Lambeth 1968 resolution 43 allows different dioceses to decide if ordinals should sign to say they hold to the Articles. However, I also think there is some collegiality in that if someone is ordained in different dioceses there is mutual agreement of recognising their ordination. How does this reciprocity work in regards to the Thirty-nine Articles? Is this too pedantic a question to ask, and if so, doesn't that already say something about the place of the Thirty-nine Articles today?
In my dioceses ministers are to sign to say they agree with the Articles, and yet I don't think I have ever heard something from The Second Book of Homilies read in church (Article XXXV), nor have I been part of a church gathering that was commanded by a Prince (Article XXI). While these two examples are perhaps extreme cases, what do we do with them alongside some pretty key and valid Articles on who is Jesus, what we define as the Bible, how people are saved, free will, predestination etc... all of which I agree. (Article III may need a longer conversation for some other time).
In this short book, Packer looks at the use of the Articles in the Anglican church and wonders where it is being used, besides being a historical note in theological colleges and no more. He looks at the historical development and reception of the articles and argues that they still have a place today.
The Articles are over 400 years old, so we do need to read them through their original contextual lens. There is much pushing against the Catholic church as these were framed as the church was reforming from Rome and was trying to ensure uniformity throughout the land. We must remember this, as we shouldn't try and get the Articles to say something that it isn't saying. This does mean, if we were to use them in any contemporary setting, we may need some historical understanding of their original intent first.
However, Packer by no means argues we should move on from these, or even redraft the Articles. What I most found helpful was his argument that we should approach these Articles in the same way we approach the creeds. We don't think we need to modify or adjust the creeds, the church has received them long before us. Instead, we can and should engage with them, not with the interest of redrafting them, but for our own faith to seek understanding (to steal a phrase from Anselm). Within the Thirty-nine Articles themselves, it sets the terms of how we can engage with them, for it states that the Bible trumps them (in matters of salvation) (Article VI).
Packer sees these Articles as a good ballast in keeping the Anglican church afloat and jettisoning them would probably do more harm than good. I kinda agree, in that, if we were to remove the Articles, what would we point to as to what the specific Anglican church believes? What would separate the Anglican church from other churches, political parties of social gatherings if it didn't have basic tenets to what it stood for? For any organisation to exist and have any sort of direction it needs to know what it is on about, and the Articles are a good place to start for all employees to agree on (laity have never been asked to subscribe to the Articles). While the Articles may not cover enough in some areas, it does at least present a good theology of God, Christology, Soteriology and is clear on the sacraments. That is a pretty good base, and besides, if it said too much, it would also seem quite restrictive and not allow room for differences, which is something the Anglican church does pride itself on.
What I would have liked is to have seen in this book is Packer to engage directly with some specifics in the Articles, as really in this book it treats them as one homogeneous unit. While on the whole, I don't want to remove the Articles from the church at all, I would however want a nuanced discussion on them and a system or method on how we approach these articles regulating which are to be treated as historical and which are to be still held to and defended to the death.
0 comments:
Post a Comment