The Earthquake That Shook the Western Church

One Quake: Three Epicenters

Wittenburg, Geneva, Oxford

Luther, Calvin, Cranmer

The date that marks the beginning of the Protestant Reformation is October 31, 1517. No one could have known it then, but what happened that day set in motion an earthquake whose aftershocks are still being felt in the western churches today.

That earthquake had three epicenters, one in Wittenberg with Martin Luther, another in Geneva with John Calvin, and still another in Canterbury with Thomas Cranmer.

What were the contributions of each of these men?

Wittenberg: Martin Luther (1483-1546)

On October 31, 1517, the eve of All Saints' Day, the monk Martin Luther nailed a statement to the church door in Wittenberg, offering to debate his Ninety-five Theses. At the time what most troubled Luther was the sale of indulgences which were said to obtain remission of the temporal punishments of sin for the individual or for a loved one in purgatory. Tetzel, their salesman, is supposed to have created a couplet to aid the sale of the indulgences:

As soon as a coin in the coffer rings
the soul from purgatory springs.

There are two contributions I associate with Martin Luther.

Supremacy of Scripture. Luther was required to appear and answer for his condemned writings at an assembly held at Worms and presided over by the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Charles V. The man who represented the Empire and the Roman Catholic Church was John Eck. Eck laid Luther's writings on a table, and asked if the writings were Luther's and if Luther stood by what he had written. Luther was backed into a corner. Would he assert that what he had written was the truth or would he submit to the church and recant his writings as being in error? His famous answer was:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted, and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.

Secularists and theological liberals like to think that Luther struck a blow for the supremacy of individual autonomy against authority, particularly church authority. That's wishful thinking. Luther had studied the Bible and become convinced that the Roman Catholic Church now held serious error. Popes and church councils could make mistakes and had. What then was the ultimate authority? God speaking in Holy Scripture. The Scriptures stood above the church and its hierarchy. The church had to submit to Scripture interpreted by the use of God-given reason.

What Luther did was serious and revolutionary in his day. It put his life in danger, but, more important, it potentially put people's souls in danger. It was not his intent to undermine the church or its legitimate authority. He surely was not thinking to assert the authority of private judgment, every man alone with his Bible and the Holy Spirit deciding what Scripture says and what he would believe. But what was he to do with the dilemma? Would he choose to submit himself to the authority of the church or would he call upon the church to submit itself to the authority of Holy Scripture?

Luther's choice had consequences he could not have foreseen and which he would surely reject. He did not mean to make every man his own pope or to subject the church to seemingly endless divisions. Nevertheless, Luther made the right choice. The Bible is the supreme authority, and even the church in its teaching ministry must submit to the Scriptures.

Centrality of Justification. Luther faced a theological and personal problem. The theological problem was, "How can a man be right (justified = accepted as righteous) with God?" The personal problem was, "How can I be right with God?" Luther believed that God is righteous and that God requires righteousness of us. But how can man who is a sinner be righteous before a perfectly righteous God? Luther tried very hard to be a righteous man, but, no matter how hard he tried and how successful he was, he always came up short. His best wasn't good enough. His conscience tormented him. He was frustrated with himself and angry with God, because what God demanded of him Luther could not produce.

The breakthrough that opened all of the Scriptures to Luther came as he contemplated Romans 1:17: "For therein the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to to faith; as it is written,The just shall live by faith." To this point his understanding had been that God is righteous, that God requires that man attain righteousness by doing the things commanded by the law and the church, and that God in righteousness must condemn and punish unrighteous man. Then he realized that the righteousness of which Paul speaks is the righteousness that God provides in Christ and is received by faith. Forgiveness comes from Christ's dying for our sin. Righteousness is found wholly in Christ (an "alien" or "outside us" righteousness) and is imputed (accounted) to us. We are saved by the grace of God alone, not by human co-operation with God. We are saved by faith alone, not by human works or goodness.

In recent years, the theologian N.T. Wright (and others) has challenged Luther and asserted that he (and the other Reformers) did not understand Paul. For Luther justification is a legal term having to do whom God regards as righteous; for Wright it is a relational term having to do with membership among God's covenant people. Justification for Luther is about the doctrine of salvation; for Wright it is about the doctrine of the church. For Luther justification is individual; for Wright it is communal. For Luther we are justified (declared righteous) by faith in Christ and his righteousness; for Wright we are justified (included among God's people) by acknowledging and following Jesus as Messiah and Lord.

Anglican Gerald Bray has written: "Nowadays some people claim that the righteousness of God refers primarily to the covenant community of God's people, something which was achieved by the works of the law in the Old Testament and is now by the church as the body of Christ." After pointing that this "communitarian" view was held neither by Roman Catholics or Protestants (both of whom Wright believes wrong because they did understand Paul's religious background), Bray says, "Either way (R.C. or Protestant) it (justification) applied to individuals not groups and modern theories to the contrary notwithstanding, this approach still seems to be the one that is most faithful to the meaning of the Biblical text" (The Faith We Confess, pp. 74-75).

Luther said of justification by faith alone,"This one and firm rock, which we call the doctrine of justification, is the chief article of the whole Christian doctrine, which comprehends the understanding of all godliness."


Geneva: John Calvin (1509-1564)

Luther was bombastic; Calvin was rational. Luther was hot; Calvin was cool (though he had a temper). Luther was the man I'd like to drink beer with on Friday; Calvin was the man whose class
I'd like to attend on Monday. I'd like to sit at Luther's table; I'd like to sit beneath Calvin's pulpit. I'd prefer Luther's style; I'd prefer Calvin's content. Two of Calvin's best biographers are Anglicans, T.H.L. Parker and Alister McGrath.

There are two contributions I associate with John Calvin.

Clarity of the Commentaries. Calvin produced commentaries on almost all the books of the Bible. Calvin's commentaries are scholarly, but clear, concise, pastoral, and practical. Though written 450 years ago they remain very helpful aids to the understanding of the Holy Scriptures. Dr. Joseph Haroutunian of McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, writes:

...we find Calvin bent upon establishing what a given author in fact said...Allegorizing was misunderstanding, and misunderstanding was the evil a scholar had to avoid by all means... he was protesting not against finding a spiritual meaning in a passage, but against finding one that was not there. The Word of God written for the upbuilding of the church was of course spiritual, but in the primary sense of leading to the knowledge of God and obedience to him. Calvin’s “literalism” establishes rather than dissolves the mystery of the Word of God, provided for the Christian’s help and comfort. 

...Calvin was a conscientious historical critic. His comments did not degenerate into the undisciplined exhortation which often goes with “practical preaching.” He neither practiced nor encouraged irresponsibility toward “the genuine sense” of Scripture...any “spiritual” meaning other than one derived from the author’s intention was at once misleading and unedifying. One has only to consult Calvin on a few given passages of Scripture to recognize that he is indeed a teacher without an equal. Calvin comments with the conviction that any passage of Scripture he may examine contains a Word of God full of God’s wisdom, applicable to the condition of his hearers and readers in one respect or another. This conviction enables him to respond to the Bible with a vitality and intelligence...

Dr. Haroutunian sums up nicely:

Calvin published his Commentaries to give his readers insight into the Word of God and to point out its relevance to their own life and situation. To this end he cultivated accuracy, brevity, and lucidity. He achieved his purpose to a degree that has aroused the admiration and gratitude of generations of readers. And in this day...a man who would understand his Bible will do well to have Calvin’s Commentaries within easy reach.

System of the Theology. When Mortimer Adler of the University of Chicago was asked by William F. Buckley if there was anything omitted that he wished had been included in the Great Books series, he replied "Calvin." The second edition of the Great Books included a whole volume (20) with selections from Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. Historian Will Durant counted the Institutes among the world's ten most influential books. Calvin scholar John T. McNeill wrote, "Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is one of the few books that have profoundly affected the course of history."

Calvin was the first of the Reformers to produce what we now call a systematic theology, the first edition published in 1536, the final much fuller edition in 1559. The structure of the work is the traditional Christian catechesis: The Apostles' Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord's Prayer. With this structure Calvin deals with all the essential subjects of theology, including the Trinity, the Person and Work of Christ, the Holy Spirit, ecclesiology, sacramentology, etc.

A systematic theology is an effort to organize the teaching of the Bible in categories such as the doctrine of God or the doctrine of salvation. The Institutes are a systematic exposition of the Christian faith, an explanation and defense of the historic catholic faith. Calvin reveals an excellent working knowledge of the church fathers, whom he greatly respects. More important Calvin consciously intends to go "back to the source" and ground all of theology in the Holy Scriptures.

Recently the whole idea of systematic theology has been questioned by many scholars, including N.T. Wright (see above). The criticism is that systematic theology imposes an order and system on the Bible so that the message of the Bible is distorted. The way to approach and understand the Bible is by means of exegesis (vocabulary, grammar, historical setting, immediate context) and in light of Biblical theology (the unfolding of God's saving work in the Bible and its history). Systematic theology is categorized as "scholastic" because it takes a "scientific" approach to the Bible, treating it as though it were another department in the curriculum of the university.

This objection to systematic theology seems to me wrong. Systematic theology begins with the conviction that the Bible is a book of truth given to us by God. It is true that truth in the Bible is not revealed to us in the abstract but concretely in history. God has spoken in the Bible, progressively revealing himself and his plan of salvation. However, while God revealed himself progressively in history, God does not contradict himself. What God has revealed is harmonious with itself. Systematic theology believes that God has so constructed the human mind and human language as to lead us to think about truths in categories. The truths of God's Word can be developed and understood in relationship with one one another. Systematic theology answers the questions, "What does the Bible say about....?" and, "How does what God says about x relate to what he says about y?" Exegetical theology, Biblical theology, and systematic theology are not enemies or even rivals but friends who work together and mutually support each other.

Biographer T.H.L. Parker brings together Calvin the exegete and Calvin the theologian:

"I am eager for people to know Calvin not because he was without flaws, or because he was the most influential theologian of the last 500 years (which he was), or because he shaped Western culture (which he did), but because he took the Bible so seriously, and because what he saw on every page was the majesty of God and the glory of Christ.

Canterbury: Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556)

There is one man who links Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Thomas Cranmer. Martin Bucer was the friend of all three. Bucer came to the Protestant faith under the influence of Martin Luther. Later in Strasbourg he influenced John Calvin. After his exile to England, he had an impact on the Reformation there, especially on the second Book of Common Prayer.

Of the three Reformers we are considering, only Cranmer died for the Protestant faith, which seems ironic inasmuch as some of his churchly heirs, while not papists, would like to reset the Anglican clock to a pre-Reformation time. They are dubious about Cranmer's Articles, and would ground Anglican theology in the theological consensus of the undivided Church (before the split between East and West, before Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism went their separate ways. As I see this is a "gap" approach to Anglicanism - skip the Reformation era and fast forward to the Oxford Movement. 

Cranmer served as Archbishop of Canterbury during the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI. Henry had set the church and nation free from Rome, but he wasn't much interested in reformation of the church's worship and doctrine. Cranmer thought deeply about these things, and, when Edward VI, still a boy and a convinced Protestant, succeeded his father, the reformation made real progress. However, Edward died still a teenager and was succeeded by his half-sister and Henry's daughter, the Roman Catholic Mary Tudor. She reversed the reformation and eventually had Cranmer burned at the stake.

There are two contributions I associate with Cranmer.

Book of Common Prayer.The primary factor that led me to Anglicanism was The Book of Common Prayer. I came to believe that the so-called "directed worship" of Presbyterianism incorporates two extremes. One is the strict "regulative principle" approach that, for instance, makes no allowance for the annual commemoration of the great events of redemptive history (the "evangelical feasts" such Christmas and Easter) and which I (as an individual) found impossible to apply. The other extreme may profess the "regulative principle" but in practice allows all the worship chaos one sees across the spectrum of evangelicalism. (One Presbyterian presbytery with which I am familiar closely examines candidates and transfers about the principle, but within it jurisdictional bounds one finds a great variety of "worship styles" all supposedly consistent with the principle.) The solution I saw and see is the prescribed worship of Anglicanism. I believed and believe that the Prayer Book provides ordered, Biblical, Protestant, reverent worship. I came also to believe that there is no reason to drive a wedge between written prayers and the spirit of prayer. And, as one friend (a Prayer Book user but not an Anglican) puts it, "If you can do better than the Prayer Book with free prayer, have it." My conviction is that the Prayer Book gives us substance to pray that would never occur to the vast majority of evangelical ministers or people. To put it another way, my heart resonates with the Prayer Book.
Cranmer wanted to reform the church's worship to make it consistent with Protestant theology while conserving what he could of the historic liturgy. James Wood in his introduction to the Penguin edition of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer writes:

Theologically the 1559/1662 Book of Common Prayer is both radical and conservative. Its Protestantism can be felt in its emphasis on man's sinful depravity, and on the unearned gift of God's salvation (justification by faith alone, not by good works). One scholar has said that "the triple beat of sin-grace-faith runs through the whole book."

Cranmer ensured that the Anglican Prayer Book took a definite position on the fraught (and violent) issue of the eucharistic "real presence"...This insistence can be felt in the words the presiding minister says to the Anglican communicant as he offers the sacraments:

The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life: Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed upon him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.

Still...the Book of Prayer was also an eclectic and consoling, even conservative document, the least revolutionary and more Catholic of the European Protestant liturgies...Along with the services of Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, and Holy Communion the 1662 Prayer Book has a calendar of the church year; a list of saints' days...liturgies for special days...; and services for the Burial of the Dead...and so on. Gordon James points out that it was clever of Cranmer to borrow collects and prayers from the English Catholic and monastic traditions, from Greek Orthodox and from old Spanish rites...

Above all, the Book of Common Prayer offered Cranmer's language as a kind of binding agent, a rhetoric both lofty and local, archaic and familiar...

Articles of Religion. In addition to the Prayer Book Cranmer also gave us the Articles of Religion. One of the things that troubled me about the branch of Presbyterianism of which I was a part was subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism, and the Shorter Catechism. I heard man after man take no exceptions and offer no clarifying statements. Every time I wondered, "With as many words and and the amount of detail there is in these documents, how can this be?" While I believe that the Westminster Standards, which as J.I. Packer points out were written by an Assembly the majority of whom were Anglicans, are a most excellent statement of Christian faith, I appreciate the Articles for their brevity.

But what kind of doctrine is found in the Articles? They are catholic in that they affirm the catholic theology of the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds. But they are also clearly Protestant, as distinct from Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologies, in places reflecting Lutheran theology and in other places (especially on Baptism and the Lord's Supper) reflecting Calvinistic (Reformed) theology. 

Gerald Bray has written:

The Thirty-nine Articles are usually printed with the 1662 Prayer Book, but they have a different history (from The Prayer Book)...The Articles were given official status by King Charles I in 1628; since then they have been the accepted doctrinal standards of the Church of England. Other Anglican churches have received them to a greater or lesser degree...it has to be said that most Anglicans today are scarcely aware of their existence. Even the clergy have seldom studied them, and only evangelicals now take them seriously as doctrine. 

The Articles are not a comprehensive systematic theology in the way that the Westminster Confession is, but they do address questions of theological controversy in a systematic way. In that sense, they are more advanced than earlier Protestant doctrinal statements. They start with the doctrine of God, go on to list the canon of Scripture, and then get into more controversial subjects. Justification by faith alone is clearly stated, and there is also a clear defense of predestination. The sacraments are numbered as two only, and they are defined as witnesses to the Gospel. Towards the end there are articles defining the powers of the civil magistrate, along with one that sanctions the two books of Homilies, collections of sermons in which the doctrines of the Articles and Prayer Book are more fully expounded... perhaps their brief and judicious statements will one day gain them greater acceptance within the wider Reformed community.

I would prefer for Anglicans not to separate Cranmer the liturgist from Cranmer the theologian and not to separate the Prayer Book from The Articles. The Prayer Book and the Articles come to us from the same author (in the main) and should be assumed to be in harmony with one another. On the great Protestant doctrines of the authority of Scripture and of justification by faith alone they are one. On the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion there is to my mind no conflict between them (nor, for that matter between them and the Continental Reformed, except that Calvin's doctrine of the Holy Supper may be higher than Cranmer's). The Prayer Book and the Articles give doctrine which is truly catholic and decidedly Protestant.

Wittenberg, Geneva, Canterbury. Luther, Calvin, Cranmer. An earthquake with three epicenters. May God let and cause the quake to roll on.

All Alone: Reformation Sunday Homily

All Alone

Twenty-first after Trinity

Reformation Sunday

October 26, 2015

Collect for the Day: Grant, we beseech thee, merciful Lord, to thy faithful people pardon and peace, that they may be cleansed from all their sins an, and serve the with a quiet mind; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Collect for the Church: O gracious Father, we humbly beseech thee for thy holy Catholic Church; that thou wouldest be pleased to fill it with all truth, in all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, establish it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of him who died and rose again, and ever liveth to make intercession for us, Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord. Amen.

Text: "Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it."

Today is Reformation Sunday. On October 31, 1517, the monk and priest Martin Luther nailed to the church door in Wittenburg a document inviting debate on 95 statements about the teachings and practices of the Church of Rome. Two other priest-reformers, John Calvin in Switzerland and Thomas Cranmer in England, followed Luther. All three wanted to reform not destroy the Church.

What was the Reformation about? There are five statements that capture the significance. Each begins with the Latin word, “sola” which means, “alone” or “only.”

1. Scripture Alone

Martin Luther had his back against the wall. The Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Charles V, ordered him to appear at a meeting in Worms where he would be questioned by theologian John Eck. Eck laid Luther’s writings on a table and asked if he were going to stand by them or submit to the church and retract his erroneous teachings. Luther answered:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted, and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.

Many believe Luther struck a blow for individual freedom and the supremacy of the conscience over all authority. “Whatever I feel the Bible says to me is what it means. Whatever I believe is true is true for me.” But Luther intended no such thing. Luther’s dilemma was, “What do you do when the teaching or practice of the church is clearly contradictory to Scripture?” His answer was, “Scripture is the Word of God, and God’s Word is the final authority.”

Luther asserted the supremacy of Scripture for the church. It is not the Bible and church traditions or church declarations, but the Bible alone that has ultimate authority in the church. The Bible is not a book about medicine, or physics, or politics. What is it about?  St. Paul wrote to Timothy:

...from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (3:15-17)

This supremacy of Scripture is not a theory to talk about. The Bible is first a book to know. Today, there is a great ignorance of the Bible, even in the church. One of Archbishop Cranmer’s great concerns was for the English people to hear the Scriptures, and more to “read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them.” The Bible is second a book to believe and obey. The Bible, not our opinions or societal trends, tells us what to believe and how to live.  

2. Christ Alone

How can we know God who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man can see or ever has seen? How can we approach God who is holy, whose eyes are too pure to look in iniquity?

The Reformers said we know God only in Christ who is the eternal Son made flesh. He is “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature” (Hebrews 1:3).

We can approach God only through Christ. “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all…”(1 Timothy 2:5,6). St. Peter declared, “...there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

One challenge the Reformers confronted was belief that the priest is your mediator. The priest represents you before God and represents God to you. He offers Christ on the altar as a sacrifice for your sins. But the Reformers saw the Presbyter as a preacher and administrator - a preacher of Christ’s Word who administers his Sacraments. The only Mediator is Christ.

The challenge we face today is the view that Christ is not the only way to God. We can approach God any way that works for us. But Christ is the only One who reveals God to us and saves us. Jesus spoke unambiguously: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). We know and approach God through Christ alone.

3. Grace Alone

There are two questions we need to ask ourselves in light of the reality of sin: 1) What do I deserve? 2) What can I do?

What do I deserve? Many of our contemporaries say, “I’m not perfect, but I’m a good person. I do good things. I deserve good from God.” But some may sense that that sin is a bigger problem than some imperfections that we will have to answer to God and face judgment. Then what? Well, we believe in self-help so we may swing into action to fix our problem. How can we save ourselves? The natural response is to try harder to be better and do better. Follow the example of Jesus. Perhaps we can make up for the bad with good. Or, maybe God will accept our sincere effort in place of perfection.

In the Middle Ages no one believed we could save ourselves by self-effort. We need help. That’s where Christ comes in. What does Christ do? How much does he do? How much do we do? We need his merits, but what about our merits? Is salvation partly Christ’s work and partly our works? What he did for us? What must we do for ourselves? Is salvation God doing his part and we doing our parts? The Roman Catholic answer was that God’s grace in Christ does most for our salvation, but we must cooperate and do our part.

Our strong tendency is to want to do something to contribute to our salvation. Suppose I invite you to dinner. You say, “What can I bring?” I say, “Nothing.” You say, “How about a dessert?” “No.” “How about salad?” “No.” “Well, how the bread?” “No, I am providing everything; don’t bring anything.” What do you do? Accept the gift of a dinner I provide? Or refuse since you can’t bring a little something?

The Reformers learned from Scripture that God provides the whole of our salvation in Christ. We don’t contribute anything. We can’t. Christ does it all. It is grace, all grace, and grace alone. The Apostle Paul wrote, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8,9).   

4. Faith Alone

Martin Luther had a theological and personal problem he could not resolve. God is righteous. He requires us to be righteous. But we are not righteous. Luther found that no matter how hard he worked to do good works, no matter how faithfully he observed the disciplines and rituals of the church, he could not achieve righteousness with God. He was frustrated with himself and angry with God. He could not provide the righteousness God requires.

The breakthrough came when Luther saw that righteousness is not about being righteous or doing righteousness but about God’s verdict that you are righteous. This is called justification. You do not attain righteousness by works - whether those works are obedience to moral demands of the law or works that mark you as belonging to God’s people. God justifies you. He declares that he does not count your sins against you but considers you righteous in his sight. He does this on the basis of Christ’s work. Christ gains the forgiveness of your sins by suffering the law’s penalty; he gains for you a righteous standing by keeping God’s law for you. Your righteousness is not grounded in what you do or might do, but in what Christ did for you.

But how can you get this verdict of not guilty, but righteous? How are can you be justified? Paul says it is by faith: “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works” (Rom. 3:28). As salvation is not partly by God’s grace and partly by our merit, so justification is not partly by Christ’s work for us and partly by our works. We receive what Christ did for by entrusting ourselves to Christ and what he did for us. As Article XI puts it, “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.” We are right with God by faith in Christ and his merits, or we are not right with God at all. The Gospel is that Jesus did it all, and we receive it all by faith alone.

5. The Glory of God Alone

What is the meaning and purpose of life? What the point God’s plan and work of salvation? What is the reason for the church? It is all for the glory of God alone. When the great Lutheran composer J.S. Bach came to the end of a composition he wrote the words, “Soli Deo Gloria” - to God alone the glory. We are not the center of the universe. We are not what life is all about. “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36).

Dying to Be Protestant Anglicans

Oxford Martyrs Day
October 16

During my lifetime the the United States has won one war, the first Gulf War. The others - Korea, Vietnam, and the second Gulf War - resulted in loss or draw. I have come to think that our nation ought not to go to war unless our President can say to parents who have lost sons, wives who have lost husbands, and children who have lost fathers, "This is what your loved one died for, and it was worth it."

Latimer

October 16 is Oxford Martyrs' Day. On October 16, 1555, Bishops Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley, having been tried at the University Church of St. Mary and condemned for heresy, were tied to stakes and burned alive. On March 21, 1556, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, 

Ridley

primary author of the Book of Common Prayer and The Articles of Religion, also died at the stake. Cranmer's faith stumbled after the deaths of Ridley and Latimer. He signed documents renouncing his Protestant faith, but on the day of his execution (Mary decided to make an example of him), when he was supposed to make a public recantation of his errors, he recanted his recantations, and said he had in those recantations affirmed what he did not in his heart believe.

Edward VI

Under King Henry VIII, the English church renounced the primacy of the Church of Rome and the authority of the Pope. Though the reforming of the Church of England was slow because of Henry's hesitancy, freedom from Rome opened the possibilities for reform as Cranmer and other scholar-leaders studied the Bible for themselves and read the works of and corresponded with the continental Reformers, both Lutheran and Reformed. Upon Henry's death his young son, "the Boy King" Edward VI, came to the throne. Edward sincerely believed the Protestant faith for himself and assented to and supported the reforms proposed by Cranmer and his allies. However, Edward's life was cut short, and he died at age 16 in 1543. It is during Edward that Cranmer was free to reform the doctrine and liturgy of the church.

Upon Edward's death, an attempt was made to install his cousin Lady Jane Grey as Queen, but she was 

Mary I

deposed and executed, and (Bloody) Mary, a Roman Catholic, assumed the throne and tried to return the Church to its allegiance to Roman authority, doctrine, and practice. It was Mary who saw Ridley, Latimer, and Cranmer, and about 200 others put to death. 

On Oxford Martyrs Day it is worth asking, "What did Ridley, Latimer, and Cranmer die for?" Answered simply, they died for the Protestant faith and practice.

While the whole Protestant faith as set out in The (then 42, later 39) Articles of Religion was on trial in the persons of these Martyrs, two issues came to fore, Papal Supremacy and the Mass.`

The Martyrs stuck by The Articles on the matter of Rome: 

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsover is not read therein, nor may be proved therein, is not to be required in any man, that it should be believed as an article of Faith...(VI)

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 (XIX).

It is not lawful for the church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written...although the church be a witness and keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought to decree any thing against the same, so besides it ought not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation (XX).

General Councils...when gathered together...may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. 

Cranmer

Cranmer represented the view of all three when in his recantation of his recantation he said, "And as for the pope, I refuse him, as Christ's enemy, and Antichrist with all his false doctrine." One can disagree with Cranmer's identification of the Pope with the Antichrist, yet fully agree with him in his rejection of the supremacy of Rome and the authority of the Pope.

With regard to the Mass, there were two related issues - if and how Christ is present and whether any propitiatory sacrifice is made in Holy Communion. Again the martyrs stuck with The Articles:

The sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them (XXV). 

The Supper of the Lord...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 our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, 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 (XXVII).

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 the Masses, in which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead. to have remission of pain and guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits (XXXI).

At his trial Ridley answered the charges against him. “I do not deny that in the sacrament, by spirit and grace, is the very body and blood of Christ. Every man receiving the bread or wine spiritually receives the body and blood of Christ. But I deny that the body and blood of Christ is in the sacrament the way you say it is...There is a change in the bread and wine, and yet the bread is still bread and wine is still wine.." Asked if Christ were sacrificed in the Mass, Latimer replied, "No. Christ made one perfect sacrifice. No one can offer Him up again. Neither can the priest offer Him for the sins of man, which He took away by offering Himself once for all upon the cross.” 

The Oxford Martyrs Memorial, which was completed in 1843, bears this inscription: 

To the Glory of God, and in grateful commemoration of His servants, Thomas Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley, Hugh Latimer, Prelates of the Church of England, who near this spot yielded their bodies to be burned, bearing witness to the sacred truths which 

they had affirmed and maintained against the errors of the Church of Rome, and rejoicing that to them it was given not only to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for His sake; this monument was erected by public subscription in the year of our Lord God, MDCCCXLI.

If the martyrs died in the mid-1500s, why was the Memorial built and dedicated 300 years later? The mid-1800s saw the rise of the Tractarian Movement and Anglo-Catholicism, led by good and sincere men, who believed the reformation of the Church of England had gone too far and that the Church needed in doctrine and liturgical practice to go back to a time before the Reformation. In response ministers of the Church of England had the Monument erected to remind the Church of the content its Faith and price some paid to bear witness to and preserve it. 

The question remains today, Was it worth it?

Celebrating Christmas Eve in another city, I was happy to find that there was a nearby Anglican parish where a service would be held. I went to the service with high expectations. The minister and I shared of history of having come to Anglicanism after being part of the Presbyterian Church in America. The parish's Facebook description of itself, included these statements, "As a traditional Anglican parish we believe that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God and that they contain all things necessary to salvation. We further affirm...the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England in their literal and grammatical sense..." There was processional with incense and the incensing of the Table. More important the priest repeatedly genuflected before the consecrated elements (hosts) on the Table (altar), including the unconsumed consecrated bread (host) placed in the "Tabernacle." It occurred to me, "The English martyrs burned so that we could do this?"

Let us bear witness that we believe the deaths of the Martyrs matters to us, that we mean that their deaths shall not have been in vain. What they died confessing let us now confess. For their witness we give thanks to our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us be what they died to make us - Protestant Anglicans. 

Who Is Qualified to Worship?

Who is Qualified to Worship?

Twentieth after Trinity

October 18, 2015

Psalm 15. Domine, quis habitabit?

1 LORD, who shall dwell in thy tabernacle? or who shall rest upon thy holy hill?

2 Even he that leadeth an uncorrupt life, and doeth the thing which is right, and speaketh the truth from his heart.

3 He that hath used no deceit in his tongue, nor done evil to his neighbour, and hath not slandered his neighbour.

4 He that setteth not by himself, but is lowly in his own eyes, and maketh much of them that fear the LORD.

5 He that sweareth unto his neighbour, and disappointeth him not, though it were to his own hindrance.

6 He that hath not given his money upon usury, nor taken reward against the innocent.

7 Whoso doeth these things  shall never fall.

When Groucho Marx received notice he had been elected to the exclusive Friars’ club, he immediately sent a telegram saying, “Please accept my resignation. I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept people like me as a member.”

Do you ever wonder who is qualified to go to be a member of the church and worship God? King David did. He writes about it in Psalm 15.

1. Question

1.1. To understand David’s question, we need to have in mind some things about Old Testament worship. The tabernacle was the Lord’s temporary dwelling place among his people till the temple was built by Solomon. Inside the tabernacle was the ark of the covenant. The tabernacle was the Lord’s tent among the tents of his people, and the ark was his throne.

During the dark days of the judges the tabernacle was placed at Shiloh. When the people were at war with the Philistines, the evil sons of the priest Eli got the idea of ark might have magical powers and took it into battle. The Israelites were routed, and the ark was captured. Eventually the Philistines returned the ark, but it was not placed in the tabernacle.

When David became King and made Jerusalem the capital, he brought the ark to Jerusalem. At that time tabernacle was not in Jerusalem, so David built a second tabernacle for the ark and placed it on Mt. Zion, the future temple site. There priests carried out the rituals of Old Testament worship.

1,2. We can imagine David looking at the tabernacle, watching worshipers going up Mt. Zion and asking, “LORD, who shall dwell in thy tabernacle? or who shall rest upon thy holy hill?” The place where David put the tabernacle was holy because the Lord had promised to meet with his people at the tent where sacrifices were offered. David was asking, “Whom do you allow to participate in your worship? What are the qualifications of a worshiper?

David’s question was not just about participation in worship but also about fellowship. Remember the tabernacle was God’s tent. We show hospitality when we invite people into our homes. In the ancient world inviting someone into your tent was an act of friendship. So David was asking, “Lord, whom will you allow to visit with you in our tent, whom will you allow to live on your holy hill? Who is invited into your fellowship?”

It is wise for us to ask, perhaps especially as we come to the Lord’s Table, “Lord who may worship you? Who is invited into your house, the church? Whom do you invite to have communion with you in the bread and wine? With whom do you enter into fellowship?”

2. Answers. David received an answer listing qualifications for worshipers. This list focuses on ethical qualifications, especially in our relations with others.

2.1. Character of the Worshiper.

Leads an uncorrupt life, or “walks blamelessly.” This person’s way of life is blameless. He is a person against whom there are no charges of leading an evil life. But it goes deeper than outward blamelessness; it goes to the heart where there is spiritual soundness and wholehearted devotion to the Lord.

Sometimes we vote for a politician because we believe he is un-corruptible. Then there is an announcement that he is charged with public corruption. He has used his office to enrich himself. It turns out that he has a long history of corruption all the way back to when he took office. His actions and character are corrupt.

Does what is right.  There are questions that represent two ways to treat people - whether it is business deal, or a marriage, or friendship, or someone we just come across. One question is, “What can I get away with?” The other is, “What is the right?” One question considers what is to our advantage; the other what pleases God and shows love to our neighbor.

Speaks truth in his heart. One meaning of the word “true” is what is factually true. But “true” can also mean “trustworthy.” Sometimes people say what is accurate, not because they have a trustworthy character, but because they can’t get away with lying, or because they figure it is more to their advantage to tell the truth than to lie. But a person who is true in his heart tells the truth because he is has integrity. In one case truth telling is a tactic; in the other it is an expression of character.

2.2. Words of the Worshiper.

Does not slander with his tongue, does no evil to his neighbor, and does not take up a reproach against his neighbor. Slanderers and reproachers pay no attention to the command of the law, “You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people…” (Lev. 19:16). They are people who like to “go around” checking up on others with the hopes that they will discover something unfavorable. When they find out something, they go around spreading it to others. They delight in finding out, and spreading bad things they discover. They can cloak their motives by saying things like, “I don’t want to gossip, but I think I should tell you something,” or “I share this just so you can pray about it.” The truth is they enjoy spreading derogatory information.

The person who does not do evil to his neighbor does not look for negative information about others, takes no pleasure in finding out negative things, and does not spread negative information unless duty requires it. Love does not uncover and broadcast the sins of others, but “covers all offenses” (Prov. 10:12).

2.3. Loyalties of a Worshiper

Despises a vile man.  Vile people, in the context of Israel’s life, break their covenant with God. They do not trust, love, and serve the Lord, but turn their backs on the Lord and do what they please.

The worshiper despises them. That does not mean he looks on them as the Pharisees looked on sinners - with self-righteous disdain. Rather, the vile are not their heroes. They do not admire and praise them. They do not long to be included in the circles of those who are vile but popular.

Honors Those Who Fear the Lord. Rather they honor those who fear the Lord. Those who fear the Lord are not those who fear as dominated children cringe before their parents. They trust, love, and serve him. They are loyal to the Lord and delight in pleasing him.

The worshiper honors those who fear the Lord.  These are the people they admire and make their heroes. They belong among those who fear the Lord.

2.4. Dealings of the Worshiper.

How does worshiper treat others?

He keeps his promises. He “swears to his own hurt and does not change.” One of the ways to discover our own or another’s person’s integrity is by what we does when we make a promise we finds is going to hurt us. What do you do when you promise your son you will play baseball with him and discover it conflicts with your favorite TV show? When you enter a contract and find out you will lose money? When you vow to love, honor, and cherish but find out the person you married is hard to live with? Worshipers keep their promises even when it hurts.

Does Not Take Advantage of Others. “He does not put out his money to usury” or “charge interest.”

The law did not forbid all charging of interest, but it did forbid charging interest to your brother:

You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest (Deut. 23:20).

A brother might fall on hard times and ask for help (Lev. 25:35-38). You must not take advantage of your brother by charging him interest. You can ask him to repay you when he is able, but don’t add interest. Don’t take advantage of your brother by charging him interest.

Does not take a bribe against the innocent. What can turn you against another person? What would it take to cause you to betray a friend? What would be the price of your bearing false testimony against an innocent person? For some the bribe is monetary; for others a promotion or position; for others acceptance or praise. Can our integrity or friendship, or loyalty be bought? The worshiper on God’s holy hill has integrity and will not betray what is right for his own advantage.

This is the person who is qualified to worship God. He can have fellowship with God. God extends friendship to him. He may sojourn in God’s tent and dwell on God’s holy hill. He will not fall. He will stand. His place is secure.

3. One True Worshiper

But I need to ask a question. Are you that person? Am I? Do you know anyone who is? We should be. But we aren’t.

There is only One who is. That is the Lord Jesus Christ. He lived a life that was perfect. His worship of God was pure. After he made the sacrifice for our sins, he rose from the dead, ascended to the Father, and entered the Holy of Holies in heaven where he sprinkled his shed blood - not for himself but for us.

We can worship God and enjoy his fellowship because, and only because, Christ is the Mediator of our worship. He cleanses us from our sins and clothes us with his righteousness so that we can worship a holy God acceptably. We remember our reliance on the one Mediator every time we come to this Table.

That does not mean we are indifferent to our lives. When we come to the Table we are charged to examine ourselves, to repent of our sins, and to amend our lives. We acknowledge what we should be, grieve that we are not, and seek by God’s grace to become what he wants us to be. But we do not presume to come trusting our own righteousness but trusting in the merits of our Savior.