Beginning at the Beginning

It's easy in the current climate within Anglicanism and the Church of England to begin discussions at the end. So debate inevitably surrounds the discussion of attitudes towards sexuality, marriage, gender and abuse. This is understandable. We have to face reality and the reality is that these are the debates not just of our church, but of our society in the UK and the West in general.

But this isn't the place for Christians to begin. Not really. We begin with God and his revelation of himself, in his Son by his Spirit and in his word, the Bible. Yes, we know that God reveals himself in a limited way in his creation (e.g. Ps. 19:1-6; Rom. 1:19-20), what we call general revelation. However, we also know that God has graciously chosen to reveal himself in the Scriptures, the Bible, so that we can really know him (e.g. Ps. 19:7-11; 2 Tim. 3:16-17), what we call special revelation. Special revelation means we can really know God, know how to be saved and know how to live. Yes, I know Jesus is "the Word," but God has given us access to him and his teaching in the Bible.

I remember being a bit bemused when, as part of my selection process for ministry, I was sent to a pretty liberal examining chaplain. He thought I was great! It must be said this was a bit concerning to me, but the reason he thought I was great was because, in his eyes, I'd put my finger on the issue within the Church of England. I'd said I felt that the foundation of our differences, was a different approach to the Bible.

In a sense this is odd. Our Articles are quite clear on the Bible. So in Article VI we read:

HOLY Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

This is applied recognising that even the ancient creeds sit under Scripture in Article VIII, and that because human authority (tradition, reason or experience for example) is always likely to go wrong because of sin (Article XIX), so the church should always sit under Scripture first and foremost (Article XX).

Similarly we read in the Canons of the Church of England our Articles (Canon A2), Prayer Book (Canon A3) and form of Church Government (Canons A4 and A6), are appopriate only because they sit under the Bible. Perhaps most clearly we can read Canon A5:

The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.

So that what is to be believed and taught in the Church of England is to be biblical.

While there is of course scope for discussion as to what is biblical (this is the serious work of studying the Bible), the truth is that the discussion for many years within the Church of England has been much more around what the Bible is and whether we believe it. This was fuelled by a resurgent Anglo-Catholicism that encouraged a return to tradition, which wasn't so cleary under Scripture as it should be. It was accelerated by liberal biblical criticism that allowed many to deny much of what the Bible taught.

These discussions of what the Bible is and whether to believe it, have then meant it was possible to say that the foundational difference within the Church of England is our approach to the Bible. From that difference, flow the very many different understandings of questions we are now debating. The reason the debates cannot be resolved is because we have a different foundation. For me, that is to begin at the beginning - the foundation.

Now that leads me to two thoughts. The first is simply: how this was allowed to happen? I know how those with a different view of the Bible justify their position in the Church of England and claim they stand within the breadth of Anglicanism. However, it really seems unlikely that those who framed the Articles and later the canons really would have seen it that way. We essentially now have a Church where the majority of the leaders and member sit entirely at odds with the expressed intention of its founding documents and those who wrote them. The Church of England is not unique in that of course, but it doesn't stop it from being tragic.

The second applies more to people like me. I would say a hearty amen to the position on Scripture that the Articles and the Canons take. What concerns me is whether I apply that thoroughly and rigorously to my doctrine, life and church - not just on the hot-button issues. One of my observations around the debates within more conservative Christians within the Church of England has been the paucity of biblical debate. We lack really rigorous and biblical systematic theology and instead cherry pick biblical, historical and experiential examples to bolster the views we already have. We are perhaps too keen to claim we are Reformed and not keen enough to be reformed by deep study of Scripture. Of course that is sweeping and there have been some really good things produced over the last few years as well - praise God for that! But I take to my own heart that I have often looked in only one direction - the one that supports what I want to say, think and do. I must be better than that and really sit under Scripture.

In my life and my blog I perhaps need to take the attitude of the Bereans more to heart (Acts 17:11) and the attitude of the Psalmist in Psalm 119 more to heart.