1 thought on “Archbishops propose programme of reform and renewal”
‘As disciples of our Risen Lord we are called to be loyal to the inheritance of faith which we have received and open to God’s Spirit so that we can be constantly renewed and reformed for the task entrusted to us’.
This post is just to make an observation which is probably obvious, though I admit that I cannot prove it: that those who regard themselves as Christians fundamentally disagree about what ‘the inheritance of faith which we have received’ is and how we should be ‘open to God’s Spirit so that we can be constantly renewed and reformed for the task entrusted to us’.
To avoid a possible misunderstanding, I should say that I am talking about what the truths of Christianity are, not about who are the Christians – that is, known to God to be Christians, ‘born from above’, so to speak. Because born again Christians can be astray or go astray in their doctrine just as they can go astray morally. Conversely it is possible for someone to intellectually believe all the truths of Christianity and yet not be born again.
And this disagreement is much deeper than the disagreement about sexuality or the ordination of women. Those who regard themselves as Christians disagree on who God and Christ are, what they are like, what they have said and done, are saying and doing, will say and do; what the condition of human beings is, what is their greatest need, and how that need has been and can be met by God’s great salvation.
To give an example which, again, I cannot prove: I would be glad and humbled to be proved wrong but I think that the truths – that all human beings are born with a nature inclined to evil
and facing God’s wrath and condemnation, incapable, without divine grace, of taking any steps towards God, and that God has chosen in eternity those whom he will save and those, those only, will certainly be saved, and that the death of Christ propitiates and satisfies God’s just wrath – would be believed ex animo by only a minority of the ordained persons in the CofE, despite the fact that they have all, as I understand the Declaration of Assent, declared that they believe that Articles 9,10, 17 and 31 are true. And their conscience is untroubled because, as they see it, either those Articles need not be understood to mean these doctrines, or – the Declaration is so loosely worded that they can make it in good conscience without believing that those Articles are true.
I agree with Warfield’s comment on Elijah’s experience in the cave, ‘….it is not the Law but the Gospel, not the revelation of wrath but that of love, which saves the world. Wrath may prepare for love; but wrath never did and never will save a soul.’ But wrath may prepare for love. And we are told elsewhere, “When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself”. That note of warning, so evident throughout the Bible, including the terrifying statements from our Lord’s own lips, is, I suspect (again I would be happy to be proved wrong) in general largely absent from the preaching and teaching of the Church of England at all levels. A glaring example is ‘Being a Christian’ under the tab ‘Our Faith’ on the CofE official website.
I suggest a candid and painful honesty is needed as a pre-requisite to the proposed programme of reform and renewal – a recognition that these disagreements are fundamental and cannot be embraced and reconciled in some overarching synthesis.
‘As disciples of our Risen Lord we are called to be loyal to the inheritance of faith which we have received and open to God’s Spirit so that we can be constantly renewed and reformed for the task entrusted to us’.
This post is just to make an observation which is probably obvious, though I admit that I cannot prove it: that those who regard themselves as Christians fundamentally disagree about what ‘the inheritance of faith which we have received’ is and how we should be ‘open to God’s Spirit so that we can be constantly renewed and reformed for the task entrusted to us’.
To avoid a possible misunderstanding, I should say that I am talking about what the truths of Christianity are, not about who are the Christians – that is, known to God to be Christians, ‘born from above’, so to speak. Because born again Christians can be astray or go astray in their doctrine just as they can go astray morally. Conversely it is possible for someone to intellectually believe all the truths of Christianity and yet not be born again.
And this disagreement is much deeper than the disagreement about sexuality or the ordination of women. Those who regard themselves as Christians disagree on who God and Christ are, what they are like, what they have said and done, are saying and doing, will say and do; what the condition of human beings is, what is their greatest need, and how that need has been and can be met by God’s great salvation.
To give an example which, again, I cannot prove: I would be glad and humbled to be proved wrong but I think that the truths – that all human beings are born with a nature inclined to evil
and facing God’s wrath and condemnation, incapable, without divine grace, of taking any steps towards God, and that God has chosen in eternity those whom he will save and those, those only, will certainly be saved, and that the death of Christ propitiates and satisfies God’s just wrath – would be believed ex animo by only a minority of the ordained persons in the CofE, despite the fact that they have all, as I understand the Declaration of Assent, declared that they believe that Articles 9,10, 17 and 31 are true. And their conscience is untroubled because, as they see it, either those Articles need not be understood to mean these doctrines, or – the Declaration is so loosely worded that they can make it in good conscience without believing that those Articles are true.
I agree with Warfield’s comment on Elijah’s experience in the cave, ‘….it is not the Law but the Gospel, not the revelation of wrath but that of love, which saves the world. Wrath may prepare for love; but wrath never did and never will save a soul.’ But wrath may prepare for love. And we are told elsewhere, “When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself”. That note of warning, so evident throughout the Bible, including the terrifying statements from our Lord’s own lips, is, I suspect (again I would be happy to be proved wrong) in general largely absent from the preaching and teaching of the Church of England at all levels. A glaring example is ‘Being a Christian’ under the tab ‘Our Faith’ on the CofE official website.
I suggest a candid and painful honesty is needed as a pre-requisite to the proposed programme of reform and renewal – a recognition that these disagreements are fundamental and cannot be embraced and reconciled in some overarching synthesis.
Phil Almond