On the Articles: Article XIX

The Fourth Sunday after Trinity

O GOD, the protector of all that trust in thee, without whom nothing is strong, nothing is holy: Increase and multiply upon us thy mercy; that, thou being our ruler and guide, we may so pass through things temporal, that we finally lose not the things eternal. Grant this, O heavenly Father, for Jesus Christ’s sake our Lord. Amen.

XIX. Of the Church
THE visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

After having spent a great deal of time arguing for the nature of God, the Trinity and Christ, and then our relation to God in terms of salvation, the Articles of Religion turn to the Church, beginning by setting out a clear ecclesiology of the meaning of the Church.

For some when they speak of the Church, they speak of an invisible Church, composed of the body of all believers. Yet there is a subset of that, the visible Church, the bride of Christ, which Christ ordained when he said to his Apostles “on this rock I will build my church,” (St Mt 16. 18b), and birthed at Pentecost by the Holy Spirit. To those for whom there is a visible Church, there is no problem with accepting also an invisible church, though for most the term body of believers would be preferred as ‘invisible church’ is for many a contradiction in terms. However, for many Protestants, they reject any notion of a visible Church instituted by Christ himself, and so their view finds the idea of a visible Church incompatible with their invisible church. This Article begins by clearly stating that for Anglicans, we believe in the visible Church, indeed as the thrust of the English Reformation was to maintain that the English Church is and has always been a part of Christ’s One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church.

In making this claim, the Article goes further to define what distinguishes Christ’s Church from the invisible Church which includes the whole body of believers who profess a saving faith. It lists three general criteria for the Church: the congregation of the faithful, the teaching of God’s Word, and the administration of Christ’s sacraments.

The first criterion is that the Church is, “a congregation of faithful men.” This does not mean to suggest faithful to the Church itself as an institution, but rather faithfulness to Christ. These must be believers, and orthodox believers.

The second criterion is that the Church is a place, “in which the pure Word of God is preached.” Article VI placed a strong emphasis on the Holy Scriptures as containing all things necessary for salvation, in contrast with Rome which taught that the Church had authority outside of Scripture and equal to Scripture to require other dogmas to be accepted as necessary for salvation. It also carries with it the same connotation as faithful in the first criterion: the people cannot be faithful unless the Scriptures are faithfully explained to them. Here the term pure suggests that the Church can err by impurely teaching the Scriptures, something certainly in need of noting in modern times where attempts are made to justify secular practices and mores by twisting Scripture in ways in which it has never been understood and oftentimes contravenes its plain meaning.

The third criterion is that the Church is a place where, “the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinances.” This makes reference to some later Articles which name Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist as the only two sacraments ordained by Christ.

While not a direct criterion, there is a fourth clause in the Article which says, “in all those things necessary and requisite of the same.” This is a reference to the three-fold order of ministry which Cranmer refers to in later articles where it makes clear that only ordained persons may administer the sacraments and preach God’s words.

Taking these four together, they establish a clear pattern. The Church is found where-ever the orthodox faith is professed, God’s Word is faithfully preached, Christ’s sacraments are administered, chiefly meaning Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist, and the threefold order of ministry of bishops, priests and deacons is maintained. If this sounds familiar, it is because it has previously been referred to several times on this blog, both as referring to the goal of the English Reformation as well as through later documents such as the Canadian Solemn Declaration of 1893 and the Lambeth Quadrilateral, each of which refer to those four points.

While these four goals can be seen as running throughout the Articles and throughout the writings of Cranmer, the Book of Common Prayer and the English Divines, this is certainly one place, in the Formularies, which the point can be made no more clearly.

The Article itself concludes by pointing out that the ancient patriarchates have erred in matters of faith and ceremonies. It is far easier to see what is meant by this in relation to Rome as several other Articles address Roman errors. Indeed, this also goes back to the reason why Protestants developed their view of the invisible Church, as prior to the disunion of East and West there was very clearly a united visible Church ordained by Christ, and even after that disunion, most people generally viewed the other as being schismatic and thus there was still only one Church. Protestants needed a way to justify their legitimacy in opposition to the visible Church which traced its lineage back to the time of the Apostles. This again reinforces their need to reject the concept of a visible Church and put forward the notion of an invisible Church.

While there is nowhere else in the Articles a clear list of which errors this Article is referring to, there are many known errors into which those sees had historically fallen. At various times, Eastern Sees were controlled by Arians, and in Rome Pope Honorius I had been anathematized for the heresy of Monothelitism in the 7th century. This Article was composed while the Roman Council of Trent was ongoing, and one important point at Trent was that its decrees were declared to not be infallible and dogmatic decrees of the past hundred years were also opened for question. This point may have been to reinforce the fallibility of the Church again primarily as a challenge to Rome’s more common claims to infallibility (though not Papal infallibility, a doctrine not yet proclaimed in the 16th century and which was not articulated until the 19th century).

While interpretation of this Article has varied over time, the stance of the visible Church and a willingness to accept the idea of an invisible Church claimed by Protestants now generally being accepted, it makes continued important statements about knowledge of where the visible Church is, and Anglicanism’s role in maintaining the purity of the Christ’s Catholic Church in the Realm of England (and lands subsequently reached by English missionaries).

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 the Articles: Article VII

The Sunday Next Before Easter commonly called Palm Sunday

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who, of thy tender love towards mankind, hast sent thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, to take upon him our flesh, and to suffer death upon the cross, that all mankind should follow the example of his great humility: Mercifully grant, that we may both follow the example of his patience, and also be made partakers of his resurrection; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

VII. Of the Old Testament
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

In discussions where a Christian might seek to apply some rule from the Old Testament, it is often the case that their opponent might reply by pointing out they are wearing a cotton-polyester blend shirt and that by the Law written in Leviticus, they are to be put to death. How do you respond? It is clear that today some of the rules of the Old Testament are no longer operative for Christians, but which and why? Are Christians just picking and choosing what to follow and what not to follow as they desire, or is there something more organized to the application of the Old Testament?

Since the early days of Christianity, there have been controversies over how to interpret and understand the Old Testament Scriptures for Christians. While Article VI makes clear that they are Scripture, Article VII is left to interpret exactly how.

In the early Church, Marcion of Sinope had so great a struggle with understanding and applying the Old Testament in light of Christ that he declared them to be speaking of a separate God and that no Christian was bound by them. His heresy, marcionism, now bears his name and has been thoroughly rejected. Article VII makes this clear, and also lays out the answer to the original question of how we are to interpret and apply the Old Testament.

First, it counters marcionism by explicitly stating that, “the Old Testament is not Contrary to the New,” or in other words that the God of the Old Testament is the God of the New, and goes further in pointing out that nothing in the Old Testament is contrary, and indeed elements of the Old Testament prefigure Christ and point to him as the only mediator between God and mankind. This refers to Scriptural passages both that present types of Christ—such as Isaac as a type of Christ going willingly to be sacrificed—or which prefigure him—such as the bronze serpent being lifted up in the desert prefiguring Christ being lifted up on the cross—as well as prophecies which Christ fulfilled. The Old Testament and New Testament are a part of one consistent deposit of Holy Scripture, inseparable from one another, and the Old Testament cannot be interpreted apart from the Light of Christ revealed in the New Testament. The covenants of the Old Testament continue to operate, but certain elements have been fulfilled by Christ, and there is now a new economy of grace through Christ. Christ’s sacrifice, once and for all for the forgiveness of sins, means, for instance, that the sacrifices of the temple are no longer necessary, but God’s promises to his people still operate in this new reality. As the Article says, these promises were not transitory.

Finally, the Article moves on to explaining the question of the Law of the Old Testament and how we are to apply it today. It divides the Law of Moses into three sections. First are the Laws relating to Ceremonies and Rites. These include such things as the laws of ritual sacrifice, laws of ritual purity and so forth. The second relates to what the article calls “Civil precepts” which related to laws describing how Jewish society was to regulate itself. Finally, it categorizes laws pertaining to morality as a third category.

The laws of Ceremonies and Rites it says “do not bind Christian men,” and of the civil laws, it says they do not, “of necessity,” need to be applied to the civil laws of any particular country. These laws we might refer to as the particular laws of the Jews. These were laws meant to distinguish the Jews and mark them as being God’s own chosen people. Through Christ, all are invited into the family of God and so no such laws are necessary. Indeed, they would be counter-productive, because instead of being born into God’s family through ancestry of Abraham, we enter into God’s family through our choice to accept and submit ourselves to the lordship of Jesus Christ.

The final section of the laws, “which are called Moral,” continue to apply to Christians today. While this does not create an explicit list, it does help us to understand how we are to interpret the Old Testament. For instance, adultery remains prohibited because it is a moral law, yet the civil precept that adultery is to be punished by death is not to be required. Christians are to follow the moral laws in Leviticus, but the particular laws of the Jews, such as the requirement not to wear garments of two kinds of thread, is no longer operative.

This can at times lead to dispute on the particular nature of what is a moral law, but often it becomes clear that those disputing the nature of what is moral are attempting to apply some form of legalism in order to escape either what they feel they are called to follow or what is clearly something they are meant to follow as a moral law. The first part of this Article helps us to remember that the interpretation and application of these rules follows a simple line of reasoning:  the Old and New Testament are a single and consistent whole. If in the New Testament a part of the Old is indicated to be inoperative, that is a clear sign it is a particular law of the Jews, while laws strengthened or affirmed are moral.

Now even in the cases where the laws are no longer operative, that does not mean we are to discount them or throw out those parts of the Old Testament, similar to what Marcion advocated, but rather we must remember that the entirety of the Old Testament remains inspired, and even where a law is no longer applicable for the reasons stated, there was a reason God ordained that law in the first place and it may tell us something of God’s nature that helps us to know him better and thus understand his will for us today in our Christian contexts better.

On the Articles: Article VI

The Fifth Sunday in Lent commonly called Passion Sunday

WE beseech thee, Almighty God, mercifully to look upon thy people; that by thy great goodness they may be governed and preserved evermore, both in body and soul; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Lent

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who hatest nothing that thou hast made, and dost forgive the sins of all them that are penitent: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we worthily lamenting our sins, and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of thee, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books
Genesis,          The First Book of Samuel,           The Book of Esther,
Exodus,           The Second Book of Samuel,      The Book of Job,
Leviticus,        The First Book of Kings,             The Psalms,
Numbers,        The Second Book of Kings,         The Proverbs,
Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles,      Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Joshua,            The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
Judges,            The First Book of Esdras,            Four Prophets the greater,
Ruth,         The Second Book of Esdras        Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras,
The Fourth Book of Esdras,
The Book of Tobias,
The Book of Judith,
The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Book of Wisdom,
Jesus the Son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children,
The Story of Susanna,
Of Bel and the Dragon,
The Prayer of Manasses,
The First Book of Maccabees,
The Second Book of Maccabees.
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

Article VI is interesting in that it highlights both how the English Church sought to distinguish itself from Roman Catholics, by teaching contrary to Rome that all Scripture itself was sufficient in teaching all that was necessary for salvation, while also highlighting through the Canon that it was accepting the Roman influenced Canon of Scripture which had been set by St Jerome in the 5th century, influenced as it was by St Jerome’s emphasis on the Hebrew-language masoretic texts over the Septuagint Greek-language Old Testament manuscripts which had been normative for Christians until that time.

What is interesting is that Article VI also distinguishes itself from Sola Scriptura the continental Protestant doctrine of “Scripture Alone” by recognizing that there were teachings that were valid beyond simply what was contained explicitly in Scripture, but they were not to be taught as being required to be believed for the purposes of salvation in the way that Rome had taught certain doctrines as “must believes” (for instance, the authority of the Bishop of Rome and the doctrine of transubstantiation as a philosophical explanation of how Christ is present in the Eucharist).

This aspect of Article VI is universally accepted, however there is some greater controversy over the listing of the Canonical books of the Scriptures, particularly the Old Testament. The controversy over the Canon involves the historical development of the Jewish Scriptures.

Over the centuries, Jews before and leading up to the time of Christ no longer lived exclusively in modern-day Israel. Following the various conquests of Israel, many Jews had spread out throughout the Persian Empire and then the Roman Empire. Culture at this time was Hellenistic, which is to say Greek, and the Jews of Diaspora had become thoroughly Hellenised to the point that many did not even speak Hebrew. This led at first to texts of the Hebrew Scriptures being prepared that used Greek phonetics to present the Hebrew words because no one in the Synagogue could read or speak the Hebrew. Eventually this led to wholly Greek translations of the Scriptures, known as the Septuagint. Over time, particularly due to the growth of Gentile Christians who did speak Greek but not Hebrew, the Septuagint version became associated with Christians. Jews, on the other hand, particularly after drawing a greater distinction between Jews and Christians following the destruction of the Temple around 70 AD, began to reassert Hebrew as the language of the Jews, discouraging the use of Greek and the Septuagint. The Masoretic texts were created in the 4th century AD in an effort to create a new Hebrew language version of the Jewish Scriptures. Because of the animosity between Jews and Christians, some translation decisions and decisions over which books to include in their Canon reflected efforts to disprove Christian claims of Christ as the promised Messiah. St Jerome was influenced by the newer Hebrew language scriptures over the older Greek Septuagint, and brought into question the Canon of the Old Testament, something which continues to be debated today.

Even within the Article there is ambiguity over whether or not the “Apocryphal” books are counted as part of the Canon. Note that these books are not to be confused with post-Christian Apocrypha such as the Gospel of Judas or Gospel of James, which are universally accepted as being false books not written by the claimed authors. The Apocrypha here are books which were Canonically accepted as Scripture by the Jews and Christians until hundreds of years after the time of Christ.

The way the Article is written lends itself to multiple possible interpretations:

Of the names of the Canonical Books: [the list of the Old testament books], and [the Apocryphal books, and the New Testament.

Of the names of the Canonical Books are [the list of Old Testament books], and the Apocrypha is read only for example of life and manners, and the New Testament which is also Canon.

While the term Apocrypha is more commonly used for them, this term is both confusing (again due to false New Testament books called Apocrypha) and imprecise as it implies the books are somehow hidden. Another term, also used by the Roman Catholic Church, is Deuterocanon or Deuterocanonical Books, which means the Secondary Canon. This again highlights the status of the Books by which they, either as the lowest part of the Canon or highest form of sub-Canonical books form their own “secondary Canon” which is used for particular purposes but not entirely in the same way as the remaining books of the Old and New Testaments.

Article VI historically also represents only the second official and clearly delineated list of the Canon following the Roman Catholic Canon articulated at the Council of Trent. The Early Church had many canons, but they often differed and the early councils of the Church often affirmed them all or affirmed the books being used in lectionaries, creating ambiguity among modern scholars.

On Roads

The Sunday called Septuagesima

O LORD, we beseech thee favourably to hear the prayers of thy people; that we, who are justly punished for our offences, may be mercifully delivered by thy goodness, for the glory ofthy Name; through Jesus Christ our Saviour, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

Christianity is often presented as a journey in Scripture. Whether navigating wide or narrow roads or gates (St Mt 7. 13, 14), we are travelling. St Paul’s conversion occurred on the road to Damascus, a phrase which itself has become synonymous with significant change in a person’s life course, and which will be celebrated tomorrow during the Feast of the Conversion of St Paul.

On the Road to Emmaus is an important journey in Scripture that takes place on a road, but tells a slightly different story. Told in St Luke’s Gospel (24. 13-32) and later referred to in St Mark’s Gospel (16. 12, 13), it tells the story of two disciples travelling from Jerusalem to the town of Emmaus who encounter Christ on that road. But looking more closely at the story, it shows us the unfolding of the mass, the service of Holy Communion, and is an important reminder of why we do what we do in our Sunday liturgy.

The story begins, “That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened.” As with many stories in Scripture, it begins without the necessary context and the beginning of the chapter must be reviewed. That very day refers to the day of the Resurrection, Sunday. Two of Christ’s disciples are gathered on Sunday discussing him.

As Christ says in St Matthew’s Gospel, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them,” (18. 20). So it is and Christ comes among them. He joins them on the road. While the gospel account does not record the disciples inviting Christ specifically to join them, the fact that he is immediately included in the conversation suggests he was invited and welcomed to continue the journey with them. This mirrors the entrance rites, and particularly the Collect for Purity in which God is asked to come among his people as they gather.

Next the disciples, one of whom is identified as Cleopas, begins explaining, at Christ’s question, what had happened with Christ’s death and the early reports of his resurrection. These verses parallel another important part of the mass, that of community announcements! This simple view ignores more of what can be gleaned from a closer examination of these passages, however, which tie these verses to the penitential rite.

The two disciples are having an animated discussion, and Scripture tells us, “And he said to them, “What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad.” (17) Christ calls his people to unburden themselves before him, just as we are called to unburden ourselves before him in the confession. Their response to Christ makes this clearer as they express their disappointed belief that Christ was not who they thought he was, and their scepticism over earlier reports in the day that Christ had risen.

Christ responds to their concerns in a bridge between the end of the penitential rite in which he gives absolution and comfort to them where he says:

“O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (v 26, 27)

When Christ says it was necessary for these things to happen, he is directly responding to the sadness in their hearts where they were distressed that Christ was not the Messiah they believed him to be. This also forms a bridge to the Liturgy of the Word, as the then goes on to recount and explain the Scriptures to them. This also serves to highlight the importance of the lectionary. He began at the beginning and moved on through the Prophets; he did not simply teach a 15 part series on his topic of choice, but the Word in its fullness was proclaimed and explained in his sermon.

As he finished explaining the Word to them, the next verse tells us they drew near to where they were going. This is a reference to the village of Emmaus, but in the context of this exploration of parallels, it also holds true that  following the Liturgy of the Word is the Liturgy of the Table, that place which truly represents the destination of the mass itself.

When they come to the table, Christ, “took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him.” (30, 31) Here he mirrors the four actions of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, he takes it, blesses it, breaks it and distributes it. The next verse says that upon receiving it, their eyes were opened and they recognized him. It was not when he first appeared, not when he explained the Scriptures to them but in the sacrament that they came to truly know him. Just as Christ is present with us always, abiding within us, and as well comes among us when two or three are gathered, it is through the Eucharist that he comes in a particular and special way.

In the Litugy of the Table the eyes of the disciples are opened in faith, while during the Liturgy of the Word, their hearts began to burn within them as the Scriptures were opened to them. Mirroring the dismissal, in which the people gathered are sent forth, the disciples hurry back to Jerusalem to find the Apostles. “Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread,” (35)

At the end of the mass, the priest dismisses the people saying, “The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,” and in the Book of Alternative Services the dismissal is made even more clear where it says something to the effect of, “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.” In both cases it is clear, the people are being commissioned to go forth, like apostles, and share the love of God they have received with others.

The account of the encounter with Christ on the Road to Emmaus is one of many roads in the Scriptures. It is one of many events and encounters which hints at how Christ wants us to act, and how we are to love and serve the Lord. It is also a reminder that the way we worship on Sundays is not just an accident of history, but is the clear teaching of not just Scripture but Christ himself.

On Pudding

Feast of St Luke the Evangelist

ALMIGHTY God, who calledst Luke the Physician, whose praise is in the Gospel, to be an Evangelist, and Physician of the soul: May it please thee that, by the wholesome medicines of the doctrine delivered by him, all the diseases of our souls may be healed; through the merits of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Twentieth Sunday after Trinity

O ALMIGHTY and most merciful God, of thy bountiful goodness keep us, we beseech thee, from all things that may hurt us; that we,being ready both in body and soul, may cheerfully accomplish those things that thou wouldest have done; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Last month, the lectionary took us through the Epistle of James. James contains a number of verses many Christians are familiar with. One that really strikes me is Jas 2. 17: “So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” This verse, and the broader discussion of faith, works and salvation from Jas 2. 14-26, was mentioned in a homily by my priest who suggested the way to view this is that St James is saying, so far as faith is concerned, the proof is in the pudding.

This verse in itself leads to a number of interesting discussion topics on the nature of justification, saving faith or true faith versus the profession of faith and whether works proceed from true faith or play some role in salvation, justification and sanctification.

A perhaps more interesting question is can this verse be applied more generally to the Church or just to the individual? If the proof is in the pudding for the individual, how might that apply to the Church?

To begin, what specifically does St James suggest? “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled”, without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?” (Jas 2. 15, 16). Here St James suggests that our faith and deeds must connect, but to break that down a bit more, what is he saying? The faith is to be rooted in Christ’s teachings.

The fact that you would be concerned for a brother or sister who is lacking in basic necessities is related to the faith imparted by Christ. So it is not enough to have some kind of faith, it must be true faith, rooted in Christ’s teachings. Next, it is insufficient to simply teach or preach Christ’s teachings, they are to be lived out if they are to be truly taught.

The real key is not simply that something should happen based on our faith, but that part of that faith is doing something. If you truly believe in Christ Jesus then you will want to do these things. This is perhaps made clear further on in the chapter, where he writes, “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works,” (Jas 2. 22). Here he introduces the discussion of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac to show the connection between Abraham’s faith in God and his willingness to act on that faith by sacrificing his son Isaac.

So to conclude, there are really three things being discussed here. Christ’s teachings, belief in them, and willingness to act upon them based on that faith.

How might this be seen to apply to the Church?

Christ’s teachings are simple enough. It is clear the Church cannot teach what is contrary to Christ. Article XX of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion says, “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.” That is simple enough, until you realise that God’s Word written is not always clear.

Just as the term true faith was used previously to describe the type of faith which reflects the teachings of Christ and moves the individual to good works to live out that faith, so to must there be good doctrine.

Luckily, there is a way of deciding whether or not an interpretation of Scripture is good or not and that is to test it against the understanding of the Church Fathers. If you look back and since the patristic age it has been taught that a given verse means A and you suggest it means B, it is likely that your interpretation is somehow in error. While it is true that not all of the fathers were always correct—some fell into error quite often, St Augustine of Hippo even revised many of his early views as he matured in faith—the greater body of their work is an accepted standard by which Christians today can judge the interpretation of Scripture. The Creeds are another great example of something by which we can test interpretation of Scripture. For centuries, the Nicene Creed has been the sufficient Christian statement of faith accepted East and West. If a doctrine similarly runs counter to the Nicene Creed it is incorrect.

It is important to remember this grounding in Scripture. In modern times, arguments for innovation are often presented in the form of “I sense it is the movement of the Spirit that we do X.” This view seeks to ground doctrine not in God’s word, but in personal revelation. For those who have a background in some charismatic protestant denominations, this can actually be a common occurrence leading to discord within a local church community. When you claim authority directly from the Spirit, you are claiming it cannot be tested simply against Scripture because it is a new revelation.  However, Scripture itself points in some cases to this being untrue.

In St John’s Gospel, Christ offers a prayer for the Church: “And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one,” (St Jn 17. 11). This is Christ’s singular prayer, that the Church be one, be united. Also here, he reaffirms the previous teaching that he and the Father speak as one. It suggests that when the Holy Spirit comes, the helper Christ spoke of when he had just said:

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (St Jn 16. 13-15)

Here, Christ again says that there will be unity between what he has said and what the Spirit has said. Just as he says in Chapter 17 that he and the Father are one, here he had said that he and the Spirit are one. What the Spirit reveals will not contradict what Christ has taught. Similarly, Christ’s prayer was that the Church would be one, and if that is the case, God would not send the Holy Spirit to grant new revelation only to small subsets of Christians, but to all Christians.

So if doctrine is to be rooted in the teachings of Christ that is held in accord with orthodox faith and understanding of those teachings, what then is works? The work of the Church is found in the liturgy, which encourages and nurtures the body to do good works.

Doctrine of the Church ought to be reflected in the words said each week, and ought to inspire the people to fulfil those doctrines throughout the week. As St Teresa of Avila once said, “Christ has no body on earth but yours, no hands but yours, no feet but yours. Yours are the eyes through which Christ’s compassion is to look out; yours are the feet with which He is to go about doing good; and yours are the hands with which He is to bless us now.” The liturgy is when we gather each week to be nourished in God’s grace and then go forth to do what he teaches. To evangelize, to comfort the sick and afflicted and to care for the poor.

Doctrines of the Church, and our understanding of them, ought to be rooted in the same understanding of our personal faith that sees the need for true faith to give birth to good works. Perhaps the most important consideration here then becomes, if faith without works is dead, what might that imply for the Church if it strays from the model which St James provides with respect to true faith?

On Artillery

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.

While there aren't really any cannons in the Anglican Church, there are multiple canons. Canon is an honorary title awarded to both clergy and laity for recognition of service to the church. Canons may also refer to rules of the Church. In the Anglican Church of Canada, there is currently a great deal of debate over proposed amendments to Canon XXI of the Church which governs the rules for the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Canons of this type exist dating back to the earliest days of the Church. When the Ecumenical Councils gathered, the decisions they reached were released in the form of Canons, lists of numbered rules that had been agreed upon.

There is a third form of canon, however, which is the Canon of Scripture. The Canon of Scripture refers to the list of accepted books of the Bible in both the old and new testaments. To be canonical is to be accepted as authoritative, while being non-canonical indicates that the book is not authoritative as Scripture, though it does not necessarily mean that the rejected text contains false teachings.

The Canon of Scripture speaks to a seemingly simple question: where does the Bible come from, and how do we know it is the authoritative word of God?

We have two testaments, so the answer to these questions becomes two-fold.

In the time of Christ, references are made to the Scriptures, but of course these would have been to what we now consider the Old Testament. The Scriptures given to the Jews over the centuries. While the early heresy of Marcionism sought to reject the Old Testament, suggesting it described another god, separate from God the Father revealed by Jesus Christ, all Christians accepted the authority of the Old Testament books of the Bible, in continuity and interpreted through the lens of revelation in Jesus Christ.

While in general the Old Testament was universally accepted by orthodox Christians, there are a few points of division. The most substantive change comes from the two histories of the texts, the Septuagint Greek Old Testament and the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament. By the time of Christ, the majority of Jews were Jews of Diaspora living outside of ancient Israel and most often speaking the lingua franca of the ancient world, Greek. Because they spoke and read Greek, the Scriptures were written down in Greek and read in Greek. It would not have been unusual for many Jewish communities to not contain a single person capable of reading the Hebrew texts.

For the first few decades after the Resurrection, Christianity was viewed by many as being simply a subset of Judaism. Over time, however, and especially after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD, they became viewed as separate. Partly because of the fact that Christians were using the Septuagint text and that they wanted to distinguish themselves as “proper” Jews, the Jewish authorities developed the Masoretic Hebrew text of the Hebrew Scriptures. In doing this, they adjusted their canon of Scripture, removing a few books which had previously been considered canonical and authoritative. The organization of some books was also adjusted.

This initially had a limited impact on Christianity and the Canon of the Old Testament until the time of Continental Reformation in the 16th century.  Between that time, Christian translations of the Bible would sometimes use both the Masoretic and Septuagint sources, with the canon remaining fixed by the Septuagint tradition. By the time of the Reformation, however, a number of reformers suggested that because the Jews had removed some of the books of the Old Testament from their canon, we ought to as well. Today, most Protestant Bibles continue to exclude those books.

The Eastern Orthodox Church, which has tended to stick to the Septuagint only as the source of its Old Testament books maintains the original numbering and order.

In the West, the Roman Catholic Church determined that the books removed from the Hebrew text would be deemed deuterocanonical, which means secondary canon. They still hold some form of authority, but they tend to be organized into a separate section either at the end of the Bible or between the Old and New Testaments, and held to a lower level of authority (in contrast to the East where no distinction is made between them and other accepted books of the Old Testament).

In Anglicanism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion follow the Roman practice of organizing these books into a secondary canon called either the deuterocanon or Apocrypha, saying, “And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.” The term deuterocanonical is often preferred to avoid misunderstandings with apocryphal books of the New Testament which contain false teachings. The deuterocanonical books are variously viewed as being the lowest level of Scripture, or by some as being the highest and most authoritative non-Scriptural books of the Bible.

The Canon of the New Testament is a bit more of an interesting story, though obviously parallels earlier developments in the canon of the Old Testament as it was assembled over the centuries by the Jews. The books of the New Testament were written roughly twenty to sixty years after Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. Over the course of the next few hundred years, the exact Canon of Scripture was not fixed and in different places you might have a smaller Canon of Scripture, set by the local bishop, which rejected some books which are now canonical, while other bishops might have a more expansive Canon, which might include books such as I Clement, which was extremely popular in the early Church.

St Athanasius the Great writing in the mid fourth century has the honour of writing the first canon of Scripture which articulates the Canon as we hold it today, more than three hundred years after the time of Christ. The reality is that until the legalization of Christianity in the 4th century, many of these matters were not resolved because they simply weren’t of sufficiently pressing concern.

When they were resolved, the general test for whether or not a book would be accepted in the Canon was whether or not it was Apostolic, meaning written either by an Apostle or in their name. This rule would account for the rejection of I Clement from the Canon, despite the fact that it remains to this day well-regarded and expounds no theological error and was written in the Apostolic Age (c. 95AD), but Clement was writing in his own name and was not an Apostle, but only a Bishop or Priest.

By the end of the fourth century in the West and the fifth century in the East (there remained there controversy over the book of Revelation, not because its authority was in question but because of concerns that it might be misinterpreted by future Christians), the Canon of the New Testament was universally accepted by councils of the Church, and fixed for all time as it remains to this day.

While there may not be cannons in Anglicanism, surely the authority and teachings of Holy Scripture represent an invaluable armoury to the Christian against the snares of the devil.

On Discipline

The Fifteenth Sunday after Trinity

KEEP, we beseech thee, O Lord, thy Church with thy perpetual mercy; and, because the frailty of man without thee cannot but fall, keep us ever by thy help from all things hurtful, and lead us to all things profitable to our salvation; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Discipleship is a key principle, often referred to in our Christian journey. When we say discipleship, however, what precisely do we mean? What does it mean to be a disciple of Christ? The word disciple has the same root as the word discipline, which has a meaning of accepting a teaching, practising a teaching or being taught. In the Christian then, a disciple of Christ is one who submits themselves to Christ’s teachings in order to practice them.

This idea of submission is difficult for many people. It goes against the grain of modern liberalism, which tells us that freedom is the ultimate virtue. The freedom to make up our own mind and do what we want. Discipleship then becomes difficult because we do not want to submit to Christ, but rather to pick and choose the examples of him we will follow. This occurs either by outright ignoring anything which might be difficult or which might challenge us to change our ways, or by trying to justify our actions through creative eisegesis (the reading in of our own interpretation to the Bible).

GK Chesterton once wrote that, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried.” This is the reality that confronts many Christians who are unwilling to make the changes necessary in their lives to be faithful disciples of Christ.

After freedom, Western society promotes comfort and ease as values. Convenience takes the place of quality and effort. Applied to Christianity, our convenience takes the place of Truth when we refuse to submit. Christianity does not, however, promise ease. It promises Truth. To substitute anything else for it is to remove the essence of Christianity.

Being a disciple of Christ requires discipline. It requires the intentional turning away from that which separates us from Christ’s teachings. It requires an honest desire to live in God’s will and not our own. It requires a willingness to do things we might find uncomfortable. Christ calls us to share the gospel with others; in a society in which it is impolite to speak of religion and politics, it can be challenging to break those norms to speak to others of our faith. Social values Jesus calls us to are radically different than norms of society.

What’s more, if we are truly submit to Christ, it means understanding what Christ asks of us. Sometimes when someone misapplies scripture in order to support their own viewpoint, it is not intentional malice or even cognitive dissonance, but merely a reflection of their poor understanding of Holy Scripture.

Discipline itself is the only solution for anyone who seeks to become a true disciple. Discipline of prayer, of Scripture reading, of contemplation and self-examination and other edifying practices that seek to turn us from our old selves and towards Christ. The use of spiritual disciplines has a history that dates to the Old Testament. The imposition of ashes was a practice used to display repentance towards God, and at times would be engaged in corporately as entire communities sought to turn themselves towards God after a period of rebellion and turning from him. To modern Christians, spiritual disciplines remain integral the practice of discipleship.

The reading of Holy Scripture is one of the most important tools at our command to understand God’s will. In reading it, we come to know God better. It is a recording of God’s interaction with humanity, and of Christ’s life and earthly teachings. By familiarizing ourselves with God’s word, it becomes possible to avoid falling into error through ignorance. While no amount of reading of Scripture can fully prevent us from falling into interpretive error, it does make it far less likely to misinterpret or apply a particular verse when we would know that such an interpretation would place that verse in opposition to other parts of Scripture.

Scripture reading is God’s written testament to us. It is one of his primary tools for communicating himself to us. It is also the most impersonal. It is through prayer that we are able to come to God and learn of him most personally and fully. Where the Bible speaks in broad terms of God’s relationship with Israel, or Christ’s teachings to the Jews and the early disciples, through prayer we can come to know God’s particular will for us.

Prayer comes in many forms, but so far as disciplines that aid us in becoming disciples of Christ, practices such as lectio divina, which uses Scripture as a tool to uncover God’s particular will for us today, and the daily examen of St Ignatius of Loyala, which provides a model of reflection upon our day to help us identify areas where we need God’s support and where we ought to thank God for his blessings.

These prayer disciplines, if used regularly, help us to come into a rhythm of conversation with God in which we explore how we are currently living our lives and how we ought to be living our lives. For the daily examen, knowledge of Scripture is important as it can be difficult to understand where we ought to pray if we know nothing of God’s nature. If we do not know how to identify sin, we do not know how to pray to God for strength to overcome our sinful urges and desires. We do not know what blessings we ought to pray for, what opportunities we ought to pursue with God’s help or the things God calls us to do if we aren’t familiar with Scripture.

It takes discipline to engage in these practices regularly. It also takes practice. Abbot John Chapman of Downside once reflected that we ought to, “pray as best [we] can and not as [we] can’t.” As we take this discipline what we cannot pray becomes less and less, and the discipline of prayer becomes the simple practice of prayer. The discipline of conversation becomes the privilege of conversation. St Ignatius of Loyala wrote that, “it is not hard to obey when we love the one whom we obey.” It is through prayer and the building of our relationship with God that we come to love him.

Discipleship is not easy. It requires intentional discipline. It requires devotion. It requires submission. It requires a willingness to engage in radical change that moves us beyond secular norms of politics and society. In the act of giving up ourselves, however, we become who we are meant to be in Christ.

While we may be called to endure much in our lives, and while taking on such disciplines and being willing to give up who we were can be daunting, it is the assurance of joy that comes from abiding in God’s will that proves Christ’s words: “for my yoke is easy, and my burden is light,” (St Mt 11. 30).

On Cultural Incarnation

The Second Sunday after Easter

ALMIGHTY God, who hast given thine only Son to be unto us both a sacrifice for sin, and also an example of godly life: Give us grace that we may always most thankfully receive that his inestimable benefit, and also daily endeavour ourselves to follow the blessed steps of his most holy life; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

As we continue in the season of Eastertide, many of the readings focus on the life of the early church as depicted in the Acts of the Apostles. In these readings from Acts, we hear how the disciples lived a life of faith together, shared all things in common and supported one another. This unity is supported by Scripture, where St Paul exhorts Euodia and Syntyche from the church in Philippi to, “agree in the Lord,” (Phil 4. 2). David’s Psalm 133 describes with vivid imagery the blessings and joy of unity.

It is not too long, though, before we hear of the reaction against the perseverance of the Christian faithful, and the growth of Christianity in the early Jewish communities. The circumcision controversy begins. Jewish leaders say that belief in Christ is acceptable, but only so long as you continued to follow the Law. When Christianity spreads to the gentiles, the majority of Christians were previously Jewish and elements of their culture create disunity as the early Christians struggle over the question of whether or not gentiles must be circumcised, a matter settled by a Council at Jerusalem which set the model for later ecumenical councils to define and resolve doctrinal disputes within the Church.

The picture painted in Acts, is broadly speaking one of an incarnational faith. Christianity incarnated into the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. And so too does it incarnate in the cultures in which its faithful operate. Modern psychology shows that the language we speak, and the culture we come from, shapes how we think and perceive the world.

Speaking historically, some doctrinal differences in the Christian East and Christian West were the result of differences in how theological concepts were rendered into Greek in the East and Latin in the West. In some cases, ultimately the same meaning was generally meant, but due to the language differences, the rendering and way the theology was perceived by the other culture was sufficiently different to cause disunity. While there are other issues at play, in many ways the filioque is the same understanding of God’s nature presented from two diametrically opposed cultural understandings. The nature of Christ as judge in the West and divine physician in the East, similarly highlights how both can hold orthodox understandings, but which have been shaped to different perspectives by the culture in which they are practiced.

It should come as no surprise, then, when division arises in the church. The extreme unity found in the earliest chapters of Acts is rooted in both cultural unity and in the physical witness of Christ Jesus. This was the age of the Apostles and disciples who had witnessed Christ’s miracles in person. And yet, division still came among them. If unity is to be found in Christ, then surely it is understandable that today, some manner of disunity would ultimately arise, at the very least because of the fact that Christianity has now spread to all cultures.

This should come as no shock. In the East, the Eastern Orthodox Church is divided by culture: Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc. In the West, there is obviously the divide between Canterbury and Rome, but also within the Roman Catholic Church some practices diverge rooted in culture, as much as some Roman Catholics might claim otherwise.

There is good reason for this. God calls us into relationship with him: oneness with him. Not sameness with him. Sameness is the preserve of equality, while oneness is the preserve of unity. We are not meant to be equal with God, nor are we equal with each other. St Paul illustrates this well in his first epistle to the Corinthians:

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. (1 Cor 7-11)

There are two key points to this passage. First, “each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” This is unity. This is oneness. All receive gifts of the Spirit, for a unified purpose. Second, he lists how some receive the gift of wisdom, others knowledge, others healing, etc. There is not equality, each is given the gifts they need to fulfil God’s purpose.

In much the same way, the incarnational nature of the church in distinct cultures is not necessarily equal. One tradition of Christians may emphasize the healing power of the Holy Spirit, while others may focus on the atoning power of Christ’s passion and resurrection. There is not equality, necessarily, in these incarnations of the church, or even necessarily fullness, but there is some degree of unity.

True unity is to be found when the four marks of unity are followed: the canon of Holy Scripture; the authoritative transmission of God’s word for humanity; the faith of the early church as articulated in the creeds and councils of the church, the order of ministry, passed down in apostolic succession and finally the sacramental life of the church, found chiefly in the sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Eucharist.

Just like Euodia and Syntyche, where something, in this case, culture, divides the church, we must continue to follow St Paul’s advice to, “agree in the Lord,” for it is in God that our unity is found, not in compromise. Compromise is the road to equality, limiting and hemming in our faith in order to reduce the avenues for confrontation and conflict.

It is a great irony that if the sacraments are discarded (mere ordinances), as is the order of ministry (priesthood of all believers), the creeds and councils (generally in more anti-Catholic fuelled settings where anything of the historic church is viewed with suspicion) while retaining only the canon of Scripture (often with its own brand of sola scriptura and distinctive interpretation) there is some form of equality to be found (compare some of the constitutions and confessions of various protestant denominations) but in that, unity, oneness in Christ, has been lost.

Christianity incarnates differently in different cultures. Different rites or Churchmanships, different language to describe the same truths, and in some case a different emphasis on part of God’s nature. This does not detract from true unity, unity described in the Acts of the Apostles. What causes disunity is when the goal of sameness between humans is confused with oneness with God.

Wisdom of Saints: St Cyril of Jerusalem

The Feast of Cyril, Doctor and Bishop of Jerusalem, 386

O GOD, who by thy Holy Spirit hast given unto one man a word of wisdom, and to another a word of knowledge, and to another the gift of tongues: We praise thy Name for the gifts of grace manifested in thy servant Cyril, and we pray that thy Church may never be destitute of the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

St Cyril of Jerusalem is another of the saints of whom little is known of his early life. He was born around 315 AD in or near Jerusalem, and died in 386 AD. He was trained in the Church fathers and seems to have had a secular education in the pagan philosophers as well. He was ordained as a deacon in 335 AD, a priest in 343 AD and as Bishop of Jerusalem in 350 AD.

St Cyril was a Nicene Christian and developed an animosity with the Arian bishop of Caesarea. While some scholars have argued the dispute was over issues of precedence, most seem to believe it ultimately was rooted in their opposing Christologies and the general Arian Controversy which had divided Christianity in the 4th century. Bishop Acacius ultimately caused St Cyril to be exiled briefly in 359. Restored in 360, he was then again driven out by the Emperor before finally being restored by the succession of a new Emperor in 361. In 367, his restoration was revoked, along with all other Bishops who had been restored by Emperor Julian in 361, and he lived in exile until the death of Emperor Valens in 378. He remained as Bishop of Jerusalem for the rest of his days, and attended the Second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 381, which affirmed the Nicene Creed and finally put to rest the Arian controversy.

While the details of St Cyril’s life are relatively unknown, several important writings of his survive, the most prominent of which are his Catechetical Lectures, which includes 18 lessons presented to catechumens in Lent prior to Baptism, and five more lessons on the Holy Mysteries presented in Easter after they had been baptised.

The complete work survives, and gives keen insight into the minds of the Early Church, on numerous Christian topics. His lessons include discussions of the understanding of the forgiveness of sin, the nature of Christ, his resurrection and ascension, while the final five discuss issues related to Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Communion and the Sacred Liturgy.

In his lectures are a number of important points about Christianity. This quote from his lesson IV On the Ten Points of Doctrine, in which St Cyril examines a number of doctrines from the Nicene Creed as well as other Christian doctrines more generally:

Have thou ever in thy mind this seal [the Nicene Creed], which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures.  For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech.  Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures.  For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

Here, St Cyril lays out that these catechumens must test all he teaches them against Holy Scripture, for the Christian is to believe nothing which cannot be proved by Holy Scripture. Later in that same chapter he discusses at length the canon of Scripture, and exhorts the catachumens not be taken in by false teachings:

Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are mischievous. The Manichæans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort.  Receive also the Acts of the Twelve Apostles; and in addition to these the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and as a seal upon them all, and the last work of the disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul.

Here, St Cyril identifies all the canonical books of the New Testament, aside from the Apocalypse of John which was one of the final books to be recognized in the Canon, and which would not be fixed among Christians for another ten years after St Cyril’s death. An important point here, is his denunciation of the apocryphal gospels which were then being promoted and which have, in modern times, become popular to write about again, particularly by secular authors. The Da Vinci Code and similar works use the gnostic gospels as bases for speaking of secret knowledge that Christians should know, but these so-called gospels have been known of, and have been known to be false since the time of the Early Church. Unlike the canonincal gospels which were written in the Apostolic Age, the apocryphal gospels were forged in the early 4th century, so it is not shocking that St Cyril would mention them as they were new, the canon was not fully fixed, and many Christians would not have known they were false teachings.

St Cyril’s lecture on the Holy Spirit was able to address a number of pressing issues, both in exploring the description of the Holy Spirit in the Creed as well as in addressing a number of heresies surrounding the Holy Spirit and related aspects of Christian faith:

Spiritual in truth is the grace we need, in order to discourse concerning the Holy Spirit; not that we may speak what is worthy of Him, for this is impossible, but that by speaking the words of the divine Scriptures, we may run our course without danger.  For a truly fearful thing is written in the Gospels, where Christ has plainly said, Whosoever shall speak a word against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come. And there is often fear, lest a man should receive this condemnation, through speaking what he ought not concerning Him, either from ignorance, or from supposed reverence.  The Judge of quick and dead, Jesus Christ, declared that he hath no forgiveness; if therefore any man offend, what hope has he?
It must therefore belong to Jesus Christ’s grace itself to grant both to us to speak without deficiency, and to you to hear with discretion; for discretion is needful not to them only who speak, but also to them that hear, lest they hear one thing, and misconceive another in their mind.  Let us then speak concerning the Holy Ghost nothing but what is written; and whatsoever is not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive.  Let us therefore speak those things which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say.

Here, St Cyril discusses how we are commanded to speak truthfully about the Spirit, lest our ill-speech not be forgiven. He goes on to describe how the only way thus to speak truthfully, and to have discerning ears, is to speak and listen through the Scriptures. While he again examines a number of heresies concerning the Holy Spirit, once he finishes, he concludes saying, “Let then thus much suffice concerning those outcasts; and now let us return to the divine Scriptures,” and does just that, spending the remainder of the lecture examining what the Scriptures have to say about the Holy Spirit.

St Cyril, and his Catechetical Lectures are a treasure of the early Church, which give us insight into the doctrines, teachings and practices of early Christians. It is a work well-worth reading today as the truths St Cyril teaches are timeless.

On Evangelical Sacramentalism

The Fourth Sunday in Lent

GRANT, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that we, who for our evil deeds do worthily deserve to be punished, by the comfort of thy grace may mercifully be relieved; through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.

Lent

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who hatest nothing that thou hast made, and dost forgive the sins of all them that are penitent: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we worthily lamenting our sins, and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of thee, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The seven sacraments recognized in Anglicanism are those which are commonly recognized, but throughout history there have been others, and other perspectives on sacramentalism. In Eastern Orthodoxy, for instance, all of life is viewed sacramentally. Life can be viewed sacramentally in that humans are vessels for God’s grace. Our physical bodies are an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. If pressed to name the number of sacraments, though, they would still recognize the seven historic sacraments, the same as orthodox Anglicans.

That said, among Anglicans, particularly those of an evangelical Low Churchmanship, the importance of the seven sacraments is diminished. While the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is accepted, evangelical Anglicans would tend to not place as much importance on the Eucharist as a method of transmission of God’s grace and power. While they would still tend to emphasize Holy Baptism, for many that would be something that occurs at a young age. Confirmation would not be viewed as necessary, Holy Orders are not taken by those who are not called to the Priesthood, Unction is unnecessary and simply gathering to pray for one another is sufficient, Reconciliation is unnecessary because confession can be made directly to God at any time and Holy Matrimony is perhaps the only other sacrament which is viewed as truly significant and common place in the Christian’s life, though even then the emphasis would be on Holy Matrimony as a covenant between husband and wife, more so than as a means again of transmission of grace and God’s indwelling of that relationship.

That does not mean, however, that evangelical Anglicans lack a true sacramental nature, though they would likely not describe it in such terms, nor would they be apt to necessarily accept such a definition. Not is it only those who place less importance on the recognized sacraments of the Church who can have a sacramental view of other aspects of Christian life.

Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, describes the sufficiency of Holy Scripture for salvation, saying that all that is necessary for salvation is recorded in Scripture, and nothing may be required of someone as necessary that cannot be proved by Scripture. In St Mark’s Gospel, Christ says that to be saved, one must believe and be baptised (Mk 16. 16). Nothing can be added to that requirement. Article VI informs the doctrine of Prima Scriptura, which itself is summarised by St Paul in his Epistle to the Romans when he describes the Gospel as, “for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek,” (Rm 1. 16).

It is this concept of Holy Scripture as the power of God that comes to the fore in evangelical thinking. The Bible is God’s word. It is the means by which we learn first and foremost of God’s creation of the universe, his covenants with the Jews and the laws he put down. We learn of the fulfilment of the law in Christ; his life, death, resurrection and ascension. We learn of God’s nature, his love for us and his desire to be in communion with us.

For evangelicals, though, there is more to God’s word than that; God’s word is the power through which we are released from sin, the power through which we overcome temptation and the power of salvation. In St Mark’s Gospel, just prior to saying that belief and baptism will lead to salvation, Christ had given the great commission, calling on all believers to, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation,” (Mk 16.15). Proclaiming the Gospel was considered an integral component of salvation, in that it is the means by which we believe, and the knowledge of what we are to believe.

Without the Scriptures, we would not know God. The Bible is God’s word, and the means through which he conveys his presence, his power, his nature and grace. Evangelicals, though they would not necessarily think it, view the Holy Scripture sacramentally.

To again look to the practices of the East, while Anglicanism defines a sacrament in the Book of Common Prayer as, “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace,” the Eastern Orthodox Church views sacraments, also called Holy Mysteries because what we see is not the same as their spiritual effects, are defined generally the same way, though they can be more broadly viewed as vessels by which grace is transmitted to participate in our physical life. Also interestingly, in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, there is an emphasis on the personal nature of the sacraments, which is clearly mirrored in the evangelical sacramental view of Holy Scripture.

Holy Scripture is a vessel through which God’s grace and power are transmitted, and to the evangelical, while Holy Scripture is for all, it is also very personal. As a tool for release from sin and overcoming temptation, Holy Scripture can be extremely personal. A particular verse may aid one Christian in overcoming a particular temptation, while being of no use to another. I have always viewed the nature of Holy Scripture as being a mirror of Christ’s dual nature. He was both fully God and fully man, and in the same way, Holy Scripture is wholly universal and wholly personal.

This sacramental view of Scripture, is something that should be encouraged in Anglicanism. While the importance of Holy Scripture for the determination of doctrine and teaching is important, under this sacramental view of the Scriptures, their importance as a means for the transmission of God’s grace is reinforced. Reading Scripture is not merely a Christian obligation, it is a Christian joy. Not only do we learn of God’s love and grace, but it is a means by which it is transmitted to us; it is the power to be more Christlike in our own lives.

Recognizing sacramentalism in our Christian walk is not simply something restricted to evangelicals, nor should it be. Taking this Eastern Christian view of the sacramentality of life is something all Anglicans should consider. It is perhaps a distinct characteristic of someone who considers themselves to be an evangelical Catholic Anglican, and yet it is fully in keeping with the traditional Anglican doctrines and practices, and is truly just a different way of looking at our faith, and perhaps importantly, one which encourages certain evangelical practices and respect towards the Holy Scriptures among some Anglicans who hold themselves to some kind of Anglo-Catholic definition in which they limit the importance of Holy Scripture to simply something which is read in Church from the lectionary.

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.