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

More veneration (or not)

So, thanks to everyone who responded to yesterday's post: I really appreciate the thought that people have clearly put into the comments. I've done some more thinking since yesterday, and the best way to explain some of that thought is to respond to some of your comments.

James wrote: "When you did so [kneeling to lead prayers], you did it in front of the Altar, not because you were worshipping the wooden table, but because it was an appropriate focus for your worship of God."

I find this interesting, because it's not why I did it at all. I knelt because I thought it was important to lead the congregation from a kneeling position, and I did it in front of the altar not because I saw it as an appropriate focus for my worship of God, but because if I'd knelt anywhere else, I would have been either hidden from view (by the altar) or separated physically from the congregation.

I can see why you thought I knelt there, and I wonder whether other people thought the same. It doesn't bother me that they might, but it's not why I did it.

Gary wrote: "Since the holy sacrament is the body and blood of our Lord, by definition we can (and should) pay reverence to it."

I disagree. I think that we should treat it with respect, and possibly lean towards showing reverence towards it (to employ James' original definition at face value), but I think that they word "pay" is a give-away here. Reverence, in practice, isn't as clear-cut as the definition seems to suggest. The cross is an object to which we do not owe anything. We only owe anything to God, not to physical objects.

The only exception might be the physical body of Christ, incarnated as a man, though he seems to have been pretty cagey about being treated specially, with the exception of washing and baptism, which are both actions which are extended to other people, too.

That said, I realise that I'm somewhat conflicted about this: I treat the physical book which comprises Bible, at least within a worship setting, with great respect - almost as much as the sacrament. I think this, however, is because or the importance I attach to the Word (which is contained within the Bible and which the Lord's Body in the sacrament is, of course). This is a pretty protestant position, I'd argue.

Sam talked about using icons as an aid to worship, and pointed to a useful blog entry about Corpus Christi.

I agree on this: and we have a set of Stations of the Cross in our church. My father's very attached to various sets that he knows or has, and I find some of the images helpful for meditation and prayer. I'm not, however, attached to the Stations of the Cross as a specific thing, in the same way that I've used prayer beads in the past, but am not attached to them as a specific process or requirement.

I genearally agree with the post about Corpus Christi, and I like the way Sam discussed the shift in emphasis of the phrase "corpus verum".

Sally bemoaned the lack of symbol in her tradition.

I find symbology very useful, too, and wouldn't want to lose it. It's when the symbols are used as more than that that I get unhappy, because I see this as a move to sacramentalism: moving beyond the sacraments to regarding objects as having a sacramental power. The reason, I think, that the bread and wine are special is that, as part of a sacrament, they are the body and blood our Our Lord. The Bible is special (and I still find it difficult to see people writing on a Bible!) because it's the Word: God's working in this world through the agency of the Holy Spirit.

KT suggested talking to the PCC.

I don't think this is needed, to be honest. I'm not worried about the legality of the service at all, and have already discussed my concerns about confession and absolution to my training incumbent (I'm in the first year of my title post, and not yet priested!), who was very supportive.

Neither am I worried about the service itself for general consumption (James has dealt very helpfully with the particular phrase that I picked up, and I acknowledge that his introduction is a good piece of guidance to the congregation), but what I'm trying to explore is how elements of the service - and, in many ways, the core assumption (now, _there's_ a word to reflect on...!) behind the service just doesn't fit with my theology. (I'd be interested to hear your situation, by the way, KT, if you'd like to share).

I rather hope that this isn't the end of it. I'm really enjoying this discussion with you all, and making myself think. This, for me, is Reflective Theology (cue Gary turning up in a day-glo jacket), and is a Good Thing[tm]. I'm not trying to inflict my theology on other people (yet...), but I'm interested to see where I'm being led with this, and it's to a re-affirmation of the protestant underpinnings of my theology and my faith. May the Holy Spirit guide us all.

Labels: liturgy, protestantism, theology, worship