"And there is no health in us"... total depravity?

"No... not that dreadful Calvinist doctrine!", huffed the Anglo-Catholic churchman in an tone of cultured-indignant outrage...

In a previous post I considered the case for the reformed doctrine of predestination being taught in Article 17 of the Thirty-Nine Articles.  But what about the reformed doctrine of  total depravity?  Is it likewise to be found in the Anglican formularies or is it merely a morbid innovation of of those "hyper-puritan Calvinists"?  This question is posed in the context of the larger question that this blogger has explored, what is the historical Reformational heritage of the Anglican Church?

First up we need a definition... what is the doctrine of total depravity?  I like how this pastor defines it:

What total depravity means then is that every area of man has been affected by the Fall: man's entire body, soul and spirit has suffered a radical corruption.  This does not mean that man is without a conscience or any sense of right or wrong, nor that every sinner is devoid of all the qualities that are both pleasing to men and useful to society, when those qualities are judged only by human standards. In addition, this does not mean that every sinner is prone to every form of sin...

Perhaps "radical corruption" is a better term to describe our fallen condition than the historic term "total depravity." "Radical" not in the sense of being "extreme," but radical in the sense of its original meaning, stemming from the Latin word for "root" or "core." Our problem with sin is that it is rooted in the core of our being, permeating our hearts. It is because sin is at our core and not merely at the exterior of our lives that Romans 3:10-12 declares: "There is none righteous, no not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one."

Man, by nature, does not want to know God. "There is no one who seeks after God," as the above Scripture says. As Dr. Michael Horton noted, "We cannot find God for the same reason that a thief can't find a police officer." [Pastor John Samson]  

You've got to love that Horton quote, eh?

Simply put, sin has affected all parts of man. And this corruption touches the entire man - heart, emotions, will, mind, and body.  In that respect man is completely sinful, though not as sinful as he could be.  So, is this doctrine to be found among the teachings of the Thirty-Nine Articles or the Homilies or the prayers of the Book of Common Prayer?  Let's take a survey...

Excerpts from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer...
4th Sunday in Advent Collect:  ... that whereas, through our sins and wickedness, we are sore let and hindered in running the race that is set before us...

Morning Prayer Confession of Sin:  And there is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders.
The Lenten Collects:   Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we, worthily lamenting our sins, and acknowledging our wretchedness...
... Almighty God, who seest that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves...
Easter-Even Collect:  ... so by continual mortifying our corrupt affections we may be buried with him...
Easter Day Collect:  ... as by thy special grace preventing us thou dost put into our minds good desires...  [how else to interpret this than without God's special grace going before us we are incapable of even good desires, let alone any good, i.e. righteous, works]
4th Sunday After Easter Collect:  Almighty God, who alone canst order the unruly wills and affections of sinful men... [how else to take this than we have no power to rule over or against our sinful affections]
1st Sunday After Trinity Collect:  ... through the weakness of our mortal nature we can do no good thing without thee...
9th Sunday After Trinity Collect:  ...that we, who cannot do any thing that is good without thee, may by thee be enabled to live according to thy will...
15th Sunday After Trinity Collect:  ...because the frailty of man without thee cannot but fall...
24th Sunday After Trinity Collect:  ...absolve thy people from their offences; that through thy bountiful goodness we may all be delivered from the bands of those sins, which by our frailty we have committed...  
Holy Communion General Confession:  We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, By thought, word, and deed, Against thy Divine Majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us.
Prayer preceding kneeling at the Lord's Table:  We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table.
The Commination:  Ps. 51 - Behold, I was shapen in wickedness: and in sin hath my mother conceived me.
The Commination Confession:  ...enter not into judgement with thy servants, who are vile earth, and miserable sinners; but so turn thine anger from us, who meekly acknowledge our vileness, and truly repent us of our faults...
Psalm 14:1-8:  The fool hath said in his heart : There is no God.
2. They are corrupt, and become abominable in their doings : there is none that doeth good, no not one.
3. The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men : to see if there were any that would understand, and seek after God.
4. But they are all gone out of the way, they are altogether become abominable : there is none that doeth good, no not one.
5. Their throat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues have they deceived : the poison of asps is under their lips.
6. Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness : their feet are swift to shed blood.
7. Destruction and unhappiness is in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known ; there is no fear of God before their eyes.
8. Have they no knowledge, that they are all such workers of mischief : eating up my people as it were bread, and call not upon the Lord?

Psalm 53: 1-4:  The foolish body hath said in his heart : There is no God.
2. Corrupt are they, and become abominable in their wickedness : there is none that doeth good.
3. God looked down from heaven upon the children of men : to see if there were any that would understand, and seek after God.
4. But they are all gone out of the way, they are altogether become abominable : there is also none that doeth good, no not one.

Psalm 58:3:  The ungodly are froward, even from their mother's womb : as soon as they are born, they go astray, and speak lies.
Article IX. Of Original or Birth Sin:  Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek phronema sarkos (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh), is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath itself the nature of sin.
Article X. Of Free Will:  The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing ( us that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will.
Article XIII. Of Works before Justification:  Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

Update (5-8-2011):  And this tidbit - Article XIV. Of Works of Supererogation:  ... Whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to do, say, We be unprofitable servants. 
[Me:  That is, we bring nothing to the table when it comes to the demands of God's holiness, for we always fall short due to the corruption of our nature]

And you may want to take the time to read these selected excerpts below as they are part of the authoritative doctrinal teaching (see Article XXXV. Of Homilies) for the the Church of England concerning the fallen state of man:


Book I-Homily #2 Of The Misery of All Mankind:  ... And all men, of their evilness and natural proneness, were so universally given to sin that, as the Scripture saith [Gen. 6:6] *God repented that ever he made man... And thus he setteth us forth, speaking by his faithful Apostle St. Paul: [Rom. 3:9–18] All men, Jews and Gentiles, are under sin. There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none that understandeth; there is none that seeketh after God.  They are all gone out of the way; they are all unprofitable: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used Craft and deceit; the poison of serpents is under their lips.  Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood.  Destruction and wretchedness are in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes...

St. Paul in many places painteth us out in our colours, calling us the children of the wrath of God when we be born; saying also that we cannot think a good thought of ourselves, much less we can say well or do well of ourselves... And our Saviour Christ saith there is none good but God, and that we can do nothing that is good without him, nor no man can come to the Father but by him.  He commandeth us all to say that we be unprofitable servants, when we have done all that we can do... He saith he came not to save but the sheep that were utterly lost and cast away...

We be of ourselves of such earth as can bring forth but weeds, nettles, brambles, briars, cockle, and darnel.  Our fruits be declared in the fifth chapter to the Galathians. [Gal. 5:[19–23].]  We have neither faith, charity, hope, patience, chastity, nor any thing else that good is...

Let us therefore acknowledge ourselves before God, as we be indeed, miserable and wretched sinners... For truly there be imperfections in our best works... Let us therefore not be ashamed to confess plainly our state of imperfection; yea, let us not be ashamed to confess imperfection even in all our own best works...

Thus we have heard how evil we be of ourselves; how, of ourselves and by ourselves, we have no goodness, help, nor salvation, but contrariwise sin, damnation, and death everlasting: which if we deeply weigh and consider, we shall the better understand the great mercy of God, and how our salvation cometh only by Christ... Hitherto have we heard what we are of ourselves; verily, sinful, wretched, and damnable.
  
Again, we have heard how that, of ourselves and by ourselves, we are not able either to think a good thought, or work a good deed: so that we can find in ourselves no hope of salvation, but rather whatsoever maketh unto our destruction... Let us also knowledge the exceeding mercy of God toward us, and confess that, as of ourselves cometh all evil and damnation, so likewise of him cometh all goodness and salvation; as God himself saith by the Prophet Osee: [Hos. 13:9] O Israel, thy destruction cometh of thyself, but in me only is thy help and comfort.

Well... what do you think?  Can a case be made that the reformed doctrine of total depravity is reflected in the Anglican formularies as exampled in the above quotes?  It seems difficult to come to any other conclusion; a conclusion which magnifies the radical remedy that God provided for us miserable sinners:  the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, God come in the flesh - the perfect holy one - on the cross for sinful humans.  Nothing less was needed and because of the great mercy and love of God, nothing less was provided.

Apostolic Succession Pt. 4: Addendum to the Postscript...

Some more interesting notes to add to the three earlier installments (here, here, and here) - this from John Booty, in an article posted at the Church Society. He adds further detail to Richard Hooker's thinking regarding Apostolic Succession and church polity:

Thus  the  basic conflict  emerged  between  Travers,  who  believed  that  the  only  right  government for  the Church  of England was that  of the  apostolic Church most  perfectly manifested in Calvin’s Geneva,  and Hooker, who  believed that the Church was under  no  obligation to imitate the church government  either  of  apostolic  times  or  of  the  sixteenth-century  Genevan  Church.  Travers  sought for obedience  to  the  positive  commands  of  Scripture  in  matters  of  polity, while Hooker argued that Scripture  neither  gave  nor was intended to  give a  pattern  for the outward government of the Church, but rather presupposed the operation of natural law and positive human laws in such matters...

... Hooker’s  argument  concerning  the  laws  of  the  universe  was  presented  in  order  to demonstrate the errors of the Puritans. Revelation in Jesus Christ was given for a purpose and that purpose is the salvation of fallen men and women. It was not given in order to provide rules for the construction of ecclesiastical polity Nor was it given in order to lay down rules for the government of civil society. The external government of church and state is rooted in natural  and  positive-human law,  a  fact  presupposed  by  Scripture.  This  does  not  mean that such government is not under the judgment of and must not be responsive to God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. It simply means that Scripture is not dealing with the outward forms of such government.  This  rooting  of  ecclesiastical  and  civil government  in  law  was  basic  to  his argument against the Puritans and led Hooker into the tragic situation in which he ended his life.  And  this  is  so  because  his  point  of  view  collided  with  the  developing  doctrine concerning episcopacy and the gradual emergence of the divine right theory of royal power.

Thus rooting all power of government in law, Hooker was led to conclude that the basis of all power is located mediately in the  people  from whom all  positive law  proceeds. He  did  not teach any strict theory of social contract, but he did locate the source of  royal power in the original assent of the people to such power and believed that all such power was limited by law  and  custom,  located  in  the  common  law  tradition  of  England. When  Bancroft,  one  of Whitgift’s  henchmen,  asserted  the  apostolic  succession  of bishops  and  thus  placed  them outside of human law, or at least tended to do so, he was teaching something antithetical to Hooker’s basic position. We can understand Bancroft’s urge to preach as he did; the Puritans rooted their polity in Scripture and thereby sought for it an absolute authority apart from the state. In a sense it was natural that their enemies should seek to root the established polity of the  Church  of  England  in  a  similar  way.  But  in  so  doing,  they  were  departing  from  the nascent tradition of the English Reformers and were saying something which try as he might (and  there  is  evidence  of  his  spending  some  effort  on  the  matter)  Hooker  could  not  say. Professor Houk, speaking of Book VII, has said:
The theory of apostolical succession viewed the episcopacy as an order derived not from the whole church but descending from the apostles, a class within the Church. Hooker’s theory of the Social Contract and of the sovereignty of the people was so fundamental with him that he would have been slow to accept a newly-advanced theory incompatible with it.

And from The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, we find this additional corroboration concerning the views of the English Reformers on church polity and the necessity of holding to a divinely instituted apostolic succession in order to have a true Church:

IV. The Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States tolerate two classes of opinion,—the Anglo-Catholic or High-church view, and the Low- or Broad-church view. (1) The Anglo-Catholic view of the episcopate is in essential particulars that of the Roman Catholic Church. It does not recognize the superior authority of the pope, as the vicar of Christ and the infallible successor of St. Peter, nor even place ordination among the sacraments. But it regards episcopacy as indispensable to the very being of the Church, holds to the transmission of grace by the imposition of hands, accepts apostolic succession, and denies validity to any ministry not ordained by bishops. Bishops "as being the successors of the apostles are possessed of the same power of jurisdiction" (J. H. Blunt, Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, p. 85, London, 1870). They are, and have been from the time of the apostles, an order distinct from the priesthood and diaconate and higher than both. As late as 1618 the highest authority in the Church of England, James I., recognized the ordination of the Reformed Churches of the Continent when he sent a delegation made up in part of bishops to the Synod of Dort. Archbishop Laud (1633—45) was the most extreme representative of the jure divino right of episcopacy the Church of England has had, and his intolerance brought him to the block. The Low- and Broad-church view regards the episcopate as desirable and necessary for the wellbeing, not to the being, of the Church. The episcopal Episcopius is not the only form of government with Scriptural authority (if, indeed, it or any other be recommended by Scripture); but it is the one best adapted to forward the interests of Christ's kingdom among men. The best Anglican writers on this side agree that the episcopate developed out of the prcsbyterate, and that there are only two orders of the ministry in the New Testament,—presbyters and deacons. Dr. Lightfoot, bishop of Durham, in his scholarly and exhaustive discussion of the subject (commentary on Philippians, pp. 180-267), says, "It is clear, that, at the close of the Apostolic Age, the two lower orders of the threefold ministry were firmly and widely established; but traces of the episcopate, properly so called, are few and indistinct. . . . The episcopate was formed out of the presbyteral order by elevation; and the title, which originally was common to all, came at length to be appropriated to the chief of them." And again he says, "The episcopate was formed out of the presbytery." After he was made bishop he stated that his views on the episcopate had been misunderstood. Dean Stanley (Christian Institutions, p. 210) representing the same view, says, "According to the strict rules of the Church derived from those early times, there arc but two orders,—presbyters and deacons."

This view, which is also held by such men as Arnold, Alford, Jacob, and Hatch, was the view of the divines of the English Reformation. Cranmer, Jewel, Grindal, and afterward Field (" The apostles left none to succeed them," Of the Church, vol. iv., p. vii.), defended episcopacy as the most ancient and general form of government, but always acknowledged the validity of Presbyterian orders. (Cf. G. P. Fisher, in the New Englander, 1874, pp. 121-172.) Bishop Parkhurst looked upon the Church of Zurich as the absolute pattern of a Christian community; and Bishop Ponet would have abandoned even the term "bishop" to the Catholics, Ecclesiastics held positions in the Church of England who had received only Presbyterian ordination. Such were Whittingham, Dean of Durham, Cartwright, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, and Travers, provost of Trinity College, Dublin. It is doubtful whether any prelate of the English Church in Elizabeth's reign held the jure divino theory of episcopacy, though Archbishop Bancroft (d. 1605) seems to have been the first Anglican prelate to avow it.

Apostolic Succession Pt. 3 - A Cranmer postscript

As an addendum to Part 1 and Part 2, I would like to add some research from the award winning biography on Thomas Cranmer by the scholar Diarmaid MacColluch.  As already presented, I've seen no direct evidence in the historical record that the English reformers held to a doctrine of divinely instituted Apostolic Succession, as either an essential mark of a true church or necessary for the validity of the Sacraments.

John Jewell echoes other reformers such as Calvin, Vermigli, Bucer, and Bullinger in his Homily (part of the the CoE's formularies) when defining the three necessary marks or notes of a true church:  sound doctrine, the sacraments rightly administered, and the right exercise of ecclesiastical discipline.  Conspicuously missing is any mention of Apostolic Succession.


Similarly in Article XIX. Of the Church from the Thirty-Nine Articles, we find the first two marks:
The Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

Likewise Hooker writes, “we must not simply without exception urge a lineal descent of power from the Apostles by continued succession of bishops in every effectual ordination.”

But are there clues or bits of insight in the historical record that would give us a window into Archbishop Thomas Cranmer's personal view concerning Apostolic Succession?  Here are some excerpts from the chapter Salvaging the Cause (pp. 276-279) in MacCulloch' biography concerning events of 1541:

... he [Cranmer] was otherwise engaged, mainly in presiding over the contentious work of the doctrinal commission set up by the King at the beginning of April... The doctrinal committee seems to have worked within a framework formed by seventeen set questions on doctrine... - The other notable feature is their [i.e. the surviving documents] collection of marginalia from King Henry in truculently reformist mood, questioning the scriptural origins of confirmation, unction and chrism, challenging the exclusive right of bishops to ordain clergy, and wanting proof for the origins of their office...

Cranmers' most extensive answers were made in relation to the definition of royal power in the Church... which now occupied six of the seventeen questions...

Even King Henry had questions concerning the origins of the office of ordination held by bishops.  MacCulloch continues as he describes Cranmer's peculiar and antiquated One Kingdom view of Christendom and that of royal power as pertains to the appointing of bishops.  Cranmer tackled the following question before the committee:


"Whether the apostles lacking a higher power, as in not having a Christian king among them, made bishops by that necessity, or by authority given them by God?"  In this, he revealed a breathtaking skepticism about any independent character for the church.  His starting point was the basic character of a Christian polity, royal supremacy in its purest form:  God had delivered to 'all Christian princes... the whole cure of souls, as concerning the ministration of things political and civil governance'.  Ministers within this commonwealth were divided between those whose functions were 'civil' and those 'of Gods' word'.  And 'comely ceremonies and solemnities' by which they were admitted (in other words, ordination and consecration in the case of clergy) were 'only for a good order and seemly fashion', without any special conferring of grace by the 'promise of God'.  The basic assumption had an important consequence for Cranmer's view of the course of Church history; it was a journey towards the righting of a wrong, the lack of proper authority in the apostolic Church, which had only been remedied when the first Christian rulers appeared, in the third-century Armenia and the Roman Empire under Constantine the Great.  The apostles of the first century AD had lacked 'remedy then for the correction of vice, or appointing of ministers' and had to make do with 'the consent of christian multitude among themselves'...

MacCulloch summarizes Cranmers' understanding:

Far from holding any doctrine of apostolic succession in 1540, therefore, Cranmer saw the first Christians casting round to create makeshift structures of authority:  'they were constrained of necessity to take such curates and priests as either they knew themselves to be meet thereunto, or else as were commended unto them by other that were so replete with the Spirit of God... that they ought even of very conscience to give credit unto them'.  Sometimes the apostles sent ministers to the people, sometimes the people chose their own.  Hence he had no difficulty in assenting to the idea Christian rulers could start the ministry off anew, creating bishops and priests, if they had no alternative... Cranmer affirmed that 'princes and governors' had as much right as bishops to make a priest, or even, as he had to admit on the analogy of the early Church, 'the people also by their election [i.e. choice].

In the above we may even see some seeds that contribute to the articles concerning ordination of ministers and ceremonies in the Church:

XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church.  It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity 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 other may fear to do the like, as he that offendeth against common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the conscience 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.

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 anything that of itself is superstitious or ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrate or ordered according to the rites of that book, since the second year of 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 or ordered.

My main contention in these three posts on Apostolic Succession is that if an Anglican wants to hold a divinely instituted Apostolic Succession as necessary for a true church and for valid sacraments, he will not find its warrant in the 16th century English reformers, nor in the writings of early church fathers such as Jerome... let alone the New Testament.  So where is one to go to find direct support?  The only place I know of is either the medieval Roman church period or to the more recent Anglo-Catholic movement of the 19th century with its revisionist take on the English reformation.

Apostolic Succession Pt. 2 - Hooker and Jerome

As presented in Apostolic Succession Pt. 1 , the physical succession of bishops, as contended by Jewell, does not rise to that of a mark or note of a true church.  In addition, any evidence of physical succession from the first century is not proof of its role as a necessary esse of the church.  As it is said, correlation is not proof of causality.  Jewell was not arguing, nor am I, against proper church ordination of ministers. Rather, that a physical line of apostolic succession going back (supposedly) to the Apostles is not a mark of a true church.  This is evident from many of the writings and letters of the English reformers including Hooker.  Those reformers, in fact, recognized the reformed churches of the Continent with their presbyterian polity as true churches.  Inasmuch as one of the marks of a true church was the right administration of the Sacraments, they were thus by extension validating the Baptism and the Lord's Supper of those Continental churches.  Though they argued for the episcopal form of church government as the more scriptural polity, they did not insist on it as a necessary mark of a true church.  But they did insist on the succession of apostolic teaching as opposed to "mere succession of sees."  I am aware of nothing written by the 16th English reformers that would elevate or recognize physical succession from the time of the Apostles as a necessary mark of a true church nor equating such succession with episcopal polity.  And evidently that is why it is not mentioned even as an aside in the 39 Articles of Religion, Jewell's homily for Whit-Sunday, or even Hooker's defense of the episcopacy in his Laws.  And it seems any discovery of  physical succession in the penumbra of those writings would simply be a concession of the historic record of the above.

C. Sydney Carter writes:
Jewel, in treating of the unity of the Visible Church, had stressed the importance of an orderly episcopal ministry, although he declared that “God's grace is promised to one who feareth God and not to sees or successions.”  Keble in his Preface to Hooker's Works states that the Elizabethan bishops and divines were content “to show that the government by Archbishops and Bishops was ancient and allowable: they never ventured to urge its exclusive claim or to connect it with the validity of the Holy Sacraments."   In confirmation of this statement we find that Hooker's patron, Archbishop Whitgift, clearly asserts that “no certain manner or form of electing ministers is prescribed in Scripture and that every Church may do therein as it shall seem most expedient.”  Hooker fully concurred in this opinion, since he declares that the unity of the Church consists in three essentials, the possession of “the one Lord, the one Faith, and the one Baptism.” Although he insisted that “without the work of the Ministry religion by no means can possibly continue,” he asserts clearly that “the complete form of Church polity . . . is not taught in Scripture,” while “much that it hath taught may become unrequisite, sometime because we need not use it, sometime because we cannot.” And in this latter category he placed the Reformed non-episcopal Churches, including the Scottish and French, who, he declares, “have been driven without any fault of their own by the necessity of the present times” to practise a presbyterian form of government... But in spite of his later “higher” view of episcopacy, which was probably occasioned by the increasing insistence of the extreme Puritans on the exclusive necessity of a Presbyterian polity, Hooker was still prepared to admit, as he did in commenting on the case of Theodore Beza's ordination by Calvin, that “there may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination without a bishop.”... Again, in cases where it is not possible to secure a bishop for ordination, Hooker admits that the ordinary institution of God must be waived. And so he adds: “we must not simply without exception urge a lineal descent of power from the Apostles by continued succession of bishops in every effectual ordination.” Professor Sisson is therefore surely correct when he affirms that “there is nothing in Hooker to serve as a foundation for an episcopacy by Apostolic Succession and divine institution...

But some may object and claim that apostolic succession is divinely instituted from the first century. Yet here we have the early church father, Jerome, weighing in:

"When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself." (Letter 146:1)

"A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’ Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptised were his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up. Whosoever thinks that there is no proof from Scripture, but that this is my opinion, that a presbyter and bishop are the same, and that one is a title of age, the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, saying, ‘Paul and Timotheus, servants of Christ to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.’" (Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:562-563)

"Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person. Therefore, as the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the Church that they are to be subject to him who is placed over them so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by Divine appointment, and ought to rule the Church in common, following the example of Moses, who, when he alone had power to preside over the people Israel, chose seventy, with the assistance of whom he might judge the people. We see therefore what kind of presbyter or bishop should be ordained." (Commentariorum In Epistolam Ad Titum, PL 26:563)

Lastly and by way of observation, it seems that the more a church body adheres to so-called "divinely instituted apostolic succession", the less one finds in that body the preaching of and adherence to the pure gospel of salvation of sinners by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone - which is the crucial core of sound doctrine as found in Holy Scripture. The church is born of a message about something God alone has done, the gospel of Jesus Christ; that gospel's very origins being in the counsel of God before the foundations of the world (Eph. 1:3-6). She is nourished and maintained by that glorious gospel as administered by those called and ordained. And it is that gospel which will be the at the center of sound doctrine, the administration of the Sacraments, and proper ecclesiastical discipline - the marks of a true church.

Update: A related article/worthwhile read by Robin Jordon can be found at: Anglicans Ablaze

Generous Justice: A Response

My wife, Barbara, recently read Tim Keller's latest book. She wrote the following and consented to post it here:

Why am I a wee bit bothered by Tim Keller’s Generous Justice?  I might even say I’m troubled.  I have benefited much from TK, as have so many.  However, when I FEEL my Christian liberty is being stolen away, the hair on my neck stands up, and I get fidgety!  Then I get a little crazy.  I start accusing TK of patronizing the poor and pandering to the powerful.  

I’m just a simple cave (wo)man.  I can understand when someone tells me I have fallen way short of what God commands.  I can understand when someone tells me that, on my behalf, Jesus has met the very demands of which I fall so short.  I can understand when someone says go therefore and live out a thankful, generous, charitable life.

I cannot understand when someone tells me THAT must look like THIS.  Tim Keller is saying just that in Generous Justice.  I love that he wants Christians to be aware of needs.  I love that he wants Christians to be given and that he wants us to consider how we might be more so.  But a red flag goes up when the call to love my neighbor is put out there as looking a particular way - that true Christianity is about healing the community around us, even remedying its systemic injustices.  Really?  How it looks to love one another will have everything to do with our own place.  But please don’t tell the single mom to spend her time fixing a broken community program; she is mending broken hearts.  Why heap guilt on the stay-at-home mom who, though not organizing soup kitchens, is taking a meal to a sick neighbor while trying desperately to be kind to her kids and unselfish towards her hard-working husband?

Jesus’ yoke is easy and His burden is light.  Why?  Because He has fulfilled all those demands of which I fall so short. He did come to bring justice, generously!   He points me in His good direction, puts me on the path, and nourishes me along the way.  That sustenance has everything to do with what HE HAS DONE.  The way is clear.  The fruit I will bear in acceptance of the sweet message of what He has done for me will be love, joy, peace, self-control, patience, gentleness, kindness, longsuffering, goodness, faithfulness.  My family, my neighbors, my community benefit as I seek to put others above myself, to give increasingly of time and resources.  

That my heart is stirred is natural.  God loves the unlovely.  He cares for the downtrodden. To care is written on the heart.  Tim, we all know we could and should do more.  The suffering in and out of the city is before us daily.  We know that we haven’t given all we could.  As Christ’s we pray that we would walk more selflessly everyday.  

Guilt is not the sweet response that Christ’s own have to their Savior.  But it seems here guilt is the motivator for action.  Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone does not result in a vague persistent sense of guilt but in fruit borne of the Spirit.  
 
We beggars in the pews are clinging to the bright sufficiency of what Christ has done.  Please don’t over burden us.  His yoke is easy. His burden is light.  Our rested souls seek to serve.  Our thankful hearts have a myriad of ways to do so everyday.  Generous Justice?  For this wayfarer learning to be just generous will do.

-Barbara VB Miller

Apostolic Succession Pt. 1 - John Jewell

A question that hangs out there in Anglican circles is as follows: Is the church born of the gospel, i.e. the Word of God rightly preached, and thus legitimized by sound apostolic doctrine or is a true church established through the official/physical succession of bishops? It is one or the other. It can't be both. The one option raises right doctrine as taught in Scripture as the primary and necessary mark of a true church. The other puts forth the continuation of a physical lineage of ministerial successors from the Apostles as the esse of the church.

John Jewell was a disciple of Peter Martyr Vermigli. He was also a Marian exile and later Bishop of Salisbury, the author of The Apology of the Church of England, as well as the chief author of the Homilies Book II. Richard Hooker spoke of him as the "worthiest divine that Christendom hath bred for some hundreds of years." In his Apology Jewell touches upon the above question. But it remained to be more directly addressed in his Reply Unto M. Hardings Answer. Finally in his Homily for Whit-Sunday, Jewell states the confessional position of the Church of England regarding the marks of a true church. Needless to say, while Jewell clearly embraced episcopal polity and proper ordination of clergy, he steered clear of any strict interpretation of apostolic authority residing in bishops or presbyters due to physical succession (via laying on of hands) from the Apostles on down. Rather, he argues and teaches that what ensures the validity of the visible church before God is the retention and communication of sound Apostolic teaching, the faith once delivered.

Some excerpts from Jewell's Reply:
"To be Peter's lawful successor, it is not sufficient to leap into Peter's stall. Lawful succession standeth not only in possession of place, but also, and much rather, in doctrine and diligence. Yet the bishops of Rome, as if there were nothing else required, evermore put us in mind and tell us many gay tales of their succession." [pg. 201]
"... But Christ's love passeth not by inheritance of succession of sees." [pg. 283]
"... But Christ saith: By order of succession, the scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chair..." [pg. 322]
"... This is M. Harding's holy succession - Though faith fall, yet succession must hold; for unto succession God hath bound the Holy Ghost." [pg. 347]
"... Now, M. Harding, if the pope and his Roman clergy, by his own friends confession, be fallen from God's grace, and departed from Christ to antichrist, what a miserable claim is it for them to hold only to bare succession! It is not sufficient to claim succession of place: it behooveth us rather to have regard to the succession of doctrine. St. Benard saith: What availeth it, if they be chosen in order, and live out of order." [pg. 349]
"... The faith of Christ, M. Harding, goeth not always by succession. The bishops of Rome have been Arians, Nestorians..." [pg.610]
"And for that cause they say, We are Peter's successors: even as the Pharisees sometime said, We be the children of Abraham. But John said unto them, Put not your affiance in such succession. For God is able even of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." [pg. 439]

Now the above quotes aren't intended as any kind of definitive case by Jewell. But his deemphasis and outright dismissal of physical succession as that which validates the ministry is evident. Likewise, he elevates sound doctrine as the key trait of a true minister of God. Finally in his Homily for Whit-Sunday, Jewell, in defining a true church and noting the marks which do validate such a church, avoids any mention of so-called Apostolic Succession. Instead he writes:

"The true church is a universal congregation or fellowship of GOD's faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the head corner stone (Eph. 2:20). And it hath always three notes or marks whereby it is known. Pure and sound doctrine, the Sacraments ministered to Christ's holy institution, and the right use of Ecclesiastical discipline. This description of the Church is agreeable both to the Scriptures of God, and also to the doctrine of the ancient fathers, so that none may justly find fault therewith."

What would Jesus cut? Two kingdoms confusion...

I came across this column via this post at the Spectator Blog . Jim Wallis, the column's author and "progressive" Christian of Sojourners fame is concerned as to what programs the U.S. Congress will choose to cut in order to rein in seemingly out-of-control government deficit spending. He writes - "Already, in a first wave of response to the proposed cuts, thousands of Christians told their members of Congress that they need to ask themselves, "What Would Jesus Cut?" They believe, and so do I, that the moral test of any society is how it treats its poorest and most vulnerable citizens. And that is exactly what the Bible says, over and over again... Taking the cutting knife to programs that benefit low-income people, while refusing to scrutinize the much larger blank checks we keep giving to defense contractors and corporate executives, is hypocritical and cruel."

My point here is not to argue what should or shouldn't be cut. I'm sure I would have some differences with Mr. Wallis, as well as some areas of agreement. Rather, I want to take issue with the use of Jesus' name as a means of rallying people to a political cause. The question What would Jesus cut? exposes, at a minimum, an ignorance as to the nature of the kingdom of this world vis-à-vis the kingdom of God - and Christ's mission as Savior.  I added a comment on the Spectator blog and then a follow-up to respond to another commenter. I'm posting a summary here to expand on my point:

"Jesus, what would you cut?"  I don't think he would answer such a question with a list of programs. The closest he would ever get to opining on tax cuts is probably what is recorded in the Gospel of Mark:

14-They came and said to Him, "Teacher, we know that You are truthful and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. Is is lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? 15-"Shall we pay or shall we not pay?" But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, "Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius to look at." 16-They brought one. And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" And they said to Him, "Caesar's." 17-And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."  And they were amazed at Him.

Wallis is simply misusing/misappropriating the name of Christ for his own well-intended personal/political agenda in Caesar's kingdom, just as the questioner was attempting to do in the above interchange.

Someone replied to my initial comments with the following: "I am no theologian and would welcome any informed input. I have always regarded this passage as meaning that things of this world, including money and material goods are ephemeral and unimportant when contrasted to the kingdom of heaven. Christians please do not take offense if I say it seems similar to Buddhist teaching."

I replied that the above passage has more to do with the nature of Christ's kingdom and mission than the relative importance of material things. Jesus came not to remake this present world kingdom, but to call lost souls out of it; out of this kingdom of darkness and into his kingdom. This is similar to the passage in John 18:

35-Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Thing own nation and the chief priets have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?" 36-Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

Jesus was not advocating pacifism, but again was speaking to the nature of his calling, his kingdom as contrasted with the kingdom of this world, and the means his followers would and wouldn't utilize for his cause.  The kingdom of God is not established by the sword. It is not advanced or inhibited by the power of earthly governments. God's kingdom is not brought about by the transforming of societies through various legislative schemes and programs. Though Christians, in this sense, are not "of the world", they still are "in the world". So actually the point is not that earthly things don't matter or are unimportant (money, jobs, possessions, governments). Christianity is very non-Buddhist in that the things of this world are important.  They're just not the things of Christ's kingdom.  They're things of this world.

A Christian is a citizen of two kingdoms. As a citizen of Christ's kingdom, he has a responsibility to follow Jesus' command to "Love thy neighbor as thyself" as the thankful and obedient response to the love and grace he, a sinner, has been shown by God. As a citizen in this world the Christian also has a duty to take seriously what would lead to the betterment of society around him by whatever legal and wise means he deems best; voting for whatever policies that seem the most likely to be just and effective towards particular societal goals. He can and does seek to help the disadvantaged and those who are suffering. But doing so through the means of his involvement in the political process is simply just being a good citizen of this world, as embodied in the teaching of Romans 13: 1-7. Mr. Wallis blurs the line (as Christians also often do from the political right) between God's kingdom and that of this world by equating certain legislative schemes (good or bad) as "Jesus' preferred policies."

The commenter responded: "Thank you. Your reply is quite informative. It's good to get past some of the nonsense and this site and make contact with intelligence."

Me: Well, that was very gracious of him, especially as this is only a partial sketchy outline of a much debated and misunderstood teaching of Scripture. For those who want to delve into this doctrine of two kingdoms more deeply I recommend the David VanDrunen book Living in God's Two Kingdoms.  

From Jesus' prayer in John 17: 9-23-

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine:

 and all things that are mine are thine, and thine are mine: and I am glorified in them.  

And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.  

While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.  

But now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy made full in themselves.  

I have given them thy word; and the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.  

I pray not that thou shouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one.  

They are not of the world even as I am not of the world.  

Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth.

  As thou didst send me into the world, even so sent I them into the world.  

And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. 

Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; 

that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.  

And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one; 

I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me.