Twelve Doctrines of Christmas

Not entirely correct (e.g., "credo baptism"), but hilarious nonetheless.

Ten Cheers for Tyndale

Today is the commemoration of William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale, translators of the Holy Scriptures into English. Tyndale's New Testament served as the basis for the populace of England being converted to Justification by Grace through Faith. Coverdale, whose Psalm translation still deeply effects the BCP's psalms, came along and published an Old Testament / Apocrypha along with a slightly altered Tyndale NT. This Bible was the first to receive broad use in England and can still be read today.

Let us render hearty thanks to God for these two servants. And let us take up their cause by reading the Scriptures for ourselves in "a language understanded of the people" and applying it to our lives.

COLLECT: Almighty God, you planted in the heart of your servants William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale a consuming passion to bring the Scriptures to people in their native tongue, and endowed them with the gift of powerful and graceful expression and with strength to persevere against all obstacles: Reveal to us your saving Word, as we read and study the Scriptures, and hear them calling us to repentance and life; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Below is an excellent video that gives an accessible visual rendering of the history of the English Bible.

Asking the wrong question

Marburg redux? LCMS & ACNA explore relations

While it's no Colloquy of Marburg, an exciting turn of events is happening within the LCMS. In the context of exploring "altar and pulpit" fellowship with other confessional Lutheran bodies, the synod also explored similar overtures toward the Anglican Church in North America. I imagine that this will take some time, and be very carefully pursued given that some in ACNA ordain women (LCMS does not) and some in ACNA have a bare receptionist position on the Lord's Table (most don't) and then the Anglo-Catholics could make a big deal about the episcopate. So plenty to resolve...but I'm happy to see the stirrings toward evangelical unity. My sincere desire is that instead of seeking union with Rome, our communion moves steadily toward those who embraced reformed (i.e. Biblical) catholicism, then extend outward toward the children of the Reformation within the Latin Rite.

461 Years of Biblical Beautiful Worship

What Began in 1549 with an Act Of Parliament Endures Today!

Archbishop Thomas Cranmer’s words of worship (and Merbecke’s chant settings of those words) will resonate Sunday in Anglican churches that value scripture and tradition — and are reasonable enough to practice “inclusion” regarding conservative Anglicans. “Conservative” in this sense means “conserving and practicing that which is good.”

Cranmer’s Prayer Book was proclaimed the official liturgy of England by Parliament on January 21, 1549. The Act of Uniformity (text here), as the measure was called, addressed “The Book of the Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church after the use of the Church of England.”

Several minor changes have been made over the centuries, but the towering language — great language for great things — and, more important, the core faith expressed by that language, remain the same in the 1928 BCP. This magnificent book is the keystone of our faith today in the Anglican Church as well as other churches that have adopted it or portions of it (normally through the 1662 version in legal at the time of the great missionary movement during the 18 & 19th centuries). Moreover, the classic Prayer Book is treasured as a jewel in the crown of the entire Western Canon by readers and scholars who appreciate the English language.

It wasn’t until 1979 that the first major revisions appeared in the language and, consequently, in the meaning of the religion itself, chiefly in the secular “Baptismal Covenant.” This sociopolitical phrase is regarded by many revisionists, according to their own words, as the most important declaration in the liturgy. Another revision is a slight manipulation of language in the Creeds that denies the divine nature of Christ. If you haven’t noticed this sly edit hidden in plain sight, read it carefully and you’ll see.

No small changes, these, and vexatious to the vast majority of Episcopalians, who will be happy to learn that, to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of the 1662 & 1928 BCP have been greatly exaggerated by liberal bishops and clergy. Although the 1979 book was adopted by General Convention as the official liturgy — and, as we learned at last summer’s General Convention, is now considered in revisionist circles terribly old-hat – the 1928 BCP is still in use throughout the Church wherever Episcopalians discern the difference. How quickly the 1979 went out of fashion! Yet the classic, scripture-based 1662 & 1928 BCP endures.

If you are clergy, consider observing this pivotal day in Church history by conducting services this Sunday and next from the 1662 or 1928 BCP. You’ll leave church refreshed, renewed, and ready to take on whatever the coming week has in store.

Cranmer Lives.

OMG!!!

People at Indexed...I bow to you!

Evangelical or evanjellyfish?

“One plague of our age is the widespread dislike to what men are pleased to call dogmatic theology. In the place of it, the idol of the day is a kind of jellyfish Christianity – a Christianity without bone, or muscle, or sinew, – without any distinct teaching about the atonement or the work of the Spirit, or justification, or the way of peace with God – a vague, foggy, misty Christianity, of which the only watchwords seem to be, ‘You must be..liberal and kind. You must condemn no man’s doctrinal views. You must consider everybody is right and nobody is wrong’.”

~ J.C. Ryle

The Upper Room, “One Blood”, 99.

Reflections from the Gospel Lections

...and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. (Acts 16:33)

Over the years, I’ve grown increasingly uncomfortable with calling the forerunner of Jesus “John the Baptist.” Sometimes I’ll call him John the Baptizer; other times, John the Forerunner. The reason, of course, is that calling him “John the Baptist” sounds to some ears like “John the Lutheran” or “John the Presbyterian” or “John the Methodist.” That is, they hear a denominational distinctive rather than the man who paved the way for the coming of the Lord who is over the whole church.

This is especially dangerous for those of us who are liturgical, as we will always encounter John in the wilderness of Advent. On more than one occasion I’ve heard ordained clergymen from Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Methodist churches saying that believers baptism is “more biblical” than infant baptism, and I’ve even seen some Anglican churches “dedicating” rather than baptizing infants.

Plenty of ink has already been spilled over the exegetical arguments for (and against) household baptisms, so I don’t plan to revisit those (brief review here). Instead, I want to draw your attention to a couple of the theological implications of infant baptism (a.k.a. paedobaptism or covenant baptism), implications which are very practical.

First, infant baptism says that salvation is about what God has done, rather than what we have done. For those who insist on adult baptism, the key element seems to be the free will “decision” one has made to follow God. By contrast, infant baptism testifies clearly to God’s sovereign work in salvation and regeneration, and His faithfulness to His promises. It underscores the reality of original sin, and puts on display the fact that God alone is able to bring us into His family. Like an infant being brought forth for the sacrament, we’ve done nothing to merit God’s favor. I can't underscore this enough: infant baptism teaches that salvation is not the result of our works. Grace alone (sola gratia) is truly catholic doctrine!

Second, infant baptism testifies that our children are real, genuine members of God’s kingdom. They are not little pagans that need converting - rather, we can bring them up as Christians, and safely presume that they are saved until (God forbid) they give clear evidence otherwise. Such a doctrine is enormously practical, and can give a great deal of comfort to anxious parents. It’s part of our Communion’s recovery of the historic practice of paedocommunion - and a salutary correlate to our pro-life stance.

I really don’t believe that Anglican leaders have any liberty in this area, as infant baptism is plainly taught in Article 27. Beyond that, I’m convinced that the practice is perfectly scriptural. Read the venerable Browne if you don't believe me.

So baptize those babies!

Church Unity and the Future of Anglicanism

One of the reasons I was eager to join the Anglican Communion was because I became convinced that it was the way forward - for realizing the unity among catholic and reformed impulses in the church. Dr. Peter Kreeft - a Dutchman who made the journey all the way to Rome from the Reformed camp - lays out the issues beautifully. I wanted to give you the opportunity to read for yourself. (Source: the Layman.)

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Boston College’s Dr. Peter Kreeft, a professor of philosophy, kicked off Southern Evangelical Seminary’s 16th annual National Conference on Christian Apologetics with a call and challenge.

Openly acknowledging his perspective from “one side of the confessional,” Kreeft set out an argument for visible Christian unity that would strengthen the witness of the Christian Church in the world.

Kreeft was speaking at the 2009 National Conference on Christian Apologetics at Hickory Grove Baptist Church in Charlotte, N.C. Approximately 2,500 attended the two-day conference, “Apologetics and the Local Church,” held Nov. 13-14 and sponsored by Southern Evangelical Seminary.

“The devil is very clever. He attacks the Church from within and from without,” Kreeft reminded the audience of pastors, seminary students and committed Christians. “His tactic is to divide and conquer. If you can get your enemies to fight with each other then you win without much effort.”

To answer that attack, Kreeft proposed an “apologetic for Church reunification” based on Jesus’ appeal for unity in John 17 and the theology of the body of Christ.

“For 1,000 years,” he said, “the Church was one. So, it is possible …. Once upon a time Humpty Dumpty was sitting on the wall, in one piece. So, just because we cannot see how to get him back into one piece does not mean that it is impossible.”

Kreeft then asked the question that was reasonably on the minds of everyone in the room, “How?” “Well,” he answered, “first we have to want to do it.”

“Sometimes you only see the roadmap after you’ve traveled it. Love is like that and faith … the mind sees God only after believing, not before. The motor that drives the mind is always the heart, the will. When the Pharisees asked ‘how can we understand your teachings?,’ Jesus replied that one must do the will of the Father – it’s a matter of the will, then the mind,” Kreeft opined.

Kreeft argued that the original “split” in the Church of Jesus Christ, that between the Eastern and Western varieties of Christianity, was more about politics than theology. “But the 1517 division,” Kreeft acknowledged, “that split was theological. And theology is a non-negotiable thing. Are we saved by faith alone or by faith plus good works? Luther argued the former; the Council of Trent settled on the later.” What resulted was the reality of the Protestant and Catholic division of the body of Christ.

Why? What was so important that the visible unity of the Church would suffer such fracture? Kreeft’s answer was simple, “theology.”

“Theology is about absolutes. Politics is about relativities. So, you can never solve theological problems with politics. It will not work. You cannot compromise on theology. Ever,” Kreeft affirmed.

Then he declared, “You may not have heard this, but the Reformation is over.” Kreeft then presented “The Decree on Justification” approved by the Vatican, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Methodists and others as evidence. The decree declares that Christians, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, “really do agree in essence on the issue of justification, without compromise.”

Kreeft continued, “No one 50 years ago thought that was possible. Except one guy, who in the 1950’s wrote Luther and Aquinas on Justification, arguing that they were both arguing from the same source, namely, the Bible. So they are both right without contradiction and without compromise.”

Luther, argued that those who are saved are saved by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone, made his arguments from Romans and Galatians. “So,” Kreeft affirms, “he’s right.”

“The Council of Trent, arguing that those who are saved are saved by faith and good works, made their argument from James and I Corinthians 13. So, they too, are right.”

The real conversation, Kreeft contended, is in the definition of faith. “By faith,” he asks, “do you mean ‘justified’ or do you mean ‘perfected?’”

“Justification is achieved by grace alone, yes; sanctification by grace plus works, yes. We’re saved but we’re not fully sanctified. His work in us and our work in response. The roots are not yet fruits,” he said.

Kreeft then led the audience through a philosophical exploration of the question, “What is faith?” He acknowledged that faith is both essentially an intellectual apprehension (one must believe) and essentially an act by which you accept Jesus Christ into your soul … which inevitably produces good works. This combination, Kreeft contends, “is saving faith.”

Challenging his audience to consider an ecclesiastical apologetic for reunification, Kreeft pleaded, “We need each other. The body needs all its organs. The Church is not an organization. It is an organism. … to tear apart the body of Christ is a blasphemy, an obscenity against the body of Christ.”

Kreeft’s theology of the body seeks to teach Protestants and Catholics alike. “Christ does not have more than one body, one house. The house may have been divided by sin, but the integrity of the unity of the house still stands. And “everyone in the whole house needs the precious things that now exist in different parts of the house.”

Kreeft then outlines the things that Catholics need to learn from Protestants – things they have forgotten, including:

• Primacy of Jesus: Christ is not one element among many. He is everything. He is the center. He is the foundation.
• Primacy of faith: You cannot have fruits without roots.
• Primacy of Scripture: All other authority is based on the authority of Scripture.
• Importance of evangelism and the diversity of gifts.
  

He then enumerated things that Protestants need to learn from Catholics:

• The body of Christ is physical, literal and concrete. It’s not an ideal – that’s Gnosticism and it’s a heresy. God has a physical life, forever. Christ did not get out of His body when He rose again – He rose physically. The second person of the Trinity has a human body, forever.
• What is saved is the Church, not just individuals. Salvation is simultaneously individual and collective.
• Absolute importance of works of love. It is part of the Gospel, part of the main course, not dessert.
• The Scripture is always taught by a teacher – the teacher and the book go together. We do not worship the book, we worship God. The Word comes alive in the hands of a living teacher.
• Christ is present in the Eucharist. You can debate “how” but you cannot debate “whether.”
  

In conclusion, Kreeft asserted that “we have to be open to the mysterious and unknown and something we cannot see, yet. Stop being a control freak and let God be God. Who knows what will happen?”

The philosopher showed through arguing, “now, it has to be a ‘more’ not a ‘less.’ Catholics will become more Catholic by greater exposure to and cooperation with Evangelicals. Evangelicals will become more Evangelical by greater exposure to and cooperation with Catholics.”

Kreeft acknowledged that very idea of Church reunification is too big and too much for many people to even consider. “Our problem should always be that which we consider ‘too big,’ lest we settle for things that are ‘too small.’”

Kreeft challenged his listeners, “You have to be a fanatic. Good fanaticism – you cannot love God too much. You cannot love love too much. You cannot love unity too much. You cannot love the lost too much. It cannot be overdone – it is your fidelity to God, alone.”

How, you ask? Kreeft answers, “One foot up and one foot down. Make a step in the direction of God’s desire: unity.”

Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at Boston College and at the King’s College (Empire State Building), in New York City. He is a regular contributor to several Christian publications, is in wide demand as a speaker at conferences, and is the author of more than 55 books including: Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Christianity for Modern Pagans and Fundamentals of the Faith. For more information about him or his books, visit his Web site.

Tim Keller in Louisville

Tonight, November 16th at 7:00 PM at Calvin Presbyterian Church. Calvin is where I did my student internship during seminary. And Dr. Keller is very friendly to us Anglicans, having been instrumental in planting Christ Church in NYC.

Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope That Matters

A talk and book signing by the author, Dr. Timothy Keller (Excellent book review here.)

Free and open to the public - No reservation needed

As pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in New York City, Dr. Timothy J. Keller makes a point of reaching out to immigrants, urban professionals and artists, offering an intellectually compelling case for belief in God. Newsweek magazine called Keller “a C.S. Lewis for the 21st century, a defender of orthodox Christianity.” He is the author of the best sellers, “The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism” and, “The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith.” He will be at Calvin for a talk about his just released book, “Counterfeit Gods.” Books will also be available for purchase and signing by Dr. Keller.

This presentation is the final event of the annual Festival of Faiths, and is sponsored by Carmichael’s Bookstore.

How the Orthodox view the Anglican Communion

Christ’s invitation into communion is not answered when the only thing that’s mutual is our suspicion. Thus, I am deeply grateful for the work that Metropolitan Jonah is undertaking on behalf of all Orthodox Christians in re-establishing trustworthy common ground with those of us who walked the way of Orthodoxy within the realms of the Latin Rite estrangement.


By Archbishop Methodios Fouyas, 1972

As we try to see the Anglican Church with Orthodox eyes we must remember that clear-cut definitions are ruled out in advance where Anglicanism is concerned. Judged by the principles of the Orthodox Church, the Church of England had the right to proclaim itself self-governing and autonomous, provided that there were certain canonical principles, which in fact there were. The old Church of England went on without any breach in either its legal or its spiritual continuity.

It continued to profess the Catholic faith, which was once for all delivered to the Saints.

It preserved without any break the Apostolic Succession of its Ministry, 1 although 'many Anglicans maintain Apostolic succession primarily as a symbol and Bond of Unity.'2

Some Anglican theologians have considered Episcopacy to be not only of the bene esse of the Church, but part of its esse, as Canon Richardson says. 3 Consequently Orthodox theologians, influenced by the writings of Anglicans like Gore 4 and A. M. Ramsey, 5 have accepted that the Church of England means by Apostolic succession 'that grace is bestowed by our Lord, through the action of His whole Church. But certain actions in this work of grace are confined to Bishops, whereby the truth is taught that every local group or Church depends on the one life of the one Body.'6 We find a similar opinion to that of Archbishop Ramsey in G. W. Broomfield's book Revelation and Reunion, in which he writes: 'there seems to me to have been a general principle implicit in Apostolic practice, and underlying the evolution of Church order. This was that appointments to the official ministry are the business of those who themselves have received authority to make such appointments.'7

As Archbishop Ramsey has written recently:

Our Church has two aspects: On the one hand we claim to be a Church possessing Catholic Tradition and continuity from the ancient Church, and our Catholic Tradition and continuity includes the belief in the real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament; the order of Episcopacy and the Priesthood, including the Power of a priestly absolution. We possess various institutions belonging to Catholic Christendom like monastic orders for men and women. Our Anglican Tradition has another aspect as well. We are a Church which has been through the Reformation, and values many experiences derived from the Reformation, for instance, the Open Bible: great importance is attached to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, and to personal conviction and conversion through the work of the Holy Spirit.8

What we have said about the Orthodox attitude towards Rome applies to some extent also to the Orthodox attitude towards Anglicanism. The Orthodox belief that their Church is the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church on earth, gives the impression that Orthodox theology is even more exclusive than Roman Catholic. But the Orthodox Church has shown some recognition of the sacraments of other churches. For instance, her practice of receiving converts from Rome or Anglicanism by Chrismation without Re-baptism (though this has not always been the case in the past) 'is a clear indication that the sacramental limits of the Church do not coincide with its ceremonial boundaries'.9

Orthodox theologians are divided as regards the character of the Anglican Church. Some see it from the exaggerated point of view which divides it into three parties, commonly known as High Church, Low Church, Broad Church. It is this idea that leads many, not only Orthodox, but Roman Catholics also, to think that the Church of England is a sort of confederation of three separated Churches, each with its own liturgy, its own doctrinal formularies and its own separate hierarchy. This is completely mistaken.

Dr. Ramsey says that

though there is High Church and Low Church, it is all the time One Church with a single life, and all the members of the Church of England share together in the Creeds, Holy Scriptures, the Sacraments, the rule of the Bishops and the Liturgy; so do not think of High Church and Low Church as utterly separate factions but as two aspects of the life of a Church which is all the time one.10

Some Orthodox theologians judge the Church of England from the Thirty-Nine Articles alone, which prevents them from having a true appreciation of this Church from an Orthodox point of view. 11

The Articles bear little relation to the present life of the Church, but are polemical principles long ago established. The Articles do not represent the whole Faith of this Church.

In these matters the Orthodox attitude towards the Anglican Church sometimes tends to be ill-informed. 12 When the Anglican Church and its tradition is more fully understood by the Orthodox, I am sure it will be recognized that Anglicanism represents a genuine spirit of Orthodoxy so developed as to be understood by modern thought.

Anglicanism is not a Protestant Church, but a reformed Catholic Church, which maintains its unity with the tradition of the ancient undivided Church.

Professor Comnenos, in his book on Anglican orders, wrote that 'very many of the lay and clerical members of the Anglican Church are inclined to be Orthodox in mind and would gladly enter into union with Orthodoxy, or otherwise fully communicate with it, if the non-recognition of their Priesthood did not stand before them as an insurmountable obstacle.'13 A leading Orthodox personality, Germanos, Archbishop of Thyateira, speaking at the Gloucester Diocesan Conference on I June 1923, said that 'the Orthodox Church has always considered the venerable Anglican Church as a branch, in many particulars, in continuous succession with the Ancient Church'.14

By a branch, Archbishop Germanos meant not one of the parts of Catholicism, according to the Branch Theory, but a Church especially representing the Catholic Church in England. Similarly Professor Bulgakov writes that 'Anglicanism in its tendency towards the restoration of the Ancient Church, as a reaction to Protestantism, is already becoming more and more Orthodox, and this process is naturally a way to its reunion with historic Orthodoxy.'15

____________________________

1 The Claims of the Church of England, Cyril Garbett (London, 1947), p. 15, 17, 55
2 The Second World Conference on Faith and Order (1938), p. 246. Such was the opinion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, cf. H. D'Espine, 'The Apostolic Succession as an Ecumenical issue. A Protestant View', E.R. iv (1952), pp. 154-155, and of William Temple, cf. F. A. Iremonger, William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, His Life and Letters (1948), p. 586.
3 C. C. Richardson, The Sacrament of Reunion (194.0). See G. K. A. Bell, Christian Unity: The Anglican Position. Okus Petri Lectures at Upsala University, October, 1946 (London, 1948), pp. 23-31. Appendix: Extracts from Anglican Writers on Episcopacy.
4 The Ministry of the Christian Church, pp. 65-109.
5 The Gospel and the Catholic Church, pp. 81-6, 216.
6 Cf. also Daniel Jenkins, in The Nature of Catholicity (1942), p. 54. Jenkins endorses Ramsey's opinion, although he thinks that such a claim comes with a shock of surprise to many modern Protestants.
7 G. W. Broomfield, Revelation and Reunion (1942), p. 185.
8 Catholic Herald, 17 Sept. 1965; cf. Gore, The Anglo-Catholic Movement, p. 7.
9 N. Zernov, H.E.M., p. 673. 10 Catholic Herald, loc. cit.
11 Such was the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Russo-Anglican discussions in Moscow, July 1956; cf. H. M. Waddams, Anglo-Russian Theological Conference, pp. 64-65. Cf. also Conferinta Romana Orthodoxa-Anglicana tinuta la Bucuresti y-Sjunie 1935 si Calatoria I.P.S. Patriarchului D. D. Dr Miron in Anglia 28junie-7 julie 1936. Bucharest, 1938.
12 e.g. Trembelas, The History of the Reformation in the Anglican Church, p. 124.
13 P. Comnenos, 'Anglican Ordinations', C.E. ii (1921), p. 113.
14 C.E. v (1924), p. 128.
15 S. Bulgakov, 'One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic', C.E. xii (1931), pp. 95-6. I do not ignore the Letter of Khomyakov to W. Palmer, where the Russian Orthodox thinker defines Anglicanism: 'It is a narrow ledge of dubious terra firma, beaten by the waves of Romanism and Protestantism, and crumbling on both sides into the mighty waters': quoted in W. J. Birkbeck, Russia and the English Church, pp. 102-3. But this extreme idea on Anglicanism has never found acceptance amongst Orthodox theologians.

Diversity & Tolerance

Originally posted at the parish blog:

If you immediately condemn anyone who doesn’t quite believe the same as you do as forsaken by Christ’s Spirit, and consider anyone to be the enemy of truth who holds something false to be true, who, pray tell, can you still consider a brother? I for one have never met two people who believed exactly the same thing. This holds true in theology as well.

- Martin Bucer

To my friends who insist that AC-NA will spin apart because of evangelical and catholic and charismatic Anglicans coming together, I say: PHOOEY. How much more classically Anglican can you get than Martin Bucer, a man who started out as a Dominican priest and worked tirelessly to bringing conciliation among the leading lights of the Lutheran, Genevan/Swiss, & English Reformations?

95 Theses

Hey Rome...Read'em and weep.

Go ahead...indulge yourself.

My Response to the Recent Apostolic Constitution

Is best taken from Anglican Divine, Bp. Jeremy Taylor (sometimes known as the "Shakespeare of Divines" for his poetic style of expression):

"What can be supposed wanting in our Church in order to salvation? We have the Word of God, the Faith of the Apostles, the Creeds of the Primitive Church, the Articles of the four first General Councils, a holy liturgy, excellent prayers, perfect sacraments, faith and repentance, the Ten Commandments, and the sermons of Christ, and all the precepts and counsels of the Gospels. We … require and strictly exact the severity of a holy life. … We communicate often, our priests absolve the penitent. Our Bishops ordain priests, and confirm baptised persons, and bless their people and intercede for them. And what could here, be wanting to salvation?”

- Jeremy Taylor, Bp. of Down & Connor (1613-1667)

ReForm Responds re Rome

Reform Initial Response To ‘Apostolic Constitution’ Announcement

Revd Rod Thomas, chairman of Reform, makes four points as an initial response to today’s announcement from the Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster:

“Anglicans concerned about protecting the basic Christian faith need not go to Rome, because we now have the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA (UK)) which holds together those who want to stop the orthodox faith being eroded. We can remain Anglican. Furthermore, the FCA Primates have recognised that problems with episcopal oversight are arising here in the UK. They have expressed the hope that these will be solved locally, but if not, they are willing to step in.”

“This development highlights the need for robust legislative provision to cater for those who cannot agree to women bishops, such as that recently suggested by the Revision Committee.”

“If priests really are out of sympathy with the C of E’s doctrine (as opposed to the battles we are having over women’s ministry and sexuality), then perhaps it is better they make a clean break and go to Rome. However, when they do, they will have to accommodate themselves to Rome’s top-down approach to church life, whereas the C of E has always stressed the importance of decision making at the level of the local church.”

“It is illusory to pretend that this development is an outcome of ecumenical dialogue. It illustrates the difficulties the C of E faces and the need for stronger leadership, rather than the ‘softly softly’ approach so far taken to those holding liberal views who are splitting the church.”

From the Homily Against Idolatry

I want to give full vent to the breadth of Anglican experience, so in contrast to my post from the Allentown Tracts, I offer this selection from the Book of Homilies:

...Wee should not worship Images, and that we should not have Images in the Temple, for fear and occasion of worshiping them, though they be of themselves things indifferent: for the Christian is the holy Temple and lively Image of GOD, as the place well declareth, to such as will read and weigh it. And whereas all godly men did ever abhor that any kneeling and worshiping or offering should bee used to themselves when they were alive (for that it was the honour due to GOD only) as appeareth in the Acts of the Apostles by S. Peter forbidding it to Cornelius (Acts 10.25-26), and by S. Paul and Barnabas forbidding the same to the Citizens in Lystra (Acts 14.14-15): Yet wee like mad men fall down before the dead idols or images of Peter and Paul, and give that honour to sticks and stones, which they thought abominable to be given to themselves being alive.

...For they were then Preaching Bishops, and more often seen in Pulpits, than in Princes palaces, more often occupied in his legacy, who said, "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to all men," than in Embassies and affairs of Princes of this world....

Now it remaineth for the conclusion of this Treatise, to declare as well the abuse of Churches and Temples, by too costly and sumptuous decking and adorning of them, as also the lewd painting, gilding, and clothing of Idols and Images, and so to conclude the whole treatise.

...True Religion then and pleasing of GOD, standeth not in making, setting up, painting, gilding, clothing and decking of dumb and dead images (which be but great puppets and babies for old fools in dotage, and wicked idolatry, to dally and play with) nor in kissing of them, capping, kneeling, offering to them, in sensing of them, setting up of candles, hanging up of legs, arms, or whole bodies of wax before them, or praying, and asking of them or of Saints, things belonging only to GOD to give. But all these things bee vain and abominable, and most damnable before GOD. Wherefore all such do not only bestow their money and labor in vain: but with their pains and cost purchase to themselves GODS wrath and utter indignation, and everlasting damnation both of body and soul. For ye have heard it evidently proved in these Homilies against idolatry, by GODS word, the Doctors of the Church, Ecclesiastical histories, reason, and experience, that Images have been and be worshiped, and so idolatry committed to them by infinite multitudes, to the great offense of GODS Majesty, and danger of infinite souls, and that idolatry can not possibly be separated from Images set up in Churches and Temples, gilded and decked gloriously, and that therefore our Images be indeed very Idols, and so all the prohibitions, laws, curses, threatenings of horrible plagues, as well temporal as eternal, contained in the holy Scripture, concerning idols, and the makers, and maintainers, and worshipers of them, appertain also to our Images set vp in Churches and Temples, and to the makers, maintainers, and worshipers of them.

The whole is available here.

I'm struck by several things. First, that the attack seems more on their use in public worship than on their use in private piety. Late medieval practice was replete with solemn processions of statues and images and icons - with flowers and food laid at their feet. You can still see this in some Latin American countries and in the Philippines. If that's what the homileticians had in mind, I agree that it binds mens consciences and corrupts true worship.

However, as St. John of Damascus was to defend, a properly formed conscience and intellect does not stumble at this and instead elevates the mind and spirit to God upon these reminders. (Much as the most iconoclastic Presbyterian would be wont to do upon seeing the rainbow, God's covenant - and material - reminder of his promised goodness.) These excesses are not seen in even the most 'anglo-catholic' parishes. Rarely is incense used with them (as it almost always is in the Eastern tradition); instead, you normally find a candle burning near them, but not in front of them. Similarly, perhaps the homily - removed from the excesses of late medieval piety - does not speak with similar comprehensiveness. For even God's own law against idolatry was couched in the very book that gave command to fashion images of angels and natural objects for use in the divinely-appointed Tabernacle / Temple.

Secondly, there is an undercurrent of populist scorn for opulence and wealth. The Roman Church had long meddled in the affairs of princes (sometimes a good thing, sometimes a bad thing). One of the abuses that caused a rift between England and Rome was the appointment of French or Italian clergy to wealthy benefices in England. Absentee clergy were paid well on the tithes of the land, but were not there to provide any pastoral care or preaching. Several episcopal sees were even thus abused. Thus, there is a concern in the homily for the clergy to be present as the chief preachers & teachers, rather than to let images instruct the unlearned (i.e. the illiterate). Moreover, wealth was not to be used in gilding buildings and images, but rather turned toward the glory of God by upbuilding his people - the true church, and habitation of the Most High.

Is this still a problem today? I'm sure it is in some places - whether it be a little catholic parish that insists on silvered images or a megachurch that cuts outreach budget in order to install the newest sound system and LCD screens. But by and large, I think Anglican churches of all stripes do their best to maintain a balance here between providing for the people a place of dignity to worship, and providing services that restore people to dignity. Sometimes a sound system could be just the thing. (A little lady in our parish can barely hear me because our mic system is messed up.) Sometimes a beautiful ambo to show the honor we give to the unadorned reading of the Word of God can serve that purpose.

Third, I want to point out that the reform of the English Church was at its best when handled synodically by her pastors - whether the presbytery or the episcopacy. Church reforms can be hijacked by small but influential cabals of persons, and thus the gradual transformation and growth in grace is tampered with. In TEC, you see this with a small, but vocal and well-placed minority pushing for a new religion to supplant Christianity. I think we also saw it too, in the English Reformation. While I admire Cranmer a great deal, I can't help but think that his proximity to the King made his (and his associates) voices disproportionately strong. It was a hard time, and maybe that's what it took, but history has to have a say as well regarding the natural (supernatural?) development of the Church.

I think the way that the church was rocked back and forth between positions for nearly 125 years is proof that the reform was not to be the work of one man - or one generation. Just as Reformed Scholasticism refined (and in some ways departed from) the positions of the first Reformers (Calvin, Luther, Zwingli), so also the succession of Elizabeth I (and her compromise), the reforms of Abp. Laud, and the patristic work of the Caroline divines had a necessary and definitive stamp to leave on the character of the Church of England as it grew into her recovered identity as a Reformed, Evangelical, Catholic, Apostolic Church. While I'm not necessarily a Tractarian, they also had a fundamental place in helping the Church recover her spiritual nature - and prepared her to counter the ugliness of modernized secular life with the comprehensive beauty of the catholic faith.

This is still a work in progress for me, as I get over my presbyterian allergy to "all things catholic" and avoid the excess enthusiasm of my pentecostal upbringing that says "just jump in head first and let God sort it all out!" I appreciate your patience with me.

Theology of Icons

The standard charge of meticulously-Protestant Christians is that catholics are idolatrous because they will reverence icons, altars, the sacrament and other persons. If we thought that these things were gods, that would be a valid charge. Indeed, there are badly instructed catholics who may have superstitious ideas about such things (particularly in places like the Philippines, Latin America, etc.). However, the biblical case for holy images is, I believe, overwhelming when one takes everything into account. Furthermore, it’s been settled by the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea II in 787), which many Protestants claim to adhere to!

Nicea II based its argumentation upon the writings and argumentation of Ss. Theodore of Studium, Germanus of Constantinople, and John of Damascus. St. John of Damascus’ famous treatise in defense of holy icons forms the basis for the argument below. I will also include some quotes from various Fathers defending images, showing that this is part of the undivided practice and faith of the church.

1. Really the only apparent biblical argument against images is the Second Commandment. It is argued that there are to be no images made of God, or anything in heaven or earth. In response to this charge, it is important to note that this view is actually inconsistent and impossible. We should be careful to note that the literal wording of the Command forbids all making of any images of anything in heaven, earth, sea, etc. Reformed theologian Charles Hodge mentions a reformed colleague of his at Princeton who actually refused to use maps that pictured things like mountains, lakes, etc. This is a consistent outworking of the Protestants position. Such a position is totally ridiculous, but he was attempting to be as consistent with his heretical reading of the Second Command.

Two points refute this:

• First, the Commandment specifically mentions heaven, earth, sea, etc. God seems to be pointing out the type of worship the Israelites encountered in their pagan neighbors like Egypt, Babylonia, Philistia, Canaan, etc. In other words, “heavens,” meaning astrology, “earth,” meaning animism and nature worship, and “sea” meaning various forms of aquatic idolatry, such as Nile worship. So, God is not railing against the inherent evil of an image, but against the practices of the Israelite neighbors, which included any or all of the above.
• Second, God himself commands many holy images to be placed inside the Holy of Holies! 1 Kings 6 describes how ornate the inside of the Holy of Holies was, replete with images of Cherubim and Seraphim, and of course the Ark itself had two huge, golden Cherubim over its lid.
  

If images were inherently evil, God wouldn’t command His own tabernacle/temple to be full of them. Therefore, the Second Command cannot mean absolutely no religious images. It forbids pagan idolatry, and clearly the temple worship which had images was not idolatry.

2. Following in this same train, when the Israelites were in the wilderness and were bit by the snakes, God commands Moses to make an image of a bronze serpent and put it on a pole and all the Israelites are to look in faith to this image. This is recounted in Numbers 21. Once again, this is clearly a religious image because Jesus explains it as a type of His crucifixion in John 3:14-15. All who will look to His Holy Cross will be saved from the bite of the real serpent, the devil. So, we have here a vindication of the use of the crucifix. That’s why St. Paul sees power in the Cross of Christ (see Colossians 2:13-15) to disarm the devil’s fallen hierarchy of fallen angels. That’s why crucifixes are used in exorcisms. And it's a rare church that doesn't have a single cross in the place.

(Ironically, many will allow an American flag - replete with eagle at the top, symbol of Roman power - to be in their places of worship without a peep!)

3. The Bible itself is full is symbolism, which is merely another form of the use of images. Thus, the Holy Spirit appears in the form of a dove at Christ’s baptism. A dove, then, is legitimately used as an image of the Holy Spirit. The paschal lamb is an image of Christ, and so on. God presents Himself to us in Scripture through a variety of images. Human fathers, then, are an image of our heavenly Father. St. Paul, in Colossians 1:15, says that Christ is the image (Greek is “ikon”) of the invisible God. It was, in fact, the Jews who were enraged at Christ’s claim of divinity, a claim that provoked their erroneous zeal against holy images. How could the invisible Jehovah be Incarnate in a human image? To the Pharisees this was idolatry. But the catholic view gives due honor to the Incarnation by recognizing the validity and holy nature of images as part and parcel of the Incarnation, and this was the reasoning of Nicea II.

4. Some Protestants may hold to the validity of images, but deny the reverence paid to them as idolatry. We must ask, then, does Scripture provide any warrant for reverencing anything created? All are agreed that worship (latria) is to be paid only to God. But what about reverence, as in dulia? Is it licit to give homage, reverence, even prostration to any created thing/image? I believe the biblical answer is yes, since we see several times in Scripture men in authority being reverenced. For example, Joseph, as a ruler in Egypt, deserves the homage of his brothers and sisters, and thus they “bowed themselves before him with their faces to the ground” (Gen. 42:7). The company of the Lord’s prophets bow down before Elijah in reverence in 2 Kings 2:15. Surely if it were inherently wrong to bow before a created thing (and Joseph and Elijah were created), they would have rebuked others for so doing. But, there are numerous examples of this in Scripture. St. Paul says to give “honor to whom honor is due” (Romans 13:7), and if anyone is due honor, it is the clergy - especially bishops - who labor in the word (of double honor according to Paul in 1 Tim. 5:17).

5. In Acts 19:11-12, cloths and handkerchiefs are touched by St. Paul, and are then placed upon those possessed and the spirits are driven out by these “relics.” Likewise, the woman with an issue of blood touches the hem of Jesus’ garment and “virtue goes forth from him” to heal her. The bones of Elisha even resurrect a dead soldier (2 Kings 13): this is the entire principle behind relics. Things–matter–stuff can be consecrated/sanctified for a holy purpose. Thus, Jesus spits in the sand and makes clay, rubbing it on the blind man’s eyes to heal him. Jesus could have simply spoken a word and healed the man, but in this instance He chose to use mud–stuff, to do the miracle. We call this the “Incarnational Principle.” It is the same thinking behind all sacramental practice.

6. Likewise, in the OT period, even places were holy. Places like Mt. Sinai, the Temple, etc. But this practice is not rejected in the NT, contrary to what many Protestants may think. In John 5, there is a pool where an angel stirs up the water and the first to enter the pool is healed. This is the principle behind shrines and healing icons. In 2 Peter 1:16-18, St. Peter calls the mountain that he witnessed the transfiguration on the “holy mountain.” So, even in the New Testament the principle of holy places is not abolished as something strictly Old Testament. One sees, then, that there is biblical basis for the catholic practices of relics, images and icons. If there is discernment, it must lie not with strict prohibition, but with regard to application.

7. The Early Church Fathers are also very clear:

“We do not worship, we do not adore [non colimus, non adoramus], for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the Creator, but we venerate [honoramus] the relics of the martyrs in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are.” Against Riparium -St. Jerome

“We by no means consider the holy martyrs to be gods, nor are we wont to bow down before them adoringly, but only relatively and reverentially.” Against Julian -St. Cyril of Alexandria

And St. Augustine against Faustus the Manichaean:

“We, the Christian community, assemble to celebrate the memory of the martyrs with ritual solemnity because we want to be inspired to follow their example, share in their merits, and be helped by their prayers. Yet we erect no altars to any of the martyrs, even in the martyrs’ burial chapels themselves.”

No bishop, when celebrating at an altar where these holy bodies rest, has ever said, “Peter, we make this offering to you”, or “Paul, to you”, or “Cyprian, to you”. No, what is offered is offered always to God, who crowned the martyrs. We offer in the chapels where the bodies of those he crowned rest, so the memories that cling to those places will stir our emotions and encourage us to greater love both for the martyrs whom we can imitate and for God whose grace enables us to do so. This is part of what we mean when we confess the communion of the saints.

But the honor strictly called “worship”, or latria, that is, the special homage belonging only to the divinity, is something we give and teach others to give to God alone. The offering of a sacrifice belongs to worship in this sense (that is why those who sacrifice to idols are called idol-worshipers), and we neither make nor tell others to make any such offering to any martyr, any soul, or any angel. If anyone among us falls into this error, he is corrected with words of sound doctrine and must then either mend his ways or else be shunned.

Even the incense that is sometimes burned in front of ikons is merely a reiteration that we believe the whole church triumphant prays for us and cheers us on in our run of faith. The saints themselves forbid anyone to offer them the worship they know is reserved for God, as is clear from the case of Paul and Barnabas. When the Lycaonians were so amazed by their miracles that they wanted to sacrifice to them as gods, the apostles tore their garments, declared that they were not gods, urged the people to believe them, and forbade them to worship them.
The truths we teach are one thing, the abuses thrust upon us are another.

heavy h/t to Jay Dyer

ROCK - N - spROUL

If you haven't stopped by one of Alice Cooper's favorite preacher's (R. C. Sproul) website lately, you should.

Tim Challies is doing some whiz-bang writing on the Ligonier Blog.

Huguenot Heartburn

I saw this on uber-Roman site Autom the other day.


I'm wondering if it would be okay to display in your home, so long as you put a banner or something under it saying: "Prompte et sincere."

Mayflower and the remainers

Today marks the 389th anniversary of the Mayflower's departure from Southampton, England. These men and women were so convinced of the necessity of freedom to pursue purity in the worship of Almighty God that they were willing to forsake other bonds of kinship, property, and status in order to live up to their convictions.

May the orthodox still wandering in TEC summon similar courage to, in Luther's immortal words, "let goods and kindred go" in order to do what is right.