Dismantling our Anglican Heritage

The words of Jesus in John 10:27-28 are familiar: My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. In their immediate context, these words of Jesus which we have been considering, are an urgent summons to discernment. The gospel of the New Testament makes very clear that ‘discernment’ is a critical aspect of being a disciple of Jesus Christ. Discipleship requires the critical faculty of ‘discrimination’; of deciding between what is true and what is false or in error. Discipleship requires a mental astuteness to make sound judgements based on a clear, balanced teaching of Scripture. Such ‘discernment’ requires, as we have previously seen, a commitment to a ‘high view of Scripture’; the view of Scripture expressed for instance in 2 Tim 3:16 – “All Scripture is inspired by God.

This ‘high view of Scripture’ ie., that it is a compilation of ‘divine’ or ‘God ‘inspired’ writings’, finds expression in our Anglican Liturgy. I have previously quoted  from Cranmer’s Homily on Holy Scripture. This particular  ‘Homily’ expresses the highest ‘reverence’ for Holy Scripture, ie., it bestows upon them an exalted or preeminent place of value, high above any human writings!
Let me quote the passage again:
“These books therefore ought to be much in our hands, in our eyes, in our ears, in our mouths, but most of all in our hearts. For the Scripture of God is the heavenly meat of our soul: the hearing and keeping of it makes us blessed, sanctifies us, and makes us holy: it turns our souls: it is a light lantern to our feet: it is a sure, steadfast, and everlasting instrument of salvation: it gives wisdom to the humble and lowly hearted: it comforts, makes glad, cheers, and cherishes our consciences; it is a more excellent jewel or treasure than any gold or precious stone: it is more sweet than honey or honeycomb: for it has in it everlasting comfort … by continual use of reading Holy Scripture and diligently searching of the same, (it) is deeply printed and graven in the heart, (and) at length turns almost into nature” …  Cranmer continues by saying that the one who most profits from such reading is not the one who is keen to turn its pages to learn, or who can quote its verses by heart; “but he that is most turned into it, that is most inspired by the Holy Spirit, most in his heart and life altered and changed into that thing which he reads.”

These words of the Homily express the highest possible view of Scripture.
I quoted them deliberately, not only that you may possess a profound expression of such a high view of Scripture, but also, because this Homily is part of a greater corpus or collection of writings that form the basis of Anglican belief, and provide a systematic structure enabling us to interpret Scripture correctly or in a balanced manner.
What we must understand is that having a high view of Scripture will not be enough to protect us from heresy and false teaching, unless we posses a theological framework that will assist and allow us to interpret such Scripture in a balanced manner. A ‘high view of Scripture’ will not assist us in our capacity for ‘discernment’, unless we also possess a ‘high view of our Anglican Heritage’.

It is our Anglican Heritage which provides us with a ‘Reference Point’ to guide us in a balanced understanding of Scripture. Our ‘reference points’ are the clear an precise teaching of the English Reformers who bestowed on our Church The Thirty-Nine Articles, the Book of Homilies and the Book of Common Prayer. The teaching contained in our ‘reference points’ provides us with a systematic theology of the whole teaching of Scripture. It provides us with an ‘interpretative grid’ to lay across the whole of Scripture which enables us to interpret any given text/texts of Scripture according to our Reformed Heritage. We are facing a watershed in our Anglican history; a ‘watershed’ being a ‘turning point’, a critical period of time when immense changes are taking place that threaten to overturn our past theological heritage.

What does it mean to be an ‘Anglican’? There would be considerable variation in the answers given to that question, but that has not always been the case.
In ‘His Majesty’s Declaration’, which immediately precedes our Thirty-nine Articles of Religion’ in BCP, we read these words: “We hold it most agreeable to this our Kingly Office, and Our own religious zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to our charge, in the Unity of true Religion …. That the Articles of the Church of England … do contain the true doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God’s Word: which we do therefore ratify and confirm, requiring all our loving subjects to continue in the uniform profession thereof, and prohibiting the least difference from the said Articles.”

At this time in the history of the Protestant Church in England at least four absolutes were clear respecting these Articles:  They  1.Retained true doctrine;  They were 2.Ratified –their official authorization was confirmed; They were 3.Required as a uniform set of beliefs, and they 4.Restrained any difference/deviation from these beliefs. Those in the 16th/17th Centuries who held Office in both Church and State made it very clear as to what was required of those who adhered to the Church of England. There was, of course, dissent or disagreement  from these prescriptions/laws. Not everyone agreed with the religious Settlement that was imposed on the people of the realm of England, but no one could be in any doubt as to what the Church at the time believed, and what assent (or what agreement) was required of a person to be a member of the Church of England.

What does it mean to be Anglican today? It should mean according to AAPB, that we retain the doctrinal commitment expressed in the BCP. In other words, Anglicans today, if they are to be true to our English Reformers, must adhere to or believe in the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the Book of Homilies which extend/elaborate those Articles. Now, why is it so crucial that we retain and express our belief in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion? No more concise answer to that question could be provided than the words of the Declaration to which I have previously referred: “That the Articles of the Church of England … do contain the true doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God’s Word”. Our Reformers compiled these Articles as a systematic summary of biblical teaching/doctrine.

And the reason for such a systematic summary was to ensure the continuity of Apostolic doctrine/teaching; in all that was “agreeable to God’s Word”.  
From our earliest records of Apostolic ministry it is clear that the Church, from the beginning of its history, had to contend against error and false teaching.
And as time continued it was found to be essential that the Church devised Creeds or summaries of Apostolic belief. These were compiled/constructed to make clear what the whole Bible taught as a defence against those who used some isolated biblical texts, plucked out of context, to support there own version of the gospel!

After such Creeds were devised, ‘Confessions’ or ‘Articles’ was compiled in an attempt to further ( or more fully) preserve Apostolic teaching as a defence against gospel perversion or heresy. Hence we possess as members of the Anglican Church confidence, “That the Articles of the Church of England … do contain the true doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God’s Word”. Now, although we possess these Articles, there are fewer and fewer in the Church today aware of the teaching of these Articles / Homilies. We are largely ignorant of our historic Heritage, and the crucial importance of this Heritage to defend biblical faith; to keep ‘continuity’ with the gospel of the Apostles. Leadership within Anglicanism has been instrumental in a thorough dismantling of our historic Heritage. Let me refer briefly to a number of crucial aspects of our Anglican Heritage that have been progressively dismantled; a dismantling that will continue to lead to theological error.

1.Our Sabbaths
It is clear in the Preface of the BCP that our Reformers saw the ‘worship’ of God as the primary function of the Church in its corporate assembling.
In the words of the Preface: “Our general aim therefore in this undertaking (in the undertaking of the Liturgy) was… the procuring of reverence, and exciting of piety and devotion in the public worship of God.” In other words, the worship of God was to be the principle focus of the Church as it met together, or met corporately; the ‘worship’ of God was the primary reason why the Church came or gathered together! Worship was about gazing on the glory and grace of God in the light on man’s glaring sins, with a view to perfecting godliness / holiness in the fear of God!

There has been, in recent years, an increasingly rapid shift away from this concept of corporate ‘worship’  to that of corporate ‘fellowship’. In other words, the focus of our corporate gatherings has shifted from the primacy of  ‘God’, to a preoccupation with the gathered people ‘feeling good’ about their experience; it is about ‘entertainment’ and expressing felt needs rather than honest engagement with the living God. This ‘shift’ may vary in its degree of subtleness, but it is unmistakable present! I have already quoted from the Preface of the BCP to show you what our Reformers taught with respect to the function of the gathered Church. Let me now quote from the Book of Homilies a homily with the title: “An Homily of the Right Use of the Church or the Temple of God and of the Reverence due to the Same.”

Before I quote the relevant section let me firstly explain that the Homily begins by asserting that the ‘eternal and incomprehensible majesty of God…. cannot be enclosed in Temples or houses made with men’s hands and it recognizes that ‘the chief and special temples of God  … are the bodies and minds of true Christians’ “yet”, it continues, “all this notwithstanding, the material Church or Temple is a place appointed, as well by usage and continual examples as expressed in the OT and in the New, for the people of God to resort unto, there to hear God’s Word, to call upon His Holy Name, to give Him thanks for His innumerable  and unspeakable benefits bestowed upon us, and duly and truly to celebrate His holy Sacraments … in which stands the true and right worshipping of God… and to the said house or Temple of God … are all people that be godly indeed bound with all diligence to resort, unless by sickness or other most urgent causes … And all the same so resorting ought with all quietness and reverence there behave themselves in doing their bounden duty and service to Almighty God in the congregation of the saints.”

It cannot be doubted (from the small portion of the Homily I have quoted) that our Reformers, both in the Preface and the Homilies, saw the worship of God as the primary function of the gathered Church. Which leads me to consider,

2.Our Services
If our Reformers view our ‘Sabbaths’ as primarily for the ‘worship of God’; ie., our focus is to be upon the ‘vertical’ dimension of relationship with God, and not on the ‘horizontal’ relationships with one another, what effect will this have upon what we do when the congregation/church gathers? It is clear from the BCP, and liturgies that resemble BCP like AAPB, that what we do remains focused upon God! But all this is rapidly changing; a total dismantling of our liturgical Heritage is taking place! Our ‘services’ (or what now takes place in our gatherings) are being directed to be inclusive, or orientated to the ‘outsider’ and ‘unbeliever’. It is not that God/gospel have dropped of the agenda; but they are not all that is on the agenda; God is more muted, our theological Heritage is toned down, we create a convivial mood; we are ultra casual in demeanor and dress; salvation has lost the seriousness that without  sanctification/holiness no man/woman shall se the Lord! Now, however well intentioned this trend of ‘user friendly’ gatherings, it remains seriously biblically flawed; it is presently, and will continue to lead to a ‘diluting’ of the biblical content of such ‘services’. The sheep will either face ‘starvation’ (as they long for solid teaching) or worse, they are deprived of the very teaching which will sustain them in their journey towards eternal life!

3.Our Shepherds
A great deal of misunderstanding and misinformation is current with respect to the nature of the biblical ministry. For example, the superficial understanding of the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers (isolating it from the broader context of Scripture) has blurred, unsettled, and confused the distinction between Clergy and laity. The priesthood of all believers does not mean there is no distinction between the Shepherd and the Sheep. The Bible reveals the vital role of those ‘called’ to the Ordained ministry; the work of  pastoral ministry/oversight is to preach and protect the sheep, so that they retain their commitment and stay on the path to eternal life; salvation is not a given, within our Anglican theology / Heritage, without continuity of faithful discipleship!

The minister is ‘called’ to be a ‘watchman’ and ‘shepherd’; to forewarn of the dangers that continually seek to lure the sheep from continuing in discipleship.
God’s design is that the Church be preserved by the regular and faithful ‘preaching’ of God’s Word, by those set apart for this function; to ‘feed’ Christ’s sheep! Such an emphasis is not only Biblical, but is reflected constantly throughout the framework of our Liturgy. But we are fast loosing the interdependent nature of the Shepherd/Sheep relationship in the securing of eternal salvation. (1 Tim 4:16; Hebrews 13:17) Shepherds fail to see the seriousness of their ‘calling’, and the ‘sheep’ sit lightly to their shepherds teaching, thinking they know as much, or better! There is an ‘individualism’ that now drives much contemporary Christianity  ie., ‘conversion’ now means I have the ‘ticket’ to eternal life in my hand, and I can be smugly indifferent to the ‘institution’/Shepherds God has established to secure our salvation!

4.Our Sowings
By ‘sowings’ I am referring to the biblical teaching concerning the ‘sowing’ of the Word of God; or in contemporary words, I am referring to our role in ‘evangelism’. I noticed recently a review of a new book by Alister McGrath with the title of ‘Heresy’. I have read the book, but I quote the reviewer who said, “The sea of cynicism sweeping aside the so-called institutional Church will inevitably drown trust in the Creeds, orthodoxy and even the Canon of Scripture … Indeed it is a spectre that haunts the future of church planting movements at the heart of contemporary evangelicalism. To paraphrase McGrath: if you want to see tomorrows heresy then look to today’s well meaning evangelist.” There is little doubt in my mind that the ‘spectre’ of rising heresy through evangelism is reflected in the defective understanding of biblical evangelism within in our own Diocese.

Evangelism has become ‘stereotyped’; there is an expectation of ‘immediate results’ (‘pray, connect, expect’); this goes hand in hand with the tragic corollary of being able to assess the quality of churches or ministries on their ‘rate of numerical growth’. (ie., the ‘Rock Model’) This  model of evangelistic ‘expectation’ cannot be supported from the Scriptures; it does not express a balanced biblical understanding of this subject.

It is very easy to get a distorted view of evangelism from a limited consideration of a one or a few texts of Scripture. It is clear from the teaching of Jesus that a man ‘must be born again’. But how does new birth take place? Is it instantaneous or gradual? From a cursory reading of this and other texts, it may appear to be an instantaneous occurrence, and no doubt it ultimately is, but what other biblical teaching impinges on, and influences the reality of the ‘new birth’? The ‘new birth’ must be an activity of the Holy Spirit through the agency of the Word of God, as both are instrumental to the ‘new birth’ described in Scripture. However, other texts of Scripture which clarify the working of the Word of God must also be considered. Jesus teaching in Mark 4:26f where He refers to the fact that the seed of the kingdom ‘grows, he (the sower) knows not how’; reveals the profound mystery that is attached to any understanding of the ‘new birth’!

Combining all  this teaching I find myself in agreement with Dr David Wells who speaks of ‘conversion’ or ‘new birth’ or ‘regeneration’ as a complex process of ‘incremental movements towards God’. Our Reformed Heritage does not view ‘salvation’ in an isolated manner ie., ‘as completed with a decision’, but as a life of discipleship! It is not an ‘end’, but a beginning (with may pitfalls); a ‘beginning’ that must be nurtured to maturity. The ‘new birth’ in Scripture is seen to be, not simple, but complex; a ‘mystery’ that transcends and defies human methodology! The Scriptures leave us in no doubt that the growth of the Kingdom can never be quantified, calculated or set within a specific period of time; ‘God alone gives the increase’ when and as, He sees fit! To set targets or percentages in our efforts to evangelize is nonsense; it cannot be supported biblically! Failure to consider the full teaching of Scripture on this subject has led us to aberrant or erroneous ideas about evangelism, which in turn creates great mischief and misunderstanding in the Church.    

Most serious of all is the unbalanced teaching that now prevails in our Church respecting,
5.Our Salvation
Let me conclude with these few comments from two of the articles I wrote on the Haemorrhaging of our Heritage. We have radically departed from our Heritage in our current understanding of the crucial doctrine of justification.
Justification is a technical biblical term that describes how guilty and sinful men/women are made ‘just’ in God’s sight; accepted and approved; brought into fellowship with God. Thomas Cranmer says in his Homily on Salvation
“three things which must go together in our justification; upon God’s part, His mercy and grace; upon Christ’s part, justice, that is, the satisfaction of God’s justice, or the price of our redemption by the offering of His body and shedding of His blood with fulfilling of the laws perfectly and thoroughly; and upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ … out of which faith springs good works … and a life according to God’s commandments”.

The commonly held understanding of justification by faith confines the word ‘faith’ to a mere intellectual assent to Christ’s atoning death on the cross. Such a view rightly wants to exclude any notion of works of obedience to God’s law as contributing to, or meriting our salvation, but it has also wrongly lead to the widespread understanding that obedience has no place in our acceptance before God! While human works/obedience do not contribute any ‘merit or ‘earn’ our salvation/justification, they nonetheless reveal the very nature of true salvation/justification ie., a life of holy obedience to God’s laws as Cranmer states above.

Along with a distorted view of justification, there is a distorted view of the biblical words which describe the nature of our salvation. Salvation, as expressed in our Anglican Heritage, is viewed in a threefold manner which adheres to the three Greek tenses of the word salvation expressed in the Bible, ie., it is viewed as a reality that is ‘past’ (Christ’s atoning work on the cross – we have been saved); ‘present’ (“we must work our own salvation” day by day as Philippians 2:12) and it is also ‘future’ (we are yet to be saved).

The nuances within these Greek tenses are expressed throughout our Heritage eg., in the Collect for Trinity 7 we pray, “Lord…increase in us true religion (meaning the gospel message of Christ/cross) ... and of thy great mercy keep us in the same.” The Collect affirms our faith in the message of the cross, but also indicates our ‘continuing’ in this faith (“keep us in the same”) to our journeys end. Such a nuanced emphasis does not diminish our ‘assurance’ of salvation, but rests that assurance on God’s grace enabling us to continue faithfully as Christ’s disciples. The Bible views salvation as the believer’s possession; but a salvation in which he must persevere so that he does not succumb to the peril of presumption.(see also Trinity 11,13,14)

Many people currently within the doors of Anglicanism believe that having once trusted Christ their eternal salvation is guaranteed, and consequently, they are not too serious in their obedience to the teaching of Christ, or in their allegiance to His Church. Such an attitude is a superficial imitation of biblical salvation as expressed in our Anglican Heritage; as Cranmer would say, it is ‘a fantasy of faith’!

Much of our error flows from the fact that we have uncritically accepted a shallow ‘Calvinistic’ view of salvation; I say ‘shallow’, because Calvin never taught such a view! Calvinism is associated with the terminology of the ‘four solas’: sola Christ, grace, faith, and Scripture. With these ‘solas’ now reduced to ‘slick’ formulas  as a slogans for an understanding of the Christian faith, a life of ‘faithful obedience’ has largely dropped from the churches agenda! We fail to grasp that the Reformers understanding of ‘sola faith’, was not merely ‘intellectual’ assent, but it was intrinsically connected to ‘faithful obedience’ to God. Faith was really faith and faithfulness; the two were inseparable, though our faithfulness was not a source of merit earning salvation; that was solely by grace!

Along with a ‘shallow’ understanding of the ‘four solas’ is the fact that we view such salvation as ‘deal in the hand’ ie., our eternal election/salvation is a instantaneous gift the moment we believed in Christ. But the NT also views salvation as a ‘state’ in which we must continue to work out our salvation with fear and trembling! Biblical salvation as revealed in Scripture defies simple explanations and definitions!  Stating what the Bible means by ‘being saved’ is complex! That is why we have such detailed explanations of our Reformers and the very careful nuanced language of the BCP in our liturgies and Collects. When we dismantle our Heritage and stray from ‘Reference Points’ – we stray into error! – make no mistake!          

Rev’d Jerryl Lowe                                   April 2010