Article XX, what does it mean?

[FireDragon76]

"XX. Of the Authority of the Church.

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation"


At face value I'd be tempted to say this article is one of the most Reformed in tone, since it seems to contrast with a Lutheran Christocentric hermeneutic, not weighing one section of Scripture against another. Am I missing something?

I realize in the modern Episcopal church, the 39-articles are historical documents only, but they are still frequently cited.

 

[Rurik]

IMO - This article means that the public worship of the Church does not have to remain the same. This applies in the physical place as well as time and not just to matters of worship as well but includes matter of theology "Controversies of Faith." How ever this is not allow a free for all when it comes to changing anything. First and foremost the changes that are made MUST be consistent with Scripture and nothing else the tradition part of it is seen as what comes though as Holy Writ and as we can see in the Articles what is considered Holy Writ in the Anglican Church is very little more then what is basic Christian Faith. Second how far an indavigual can go using this article is limited by Article 34

Article XXXIV
Of the Traditions of the Church
It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversities of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word. Whosoever through his private judgement, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.
Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

This article places the responsibility & authority for change not on the Indavigual (no matter how pointy their hat) but gives to the Church as a whole.

As to the "reformed" nature of it; well it is pretty reformend given that it is about the de centralization of power. Which is a key part of the reformation.

As to the role of the Thirty Nine Articles while I disagree with some of them; I think as a the church body dismissing them as we have has been to our determent. It has removed a certain ability to deal with issues that have come up in the last thirty years or so.

 

[FireDragon76]

My concern is how conservative Episcopalians and Anglicans have used the articles to dodge serious theology. "The Bible says it, that settles it" sort of thing. And on face value, I suppose the article does seem to agree with them, but I find this mindset problematic.

It's not just a matter of what "The Bible says" but "how do we understand what the Bible says". The former is biblicism that you'ld find in many fundamentalist Protestant church. So I'm curious how Episcopalians treat this article on the whole.

 

[Yardstick]

You might find this blog post of interest: The Three Lens Telescope | The Conciliar Anglican

It doesn't directly address that specific article of faith but I think it is still relevant.

 

[Albion]

My concern is how conservative Episcopalians and Anglicans have used the articles to dodge serious theology. "The Bible says it, that settles it" sort of thing. And on face value, I suppose the article does seem to agree with them, but I find this mindset problematic.

On the other hand, when all standards are set aside, then any crazy theory gets to be on an equal footing with the "Faith of our Fathers." Not that great an idea when you think about it.

 

[ebia]

My concern is how conservative Episcopalians and Anglicans have used the articles to dodge serious theology. "The Bible says it, that settles it" sort of thing.

It doesn't seem to say anything of the sort to me.
Rather it outlines something of where the church has freedom to make necessary decisions - so long as those decisions are consistent with scripture.

 

[FireDragon76]

On the other hand, when all standards are set aside, then any crazy theory gets to be on an equal footing with the "Faith of our Fathers." Not that great an idea when you think about it.

We no longer consider money-lending at interest a sin, even though it is condemned in the Bible. That to me is proof enough there is more to how we understand the Bible, than a simple "the Bible says it, that settles it", which the Articles seme to suggest?

I don't understand how the Church could be bound to the Bible's written word and yet be the only interpreter at the same time. No wonder Anglicans disagree about issues like high churchmanship (caroline divines) vs. low-church (puritanism), this article seems vaguely worded to go either way. Frankly, this article seems like Protestant polemics and posturing. This article begs the question of who exactly decides what is consistent with Scripture? (the Church... who in the Church?)

 

[mark46]

This is a slippery slope.

Who decides whether a Church decision is consistent with Scripture? This cannot be anyone but the Church.

It doesn't seem to say anything of the sort to me.
Rather it outlines something of where the church has freedom to make necessary decisions - so long as those decisions are consistent with scripture.

 

[everbecoming2007]

We no longer consider money-lending at interest a sin, even though it is condemned in the Bible. That to me is proof enough there is more to how we understand the Bible, than a simple "the Bible says it, that settles it", which the Articles seme to suggest?

I don't understand how the Church could be bound to the Bible's written word and yet be the only interpreter at the same time. No wonder Anglicans disagree about issues like high churchmanship (caroline divines) vs. low-church (puritanism), this article seems vaguely worded to go either way. Frankly, this article seems like Protestant polemics and posturing. This article begs the question of who exactly decides what is consistent with Scripture? (the Church... who in the Church?)

I think the Articles generally maintain a balance between tradition and scripture. Tradition that interprets scripture authoritatively would be for example the Nicene Creed. Tradition can also involve local traditions - certain types of dancing associated with African culture for instance that take place in the liturgy. Traditional Anglican evangelicals are not fundamentalists. They still take into account the consensus of the church in interpreting scripture.

 

[Rurik]

My concern is how conservative Episcopalians and Anglicans have used the articles to dodge serious theology. "The Bible says it, that settles it" sort of thing. And on face value, I suppose the article does seem to agree with them, but I find this mindset problematic.

It's not just a matter of what "The Bible says" but "how do we understand what the Bible says". The former is biblicism that you'ld find in many fundamentalist Protestant church. So I'm curious how Episcopalians treat this article on the whole.

I don't think it says that but even if it does the argument "The Bible Says this" is easily countered by "Well it also says this." Both points are valid also it is not about what an individual says but rather what The Church says.

As to how Episcopalians treat it well look around you.

 

[Rurik]

We no longer consider money-lending at interest a sin, even though it is condemned in the Bible. That to me is proof enough there is more to how we understand the Bible, than a simple "the Bible says it, that settles it", which the Articles seme to suggest?

What is your point. There is no requirement to believe anything in relation to money lending one way or the other as far as the Anglican church is concerned.

I don't understand how the Church could be bound to the Bible's written word and yet be the only interpreter at the same time. No wonder Anglicans disagree about issues like high churchmanship (caroline divines) vs. low-church (puritanism), this article seems vaguely worded to go either way. Frankly, this article seems like Protestant polemics and posturing. This article begs the question of who exactly decides what is consistent with Scripture? (the Church... who in the Church?)

The differences you have described hear are not matter that are important to faith. They are simply different expressions of faith.

As to who decides it is The Churh, through its bishops, by act of Synod both local and provincial. All of who are informed by the work of its members both in the physical sense and academic sense.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is a slippery slope.

Who decides whether a Church decision is consistent with Scripture? This cannot be anyone but the Church.

I agree.

Article XX seems to me, ambiguous, which could account for some of the problems in the Anglican Communion- there is essentially an authority crisis based on a lack of agreed ecclesiology. Now days ecclesiology is a hot topic, even in Roman Catholicism, but Protestants have mostly turned a blind eye to it altogether. Having read the history of the Reformation... I really believe a lot of the Reformers were naïve in assuming that everyone would approach the Bible with the same hermeneutical lense. To them it was obvious the Bible was divinely inspired, in some cases even to a plenary degree, and perspecuitous, and the Church's job was to just obey the historical-grammatical sense of Scripture, but that is no longer the case for modern people. Not after centuries of the Bible being misused to justify things like serfdom, conquest, slavery, and so on. Biblicism is a non-starter for the majority of educated men and women, even within religious institutions.

What troubles me more is that the Articles do not mention the Holy Spirit to any significant degree, there is no understanding of the role of the Spirit in guiding the Church. Something Charismatics and Liberals have tried to emphasize, but it's obvious many Anglicans disagree and believe that Tradition and the Bible alone should dominate Church discourse, and not the Church's experiences as guided by the Holy Spirit. There's not a lot of room for moments where God still directly speaks to His people. We are left with just an "artifact" view of revelation.

Honestly, I believe the Eastern Orthodox have much more coherent ecclessiologies, even if I think there are those that fail to account for the historical development in their tradition.

 

[MKJ]

This is a slippery slope.

Who decides whether a Church decision is consistent with Scripture? This cannot be anyone but the Church.

Of course, it has to be. But it lays out how the Church is to do so.

 

[Rurik]

Honestly, I believe the Eastern Orthodox have much more coherent ecclessiologies, even if I think there are those that fail to account for the historical development in their tradition.

I think the Anglican church does have a "coherent ecclesiology" it is just not one you agree with.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think the Anglican church does have a "coherent ecclesiology" it is just not one you agree with.

If it is so coherent, why are African churches threatening to leave the Anglican Communion over actions the Episcopal Church takes? It seems to me there is an issue of authority at stake, and people disagree about how to the Bible is to be understood.

 

[Albion]

If it is so coherent, why are African churches threatening to leave the Anglican Communion over actions the Episcopal Church takes?

Because TEC departed from that historic consensus and defied the Communion in so doing. If anything, this would seem to substantiate the idea of a coherence, not the opposite.

 

[Rurik]

Because TEC departed from that historic consensus and defied the Communion in so doing. If anything, this would seem to substantiate the idea of a coherence, not the opposite.

Bingo!

 

[ebia]

I think the Anglican church does have a "coherent ecclesiology" it is just not one you agree with.

i guess that, amongst all the many different ecclesiologies floating around the Anglican world there's likely be one thats vaguely coherent.

 

[Liberasit]

Personally, I think it is helpful to look at Articles 19 - 22 as a block, in order to present the bigger picture.

I don't get any controversy with Article 20, however. Indeed, I think it is a good thing.

 

[MKJ]

If it is so coherent, why are African churches threatening to leave the Anglican Communion over actions the Episcopal Church takes? It seems to me there is an issue of authority at stake, and people disagree about how to the Bible is to be understood.

I agree. A situation where a roguish group ends up remaining with no real consequences for their actions, and the others are the ones that have to leave, doesn't seem to indicate a robust ecclesiology. We don't seem to actually have any way to resolve a situation where there is a real impasse, people are being jerks, or even when people are actually out to manipulate the system.