Jul 19
39 (in)definite articles
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.
July 19th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
By complete coincidence, the summer study I am doing for our churches this year is on the Thirty-Nine Articles. I’ve already run into the problem that there is very little contemporary material. Gerald Bray recommends Oliver O’Donovan’s ‘Conversations with Tudor Christianity’.
In order to get through the material in five sessions, I’m taking the Articles under headings rather than in order. The headings are Scripture (6-8, 17-22, 25, 28, 34, 37), Salvation (1-18, 20, 21, 31), the Church (19-21, 23, 24, 26, 32-36), the Sacraments (19, 23-30), the State (7, 21, 23, 34, 36-39), although other arrangements are possible.
That’s about as far as I’ve got!
July 19th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
John, I don’t by any means expect you to agree with what I say, but I shall be interested in your reactions as someone at the conservative end of the spectrum. I’m not, however, going to set out to attack any particular viewpoint, merely ruminate on my own.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Hi Doug. Due as much as anything else to restrictions of time (about 90 minutes per session overall), I’m not going into much consideration of whether the Articles are right. My focus will be on what they say and, to some extent, why they say it, with only the briefest necessary treatment of the justification for this.
So, for example, I’ve finished the first draft of the talk on Scripture, but, in view of local practice, had to give some thought to Article XXXIV’s bearing on the issue of robes (which I generally tend to wear, but don’t wear always). Clearly the Articles would treat this as something “ordained only by man’s authority”, but clearly also the expectation is that “private judgement” is not a good enough reason to leave them off.
That should produce some interesting discussion!
July 20th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
[...] quotes article XXIV of the Thirty-Nine Articles (on which Doug is just starting a series, from a rather different perspective): It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all [...]