At this tumultuous time for the Anglican Communion (or is it now 'Federation'?) I thought it would be good to revisit our classic statement of faith: The Articles of Religion. So, today I begin a series of um, 39 Articles on the 39 Articles. For an intro you can see my earlier post 'The 39 Articles'.
Article I: Of Faith in the Holy Trinity
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
We begin with the radical monotheism of the Old Testament. It is easy to forget just how outrageous the claim that there is but one God is. Surely in the vast universe with all its diversity and array and all its flux and change there is room for a variety of gods. In fact, why should we believe that the tumult and struggle we encounter about us does not correspond to a divine tumult and struggle: that there isn't a chaos of gods with their special interests and foibles?
There are other spiritual beings. But none of them is divine. The one-ness of God means that all of reality has a unity too: a unity in him. It is all connected, however distant or discordant it seems: in him. His oneness also means that no religious tribalism is possible. Even as this God chose for himself a special people, he reminded them of his oneness: they could not hold him as their possession or talisman. The election of Israel was based on God's election of Adam.
The Articles emphasise the sheer transcendence of this deity and his freedom, matched by the three-fold cord of his classic attributes of power, wisdom and goodness. That he is without passions is most controversial to contemporary readers - but what this terms is meant to convey is that he is not prey to his emotions or whims. He is not irascible or moody, a victim of his own nature.
(to be continued...)
16 comments:
Thanks MPJ. I have quite a few people here in the States who will be now reading your Blog! My church is Anglican, but there are many here who aren't Anglican, but are very interested in understanding the roots of Anglicanism.
I was asked last week if we might run an Adult Sunday School on the 39 Articles.
Impressive.
well, JuMo, I would love this to become something you could use in just exactly such a case.
But you could grab WH Griffith Thomas' "The principles of Theology" which is pretty interesting and pretty evangelical in our way.
Very much looking forward to this series MJ...
Well, you signed em, Rev Hohne!
Hi Michael!
I believe that you occasionaly have discussions with Dave Armstrong. On the topic of the Trinity and Christ's divinity, I was hoping to contact him, but can't find contact information. Do you have some way to get a hold of him? Thanks! -Felice
Sorry Felice, I am not sure who Dave Armstrong is...
Looks orthodox to me...
D
What do you think of the cyberpastor's comments though Daniel?
Could you explain what Mr Hohne is trying to say?
Augustine for example when you read his writings and understand the philosophical language he uses was uniquely Christian and biblical and stood apart from the neoplatonists in his metaphysics... the language is platonic not Augustine's theology
I'm with cyberpastor on this one, and indeed this article I find most problematic of all of them. I agree with it as it stands and so could sign, but it's not how I would put it. The articles here follow Augustine (and much of the West after him) in prioritising one over three, which is why the East was ever suspicious of the West's tendency towards modalism (modalism = thinking there is only really one, and that the three are mere masks, three different expressions of the one God: like water, steam and ice). Augustine was influenced by neoPlatonism (to debatable extent), but cyberpastor has also accused this article of Aristotelianism: starting with a conceptual God who stands behind the universe in order to guarantee that we can understand it through reference to Him/It as a universalising principle. I guess the particularly Aristotelian notion is the lack of passion in God, that God's emotions can only be taken on the same level as any language of God's throne, or his right hand (i.e. as anthropomorphisms). MPJ has attempted to answer this in a revisionist way by reference to a minimal reading of 'passions' as particularly strong emotions under whose sway you lose control of yourself. While cute (and useful to Anglicans who want to stay biblical while affirming the articles), is this really what the framers intended? (NB see also discussion on language and intention...)
Instead, many modern theologians would prefer to begin with three (Father, Son, Spirit) rather than one, would question the language of 'monotheism' (while still rejecting tritheism), and would instead talk about the unity of Father, Son and Spirit as a social tri-unity. At least the articles include reference to trinity in the first article, rather than leaving it to a second (or appendix).
PS Rev Hohne, I'd be interested (with Rev Jensen) as to your thinking in signing off on this article.
PPS Also, on re-reading your comment, I realised I missed having a go at explaining the Constantinian notion of power. I assume you're referring to centralised monarchic power: one God - one nation - one king/emperor. The kind of power that has always justified empire. One economy - one president - one search engine. Or were you referring to the mode of power as domination, rather than service? Or are the two linked?
What do you think of the cyberpastor's comments though Daniel?
I'm not going to get away with throwaway comments on this 'blog, am I?
Although I'm not particularly interested in defending Anglicanism (not being an Anglican), it does seem a little unfair to suggest that the God of the gospel is not to be found in the Thirty-Nine Articles. Article I affirms that "in the unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" and then the next Article tells us of "the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man."
This Article may have Aristotelian - I don't know enough about this (being an humble medical student not an ace pastor-theologian) to comment (and perhaps I should therefore not comment!) but we don't do our theology in a vacuum - whatever we write is going to be influenced by our culture, particularly if we are affirming a truth against a contemporary error. Moreover, we don't just start afresh in each generation, do we? We build on our Christian heritage, always reforming our theology in line with Scripture, but that doesn't necessarily reject what has gone before us.
Starting with the unity of God makes sense in light of the revelation we have in Scripture, doesn't it, with the repeated emphasis in the OT on the fact that God is one (e.g. Deut 6.4), albeit unity with complexity, as well as in the new (e.g. 1 Cor. 8.4).
I don't think Michael's treatment of impassibility can be dismissed as cute or convenient for those who want to affirm the Articles yet remain Biblical. Don Carson (is he respectable enough to be quoted?) writes, "At its best, impassibility is trying to avoid a picture of God who is changeable, given over to mood swings, dependent upon his creatures." The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, p. 55, and "God is impassible in the sense that he sustains no 'passion', no emotion, that makes him vulnerable from the outside, over which he has no control, or which he has not foreseen." ibid. p. 68.
Westminster uses almost the same language in II/i, with considerable Scriptural justification and seems to understand impassibility in this way, quoting as it does Acts 14.11.
Actually, Westminster is altogether better, starting as it does with Scripture and revelation, before moving on to the things revealed. The 39 Articles are a stage in a process - the Reformation continued beyond Anglicanism!
Well, no... a bridge too far!
I think starting with scripture and revelation as Westminster does is problematic... and leads to trouble further down the line.
However, I am with you on this: that the Bible starts with the One and then moves to the three... hmm. Biblical monotheism - Yahwism if you must - is the default position... nicht wahr?
I think starting with scripture and revelation as Westminster does is problematic... and leads to trouble further down the line.
Go on...
(when you have time, what with Freya and all!)
Well David, i am sure the Dean of Sydney would love to hear your views on the Articles...!
Post a Comment