39 Articles - A Summary

THIS Book of Articles before rehearsed, is again approved, and allowed to be holden and executed within the Realm, by the assent and consent of our Sovereign Lady ELIZABETH, by the grace of God, of England, France, and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, &c. Which Articles were deliberately read, and confirmed again by the subscription of the hands of the Archbishop and Bishops of the Upper-house, and by the subscription of the whole Clergy of the Nether-house in their Convocation, in the Year of our Lord 1571.

This paragraph is how the 39 Articles end. We discussed earlier how the job of the ordained in the corridors of the good and the great is to speak truth to power. Bishops in the House of Lords have that responsibility. Trouble is, dumbing down at the other end of the priestly spectrum does not mean we should see our job as speaking truth to stupid. But we might accidentally behave like that. Sorry.

In one of his essays Martyn Percy uses a wonderful quote from writer Bill Vanstone about the Church of England, 'Why, he asked, is it like a swimming pool? Answer: all the noise comes from the shallow end.'

This last few weeks has been an opportunity to have a go at some of the harder and deeper things, understand them, and try to make their meaning plain. You will be the judges as to whether I have succeeded.

These 39 Articles were set out at a time when the Parish Priest was often the most educated member of the community and had a leadership role because church and state were connected.

I take from this exercise not a desire to be shouting spiritual truths into the shallows as an over-confident deep-ender. No. I want more people to come to the deep end. There are things to explore and it's not dangerous. Try swimming. You can do it. Let's have deeper conversations.

Sincere thanks to my companions on this journey:

On the Thirty-Nine Articles (Conversations with Tudor Christianity)

Oliver O'Donovan

SCM 2011 (1st published 1986)

Thirty Nine New Articles

Martyn Percy

Canterbury Press 2013

Reformed and catholic; happy Easter to you all.

Oaths - Article 39/39

XXXIX. OF A CHRISTIAN MAN'S OATH

AS we confess that vain and rash Swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James his Apostle, so we judge, that Christian Religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the Prophet's teaching, in justice, judgement, and truth.

Christians have had a difficult relationship with oaths down the ages. In trying to be people of the truth, people of no-lying lips, people who let their no be no and their yes be yes we find it hard to swear on the Bible as if that raises the standard somehow.

But an oath in court is a matter of record and judgement. So whilst not wanting lies to pass our lips on any occasion we are allowed, by this final Article, to agree to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a court of law and be legally bound by it in a way we are not in everyday life.

We may want to ask questions about the court process, which uses a method of examination and cross-examination which can hinder the arrival of the whole truth rather than help it along. But the Reformers were happy for the Christian individual (they said 'man') to take part in legal process and not be exempted.

But swearing in court is not contrary to Scripture for the Reformers.

Possessions - Article 38/39

XXXVIII. OF CHRISTIAN MEN'S GOODS, WHICH ARE NOT COMMON

THE Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

It's OK to own stuff. Be generous. I'm not just doing a short post in order to finish all 39 in Lent. This one really is that simple.

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.

Ordination Rites - Article 36/39

XXXVI. OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS AND MINISTERS

THE Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: neither hath it any thing, that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

This may not, at first, seem anti-Rome. But it allows the Church of England to confer valid ordination on a candidate and does not require continuity with the Roman idea of apostolic succession.

The way we do things round here (as good a definition of culture as any) does not invalidate holy orders taken since the Reformation. Recognition of each other's ministries is still one of the stumbling blocks to unity between Canterbury and Rome (especially since we now ordain, gasp, women).

But the bishop who laid hands on me to ordain me had a valid right to do so and so did the people who consecrated him and so on and so back.

So a quick story from my own ordination. Denis, Bishop of Southwell in 1984, was conducting the rehearsal himself. He turned to his chaplain and asked, 'How do you think it would be most seemly for me to share the peace with the candidates?'

His chaplain, well settled into a career of pricking the bubbles of pomposity, didn't miss a beat. 'I'd come down off the dais Bishop' he said.

And that, when sought, has been my advice to bishops ever since.

Proper Preaching - Article 35/39

XXXV. OF THE HOMILIES

THE second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.

Of the Names of the Homilies

1.Of the right Use of the Church.
2.Against peril of Idolatry.
3.Of repairing and keeping clean of Churches.
4.Of good Works: first of Fasting.
5.Against Gluttony and Drunkenness.
6.Against Excess of Apparel.
7.Of Prayer.
8.Of the Place and Time of Prayer.
9.That Common Prayers and Sacraments ought to be ministered in a known tongue.
10.Of the reverend estimation of God's Word.
11.Of Alms-doing.
12.Of the Nativity of Christ.
13.Of the Passion of Christ.
14.Of the Resurrection of Christ.
15.Of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ.
16.Of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost.
17.For the Rogation-days.
18.Of the State of Matrimony.
19.Of Repentance.
20.Against Idleness.
21.Against Rebellion.

The job of the preacher these days has much more scope for individuality. Article 35 recalls a time when the clergy could read but were not necessarily theologically educated. So there were homilies (talks) available to ensure the congregation were soundly taught. And reading down the list you can see the sorts of issues that were concerning. Not for nothing did Philip Pullman accuse the church of being an institutional vehicle to keep people in order.

But O'Donovan rightly points out that the Reformers had to come to terms with a situation that the New Testament did not; the conversion of a whole nation to Christian allegiance. And these Reformers wanted, just as much as the politicians (in fact some of them were the politicians), a hard-working, well-behaved population who kept the church building clean.

These days a preacher only has to irritate someone in a very minor way for them to google three other sermons which they find more comforting. The wise preacher today sets out the options within which people might choose to be holy and allows for some personal discretion. A return to the Homilies would scare the living daylights out of most congregations. Hmm. Might try it.

My Good Friday sermon would thus end:

'For it shall little auayle vs to haue in meditation the fruites and price of his passion, to magnifie them, and to delight or trust in them, except we haue in minde his examples in passion to follow them. If we thus therefore consider Christs death, and will sticke thereto with fast fayth for the merit and deseruing thereof, and will also frame our selues in such wise to bestow our selues, and all that we haue by charity, to the behoofe of our neighbour, as Christ spent himselfe wholly for our profit, then doe we truely remember Christs death: and being thus followers of Christs steps, we shall be sure to follow him thither where he sitteth now with the Father and the holy Ghost, to whom bee all honour and glory, Amen.'

(HOMILY ON THE PASSION FOR GOOD FRIDAY )

Amen to that indeed. Now excuse me while I visit all those who haven't been to church today and turn their faces to the dust in due penitence.

Nothing Changes Here - Article 34/39

XXXIV. OF THE TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH

IT is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Whosoever through his private judgement, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.

Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

'The choir are singing 'Thou Visitest the Earth' at Harvest', said my training incumbent.

'Didn't we sing that last year?' (my first) I asked.

'As it was in the beginning, is now...' he replied.

It was indeed a church where the hymn line 'nothing changes here' was sung with more than the usual amount of verve.

But Article 34 gives local churches wriggle room to deviate from a national norm in unimportant matters, and for individuals to deviate from the local norm in their private devotions. But traditions and ceremonies, part of the 'common order', are to be respected.

Where does that leave us, a little planted church in a small part of Christendom? I once asked my neighbouring, previously mentioned, more Catholic colleague about this. As we considered what rites and ceremonies (to use the old expression) we were going to establish in a new church plant I wondered what he considered was the minimum such a church should do to consider itself part of the Church of England's fold. He didn't think for long. 'It should put itself under the authority of the Bishop' he said. It took me aback in its simplicity and elegance. Of course. We can all unite round that. I don't have to be abundantly clear with my diocesan authority figures about everything that I am doing which is close to the edge of legality or a few steps beyond. I simply need to make it clear that I am under their authority and if they ask me to step back then back I will step.

National churches can change things that national churches have decided to do. To paraphrase Woody Allen, traditions are no more than the illusion of permanence.

All things be done to edifying may take a litle longer, but bear with.

How to Avoid the Excommunicated - Article 33/39

XXXIII. OF EXCOMMUNICATE PERSONS, HOW THEY ARE TO BE AVOIDED

THAT person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto.

Every year there is an award given to the book published with the weirdest title. The prize has been won by:

The Book of Marmalade: Its Antecedents, Its History, and Its Role in the World Today (1984)

Greek Rural Postmen and Their Cancellation Numbers (1996)

Cooking with Poo (2011)

But my favourite was 1992's 'How to Avoid Huge Ships'.

A bit of light relief for you there, but it came to mind because it reminds us that avoiding things is not as easy as we might think. It was discovered by archaeology that some of the 'ritual washing pools' described in the New Testament had a single stairway entrance with a central rail. This rail seemed far more sturdy than one would expect. Experts realised that a substantial division existed between the way in and the way out so that those on the way out did not accidentally touch those on the way in and have to go down again 'trapped in a clean/unclean groundhog day' (an expression I heard theologian Crispin Fletcher-Louis use at a New Wine Summer do a few years back).

The Article is clear. The excommunicate should be avoided. Probably, living in smaller communities then, with the church as the hub of communication, all offenders were well known. One would be in trouble associating with such people.

Many of the Reformers were excommunicates themselves. But, they would argue, by order of the church not Christ. They might, as O'Donovan discusses, have considered doing away with the idea of excommunication all together. Instead they opted for it not necessarily being permanent.  An appropriate judge could decide that a person could return by penance.

They were bit down on publicans in those days too. We have let that idea lapse.

Married Vicars and That - Article 32/39

XXXII. OF THE MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS

BISHOPS, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

Why this Article? Clearly not so I could bring 34 of my 41 married years into the ordained ministry although that is a blessing.

No, the church had, at the time of the Reformation, taken on a post-monastic tradition to clericalism and insisted on an unmarried, celibate, male priesthood.

But marriage or singleness is a discretionary matter within the new Testament. There are no special stipulations for leaders, priests and deacons.

So priests in the Church of England can arrive married and be married once ordained. Bible trumps Pope.

O'Donovan points out that Articles 32-36 are about discretionary matters within the church. 37-39 will be different. These articles were honed at the time of the Divine Right of Kings and therefore tend to separate those matters which are separate to the State form those which are bound up with the State.

At a time when our country's constitutional monarchy is being stretched to breaking point and may need substantial re-imagining we do well to remind ourselves, as the Reformers did, that Kings have to obey God. Or else.

Praying for the Dead - Article 31/39

XXXI. OF THE ONE OBLATION OF CHRIST FINISHED UPON THE CROSS

THE Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

One of the reasons I feel personally that the celebration of communion should be inclusive is that it defines the community. The Christian community in this particular place are those who gather around the Lord's table. Some are of long-standing faith but struggling to believe at the moment. Others are coming to faith and want to enjoy belonging before they have completely mastered believing. Some are children and enjoy a child-like membership which one day they will affirm or reject for themselves. And almost all Christian communities include those who, for one reason or another, would not be considered of sufficiently sound mind to enter into a valid contract.

The grace of God to all people is celebrated and demonstrated at Communion. The exact and actual faith of each individual participant is not.

This Article adds one more line to that list. The dead are excluded. We don't pray for the dead; we entrust them to God. They rest in peace and await the resurrection. We do not interfere with their rest. We cannot change their status before God by offering a mass for them. To suggest that we can was, for the Reformers, a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit. Christ has died for them, once for all. You cannot do any more for them.

Pass the Cup - Article 30/39

XXX. OF BOTH KINDS

THE Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

I grew up low church. I was part of a conservative evangelical parish church by birth which eventually I joined by conviction. It was several years before I found myself at the sort of Eucharist (which I had never called it) where the administrators would not let go of the cup for love nor money. It was a learning experience. It is still the way some churches operate. But denying the cup to the laity is not. This is more of that 'Romish' behaviour to which the Reformers objected.

A few years ago, during the swine-flu epidemic, we were instructed not to share a common cup at communion. The minister was to drink on behalf of all. I think this was one of several moments when I felt keenly my set-asideness. I found it unusually emotional.

My understanding of my priesthood is functional, not ontological. I am freed from the necessity of earning my living in order to serve the church full-time. I get stipend (not salary) and a house rent and rates free.

But this opportunity, with its duties which come with the territory, is not because I am different. So denying the communion cup to lay people is divisive beween lay and ordained. We might get on to lay presidency at some point. Sure hope so, but the Reformers didn't anticipate it.

On Pressing with Your Teeth - Article 29/39

XXIX. OF THE WICKED WHICH EAT NOT THE BODY OF CHRIST IN THE USE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER

THE Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

'The sacraments, then, mediate to us in our time the decisive redemption of mankind by Christ in his.' (O'Donovan)

Christianity is not a matter of pressing bread with your teeth (nicely put, I think) but of partaking in Christ. You can partake in Christ without bread and wine. You can feed on it but not in your heart by faith with thanksgiving (as the modern words put it). You can't conjure up Christ (O'Donovan's expression) by doing something. Not ever. It would be like standing on a tray and trying to lift yourself.

The sacramental articles have constantly turned our attention back to Jesus. And so they should. I have no particular problem with my Anglo-Catholic brothers and sisters apart from when they cast doubt on the 'validity' of my presidency because of details.

When it was explained to me that the reason for a Gospel procession to the middle of the nave in an Anglo-Catholic Eucharist was because the word of God was central, it was an eye-opening moment. Of course. I fear that in some churches it is more a ceremonial centrality than an actual one but at least it is acted out.

Every lasting reformation of the church is Jesus-centred.

Bread or Body? - Article 28/39

XXVIII. OF THE LORD'S SUPPER

THE Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

So what about the real presence of Christ at the Eucharist because the bread changes substance? Article 28 doesn't muck about. It's wrong. It cannot be proved from Scripture, it is not implied by Scripture and is thus repugnant to a Scriptural church.

So why does the Rector of the parish next door believe it, talk openly of it, introduce practices which draw attention to it and yet insist on his allegiance to the Church of England. This 'historic formulary' does not bear witness to transubstantiation. It denounces it.

An Anglo-Catholic contact on Twitter who I know has announced to his followers his joy at being 'the first person to expose our Lord in the monstrance' when concelebrating. The monstrance is an ornate backdrop against which a wafer is exposed (shown).

Anglo-Catholics would argue they are simply following a pre-Reformation tradition that has never gone away. The Reformers would have said they were Romish and to Rome they should go.

Two quotes from my set books:

For the Reformers, 'If someone believed, it was because the gospel had aroused faith within his heart; if someone disbelieved the gospel, no pious attention to the sacramental act could compensate.' (O'Donovan) 

'...there is a tension between being an identifiable community with creeds and fundaments, and yet also being a body that recognises that some issues are essentially un-decidable in the Church.' (Percy) 

The Church of England has always struck me as an organisation which, to its credit, keeps talking about every important issue until a more important one comes along. It is fine as a policy as long as it is consistent. And if it is to be consistent then blatant deviation from an Article is cause for conversation not excommunication.

Opening Ceremonies - Article 27/39

XXVII. OF BAPTISM

BAPTISM is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

We note that the words baptism and christening were interchangeable for the Reformers. Initiation rites are important but, as discussed previously, controversial. Our local Baptist Church used to borrow one of our Parish Churches with a baptistery for their baptisms. We used to ask, as a courtesy, that they did not baptise people there who had previously been baptised as infants in the Church of England.

A member of my church, previously baptised as an infant, came to a living faith of his own. Wanting to make a public profession for himself we prepared him for confirmation and he was duly confirmed. Some years later he and his whole family left for a free evangelical church in order to allow his teenage children to experience a larger youth group (how hard it is for small churches to keep their teenagers) and they persuaded him to be baptised.

Now that's odd but it does show that many people desire the experience of baptism over and above the willingness to come to terms with the responsibilities of being a baptised person. I was baptised at four months and came to faith at about 19. Having been an ordained minister for 34 years now it is strange that many Christian churches will not consider I have been properly initiated.

Here's a tale. The Queen is booked to open a shopping centre. It is one of those rare occasions where the building project finished early and so shops are merrily trading for three weeks before the grand opening ceremony. On the day of the ceremony the Centre remains closed until 10.00 a.m. until the ribbon is cut and the plaque unveiled. Then trading continues.

Alternatively it is one of those less-than-rare occasions where the building work over-runs. On the day Her Maj is due all work stops and red carpet is placed over concrete. Barriers are erected in front of incomplete structures. The ribbon is cut, the plaque unveiled and then the builders hasten to finish the job.

Opening ceremonies do not have to precisely match the beginning of functionality.

We're Not Worthy - Article 26/39

XXVI. OF THE UNWORTHINESS OF THE MINISTERS, WHICH HINDERS NOT THE EFFECT OF THE SACRAMENT

ALTHOUGH in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.

My College Principal used to say 'A clock that strikes thirteen is not only wrong once but also casts doubt on all further teaching from the same source.' So it is tempting, on discovering that your favourite theologian has been stealing money from her organisation, to disbelieve everything she ever wrote.

One of the things the Church of England has which may, at first, seem weird is a theology of intention. That which we intended to do can be deemed to have been done even if it was not done wholly, completely and utterly properly or, in the case of this Article, was done by evil men.

So the efficacy of Holy Communion, to the recipient, is not changed by the discovery that, at the time the vicar was having an affair with the Church Warden.

A marriage is not voided by the accidental use of the wrong words in the vows. And so on.

That we have safeguarding issues is sad, but not entirely unexpected, given that the church consists of sinners led by sinners. Evil ministers ought to be held to account, but their ministry up to that point can still be said to have been effective.

It is interesting that this Article begs many questions about the behaviour of the priesthood at the time. Enquiry into calling was a bit more hit and miss then than now. We still manage to ordain a few chocolate tea-pots but possibly slightly fewer criminals.

I am aware some of my ministry friends have chosen to rid themselves of the written works of those who have been found guilty of sexual misconduct. Respect to them. But I fear that such an attempt to purge the evil from the good is doomed to failure and Cranmer knew this. God bless the 'ever mingled' good and evil church.

Sacraments and All That - Article 25/39

XXV. OF THE SACRAMENTS

SACRAMENTS ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

The Reformers achieved a reduction in the number of stated sacraments from seven to two. I have never really understood why foot-washing wasn't ever in. Christ instituted it and it confers an inner valuing of washer and washed; as servant and served. And an inner humility to get down and dirty and to receive a cleansing. But then what do I know? The reason why the other five are out seems to be a reason why foot-washing should be in. Maybe it was simply not popular. Or they couldn't find enough humility in the ranks of the clergy?

We remind ourselves that the Reformers return, again and again, to the one-off, once-for-all achievement of Christ. They wanted to avoid any idea that this might be added to by Eucharistic practice. They were, as indeed am I, memorialists. Everything we do is to remind us of Jesus. My own church has a liturgy simple enough for the youngest child with language to join in:

This bread reminds us of Jesus' body

It reminds us of Jesus

This wine reminds us of Jesus' blood

It reminds us of Jesus

We have this bread and wine to share

They remind us of Jesus

We never quite understand how a lengthy Eucharistic Prayer adds anything to this.  Once a year, on Maundy Thursday, we do it properly. Feels about right to me.

'The Reformers wished to say that the sacraments could not substitute for the gospel in providing a primary ground for faith.' (O'Donovan)

They were pretty down on transubstantiation too and both this, and Article 28, emphasise that 'carrying about' the consecrated bread is not to be done. A reformed church shouldn't do it but a new minister at one of my neighbouring parishes, only one incumbent on from a significant evangelical ministry, introduced it. Possibly that ship sailed.

Why is all this important? Because attention should be drawn to Jesus, not the bread and wine which represent him. That is the doctrine of the Church of England

Hocus Pocus - Article 24/39

XXIV. OF SPEAKING IN THE CONGREGATION IN SUCH A TONGUE AS THE PEOPLE UNDERSTANDETH

IT is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have publick Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people.

The very language of Article 24 is not easily understanded of the people. But this is not about reducing clerical input to kids' talk; it is about doing it in English. That is its precision.

Latin had been the language of the church. And almost nobody understanded it. When the celebrant stood with his back to the congregation and said 'hoc est corpus meum' all the people at the nave end, separated by sanctuary rail, chancel/choir and rood screen heard (in the days before PA) was 'hocus pocus'. Which is as good a story of the origin of that expression that I have heard.

We still have many discussions in the church about the nature of religious language. From time to time I try to explain short words that have specific theological meanings – sin, the Word, saving. And any foreign words that we still use – hosanna, hallelujah, maranatha. Should we keep it simple? Or should we make sure we explain? Or should we ask people to make an effort to understand? That is its problem.

Church services should feel special, carefully crafted and understandable by ordinary people. That is its principle.

Ordination? - Article 23/39

XXIII. OF MINISTERING IN THE CONGREGATION

IT is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of publick preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same.

And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have publick authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord's vineyard.

We have not, in the Church of England, encountered many experiences of breaking the rule about administering the sacraments. They would become public. I would expect to be severely rebuked and disciplined if I allowed lay presidency. That's probably the main reason I don't do it. I have no theological objection to it personally. I find it weird to invite strangers to preside at communion when I am missing, if the congregation is full of well-known (locally) mature Christians who could do the job equally well.

But we are much quicker to allow preachers without authority. I guess the key is that we don't present them with the authority to go elsewhere and preach. And we do, if people have a gift for preaching, look to find ways to publicly acknowledge this and seek appropriate authorisation. The ministry of a Reader (once called a Lay Reader) used to be the ministry of someone, other than the priest, who could read. Now it is broader and some, who only wish to preach occasionally, do not want the full three year reader training course.

O'Donovan reminds us that this Article is about order. He would like the Reformers to be more thorough about the distinctive ministry of every person of God gifted for service, before talking of those set aside for 'special' purposes. It was my choice to put 'special' thus. I personally understand my ordination in functional rather than ontological terms. The best way I can put it is that in 1984 I was saved from the necessity to earn my own living in order to serve the church full time. This after appropriate testing and training which took nearly six years.

But my main work is to support, encourage and equip my volunteer members and co-leaders.

O'Donovan also notes that the threefold order of Bishops, Priests and Deacons is not discussed here (it comes up later) because, for the Reformers, that was a matter of discretion and ceremony, whereas word and sacrament were fundamental.

Purgatory - Article 22/39

XXII. OF PURGATORY

THE Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

The Articles have not been slow to condemn Rome. The great Protestant Reformation was a desire to move away from all doctrines that had developed that were not only invisible in Scripture (not necessarily a problem) but also repugnant to it.

O'Donovan differentiates between theological speculation and elucidation. The former involves invention; the latter an attempt to understand.

All preaching is an exercise of imagination but the Article is condemnatory when that raises imagination to the level of ritual. It was abhorrent to the reformers to worship relics or to process consecrated bread and wine and adore it.

I will not pretend that my church tradition respects the Articles and Anglo-Catholic traditions don't. In fact we both pay a bit fast and loose with them. What I will say is that those rituals which draw people back to a full exploration of Scripture are good; those that are seen as an end in themselves are less helpful.

A useful check as we embark on Holy week. Duty or joy? Mindless ritual or re-exploration?

The focus on purgatory in the title would have been the main bugbear of the reformers. Those who had rediscovered forgiveness as the grace and gift of God were appalled at the suggestion that any more than Jesus' sacrificial death for sin was necessary. The pre-reformation doctrine was of a place or state of suffering inhabited by the souls of sinners who are expiating their sins before going to heaven. Not necessary says Article 22.

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.