Selling our birthright for a mess of pottage

John Stott writes in the introduction to his Canticles and Selected Psalms in the Prayer Book Commentaries series:

Christian worship would be almost inconceivable without singing. During the service of Morning Prayer, for instance, the average Anglican congregation sings at least seven times - three hymns, three canticles, and a psalm.

I have written elsewhere why I am an Anglican, but as a matter of personal testimony, it was the liturgy which reintroduced me to Anglicanism when I was seventeen or eighteen. After squash on a Wednesday afternoon, I got in a little before four o’clock, and one week I tuned in to Radio 3 and heard a broadcast of Choral Evensong. For the first time I heard the Psalms properly sung. I dug out an old Prayer Book from my mother’s wardrobe and followed along. And I just kept listening, week after week. When I came up to university, I went to an Anglican church where I discovered that the Church of England wasn’t entirely dead but that there were still evangelicals in it, and that they were the ones who stood in direct succession to the Reformers.

However, it is a lamentable fact that the evangelicals who insist most loudly that they are the true Anglicans theologically tend to be those who have strayed most of all from the great, profound, Biblical, Anglican liturgical heritage. All we are left with is a pick-and-mix approach to the Anglican liturgy: one week we might say the Lord’s Prayer, another week we might say the Apostles’ Creed. The closest we get to a canticle is occasionally singing “Tell out my soul” by Timothy Dudley-Smith. I would suggest that forsaking the liturgical inheritance which we have received from men like Thomas Cranmer is to our detriment. I have written repeatedly elsewhere about singing the Psalms in corporate worship, and so I want to focus on the canticles, specifically the Benedictus (Zechariah’s Song: Luke 1.68-79) , the Magnificat (Mary’s Song: Luke 1.46-55) and the Nunc Dimittis (Simeon’s Song: Luke 2.29-32).

Over the past couple of months, I have been following the pattern of the Book of Common Prayer in my devotional times. It has a lot to commend it - the BCP lectionary suggests a pair of Bible readings in the morning and evening, taking one through the Old Testament and Revelation once in a year, and the rest of the New Testament twice, and going through the Psalter once a month. The canticles occupy the place of songs of praise in response to God’s word. What has particularly struck me is how helpful the canticles are in developing a biblical theology: these Scriptural songs celebrate the pattern of God’s salvation seen in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, patterns which echo throughout the whole Bible. Reading, saying or singing the canticles regularly attunes one to these patterns which find their ultimate fulfilment in the Christ. I am sure there are more examples of this than there are grains of sand on the seashore, but here are some recent examples to illustrate my point.

In the Benedictus, we praise God for how ‘he has raised up a horn of salvation for us’ that ‘we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us.’ At the beginning of the book of Judges, we read that ‘the LORD raised up judges, who saved them out of the hand of those who plundered them’ (2.16) and ‘whenever the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge, and he saved them from the hand of their enemies’ (2.18).

In the Magnificat, we read how God ‘he has filled the hungry with good things’, and in the story of Ruth, we learn that God has visited his people (also echoing Luke 1.68: ‘He has visited and redeemed his people) and provided food for them. We also sing “he has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate” and in 1 Samuel, we see how God removes the kingship from Saul who rebels against his word, and instead chooses David, the youngest son of Jesse, the one who keeps the sheep, to be his anointed king. In the book of Esther, too, Mordecai’s elevation and Haman’s execution are more examples of God bringing down the mighty from their thrones and exalting those of humble estate, and although God is not directly mentioned in the book, the preservation of the Jews in the book as a whole makes the point that “He has helped his servant Israel in rememberance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and his offspring forever”, saving them from the hand of their enemies and showing them “the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant”.

The Nunc Dimittis beautifully ends the day, and can be a fitting response to readings such as Romans 3.21-26 as it was at Evensong a few months ago now. Simeon was able to depart in peace in the sense that he could die happily because he had seen the Lord’s Christ as he had been promised. We too may sing it at the end of the day in that we can sleep happily having seen God’s salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ if we’re Christian believers, with our sleep being both a picture of death, and also the time of greatest vulnerability where it is the knowledge of the salvation that we have in Christ which enables us to sleep peacefully, whatever may potentially befall us.

James B. Jordan’s words remind us of the significance of liturgy in enabling us to understand the Bible correctly:

Ancient and medieval literature abounds in numerical symbolism, large parallel structures, intricate chiastic devices, astral allusions, sweeping metaphors, typological parallels and symbolism in general… When the Psalms were at the center of the Church’s worship, Biblical symbolism was much better understood because the Psalter abounds in it… The traditional liturgies of the Church, being thoroughly grounded in Scripture, communicated Biblical symbolism… This has disappeared from the modern… Church, and the result is that it is much harder for us to read the Bible accurately. - Through New Eyes pp. 14-15

Establishment

I’ve read a number of times that the current Prime Minister has said that he will stop being involved in decisions about the appointment of bishops in the Church of England. I can’t cite any sources off-hand. This is simply what I’ve read in a few places.

However, weakening the involvement of the monarch and his or her representatives in this process does open the Church of England to avoidable vulnerability. We mustn’t forget that the links between church and state were forged in a context where the human authorities were professing Christians. In this context, upon which we are arguably seeing the sun set, the monarch as a member of the church occupies the position of senior layperson, and the position of the monarch as such in the government of the church ought to safeguard it against clericalism and error. The clergy are not solely the ones with authority in the church, and if error creeps in, and spreads, the monarch can prevent the appointment of heretics. However, the monarch has limited authority in the church: the monarch is not given the right to preach the word and minister the sacraments. He or she is still subject to them, and the church can continue to exercise its prophetic ministry of proclaiming the word and its implications for all the spheres of life in our current generation.

Such a place for the Christian monarch in the church seems to me entirely justifiable from Scripture: the New Testament presents a view of church government that does not consist exclusively of the pastor-teachers, but others of good standing in the church as well. Moreover, as Isaiah prophesied, ‘Kings shall see and arise; princes and they shall prostrate themselves… Kings shall be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers’ (Isaiah 49.7, 23).

The current set-up in the Church of England seems to me to be ideal. Senior elders within the church have a place in the running of this country, entitled as some are to seats in the House of Lords, placed to safeguard Christian morality and belief in this country (although whether they do this or not is, of course, another matter; we should be praying for our bishops that this is what they would do). Senior laypeople who are responsible for running the country are involved in the government of the church, although they have a rightly limited authority. Given the well-publicised desire of the heir to the throne to become ‘defender of faiths’ or something to that effect and the lack, or at least inconsistency, of Christian faith amongst our politicians may mean that the lessening involvement of the Prime Minister in appointing bishops perhaps be healthy for the future, but I would invite you to join me in praying that our Christian heritage would not be ultimately squandered in this country and that the gospel would once again go out to and convert our rulers.

I leave you with an extract from the Rev’d Dr Timothy Bradshaw’s excellent book on Evangelical Anglican ecclesiology (some extracts of which on the word and the sacraments I hope to post in due course) on this matter. In addition to the point I made above, he highlights the point that the involvement of the state in the church is not a problem in the present day, owing to its current nominal nature, as well as the fact that God is sovereign over the whole of life, and state authorities have their position by his appointment. He also points out that disestablishment has not shown itself necessarily to benefit the church.

The question must be raised whether the current system whereby the monarch is the formal head of the Church of England may be too unrelated to the actual state of national life to be sustainable. The prospect of a future monarch with strange religious ideas may not be out of the question at all, and this could render the situation untenable. Although the state involvement is formal and instrumental to the decisions of church boards, nevertheless it may seem a symbolical control over the Church of Christ, a control which Barth at Barmen in 1934 exposed as potentially disastrous and which the Oxford movement criticized heavily.

Given the increasing formality of the link with the state, it is possible, for the present, to fend off such criticism, on the grounds that God is the God of society as well as of the church. The link with the state does not mean any real degree of state control or ‘erastianism’. The monarch, a lay person, is only formally the supreme governor, and this has a distinct benefit for the structure of the church. This benefit parallels the constitutional benefit of the monarchy in relation to the politically elected prime minister of the day, the holder of actual executive power in the nation. Formally all power, and all judicial authority, in British constitutional law, is vested in the Crown. This is a vital negative function, denying that place to the holder of political power, as compared for example with the President of the United States. Likewise for the Church of England. Formally the monarch, a member of the church, is governor, meaning that this ultimate position is denied to the line of clergy. A powerless monarch occupies the place from which institutional authority comes, an arrangement acting against any tendency to prelacy in the church. In the appointment of bishops the monarch, through her agent the prime minister, can only agree to names submitted by church committees, ruling out state control.

From the angle of society, the state values the moral and spiritual involvement of the church. Why, then, should the church refuse her involvement, provided her freedom is safeguarded. Some relationship between state and church has to be worked out: certainly in this the New Testament once more offers no fixed blueprint. Paul tells the church that the governing authorities with their law-keeping function serve God’s purposes (Romans 13.1 ff). Disestablishment of Irish and Welsh Anglican churches has not led to strengthening of churches and has lessened the cultural identification of people towards the church. It would be a highly negative gesture towards society as a whole, amounting to a pulling out of social responsibilities in order to adopt a more strident and judgemental attitude towards it. It would declare the state wholly secular, and the state could only respond by removing bishops from the House of Lords, for example, apart from a few who happened to be made peers. Any changes should take the nature of reform and not root and branch disestablishment. It is a consierable paradox that in an age when voices are raised for involvement of the church in society, some of these call simultaneously for her to pull out of key structures and points of legislative influence. One thing is plain, that establishment does not prevent the church from insistent criticism of government policy. - The Olive Branch, pp. 275-276

Why Newman is an Anglican

I rarely write posts on things about which others want me to write, but on this occasion, I would like to share the fruit of my ongoing reflection. I’m sure that Anglicanism has lots more going for it. I’m also sure other people have other good reasons to be Anglican, but these are mine. Given my vacillation on this subject in the past, I feel I need to give both positive and negative reasons. First the positive:

1. Anglicanism is Reformed

That is to say, it is Reformed under the word of God. Anglicanism is therefore Biblical. The supreme authority for Anglicans is Scripture, and so no one can be required to believe anything, for salvation or otherwise, that cannot be read in or deduced from the Bible, which it regards as God’s word written. Article VI, Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation, begins:

HOLY Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that is should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

And Article XX, Of the Authority of the Church reads:

It is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written.

Furthermore, along with the other Reformed churches, Anglicanism stresses the importance of the tasks of edification and evangelism, by means of the ministry of the word, in public preaching as well as in private.

From The Form and Manner of Ordering of Priests:

And now again we exhort you, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you have in remembrance, into how high a Dignity, and to how weighty an Office and Charge ye are called: that is to say, to be Messengers, Watchmen, and Stewards of the Lord; to teach, and to premonish, to feed and provide for the Lord’s family; to seek for Christ’s sheep that are dispersed abroad, and for his children who are in the midst of this naughty world, that they might be saved through Christ forever…

And seeing that you cannot by any other means compass the doing of so weighty a work, pertaining to the salvationof man, but with doctrine and exhortation taken out of the holy Scriptures, and with a life agreeable to the same? …

Are you determined, out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge? …

Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ… so that you may teach the people committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same? …

Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s word; and to use both publick and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your Cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given?

What is the content of the Biblical, Reformed faith which Anglicanism has inherited? The gospel of salvation from damnation due to sin, by God’s free grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, by virtue of his perfect life and sacrifical death, for those whom God predestined to life before the foundation of the world, who are thereby brought into God’s family, grow in holiness, and are preserved until they reach glory.

Article X, Of Free-Will:

THE condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will and working with us, when we have that good will.

Article 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.

Article XV, Of Christ alone without Sin:

He came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world.

Article XVII, Of Predestination and Election:

PREDESTINATION to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God’s purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

Article XVIII, Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ:

Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

Article XXXI, Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross:

THE Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sons of the whole world, both original and actual; and that there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone.

Moreover, in accordance with the Scriptures, Anglicanism teaches a Reformed view of the sacraments, avoiding the Scylla of mere externalism or visual aid and the Charybdis of grace being mediated merely through the work being performed (ex opere operato). They are visible words, dramatic forms of the gospel, signs and seals of God’s grace which convey what they signify when by the power of the Spirit the recipients respond in faith.

From the Catechism:

Question. What meanest thou by this word Sacrament?
Answer. I mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.

Article XXV, Of the Sacraments:

SACRAMENTS ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

Article XXVII, Of Baptism:

BAPTISM is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased, by virtue of prayer unto God.

Article XXVIII, Of the Lord’s Supper:

THE Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ… The Body of Christ is given, taken and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

Finally, along with the other Reformed churches, Anglicanism affirms with the Bible (not because it was forgotten by the Reformers) that children are rightful recipients of baptism, along covenantal lines. This is not unimportant, dealing as it does with how God administers his grace and grows his church.

Article XXVII, Of Baptism:

The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

From the Catechism:

Question. What is required of persons to be baptized?
Answer. Repentance, whereby they forsake sin; and Faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacrament.
Question. Why then are Infants baptized, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them?
Answer. Because they promise them both by their Sureties; which promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform.

2. Anglicanism is Catholic

Anglicans don’t think or act as if they’re the first generation of Christians to have ever lived. They value what Christians have taught down the centuries that has proven itself to be in accordance with the Scriptures as each generation tests it afresh by God’s word written. That means, for example, the reception and declaration of the faith revealed in the Creeds. Such teaching does therefore have authority under Scripture.

Article VIII, Of the Three Creeds:

THE Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Scripture.

Moreover, Anglican congregations are connexional. Episcopacy, while not without its faults, has proven itself conducive to the well-being of the church in England, and is consistent with the connexionality seen in the New Testament church. No congregation is an island unto itself. The ministry of presbyters is ratified by the wider church as they are ordained by the laying on of the hands of bishops who have oversight of many congregations, and presbyters therefore minister in the name of the wider church. Anglicanism is also national; the nature of the parish system in this country at least means that the Church of England is geographically representative of the whole of England.

Because it embraces infant baptism, Anglicanism is also catholic in that the official, public members of its congregations span all the ages and stages of human life, displaying God’s purpose in salvation to create a new human race. No one is excluded on the ground of age or attainment.

3. Anglicanism is Liturgical

While the Thirty Nine Articles may be regarded as a Confession of Faith after the manner of the other Reformation churches, the Church of England defines its doctrine not only by these, but also by the Book of Common Prayer, which is a book of liturgy. The forms of service authorised by the church ensure that church meetings are orderly, and in accordance with patterns we see in Scripture ensure a healthy diet of corporate confession, Scripture reading and preaching, praise and prayer. Liturgy teaches God’s people how to pray and what their priorities for their prayer should be. Regular saying or singing of the Psalms inculcates in God’s people Biblical hope and gives shape and direction to our fallen emotions. Liturgy enacts on earth what is going on in heaven, in accordance with the prayer which our Saviour taught us. Liturgy gives God’s people forms of words that they will be able to hold on to when their mental faculties are otherwise waning. Liturgy serves the catholicity of the church by keeping us in tune with the experiences, hopes and longings of the wider church, not just our immediate concerns. And the Anglican liturgy is profoundly Biblical in its content and emphasis, masterfully crafted and rich.

(Notice how I haven’t argued that it’s the best boat to fish from or because they pay for ministry or anything like that. If one is to be an Anglican, one should at least be an Anglican on theological principle, not because it’s the most pragmatic option, humanly speaking.)

Now for two negative reasons, i.e. reasons why I think being an Anglican isn’t a problem, in answer to objections I myself have had in the past, and which others continue to bring up.

4. Sanctification is Progressive

I am not unaware that there are real difficulties in the doctrine and practices of some in Anglican churches today, for example, gender issues in ministry, what constitutes holiness in sexual practice, the doctrine of the atonement, the uniqueness of Christ, the reality of his resurrection, the authority of Scripture, &c. However, to distance oneself from Anglicanism on the basis of the sin and error of some and insist on an instantaneously pure church is to have an overrealised eschatology and is impatient. Sanctification of the church, as for the individual, is an ongoing work of God by his Spirit. The church will not be perfect until Christ returns. There will always be sinful and erroneous individuals within it. Where does one draw the line beyond which one separates from it? One public sinner or heretic? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? Why? The church though it sins does not cease to be the church. And the inheritance which the Church of England at least calls on its ministers to take as their inspiration is that revealed in the Scriptures and to which the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal bear witness. That doesn’t mean we do nothing in the face of sin and error. But in this situation, the right response is not to separate, but to keep on preaching the word of God, prayerfully hoping for ongoing reformation, and disciplining those responsible, as is appropriate for our place in the church. This has ever been the experience of the people of God. The history of Old Testament Israel testifies to this. The epistles of the New Testament, and their admonitions and warnings proclaims this fact. Until the New Creation, this will always be a consequence of the distinction the Bible holds out of the visible and invisible church, the church as it is experienced by the world, believers and their children in the covenant community, among whom there will be weeds as well as wheat, those who sell their inheritance for a mess of pottage, who profess but fall away, or who remain hard-hearted, who will be condemned at the judgment, and the church as it is known by God, those who have laid hold of the covenant promises in saving faith, and so are saved when Christ returns.

5. Association is Loose

Moreover, to be an Anglican when sin and error is present within Anglicanism doesn’t mean that one is guilty by association. The Anglican structure is much looser than that. No one expects a presbyter to be in agreement with his bishop or other presbyters on everything, just as no one expects and employee for Tesco to endorse everything that is sold in all of its branches, or the behaviour of its managing directors. No one forces anyone to believe anything. The congregation can distance itself from its heretical bishop. The evangelical minister can uphold the faith against, for example, the liberals on the one hand and the extreme charismatics on the other, whether they call themselves orthodox or not. He publically and personally distances himself from the false teaching and sin and even with the individuals themselves if they are unrepentant, fulfilling his obligation to have nothing to do with such people and remaining blameless. So too for individual believers.

Regardless of its current problems, God has not abandoned the Church of England, or other Anglican churches. His word is still faithfully preached and his Spirit is still active in drawing men and women to faith in Christ and bearing fruit in holy lives. The remnant within it must not bow the knee before Baal, but prayerfully discharge its prophetic ministry of declaring the true faith in lives of godly obedience, faithfully depending on God for its Reformation.

Anglican Preaching

I am currently reading through Being a Priest Today by Christopher Cocksworth and Rosalind Brown. I intend to review it a little more thoroughly in the future. But in a chapter about the shape of priestly life, entitled Being for the Word, there’s some really helpful material about the role of Scripture in the life of the minister that I think should be shared:

Many denominations share a lectionary which holds us to the whole of Scripture and does not give us the option of picking and choosing as though the Bible were an anthology, or a collection of verses to be underlined and taken out of context. Whether or not our congregation follows a lectionary, priestly ministry makes us responsible to the word of God and for the word of God. The Church does not have the luxury of avoiding the hard edges of the biblical tradition, or the hard situations in life to which the word of God speaks. p. 97-98

We are given examples of some ministers, including John Donne, George Herbert and F. W. Robertson (the famous Victorian preacher and alumnus of Brasenose College). They should give us a high view of preaching, which should be driven by the Biblical text itself, and which requires a grasp of the whole counsel of God revealed in the Scriptures:

For Donne the preaching task is to convey Christ, to bring heaven and earth to each other. How, then, do we preach the word once it has taken root in us? There is no one way: John Donne preferred to take a text of no more than two or three verses and dissect it, bringing other scriptures to bear on it, reflecting on it rather than giving an exposition. In contrast, Herbert, who considered Donne’s approach to be ‘crumbling the text’ and treating it as a dictionary, took longer portions of scripture and aimed for sermons (of no longer than an hour!) that were presented with attention to the congregation’s various needs, illustrated by stories and sayings which would be easy to remember, and applied to their situation. In the nineteenth century the Anglican priest Frederick Robertson drew large congregations to his church in Brighton where he always began from the biblical text, rather than using Scripture to illustrate or support a line of thought from an external source. This is the authentically Anglican way of preaching, shaped by the word read systematically. Although the preacher may refer to current issues and events, they are rarely the inspiration for the sermon. Instead, faithful reflection on the word provides the context in which these issues can be pondered theologically and held in the light of the whole word of God.

Ellen Davis has said of Robertson’s preaching that the single most important factor in its powerful effect was his broad and profound knowledge of the Bible, which enabled him to find the truth in any one passage and present it simply, because he looked at it from a perspective informed by the whole of scripture. pp. 98-99

We are reminded of the purpose of preaching, and how all Scripture, including the oft-neglected Old Testament, is profitable for our task:

When we tell the story of God and the world we invite people into this story, not just to observe it but to participate in it within the framing story of creation and redemption. Too often we ignore the Old Testament in our preaching, and it is disturbing to discover how many Christians at the heart of their church’s life know the Old Testament only as a series of unconnected stories about a few famous people, rather than as the record of God’s dealing with a people, as the coherent story of God’s ways with a wayward world. How can we, as people who proclaim the word of God, reduce God’s word to snippets? The story of David and Goliath is a gloriously dramatic story for children, but if it remains for adults nothing more than a dramatic but isolated event we are selling people short and the story ceases to be formational, only episodic…

In addition to the awareness of its liturgical context, preaching should always recognize that people come with their own stories, joys and sorrows, so that the preacher’s task is, in part, to enable them to make the links between the gospel and daily life. At its best, Anglican preaching aims for conversion of life, for daily conversion to a more godly way of living, and therefore preaching has to help people enter into the scriptural world so that they can hear its call to conversion of life. pp 99-100

Finally, there is no place for a cult of personality to grow up around a preacher. The preacher’s duty in ministering the word to his people is that they grow up into maturity, understanding it and applying it for themselves, and his own example is important:

Our privilege is to keep the word alive in people’s hearts and minds, to give them the vocabulary of faith, to teach and encourage by word and example. The calling on us to serve the people with joy, to build them up in the faith and do all in our power to bring them to loving obedience to Christ, does not allow us to keep them as spiritual infants who are dependent on us, or shackle them to an inauthentic response. In this our own response to the word, our own example, will speak as loudly as our words. Our life during the rest of the week may be just as much a sermon as the brief time we spend in the pulpit on a Sunday. p. 101

Why Packer is an Anglican

My ongoing bicycle problems have meant that I have had a little extra time as I walk to and from the hospital and church to listen to talks on my MP3 player, including one entitled Why I am an Anglican, by the octogenerian Dr. Packer (available for download HERE for $3 - HT Justin Moffatt via Michael Jensen). There is much common material HERE. Here are the main points of the talk as I recall it:

Packer is first and foremost a Christian, then a Protestant, then a Calvinist, then a Paedobaptist, then an Anglican. That’s the context in which we need consider the form of church order, and he considers Anglicanism as a tradition which all Christians should feel at home in without shame. He acknowledges that Anglicanism isn’t the only right way of going about things. However, he adopts the principle that the good must never be the enemy of the best, which is why he is an Anglican. Anglicanism can be defined in a number of ways - constitutionally, as it is in the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-Nine Articles, what the church actually does, and how the church considers its heritage and where it is going. With all that in mind, he presents seven characteristics of authentic Anglicanism as it is practised in the majority of Anglican churches (the Anglican churches in the old west are very much a minority).

1. It is Biblical

The supreme authority for Anglicans is the Bible. The Articles and the Prayer Book reflect this. Packer doesn’t actually give any quotations, but it’s in the very fabric of the Prayer Book. Article VI., Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation., begins, ‘HOLY Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man. Moreover, Article XX., Of the Authority of the Church., states that ‘it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written.’ Anglicans interpret the Bible canonically, i.e. using Scripture to interpret Scripture. Packer doesn’t take us here, but Article XX continues, ‘neither may it [the church] so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another.’

2. It is Liturgical

All Anglicans use forms of set prayers. They do not view extempore prayer as inferior (although they did a few generations ago), but the forms in the Prayer Book do serve to make our gatherings glorifying to God and edifying to his people. Cranmer was a liturgical genius. You can’t just say the prayers once and expect to get everything out of it. Every time you come to them, you get something fresh. People fear that repetition makes the liturgy meaningless. Is this so for the Lord’s Prayer? Is this so for the Psalms?

3. It is Pastoral

In terms of the content of the Prayer Book, Anglicanism is Evangelical, that is to say it is gospel-centred. The gospel isn’t just the ABC of salvation, but has implications for the whole of life. See Paul’s letters. But Anglicanism is also evangelistic - Anglicans view themselves placed in the providence of God in their communities to reach out for the gospel.

4. It is Rational

In Anglicanism, whatever problems you have, whatever suggestions or modifications to teaching that come from your reading of Scripture, you will not be beaten with a big censorious stick and drummed out for heresy. What you think is not analysed to make sure you say exactly what the Thirty-Nine Articles say. There will be dialogue and debate. This is wholesome, particularly in the light of the Federal Vision controversy in Presbyterian circles in America, where godly pastor-teachers who are seeking to submit to Scripture, even if that means talking a different language to the language of the Westminster Standards, are being opposed and tried for false teaching.

Moreover, Anglicans consider it their duty to encounter and engage with the culture around them.

5. It is Episcopal

Anglicans have bishops, who not only pastor the pastors in a given area, but are the final port of call when things turn sour between congregations and their ministers. In my own conversation with non-conformist ministers, they find that the members of their church can so often sit in judgment on what the preacher is saying because he in in their direct employ, in a way that doesn’t happen in Anglican circles. Bishops emerged in the second century (or possibly at the end of the first century).

Anglicans, at least if they are in line with the Ordinal, do not adopt the view, which started to creep in during the third century, that bishops guarantee an apostolic succession which is required for valid ministry and without which one’s standing before God, however zealous one is for Biblical truth, is in question. God gives individuals gifts in his church which are then recognized in the congregation and for which the individuals in question are to be formally set apart in some way. Anglicans believe that it is proper for the bishop to discharge that duty.

Despite all the hot air I have blown out over the past couple of years about presbyterian church government on this ‘blog, I think I at last have to concede that there are a number of models of church order presented to us in the Scriptures, with suggestions of an episcopal pattern seen in, for example, the ministry of Titus - ‘This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you’ - Titus 1.5

6. It is Ecumenical

…but not in the bad sense. It it ecumenical in the sense that it is willing to engage with whatever the professing church throughout the world says and receive whatever truth it finds as God’s truth. It does not think of itself as stand-alone, with nothing to learn from anyone else. So the English Reformers learned from Luther in Germany and Calvin in Geneva. I don’t agree with Packer’s approbation of the reception of charismatic insight from the Pentecostal movement among Anglicans, but the principle is there.

7. It is National

Anglican churches don’t see themselves as called out of the communities and countries in which they are located. They see their role as being involved in the communities around them, not just evangelising individuals, but Christianizing (and so humanizing) politics and medicine and literature &c.

No denomination, Packer says, has all these features blended together. Packer concludes with taking questions from the floor. The first is quite a long one, about the state of Anglicanism as it currently is and ministry within it. He argues that Christians are not required to exist as if they are in empty refrigerators - with no warmth and no food - but that it is all right to be an Anglican ‘on loan’ if there are no appropriate Anglican churches within attending distance. However, when one finds Anglicanism with the characteristics noted above, then it can be heartily embraced. There are two un-Anglican streams at the moment - liberalism and formalism. He thinks that the influence of liberal leaders will wane. Authentic Anglicans have the majority and have moral and political clout, and Packer notes that the current liberalism hasn’t stopped increasing numbers of evangelicals going into full-time ministry in the old west. There will be a return to basics. As for ministry within Anglicanism, the question is whether it is possible to continue preaching the gospel in the Anglican church where one finds oneself. In the Church of England, at least, I think one can.

Richard Sibbes on Conformity

A CONSOLATORY LETTER To an afflicted Conscience: full of pious admonitions and Divine Instructions. Written by that famous Divine, Doctor SIBBS: and now published for the common good and edification of the Church. Ecclesiastes vi. 18, Be not thou just overmuch, neither make thyselfe overwise; wherefore shouldest thou be desolate...

But you will say England is not a true Church, and therefore you separate; adhere to the true Church.

I answer, our Church is easily proved to be a true Church of Christ: First, because it hath all the essentialls, necessary to the constitution of a true Church; as sound preaching of the Gospell, right dispensation of the Sacraments, Prayer religiously performed, and evill persons justly punisht (though not in that measure as some criminals and malefactors deserve and therefore a true Church.

2. Because it hath begot many spirituall children to the Lord, which for soundnesse of judgement, and holiness of life, are not inferiour to any in other Reformed Churches. Yea, many of the Separation, if ever they were converted, it was here with us: (which a false and adulterous Church communicated.)

But I heare you reply, our Church is corrupted with Ceremonies, and pestered with prophane persons. What then? must we therefore separate for Ceremonies, which many think may be lawfully used. But admit they be evils, must we make a rent in the Church for Ceremonious Rites, for circumstantiall evils? That were a remedy worse than the disease. Besides, had not all the true Churches of Christ their blemishes and deformities, as you may see in seaven Asian Churches? Rev. ii. and iii. And though you may finde some Churches beyond Sea free from Ceremonies, yet notwithstanding they are more corrupt in Preachers, (which is the maine) as in prophanation of the Lord’s day, &c.

As for wicked and prophane Persons amongst us, though we are to labour by all good meanes to purge them out, yet are we not to separate because of this residence with us: for, there will bee a miscellany and mixture in the visible Church, as long as the world endures, as our Saviour shewes by many parables: Matth. xiii. If therefore we should be so overjust as to abandon all Churches for the intermixture of wicked Persons, we must saile to the Antipodes, or rather goe out of the world, as the Apostle speaks… let me admonish you to returne your selfe from these extravagant courses, and submissively to render your self to the sacred communion of this truly Evangelicall Church of England.

- Works (I:cxv-cxvii), Grosart ed. (1862)

This was probably written to Thomas Goodwin D.D. (whose shrine was included in the pilgrimage two brothers and I made this Saturday to the cemetery at Bunhill Fields) who, as a result of the harrassment of Francis White, the Laudian Bishop of Ely, resigned his vicarage (at Holy Trinity, where he was installed after having the cure of souls at St. Andrew’s), lectureship of the same, and fellowship of Catharine Hall, and moved to London where he became the ‘patriarch of Independency’.

Richard Sibbes (1577-1635)

Antidisestablishmentarianism

“And the king granted me what I asked, for the good hand of my God was upon me.” - Nehemiah 2.8

Nehemiah concludes his prayer of chapter 1 by asking God to grant him mercy in the sight of Artaxerxes. Nehemiah is a man with a gift of what we might call ’sanctified common sense’. He has identified that imperial support is necessary if Jerusalem is to be rebuilt. It was, after all, Artaxerxes who decreed that the rebuilding should stop (Ezra 4.7-24). And so, when the opportunity arises, he asks, tactfully, to be sent back to Jerusalem to rebuild it. The king agrees and Nehemiah (who has clearly thought all this through) asks for letters to be given in order that the governors of the provinces will let him through, and that materials are provided for the building of the city, the temple and his own house. Artaxerxes complies, because the good hand of God was upon him.

God is sovereign over the world’s rulers. It seems to me that in God’s providence, the church in this country enjoys imperial support akin to what we see in Nehemiah 2, in the establishment of the Church of England.

Establishment, by the way, doesn’t entail compromise with the world. The status of the sovereign as Supreme Governor of the Church of England is a recognition of the fact that all authorities that exist are instituted by God for the preservation of justice in society, and all people are to be subject to the governing authorities (Romans 13.1-4). It does not concede to the sovereign authority over what is taught in the churches. So in Article XXXVII of the Church of England (‘Of the Civil Magistrates’) we read:

Where we attribute to the King’s Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God’s Word, or of the Sacraments… but that only prerogative, wich we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committted to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.

Establishment, like the support of Artaxerxes, gives the church protection. It provides official sanction for its activities in the face of opposition. See, for example, how the rebuilding of the wall in Nehemiah 3 continues, despite the opposition of Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite servant and Geshem the Arab, whereas in Ezra 4, without such sanction from the king, the work on the temple ceased. Establishment enables Christians to live godly lives for the sake of the gospel (which is after all what we’re supposed to pray for - 1 Timothy 2.1-4). Establishment protects the church from those who would corrupt it. Consider this extract from the Coronation Oath:

Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen. All this I promise to do.

We should see establishment as a gift from the good hand of our God. It would seem to be utter folly to get rid of it if the church is to be built and thus people saved. Rather, we should thank God for his gracious gift, and pray with Nehemiah, that God would continue to grant us mercy in the sight of our sovereign in this way.

In Defence of Anglican Evangelicals

Thanks to David Tomkins for alerting me to Damien Thompson’s Comment in the Daily Telegraph on the possible collapse of the Anglican Communion. I should have responded to it sooner but now, assuming the Moderators even permit its publication, my reply will be at the bottom of a long list of posts at the very end of the day so unprompted readership is likely to be nil.

Read the article and all comments HERE.