Mike's musings

Anglicans and authority: John Jewel

The second piece of reading that I've done, and really very much enjoyed, is Archbishop Jewel: Jewel, John (1564) The Apology of The Church of England, trans. Bacon, Anne, ed. Jelf, Richard W. (1852), Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London. This book is in and of itself a jewel, and full of some fantastic theology and statements about the Church of England. Jewel, writing earlier than Hooker, is mainly concerned with defending the Church of England against the Church of Rome. A central statement of his position is this (Jewel, p. 21):

Furthermore, we believe, that there be divers degrees of ministers in the church: whereof some be deacons, some priests, some bishops: to whom is committed the office to instruct the people, and the whole charge and setting forth of religion. Yet notwithstanding, we say that there neither is, nor can be any one man, which may have the whole superiority in this universal state: for that Christ is ever present to assist his church, and needeth not any man to supply his room, as his only heir to all his substance: and that there can be no one mortal creature, which is able to comprehend or conceive in his mind the universal church, that is to wit, all the parts of the world, much less able rightly and duly to put them in order, and to govern them rightly and duly.

Here, Jewel is arguing against the claims of the Pope. A little later, he comes up with a brilliant argument against the supposed authority of the Roman Church over men's souls, which, though long, is worth quoting in full (Jewel, pp. 23-26):

Moreover we say that Christ hath given to his ministers power to bind, to loose, to open, to shut. And that the office of loosing consisteth in this point: that the minister should either offer by preaching of the gospel the merits of Christ, and full partdon to such as have lowly and contrite hearts, and do unfeignedly repent themselves, pronouncing unto the same a sure and undoubted forgiveness of their sins, and hope of everlasting salvation: or else that the same minister, when any have offended their brothers' minds with a great offence, with a notable and open fault, whereby they have, as it were, banished and made themselves strangers against the common fellowship, and from the body of Christ, then after perfect amendment of such persons, doth reconcile them, and bring them home again, and restore them to the company and unity of the faithful. We say also, that the minister doth execute the authority of binding and shutting, as often as he shutteth up the gate of the kingdom of heaven against the unbelieving and stubborn persons, denouncing unto them God's vengeance, and everlasting punishment: or else, when he doth quite shut them out from the bosom of the church by open excommunication. Out of doubt, what sentence soever the minister of God shall give in this sort, God himself doth so well allow of it, that whatsoever here in earth by their means is loosed and bound, God himself will loose and bind, and confirm in heaven.

And touching the keys, wherewith they may either shut or open the kingdom of heaven, we with Chrysostom say, "They be the knowledge of the scriptures:" with Tertullian we say, "They be the interpretation of the law:" and with Eusebius we call them, "The word of God."

Moreover that Christ's disciples did receive this authority, not that they should hear the private confessions of the people, and listen to their whisperings, as the common massing-priests do every where now-a-days, and do it so, as though in that one point lay all the virtue and use of the keys: but to the end they should go, they should teach, they should publish abroad the gospel, and be unto the believing a sweet savour of life unto life, and unto the unbelieving and unfaithful a savour of death unto death: and that the minds of godly persons being brought low by the remorse of their former life and errors, after they once began to look up unto the light of the gospel, and believe in Christ, might be opened with the word of God, even as a door is opened with a key. Contrariwise, that the wicked and wilful folk, and such as would not believe, nor return to the right way, should be left still as fast locked, and shut up, and, as St. Paul saith, "wax worse and worse." This take we to be the meaning of the keys: and that after this sort men's consciences either be opened or shut. We say, that the priest indeed is a judge in this case, but yet hath no manner of right to challenge an authority, or power, as saith Ambrose. And therefore our Saviour Jesu Christ, to reprove the negligence of the Scribes and Pharisees in teaching, did with those words rebuke them, saying: "Woe be unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, which have taken away the keys of knowledge, and have shut up the kingdom of heaven before men." Seeing then the key whereby the way and entry to the kingdom of God is opened unto us, is the word of the gospel, and the expounding of the law and scriptures, we say plainly, where the same words is not, there is not the key. And seeing one manner of word is given to all, and one only key belongeth to all, we say, that there is but one only power of all ministers, as concerning opening and shutting. And as touching the bishop of Rome, for all his parasites sate, and ringly sing these words in his ears, "To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, " (as though those keys were fit for him alone, and for nobody else,) except he go so to work, as men's consciences may be made plaint, and be subdued to the word of God, we deny that he doth either open, or shut, or hath the keys at all. And although he taught and instructed the people, (as would God he might once truly do, an persuade himself it were at the least some piece of duty,) yet we think his key to be never a whit better, or of greater force than other men's. For who hath severed him from the rest? Who hath taught him more cunningly to open, or better to absolve than his brethren?

A long section, indeed, but it sums up rather well Jewel's theology, I think. For him, the Word is paramount, and the Church of Rome has tried to claim far too much authority. He is again attacking those of the Church of Rome when he writes:

Therefore the holy scriptures, which our Saviour Jesus Christ did not only use for authority in all his speech, but did also at last seal up the same with his own blood, these men, to the intent that they might with less business drive the people from the same, as from a thing dangerous and deadly, have used to call them a bare letter, uncertain, unprofitable, dumb, killing, and dead: which seemeth to us all one as if they should say, "The scriptures are to no purpose, or as good as none."

Jewel, at the end of the book, shows an interesting side to the argument. He's not necessarily suggesting that the Church of England has everything right, but he feels that the Church of Rome has moved away from God (Jewel, pp. 154-155):

Wherefore if the pope will have us be reconciled to him, his duty is first to be reconciled to God. For from thence, saith Cyprian, spring schisms and sects, because men seek not the head, and have not their recourse to the fountain (of the scriptures), and keep not the rules given by the heavenly teacher. For, saith he, that is not peace, but war; neither is he joined unto the church, which is severed from the gospel. As for these men, they use to make a merchandise of the name of peace. For that peace which they fain would have, is only a rest of idle bellies. They and we might easily be brought to atonement, touching all these matter, were it not that ambition, and gluttony, and excess did let it. Hence cometh their whining, their heart is on their halfpenny. Out of doubt their clamours and stirs be to none other end, but to maintain more shamefully and naughtily ill-gotten things.

Jewel's position (which does sometimes fall into the invective), then, is that the Church of Rome has moved away from the true church, and holds on to its position of error partly - or largely - through the corruption of the Pope. It is _we_ who are Catholics he says, in yet another piece of brilliant theology (Jewel, pp. 16-17):

Wherefore, if we be heretics and they (as they would fain be called) be catholics, why do they not, as they see the fathers, which were catholic men, have always done? Why do they not convince and master us by the divine scriptures? Why do they not call us again to be tried by them? Why do they not lay before us, how we have gone away from Christ, from the prophets, from the apostles, and from the holy fathers? Why stick they to do it? Why are they afraid of it? It is God's cause. Why are they doubtful to commit it to the trial of God's word? If we be heretics, which refer all our controversies unto the holy Scriptures, and report us to the self-same words which we know were sealed by God himself, and in comparison of them set little by all other things, whatsoever may be devised by men; how shall we say to these folk, I pray you, what manner of men be they, and how is it meet to call them, which feat the judgment of the holy scriptures, that is to say, the judgment of God himself, and do prefer before them their own dreams, and full cold inventions: and, to maintain their own traditions, have defaced and corrupted, now these many hundred years, the ordinances of Christ and of the apostles?

Jewel sees himself as a reformer: someone who is trying to re-form the church into what it once was: a body built on the word of God, and informed by that above all things. It is writing such as this, with its rhetoric and theology, that convinces me that I am, in many things, a Protestant - and a Reformation Protestant, at that.

Labels: authority, faith, PhD, protestantism, theology

Apologetics

I'm still engaged in a very interesting discussion with a friend of mine who's an atheist. I'm not trying to convert her to my faith - nor she to hers, if it is one - I think she's trying to understand how someone she knew at school as a scientist (and therefore fairly sensible) is engaged in something which she doesn't get at all. She's given me permission to blog the discussion at some point, but I'd like to get further into it before doing so. I'm keen to give an honest explanation to her about my faith, too, and it's very good to have a chance to talk to someone from a very different place in terms of faith, but who's willing to listen and debate and try to understand.

Labels: apologetics, faith

25 hours

(backposting) Well, I ended up phoning the girls before I went to bed, an hour or so after they'd got up, which confused Jo more than a little. I was up for 25 hours, with a couple of short naps in the middle, with a day which went like this:

• driven to Heathrow - a couple of hours
• plane to Calgary - 9 and a half hours
• plane to Las Vegas - a couple of hours
• shuttle bus to Caesar's Palace

It looks quite simple when you lay it out like that, doesn't it? Doesn't show the waiting times, either...

On the plane to Calgary, I read Alan Bateman's book They Gave Their Lives. about 12 different members of the Salvation Army who gave their lives for their faith. It was very inspiring, and quite emotional in places, too. I'd not had a chance to take communion today - I always try to do so on a Sunday, as is my canonical duty - and this, for me, was a kind of sacrament.

Labels: books, faith, travel

What's being a priest about?

I had an interesting conversation with a priest recently who was complaining about having to spend a full half hour talking about clearing leaves out of gutters during a buildings and maintenance meeting that he was attending: a subject about which he had nothing to say, and no interest. This meant he got back home very late, after a 14 hour day. Where's the priestliness in that? Where does it say that he should be using his time like this?

I was saying that I will have almost the opposite issue: I'll only have the chance, on the whole, to do the more "obviously priestly" bits. He was saying that maybe as an SSM (Self-Supporting Minister), I'll have something to teach people about what's important about being a priest. But I responded that I think there are problems there, too, and lots of them. Yes, I'll do services, and preaching, and home groups, maybe, and these are important: but when will I get the chance to have chats with people in cafés, talk in queues in the bakery, make hospital visits and all the rest? I think that there will be frustrations on both sides, and yes, we'll both have things to teach each other.

On the other hand, travelling has its upsides, too. I had a fascinating talk with a woman on the plane to Barcelona, Anya, who was saying that she envies me my faith. We had a good discussion, in which I explained that faith doesn't always mean certainty, and can - should, I'd say - include time for doubt. And it was clear to me - and I said so - that if she is ready to say that she envies faith, then she's already what some would call a "seeker". So, we talked. Did she walk off the plane looking for a church to go to? No, but she's not averse to taking her son to church. I think she now sees that the love she shares with her family can be seen by some - certainly by me and most Christians - as God-given, and I don't think she rejected that out of hand. She met someone, I hope, who wasn't entirely different to her, and reasonable, not weird, and talked in ways she could understand and relate to her. That's enough for me.

Labels: faith, family, ministry, priest

3/4 birthday, and the Bible. And fundamentalism

Miri turned 50:50 today: 9 months old. I'm not going into that. Anyway, she's doing very well at the moment, and is in a very social phase at the moment.

I led another "coffee and worship" this morning, and we used the new area in the back of Great Yeldham church. We didn't sit in pews: we sat in a circle. And had coffee and tea while we discussed things. No, really! This is the Church of England. Rural church of England. And 22 people came. TWENTY-TWO! We had to put new chairs out. And there were 2 children I didn't count.

So, we had a greeting, I read Acts 10:34-43, then John 11:25-27. Then we had coffee and tea (and biscuits) and I talked about "What does it mean to believe in the Bible"? I talked about Eusebius saying in the early 4th century that everyone knew that Genesis wasn't a literal description of the creation, but allegorical, and how fundamentalism, in Christianity, is generally a 19th century phenomenon, about translation (how many people read both Hebrew and New Testament Greek - oh, and Jesus spoke in Aramaic, anyway). And lots of related stuff. Only had 10 minutes or so, and then we had some discussion. I moved between the groups.

In the second group, I discovered two people who are, frankly, creationists. They're cool about it, and just feel it's the easiest reading.

I spent quite a lot of my summing up and intercessions in the following worship talking about respecting people with viewpoints different to our own.

Labels: belief, church, faith, miri, theology

Justification by faith alone

That's what I'm going to be preaching on tomorrow. Anyone reading this is, of course welcome: 1030 at Holy Trinity, Long Melford. I've preached a similar sermon before, and I believe that it's an important thing to preach about, so that's the plan. Preaching is a big responsibility for me, it'll be one of the biggest congregations I've ever preached to, it's my first one on my placement, and it's the first time I'll have preached micced-up.

Labels: faith, placement, preaching