On the Articles: Article XV

The Octave Day of Pentecost commonly called Trinity Sunday

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who hast it given unto us thy servants grace, by the confession of a true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of the Divine Majesty to worship the Unity: We beseech thee, that this holy faith may evermore be our defence against all adversities; who livest and reignest, one God, world without end. Amen.

XV. Of Christ alone without Sin
Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit. He came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world, and sin, as Saint John saith, was not in him. But all we the rest, although baptized, and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Despite being longer than some of the other articles, at first glance, Article XV seems straight forward: Christ did not sin, and the rest of us do. There is more to it than that, though, and it also raises some theological questions which at time have been quite controversial.

First, and this point brings continuity with Article XVI, this article makes clear the rejection of the extreme Protestant position that it is impossible to sin after baptism. This view that the regenerate were incapable of sin was one of the viewpoints, related in some ways to doctrines of predestination, led to the view that if you were sinning that it was an indication you were not regenerate, thereby denying the efficacy of Holy Baptism.

More to the point, this article highlights controversy over Christ’s nature. The opening sentence of Article XV states plainly that Christ was fully human, apart from sin. This conflicted with viewpoints that saw sin as an inherent part of human nature and that the only way that Christ himself could be sinless were if he were born of a sinless mother. One belief was that the Blessed Theotokos was set free from sin at the time of Christ’s conception while a much more recent development in the mid-19th century had the Roman Catholic Church promulgate the dogma of her immaculate conception, that she was kept free from sin from the time of her own conception.

The interesting commentary from this Article is that it does not suggest Christ was set free or kept free from sin either externally or by some influence of his divine nature. It properly maintains the distinction between his two natures, articulated by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, but the doctrines of which had in common practice become muddled at the time of the English Reformation. Article XV reinforces the statement made in Article IX that human nature itself is not sinful but rather that we have taken on for ourselves a fallen nature. Christ, however, was perfectly obedient to God in his incarnate form and thus remained free of sin and sinful nature throughout his life on earth.

The confusion of this point largely comes from those who suggest that somehow Christ’s divine nature made it such that he did not struggle to follow the Father’s will. This completely contradicts Scripture’s description of Christ’s passion, however, and particularly his prayer in the Garden where he says, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done,” (St Lk 22. 42). Similarly, we are told, “For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted,” (Heb 2. 18). If Christ could not have sinned, could not even have been tempted, then surely his sacrifice would mean nothing?

This sinless nature is integral to the Lamb referenced in Article XV, a reference to the ancient laws of the Jews, for which only a spotless lamb was suitable to become sin in the sacrifice. Christ could not have become the Lamb, the perfect sacrifice once offered for the sins of the whole world, had he not been spotless. He submitted himself wholly to God that he would be the spotless lamb, and offered himself up as a sacrifice, not for himself but for us.

The Article concludes by again reinforcing that while Christ himself gave himself up to conquer sin, that does not mean that we who are baptised do not sin. The Article quotes from 1 St Jn 1. 8, to remind us we are deceiving ourselves if we say we do not sin. Christ’s sacrifice freed us from the consequence of death and opened to us the way of everlasting life, but that does not mean that we will never sin again. This dichotomy is raised throughout Scripture, and in particular, St Paul discusses it extensively in his epistle to the Romans.

One image often used is the transition from a slave to sin to the adopted child who still sins. Before Christ’s sacrifice, sin represented a barrier to God which we could not, on our own, overcome, therefore we were slaves to it. Through Christ’s atonement, we continue to sin, but by his grace and love it no longer represents an insurmountable barrier to relationship with God. We may repent and return to him.

This line of reasoning leads well into Article XVI which discusses further what it means to sin after Baptism, a point referred to here, and again an issue of no small contention in the medieval times and in the time of the Reformation.

On the Articles: Article II

The Second Sunday in Lent

ALMIGHTY God, who seest that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves: Keep us both outwardly in our bodies, and inwardly in our souls; that we may be defended from all adversities which may happen to the body, and from all evil thoughts which may assault and hurt the 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.

II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man.
The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.

The second Article of Religion focuses on outlining the incarnation of our Lord in explicit terms, though it is not surprising that much of the language mirrors that of the Nicene Creed. Mirroring Article I, it also takes its language from the Augsburg Confession.

It would seem that many of these points are in no need of mentioning today. Who could call themselves Christian while rejecting any of these tenets? Who could call themselves Anglican? Yet it seems no matter how critical the issue is, how central to the faith, there are those who reject it. Article II affirms basic truths about Christ that even today are under threat, sometimes in an effort to make Christianity, and Anglicanism, more palatable to modern sensibilities.

It begins with a simple affirmation that reminds us of St Peter’s response to Christ’s question in the Gospels, who do you say that I am? “The Son of the living God,” (St Mt 16. 16b). Jesus was, and is, the Son of God. It introduces us to the relationship between Son and Father that is explained more thoroughly throughout this Article, and it serves the same reminder that the introduction to Dickens’ A Christmas Carol did: believe this, or nothing great can come of what else is to be revealed. You cannot accept Christ as anything if you do not accept him as he revealed himself to be, the Son of God.

Next, it reminds us that Christ is begotten, not made. You beget something like yourself, while you make something unlike yourself. Parents beget children, while they make supper. By describing Jesus as the only begotten Son, it speaks to the duality of his uniqueness as the only son of God, while also speaking to his oneness with God in that he was begotten and not made. Oddly enough, though the language is from the Nicene Creed, it was far easier for people of the 4th century to accept Christ’s divinity than it was to accept his humanity, whereas today it is far easier for us to accept his humanity while rejecting his divinity. This particular passage may well have more relevance for people today than for those who read it when it was first penned.

In highlighting Christ’s incarnation, the Article uses definitions from the Council of Chalcedon, speaking of his two whole and perfect natures, the Godhood and Manhood. It speaks to the reality that were Christ not fully God, he would have no authority to reconcile us to the Father, and were he not fully man, he would not be able to reconcile himself to us, being infinitely distant from humanity in his divinity. Two natures in one person. Essential to the salvic work of Christ’s incarnation, and the purpose for which he became incarnate.

The Article concludes by again restating that Christ’s incarnation invovled his birth, suffering and death for the purpose of reconciliation. It goes further to clarify that reconciliation was not just in reference to past sins, but all future sins. During the Prayer of Consecration during the Holy Eucharist, the priest proclaims, “by his one oblation of himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.” For the sins of the whole world is clarified here to mean for all time! This oblation of himself, again, was only possible because, as established, he was both fully God and fully Man, apart from sin.

Article II reminds us that whatever modern sensibilities have to say about Christ, Anglicanism holds to the fundamental truths he revealed about himself. He is the unique son of God, and far from the Church being able to change Christianity to make it more palatable to us, Christ himself offers himself as a sacrifice to make us more palatable to the Father!

On the Three Streams of Worship

The Second Sunday after Epiphany

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who dost govern all things in heaven and earth: Mercifully hear the supplications of thy people, and grant us thy peace all the days of our life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Anglicanism seems to love things in threes. That is entirely reasonable given the centrality of the Holy Trinity to the Christian faith. In terms of worship, there are three streams of worship which correspond to these three persons of the Trinity. The most familiar to most people would be the Mass or Holy Communion. Anglicans also worship through the Daily Offices regularly. Historically Morning Prayer was the normative form of Sunday worship for many years until the Eucharist was restored to prominence in the 19th century. Finally, there is a third stream of worship which exists that is far less regularized, which I call Devotional Reception.

The Mass or Holy Communion is the most commonly understood form of worship in Anglicanism. It includes a number of prayers and Scripture readings, many of which deal with God the Father, the son or the Holy Spirit in some combination, making this seem like a form of worship which emphasizes all three persons, but ultimately as the name implies it is the celebration of the Eucharist which forms the central focus of the service of Holy Communion. It is in the Eucharist that we focus the centrality of the worship on the second person of the Trinity. Christ Jesus was incarnate, died for our sins and rose again. He commanded at the last supper that we do this in remembrance of him, and the entire crescendo of Eucharistic worship is that act of re-membering his propitiatory sacrifice.

The second form of common worship is that of the Daily Office. Morning and Evening Prayer are a psalm-centric form of worship, and owing to that they are much more centrally focused on the revelation of God the Father’s nature. The Daily Office originates in Jewish prayer practice, which involved prayer throughout the day at particular times. As Christianity developed, these prayer times were retained and liturgies developed to formalize their use among Christians. The Daily Office represents the Anglican use of these prayers and combines a number of the hours into two simple services for morning and evening. Much like with the Eucharist, which thematically is focused on Christ himself but which includes reference and worship of the other members of the Trinity, the Daily Office maintains references to Christ and the Holy Spirit, most often through the collects and the New Testament readings. The centrality of the service, however, remains the worship of God through the Psalms, whether read or chanted.

It also distinguishes itself in that it is a daily office. The normative practice among Anglicans with respect to Holy Communion would be weekly only, though in some cases an additional service of Holy Communion might be sought during the week. With morning and evening prayer, it becomes a daily practice of honouring God and exploring who he is. While the Revised Common Lectionary of readings takes you through the Bible in a three year cycle, Morning and Evening Prayer cycle though the Psalter every month, and it is only through their daily use that the RCL will cycle through the whole of Scripture during those three years. It creates and enhances a much stronger rhythm of Scripture reading and prayer than does only a once-a-week communion, even whereby the grace imparted in the Eucharist is unique versus the grace that is usually received through simple prayer and Scripture reading.
Taken together, these two are the most familiar practices of Anglicanism, but they place their emphasis only on two of the three persons of the Trinity. The third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is in these places limited to references in prayers and in Scripture readings. There is need for a third type of service, which can go by many names, but ultimately the title Devotional Reception seems apt because it captures the two aspects of this service, particularly as it relates to the Holy Spirit.

In the Daily Office, it is a clear action of worship and praise of the Father. If there is reception, it is most clearly the imparting of revelation from God’s word. In the Holy Communion, there is an offering on the part of the people—“And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee,”—but also there is the reception of the Blessed Sacrament. When we gather then to honour the third person of the Trinity, how ought that to look?

One concern often expressed over modern praise music is that it offers an emotional response to the people. At various times, Evangelicals have expressed concern over how worship interacts with their regular Sunday gatherings which themselves often involve simply a combination of praise music and preaching. Defenders of modern praise music suggest that there is no reason a parishioner could not get a similar emotional response from traditional Christian hymns, however there does seem to still be a difference.

Ultimately that emotional response is something received, and in the context of the mass, it does not seem to always be entirely appropriate. So what if that modern music were taken and repurposed? Devotional Reception is an idea for a non-Eucharistic service in which such music can be channelled specifically for the purpose of encouraging those in attendance to be open to receiving not simply directly from the music, but receiving the Holy Spirit himself. To be empowered, to be strengthened and to be enlightened. For many Christians, the response modern praise music evokes can be contemplative and meditative, for all the use of percussion and other similar instruments, in a way that a traditional organ accompanied solely by voice cannot.

That skips forward a bit to the reception, but what of the devotion? Due to the sometimes vague language of modern praise, a time of teaching would be needed as well. A time to explore concepts particularly relating to the Holy Spirit which might otherwise only receive the briefest of attention around Pentecost. It is an opportunity to orient hearts and minds towards the Holy Spirit before that reception begins.

Finally, one of the major works of the Holy Spirit is in healing. While many in North America have never had the awesome wonder of experiencing the power of the Holy Spirit in this way, it seems the works of the Spirit are far more common in parts of the world where people feel a much stronger need to rely not upon themselves or the conveniences of their society, but on God. A time of prayer would then be appropriate. Just as the people may receive something of a feeling of the presence through praise music, they can receive that more sacramental grace through the laying on of hands in prayer, as Scripture commands us. It is a time in which there can be far greater empowering through the Spirit.

Taken together, these three streams of worship offer opportunity for constant turning to God in praise and offering, and receiving from God, in the form of revelation and grace. As orthodox Christians, it should be our earnest desire to see some form of normative and regular worship of the Holy Spirit and reception from the Spirit as a part of our regular worship of God.

On Christ’s Nature

The Feast of the Reign of Christ

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, whose will it is to restore all things in thy well-beloved Son, the King of kings and Lord of lords: Mercifully grant that the peoples of the earth, divided and enslaved by sin, may be freed and brought together under his most gracious rule; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

The Sunday Next before Advent

STIR Up, we beseech thee, O Lord, the wills of thy faithful people; that they, plenteously bringing forth the fruit of good works, may of thee be plenteously rewarded; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

One of the early controversy’s over Christ’s nature in the early Church involved acceptance of his humanity. This seems a bit off for Christians and non-Christians today, for whom acceptance of his humanity is easy and it is the acceptance of his divinity which proves troubling for many, but which is a mandatory matter of faith for Christians, as it says in the Nicene Creed, Christ is, “God, of God; Light, of Light; Very God, of very God… Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man.” Christ is fully God and fully man. In St Paul’s letters, and indeed throughout the entire New Testament, there is another narrative on Christ, one which can perhaps be traced back to some of Isaiah’s prophecies on Christ.

Isaiah 53 is the famous prophecy of the suffering servant. Famous among Christians because it is often read in Advent, foretelling the coming of Christ:

He was despised and rejected by men;
    a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
    he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (Isa 53. 3)

The idea of the suffering servant was something difficult for Jews to reconcile with the the Messiah. To them, he was going to be like one of the Judges; a military leader sent to unity the Jews and drive out the oppressors, in this case the Romans.

It is from some of these earliest prophetic Scriptures about Christ that we begin to understand that the earlier conception of Christ as being only glory and hope were incomplete.

Suffering and hope function together in Scripture. St Paul famously recounts in his epistle to the Romans how suffering produces endurance and character which leads to hope. He then goes on to more explicitly state that our hope is found in Christ, in that, “while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us,” (Rm 5. 6, 8).

In our Christian walk, it is common to look with anticipation for glory and hope. Our faith is, after all, the writer of Hebrews says, “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen,” (Heb 11. 1). We have hope in salvation through Christ. It is through his sacrifice that we have hope for reconciliation with him and anointing in the Holy Spirit. This is no mean thing, and it is on Christ’s death and resurrection that Christian faith hinges.

For some, there are times when they cannot see God’s love and when hope seems beyond reason. There are times when all we can see is Christ’s suffering, or read about the oppression and captivity of the Jews in the Old Testament. St Paul himself suffered greatly during his ministry, but never allowed his perspective to become dominated by his own suffering. No matter what, he  held to the hope of salvation offered in Christ.

The wholeness of Christ is to recognize that he came both with suffering and with joy. As Nicky Gumbel points out, “the Christian faith uniquely combines laughter and tears, joy and solemnity.” In Psalm 126 we are told:

Those who sow in tears
    shall reap with shouts of joy!
He who goes out weeping,
    bearing the seed for sowing,
shall come home with shouts of joy,
    bringing his sheaves with him. (Ps 126. 5, 6)

The duality of Christ is held in these verses. Christ does not promise that we will live a life of ease, he promises truth and asks us to follow him to come to know his Father. Very explicitly, Christ says, “And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me,” (St Mt 10. 38). There is promise of great glory, but never to the exclusion of suffering or pain.

In the midst of suffering, it is possible that it cane dominate our perspective, excluding any consideration of hope or glory. St Paul reminds us, though, that, “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us,” (Rm 8. 18). When we place our sufferings in their eternal context, they are made incomparably small next to the glory that awaits those who have faith in Christ Jesus.

There is comfort for those who suffer both in their future prospects and also in the present time. Christ foretold the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. In a number of places throughout Holy Scripture, the Holy Spirit is described as a comforter. The Holy Spirit comes alongside us and dwells within us to comfort and strengthen us. Perhaps most comfortingly, in those times of extreme suffering when we cannot form words to express our suffering and petitions to God to help us endure, St Paul tells us that, “the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words,” (Rm 8. 26). God hears our hearts, and indeed through Christ’s human nature is able to share in our human suffering. Indeed, St James reminds us of the hope in our suffering in that he who perseveres in suffering is blessed, “for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him,” (Jas 1. 12).

Christ’s dual nature is one that reminds us of his own teachings: “I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world,” (St Jn 16. 33). This life is one of tears and joy, one in which we, in Christ, have married together suffering and endurance with hope and joy. When we are faced with suffering, it is not an indication of the absence of God, but rather a natural course of our lives in which we are called to mirror Christ’s suffering and endure, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, so that in the end we will inherit the joy and glory that has been promised to us.