By Robin G. Jordan
In a comment posted in response to my recent article, “Strange Bedfellows,” it was pointed to my attention that other Anglican provinces have an Anglo-Catholic wing, why not the Anglican Church in North America?
First it must be noted that the AC-NA is not an Anglican province. It is basically a federation of conservative ecclesial organizations that has aspirations to become an Anglican province. Second, Anglo-Catholicism is only one school of thought in Anglicanism and is a relative newcomer despite its claims to represent the faith of the English Church before the Reformation. It has a strong affinity with Roman Catholicism. Many of its doctrines and practices are those of the Roman Catholic Church. They are also doctrines and practices that the Church of England rejected at the Reformation and which many Anglicans around the world do not accept as biblical and consequently as “orthodox” to this day. Third, an Anglican province typically has an Anglo-Catholic wing due to the particular history of that province and the influence of Anglo-Catholicism in the province. Whether the existing Anglican provinces have an Anglo-Catholic wing is irrelevant to whether the AC-NA should also have such a wing. The AC-NA has an Anglo-Catholic wing because Anglo-Catholics form a substantial portion of its membership and Anglo-Catholic thought has influenced most of its remaining membership. Anglo-Catholics and those influenced by Anglo-Catholic thought played an instrumental role in the formation of the Common Cause Partnership.
“Other churches (dioceses, provinces, etc.) has X, why not us?” is also a simplistic argument that can be used to justify all kinds of things. If we apply its logic to liberalism, then the AC-NA ought to have a liberal wing because a number of Anglican provinces have liberal wings. Since several Anglican provinces ordain practicing homosexuals, permit homosexual unions, and consecrate women bishops, why not the AC-NA? Why stop short of making room for Anglo-Catholics and Anglo-Catholicism?
“Strange Bedfellows” touched upon a number of issues. The main issue was the gospel that pastors are preaching and teaching in the AC-NA. One of the major differences between Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics and Protestants is the message of the gospel. They have quite different concepts of justification. These differences are not matters of no consequence or indifference. They are not adiaphora. They affect human salvation. The classical Anglican view of justification is articulated in the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Homily on Justification. It takes the Protestant position on justification, which it understands to be the New Testament position.
The person who left the comment also appeared to assume that since his pastor was preaching and teaching the true gospel, all AC-NA pastors are proclaiming the true gospel. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he is correct in his assessment that the gospel his pastor is proclaiming is indeed the true gospel. Based on the theological make-up of the AC-NA, the assumption that all AC-NA pastors are proclaiming the true gospel is a dangerous one to make. It also ignores the significant theological differences between Anglo-Catholicism and the other school of thought represented in the AC-NA.
As I pointed to the attention of my readers in “Strange Bedfellows,” clergy in the AC-NA cannot preach two different gospels. The AC-NA, unlike The Episcopal Church, is supposed to be upholding “orthodox faith and practice.” Since The Episcopal Church’s working theology is universal salvation, it does not matter what gospel is preached and taught. Indeed it does not matter if any gospel is proclaimed at all, except the gospel of radical inclusion. However, the AC-NA is supposedly an “orthodox” church. The AC-NA needs to sort out what gospel its clergy are going to preach. Its decision will determine whether its teaching can be regarded as consistent with the Bible and therefore as orthodox. Claiming to be orthodox does not make a church orthodox. The Episcopal Church claims to be orthodox. The AC-NA must demonstrate its orthodoxy. The proof is in the pudding.
From a New Testament perspective only one gospel has the power to touch hearts and to transform lives. The New Testament does not adopt the stance of post-modernism in which there is no objective truth but subjective opinions. All opinions are equally right and conversely are equally wrong. The New Testament speaks of revealed truth, of the Spirit of Truth, and the Son of God who is the embodiment of Truth. “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6) From a New Testament perspective there is only one true gospel, which itself is a gift from God. If the AC-NA is truly committed to Christ’s mission of seeking and saving the lost, it will want to preach and teach that gospel. It is not going to accept any substitutes.
The question of what gospel the AC-NA is proclaiming points to another question. How is “orthodox faith and practice” defined in the AC-NA? In its efforts to forge an alliance of conservatives, the Common Cause Partnership drew up a Theological Statement that accommodates an Anglo-Catholic position on a number of key issues. It adopts deliberately vague language in regard to the historic Anglican formularies in comparison to the Church of England’s Canon 5: “The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and the Councils of the Church as are agreeable to said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.” The result is that its definition of the “Anglican Way” is slewed in an Anglo-Catholic direction. This is quite acceptable to Anglo-Catholics and those influenced by Anglo-Catholic thought but not to those who see this turning away from the Bible, the English Reformation, and the Thirty-Nine Articles as a real threat to the gospel of grace in the AC-NA. A church that preaches and teaches sacramental salvation is a step or two from proclaiming universal salvation.
Right doctrine and right practice do matter. There is no escaping it. We cannot say as some suggest, “We are all following Christ. What difference does it make that we do not meet eye to eye on everything.” This is exactly what the liberals have been saying. The response to the liberals has been, “You have broken with the teaching of the Bible.” This must also be our response to others who depart from biblical teaching. Does this mean that Anglo-Catholics have no place in the AC-NA? No. But it does mean that certain Anglo-Catholic doctrines and practices have no place in a Biblically-faithful Anglican church committed to proclaiming the true gospel. In such a church the Thirty-Nine Articles are a living formulary and clergy and laity alike are unfeigned in their assent to them.
I agree with you on some of the problems of extreme Anglo-Catholicism but like most of Anglican practice there are different schools of though within Anglo-Catholicism. I agree there are many Anglo-Catholics who are in fact Romans in disguise and preach a faulty understanding of the gospel. (However, unlike yourself I cannot proclaim that Romans are preaching a false gospel). But there are more reformed strands of Anglo-Catholicism, such as in the English Isles what was called "Prayer-Book Catholicism" which I see in many Continuing parishes and in the ACNA. Historically speaking, there was the continuous stream of High Church Anglicans (including those who believed in baptismal regeneration and apostolic succession). I think, therefore, that it is wrong to say that Anglicanism is only a "Reformed Protestant" faith, if by that, you mean "Calvinist" because there has always been a strand of thought in Anglicanism that was able to agree with the 39 Articles but at the same time have a "high" view of the Sacraments (i.e. Lutheran or Philippist).
ReplyDeleteJordan,
ReplyDeleteI have divided my response to your observations into three parts to the limit on the number of words that may be used in a comment.
Part I
The Roman Catholic understanding of the gospel goes beyond being faulty. The New Testament teaches that Christ's death on the cross is sufficient to remove the penalty for all our sins. The Church of Rome teaches that the soul of the departed must spend time in purgatory, a place in which it is cleansed and prepared for heaven and in which punishment due for venial sins that have not been remitted in this life may be expiated. The Pope may issue indulgences that shorten a soul’s time in purgatory. The New Testament teaches that salvation is the free and unmerited gift of God to man. It is obtained by grace through faith in Christ alone. Through Christ's atoning sacrifice, we are rendered acceptable to God and judged righteous, that is to say, justified in his sight. The Church of Rome teaches that are saved by grace, but also through the merits we obtain through good works acceptable to God. Salvation is seen as a process rather than a once only event. The process of sanctification is confused with the one-time event of justification. The Church of Rome teaches that frequent and regular confession of one’s sins to a priest and absolution of one’s sins by a priest is an integral part of this salvation process. So is the performance of penances. The Church of Rome teaches that Christ’s atoning sacrifice is insufficient and incomplete and “the Holy sacrifice of the Mass” makes that sacrifice sufficient and complete. The sacrifice of the Mass not only remits sins in this life but also reduces the departed soul’s length of stay in purgatory. Frequent and regular attendance at Mass is indispensable to the salvation process in this life. The frequent and regular offering of Masses for the dead is necessary for the continuation of this process in death.
The New Testament teaches that we need only one Mediator between God and us—Jesus Christ. The Church of Rome teaches that certain individuals who were known for their personal holiness in this life, having been canonized by the Roman Catholic Church as saints, may be venerated after they die. They may act as intercessors between God and Man and may be invoked in prayer. For canonization as a saint the Roman Catholic Church requires that the person led not only an exemplary and pious life by its standards but also at least two verifiable miracles have occurred as a result of the intercession of that person. Roman Catholics not only venerate Mary as “the Mother of God” and invoke her in prayer but also there is a strong movement within the Roman Catholic Church to recognize her as “co-redemptrix” with the Son of God whom she bore.
Characterizing the gospel that is proclaimed in the Roman Catholic Church as “false” may sound strongly critical or even condemnatory to contemporary ears which are accustomed to the liberal ecumenism of the past thirty years that has tended to deny or minimize what have historically been significant differences between Anglicans and Roman Catholics on key doctrinal issues. It has focused on where Anglicans and Roman Catholics agree, even to the point of seeing agreement where there is none. There is also a tendency to overlook significant theological differences between Anglicans and Roman Catholics because conservative Roman Catholics take the same position on abortion, divorce, euthanasia, and homosexuality that conservative Anglicans do. In addition, the pluralism of our post-modern culture has influenced contemporary Christian thinking in some quarters.
A false gospel, however, is a gospel that is erroneous or incorrect. It need not be intentionally deceptive. Those who proclaim it may be as much deceived as those who believe it. However, if a preacher or teacher of a false gospel hears the true gospel and rejects it, the New Testament tells us, his case is worse than if he had never heard it at all.
Part II
ReplyDeleteIn matters affecting salvation, we cannot humor or indulge the erroneous or incorrect beliefs of others out of the notion that it is charitable to do so. While the Bible teaches that we should be kind or merciful in judging others, it does not teach us that we should overlook their false beliefs and not draw them to their attention. This is the kind of “tolerance” that the Episcopal Church invites conservative Episcopalians to practice. They are perfectly free to hold a Biblical view on a particular matter as long as they keep it to themselves.
The Bible, on the other hand, takes a quite different view. In the Book of Isaiah we read:
Now it came to pass at the end of seven days that the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me: When I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet, if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul. Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you did not give him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. Nevertheless if you warn the righteous man that the righteous should not sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; also you will have delivered your soul" (Ezekiel 3:16-21 NKJV).
Part II (Cont'd)
ReplyDeleteWe further read:
Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Son of man, speak to the children of your people, and say to them: 'When I bring the sword upon a land, and the people of the land take a man from their territory and make him their watchman, when he sees the sword coming upon the land, if he blows the trumpet and warns the people, then whoever hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, if the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be on his own head. He heard the sound of the trumpet, but did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But he who takes warning will save his life. But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman's hand.'
"So you, son of man: I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn them for Me. When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you shall surely die!' and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. Nevertheless if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.
"Therefore you, O son of man, say to the house of Israel: 'Thus you say, "If our transgressions and our sins lie upon us, and we pine away in them, how can we then live?" ' Say to them: 'As I live,' says the Lord GOD, 'I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?'
"Therefore you, O son of man, say to the children of your people: 'The righteousness of the righteous man shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression; as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall because of it in the day that he turns from his wickedness; nor shall the righteous be able to live because of his righteousness in the day that he sins.' When I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, but he trusts in his own righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous works shall be remembered; but because of the iniquity that he has committed, he shall die. Again, when I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' if he turns from his sin and does what is lawful and right, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has stolen, and walks in the statutes of life without committing iniquity, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of his sins which he has committed shall be remembered against him; he has done what is lawful and right; he shall surely live.
"Yet the children of your people say, 'The way of the LORD is not fair.' But it is their way which is not fair! When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die because of it. But when the wicked turns from his wickedness and does what is lawful and right, he shall live because of it. Yet you say, 'The way of the LORD is not fair.' O house of Israel, I will judge every one of you according to his own ways." (Ezekiel 33:1-20 (NKJV)
The principle underlying these passages of Scripture is that we are not free to ignore any danger to the soul of others. We must warn them of the danger.
Part II (Cont'd)
ReplyDeleteThe apostle Paul enjoins us, "Therefore, putting away lying, ‘let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor,’ for we are members of one another" (Ephesians 4:25 NKJV). He is quoting the prophet Zechariah.
“These are the things you shall do: Speak each man the truth to his neighbor; Give judgment in your gates for truth, justice, and peace; Let none of you think evil in your heart against your neighbor; And do not love a false oath. For all these are things that I hate,' Says the LORD" (Zechariah 8:16-17 NKJV)
We should not lie to others about any danger to their souls. We should choose carefully how we warn them, picking the right time and words. But we cannot say nothing.
James, the brother of our Lord, tell us, “Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:19-20 NKJV).
James’s brother Jude writes:
“But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And on some have compassion, making a distinction; but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh (Jude 1:20-23 NKJV).
In these two passages of Scripture we are enjoined to do all we can to save the souls of others.
The Bible does not permit us to keep silent about false teaching or even faulty teaching where it affects the salvation of others. We are constrained to speak out. In doing so, we should remember Paul’s admonition to speak the truth in love.
Part III
ReplyDeleteMy reading of English Church history convinces me that the post-Reformation Church of England can be characterized as Protestant and Reformed. The English Church was officially Protestant and Reformed in its Forty-Two Articles and its Second Prayer Book in the reign of Edward VI. The leading English Reformers who fell into Mary’s hands held Protestant and Reformed views, and were condemned for these views. From the number of ordinary people, women and children as well as men, burned at the stake, it is evident the Protestant and Reformed doctrine of the English Reformers had gained a following among the populace. It was not confined to the clergy.
Those who fled to the Continent or otherwise escaped martyrdom held Protestant and Reformed views, which were strengthen during the Marian Persecution. When they returned to England upon Mary’s death and Elizabeth’s ascension, they sought to put into practice what they believed. The bishops of the Elizabethan Church were Protestant and Reformed. What Elizabeth herself permitted in her chapel or Bishop Andrew did in his does not make the general character of the Elizabethan Church less Protestant and Reformed. The Elizabethan Prayer Book was essentially the Second Edwardian Prayer Book. The Thirty-Nine Articles were Protestant and Reformed. The Decades of Henry Bullinger, a leading Swiss Reformer, were used to teach doctrine to new clergy and those desiring to preach. Puritanism was a movement within the English Church. A number of the Elizabethan church leaders were sympathetic to that movement, including Archbishop Grindall.
Later Anglo-Catholic historians try to separate the Elizabethan Church and the Stuart Church into Anglicans and Puritans but this dichotomy does not accurately describe the make-up of these churches. While a few of those whom they label Puritans exhibit separatist tendencies, most of those whom they classify Puritans were churchmen. It is not even really accurate to divide the Elizabethan Church and the Stuart Church into Catholic Anglicans and Puritan Anglicans. Anglo-Catholic historians and via media theorists have tended to choose from the works of theologians of this period of English Church history whatever suits their purposes. They tend to focus upon those divines with whom they feel an affinity and whose views appear to support their theories.
Despite the ascendancy of the Laudian High Churchmen during the reign of Charles I and Charles II, the result largely of royal patronage, and not popular following, the English Church to a large extent retained its Protestant and Reformed character. The Church of England was not abolished during the Interregnum, only episcopacy and the Prayer Book, and was largely Protestant and Reformed during this period.
The Restoration bishops, while they were Laudian High Churchmen made only modest changes in the Prayer Book and the Ordinal. The Thirty-Nine Articles continued to be the official confession of faith of the English Church. The Laudian High Churchmen were not Romanists. They rejected transubstantiation. They were receptionists in their view of the Lord’s Supper. Their view of the Holy Communion makes them “heretical” in the opinion of some modern day Anglo-Catholics. However, Calvinists would see similarities in that view of the sacrament and John Calvin’s.
The ascension of James II, a Roman Catholic, to the English throne and the very real prospect of the restoration of papalism in England led to the Glorious Revolution. James II fled to France and William and Mary, both Protestants, were offered the English throne. William defeated James II at the Battle of the Boyne. Parliament adopted a law that only a Protestant might sit on the English throne and be supreme governor of the Church of England. The Protestant and Reformed character of the English Church was not questioned until the Tractarian movement of the nineteenth century.
Part III (Cont'd)
ReplyDeleteWhat I have seen among some writers is the tendency to focus on the exceptions and to claim on the basis of these exceptions that the post-Reformation Church of England was not Protestant and Reformed in its character. These writers are usually Anglo-Catholic or subscribe to a via media theory of one kind or another. There are exceptions but they do not rule out characterizing the post-Reformation Church of England as essentially Protestant and Reformed in character.
Classical Anglicanism can be described as a particularly English form of conservative Protestantism that historically exhibits greater affinity with the theology of the Swiss Reformers than that of any other Protestant school of thought. It also shares the Erastianism of the Swiss Reformed Churches. With the exception of the Church of Geneva, they took the position that the magistrate should govern the church with the church acting as the conscience of the magistrate. In the case of the Church of England the magistrate is the Queen.
The Protestant and Reformed character of Anglicanism does not preclude all forms of High Churchmanship. The Thirty-Nine Articles historically have set the limits of Anglican comprehensiveness. The Articles put out of the question a number of Anglo-Catholic doctrines and the practices associated with them. They, for example, reject the doctrine of transubstantiation and the practice of eucharistic adoration. However, they do not debar a spirituality that sees the value of the frequent and regular reception of the sacrament of the Holy Communion in enlivening and strengthening the faith of the believer in his walk with Christ, keeping his heart and mind focused on what Christ has done for him on the cross.
Somehow the "due" in "due to the limits..." was omitted in my opening sentence above. It is admittedly a long response but I wanted to make understandable my thinking on the matters upon which the response touches.
ReplyDelete