On the Articles: Article XXXVII

The Twenty-Second Sunday after Trinity

LORD, we beseech thee to keep thy household the Church in continual godliness; that through thy protection it may be free from all adversities, and devoutly given to serve thee in good works, to the glory of thy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXVII. Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates
The King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction.
Where we attribute to the King’s Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God’s Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers.
The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.
The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences.
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.

Article XXII is historically interesting in that it articulates a particular vision of the separation of Church and state which is commonly supported among Western democracies today. In this version, it spelled out the Church’s proclamation that it was independent in religious affairs of the authority of civil offers.

The first paragraph actually again affirms the independence of the Church of England and the English Crown from foreign religious powers, namely the authority of the Bishop of Rome. While the Church of England had never declared itself out of communion with Rome, it had always claimed since the time of the English Reformation under Henry VIII and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer that the Catholic Church in the Realm of England was free from the jurisdictional authority of the Bishop of Rome, just as the Christian East had managed to maintain its independence from his jurisdictional claims to authority. This Article thus affirms that this claim to independence applies to secular authorities as well. By the time of Elizabeth II, this Article had become necessary as the Bishop of Rome, in addition to breaking communion with the Church of England had excommunicated all people of England who followed the temporal authority of the Queen. This Article countered that excommunication saying that he had no authority to require such as it was an invalid assertion of authority over the Crown in addition to invalid assertion of religious authority over local bishops.

The Article continues by then expressing the limits of the Crown’s authority over the Church. Unlike modern principles of the separation of Church and State, which tend to be established to limit religious involvement in public areas of government, this Article sought to place limits on the ability of secular officials to involve themselves in the affairs of the Church. This was essential because the Crown also held the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The Article states, “we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God’s Word, or of the Sacraments,” meaning that civil authorities were not authorized to preach or administer the Sacraments, or otherwise regulate them. These were affairs reserved for the ordained ministers of the Church. The Article then continues to note that civil authorities are not so much under the authority of the Church as they are under God’s authority, “that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers.”

The final three paragraphs clarify particular controversies.

The first again asserts that the Bishop of Rome has no authority of jurisdiction, whether civil of religious, in the Realm of England. He may not choose bishops, as he sought to do with the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054 leading to the Great Schism when he excommunicated the entire Christian East for refusing his demand that they submit to his claim of jurisdictional authority, and neither does he have the right to choose the King, as he sought to do before excommunicating Queen Elizabeth and the entire population of England that refused to accede to his demand for a Roman Catholic monarch that would follow his authority. One point that should be remembered about the historical context of this Article is that at the time of the English Reformation, the Bishop of Rome was not just a religious authority, he did also have political and temporary power as a prince, controlling territory and armies. The assertion that he had no authority in England did have significant political ramifications.

The penultimate paragraph deals with an issue of Christian morality and whether or not the state has authority to exercise the death penalty in the case of “heinous and grievous” offences. This largely was in response to Reformers rather than any claims of the Roman Church.

The final paragraph again responds to a controversy of the Radical Reformation, namely those who argued in favour of pacifism as a Christian imperative. The Article clarifies that if conscripted, a Christian man could not claim it was a Christian right not to fight. Given the political situation of the time, and the wars of religion on the continent, not to mention the fact that England itself had undergone a period of severe turmoil and civil war, was an essential point to make for any civil authority that needed men-at-arms, not to mention to simply clarify the position for priests so they would know what to teach given the tumultuous back and forth and the attempts of various governments of the day to enforce different rules.

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 XXI

The Sixth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, who hast prepared for them that love thee such good things as pass man’s understanding: Pour into our hearts such love toward thee, that we, loving thee above all things, may obtain thy promises, which exceed all that we can desire; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Octave of the Feast of Saint Peter and Saint Paul

O GOD, who didst give such grace unto thy holy Apostles Saint Peter and Saint Paul, that they were enabled to bear witness to the truth by their death: Grant unto thy Church that, as in the beginning it was enlightened by their teaching, so it may continue in the same unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils
General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

Article XXI builds on the work of Articles XIX and XX in defining ecclesiology, by speaking not directly of the Church, but of councils of the Church. The general councils here refer in fact to the ecumenical councils of the Church held between the 4th and 8th centuries after Christianity was legalized to resolve some of the controversies that had arisen but which had been unable to be resolved at more than a local level due to persecution.

While the ecumenical councils are held to have great weight in understanding the faith, this Article makes clear that no council can contravene Holy Scripture, and its authority is derived from Scripture itself. The authority of the Nicene Creed, for instance, is that it is an explanation of various doctrines contained in Holy Scripture, not that the gathering of bishops held any special authority or charism to proclaim anything apart from the Scriptures.

This is a fundamental principle of Anglican understanding of the faith, and puts it in firm opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, particularly as following the seven Ecumenical Councils, Rome began saying that it solely had authority to declare additional authoritative councils, which only more recently, in an ecumenical gesture to the East, have been referred to as General Councils of the Western Church. At any rate many of these councils have been rejected by Anglicans as their doctrines do not proceed from Holy Scripture, even if the English Church at the time participated in those councils due to being in communion with Rome. The East has always refused to accept the authority of those Western Councils due to the Great Schism during which they were excommunicated by Rome for refusing to accept the newly claimed juridical authority of the Bishop of Rome.

This affirmation of the role of Holy Scripture over councils is again an important clarification of English understanding compared to Rome which gave itself authority equal to Holy Scripture to teach. The Article, however, reinforces this by the remainder that Holy Scripture is God’s inerrant and authoritative Word, while Councils are simply the assembly of Men and therefore may err, even when the Holy Spirit may work through a Council. That is why Councils are to be tested against Holy Scripture, as the Holy Spirit will never move a Council to profess something contrary to Holy Scripture.

This Article also proclaims that councils may not be gathered, “without the commandment and will of Princes.” What this is essentially describing is the fact that many of the pronouncements of councils have impact on secular society, and so the Councils must be accepted by secular rulers in order to be implemented. A council could decree a penalty to be imposed on heretics, for instance, but apart from excommunication the Church itself has no authority to impose civil penalties—no civil ruler would allow the Church to establish civil laws and for Anglicans it would be inconsistent with Article VII’s commentary on the imposition of Christian values on civil authorities. The Church cannot, through Council or any other means, impose rules contrary to those of the state. It can be more circumscribed in what is permitted, for instance the Church must not bless same-sex marriages through the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony even where the secular law permits same-sex people to marry. This Article thus reaffirms important principles of Church-state relations.

The publication of the Articles also coincided with a more recently turbulent period in the life of the Western Church in which there had been conflicts between, for instance, Pope Paul III and the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, over the summoning of a Council to respond to the Protestant Reformation (what would eventually be the Council of Trent). Cranmer responds by clarifying the Anglican position not simply on the authority of Councils (again supporting previous statements that the institution of the Church has no doctrinal authority apart from Scripture and thus neither does a Council constituted of it), but also on how they are to be summoned.

It should be noted that the possibility of allowing the state to call a general council is an artefact of this era as well, in which the Princes referred to were Christian rulers. It was not a case simply of the Church authority versus secular authority, but the division of responsibility between the Christian Church and the Christian state. Because the state is no longer Christian, this clause is often now viewed as being no longer validly applied. The Church would never require the secular state, even in the United Kingdom where the Church of England is established and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, a strong Anglican, remains Head of State, to call a council of the Church.

Despite these changing circumstances, the Article still shows important considerations on Church-state relations and also the authority of Councils themselves, whether called by the Christian state leader or solely by the Church.

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 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.

On God's Side

The Third Sunday after Easter

ALMIGHTY God, who showest to them that it be in error the light of thy truth, to the intent that they may return into the way of righteousness: Grant unto all them that are admitted into the fellowship of Christ’s religion, that they may forsake those things that are contrary to their profession, and follow all such things as are agreeable to the same; through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

There is a tendency in Christian song and in writing to refer to the concept of God being on our side. There is some Scriptural reference to this. The hit contemporary Christian song Whom Shall I Fear? by Chris Tomlin creates stunning visuals to reference the Psalmist who writes, “The LORD is on my side; I will not fear. What can man do to me?” (Ps 118. 6).

Overall, this seems to imply God is for us. It is simple to say, “God is on my side.” But is that the proper way of looking at it? When someone makes an argument and then invokes God’s favour saying, “God is on my side,” or, “God supports my position,” is that a fair argument to make?

To make a more concrete example, many of the revisionist innovations implemented in the Anglican Church of Canada over the last forty years have been preceded by arguments that it is the movement of the Holy Spirit and that, to take the perspective of the proponents of these innovations, “God is on my side,” or, “the movement of the Spirit is calling us to do this.”

The idea that God is on our side and supports us, more ludicrous still is when we suggest God supports every particular cause we believe in. In Canada well into the 20th century, the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec would remind parishioners before an election that, “le ciel est bleu, et l’enfer est rouge.” Literally, heaven is blue and hell is red, priests were instructing parishioners to vote for particular parties.

This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding and perspective that is wholly twisted. God is not, in that sense, ever on my side. In the Lord of the Rings epic, Tolkien writes sage words from the mouth of the ancient Ent Treebeard, a living tree who is being asked to join the war in Middle Earth on the side of protagonists. “I'm not altogether on anybody's side because no one is altogether on my side.” Rather than God being on our side, we are called to be on his. As St Paul writes, all fall short of God’s glory. We are not, altogether, on his side. Yet, by faith and Christ’s death and resurrection, we are able to be reconciled to him in order to more fully live in his will.

Claiming the support of God is a historical reality. When the people of Israel God’s exclusive chosen ones, they were able to boast of God being on their side. In the Psalms, the Jews proclaimed it in song, “The LORD is on my side; I will not fear,” (Ps 118. 6). The context of this verse shows the Psalmist is indeed referring to how God was on the side of Israel and his chosen people. When the people of Israel were acting in God’s will, he supported them in their endeavours, be it battle or freedom from slavery. When St Paul echoes these words in Romans 8. 31, though, what is the context in which these words are repeated? Does he mean God is on the side of all Christians, the new chosen? Not entirely. The context of Romans as a whole makes clear that while St Paul is speaking there specifically of Christians, he has been making the case throughout Romans for God being on the side of all humanity, wishing for their salvation and for all people to be reconciled to him. St Paul has just explained how we cannot justify ourselves under the law and are reliant on God’s grace.

When St Paul asks who can be against us, he his point is more that when we place our trust in God, no one can overcome his desire for us to be reconciled to him. In the season of Eastertide, as we celebrate the resurrection, we are also celebrating victory over sin and death through Christ’s atoning sacrifice. The classic CS Lewis novel The Screwtape Letters creates a fictional account of how the enemy might seek to attack our faith, and also shows how ultimately God is stronger.

More clearly, St John explores the same topic from another perspective in his first epistle:

By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth. (1 Jn 3. 16-18)

Here, St John reminds us of God’s abiding presence as the governor of our lives. As St Paul asked if God was with us, who could be against us, St John reminds us that for God to be with us, we must be with God. God is not on our side, but rather, we must be on God’s side.

Going back to the Old Testament, it should equally be noted that when the people of Israel rebelled against God’s will, he did not act for them in the same manner as was referred to in the Psalms. God helped free the Jews from persecution and slavery after they abandoned him, allowing themselves to fall into those predicaments in the first place.

Perhaps an easier way of viewing this is to say who is leading and who is following. When you say, “God is on my side,” what you are really saying is God is following me and is endorsing what I do. The problem is that God doesn’t do that. God never follows us, we only ever follow him. God’s support for the people of Israel was for when they acted in his will, because in acting in his will they served ultimately to reconcile themselves to him. While it is possible that we can say, “God supports me,” and be correct in the sense that God does support what you are doing, it betrays a false narrative which more correctly stated would be, “I follow God’s will.”

The parable of the two sons recorded in the Gospel of St Luke helps to show the difference of these two mentalities. In the parable, a man has two sons. His younger son demands his inheritance and leaves the family home. He squanders his wealth and beggars himself, ultimately deciding to humble himself and return to his father to beg forgiveness. The elder brother, on the other hand, remained at home, was dutiful and fulfilled all his obligations. When his younger brother returned home and his father forgave him, unconditionally and joyfully accepting his return, the elder brother became angry and jealous, demanding to know why his brother should be celebrated for his return when he had never been celebrated for being dutiful all the while.

In this parable, the younger brother shows the life of a Christian who ultimately seeks to live in the will of God. He has been given a great inheritance, which he may at times squander, but his loving father will always accept him and forgive him if he returns. The elder brother on the other hand seems at first glance to be the one truly living in his father’s will, yet by the end of the parable it becomes more clear that he would be the type to say, “God is on my side,” out of what CS Lewis described as spiritual cancer: pride.

When we take the prideful view that God is on our side, and not the view that we strive to follow his will, we go from being followers of God to agents of his will. The problem with this is when we fall short. If we are followers of God and fall short, then, like the younger brother, we can ask forgiveness and be forgiven. When we are enactors of his will and fall short, however, we are essentially claiming authority from God while acting outside of his will.

It is easy to see how this mentality is adopted, though. There are plenty of Scriptural references to God being for us and God supporting us, and it can be simple to slip into a mentality that convinces ourselves that we are clearly supported by God. Christianity is not having an omnipotent and all-powerful deity who can be called upon to support our politics and our sports teams, but is the teaching of how can, through faith, reconcile ourselves to God in order that we might live this life in submission to his will, and ultimately to be reconciled to him for all eternity.

On the Essentials

The Seventeenth Sunday after Trinity

LORD we pray thee that thy grace may always prevent and follow us, and make us continually to be given to all good works; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Harvest Thanksgiving

O ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who crownest the year with thy goodness, and hast given unto us the fruits of the earth in their season: Give us grateful hearts, that we may unfeignedly thank thee for all thy loving-kindness, and worthily magnify thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

There is a maxim, often mis-attributed to St Augustine of Hippo, which reads in its original Latin in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. It is usually rendered into English along these lines of, “in the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, diversity; in all things, charity.” The question, then, becomes what is essential?

For Anglicans, it might be confusing. We have the Book of Common Prayer, ordinal and 39 Articles as our formularies. They define the practice of Anglican tradition, but are they essential to the Christian faith itself? Clearly not. The Lambeth Quadrilateral is in fact the document which defines the essentials for Anglicans, but in reference not merely to the Anglican tradition, but the Christian tradition as a whole.

The Lambeth Quadrilateral was a resolution of the 1888 Lambeth Conference, an international gathering of Bishops from throughout the Anglican Communion, made in response to the 1886 declaration of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America which included the following in its preamble:

we do hereby affirm that the Christian unity...can be restored only by the return of all Christian communions to the principles of unity exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first ages of its existence; which principles we believe to be the substantial deposit of Christian Faith and Order committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Church unto the end of the world, and therefore incapable of compromise or surrender by those who have been ordained to be its stewards and trustees for the common and equal benefit of all men.

The full declaration of the American bishops was not adopted at the Lambeth Conference, however the four key points were adopted, declaring that the Anglican Communion would continue to affirm the historic faith of the undivided Catholic Church, and in doing so identified four specific areas.

First and foremost, the Lambeth Quadrilateral affirms the one canon of Holy Scripture as the ultimate standard of faith, and to quote Article VI of the Articles of Religion, the Quadrilateral affirms that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation. While the canon of Scripture was not fixed in the Apostolic Age, primarily because most of what would become the New Testament was not committed to writing until near the end of the Apostolic Age, yet still Scripture was recognized as containing the revealed Truth of God, and the New Testament faithfully reproduced the faith of the Apostles and the Truth revealed by Christ during his ministry. The placement of the Scripture in the Quadrilateral again itself affirms Prima Scriptura which demands that Holy Scripture be held as the standard by which the faith, order and practice of the Church is measured.

Next, the Lambeth Quadrilateral affirmed the Catholic creeds, specifically the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed as faithfully articulating the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and to quote the Quadrilateral itself, "as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith." A key characteristic of the Catholic Church was that it held one faith, articulated in the Creeds and councils accepted both east and west. The Apostle's creed as the symbol of baptism, and the Nicene creed as a necessary articulation of orthodoxy in relation to the Christological controversies of the early Church. These creeds form the definition of orthodox Christianity precisely because they were accepted by the Catholic Church during the age of the fathers.

Third, the Quadrilateral affirms the two Sacraments of the Gospel. The sacramental life of the Catholic Church was universally held. One baptism, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and being born to new life, followed by the Supper of the Lord ministered, in the words of the Quadrilateral, with, "unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution," used to nourish Christians in their new lives in Christ. The Quadrilateral in no way rejects the Sacraments of the Church, but again merely reflects that the two Sacraments of the Gospel were the only two Sacraments universally received by the east and west, while other Sacraments of the Church have been received only in certain places and at certain times.

Finally, the Quadrilateral ends by affirming the importance of the Historic Episcopate and the three-fold order of ministry through bishops, priests and deacons. Implicit in this is the importance of Apostolic Succession, the idea that the authority of ordained ministers is derived from their following in the Apostolic commission. It is a further reminder that the Anglican Churches do not claim their own ministry. There is no such thing as an Anglican Priest, but rather a priest in the Catholic Church who ministers in the Anglican tradition.

Taken together, these are an affirmation of the faith, order and practice of the Catholic Church by which Christian unity may be affirmed. When any controversy arises in a given tradition, it must be reviewed in the context of these universal standards.

For instance, throughout history there have been controversies over issues such as how many altar candles may be present on the altar during Holy Communion. In order to determine if the issue is essential, the question asked is, first and foremost, is it addressed in Scripture? Then, is it addressed in the Creeds? Third, does it affect the administration of the Sacraments of the Gospel? Finally, does it affect the understanding of Apostolic Succession and the Apostolic ministry? If not, it is not an essential matter and there is room for diversity. In the case of altar candles, it is not a matter addressed in Scripture or the creeds. It doesn’t impact the Sacraments of the Gospel and neither does it impact the Apostolic ministry. Whether it be none, two or six, there is room for diversity on the number of altar candles as they are not essential to the faith.

This example may seem somewhat flippant, however it would equally apply to many of the controversies that cause major schisms these days, namely the ordination of women and proposed changes to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony to allow for the blessing of same-sex marriages.

The former Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsay was a strong proponent of Quadrilateral as a model for ecumenical reunion, particularly with the Eastern Orthodox Church. He had made significant progress in developing understanding on the basis of the Quadrilateral and the idea of the Anglican Communion as maintaining the Catholic faith, order and practice of the patristic Church. He had made significant progress in clearing the way on major issues; however, as is recorded in his personal journal, he was woken up in the middle of the night in 1976 and informed that the General Convention of the Episcopal Church of the United States had authorized the ordination of women as priests. He immediately began to weep, recognizing that the Anglican Communion had surrendered its claim to Catholicity over the issue, and had ended the immediate prospects for ecumenical reunion with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The official status of the Lambeth Quadrilateral has come into question in some national Provinces in the Anglican Communion, however in the traditional view of Anglicanism, the Lambeth Quadrilateral remains an important document which records a defining characteristic of Anglicanism, which is to say that it seeks a return to the faith, order and traditions of the patristic Catholic Church, and its authority to determine doctrine is derived from that formula.

On the Three-Legged Stool

The Feast of St Bartholomew the Apostle

O ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who didst give to thine Apostle Bartholomew grace truly to believe and to preach thy Word: Grant, we beseech thee, unto thy Church, to love that Word which he believed, and both to preach and receive the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Tenth Sunday after Trinity

LET thy merciful ears, O Lord, be open to the prayers of thy humble servants; and that they may obtain their petitions make them to ask such things as shall please thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

In the 16th century, Richard Hooker was a priest of the Church of England and an influential theologian whose works continue to influence Anglicans today. His famous Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie was a response to emerging Puritanism and a defence of the organization and governance of the Church of England. His work had long-lasting influence on the development of coherent Anglican theology over the next centuries.

Of particular note was Hooker’s emphasis on the importance of Scripture, reason and Tradition. While he never expressed it as such, this has been commonly termed the “three-legged stool” which underpins Anglican theology and doctrine. As he did describe it,

Be it in matter of the one kind or of the other, what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after this the Church succeedeth that which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason overrule all other inferior judgments whatsoever. (Book V, 8:2)

Richard Hooker’s writing established a classical understanding of the hierarchy of Scripture, reason and Tradition with Scripture as the ultimate authority on God’s revelation and reason and Tradition as tools we use to help understand Scripture.

This understanding of authority on doctrine provides for a balanced approach that rejects the Protestant sola scriptura practice of Holy Scripture as the sole authority as much as it rejects the notion of Papal Infallibility in teaching. Scripture, reason and Tradition are held together and against one another as a method of balanced discernment of the will of God towards true understanding and doctrine.

It is not, however, an approach which is always understood in its classical sense, particularly by those who know it on the basis of the “three-legged stool” which itself implies an equality between the three ‘legs’ which does not exist.

In Hooker’s words, “to [Holy Scripture] the first place both of credit and obedience is due.” The doctrine of the Anglican Church rejects sola scriptura of the Protestant Reformation in favour of prima scriptura. The primacy of Holy Scripture is the fundamental principle of Anglican doctrine. While not the only source of doctrine, it is the standard by which other doctrines are measured. Interestingly, prima scriptura is also the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and although the Roman Catholic Church officially holds Tradition in equality with Holy Scripture, in practice Tradition is still measured against Holy Scripture as the ultimate revealed Truth.

After the primacy of Scripture, Hooker follows with, “whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason.” Reason is a God-gifted faculty granted to man, and is useful for the understanding of Holy Scripture and the application of it in a modern context. The Bible was written to be understood by the people in the time it was written; the further we are from that time the more difficult it is for us to fully understand a simple reading of it. William of St-Thierry argued this in his The Golden Epistle, saying, “The Scriptures need to be read and understood in the same spirit in which they were created. You will never enter into Paul’s meaning until, by good intention in reading and diligent zeal in meditating, you drink of his spirit.” This is even made even clearer in Scripture itself:

So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8. 30-31)

In this passage, the Ethiopian is able to read the Book of Isaiah, but is not able to interpret it because his cultural and historical context is too far removed from the time and culture of Isaiah. While we have long traditions of Biblical exegesis dating back to the Church Fathers to help us understand much of the meaning of Scripture, reason is what allows us to further interpret and apply the revealed Truth of Scripture in our modern lives.

Reason, along with Tradition, helps to interpret Holy Scripture, however there are limits to the ability of reason to produce theologically sound interpretation. Reason can, for instance, be used to explain the nature of God on the basis of revealed Truth in Holy Scripture. Where reason causes theological error is when it is used to extrapolate, rather than simply interpret, the nature of God on the basis of Holy Scripture. While reason comes from God, it is shaped by our human natures, human logic and human understanding. If there is one thing shown repeatedly in the Bible, it is that God’s nature constantly confounds human expectations (viz. Mt 20. 1-16, Lk 15. 11-32) and therefore to apply human logic and understanding to extrapolate on the nature of God would doubtless lead to theological error and would be unprovable, lacking the standard of Holy Scripture to be properly measured against.

In Hooker’s age, the word Tradition had so many negative connotations but in its current use we deem to mean what Hooker was referring to when he said, “that which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good.” While Holy Scripture was the full standard by which all doctrine must be measured, unlike sola scriptura, prima scriptura leaves room for the Church to discern doctrine in areas where Scripture provides no clear doctrine, by applying the lessons of Scripture to new situations, after discernment and prayer, and with the aid of the Holy Spirit. According to the Articles of Religion, the Church has no authority to promulgate doctrine in conflict with Holy Scripture, supporting Hooker’s hierarchy.

The problem with the notion of a three-legged stool is that it implies equality between its legs while, in reality, Holy Scripture is the standard by which reason and Tradition are judged. To place them on an equal footing denies the supremacy of Scripture, which is laid out in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles, and muddles the importance of God’s revealed Truth to us. While the concept of a three-legged stool sounds Anglican on its face--striking a middle way through the supreme authority of Scripture and Tradition in the Protestant and Roman Catholic traditions, classical Anglicanism demands a hierarchical approach to the understanding of Scripture, reason and Tradition.

On the Church of England

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.

Whereas last week’s entry spoke to the origins of the Ecclesia Anglicana, the English Church, this week’s entry takes place in the 16th century, discussing the ending of communion between the English Church and Rome and the origin of the modern Church of England.

While the history of the English Church is relatively unknown in popular terms, particularly among non-Anglicans who focus purely on the idea of King Henry VIII replacing the pope as the head of the church in order to grant himself a divorce, it is at least relatively straight forward. The same cannot be said for the true history behind the English Church’s break with Rome and subsequent development into the modern Church of England and Anglican Communion. One of the reasons for this is that this portion of the Church of England’s history mixes together influences of both theology and politics.

The history of Christianity is replete with politics interfering with the governance of the Church, dating back to the early 4th century when the legalization of Christianity allowed early Christians, and their leaders, to focus on more than merely their own survival. Emperor Constantine the Great himself called the Council of Nicaea as a way of hopefully resolving some of the debates which had sprung up among the bishops throughout the Empire, and in doing so established the beginning of a precedent of civil interference in religious matters, a precedent which was not lost on many of the bishops who attended the council. In following years, the pro-Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia used his influence with Emperor Constantine to attack various anti-Arian bishops including Saint Athanasius and have them exiled. He further exerted influence with the Emperor to appoint Arian clergy and promote Arian doctrines in the Church in opposition to the Nicene Creed and Trinitarian formula that had been adopted by the Council of Nicaea.

The political influence of the Pope has a long history that dates back to the 4th century when the Roman Empire began to be split. Rome, Antioch and Alexandria were among the foremost cities in the Empire (to which was later added Constantinople). While Rome was originally the capital, under Constantine and subsequent Emperors, the capital was moved and the Empire often split between the leadership of a number of co-leaders. For many years, then, the Bishop of Rome was the senior most authority in Rome, and the Roman people looked to him not simply for spiritual leadership, but civic leadership as well. With the fall of the Roman Empire, the Bishop’s authority grew even greater as civic authority was disbanded. The powerful Roman Bishop easily moved into the vacuum created by the fall of the Western Empire, and over the centuries the religious and civic authority of the Pope was solidified to the point where in the 16th century the Pope was not just the leader of Western Christianity, but his own state and quite often a well-heeded advisor of numerous European monarchs.

Other examples are found of political influence in every era of the church. By the 16th century, however, perhaps the best example of this confluence of religion and politics was the Pope himself, who was not merely the head of the Catholic Church, but also the Head of State of the Papal States and an important political player in European statecraft. Pope Leo X had allied himself with King Henry and his allies a number of times over the years. Notably, perhaps, in exchange for a sum of money to support Leo’s ambitions of obtaining political authority for his relatives in the tumultuous Italian peninsula, Leo joined the Papal forces in an alliance with Spain and England against France. Ultimately, with Henry’s financial support for a military campaign, Leo’s nephew was confirmed as the Duke of Urbino.

It was under Pope Leo X that Martin Luther initiated what would become the Protestant Reformation. While the Reformation is perhaps best remembered today for opening the way to major theological expansion, Luther’s original goals were more limited to the reform of abuses being perpetrated by the Roman Church and by various clerics under Roman authority, most notably concerning the practice of indulgences. Indulgences were a form of remission of temporal punishment associated with an already forgiven sin. It was associated with alms during the early church, but as the practice grew in popularity during the medieval period, it became little more than a tax used to support various projects including the rebuilding of St Peter’s Basilica by Pope Leo X, which ultimately prompted Luther’s opposition.

Luther published his famous Ninety-Five Theses protesting various abuses of the Roman Church, sparking the Protestant Reformation. Pope Leo X’s response was to reject Luther’s demands for reform, and in this he was supported by his political ally King Henry VIII who, for his support of the Pope, was awarded the title Fidei Defensor (Defender of the Faith) by Pope Leo X just prior to his death in December 1521.

It was under Pope Clement VII that communion between Rome and England ended. By 1527 Henry was becoming so concerned with the failure of his wife, Catherine of Aragon, to bear him a male heir that he took the matter to Pope Clement VII asking for an annulment on the basis of Leviticus 20. 21. At the time, however, Rome was besieged by Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor and nephew of Catherine of Aragon. Faced with the political pressure of Charles’ sacking of Rome in May 1527, Clement VII refused Henry’s request and a number of subsequent requests for an annulment. Over the course of the next three years it became clear to Henry and his advisors that no annulment would be forthcoming.

The politics of Pope Clement VII were making him an unreliable ally to the still staunchly Catholic Henry VIII. Papal supremacy was looking less like the spiritual primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and more like the political supremacy of a foreign and not necessarily friendly or reliable European state leader. In 1532, with the political support of King Francis I of France, Henry married Anne Boleyn and by the next year had his marriage and annulment of his marriage Catherine of Aragon recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer. When news of the marriage reached Pope Clement VII, he excommunicated both Henry VIII and Thomas Cranmer from the Roman Catholic Church. Over the next few years and with Henry’s support, the English Parliament passed a number of laws that redefined the relationship between the Pope and the English crown and state, curbing the Pope’s political authority in England.

The 1534 Act of Supremacy marks the full break of the English Church with Rome, declaring the King to be the supreme head of the Church of England. Supremacists argued that the Pope’s actions were being dictated by civil and political considerations rather than religion, and thus if the Church of England was to have a civil authority over it, it should rightly be an English, and not foreign, one. It should be noted that while there had been a political divorce from Roman authority, Henry VIII remained dogmatically inclined to Rome and following a visit by a number of Lutheran theologians in 1538, Henry had Parliament pass the Act of Six Articles, a precursor to the current Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, which maintained complete orthodoxy with Roman Catholic belief.

The Church of England’s independence from Rome stemmed from Reformation issues, but rather than being based in theology, it dealt primarily with abuses of political authority rather than religious authority. The Roman Catholic Church, in its counter-reformation Council of Trent in the mid-16th century, recognized these issues explicitly with respect to indulgences, defending the theological value of indulgences while condemning the temporal abuses through the sale of indulgences. The Act of Supremacy is often cited as the start of the English Reformation, a period of significant instability in England. Not everyone accepted the King’s actions, and not everyone supported Henry’s retention of Roman Catholic doctrine. To this day, Henry VIII is not commemorated in the Anglican Communion. It would take until the Restoration in the 1660s before the issues of doctrine had been finally settled to the point where they would be able to remain intact to the present day and the current formulation of the Church of England would become recognizable with the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion published therein.