Calvin on the 1552 Book of Common Prayer (see below) , probably inspired by John Knox in his imbroglio at Frankfort, Germany, with Bishop Cox, a fellow Reformer and exile from Marian hells in England. We put Cranmer here, a counterpoint of caution and man of wisdom. Knox was reportedly an embarrassment to Reformation leaders with his anafractuousness and rashness over The Book of Common Prayer. The 1552 BCP was not ceded and the Anglican Reformers had enough self-confidence, learning, and education to retain what was acceptable for decency, order, and harmony. They didn't rush off into rash battles only to find no enemy there. You don't have to construct square buildings with white walls, tear down Cathedrals, rip out pipe organs, and more "rashness over-reactionism-heave-ho" to be Reformed. It is of note that English Reformers did not add "episcopacy" as a mark of the true church, contrary to the arrogant and erroneous assertions made by some High Church Anglicans in the 17th century. In fact, that arrogance is still maintained by some today, the perverse and devious notion of "apostolic succession." Mr. Bob Duncan holds to some form of it. Bishop Jack Iker, ACNA, indeed, holds to it. That needs the heave-ho or reinterpretation vis a vis the English Reformers. On this, we will stick with the Reformed, Lutheran and the 3-tier-deep English Reformers. We laud Ref21's work in blogging the magnum opus needing mastery, Calvin's Institutes.
"Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ's institution, there, it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists" (4.1.9). Thus Calvin identifies the two (not three) marks of a true church of Christ. In so doing, omitting the distinctive of "church discipline" Calvin is often cited as differing from his father-figure, Martin Bucer, as well as the Scots and Belgic Confessions. We need to be careful lest we draw false conclusions here. Calvin did believe in church discipline (see 4.11.1 - 4.12.28) and we mistakenly view Geneva in Calvin's time if we think he did not.
Calvin's reason for omitting discipline (a difficult issue in Geneva) was to deny the right of individuals to abandon the church where such discipline was deemed absent. "Schism is the worst and most harmful evil in the church of God," Calvin wrote in his Commentary on John 9:16. It is always "disastrous to leave the church" (4.1.4). So long as the marks of the true church are recognizable, while not perfectly, the church cannot be rejected "even if it otherwise swarms with many faults" (4.1.12). In a letter of January 13, 1555, Calvin writes to the English exiles in Frankfurt, "In the Anglican liturgy, such as you describe it to me, I see there were many silly things... [However] if there lurked under them no manifest impiety [they are] to be endured for a time." (Tracts and Treatises, ed. Jules Bonnet, 7 vols (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2009), 6:118).
Here is perhaps a different portrayal of Calvin from the typical caricature of him. Calvin - the Ecumenist!
2 comments:
Calvin did not omit church discipline. What is Derek Thomas smoking?
He speaks of the marks of a true church—it is a community of the faithful in which the Word is truly preached, the sacraments rightly administered and Christian discipline is maintained. He also describes its organization, its officers, and its duties in the world.
http://donsweeting.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/celebrating-the-legacy-of-john-calvin-part-3/
Thanks Dom. I posted the three-part series from www.donsweeting.wordpress.com. Derek's comment, citing Calvin about the BCP, alerted me that I'll need to track these neo-Calvinists more closely. I, Lord willing, will do a counterpoint to Ref21's stuff--which is genuinely solid, but the men lack Anglican backgrounds and it shows. I am finding myself, more and more, to be an High Churchman...not smells and bells, but theologically.
Post a Comment