|
When I first attended the
Church of England as a student, I found some things
quite difficult because I had been brought up in the
Free Churches. Some born and bred Anglicans are
blissfully unaware of such difficulties, but I remember
them well. This leaflet is for those new or fairly new
to the church. Below I comment on the issues I wrestled
with. But it is important to start with the basis of
faith of the Church of England.
What is the Church of England’s attitude to Scripture?
According to the Canons (church law), the most important
authority for what the Church of England believes is the
Bible and nothing is to be believed which is clearly
contrary to the teaching of Scripture. However the
Church takes very seriously the teaching of church
leaders in the early centuries, if it is consistent with
the Bible.
So
Canon A5 states: The doctrine
of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy
Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers
and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said
Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found
in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of
Common Prayer, and the Ordinal [Ordination Service].
Similarly,
but in more historic language, Article 6 of the Thirty
Nine Articles of Religion states:
“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 it should be believed as an article of the Faith,
or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In
the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those
canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose
authority was never any doubt in the Church.”
The
Church’s Authority is subject to the Bible. This is
clearly taught by Article 20 of the
Thirty Nine Articles of
Religion which states: “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.”
So
the Church of England is based on Scripture.
Is the Church of England sound on the Gospel?
Yes,
absolutely. Read the following from the 39 Articles:
“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. Wherefore, that we
are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome
Doctrine, and very full of comfort.”
“They also are to be had accursed that presume to say,
That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which
he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life
according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy
Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus
Christ, whereby men must be saved.”
Of
course, there are C of E churches where the gospel is
not obvious in the sermons etc., but that is the case in
various denominations.
But isn’t the Church of England controlled by the state?
No,
it isn’t. Because the C of E was born in the context of
rivalry between the monarch and the Pope, it was
inevitable that there was an insistence that the church
should be loyal to the monarch. After all, the church
was a very powerful influence in the country. So today
Anglican ministers have to swear allegiance to the
Queen.
But
the other side of the coin is that, at the Coronation,
the Archbishop asks the monarch: “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?”
And the monarch replies:
“All this I promise to do.” [Emphasis
mine].
In
theory, on behalf of the Queen, the Prime Minister can
appoint Bishops. But for many years the way this has
been achieved is that the church recommends two names in
order of priority (to give a theoretical choice) and the
Prime Minister chooses the first name. So, in effect,
the church chooses its own bishops.
What about Henry VIII?
It
is sometimes said that the C of E was started by Henry
VIII because he fell out with the Pope who wouldn’t let
him have a divorce. Actually, the story is far more
complex than that. Henry’s action was a convenient
circumstance which facilitated the Reformation in
England, which was already happening and affecting the
Church. It should be remembered that some of the early C
of E leaders, like Archbishop Cranmer (who wrote the old
prayer book) were burnt at the stake for their
Protestant principles. The C of E is no mere political
accident but was born in the spiritual revolution of the
Reformation and the fires of persecution.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SERVICES
Isn’t liturgy (the written service) a recipe for vain
repetition?
Any
written prayer could be said without thought or meaning.
But all Christians use liturgy – even those who think
they don’t! Hymns and worship songs are a type of
liturgy? They are written prayers, drafted by someone
else. I very soon found that the liturgy was wonderfully
rich, so long as it is said with meaning. So often more
spontaneous forms of worship only include hymns/songs,
reading(s), prayer by the preacher, sermon and
Grace/Blessing. They omit a call to confession, a
confession, absolution, creed, (sometimes intercessions)
or in Communion various other aspects. I think the
Anglican liturgy is wonderfully rich and comprehensive,
and because it is biblical, it ensures continuity of
sound doctrine.
Why do some churches use chants?
Chanting is simply an old form of singing, which may or
may not be to our taste, but has no theological
significance. It dates from the time of the monasteries.
Isn’t the minister saying absolution a bit of medieval
priest craft?
No,
because just as a preacher or counsellor might assure
people they are forgiven by God, so the minister
declares that God forgives the penitent. The Minister
cannot forgive sins in place of God, but he can assure
people that God forgives them.
Why do some churches turn East to say the creed?
In
the early church baptisms took place at dawn on Easter
Day. As candidates stood in the water they turned to the
West (which was dark) and renounced the Devil and all
his works. Then they turned to the East (sunrise) and
affirmed what they believed. This custom has remained in
some churches, though rather out of context.
Why does the creed refer to the catholic church?
I
used to worry about this, having been brought in a very
Protestant background. It is not referring to the Roman
Catholic church but the universal church. Jesus only has
one church. The word comes from the Greek Katholikos
which means “universal.” So, in the creed, we say we
believe in one, holy, universal church.
What about prayers for the dead?
Actually, our services don’t include prayer for the
dead, except to remember them with thanksgiving. What is
ruled out biblically is any idea that we can pray for
those who have died to be saved if they weren’t
believers when they died. However some Anglican
churches pray for the dead but the prayers are not from
our prayer book.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MINISTERS
Why are the ministers called priests?
This
worried me too. The word “priest” actually comes from
the Old English “preost” from the Late Latin “presbyter”
(and probably the Vulgar Latin “prester”). The word
“presbyter” or “presbuteros” in Greek means an elder.
The Church of England does not teach that its
ministers are sacrificing priests (offering the mass,
see below) or essential mediators between God/Jesus and
human beings.
Don’t robes and processions make the clergy too
important?
The
Church of England officially states that robes are of no
particular theological significance. They simply add to
the dignity of the services. This goes for bishops’
robes too. Some robes use the different colours of the
church year (green, red, purple, white) and these are
simply visual aids reminding everyone of what season we
are in. By the way, I think the church year is one of
our riches. We re-live the drama of Jesus’ life every
year from before his birth to his return in glory.
QUESTIONS ABOUT COMMUNION
How does the Church of England understand Communion?
The
Church of England makes it very clear that:
It
does not believe in transubstantiation - the
change of the bread and wine literally into the body and
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.”)
It
does believe that “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.”
In other words, Communion is not a mere visual aid but
when we take it in faith the Holy Spirit blesses us and
strengthen us. There is no change in the bread and wine,
but there is a change in us. This is described as
“feeding on Christ.”
That
unbelievers who might take the bread and wine do not
(spiritually and by faith) feed on Christ.
That
Communion does not repeat, re-enact or add to the
sacrifice of Christ. The wording is quiet definite, and,
n fact, rather strong: “The Offering of Christ once
made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and
satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both
original and actual; and there is none other
satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the
sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said,
that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the
dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were
blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.”
So
when the service refers to a “sacrifice of thanks and
praise” it is referring to our offering worship to God,
not to any offering of the bread and wine.
Why does the minister at the rail say: “The Body/Blood
of Christ”?
This
needs to be understood in the light of the above. He is
only saying what Jesus said: “This is my body/blood.”
The bread is still bread, the wine is still wine. But as
we take it in faith we spiritually feed on Christ.
Why does
the minister put his hand over the bread and wine or use
the sign of the cross?
This
is symbolism. He is setting
apart/dedicating/consecrating the bread and wine for a
holy purpose and it seems helpful to show this in
symbolism. It’s the same for using the sign of the cross
in the absolution or blessing.
Why do some people bow towards the altar?
Again this is symbolism. It is actually reverencing the
cross which is on or above the table. It is simply
expressing thanks for the death of Christ in a
symbolical way. As a matter of fact, the communion
service does not use the term “altar.” Many Anglicans
refer to the Holy Table. But use of the word “altar” is
a long-standing popular tradition. It does not imply any
sacrifice other than remembering the sacrifice of
Christ.
Why do
some churches stand for the Gospel reading?
It
is simply a sign of respect for the very words of
Christ. I don’t have a problem with this but it doesn’t
seem a necessary or important tradition.
QUESTIONS ABOUT BAPTISM
The
official teaching of the Church of England is that
baptism (often traditionally called “christening” is a
visible sign of the new birth and a visible seal or
confirmation of the truth of God’s promises to those who
believe. (“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.”).
Again, faith is required. The wording: “And in such
only as worthily receive the same [the sacraments], they
have a wholesome effect or operation” refers to
baptism as well as communion. There is nothing magical
or automatic about baptism.
Before being baptised a person has to make solemn
promises: “I repent of [my sins], I turn to Christ, I
submit to Christ, I come to Christ.”
What about sprinkling, as opposed to immersion?
Immersion is the first alternative for baptism in the C
of E. The service says: “The Minister dips each
candidate in water, or pours water on them.” Many
baptisms by immersion take place. I have done numerous
immersion baptisms myself. It is, in my view, the best
method.
What about infant baptism?
This
question was probably the biggest one for me when I
first started attending the Church of England. The
Anglican theology of infant baptism makes it clear that
parents (and godparents) make the above-mentioned
promises on behalf of the child. This is done in faith
that the child will, after Christian teaching and
nurture, eventually take these promises on
himself/herself – formally at confirmation, but
informally before that. So infant baptism is on the
basis of faith just as much as the baptism of those able
to answer for themselves. If the child does not come to
personal faith then the Baptism is incomplete and s/he
is not born again. Some Christians will disagree with
this approach but at least there is general agreement
that all baptism is based on faith.
But
why baptise infants when we don’t see the practice in
the New Testament? Here are the reasons I became
convinced that infant baptism is in harmony with the
teaching of the New Testament:
All
who believe are children of Abraham. Even small children
(8-day olds) were included in the Abrahamic covenant. We
are spiritually more privileged than Old Testament
people. Surely, because we are believers, our children
should also be included in the covenant before they
reach the age of being able to answer for themselves.
Circumcision, the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, was a
sign of justification by faith (i.e. God accepting
sinners on the basis of faith). See Romans 4, esp. v 11.
Yet it was given to babies.
In
Acts 2:38-39 Peter preaches that the Gospel, covenant
promises are “to you and your children.” It seems
highly unlikely that Jewish people would have embraced
the Christian faith without incorporating their children
into it. They had been incorporating their children into
the covenant for over a thousand years. When our
children were born I found it very meaningful to baptise
them. I did not (and do not) believe they were excluded
from the covenant simply because of a lack of
intellectual capacity.
In 1
Corinthians 7:14 Paul calls the children of a believing
parent “holy.” This is a technical term meaning they
were in the covenant.
It
is of significance that the church baptised infants from
very early days. There is direct evidence for it from
very early times and indirect evidence from the middle
of the first century AD, just 30-40 years after the time
of Jesus, when various of the Apostles were still
alive.
I
hope this rationale is meaningful to you and that, even
if you don’t become convinced about infant baptism, you
will understand how those of us are do practise it
firmly believe it is biblical, in the sense of in
harmony with Scripture. However, it is a sad fact that
many parents who are not believers have their children
baptised, which means the children are less likely t
come to faith themselves.
OTHER QUESTIONS
What about the High Church?
There is a high church tradition in the Church of
England which was revived by the Oxford Movement in the
19th century. Over most beliefs there is no
disagreement but over some there is, perhaps
particularly over their attitude to Mary. With great
respect, I feel that some High Church beliefs are not
actually what the Church of England believes.
What is the Church of England’s attitude to Mary?
Mary
is (appropriately in my view) treated with respect by
the Church of England. After all, she was used in the
most remarkable way by God and she showed deeply
spirituality. However the C of E does not hold the
particular Roman Catholic views about her. She is not
queen of heaven or co-redemptrix. We do not think we
have to approach God (or Jesus) through Mary. The
official C of E view of Mary would not cause problems
for Evangelicals.
Isn’t the use of crucifixes, statues and stained glass
saints unbiblical?
I
used to worry a lot about crucifixes, because of my
childhood fears about Roman Catholicism. The C of E does
not worship or even venerate images. But they can be
helpful visual aids. Again rather bluntly, the Church of
England’s official wording on the subject is: “The
Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons,
Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of
Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing,
vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of
Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.”
However, as long as these things (crucifixes, statues,
stained glass saints) are treated as visual aids, they
can be helpful.
What about the liberal wing of the Church of England?
In
the 1980s this wing seemed to be in the ascendancy under
Archbishop Runcie’s influence and I campaigned in the
General Synod and national media against any watering
down of biblical teaching on doctrine and morality.
Since the time of Archbishop Carey, evangelicalism has
been much more predominant. However there is a big
debate at present in the worldwide Anglican Communion
over the issue of gay bishops which threatens to break
up the Communion. But he official teaching of the C of E
remains rooted in the Prayer Book and Canons and in
1987, in a debate on my private member’s motion, the
General Synod reaffirmed by a 98% majority:
‘This Synod affirms that the biblical and traditional
teaching on chastity and fidelity in personal
relationships is a response to, and expression of, God’s
love for each one of us, and in particular affirms:
-
that sexual intercourse is an act of total
commitment which belongs properly within a permanent
married relationship,
-
that fornication and adultery are sins against this
ideal, and are to be met by a call to repentance and
the exercise of compassion,
-
that homosexual genital acts also fall short of this
ideal, and are likewise to be met by a call to
repentance and the exercise of compassion,
-
that all Christians are called to be exemplary in
all spheres of morality, including sexual morality,
and that holiness of life is particularly required
of Christian leaders.’
What about women priests?
I
will make a few comments here, but I did write some
years ago a full theological paper on this issue, which
is available free on request. [Be warned, it is 28
pages long, quite detailed and in-depth. It includes:
sections on how to interpret Scripture, biblical
teaching on the equality of status and difference of
function of male and female, the biblical ministry of
women, plus appendixes on the parallel between the
liberation of women and liberation of slaves from a New
Testament point of view, New Testament teaching we don’t
obey, the submission of wives etc.]
For
years I had wrestled with the issue of women priests and
couldn’t see how it was in harmony with Scripture. I
felt obliged to vote against the ordination of women in
the General Synod debate in 1992.
But
after doing further exhaustive study of Scripture
(outlined in the theological paper) I came to the
conclusion that: “Taking everything into account, it
seems that the NT does not teach any general principle
which would exclude women from either the teaching or
the presiding role in the church. So I believe there is
no biblical barrier to women being ordained and taking
headship positions in the modern church. It is
disturbingly true that one can just as easily argue from
the NT against the liberation of slaves as one can argue
against the ordination of women to headship positions.
But, more important, it is clear to me that the main
thrust of NT teaching on the issue is Gal 3:28 “There is
neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female,
for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Tony Higton |
Do
We Believe in 3 Gods?
