You Believe What?!

Who Gave You the Right?!

I was at a dinner party last night when the topic of authority came up. One of my friends was arguing that they do not accept or receive any authority accept for Christ and the Bible. This is of course not a new line of argument. It has been present in the Church since the time of the Reformation. But the problem with that line of thinking is that frankly, it's not true. We may have trouble, in our fallen sinful nature accepting authority, but we all do follow authority to one degree or another. The only question then is WHICH authorities do we receive and follow.

Allow me an example. I would venture to guess that when all of us come to a stop light we stop. The laws of the land and the rules of good driving dictate that we must stop at a red light. Without that law, and without general adherence to it there would be far more motor accidents than there already are. We accept the authority of the government and society at large to dictate certain things to us. We do not drive however we feel (or at least we shouldn't if we value life and limb). To disregard all authority is anarchy and there are very few if any who have ever been able to live consistently as true anarchists.

But to keep going with my driving example, there are plenty of us who choose to fudge on the speed limit. I am fairly certain I am not the only one who has ever heard someone invoke the "five over rule" (ie I can get away with speeding a bit, and I won't get pulled over if I'm just going 5 over or so). We know the authorities have set the speed limit, but this is an authority that many believe is somehow negotiable. But even here, while some do choose to speed excessively (and if you have ever driven on I-25 you know this is so), most adhere to some semblance of the speed limit.

So the question I come to is this, why do most citizens adhere to traffic laws and speed limits? Because we have a sense that they have been set in such a way for the common good; for our good. So again, the question is not whether or not we can accept authority but which authority we are willing to accept.

In the case of the Christian Church I would humbly submit that we are called to adhere to certain godly authority. And furthermore, most Christians have throughout the centuries, and all Christians should submit to such godly authority on the same grounds as our submission to the speed limits; because such authority is granted for our own good and that of the community. Anarchy is hard to live out in society - it is impossible to live out in the community of Christ.

In his final instructions to the Church the Author of the Letter to the Hebrews says this, "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you." (Hebrews 13:17) There is a clear teaching here. Leaders are submitted to Christ, the Church must submit to those in godly leadership. And here is the connection with my earlier examples; when both sides of that equation are working properly it is to our benefit.

The Anglican Reformers understood this need to retain some semblance of godly authority within the Church. They did not embrace the ethos of "me, my Bible and the Holy Spirit," that eventually came out of other Protestant traditions. Hear again what the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion have to say on the matter.

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

Do you see the beauty and balance that reflects the Hebrew's admonition here? The Church has been granted God given authority. There are decisions to be made about how we organize ourselves, how we worship and how we clarify what it means to understand the Scriptures rightly and apply them in our own day. Yet the authorities of the Church are under Authority themselves, they are accountable, expressed here in the Article as an accountability to only teach what is in accord with Scripture and to enforce only that which is taught there plainly.

Authority is a good thing. It is necessary and it is God given. We all live our lives in submission to some authorities. The question is which ones. The answer for the Christian is fairly simple.

Romans 13:1-2 "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. "

"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you." (Hebrews 13:17)

You believe What?!

Towards an Understanding of the Eucharist Part 2: Anglican Understandings of the Lord's Supper.

Following up on my previous post about the nature of a sacrament, let's look more specifically at what the 39 Articles say about 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. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. 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.

To translate this into colloquial terms, on the one hand the Articles reject the “Memorialist” view first espoused by Swiss Reformer Huldrych Zwingli. This is what I like to call the “real absence” model. Nothing spiritual or supernatural is thought to be happening here. Churches that hold this theology go out of their way to communicate that absence too. It is seen merely as a visual aid in contemplating Christ’s death in this view.

But for Anglicans that view is simply out of bounds. We hold that the Sacrament of the Table is definitely more than just a mere token. It is a Sacrament – so there is, by definition, an invisible grace being imparted. It is a true partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ – an experience of spiritual union not only with one another but with our Lord. Yet, the Roman Catholic idea of Transubstantiation[1] goes too far in the other direction. Here again, as the Article says this view, “overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament.” The means by which we receive is faith, it is spiritual food, the substance of bread and wine does not change. So, both memorialism must be rejected on the one extreme and transubstantion likewise rejected on the other. Both though are rejected for the same reason, they do violence to what a sacrament means by definition.

Anglicanism on the other hand seeks to preserve that definition and fit our understanding of the Sacraments to it. Anglicans espouse what I prefer to call the Buffalo Springfield view, “There’s somethin’ happenin’ here. What it is ain’t exactly clear…”[2] Do you see the theme of known unknown reemerging here? We know what the Sacrament is not – it’s not real absence, and its not transubstantiation. We know it is a means of communicating spiritual grace in some way. But as Anglicans we consciously choose not to define it any further than that. This theological view is most often called, the “Real Presence” view. Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist. We know not how, we simply receive it as a mystery and partake of it by faith.

This view leads to a great deal of freedom and several valid sacramental sub-theologies within the Anglican view. There are “high church” subscribers who hold the actual substance of the sacrament in higher regard for they feel that the Presence of the Spirit is somehow attached to the bread and the wine itself. This view, high though it is still distinguishes itself from Transubstantiation because the high church Anglican should still maintain that the Presence is a spiritual and not a literal one.

On the other hand there are those who hold to a more receptionist model. In this view the Presence comes to the heart of the believer as they are receiving the Sacrament. This emphasized the work of the Spirit in the heart upon reception (thus the name) rather than attaching the Presence in a tangible way to the elements themselves. Here too they do not go to the extreme of Zwinglian “real absence.”

---

[1] This is the view first proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas and it is based on the Aristotelian metaphysics which divide the essence of a thing from the accident. In other words, the essence of the bread and wine is changed though the accident, or form, appears unchanged. Through this view the Roman Catholic holds that they are actually eating the literal flesh of the Lord and literally drinking his blood because though the elements still appear as bread and wine, their essence is changed into the actual Body and Blood.

[2] From the sixties protest song, For What It’s Worth by the band Buffalo Springfield.

You Believe What?!

Crazy Uncle Fester

Every family has that relative they frankly sometimes wish they didn't have to claim. You know the uncle or cousin who shows up at EVERY family event and just says the rudest, or the most inane thing, or just doesn't pick up on the social cues or whatever. Well, the Anglican family too has such a relation. But nevertheless, if we fail to claim him we will doubtless do ourselves a disservice and fail to live up to everything the Lord wants His Church to be.

Contemporary Anglicans, self included, make much of the three streams that flow together to form orthodox Anglicanism. Much has been written and discussed about the nexus of the catholic, Evangelical and Charismatic traditions as they converge in contemporary Anglican movements. But there is a fourth stream that we need to remember, however uncomfortable it may make us. Because traditionally within Anglicanism there has always been what Anglican Historian, The Rev. Dr. Leslie Fairfield has called, "a legitimate liberal impulse."

Throughout the history of the Church believers have taken seriously the call to remain engaged with the surrounding society. Whether that took on the form of early Christians caring for the victims of famine and plague or Evangelicals working tirelessly for the abolition of slavery. However, as Evangelical Christianity has come in recent centuries to lay greater and greater emphasis upon the salvation of one's eternal soul, it has unfortunately come at the price of de-emphasizing the "salt and light" role of the believer within her society.

As a response to that sad exclusionary motion the liberal church emerged. Now, I would be quick to follow Dr. Fairfield in pointing out that his language was carefully selected - there is a legitimate liberal impulse. This does not claim that the liberal church is legitimate, lock, stock and barrel. Unfortunately, alongside social engagement this movement within the Church also came to embrace the worst of German higher criticism, secular humanism, Eastern religion and the theology of men like Marcus Borg, Bishops John Shelby Spong and JAT Robinson before him. Sadly today many liberals have departed from the fold of orthodox, biblically based, credal Christianity.

Nevertheless, whether we get along with Uncle Fester or not, he has something legitimate to say. As Christians who are obedient to our Lord to seek His Kingdom first, we do have a role in declaring and even enacting that Kingdom in the midst of this present age. So for my part, it is my prayer that we as Anglicans would be a truly Three Streams Church which remembers the small but mighty tributary of legitimate social engagement as well.

You Believe What?!

Toward and Understanding of the Eucharist Part 1: The Nature of a Sacrament

Frankly, the theology of the Sacraments is what simultaneously places Anglicans squarely in the stream of the ancient holy, catholic and apostolic Church; and yet it is also in some ways what marks us apart from both Roman Catholics and a good number of our fellow Protestants. So it is important to understand just where Anglicans come from on these issues.

This leads us back again to our trusty guide the 39 Articles and Article XXV, Of The Sacraments, in particular.

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.

That is a dense statement which requires some unpacking. The Sacraments are not just external signs. They are not just tokens of our faith like a Redwings T-Shirt is a sign of my team loyalty. But they are witnesses of God’s grace – that is they speak to us of our cleansing from sin, they speak to us of the reality of our Union with Christ and one another, they speak to us of the Covenant that God has formed with us through Christ’s blood, they speak to us of the great sacrifice that Christ made on the cross to purchase all of that. But we cannot stop even here. For they are not witnesses only – they are also effectual signs through which God works invisibly within us to quicken, strengthen and confirm our faith. In other words, if you asked me – does baptism leave a person different after the fact than they were before they entered those waters, I would respond absolutely. Does receiving communion leave a person different – to be sure. It is the spiritual food that feeds and nourishes our soul just as natural food feeds and nourishes our bodies.

We will look more at the specifics of the Sacrament of the Table in a future post.

Uh, where did you say you came from?

A Checkered Past

It's time to be honest about our past. In the tumultuous period of the English Reformation, Reformed ideals were not always welcomed in England, especially early on. Often, fearing for their lives English would-be reformers sought refuge on the Continent. A classic example is the case of William Tyndale. It probably didn’t help William’s cause any that he wrote The Practyse of Prelates, a tract opposing Henry’s proposed divorce. So it was that William found himself like so many before and after him exiled in Northern Europe. Tyndale is best known for his translation of the Scriptures into English. William’s translation eventually provided the basis for the first authorized English translations (and formed the basis for the later King James Version which, as it exists today is about 80% Tyndale’s work in origin). Sadly, Tyndale never lived to see the spread of the Scriptures through his homeland. He was arrested and tried in Brussels in 1535 where he was burned at the stake as a heretic.

Yet it was the faithful witness of men like Tyndale that set the stage for real and lasting Reformation to take place on English soil. It is and always has been true that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. Under persecution such as that faced by Tyndale and others, the faith grew and strengthened among clergy and laity alike in England.

You Believe What?!

So what exactly do you mean by Church?

"Let's go to Church this morning." "Shoot, I left my sweater at Church." "That practice is not lawful in the eyes of the Church." The word Church gets used lots of different ways. But what exactly do we mean by it? Is it the building where Christians gather. Is it the Christian gathering itself or is it both of these and more? The Anglican Reformers tackled that question in the 39 Articles of Religion. Let's take a look at what they said:

“The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.” ~ Article XIX.

The Church is a community of faith. The Greek word ekklesia from which we get the word Church in fact means, gathering. That is an essential point right there – we were created for community. Not just community with the living God, who is in fact a community of Persons within His very nature. But we were created to express that community in the world, living out this faith together with one another.

Sadly the American experiment has wreaked more havoc on this essential truth than on any other aspect of our Christian faith. American Christianity, and dare I say, evangelicalism in particular has imbibed the rugged individualism of the American way and as a result the Church, the Bride of Christ is the weaker for it. But Christianity is a communal faith. And to be a part of the Church then is to be a part of the community of the faithful.

And how do we know where the Church of Christ is? It is wherever the Word of God is preached and the Sacraments are duly administered. If you want a quick and easy way to distinguish a cult from the true church, look at what is preached – is it the True Word of God or is it something else. Are home fellowships and Bible studies acceptable substitutes for the Sunday gathering of the Church? What about the Sacraments? Other kinds of groups may express the fellowship of the Church. But they do not express the Church in her fullness

In general Anglicans take Sunday morning worship rather seriously because that is the one place where we, in the fullest sense possible, represent what God intended his Church to be. Do we have fellowship? – You bet. Do we break open the Word of God and sit at His feet and learn from Him? – Absolutely. Do we break bread together and experience the manifest Presence of Christ in our midst? – Praise His Holy Name we sure do! You cannot experience the fullness of the Christian experience, without the gathering of the Church. And guess what – the rest of us can’t experience it fully when you aren’t there either.

We need one another, just as much as we need the Word and the Sacraments. That is why Anglicans begin so many of our prayers with the call and response, “The Lord be with you…And also with you.” It is a recognition that the Lord, by the manifest Presence of His Spirit is with each of us – not just the priest, but all of us. And by acknowledging that we are saying, “I need you to complete this act.” Could I as a priest complete the act of the Eucharist without the congregation praying along with me – I would submit to you that the answer is indeed no. That is why Jesus said to us, “where 2 or 3 are gathered together in my name I am in the midst of them.”[1] We need one another. The Church needs YOU to truly be the Church. And like it or not, you need the church. But enough of my soap box. I digress.

---

[1] Matthew 18:20

You Believe What?!

It's Ascension Day!

Today is the day the Western Church calendar commemorates our Lord's ascension to the right Hand of the Father. 60 days after Easter, 10 Days before Pentecost.

Here is the traditional collect or prayer for Ascension Day:

Grant, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that like as we do

believe thy only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ to have

ascended into the heavens, so we may also in heart and mind

thither ascend, and with him continually dwell; who liveth

and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, world

without end. Amen.