My fifth example comes from the contemporary church, and surprisingly enough from the Anglican Church.
At the Lambeth Conference of 1958, the bishops produced quite a good statement about Scripture, and I want to quote this part of it to you:
The church is not over the holy scriptures, but under them, in the sense that the process of canonization was not one whereby the church conferred authority on the books, but one whereby the church acknowledged them to possess authority. And why? The books were recognized as giving the witness of the apostles to the life, teaching, death and resurrection of the Lord, and the interpretation by the apostles of these events. To that apostolic authority the church must ever bow.
So there is the need for the church to bow down before the authority of the Apostles. So it is time to sum up and conclude:
Firstly, our Lord Jesus Christ repeatedly endorsed the authority of the Old Testament, by appealing to it, and by submitting to its authority himself. And secondly, Our Lord Jesus Christ deliberately provided for the writing of the New Testament by appointing and equipping his Apostles to speak and teach in his name. Thus both the Old Testament and the New Testament, although in different ways, bear the stamp of his authority. Therefore, if we wish to submit to the authority of Christ, we must submit to the authority of scripture. If we wish to hear the voice of Christ, we must listen to Scripture through which he speaks. To the authority of Scripture carries with it the authority of Christ.
So the ultimate question before us tonight, and the ultimate question before the whole church today is: ”˜Who is the Lord?’ Is the church the lord of Jesus Christ ”“ so that it has the liberty to edit and manipulate his teaching? Or is Jesus Christ the lord of the church ”“ so that it must believe and obey him? And since Jesus Christ is Lord there should be no hesitation on our part about our answer to those questions.
Let us pray”¦we will spend a moment or two of silent reflection and prayer, especially that we ourselves may be submissive and obedient to the Scriptures, and so to Christ:
We desire to thank you very much heavenly Father that you have given us in the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments an authoritative and definitive revelation of yourself. We ask your forgiveness for times when we have presumed to disagree with what is written in Scripture. We pray for a new humility and a new obedience. We pray the same for the churches from which we come, to which we belong, that they may be truly biblical churches submissive to your authority. Hear us in our prayers, in the name and for the glory of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.
I would just add that it would seem that too often sermons focus on the New Testament exclusively, whereas the New Testament depends on the Old Testament for its proper interpretation and understanding.
Agreed, Adam 12 (#1).
One of my former OT profs used to joke along those lines that the NT was really an “appendix” to the OT, and he was only half-joking. Marcianism is alive and well in much of the Church today.
But I’ll venture a more controversial statement, just to spice things up and perhaps prompt more interest in this seemingly bland thread. Just what constitutes the “Old Testament” anyway? It turns out that not all of us Anglicans are agreed on that seemingly obvious point. Clearly, the great majority of Anglicans (not least in Africa) would take it for granted that the Protestant canon of 39 OT books is what is normative and authoritative in Anglicanism. And Article VI of the 39 Articles would certainly suggest that, without however making clear the exact status of the books that Protestants call “the Apocrypha” and that some Anglicans, myself included, prefer to call “the Deutero-canonical books.”
For this is actually one of the places where our Anglican heritage is rather ambiguous, since the Prayerbook is not fully consistent with the Articles here, including as it does mandatory readings in public worshiip from at least some of those peripheral books from the intertestamental period. After all, it is significant that we still refer to the most important of those books, the Proverbs-like book known to scholars generally as Sirach or Ben Sira (“the Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach,)” by the highly signficant name of “Ecclesiasticus,” which means “The Church’s Book.” Note, not “the synagogue’s book” or “the Catholic Church’s book,” but simply and tellingly, “The Church’s book,” including the Church of England’s book.
I know that John Stott would frown on this, but I’m quite willing to declare openly and publicly, that I operate on the basis of the same 46 book canon of the OT as do Roman Catholics, although I also am careful to make a stronger distinction between the primary and secondary canons than RCs do, i.e., I would subordinate those extra seven books more firmly and clearly than they would. But on this seemingly minor matter, I regard Trent as being wiser and more reliable than the 39 Articles, which are, as Newman wryly noted with typical Britsih understatement, “the fruit of an unCatholic age.”
This obviously is one of those disputed matters that acts like a Continental Divide among Anglicans, separating those who like John Stott are fairly described as “liturgical Protestants” and those like me that are better described as “biblical Catholics.”
But whether we’re Evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics at heart, we can all agree that Holy Scripture has a unique and unrivalled authority that must be vigorously reasserted in our time.
David Handy+
[blockquote] “For this is actually one of the places where our Anglican heritage is rather ambiguous, since the Prayerbook is not fully consistent with the Articles here, including as it does mandatory readings in public worshiip from at least some of those peripheral books from the intertestamental period.” [/blockquote]
Why does this lead to an ambiguity? Let’s look at what Articles VI actually states:
[blockquote] “And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine”. [/blockquote]
This is hardly inconsistent with the Book of Common Prayer; rather the reverse. The article states “The Church doth read”, therefore finding passages from the apocrypha in the Book of Common Prayer is precisely what we should expect. But we know the basis on which they are so read, which is not as canonical scripture, any more than Cranmer’s prayers in the BCP thereby become canonical scripture.
[blockquote] “those like me that are better described as “biblical Catholicsâ€.” [/blockquote]
A good title to adopt. But the position set out in Article VI is the truly catholic position. As Metzger puts it: “Subsequent to Jerome’s time and down to the period of the reformation a continuous succession of the more learned Fathers and theologians in the West maintained the distinctive and unique authority of the books of the Hebrew canon”. There was always a small minority that asserted that the apocrypha could be classed as canonical scripture, but they were just that: a minority.
This applied as late as the Diet of Augsburg in 1518, where the papal legate, Cardinal Cajetan, agreed with Luther that the apocryphal books were not of the same status as the Hebrew canon. It was only 30 years later at the Council of Trent that the Roman Church moved to a position of declaring the Apocrypha (for the first time) to be canonical scripture, because the RC divines found that they could not justify some of the doctrines they wanted to espouse using only the Hebrew canon.
I don’t know how much agreement people can have when they are not agreed on what the object of their agreement is! I also suggest that we must be careful about implying that all anglo-catholics accept the apocrypha as canonical scripture. Some do, but many do not.
One more thing: the title Ecclesiasticus appears to have been bestowed on the book of Sirach precisely because it was not recognised as canonical scripture. The name denotes that it was “the book that is read in churches [even though it is not in the canon]”.
MichaelA,
Thanks for a typically thoughtful and illuminating response to my rather provocative #2 above. I appreciate the respectful tone, especially when coming from someone in the Sydney mold, and I’ll try to reply in kind.
Alas, the fact that you and I live on opposite sides of the “Continental Divide” I mentioned earlier, you as a “liturgical Protestant” and I as a “biblical Catholic,” does make communication difficult at times, as our governing paradigms can be so different. This is probably not the thread to argue in full the rightful status within Anglicanism of the disputed extra books known as either “the Apocrypha” or the Deutero-canonicals,” as somewhat off-topic, but I’ll venture a few counter assertions just to stir the pot and hopefully draw some other people into the fray, making the discussion more lively and enlightening.
I had an earlier attempt at a comprehensive response disappear into cyberspace, but I’ll proceed in stages, by breaking up my reply into several parts, which should be less intimidating to readers.
1. I stand by my claim above that the precise status of the Greek OT books not found in the Hebrew canon is ambiguous, not least because there is a very real tension that implicitly exists between the way the Articles treat them and the way the BCP tradition does (with the telling exception of the 1552 version, which dispenses with them). That is, yes, Michael, you’re right that the 1559 and 1662 BCP use of those disputed books most certainly CAN be interpreted in the minimalistic way you suggested, i.e., as merely for instruction in morals and devotionally edifying. However, my point is that the BCP does not necessarily NEED to be taken in that fashion, but is capable of being read in a more catholic way that sees them as genuinely canonical, but at a lower level of inspiration and authority than the rest of the OT.
To be continued…
David Handy+
Continuing my #5 in reply to MichaelA’s #3-4,
2. After all, who says that the English Reformers are the primary guides we should follow in determining what is authentic Anglicanism and what is not?? There are many of us who think that the later (and more balanced) Caroline Divines of the mid-17th century are much better and more reliable guides. That is, e.g., Lancelot Andrewes, John Pearson, and George Herbert are better guides than Hugh Latimer, Matthew Parker, or John Jewel, etc. But that is just another way of stating that Anglicanism is really not theologically coherent, at least not in the way that Lutheranism or Calvinism is.
3. While I’m well aware of the sort of historical data you mention, Michael, that underlines that Trent’s way of formally defining the limits of the OT was new in some ways, and a partisan choosing of sides, I’m also aware of other historical data you left out. The most significant of which is that Jerome was very definitely in a small minority when it came to his rather disparaging attitude toward the Deutero-canonical books, in favor of “the Hebrew veritas.” As you surely know, Michael, Augustine was quite critical of Jerome for that, and most of us would agree that Augustine was a much better theologian than Jerome, even if Jerome was a better biblical scholar.
To be continued…
David Handy+
Third installment in my series,
4. When it comes to assessing Anglicanism’s historical record on this issue, there are contrasting trends that are very clear, although their cumulative value or how to adjudicate them is not so clear. That is, there have been repeated attempts by Puritan or Protestant-minded leaders to dispose of the “Apocrypha” once and for all, as part of their desire to purify Anglicanism from all remaining traces of “popery.” Significantly, Cranmer in 1552 did just that, eliminating the extra books entirely (even the beloved canticles from the Greek version of Daniel were dropped from Morning Prayer, the [i]Benedicite, Omnia Opera Domini[/i] being replaced by Psalm 148, etc.). But an often-overlooked part of the Elizabethan Settlement was to restore the use of those added books in 1559. And when Reformed leaders like John Jewel protested, Queen Elizabeth shrugged it off and insisted that she wouldn’t budge, and as Supreme Governor of the CoE she didn’t have to do so.
Likewise, after her death in 1603, when James became king, he was presented with the famous “Millenary Pettition” (signed by over a thousand Puritan clergy) on route from Scotland to London, and one of the key demands made in that Puritan appeal was for final elimination of the Apocrypha, in keeping with the best Reformed practice on the Continent and in Scotland. As you know, Michael, King James staunchly refused. And when he agreed to the Puritan request for a fresh and improved translation of the Scriptures, it’s highly significant that the Authorized Version pointedly included the Apocrypha, albeit printed in a seprate section, following the Lutheran precedent.
Later, at the time of the bitter English Civil War, when Parliament and the Cromwellian party triumphed, one of the results was that use of the Deutero-canonical books was proscribed in the CoE, along with the BCP itself, in good Reformed fashion. But after Charles II was called back to the throne, a notable part of the Restoration of Prayerbook religion was the restoration of the apocryphal books as well, despite Puritan objections.
IOW, despite repeated attempts to purify the CoE of the unProtestant use of those “catholic” books, there has also been a firm and resolute push back that has preserved a limited place for them within Anglicanism. And when it comes to that steadfast resistance to Puritanism within Anglicanism, I (for one) think that IIt is meet and right so to do.” At least, I think it’s safe to conclude that such a mixed historical testimony suggests that the place of the disputed books is indeed ambiguous within Anglicanism.
5. But all of that is really just another way of posing the fundamental question: Is Anglicanism to be seen as simply “the English form of Protestantism?” Or is it rather to be interpreted as a true Protestant-Catholic hybrid? Is Anglicanism rightly regarded as, to use a buiness analogy, a “wholly owned subsidiary of Protestantism” or is it more than that? Or to use my favored 3-D analogy, is Anglicanism merely and one-sidedly Protestant (and hence basically one dimentional), or is it richer and more complicated than that? Namely, is Anglicanism at its best truly two-dimensional in being genuinely evangelical and catholic at the same time? (Leaving aside for now the no less important charismatic dimension that is required to be fully biblical and 3-D).
David Handy+
Fourth and final installment in my series,
In conclusion, let me make it clear that my comments above aren’t meant polemically. I genuinely would like to shed more light than heat, even though I fully recognize that the position that I’ve staked out above is highly controversial, and not just in hyper-Protestant Sydney. So let me try to strike a more irenic and conciliatory tone as I wrap up. I hope that it’s clear that I was trying to speak in a self-differentiating way. For a long time my motto as a frequent blogger has been this mantra:
“[i]Say what you mean. Mean what you say. Then let the chips fall where they may.[/i]”
That is the only way fruitful dialogue can take place when radically different viewpoints are held by dedicated Christians. And I’m sure Michael would agree iwth me on that, at least.
So here are my two parting shots, in self-differentiation mode.
A. One of the key issues this thread discussion raises has to do with the proper interpretation of our historic Anglican formularies. The FCA movement, precisely by trying to rehabilitate the rightful place of those venerable classic formularies as a basis for common ground among CONFESSING Anglicans, needs to pay attention to the inherent ambiguities within our heritage. There is an old adage that half-jokingly suggests that Anglicanism is distinguished by its unique combination of a “Protestant confession” (the Articles, to which the two Reformation era Books of Homilies might be added in support) along with a “Catholic prayerbook.” Now the latter assessment is obviously more dubious than the former, but I think the same fundamental tension is evident when it comes to the implicit place of the Deutero-canonical books. The Articles and the BCP need not be taken as fully consistent with each other, and IMHO, they aren’t, but rather point in somewhat different directions.
B. Going out on a limb, let me get personal for a moment. I trust you won’t take this personally, Michael, but if the Sydney brand of hardcore, ultra-Protestant, neo-Puritan Anglicanism ever becomes dominant in worldwide Anglicanism, then I will reluctantly swim the Tiber at last. I simply can’t abide Puritanism. When I left my Presbyterian roots to become an Anglo-Catholic (although of the 3-D, evangelical and charismatic type), I turned my back on Calvinism forever. I didn’t make all the relational sacrifices that I did just to become a mildly Reformed Christian with vestments and nice music. No, I turned my back on Reformed Christianity once and for all. (Although let me be clear that I continue to respect and read Reformed Anglican leaders like John Stott or James Packer, etc.). After all, “[i]Once an alumnus of Wheaton, always an alumnus of Wheaton.[/i]” But it’s also true, and no less important, that “[i]Once an ordinand of Albany, always an ordinand of Albany.[/i]” And if that seems confusing and inconsistent, well, what’s new? We Anglicans have never been known for being very consistent, have we??
Cordially,
David Handy+
[blockquote] “After all, who says that the English Reformers are the primary guides we should follow in determining what is authentic Anglicanism and what is not?? There are many of us who think that the later (and more balanced) Caroline Divines of the mid-17th century are much better…†[/blockquote]
Ummm, you did! Well, more accurately, you suggested that there was ambiguity between the BCP and the Articles. I disagreed with that. I really don’t see the point of bringing in later theologians – both your original statement and my response were directed to whether there is an ambiguity between earlier documents
[blockquote] “The most significant of which is that Jerome was very definitely in a small minority when it came to his rather disparaging attitude toward the Deutero-canonical books, in favor of “the Hebrew veritasâ€.†[/blockquote]
I think Augustine was the one in the small minority.
[blockquote] “As you surely know, Michael, Augustine was quite critical of Jerome for that, and most of us would agree that Augustine was a much better theologian than Jerome, even if Jerome was a better biblical scholar.†[/blockquote]
Put that way, we can dispose of every debate between theologians by deciding which one is classed as “better†and then preferring his opinion on everything!
[blockquote] “When it comes to assessing Anglicanism’s historical record on this issue, there are contrasting trends…†[/blockquote]
I am sorry, but I just don’t have time to debate the entire history of Anglicanism! As it is, I have to apologise for taking this long to respond but I have been away from blogs for a week. My comment was simply dealing with whether there is any real ambiguity between the way the Articles treat the Apocrypha and the way the BCP treats it, and I suggest there is no such ambiguity, particularly when we appreciate that the Articles do not outright reject the Apocrypha.
[blockquote] “Going out on a limb, let me get personal for a moment. I trust you won’t take this personally, Michael, but if the Sydney brand of hardcore, ultra-Protestant, neo-Puritan Anglicanism ever becomes dominant in worldwide Anglicanism, then I will reluctantly swim the Tiber at last.†[/blockquote]
I can’t comment on this David+. Your concept of “Sydney†has always been so wildly at variance with the reality (in just about every aspect, positive, negative and neutral) that no comment is possible. If you have to swim the Tiber to avoid the Sydney-Ogre, then do so with my blessing. I would rather you be happy where you are.