In the raging row of sexuality and episcopacy engulfing the Anglican Communion, there’s been a tendency for “conservative” bloggers and writers (e.g. here) to lay claim to the 39 Articles of Religion as a demonstration that they are indeed representing authentic Anglicanism. They are also featured clearly on the websites of conservative Anglican lobby groups like Church Society (in a “contemporary”(!) English version) and Reform.
“Liberal” sites and writers largely ignore them, and feel themselves justified in doing so by the comparatively weak declaration of assent now required of Anglican clergy, which simply refers to them as “historic formularies.”
I A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorised or allowed by Canon.
It is highly unlikely that anyone nowadays would seek to justify their position in the way Newman notoriously did in his Tract 90, and seek to show that the articles could support their position. In part it was Newman’s ingenious tweaking of the wax nose of the articles that contributed to them losing their former preeminence.
In what I expect to be an occasional series, I want to start a conversation with the 39 articles, and bring contemporary readings of scripture and tradition into that conversation. I think that, like all Church tradition, they need to be treated more seriously than an historical anachronism. They are, even on their own terms, open to revision and reformation. No reading of them can claim they should be excluded from semper reformanda.
They belong also in a package with the worshipping life of the church, anchored as they are to the prayer book and ordinal. Turning to the articles alone, as though they were a complete and discrete confession of faith, seems to me unjustified both in historical and theological terms. They are much more like a series of boundary markers laid down in the disputes of the Reformation. Those disputes look different today, and many (most?) of our questions were not even on the horizon. Some of the boundary markers may need moving, some may be wrong, and some may need shoring up.
This series could take a long time: I don’t intend to post items frequently and I do intend to give each article at least one post to itself. So if you’re at all interested, keep tuned.
