The recent Jerusalem declaration made by the self-proclaimed ‘orthodox’ Anglican movement includes the statement that the 39 Articles are to be required as one of the mandatory fundaments of ‘orthodox Anglicanism.’ This is certainly bizarre – especially since they have not been that for the entire history of The Episcopal Church. Moreover, they entire concept of the GAFCON confessional statement being the basis of orthodoxy and the sole basis for the ecclesiastical validity of any provinces within the Anglican Communion, is completely out of line with Anglicanism in general, and The Episcopal Church’s own history. This is important, because most of the Americans involved with GAFCON have repeatedly said that The Episcopal Church has changed from what it once was. That is of course true in the same sense that the United States has ‘changed’ from what it once was – as do all growing things. But constitutionally and theologically – I’m not sure how true that really is. In terms of our forms, our ‘faith and order,’ at least as it pertains to primary doctrine – we have not changed that much as far as I can tell. Moreover, we have always possessed a great deal of diversity theologically – and have nearly come apart because of it – but managed to get through it out of love for Christian unity.
A Recap of Our Founding Years in Philadelphia
- The Episcopal Church’s faith and order owes a great deal to the General Convention of 1789. It was at that gathering that Episcopalians in the thirteen colonies really came together to form a cohesive church. Until that time, it was not clear whether the Connecticut and other New England states would join with the Middle Atlantic and Southern states who had already formed a united Episcopal Church entity. The Connecticut clergy especially were wary of the wider movement toward unity – and likewise – many in the Middle Atlantic and South were wary of the Bishop of Connecticut who was consecrated by the Scottish non-jurors, and who remained a Tory politically. In the 1786 General Convention, some worked against the acceptance of Seabury’s episcopacy – but the force of William White (still a presbyter) kept that from succeeding. In the three years after it, White and Provoost became bishops consecrated by the Church of England, and Provoost remained antagonistic to Seabury.
- At the 1789 Convention, however, and thanks to White’s strong leadership, the differences were overcome by unity. The 1789 General Convention adopted not the ‘radically’ amended 1785 Proposed Book, but rather a more mildly amended version of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer with, including some alterations to the eucharistic rite requested by the Scottish non-jurors. Notable among the amendments were the removal of the Athanasian Creed – despite efforts by Seabury to keep it in.
- Interestingly, the Thirty-nine Articles were not even accepted for the back-matter of the Prayer Book until 1801. Provoost and Madison opposed them, Seabury claimed to be indifferent to them (seeing them as too Calvinist), and it was William White who was their main advocate among the bishops. Ultimately, the Articles were adopted with minor changes consistent with the American situation – and they were to become bound with the Prayer Book, but not regarded as an intrinsic part of the Prayer Book. Formal subscription to them was not required of ordinands.
(These bullets above are my paraphrase of material from William Wilson Manross’ article on William White in Walter Herbert Stowe’s 1937 book, The Life and Letters of Bishop William White, pp. 113-116)
5 comments:
I long ago decided that the 39 Articles were hardly an accurate expression of our Anglican Christian Faith. There is in them far too much of the Calvinist take on things. I especially find repugnant Article XVII, which affirms double predestination. I agree with a 16th century critic of Calvin who said that Calvin in this doctrine makes God out to be worse than the devil. At least with the devil you can say No.
In the current situation, the FOCA group declares them to be dogma, knowing full well a large number of Anglicans who have bothered to read them will reject such a divisive position. The 39 Articles are a part of our history, but to insist that they be assented to as doctrine is a non-starter.
It is interesting that so many of the breakaway Anglican bodies in the USA, mostly formed after 1979, declare that they hold to the 39 Articles. They are welcome to them.
I actually like most of the articles of 1801 - and I believe that Article XVII does quite the opposite of what you suggest.
William Reed Huntington wrote:
"The Confessions have their day and cease to be; the Creeds live on—all the days are theirs. The Creeds are like Stonehenge and the Pyramids;—to go at them with hammer and chisel, under a pretext of reparation, were little short of sacrilege. The Thirty-nine Articles are a sixteenth century Episcopal residence of many rooms, some of them much out of repair."
and the 1968 Lambeth Conference resolved:
"The Ministry - The Thirty-Nine Articles
"The Conference accepts the main conclusion of the Report of the Archbishops' Commission on Christian Doctrine entitled "Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles" (1968) and in furtherance of its recommendation:
(a) suggests that each Church of our Communion consider whether the Articles need be bound up with its Prayer Book;
(b) suggests to the Churches of the Anglican Communion that assent to the Thirty-nine Articles be no longer required of ordinands;
(c) suggests that, when subscription is required to the Articles or other elements in the Anglican tradition, it should be required, and given, only in the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historical context."
It seems to me that the idea that the 39 Articles should be some sort of confessional formula is simply taking a snapshot of one period of Anglican history and insisting it is the entire picture.
David+
William Reed Huntington wrote:
"The Confessions have their day and cease to be; the Creeds live on—all the days are theirs. The Creeds are like Stonehenge and the Pyramids;—to go at them with hammer and chisel, under a pretext of reparation, were little short of sacrilege. The Thirty-nine Articles are a sixteenth century Episcopal residence of many rooms, some of them much out of repair."
and the 1968 Lambeth Conference resolved:
"The Ministry - The Thirty-Nine Articles
"The Conference accepts the main conclusion of the Report of the Archbishops' Commission on Christian Doctrine entitled "Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles" (1968) and in furtherance of its recommendation:
(a) suggests that each Church of our Communion consider whether the Articles need be bound up with its Prayer Book;
(b) suggests to the Churches of the Anglican Communion that assent to the Thirty-nine Articles be no longer required of ordinands;
(c) suggests that, when subscription is required to the Articles or other elements in the Anglican tradition, it should be required, and given, only in the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historical context."
It seems to me that the idea that the 39 Articles should be some sort of confessional formula is simply taking a snapshot of one period of Anglican history and insisting it is the entire picture.
David+
I think that's one of the problems with the Articles of Religion - no one really agrees what they mean. Part of the problem is the language - I've never been able to make heads or tails out of Article XVII. Part of the problem seems to be that people read as much into the Articles as they get out of them.
An example: Article VI says "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." I read this as saying that you can't insist that someone accept a doctrine not found in Scripture (say, Papal Infallibility). Many in the FOCA camp seem to read it as a warrant for insisting that everyone hew to their own supposedly unchanging interpretation of Scripture (Paul says homosexuality - or women speaking in church - is forbidden, so we have agree).
Post a Comment