On the Articles: Article XXXIX

The Twenty-Fourth Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, we beseech thee, absolve thy people from their offences; that through thy bountiful goodness we may all be delivered from the bands of those sins, which by our frailty we have committed. Grant this, O heavenly Father, for Jesus Christ’s sake, our blessed Lord and Saviour. Amen.

The Octave of All Saints Day

O ALMIGHTY God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord: Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys, which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XXXIX. Of a Christian Man’s Oath
As we confess that vain and rash Swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James his Apostle, so we judge, that Christian Religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the Prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgement, and truth.

Article XXXIX, the last, addresses two different issues.

The first sentence of the Article notes that, “vain and rash Swearing is forbidden Christian men,” by which it means profanity is barred. From the commandment not to use the Lord’s name in vain to Christ’s warning that what comes out of the mouth is more damaging than what goes in, there is a clear line in Scripture that tells us that Christians ought not to be vulgar. It should be recognized that there is a cultural context to profanity—what is considered to be profanity changes from language to language and time to time. In some cultures, for instance in Quebecois French, many vulgarities are sacrilegious, while in English, vulgarities are often sexual or relate to bodily waste. No matter their case, it is what they reflect from within us that is prohibited, and it is the causes of the utterances of profanity that is truly being warned against, not simply the utterances of profanity itself.

The second sense of the Article is a reference not to profanity, but to the swearing of oaths. While it is primarily the second part of this Article that addresses this, there is one historic way in which that first sentence condemning “vain and rash Swearing” also applies to the swearing of oaths. Historically prior to the reformation, it was common for young children to be sent to monasteries and convents. In order to be taken in, these young children would be required to swear oaths of celibacy, poverty and other forms. This Article condemns that medieval practice pointing out that it is a rash thing to have someone swear an oath so rashly, namely when they cannot understand the full consequences of what they are about to do. Biblically, the story of Jephthah (Judges 11. 29-40) seems to speak against this as well, as Jephthah swore rashly and paid a severe price for that mistake, being forced to sacrifice his daughter.
The second half of the Article makes a similar reference to the swearing of oaths in a way that would be understandable to modern eyes, namely the civil and legal sphere where oaths must be sworn, for instance before entering into a civil office or giving legal testimony in a courtroom. To some of the more radical reformers, Christ’s admonition to, “Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil,” (St Mt 5. 37) is interpreted as prohibiting the swearing of such oaths.

Yet there are many other places in Scripture where oaths are commended, from the Law of Moses (Deut 6. 13) to St Paul’s many references (Rm 9. 1, 2; II Cor 1. 23; Gal 1. 20). Nowhere in the Gospel does Christ overturn the law of Moses, and St Paul and the other Apostles, St James the Bishop of Jerusalem is mentioned explicitly in the Article.

It should be noted that there is room and even historic example, of how Christians ought to apply the lack of oaths, which comes from honesty: the lives as relate to Christians. In monastic communities, monks were prohibited from swearing oaths once they had joined their community because they were to be honest in all things and to swear additional oaths was to suggest they failed in their duty to be honest in all things. It may have been the extension of this practice to clergy in general in the medieval period that placed the seed of the prohibition of oaths among some of the radical reformers of the day.

In recognizing however that not everyone is held to such a standard, because not everyone is Christian, it becomes clear that this Article is a practical way of ensuring that Christians can relate to them in a pluralistic society. While the Christian should follow Christ’s commandment for honesty, that does not prohibit them from swearing an oath, to God or simply directly to another person, in order that the other party might believe them. Similarly, even among Christians, the use of contracts as a legal vow between parties are not prohibited as they can ensure clear understanding on both parties and ought not to be implied to suggest a lack of trust by one party towards the other.

The final sentence of this Article instructs that Christians ought to follow lawful civil authority, “according to the Prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgement and truth.” This is a rather suitable prescription to conclude the Articles, saying simply that as far as our relationship to civil society goes, we ought to do our best to live in such a society in recognition that not all within it are Christian, but bearing witness to Christ in what we do, displaying justice, good judgement and God’s truth.

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 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 Remembrance

The Twenty-first Sunday after Trinity

GRANT, we beseech thee, merciful Lord, to thy faithful people pardon and peace; that they may be cleansed from all their sins, and serve thee with a quiet mind; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Remembrance Sunday

ALMIGHTY Lord and everlasting Father, who wouldest have the kingdoms of the world become the kingdom of thy Son Jesus Christ: Bestow thy blessing, we beseech thee, upon all who labour for peace and righteousness among the nations, that the day may be hastened when war shall be no more, and thou shalt take the nations for thine inheritance; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For those who serve in the Queen's Forces

O LORD of hosts, stretch forth, we pray thee, thine almighty arm to strengthen and protect the Queen’s forces in every peril of sea, and land, and air; shelter them in the day of battle, and ever keep them safe from all evil; endue them with loyalty and courage; and grant that in all things they may serve as seeing thee who art invisible; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Today is Remembrance Sunday. A day coming shortly after All Souls day in which we seek to commemorate those who died specifically in the service of their country. Remembrance Sunday is an Anglican practice which emerged following the First World War in which the world was exposed to the horrors of modern total war with millions of young men dying on the muddy battlefields of Europe. It has since taken on special significance as a more general memorial to all those soldiers who have died in the service to their country in all wars and peace operations.

Since the beginning of the Canadian participation in the war in Afghanistan, Remembrance Sunday has taken on special significance as, for the first time in a generation, the true risks of combat operations were brought home and Remembrance Sunday was no longer simply a time to honour the dwindling numbers of the Great Generation who fought in the Second World War, but rather a time to mourn losses being incurred on those sandy battlefields and to pray for the safety of those still fighting there.

While combat operations have since ceased in Afghanistan, the Canadian military remains active abroad, confronting the threat of Russian incursions in Ukraine and the threat of the Islamic State in Iraq. We live in a dangerous world, and the reality is that Canada, as one of the best-trained modern militaries in the world, will often be looked to for support in conflict zones around the globe.

In the wake of the murders of WO Patrice Vincent of Cpl Nathan Cirillo, this year’s Remembrance Day campaigns have taken on an even greater significance for many for whom it is also a cathartic expression of their grief and incomprehension at the violence during the shooting at Parliament Hill.

As we gather before the Lord for Remembrance Sunday, the words of the Act of Remembrance are given new meaning that is not found when it is used in a secular context. “Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.” In particular, we are reminded of St Paul’s words to the Corinthians:

I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
“O death, where is your victory?
    O death, where is your sting?”
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labour is not in vain. (1 Cor 15. 50-58)

Through the Act of Remembrance, we bring the sacrifices of soldiers to God, much in the same way the Collect for the Sovereign is meant to bring the power structures of the civil authority before God during the Eucharist. It reminds us that, though they have fallen, their death is merely the death of the flesh, and their victory over death has been assured in Christ Jesus.

In these ways, Remembrance Sunday is a unique moment for Anglicans to reflect upon those in civil authority who act on our behalf. Yet, at the same time, it is nothing new.

Each week in the Prayers of the People, biddings and intercessions are offered. There are five categories of biddings: the universal church, those in civil authority, the faithfulness of clergy and people, for those in adversity or suffering and for the dearly departed.

In praying for the universal church, we primarily concern ourselves with unity and right-doctrine; that all Christians would fulfil Christ’s prayer for peace and unity, particularly among Christians.

In praying for those in positions of civil authority, we recall the fact the fact that the government has a significant impact on our lives; it decides both where and when soldiers are to be deployed; how laws will be administrated; conditions in prisons and penitentiaries and importantly numerous laws of a moral dimension.

Clergy receive prayers for the faithful administration of their duties as teachers of the faith and administrants of the sacraments. They hold the all important charism of teaching authority, and so we pray for their faithful interpretation of God’s word and their teaching of it.

As the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews reminds us, “Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body.” (Heb 13. 3) In some translations, mistreated is translated simply as adversity. Recall those suffering persecution, sickness, and all other forms of adversity.

Lastly we pray for the faithful departed and those who grieve. We pray both for those who continue to live, for their comfort, and also for the departed, praying for their glory in faith.

It is clear how many of these hold a slightly more limited, but still familiar, context on Remembrance Sunday. We pray for the Government and all governments, that there would be peace among the nations and an end to the need for military forces to be deployed abroad. We pray that in zones of active conflict there would be resolution. We pray for those forces that combat injustice and persecution in the world. We in particular recall those who served and who returned home with wounds, visible and invisible, and pray for their healing and well-being. Finally, we recall St Paul’s words on the victory of Christ in death as a we remember those who have fallen in wars, and we

This year, Remembrance Day has taken on a visceral and personal meaning for many. It was already highlighted in the minds of many, being the centenary of the start of the First World War, and the attacks on Canadian Armed Forces personnel here in Canada, the shooting in Ottawa in particular being an event that captured the attention of the nation as the attack was reported over the course of several hours. We have been reminded of the dangerous responsibilities soldiers take upon themselves, on our behalf, when they take up their uniforms. Remembrance Sunday reminds us that we are not merely to remember them, but to pray for them as well, fulfilling  St Paul’s instructions to the Philippians to, “in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.” (Phil 4. 6)

Simply put: it is not enough simply that we will remember them; we will remember and pray for them.