On the Articles: Article XXXIV

The Nineteenth Sunday after TrinityO GOD, forasmuch as without thee we are not able to please thee: Mercifully grant, that thy Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church
It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word. Whosoever through his private judgement, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.
Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

The role of tradition has been one that has challenged the Catholic Church since its creation. At the time of the English Reformation, continental Protestants had been claiming to abandon tradition in favour of Scripture alone while ironically establishing new traditions. Some practices and doctrines of the Church were heavily rooted in tradition, but these traditions were not always universal and might vary from region to region even within one country.

This variability, for instance, led to the Synod at Whitby in the mid-7th century as there was at that time two different models for calculating the date of Easter, one brought by the Celtic missionary tradition in the north and one from Canterbury in the south rooted in the Roman practice. This could cause significant problems when you combined people from both traditions (as might happen in the case of nobility) when one spouse would be fasting for Lent while the other feasted for Easter.

The first thing that ought to be noted is that while the Article makes it clear that traditions of the Church may be enforced, they may be enforced only insofar as they are not, “repugnant to the Word of God,” which is to say that Holy Scripture holds a place of Primacy (Article VI) and the Church may not ordain or teach what is contrary to the Scriptures (Article XX). This differentiates it from the Eastern Orthodox which hold that Scripture is a part of Tradition and therefore Tradition can hold a dogmatic authority, and the Roman Catholic Church which argues its teaching magisterium holds the ability to promulgate Tradition as an equal authority, and separate from, Holy Scripture. Anglicans by contrast would suggest all authority is ultimately rooted in Holy Scripture and the authority even of the Ecumenical Councils and Creeds is rooted in their Scriptural authenticity, not merely in their reception by the whole Church.

This Article goes on to address other aspects of tradition, noting that tradition need not be uniform in all senses, particular as it approaches issues of ceremony. So long as everything remains rooted in the authority of Scripture, the Article argues, different places and times may allow for differences in ceremony and tradition. That said, it notes that like St Paul argues in I Corinthians, there must be order in the Church: these traditions and ceremonies must be, “approved by common authority.”

It rebukes the notion of private judgement (a term often applied to interpretation of Scripture but here applied to the acceptance of Tradition) where it says that such actions taken against the lawful authority of the Church not only assault the authority of the Church but, “woundeth the consciences of the weak bretheren.”

That said, while this Article defends the lawful diversity in the land, it is not to suggest that the practice of the English Church was one of disunity. Indeed, with the compilation and publication of the Prayer Book, uniformity was imposed in many respects on English clergy. What this Article defends is the historic legitimacy in differing practices in general, and thus the legitimacy of the English Church maintaining different traditions, ceremonies and practices than other parts of the Western Catholic Church where Rome had imposed its form of uniformity. This Article thus reaffirms Article XXIV on the use of the vernacular, or even Article XXX which allows for the people and clergy alike to receive the Eucharist in both kinds.

This is made clear in the final paragraph and should be noted the emphasis on the fact that ceremonies and rites of the Church are ordained through the Church, “only by man’s authority,” again emphasizing the distinction drawn between tradition and Scripture, which holds authority bestowed by God himself, versus what the Church ordains for the edification of the people, maintenance of unity and the general good order of the Church.

On the Articles: Article XXIII

The Eighth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, whose never-failing providence ordereth all things both in heaven and earth: We humbly beseech thee to put away from us all hurtful things, and to give us those things which be profitable for us; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXIII. Of Ministering in the Congregation
It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.

The question of the leadership of the Church has been one contested for many years. In the time of the Reformation, it was continental reformers that decried the rights of the bishops and of Rome indirectly to appoint and control the clerics who ministered to the local parish. Local control was sought developed into numerous different models of church governance seen today among various protestant denominations. All had one thing in common: they rejected the Biblical pattern of Apostolic succession.

From the replacement of Judas’s office in Acts of the Apostles (1. 20-26) by St Matthias to the appointment of Titus and Timothy, and the calling of the first deacons, there has been a clear establishment in Scripture of the Apostolic succession, the laying on of hands

Although the three-fold order of ministry existed, at different times and at different places, the method of selecting a leader differed. Even into the fourth century, bishops were sometimes chosen by the laity by popular vote, while in other places the secular authority of the king of prince would be able to select who would become bishop. These ambiguities were used by the protestant reformers to argue in favour of their congregational models in which a congregation could call any person to minister for them.

By the time of the English Reformation, however, the Apostolic Succession had been firmly established. While there was room to differ in some of the manner of selecting of bishops, priests were ordained exclusively by bishops in apostolic succession for particular purposes, and to be priested you would first be ordained and serve as a deacon, which had a different role than the priest. The reformers explicitly preserve this practice in this article.

Whereas in a protestant church, if a minister was needed, any member could be called and effectively begin preaching and ministering the next day, in Anglicanism, there was a much longer period of discernment which ultimately required the authority of the bishop to ordain the person for their duty. It was never an accepted practice in Anglicanism, as Article XXIII makes clear, to allow any member of the laity to begin preaching or administering the sacraments.

Interestingly it has only been in recent years, since the Roman Catholic Vatican II Council, that there has been a general loosening of this provision. Roman Catholics, facing shortages, authorized the use of extraordinary lay administrants of the sacrament, lay people who could, in the absence of the necessary number of priests, help to administer, though not consecrate, the blessed sacrament. Following this, many other churches, including Anglican jurisdictions around the world, took this as a signal that they too could loosen the rules, such that deacons and lay people began to be permitted to preach with the authorization of the bishop, and lay people similarly began to be permitted to serve at the altar in new ways as well.

Interestingly, it seems to have been an accident of history in Canada, at least, that saw the diaconate fall into disuse. Due to that, many of the roles of deacons have been taken up by the laity, who only now are beginning to discover the number of lay people who may well have been called to serve as deacons.

In either case, the requirements of Article XXIII are still being fulfilled. The first sentence of the Article states that no one may preach or administer the sacraments unless duly authorized. At the time of its writing this meant that the process of ordination needed to be followed based on the ordinal, one of the other three Anglican Formularies, while today it remains consistent for a bishop to duly authorize lay people to administer those functions as lay people.

While modern practices show that this article is consistent with allowing some level of lay participation, without commenting on the degree to which lay participation in certain roles is desirable, it suggests a strong concern for the apostolic succession.

Apostolic succession is important not simply in terms of the practice of laying on of hands, and the ability to point to the bishop that consecrated your bishop who ordained you, but points to the transmission of the faith delivered once to the Apostles. Going back to Article XIX, the limitation of the preaching and administration of sacraments is not simply to clericalize the Church, but because it ensures that the pure word of God will be preached when those who are permitted to preach have been properly educated, tried and tested before they are so authorized.

This Article speaks to the issue of authority in the Church, and how the people can have confidence in the person that is preaching, and that what they are preaching is true and that the sacraments they are administering are indeed sacraments. This was of particular concern at the time of the English Reformation when there was concern over what was being preached, and particularly in light of the fact that among protestants almost anyone seemed to able to do anything, so whether or not that person truly was ordained.

In modern times, there are again concerns over legitimacy. As Christianity continues to fragment over issues of doctrine, it is always a helpful reminder that the goal of priests is to preserve the apostolic teaching. When someone is preaching, they have been authorized by a bishop in apostolic succession to do so, and their teaching is expected to be in accord with that tradition. At a time when that is not always the case, this Article serves as a reminder of what Anglicans ought to be doing.

On the Articles: Article XX

The Fifth Sunday after Trinity

GRANT O Lord, we beseech thee, that the course of this world may be so peaceably ordered by thy governance, that thy Church may joyfully serve thee in all godly quietness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Octave of the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist

ALMIGHTY God, by whose providence thy servant John Baptist was wonderfully born, and sent to prepare the way of thy Son our Saviour, by preaching of repentance: Make us so to follow his doctrine and holy life, that we may truly repent according to his preaching, and after his example constantly speak the truth, boldly rebuke vice, and patiently suffer for the truth’s sake; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XX. Of the Authority of the Church
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore,, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

Continuing to expand on Anglican ecclesiology, where Article XIX sets the limits of where the Church exists, Article XX sets the limits of the Church’s authority. Interestingly while Article XIX is largely an opportunity to counter Protestant convictions of the Church, presented in opposition to the Catholic traditions which were being upheld by the Roman Catholic Church, Article XX changes course and instead presents opposition to the Roman Catholic practice of declaring the authority of the Church exists outside of Holy Scripture. Today, as in the time of the English Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church claims authority to declare dogma apart from Holy Scripture. This was largely an innovation of the Roman Catholic Church, and the doctrine articulated in Article XX is far more consistent with the practice of the Early Church.

The Article begins by expressing clearly that the Church may authoritatively regulate rites and ceremonies, and then more importantly suggests that the Church also has authority to resolve controversies of faith. This statement is immediately followed up by an expression of limitation on that authority.

“It is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing contrary to God’s Word written,” reminds us that the Church acts in submission to God’s Word as the ultimate authority of God and the Church in the world. When the Church and God’s Word are in conflict, God’s Word must prevail, because while the Church was established by Christ, it is an instrument of man and therefore fallible, whereas God’s Word is authoritatively and divinely inspired.

The Article clarifies that the Church does have power to regulate rites and ceremonies, and thus the rituals of the Church, and also arguments of faith, yet the limit imposed immediately after is categorical: the Church does not have authority apart from what may be proven in Scripture. It can articulate the correct interpretation of Scripture, as effectively the Ecumenical Councils did, but it cannot make pronouncements that depart from what Holy Scripture says.

Interestingly, it also makes clear the point that it is not enough to be able to point to one part of Scripture and suggest it is sufficient to support the claim being made. The Article states, “neither may it expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” This in some ways may again be an attack on both Rome and some of the Reformation doctrines which seemed to take various verses in isolation to attempt to justify doctrine while ignoring the general thrust of Holy Scripture.

Finally, the way the Article is framed allows for an important distinction in what the Church may teach as required of the faithful versus what else it may say, or rather what it may permit to be said. This again runs somewhat counter to the Reformers who, with their confessional statements, tended towards far greater rigidity in matters of doctrine. By saying specifically the Church may not teach, as being necessary for salvation, anything that may not be proven by Scripture, it does leave open room for debate and disagreement within the Church on matters not pertaining to salvation, so long as they are not contrary to God’s word. So for instance, Holy Scripture does not speak conclusively on the issue of the assumption of the Blessed Theotokos. The Church has historically, however, taught that she was assumed bodily into heaven. There is precedent for it in Enoch and Elijah, and possibly even Moses, as Biblical figures apart from Christ that the Scriptures suggest or state were assumed bodily as well. There are arguments apart from Scripture that come into play to support why the assumption of the Blessed Theotokos makes sense, largely relating to the fact that there is no information about her death or record of relics of hers, despite the importance of both those things during the Apostolic age. Given that it is consistent with Scripture, though, this Article maintains that it may be taught, simply not as being required for salvation. A priest may discuss or teach it as a pious belief only, to be commended to the faithful as a belief consistent with Scripture, but disbelief would neither impair communion within the Church, nor would it in any way affect one’s salvation.

Taken together, Articles XIX and XX begin to lay out a foundation for the ecclesiology of the English Church which will be built upon in subsequent articles as it discusses the sacraments and the role of the priesthood in ministry. It makes clear distinctions between both the new protestant churches that were being established on the continent as well as the ways in which the English Church would differentiate itself from the Roman Catholic Church, seeking to return to more patristic roots.

Today, more and more, secular pressure demands that the Church conform itself to the world. It is more important than ever that Anglicans cleave to antiquity and the formularies: no error can be brought into the Church by respecting the Church’s lack of authority to declare doctrines contrary to Holy Scripture, or to teach in opposition to it.

On the Articles: Article XVIII

The Third Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, we beseech thee mercifully to hear us; and grant that we, to whom thou hast given an hearty desire to pray, may by thy mighty aid be defended and comforted in all dangers and adversities; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XVIII. Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

It is a significant denouement to follow-up Article XVII’s controversial discussion of doctrines of predestination and election, both in terms of Article XVII’s complexity and the controversial nature of its theology and how it’s been interpreted over the years.

This Article essentially affirms two essential points. First, that salvation is not found in another law or sect of belief, even if it is framed in light of God’s law. Second, it claims that Holy Scriptures say that salvation is found only in the name of Christ. The second point is easiest to explore, and builds up the second.

The Gospels provide ample passages that prove salvation is found only through Christ. St Jn 3. 36 reads, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” Again in St John’s Gospel goes on to record Christ’s own words saying, “I am in the way, and the trust, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” (St Jn 14. 6). In the comfortable words read during every Eucharist in the Book of Common Prayer we read St Paul’s words, “This is a true saying, and worthy of all to be received, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” The completion of that passage includes the words, “and not only for our own sins, but for the sins of the whole world.” There are many other passages that continue to make clear that salvation is found in Christ.

The first proposition on salvation outside of the Church is proved by the Scriptural witness as well. St Peter, at Pentecost, was filled with the Holy Spirit and preached to the masses. They were cut to the heart, by his preaching and asked what they must do to be saved. St Peter responded simply, “Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” (Acts 2. 38). This suggests that failing to repent and be baptised in the name of Christ will preclude one from salvation.

In the Early Church, this was completely understood. There was a clear consensus in the mind of the Fathers that salvation was found in the name of Christ and his Church. From Origen, “Let no one deceive himself; out of this house [the Church], no one is saved.” St Cyprian of Carthage similarly wrote, “Whoever is separated from the Church is separated from the promise of the Church; that if a man have not the Church for his mother, he hath not God for his father; and that as to be saved from the deluge it was needful to be in the ark, so to escape now we must be in the Church.” Pelagian heresy first raised concern over the question of salvation without Baptism, but again it can be seen that among the Fathers there was a consensus that salvation was found in Baptism, which is to say in Christ, given that Baptism represented adoption into sonship through the merits of Christ. St Cyril of Jerusalem argued that, “No one can be saved without baptism except the martyrs.” This theology was mirrored by many other fathers including most notably St Augustine of Hippo who was the great opponent of the Pelagian heretics. In Thomas Cranmer’s Catechism of 1548, his commentary on this article notes that, “if we have heathen parents and die without baptism, we should be damned everlastingly.”

This clear view also lines up with Article XIII on the role of works, which again affirms that salvation cannot be purchased through good deeds. It is not our adherence to the law in which salvation is found, because just as we are justified by faith in Christ (Article XI), our salvation is found in Christ and not in our own works, which properly are viewed as acts processing from our saving faith in Christ, the necessary results of true and lively belief that Christ is our saviour and thus that we are to follow the commandments he has given us and the teachings of his Father commended to us in the Holy Scriptures.

Given this overall clarity of believe in Scripture, the traditional teachings and understanding of the Church and also consistency with the other Articles of Religion, the question then becomes why was this article in particular written? Taking in its historic context, it is a firm statement of belief that opposes compromise that was being put forth.

The Roman Catholic Church in particular was extremely vehement in upholding these teachings, more so than the continental protestants. Rome eventually pushed in the direction of saying not only was there no salvation to be found outside of Christ, but also no salvation to be found outside of Christ’s visible Church, which Rome claimed to be exclusively. This led to consternation and arguments with reformers who attacked Rome’s claim as being an attack on Christ himself. In England, then, there were those who argued at that time that in order to avoid the conflicts that raged on the continent and which had also been visible during various turmoils in England, much of the English Church’s doctrines should be relativized. It is less important to embody the fullness of doctrines than to just be heading generally in the right direction of love and fellowship, they would argue. This Article helps to counter that by stating quite firmly that these doctrines are absolute and rooted in Scripture from which the authority of these Articles is derived.

It is interesting that today, these tendencies towards relativism have become more prominent. As Christians are increasingly exposed to more multi-cultural contexts, particularly in the developed Western world, there is a desire to say, “well my Muslim neighbour is a good person. Surely he will find salvation.” While God may do whatever he likes, his revealed and authoritative truth as we know it says that we cannot affirm there is salvation to be had apart from Christ and the Church. In the same way, this Article reminds us that Anglicanism does deal in absolute doctrines. The Church has authority to declare absolute truths when they are rooted in Scripture. Relativists today are keen to suggest that Anglicanism does not hold to absolute doctrines. It is not just Article VI on the sufficiency of Holy Scripture or Article XX on the Authority of the Church that respond to such suggestions, but the whole of the Thirty-Nine Articles which uphold the authority of Scripture and the absoluteness of Christian doctrine and belief.

On Power

The Seventh Sunday after Trinity

LORD of all power and might, who art the author and giver of all good things: Graft in our hearts the love of thy Name, increase in us true religion, nourish us with all goodness, and of thy great mercy keep us in the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

In the study of international relations, power is generally divided into two categories, that of hard power and soft power. The simplest definition of these two is that hard power is the ability to make others do what you want, while soft power is the ability to get others to want what you want.

An example of hard power would be the use of military or economic force. Forcing a neighbouring country to make territorial concessions by military invasion and conquest or just the threat of it. The imposition of economic sanctions on a state to compel them to do what you want is another exercise of hard power. Soft power is a somewhat more nebulous concept which was only articulated in the post Cold War era as a defined doctrine, though the use of soft power has been characteristic of international affairs in the 20th century in the aftermath of the Second World War and the formation of the United Nations, as well as the more rigid discipline enforced on the exercise of power in international affairs during the Cold War itself.

The concepts of hard and soft power are somewhat useful in examining the idea of power and authority within the Church. In this case, hard power—the ability to get people to do what you want—resides with ecclesiastical authorities. Bishops are those charged with enforcing the canons of the church, and have a wide latitude in how they do so. For instance, in the Diocese of Calgary, every priest before they are ordained is required by Canon law to subscribe to the Solemn Declaration 1893, the Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal, as well as the diocesan and provincial canons. The canons themselves, however, do not exercise hard power. Thomas Hobbes, the English philosopher, once wrote in his seminal work Leviathan, that, “covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all.” While Christ may have said that the Christian’s yes ought to be yes, and their no, no (St Mt 5. 37), the reality remains that in our fallen nature, we fall short of Christ’s command. As Hobbes points out, without swords—enforcement—agreements and oaths are just words. It is the bishop that enforces the oath and exercises the power to compel a priest to maintain it. They may sanction the priest with the removal of their license or even further sanctions if their actions so merit.

Similarly, priests hold some elements of hard power over their parishioners. While in general these powers are not used, they still exist. If a parishioner were to make it known to a priest that they had sinned and were unrepentant, priests have the power to deny the Eucharist to such a person until such time as they do repent.

What of soft power? The Rev. Dr Ellen Wondra likens soft power in the Church to its moral authority, and thus its ability to influence others both inside and outside the Church. This applies both in its ecumenical relations and its relations to secular and civil society. When the American Conference of Catholic Bishops issues a statement deploring gun violence and calling for the acceptance of new measures for American legislators to control gun violence, they are calling on their moral authority which relies on the Roman Catholic Church’s clearly articulated stance on the sanctity of human life to lend power to their statement in order to influence opinions.

In the Anglican Communion, which uses synodical governance, often times particular priests, bishops or laity rely on their soft power authority to sway opinion during debates at synods.

Or it would in theory. In practice, it seems soft power has all but disappeared from the Anglican Church of Canada, and perhaps Anglicanism more broadly, at least in the West. The Roman Catholic Church has a clear, cogent and consistent position on the sanctity of life. Their position is not tied to secular politics of the left or of the right, neither libertarian nor collectivist. It is rooted in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition: man is made in the image and likeness of God, and therefore has inherent value. Life is therefore sacred and must be preserved. The Roman Catholic Church therefore opposes abortion, a position associated with right-wing politics, and capital punishment, left-wing politics, and oppose physician assisted suicide and euthanasia (again positions which tend to be associated with right-wing politics).

The Anglican Church in Canada has in recent months made statements which suggest that the recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling which has opened the door to physician assisted suicide and euthanasia requires renewed consideration of a response. Why would the Supreme Court’s opinion change the Church’s view? If it is to be rooted in Scripture and Tradition, should it not remain constant regardless of the legality in civil law? There hasn’t yet been an official response, but the unofficial response has seen broad endorsement from many bishops, while others have expressed more scepticism, mainly at the ambiguity of the court’s ruling.

When the response, albeit unofficial, is that mixed, what broader authority will any official statement from the Church hold? Will the Church be able to hold a clear, consistent and cogent position vis a vis assisted suicide and other issues relating to life and the person? The Anglican Church of Canada’s current Primate Fred Hiltz has marched in favour of the worldwide abolition of the death penalty, and although many Anglicans do not agree, the stance of the Church remains somewhat pro-life, it has taken significant efforts to avoid mentioning that fact, and many priests and bishops and lay members in the public spotlight (such as current Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May) hold pro-choice positions that oppose any conception of abortion as in some way being the ending of a life as the Anglican Church of Canada once held.

With a fairly clearly intentional silence in recent years on the issue of abortion, it ought to be taken as tacit approval of the secular legal status quo of legalized abortion in Canada. This view cannot be reconciled with opposition to capital punishment from a Christian perspective. Does the Anglican Church of Canada’s opposition to the death penalty stem from the inherent value of the person, or does it stem from some of the practical secular arguments against capital punishment (ineffectiveness, error, etc).

With an ambiguous position, the credibility of the Anglican Church of Canada on this issue is limited. Its ambiguous position hinders its moral clarity and thus eliminates its ability to project soft power. With hard power working internally, is it any wonder that Anglicanism seems to be losing its relevance outside of Church walls? When the Bishop of Rome speaks, his pronouncements tend to carry in the news. It is not because the secular media give weight to Roman Catholicism that they do not give to other Christian groups because they believe Rome to be correct, but rather by virtue of its moral authority, pronouncements from Rome are backed by soft power.