On the Articles: Article XI

The Fourth Sunday after Easter

O ALMIGHTY God, who alone canst order the unruly wills and affections of sinful men: Grant unto thy people, that they may love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise; that so, among the sundry and manifold changes of the world, our hearts may surely there be fixed, where true joys are to be found; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

XI. Of the Justification of Man
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of justification.

Article XI continues Article X’s framework of discussion salvation by discussing some aspects of justification. The first sentence makes clear justification is not by merits—again addressing the Pelagian idea of being able to earn our salvation—and instead that we are justified by faith in Christ, in accepting his offer of unmerited grace and salvation.

The Article goes on to say that the details of this doctrine cannot be fully expressed solely in a short doctrinal statement such as in the Articles, and thus a fuller explanation can be found in the Book of Homilies.

This Article clearly reflects the thinking of its time on the issues both of justification and sanctification, which were largely viewed as one in the same. You were justified to the degree you were sanctified. Today, we more clearly distinguish between the two allowing that one can be in a state of justification by God’s grace while still being in an early stage of sanctification. This view remains entirely consistent with the view set forth in the Article, which itself largely mirrors that of the continental reformers in contrast to Rome, which at the Council of Trent articulated a view that we are justified not just by faith, and not just by works, but by works and faith. This view is further complicated by Trent’s declaration that this need to include works is directly in relation to James 2. 26b, “faith without works is also dead.” This particular portion remains consistent with the Anglican position, though the terminology here is being used in different ways. For Rome, faith in and of itself was viewed purely as belief. It was when faith was combined with the other Christian virtues of hope and charity that it became a saving faith and a way to receiving justification from Christ. For them, therefore, to suggest faith alone was sufficient was incorrect. Hope and charity, works, were needed also. For the Anglican, however, faith is not merely belief, but refers to that totality of saving faith, which is demonstrated by works. This is made clear in the Book of Homilies, referenced in this Article, which says that three things are required for justification:

Upon God’s part, his great mercy and grace; upon Christ’s part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of God’s justice, or the price of our redemption by the offering of his body and shedding of his blood with fulfilling of the law perfectly and throughly; and upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jesu Christ; which yet is not ours but by God’s working in us.

The homily makes clear that it is by Christ’s merits we are justified, never our own merits based on our works, but at the same time it is clear that the definition of faith is more than pure belief, for it specifies a “true and lively” faith, which ties in with James 2. 26 which describes faith from which works do not proceed to be dead.

The Council of Trent (which occurred prior to the publication of the Articles) went further, condemning the concept of justification by faith alone, but again their definition of faith is limited. This definition was a direct response to Martin Luther’s claims of faith as the justification for salvation, and that salvation could not be lost so long as faith was retained. In a particular way, faith here, is not simply a matter of belief in Christ Jesus as the son of God and in his atonement) but rather more specifically belief that no matter the circumstances, faith itself in Christ is sufficient for salvation.

Faith, however, has a broader definition. When we say faith, it means both that aspect of believing in God’s truth but also belief in God’s faithfulness. When we read something in God’s Word, we believe and have confidence in it; when God has promised something, faith similarly means we believe and have confidence in him to fulfil his promise. There is another part, though, what St Paul himself calls the, “obedience of faith,” (Rm 1. 5), or rather that when God tells us to do something, we ought to obey. This concept is clarified by Christ in St Luke’s gospel when he described those who failed to obey as those who build their houses without a foundation (St Lk 9. 46-49).

Expounding on this Article, EH Browne, Bishop of Winchester, in the 19th century, noted that it seemed:

As St Paul in his Epistle’s condemned the former error of his fellow-countrymen [the error of being justified by the law], so St James directed his Epistle against the latter: the one showing, that neither ceremonial observances nor legal obedience could satisfy the demands of God’s justice, but that an atonement and true faith were necessary; the other, that a mere creed was not calculated to please God when life was not consistent with it.

In essence, Romans tells us that we are not justified by the law, but by faith in Christ who shed his blood for our sins, and James tells us that it is insufficient to speak the right words, and that when they call on us to act we must. We cannot, in order words, simply pay lip service to God and call it saving faith.

Little commentary on justification survives from the early fathers, as it seems there was little controversy in the matter and therefore no need to write systematically on it. One of the earliest fathers, St Clement of Rome, does have writing speaking to the matter where he writes:

They were therefore greatly glorified, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness that they themselves wrought; but through His will. And we also, being called by the same will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, neither by our own wisdom, or knowledge, or piety, or any works which we did in holiness of heart, but by that faith by which God Almighty has justified all men from the beginning: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

It seems there remains great confusion amidst the various positions because of a lack of uniformity in the use of language. No one defines words by the same meaning or uses them in the same contexts. The explanation of this Article suggests, however, a Biblically rooted view of Justification that reconciles St Paul’s comments with those of St James. It is a viewpoint that is important to understand, particularly as today there are controversies, particularly as many people, lay and ordained, struggle to understand precisely what their tradition teaches and may inadvertently be misrepresenting their tradition’s doctrines.

On the Marks of Mission

The Twenty-Fourth Sunday after Trinity

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

While the four Marks of the Church, that it is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, might be the four traditional marks used to identify the Church, and which are referenced in the Apostle’s Creed and listed in the Nicene Creed, the Marks of Mission are much more commonly referenced in Church documents in the modern Anglican Church of Canada. The Marks of Mission were articulated by the Anglican Communion in the mid-1980s as a means of describing the central mission of the Anglican Communion as a church. There are five marks, of which only the first two are distinctly Christian, namely to proclaim the Good News of Christ and to teach, baptise and nurture new believers. The remaining three Marks are characterized more as social activism, namely to respond to human need in loving service, to transform unjust power structures in society and to promote peace and reconciliation and finally to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew life on the earth.

To be clear, while there are no Christian distinctives in the majority of the Marks (unless one considers describing the earth in terms of creation as distinctly Christian), that does not mean the Marks of Mission are un-Christian. Far from it. Yet at the same time, when the final three marks are pursued far more vigorously than the first two, it does leave one to pause and question the purposes of the marks and the broader vision of the church in terms of mission.

One could argue that the goal of the Marks is to sanctify society. It envisions a society in which violence is never considered as a tool, there is some form of justice for all, creation is respected, the Gospel is proclaimed and all people are brought to Christ. And yet, centuries before the Marks of Mission were proclaimed, St Francis of Assisi noted that, “if you sanctify yourself, you will sanctify society.”

His point was that the Anglican Church of Canada seems to be doing things backwards: focusing on, as an institutional priority, sanctifying society in some way, or rather advocating for it, while assuming that the sanctification of individuals will come later. It should not be ignored that the first Mark is to proclaim the Gospel, and yet a quick search of ‘mark of mission’ on the Anglican.ca website or on anglicanjournal.ca turns up references almost exclusively to the fourth mark of mission, that of transforming unjust structures of society and opposing violence. One news article describes a church seeking to live out the marks of mission, and its description of that points exclusively to human service, social activism but with no connection to the first two marks, and indeed an emphasis on how they avoid evangelism at their events.

The view that the social justice marks must be persued as a priority places an emphasis on social activism rather than personal sanctification, and thus implies that sanctification is a result of those good works. Yet St Paul suggests in Romans 14 that works that do not proceed from faith proceed from sin (Rm 14. 23b) and this interpretation is supported by the work of the scholastics and Article XIII. This viewpoint seems stringent, but reinforces the fact that without God’s grace, we are slaves to sin. It is in Christ that we are set free from sin, and it is through the strengthening and empowering of the Holy Spirit that we do good works in faith. Just as we are saved by faith and not works, society will be sanctified by our faith, with in turn sanctifies us, and not by our attempts simply to sanctify society through works alone.

It is important to remember this distinction between the individual, the Church and society. To go back to the Marks of the Church, rather than the Marks of Mission, which Mark is it that suggests the Church is meant to be an institution of social change? What part of Holy Scripture describes the goal for a sanctified society for which the Church is working towards?

The only real argument that could be made would be for the society of the law called for in the Old Testament for the Jews, and yet Christ fulfilled the law and the New Testament proclaims freedom from the particular laws of the Jews. The Good News of the Gospel, which the first mark calls to be proclaimed, along with Christ himself, is that there is a route to personal salvation and sanctification through faith in Christ and the reception of the Holy Spirit! It is not something that occurs through the actions of the Church, rather the Church itself is established in order to transmit this Good News and the teachings of Christ to all people in all times. The Great Commission is to do so. The Church was created to fulfil that commission, yet so far as the Anglican Church of Canada is concerned that is a lower priority.

When the Church moves beyond salvation and Scripture, as the church is doing in Canada, it risks its own authority. Looking at the third Mark of Mission, for instance, in some cases it might be clear how we are to respond to human need. Feed the hungry and clothe the poor is a simple enough prospect, but what about more complex issues? By what metric do we determine what is unjust? To some, closed communion is unjust, and yet to others it is for their benefit on the basis of Holy Scripture (I Cor 11. 27-29). Secular views of justice would suggest turning anyone away is unjust, yet Scripture itself suggests that if someone receives communion without proper preparation they receive it to their condemnation and it is therefore just that the church prevent them from receiving without proper preparation.

Exploring deeper issues of poverty, discrimination, criminal justice all go well beyond Biblical teaching and open the door to questions of how the church will base its decisions on what is unjust. It also shows the dangerous precedent of using secular reasoning to inform the Marks of Mission. Scripture makes it clear that we are to care for the poor, but when the Marks demand addressing systematic issues of injustice, it requires proscriptive efforts that go beyond what Scripture teaches. Are priests now to be political scientists and sociologists, working to determine what policies a government ought to apply in order to address issues of injustice in the world? Does it in any way fulfil a Christian calling to simply seek to use institutional powers of the church to draw awareness of outsiders to these issues?

Coming back to St Francis of Assisi it is through the individual that change must occur. It is the invisible church—the gathering of all the faithful—that must make the difference. Good works are the proceeds of faith as the Epistle of James tells us (Jas 2. 26), and it is the individuals who are called to make the difference.

When the Church speaks to outsiders, it is moralizing. When it is the faithful, inspired by their faith and empowered by the Spirit, who act, it is a witness to others. As we are sanctified, we will sanctify society. The Marks of Mission may not be the best guide for the Church, but they remind us of what we as individual Christians are called to do, and in particular the order in which we are to fulfil them, first by coming to faith, being nurtured in it and when it is mature to act upon it and by our good works transform society and be a witness to others that they might come to faith in Christ themselves.

On Time

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.

Last Sunday’s post began with some musings on how language influences thought patterns and perceptions. Last week’s article discussed how it affects our theology in respect of our relationship with God and our willingness to submit ourselves wholly and completely to his will. This week considers how language can affect things such as our perception of events, and in particular time.

In the Greek of the Bible, there are two words which are rendered into the English word ‘time’ namely chronos and kairos. Chronos is used in the sense of a measurement of linear time. The progression of events past to the future, or events that have yet to occur. Kairos, by contrast, is not quantitative and refers to a particular moment of time, rather than a measurement of it. It is qualitative to the quantitative chronos.

Chronos involves a way of measuring time. Kairos is a way of indicating a marked moment in the present. Now. In our Christian walk, God marks several moments. Indeed, in Christian theology, kairos is viewed specifically as the moment in which God’s purpose is ultimately fulfilled.

It is an interesting reflection on the fact that chronos, culturally, is more reflective of Western Christianity which seeks to quantify and explain, systematize and order all things, whereas in the East Christianity tends to be viewed more experientially, with less need to explore the Holy Mysteries of God, and more of a need to experience them.

A friend recently received the Sacrament of Confirmation, and it was these thoughts that were working through my mind as the Lord Bishop laid hands on her and prayed over her for a strengthening of the Holy Spirit in her life.

Some of the sacraments indelibly mark our lives. In Holy Baptism, when chrism is applied, we are sealed and marked as Christ’s own forever. It is a marked moment in our lives, in which we accomplish one of God’s ultimate purposes for us, reconciliation with him. In Confirmation to do we experience this marked moment of kairos, this fulfilment of God’s purpose in our lives.

Our Christian lives are journeys. In Scripture, the Christian path is described quite literally as a walk (eg. Gal 5. 25; Eph 4. 1; Eph 5. 8), but these passages speak to a deeper meaning, that of our sanctification and infused righteousness. In this understanding, our righteousness is not imputed by Christ, but rather is the transformative result of God’s sanctifying grace which gradually justifies the Christian. It is not instantaneous. Even for those, generally speaking Protestants and some Anglicans, who hold to a different view of justification, they still view the Christian life as a journey and process, for those same Scriptural reasons and that even once justified, the Christian must, as it says in St Matthew’s Gospel, “But the one who endures to the end will be saved,” (St Mt 24. 13).


It is therefore easy to think of the Christian life in terms of chronos. At some point in the past, I came to knowledge of Christ, and was baptised in the name of the Trinity, and since then have continued to struggle to fulfil the Gospel teachings and Christ’s commandments and be filled with God’s transforming grace.

Yet, we must never forget these marked moments of kairos in our lives. These moments which, in the Eastern Christian understanding, we participate in some way in God’s eternity. CS Lewis discusses this concept somewhat briefly in Mere Christianity when he considers God’s nature beyond time. While he discusses this in the context of doctrine and pious devotion and belief under the authority of Holy Scripture, he expresses his personal belief that for God, everything is now. God is beyond time and does not experience chronos, but rather experiences the totality of kairos at once.

Less philosophically, it is important to not simply become focused on perceptions of the process, while ignoring the moments we are experiencing now. Christianity is not meant to be a clinical process, but a joy to be experienced. There is nothing wrong with remembering past accomplishments, and indeed failures in order to avoid them again, or looking to the future, but if we do so to the detriment of the present, we will never experience the true essence of Christianity, relationship with God.

On Judicial Review

The Day of Pentecost

GOD, who as at this time didst teach the hearts of thy faithful people, by the sending to them the light of thy Holy Spirit: Grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgement in all things, and evermore to rejoice in his holy comfort; through the merits of Christ Jesus our Saviour, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the same Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

Whitsunday

O GOD, who makest us glad with the yearly remembrance of the coming of the Holy Spirit upon thy disciples in Jerusalem: Grant that we who celebrate before thee the Feast of Pentecost may continue thine for ever, and daily increase in thy Holy Spirit, until we come to thine eternal kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Collect for the Unity of the Christian Church

O LORD Jesus Christ who didst say unto thine Apostles, Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: Regard not our sins, but the faith of thy Church, and grant unto it that peace and unity which is agreeable to thy will; who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.

In law, the term judicial review refers to the process by which laws passed by legislatures are scrutinized by the courts against existing higher orders of law. In Canada, this generally means the Constitution Acts 1867 and 1982, with in the US this would be the US Constitution and its amendments, including the Bill of Rights.

This process creates an interaction between the governments which pass laws and the courts which interpret them, and in the late 1990s and early 2000s, two prominent Canadian constitutional scholars began to debate the nature of this relationship.

First, Prof. Peter Hogg advanced Dialogue Theory. In Hogg's theory, legislatures and courts interact in a dialogue, because when the courts making a judicial review ruling, legislatures have the ability to respond to that statement in a number of ways. For instance, the legislature could appeal a ruling to a higher court, enact a change to avoid the ruling in some way, retain the legislation in question by amending it or abandon it entirely. In Canada, where a court ruling invalidates legislation on the basis of the Charter of Rights, the legislature has an over-ride clause in the Charter that allows the law to operate notwithstanding the Court's ruling.

Two years later, Prof. F.L. Morten responded with a criticism and advanced what he called Monologue Theory that said that interactions were not a dialogue as Hogg had said, but a one-sided monologue from the courts. First, there is a lack of equality when the two bodies speak, because the courts speak with greater authority than legislatures. While the legislatures can act to get around the rulings, there is a status quo created when the courts rule that cannot be avoided.

At this point, the real question is what does this have to do with a blog on Christianity? It is, however, an interesting model to use to examine how humans relate to God, and is particularly pertinent to discuss on the Day of Pentecost.

In the Old Testament, prayer and offerings were the normal part of the life of a believing Jew. The way they interacted with God was far different, however. While all prayed and might bring offerings, it was the priests who were set apart who made the sacrifices to God, and only particular priests were permitted into the temple--into the presence of God. Only the High Priest was permitted to use the name of God, and then only in the holiest place in the temple and only on Yom Kippur.

Throughout the history of the Old Testament, God spoke to many different people, but it was always particular people for particular purposes. Raising up great kings and leaders or prophets and priests.

Morten's arguments about the disparity in power between parties seems very much to apply here. And why would it not? Who could argue with the majesty and greatness of God being incomprehensibly greater than that of humanity? God interacted with humanity almost exclusively in a monologue.

In the new covenant, however, there is a significant change. God no longer speaks only to particular individuals, he speaks to all. He doesn't speak to us for particular purposes and at particular times. He does not do it to raise up prophets or kings for the chosen people. He speaks to every person and for every purpose.

The point at which this changes comes with the fulfilment of Christ's promise recorded in the Gospel of St John: “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you,” (St Jn 14. 16, 17).

In this passage, Christ promises the sending of the Holy Spirit, something which is recorded in Holy Scripture as happening on the Day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit descended on the apostles and all believers like tongues of flame, and they were empowered by the Spirit.

In the Holy Spirit, the gift of dialogue was offered. God now speaks to all people, and not just for particular purposes, but for the greater purpose of of our sanctification. Christ was sent to bring about our reconciliation and through the Spirit, sent at Pentecost, we now are given the means by which we can now not simply pray to God, but hear him and converse with him.

It is astonishing that in reflection on prayer, most Christians first and foremost think of the promises made that when prayers are offered in Christ's name, they will be answered. Instead, should we not consider with great joy first and foremost that through the these gifts, God has made all believers equal in status with the great prophets of the Old Testament? Moses and Abraham, who spoke with God and received his instructions for them? Now it is a matter for all Christians to discern God's discussions with them and his will for them.

At Pentecost, it is customary to consider gifts of the Spirit. It is only natural given that they are one of the more visible results of the Holy Spirit alive in the life of a Christian. Yet, it is the gift of relationship, of conversation, with God which is truly the distinguishing characteristic for Christians, and which is not nearly celebrated enough. Everyone recognizes that one of the central tenets of Christianity is that personal relationship with God, which is enabled by Christ's passion on the cross, but it must also be recognized that once we are reconciled to God in Christ, it is by the Holy Spirit that our relationship with God is built. The opportunity for dialogue exists, and any Christian that ignores that, sticking to the monologues of the Old Testament, will be missing out on the full joy of a true, personal relationship with God the Father.