So Who's in Charge? - Article 37/39

XXXVII. OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATES

THE King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.

Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.

The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.

The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences.

It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.

The Queen is the boss of the church in 2019 in our Constitutional Monarchy; Defender of the Faith. Remember the fuss when Prince Charles said he would prefer to be 'Defender of faiths'? Article 37 says no. The Monarch would expect the clergy to look after the church but she looks after taxes, the administration of national justice and conscription to a fighting cause.

What we find here, as we have discovered in other Articles, is that the monarch is subject to the word of God (Scripture) but only in all things legal and honest do church members bear due allegiance to her. That expression 'in all things legal and honest' has been carried down into contemporary licensing services for new minsters in the Church of England where we offer due and canonical obedience to our Diocesan Bishop only in such terms. We can be taken forward no further than the Bible allows us to be taken. And of course some of the current disputes about episcopal authority are over the acceptability within Scripture of, for instance, female headship and same-sex partnerships.

O'Donovan points out that the organisation of society, very differently done between Tudors then and liberal democracies now, is not something on which Scripture has a view. Today we view the church as believers gathered out of society; the Tudors did not.

The unwitting testimony (if we can call it that) of our Bibles is an observation of the way land-grabbing led to settled societies which were occasionally conquered by other settled societies anxious to increase. Step on to the stage Assyrians, Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Hebrews and Romans to name but six and not in the right order. Scripture is interested in behaviour in the light of events. The Bible sets out the idea that after losing a battle the only attitude to have before God is penitence.

And the job of the prophet, in the courts of kings, was to speak God's truth to power, often at personal cost.

General Church Councils - Article 21/39

XXI. OF THE AUTHORITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS

GENERAL Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

Here's the real break with Rome. In the battle between God's living Pope and God's living word it is the word that wins. Every time. So even a General Council of the church, however unlikely that sounds today, can err if it does not place itself at the feet of the Scriptures.

I don't know what standard people running Confirmation preparation in the Church of England require these days, but O'Donovan points out that the Reformers were of the mind to require confirmands to know the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments (which are in Scripture) and the Apostles' Creed and the Catechism, which are not. However they would argue, I'm sure, that the latter two could be deduced from Scripture and are certainly not contrary to it.

By the time I was confirmed in 1974 no such commitment to memory was needed, although Don Humphreys made me learn quite a few verses.

We may well ponder awhile on the possibility of there ever being another General Council of the Church. Who would need to be invited? And who does the inviting? The article says 'Princes', which means those in authority in the land, deemed to be the monarchy in authority over those in authority in the church. You have two hours. Ask for more paper if you need it.

I end this post with a remark made by a co-writer, Alan Hewerdine, back in the 1990s. I have never bettered it. He said, 'When two Christian denominations merge, a third is formed. Be very scared of General Church councils and try to avoid them.

Jesus and the Authorities

Here, as promised, is the text of Sunday's sermon at Trendlewood:

Luke 7:1-10

What authority are you under?

Jesus was a human, living in a particular place at a particular time under a particular jurisdiction and a particular religious heritage.

You may have become confused over the years at mentions of Pharisees, Sadducees, Chief Priests, scribes and teachers of the law.

The Pharisees were a Jewish group dating back to the time of Ezra. They believed in particular that the exile in Babylon in 587 BC was because the law had not been kept properly. They were interested in ethics not theology. Especially tithing. There were about 6,000 of them in Herod's day. They kept themselves separate and wouldn't even buy food from a non-Pharisee in case it hadn't been tithed. They had scribes who wrote out detailed explanations and commentaries on the law so that any argument about it could be resolved by reference to them.

The Sadducees were another party or group but their origins are harder to pin down. Whilst Pharisees were populist the Sadducees' appeal was mainly to wealthier people. They stuck to the law as outlined in the Torah (first five books of the Old Testament) and this brought them into conflict with the Pharisees' modern interpretations. Most of them were priests, but not all priests were Sadducees. They disappear soon after Jesus' resurrection. They didn't believe in resurrection, the soul or the after-life because they did not see it in the Torah.

Priests are descendants of Aaron, Moses' brother, both from Levi's tribe. Levites are members of the tribe of Levi not directly descended from Aaron.

The most holy jobs were reserved for priests. Levites got the less glamorous stuff to do. Probably clearing up after sacrifices.

The Chief Priest is the chair of the Jewish council, the Sanhedrin. Since it is a post people held for a period and then stood down it is why we see references to Chief Priests - plural (in the same way as all previous United States presidents are referred to as Mr President). It includes all previous office-holders. High Priest is just another name for chief priest. You find it in some translations.

All these movements had their scribes - the people who wrote things down.

And all taught the law so Teachers of the Law means anyone who did such a work.

And we know Jesus gradually, through his behaviour and teaching, came into contact and opposition with these groups.

He was popular so the Pharisees wanted to like him, but he did stuff on the sabbath, went into unclean houses and hung around with sinners.

He quoted scripture so the Sadducees wanted to like him, but he spoke of resurrection and demonstrated it from the Torah.

He valued the synagogue so the priests wanted to like him, but he acted in a priestly way without being from the right tribe - Joseph's lineage was to David, from the tribe of Judah.

And all this is of nothing in the light of the political situation at the time.

Roman Empire.

Roman occupation.

It was a decree from Caesar that sent Joseph to Bethlehem for a census.

It was eventually an order of a distant local ruler appointed by Caesar who sent Jesus to his death.

And we know, from our current middle eastern politics, what local difficulties there are about whose land is whose and how unwelcome intervention is no matter whose suffering is being alleviated.

But we also know from our own history that under Roman occupation a number of people adopted the Roman way. We have villas, and bathhouses and mosaics under our soil in this land which show not so much an occupation as a changing way of life.

We also know that throughout the Empire, from the Black Sea to modern Spain and North Africa to Hadrian's Wall, there were insurrectionists who worked against the Romans. Zealots - Jesus had one of those in his gang and Barabbas was one too.

Which is why our passage today is the key one about Jesus relationship with authorities.

A centurion. A Roman soldier in charge of 100 men. Seems to have been a good guy. Will Jesus heal his servant?

I think this passage tells us that relationship to authority and faith are two separate things.

There is no need for a Jew to be Pharisaic or Sadduseeic, drawing tighter and tighter the rules of belonging. Faith can be found in the Jewish world and the gentile world and will have its own rewards.

N.T.Wright '...if we see God's authority, at work in Jesus Christ, as any less absolute than that of a military officer, we are, according to the passage, not only mistaken but lacking faith itself.'

Peter observed this. He followed Jesus. Some years later as he reflected he wrote this:

1 Peter 2:13ff

It is for us to work out how to react to a tyrannical boss or what to do if we find ourselves at odds with our MP. But the blessings of faith, and God's mercy, and a relationship with Jesus are available to all.