Leading for Unity: An Evangelical Articulation of the Unity of the Church in Preparation for Diocesan Clegy Day

Leading for Unity

by the Revs Iain Boyd and Robert Sturdy

• Jump ahead to the section on Scripture by clicking here
• Jump ahead to the section on historic Anglicanism by clicking here

Over the past few months, because of various events (Gafcon, ACNA, GenCon 09’) the issue of the unity of the church viewed through the lens of an Anglican context has come up with increasing regularity.  In the conversations we have had with fellow priests and even in statements from men and women serving at a very high level of leadership in the diocese we have noted two things.  The first thing we would note is that while the individuals themselves are, for the most part trained theologians and men and women of great theological depth and Biblical faithfulness they have failed to publicly reflect with any great depth on the situations we are now presented with. The second thing we have noticed about the discussion of the unity of the church in an Anglican context is that the evangelical understanding of the unity of the church is poorly represented amongst the highest levels of leadership in the Diocese of S.C.

Our desire in presenting this is to facilitate a discussion on some very difficult matters.  We also wish to form the discussion along certain lines that we do not believe have played a significant enough role in the corporate discernment of the Diocese.  We wish to form this discussion first and foremost not in terms of any one theological tradition, but rather we wish to center this discussion within the confines of the Biblical witness of the church in the New Testament.  We understand that our theological tradition will no doubt inform our reading of the New Testament, nevertheless we seek first and foremost to honor God by submitting to his Word as best as we are able before entering into any discussion based on Anglican tradition.  This leads to our next point. We wish to demonstrate the understanding of Christian unity in early Anglicanism as it applied to the multiple expressions of Christian churches in England during the period of the Reformation.  As it will be seen, we do not present an understanding of Christian unity in early Anglicanism that is at odds with the Biblical witness, but rather one that fits quite comfortably within it.

It is our honest intention to honor Christ by humbly submitting this reflection.  We wish to contribute to the current discernment that up until now has only been done by a select few.  The format of this paper will be an overview of both parts followed by an extended discussion on both Christian unity in the N.T. as well as how it was understood in early Anglicanism.

An Overview:

The Anglican Church allows for more diversity of opinion on matters of unity and the catholic faith than is commonly proclaimed today.  It is important that as the Diocese of South Carolina discerns a way forward an evangelical ecclesiology be allowed a place at the table.

This paper considers the nature of Christian unity from two perspectives:

1.  Scripture

2.  Early Anglicanism

Overview of Part I:  A Picture of the Unity of the Church in the New Testament

In John 17:13-23 Jesus prays for the unity of the Church.  He prays for those who will receive not the apostolic structure, but the apostolic word (John 17:20).  The church is apostolic, then, as it receives the faith of the apostles, not any laying on of hands.

This apostolicity is not centered on any one person (i.e. Peter).  Moreover, when one of the apostles begins to walk inconsistently with the Gospel, he is rebuked.  (Galatians 2:11-14)

Thus the role of the apostolic office was not to pass on an institution, but a faith.

Where the word of the apostles is preached and believed there exist the people who Jesus prayed would be one with Himself as well as one with each other.  Two examples of this principle can be given in Acts ch. 11

1.  Acts 11:1-18  Peter reports on the conversion of Cornelius.  Without apostolic authority, Cornelius was filled with the Spirit and began speaking in tongues.  What was the means by which Cornelius came to faith and was filled with the Spirit?  Through Peter’s preaching.

2. Acts 11:19-30 Baranabas goes to see the church in Antioch and finds Christians there who had come to faith through the preaching of the scattered church from Jerusalem.  These preachers were not recognized as apostles.  Yet, Barnabas finds that God has shown grace to them so he extends the hand of fellowship.  It is important to note that God’s grace was not conditional upon Barnabas extending his hand, but rather preceded it.

Therefore it is the reception of the Apostles teaching through faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that causes believers in the New Testament to extend fellowship with one another and physically (and in time institutionally) express a spiritual unity that is already present.

The New Testament not only speaks of unity, it also speaks of situations where unity is not possible.  2 John 9-11 shows that where continuance of the apostles teaching fails, unity must fail.  Moreover, 2 Cor 6:14-18 urges the church not to be yoked with unbelievers.  Presumably, those unbelievers are members of the church who have abdicated the faith.

With this in mind, one can only wonder why the Diocese of South Carolina has failed to meaningfully extend the hand of fellowship to the ACNA.

While we recognize that the Diocese of SC has in the past repudiated actions taken by the General Convention of TEC, one wonders if the Biblical principles outlined above have been applied thoroughly to our present, most difficult situation.

Overview of Part II:  Christian Unity and Early Anglicanism

The predominate voices in the discussions reacting to GenCon 09 all tend towards a catholic ecclesiology.  Is the ecclesiology of historic Anglicanism exclusively catholic?

In order to explore this we looked at three sources

1.  The Thirty Nine Articles

2.  John Jewel An Apology of the Church of England

3. Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity

The Thirty Nine Articles are silent on the issue of apostolic succession. They mention the threefold order of ministry, but do not hold it as necessary for the nature of the church.

The 39 Articles define the church by the proper preaching of the Word and administration of the sacraments.

John Jewel gives an apology to the Roman Church for the Church of England.

In that apology, Jewel never uses apostolic succession as a sign that they are a valid truth, although he repudiates it as such elsewhere.

Jewel consistently defines the church not by ecclesiastical structure but by the proclamation of apostolic faith.

Richard Hooker writes in favor of the Church of England as it was organized under Elizabeth I in opposition to the puritans who wished for further reform.

In his apology, Hooker defines the church by apostolic faith.  Although structure is important for Hooker, what structure is not a matter essential for it to be a Christian Church. Hooker openly states that Christian unity is a unity of essence shared by all those who worship the one and only God and are filled with His spirit.

Thus for the 39 Articles, Jewel, and Hooker, catholicity is not a matter of bishops or apostolic succession, but rather a spiritual unity enjoyed by those who are united to Christ by faith.

This paper calls for our actions and our speech to recognize the spiritual unity we share with the ACNA as part of the true catholic church.  It also calls us to recognize that bishops don’t necessarily make a church.  When we define catholicity by the structure of our church, we deny the validity of our brothers and sisters in Christ of other denominations, and we become not Catholics, but schismatics.

Part I:  A Picture of the Unity of the Church in the New Testament

“But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.  Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.”

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those  who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.” (John 17.13-23 ESV)

In any discussion on Christian unity, the above passage from John’s Gospel is no doubt destined to play a critical role.  After all, in the solemnity of Jesus’ final meal with his disciples before the crucifixion who can fail to feel the heavy weight of the words of the Savior fall not only on our minds but on our hearts?  We must ask who is Jesus praying for?  What is the unity he envisions when he says “that they may all be one”?  How can they be “perfectly one”?

The first thing to note is who Jesus prays for.  John 17.13 says “I do not ask for these only.”  It is clear that Jesus is praying first and foremost for the twelve disciples (John 17.9-12).  He is praying for those who have been called out of the world by Jesus the Christ (John 17.6).  The theme of being called out of the world by the Christ, or Messiah of God is a theme well reflected in the New Testament.  Just as in John’s Gospel it is not sufficient to say simply that we have έκκλησία (assembly) but one must add του θεου (of God) or του κυρίου (of the Lord).  Therefore the N.T. focuses not merely on the assembly, but upon who has called the people to assemble.  Paul will drive the point further when he writes έκκλησία του θεου έν χριστώ Ίησου (1 Thess 2.14, see also 2 Thes 1.1, 1 Cor 1.2).

The increasing Messianic flavor of the έκκλησία in the writings of Paul helps us understand why Jesus begins first by praying for the twelve disciples.  The twelve disciples were after all to become the twelve Apostles who were to reconstitute the twelve tribes of Israel within the έκκλησία of the New Covenant (Jer 31.21).  The transition from disciple to Apostle rests principally upon the vindication of Jesus as the Messiah through few and specific post-resurrection appearances.  That the vindication of Jesus as Messiah through his resurrection from the dead is of principal importance in apostleship is a point which Paul makes in 1 Cor 15.3-11 where he applies this standard not only to himself but to all the Apostles.

The Apostles of the New Testament are made one through their common experience and belief of Jesus as God’s Messiah.  Their unity is not centered around any one person (such as Peter), or any one city (such as Jerusalem), or any one ethnic group (such as the Jews).  Rather, what matters most is the fellowship of those called to assemble by God in the name of Jesus the Messiah.  This is nowhere more evident than Gal 1.11-2.14.  In it we read that “the Gospel preached to me (Paul) is not man’s Gospel.  For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1.11-12).  This Gospel was submitted to “those who seemed influential…in order to make sure I (Paul) was not running the race in vain” (Gal 2.2).  Though Paul’s Gospel was submitted to “those who seemed influential” it is important to note that “what they were makes no difference since God shows no partiality” (Gal 2.6).  Here we see that there are issues at stake regarding Christian unity that transcend the influence and leadership of the Apostles, even the Apostles in Jerusalem.  What is the issue that transcends the influence and leadership of the Apostles?  Paul writes “conduct that is not in step with the truth of the Gospel” (2.14).  In fact, Paul confronted Peter “so that the truth of the Gospel could be preserved” (Gal 2.5)

The principle role of the Apostles was not to preserve an institutional succession therefore, but the succession of the Gospel.  Paul clearly shows that institutional unity must suffer if it comes into conflict with the preservation of the Gospel.  Now we see why Jesus begins his prayer with the twelve.  They are the vehicles for the proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah and it is the substance of their proclamation which is the primary substance of their unity.  Here is the main concern of unity within the Church in the New Testament, as we shall see when we return to John’s Gospel. Jesus prays to the Father “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word” (John 17.20).  A survey of ch. 17 reveals that the word proclaimed by Jesus to the twelve is of tremendous importance for the vitality of the Apostles as well as their unity among themselves as well as their unity to God (John 17.6, 17.8, 17,7).  But now we see that this is not only important for the unity of the Apostles but is also important for the unity of the church that will be formed by the preaching of the Apostles.  “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me, through their word” (John 17.20).  Just as the unity of the Apostles was kept by the integrity of the word proclaimed, so too is the future unity of the church kept by those who believe through the word.  This is a unity not formed by “influential persons” (Gal 2.6), nor is it a unity of place, but a unity of belief through the word as Jesus makes clear “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me, through their word, that they (those who believe through the word of the Apostles) may all be one” (John 17.20).  We see further down that their unity is not only a unity based upon the conviction that Jesus is the Messiah, but we also see that they possess unity that the world may believe Jesus is the Messiah.  “The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me” (John 17.23).

Where the word of the apostles is preached and believed there exist the people who Jesus prayed would be one with himself as well as one with each other.  Two examples of this principle can be recognized in two different episodes reported in Acts ch. 11.

“Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying,  “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” But Peter began and explained it to them in order:  “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, something like a great sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to me. Looking at it closely, I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ But I said, ‘By no means, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ But the voice answered a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, do not call common.’ This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven. And behold, at that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea. And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11.1-18)

The above episode is a continuation of an event recorded first in Acts ch. 10.  In it, Peter, under the direction of God goes to the Gentile Cornelius to extend the ministry of the Gospel beyond the borders of Israel.  Cornelius and several other Gentiles hear the word of the Lord and are immediately filled with the Holy Spirit (10.44).  This episode caused friction in the church in Jerusalem, who had not yet come to believe that Gentiles could also be incorporated into the New Covenant.  What is important for us in this discussion is to notice how the church in Jerusalem came to recognize Cornelius and the other gentile Christians as members of the New Covenant and why they extended fellowship to this new body of the believers.  Peter proclaims to the church in Jerusalem “As I began to speak” (Acts 11.15).  What was Peter speaking?  The content of the proclamation can be found in Acts 10.34-43, but it is essentially that Jesus is God’s chosen Messiah, crucified and raised from the dead.  He will come to judge the world and forgiveness of sins can be had in his name.  Returning to Peter’s speech to the church in Jerusalem we see “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11.15).  Peter then asks “If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” (Acts 11.17).  The force of Peter’s argument was overwhelmingly persuasive to the church in Jerusalem (Acts 11.18).  But what exactly was the argument?  The argument is essentially that once the Gentiles believed God gave them the Holy Spirit.  It is important to note that the Holy Spirit was given to the Gentile believers before the church in Jerusalem had the opportunity to receive them into fellowship.  The gift of the Holy Spirit is not conditional upon the approval of the Apostles or upon an individual congregation, or even upon an association of congregations.  Rather it is dependent upon God as Peter notes “who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”  The second important point to note is that the Gentile believers become like the church in Jerusalem before the church in Jerusalem has the opportunity to recognize them.  Peter says “the Holy Spirit fell on them (the Gentile believers) just as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11.15).  If the Gentile believers were made one with God through the Holy Spirit, and the Jerusalem believers were made one with God through the Holy Spirit, are they not then one in Christ even before they recognize their essential unity?

A similar example can be found in the following paragraphs, as Luke no doubt sets up this narrative beginning early in ch. 10.  In ch. 11.19-24 we read:

“Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose, for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord” (Acts 11.19-24)

Again, notice how the church in Jerusalem sends Barnabas who recognizes what God has already done in Antioch.  Once Barnabas “saw the grace of God” he immediately extends fellowship to the church in Antioch.  Notice that Barnabas is not able to give the grace of God to the Antiochene Christians by extending fellowship, but he extends fellowship because he recognizes the grace of God to already be present.

Therefore it is the reception of the Apostles teaching through faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that causes believers in the New Testament to extend fellowship with one another and physically (and in time institutionally) express a spiritual unity that is already present.  But does the New Testament envision a possibility that would cause believers not to receive someone?  Does the New Testament envision an occurrence that would cause two persons who both claim the name Christian not to receive one another?  Surprisingly, the same John who recorded Jesus’ passionate prayer for unity is also the same man who gives us the clearest direction on when we must not extend the hand of fellowship to those who bear the name Christian.  In 2 John 9-11 we read:

“Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.”

Again, the emphasis is upon the Apostles teaching.  It is important to notice that this passage deals not with the reception of the Apostles teaching but rather upon maintaining the Apostles teaching.  John’s stunning implication is that those who do not “abide in the teaching of Christ” do not have God (2 John 9).  If they do not have God, then they are not one with him nor can they be considered one with the church (John 17.23).  This is presumably regardless of any formal ecclesiastical affiliation.  Notice that structure, location, or affiliation has no bearing on whether or not believers are meant to extend the hand of fellowship.  Rather, we are instructed not to extend fellowship to those who do “not abide in the teaching of Christ.”

This concern is reflected outside of John and can be found in 2^nd Cor 6.14-18.  In this passage we read:

“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?  What accord has Christ with Belial?  Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,

“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
Therefore go out from their midst,
and be separate from them, says the Lord,
and touch no unclean thing;
then I will welcome you,
and I will be a father to you,
and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
says the Lord Almighty.”

The word “unequally yoked” in the Greek is ‘ετερόζυγος.  At the time it meant the mating of animals under a different species, like an ass and an ox.  Paul’s contribution to the discussion on Christian unity is useful at this point.  The unbelievers in the above passage are not un-evangelized pagans but most likely church leaders who have failed to meet the test of faithfulness (2 Cor 13.5).  Paul compares church leaders who do not hold to the Apostle’s teaching to a different species than the church holds to the Apostle’s teaching.  It is clear that according to Paul, a structural unity can exist between unbelievers and believers even if the spiritual unity is not present.  Nevertheless, Paul exhorts the believers not to maintain the structural unity if it is not based upon the spiritual reality.

Conclusion to Part I:

How then do we lead for unity?  From the perspective of the New Testament we should recognize that there is a unity which transcends institutional, geographical, and personal affiliations.  This unity is found in the reception of the Apostles’ teaching by faith and the gift of the Holy Spirit which comes from God.  Wherever the Apostles’ teaching is held by faith and the Holy Spirit dwells there exist believers who are one with God and therefore one with each other.  This unity exists regardless of denominational affiliation and can and does exist outside of Apostolic succession.  With these criteria in mind, one can only wonder why the Diocese of South Carolina has failed to meaningfully extend the hand of fellowship to the ACNA.

Conversely, where the Apostles teaching is not honored there we are told quite frankly that the Holy Spirit does not dwell and thus no true unity may even exist.  We are instructed not to keep fellowship with people who do not honor the teaching of the Apostles because by their actions they prove they do not have the Holy Spirit.  While we recognize that the Diocese of South Carolina has in the past repudiated actions taken by the General Convention of TEC, one wonders if the Biblical principles outlined above regarding discipline and unity have been applied thoroughly enough to our present situation.

We can lead for unity in a way that honors the New Testament by cherishing unity that exists cross denominationally under the confession of Jesus as the Christ.  We ought not to make the mistake of looking only to outward symbols, whether they are bishops, councils, conventions or communions but rather look to the Apostles teaching as the standard by which the Church is recognized in the world.  What then of denominations?  We can be thankful for a good and Godly heritage in the Anglican Communion that honors the notions set forth in the above paragraphs of this paper (as we will later show).  We can be thankful for confessing brothers and sisters both globally and at home and the fellowship we share with them and the Father.  We can be particularly thankful for the fellowship we share with confessing Anglicans at home and abroad.  We can also be thankful for confessing bishops who maintain the unity of the church not by their office alone, but by their office and the clear proclamation of the Gospel.  However we should be wary of any fellowship based upon bishops, councils, conventions and even communions where the Lordship of Jesus Christ is not seen to be honored.  To proclaim unity where the Lordship of Jesus Christ is not recognized is to masquerade a lie as the truth and proclaim a structural unity but not a spiritual unity.

While these conclusions may seem to many to be decidedly “un-Anglican” I believe the following section of this paper will prove that the early Anglican Reformers held convictions regarding the catholicity of the church surprisingly similar to those espoused in the above paragraphs.

Part II:  Early Anglicanism and the Unity of the Church

The General Convention of The Episcopal Church has taken actions which make our common life difficult, and in fact necessitate some change in the way we relate.  The question that lies before us is complicated and cannot be taken lightly.  Many faithful people may find themselves called to respond in different ways.  As Dean Robert Munday has said recently,

“God may lead many to move to a purer fellowship or a “safer” place. But there is also the example of Joseph, who was sold into slavery in Egypt. When he was freed, he could have gone home to be with his family and those who worshiped the true and living God anytime he wanted. But God had planted him in Egypt, and he remained until he died, in order that good might come of it and that God’s people would be blessed.”[1]

It is therefore not the intention of this paper to dictate how the faithful should react to the actions of TEC.  Rather, it is my desire to lay the groundwork for how we think through one aspect of the situation, namely the idea of catholicity.

For years, many of our Orthodox brethren have found remaining in TEC untenable.  This has led to a slow bleed of Orthodox clergy, parishes, and parishioners from The Episcopal Church.  As this has developed, Bishops and Archbishops from all over the world have extended to them the right hand of fellowship and the umbrella of pastoral care.  As it became clear that in TEC the trend towards revisionism was irreversible, these separate groups reunited under a common desire to faithfully preserve and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  In a monumental event of Christian unification, the splintering in the American Episcopal Church over theological revision which had been happening for over 100 years was ended!  Finally, groups with a common theology and a common mission were able to set aside their differences and reunite under a common banner, the Anglican Church of North America.

What now is the Diocese of South Carolina to do?  At the core of that decision making process is the question of where God is calling us to minister.  Will God call us to faithfully fulfill our mission within the structures of The Episcopal Church or apart from it?  It would seem that this decision is very difficult.  And yet, many have made the question easier than it should be.  It would seem that for many in our Diocese there simply is no choice.  There is no choice, because they refuse to acknowledge the validity of our brothers and sisters in the ACNA.  The objections of orthodox Episcopalians to recognize the ACNA all seem to revolve around issues of catholicity.  Before we begin to discuss the soundness of the ACNA in a church which values catholicity, we need to first define how it is that our church defines catholicity.  It is the aim of this paper to briefly articulate the historical understanding of catholicity in the foundations of the Anglican Church and then apply them to our current situation.

If you ask the average informed lay person what it means when we as Anglicans lay claim to catholicity, you are likely to get some reference to how we worship, our liturgy, the frequency of Holy Communion.  If you ask a priest, you are more likely to hear about our structure, the three fold order of ministry, and especially bishops in apostolic succession.  The question arises, is this how early Anglicans viewed Catholicity?  In other words, does Anglicanism mark the Church as that society which is governed by Deacons, Priests, and Bishops ordained under apostolic succession in communion with a historic see (The Archbishop of Canterbury for example)?

At first glance, it would seem so.  We have bishops.  We have Apostolic Succession.  And we have an archbishop.  If we were to stop our examination there, I believe we would be greatly misled as to what the architects of the Anglican Church thought about what the church is.  In order to uncover the ecclesiology of our church, the question we need to be asking is not, “how does our church look,” but rather, “how has ecclesiology been expressed historically in the Anglican Church?”  In order to address that question, we will look primarily at three sources, The Articles of Religion, John Jewel’s Apology of the Church of England, and Richard Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity.

First let me explain why these sources are so important for our task.  Under Henry VIII, the future shape of the Church in England was very tenuous.  Henry was a devout Catholic prior to his divorce from Catherine of Aragon even writing tracts defending catholic doctrines.  Following the departure of the Church of England out from under the Pope’s leadership, however, several Anglican bishops arose who held decidedly Protestant views.  The result was that the Church of England was in a constant pendulum swing between Protestantism and Catholicism.

Henry VIII was succeeded first by his son Edward VI, who reigned from 1547 to 1553, and then Mary I, who reigned from 1553 to 1558.  Edward acceded to the throne as a young boy.  Edward’s youth left it open for the Protestant bishops to take control and force reform on the Church of England.  During Edward’s reign, the Church of England reached the pinnacle of Calvinistic Reform.  After Edward’s death, Mary took control and forced the church in the opposite direction.  Thus from its separation from Rome in the 1530’s until the end of Queen Mary’s reign, the identity of the Anglican Church was up in the air.

Elizabeth’s reign, then, saw the solidification of an Anglican identity pitted against Rome on the one hand and the disestablished church on the other.  It was to be a church of decidedly Protestant Doctrine under a traditional ecclesiastical structure.  Strikingly, the Church of England is one of the only Protestant bodies to retain both the threefold order of ministry and apostolic succession.  Was it then in the mind of the Anglican Reformers that these elements were essential to the nature of the Church?

First we turn to the Articles of Religion.  This confession functioned as the official theology of the Church of England well into its inception.  In fact, English clergy still legally have to ascribe to the Articles, yet there are many who simply pay them lip service.  If we are to discover what the classical ecclesiology of the Anglican Church is, it would help us to examine the Anglican Church’s classical statement of faith.

Surprisingly, the 39 Articles are silent in reference to apostolic succession and they only briefly mention ordering the church with bishops, priests, and deacons.  The Articles do however give a definition of the Church.  Article XIX states “The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the 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.”[2] It could be debated that this only refers to the local church and not to the church catholic.  But compare it to the Belgic Confession, the oldest of Reformed confessions drafted in 1561, just two years prior to the drafting of the 39 Articles.  Article 27 on the Holy Catholic Church states “We believe and confess one single catholic or universal church– a holy congregation and gathering of true Christian believers, awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ being washed by his blood, and sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit.”[3] Note the similarity.  The church (catholic, not local) here is defined as a congregation under the lordship of Jesus.  In other words, the church is united not by its ecclesiastical structure but the proclamation of Jesus.

This similarity runs through almost all of the Reformed confessions of the 16^th century.  While some differences occur, time and time again the Church catholic is defined as the gathering of the faithful.  In its article on “Of The Catholic and Holy Church of God, and of The One Only Head of The Church”, the Second Helvetic Confession defines the church in this way, “The Church is an assembly of the faithful called or gathered out of the world; a communion, I say, of all saints, namely, of those who truly know and rightly worship and serve the true God in Christ the Savior, by the Word and holy Spirit, and who by faith are partakers of all benefits which are freely offered through Christ.”  The 1644 London Baptist Confession of Faith states that the church “as it is visible to us, is a company of visible saints, called and separated from the world, by the Word and the Spirit of God, to the visible profession of the faith of the Gospel, being baptized into the faith, and joined to the Lord, and each other, by mutual agreement, in the practical enjoyment of the ordinances, commanded by Christ their head and King.”  In almost the same wording as the 39 articles, the Augsburg Confession states, “the Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.”  While there are some differences between these confessions, the point stands that the definition of the church in the 39 Articles definitely comes from the same theological trajectory as the Reformed Churches.  Now contrast that with the Council of Trent’s statement on the threefold order of ministry.  “If any one saith, that, in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers; let him be anathema.”[4] Why, if the framers of the Church of England held a catholic ecclesiology, does their definition of the church more closely resemble those of the Reformation confessions than any catholic definition?  It would be logical to conclude that the Anglican Reformers had no sense that Apostolic Succession was necessary for the life of the Church.

We get more insight into how Anglicans identified themselves in opposition to the Roman Church in the works of John Jewel.  Jewel’s An Apology of the Church of England is the first systematic apology for the Church of England written against the Roman Catholics.  In part II of his apology, Jewel affirms several catholic doctrines to show that the Church of England is not some new sect, but rather has continuity with the past.  And yet it is striking, as he seeks to convince the Roman Catholics that the Church of England is part of the true Catholic Church, he does not once make reference to the church’s apostolic succession.  Rather, Jewel insists that the Anglican Church is the Church because the word is rightly preached there.  The Romans accused them of letting any man be a priest or minister.  Jewel points out that the Church of England lawfully appoints ministers, but did not mention their apostolic succession.[5] He even cites the fact that the Church of England is ordered with bishops, priests, and deacons, “Furthermore, (we believe) that there be divers degrees of ministers in the church, whereof some be deacons, some priests, some bishops, to whom is committed the office to instruct the people and the whole charge and setting forth of religion.”[6] And yet although it would give credence to his argument he refuses to mention apostolic succession.

Not only does he fail to use the remaining apostolic succession in the Church of England as a proof of her validity, he actually speaks against it as a sign of authenticity.  Justo Gonzalez says, “even after the Elizabethan settlement, Jewel responded to Catholic arguments: ‘Succession, you say, is the chief way for any Christian man to avoid anti-christ.  I grant you, if you mean succession of doctrine!”[7] Jewel seems to be little concerned with any Episcopal succession from the apostles besides that of the faith once delivered.

Moreover, it can be easily gleaned from Jewel’s work that the church is defined not by structure, but by faith.  He challenges the Roman Church to produce some sign by which they can prove that they are the church.  “I wis it is not so hard a matter to find out God’s church, if a man will seek it earnestly and diligently,” he says, “For the church of God is set upon a high and glistering place, in the top of an hill, and built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.”[8] By the apostles and prophets he makes clear he means the Scriptures.  It is not only the Bible, but right doctrine which is essential to the church.  He quotes St Cyprian saying, “for,’ saith he, ‘that is not peace but war; neither is he joined unto the church which is severed from the Gospel.”[9] And again Jewel states, “God’s grace is promised to a good mind and to one that feareth God, not unto sees and successions.”[10] Thus it is easy to surmise that John Jewel, as official spokesmen for the budding Church of England, did not define the church by the order of her ministry but by the rightness of her doctrine.

Jewel is not the only Elizabethan writing on the church in those days.  We must also look to Richard Hooker.  Hooker followed John Jewel and held a similar task.  Hooker was charged with defending the Church of England against many of her Puritan critics.  The puritan party was so named because of their desire to reform the Church of England more deeply.  One of the chief issues they took with the Established Church was the threefold order of ministry.  Many Puritans criticized the Episcopacy as un-biblical and papalistic.  Much of Hooker’s work is consumed with defending the order of ministry against assaults from the Puritans.

Hooker’s work, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, is of a marked more gentle and charitable tone than Jewel’s.  Hooker accedes much to the Puritans, even at some points acknowledging that Presbyterian government is an acceptable biblical model of church governance.[11] In fact, it would appear that Hooker’s argument for Episcopal orders is very simply this, it works for us!  It is a principle of the English Reformation that the Church does not have to look exactly the same everywhere.  Thus, Hooker accuses the puritans of only desiring to remove themselves as far as possible from the Pope.  He says, “But a greater inconvenience it bred, that every later endeavoured to be certain degrees more removed from conformity with the church of Rome, than the rest before had been: whereupon grew marvelous great dissimilitudes, and by reason thereof, jealousies, heart-burnings, jars, and discords amongst them.”[12] Thus, Hookers apology to the puritans is not that the Episcopal church is a more valid church than the Presbyterian church because of their catholic orders.  Rather, Hooker pleads with the puritans to allow a diversity of opinion allowed in the structure of the church.[13]

In fact, Hooker works hard to prove that church order is not essential to the nature of the church.  He states that the whole debate is “of outward things appertaining to the Church of Christ, than of any thing wherein the nature and being of the Church consisteth…”[14] In other words, the order of the church (other than that there should be some order)[15] is not essential to the church’s existence.  In fact, Hooker goes to great lengths to establish that there is a difference in degree of importance between matters of faith and matters of order.[16] He does so, because his definition of the Church is conditional not upon order, but upon doctrine.

Hooker not only defines the church, he also works to define Christian unity.  According to Hooker, the Catholic Church exists in the unity between the several different societies of churches.  Thus, “so the Catholic Church is in like sort divided into a number of distinct Societies, every of which is termed a Church within itself.”[17] All throughout the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Hooker shows that he considers the Lutheran churches in Germany and the Huguenot churches in France to be true Churches in unity with the Catholic Church.  He does so because he holds that these societies are unified in that they hold one faith, they worship the same God, and individuals are admitted into the Church in the same baptism.  “The unity of which visible body and Church of Christ consisteth in that uniformity which all several persons thereunto belonging have, by reason of that one Lord whose servants they all profess themselves, that one Faith which they all acknowledge, that one Baptism wherewith they are all initiated.  The visible Church of Jesus Christ is therefore one, in outward profession of those things, which supernaturally appertain to the very essence of Christianity.”  Throughout his apology, Hooker never once mentions either the office of bishop or the succession from the apostles as essential either to the nature of the church or its unity.

Part II:  Conclusion

Thus it can be plainly shown that early in the Anglican Church an ecclesiology was developed, proclaimed, and made official which has fallen out of vogue in many corners of the Anglican world.  It is obvious that for the framers of the Church of England, the church was defined by the faith that was proclaimed.  Not only that, but Christian unity was explicitly linked not to any particular order or office in the church, but rather to the spiritual unity of being united to Christ by faith.

One more point must be made about this period in the churches history.  It is plainly noted that no author in the Church of England during the Elizabethan period (and few until the Oxford Movement of the 1840’s) ever envisioned that any of the other Reformed churches were any less of a church than the church of England.  It is curious then that in all of our deliberations we would fail to acknowledge a church which carries apostolic succession, a three-fold order of ministry, holds the Creeds as a sufficient statement of faith, and reveres the Scriptures as the Word of God.  To fail to extend the hand of fellowship to the ACNA because we disagree with some aspects of their ordering appears from this viewpoint to be an act, not of unity, but of disunity.

Again, it is not our purpose here to propose or dictate any way forward.  It is not even our purpose here to propose any departure from The Episcopal Church.  Our purpose is simply to articulate a sincere reservation in taking actions which appear to reward a church which is in the process of abdicating more of the Christian faith every time it meets together and which appear to punish a church which is seeking to be faithful to the same Lord that we serve.  If Christian unity is a matter of spiritual union between those who have been reborn, and if the Catholic Church is in fact the congregation of the faithful across the world and through the ages, we are already ontologically united with the ACNA by virtue of our “one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all.”[18] Why do we then continue to lie about what God has made us by failing to recognize our brothers and sisters in Christ?

---

[1] http://toalltheworld.blogspot.com/2009/07/decompressing.html

[2] http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

[3] http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/BelgicConfession.html

[4] http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct23.html, Council of Trent Canons 23^rd session canon 6.

[5] John Jewel, An Apology of the Church of England, ed. J.E. Booty, (New York: Church Publishing Incorporated, 2002), p. 26.

[6] Jewel, 24

[7] Justo Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought: From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century, vol III, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975) p. 193.

[8] Jewel, 76.

[9] Jewel, 137.

[10] Jewel, 128.

[11]Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003), p. 80.

[12] Hooker, 81.

[13] “The one way they cannot as much as pretend, that all the parts of their own discipline are in Scripture: and the other way their mouths are stopped, when they would plead against all other forms besides their own; seeing the general principles are such as do not particularly prescribe any one, but sundry may equally be consonant unto the general axioms of the Scripture.”  Hooker, 298

[14] Hooker, 283.

[15] “And of such properties common unto all societies Christian, it may not be denied that one of the very chiefest is Ecclesiastical Polity…  Even so the necessity of polity and regiment in all Churches may be held without holding any one certain from to be necessary in them all.”  Hooker, 297.

[16] “For if matters of discipline be rightly by them distinguished from matters of doctrine, why not matters of government by us as reasonably set against matters of faith?”  Hooker, 300.

[17] Hooker, 296.

[18] Ephesians 4:5-6.