Aug 26
A wrong emphasis on works (art. XII)
(This post is part of a series on the 39 articles of the Church of England)
The twelfth article is one of several dealing with that hot topic of the Reformation, the relationship of faith and works. I’ve already noted my view that Paul is not, in fact, talking about the same things as the Reformers, and that view inevitably forms the backdrop to my comments.
XII . Of Good Works
Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgement; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.
Essentially, this article seeks to oppose the idea that some might have drawn from the Reformers’ view of justification, that since nothing we do can earn God’s favour, there’s not much point in trying to do good. They found a similar view opposed in Paul:
What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it? (Romans 6:1-2 NRSV)
Yet what for Paul is a rhetorical strategy seems for them to become a very real fear. Once you’ve stressed, as they did (articles XII and XIII are really the wrong way round) that good works can’t earn God’s favour, and in fact, aren’t really good at all, it can be difficult to assert the place of them in Christian life. Insisting on their uselessness before conversion, means one has to accomplish a harder task to make the useful afterwards.
Unfortunately, this idea of earning God’s favour gains far too much ground in the late Middle Ages, and in some ways its prominence in the Reformation debates ensures that it never goes away, but regularly re-emerges in what seems to be a characteristic Pelagianism that haunts the English speaking peoples in particular. But it is largely alien to the biblical material of both Testaments, and entirely alien to Paul.
Despite the apparent wording of the article, it is far less that good works come naturally to those who have a lively faith, but more that, living by the gracious love of the covenant God, the people of God seek to live lives of loving faithfulness in return. On this Jew and Christian agree: where they differ is on what the pattern and markers of faithfulness are: Law or Christ’s faithful obedience. One might also add that Protestant and Catholic agree, but differ on how that faithful obedience should be worked out.
Paul is quite clear that faith implies and encompasses faithfulness, that the Spirit engenders and empowers virtuous character and good deeds. At least we can be thankful that the article affirms that right faith and righteous living are meant to go hand in hand, even if the means by which it gets there, and the way it expresses it, are rather strange. The mystery is that anyone ever thought (or more likely were thought to think) otherwise.
We may also be profoundly thankful that the Anglican reformers avoided the odd statement of the Westminster Confession, that “Good works are only such as God has commanded in His holy Word” By remaining as general as they do, they also allow more attention to be paid to the art of moral discernment and judgement as a gift of the Spirit, and the work of the biblically informed mind. The Anglican Reformers did not believe that for a thing to be good or right it had to be expressly commanded in Scripture. In this too, they are more in line with Paul, who sees wisdom, character, and growth into the full maturity of Christ as an ongoing shaping of the pattern of faithfulness in those who by grace learn the mind of Christ.
In the end, although one would not see it clearly in this article, responding to the gracious love of God, conforming to the faithfulness of Christ, living in openness to the Holy Spirit, these things are meant to go together in shaping right thinking, virtuous character, and a life of good works. And that makes me realise what a long way I have to go. I doubt I will ever dare be able to say as a pastor (and what to the Reformers must have seemed unthinkable and undesirable) “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1).
August 27th, 2007 at 12:41 am
good post and point about Paul. i think to further supplement what you said, it is interesting to look at the Hebrew language in relation to the word for “faith”. because in Hebrew (which was the religious cultural language of Paul) nouns all have verb roots. so every noun has an action word behind it. so faith always implies faithful. i think its actually pretty neat, and certainly something God demonstrates again and again, “faith without works is dead”.
peter
August 27th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
i’ve been wrestling with non-theists online who’s only understanding of faith, regardless of context, is ‘belief without evidence.’ i’ve tried to paint the picture that there are other understandings of faith; the one i find most fitting is ‘belief that something good will come of this’ (like the abrahamic faith spoken of in hebrews 11:1-9). we read in time magazine recently that mother teresa has been without ‘faith’ (belief without evidence) for quite a few years, yet we see in her works great ‘faith’ (something good will come of this.) i think good works are the fruits of both of these ‘faiths.’
August 27th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Thanks, both for the comments. I would say, Peter, that I’m very doubtful of making links between linguistic structures and the ways people think. I’m also doubtful of making judgements about Paul’s relative facility in Greek and Hebrew.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
i want to defend peter in this regard.
what he says about the hebrew being noun and verb, and a deep awareness of it by scholars and average blokes alike, i want it to be true.
in my deconstructionist imaginary world, filled with people who love puns, spoonerisms, and multi-layered meanings, it is true.
scott