like the previous service, the objectionable elements of medieval sacrificial language and merit had been modified in keeping with the archbishop’s protestant beliefs.
Three years later, after Cranmer had received suggestions on further changes for the next stage of liturgical renovation, the 1552 Prayer Book was produced. Its clearly protestant eucharistic service is just the natural progression from the protestant Homilies of 1547.
In short, Cranmer was a pastor who gradually adapted the formularies of the Church to match good biblical standards – but not so quickly as to lose all the people. He sought to bring them along slowly, but steadily.
When we think that 1549 Prayer Book was the high point of Cranmer’s work, we clearly misunderstand both his theology and his way of bringing things about. Therefore, historically speaking, the 1552 Prayer Book really is the standard for original Anglican worship.
Cranmer was very much in step with what was happening in Europe, wasn’t he? He corresponded with John Calvin and others.
Cranmer had the intellectual ability, the scholarly desire, the personal discipline, and the immense means – including funds to acquire books, the status to be given books, and the secretaries to make use of them – to be very up to date on all the latest scholarship of his day, both catholic and protestant.
The idea that he was not interested in theological convictions on the Continent is just not tenable. As a scholar and as a statesman, Cranmer knew the issues in his field. He had an enormous library, and, as his private theological notebooks prove, he was enormously well read.
Gratitude is our motivation
Cranmer saw the need for gratitude to God – and that is our motivation for living. Is this a new insight?
That particular insight is typical of early protestant theology. That Cranmer fully accepted this principle becomes clear only when one examines his public writings in the light of the entries in his private theological notebooks. The largest of these manuscripts, ‘Cranmer’s Great Commonplaces’, demonstrates his commitment to early reformed theology, which, of course, puts a whole new light on everything else he did.
The key issue for recognising Cranmer’s reformed views is his doctrine of justification. Since he wrote no technical treatise on justification, all we have are his three homilies on salvation. And, of course, they were designed to be accessible to the average person. So Cranmer did not use any technical terms in their composition.
This lack of scholarly specifics in the Homilies has allowed a variety of scholars to interpret Cranmer according to their own traditions.
The ‘Great Commonplaces’, however, add the theological details which are missing from his public writings. Therefore, they are terribly helpful in forming an accurate picture of his theology. They make clear that Cranmer was actually a fairly typical – if insightful – early reformed protestant Augustinian.
—————-
Part 2
In the light of widely differing views of the Lord’s Supper in the Anglican world today, we began by asking –
What did Cranmer actually think happens in the Lord’s Supper?
Cranmer rejected the medieval understanding of the priesthood. He did not believe that a priest, by virtue of his ordination, was made a special link between God and his people, so that the Holy Spirit worked through him during a sacrament as the principal means of dispensing divine grace to the people.
In Cranmer’s understanding, the Holy Spirit came directly to God’s people through his Word. As Scripture was proclaimed, the Holy Spirit wrote his promises on the hearts of believers, thereby nurturing in them a living, personal faith which alone united them to God. That is the reason why Cranmer urged the English people to feed on Christ continually, because they could strengthen their union with Christ at any time simply by meditating on God’s Word in their own hearts.
Therefore, in Cranmer’s mature understanding, the sacraments were not the principal means of grace. Nor were they a second, separate channel on par with Scripture, as if the Spirit worked supernaturally through two different, but parallel, means, i.e., the sacramental ministry of an apostolically ordained priesthood and biblical preaching. Cranmer’s final view was far simpler. Since the Holy Spirit came to God’s people through the Scriptures, the sacraments were effectual means of grace precisely because of their unique capacity for proclaiming the promises of God’s Word.
In the sacraments God has accommodated himself to the creatureliness of our nature. We have keen physical senses – sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste. But our spiritual senses are dim at best, so that we can struggle to perceive the Spirit’s working within us.
Consequently, Christ has commanded that the visible elements of water, bread, and wine be joined to the proclamation of his promises to save us and sustain us. As a result, in the sacraments we can encounter him with all our physical senses.
When we see, smell, touch, and taste the bread and wine in Holy Communion, the Spirit witnesses to us that Christ is at that very moment feeding our souls with the benefits of his passion, just as the elements are feeding our bodies.
Naturally, the awareness that Christ is tending to our spiritual needs strengthens our faith in him. And, of course, true faith in God’s goodness towards us always engenders a hearty thankfulness in us which, in turn, goes forth from us as a renewed love for him and others. Indeed, the miracle of Communion isn’t the supernatural changing of bread and wine, it is the supernatural redirecting of our wills, away from a self-centred love of self towards a true love for God and others.
In short, according to Cranmer, the purpose of the Lord’s Supper is both as an expression of a believer’s living faith and as a unique means of strengthening it. In obedience to Christ’s explicit command, the Church celebrates this sacrament until he comes again. During its ministration, those with living faith ascend in heart and mind to Christ’s presence at the right hand of God. Seated with him in heavenly places, they are spiritually nourished with the full power and benefit of Christ’s body and blood by Christ himself. With their faith strengthened, they continue to dwell in him and he in them, thereby enabling believers to love their neighbour as themselves.
Why the Lord’s Supper?
So would you say that Cranmer saw the Lord’s Supper to be more akin to a visual aid to help us, or is it stronger than that?
One has to be careful here. Cranmer’s scriptural understanding of the Lord’s Supper may be simpler than his medieval predecessors, but it is no less thoroughly supernatural.
He fully believes that a miracle happens in the sacrament, but this profound mystery takes place in the human heart, not on the Holy Table. Real spiritual power is active in Communion, but its focus is the ordering of the unruly wills and affections of sinful men, since only a supernatural intervention by God can do so.
According to Cranmer’s anthropology, what the heart loves, the will chooses, and the mind justifies. The mind doesn’t direct the will. The mind is actually captive to what the will wants, and the will itself, in turn, is captive to what the heart wants.
The trouble with human nature is that we are born with a heart that loves ourselves over and above everything else in this world, including God. In short, we are born slaves to the lust for self-gratification, i.e., concupiscence. That’s why, if left to ourselves, we will always love those things that make us feel good about ourselves, even as we depart more and more from God and his ways.
Therefore, God must intervene in our lives in order to bring salvation. Working through Scripture, the Holy Spirit first brings a conviction of sin in a believer’s heart, then he births a living faith by which the believer lays hold of the extrinsic righteousness of Christ. Of course, the perfect justifying righteousness by which we are made right with God must be outside of us, for the ongoing presence of sinful concupiscence in our mortal bodies renders it impossible for us ever to be truly holy in this life. Indeed, the glory of God is his love for the unworthy, that although we are sinners, he makes us his own.
Now, in effect, justification gives us a heart transplant. For at the same time that we receive the gift of justifying faith by which we are credited with Christ’s extrinsic righteousness, God also sheds abroad in our hearts a new love for him and one another. This new heart love for him, from him, naturally redirects our wills away from sinful selfishness towards a life lived in thankful obedience to God’s commands. Even though we continue to have to struggle with the pull of concupiscence in our mortal bodies, the the supernatural power of God’s abiding love has fundamentally changed us.
Now we know in our hearts that we are sons and daughters of God. Now we have the heart desire, and therefore the will power, to crucify the flesh daily. Now we can truly begin to live more fully for God and his work in the world.
In Cranmer’s view, if the miracle of justification is this reorienting of the human will by transforming the heart, then the miracle of Communion is the strengthening of that renewed will.
In short, Cranmer’s theology is a religion of the heart. In his view, if our hearts change, then so will our actions and attitudes. One of his objections to the medieval sacramental system was the failure of its ceremonialism to effect real change in the lives of either the priests or the people. That is why his liturgy stresses the need for God to intervene in our hearts.
What does the Collect of Purity say? ‘Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee’. What does this mean but that we cannot truly love God unless he supernaturally changes our hearts? What is the refrain from the recitation of the Ten Commandments? ‘Incline our hearts to keep this law’. What does ‘incline’ mean but that we are asking him to redirect our hearts up towards him and away from being curved inward on ourselves? How does the recitation end? ‘Write all these thy laws in our hearts, we beseech thee’.
Clearly, this means Cranmer wanted the Holy Spirit to work through the Scripture proclaimed in his liturgy to change the hearts of the worshippers.
What value in Liturgy today?
In Sydney and other parts of the Anglican Communion, there is a move away from prayer books and formal liturgy.
What can we do to protect our understanding of who we are and to preserve against going off onto all sorts of tangents – but staying with Reformed theology?
I was raised with Cranmer’s liturgical language and still find it very moving. Nevertheless, I have to admit sixteenth-century English is an aquired taste, and we shouldn’t expect people to have to acquire a specific cultural taste in order to come to know Jesus.
So some liturgical changes are clearly necessary, as Cranmer would have been the first to admit. After all, he is the man who set aside centuries of Latin prayers to give the English people a worship service in their own language. What we must do is think of how we can make the theological insights of the Reformation applicable to our needs today.
By the same token, however, we are conditioned by the assumptions of our own culture. So the very foreignness of Cranmer’s liturgy can itself be very helpful to our theological reflections, if we will allow this time-tested, solidly biblical standard to critique the cultural blindspots of our day.
At the very least, we need to recognise what Cranmer was trying to do in his liturgy. In Holy Communion he actually takes you through an order that replicates how a person comes to a living faith in the first place. The whole service is designed to make believers fall in love with Jesus all over again. Therefore, we need to consider very carefully what we are losing when we decide to throw that pattern away.
Of course, the most important thing we can do as Anglicans is to encourage people to have a biblical faith. Once again, Cranmer would be the first to agree. Nevertheless, as Anglicans we are also the stewards of a treasure. In the English Reformation God did something very special. He brought forth a reawakened biblical faith which was then enshrined in a liturgical expression which has moved people for centuries. We need to see how that tradition of biblical faith at prayer can help guide us towards God today, even as it guards us against self-centredness, laziness and sloppiness.
The constant danger of Pelagianism
How might we better help people get in touch with their history when very little history is really taught in schools these days?
Well, I suppose one place to start is to help the Church better understand the Reformation so that we can tell our story to people more accurately.
The whole point of the Reformation is that the Church shouldn’t put on people burdens that they cannot bear. After all, just because you know something is right, that doesn’t mean you can do it. Apart for the working of the Holy Spirit, our wills are bound to the deceitful devices and desires of our hearts.
Therefore, biblical preaching must always guard against an incipient Pelagianism which would turn God’s promise to renew us into tasks we must perform in order to please him. The Bible clearly states many dos and don’ts for human behaviour. However, just because our minds may understand how a Christian should live, that doesn’t mean that our wills can automatically fall in line.
As I said earlier, reason is not king in human beings, the heart is. Therefore, to change your actions, you must change your desires. But your desires will change, only if the Holy Spirit who wrote the Bible also writes his laws on your heart. Of course, biblical preaching must expound the dos and don’ts faithfully. Yet, if we hold up a standard, but do not make clear the means God has provided by which that standard may be met, we discourage people rather than being bearers of good news.
As we preach, we must constantly remind people that a new way of living is something God has promised to work in us, even as he continues to forgives us our many short-comings along the way. As we preach, we must constantly remind people to turn in Christ through his Word and Sacraments, so that he can make the changes in them that they cannot make on their own. After all, true holiness is actually ever-increasing active dependence on God and his promises.
This Pelagian tendency is the reason why many people find Cranmer’s prayer book off putting. Pelagianism says that repentance is the work you must do to please God. When you abase yourself enough, when you feel guilty enough, when you have changed your ways enough, then God will decide you are worthy of being forgiven, then God will permit you to be called his child. When an Anglican Church preaches Pelagianism from the pulpit, people will hear it echoed in the penitential ethos of Cranmer’s liturgy.
So when the Confession asks people to acknowledge that they are ‘miserable sinners’, they hear, ‘If I grovel enough in self-loathing, then maybe God will accept me’. No wonder some people think that Cranmer’s God wants to make people miserable!
Sadly, that is the exact opposite of what Cranmer intended people to hear. He would want people to understand that repentance is a divine gift which God is pleased to work in them, not their work by which they make themselves pleasing to God. Indeed, they are already miserable because of their sins, but by coming to God they can experience real freedom.
Their sins may have put them under divine judgement and enslaved them to destructive habits which do not satisfy, but God has promised to rescue them. He will do for them what they cannot do for themselves. Because of Jesus, God will pardon them from their sin’s guilt and deliver them from its power. He will draw them into a new way of living, and he will make something beautiful out of the brokenness of their lives. Cranmer’s liturgy focusses on repentance, because this divine gift is truly good news.
Today our whole culture talks about addictions and how to break their power. The Church, however, often fails to realise that sin is the ultimate addiction, slowly destroying people, even as it draws them further and futher away from God and their true selves. Cranmer and his fellow Reformers made no such mistake. They could face up to the gravity of sin, because they realised the superior power of God’s grace.
Human beings may be instinctively addicted to always having to prove their worth, but the cross of Christ shatters that lie. Human beings may fear they can never make the changes in their lives that are expected of Christians, but the Resurrection of Christ conclusively testifies to his power to make all things new. Human beings may feel rootless and estranged, but Christ has promised to prepare an eternal home for his people, even as he prepares them for it.
I think if the Church preaches these Reformations truths, people will hear good news indeed.
No other Name – The uniqueness of Christ for Salvation
David Phillips, General Secretary of Church Society, wrote this before the recent Church of England General Synod –
A survey conducted by Christian Research six years ago asked Clergy whether they believed without question that Jesus is the only way of salvation. Only 51% of the Clergy questioned could agree. …
there is good reason to think that less than a half of the Bishops believe that Christ is the only way of salvation.
The issue of the uniqueness of Christ for salvation has been bubbling up for some time and has shown every sign of erupting in the last few months. Many are now trying furiously to prevent any such eruption for fear of the consequences. Read more
The Limits of Fellowship – Phillip D Jensen
1. The Misguided Title
Let me commence by saying that the title “the Limits of Fellowship” is misguided. I know I chose it myself, but it is the wrong question. It starts us off looking for the negative when the theme of the Bible is the positive.
In as much as we are able we are to live at peace with all people. We are pray for our enemies, seek their welfare, not answer evil for evil, and never take revenge (Romans 12:14-21). We are to love one another and by quiet honest work not be trouble makers to others but live properly before outsiders (1 Thessalonians 4:9-11).
And when people come to us in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ we are to welcome them. Our welcome is not for the sake of disputes. We are not to be judgemental. Nor are we to exercise our freedom in Christ to harm the weak whose conscience is bound. Rather we are to serve and build one another in love (Romans 14-15).
We are to avoid quarrelling about words or foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions and quarrels about the law for they are unprofitable and worthless (2 Timothy 2:14, Titus 3:9). The youthful passions that we are to flee are contrasted with righteousness, faith, love and peace. For we are to “have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.” (2 Timothy 2:22-26)
This is our concern: the salvation of other people. For the sake of winning people to the Lord we are to set aside our own preferences and become like other people (1 Corinthians 9:19-23, 10:31-11:1). So we do not want to destroy them by our legalism nor by our liberty. When we see somebody fall into sin our concern is their repentance restoration and salvation. We go to them gently looking to ourselves lest we too be tempted (Galatians 6:1-5) and wherever possible we seek to restore the brother or sister. We are to “have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.” (Jude 22-23) Even the extreme judgement delivered to the sinner in 1 Corinthians 5 is “so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.”
Within congregational life the love that we have for one another is the hallmark of being a disciple of Jesus (John 13:35). The first letter of John is full of encouragement and assurance of the difference that the gospel makes in our love of one another. We call each other brothers because of our common rebirth. But such a name must be matched in our behaviour towards each other (1 John 4). Our treatment of each other as brothers should mean that we would prefer to be defrauded than to take our disputes with each other into the public domain of the courts.
Maintaining the unity that Christ has won for us by his death and resurrection is commanded of us. “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit – just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call – one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:1-6)
The desire to exclude people from the Church was championed by Diotrephes. We read of him in 3 John –
“I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church. Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good.” (3 John 1:9-11)
There is little in the New Testament to encourage Christians to split or divide. In fact we are warned against the divisive person. The works of the flesh include “rivalries, dissensions, divisions,” (Galatians 5:20). So in the context of foolish controversies dissensions and quarrels God says: “As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.” (Titus 3.10-11).
a) The Paradox
But this treatment of the divisive person raises a paradox for us. For we are to divide from the divisive person.
It is not a paradox that is difficult to resolve for the error is not in division but in being divisive. It is the person who makes for division, loves division and causes division that is in the wrong. Dividing ourselves from them is the right thing to do. Division is not itself wrong but there is a spirit of divisiveness which is wrong. Yet this paradox highlights the problem that we have in dealing with our differences.
The Christian’s permanent disposition is, and should always be, to build for harmony with all people especially with the people of God. Yet there comes time when we must stand out as different and in opposition to the world even with those who claim to be the people of God.
b) With Whom Do We Divide?
So with whom do we divide? When? Under what circumstances? For what purpose.?
One of the most important issues to understand is the difference in our relationship with Christians and with non-Christians.
(i) Non Christians
As the Holy People of God of course we are to be different to the world. (Ephesians 4:17-24, Colossians 3:5-17, 1 Peter 4:1-5) Indeed we must expect the world to dislike, hate and even persecute us as our Lord taught his disciples (John 15:18-20, 1 John 3:13).
We are not to expect that the world we live in is going to be so improved that we will easily live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. The parable of the wheat and weeds in Matthew 13:36-43 shows us what the world is like and will be like till the harvest comes. Now is not the time to separate the weeds of the world from the wheat that is also growing there. There is a fundamental and eternal difference between those in the kingdom of God and those who are outside. The days in which we live, are the last days when peoples’ opposition to God will be great. They will not put up with sound doctrine but will gather teachers who will satisfy their own passions (2 Timothy 3:1-4 and 4:3- 4).
Sometimes we have to avoid such people. So Paul’s advice to Timothy concerning Alexander the coppersmith is he “did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message.” (2 Timothy 4:14-15). We do not know about this man. We do not know if he was professing to be a Christian when he did this harm to the apostle, or what the nature of harm was. But it appears to be a non-Christian that Timothy was to avoid. There is no encouragement for Christians to seek martyrdom in the New Testament so it should not be surprising that we should flee from the persecutors.
But that is not the same as avoiding the immoral. Paul apparently was misunderstood in his advice to the Corinthians. For he writes in 1 Corinthians 5: “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people – not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler- not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:9 – 13).
Here is the clear distinction between our relationships with non-Christians and Christians. There should be a withdrawal of association with those who profess Christ but are living in sexual immorality as there would not be for those who make no such profession.
Thus with non-Christians except for the danger of some opponents there really is no reason to withdraw from association. We may have nothing in common and we will be divided from them by our lifestyle choices but we have no reason to withdraw from them and every reason to stay in friendship that we may share the saving message of the Cross with them.
(ii) Christians
But with Christians or those who profess themselves to be Christians – things are very different. There can be, and in 1 Corinthians 5 should be, some withdrawal from certain people because of their behaviour.
This involves us inevitably in making judgement decisions about people and behaviours. We are fairly fallible in making such judgements. We need to weigh the evidence very carefully and not jump to conclusions. But none-the-less we have to make the judgements. And as the scriptures say of the Messiah we are not to “judge by what his eyes see, or decide by what his ears hear, but with righteousness he will judge the poor and decide with equity for the meek of the earth;” (Isaiah 11:3-4). So, we must judge without respect of persons but by the revealed will of God.
Our judgements will never be fully accurate or final judgements1. We do not know enough, especially of the intention of the hearts, to make accurate or final judgements. So Paul would write: “But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged (anakrino) by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.” (1 Corinthians 4:3-5). Yet Paul himself would in the very next chapter make judgements about others and call upon the church to do the same: “For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment (krino) on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 5:3-5). And in the next chapter he rebukes the church for having members turn to outsiders for judgement on disputes between them: “When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge (krino) the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers?” (1 Corinthians 6:1-5).
Thus we need to follow the Lord Jesus instructions in Matthew 7 of judging as we wish to be judged – not taking the speck out of our brother’s eye while we have a log in our own – but doing to others as we would have them do unto us.
c) Judgements
This will still involve making judgements – even negative ones – for we have to watch out for false prophets and to discern the difference between the narrow and wide gates. And the false prophets come purposely in deceptive appearance in order to lead astray God’s people. They are a real danger – described as “ravenous wolves”. Their goal is to lead astray the elect. This is not possible because God protects the elect by shortening the days of tribulation and by warning beforehand of the dangers of false prophets (Mark 13:20-22).
Judging then as the Messiah would judge means that we are no respecter of people. Our concern is with the truth. Thus we are not to accept or dismiss people on false basis.
We are not to accept or dismiss people because we “like” them. We are to love one another because we are Christian, not because we are lovable. Rather we are to bear with one another and forgive one another because in Christ we are to love one another (Colossians 3:12-15, Ephesians 2:2). It is this reality of loving one another that is the hallmark of being a one of Jesus’ people (John 13:35).
Furthermore our love and acceptance of one another is not based on race, sex, class or religious background. This is the great argument of Ephesians 2-3 but also the climax of the argument in Galatians 3. “For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:27-29) Which is why we are to welcome all who come in the name of Christ without passing judgements or quarrel over opinions (Romans 14).
Nor should our judgements be based on institutional authorisation. Paul was unimpressed by the status of the Jerusalem leadership. “And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) — those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.” (Galatians 2:6). Indeed the officialdom of Israel was exactly the group who roused the crowd that called out “Crucify!” (Mark 15:1-15, John 19:6, 15).
Earlier in Mark’s gospel an interesting episode records Jesus warning against judging by institutional authorisation. The event is Mark 9 where the disciples tried to stop an unnamed exorcist who was driving out spirits in the name of Jesus. Their objection to the man’s ministry was that “he was not following us” (Mark 9:38). Though he was not one of the authorised disciples, he was effectively doing the ministry that they ironically were unable to do earlier in the same chapter. Jesus said: “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us.” (Mark 9:39-40).
While we are to follow the example and teaching of our leaders, submitting to them in love (1 Corinthians 16:16, Hebrews 13:7, 17), Jesus warned against too much authority being given to leaders. “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” (Matthew 23:8-12)
We are not to place ourselves under our leaders as mediators between God and us. There is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). And while there is corporate sin and corporate responsibility yet “each one of us will give an account of himself to God” (Romans 14:12). It is not only Adam or humanity that will be judged or the Church that will be saved, each one of us is personably answerable to God. Being a teacher does not place anyone above judgement but rather brings them into stricter judgement (James 3:1).
2. Whom To Avoid?
So we return to our question of whom we should avoid or withdraw from? Why or when should we do it? How should we do it?
From 1 Corinthians 5 it is clearly those within Christianity not those outside2. But which ones and why?
There are three aspects of concern to consider: fellowship, teaching, and behaviour.
a) Fellowship
Firstly then the issue of Fellowship. For the people of God were not to fellowship with everybody. Indeed one of the characteristics of the nation Israel was its requirements of holiness that were to keep it separate from other peoples. They were to take no part in the religious expressions of other nations; they were not to intermarry with them or to adopt their practices morality or laws. They were to completely destroy and dispossess those who were already in the promised land – partly as a judgement of God on their sins and partly that the people and land of God were to be completely holy.
Yet within the New Testament there is a universality and inclusion that strikes a quite different note to the exclusiveness of Israel. A different note but not one that dispenses with holiness or any separation. Indeed God’s judgement on Israel’s flirtations with idolatry and sinfulness is given to Christians as the example of what happens to the people of God when they compromise on holiness (1 Corinthians 10:1-10).
The command to separate oneself from idolatry is fairly clear: “Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” (1 Corinthians 10:14-22).
Eating and drinking together are expressions of fellowship – of sharing things in common. We cannot eat at the table of demons and of Christ – for we cannot share with both. There is a point at which one must decline to come to the table, for it is a hypocritical nonsense to think that we can be in fellowship with both simultaneously. There has to be renunciation and repentance before one can move from one table to another.
Total inclusiveness of a tolerant relativism is completely at odds with Christianity. In his second letter to the Corinthians Paul asks a series of rhetorical questions that show the impossibility of unequal yoking (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1).
In the Old Testament this is illustrated by the strange life of Daniel. He had to draw the line of separation when in Babylon. He drew it on the issue of eating at the king’s table, at the falling down to worship the golden image, at the practice of praying toward the temple for the redemption of Israel. These were non-negotiable. Rather face death than sin.
In the New Testament the disciples would not retreat from preaching Christ even though forbidden it by lawful authority (Acts 4:18-20). If this caused division within the community it may be sad but it was what Jesus did and expected his disciples to do (Matthew 10:16-25, 34-39).
But what about fellowship with Christians? Paul tells us that divisions amongst us are inevitable so “that those who are genuine amongst you may be recognised”
(1 Corinthians 11:19).
Sometimes Christian disagreement is not about recognising the genuine but simply choosing to go separate paths, while still being in good standing with each other. So Paul and Barnabas’ disagreement over Mark (Acts 16:36-41) or the couple of Christians who cannot live with each other and so choose to live apart (1 Corinthians 7:10). They continue to be married to each other and are not free to marry anybody else, but will live out their obedience to Christ separately.
Sometimes the separation has to do with church discipline for the benefit of the wilful. So Paul calls upon us not to have anything to do with the lazy who will not work – “not to regard him as an enemy but warn him as a brother” (2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15).
However when we offer help to strangers who come in the name of Christ to preach his gospel (3 John 5-8) then we are “fellow workers for the truth”. So we are not to offer any hospitality to those who go out preaching a false gospel for “whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works” (2 John 11).
So the scriptures urge, warn and command us to avoid certain people and fellowship. We are to have nothing to do with them. We must not help or give succour to them in their work. We are not to fellowship with them in eating and drinking. This is not a matter of personal preference or choice but of obedience to God’s word. He commands us not to fellowship with them.
In particular there are two groups that we are to avoid, false teachers and immoral “Christians”.
b) False Teachers
On the issue of false teachers there are five aspects to consider
(i) the importance of teaching
(ii) the consequence of the teaching
(iii) the authority of the teacher
(iv) the tolerance of false opinions
(v) the separation from false teachers
(i) Firstly we must note the importance of teaching. Christianity comes from the word of God. It is taught to us – in words – the words of the Gospel. That is the form in which the salvation of God is mediated to us. The words are about actions that God has taken in the death and resurrection of Jesus. The words, if they were not about reality, would not be true and would not be saving. But the reality of Jesus death and resurrection is conveyed to us in his word taught in human speech (Luke 24:44-49). Being God’s word it is powerful and dynamic, but yet extraordinary as it may seem, it is conveyed in human speech (Romans 1:16-17, 1 Thessalonians 2:13).
This makes Christianity very susceptible to the problem of false prophets and false teaching. When people come claiming to speak the word of God or to give the true meaning of God’s word we have to pay very great attention lest we be hard hearted and rejected God’s word or lest we be deceived by false teaching.
From the beginning the Devil has been a murderer, a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). By the means of false teaching he brought death into the world when he denied what God had said and reinterpreted what God meant saying: “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:4-5).
Throughout the history of Israel in the Old Testament there has been conflict between the true prophets of God speaking his word, and the false prophets seeking to distort and deny it.
In the New Testament the struggle continued. Establishing the truth and teaching it while rejecting falsehood, exposing and rebuking it was and is a normal part of Christian living.
The Christian gospel is not an infinitely malleable set of ideas, relationships or practices. In the opening chapter of the letter to the Galatians Paul exhibits his understanding of the logical status of the gospel message. “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel – not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:6-9).
From this passage we can see that: there is only one Gospel; that it can be distorted; it can be contradicted; that it is true independent of its preacher and that those who falsify it deserve to be damned.3
Consequently it is very important that ministers of the gospel rightly handle the word of truth and that false teachers are rebuked and silenced. This is the import of the instruction of Paul to his protégés and colleagues Timothy and Titus (1 Timothy 1:3-4, 6-7; 4:1, 6-7, 13; 2 Timothy 2:2, 14-18; 4:1-5; Titus 1:10-11, 13-14, 2:1, 15). It is also his instruction to elders (Acts 20:26-32) as being ‘an apt teacher’ is a prerequisite for their appointment (Tit 1:5-9 and 1 Tim 3:1-7). It is critical that an elder “must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” (Titus 1:9). The character of the ministry of the gospel is handing over the good deposit, the words and the pattern of sound words that have been taught. So faithfulness is a key prerequisite of the job (2 Timothy 1:13, 2:2) as Paul was faithful to the deposit he received (1 Corinthians 15:3).
(ii) Secondly we must note the consequences of the teaching. For the word of God is not only the great creative redemptive power for good but its perversion the very work of Satan for death and destruction.
By God’s word the heavens and earth were created (Psalm 33:6, John 1:3). For the Word of God is and always has been with God and is God (John 1:1-2). So when we are dealing with the words of God we are dealing with God himself (Hebrews 4:12-13. The scriptures are breathed out by God so that what the scripture says – God says.4 This means that the word of God is living and active piercing the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart and at work in believers (Hebrews 4:121 Thessalonians 2:13).
Thus the teaching of God’s word is not merely a communication of information, but effectively the pastorally transforming work of God – bringing people to faith in God and transforming people as their minds are renewed to know the mind of God (Romans 10:17, 12:1-2). As Peter said to Jesus: “You have the words of eternal life,” (John 6:68).
But Peter later wrote of dangerous consequences of false teachers and false prophets. He knew the importance of reminding Christians of the truth that they had embraced. He knew that this was not based in myths but in his eyewitness experience that accorded with the words of the divinely inspired prophets (2 Peter 1:12-21). So he wrote warning of false prophets and false teachers who would bring in secretly destructive heresies and bringing swift destruction on themselves (2 Peter 2:1). But notice that their damaging work is not confined to themselves alone. “And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words” (2 Peter 2:2-3). Peter understood that unstable people twist the scriptures “to their own destruction”. He warned us “You therefore beloved, knowing this beforehand take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability” (2 Peter 3:16-17).
The dangerous consequences of false teaching affect both the hearer and the society, in this life and the next. Paul warned Timothy “avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.” (2 Timothy 2:16-18). It is why our Lord warned us against false prophets and false shepherds (Matthew 7:15, 24:11-12, 24:24) and reserves some of his most stringent criticism to the religious leaders and teachers of his day. The seven woes he declaims in Matthew 23 is one of the most powerful rejections and warnings about religious leaders in the scriptures. The dreadful consequences of those who follow their duly appointed but false leaders he describes as becoming a “child of hell”. These false scribes and Pharisees 5 “shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.”
The human capacity to be deceived is great for our hearts are sinful and deceptive (Jeremiah 17:9). Unstable people are easy pray for false teachers (2 Timothy 3:6-7) but we all need to be repeatedly warned not to be deceived (1 Corinthians 6:9, 12:1-2, 15:33, Galatians 5:21, 6:7 Ephesians 5:6, Colossians 2:8, James 1:16, 1 John 3:7). Indeed we need even to be warned against ourselves for being deceived one can deceive others – as Paul describes our present age “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.” (2 Timothy 3:12-13).
(iii) Thirdly we need to understand the authority of the teacher. For though through books and articles, we encounter teaching separated from teachers, in fact teaching does not exist without teachers. And in the church teachers have the authority of leadership. We do not just submit to teaching but to people (1 Corinthians 16:16, Hebrews 13:17) as we obey their instructions and imitate their faith (1 Corinthians 4:16-17, 11:1 Philippians 3:17, 4:9 2 Thessalonians 3:9).
The link between teaching and authority can be seen in 1 Timothy 2:12 but also in the pre-requisite of bishops/elders in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:9. It was the task of the Apostles (Matthew 28:20). It is the task of both Timothy and Titus (1 Timothy 3:6, 11-16, Titus 2:1, 15). It is the role of the leader in Hebrews 13:7, 17.
This is why the elders who labour in teaching are considered worthy of double honour (1 Timothy 5:17). It is also why the teacher is to be judged with greater strictness (James 3:1). For the tongue is very powerful in its effects and can cause great damage. It is also why the elders who are appointed to teach within the Church, must have stable and godly lives and why Timothy must devote himself to both life and doctrine (1 Timothy 4:15-16). For a teacher’s obedience to the teaching is essential if he is to care for the church of God (1 Timothy 3:1-7) as well as to avoid the hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:1-2).
(iv) Fourthly we need to note the tolerance of false opinions in the New Testament.
Though the teacher is to be judged with greater strictness he does not have to be perfect before teaching. There is acceptable latitude of opinion between Christians and there are matters of indifference that teachers should not enter into.
Timothy is to let people see his progress in his life and doctrine. The teacher must hold firmly to what the apostle has taught. But he does not need to know everything. Rather he is to grow in his knowledge and understanding of God. This is the model he needs to set for the congregation (1 Timothy 4:11-16).
Between Christians there will be many different opinions. Even over issues of religious observances. The arguments on Christian liberty in 1 Corinthians 8-11 and Romans 14 are all premised on the possibility of Christians having different opinions on certain matters. Food laws, seasonal observations, or drinking wine are not matters central to the kingdom of God and so different attitudes of people’s consciences should be allowed for. Otherwise there will be the reconstruction of justification by good works and the undermining of the centrality of justification by faith in the gracious death of our Lord and Saviour.
It is at this point that many attempts at working out with whom we can fellowship go off the rails. For people naturally want a list of the central matters over which we cannot be tolerant and a list of the peripheral matters over which we can exercise some latitude. But there is no possibility of such a list. For even a matter that is of no consequence in itself – like the food we eat or being circumcised – can in some circumstances be central to gospel fellowship. So in Galatians we are told that “neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (Galatians 6:15). Thus Paul refused to submit to the false brothers who would insist on Titus being circumcised. For in the enforced circumcision of Titus he saw that “the truth of the gospel” would be compromised (Galatians 2:3-5). This concern for the truth of the Gospel also lay behind Paul’s rebuke of Peter and Barnabas over food laws. For when they refused to fellowship with Gentile Christians for fear of the circumcision party – they were undermining the Gentiles’ standing in Christ by faith alone (Galatians 2:11-14). It was a gospel matter even though it was about food and the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating a drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Romans 14:17).
There is no possibility of making the list of matters called adiaphora 6. For anything can be used to express the truth or to teach falsehood. Though there are matters that are less germane to the gospel. Over these Christians can disagree – it is even good that Christians do disagree – for it clarifies our justification is in Christ’s death.
Furthermore there are some areas of truth that the Christian teacher should leave alone completely. So Paul tells Timothy, “Remind them of these things (great truths about dying and enduring with Christ) and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers… avoid irreverent babble” (2 Timothy 2:14-16 cf 1 Timothy 6:3-5) and 1 Timothy concludes, “O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called ‘knowledge,’ for by professing it some have swerved from the faith. Grace be with you.” (1 Timothy 6:20-21). He also warns Titus: “avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless” (Titus 3:9).
(v) Fifthly we must note the separation from false teachers that the Scriptures enjoin upon us. This issue is central to our place in history today.
Paul wrote to the Romans: “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil.” (Romans 16:17-19).
Again Paul teaches about separation from false teachers when he wrote to Timothy concerning teachers such as Hymenaeus and Philetus “who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened”. We must not be afraid that God’s plans will be thwarted for God know what he is sovereignly doing. He knows who are his. He uses all kinds of instruments to bring about his purpose. But, though false teachers will in time fail like Jannes and Jambres did, yet we are to “avoid such people” (2 Timothy 3:5).
John also teaches the necessity to remove yourself from support of false teaching. He wrote
“For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.” (2 John 7-11)
This teaching of John is consistent with his instructions in his third epistle. For there he makes it clear that by helping strangers who go out in the name of Jesus we are “fellow workers for the truth”.7
We cannot be rewarded as fellow workers in the truth when we support missionaries, without being criticised and judged for being fellow workers in wickedness if we give similar comfort to false teachers in their ministry.
This hospitality and greeting of teachers is the flip side of Jesus’ promise that whoever gives so much as a glass of cold water to a messenger because he comes in the name of Christ will not miss out on his reward (Matthew 10:42). For in helping the little ones of Jesus when they are naked, hungry and thirsty you are helping Christ himself (Matthew 25:31-46). It is also indicative of the nature of Jesus teaching on how to treat the repeatedly warned and unrepentant sinner “…let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (Matthew 18:17).
So when the risen Christ addressed the church of the Ephesians he commended them for their hatred of the work of the Nicolaitans as he held against the church of Pergamum that “you have some who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.” (Revelation 2:6, 15). But he is really condemnatory of the church in Thyatara because of their tolerance of false teaching and the false teacher: “But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead” (Revelation 2:20-23).
c) Immoral “Christians”
The case of Thyatira brings us to another aspect of withdrawal of fellowship. For false teaching is one reason for withdrawal but immorality is another. Of course when the two go together, as they often/usually do, then the reasons for withdrawal are overwhelming.
(i) We All Sin
On the issue of moral behaviour, we know that we all sin – and sin in many different ways. The person who says that they have no sin or have not sinned is a liar and makes God a liar. Rather we are to walk in the light of fellowship with God and his people by confessing our sins, knowing that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:5-10).
Furthermore when we see our brother sin we are to seek to restore him gently (Galatians 6:1-5) and to pray for his forgiveness (1 John 5:16-17). Such prayer is not about “sin that leads to death”. There is sin that leads to death and other sin that does not lead to death. That is, while any lawbreaking makes us accountable to the whole law (James 2:10) yet there is a differentiation between sins in the law. There is sinning accidentally8 (ignorance) and, defiantly9. There is gnat law and camel law. There are weightier matters of the law like justice and mercy and faithfulness and righteousness as well as lesser concerns like tithing mint dill and cumin (Matthew 12:7, 23:23-24). There are applications of the law that have become obsolete in the history of salvation (Hebrews 8:13) and others whose application requires us to understand their spiritual intent from the perspective of the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:8-11, 10:6-11).
Thus not every sin committed by a Christian means that we withdraw from fellowship. Otherwise we would be conducting church in the proverbial telephone box and even then we too would have to leave it because of our sin. Rather the issue is how we deal with sin in our lives and the seriousness of the sin.
(ii) If We Repent
For if we repent, God is always merciful and gracious and will forgive us our sins. As John wrote: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. … My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 1:8-9, 2:1).
It is the refusal to repent that turns any trespass into “sinning defiantly” or “sinning with a high hand”. For this, there can be no forgiveness, not because of the sin itself but because of the way in which the work of the Holy Spirit is resisted and despised (Numbers 15:30-31, 2 Chronicles 36:16, Matthew 12:31-32). There comes a point where the opportunity of repentance is no longer available (Hebrews 6:4-6 12:17).
Of course repentance must be real and not just to avoid punishment or to fulfil appearances (Matthew 3:7-10). Saying or even feeling sorry is not the same as repentance (2 Corinthians 7:5-13). While repentance can comfort other Christians it is only when that repentance is real. Paul did not want the Corinthians to apologise to him to make him feel better but to repent of their actions. It was their repentance toward God that made him feel better. Saying sorry for hurting somebody is not repenting – it is not even acknowledging wrongdoing let alone changing the course of life.
Jesus gives a clear process for dealing with a disciple who sins against his brother without repentance. After being warned by the offended party and warned a second time by the offended party plus one or two witnesses, the matter is to be brought before the church. It is only when he refuses to listen to the church that the offended party takes the action of separating himself.
Being unrepentant is one of the critical failures that breaches fellowship.
(iii) The Seriousness of Sin
While repentance is one such issue, the seriousness of some sins is another.
As argued above while all sin is serious not all sins are equally serious. The sins that affect fellowship are those that are public denials of key gospel standards. The sins that bring dishonour to the name of Jesus, undermine the holiness of the congregation and should cause offence to the people of God are those that are intolerable.
While the church is not pure or Christians sinless, there are major breaches of public community morality that are intolerable. This is not to minimise the importance of any sin. It is just that not all sins have the same seriousness of consequence. There are those sins that do not lead to death. There are the sins that we bear with one another in forgiveness.
Take for example the economic sins in the New Testament.
The Thessalonians are warned against laziness. They are told to withhold food from the lazy man who will not work, and when he does not obey the command to earn his own keep then the congregation is to “have nothing to do with him”. However this is not a final outcome but another strategy to get him to take his responsibilities seriously for Paul continues: “have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.” (2 Thessalonians 3:12-15).
The words of James to the rich are much stronger. Though there is no action enjoined upon the church. But the sins of the rich in their unjust cruelty to the poor should lead the rich to “weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you.” (James 5:1).
So not all sins are treated in the same way. But some are considered intolerable and therefore treated with great seriousness and direct action. For example Paul rebukes the Corinthians on many matters but it is a particular issue of sexual immorality that requires immediate and drastic action. “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:1-2). This breach of standards lowers the congregation beneath the morality of outsiders. It cannot be tolerated in any shape or form.
In the next chapter he warns the Corinthians: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
Here is an important passage because it makes clear the exclusion from the kingdom of God. It illustrates the general reason for exclusion (“the unrighteous”) with some specific and concrete examples (“sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers”). It allows for the possibility of salvation for the guilty if there is a significant change (washed, sanctified, and justified). And it warns of the deception that comes with these sins. (“Do not be deceived”10).
Both 2 Peter and Jude discuss people11 who “secretly” bring false teaching and immorality into the church. They both deny the Lord, and encourage sexual immorality amongst Christians. While both epistles warn of these people and encourage the Christians to “contend for the faith” (Jude 4) neither encourage the Christians to exclude these divisive people from the congregation. Rather the Christians are encouraged to remember that God will bring judgement as he did in the flood or in Sodom and Gomorrah and that God can be trusted by the faithful to judge the wicked and save the righteous.
(iv) The Call for Action
The risen Jesus’ letter to the seven churches calls for direct action against such false prophets. But the church at Pergamum tolerated the Nicolaitans as well as those who taught as Balaam leading to sexual immorality and idolatry. To them comes the call to repent and the warning of judgement for these failings.
But much harsher is the word to the church of Thyatira: “But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.” (Revelation 2:20-23).
Toleration is sometimes inexcusable. This woman is teaching falsely this common combination of idolatry and sexual immorality. The church should have acted against her, not tolerated her. The Lord of the Church may patiently bear with the sin of the world, but was not going to tolerate her continued sinful teaching and practice.
So there are some people who profess to be Christians we should avoid, because of their behaviour. Such people are mentioned in 2 Timothy 3, where in the climax of the description of evil times we read of people who are “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power.” These are not irreligious people these are people of professed godliness. But their lives and teaching deny the power of what they profess. And Paul’s command to Timothy is “avoid such people” (2 Timothy 3:4-5).
3. Come To Lambeth
So with this canvassing of the Biblical material we come to Lambeth. Or at least we come to the invitation that our Bishops have declined. Are they right or wrong? Should others decline as well or is just a private decision that reflects personal wishes?
I am not going to rehearse the problems in the Anglican communion. Mark Thompson has just done that for us. Nor am I going to explain the nature of the Lambeth Conference, as Robert Tong has just done that for us.
However there are some matters that I need to mention to see how this Biblical material should be applied to this particular question.
a) The Incarnation of Ideas Creates Division
The incarnation of ideas creates division amongst people. As long as we are discussing an idea we can stay at the same table. Once you start teaching the idea we may have to withdraw from each other. Once one of us incarnates that idea into an action we are no longer able to continue with each other.
Take a neutral issue like infant baptism. As long as we are just talking there is no reason to separate from those who believe babies should or should not be baptised. But once somebody starts teaching it as a matter of right and wrong then those of us who disagree cannot remain in fellowship. But nothing divides us more certainly than when somebody either baptises a baby or refuses to baptise a baby or rebaptises an adult. Then when the teaching has been incarnated there is no room left for difference of opinion. At that point not only are we distanced from the person but even more from the minister and church who acted in this fashion.
Similarly notice the divisive consequences of ordaining or refusing to ordain women as priests or bishops. As long as we are just talking about it then we can continue in relationship. Once people start preaching on the matter, divisions start to emerge. But if it is your belief that we must ordain women in order to fulfil the command of God then you cannot keep talking about it, you have to do something. And once you act upon your belief then those who are by conscience opposed to this action must either deny their conscience or separate from you. So within the Anglican church there are the created no-go zones of ministry – where some places women are accepted as priests and in other places the same women are considered to be deacons or even lay.
I am not talking about the right or wrong of this illustration just the inevitable outcome that I was taught by a MOW leader in a book called “Actions Speak”12.
b) The Presenting Issue
The issue of homosexuality I do not wish particularly to discuss. It is the presenting issue on this debate so it cannot be avoided but as an issue it is of very little interest to me.
The point is in a passage like 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 we are warned that these matters are deceptive. We are warned that these matters exclude people from the Kingdom of God. There has been universal acceptance of the meaning of these words down the centuries and across the spectrum of Biblical scholarship – and while there may be scholars who today want to dispute the meanings of some words they have no agreement amongst themselves or any persuasion of the vast community of scholarship. I have seen nothing to persuade me that the words sustain some unusual meaning.
Furthermore in the context of Lambeth it was only ten years ago that the gathering of world bishops accepted the traditional attitude to sexual expression.
c) The Consecrating Bishops
So on an issue that is not marginal as it involves exclusion from the kingdom of God, a group of bishops, knowingly and intentionally consecrated an unrepentant active homosexual.
Let us be clear here – the problem is not with Gene Robinson. He is not even invited to Lambeth. It has nothing to do with homophobia – if they had consecrated an unrepentant practising heterosexual adulterer the point would be exactly the same. It is not even a matter of sex. If they had consecrated a practising unrepentant thief the point would be the same.
The reason why our bishops are not attending is because of the impossibility of Christian fellowship with the consecrating bishops. They are the false teachers who have acted in a way that makes fellowship with them impossible.
The Lambeth conference is not a debating chamber. It is the formal expression of our world fellowship. The bishops join together around the table of the Lord Jesus Christ. You cannot do that with people who are practising, condoning, commending and consecrating sinfulness.
If it is believed that homosexual behaviour is right and moral, when exercised in a loving relationship, they did nothing wrong. If they believe that innocent people are being persecuted and discriminated against by our church then they did the right thing. If we are teaching that innocent people are guilty and failing to break bread with people who are truly Christ’s then we are doing the wrong thing and need to repent.
But unless you are persuaded that this was either right or a matter of indifference you cannot now be associated with these leaders in Christian fellowship. If you believe that the practice of homosexuality is sinful – such as to exclude a person from the kingdom of God – then these Bishops, acting as the leaders of Christ’s church, are intolerable false teachers.
It would be important to check the facts and to make sure that they did understand what they were doing and did it intentionally. It would be important to ask them to repent. To do it slowly, carefully, politely, privately and if need be publicly. But once it is clear that this is their studied intentional position then the options are clear. Either accept them for they have done the right thing or reject them for they are in serious error. There really is no middle ground left.
The last five years have demonstrated every conceivable attempt at bringing them to repentance. All has failed.
The meeting at Lambeth is the welcome acceptance of them into the continuing fellowship of God’s people.
If you believe that they are wrong there is no way you can join in such a gathering of supposed Christian fellowship. It is not a matter of preference but of obedience.
You cannot accuse others of disobeying the scriptures on homosexuality while you yourselves are disobeying equally clear commands of scripture to avoid such false teachers.
d) I Would Urge
I would urge those bishops who believe that unrepentant active homosexuality is wrong not to compromise their own beliefs, the scriptures, the church of God and the holiness of Christ. If they have already accepted the invitation they should repent and apologise. It is not good to go back on your word. But you should not have given it in the first place. And to reinforce your error of judgement by attending is to make the same mistake as Herod when he executed John the Baptist. Such faithfulness to your word and promise is perverse rationalisation for continued wrongdoing.
To those bishops who go to Lambeth knowing that unrepentant homosexual activity is wrong – your profession of evangelical credentials will always be tarnished. You cannot expect God’s people to trust you as you pick and choose which parts of the Bible apply to others and apply to you.
Actions have divisive effects. You are now put under incredible pressure to act on an issue that is not your own choosing. But you cannot avoid the consequences of your action. Attending is to fellowship with false teachers in their wicked work. It cannot help but diminish faithful Christians’ confidence in you as a leader. To believe otherwise is a further illustration of the naivety, which leads you to attend.
The pragmatic arguments of needing to be there to uphold orthodoxy do not wash. By being there you are denying and undermining orthodoxy. You are demonstrating that the issue does not ultimately matter and that these men are the true bishops of the church.
The American bishops believe they are right and wish to change the rest of the church into accepting homosexuality. There is not the slightest indication that they are coming to Lambeth to listen to what the orthodox have to say. This is not the first round of a debate it has been going on for years. They are not ignorant of alternative viewpoints. They came last time for the final debate and they lost. They come this time with an action that they refuse to repent of. The American bishops did not listen last time they will not listen this time.
That the Archbishop of Canterbury has invited them only shows his colours. He is on record as agreeing with the American action in principle. Orthodox bishops attending, is not going to change the outcome of Lambeth just legitimise fellowshipping with false teachers or more accurately declare that their teaching is not false.
For our own diocese we need to explain the issues clearly so people will rejoice with thankfulness to God that we are led by Godly bishops who put obedience to the word of God ahead of worldly popularity. It would also be very encouraging to them to be flooded with letters and e-mails of appreciation at this difficult time.
________
Endnotes:
- Though through the gospel ministry the human declaration of the forgiveness of God has eternal consequences. (John 20:23)
- There are exceptions that have been discussed above such as the non-Christians we are to withdraw from are the dangerous (2 Timothy 4:14) and those who encourage us to join them in their sinful behaviour (1 Peter 4:3-5, 1 Corinthians 15:33-34).
- anathema ESV, AV “accursed” NIV “eternally condemned”. TDNT “Handing over to God’s judicial wrath”
- Nb. e.g. the ascription of authorship of Psalm 95 to God, the Holy Spirit and David in Hebrews 3-4.
- I am not at this point arguing that anybody today is teaching what the Scribes and Pharisees taught but that false teaching is not something that Christians can ignore as harmless when our Lord was so critical of the false teachers of his day because of, amongst other things, the harm they caused to other people.
- Things that are indifferent.
- “Beloved, it is a faithful thing you do in all your efforts for these brothers, strangers as they are, who testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their journey in a manner worthy of God. For they have gone out for the sake of the name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles. Therefore we ought to support people like these, that we may be fellow workers for the truth.” 3 John 5-8
- Numbers 15:27 ESV, NIV “Unintentionally”. AV “through ignorance”. The sins of ignorance concept can be seen in Leviticus 5:14ff, 1 Timothy 1:13, Hebrews 5:2, 9:7.
- Numbers 15:30 ESV, AV. “a high hand”. NIV “defiantly”.
- Interestingly a similar warning is given in two parallel passages Galatians 5:21 and Ephesians 5:6.
- “False prophets” in 2 Peter 2.12 Eileen Baldry and Tony Vinson (eds) Longman Cheshire 1991.
________
Address given by the Dean of Sydney, Phillip Jensen, at the Sydney Lambeth Decision Briefing, St. Andrew’s Cathedral, Sydney, Friday 14th March 2008.
PDF version available here. Audio file.
Evangelical Religion
by Bishop J.C. Ryle
Since many religious disputes have arisen solely because there has been a lack of accurate definition, I am beginning this paper by explaining exactly what I mean by “Evangelical Religion”.
I want to consider that religion which is peculiar to those within the Church of England who are normally called “the Evangelical Party”. Whether we like it, or not; whether it is right or not, it must be agreed that there are varying schools of thought within the Church of England, with many divisions and shades of opinion even within the various parties. Here I am concerned with the unmistakable and undeniable tenets of the Evangelical school which, I maintain, are worth contending for.
This is a subject of great difficulty and delicate grounds, for it necessitates comparisons and all comparisons are odious. But sometimes comparisons are a duty. Did not Paul command “Approve the things that are excellent”? (Phil. 1;10), and while I have a sense of the difficulties, I have a deeper sense of the importance of this subject. The existence of parties cannot be ignored, and the strife is not just one about trappings and vestments in religion, but about the very foundations of the Gospel. Evangelicals must therefore consider what they have to maintain and defend; so let us distinctly understand our principles.
In defining Evangelical Religion, I can only bring forward the result of careful reading and study of the works of Evangelical fathers. I have only arrived at these conclusions after prayer, thought and pains. I am not claiming to be a mouthpiece for the Evangelical Party, for many who are called Evangelical will not agree with all in this paper. But I am writing what I believe to be the leading tenets of Evangelicalism.
WHAT EVANGELICAL RELIGION IS
I want to point out what I consider to be the five leading features of Evangelicalism.
1.) The absolute supremacy of Holy Scripture.
The first feature is the supremacy of Scripture as the only rule of faith and practice, the only test of truth and the only judge of controversy.
Evangelicals believe that man is required to accept nothing as necessary to Salvation which cannot be read in or proved from Holy Scripture. They deny any other guide for man, and reject such arguments as “The Church says so”, etc., unless what is said is in harmony with Scripture. We will accept anything in the Bible, however trying, but anything contrary, however specious, plausible or desirable, we will not have under any commendation.
Our faith can find no resting place except in the Bible; its supreme authority is one of the corner stones of our system. Here is rock, all else is sand.
2.) The doctrine of human sinfulness and corruption.
Through Adam’s fall, everyone is as far as possible gone from original righteousness, and is, naturally, inclined to evil. Before God, man is miserable, pitiable and bankrupt, and in a state of guilt, condemnation and danger. Everyone is at enmity with God, without title to heaven, and with no love for God.
Such a spiritual disease calls for as mighty a spiritual cure. So Evangelical religion will not countenance anything which even seems to encourage the idea that there is an easy cure, or that a little outward appearance or sacrament receiving is all that is needed. Thus we protest strongly against formalism, sacerdotalism (1) or any other external or vicarious (2) Christianity. Such religion is based on an inadequate view of man’s need. Nothing less than the blood of Christ and the grace of God applied to heart and soul can cure.
It is because many are ignorant of the extent of the fall and the doctrine of original sin that they cannot understand Evangelical Religion. Next to the Bible, it is based on a clear view of Original Sin.
3.) The work and office of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the salvation He has wrought for man.
Jesus Christ has by His life, death and resurrection, as our representative and substitute, obtained a complete salvation for sinners and a redemption from the guilt, power and consequences of sin. All who believe on Him are, even while they live, completely forgiven and justified, reckoned righteous before God and are interested in Christ and all His benefits.
Only simple faith between the sinner and the Saviour is involved. Anything else is only useful so far as it helps the faith. But anything relied upon as an end is just poison to the soul.
The essence of Christianity is a practical knowledge of Christ, so that in teaching Christianity we can never speak too much of Christ, or too strongly of the full, free and simple salvation for all who believe in Him.
Now this doctrine is just what the. natural man most dislikes, for man wants a religion of sight and sense – not faith; of doing, not believing. People should be warned against making a Christ of the Church, or the Ministry, or forms of worship, or Baptism, or even the Lord’s Supper. Life eternal is to know, believe in and abide in Christ. Everything in religion is useful in so far as it helps faith, but no further.
4.) The inward work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of man.
The foundation of all vital Christianity is a work of grace in the heart. Until there is real working relationship, religion is only a form which can neither comfort nor serve. People’s attention needs to be brought to the Holy Spirit’s works – inward repentance, faith, hope, hatred of sin and love of God’s laws. To tell people to take comfort in baptism or Church membership instead, is a mistake – and positive cruelty as well.
The inward work of the Holy Spirit is a necessity to salvation, but it must be inwardly felt, for nothing felt within the heart means nothing possessed. Feelings can be deceptive but the witness of the Spirit, however much it be abused, is a real thing.
5.) The outward and visible work of the Holy Ghost in the life of man.
God’s grace will always show in the behaviour and habits of the man who has it. It is not something dormant – something within but not without.
It is wrong to tell a man he is “born of God” while he deliberately lives in sin; he must overcome the world, the flesh and the devil. Only by his life can we tell a man’s spiritual condition. Where nothing is seen, then nothing is possessed. Grace that cannot be seen is not grace at all, but just disobedience to God.
Such are the leading features of Evangelical Religion. Although I have only sketched these in outline, and have omitted many things which, although part of the Evangelical doctrine, are, I feel, comparatively of secondary importance, enough has been said to serve my purpose. These are, I believe, the main principles of the teaching of Evangelicals within the Church of England. These are the first, foremost, chief and principle things in Christianity. Others may accept each of them individually, but they do not assign to them the pre-eminent position as do Evangelicals. It is this lack of attention to position which spoils much teaching.
To show all the foundations of Evangelical Religion in this paper is clearly impossible. But we challenge anyone to examine, impartially, our system in the light of Scripture, or the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church, or the writings of our leading Divines, from the Reformation to Archbishop Laud – we have no fears concerning the results of such examination. There can be no charge that we have introduced something new.
We may well be ashamed of our own personal imperfections, but we have no need to be ashamed of our doctrine. It is easy to try to frighten people against Evangelicals by such names as “Calvinism” or “Puritanism” (3) but impartial inquiry will always show that Evangelical Religion is the religion of Scripture and of the Church of England.
WHAT EVANGELICAL RELIGION IS NOT
I am almost ashamed to deal with the negative side of this question. But false reports about Evangelicals are so numerous that I must do so. We know that we are not perfect, and have many defects, but many charges made against us just are not true.
1.) Evangelical Religion does not despise Learning or Research.
No one appreciates more than us anything that throws light on God’s Word. Anyone looking at the lists of people who have been eminent in theological scholarship will find that some of the greatest have been Evangelicals. No school of thought has done more for the exposition and interpretation of Scripture, or produced more commentaries. Even today we have no need to be ashamed.
But while we do not despise learning, we do not place any uninspired writings on a level with revelation. Scripture alone is our guide. We leave it to others to speak of “primitive antiquity”, and “catholic truth”. But to us there is only one test; “What is written in the Scripture? What does the Lord say?”
2.) Evangelical Religion does not undervalue the Church or think lightly of its privileges.
No one is more sincere and loyal to the Church of England; no one values its form of government, confession of faith or mode of worship more. We have stuck to it through thick and thin, and will resist attempts to Romanise it.
But we refuse to exalt the Church above Christ, or to teach that membership of a church is identical with membership of Christ, or to give to it an authority not found in Scripture or even in the Articles. Councils, synods and convocations may go wrong, and nowhere in Scripture is there any proof that Jesus Christ intended a body of men to be regarded as infallible. So, we hold, much of the talk about the voice of the Church is meaningless.
3.) Evangelical Religion does not undervalue the Christian Ministry.
We regard the Ministry as an honourable office, instituted by Christ, and of general necessity for carrying on the work of the Gospel. Ministers should be preachers of God’s Word; God’s ambassadors, messengers, servants, shepherds, stewards, overseers, and labourers in His vineyard.
But we refuse to admit that the clergy are sacrificing priests, mediators, lords or private confessors, firstly because this is not Biblical, and secondly because church history shows sacerdotalism has often been the curse of Christianity. The exaltation of the ministerial office within the Church of England is likely to alienate the laity, ruin the church and lead to error and superstition.
4.) Evangelical Religion does not undervalue Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
We honour the Sacraments as holy ordinances appointed by Christ, and as means of grace which have a “wholesome effect or operation” in all who use them rightly, worthily and with faith.
But we refuse to admit that the Sacraments convey grace ex opere operato (4), and that good must be done whenever they are administered; or that they are, above faith, preaching and prayer, the grand medium between Christ and the soul.
We cannot accept the doctrine that baptism in water and in the name of the Trinity is always and necessarily accompanied by regeneration, nor the practice of encouraging anyone to the Lord’s Table who is unrepentant and without faith in Christ and love for men. Nor can we accept the theory that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, for this is contrary to the Bible, the Prayer Book (5) and the Articles. Above all we protest against the doctrine of the bodily presence of Christ’s flesh and blood in the Lord’s Supper, under the form of bread and wine; this is, indeed, “idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians”.
5.) Evangelical Religion does not undervalue the English Prayer Book.
We regard the Prayer Book as the finest form of public worship, admirably adapted to the wants of human nature. We use it with pleasure and would never want its use forbidden.
But we do not say that there can be no acceptable worship of God without it. It has not the authenticity of the Bible, and we will not honour the Prayer Book as equal with Scripture, or regard it as forming with the Bible, the rule of faith for the Church of England. It does not contain any truth over and above God’s Word. It is completely wrong to say that the Bible and Prayer Book together form the Church’s creed.
6.) Evangelical Religion does not undervalue the Episcopacy.
We honour and respect Bishops as much as, if not more than, any section of the Church of England. We believe Episcopacy rightly administered, to be the best form of Church government in this evil world.
But we refuse to believe that Bishops are infallible, and that they are to be believed when not in harmony with Scripture. We believe that there have been Bishops, Priests and Deacons from the beginning, but we will not agree to the statement “No Bishop, no Church”, or that Free Church clergy are not validly ordained, or that Nonconformist Christians (6) are not really Christians.
I repeat, in due respect to Episcopal office we yield to none. But we cannot forget that Bishops have erred, both individually and in conference. In the days of Charles I, it was the erring Bishops who ruined the Church of England. In 1662, when they threw out the Puritans, they almost did it again, and then again when they shut out the Methodists. History shows that, while we have had great Bishops, others have been a disgrace to their office.
7.) Evangelical Religion does not object to handsome Church buildings.
We like well-designed and well arranged places of worship, good architecture, well ordered ceremonial and well conducted services. We dislike slovenliness, and would have all things done “properly and in an orderly manner” (1 Cor. 14;40).
But we maintain that simplicity should be the characteristic of Christian worship. Remembering the great Scriptural truth, “man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” (1 Sam. 16;7), we believe the inward and spiritual character of the congregation is more important than architecture and ornaments. Further, remembering that human nature is easily led astray, we feel that ornaments, theatrical ceremonial, and such like, only drive men away from Christ, and make them walk by sight and not by faith.
8.) Evangelical Religion does not undervalue Unity.
We love harmony and peace as much as any Christians anywhere, and long for the day when controversy, strife and division shall end.
But for this, there must be oneness in faith. Unity must be on a common belief in Christ’s Gospel, and not on a common Episcopacy. Further we abhor the idea of reunion with the Church of Rome, unless that Church first purges herself of false doctrines and superstitions; and we repudiate those who make advances to Rome while ignoring the Church of Scotland, as unworthy of English Churchmen.
9.) Evangelical Religion does not undervalue Christian Holiness and Self-Denial.
We desire as much as anyone to promote habitual spirituality of heart and life in Christians. No one is so concerned to exalt every Christian virtue, and true Christian living, as are we. With all our defects, none attaches more importance to private prayer, Bible reading and communion with God than do we.
But we firmly deny that true holiness consists in calling everything in religion holy; or that it is promoted by outward gestures, fastings and such like. Such practices are often only outward and a delusion, and, of themselves, do not make Christian holiness. It may satisfy those who desire worldliness one part of the week, and asceticism another. But it will never satisfy a Bible reading Christian, for it is not the holiness recommended by St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James and St. John.
To summarise. We do give all lawful honour to all of these things, but we decline to give to them more honour than we find given in God’s Word. This is the Scriptural position, and we can take no other. Those who accuse us of undervaluing any of these things only show their own ignorance of Scripture. If they can show that God’s Word takes a different position, we will confess our error. Until then, we shall maintain that we are right and they are wrong.
WHAT MAKES MUCH RELIGION APPEAR TO US NOT EVANGELICAL?
This is a delicate, but serious point. For while we do not say that men who are not professedly Evangelical, ignore and disbelieve the leading Evangelical doctrines, we do say that there are many ways in which the faith of Christ may be altered and spoiled, without being positively denied.
The Gospel may be spoiled by substitution. Put anything or anyone else in the place of Christ, for the sinner, and the Gospel is spoiled. It can be the Church, the Ministry, the Confessional, the Sacraments, and so on – but the Gospel is altered.
The Gospel may be spoiled by addition. Add anything to Christ, the grand object of faith, and the mischief is done.
Equally, the Gospel may be spoiled by interposition; that is, by putting someone between Christ and the sinner, so distracting the sinner’s attention. Or by disproportion; by giving secondary things an exaggerated importance and altering the proportions of the parts of truth. Or, lastly, by confused and contradictory directions – by complicated and obscure statements of doctrine, which are as bad as no statement at all!
Do any of these things, either directly or indirectly and your religion ceases to be Evangelical. We cannot expect any benefit from Christ’s salvation, unless we use the Gospel as Christ appointed. We must not alter the Biblical proportions in any way, whether by addition, subtraction or any “improvement.” God’s plan, of salvation cannot be improved. Anyone trying to do so, only spoils it.
To be really Evangelical, religion must be the Gospel, the whole Gospel and nothing but the Gospel, as Christ prescribed it. I am sorry to say that much so called religion of today breaks down because of additions or subtractions and other alterations, and so does not come up to the Scriptural standards which I have set out. Now, I do not accuse any who are not “Evangelical” with not being “Christian”. But I do say that they appear to me to teach something which is not Christ’s whole truth. The parts are there, but in the wrong proportions.
THE PRESENT DUTIES OF EVANGELICALS
Since we have been considering what Evangelical Religion is and is not, some thoughts on our immediate duties will not be inappropriate. We live in times which are critical for the Church, and dangerous for the nation. Popish opinions are found amongst churchmen, and there are shameless additions to the faith. Whether our Protestantism lives or dies, much depends on whether Evangelicals are really alive to their duty.
1.) We should be jealous over our own personal religion.
Today, a clear cut and distinct doctrinal Christianity is unfavourable. A liberalism which regards everyone as right and no one as wrong, meets us everywhere. There is a veritable devil of false charity about religion. When others would persuade us that it is “all the same thing”, let us remember Paul’s words, “Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith” (1 Cor. 16;13).
Let us stand firm in the old paths of the Reformers. Some may call this doctrine narrow, or old fashioned, but they will never show us something better. Let us have no man or form between us and Christ. Let us know whom we believe, what, why, and in what manner we believe. Only thorough Evangelical Religion can do this. Let us make sure it is our own.
2.) Evangelical clergy must be careful not to compromise their principles and damage their testimony by trying to conciliate the world.
Too often, Evangelicals use the plausible pretext of making services “more attractive” to cut the grounds from under the feet of Ritualists (7). But it is so easy to let in the Pope and the Devil. Such things may please the world, but they never convert the world. We cannot be too jealous about the slightest departure from “the faith once delivered to the saints” and the worship handed to us by the Reformers. Remember Paul’s declaration, “though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1;8).
Evangelical preaching and Ritualistic ceremonial do not mix. The world is never won by trimming and compromising, or by trying to face both ways and please everyone. Adornments and ritual may please children and weak-minded people. But they never have helped and never will help heart conversion and sanctification.
We need patience in these times, when it is provoking to be criticised about the nakedness, poverty and meagreness (so called) of Evangelical religion, and when we see so many going off to ritualistic services saying that they feel so much better after these services. But the end will never justify illicit means. Popularity through pandering is not worth anything. Worshippers who are not content with the Bible, the Cross of Christ, simple prayers and praise, are worshippers of little value. Further, remember the injury to our own souls if we depart in the least from the simple Gospel in any way.
3.) We must not allow Evangelical Religion to be thrust out of the Church of England without a struggle.
It is a religion well worth a struggle, for it can point to works which no other school in the Church of England has ever equalled. We confess, with sorrow, that we have done little compared to what we ought to have done, but yet we fear no honest and fair comparison, for whether at home or abroad, none has done so much good to souls. Nothing gives the Church of England such power and influence as genuine, well worked and well administered Evangelical Religion.
But if Evangelical Religion is to be preserved now, we must make a great effort and be prepared for a mighty struggle. For the sake of our Church and the future, let us resolve to make it. It is not of our seeking – the controversy is forced upon us. This is our choice; to sit in silence and let the Church of England be unprotestantised and reunited with Rome; or we can desert the Church and leave it to those who would change it; or else we must face the danger and fight, fight with the same Word used by Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley, and not with corrupt weapons.(8) If we want our church to continue Protestant and Evangelical we must do as they did, stand and fight.
What is to be done? All Protestant and Evangelical clergy must unite and organise; expose the Romanising dealings in every way, even going to law and Parliament if necessary (9). There must be bold and prompt action whenever required – these are our weapons. They must be wielded at whatever sacrifice.
Let us resolve then to “contend earnestly for the faith”, labouring in every way to maintain Evangelical Religion in the Church of England, and resisting the enemies around. We are not weak if we stand and act together. Most of the laity do not love Popery. God has not forsaken us, and truth is on our side.
Let us remember above all, that without these Biblical principles, a Church is as useless as a well without water. Should the Church of England again become Popish, it will be a church not worth preserving.
___________________________
The Author
John Charles Ryle, the first Bishop of Liverpool, lived from 1816–1900. He was a prolific writer of both devotional and doctrinal books and tracts.
This article is an edited version of the first chapter of his book “Knots Untied” which was published in 1877, when Bishop Ryle was Vicar of Stradebroke, Norfolk. It has been published in many editions including one in booklet form in 1959 by Church Book Room Press (London) titled: “Evangelical Religion”.
Footnotes have been added, and some modernisation made, to keep this important document before the Christian readership.
Quoted Scriptures are given here in the New American Standard Version.
FOOTNOTES
(1) sacerdotalism – a system which places undue emphasis on the priestly order, as for example in Roman Catholicism where the priest is said to repeat Calvary when he says the Mass.
(2) vicarious – i.e. standing in the place of Christ (as for example, when a priest absolves a sinner in confession).
(3) Were Ryle alive today he would no doubt include “Fundamentalism” as well.
(4) ex opere operato: i.e. without living faith in the recipients.
(5) i.e. The Book of Common Prayer – 1662.
(6) Nonconformist Christians.
(7) While ritualism still holds appeal for many, the so-called “entertainment church” is the model that is especially dangerous in our time and for the reasons given by Ryle.
(8) “I do not want to narrow the pale of the Church of England, for I am well aware it is eminently liberal, comprehensive and tolerant. There has always been room for people of widely different thought. But I cannot believe that our Church ever meant to teach the Roman doctrines of the Real Presence, the sacrifice of the Mass, and auricular confession. There is a great distinction between the old High Churchman, and the modern Ritualistic Anglo-Catholic, who is so near Rome that no one can see the difference.” – Ryle
(9) Ryle advocated resorting to law to resolve doctrinal issues. For Evangelicals now this option is neither desirable nor possible.
(Text and footnotes prepared by the Rev. Neil Prott.)
Kept by the Power of God
by D. Broughton Knox, Principal of Moore Theological College, Sydney, 1959-1985.
A Review of Kept by the Power of God – A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away
by I. Howard Marshall. Epworth Press. 228pp
This paper was published in Churchman Issue: Summer 1971 85/2, published by the Church Society in the U.K., and is reproduced with permission and with thanks.
____________________
The problem of the relationship of the supreme will of Almighty God and the subordinate but real wills of men and women is a difficult one.
There is no parallel in our experience to help us understand it, and our imagination finds difficulty in comprehending how our wills, which we know to be real, can remain true wills within the sovereign will of our creator, in whom we move and live and have our being, and whom — so we are clearly taught by Revelation — works all things after the counsel of His own will.
Philosophical theology stumbles at the problem, but it provides no problem within the experience of the converted regenerate Christian. For example, the Christian who is in personal fellowship with his heavenly Father calls with complete confidence upon God for guidance through the intricacies of life. In this he is following numerous scriptural injunctions to commit his way to the Lord who will direct his paths.
As the Christian looks back over life he can see clearly that God has and is fulfilling his promise to answer this prayer for guidance. Yet the guidance experienced comes through entirely ‘natural’ means. At no point is the Christian conscious that his own natural God-given faculties are suspended in order that the guidance might be piped to him. Every step of the road is his step, every decision is his, made — if he has these particular gifts — by intellectual reflection and decision, otherwise perhaps through the influence of friends and their intellectual wisdom. Thus the Christian is conscious both of the guidance of God and of the full and true working of his own nature and circumstances in the receiving of this guidance. Reason may find difficulty in reconciling these two, but experience finds none.
The promises of Revelation are found to be true. Or take another illustration from the field of human relations. The Christian does not hesitate to pray for divine protection from external dangers whether through natural forces or through malevolent men. He is conscious that God is able to restrain the wrath of man, indeed if God did not do this, who would survive? Thus, the Christian prays with confidence that God, if He sees fit, will protect him. It never enters his mind to think that the answer to his prayer might be that God has given man a free will and that therefore the supplication should be directed to the malevolent person, rather than to Almighty God. In these two areas of Christian experience we have examples of the relationship between the free will of man and the sovereign will of God. God is sovereign; yet the reality of our nature and our free will is not infringed.
The Scripture abounds with examples.
Thus Joseph answered his brothers, ‘It was not you who sent me here but God’ (Genesis 45:8) and ‘you meant it for evil but God meant it for good’ (Genesis 50:20). Every action which led to Joseph’s position in Egypt was God’s action. God sent him to Egypt. Yet, at the same time, it remained truly human actions freely decided on, so that those who perpetrated the wrong remain responsible. Or again, Job’s reply to his misfortunes has always been recognised not only as very pious but also very true, ‘The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away’.
The ultimate truth was that the Lord took away Job’s possessions; for the Lord was in complete control of the Chaldeans and the other brigands who, enflamed by greed and lust for loot, destroyed Job’s servants and drove off his livestock. The Lord was not only in complete control of the brigands, and all their actions which they freely undertook, but He also controlled the maliciousness of their demonic master, setting strict limits to his actions.
The problem of the relationship of God’s will to a created will is not to be solved by denying God’s sovereignty as though through creation of the human will (and demonic wills!), he had de-limited an area within His creation over which He has no control. Not only is this contrary to the whole of Revelation but it would be unbearable and terrifying were it true. Prayer would become impossible, as we have seen. Nor is the problem of the relationship to be solved by denying the reality of the human will as though it were not what we experience it to be, namely a true will. Sometimes it is thought that the word ‘free’, whether insisted on or denied, affects the problem.
This is an illusion. Every will must be a free will. The word ‘free’ adds nothing to the meaning. And the denial of the word ‘free’ to the word ‘will’ is meaningless so long as we are talking about what we experience as will, which is the only will we have access to. Although our wills are free-wills it is incorrect to say that they are independent wills over against God’s will. The possibility of this concept was the false suggestion of the Devil to Adam, grasped at by man but certainly not achieved by man, though man thinks he has attained to it and that he is in fact free from God’s sovereignty. Adam’s mistake was that of thinking that by rebelling against God he became sovereign; but no creature can ever become sovereign over against its creator, and no will can be free if by this is meant independent of its creator. The regenerate man does not wish to have a will operative outside the sphere of God’s sovereignty. The concept is repulsive. The unregenerate may desire this, but he certainly doesn’t possess it.
The freedom (i.e., the realness) of our will is not infringed by God’s sovereignty, because He exercises His sovereignty only in accordance with the ‘natures’ of His creation. Thus in working in us He works through our natures which He created and which He foresaw in determining His plan – indeed created for the purpose of fulfilling His decrees. Thus, from our point of view, God’s working out His sovereignty will appear to us entirely natural, that is, in accordance with the ‘nature’ of things, as in the illustration above of God’s guidance and protection. And yet revelation teaches us, and our own converted consciousness confirms, that guidance and protection is to be primarily attributed to God and thanks are to be offered to Him for granting these prayers.
The problem of reconciling God’s sovereignty and the reality of our will remains with the intellect, but it is not a problem of experience, nor a problem of Revelation which is clear on the subject.
A subdivision of the relationship of the will of God to the will of man is the experience of conversion and the theological concepts of regeneration and perseverance. Although converted Christians do not differ amongst themselves on the reality of God’s guidance and protection there has been strong controversy about the sovereignty of God in the transformation of the rebellious sinner into a son of God, a new creation in Christ. Yet it must be said that there does not seem to be any real room for denying that the testimony of Revelation is overwhelming in support of the sovereignty of God in all aspects of salvation as in every other sphere of human affairs.
The present book under review is the latest contribution to this controversy. It is written from a frankly Arminian point of view which sees the vital decision which differentiates a Christian believer from his non-believing friend as the believer’s decision to accept what God offers, while his friend decides not to do so. The Arminian affirms that the decision is not only ours, as everyone who has experienced this decision knows to be the case, but that it is ours alone.
It follows, naturally, that if we can decide from within our own will to accept the offer of salvation it is possible not only to decide to reject it when first offered but also to reject it after having experienced it for a time, that is to fall finally from grace and sonship. To establish this latter point is the main burden of the book. The author’s aim is to establish not only the possibility but also the actuality (in some few cases, at least) of falling away into final apostasy after having become a child of God, experiencing fellowship with God, through a new nature, while seated with Christ in the heavenlies. To fall headlong from this throne should be, according to the writer, the fear of every Christian.
Arminianism sometimes is known as semi-Pelagianism. Pelagianism is the attitude of the man in the street who believes that to be approved by God he needs, at the most, to turn over a new leaf and do his best. Semi-Pelagianism is the Christian modification of this, for it adds that a man cannot do this in his own strength, but needs the help of God, which is available to everyone who calls for it. What he can do in his own strength is to accept the promptings of God to decide to turn over a new leaf, or (for an evangelical Christian), to accept Christ and to persevere.
We are all born Pelagians and only give up the notion as the result of the clear teaching of Revelation. Nor would any Christian not be an Arminian were it not for the fact that Scripture appears overwhelmingly to exclude Arminianism. Thus, controversy between ‘Arminianism’ and ‘Calvinism’ can only be solved by careful exegesis of Scripture, and it is the merit of this book that the author addresses himself to examining the teachings of Scripture.
At this point two criticisms of the book should be made.
In reviewing the evidence of the Old and New Testaments the writer includes a great slab about what the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls appear to believe on the subject of perseverance and then goes on to examine the teaching of the Rabbis. There is a contradiction here. Either the problem is to be resolved from Revelation, and no Christian, however ‘liberal’ would suggest that the Dead Sea Scrolls or teachings of the Rabbis are part of Revelation. Or it is to be resolved in the area of human reflection, in which case it is much more important to examine modern thought on the subject than scrutinising either Old Testament or New Testament, let alone the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Rabbis. But of course it cannot be solved in the area of human reflection, for our knowledge of God’s will is beyond the area of our human reflection which draws its data from our own experience. Thus, if we are to seek a solution, it must be through careful exegesis of revelation.
The author devotes the bulk of his book to examining passages of Scripture, but his examination is not by any means thorough enough, so that he appears to draw his conclusions out of the air and not out of the passage. Thus, he writes (page 13) of the message of the Old Testament prophets,
‘God takes the initiative… but the people themselves must take the decisive step of returning to God’.
The author, however, has not noticed that this step is never taken by Israel, for the nation goes from bad to worse. It cannot in fact take this step because of its deadness in sin. This, however, does not lessen the obligation of the prophet to call Israel to take the step of returning because it remains the duty of the nation to do so.
In this situation, the prophets’ ministry was a ministry of death. Nor has the author noticed that the prophets foretold that, in the future, things would be different. God would not only take the initiative but would make that initiative effective by taking away the stony heart (so Ezekiel), and by writing His law not merely on tablets of stone but on the fleshly hearts of His people (so Jeremiah). These prophecies have been fulfilled in the gospel and so the ministry is now a ministry of life.
The author adds (page 14),
‘God’s promises always appear to be conditional on the faith and obedience of His people’.
This is true, but the writer appears to think the faith and obedience of His people is the work of the personality of the believer only and not also the work of God in the heart of the believer. Yet, as we have seen, God works through the natures that He has created and, in His working, does not destroy or suspend these natures, nor do the natures get in the way of His working. It is this inability to see that faith can be both a work of God and our own work at the same time and not half one and half the other that is at the basis of the Arminian error. Since faith is the work of man, we must preach the gospel and exhort people to believe and ourselves believe and persevere in our obedience. Yet since it is a work of God we must look to God and trust Him that He will give faith according to His will, and give thanks when we see evidence of that creative will, and rely on His faithfulness to keep us according to His promises.
The author chooses Jeremiah as a key Old Testament writer. He assembles passages warning of judgment which follows apostasy and other passages promising forgiveness on repentance. But the question is how can the sinners turn back to God? Warnings and promises are not indications of ability, which the writer appears to take them as.
Jeremiah’s answer is the new covenant. What was impossible for sinners under the old when God’s law was written only on external tables of stone, under the new covenant becomes not only possible but certain (‘They shall all know Me’) because God deals with the inner person, writing His law on the heart itself.
Marshall summarises the prophecy of the New Covenant thus:
‘The thought here seems to be that the display of God’s love will cause some of God’s rebellious children to turn back to Him. God will give them new hearts.’
But the scripture has quite a different order; God’s love is the giving of the new heart and it is the new heart which causes the rebellious children to turn back to God.
The Arminian scheme of salvation may be described as 50/50, or God/us/God; thus, to quote from page 13,
‘1 . God woos with words of love. 2. The people themselves make the decisive step of returning. 3. God forgives; gives them new hearts.’
Or again,
‘God takes the initiative in restoring His people to Himself but the people themselves must make the decisive step of returning to God.’
Note the words ‘themselves’ and ‘decisive’. These words in the sentence are intended to exclude God at the point of decision.
Arminianism is based on philosophical rather than exegetical considerations. It has two prime bases.
One, the ethical sense of fairness. Righteousness and justice is the basis of all our relationships with one another, but we are on dangerous ground if we set up our sense of fairness, i.e., what we believe to be due to us and to others, as a criterion for judging God’s relationship and dealings with his creation, particularly his relationship and dealings with a rebellious creation. It is in fact difficult to see why a rebel deserves anything but condemnation and condign punishment. Since salvation, however, is in the realm of mercy, not punishment, it is difficult to see how the concept of fairness plays any part in it. If God is to be fair and just to rebels, all deserve punishment. Mercy supervenes but is above the realm of justice. In fact, the two concepts are mutually exclusive. That which is deserved is not mercy. Consequently, the rebellious sinner who is the recipient of God’s mercy can hardly discuss this mercy, and make demands, on the basis of his sense of fairness.
St. Paul reminds the caviler against God’s distribution of His mercy that it is highly unsuitable for an earthen pot to expostulate with the potter about the way he carries out his task. The Lord’s parable of the labourers in the vineyard warns us against the fatal error of impugning God’s goodness when we seek to judge his acts of mercy and overflowing benevolence by our own judgement of what is fair. The judge of all the earth will do right, of that we may be sure. But He will not be judged by us and it is a very dangerous activity for us to set up as criterion our sense of what is fair for Him to do to rebels in His distribution of mercy, especially when the results of this judgement of ours fly in the face of overwhelming testimony in Revelation.
The other ground from which Arminianism draws its vigour is its concept of free-will, in which the will is not regarded as free when it is responding to the overwhelming grace of God. But we cannot be free against our creator in whom we live and move and have our being, nor should we wish it. It is sufficient for us if we are free against the influences of all that is not God. As sinners we are very far from free in this respect but are slaves to our passions and led captive by the Devil. But restored in Christ, we become free in the only way a creature can be free, free to follow its God-given nature but not free against the Giver.
The argument in this book is based on a misunderstanding of the doctrine the author is controverting. He appears to think that a full assurance of final perseverance is incompatible with warnings and exhortations against falling away, so that the occurrence of such warnings and exhortations in Scripture is regarded as proof that the writers did not believe in predestination and final perseverance even when they explicitly said that this was their belief.
Illustrations abound. Thus in writing about the Qumran sect Marshall says:
‘From this survey of the teaching of the sect on apostasy two apparently contradictory facts will have become apparent. On the one hand, the Qumran sect believed firmly in divine predestination and had a strong conviction of His protective power, on the other hand they devoted much attention to the possibility of sin and apostasy’ (p. 22).
The author considers these two things contradictory, and this fatal misunderstanding vitiates his whole treatment of scripture. His method is a simple one. Wherever he finds a warning against sin and its consequence of condemnation he regards this as evidence that the scriptural writer did not believe in predestination. Yet a brief reflection on the history of theology would have shown that there have been innumerable Christian theologians who, like the Qumran sect, believed in the fullest sense the doctrine of predestination but none of whom have been unconcerned about sin and apostasy but have been vigilant in warning against it. The Christian’s assurance of perseverance flows from his realisation of the faithfulness of God who will continue the work which He has begun.
Yet every Christian at the same time knows that no fornicator or unclean person etc., will inherit the kingdom of God. So he buffets his body lest he become such and so be a castaway. The two concepts of faith in God’s faithfulness to keep souls which we have committed to Him and of diligence to make our election sure fit together like hand and glove. They are not in contrast or ‘apparent contradiction’ but complement each other, for it is God who works in us as we work. The author however, believes that predestination excludes the reality and responsibility of human response. Thus, in dealing with the Johanine evidence he comments:
‘We must now observe that the predestination language is not rigorously applied in every case. … John 5 criticises the Jews for not believing in Jesus, and the reason adduced for their unbelief is not that they have not been predestined to believe but they seek glory from men’ Op. 176).
The author assumes the two concepts are exclusive of each other. Of St. Paul he writes (p. 175), ‘Even his most stringent predestinarian language did not exclude the need for human faith’. But this argumentation is fallacious. No-one who believes in predestination has ever suggested that faith is not the means of salvation. Luther and Calvin were the most stringent predestinarians, as any acquaintance with their writings will show, yet none have written more eloquently or stringently on the necessity of justification by faith only than these two! The fact is, of course, that our salvation is 100% God’s work and 100% man’s response.
Yet the Arminian is apparently unable to see how this can be and is determined to assign part to God and part to man.
The Pelagian mind is inclined to ascribe, shall we say, 5% to God and 95% to man, the semi-Pelagian 50%-50%, while the evangelical Arminian, such as our writer, 95% to God and 5% to man. Yet, after all, it is this last 5% which makes the difference between heaven and hell, so that man is, in the end, his own saviour.
When speaking of faith, Marshall writes, ‘granted that faith is a gift of God, it is none the less a gift which may be refused’ (p. 175).
In Marshall’s evangelical Arminianism, man’s contribution is narrowed down to the point of accepting or rejecting faith. Here man is acting on his own. However, reflection will show that there is a contradiction at this point. If it is conceded that faith is the gift of God as the Bible affirms, then to say that the gift may be refused is verbal ‘nonsense’. Faith is a nonentity, unless it is exercised. It is only a gift when it is received. Until it is received it does not exist. Therefore the notion that it exists as a gift which is refused is without meaning. If faith exists and is a gift it only exists as an accepted gift, so that the acceptance (i.e. the exercise) of faith is the gift.
The writer depends heavily on adjectives and adverbs to take the place of argument. Thus he constantly speaks of rigid predestination, as though predestination could be anything else than rigid, and he uses adjectives such as ‘inevitable’ and ‘mechanical’ to denigrate the concept of predestination. These are impersonal words, but predestination, with its concomitant of perseverance, is always the gift and work of a personal God and depends on His faithfulness. Predestination in scripture is never mechanical, if by that it meant an impersonal purposeless process. Yet predestination is as certain in its results as is any machine, for God is sovereign in his purposes; but to use impersonal adjectives and adverbs as this writer so freely does is to bamboozle the reader with irrelevant notions.
The question to be resolved is a simple one, has a loving God who is of infinite power, wisdom and goodness told us of his purposes? If he has, then we should believe that these purposes are good and wise and will certainly be accomplished and in their accomplishment will not destroy His creation (i.e., our will and nature and the reality of our response) even though we cannot understand exactly how these things can be.
The question, therefore, is a question of exegesis of Revelation and Marshall acknowledges this and devotes his book to it. Yet it is on the point of exegesis that the book fails, and the reason is that he does not come to the Bible to find out what it says so much as to show that it cannot be saying certain things which others have thought that they see there. Thus in his concluding pages he rejects the doctrine of predestination as understood by Calvinists, not because it is unbiblical, but because it cannot be biblical. He writes, p. 194:
‘Although this view claims to be based entirely upon the Bible and to represent biblical teaching faithfully, it is difficult to believe that it does so. It teaches that divine grace is given only to a limited specified group of mankind… it is impossible to avoid the impression that the picture of God thus presented is One who is unjust… we must be content simply to register our feeling of certainty that this is a false interpretation of the New Testament. … A rigid theory of predestination is then not to be deduced from the biblical teaching … We must rule out the view that God foreordains a certain number of elect for salvation with its logical consequence that they are bound to persevere to the end and attain final salvation.’
The reviewer has underlined the words in this passage which show that the writer’s conclusions are based on a priori concept of what God must do in His mercy towards rebels. Coupled with this a priori approach is the writer’s failure to understand that warnings to avoid danger and sin are quite compatible with confident assurance of ultimate salvation. Indeed these warnings and the careful attention to duty that ensues are the means of attaining that salvation.
Take two simple illustrations from current life.
The driver of a motor vehicle has full confidence that he will attain his destination but at the same time he is fully vigilant, and he is also aware that if, for example, he goes to sleep at the wheel, he will be killed. His care and wakefulness in no wise diminish his confidence but are the grounds for it.
Or again, in the recent moon shots, an awareness of the frightful dangers and the inevitable death that follows even one careless slip does not diminish the confidence of the astronauts in the successful completion of their mission. Vigilance against the known dangers and the warnings that might be needed to makes these dangers known are simply the means of ensuring the successful completion of the mission. They don’t reflect any lack of confidence. Neither is there any need for an accident to take place to make one aware of the dangers or of the need of the utmost vigilance all the time. Yet our writer appears to think that there must be some apostates if the warnings in scripture against apostasy are to be real. Armstrong might have come to grief in spite of his vigilance and the vigilance of his supporting team though it is right for him to have confidence both in himself and in his friends at Houston. But the Christian rests on the character of God made known through His promises of faithfulness.
The Christian is confident that he will not come to grief, and that no one will pluck him out of his Father’s hands. His confidence is well-based and will be justified for God is faithful and almighty. Yet he knows full well that were he to turn away from God, were he to decline to do what was necessary (e.g., the buffetting his body) he would be lost.
So it is an expected phenomenon to discover in the New Testament the fullest confidence and sureness of salvation along with the dearest warnings against the dangers of drifting away. But the writer’s argument throughout this book is based on the assumption that these two things are mutually exclusive, so that where warnings and exhortations to vigilance occur, there can be no sure confidence of the successful outcome of the mission. This assumption comes out, for example, in the author’s summary of the evidence of the Book of Acts.
‘It does not appear on the whole that Luke holds a rigid predestinarianism. When men reject the Gospel it is their own choice. Nor have we found anything in Luke’s teaching which guarantees that those who are elected to salvation will necessarily and inevitably be preserved from falling away. Continual perseverance in faith is required’ (p. 86, my italics).
The two italicised sentences are, of course, perfectly true. The writer appears to think that they modify rigid predestinarianism or complete perseverance and that they are incompatible with the sentences that go before them. The reader will also have noted, in this passage, the impersonal words ‘rigid’, ‘guarantee’, ‘necessarily’ and ‘inevitably’, which obscure the fact that any doctrine of predestination or perseverance deals with the will and actions of a personal God.
Although St. Peter begins his first epistle by describing his readers as ‘elect according to God’s foreknowledge’ and declares that ‘by the power of God they are guarded through faith to salvation’, our writer says ‘we must ask whether Peter had any doubts about his readers failing to complete their pilgrimage’ and after noting about the devil being like a roaring lion seeking whom he might devour, concludes ‘we are probably justified in agreeing that for Peter election did not necessarily guarantee salvation’ (p. 158). The mistake here is in the word ‘guarantee’ — which leaves out of sight the Christian’s responsible attention to making his election sure. The whole tenor of the passage in 1 Peter is of assurance, not of dubiety, and the author’s conclusions are imported into the passage. There is no shred of evidence that Peter had any doubts lest his readers fall away, or that for him election did not have the consequence of final salvation. The drift of the passage is quite to the contrary.
The author’s failure is a failure in exegesis, and this is fatal, for it is only by a true interpretation of revelation that the doctrine of predestination or perseverance can be established or assailed. In his exegesis, the author skids round some of the key pre-destination passages.
Thus, in dealing with our Lord’s description of those disciples who are excluded from His presence in Matthew 7:22, he does not notice the key remark ‘I never knew you’, that is, ‘you were never in true relationship with me’; and in Mark 13:22 he is forced to assign to the deceivers our Lord’s words that they would deceive the very elect ‘if such a thing were possible’. But Jesus’ choice of language (not pope but ei dunaton) shows that the apostasy of the elect is an impossible concept.
This single example is enough to undermine the whole of Marshall’s thesis.
And Acts 13:48 ‘as many as were ordained to eternal life believed’ is explained away: ‘We are simply told that those Gentiles who were already devout Proselytes now took the step of faith’ (p. 84).
Nor is there any attempt to tackle the problem of unbelief as presented in St. John’s Gospel where predestination plays so large a part in our Lord’s solution to the problem. For example, ‘You do not believe because you are not my sheep’, and ‘My sheep hear My voice’ (John 10:26).
Nor does he deal with ‘The golden chain’ of Romans 8:30, ‘And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified’.
The writer’s comment on this passage, ‘Salvation thus depends upon God’s purpose and call but nothing is said which would exclude the need for human response to that call,’ betrays once again his mistaken concept that the need for human response to the call of God excludes the concept of God’s predestination.
An important passage which the author omits completely is the argument of the objector in Romans 9 and St. Paul’s answer to those objections. The objector, we may say is an Arminian, for he uses an Arminian’s arguments, ‘Is there injustice on God’s part?’ ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will.’ But St. Paul’s answer shows that there is not the slightest streak of Arminianism in him. How easy to have said that man must make the final decision of faith, and so to have saved God’s justice from this cavil.
But St. Paul replies, ‘God says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion”’, and goes on to cite the case of Pharaoh whose heart God hardened and concludes ‘So then He has mercy on whomever he wills and he hardens the heart of whomever He wills’, and when the objector expostulates, St. Paul simply replies ‘Who are you, a man, to answer back to God?’.
___________________________
Dr. Broughton Knox was Principal of Moore Theological College, Sydney, from 1959 to 1985.
A collection of essays by Dr. Knox – “D. Broughton Knox: Selected Works” has been published by Matthias Media in Sydney.
This essay © Church Society, 1971.
The Thirty Nine Articles
THE ARTICLES OF RELIGION
Agreed upon by the Archbishops, Bishops,
and the whole clergy of the Provinces of Canterbury and York,
London, 1562
Article I
Of Faith in the Holy Trinity
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Article II
Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man
The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.
Article III
Of the going down of Christ into Hell
As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed, that he went down into Hell.
Article IV
Of the Resurrection of Christ
Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.
Article V
Of the Holy Ghost
The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.
Article VI
Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
The First Book of Samuel
The Second Book of Samuel
The First Book of Kings
The Second Book of Kings
The First Book of Chronicles
The Second Book of Chronicles
The First Book of Esdras
The Second Book of Esdras
The Book of Esther
The Book of Job
The Psalms
The Proverbs
Ecclesiastes or Preacher
Cantica, or Songs of Solomon
Four Prophets the greater
Twelve Prophets the less
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras
The Fourth Book of Esdras
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Judith
The rest of the Book of Esther
The Book of Wisdom
Jesus the Son of Sirach
Baruch the Prophet
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.
Article VII
Of the Old Testament
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore there are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.
Article VIII
Of the Three Creeds
The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture.
Article IX
Of Original or Birth-Sin
Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, phronema sarkos, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.
Article X
Of Free-Will
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.
Article XI
Of the Justification of Man
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.
Article XII
Of Good Works
Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s Judgement; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.
Article XIII
Of Works before Justification
Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea, rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.
Article XIV
Of Works of Supererogation
Voluntary Works besides, over, and above, God’s Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.
Article XV
Of Christ alone without Sin
Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit. He came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world, and sin, as Saint John saith, was not in him. But all we the rest, although baptized, and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Article XVI
Of Sin after Baptism
Not every deadly sin willingly commited after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again, and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned, which say, thay can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.
Article XVII
Of Predestination and Election
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God’s purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.
As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s Predestination, is a most dangerous downfal, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.
Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.
Article XVIII
Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.
Article XIX
Of the Church
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.
Article XX
Of the Authority of the Church
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.
Article XXI
Of the Authority of General Councils
General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.
Article XXII
Of Purgatory
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration as well of Images as of Reliques, 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.
Article XXIII
Of Ministering in the Congregation
It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of publick 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 publick authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.
Article XXIV
Of speaking in the Congregation in such a tongue as the people understandeth
It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have publick Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people.
Article XXV
Of the Sacraments
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm 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 counted 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 gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.
Article XXVI
Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacrament
Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not 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 appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.
Article XXVII
Of Baptism
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others 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 agreeablewith the institution of Christ.
Article XXVIII
Of the Lord’s Supper
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love 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, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an 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.
Article 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 saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.
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.
Article XXXI
Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross
The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.
Article 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 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.
Article XXXIII
Of Excommunicated 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 excummunicated, 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 hath authority thereunto.
Article XXXIV
Of the Traditions of the Church
It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word. Whosoever through his private judgement, willingly and purposely, doth 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 others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.
Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.
Article XXXV
Of Homilies
The second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth 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 understanded of the people.
Of the Names of the Homilies
Of the right Use of the Church.
Against peril of Idolatry.
Of the repairing and keeping clean of Churches.
Of good Works: first of Fasting.
Against Gluttony and Drunkenness.
Against Excess of Apparel.
Of Prayer.
Of the Place and Time of Prayer.
That Common Prayers and Sacraments ought to be ministered in a known tongue.
Of the reverent estimation of God’s Word.
Of Alms-doing.
Of the Nativity of Christ.
Of the Passion of Christ.
Of the Resurrection of Christ.
Of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ.
Of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost.
For the Rogation-days.
Of the State of Matrimony.
Of Repentance.
Against Idleness.
Against Rebellion.
Article 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, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: neither hath it any thing, that of itself is superstitious or ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed 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 or ordered.
Article XXXVII
Of the Civil Magistrates
The Queen’s Majesty hath 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 doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.
Where we attibute 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 the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen doth most plainly testify; but only that 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 evildoers.
The Bishop of Rome hath 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.
Article 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 possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.
Article 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 doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the Prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgement, and truth.
What we believe
The message at the heart of Christianity is really quite simple…