A friend and I were talking after Evening Prayer last Monday night about this particular subject: that many Protestant churches are not interested in unity, but are more interested in autonomy. Here are seven reasons for seeking unity within the Body of Christ.
~
1. In John 17:20-23 Christ says that He desires for us to be unified. He goes as far as saying that it is for the reason “that the world may believe that you sent me.” He says in verse 21 that Church unity is tantamount to the Trinity!
~
2. Autonomy and division could very well withhold Christ from returning, since Paul gives a prophetic statement in Ephesians 5:27: “That He might present her [the Church] to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.”
~
3. Autonomy is the very antithesis of the Gospel (of idolatry and self-service), and so what is a church demonstrating when they refuse to recognize the historic Church (i.e. Roman Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox) as genuine churches (which means they are worth reforming)?
~
4. When Paul says to be “one accord” (Philippians 2:2) he was not making a mere suggestion!
~
5. The more isolated a person (Church) becomes the more depressed they become (Proverbs 18:1)
~
6. Building on another man’s foundation, as Paul puts it in Romans 15:20, especially if the builder is offering a compromised service with all of the typical entertainment vises, is self-seeking and contrary to number 1, above. The modern term for this type of behaviour is called sheep-stealing.
~
7. Claiming that your church began sometime well after the apostolic age - even in the Middle Ages - and that it is not required to seek unity with today’s historically-based churches, is to say that the founder of your church is a prophet and that Christians prior to this “prophetic beginning” were not a part of Christ’s body (salvation as we know it).
Many are offended if a standard of dress for women is presented to them. So I will instead refer AnglicanThought readers to the standard of the world.
This article is written from a mainline journalist and is a mild example of the motives of our society for dress. The article mentions how each type (shape) of woman can show off her “curves.” Now, let’s not be naive, the reason they want to “show their curves” is not to attract other ladies, it’s to attract men. Some may say that they are not trying to “attract” anyone but they just like to “show their curves,” as if the human motive is neutral and without will. The popular Unitarian society has revealed much of its motive in this article! With that said, can anyone tell me why matured Christian ladies would want to follow this ethic? What would St. Paul say if one of these contemporary Christian ladies, dressed in the latest wrap-around jeans, showed up in one of his services (shock factor of time travel set aside ;) )? I don’t think this is one of those ethics that seperates the wheat from the chaff, if you know what I mean. But the honest fact is that being modest is godly. No?
Rev. Alister McGrath, in his book Iustitia Dei, quotes John Henry Newman’s thoughts on Luther. Newman says,
[Luther] He adopted a doctrine original, specious, fascinating, to the genius of the times which were to follow. He found Christians in bondage to their works and observances; he released them by his doctrine of faith; and he left them in bondage of their feelings. He weened them of seeking assurance of salvation in standing ordinances, at the cost of teaching them that personal consciousness of it was promised to every one who believed. For outward signs he substituted inward; for reverence towards the church contemplation of self. (p.301)
McGrath, quite a student of Luther, completely disagrees with Newman and quotes Luther to the extent of dismissing these accusations. Although, McGrath does admit that Newman’s hypothesis of Luther’s ministry may very well be the “prevailing Evangelical image of Luther, rather than the views of Luther himself.” (p. 302)
So is Luther guilty? In one sense he may be since we are judged by every little word we say. What I mean by that is that although Luther had it down in his mind and even in many of his documentations, he failed to realize the state of the culture. Many pastors and theologians, I think, are guilty of this. They do not speak to the flock but rather they speak to their circles from their ivory towers. Luther was certainly not guilty of speaking from an ivory tower, but when he spoke to the masses was he clear and concise? Or was he too broad in his ascertains as to systematically narrow things down to where they could fall into a sort of hyper- reductivism.
It appears, from hindsite of Luther’s works, that he could very well have been very pastoral in reducing concepts for the masses, and then giving details to his theological circles. It sounds brilliant, but perhaps an over-correction in his polemic; not that his doctrine was heterodox but that his pastoral skills were exceeded.
It’s not hard to just fire off a set of truths without thoroughly examining the consequences. Many of us have done it, including yours truly. Luther was a giant, no doubt, but he was also a sinner in need of God’s grace.
In Ephesians 4: 10-13 we see that St. Paul the Apostle declares that a primary reason for the establishment of the clergy is for the eventual unity of the Church. In verses 12 and 13 he says that the ministry is given for the “equipping of the saints…till we all come to the unity of the faith…”
Rev. Toon on Unity:
“The third approach is that episcopacy is of the plene esse (fullness of being) of the Church. This view affirms that it is God’s perfect will for the Church that it be led by bishops, and takes its inspiration from Ephesians 4:10–13. The historic episcopate has important pastoral functions (as the bene esse view allows) as well as theological importance (as the esseview overstates). It provides the full embodiment of the Gospel in church order. First of all the historic episcopate provides the effectual sign of unity and, therefore, it embodies in church order the Biblical proclamation that Christ’s Church is truly one. Secondly, it embodies in practical church order the principle of apostolicity. The episcopally ordained ministry is both sent by God to represent Christ to his Church and functions as representative of that Church. It acts as guardian of the Word and Sacraments, of the faith, and the flock of Christ. The historical order of bishops is, therefore, an effectual sign of the relation of Christ to his Church: for it manifests his authority within and care for the Church. As long as the one Church of God is divided on earth the historic Episcopate can never be a full expression and effective sign of the principles of unity and apostolicity. So the plene esse view points us to the future when, in the union of the present churches, the order of bishops will function as God wills that it should. Meanwhile Anglicans should highly value the historic episcopate without claiming too much or too little for it. And they should remember that to present the historic episcopate as belonging to the plene esse of the Church is the view to which the Anglican commitment to Scripture, tradition and reason points us.”
From Rev. Toon:
Visible Unity
Perhaps in the West we have gotten so used to the idea of different and competitive Christian denominations that the scandal of the disunity of the one Church of God rarely strikes us. We see it from our childhood and it becomes a part of the regular scenery. For several centuries Protestantism has divided and subdivided and this has left the Christian Church presenting itself today as the accumulation of hundreds of denominations. And, let us admit, that even as competition between commercial companies causes them to be more committed in the way they trade, so it would appear that competition between denominations within a town does in a strange way actually help them to get on with their task of mission, evangelism and social service. So we can provide pragmatic arguments for the continuance of denominational rivalry and avoid serious thought and discussion of the concept of the unity of the Church.
Furthermore, many of us are rarely impressed by the statements from, and the activities promoted by, the World Council of Churches from the Geneva office. Also the long and tedious negotiations, which appear to happen when denominational bureaucrats and long-worded theologians talk about unity, seem to be ineffectual and so far from reality. And even when our ecumenical negotiators appear to find a successful agreement in terms of ways forward, their proposals are not always treated with enthusiasm at the grass-roots level. Instead of being keen to promote a real, visible unity, many of us are half-hearted and do not want to think too seriously about it – despite the prayers we offer in the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. We dismiss it either on pragmatic or, sometimes, on dogmatic grounds.
The most common dogmatic ground on which visible unity is rejected as a goal is that the true unity of the Church is, and was meant only to be, spiritual and invisible. God alone sees it as a whole and welcomes it as a whole. In this way of thinking, common among evangelicals, the ‘one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church’ is presented as being the total number, known only to God, who are born again. This is the true, invisible Church. And while members of this Church will normally be members of a visible, local church, it does not follow that each member of a local church is a member of the invisible, true Church. Thus it is argued that to work for unity is a waste of energy; it is far better to use that energy to add to the number of the true, invisible Church. We must be realistic and live with competitive denominations and societies.
Below, you will find an excerpt from Rev. Peter Toon’s The Anglican Way. He spells out what it really means to be a reformer. The list he writes seems to be a prime example of what it means to be an orthodox church, as apposed to a heterodox church.
Catholic and Reformed
To affirm Catholicity means that we cannot be too selective in the way in which we look back to evaluate the long experience of the Church of God. A fault of most Protestant denominations has been, and remains, that of working from a limited perspective, choosing this and rejecting that. We are to accept the broad and sustained themes of Catholicity and to reject deviant and exaggerated developments and expressions.
When the reformers of the Church of England in the mid-sixteenth century attempted ‘to wash the dirty face’ of the national Church, they recognized and made a part of the Church’s reformed existence the following catholic emphases.
1. The priority and authority of the Scriptures as the source of our knowledge of God.
2. The doctrinal guidance of the Catholic Creeds-Apostles’, Nicene and Athanasian (Quicunque Vult).
3. The truth that salvation is, in the final analysis, the gift of God and by grace alone.
4. The use of Liturgy, which is faithful to Scripture and embodies the experience of the Church in worship over the centuries.
5. The historic episcopate or the order of bishops as a sign of the unity of the one Church of God. Unlike Scottish and Continental reformers, who ditched episcopacy because they saw it as too involved in the corruption which they knew must be removed, the English reformers insisted on the retention of the historic order of bishops.
6. The threefold ordained ministry of bishop, presbyter (= priest) and deacon, as that ministry which God has led the Church to adopt from primitive times.
7. The two Gospel sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion as instituted by Christ for regular use in the Church.
8. The unity of the ministry of the Word and Sacrament in the service of Holy Communion.
9. The need for regular preaching and teaching from the Scriptures.
10. The recognition that the visible unity of the Church on earth is God’s will.
11. The need for a regularly reviewed canon law and moral theology.
12. The priesthood of the whole Church as a worshipping and praying society.
The approach, which these emphases reflect, was called ‘reformed catholicity’.
Today I heard my favorite political/cultural commentator, Michael Medved, mention how America’s founding documents make the proclamation of “separation of Church and State” to assert that we do not have the right to demand ministerial education for political candidates. Well, then what kind of education must a politician have? Religious education is inescapable. Even your local community college has a religious groove to it. It’s called Americanism, or what I believe to be Unitarianism (God without the Trinity or absolutes).
John Calvin, the Reformed Catholic of Geneva, said this regarding the relation of Church and State, and the Bible’s model of Kingship:
“It is certain that all royal dominion is meant to be ministerial”
“Kings are to be servants and ministers of God…”
God established magistrates properly “for the use of the people and the benefit of the republic.”
“[Kings] are not to undertake war rashly, nor ambitiously to increase their wealth; nor are they to govern their subjects on the basis of personal opinion or lust for whatever they want.”
“Subjects are under the authority of kings; but at the same time, kings must care about the public welfare so they can discharge the duties prescribed to them by God with good counsel and mature deliberation.”
John Calvin - Sermon on 1 Samuel 8
Ever wonder why some folks get away with murder? Well, perhaps the Devil is on their side!
The Phrase, ‘Seed of the woman’ indicates that the organism of the race will be drawn within the circle of redemption, which does not, of course, mean that all individuals are to become enemies of the serpent. The point is that God saves not merely individual men, but the seed of the woman.
Geehardus Vos (1881 - 1949)
Rev. John E. Upham examines the lineal qualifications of Anglican Holy Orders as they relate to the Roman and Eastern Church, in his paper On The Validity of Anglo-Catholic Holy Orders. He states in the paper that historically the Eastern Orthodox Church has supported Anglican Holy Orders while the Roman Church has rejected the validity of Anglican Orders. In March of 1923, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Damiaos, in the name of the Synod, wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, stating that the Holy Orders of the Anglican Church have the same validity as the Roman Church since they have the same “elements,” as the document says. In 1936 the Rumanian Commission of the Orthodox Church declared Anglican Holy Orders to be valid. Three years later the Rumanian Commission, as well as the Holy Synod of Greece, declared Anglican Holy Orders to be valid.
On September 18th of 1896, with the strong consent of a Roman Catholic commission, and without the presence (defense) of an Anglican, Pope Leo XIII declared in his Bull, Apostoliciae Curae that Anglican orders lack the necessary “form and intent” to be valid.
The theology of the Catholic Church requires that there be “form, matter, minister, and intent” to convey grace to the recipient of Holy Orders. The “form” involves the words themselves in the service. The “matter” is the outward sign of the Sacrament. The “minister” is of course the Priest, Deacon, or Bishop. And the “intent” is what the Church intends to do as the Church has always done. These requirements would seemingly match Anglican Orders, but not according to Pope Leo’s Apostolicae Curae. In section 33 of this article, it explains that there was a defect of form and intention in the consecration of Matthew Parker, the first Archbishop of the Anglican Church. The Pope implied that there was a new rite that was not met in the consecration. The paper implies that there was no correct intention since, to the Pope’s and his council, the Anglican church did not intend to hold to and continue apostolic orders through time; a rather cheap and ambiguous shot, especially since the Pope did not refer to the Preface of the Edwardine Ordinals, which clearly state the intention of the English Church to continue the practice of the Early Church.
Leo also basis his argument on the Anglican Orders lack of “Form” by quoting the Council of Trent and its proclamation that when a man is ordained he receives the power “of consecration and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord.” The Anglican Church added the words “for the office and work of a Bishop or Priest” in the Edwardine Ordinal after the Council of Trent was an admission on the part of the Anglican Church that the first Orders, such as the Ordination of Archbishop Matthew Parker, was “defective and inadequate.” But what the Pope did not know or take in consideration was that the words “for the office and work of a Bishop or Priest” were added to ward off the Presbyterians and draw a distinction in Orders between the Anglicans and the Presbyterians. They were not added because the Anglican Church thought there to be some sort of theological defect in the form.
It seems to me that Pope Leo XIII would have rejected Anglican Orders even if that particular phrasing as well as any other phrasing was included in the English Ordinal. He really did not have to say such a meticulous and absurd thing about the linguistics of the Anglican Form of Ordination. Certainly linguistics do matter, but linguistics matter no further than theology matters. In other words, there was no breach in theological form with the Anglicans. The Pope knew that Anglicans have been ordaining “Deacons, Priest, and Bishops” from day one and to say that their form or intent was not to ordain in this way is simply immature and out right childish.
From the evidence of Rev. John E. Upham’s document, On The Validity of Anglo-Catholic Holy Orders, Pope Leo’s Apostolicae Curae was clearly a political move to stop the flow of converts into Anglicanism. If the Pope would have declared Anglican Holy Orders to be valid, many people would have flocked to the Anglican Church, knowing that they would receive both “present and historical” grace. It has been said that Pope Leo XIII was not a vindictive man and was indeed trying to promote the unity between Roman and Anglo Catholics but we must remember that the Papacy “is served by a very fallible bureaucracy that can be manipulated and by politically driven motives.”
It is clear to me that Anglican Holy Orders are indeed valid; valid to take up the gifts of prophet, priest, and king. There is no void of form or intent in the Orders and they hardly differ from the Roman Catholic Form. Further support lies within the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church has recognized Anglican Orders.
Perhaps there will come a day when this debate will be reexamined. We shall see what direction the CofE heads after the Lambeth conference next year, determining their commitment to the universal church.
This Protestant argument of the Federal Vision as well as a recent conversation with fellow seminary students and teachers, reminded me of how blessed I am to be an Anglican. One of the great things about being Anglican is the freedom to be intellectually honest. It is a liberating freedom that is well worth sacrificing for.
One of the hardest things to cope with, especially as a minister, is to live with a bound conscience. If one is in a Presbyterian, Baptist (etc.), or Roman church, and attempts to be inclusive to historical theology in its fullest, one may find themselves either tied to anxiety or tied to the stake. But in the Anglican church (continuing) one can be fully inclusive to all the robust and intelligent saints in the Church’s history without being harmed. I’m sure there are exceptions (diocese, presbytery, etc.) that are orthodox in their ecumenicism, but the exceptions in Christianity have yet to find their dominion.
Anglicanism attempts to wrap its arms around the wholeness of God’s redemptive historical plan of salvation. Priests such as Luther and Huss,”lay-teachers” such as Calvin, and even the offbeat such as Zwingli, are recognized as gifts from God. Yet, in the other movements of the Church, one is bound to a fragment of men here and a fragment of men there, or they are missing the entire blessings of prophetic movement such as the Reformation. In Anglicanism, one can embrace Christianity in its entirety, and one can do it with orthodoxy!
The Anglican church does not claim to be the all-in-all or even the future Church of John 17:21, but many of us believe that it is the closest to the all-in-all that we have in our day!
Once a Christian has been liturgical (we used to be able to say “Reformed” when referring to tradition) for a significant amount of time they begin to see some things differently, especially when it comes to worship and the arts, and just how and where these two are to properly intersect. Those Christians that are steeped within the baptistic/evangelical world simply cannot see what the liturgical folk see. I know that may be offensive to some, but whoever said the Christian faith and the pursuit of sanctification would please everyone?
When one becomes cultivated by the singing and chanting of the Psalms, the richness of historical hymns and the power of the symbolic, one cannot help to notice how very silly and backwards modern pop-culture is. I believe today’s pop-culture is feministic - close your ears all you passive men…no, I mean open them ;)
Turn your radio dial to the newest pop-culture Christian station and listen to the songs and the dialog. The songs, for the most part, are feminine. They require one to perch their head out and embrace their lighter side as if singing to a female lover or a baby! But God is not a baby; nor is He female. God is masculine in nature and mature as He can be.
In Deuteronomy 27-28 and Joshua 8, we can see how the people of God worshiped. They did not sit in a circle, hold each-others hands, and then sing the latest love poems - which they did have - with changed lyrics to accommodate the Bible. No, one tribe shouted from one slope of Mount Gerizim and the other shouted from the slope of Mount Ebal. This was passionate, deliberate, and robust proclamations toward a God that delivers from the enemy! Rhythm and melody where not the main thrust, but the voices and masculine passions of the people were.
Ancient liturgy cultivates one to be a warrior. It brings one to a point of submission and reverence to a mighty God that has sustained throughout all history. Our God did not ‘catch his second wind’ sometime in the early 70s. He’s not a Baby Boomer ;) Our God is an ancient God that has been through tremendous battle. He does not want to be lullabied or romanced. He wants to be worshiped.
And if you choose to — if you believe in the Almighty, you can — you’re equally an American. If you’re a Jew, Christian or Muslim or Hindi or whatever. It is one of the great traits and traditions of our country, where people can worship the way you see fit. Interview on Larry King Live (CNN), Aug. 15, 2004
I heard Bush say something similar to this on the radio today. I think what he and many Americans do not understand is that religions, such as Islam, worship in such a way that drives them to hate infidels. They do not have an evangelistic message of liberation, but rather they have an existential message of servant-hood which teaches the complete annihilation of infidels.
In Islam, there is no grace, but rather there is only submission or death. In Christendom there is grace, and if one does not desire to come to Christ then they are not forced to come. Although, this does not mean that this infidel can begin to create their own heretical movement to destroy God’s Church. Or does it?
Do we tolerate those who desire us to follow Islamic or other cultic ethics within our communities? At what point do we restrain this person or peoples? Doctrinal and ethical neutrality is impossible, and so if God has given us a homeland to be good stewards of, then what ethical system do we institute? Is there such an ethical system that America is striving for that could be even marginally inclusive to other faiths? Is God pleased with this pursuit? If not, what would He have us do?
On September 11th, 2001, when Islam struck America, I was driving in my Honda CR-V on the way to Twin Towers. That’s right, “Twin Towers.” Only, this was Twin Towers of Los Angeles, the county jail and mental hospital. I was working as a Protestant Chaplain there. When I heard the news, I turned around to head back home to be with my family. I will never forget the faces of the people around me while I was driving in the traffic - grief-struck!
How much of Islam will we tolerate? That’s my question. How naive will we be by believing there are “peaceful” Muslims? Hey, some Muslims feel they are called to battle with sword and some with the pen! If our military goes to battle with Osama will you raise your voice in opposition? No, of course not. Likewise, the so-called peaceful Muslims will never come up against the radical Muslims. Why? Because they would be disobedient to the Koran. I’m too tired right now to look up the Koran verse, but it says Jihad is fought in many different ways, besides through the sword. We need to oppose every form of Islam with the Gospel of Christ (this includes Christ’s Law, does it not?). It will take a new and radical generation to voice this truth. Hopefully you are or can become a part of it.
You know it is bad when corporations are becoming more godly than many churches!
I think that American Christians would care much more about issues such as illegal immigration, abortion, poverty, discrimination, etc. if we simply did not have the luxuries that we currently have. We cannot seem to handle them! It can be a consuming venture to decide which flat-screen to purchase or which car dealer to talk into letting us trade-in on our current vehicle. Things such as TVs and cars are not evil in themselves, but my point is that America has certainly become a consumer society. We revolve around our upgrades and general luxuries, all while the Church and the state are being taken by radical scum-cultures and liberal activists.
John Calvin says this:
“Yea, prosperity not only intoxicates many, as to carry them beyond all bounds in their mirth, but it also engenders insolence, which makes them proudly rise up and break forth against God. Accordingly there is scarcely is a hundredth part of those who enjoy in abundance the good things of God, who keep themselves in his fear, and live in the exercise of humility and temperance, which would be so becoming.”
Not many, as Calvin says, can live in rich abundance and still remain humble. Not only can material gain cause us to commit covetousness and idolatry with the items themselves, but there is also the very ethic that God calls us to redeem our time. There simply is not enough time in the day for us to focus on constant material upgrade and adrenaline-filled events if one is sold as a slave to Christ!
Our modern society draws us more toward the ego, regarding what is available for enjoyment, than it does draw us toward humility and peace. We can simply look at modern architecture to see the lack of hospitable and “heavenly” design. Homes and buildings now are built to accommodate our toys rather than our friends and neighbors, and they say nothing about who God is in the way they are shaped and designed.
Luther, speaking concerning the authority which Bishops would have among the Reformers, if any of them should adopt reformed principles, says, “We would acknowledge them as our fathers, and willingly obey their authority, which we find supported by the Word of God.” Melancthon, after the adoption of Presbyterianism, says, “I would to God it lay in me to restore the government of Bishops; for I see what manner of Church we shall have, the ecclesiastical polity being dissolved.” “By what right or law we may dissolve the ecclesiastical polity, if the Bishops will grant to us that which in reason they ought to grant; and if it were lawful for us to do so, yet surely it is not expedient. Luther was ever of this opinion.” He says moreover, “Zwingli is not in his senses. At one stroke he would abolish all ceremonies, and he would have no Bishops.”
Martin Brucer says, “by the perpetual observation of all Churches, even from the Apostles’ times, we see that it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, that among presbyters there should be one who should have the charge of divers Churches, and the whole Ministry be committed to him; and by reason of that charge he was above the rest; and therefore the name of Bishop was attributed peculiarly to those chief rulers.”
Calvin. Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, who favored Calvin’s theological views, records, that, in looking over some papers left by his predecessor, Archbishop Parker, he found that Calvin, and others of the Protestant Churches of Germany and elsewhere, would have had Episcopacy if permitted. And he asserts, that in Edward VI. reign, Calvin wrote a letter to the English reformers on this subject, which was intercepted by Gardiner and Bonner (Popish), who returned him such a reply, writing as if in the name of the Reformers, as effectually prevented his repeating the suggestion. (Chapman’s sermons, p.104. Boston, 1844.) Calvin, even when defending the new system that he had adopted, was true to the “historical precedent.” He does not deny a historical “succession,” even where he writes, “nothing can be more frivolous than to place the succession in the persons, to the neglect of the doctrine.” And in arguing against Romanists, employing for his purpose the fact of the existence of the Greek Church, he asserts that among them there “has never been any interruption of the succession of Bishops.” He holds (of course) the Presbyterian theory, namely: that Bishops and Presbyters are the same order. “In calling those who presided over Churches, Bishops, Elders, and Pastors, without any distinction, I have followed the usage of Scripture. For, to all who discharge the Ministry of the Word, it gives the title of Bishops.” But when he is speaking as a historian, he says, “To guard against dissensions, the general consequence of equality, the presbyters in each city chose one of their own number, whom they distinguished by the title of Bishop. The Bishop, however, was not so superior to the rest in honor and dignity, as to have any dominion over his colleagues, but the functions performed by a Consul in the Senate, such as *** to preside over the rest, in the exercise of advice, admonition, and exhortation, to regulate all the proceedings by his authority, and to carry into execution whatever had been decreed by the general voice - such were the functions exercised by the Bishop in the Assembly of Presbyters.” A very fair description of a Bishop in the Protestant Episcopal Church. In the same passage he guards against the idea of “Divine right,” quoting Jerome - “let the Bishops know their superiority to the Presbyters is more from custom than from the appointment of the Lord.” But he proceeds in his defense of the “historical precedent,” to show “the antiquity of this institution,” by quoting from the same author (Jerome) “at Alexandria, even from Mark the Evangelist to Heraclos and Dionysius, the Presbyters always chose one of their body to preside over them, whom they called Bishop.” Then, in summing up, Calvin adds, “every assembly as I have stated, for the sole purpose of preserving order and peace, was under the direction of one Bishop, who, while he had the precedence of all others in dignity, was himself subject to the assembly of brethren.”[1]
Take a look at what Katrina did to this Church.
Introduction: Professor Alister McGrath begins this book by cutting to the chase and getting right to the point, quoting men that are somewhat controversial in Reformed circles and taking these quotes at face value by examining their worth to Christendom. “Influential New Testament scholars such as William Wrede and ALbert Scweitzer argued that the origins of the concept [of justification] were polemical, relating to the early tensions between Christianity and Judaism. ” (P. 1)
“…a new issue emerging after the Second World War…The Jewish theologian Claude G. Montefiore (1858-1938) argued that rabbinic Judaism did not hold - as Paul seemed to suggest - that Jews were self-righteous people who believed that they could earn their way to heaven. Judaism affirmed the graciousness of God, not human merit, in determining the destiny of Israel.” (P.2)
McGrath makes it a point to start his book with the quotes above since they seem to be the most honored amongst theologians today and are a real part of the Church’s modern history. He mentions how the men above helped spark the “new perspective of Paul.”
MacGrath states on page 4 “the Middle Ages, a period of remarkable theological creativity and systematisation.” He goes on to state that in the 17th century intellectual thought in Europe began to quetions just how reliable the systematizing of the previous centuries was.
In section 1.1 McGrath reviews the semantics of justification. Since the context of Paul the Apostle’s writings were within the heart of Judaism, and salvation itself comes out of Judaism, it seems appropriate for McGrath to thoroughly examine the Latin Vulgate in its relation to Hebrew language and thought. On page 7 he mentions how Christian theology contains a number of important concepts originating from a Hebraic context. He therefore begin examining the word ‘righteousness’ within this context: Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Mcgrath demonstrates that the Hebrew word sedeq (righteousness) used in the OT points to a covenantal relationship between God and man. This can be said to be the Old Testament origins of the doctrine of justification.
In section 1.2 McGrath brings Paul into the picture explaining how Paul’s language is grounded in the Old Testament and that the very word dikaioun (justification) is expressed by Paul not as a noun but as a verb. On page 23 he mentions how Paul uses the word justification with a future and a past reference (Romans 2:13; 8:33; Galatians 5:4-5), and says,
“Justification language appears in Paul with reference to both the inauguration of the life of faith, and also is final consummation. It is a complex and all-embracing notion, which anticipates the verdict of the final judgement (Romans 8:30-4), declaring in advance the verdict of ultimate acquittal. The believers present justified Christian existence is thus an anticipation of and advance participation in deliverance from the wrath to come, and an assurance in the present of the final eschatological verdict of acquittal (Romans 5: 9-10). “
In 1.3 McGrath examines the pre-Augustinian era, and does not fail to mention that justification - in its systematic form - was “simply not a theological issue.” He mentions how the early church was not as threatened by works-based heresy but rather Gnosticism.
NOTE: This first chapter alone debunks many of the Baptistic and modern Presbyterian notions that Paul, in Galatians was teaching us that we are all natural legalists attempting to earn our salvation through the Mosaic Law. Paul was clearly working as a polemist and confronting the fact that the church was following these false teachers and doctrines found within that particular church. The heart of man is open to most any heresy, and the -works/law teaching was simply the one that they were snared by.
In 1.4 we learn about Augustine of Hippo’s understanding of justification. McGrath says that Augustine did not teach justification within a polemical context. He quotes Augustine a number of times to show how Augustine’s views really do not match those of the Reformation like many of us would like to think. On page 42 he quotes, “The one who created you without you will not justify you without you.” Augustine’s words here seem to imply more than just a forensic view of justification. It seems to imply that justification is more eschatological. More of Augustine’s quotes regarding justification seem to show that although Augustine believed in Total Depravity, the sinner could merit but only through Christ. In other words, Augustine believed that any good works that we do are strictly from the grace of God and not from our own self.
“When Good crowns our merits, he crowns nothing but his own gifts.” This is just one of the many quotes that McGrath has documented from Augustine. He also shows that Augustine did not believe in some sort of sinner’s prayer grace/justification but that one receives grace though baptism, if one is of the elect (p. 45).
Mcgrath demonstrates that Augustine teaches that justification “entails a real change in a person’s being, and not merely on his or her status.” He says that it is quite clear that Augustine understands justification to include the ethical and spiritual renewal of the sinner through the internal operation of the Holy Spirit…[that Augustine understands justification as] participationally, rather than relationally.”
Powerful stuff! The next chapter is on justification and the Middle Ages.
Here is a great post from Alastair Roberts of Scotland:
Liturgy is so important, precisely as borrowed language. People complain about praying someone else’s words rather than their own in the liturgy, but that is the precise point of liturgy. By ‘borrowing’ the language of the Church which has been handed over to us (in tradition) we hand ourselves over to God and to each other (Peter Candler explores this well in his latest book).
The ‘heroic pose’ that Keillor speaks of is one in which the speaker presents God with his own words, deeming his own vocabulary to be sufficient. The reasoning behind such an approach is that the most authentic way of being is that of spontaneity as opposed to imitation. Prayers of spontaneity, no matter how rhetorically brilliant they are, will always fall short of truly public speech. True public speech is shared language, where the words are not the speaker’s own. Spontaneous speech always falls short, drawing attention to the speaker, who often has a desire for people’s praise.The language of liturgy is public language, precisely because it does not belong to any one particular individual. It has been handed over to all of us and we are given to participate in it. Such language has a pedagogical purpose. As Candler puts it: ‘To enter into this pedagogy is to entrust oneself to a language which is not one’s own, yet which transforms one’s language and orders it to God.’ Such language is a gift and not our own possession.