By Robin G. Jordan
In this season of my life the greatest disappointment which I have experienced is the present direction of the North American Anglican Church. All of its various expressions are moving away from Biblical Christianity and historic Anglicanism in one way or another at the jurisdictional level. When readers ask me what North American Anglican jurisdiction do I think most represents Biblical Christianity and historic Anglicanism, I cannot honestly answer their question.
When it comes to meeting the standards of the Holy Scriptures and the historic Anglican formularies, all of these jurisdictions fall short. Some may come closer than others but they still do not make the grade.
It is not a question that the bar is too high, it is simply that these jurisdictions have in some way settled for less than full adherence to the teaching of the Bible and the doctrinal and worship principles of the historic Anglican formularies. They have bought into the notion that a jurisdiction can be Anglican without subscribing in all respects to what has historically established the theological identity of the Anglican Church.
Sadly we live in an age of anything-goes Anglicanism. Whatever a particular group which identifies itself as Anglican believes and practices is considered acceptable.
Now some readers may protest that this is not true. They do not consider acceptable the beliefs and practices of progressive Anglicans and Episcopalians.
But what about other groups of self-identified Anglicans who do not fully adhere to the teaching of the Bible and the doctrinal and worship principles of the historic Anglican formularies. They are given greater leeway than that which is extended to the progressives. On what basis? They are more orthodox? By what standard? Certainly not by the standard that historically established the Anglican Church’s theological identity.
By their acceptance of a traditional view of marriage and human sexuality perhaps? But here we also find differences. According to the doctrinal statements of various Anglican jurisdictions marriage is a sacrament. On the other hand, historic Anglicanism takes the position that marriage is “holy estate,” a state of life ordained by God.
By their acceptance of the three ecumenical creeds then? Here we also find differences. Different groups of self-identified Anglicans may use the same words but they give different meaning to these words. They interpret the words differently.
My point is that there is no consistency. If we accept the teaching of the Bible and the doctrinal and worship principles of the historic Anglican formularies as our standard, then by that standard not only should the beliefs and practices of progressive Anglicans and Episcopalians be considered unacceptable but also those of other self-identified Anglican groups. Their beliefs and practices certainly should not be made the official doctrine and practices of a province or a diocese or even a local church. The Anglican identity of any entity that does so should be questioned. The alternative is anything-goes Anglicanism.
The theological identity of the Anglican Church is based on the Holy Scriptures and articulated in its historic formularies—the Thirty Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the 1661 Ordinal, and the Homilies. It is embodied in the central Anglican theological tradition. It is not Catholic. It is not progressive. It is not to use an old term a mingle-mangle of beliefs and practices which has no clear theological identity. It is as the Church Society, the Anglican Church League, and others are wont to remind us—Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical.
The Anglican Church’s Protestant heritage is something of which we can be proud. The Protestant Reformation restored the gospel to the English Church. It gave us back the New Testament doctrines of justification by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ alone and the priesthood of all believers. It gave us the Bible in a language that we could understand and which we could read for ourselves. It also gave us a liturgy in a language that we could understand and in which we could participate. It gave back to the people communion in both kinds and made the people’s communion the high point of the communion service. It restored the song of the Christian assembly to the people and produced new forms of music for their use—the choral and the metrical psalm. It freed the English church from much superstition and numerous abuses.
Yet the Anglican Church has clergy would sacrifice this great heritage so that they can wear elaborate vestments, adopt the pretentious title of “Father,” and ape the ceremonies and practices of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. The Anglican Church must pay a high price for these so-called enrichments and in the final analysis it comes down to a question of these clergy putting their own preferences first, not the spiritual-well being of the Church, much less salvation of the lost.
Historic Anglicanism is not only Protestant but it belongs to the Reformed tradition of Protestantism. Its doctrines and practices were shaped by English Reformers like Thomas Cranmer and John Jewel whose theological outlook was Reformed. They believed that we by our very nature are so mired in sin that we are incapable of doing anything to remedy our condition. For his own glory God recreates human beings with a new nature which loves God and hates sin. This new nature enables us to seek God which we with our old nature would never be able to do. If it was not for God taking the initiative to save someone, no one would be saved. Our salvation is God’s doing from beginning to end. The doctrines and practices of historic Anglicanism were also influenced by important Reformed theologians from Europe including Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger, Peter Martyr Vermigli, and John Calvin. Representatives of the reformed Church of England took part in the Synod of Dort which adopted the three foundational documents of Reformed Protestantism—the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort.
Historic Anglicanism is a faith that is deeply evangelical. It is not only grounded in the Holy Scriptures but is shaped by the gospel. The historic Anglican communion service found in the 1552-1662 family of Prayer Books gives prominence to the full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, which Jesus made on the cross with his suffering and death. It is a faith that emphasizes the need for conversion. It is also a missionary faith which recognizes that we are God’s chosen instrument for spreading the good news of Jesus Christ and making disciples of all people groups.
Now I do not believe that there is a devil behind every bush. At the same time the Bible does teach that there are spiritual forces that are working in this world and which are opposed to God. I do not think that is farfetched to believe that these forces are in subtle ways influencing these clergy—and the rest of us. These spiritual forces are ancient and they have had a long time to study human nature. They know our weaknesses and exploit them to the fullest. What better way to distract us from what Jesus has commanded than to foster in us a fascination with old customs and practices and other relics of the past. When a toddler begins to do something that you do not want him to do, what do you do? You distract him with a bauble or toy—something that will catch his eye and hold his attention.
I spent my early childhood in England, living in rural villages as well as a town that was surrounded by a green belt and which was close to an agricultural area. I was exposed to the folklore of these districts. They included stories of willow-o-wisp, or ignus fatuus—Medieval Latin for “fool’s light.” This was flickering light that resembled the light from the window of a distant cottage and which hung over bogs, marshes, and swamps and misled travelers. Those who followed this light often found themselves floundering in water or quicksand. Those who did not perish and lived to tell the tale sometimes reported hearing ghostly laughter. The light became attributed to a malevolent spirit that sought to lure unwary travelers to their doom.
These stories sparked an interest in the folklore of various countries. I read tales of how the “fair folk,” as the country people called them from fear of offending them, used the power of glamour to bewitch the unwary. They might offer what appeared to be a rich feast to someone whom they had bewitched. By a stroke of good fortune their would-be victim would discover in the nick of time that what they were offering him was really dirty water and poisonous toadstools, not rare wine and costly viands.
These tales are often full of folk wisdom. They frequently contain a hint of advice to the listener. In this particular case exercise caution when dealing with people that you do not know well especially when in circumstances where you are at a disadvantage. Everything may not be what it seems.
For some pastors Catholic liturgical practices and ritualism are like the bauble or toy used to entice a toddler away from what he is doing. They are intended to distract them from leading their church in fulfillment of the Great Commission. In a number of cases they become a substitute for our Lord’s command to spread the gospel and to make disciples of all peoples. A particular pastor may not feel confident enough to lead his church in the fulfillment of that task. In its place he immerses himself in the minutiae of old customs and practices. It is easy to do. The finer points of these customs and practices can be a fascinating subject. At the same time it can also be a snare.
Like the costly viands and rare wine the “fair folk” offer to the unwary, they may not be what they appear to be. Those who share in the feasts of the “fair folk” under the mound cannot return to this world. If they do, they turn to ashes or corruption. After all, they are dead. For the unwary such customs and practices also hold dangers—dangers which are fatal in their way as eating the “fair folk’s” food and drinking their wine.
For a number of clergy who identify themselves as Anglican and who are attracted to Catholic liturgical practices and ritualism, they are a willow-o-wisp leading them astray. They are unable to see behind the glamour. They cannot see them for what they really are.
I am not suggesting that we cannot learn from other traditions or from the past. But I do believe that we should exercise great caution in adopting old customs and practices which the Anglican Church rejected with good reason during the English Reformation. We may in our conceit believe that we are better informed than the English Reformers but that kind of thinking is itself a trap. The English Reformers subjected these customs and practices to the Holy Scriptures and found them wanting. Those which could be reformed in accordance with Scripture they retained. Those that could not be so reformed or which had “much blinded the people and obscured the glory of God, as Archbishop Cranmer put it, were “cut away and clean rejected.” We should give them credit for using good judgment in this regard. They had for themselves seen the effects these customs and practices had upon the English people over a long period of time.
Rather than seeking to change the Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical character of the Anglican Church, we should embrace and celebrate it. It is an illustrious birthright. It is not something that we should treat lightly or surrender for a mess of potage.
No comments:
Post a Comment