Another hat tip to Anglo-Reformed, a site we recommend other Reformed Anglican bloggers connect to--uniformly sound, sane, sensible and balanced reports.
The Alpha Course Examined -Tim Chapman - The Anglo-Reformed Movement
At the end of March 1999, subsequent to having been involved in the publicity, administration and teaching on both adult and youth Alpha courses, my vicar at St Thomas, Sheldon, asked me to explain why I was uncomfortable with the Alpha course. I explained that my discomfort had nothing to do with the style of delivery of the course, (which I actually believed was excellent and had much to commend it), rather it was the theological content that was the cause. Having more recently read David Wells book, God in the Wasteland, I have been forced to ask whether the style and method of the course actually panders so much to the culture of there being a ‘smorgasboard of religion’ for people to investigate and take their pick from’ that it needs to be examined closely too. But that is the topic of another discussion. I hope that this short essay will explain where my concerns with the course content lies.
What is Alpha?
According to its internet site, "Alpha is a 15 session practical introduction to the Christian faith. It is aimed specifically at those who don't normally go to church". It is therefore from the point of view of the man or woman who is ignorant of the faith rather than from the point of view of those who are already Christians, that the course will be assessed.
How has the course done?
Anyone involved in Christian ministry in this country and indeed throughout the world cannot ignore the massive impact that Alpha is having and no doubt will continue to have in the future. Ostensibly Alpha has been extraordinarily effective. Over 500,000 people completed the course by 1997. No doubt many more by now. The course is being run in countries as diverse as Namibia and Finland. Both the Alpha internet site and Alpha news contain many commendations from diverse theological positions. The Archbishop of Canterbury says "It is superb. I commend it wholeheartedly”. Roman Catholic cardinals also give it high praise. '4The course does not contain anything that is contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine" says Bishop Ambrose Griffiths OSB, (Hexham and Newcastle) Another commentator WD Scholes in A is for Alpha, B is for Berean" says that " The course also appears to contain a number of criteria that ought to keep the Evangelical constituency happy. The cross is mentioned, the Bible is used and apologetics are employed to convey the Christian message in a credible manner"
There is much to give thanks for:
It is clear that there are many things about Alpha which are praiseworthy. It is remarkably well produced and the quality of the resources are exceptional. It is easily transferable and so reaches people far beyond Brompton. The quality and availability of the resources provide church leaders with a ready made evangelistic course so that it does not require a great deal of work to get the course going. That Alpha has encouraged so many churches and so many individuals to start doing evangelism must be a cause of much rejoicing.
Another aspect of the whole of the Alpha course is the intense zeal with which people long for others to become Christians. There can be no doubting the godly commitment of those organising the Alpha initiative, to reach those who have never known Christ.
Perhaps the most significant contribution that Alpha has made is the emphasis it places on the value of relationships. The practice of guests returning to the same group each week, sharing a friendly meal together on neutral ground ensures that people are put at ease and better able to hear a talk and ask questions at the end. This is where Alpha is at its strongest. "Learning about the Christian faith and having a lot of fun together" says Gumbel is what it is about. "It’s all friendship based. There is no knocking on doors. It is friends bringing friends," he says. A number of other evangelistic courses have adopted the emphasis on friendly, supper party based evangelism, and have acknowledged their debt to Alpha in this.
There can be no doubting the remarkable ability of the course to draw in non-Christians but the question does remain as to what they are taught during the course. It is right to always be seeking current ways to convey the gospel to the contemporary society, however the gospel message is unchanging. So as Scholes wisely points out we must cut through the packaging to examine what Alpha conveys.
Why examine Alpha?
First because we should examine everything.
The New Testament does call on us not to judge and it is important to think hard about the planks in our own eyes, however it does also call us to be discerning in what we say and do and there are strong warnings aimed especially at those who are teachers. We are responsible for what we say. After Paul and Silas had preached in the Jewish synagogue we are told that the Bereans.. 'examined the scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true' and they are commended for this practice. (Acts 17,11) If the Bereans examined even the apostle's teaching, how much more should we examine contemporary teaching?
Given that so many people are likely to come into contact with the course, is it not fair to suggest that Alpha's undoubted popularity renders scrutiny obligatory? WD Scholes points out that 'Evangelism at it’s core has a biblical message and it is therefore imperative that we convey the biblical message'.
The basis of the examination will be the apostolic gospel revealed in the scriptures. It is not enough to rely on the accolades of others or on the fact that the course works'. Theology rather that pragmatism must be the basis of whether something is good. So the question we must ask of any initiative is not 'Does it work?' but 'Does it honour Christ?' only those things that are consonant with the word of God can be honoring to him.We should be unashamed to engage in the Berean habit of testing everything from scripture, and it is in this manner that I humbly asses Alpha.
It should be pointed out that at no stage is it suggested that the organisers of Alpha do not believe biblical truths. What is being assessed is not what is believed by individuals but what is taught through the course, and whether or not this is a clearly communicated Biblical gospel.
The critical question is this; Is the message of Alpha the message of the Bible? I hope to answer the question by looking at four main areas: the character of God, the nature of sin, the cross of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit.
The Character of God
The material in book, booklet and on tape presents one overriding message about the character of God: God is love. What could be wrong with that after all the apostle John himself writes God is love (1 John 4: 16)?. Nothing is wrong unless it is the one character of God that is so strongly emphasized that other aspects of his character are drastically diminished. This seems to be the case with the Alpha course.
Alpha introduces God through the existence of the Lord Jesus, which is perfectly biblical “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” John 14.9. “No one can come to the Father except through me” John 14.6. However there is nothing about Him being our creator and all that the Bible unpacks from that great truth, namely that he is the great King and sovereign over all that he has created.
Chris Hand in his book 'Falling short, The Alpha course examined' reminds us of the Athenian attitude to God when Paul preached to them in Acts 17; “The Athenians were crucially ignorant of God just as we are today. They did not know how high and lofty he was. They did not know how much they owed to him as their creator. Surrounded as they were by evidences of his goodness and kindness, they did not know how profoundly ungrateful and therefore rebellious they were to him as their great and mighty creator. In Alpha God is simply introduced to us as the one who can help us rather than the self existent eternally glorious maker of heaven and earth'.
Alongside the absence of God being our creator is a failure to teach God's holiness. This is extraordinary given the fact that 'God is holy' is taught far more often in scripture than "God is love'. Indeed the adjective used most frequently in scripture to describe God is 'holy'. The God of the Bible is a God of holiness whose love is all the more remarkable in that it is bestowed upon wicked sinners. Indeed when we remove the holiness of God, we undermine the love of God.
The scriptures warn us that 'It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God' (Heb 10:31) Would our friends on the Alpha course know this from the material they are presented with? I fear they wouldn’t. I have friends who respond by suggesting that while the course is weak on this, it is made up for in the follow up courses to Alpha. It is my concern that while that may be the case, (I have not been involved in any follow up courses to comment) Alpha is intended to be a presentation of the gospel that will bring people to faith. It can therefore be assumed that the Alpha material posits that people are best brought to faith without God’s holiness and sovereign rule over the world being taught.
The Nature of Sin
The consequences of such a diminished definition of the character of God are enormous, Nowhere is this more clearly seen than in Alpha's treatment of sin. Alpha is clear to begin with on what is at the heart of sin when it states that the 'root cause of sin is a broken relationship with God'. The consequences of sin are spelt out in terms of the pollution, the power, the penalty and partition of sin. But then as the argument in the course is followed, sin is presented as being ‘the mess we make of our own lives'. The problem of sin is explained as 'the rubbish that clutters up our lives and clutters up our world' and as 'pollution of the soul'.
For all it’s biblical use of words, Alpha fails to define sin biblically. It does so by concentrating on the consequences of sin rather than on what sin actually is. To define the root cause of sin as ‘broken relationship’ does not identify why the relationship is broken or who has done the breaking. Man without God is the subject of God's wrath. We are not slightly displeasing to him, with the occasional foible; rather by nature 'We are objects of wrath' (Eph 2:3) because we have offended against God and broken his holy law. The root cause of sin is ‘our rejection’ of our relationship with him as our creator and rightful ruler. It is that rejection of Him, for which we are culpable, and which deserves his rightful justice, rather than its result. Alpha allows me too easily to distance myself from the culpability of rejecting God as holy King over his creation.
Chris Hand writes succinctly of the consequences of failing to teach that God is holy. “The consequences of sin are true enough. But it is all man centered. They are the consequences for us. Surely the fact that we have offended against God is sufficient reason to worry about sin. Alpha's emphasis does not go anything like far enough. Christ in Alpha, comes forward to deal with too small a problem”.
Ultimately then, sin according to Alpha is more of a problem for us than it is for God. In scripture it is quite the opposite. In Alpha the problem is perceived in very man centered terms. This would explain why the course says very little indeed about God's anger or wrath against human rebellion and very little about future judgment, ‘when his righteous judgment will be revealed' (Rom 2:5). We are told that we will all be the subject of the judgment of God but we are never told how awful that day will be. Omitting that eternal perspective leads the course to present sin as a problem for the here and now and turns it into something that requires only a therapeutic cure. As we shall see the misunderstanding of sin inevitably leads to a misunderstanding of the cross. If the diagnosis is inaccurate then the cure will be ineffective. My Alpha friends admit the lack of teaching on these aspects of sin and God’s judgement but once again suggest they are best kept till a follow up course.
The Cross of Christ
I am borrowing much of Schole’s argument in what follows. (W.D Scholes : A is for Alpha, B is for Berean, The Churchman Vol 112 No 4 1998 pp 294-312). Alpha gets off to a good start. After seeking to establish “Who is Jesus?” the session “Why did Jesus die?” tells us that ‘the cross lies at the heart of the Christian faith’ (Alpha Manual page 10). We are told that the cross achieved justification, redemption, atonement and reconciliation and scripture references are provided. Indeed there is a reasonable foundation to build on if one wanted to further investigate the Cross. However the penal substitutionary nature of Christ’s atonement is given very little weight – that Christ died not simply in our place but took upon himself the wrath of God against sin. It is skimmed over in the course. This is hardly surprising given that there is an incorrect view of the disease of sin in Alpha, the cure of the cross is similarly misrepresented. We are left with a hollow view of why Jesus had to die at all. Thus the cross ends up being little more than a visual aid, which proves that God is self-sacrificial and loving. The death of Jesus is presented as being an act of love yet without any connection with the reality of God's holy anger. This is a far cry from the biblical teaching on the atonement.
The second major weakness in this area is that for all it's claims that ‘the cross lies at the heart of the Christian faith', the cross is in reality not central to Alpha. After talk two, which deals with the cross, it is barely mentioned in subsequent sessions. One could be forgiven for thinking on examination of the course as a whole that the centrality of the cross and Jesus Christ’s work of atonement had been usurped. This is extraordinary not only because the cross is at the heart of the Christian faith, but also that Alpha is aimed at those who know little or nothing about the Christian faith. This is a far cry from Paul's desire to 'Preach Christ and him crucified' (1Cor 1:23).
Moreover this inconsistency is indicative of another problem with Alpha. This is that it assumes too much too quickly and leaves the gospel behind in it's zeal to teach on Christian living. The suggestion, that I have been given, that the follow up courses are the place to fill in the gaps is once again put forward by my Alpha friends who suggest that the rest of the Alpha course is used to teach about the practicalities of Christian living. This seems to imply a shift away from a thorough presentation of the gospel in evangelistic courses and a desire instead to teach ‘lifestyle’ as the evangelistic method. Surely it is assuming a great deal to think that the gospel of grace through the work of Christ can be left behind after week three. (such that the third session is entitled 'How can I be sure of my faith?) The emphasis of Alpha hardly mirrors the emphasis of Scripture.
Given that the cross is clearly not the centre of Alpha, something else must have taken its place. The talks that do come in the middle and that occupy the largest part of the time spent on the course, concern the person and work of the Holy Spirit. Nicky Gumbel says that he is addressing an imbalance in Trinitarian teaching that has been going on for centuries, and so is obliged to make up for lost time in Alpha by emphasizing the subject of the Holy Spirit. I wonder if people’s first contact with Christianity, an evangelistic course, is the place to try to make up for a perceived imbalance in the churches teaching?. I would suggest that too much of the limited time in what is an evangelistic course is spent on the subject of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit
In the talk 'How can I be filled with the Holy Spirit?', the fullness of the spirit is presented as a subsequent experience to conversion. This previously would have been called the 'baptism in the Spirit'. The name has changed but the understanding has not. The double phased experience is argued from Paul's 'double experience' on the Damascus road and later with Ananias (Acts 9), from the Samaritans (Acts 8) and from the Ephesians (Acts 19). These arguments have already been refuted decisively. cf Showing the Spirit, DA Carson, Keep in step with the Spirit, JI Packer, Baptism and Fullness, John Stott. Wayne Grudem himself asserts that ‘these are not really convincing examples to prove the Pentecostal doctrine of baptism in the Holy Spirit…’(Systematic Theology, Zondervan, Michigan 1994) page 773ff. There is scant evidence in scripture to suggest anything other than that the believer receives all of the Holy Spirit when he or she repents, puts their trust in Jesus and is justified. ‘Be being filled with the spirit..’ in Ephesians 4:17 is an ongoing command which acknowledges variation in filling among Christians but not a requirement to seek a second filling. The teaching ‘Every Christian has the Holy Spirit, but not every Christian is filled with the Spirit' (Alpha manual, HTB Publishing, page 33) is at odds with Biblical teaching.
Equally alarming is the statement that 'We now live in the age of the Spirit',(Qusetions of Life, Nicky Gumbel (Kingsway 1993) page 115) as if we hadn't been in the age of the Spirit since Christ ascended and left his Holy Spirit. Moreover Scholes points out that to use such language in today's spiritual environment is dangerous, not least because of the New age conviction that we are in 'the age of the spirit'. Yet far from concerned about this Gumbel seems to think it is an advantage. He writes that 'those coming from the New Age movement find that rational and historical explanations leave them cold, but at the weekend they are on more familiar territory in experiencing the Holy Spirit. As Scholes points out Gumbel's reasoning suggests that there are two equally valid ways of becoming a Christian; one is to be persuaded by rational and historical explanations, and the other is by experiencing the Holy Spirit. To think thus is to ignore the fact that it is always the apostles priority to present rational and historical explanations to all sorts of people (Acts 2:22-41, 8:26-38, 17:16-33) wherever they proclaimed the gospel. It is the Holy Spirit who then applies these words to people’s hearts and convicts them of their sin. This appears to be yet another way that the apostolic gospel is bypassed in an effort to make things as accessible as possible.
Given the zeal with which Alpha wishes to teach guests about the Holy Spirit, there is one area which is conspicuous by it's absence; that is Jesus teaching on the Holy Spirit in the gospels, particularly the farewell discourse in John 14 - 17. Why is this teaching overlooked? Obviously these chapters are not the only ones which inform our doctrine of the Holy Spirit but surely they are significant ones. These chapters teach us that there is an indissoluble connection between the word of God and the Spirit of God, a connection which runs right through Scripture. That connection is that they both point to Christ. For the Spirit, another 'Counsellor' John 14:16-17) 'will guide you (the disciples) into all truth' and He (the Spirit) will bring glory to me (Jesus) by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. (John 16:13-14). Given what Jesus teaches about His Holy Spirit we should expect Him to point towards Jesus and His words and not to himself.
This being the case why are we told that 'For many the decisive moment is the Saturday evening of the weekend? For Alpha the decisive moment is not the preaching of Christ and Him crucified, but when the Holy Spirit is ‘invoked’. But if, as the Holy Scriptures teach us the Holy Spirit comes at conversion, this is quite extraordinary. Surely the moment when the guest repents and believes must be the decisive moment. However this would explain why so much emphasis is put on the weekend when the Spirit comes. On the Alpha leaders tapes there is a peculiar mystique about giving the talk 'How can I be filled with the Holy Spirit?' Both Sandy Millar when talking of his conversion and Nicky Gumbel when talking of his giving this talk give a consistent message, that the Holy Spirit weekend is the highlight of Alpha.
Yet isn't this teaching both to demean the Holy Spirit and to misunderstand his work? We cannot control the Holy Spirit in the way that Alpha implies; for like the wind which blows wherever it wishes (John 3:8) the Holy Spirit moves wherever he wishes and without human control. The Spirit is sovereign and He will work as he chooses and as God has promised, namely when the word of God is preached. Ironically Alpha ends up limiting the Spirit, the very thing which it accuses others of doing when it claims 'For a long time in the church the person and work of the Holy Spirit has been ignored, misunderstood and resisted'. (Telling Others, The Alpha Initiative, Nicky Gumbel (Kingsway 1994) page 12.) Moreover if the Spirit's longing is to point to Christ and to bring Him the glory then isn't it strange that Christ is so infrequently mentioned?
The lack of focus on Jesus is seen very clearly in the testimonies people give, testimonies which Alpha quotes with approval in it's literature. The first of the five main testimonies in Telling Others is particularly revealing. It reads:
'The one thing that stuck in my mind was how the work of the Holy Spirit was described as of paramount importance. I knew in my heart I had to have this power in my life at any cost so I found out where the church was enrolled on the course and focused on the weekend. I felt like a dying man waiting for a life saving operation. Never mind the weeks of pre-med, I just had to get into the operating theatre... I looked at the order of play and saw that the third session (which I identified as the main one) was at 4.30pm and simply hung on like a marathon runner weaving his way up the final straight with nothing but the finishing tape as the focus of his attention. I'll never forget that session. I felt as though I was being torn in two. Halfway through I couldn't stand it any more. The prize was so near but we were getting there so slowly! I literally wanted to scream out "Do it now! Do it now! I couldn't hold out any longer. I'm not exaggerating when I say I was in agony. Then God came and then came the relief.
This is deeply troubling. This personregards the talks on 'who is Jesus?' and 'Why did he die? as pre-med. The focus of his attention is specifically identified as being not the Lord Jesus, not the Cross, not even The Holy Spirit, but the third session 'How can I be filled with the Spirit?' Sadly such a testimony is repeated again and again. This is hardly surprising as guests are made expectant of variously; 'physical heat sometimes accompanies the filling of the Spirit and people experience it in their hands or some other part of their bodies. The experience is described as 'glowing all over', liquid heat, burning in my arms when I was not hot. Still another said 'I didn't want to come to the weekend and I did. But I would call myself a Christian now. I would say that I felt the Holy Spirit. I was feeling I was loved. It was really a tremendous overwhelming feeling of love'. Again what is conspicuous by its absence in so many of these testimonies is any mention of Jesus and his atoning sacrifice on the Cross which is the heart of the Biblical gospel.
In concluding this section two things stand out. First this isn't simply a case of Christians having different views on who the Holy Spirit is and what He does. It is that, but it is considerably more than that. For it seems that what is being presented is an entirely different view of conversion. More often than not Alpha seems to invite people to have an experience of God's love and the power of the Holy Spirit rather than calling for obedience to the message of the gospel. To suggest that these topics are best left to the follow up courses is to shy away from presenting the cost of discipleship in the gospel presentation itself. I fear that this is a ‘secret and shameful way’ 2 Corinthians 4:2 It is not setting forth the truth plainly. Scripture commands us to believe that Jesus is Lord which must lead to repentance from sin and a belief in the good news that 'Jesus came into the World to save sinners'. (1 Tim 1:15.) Then and only then will the regenerate person be justified before a Holy God, be filled with all of the Holy Spirit, and have absolute assurance of anger propitiated, sins forgiven, and of heaven ahead.
Needless to say that to be born again in this Biblical sense is a profoundly 'emotional experience'. It is not suggested for a moment that we must shun emotion or experience; rather it is insisted, as the scriptures insist, that there is content to what Christians believe and substance to our experience of God's grace.
The second thing to say is that Alpha may be guilty of the error of over-realized eschatology. It seems to have lost sight of the innumerable blessings of heaven and of that day in the future when the believer who has been sealed with the Holy Spirit will enjoy them. The direct result of an over-inflated view of what we can have now is that the glorious future in store for Christians is minimized. By bringing the 'not yet' into the 'now' Alpha promises far too much and is in danger of misleading people as to the nature of the Christian life. Like the Corinthians, those who buy into this will have too high a view of their present position such that Paul could say of them with heavy sarcasm, "Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich' (1Cor 4:8). Sadly it seems that Alpha panders to our society's desire for the instant and has lost sight of the need for believers to 'turn to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his son from heaven whom he raised from the dead - Jesus who rescues us from the coming wrath' (1 Thess 1:9-10). The gospel of Christ is unashamedly future rather than present centered.
Questions to Ask.
I am well aware that much of this analysis has pointed out areas where I think that Alpha is weak. I hope this is not perceived as 'nasty and petty' but rather born out of a desire to see the Biblical gospel clearly proclaimed.
In particular it would seem that Alpha is ‘man centered’ such that it preaches a gospel which appeals to people's felt needs, and is also 'now centered' such that it presents a gospel which focuses on the present rather than the future. The heart of the gospel, that Jesus Christ, crucified and raised is Lord, is displaced. In the light of this there are a number of tough questions to ask.
1. At what stage does a change in emphasis effectively mean that we are preaching another gospel?
2. Is it right to adopt the attitude that it better to do something than nothing when that something' may be distorting the biblical gospel? Sadly it would seem that many are taking this approach. I am not suggesting that another course will get the gospel exactly right but that where any course can be shown to be scripturally deficient action must be taken. The bible must be our guide.
3. We should also ask what is the interface between pragmatic considerations and theological convictions? So many endorse Alpha on the grounds that ‘It works'. An Alpha friend of mine writes:
“Neither should we necessarily reject it because it works. I believe the course has clearly been used by God in today’s world. If it is so far from the truth I find it difficult to understand why a huge resistance has not been witnessed.”
It is just this kind of pragmatic argument that threatens the authority of scripture for determining the content of our evangelistic courses. Popularity can never legitimize Alpha or anything else for that matter. (2Tim 4:3). Paul’s charge to Timothy is to ‘Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season (ie even when the truth will not be received well by all) correct rebuke and encourage – with great patience and careful instruction.
4. Is it better to try to amend Alpha or use another evangelistic course?. Many churches have sought to adapt it but doing so not only does not respect the copyright of Alpha, but results in people who have come through an adapted Alpha believing they have been taught the same thing as an un-adapted one. This can only lead to further confusion. It is my conviction that there is so much that needs changing that it would be better to look elsewhere. Christianity Explored is a course based on Mark's Gospel that provides an excellent Biblical alternative. More details are available by clicking here: http://www.christianityexplored.com/.
5. Lastly, how are we to relate to those who run Alpha? This is pertinent to me having several friends who are involved in running Alpha courses. I hope that credit is given where it is due and that we will learn from all that is good in Alpha. At the same time we must speak the truth in love and remain committed to Biblical truth. It must be right to continue to think and asses all that we do with Scripture as our only judge. If this has encouraged you to think whether the gospel presented in Alpha is the gospel of Scripture then I thank God.
Bibliography
People may recognise some of my arguments from the books below. I was not happy with everything that any of them said and so needed to write an essay of my own. I am also indebted to an essay written by Robin Weekes for much of the analysis in this one!
1.Gumbel N Questions of Life (Kingsway, 1993)
2.Telling Others - The Alpha initiative (kingsway, 1994)
3.Challenging Lifestyle (Kingsway, 1996)
4.Alpha Manual (HTB Publishing, 1994)
5.Alpha Website
6.Scholes W.D. A is for Alpha, B is for Berean in The Churchman Vol 112 No4 1998 pp 294 - 312
7.McDonald, E Alpha New life or New Lifestyle? (St Matthew Publications, 1996)
8.Hand C Falling Short? (Day One Publications, 1998)
9.Chapman, J First things first: The Alpha Course examined in The Briefing No 185 pp 7-10.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Cranmer Belongs Exclusively to Reformed Anglicans or the Anglo-Reformed
Cranmer Belongs Exclusively to Reformed Anglicans or the Anglo-Reformed. Liberals, charismatics, and Anglo-Catholics, goodbye.
Dr. Ashley Null on Thomas Cranmer : Anglican Church League, Sydney, Australia
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 be 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.
Dr. Ashley Null on Thomas Cranmer : Anglican Church League, Sydney, Australia
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 be 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.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Letter to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth 11
(Mailed in the week of the First Sunday in Advent, 2010)Donald Philip Veitch
125 Kemberly Court
Jacksonville, North Carolina
United States of America 28540
5 December 2010
Second Sunday in Advent
Her Majesty, the Queen
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA
Madam:
I write as an Anglican in a distressful, confused, and American Babylonian Exile. I forego elaboration.
I viewed your brief presentation to the General Synod of the Church of England of date 23 November 2010, including the reference to the King James Bible. As such, I was encouraged to write.
Your Majesty, I most respectfully request consideration of the following:
1. A public call by Your Majesty in 2011 to all primates, bishops, dioceses and parishes throughout the worldwide Anglican communion to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, so long a governing force for the Protestant and Reformed faith in the English world.
2. A public call by Your Majesty in 2012 to all primates, bishops, dioceses and parishes throughout the worldwide Anglican communion to commemorate the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the legal book of worship for the Church of England. This would be the 350th anniversary. Notwithstanding modern currents against its use, a word from Your Majesty, suggesting one Lord’s Day--just one Lord's Day--in 2012 for use of "The Morning Prayer, the Litany and the Holy Communion" would be welcomed, recalibrative, and respectful of our common doctrine, worship and piety.
3. Upon the good news of Prince William’s and Kate Middleton’s marriage-to-be at Westminster Abbey on 29 April 2011, it is hoped that the service for the 1662 Book of Common Prayer will be used.
4. Your Majesty, the coronation oath of 1953 and 1701 brings hope and consolation for the future. “Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?” Your Majesty’s support would resound worldwide—as it ought.
I fully realize that Your Majesty is busy and that a form letter will be issued. Nonetheless, I pray that a staff member will present these matters to Your Majesty for your consideration.
Additionally, although an American, I use the 1662 Book of Common Prayer daily and throughout the year, including the singing and use of Psalter-lections as aided by that stellar CD-set from St. Paul’s Cathedral, London. Yes, I also pray for Your Majesty, Philip the Duke of Edinburgh, and Charles Prince of Wales—by day and night, at 10 A.M. and 4 P.M.—along with the President of the United States of America. As such, you may understand that this scribe is an American Anglican in a dry, arid, and forlorn Babylonian Exile. There is no interest in that old, goodly and godly Book in my country. We so desperately need that old doctrine, worship and piety.
I have copied Your Majesty’s two Archbishops and five Professor-Scholar-Pastors with constituencies of concern, if not fear, for the success and maintenance of the revered, lawful, biblical, Protestant and Reformed faith of the Church of England.
I have the honor to remain, Madam,
Your Majesty's most humble and obedient servant by way of prayer and support,
125 Kemberly Court
Jacksonville, North Carolina
United States of America 28540
5 December 2010
Second Sunday in Advent
Her Majesty, the Queen
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA
Madam:
I write as an Anglican in a distressful, confused, and American Babylonian Exile. I forego elaboration.
I viewed your brief presentation to the General Synod of the Church of England of date 23 November 2010, including the reference to the King James Bible. As such, I was encouraged to write.
Your Majesty, I most respectfully request consideration of the following:
1. A public call by Your Majesty in 2011 to all primates, bishops, dioceses and parishes throughout the worldwide Anglican communion to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, so long a governing force for the Protestant and Reformed faith in the English world.
2. A public call by Your Majesty in 2012 to all primates, bishops, dioceses and parishes throughout the worldwide Anglican communion to commemorate the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the legal book of worship for the Church of England. This would be the 350th anniversary. Notwithstanding modern currents against its use, a word from Your Majesty, suggesting one Lord’s Day--just one Lord's Day--in 2012 for use of "The Morning Prayer, the Litany and the Holy Communion" would be welcomed, recalibrative, and respectful of our common doctrine, worship and piety.
3. Upon the good news of Prince William’s and Kate Middleton’s marriage-to-be at Westminster Abbey on 29 April 2011, it is hoped that the service for the 1662 Book of Common Prayer will be used.
4. Your Majesty, the coronation oath of 1953 and 1701 brings hope and consolation for the future. “Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?” Your Majesty’s support would resound worldwide—as it ought.
I fully realize that Your Majesty is busy and that a form letter will be issued. Nonetheless, I pray that a staff member will present these matters to Your Majesty for your consideration.
Additionally, although an American, I use the 1662 Book of Common Prayer daily and throughout the year, including the singing and use of Psalter-lections as aided by that stellar CD-set from St. Paul’s Cathedral, London. Yes, I also pray for Your Majesty, Philip the Duke of Edinburgh, and Charles Prince of Wales—by day and night, at 10 A.M. and 4 P.M.—along with the President of the United States of America. As such, you may understand that this scribe is an American Anglican in a dry, arid, and forlorn Babylonian Exile. There is no interest in that old, goodly and godly Book in my country. We so desperately need that old doctrine, worship and piety.
I have copied Your Majesty’s two Archbishops and five Professor-Scholar-Pastors with constituencies of concern, if not fear, for the success and maintenance of the revered, lawful, biblical, Protestant and Reformed faith of the Church of England.
I have the honor to remain, Madam,
Your Majesty's most humble and obedient servant by way of prayer and support,
(Signed)
Donald Philip Veitch
Cc:
The Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, UK
The Office of the Archbishop of York, UK
The Rev. Dr. R. Scott Clark (Professor, Westminster Theological Seminary, California)
The Rev. Mr. Richard Ingalls, Jr. (Rector, Mariners’ Anglican Church, Detroit, MI)
The Rev. Dr. Allen C. Guelzo (Professor, Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, PA)
The Rev. Dr. R.C. Sproul (Ligonier Ministries, Lake Mary, FL)
The Rev. Dr. Richard Turnbull (Principal, Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University, UK)
Donald Philip Veitch
Cc:
The Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, UK
The Office of the Archbishop of York, UK
The Rev. Dr. R. Scott Clark (Professor, Westminster Theological Seminary, California)
The Rev. Mr. Richard Ingalls, Jr. (Rector, Mariners’ Anglican Church, Detroit, MI)
The Rev. Dr. Allen C. Guelzo (Professor, Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, PA)
The Rev. Dr. R.C. Sproul (Ligonier Ministries, Lake Mary, FL)
The Rev. Dr. Richard Turnbull (Principal, Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University, UK)
Friday, December 3, 2010
Church Halfly Reformed
A Church Halfly Reformed
by Peter Adam
Introduction
In William Fuller's 'Booke to the queene', he complains that Queen Elizabeth 'hath so insufficientlie heard, believed, and taken to heart what God hath commanded you, and so weakly and coldly obeyed', that 'but halflie by your majesty hath God been honoured, his church reformed and established, his people taught and comforted.'[1] His complaint is of a church 'but halfly reformed', a church in which the Reformation has proceeded 'but halfly forward and more than halfly backward.'[2] The great Puritan plan to reform the national church was to continue for one hundred years. Some gave up the attempt and started new churches in the American colonies; many resigned in 1662 rather than continue ministry in a church that made unacceptable demands on them, and was so resistant to reform.
The subject of this lecture is the reformation of the church. We will outline the Puritan attempt to reform the church by political action and by the preaching of the word. We will identify with the great dilemma of those who wish to purify the church in any age; how can we best achieve reformation, and what should we do when that reformation limps on 'but halfly forward', or when it seems to be going backward? This is the problem of living in a mixed church, when those opposed to its reformation by the word of God seem to have power and influence, and when ungodly patterns of life and ministry seem to be increasing. The dilemma of the Puritans from 1559 to 1662 is shared by would-be reformers in every age, not least at the end of the 20th century.
For more on Reformed Anglicans, see:
Church Halfly Reformed
by Peter Adam
Introduction
In William Fuller's 'Booke to the queene', he complains that Queen Elizabeth 'hath so insufficientlie heard, believed, and taken to heart what God hath commanded you, and so weakly and coldly obeyed', that 'but halflie by your majesty hath God been honoured, his church reformed and established, his people taught and comforted.'[1] His complaint is of a church 'but halfly reformed', a church in which the Reformation has proceeded 'but halfly forward and more than halfly backward.'[2] The great Puritan plan to reform the national church was to continue for one hundred years. Some gave up the attempt and started new churches in the American colonies; many resigned in 1662 rather than continue ministry in a church that made unacceptable demands on them, and was so resistant to reform.
The subject of this lecture is the reformation of the church. We will outline the Puritan attempt to reform the church by political action and by the preaching of the word. We will identify with the great dilemma of those who wish to purify the church in any age; how can we best achieve reformation, and what should we do when that reformation limps on 'but halfly forward', or when it seems to be going backward? This is the problem of living in a mixed church, when those opposed to its reformation by the word of God seem to have power and influence, and when ungodly patterns of life and ministry seem to be increasing. The dilemma of the Puritans from 1559 to 1662 is shared by would-be reformers in every age, not least at the end of the 20th century.
For more on Reformed Anglicans, see:
Church Halfly Reformed
Latimer Trust: The True Profession of the Gospel
Latimer Trust: The True Profession of the Gospel
The True Profession of the Gospel
The True Profession of the Gospel: Augustus Toplady and Reclaiming our Reformed Foundations by Lee Gatiss
“Whilst the Calvinistic doctrines were the language of our pulpits as well as of our Articles, the Reformation made a swift and extensive progress. But ever since our Articles and our pulpits have been at variance, the Reformation has been at a stand.” Augustus Montague Toplady
At every Coronation for over three hundred years, British Monarchs have promised to maintain, “the true profession of the gospel... the Protestant Reformed religion.” At a time when many Evangelicals and Anglicans are questioning their theology and re-thinking their identity, it is more important than ever for us to remember this gospel of sovereign grace.
This book shows how God has used the Reformed gospel of ‘grace alone’ to revitalise churches riddled with immorality and flagging in meaning and purpose. With a focus on hymn-writer and theologian Augustus Toplady, it retells the story of Reformation and Revival for a new generation looking to draw strength from its roots.
“Lee Gatiss does a fine job of reminding his church that Latitudinarianism, Anglo-Catholicism, Liberalism, and theologically lightweight evangelicalism are not the only traditions which can lay claim to being Anglican.” Carl Trueman, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia
“Readers will find this study at once encouraging and challenging. It is a strong example of the way in which historical writing can be both responsible and transparently useful for the church today.” Garry Williams, The John Owen Centre, London
Lee Gatiss is engaged in Doctoral studies at Cambridge, following parochial work in Northamptonshire and London. He is Editor of The Theologian: The Internet Journal for Integrated Theology at http://www.theologian.org.uk/.
First Published 2010: 130 pages
The True Profession of the Gospel
The True Profession of the Gospel: Augustus Toplady and Reclaiming our Reformed Foundations by Lee Gatiss
“Whilst the Calvinistic doctrines were the language of our pulpits as well as of our Articles, the Reformation made a swift and extensive progress. But ever since our Articles and our pulpits have been at variance, the Reformation has been at a stand.” Augustus Montague Toplady
At every Coronation for over three hundred years, British Monarchs have promised to maintain, “the true profession of the gospel... the Protestant Reformed religion.” At a time when many Evangelicals and Anglicans are questioning their theology and re-thinking their identity, it is more important than ever for us to remember this gospel of sovereign grace.
This book shows how God has used the Reformed gospel of ‘grace alone’ to revitalise churches riddled with immorality and flagging in meaning and purpose. With a focus on hymn-writer and theologian Augustus Toplady, it retells the story of Reformation and Revival for a new generation looking to draw strength from its roots.
“Lee Gatiss does a fine job of reminding his church that Latitudinarianism, Anglo-Catholicism, Liberalism, and theologically lightweight evangelicalism are not the only traditions which can lay claim to being Anglican.” Carl Trueman, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia
“Readers will find this study at once encouraging and challenging. It is a strong example of the way in which historical writing can be both responsible and transparently useful for the church today.” Garry Williams, The John Owen Centre, London
Lee Gatiss is engaged in Doctoral studies at Cambridge, following parochial work in Northamptonshire and London. He is Editor of The Theologian: The Internet Journal for Integrated Theology at http://www.theologian.org.uk/.
First Published 2010: 130 pages
Anglicans Ablaze: Book Reviews: Anti-Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I
Anglicans Ablaze: Book Reviews: Anti-Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I
A book review:
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/HistoryofChristianity/ReformationCounterReformation/?view=usa&ci=9780199533367
Description
This book is a study of the Anglican Reformed tradition (often inaccurately described as Calvinist) after the Restoration. Hampton sets out to revise our picture of the theological world of the later Stuart period. Arguing that the importance of the Reformed theological tradition has frequently been underestimated, his study points to a network of conforming reformed theologians which included many of the most prominent churchmen of the age. Focusing particularly on what these churchmen contributed in three hotly disputed areas of doctrine (justification, the Trinity and the divine attributes), he argues that the most significant debates in speculative theology after 1662 were the result of the Anglican Reformed resistance to the growing influence of continental Arminianism.
Hampton demonstrates the strength and flexibility of the Reformed response to the developing Arminian school, and shows that the Reformed tradition remained a viable theological option for Anglicans well into the eighteenth century. This study therefore provides a significant bridge linking the Reformed writes of the Elizabethan and early Stuart periods to the Reformed Evangelicals of the eighteenth century. It also shows that, throughout its formative period, Anglicanism was not a monolithic tradition, but rather a contested ground between the competing claims of those adhering to the Church of England's Reformed doctrinal heritage and the insights of those who, to varying degrees, were prepared to explore new theological avenues.
A book review:
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/HistoryofChristianity/ReformationCounterReformation/?view=usa&ci=9780199533367
Description
This book is a study of the Anglican Reformed tradition (often inaccurately described as Calvinist) after the Restoration. Hampton sets out to revise our picture of the theological world of the later Stuart period. Arguing that the importance of the Reformed theological tradition has frequently been underestimated, his study points to a network of conforming reformed theologians which included many of the most prominent churchmen of the age. Focusing particularly on what these churchmen contributed in three hotly disputed areas of doctrine (justification, the Trinity and the divine attributes), he argues that the most significant debates in speculative theology after 1662 were the result of the Anglican Reformed resistance to the growing influence of continental Arminianism.
Hampton demonstrates the strength and flexibility of the Reformed response to the developing Arminian school, and shows that the Reformed tradition remained a viable theological option for Anglicans well into the eighteenth century. This study therefore provides a significant bridge linking the Reformed writes of the Elizabethan and early Stuart periods to the Reformed Evangelicals of the eighteenth century. It also shows that, throughout its formative period, Anglicanism was not a monolithic tradition, but rather a contested ground between the competing claims of those adhering to the Church of England's Reformed doctrinal heritage and the insights of those who, to varying degrees, were prepared to explore new theological avenues.
Anti-Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I | Church History | Find Articles at BNET
Anti-Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I Church History Find Articles at BNET
Anti-Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I. By Stephen Hampton. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. 296 pp. $240.00 cloth.
In 1716 William Nicolson, the bishop of Carlisle and almoner to George I, preached the Spital Sermon at St. Bride's before the assembled London magistracy. His text was Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." Essentially Stephen Hampton has set out to explain why a bishop, apparently favored by the Crown, should be preaching on the theme that one is justified by faith alone a long generation after the supposed triumph of Arminianism at the Restoration of Church and Crown in 1660. After all, Reformed Protestantism was supposed to have been discredited by the Civil Wars and Interregnum, by the Puritan Revolution, and while the Reformed faith might survive among some of the Dissenting churchmen, the Reformed divinity and its adherents were supposed to have been purged from the restored episcopalian church by the Act of Uniformity in 1662. Certainly Archbishops Sheldon and Tillotson were known to be hostile to a Reformed soteriology, so what Hampton has set out to explain is how it came about that a minister and bishop as late as 1716 was still publicly preaching in defense of so central a Reformed understanding of justification.
This is not an easy book. The treatises examined were works of sophisticated theologians, and Hampton does not simplify their arguments. Much of these academic treatises were in Latin, and Hampton provides translations in his text and the Latin in footnotes. On the other hand, if the book is difficult and the analysis subtle, Hampton writes with enviable clarity and precision. It is a study that anyone interested in the theological controversies of the late Stuart church will have to read; in light of that consideration, it is a pity that Oxford University Press has priced it beyond the reach of most academics.
Paul S. Seaver
Stanford University
Anti-Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I. By Stephen Hampton. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. 296 pp. $240.00 cloth.
In 1716 William Nicolson, the bishop of Carlisle and almoner to George I, preached the Spital Sermon at St. Bride's before the assembled London magistracy. His text was Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." Essentially Stephen Hampton has set out to explain why a bishop, apparently favored by the Crown, should be preaching on the theme that one is justified by faith alone a long generation after the supposed triumph of Arminianism at the Restoration of Church and Crown in 1660. After all, Reformed Protestantism was supposed to have been discredited by the Civil Wars and Interregnum, by the Puritan Revolution, and while the Reformed faith might survive among some of the Dissenting churchmen, the Reformed divinity and its adherents were supposed to have been purged from the restored episcopalian church by the Act of Uniformity in 1662. Certainly Archbishops Sheldon and Tillotson were known to be hostile to a Reformed soteriology, so what Hampton has set out to explain is how it came about that a minister and bishop as late as 1716 was still publicly preaching in defense of so central a Reformed understanding of justification.
This is not an easy book. The treatises examined were works of sophisticated theologians, and Hampton does not simplify their arguments. Much of these academic treatises were in Latin, and Hampton provides translations in his text and the Latin in footnotes. On the other hand, if the book is difficult and the analysis subtle, Hampton writes with enviable clarity and precision. It is a study that anyone interested in the theological controversies of the late Stuart church will have to read; in light of that consideration, it is a pity that Oxford University Press has priced it beyond the reach of most academics.
Paul S. Seaver
Stanford University
D-Day+6: Tractarians, Purgatory, ACNA, REC, Virtue, Iker, Integrity (GAFCON)
by Donald Philip Veitch
10 November 1890:
Anglo-Catholics and Purgatory
Historic Anglicans have confessed for centuries: “Neither let us dream any more, that the souls of the dead are anything holpen by our prayers” (Homily Concerning Prayer. Third part).
We deal here with several things: (1) the introduction of Romanism and purgatory to Anglicanism and, by implication, (2) weak, incompetent or indifferent Anglican and Episcopal Bishops in ACNA, REC, APA, AMiA, and at http://www.virtueonline.org/.
The “Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament (C.S.B), a Tractarian Anglican group, began however to be unsatisfied with mere prayers for the dead. In an “advanced” direction, they initiated the annual “Mass for the Dead”. These men of the C.S.B. are like Roman Catholics, believing that such earthly intercessions improve the lot of the departed.
Lord Halifax, an Anglo-Romaphile, published this in the Eighteenth Annual Report of C.B.S, p.xii:
“As the cross sums up in one single act the atoning efficacy of the offering which Christ made through his whole life and by His death upon the Cross, so the Eucharist, which perpetuates and applies that offering, enables us to offer up our whole souls and bodies in life and in death as an acceptable sacrifice to the Father of all…Are we troubled about those who in the shadow of death are awaiting the Judgment? The blood of the Sacrifice reaches down to the prisoners of hope, and the dead as they are made to possess their old sins in the darkness of the grave, thanks us as we offer for them the Sacrifice which restores to light and immortality.”
(Walsh, The Secret History of the Oxford Movement (London: Swan Sonnenschin and Co., Lim., 1899)
On 14 November 1890, Rev. E. de S. Wood stated “without blush, shame or integrity”, at the “Mass for the Dead” or the “Solemn Requiem” said:
“The souls in Paradise are offering the homage of their spiritual sufferings in the realms of Purgatory, and are helped by our prayers and Eucharistic services.”
Yet, what is offered is a concordat of Bishop Peter Akinola (Nigeria), Bishop Riches (REC) and Bishop Grunsdorf (APA) is world-class accomodationism.
Grunsdorf has purgatorialists throughout the APA. Yet, Grunsdorf claims to hold the Thirty-nine Articles? Where's the integrity of Bp. Riches and his associates?
But then Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) allows Anglo-Catholic and purgatorialists under the same roof while postulating adherence to the the Thirty-nine Articles.
We look for media and investigative articles. We get none.
David Virtue lauds them all while thumping Western liberal homo-erotica. Virtue plants his head in the sand and we get silence across the entire media and ACNA-front.
We have integrity and leadership problems.
10 November 1890:
Anglo-Catholics and Purgatory
Historic Anglicans have confessed for centuries: “Neither let us dream any more, that the souls of the dead are anything holpen by our prayers” (Homily Concerning Prayer. Third part).
We deal here with several things: (1) the introduction of Romanism and purgatory to Anglicanism and, by implication, (2) weak, incompetent or indifferent Anglican and Episcopal Bishops in ACNA, REC, APA, AMiA, and at http://www.virtueonline.org/.
The “Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament (C.S.B), a Tractarian Anglican group, began however to be unsatisfied with mere prayers for the dead. In an “advanced” direction, they initiated the annual “Mass for the Dead”. These men of the C.S.B. are like Roman Catholics, believing that such earthly intercessions improve the lot of the departed.
Lord Halifax, an Anglo-Romaphile, published this in the Eighteenth Annual Report of C.B.S, p.xii:
“As the cross sums up in one single act the atoning efficacy of the offering which Christ made through his whole life and by His death upon the Cross, so the Eucharist, which perpetuates and applies that offering, enables us to offer up our whole souls and bodies in life and in death as an acceptable sacrifice to the Father of all…Are we troubled about those who in the shadow of death are awaiting the Judgment? The blood of the Sacrifice reaches down to the prisoners of hope, and the dead as they are made to possess their old sins in the darkness of the grave, thanks us as we offer for them the Sacrifice which restores to light and immortality.”
(Walsh, The Secret History of the Oxford Movement (London: Swan Sonnenschin and Co., Lim., 1899)
On 14 November 1890, Rev. E. de S. Wood stated “without blush, shame or integrity”, at the “Mass for the Dead” or the “Solemn Requiem” said:
“The souls in Paradise are offering the homage of their spiritual sufferings in the realms of Purgatory, and are helped by our prayers and Eucharistic services.”
Yet, what is offered is a concordat of Bishop Peter Akinola (Nigeria), Bishop Riches (REC) and Bishop Grunsdorf (APA) is world-class accomodationism.
Grunsdorf has purgatorialists throughout the APA. Yet, Grunsdorf claims to hold the Thirty-nine Articles? Where's the integrity of Bp. Riches and his associates?
But then Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) allows Anglo-Catholic and purgatorialists under the same roof while postulating adherence to the the Thirty-nine Articles.
We look for media and investigative articles. We get none.
David Virtue lauds them all while thumping Western liberal homo-erotica. Virtue plants his head in the sand and we get silence across the entire media and ACNA-front.
We have integrity and leadership problems.
Augustine: Authority of Scriptures
by Donald Philip Veitch
13 November 354 --Augustine: Authority of Scripture
Lest we forget
Lest we forget
Aurelius Augustus was born on 13 November 354. He was born in the fertile province Numidia in Northern Africa. He was passionate, intellectual, widely read, with neo-Platonic streaks, pious, and devoted to God. He is widely known for his famous statement, “Fecisti nos ad Ted, et insquietum est cor nostrum, donced requiescat in Te.” “You has made us for Yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in You.” (Augustine’s Confessions, 1.1)
No Christian has finished his reading or may claim literacy unless he has read this.
A pagan educator and rhetorician, Augustine was influenced by the Ambrose of Milan in terms of the literary quality of the sermons. Soon, Augustine was near conversion, but his neo-Platonic corruptions about marriage prevented him from converting. Finally, he convinced his long-time concubine, or common-law wife, to conjugally separate. Both agreed. Regrettably, this was never corrected but fostered and anti-Biblical diminishments of the honor of marriage (Heb.13.4).
Augustine would in time become famous for his involvements with Donatists, Pelagians, and a host of other issues. With Pelagius, he engaged the issues of the Fall, Original Sin, and Predestination, issues that remain alive especially in the unreflective and un-thoughtful times in which we live. Augustine was quiet-spoken, but his words would ring for centuries. As a result of Augustine’s engagements, his works take a polemic cast.
We would certainly recommend the Confessions, City of God, and his numerous writings against Pelagius and the Donatists. Some can be found at http://www.ccel.org/. Certain modifications and syntheses of Augustine were made by Romanists to protect their power.
Augustine would say that doctrines may be rejected freely without offense to those under whose name they are presented. This comports with Jerome who said, what does not agree with Scripture may as easily scorned as it may be proved. Or from the early period, Tertullian in De Resurrectione carnis where he calls people lucifugas, that is, people who flee the light of Scriptures.
Augustine would say:
“…No rigged balances, where we can weigh out what we please and as we please, saying according to our own will: `This is heavy; that is light.’ Rather let us bring forward the divine balance from the Holy Scripture, from the treasuries of the Lord, and on it let us weight what is heavier, or rather, let us not weigh but recognize what has been weighed by the Lord.” (De baptismo contra Donatistas, Bk.2, ch.9).
Or again:
“But now I ought not to quote the Nicean, nor you the Ariminesian Council, as if to judge beforehand. I will not be bound by the authority of this, nor you by the authority of that. On the authority of Scriptures and not on any one’s own, but on the common witnesses of both, let matters contend with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason.” (Contra Maximinum, Bk.3, ch.14).
Or in Augustine’s comments on Psalm 57:
“Let our books be taken away from the midst, and let the Book of God enter there. Listen to Christ speaking. Listen to truth talking”.
It is fascinating to read Augustine’s Homilies on various biblical books. He stays close to the text without reference to papal decrees, bulls, or even other books. The same may be said of Chrysostom’s Homilies. We shall keep our eyes open as we continue to sift the panorama of Augustine’s corpus.
Or Augustine’s quite damning statement about man-made religions within and without the stream of Christendom:
“Let us not hear: This I say, this you say; but thus says the Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and which we both believe. There let us seek the church, there let us discuss our case…Let those things be removed from our midst which we quote against each other not from divine canonical books but from elsewhere. Someone may perhaps ask: Why do you want to remove these things from our midst? Because I do not want the holy church proved by human documents but by divine oracles…Whatever they may adduce, and wherever they may quote from, let us rather, if we are His sheep, hear the voice of our Shepherd. Therefore let us search for the church in the sacred canonical Scriptures.” (De unitate ecclesiae, ch.3).
Or damningly,
“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion if against the canonical Scriptures of God.” (De unitate ecclesiae, ch.10)
Or censoriously re: the Ich-theologie of Constantinople, Rome and Tractarians:
“He who preaches another gospel, let him be cursed, or let him read it to me in the Holy Scriptures, and he shall not be cursed.”
Or with exquisite and polemical condemnation of all Ego-religions:
“Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord, but by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the Prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the evangelists, that is, by all the canonical authorities of the sacred books….let him not say it is true because this one or that one performed such and such marvelous things, or because me pray at the memorials of our dead and are heard, or because such an such things are taking place there, 9r because this one or that one has been such and such a vision either awake or dreamed it while asleep. Let these things be removed because they are either inventions of lying men or signs of deceiving spirits. For we also do not say that we should be believed because we are in the church of Christ, because innumerable bishops of our communion have commended this church to which we adhere, or because it has been praised by the councils of our colleagues, or because such great miracles both of answer to prayer and of healing take place throughout the world in the holy places which have our communion frequents…The Lord Jesus Himself, when after His resurrection He present His body to the eyes of His disciples that they might see and to their hands that they might tough it, lest they should think they were experiencing some deceit, nevertheless judged that He must strengthen them with the testimonies from the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms…These are the documents of our cause, these the foundations, these the pillars….Demand of them that they show some clear testimonies from the canonical books. Remember that they Lord said: `They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them’”. (De Unitate ecclesiaie, chapters 6, 10, 12, 16, 20)
In summary, it is best brought together by this principle of believing and living:
Read this to us from the Law, from the Prophets, from the Psalms, from the Gospels, read it from the apostolic writings, and we shall believe” (De unitate ecclesiae, ch.20).
Lest we forget Augustine, whom Luther called that “Blessed Augustine.” Lest we be misled by Ego-religions of Law-righteousness.
All religions are man-made or God-made, Law-righteousness or Grace, Anti-Christian or Christian.
No Christian has finished his reading or may claim literacy unless he has read this.
A pagan educator and rhetorician, Augustine was influenced by the Ambrose of Milan in terms of the literary quality of the sermons. Soon, Augustine was near conversion, but his neo-Platonic corruptions about marriage prevented him from converting. Finally, he convinced his long-time concubine, or common-law wife, to conjugally separate. Both agreed. Regrettably, this was never corrected but fostered and anti-Biblical diminishments of the honor of marriage (Heb.13.4).
Augustine would in time become famous for his involvements with Donatists, Pelagians, and a host of other issues. With Pelagius, he engaged the issues of the Fall, Original Sin, and Predestination, issues that remain alive especially in the unreflective and un-thoughtful times in which we live. Augustine was quiet-spoken, but his words would ring for centuries. As a result of Augustine’s engagements, his works take a polemic cast.
We would certainly recommend the Confessions, City of God, and his numerous writings against Pelagius and the Donatists. Some can be found at http://www.ccel.org/. Certain modifications and syntheses of Augustine were made by Romanists to protect their power.
Augustine would say that doctrines may be rejected freely without offense to those under whose name they are presented. This comports with Jerome who said, what does not agree with Scripture may as easily scorned as it may be proved. Or from the early period, Tertullian in De Resurrectione carnis where he calls people lucifugas, that is, people who flee the light of Scriptures.
Augustine would say:
“…No rigged balances, where we can weigh out what we please and as we please, saying according to our own will: `This is heavy; that is light.’ Rather let us bring forward the divine balance from the Holy Scripture, from the treasuries of the Lord, and on it let us weight what is heavier, or rather, let us not weigh but recognize what has been weighed by the Lord.” (De baptismo contra Donatistas, Bk.2, ch.9).
Or again:
“But now I ought not to quote the Nicean, nor you the Ariminesian Council, as if to judge beforehand. I will not be bound by the authority of this, nor you by the authority of that. On the authority of Scriptures and not on any one’s own, but on the common witnesses of both, let matters contend with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason.” (Contra Maximinum, Bk.3, ch.14).
Or in Augustine’s comments on Psalm 57:
“Let our books be taken away from the midst, and let the Book of God enter there. Listen to Christ speaking. Listen to truth talking”.
It is fascinating to read Augustine’s Homilies on various biblical books. He stays close to the text without reference to papal decrees, bulls, or even other books. The same may be said of Chrysostom’s Homilies. We shall keep our eyes open as we continue to sift the panorama of Augustine’s corpus.
Or Augustine’s quite damning statement about man-made religions within and without the stream of Christendom:
“Let us not hear: This I say, this you say; but thus says the Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and which we both believe. There let us seek the church, there let us discuss our case…Let those things be removed from our midst which we quote against each other not from divine canonical books but from elsewhere. Someone may perhaps ask: Why do you want to remove these things from our midst? Because I do not want the holy church proved by human documents but by divine oracles…Whatever they may adduce, and wherever they may quote from, let us rather, if we are His sheep, hear the voice of our Shepherd. Therefore let us search for the church in the sacred canonical Scriptures.” (De unitate ecclesiae, ch.3).
Or damningly,
“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion if against the canonical Scriptures of God.” (De unitate ecclesiae, ch.10)
Or censoriously re: the Ich-theologie of Constantinople, Rome and Tractarians:
“He who preaches another gospel, let him be cursed, or let him read it to me in the Holy Scriptures, and he shall not be cursed.”
Or with exquisite and polemical condemnation of all Ego-religions:
“Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord, but by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the Prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the evangelists, that is, by all the canonical authorities of the sacred books….let him not say it is true because this one or that one performed such and such marvelous things, or because me pray at the memorials of our dead and are heard, or because such an such things are taking place there, 9r because this one or that one has been such and such a vision either awake or dreamed it while asleep. Let these things be removed because they are either inventions of lying men or signs of deceiving spirits. For we also do not say that we should be believed because we are in the church of Christ, because innumerable bishops of our communion have commended this church to which we adhere, or because it has been praised by the councils of our colleagues, or because such great miracles both of answer to prayer and of healing take place throughout the world in the holy places which have our communion frequents…The Lord Jesus Himself, when after His resurrection He present His body to the eyes of His disciples that they might see and to their hands that they might tough it, lest they should think they were experiencing some deceit, nevertheless judged that He must strengthen them with the testimonies from the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms…These are the documents of our cause, these the foundations, these the pillars….Demand of them that they show some clear testimonies from the canonical books. Remember that they Lord said: `They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them’”. (De Unitate ecclesiaie, chapters 6, 10, 12, 16, 20)
In summary, it is best brought together by this principle of believing and living:
Read this to us from the Law, from the Prophets, from the Psalms, from the Gospels, read it from the apostolic writings, and we shall believe” (De unitate ecclesiae, ch.20).
Lest we forget Augustine, whom Luther called that “Blessed Augustine.” Lest we be misled by Ego-religions of Law-righteousness.
All religions are man-made or God-made, Law-righteousness or Grace, Anti-Christian or Christian.
24 Nov 1843--Duplicity from John Henry Newman
24 November 1843
Lest we Forget—Duplicity from John Henry Newman
Scene 1. Player: John Henry Newman. Occasion: letter to close friend and fellow Tractarian or Oxfordian. Manner: private letter for the cognoscenti, “those in the know.”
Let us hear from Newman himself in his letter to the Rev. J.B. Mozley, dated 24 November 1843.
"Last summer four years (1839) it came strongly upon me, from reading first the Monophysite controvery and then turning to the Donatist, that we were external to the Catholic Church. I have never got over this. [PV, this is a conviction in 1839, but the thought had been there since 1833 also]. I did not, however, yield to it at all, but wrote an article in the British Critic on the catholicity of the English Church, which had the effect of quieting me for two years. Since this time two years the feeling has revived and gradually strengthened. I have all along gone against it, and think I ought to do so still. I am now publishing sermons, which speak more confidently about our position than I inwardly feel; but I think it right, and do not care for seeming for seeming inconsistency."[i]
Walter Walsh in The Secret History of the Oxford Movement says:
This “inconsistency,” or double-dealing, or whatever it may be called, was only a part and parcel of his ordinary conduct at this time.
His friend Isaac Williams says that the “feelings and thoughts he [Newman] would express to one person or at one time, differed very much in consequence from what he might express to another or on another occasion;” and he adds that it “was long before it was publicly known that Newman’s thoughts really were, and he was for some time accused by some of dishonesty and duplicity.”[ii] He was working in the dark, yet actively carrying on the secret underground conspiracy to bring back the Church of England to Rome.[iii]
Let us see the contradictions in Newman, the duplicity, in his Letter to the Bishop of Oxford on Occasion of Tract XC on 29 March 1841. Bear in mind the quote given above:
“The inestimable privileges I feel in being a member of that Church over which your lordship, with others, preside.[iv] “…the Church over which your lordship rules is a Divinely ordained channel of supernatural grace to the souls of her members.”[v] “…And I consider the Church over which your lordship presides to be the Catholic Church in this country.”[vi] “…it is plain that the English Church is at present on God’s side.”[vii]
Follow the timeline we have been developing.
Let’s listen to one of Newman’s close associate in conspiracy to de-Protestantize England.
It comes from a letter by the Rev. William George Ward, dated July 1841, to another co-conspirator Edward Pusey of Oxford. Ward says of the advancing Ritualistic and Romanizing views:…the following doctrines and practices allowed by the Articles:
(1) Invocation of saints;
(2) Veneration of Images and Relics;
(3) An intermediate state of purification;
(4) The Reservation of the Host;
(5) The Elevation of the Host;
(6) The infallibility of some General Councils;
(7) The doctrine of desert by congruity, in the received Roman sense;
(8) The doctrine that the Church ought to enforce celibacy on the clergy.[viii]
"Restoration of active communion with the Roman church is the most enchanting earthly prospect on which my imagination can dwell.”[ix]
What’s on offer by John Henry Newman and co-conspirator Rev. William George Ward, advanced Romanizers working surreptitiously, was the sufficient Romanizing of the Church of England for reunion with Rome.
Modus operandi: (1) say one thing to many and (2) conceal the agenda and communicate the real idea, Romanization of England.
The Society of the Holy Cross was a group of shock troopers, controlling the agenda and timeline of the Romanizers. Amazingly, this group was/is tolerated within the worldwide Anglican communion, including the U.K., the U.S.A., and my native land of Canada.
Also, Bishop Grunsdorf of the Anglican Province of America has one of these S.S.C. churchman in his Holy Cathedral of Orlando. This is what the once anti-Tractarian Reformed Episcopal Church resisted.
Before my own eyes, however, the REC sought union with the APA. Leo Riches signed a Concordat allowing Anglo-Romanists in REC pulpits.
We learn from John Henry Newman about corruption, deceit, hegemonies, dishonesty and lies in high places. Romans 5.13: “Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] Walsh, op.cit., 194.[ii] William’s Autobiography, Vol.II, 340.[iii] Walsh, op.cit., 195.
[iv] Newman’s Letters, Vol.2, 33.[v] Newman’s Letters, Vol.2, 34[vi] Newman’s Letters, Vol.2, 34
[vii] Newman’s Letters, Vol.2, [viii] William George Ward and the Oxford Movement, 176, as cited by Walsh, op.cit., 195.[ix] William George Ward and the Oxford Movement, 176, as cited by Walsh, op.cit., 196..
Lest we Forget—Duplicity from John Henry Newman
Scene 1. Player: John Henry Newman. Occasion: letter to close friend and fellow Tractarian or Oxfordian. Manner: private letter for the cognoscenti, “those in the know.”
Let us hear from Newman himself in his letter to the Rev. J.B. Mozley, dated 24 November 1843.
"Last summer four years (1839) it came strongly upon me, from reading first the Monophysite controvery and then turning to the Donatist, that we were external to the Catholic Church. I have never got over this. [PV, this is a conviction in 1839, but the thought had been there since 1833 also]. I did not, however, yield to it at all, but wrote an article in the British Critic on the catholicity of the English Church, which had the effect of quieting me for two years. Since this time two years the feeling has revived and gradually strengthened. I have all along gone against it, and think I ought to do so still. I am now publishing sermons, which speak more confidently about our position than I inwardly feel; but I think it right, and do not care for seeming for seeming inconsistency."[i]
Walter Walsh in The Secret History of the Oxford Movement says:
This “inconsistency,” or double-dealing, or whatever it may be called, was only a part and parcel of his ordinary conduct at this time.
His friend Isaac Williams says that the “feelings and thoughts he [Newman] would express to one person or at one time, differed very much in consequence from what he might express to another or on another occasion;” and he adds that it “was long before it was publicly known that Newman’s thoughts really were, and he was for some time accused by some of dishonesty and duplicity.”[ii] He was working in the dark, yet actively carrying on the secret underground conspiracy to bring back the Church of England to Rome.[iii]
Let us see the contradictions in Newman, the duplicity, in his Letter to the Bishop of Oxford on Occasion of Tract XC on 29 March 1841. Bear in mind the quote given above:
“The inestimable privileges I feel in being a member of that Church over which your lordship, with others, preside.[iv] “…the Church over which your lordship rules is a Divinely ordained channel of supernatural grace to the souls of her members.”[v] “…And I consider the Church over which your lordship presides to be the Catholic Church in this country.”[vi] “…it is plain that the English Church is at present on God’s side.”[vii]
Follow the timeline we have been developing.
Let’s listen to one of Newman’s close associate in conspiracy to de-Protestantize England.
It comes from a letter by the Rev. William George Ward, dated July 1841, to another co-conspirator Edward Pusey of Oxford. Ward says of the advancing Ritualistic and Romanizing views:…the following doctrines and practices allowed by the Articles:
(1) Invocation of saints;
(2) Veneration of Images and Relics;
(3) An intermediate state of purification;
(4) The Reservation of the Host;
(5) The Elevation of the Host;
(6) The infallibility of some General Councils;
(7) The doctrine of desert by congruity, in the received Roman sense;
(8) The doctrine that the Church ought to enforce celibacy on the clergy.[viii]
"Restoration of active communion with the Roman church is the most enchanting earthly prospect on which my imagination can dwell.”[ix]
What’s on offer by John Henry Newman and co-conspirator Rev. William George Ward, advanced Romanizers working surreptitiously, was the sufficient Romanizing of the Church of England for reunion with Rome.
Modus operandi: (1) say one thing to many and (2) conceal the agenda and communicate the real idea, Romanization of England.
The Society of the Holy Cross was a group of shock troopers, controlling the agenda and timeline of the Romanizers. Amazingly, this group was/is tolerated within the worldwide Anglican communion, including the U.K., the U.S.A., and my native land of Canada.
Also, Bishop Grunsdorf of the Anglican Province of America has one of these S.S.C. churchman in his Holy Cathedral of Orlando. This is what the once anti-Tractarian Reformed Episcopal Church resisted.
Before my own eyes, however, the REC sought union with the APA. Leo Riches signed a Concordat allowing Anglo-Romanists in REC pulpits.
We learn from John Henry Newman about corruption, deceit, hegemonies, dishonesty and lies in high places. Romans 5.13: “Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] Walsh, op.cit., 194.[ii] William’s Autobiography, Vol.II, 340.[iii] Walsh, op.cit., 195.
[iv] Newman’s Letters, Vol.2, 33.[v] Newman’s Letters, Vol.2, 34[vi] Newman’s Letters, Vol.2, 34
[vii] Newman’s Letters, Vol.2, [viii] William George Ward and the Oxford Movement, 176, as cited by Walsh, op.cit., 195.[ix] William George Ward and the Oxford Movement, 176, as cited by Walsh, op.cit., 196..
Anglicans Ablaze: The Perspicuity of Holy Scripture
Thursday, December 02, 2010The Perspicuity of Holy Scripture
William Whitaker (1548-1595) was a prominent Anglican theologian in the reign of Elizabeth I. He championed the teaching of the reformed Church of England against its Roman Catholic detractors particularly Robert Cardinal Bellarmine and Thomas Stapleton.
Whitaker, a nephew of Alexander Nowell, was a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. He was appointed Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge in 1580 and Master of St. John’s College in 1586. He wrote a number of theological treatises. The following passages are taken from A disputation on Holy Scripture, against the papists, especially Bellarmine and Stapleton.
For more, see:
Anglicans Ablaze: The Perspicuity of Holy Scripture
William Whitaker (1548-1595) was a prominent Anglican theologian in the reign of Elizabeth I. He championed the teaching of the reformed Church of England against its Roman Catholic detractors particularly Robert Cardinal Bellarmine and Thomas Stapleton.
Whitaker, a nephew of Alexander Nowell, was a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. He was appointed Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge in 1580 and Master of St. John’s College in 1586. He wrote a number of theological treatises. The following passages are taken from A disputation on Holy Scripture, against the papists, especially Bellarmine and Stapleton.
For more, see:
Anglicans Ablaze: The Perspicuity of Holy Scripture
26 November 1559: Bishop John Jewel Preaches at St. Paul’s, London
26 November 1559: Bishop John Jewel Preaches at St. Paul’s, London
A few discursive and unscientific thoughts about Jewel's sermon.
Luther is dead, 1546. Calvin is about to publish his magnum opus, The Institutes of Christian Religion. Cranmer and others have perished in the flames. Elizabeth is on the throne. Spaniards, France and Rome want England. Danger is everywhere in 1559.
Bishop John Jewel preaches at St. Paul’s on 26 November 1559.
A few observations on Anglicanism drawn from Horton Davies’ Worship and Theology in the Church of England: From Cranmer to Baxter and Fox, 1545-1690, Five Volumes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996).
Romanists had seven sacraments. Blue-suede-shoe and lime-green gabardine types, like the APA, Walter Grunsdorf and other Romewardizing Anglicans, have seven. Holy Orders was a Roman sacrament, but Ordination was not a sacrament, but a ceremony for the authorizing of Anglican ministry. Confirmation was important, but was never a sacrament; the same went for marriage. For Penance there was no equivalent at all, unless one points to the Declaration of the Remission of Sins by a minister in Christ’s name. Continental Reformers had the equivalent services, including confirmation. It was termed differently, but there is a service of recognition for becoming adult communicant in the Reformed and Presbyterian traditions, as well as Lutheran. Lutherans like Anglicans retained the service. There was no paedo-communion as theonomists like Ray Sutton have introduced. The Articles taught two sacraments.
The two major Gospel sacraments were retained—Baptism, as the sacrament of initiation to the visible Church and Holy Communion, the sacrament of spiritual nourishment.
According to Horton:
The Anglican objections to the Roman Mass were comprehensively and tersely listed by John Jewel in his notable "Challenge Sermon," preached at St. Paul's Cross November 26, 1559 and again on March 31, 1560, which had been repeated at Court exactly a fortnight earlier.
Jewel criticised these points: using Latin and not the vernacular, Communion in one kind, the teaching in the Canon on sacrifice, the adoration of the Sacrament, and private celebration.[i]
It is worth noting by way of practice: no elevation, no kissing of tables, no parading around, etc.
Jewel followed Cranmer on the Lord’s Supper. Three distinctions were made between Rome and early English Reformed theology: (1) There was a difference between the sign and the thing signified. (2) Christ is in heaven, not bodily on earth. Ubiquitarianism or Eutychianism was insurmountable for Cranmer, Jewel, as well as Continental, Swiss reformers. (3) The body of Christ was “eaten by faith only and none otherwise.” (Jewels’ Works, 1, 449 as cited by Davies, op.cit., 121.
Archbishop Grindal wryly observed:
Christ did eat the sacrament with the apostles: ergo, the sacrament is not Christ.” (The Remains of Edmund Grindal, D.D., ed. William Nicholson, p.43, cited by Davies, 121)
At one place, Hooker--he appears to be indifferent. This scribe has not been highly impressed with Hooker by comparison with Luther or Calvin. "Who cares about transubstantiation or consubstantiation?" asks Hooker.
“…why do we vainly trouble ourselves with so fierce contentions, whether by consubstantiation or else by transubstantiation the sacrament be first possessed with Christ or no? –a thing which no way can either further nor hinders us however it stand, because our participation with Christ in this sacrament dependeth on the co-operation of His omnipotent power which maketh it His body and blood to us, whether with change or without alteration of the elements such as they imagine, we need to not greatly to care of inquire.”[ii]
What are we to make of this? How does this comport with the Thirty-nine Articles?
At another point, it was said of Hooker: “…he too moved in the tracks laid down by Thomas Cranmer.”[iii] “The real presence is to be sought, according to Hooker, not in things but in person, not in consecrated elements but in consecrated persons receiving grace through faith.”[iv]
Back to Jewel and the sermon at St. Pauls on 26 November 1559. The sense of Jewel appears to follow Cranmer straight back to Calvin and Bucer rather than Zwingli. One must read Wallace's Calvin: The Word and Sacrament, which sounds very Cranmerian.
Beyond Jewel and a few years later, a scurrilous attack was given by a Rev. Bridges in a Sermon at St. Paul’s Cathedral in 1571. Lutherans would be affronted by this. Rev Bridges affirms that the Catholics had:
"…turned Chryst out of his owne likenesse, and made him looke lyke a rounde cake, nothyng lyke to Iesus Christe, no more than an apple is lyke an oyster, nor so mutche, for there appereth neyther armes nor handes, feete nor legges, back nor belly, heade nor body of Chryst: but all is visoured and disguysed under the fourme of a wafer, as lyghte as a feather, as thinne as a paper, as whyte as a kerchiefe, as round as a trenchour, as flat as a pancake, as smal as a shilling, as tender as the Priestes lemman that made it, as muche taste as a stycke, and as deade as a dore nayle to looke upon. O blessed God, dare they `thus disfigure our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ?"[v]
Lutheran brethren will confessionally affirm that Anglicans did not get it correct, e.g. the "Black Rubric." Hooker’s view of indifference (?) will be unsatisfying to them. I think Calvin had a higher sacramental view than is current among Presbyterians. Baptists and enthusiasts are excluded. We know where the Papists are. Ridley was comfortable with Ratramnus's views, to wit, that in the 9th century he spoke without official rebuke.
Kissing tables, monstrances with the little glass holes in the boxes to “see an impanated Jesus” as bread worshippers, Holy Roods, choking incense, Marian invocations and all were affronts, except for the blue-suede-shoe types. We are reminded of Archbishop Grindal's question, to wit, "If Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper and celebrated it the last night before His death, did He eat Himself?"
________________________________________
[i] Horton Davies’ Worship and Theology in the Church of England: From Cranmer to Baxter and Fox, 1545-1690, Five Volumes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 122.
[ii] Richard Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, ed. by Keble, V, lxvii, 12, 359. Davies’, op.cit., footnote 79, 33. Hooker is some of the most wearying reading one can do.
[iii] Horton Davies’ Worship and Theology in the Church of England: From Cranmer to Baxter and Fox, 1545-1690, Five Volumes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 122.
[iv] Richard Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, ed. by Keble, V, lxvii, 12, 359. Davies’, op.cit., footnote 170, 122.
[v] Horton Davies’ Worship and Theology in the Church of England: From Cranmer to Baxter and Fox, 1545-1690, Five Volumes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 33.
1 Dec 1539: Calvin about Luther
We bring a footnote from Philip Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 1, 431. We have been over this before, but this time we draw attention Calvin's letter to Farel on 1 December 1539. Bad blood existed between the Lutherans and the Swiss. It was ten years old and went back to the Marbury Colloquy of 1529. Bullinger was unamused with Luther. Calvin played the mediator with Bullinger and Farel. (Zwingli had been dead for over eight years at this point.)
Here’s Schaff’s footnote.
"2 Luther wrote to Bucer: `Greet Calvin, whose little works I have read with remarkable pleasure;' and Melancthon on Calvin wrote: `Calvin is in high favor here (magnam gratiam iniit).' See Calvin to Farel 1 Dec . 1539; Stahelin, Vol. I. p. 226; and De Wette's edition of Luther's letters, Vol. V. p. Calvin wrote to Bullinger, when the latter was provoked by the last rude assault of Luther upon the Zwinglians (1544): 'I implore you never to forget how great a man Luther is, and by what extraordinary gifts he excels. Think with what courage, what constancy, what power and success he has devoted himself to this day to the overthrow of the reign of Antichrist and the spreading of the doctrine of salvation far and near. As for me, I have often said, and I say it again, though he should call me a devil, I would still give him due honor, and recognize him, in spite of the great faults which obscure his extraordinary virtues, as a mighty servant of the Lord.' See Henry, Vol. II. "
Here’s Schaff’s footnote.
"2 Luther wrote to Bucer: `Greet Calvin, whose little works I have read with remarkable pleasure;' and Melancthon on Calvin wrote: `Calvin is in high favor here (magnam gratiam iniit).' See Calvin to Farel 1 Dec . 1539; Stahelin, Vol. I. p. 226; and De Wette's edition of Luther's letters, Vol. V. p. Calvin wrote to Bullinger, when the latter was provoked by the last rude assault of Luther upon the Zwinglians (1544): 'I implore you never to forget how great a man Luther is, and by what extraordinary gifts he excels. Think with what courage, what constancy, what power and success he has devoted himself to this day to the overthrow of the reign of Antichrist and the spreading of the doctrine of salvation far and near. As for me, I have often said, and I say it again, though he should call me a devil, I would still give him due honor, and recognize him, in spite of the great faults which obscure his extraordinary virtues, as a mighty servant of the Lord.' See Henry, Vol. II. "
John Wycliffe
Further observations with help of J H Merle d'Aubigne, Reformation in England, Vol.1, 89-100.
1. Scholasticiam buried Scriptures in obscurity and was withheld from the laity. After all, the Scriptures were NOT sufficient or perspicuous, but capable only of interpretation by the then schmismatized Papacy--who were busy hurling thunderbolts at each other, excommunicating one, abusing one another for close to a century. And seeking "rentals" for the privileges of Rome's feudal approbation.
2. Wycliffe did not know Greek and Hebrew. He worked from Jerome's Vulgate and the church fathers.
3. Though involved in his earlier life with politics, the latter stage of his life was driven by a love of Scriptures and the more he understood them, the more the truth shined into the Roman abyss and dark strongholds.
4. In earlier centuries, Bede, scholars from Aelfred's Court, Aelfrick, and Richard Polle had translated portions of the Bible, but in Wycliffe's time, this was forbidden. This scribe well remembers when Romanists were told to steer clear of the Bible and trust the church's view of the Bible. I know some elderly Roman believers who have affirmed this to me. Even still, there is a fear of Roman believers getting to close to those of the True Church. What are the Romanists afraid of?
5. Wycliffe's work exhibited quality leadership even beyond that on the Continent. Never mind Rome--they were busy fighting French prelates and kings and making iron swords and brass sceptres of spiritual keys.
6. Wycliffe's influence is not recorded well, although, in his day, it was said that one could hardly travel any of the English highways and byways and not meet a Wycliffite preacher---distinquishable by a brown overcoat to the feet. To date, we have 170 extant manuscripts from this pre-Gutenberg-printing-press-day, a testimony to the industry and committment to the mission of sola scriptura. Of course, those who write the history books as conquerors get to revise history. However, veritatem dies aperit--time discloses truth.
7. The lower clergy were offended. "Master Wycliffe, by translating the Gospel into English has rendered it more acceptable and more intelligible to laymen and even to women than it has hitherto been to learned and intelligent clerks. It is heresy to speak the Holy Gospels into English." We'll speak of Bishop Courtney's high profile opposition later.
8. Wycliffe's response ought be the same for us today. "Many nations have had the Bible in their own language. The Bible is the faith of the church. Though the pope and all his clerks should disappear from the face of the earth, our faith would not fail, for it is founded on Jesus alone, our Master and our God."
9. Late in life, as he matured in his theological reflections on the Bible, he tossed "transubstantiation" out based upon the plain meaning of the Bible, the plain meaning of the senses (common sense) and as understood throughout the church...circe 1000...perhaps with Berenger of Tours. Transubstantiation---and the inner dynamic for the quest for priestly and papal sovereignty, as usual, which it really is at bottom--was a "blasphemous deceit" and a "veritable abomination of desolation in the holy place." Basic bread- and wine-worshippers.
10. Aelfric of the Anglo-Norman church to the Archbishop of York: "The host is the body of Christ, not bodily but spiritually." Berenger of Tours wrote a defense of the Anglo-Norman view in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury to the same effect.
11. Wycliffe: "Since the year of our Lord 1000, all the doctors have been in erro about the sacrament of the alter--except, perhaps, it may be Berenger of Tours. `How canst thou, O priest, who art but a man, make thy Maker? What! the thing that groweth in the fields--that ear which thou pluckest today, shall be God tomorrow!!...As you cannot make the works which He made, how shall ye make Him who made the works? Woe to the adulterous generation that believeth the testimony of Innocent rather than the Gospel."
1. Scholasticiam buried Scriptures in obscurity and was withheld from the laity. After all, the Scriptures were NOT sufficient or perspicuous, but capable only of interpretation by the then schmismatized Papacy--who were busy hurling thunderbolts at each other, excommunicating one, abusing one another for close to a century. And seeking "rentals" for the privileges of Rome's feudal approbation.
2. Wycliffe did not know Greek and Hebrew. He worked from Jerome's Vulgate and the church fathers.
3. Though involved in his earlier life with politics, the latter stage of his life was driven by a love of Scriptures and the more he understood them, the more the truth shined into the Roman abyss and dark strongholds.
4. In earlier centuries, Bede, scholars from Aelfred's Court, Aelfrick, and Richard Polle had translated portions of the Bible, but in Wycliffe's time, this was forbidden. This scribe well remembers when Romanists were told to steer clear of the Bible and trust the church's view of the Bible. I know some elderly Roman believers who have affirmed this to me. Even still, there is a fear of Roman believers getting to close to those of the True Church. What are the Romanists afraid of?
5. Wycliffe's work exhibited quality leadership even beyond that on the Continent. Never mind Rome--they were busy fighting French prelates and kings and making iron swords and brass sceptres of spiritual keys.
6. Wycliffe's influence is not recorded well, although, in his day, it was said that one could hardly travel any of the English highways and byways and not meet a Wycliffite preacher---distinquishable by a brown overcoat to the feet. To date, we have 170 extant manuscripts from this pre-Gutenberg-printing-press-day, a testimony to the industry and committment to the mission of sola scriptura. Of course, those who write the history books as conquerors get to revise history. However, veritatem dies aperit--time discloses truth.
7. The lower clergy were offended. "Master Wycliffe, by translating the Gospel into English has rendered it more acceptable and more intelligible to laymen and even to women than it has hitherto been to learned and intelligent clerks. It is heresy to speak the Holy Gospels into English." We'll speak of Bishop Courtney's high profile opposition later.
8. Wycliffe's response ought be the same for us today. "Many nations have had the Bible in their own language. The Bible is the faith of the church. Though the pope and all his clerks should disappear from the face of the earth, our faith would not fail, for it is founded on Jesus alone, our Master and our God."
9. Late in life, as he matured in his theological reflections on the Bible, he tossed "transubstantiation" out based upon the plain meaning of the Bible, the plain meaning of the senses (common sense) and as understood throughout the church...circe 1000...perhaps with Berenger of Tours. Transubstantiation---and the inner dynamic for the quest for priestly and papal sovereignty, as usual, which it really is at bottom--was a "blasphemous deceit" and a "veritable abomination of desolation in the holy place." Basic bread- and wine-worshippers.
10. Aelfric of the Anglo-Norman church to the Archbishop of York: "The host is the body of Christ, not bodily but spiritually." Berenger of Tours wrote a defense of the Anglo-Norman view in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury to the same effect.
11. Wycliffe: "Since the year of our Lord 1000, all the doctors have been in erro about the sacrament of the alter--except, perhaps, it may be Berenger of Tours. `How canst thou, O priest, who art but a man, make thy Maker? What! the thing that groweth in the fields--that ear which thou pluckest today, shall be God tomorrow!!...As you cannot make the works which He made, how shall ye make Him who made the works? Woe to the adulterous generation that believeth the testimony of Innocent rather than the Gospel."
Walter Walsh: History of the Romeward Movement in the Church of Engalnd, 1833-1864
By Donald Philip Veitch
Walter Walsh, an Evangelical Anglican, exposed the war plans against Protestant Anglicans by the 19th century Tractarian, Oxfordian, and Ritualistic Romanisers (TORR hereafter). The toxicity of battle is exposed in The History of the Romeward Movement in the Church of England, 1833-1864. The book is freely downloadable at http://www.books.google.com/ with an author-book search.
TORR had governing, global, national, doctrinal, liturgical, and anti-Reformation objectives. Subordinate the English Church to Rome, seize assets, livings, institutional structures, and obliterate the Protestant face of worldwide Anglicanism. Newman, an instigator, penned Tract XC as an early broadside.
In Tract XC, Newman sought to obliterate the Protestantantism of the XXXIX Articles with this goal: “… ascertain the ultimate points of contrariety between the Roman and Anglican Creeds, and to make them as few as possible.” His opinion of Article XXII’s adverse language (purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration of images and relics) referred only to corrupt Roman practices. Romish doctrine did not mean Tridentine doctrine. Pardons were only “reckless indulgences from the penalties of sin obtained on money payments.” Other hot zones emerged: prayers for the dead, supremacy of the Rome, auricular confession, reservation in communicating religious knowledge, pardons, processions, altar crosses, crucifixes, processional crosses, raised stone, mixing water with the wine, elevation of the elements, bowing to the elements, crossings, genuflections, Requiem Masses for the dead, sacerdotal vestments, ornaments, and the establishment of convents.
Tract XC also sought to stanch secessions to Rome. Rev. Lockhard noted, “On us young men Tract XC had the effect of strengthening greatly our growing convictions that Rome was right and the Church of England wrong.”
If De-Protestantization failed, some were to fight from behind the lines. Writing to De Lisle, Newman noted: “I perfectly agree with you in thinking that the Movement of 1833 is not over in the country…also, I think it is for the interest of Catholicism that individuals should not join us, but should remain to leaven the mass.”
Derision was frequently used. Keble: “Anything which separates the present Church from the Reformers I should hail as a good idea.” Rev. William Palmer expressed vitriol. “I utterly reject and anathematise the principle of Protestantism as a heresy…And if the Church of England should ever unhappily profess herself to be a form of Protestantism then I would reject and anathematise the Church of England…In conclusion, I once more publicly profess myself a Catholic and a member of the Catholic Church, and say anathema to the principles of Protestantism….especially to those of the Lutherans and Calvinists, and British and American Dissenters.”
Rev. Dodsworth summarized TORR victories. “I think its tendency towards Rome has been very decisive and very extensive. Look at the Church of England as it was fifty years ago, or even thirty. At that time it would have been thought Popish to speak of the Real Presence; the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice was scarcely known in the teaching of the Church. Auricular Confession, counsels of perfection, the Conventual life…we all identified with Popery. But now these doctrines and usages are quite current amongst Anglicans…just it not also be admitted that the revival of these things amongst Anglicans is so far a witness in favour of Rome?”
However, Protestant Churchmen rallied to the battle line. Four learned adversaries opposed the TORR-agenda (March 8, 1841). The Oxford tutors were: T.T. Churton, Vice-Principal of Brasenose College, H.B. Wilson, Fellow and Senior Tutor of St. John’s College, John Griffiths, Tutor of Wadham College, and A.C. Tait, Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College. “Dangerous” was the term for Newman’s subterfuges.
Stiff resistance came from a meeting (March 15, 1841) between Oxford’s Vice-Chancellor, the Heads of Houses, and Proctors. The leadership reaffirmed that that every Oxford student shall be instructed in and subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. Further, “the modes of interpretation as are suggested in the said Tract, evading rather than explaining the sense of the Thirty-Nine Articles, and reconciling subscription to them with the adoption of errors which they were designed to counteract, defeat the object, and are inconsistent with the due observance of the above-mentioned Statutes. P. Wynter, Vice-Chancellor.”
Evangelicals had target-acquisition as the Ritualistic paper, Church Review (Jun. 21, 1865) observed, “The Protestant is quite right in recognising the simplest attempt at Ritual as the ‘thin edge of the wedge.’ It is so….It is only the child who is not terrified when the first creeping driblet of water, and the few light bubbles announce the advance of the tide; and the Protestant is but a child who does not recognise the danger of the trifling symptoms which are so slowly and surely contracting the space of ground upon which he stands.”
Rev. Simcox Bricknell marshaled a literary salvo with The Judgment of the Bishops upon Tractarian Theology (1845). Bp. Musgrave (Hereford) spoke of sophistry, evasion, and Jesuitical dishonesty. Bp. Monk (Gloucester and Bristol) invoked terms such as astonishment, concern, ingenuity, sophistry and vanity. Bp. Phillpott (Exeter) summoned terms such offensiveness, indecency, absurdity, incongruity, unjustness, sophistry, and variations from the facts of the Reformation and English Reformers. Bp. Blomfeld (London) referred to Tridentine colouring to the XXXIX Articles and the duty of the Episcopal bench to ‘banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines.”
William Goode, the able champion against Tractarians, wrote The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice. The Lord Chancellor Selborne summed it up. “When William Goode, afterwards Dean of Ripon, in his Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, called the Fathers themselves as witnesses in favour of the direct use of Scripture for the decision of controversies, some of those who placed confidence in the Oxford Divines, but were themselves ignorant of the Fathers, waited anxiously for answers which never came.”
An overwhelming broadside appeared with the publication of the 55-volume Parker Society Series (1840-1855), a series from the pens of the English Reformers. Supported widely by Bishops throughout England, these works are still our finest weapons.
Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord; and by thy great mercy defend us from all perils and dangers of this night; for the love of thy only Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Amen.
Walter Walsh, an Evangelical Anglican, exposed the war plans against Protestant Anglicans by the 19th century Tractarian, Oxfordian, and Ritualistic Romanisers (TORR hereafter). The toxicity of battle is exposed in The History of the Romeward Movement in the Church of England, 1833-1864. The book is freely downloadable at http://www.books.google.com/ with an author-book search.
TORR had governing, global, national, doctrinal, liturgical, and anti-Reformation objectives. Subordinate the English Church to Rome, seize assets, livings, institutional structures, and obliterate the Protestant face of worldwide Anglicanism. Newman, an instigator, penned Tract XC as an early broadside.
In Tract XC, Newman sought to obliterate the Protestantantism of the XXXIX Articles with this goal: “… ascertain the ultimate points of contrariety between the Roman and Anglican Creeds, and to make them as few as possible.” His opinion of Article XXII’s adverse language (purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration of images and relics) referred only to corrupt Roman practices. Romish doctrine did not mean Tridentine doctrine. Pardons were only “reckless indulgences from the penalties of sin obtained on money payments.” Other hot zones emerged: prayers for the dead, supremacy of the Rome, auricular confession, reservation in communicating religious knowledge, pardons, processions, altar crosses, crucifixes, processional crosses, raised stone, mixing water with the wine, elevation of the elements, bowing to the elements, crossings, genuflections, Requiem Masses for the dead, sacerdotal vestments, ornaments, and the establishment of convents.
Tract XC also sought to stanch secessions to Rome. Rev. Lockhard noted, “On us young men Tract XC had the effect of strengthening greatly our growing convictions that Rome was right and the Church of England wrong.”
If De-Protestantization failed, some were to fight from behind the lines. Writing to De Lisle, Newman noted: “I perfectly agree with you in thinking that the Movement of 1833 is not over in the country…also, I think it is for the interest of Catholicism that individuals should not join us, but should remain to leaven the mass.”
Derision was frequently used. Keble: “Anything which separates the present Church from the Reformers I should hail as a good idea.” Rev. William Palmer expressed vitriol. “I utterly reject and anathematise the principle of Protestantism as a heresy…And if the Church of England should ever unhappily profess herself to be a form of Protestantism then I would reject and anathematise the Church of England…In conclusion, I once more publicly profess myself a Catholic and a member of the Catholic Church, and say anathema to the principles of Protestantism….especially to those of the Lutherans and Calvinists, and British and American Dissenters.”
Rev. Dodsworth summarized TORR victories. “I think its tendency towards Rome has been very decisive and very extensive. Look at the Church of England as it was fifty years ago, or even thirty. At that time it would have been thought Popish to speak of the Real Presence; the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice was scarcely known in the teaching of the Church. Auricular Confession, counsels of perfection, the Conventual life…we all identified with Popery. But now these doctrines and usages are quite current amongst Anglicans…just it not also be admitted that the revival of these things amongst Anglicans is so far a witness in favour of Rome?”
However, Protestant Churchmen rallied to the battle line. Four learned adversaries opposed the TORR-agenda (March 8, 1841). The Oxford tutors were: T.T. Churton, Vice-Principal of Brasenose College, H.B. Wilson, Fellow and Senior Tutor of St. John’s College, John Griffiths, Tutor of Wadham College, and A.C. Tait, Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College. “Dangerous” was the term for Newman’s subterfuges.
Stiff resistance came from a meeting (March 15, 1841) between Oxford’s Vice-Chancellor, the Heads of Houses, and Proctors. The leadership reaffirmed that that every Oxford student shall be instructed in and subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. Further, “the modes of interpretation as are suggested in the said Tract, evading rather than explaining the sense of the Thirty-Nine Articles, and reconciling subscription to them with the adoption of errors which they were designed to counteract, defeat the object, and are inconsistent with the due observance of the above-mentioned Statutes. P. Wynter, Vice-Chancellor.”
Evangelicals had target-acquisition as the Ritualistic paper, Church Review (Jun. 21, 1865) observed, “The Protestant is quite right in recognising the simplest attempt at Ritual as the ‘thin edge of the wedge.’ It is so….It is only the child who is not terrified when the first creeping driblet of water, and the few light bubbles announce the advance of the tide; and the Protestant is but a child who does not recognise the danger of the trifling symptoms which are so slowly and surely contracting the space of ground upon which he stands.”
Rev. Simcox Bricknell marshaled a literary salvo with The Judgment of the Bishops upon Tractarian Theology (1845). Bp. Musgrave (Hereford) spoke of sophistry, evasion, and Jesuitical dishonesty. Bp. Monk (Gloucester and Bristol) invoked terms such as astonishment, concern, ingenuity, sophistry and vanity. Bp. Phillpott (Exeter) summoned terms such offensiveness, indecency, absurdity, incongruity, unjustness, sophistry, and variations from the facts of the Reformation and English Reformers. Bp. Blomfeld (London) referred to Tridentine colouring to the XXXIX Articles and the duty of the Episcopal bench to ‘banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines.”
William Goode, the able champion against Tractarians, wrote The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice. The Lord Chancellor Selborne summed it up. “When William Goode, afterwards Dean of Ripon, in his Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, called the Fathers themselves as witnesses in favour of the direct use of Scripture for the decision of controversies, some of those who placed confidence in the Oxford Divines, but were themselves ignorant of the Fathers, waited anxiously for answers which never came.”
An overwhelming broadside appeared with the publication of the 55-volume Parker Society Series (1840-1855), a series from the pens of the English Reformers. Supported widely by Bishops throughout England, these works are still our finest weapons.
Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord; and by thy great mercy defend us from all perils and dangers of this night; for the love of thy only Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Amen.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Church Times - Carey launches campaign for ‘persecuted’ Christians
CHRISTIANITY in the UK “is in danger of being stealthily and subtly brushed aside”, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, the Rt Revd Lord Carey, said during the launch of Not Ashamed, a campaign that seeks to speak up for Christian values in public life.
"The campaign was launched outside the House of Lords on Wednesday, and includes a leaflet by Lord Carey, in which he writes that the Christian faith underpins the values of Britain, but that this “rich legacy is under attack”.
He continues: “The evidence has been mounting in recent years. Teachers and council employees are suspended for offering to ‘say a prayer’.” He attributes the trend to a combination of well-meaning political correctness, multiculturalism, and overt opposition to Christianity.
For more, see:
Church Times - Carey launches campaign for ‘persecuted’ Christians
"The campaign was launched outside the House of Lords on Wednesday, and includes a leaflet by Lord Carey, in which he writes that the Christian faith underpins the values of Britain, but that this “rich legacy is under attack”.
He continues: “The evidence has been mounting in recent years. Teachers and council employees are suspended for offering to ‘say a prayer’.” He attributes the trend to a combination of well-meaning political correctness, multiculturalism, and overt opposition to Christianity.
For more, see:
Church Times - Carey launches campaign for ‘persecuted’ Christians
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Anonymous Posters
Again, I do not post anonymous posters.
This is difficult, given the several excellent posts by "anonymous posters." I wish I could have posted them, but anonymity for those living in a free world does not commend itself to me.
OTOH, if one was living in a repressive culture, e.g. Saudi Arabia or Pakistan for example, I would consider posting such.
St. Paul put his name to his documents while living in a polytheistic and unsympathetic world.
Thanks to those "anonymous posters" however.
This is difficult, given the several excellent posts by "anonymous posters." I wish I could have posted them, but anonymity for those living in a free world does not commend itself to me.
OTOH, if one was living in a repressive culture, e.g. Saudi Arabia or Pakistan for example, I would consider posting such.
St. Paul put his name to his documents while living in a polytheistic and unsympathetic world.
Thanks to those "anonymous posters" however.
Wayfarers All - The Anglo-Reformed Movement
Wayfarers All - The Anglo-Reformed Movement
By Robin G. Jordan
Conservative North American Anglicans have reached another crossroads. The fingerpost points in a number of directions. They can join the exodus from the Anglican Church, abandon what small part of the Anglican heritage onto which they have hung, and become Roman Catholics. They can continue in their present direction away from authentic historic Anglicanism, pulled this way and that way by whatever ecclesiastic fad of the moment grips their imagination. Or they can turn back to the old paths of the Bible and the Reformation, of the Protestant faith of the reformed Church of England and her venerable formularies. They can once more set their feet upon the true Anglican Way.
Those who do will be pleasantly surprised to discover that the true Anglican Way in broad enough for High Churchmen in the Anglican Reformed tradition as well as classical Evangelicals. They will also find it broad enough for those who highly esteem the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer, as a perusal of the Homily on the Holy Spirit for Whit-Sunday will reveal. While requiring uniformity on primary matters, the true Anglican Way permits liberty on secondary matters and encourages Christian charity in all things. The true Anglican Way has never sought to bind men’s consciences any tighter than the Scriptures bind them.
The true Anglican Way gives great weight to the teaching of the Bible. For those treading its path the Bible is the Word of God written, and the final and supreme authority in all matters of faith and life. The Holy Scriptures is the test by which the truth of every doctrine must be tried. What weight the true Anglican Way gives to the Creeds, the Councils of the Church, to early Church Fathers, and the historic Anglican formularies comes from their agreement with the teaching of the Bible. Where their teaching parts from that of the Holy Scriptures, farers on the true Anglican Way part from their teaching.
The true Anglican Way gives a place to the sacraments, to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, in the spiritual journey of the Christian. Those who tread its path recognize these two ordinances of Christ as more than bare signs: they are means of grace. Through these two sacraments God shows his goodwill and favor to us. However, those to whom these sacraments are administered do not automatically or invariably benefit from them. Requisite conditions for them to possess the benefits of the sacraments are that they must also possess true repentance and a lively faith. They must turn from sin and to Christ. They must trust in Christ for their salvation. Repentance and faith are the fertile soul upon which the seeds of sacramental grace must fall in order to bear fruit.
Farers on the true Anglican Way do not count confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, or extreme unction as sacraments. They understand that these five “commonly-called (i.e., mistakenly called) sacraments” have grown partly from the corrupt following of the apostles. They are partly states of life that the Scriptures allow. Unlike Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, they do not have the nature of sacraments: they do not have any visible sign or ceremony that God ordained.
Those who tread the true Anglican Way are very mindful of the vital role of the Holy Spirit in their spiritual lives. The Holy Spirit is the giver of life to those who are spiritually dead. Without the Spirit’s quickening we have no will to please God and without the Spirit’s working within us we have no power to do so. The Holy Spirit equips, empowers, guides, and sanctifies us, enabling us to bear much fruit to the glory of God.
Those who take the time to explore the true Anglican Way discover to their delight that the three elements of the Scriptures, the Sacraments, and the Spirit, three elements that the Ancient-Future or Convergence movement has appropriated, are very much a part of that path. At the same time the true Anglican Way does not depart from the Bible and the Reformation while the path of the Ancient-Future or Convergence movement leads those upon it into the howling wilderness of unreformed Catholicism and then disappears like a rabbit track in the woods, fading into nothing. The Bible and the Reformation are God’s gifts to his people—the first to keep them on the right path and the second to return them to the right path. They show us how to follow Jesus and to be a part of the true apostolic church.
Posted by Robin G. Jordan
By Robin G. Jordan
Conservative North American Anglicans have reached another crossroads. The fingerpost points in a number of directions. They can join the exodus from the Anglican Church, abandon what small part of the Anglican heritage onto which they have hung, and become Roman Catholics. They can continue in their present direction away from authentic historic Anglicanism, pulled this way and that way by whatever ecclesiastic fad of the moment grips their imagination. Or they can turn back to the old paths of the Bible and the Reformation, of the Protestant faith of the reformed Church of England and her venerable formularies. They can once more set their feet upon the true Anglican Way.
Those who do will be pleasantly surprised to discover that the true Anglican Way in broad enough for High Churchmen in the Anglican Reformed tradition as well as classical Evangelicals. They will also find it broad enough for those who highly esteem the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer, as a perusal of the Homily on the Holy Spirit for Whit-Sunday will reveal. While requiring uniformity on primary matters, the true Anglican Way permits liberty on secondary matters and encourages Christian charity in all things. The true Anglican Way has never sought to bind men’s consciences any tighter than the Scriptures bind them.
The true Anglican Way gives great weight to the teaching of the Bible. For those treading its path the Bible is the Word of God written, and the final and supreme authority in all matters of faith and life. The Holy Scriptures is the test by which the truth of every doctrine must be tried. What weight the true Anglican Way gives to the Creeds, the Councils of the Church, to early Church Fathers, and the historic Anglican formularies comes from their agreement with the teaching of the Bible. Where their teaching parts from that of the Holy Scriptures, farers on the true Anglican Way part from their teaching.
The true Anglican Way gives a place to the sacraments, to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, in the spiritual journey of the Christian. Those who tread its path recognize these two ordinances of Christ as more than bare signs: they are means of grace. Through these two sacraments God shows his goodwill and favor to us. However, those to whom these sacraments are administered do not automatically or invariably benefit from them. Requisite conditions for them to possess the benefits of the sacraments are that they must also possess true repentance and a lively faith. They must turn from sin and to Christ. They must trust in Christ for their salvation. Repentance and faith are the fertile soul upon which the seeds of sacramental grace must fall in order to bear fruit.
Farers on the true Anglican Way do not count confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, or extreme unction as sacraments. They understand that these five “commonly-called (i.e., mistakenly called) sacraments” have grown partly from the corrupt following of the apostles. They are partly states of life that the Scriptures allow. Unlike Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, they do not have the nature of sacraments: they do not have any visible sign or ceremony that God ordained.
Those who tread the true Anglican Way are very mindful of the vital role of the Holy Spirit in their spiritual lives. The Holy Spirit is the giver of life to those who are spiritually dead. Without the Spirit’s quickening we have no will to please God and without the Spirit’s working within us we have no power to do so. The Holy Spirit equips, empowers, guides, and sanctifies us, enabling us to bear much fruit to the glory of God.
Those who take the time to explore the true Anglican Way discover to their delight that the three elements of the Scriptures, the Sacraments, and the Spirit, three elements that the Ancient-Future or Convergence movement has appropriated, are very much a part of that path. At the same time the true Anglican Way does not depart from the Bible and the Reformation while the path of the Ancient-Future or Convergence movement leads those upon it into the howling wilderness of unreformed Catholicism and then disappears like a rabbit track in the woods, fading into nothing. The Bible and the Reformation are God’s gifts to his people—the first to keep them on the right path and the second to return them to the right path. They show us how to follow Jesus and to be a part of the true apostolic church.
Posted by Robin G. Jordan
Double Predestination in the Carolingian Era « The Reformed Reader
In the 9th century, a Saxon monk named Gottschalk taught what is known today as double predestination. Swedish historian Bengt Hagglund explains it this way: “[Gottschalk] claimed (with some justification) that he found support for his teaching in the writings of Augustine” (p. 153). Hagglund goes on.
“Gottschalk did not say…that certain persons are predestined to evil. What is rather decided beforehand is that the ungodly will receive the punishment which they deserve, just as the righteous will receive eternal life. In both cases, therefore, the right thing is done. …The atonement wrought by Christ applies only to those elected to eternal life” (p. 153).
For more, see:
Double Predestination in the Carolingian Era « The Reformed Reader
“Gottschalk did not say…that certain persons are predestined to evil. What is rather decided beforehand is that the ungodly will receive the punishment which they deserve, just as the righteous will receive eternal life. In both cases, therefore, the right thing is done. …The atonement wrought by Christ applies only to those elected to eternal life” (p. 153).
For more, see:
Double Predestination in the Carolingian Era « The Reformed Reader
The Juvenalization of Western Culture (the Cult of Youth) « The Reformed Reader
"In their excellent book The Narcissism Epidemic, Jean Twenge and Keith Campbell (among many other things) discuss the symptoms of narcissism in America today. One of them is vanity, which they discuss in chapter 9. As one of part of this chapter suggests, “in pursuit of hotness” many people today do many things that were unheard of even 20 years ago. A few examples they give are teeth-whitening, botox, cosmetic surgeries, hair extensions, tanning spray, eyebrow shaping, mud wraps, day spas, lip waxing, male moisturizers, and fitness coaches (just to name a few). Why are people so obsessed with appearance?"
For more, see:
The Juvenalization of Western Culture (the Cult of Youth) « The Reformed Reader
For more, see:
The Juvenalization of Western Culture (the Cult of Youth) « The Reformed Reader
Anglican Journal: Queen Elizabeth II inaugurates new General Synod
Anglican Journal: Queen Elizabeth II inaugurates new General Synod
Episcopal News Service
London—Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh visited Church House, Westminster, on Nov. 23 to inaugurate a new General Synod that will govern the Church of England for the next five years.
"The new synod will have many issues to resolve to ensure that the Church of England remains equipped for the effective pursuit of its mission and ministry," the queen said in her address to the synod. "Some will, no doubt, involve difficult, even painful, choices. But Christian history suggests that times of growth and spiritual vigor have coincided with periods of challenge and testing. What matters is holding firmly to the need to communicate the gospel with joy and conviction in our society."
About 160 synod members, or one third, are new to the gathering.
On behalf of the synod's 484 members, including 53 bishops, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams told the queen that "we value your wisdom and understanding, your care and concern and your manifest devotion to our church."
The inauguration followed a service of Holy Communion at Westminster Abbey where Dame Mary Tanner, president of the World Council of Churches, preached, and Williams presided.
Addressing the synod, Archbishop of York John Sentamu offered thanks for Queen Elizabeth's "gracious words" and to Tanner for her sermon.
But the celebrations did not proceed without controversy.
Bishop Peter Broadbent of Willesden has been asked by the bishop of London to "withdraw from public ministry until further notice" due to comments posted on his Facebook page speculating that the marriage of Prince William and Catherine Middleton would not last for more than seven years and referring to the media attention surrounding the couple's recent engagement as "nauseating tosh" -- a British slang word meaning "nonsense."
Williams, addressing synod members in the presence of the queen, said: "I am sure that I speak for everyone here in expressing delight" at the couple's engagement, adding that they "will be very much in our thoughts and prayers in the coming months." Williams' comments were met with a prolonged applause from synod members. Broadbent was not present during the inauguration ceremony.
Continuing its historic association with the state, the Church of England maintains an established relationship with the parliamentary structures of the U.K. government and the queen, who is the church's supreme governor and titular head. It continues a tradition of synodical government which has its origins in the medieval period. Measures passed by synod also need parliamentary approval. An overview of the Church of England's legislative processes is available here.
Described as "the national assembly of the Church of England," the General Synod first was inaugurated in 1970 under the Synodical Government Measure 1969, replacing an earlier body known as the Church Assembly.
Unlike the Episcopal Church's General Convention, which meets for the most part in its two separate houses of bishops and deputies, the three houses of synod -- bishops, clergy and laity -- meet in joint sessions biannually, once each in London and York. A third session is scheduled for later in the year, usually November, should synod need to convene for additional legislative meetings or for its quinennial inauguration.
General Synod comprises the Convocations of Canterbury and York, the two internal provinces of the Church of England.
The "upper houses" of the two convocations combine to form the House of Bishops and the "lower houses" combine to form the House of Clergy and the House of Laity. They have a tricameral legislature, normally meeting in plenary, but occasionally meeting separately, as contrasted with General Convention's larger bicameral system, which typically meets in two houses, but with occasional plenary sessions.
The new General Synod, which is meeting Nov. 23-24, will be asked to approve the Anglican Covenant, first proposed in the 2004 Windsor Report as a way that the Anglican Communion and its 38 autonomous provinces might maintain unity despite differences, especially relating to biblical interpretation and human sexuality issues.
Various groups have been campaigning against the covenant in the lead-up to the synod vote.
— Matthew Davies is editor and international correspondent of the Episcopal News Service
Episcopal News Service
London—Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh visited Church House, Westminster, on Nov. 23 to inaugurate a new General Synod that will govern the Church of England for the next five years.
"The new synod will have many issues to resolve to ensure that the Church of England remains equipped for the effective pursuit of its mission and ministry," the queen said in her address to the synod. "Some will, no doubt, involve difficult, even painful, choices. But Christian history suggests that times of growth and spiritual vigor have coincided with periods of challenge and testing. What matters is holding firmly to the need to communicate the gospel with joy and conviction in our society."
About 160 synod members, or one third, are new to the gathering.
On behalf of the synod's 484 members, including 53 bishops, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams told the queen that "we value your wisdom and understanding, your care and concern and your manifest devotion to our church."
The inauguration followed a service of Holy Communion at Westminster Abbey where Dame Mary Tanner, president of the World Council of Churches, preached, and Williams presided.
Addressing the synod, Archbishop of York John Sentamu offered thanks for Queen Elizabeth's "gracious words" and to Tanner for her sermon.
But the celebrations did not proceed without controversy.
Bishop Peter Broadbent of Willesden has been asked by the bishop of London to "withdraw from public ministry until further notice" due to comments posted on his Facebook page speculating that the marriage of Prince William and Catherine Middleton would not last for more than seven years and referring to the media attention surrounding the couple's recent engagement as "nauseating tosh" -- a British slang word meaning "nonsense."
Williams, addressing synod members in the presence of the queen, said: "I am sure that I speak for everyone here in expressing delight" at the couple's engagement, adding that they "will be very much in our thoughts and prayers in the coming months." Williams' comments were met with a prolonged applause from synod members. Broadbent was not present during the inauguration ceremony.
Continuing its historic association with the state, the Church of England maintains an established relationship with the parliamentary structures of the U.K. government and the queen, who is the church's supreme governor and titular head. It continues a tradition of synodical government which has its origins in the medieval period. Measures passed by synod also need parliamentary approval. An overview of the Church of England's legislative processes is available here.
Described as "the national assembly of the Church of England," the General Synod first was inaugurated in 1970 under the Synodical Government Measure 1969, replacing an earlier body known as the Church Assembly.
Unlike the Episcopal Church's General Convention, which meets for the most part in its two separate houses of bishops and deputies, the three houses of synod -- bishops, clergy and laity -- meet in joint sessions biannually, once each in London and York. A third session is scheduled for later in the year, usually November, should synod need to convene for additional legislative meetings or for its quinennial inauguration.
General Synod comprises the Convocations of Canterbury and York, the two internal provinces of the Church of England.
The "upper houses" of the two convocations combine to form the House of Bishops and the "lower houses" combine to form the House of Clergy and the House of Laity. They have a tricameral legislature, normally meeting in plenary, but occasionally meeting separately, as contrasted with General Convention's larger bicameral system, which typically meets in two houses, but with occasional plenary sessions.
The new General Synod, which is meeting Nov. 23-24, will be asked to approve the Anglican Covenant, first proposed in the 2004 Windsor Report as a way that the Anglican Communion and its 38 autonomous provinces might maintain unity despite differences, especially relating to biblical interpretation and human sexuality issues.
Various groups have been campaigning against the covenant in the lead-up to the synod vote.
— Matthew Davies is editor and international correspondent of the Episcopal News Service
Anglican Journal: A society in precipitous decline
Anglican Journal: A society in precipitous decline
A society in precipitous decline
By: JOHN ARKELIAN
REVIEWER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In law, there is a principle known as “fruit of the poisonous tree,” which holds that if a taproot is nourished by poisonous soil, the fruit it produces will be tainted. But what if our entire society is built upon a set of deadly illusions—an elaborate house of cards that propels us toward catastrophe? This is precisely the premise of Chris Hedges’ compelling new book. The result is a brilliant, not-to-be-missed critique of “a society in precipitous decline.” Some 80 per cent of households in our society never buy or read a book over the course of a year; instead, the average household has a television turned on for nearly seven hours a day. When it comes to war, popular culture most often offers up the illusion of “a ticket to glory, honour and manhood.” Elsewhere, we are force-fed the lie that each of us may rise up from the undifferentiated masses to take our very own place in the sun. In the process, we come to believe that “real life, our own life, is…next to the life of celebrities…inadequate.” Is it any wonder, then, that we hang onto every word of every “expert” who seeks to seduce us with the illusion that our very own “extreme makeover” is just around the corner?
Then there’s pornography, which has become ubiquitous on the Internet as it strives to excite ever-more jaded consumers with images of once-unimaginable degradation. Meanwhile, our Ivy League post-secondary schools make it their chief business to condition students “to placate and please authority, never to challenge it.” It means glorifying undisciplined self-interest. It means accumulating money and power without heed to conscience or social values.
For Hedges, democracy is in greater peril than it has ever been. Widespread unemployment, wanton de-industrialization, declining real incomes, the alarming erosion of basic civil liberties, costly (and probably futile) foreign wars, wildly unsustainable levels of public and private debt, the conversion of North American economies from production to consumption and a cutthroat variant of capitalism that remains unrepentant and grossly unregulated even in the aftermath of financial calamity—all these point to a society heading for a fall. When that happens, the siren call of a homegrown totalitarianism dressed-up in patriotism may prove irresistible for the beleaguered, disillusioned masses.
“Individualism is touted as [our] core value....Yet most of us meekly submit…to the tyranny of the corporate state.” It’s time to forgo our illusions about the world of limitless prosperity. If we are to avert calamity, we need to push unregulated corporatism aside in favour of democracy—“a democracy based not on personal gain but on self-sacrifice”—and the common good. For “where there is no vision, the people perish” (Proverbs 29). Ω
John Arkelian is a writer, professor of media law and editor-in-chief of Artsforum Magazine.
A society in precipitous decline
By: JOHN ARKELIAN
REVIEWER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In law, there is a principle known as “fruit of the poisonous tree,” which holds that if a taproot is nourished by poisonous soil, the fruit it produces will be tainted. But what if our entire society is built upon a set of deadly illusions—an elaborate house of cards that propels us toward catastrophe? This is precisely the premise of Chris Hedges’ compelling new book. The result is a brilliant, not-to-be-missed critique of “a society in precipitous decline.” Some 80 per cent of households in our society never buy or read a book over the course of a year; instead, the average household has a television turned on for nearly seven hours a day. When it comes to war, popular culture most often offers up the illusion of “a ticket to glory, honour and manhood.” Elsewhere, we are force-fed the lie that each of us may rise up from the undifferentiated masses to take our very own place in the sun. In the process, we come to believe that “real life, our own life, is…next to the life of celebrities…inadequate.” Is it any wonder, then, that we hang onto every word of every “expert” who seeks to seduce us with the illusion that our very own “extreme makeover” is just around the corner?
Then there’s pornography, which has become ubiquitous on the Internet as it strives to excite ever-more jaded consumers with images of once-unimaginable degradation. Meanwhile, our Ivy League post-secondary schools make it their chief business to condition students “to placate and please authority, never to challenge it.” It means glorifying undisciplined self-interest. It means accumulating money and power without heed to conscience or social values.
For Hedges, democracy is in greater peril than it has ever been. Widespread unemployment, wanton de-industrialization, declining real incomes, the alarming erosion of basic civil liberties, costly (and probably futile) foreign wars, wildly unsustainable levels of public and private debt, the conversion of North American economies from production to consumption and a cutthroat variant of capitalism that remains unrepentant and grossly unregulated even in the aftermath of financial calamity—all these point to a society heading for a fall. When that happens, the siren call of a homegrown totalitarianism dressed-up in patriotism may prove irresistible for the beleaguered, disillusioned masses.
“Individualism is touted as [our] core value....Yet most of us meekly submit…to the tyranny of the corporate state.” It’s time to forgo our illusions about the world of limitless prosperity. If we are to avert calamity, we need to push unregulated corporatism aside in favour of democracy—“a democracy based not on personal gain but on self-sacrifice”—and the common good. For “where there is no vision, the people perish” (Proverbs 29). Ω
John Arkelian is a writer, professor of media law and editor-in-chief of Artsforum Magazine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)