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 Power

The Seventh Sunday after Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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