Mini Blog #33: One Reason I Love History

Alexander Pope once wrote, "What oft was thought but ne'er so well expressed." That quote has frequently come to mind ever since English Lit II with Dr. Williams. Yesterday it happened again. "Other academic disciplines... that look at human behavior tend to view behavior through the lens of their own disciplines. Economists see economics as primary; sociologists measure social forces; psychologists evaluate the psychological; biologists see humans as living organisms; and so forth," observed George Marsden. "Historians, however, are supposed to look at the interrelationships among the forces that shape human behavior. They have to weigh the relative importance of the economic, social, psychological, biological, physical, political, aesthetic, ethical, and technological factors, as well as many other[s]." That captures how I think and why I so often get frustrated... OK, let's be honest... annoyed with other academics. It's not merely an issue of liking their discipline over all others. Obviously it's good that people have passion for what they do and to like it most; the problem is when they value it more. I loathe the practioners of disciplines who act as though theirs reigns supreme. As far as I'm concerned, no discipline trumps any other. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses, areas of clarity and blind spots. They all provide a different perspective but none are of greater importance, which is why I appreciate history's innate recognition that all disciplines are compatible and together provide a clearer understanding of truth. No historian worth her salt can believe her discipline is more valuable than the others. With history that humility comes built-in whereas in other disciplines it (seems as though it) must be cultivated. That's probably what I love most about history.

A Primer on Open Theism

Background

There's a precedent at least as far back as 150 years but, about a decade ago, Open Theism created quite the theological squabble. Ground zero was the Twin Cities, where there were two pastor/theologians whose differences highlight the big umbrella policy of not only contemporary evangelicalism but their own denomination. John Piper, pastor of Minneapolis' Bethlehem Baptist, is so Reformed that he's tacked an additional two points onto the historic five. Greg Boyd, pastor of St. Paul's Woodland Hills Church, is an Open Theist who makes folks like Piper long for the good ol' days of the Calvinism-Arminianism war.

The other most well-known Open Theists are John Sanders and the late Clark Pinnock, both of whom faced votes for their expulsion from the Evangelical Theological Society because of this belief. In the end neither lost his membership, which precipitated Norm Geisler tendering his resignation on the grounds that ETS wasn't fundamentalist enough... er.... didn't uphold his view of inerrancy. In retrospect the controversy had the opposite effect as was intended by those wanting the pair ousted. Far from condemning Open Theism, it provided rare empirical backing that self-identifying evangelical theologians consider it, at the very least, a viable option.

Today Open Theism remains controversial, but the dust has pretty well settled. It isn't affirmed by any conservative evangelical I'm aware of, but is held by a growing number espousing to be moderate, progressive, and post-conservative evangelicals.

Content & Perspectives

Depending on who you ask you're going to get a different spin. The crux of the whole thing is that Open Theism is a rejection of the presuppositional foundation of Platonic Greek philosophy, upon which much early christian theology was built. The three-fold reasoning goes something like this:

(Let me preface the next few points by begging for the philosophers' mercy. This ain't my field of expertise. I'm a history guy who only dabbles in philosophy.)

1. There are abstract forms to which all else that we see and interact with points. These forms are the only ontologically knowable things. So if something is red, its ultimate essence derives from the form "redness." If something is a chair, then its from "chairness."
   
2. There's this idea of taking things to their (supposed) logical extreme through linear thought process. So if there's a person who is good and lives a long time, then then god must be best and last forever. Taking things to the Nth degree, so to speak.
3. In Plato's mind, something to be knowable it must be at least noticeably static.
   

When you add 'em together the result is that for a being to be god it must be absolute, eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.

Such apostolic fathers as Justin Martry sought to defend Christianity and make it seem intellectually plausible to the second century Roman aristocracy. Moreover, they argued that the truth of Christianity aligns with truth anywhere and sought to reconcile it with Neo-Platonism, which they held in high regard. Thus, Classical Theism was developed and came to be viewed as an essential core of christian doctrine.

Open Theists, however, claim that the Bible and Neo-Platonism cannot be fully integrated. They assert that Classical Theists have to find... creative... ways around the obvious historico-grammatical interpretation when the OT, in particular, says God repented or changed His mind. Open Theists claim to interpret such texts in a more faithful way to what an original audience would have understood.

Concerning God's foreknowledge, there's a diversity of thought within Open Theism not unlike the variety of views among, say, Dispensationalists' eschatological beliefs. Some Open Theists hold that God chooses not to know the future as a sort of self-restraint, thereby providing true free will. Others say it's much simpler than that. They believe that God doesn't know the future because it's not something that's knowable. It's a rejection of the Doc Brown view where you can hop in a DeLorean and move forward in history because the entire space-time continuum has already been written. In other words, the future cannot be known (even by God) because there is no such thing; it just plain doesn't exist.

Naturally, Classical Theists are none too pleased about all this this. Arminians and, to a greater extent, Calvinists see this as undermining their whole theological system. It's not a mere nuance or shift, by a complete deconstruction and rebuilding of major elements within christian theology. They assert that Open Theism effectively humanizes and even deposes God by painting Him as this weak deity who's in a constant struggle and isn't definitively in control. They argue that the God of Open Theism reflects more a god out of the Greek pantheon than the God of the Bible.

(If this next paragraph confuses you, just ignore it and move on. It's non-essential.)

Now is a good time to distinguish between Process Theology and Open Theism. Perhaps a good analogy would be chess. All agree that God is the game's inventor, but Process Theologians don't think God invented the rules. They believe the rules are continually being developed. Open Theists, on the other hand, think God invented the rules and is the best chess master imaginable, but (some) aren't sure that God will win. Folks like Norman Geisler lump all them together as basically the same thing.

Commentary

As one who approaches all matters of faith first and foremost from the perspective of history, I want to facepalm myself whenever I hear conservative evangelicals claim that their beliefs are rooted within Scripture whereas Open Theism is built upon philosophy. The simple historical fact is that Classical Theism predates Christianity and doesn't stem from Hebrew thought. It's a philosophical system developed as a direct response to the cantankerous deities of the Greek pantheon. As such it's quite foreign to the Ancient Near Eastern thought processes of most the biblical authors, was imported into christian thought by church fathers as they syncretized Christianity with their culture, and has stuck. The practical result is that the ANE God revelaed in the Scriptures has looked awfully dang Greco-Roman ever since.

Unfortunately, most conservative evangelicals have been so conditioned by their worldview that they're completely ignorant of its influence. They cannot see beyond their own cultural perceptions. In the terminology of cultural anthropology, they have an emic (insider's) perspective and are unable to even consider an etic (outsider's) perspective. I cannot help but marvel at the irony. They knowingly filter their interpretations of Scripture through the lens of Greek philosophy even as they claim to place the Bible above philosophy. It's like writing an essay about how you reject the alphabet.

Platonism was developed in response to the Greek pantheon, it became Classical Theism as it was integrated into Christianity, and anyone who rejects Classical Theism is said to believe in a God resembling a deity out of the Greek pantheon. Seems we've come full circle, doesn't it? As ludicrous as this sounds, allow me to suggest that there just might be more than two options. (All the binary thinkers just revolted while the others rejoiced.)

Personally, I think christian theology's second century Hellenization is a tragedy. As one author put it, "Yeshua's teachings, which supposedly form the basis for Western Christianity, are now filtered through 2000 years of traditions born in ignorance of the land, language, and culture of the Bible." That's why I'm willing to reconsider the doctrine of God's omniscience. Specifically, His divine foreknowledge. I'm not, however, willing to toss my hat in with the Open Theists.

Most Christians don't realize that the vast majority of biblical prophecy has little to do with foreknowledge and everything to do with "forthknowledge," as a professor of mine used to say. Nevertheless, there are some clear examples of foreknowledge in Scripture. I think about Genesis 3:14-15 and Jesus' crucifixion, as well as Mark 13:2 and the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Such passages are why I cannot embrace Open Theism in general or Sanders' "probalistic prophecy" specifically, which says that it is possible, however unlikely, that prophecy will not come to pass. I do think God has some sort of foreknowledge, although I have no idea what limitations, whether internal or external, there might be.

In my opinion, too many of these divine sovereignty and human responsibility arguments are shallow. They bounce around on hot button, surface level issues. Rarely do the participants get down to that core question, which is this: Who is God? If one's presupposition of God's essence align with Classical Theism, then by definition God must have foreknowledge of everything and that's the end of the discussion. But if one is willing to explore an etic perspective by seeking to get into the mind of the ancient biblical authors (as best we can, anyway), then questions about the nature and extent of God's foreknowledge are fair game.

Imploration

Though many of my blog posts explore controversial subjects and I put my perspective out there in a forthright manner, I make a concerted effort to encourage civil dialogue. Yet there comes a time when doing the right thing involves getting pissed and calling people out. This post on Open Theism wouldn't be complete without me doing this.

Quite frankly, many conservative to fundamentalist evangelicals--theologians, pastors, etc.--have behaved like complete assholes. Usually the complaint about academics is that they care more about truth than people, more about stroking their intellectual pride than fostering understanding. This group has managed to neglect both their heads and their hearts in their defense of their perspective on the truth. To quote Lord Vader, "Impressive. Most impressive." Not only do they oversimplify complex issues, they've also almost wholly thrown love, humility, grace, compassion, and civility to the wind. Apparently they missed the memo that orthopraxy (right living) is as important as orthodoxy (right doctrine), according to James. And speaking of orthodoxy, Open Theism isn't a freaking heresy! Every Open Theist I know and have read explicitly embraces each doctrine compromising historic orthodoxy as defined by the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds.

I don't mind disagreement. In fact, I value it because of the principle of iron sharpening iron. But will ya conservative blowhards please stop the Inquisition? All I'm asking is that ya settle down a bit, commit to simply understanding where Open Theists are coming from, and treat them like brothers and sisters in Christ... i.e. behave like Christians. Call me crazy, but I don't think that's too much to ask. Oh, and if I hear just one more person say they reject Open Theism because they're "Bible-believing" Christians, well, I just might snap. Jesus ain't Greek and Plato ain't the Messiah, folks.

Mini Blog #32: Emic & Etic Perspectives

Cultural anthropologists distinguish between emic (insider's) and etic (outsider's) perspectives. An example from pop culture would be Lynyrd Skynyrd's emic praise of their home state, which was written in response to Neil Young's etic songs "Southern Man" and "Alabama" about the lingering racism in the post-Civil Rights South. Perhaps more than any other concepts, these have hugely impacted my life the past few years. Being aware of my emic perspective has, I hope and pray, encouraged a dual commitment to intellectual humility and rigor by illuminating the existence of alternative views, facilitating an awareness of my limited perspective, helping identify my presuppositions, and challenging those notions in the pursuit of truth. It's tremendously impacted my life across the board, including my marriage, relationships with family and friends, interaction with co-workers, academic interests, political beliefs, personal faith, and so on. In fact, most of my metaphorical "light bulb" experiences now stem from this concept. The most recent occurrence came when I was reading a theologian who noted that Eastern Christendom has long focused (more) around Jesus' incarnational birth whereas Western Christendom has emphasized His death and resurrection. No doubt that's painfully obvious to anyone from a Protestant or Catholic background who's dabbled in Orthodox theology and practice, but it struck me like a ton of bricks. I was completely unaware that my whole perception of Christianity had been conditioned in that way. (In the interest of fairness, most Eastern Christians probably aren't aware of their own conditioning in the other direction.) Ever since I've been trying to figure out how I might glean and integrate elements of the Eastern view for a more well-rounded, incarnational faith. Anyway, my larger point in writing is to encourage others to explore these concepts, to say, "Thank you!" to Dr. Penland, and point out that it was probably the single most influential course I took in college. I'd encourage anyone back at TFC who might read this to take Cultural Anthropology.

The Mystery of Divine Sovereignty & Human Responsibility: Brief Thoughts on Grudem, Kermit the Frog, Pinnock, Yancey & Theatre

"Our words, our steps, our movements, our hearts, and our abilities are all from the Lord," writes Wayne Grudem in his book, Systematic Theology. In other words, he holds to God's complete sovereignty--the belief that God exercises complete causal control over everything. Despite the lengths to which he goes to affirm human responsibility, the problem remains that this position either eliminates man's moral responsibility for sin or creates a God that is completely enigmatic. In anticipation of this criticism, Grudem responds, "[W]e must remember that… Scripture nowhere shows God as directly doing anything evil, but rather as bringing about evil deeds through the willing actions of moral creatures." Is it just me or does this reasoning sound like an attempt at creating a divine loophole whereby God transfers culpability to the puppet while retaining his role as puppet master? It's like saying Jim Henson wouldn't be responsible if Kermit the Frog committed murder. When pressed Grudem undercuts such criticisms with a convenient appeal to the mystery of God's wisdom. I cannot help but think, 'Mystery? What mystery? In his conception, mystery was razed by his pronouncement that God controls everything.' The late Clark Pinnock captured my sentiments well when he wrote, "To say that God hates sin while secretly willing it, to say that God warns us not to fall away though it is impossible, to say that God loves the world while excluding most people from an opportunity of salvation, to say that God warmly invites sinners to come knowing all the while that they cannot possible do so--such things do not deserve to be called mysteries when that is just a euphemism for nonsense."

While written from the perspective of a journalist rather than a theologian, I appreciate the way Philip Yancey described God's interaction with man in The Bible Jesus Read. He observes, "One who reads [the Bible] encounters not an impassible, distant deity but an actual Person, a God as passionate as any person you have met. God feels delight, and frustration, and anger. He weeps and moans with pain. Again and again God is shocked by the behavior of human beings... behavior that, God says, 'I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.'" Somehow this God has sovereignly guided all of history without coercing it. What I cannot figure out is how He knows the coming plot without having dictated the actors' actions and dialogue; that is, from my perspective the true mystery is how God built the set, produced the storyboard, served as the director, trained the actors, and even took on the leading role Himself, yet has been able to retain true improv, if you will. 

Mini Blog #31: R.C. Sproul

This afternoon I came across a thought-provoking facebook status. A friend observed that R.C. Sproul gave an inadequate reply to his audience's emotional and intellectual questions in a lecture about the doctrine of hell. I found this interesting coming from a guy who has a deep appreciation for Sproul's exegetical work. It brought me back to my Reformed days when I read Sproul's book, Chosen By God. I too was bothered by his seeming lack of concern or compassion. In the first chapter Sproul exhibits a sort of brazen smugness when recounting a time that he presented the doctrine of predestination to a decidedly non-Calvinist audience. My sense then was that Sproul's temperament is such that he just speaks (his perception of) the truth with little regard for people's mental or psychological responses. Having given it much thought over the past half decade, I've come to think two things about this. First, one dimension is Sproul's theology. Specifically, his outlook that God's will cannot possibly be thwarted. Sproul leans so heavily upon God's sovereignty that, in some sense, it doesn't matter if he comes across harshly or people get hurt. Because God is ultimately in control, Sproul confidently trusts that even his own mistakes will be overcome by (or are a part of) God's will. Personally, this highlights the quandary I have with Calvinism in that I like the innate selflessness but I cannot stand the practical lack of personal responsibility. Second, Sproul represents an older generation of theological discourse. For all of its well-chronicled mistakes and abuses, it seems to me that one of the positive aspects of Postmodernity and the modern psychological awareness is that they've torn down the high place of cognitive certitude as the only thing that matters. For those roughly my age who care about the christian faith, there's this innate sense that mind, heart, and spirit are equally important; they mustn't be separated or ranked, but must be integrated in a holistic fashion. There's this insistence that theology must be done with a profound concern for people's emotion and its impact upon their spiritual journey; that one cannot merely pronounce propositional truth claims and assume that right emotions and experiences will simply fall in line or else it's a sin problem... Abrupt ending.

Common Grace: Why I Don't Affirm It

This notion of Common Grace has never made sense to me. The general reasoning goes something like this: After the fall man is so completely destitute as to be completely unable to do anything good in and of himself, so God through the Spirit extends a special grace to all people imparting wisdom, inhibiting their evil tendencies, and exciting them to do good. In his book, Systematic Theology, the 19th century theologian Charles Hodge writes that it's to the doctrine of Common Grace that we owe "the skill of artisans, the courage and strength of heroes, the wisdom of statesmen." Put into practice, proponents of this doctrine would say that no person would give his coat to a homeless man on a cold winter night out of his own innate love and compassion. But through Common Grace his wickedness is overcome, restoring within him a sense of virtue that would otherwise be lost, thus enabling him to do (and desire to do) good. Riiiiiiight.

I have four interrelated criticisms of this doctrine:

1. Philip Yancey once wrote, "Consider the basic makeup of human beings. Inside every person on earth, we believe, the image of God can be found. Yet inside each person there lives also a beast. Any religious or political system that does not account for both extremes--furious opposities, in Chesterton's phrase--will sorely fail." As I was taught at Moody and still affirm myself, in the fall God's image was completely marred by sin, but it wasn't destroyed, eliminated, dissolved, obliterated, or snuffed out. Thus, all humanity lives within the paradoxical tension of simultaneously being capable of both good and evil. These doctrines go at least as far back as the second century apostolic fathers, by the way.
2. Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. If I ask my wife why my keys were behind the TV stand and she says Louis (our cat) must have knocked them off, there's no need to hypothesize that perhaps there's a previously unnoticed slope in the floor that, combined with undetectable seismic activity, must have caused the keys to slide off the back. Given the aforementioned paradox, an appeal to Common Grace seems to be an unnecessary layer of complexity.
   
3. Common Grace is an elaborate theological innovation that appears to have little if any evidence in Scripture, scant precedent in church history prior to the Reformation, and only becomes necessary (and apparent) when one sees the world not only through the lens of monergism, but its most potent form--Reformed Theology. As even a Calvinist theologian, Herman Hanko, acknowledges, "The fact of the matter is that the whole subject of common grace was not on the agenda of the church prior to the Reformation of the 16th century."
4. Again deferring to Yancey, "A church uncomfortable with paradox tends to tilt in one direction or the other, usually to disastrous consequences." It seems to me that this doctrine arose from an overemphasis upon the fall's corruption along with a corresponding underemphasis upon the imagio dei's remaining influence, and reflects Reformed Theology's discomfort with paradox.

I submit that the doctrine of Common Grace is a superfluous, overly complicated, unbalanced theological innovation created for and only made necessary by a particular systematic theology, which itself has scarce precedent in Christianity's first four centuries.

Musing on Atheist Ministers

ABC News: "Atheist Ministers Struggle With Leading the Faithful"

This article is about two anonymous Southern Baptist pastors who've become atheists yet continue their profession. That is, they've lost their faith while continuing to spiritually shepherd their flocks. This is tragic of course, but I'm not at all surprised. As an aspiring pastor myself, this article serves as a confirmation on a number of fronts.

During my time at two evangelical colleges I ran into numerous Bible, pastoral, and cross-cultural (missions) majors whose unbalanced pietism worried me. It was so overt that they absolutely refused to think about anything complex lest they lose sight of "the simplicity of the Gospel." Much like those from my Pentecostal background, they would dismiss, downplay, and denigrate the life of the mind as innately contrary to true faith. They accused me of being a heretic, placing "head knowledge" above "heart knowledge," failing to have a relationship with Jesus, and leading people away from the faith. Why? Because I openly questioned everything from God's mere existence to the doctrine of the Trinity. I always thought, 'Someday their faith is going to come against something that it cannot withstand, whether it's an evil elder board, a parent who is murdered, a spouse who slowly dies of cancer, a child who is born mentally challenged, the simple ebbs and flows of one's spiritual life, or the day they wake up, crack open the Bible, and finally have to admit that it pisses them off that it's so weird.' It concerned me because these dudes were so obviously ill prepared to cope with doubt and problems; the very essence of their faith insulated them against these things until it was too late. I always thought some would fall away from the faith in no small part because they'd failed to ever wrestle through their faith. They'd confused having a child-like faith (trust) with having a childish faith (immature), and it didn't bode well for their future ministry.

I hadn't considered the possibility that such persons would simply keep truckin' along, though. But it makes sense. I imagine that one of the few things harder than finding a secular job after losing your pulpit is finding a job after renouncing your pulpit. Psychologically, it's almost the entire source the pastor's identity. Professionally, the pastor is giving up everything--education, professional experience, recommendations, etc. In the same way that it might actually be easier for a homosexual person coming from a conservative family background to hide his or her sexual orientation, so it's not hard to imagine an atheist keeping up the appearance of being a devout pastor, especially if one feels he or she is still helping people in some tangible capacity. Besides, if you don't believe in God, it's not like you're offending some divine being by faking it. Far from being mad at these men, my heart goes out to them.

My own passion is to help struggling people work out their faith with fear and trembling as part of a holistic worshiping lifestyle. In other words, I sense that my calling is to be a clergy-writer who authors books and plants a church aimed at reaching those non-Christians who struggle to accept Jesus primarily for reasons of intellectual honesty and sincere Christians who struggle with angst, doubt, wounds, and unanswered questions. I want to be the pastoral equivalent of Philip Yancey, if you will. In my experience, Christians who are struggling and atheists who reject religion need pastors who've been there. They don't want apologetics or piety, canned answers or feel good clichés. They want someone who says, "Thanks for being honest. I empathize. Let's talk." If an atheist pastor is the most disingenuous thing possible, then surely the most authentic thing would be the pastor who has spent much time staring down the barrel of doubt yet retained his/her faith.

Mini Blog #30: Puritans

Puritans: Implacable proponents of Reformed Theology who emphasized pietism, are notorious for their legalistic rigidity, held to a sort of primordial Dominion Theology, had little appreciation for compromise and moderation, wanted the sermon to be the central focus of the worship service, were "Politically Reformed" in that they thought faith should translate to politics without hesitation, and aimed to strip away everything from the Book of Common Prayer and vestments to kneeling and genuflecting in an effort to eliminate any hint of post-Patristic development in doctrine or practice. Ya know, as a student of church history, I find strong elements in nearly all movements that I truly like--that I desire to draw from and mimic. This one has very few, though. That is, I'm not saying the Puritans uniformly suck but that there's little from them that I, personally, wish to pattern my faith after. In the interest of balance, what I can positively say is that I share their little-known appreciation for the ancient creeds and commitment to serious thought. Nevertheless, the larger point is that I've tried for years to arrive at a more balanced perspective on them, but the more I study them, and the further along I am on my spiritual journey, the uglier their appearance in my eyes.

Mini Blog #29: I ♥ Erasmus

Why do I love Erasmus? Because he's like the 16th century theological version of the Rally to Restore Sanity. The Roman Catholic Church called Luther "a wild boar in the vineyard of the Lord." He responded by calling it "fleas in God's overcoat." Erasmus' response to both: "Tone down the filthy brawling of your insane quarrels." Awesome. In a blog post the other day I said that were I alive during the Reformation I doubt I could have stayed within the Catholic fold. I'd like to amend that position. Ever the moderate, were I alive then I'd stand with Erasmus in the middle telling both sides to take it down a notch. Naturally, I'd employ satire to make my point just like he did. It's just too bad the Anglican Church didn't exist by the time he died, though. I suspect he'd of found a home there in the middle, irritating both the hardcore Protestants and the entrenched Catholics with that oh-so-reasonable compromise. Ah, it's good to have role models.

Interacting with the Thirty-Nine Articles

As part of my ordination process, I have to write some paragraphs interacting with designated Discussion Questions, one of which is this: "Carefully read the (Thirty-nine) Articles of Religion… Respond to them using Scripture, historical references, and/or personal experience." My hope here is to interact with each of the articles, prompting discussion that will help me get my mind around these issues in preparation for my formal written response. I'd be especially appreciative of any Anglicans who might be willing to engage me.

(Titles are in bold. Descriptions are italicized. My commentary is in normal font.)

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.

I'd like to know what's meant by "without… passions." If this is a reference to the impassibility and immutability of God, these notions are suspect because their origins lie in Greek philosophy rather than the Bible. I have a hard time reconciling a stoic deity with the God I find in the OT and an unchanging deity with the Second Person of the Trinity who became incarnate, for example. Certainly there's a core essence of who God is that doesn't change--He's loving, just, righteous, worthy of praise, etc.--but those Greek ideas have been doing a number on christian theology for a long, long time. Further, even Luther had reservations about those things. Other than that, I agree with the overall point. I affirm the Trinity.

II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man.

The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.

I agree with everything but the reference to original guilt. I don't think anyone is guilty of sin till they actually sin, which I'm pretty sure is what the Orthodox have said all along. More on this in a subsequent point.

III. Of the going down of Christ into Hell.

As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed, that he went down into Hell.

I believe Jesus died and was buried, but I'm not sure about descending into hell part. Where is the biblical evidence for this? As I understand it, the reference to the Son of Man spending three days and three nights in the heart of the earth as Jonah spend three days and nights in a belly of a fish was a Jewish idiom for being entombed/dead. As for the doctrine of hell itself, I do affirm the idea of a place of eternal punishment for those who aren’t saved through Jesus but I don’t believe in a literal fire-filled domain. My tentative view seems to be more in line with the Orthodox view. That being said, if someone can either prove to me from Scripture or from an apostolic father that Jesus descended into hell I don't have a problem affirming it.

IV. Of the Resurrection of Christ.

Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man's nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.

Agreed.

V. Of the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.

The original version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed that the Cappadocian Fathers worked so hard for doesn't contain the Filioque Clause. That's problematic. On a theological level, I affirm that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. That seems biblical. On an ecclesiastical level, I deny that the Western Church had the authority to revise the creed without the East's mutual consent. Haven't yet found a way to resolve that tension. Doubt I will.

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

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. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books. Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther, Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job, Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms, Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs, Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher, Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon, Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater, Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less. And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following: The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom, The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach, The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses, The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees. All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

I agree with this list of the canonical books. I affirm that the Bible contains all teaching necessary for salvation. I affirm that it is the divinely-inspired Word of God as communicated by human authors living in precise cultural-historical contexts. I affirm that it's the absolute authoritative standard for all matters of doctrine and practice—in so far as it’s rightly interpreted—to which all other standards are secondary. However, the Bible is authoritative but not exhaustive, meaning it simply doesn't come close to answering all of our questions even within the realm of explicit theology. All of the essential questions? Yes. All of the important questions? No. Also, I'd nuance this issue of ecclesiastical authority by recognizing that there are extra-biblical authoritative standards outside of Scripture, including the words "not made" in the Nicene Creed, that seem to be as essential as anything explicitly stated in the biblical text.

VII. Of the Old Testament.

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

Aquinas invented the threefold division of the OT into moral, ceremonial, and judicial law, which seems to be what this article is premised upon. I tend to think Aquinas had some good points on this issue, but his view of the OT definitely reflects his era of Medieval scholasticism, which is a period I'm particularly skeptical of. At the end of the day I'm unwilling to affirm Aquinas' OT hermeneutics as an absolute basis for how the contemporary Church ought to interact with the OT. As for the ideas that the OT isn't contrary to the NT, the OT points to the NT, the NT fulfills the OT, and so forth, there I heartily agree.

VIII. Of the Creeds.

The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture. The original Article given Royal assent in 1571 and reaffirmed in 1662, was entitled "Of the Three Creeds; and began as follows, "The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius's Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed ..."

For historical reasons I'm more enthusiastic about the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed than the Athanasius' Creed, but, with the exception of the Filioque Controversy, I affirm the content of all three without reservation.

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, p¢vnæa sapk¢s, (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 of itself the nature of sin.

I agree with the general premise of Original Sin. Specifically, something very real happened with the fall, whether that portion of Genesis is supposed to be interpreted as theological truth as communicated within the context of ANE creation myth or as historical narrative that is to be interpreted literally, that causes every single person to be sinful and in need of salvation. That is, I end up in the same destination. Yet I disagree with many of the details for how Western Christians get there. My view is complicated. It doesn't perfectly align with any of the common views throughout church history that I'm aware of, including Pelagianism, Augustine’s Seminal View, the Reformation’s Federal Headship, etc. I don't affirm original guilt. What I do affirm is this: Adam sinned and as a consequence all people are incapable of not sinning and will thus be in need of redemption through Jesus. I believe that because of Adam's fall every single child is born with a corrupted—not sinful—nature such that all will sin at a very, very young age. I call this an "unavoidable propensity to sin." This view, which I call Revisioned Original Sin, has nearly all of the same practical results as classical conceptions of original sin. Part of what I’m trying to keep in balance with this is a) recognize that something happened with the fall that caused all people to be sinful and in need of redemption, b) have people be responsible only for their own sins, and c) maintain a balance between the corporate and individual dynamics of sin, the fall, guilt, redemption, etc. But what is the precise mechanism through which that corrupted nature is transmitted? Frankly, I don't know. Seems to me it's a mystery we can speculate about but can never ultimately know.

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.

I agree that people cannot turn to God, seek repentance, and be saved without the direct overriding gracious work of the Holy Spirit.

XI. Of the Justification of Man.

We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

I'd like a clarification of this article. It seems to suggest a view premised upon Anselm's Satisfaction Theory and Calvin's Penal Substitution, both of which I'd point out has, to the best of my knowledge, scant precedent among the apostolic fathers or really anyone before the 11th century. Right now I'm intrigued by N.T. Wright's work on justification and also Orthodox conceptions of it. That said, I certainly agree with the general premise that justification is by faith (alone) through grace and not by works.

XII. Of Good Works.

Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

Because of Luther's errant Law & Gospel paradigm he wanted James' epistle stripped from the canon, which is a tragedy of the Reformation. Having attended a church where faith was emphasized and the Fruits of the Spirit were downplayed, I'm truly thankful that through God's sovereignty Luther failed. James provided a crucial flip-side of the faith and works coin. According to him, good works should and must spring from faith or that faith is dead.

XIII. Of Works before Justification.

Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his 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.

Simply lumping all works together is, in my opinion, a common error coming out of the Reformation. We've got to use more precise language. Are we talking about works unto salvation or works of just doing good deeds? I don't believe that any works are possible that are meritorious toward justification, but neither do I affirm that people are incapable of doing anything pleasing to God prior to salvation. That's absurd. It's a very Reformed/Puritan sort of view that emphasizes only one-half of a larger issue—mankind's wretched fallenness. This problem reminds me of a quote by Philip Yancey: "A church uncomfortable with paradox tends to tilt in one direction or the other, usually to disastrous consequences." The reality is that all people live within paradoxical tension of the imagio dei and the fall. I believe that in the fall the imagio dei was completely marred by sin, but I don't believe it was destroyed, eliminated, dissolved, obliterated, or snuffed out. Thus, all people are simultaneously capable of both good and evil. Why is this important? Because the denial that non-Christians cannot do anything innately good is nonsensical, untenable, and offensive. If a non-Christian provides a homeless man a coat on a cold winter night out of love and compassion, I believe that's a good act that's truly pleasing to God even if that non-Christian denies God's very existence. He reflects God's image almost in spite of himself, as it were. And appealing to Common Grace is just a completely unnecessary step and a theological innovation that I see no precedent for in Scripture, although I confess that I could have missed it. So, does mankind have the ability to do good works unto salvation by its own volition? No. Does mankind have the ability to do good works that flow from being made in God's image? Yes.

XIV. Of Works of Supererogation.

Voluntary Works besides, over and above, God's Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.

Huh?

XV. Of Christ alone without Sin.

Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit. He came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world; and sin (as Saint John saith) was not in him. But all we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Agreed.

XVI. Of Sin after Baptism.

Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again, and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned, which say, they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.

First of all, isn't every sin deadly? Second, this "deadly sin" language suggests a Catholic perspective on sin that I don't affirm. Beyond that, again I'm confused.

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.

Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation. Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.

Do I affirm predestination? Yes. Do I affirm election? Yes. Do I know how that squares with human responsibility? No. Do I believe anyone can be saved without the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit? No. Am I a Calvinist? No.

XVIII. Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ.

They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

Agreed. I think this article should be renamed the "Read Me, Bishop Spong" article.

XIX. Of the Church.

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in 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.

Agreed. And just to round out the picture, the Church of Canterbury hath erred, too. Sorry. Too many people involved for any church to be perfect.

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.

Ummmm, again, I'm a little confused. Here's my view on ecclesiastical authority: I see the Church’s authority as more of a steward than a king. Its authority is found only in its preservation of the faith of the apostles, not in its own innate authority.

XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils.

[The Twenty-first of the former Articles is omitted; because it is partly of a local and civil nature, and is provided for, as to the remaining parts of it, in other Articles.] The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article, omitted in the version of 1801, reads as follows: "General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture."

N/A

XXII. Of Purgatory.

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

I'm open but unconvinced as to the legitimacy of icons and the idea of venerating saints, but I definitely disagree with it in the context of purgatory, which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

XXIII. Of Ministering in the Congregation.

It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lord's vineyard.

Agreed. This is one of the things I love about Anglicanism.

XXIV. Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the people understandeth.

It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people.

Agreed. This is why I'm less than enthusiastic about the 1928 BCP, by the way.

XXV. Of the Sacraments.

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him. There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

Agreed. I like that distinction between the two sacraments--baptism and the Eucharist--and the five that are "commonly called Sacraments." Beautiful nuance that I wholeheartedly support.

XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments.

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men. Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed.

Agreed. Good to see Anglicans took note of Patristic decisions on the Sacraments.

XXVII. Of Baptism.

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

I agree with the nature and purpose of baptism articulated above. As for the whole age issue, I tend to think believer’s baptism is preferable but paedobaptism is acceptable/valid, which was an apostlic father's position if memory serves. Tertullian?

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Agreed.

XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper.

The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

Agreed.

XXX. Of both Kinds.

The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

Yes, both the bread and cup should be administered to all people. I do think they can and should be denied in instances of church discipline—"partaking in an unworthy manner"—but not for the sort of political, social, and cultural manipulation that often happened in the late Medieval period.

XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.

The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.

I'll ignore that "both original and actual" clause and just say I agree.

XXXII. Of the Marriage of Priests.

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

Agreed.

XXXIII. Of excommunicate Persons, how they are to be avoided.

That person which by open denunciation of the Church is rightly cut off from the unity of the Church, and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful, as an Heathen and Publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the Church by a Judge that hath authority thereunto.

I don't rejoice in church discipline. It's tragic and ought to be treated solemnly, yet I do recognize the legitimacy of excommunication until such a time as he/she repents. Yet I don’t necessarily affirm an Amish-style shunning.

XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church.

It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, 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 judgment, 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.

The worldwide Anglican Communion values this article, don't they? I agree.

XXXV. Of the Homilies.

The Second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth; and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may he understanded of the people.

Of the Names of the Homilies.

1 Of the right Use of the Church.

2 Against Peril of Idolatry.

3 Of repairing and keeping clean of Churches.

4 Of good Works: first of Fasting.

5 Against Gluttony and Drunkenness.

6 Against Excess of Apparel.

7 Of Prayer.

8 Of the Place and Time of Prayer.

9 That Common Prayers and Sacraments ought to be ministered in a known tongue.

10 Of the reverend Estimation of God's Word.

11 Of Alms-doing.

12 Of the Nativity of Christ.

13 Of the Passion of Christ.

14 Of the Resurrection of Christ.

15 Of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ.

16 Of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost.

17 For the Rogation-days.

18 Of the State of Matrimony.

19 Of Repentance.

20 Against Idleness.

21 Against Rebellion.

[This Article is received in this Church, so far as it declares the Books of Homilies to be an explication of Christian doctrine, and instructive in piety and morals. But all references to the constitution and laws of England are considered as inapplicable to the circumstances of this Church; which also suspends the order for the reading of said Homilies in churches, until a revision of them may be conveniently made, for the clearing of them, as well from obsolete words and phrases, as from the local references.]

Confused. Is the issue the liturgical calendar? If so, agreed.

XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers.

The Book of Consecration of Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, as set forth by the General Convention of this Church in 1792, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering; neither hath it any thing that, of itself, is superstitious and ungodly. And, therefore, whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to said Form, we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered. The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article reads as follows: "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 any thing, that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed 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 and ordered."

Agreed.

XXXVII. Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates.

The Power of the Civil Magistrate extendeth to all men, as well Clergy as Laity, in all things temporal; but hath no authority in things purely spiritual. And we hold it to be the duty of all men who are professors of the Gospel, to pay respectful obedience to the Civil Authority, regularly and legitimately constituted. The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article reads as follows: "The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers. The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England. The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences. It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars."

Agreed.

XXXVIII. Of Christian Men's Goods, which are not common.

The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same; as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

Don't understand the first part, but I will say that my theological and cultural conceptions are influenced by Anabaptist thought in places. Agree with the second.

XXXIX. Of a Christian Man's Oath.

As we confess that vain and rash Swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James his Apostle, so we judge, that Christian Religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the Prophet's teaching in justice, judgment, and truth.

Strange point to include in a list of 39. I'd like to know the historical rational for that. But I agree.