Karen wrote asking about the sacraments: so some thoughts!
Part of the heritage of living in a society where the Protestant-Catholic divide used to be more prominent in our consciousness than it now is is an extreme jitteriness about the sacraments. In evangelical Anglican churches, we have been so afraid of appearing Catholic, or of appearing to say that the sacraments actually do something, that we have denuded the sacraments of any significance in our church life entirely. It was also part of a reductionistic and rationalistic turn in Sydney Anglican theology (in my opinion) of which Broughton Knox was the father.
This was an unfortunate and unnecessary overreaction which has robbed a generation of hearing the power of the Word of God preached in this way. The sacraments are powerful precisely because they are the enacted word of God - and the word of God is powerful indeed! It is a shame, because by focussing on controversy, we became afraid of doing something wrong and so missed out on something that is so very good. Of course you don't have to be baptised, if it is understood as a work that achieves your salvation. But you do have to do it as a command of the Lord Jesus. The logic here is the same as saying "you don't need to have sex to be married - sex is only the symbolic physical enactment of your marriage, and we are beyond it and also, people often mistake the symbolic physical enactment for the real thing so we should avoid confusion by making sure we never even appear to have sex."
I think there is an important principle BEHIND the issue for evangelicals however. Do we do only that which is ordained in the Bible? Or, given that the Bible does not speak about many matters, do we listen to and give heed to tradition in its stead? For example, the Bible tells us not very much about how the Lord's Supper was celebrated. But since the earliest times (and I mean the very earliest times) it has been celebrated in a particular form. Isn't that worth something? I am not saying that it has an absolute authority, but surely it allows that this was the way in which early Christians understood this matter and so we would not be wrong to do the same.
28 comments:
I went to a church - St. Paul's Carlingford - that used to run a Wednesday night congregation. Rather than have a regular Lord's supper, it was determined that the meal we ate before the service would constitute the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
But of course it didn't. Everyone just scoffed down pizza or chinese before church began and there was no mention at all about us celebrating Christ's death (except maybe when someone publically said grace... maybe).
I also remember a bible study group leader at that service telling me that he was not baptised and didn't really care to be.
Now that I'm a Presbyterian - the only thing any true evangelical Anglican can become ;) - I respect the importance of these two sacraments far more than when I was a Sydney Anglican. Although I'm still wary of "high church sacramentalism", the simplicity of an evangelical Presbyterian Lord's supper is quite appealing.
And Baptism... Covenant theology is just not understood by Sydney Anglicans. Most Sydney Anglicans I met could not articulate the reasons why their church baptised children. While I disagree with the credobaptism taught by Baptists, at least they have a well formulated stance that they can articulate. The understanding that Baptism is an external sign of the covenant in the same way that circumcision was is vital in understanding why many churches baptise children.
As a "Sydney Anglican in Exile" I gotta agree with OSO (to a point -- I'm not looking to become a Pressy any time soon. Besides, Pressies don't do choral evensong.). The majority of Sydney Anglicans -- and sadly this includes many pastors -- haven't got a clue when it comes to sacramental theology. Well from a Diocese that has all but abandoned Anglican liturgical worship a good place to start (after the Bible of course) would be the BCP (including the catechism which confirmees don't even know exists) and the 39 Articles. There's quite a bit of sacramental theology in that little black book which most Sydney Anglicans have never even seen (let alone held). What's more, I'm told that Moore College students need to read Calvin's Institutes during their studies. Yet from what goes on in a typical Sydney Anglican Communion service you would think that they were either confused Zwinglians or just very confused. In any event you would hardly think they had read Chapters 14-19 of Book 4 of the Institutes (the chapters on the sacraments). I have never seen Sydney Anglican pastors more confused than when it comes to explaining the meaning and significance of the sacraments.
How about this pearl of wisdom from Calvin's opening two sentences (well 2 sentences in the Battles translation; it's probably half a sentence in the original :-)): "We have in the sacraments another aid to our faith related to the preaching of the gospel. It is very important that some definite doctrine concerning them be taught, that we learn from it both the purpose for which they were instituted and their present use." (4.14.1)
That's the problem in a nutshell. Sydney Anglicans aren't explicitly teaching some false doctrine of the sacraments (OK they might *implicitly* be teaching a pseudo-Zwinglian misunderstanding of the Sacraments) -- they just appear to be very muddled and therefore not (*explicitly*) teaching anything at all. Unfortunately this gives people the impression that the sacraments aren't very important at all -- which comes very close to equating the sacraments as mere "badges or tokens of Christian men's profession" which Article XXV stresses to refute. So much for upholding the Thirty-Nine Articles ...
I think that there would be more than a few pastors in Sydney who couldn't articulate "some definite doctrine" -- whether Calvinist, Zwinglian, Lutheran, papist, apist or whatever -- concerning the sacraments. Now that's a sad indictment on a church which claims to be "evangelical" (i.e. "of the gospel") and whose Articles of Religion describes the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper as sacraments "of the Gospel" (Art. XXV). Until Sydney Anglicans start celebrating and proclaiming the sacraments "of the gospel", they cannot truly claim to be an "evangelical" ("of the gospel") church.
Is there more to come?
What would you say to my friend who is married to a Lutheran or my friend who won't go to a Baptist church? (the latter is a Pressie by the way).
Well, I am no fan of covenant theology which I think distorts the prominence of this theme (esp in the NT).
Apodeictic, I notice you are also in OXford! I think you exaggerate, but in essence I agree: we are Zwinglians who are confused.
Karen: I think both of your friends are rather odd. I would have thought that this is unnecessary scruple about things that don't really matter. The Lutheran can surely believe that there is a real presence in a baptist service even if the baptists don't! I would say to them I think - check and inform your consciences before breaking fellowship, which I think is probably more important.
BTW, I think the Broughton Knox quote you mentioned is one of the more absurd things I have ever heard him to have said, with respect to a great one. It is just silly - so unlikely as to be laughable. Do we really need a THIRD volume of material? ;-)
Yes I am in Oxford. People I know (and a few I don't know!) back in the Sydney Diocese have told me to look you up. I suppose it's part and parcel of bearing the surname "Jensen" -- (and I'm not having a go at you or anyone else with that surname). You're a minor celebrity in the world of Sydney Anglicanism -- and perhaps even in the eyes of the Sydney Morning Herald :-) Even people who I'm sure don't even personally know you tell me I need to meet you!
So check your inbox. Or maybe I'll pidge you -- old skool :-)
And yes I was exaggerating a bit -- but only a bit. Most Sydney Anglicans don't know what they believe about the sacraments and no pastor ever articulates any "definite doctrine" (Calvin's words) of them -- either during a Sunday service (...oops, "meeting"), confirmation class or a mid-week bible study or "church membership" course (for want of a better term). Besides, the rhetorical effect of exaggeration might stir up a few people to be shocked into some change for the good. I am thankful to God for the diocese of Sydney and Moore College. Having no Christian input at home I heard the gospel through Sunday School, Primary School Scripture and church services and was instructed in the faith once for all delivered to the saints. You could do a lot worse. But I do get a little upset that we in Sydney seem to be selling our Anglican birthright for a mess of pottage. I am talking mainly about the younger generations here. There would be plenty of people under 30 who have never seen a prayer book in their life or think that anything less (more?) than a powerpoint projector, modern "worship" songs and amplified rock band accompaniment is "high church"! Should I be laughing or crying?
Oh and by the way I suspect it's not just in Sydney Anglicanism that "confused Zwinglianism" reigns supreme. In my experience it is a mark of the wider "evangelical" movement.
very minor celebrity!
Well, I say, preach it!
I think also the same is true of the reading of scripture in our churches...it has been largely lost apart from that which relates to the sermon.
BTW - In my criticism of Sydney Anglicans and St. Paul's Carlingford in particular, I need to balance those out by saying that God has used both mightily in my own spiritual growth and relationship with the Lord. I suppose it is because of that fact that I can oftentimes be critical of an institution that I respect greatly.
Michael, what is it about Covenant theology that you find incompatable with the NT?
And David/Apodeictic,
I notice that "The Big Lebowski" is on your favourite movie list. Any particular reason why?
Not incompatible so much as an overemphasis... that is, the NT doesn't appear to me to invoke the covenant concept with at all the frequency or emphasis that some reformed Christians do (Christians with whom I am in agreement mostly). The church is not Israel, and it's body-life is not ordered in the same way as that of Israel: and we must be wary of taking OT categories and imposing them on the church without warrant, or with too much literalness. You hear covenant invoked in all sorts of contexts - even parenting - as a kind of grab-bag concept.
(Overemphasis on covenant as a concept can also lead to distortions of the clear teaching of the Bible like limited atonement!)
Overemphasis on covenant as a concept can also lead to distortions of the clear teaching of the Bible like limited atonement!
This has got to be one confusing sentence!
Are you saying that Limited Atonement is a distortion of the clear teaching of the Bible?
Or are you saying that Limited Atonement has been distorted by this overemphasis?
G'day Michael,
Great subject.
I too have found throughout Sydney a problem with reductionism when it comes to the sacraments.
One thing that sticks in my craw is infant baptism as well, especially when the parents are not part of the church family, and after the baptism they are never seen again, untill the next one. Too me that kind of puts the reverse to the scripture in Acts where Peter asks if there is any reason why they shouldn't be baptised as they had already recieved the baptism of the Holy Spirit like they had.
My other issue is that when i go forward for communion, I take my children, and have done seen birth. While our minister does not give them the elements, i do expect him to bless them and to pray for them - with the expectation that God will indeed bless them and answer his prayers.
I have heard of one relatively new minister out of Moore College who is the senior minister of a parish tell another parent that he doesn't bless children when the parents take them forward as that is only being religious.
"Bah humbug"
I'm all for my children being blessed, and in fact one day - they were being a bit naughty as only 2 boys 2 & 4 can be, and another lady offered to look after them while we went down for communion.
I said "NO" they will come and get their blessing, and after they recieved it, they settled down remarkably. There was no way I was going to allow the devil to steal a blessing from them...
I love the time of communion, and while I agree it is only bread and wine/grape juice - it is a time of deep reflection and coming to our lord in repentance and dependance upon him and him only.
The other issue I have with infant baptism is if the child has been baptised in the church by a church going family - then that child should be able to take part of communion as soon as they are old enough to take it for themselves...
Blessings craig bennett
one salient: yeah sorry, bad prose. It comes from being in academia and trying to sound more profound than you actually are.
I think the doctrine of limited atonement is a distortion of the Bible's teaching. To establish the doctrine, you have to twist several simple texts which say the opposite. It is a perverse way to read the scriptures!
Doh! Why did this conversation have to happen while I was on holidays?????!!!
If you read the sydneyanglican.net forums, you will know the issue of sacramental efficacy is one that I bring up and defend frequently (and very imperfectly).
I was introduced to this concept (that the sacraments actually do something) via some Lutheran friends on the net. I thought it sounded blasphemous and was a denial of the gospel.
To my utter astonishment, I found that belief in sacramental efficacy was common to all the reformers (even Zwingli) - as well as everyone else in Christendom for most of history.
During my anti-Calvin phase a few years back I was greatly attracted to the Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence. But I couldn't swallow their understanding of Christs physical ubiquity - that was a bridge too far for me.
I am very attracted to the anglican understanding of Communion. As Michael points out, they Articles are very careful to state that the sacraments are not merely tokens. Yet my experience is that the "token" understanding of the sacraments is the most common one in Sydney Anglican Evangelicalism.
It is actually sub-Zwinglian, as Zwingli at least believed a real communion with Christ occurred at the table. I think SydAng is more baptist in its sacraments than anything.
It was also part of a reductionistic and rationalistic turn in Sydney Anglican theology (in my opinion) of which Broughton Knox was the father.
Yes - I made the same point recently on the forums. I was about as popular as flatulance in an elevator. But Knox did reduce the church.
What is church? According to the Reformers, Church is the place where the gospel is rightly preached, and the sacraments are rightly administered.
The current definition in SydAng is "God's people gathered around God's word". I believe this definition came from Knox, but perhaps someone can confirm?
Notice, though, that the sacraments have been removed from the definition. This is why I think it is proper to say that SydAng understanding of church is "reductionistic".
I'm not trying to cause trouble for troubles sake. I genuinely believe that God blesses us through the sacraments. I want to make sure that our people are blessed in every way possible. I commune my own children at home for this reason.
As you may have guessed, this is a "hot button" topic for me!
G'day Craig S.
I have to say though, I was mightily impressed during Synod to see the Archbiship in Action in presiding at communion.
While I have no idea of what his thoughts are about it, it was plain to all that indeed he was in a real place of reverence and worship of our living lord. Note I say reverence and worship to our lord and am not implying that he was worshipping the elements.
Blessings craig b
Craig S et al have been conducting a great discussion over on the Syd Ang forums on just this subject.
For my part, it is apparent that the sacraments were important in the early church, in the New Testament Church and this recent walk away, in some sectors from really entering into the sacraments is just that- recent. It has little validity either under the bible nor under tradition.
It´s reactionary and denies us much grace, which is sad.
Michael, as a (Catholic)Anglican, can I just give you a round of applause?
*applause*
Well said.
(PS, should send you that Cranmer essay...)
can you please comment on the level of understanding needed for someone to participate in the Lords Supper. St PAul writes about "discerning the body"
Good point - traditionally communion is only taken after catechism.
Personally I dont agree with this position. Taking my cue from the Passover supper, I believe that child communion is appropriate and desirable.
Michael,
I appreciate your thoughts on this topic. Having thought about the sacraments a bit lately, I think I'm on your wavelength.
Am currently wondering whether we should have our two children (aged 3 and 1) baptized and am currently leaning towards it. I was brought up Baptist so this goes against my heritage to some degree! (am now in a Sydang church though) The fact I'm leaning towards it (i.e. infant baptism) is probably largely the product of covenant theology thinking. Given your hesitations over covenant theology, I'd be interested in your thoughts on why baptize infants (if in fact you think that's what we should be doing).
Hope you can offer some comments.
Thanks.
Now steady on Nunc, you'll get me into trouble! Love to see your Cranmer work and read about him in the city of his death...
I think some of the discussion here and on the anglican media forum has been helpful. I don't think sacraments DO anything on their own aside from the word of God by the agency of the Holy Spirit. They do something like preaching does something... They are effective, because God chooses to use them in this way as his instruments. I think this is is merely the Calvinist teaching of the 39 articles - isn't it?
Covenant and infant baptism? Infant baptism shows that baptism is a sign of God's grace not the believer's faith. The helplessness of the baby underscores the point! I don't follow the scruples of otherwise reformed baptists on this point at all, but many people I respect and admire hold this position, so there you go. A question to ask might be: who is the sign FOR? Are there any texts that connect covenant and baptism in this way? Rom 6 appears to parallel circumcision (done to babies of course) with baptism; HOWEVER - the parallels are less than exact, aren't they? We baptise women (yes, nunc, even in Sydney ;-) ) after all...
Well, I guess I prefer the language of promise.
Peter Kirsop asks a great question. I would not like to exclude the severely mentally disabled (those with Alzheimer's for example?) from this sign, for example... but it isn't magic. The Lord's Supper may communicate to them God's word in a way that nothing else could... but in itself the elements do not have some property outside that.
To put the shoe on the other foot for a moment: the sacrament does not create the reality, it expresses or communicates the reality. I find the more catholic practice of taking the eucharist odd - that you could, for example, pop in to a church, take the eucharist, talk to no-one and slip out again seems to me to be counter to the very meaning of the meal. A friend and I were going to Christ Church Cathedral for lunhctime eucharist here in Oxford - you know, with 5 other people. We were discussing it one afternoon and I said "if you didn't come, that is, a Christian brother who I actually know and seek to serve and have a real relationship with, I probably wouldn't come to this." I guess it is like having the sex without the marriage (as opposed to the marriage without the sex!)...
Someone asked about what my evidence was for this lack of sacraments in Sydney. Well, in Moore College, in a four year course, we spend... wait for it...ONE HOUR on them. (I am not pleading for much more, don't get me wrong!) But don't blame Moore: our students arrive with pretty much nothing but confusion about the sacraments in the first place. I have to say, I think this is not being true to OUR OWN heritage as Reformed evangelicals. It certainly isn't about being more Catholic or about wanting to be more like them.
On the other hand, it is strange for a Catholic - and in my case Anglican Catholic :) - to walk into a Church to find that the Eucharist is not being celebrated on the Lord's Day. On my last visit to St Andrew's Cathedral Sydney, I went in fully expecting a liturgy and worship that I wasn't used to (which didn't worry me) but I did expect Holy Communion. I discovered on entry through the door (on a Sunday), that there would be no Communion that day - it had been cancelled. The broadly Catholic practice of receiving Communion allows one to walk into any church of one's communion, anywhere in the world, and feel that one will discern the same Lord they have been taught to receive in the Eucharistic meal. Sunday above all days is seen as the day to 'do this...' according to divine command. The efficacy of the sacraments in this tradition requires not the holiness of the minister or even the standard of community that receives it, but focuses one's attention on the Holy Spirit who does the work.
As a Baptist who became an Anglican via an Anglican adherance to Catholic practice surrounding the Eucharist, it seems to me that without a belief in the power of Jesus in the sacraments (regardless of whether recipients choose to act upon that grace), then we are out of tune with the earliest beliefs of our Christian brethren from apostolic times onwards.
Blessings, Nigel.
hmmm, well I won't be agreeing with you there Nigel! It is standard Anglican practice to have a monthly communion. In the 17th century, it was common to have a bi-annual communion. The every week model is a product of the 19th century Tractarian influence.
but in itself the elements do not have some property outside that.
Fully agree Michael. It is faith and the promises of God that make the sacraments efficacious.
They are effective, because God chooses to use them in this way as his instruments. I think this is is merely the Calvinist teaching of the 39 articles - isn't it?
Yes, I believe thats a fair way to put it.
I don't want to say that the sacraments are "magic" either. I am still working through it, but I do believe they "do" something.
For example, baptism (in conjunction with faith and God's word) actually does join us onto Christ "as by an instrument". That is why to Peter I said - since Sophie has been baptised into the church, be confident that she will share in the blessings of heaven.
This is the traditional Anglican teaching, as the BCP states -
"It is certain by God's Word, that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved."
As a former Catholic, could you please define the word "Sacrament" for me?
Well: it is an earthly sign, instituted by Christ, of a heavenly reality... made effective by faith. There is more to say of course, but that's a start.
Well, given that description, I only see 2 such sacraments. 1.)Baptism 2.) Communion/Lord's Supper.
These 2, I believe are the most misinterpreted parts of scripture.
For example, Jesus said. "As often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me." The question is "What is the 'this' He is referring to? Well, He was breaking bread at the Passover meal. At which point did He institute making the Passover a weekly or monthly event?
The Passover foreshadowed the Coming of the Savior. Jesus was making clear, that this was no long an event of anticipation, but from that point forward a memorial that their Savior HAD come.
As to Baptism. The act of transliteration instead of translation, in the English language, has lead to numerous divisions in the Church. The word "Baptize" means "to immerse". Water is usually assumed, since that is What John did. John did what was commonly understood in the OT as a "mikvah" a symbolic an ceremonial "washing". John himself said, "I 'immerse' you in water, but He will 'immerse' you in the Holy Spirit. John himself makes a distinction between what He was doing, and what the Messiah would do.
Jesus himself NEVER baptized (immersed) anyone in water. Yet command his disciple to? No, He commanded them to 'immerse' the world in HIM. "Immerse them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." He didn't say to immerse them in water BY His name. The command is to TEACH. This is the 'immersion' He was talking about.
Knoxx, to date, is the only one I've seen teaching this, but I've been making this exact argument for years. I don't know any of his other teachings, but to this point, he is spot on.
Well, this is a reductionistic account, and it ignores the actual practise of baptism in the book of Acts (for example) and the practice of bread-breaking in the early church. In addition, the practice of the very earliest post NT churches counts against your reading here. (not that it is normative per se, but it is a good pointer to what might have been meant in the first place).
In terms of the Lord's Supper the passage that Knox never comes to grips with in my view is in 1 Corinthians.
But, why be so negative about the sacraments when so much good is on offer in them?
Reductionist? Only in that truth doesn't need embellishment, sure. To be clear, the post NT church is as guilty of "adding" to God's word, as the Pharisee's were. Paul was constantly fighting against it. You see it in nearly every epistle that he wrote. Tradition is usually man-made, not God given commands. Tradition is fine, as long as it doesn't supersede God's word.
I make no argument against water baptism, if it is done in light of a repentant conscience, and an understanding that there is no "special Grace" that flows from it.
Water baptism always followed conversion, never before (infant baptism).
When Jesus said, "baptize them in the name...", He was NOT referring to water, but to the Triune nature of God. If not, then when Paul said,"God did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel." He would be denying a command of God, would he not? Paul continuously fought against the notion, that some "work" was on equal footing with saving faith.
I certainly wouldn't take my cues from the post NT church, since actual NT church was in constant disarray from false teachers and so-called "super apostles". This is verifiable throughout God's word, and was addressed by God Himself, in the letters to the Churches, in the book of Revelation.
Since the apostles, and God Himself addressed numerous issues in the church, following traditions from these churches is NOT wise. How do we know which are true and which are false? Simple, test it with God's word.
To assume "water" when the word baptize (immerse) is used, will lead to false doctrine. Baptize is used in a variety of contexts that have NOTHING to do with water. Jesus called his Crucifixion a baptism. Unless the cross was under water (sarcasm), baptism into Christ has nothing to do with water. The "one faith..one baptism" that Paul wrote, had nothing to do with water. He was talking about being immersed in Christ, not water. This "baptism" shows true conversion, not a mental ascent of just believing. Satan believes and trembles. The sign of true baptism, is a changed life.
As to what Knox believes about the Lord's supper, I know not. And since it is off topic, I'm sorry I brought it up. I will discuss it, if you so desire.
May God bless you.
Post a Comment