The Anglican Future - The Church has always been changing
by Ted Mollegen mollegen@ALLIEDR.COM
I hear many people objecting to recent and currently proposed changes in the Church, as though the Church should never change. But, ever since the time of Christ, the Church has always been changing, and the faith of the pre-Christ Jews also changed as developed.
The Book of Acts chronicles how -- after much debate
-- and after its first few years of existence, the infant Church decided
that gentiles could become Christians without becoming religiously Jewish
first. And, in the early Church, members held al
property in common -- for a while -- and then the Church changed away
from this. These changes were major.
The Ten Commandments are generally considered to be among the most authoritative proclamations in the bible. However, we the church have changed some of these.
The Fourth Commandment says to remember the sabbath, to keep it holy. The early Church moved the sabbath by approximately 30 hours from its historic bounds extending from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, with the new bounds being Saturday midnight Sunday midnight. They had good reasons for making the change, but it was nonetheless a change -- of one of the Ten Commandments!
The Second Commandment prohibits making "any graven image or any likeness of any thing... " Yet we all have graven images on the coins in our pockets or pocketbooks and we think nothing of making likenesses by taking photographs.
Pre-Christian Jews broadened the application of the Seventh Commandment, which originally said only that married women could not sleep with anyone other than their husband. (It wasn't adultery if the man was married and the woman wasn't. This is how Solomon got away with having 300 concubines.) We are in sympathy with this change, but it is still a change.
At first, the Christian Church did not have
the doctrine of the Trinity. The earliest Christian writings we have are
the letters of St. Paul (circa 50-65 CE). St. Paul's idea of the faith
was that it was focused on Jesus Christ, and while he believe
in the Holy Spirit, he certainly did not see the Holy Spirit
as an equal person in the Trinity, and it can be argued that he did not
really see Jesus Christ as equal with the Father. (In fact, as recorded
by the first three Gospel writers, Jesus himself
does not seem to have seen himself as equal with the Father.)
Yet today we regard the doctrine of the Trinity as one of the foundations
of the faith.
And the doctrines of the Atonement in the Gospel writers disagree: In Matthew, Jesus describes himself as "a ransom for the sins of the world," but in Luke and Acts, salvation and forgiveness come not through the crucifixion but in response to repentantance for killing Jesus. (See Peter's sermons in Acts, which are basically the same sermon given repeatedly.) Today, we still have different theories about how the Atonement works.
The Doctrine of the Trinity began to develop circa 150 CE, and was (relatively) clarified by the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. Additional definitive touches were added by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. (The so-called Apostle's creed did not evolve to its present form until around 150-200 CE, at which time it was called the Roman Creed.)
Marriage was declared a sacrament by the western
church in 1215 CE. At this time, the idea that marriage was a sacrament
had been circulating for only about 100 to 150 years. The idea of consent
as being a necessary part of Christian marriage also
developed in the same period, and was a change from the way things
had been done before.
In the 1530s, Henry VIII nationalized the Roman Catholic Church in his kingdom, but didn't change the doctrine. He and Parliament became the top authorities in the Anglican Church. Under Henry's son, the Church became distinctly more Protestant, an the Book of Common Prayer (1549 & 1552 versions, with newly composed services in English instead of Latin!) became the law of the land. There was extensive change, and extensive controversy.
Under the next monarch, "Bloody Mary," the Anglican Church was (temporarily) reunited with Rome. This was a change back. When Mary died and Elizabeth became Queen, the Anglican Church was again separated from Rome, and became the English nation church, which it remains to this day.
The 1637 Scottish Prayer Book was the first
Anglican Prayer Book to add the words "For thine is the kingdom..." into
the text of the Lord's Prayer. These words do not appear in the most ancient
ancient texts of the Gospels (although they are found
the Didache, which may go back to the first century, and are
found in Matthew but not Luke in the King James Version), but now are used
by almost all English-speaking Protestants, including Episcopalians. This
is a change from what the bible says that Jesus taught!
Later, the new 1662 Book of Common Prayer was a compromise between traditionalist and extreme Protestant groups. It was a change from its predecessor.
Following the American Revolution, the Protestant
Episcopal Church in the United States of America was organized, by the
General Conventions of 1785, 1786, and 1789. The American 39 Articles of
Faith contain changes from the English Articles not on
to reflect the separation of the American Church from the Church
of England, but also to reflect the separation of church and state in the
US, then a uniquely American Anglican idea. (In the English 39 Articles,
it still today requires a "Prince" to ca
a Council of the Church, a tradition which goes back to Constantine.)
This was a change.
In the 1830 to 1860s, the Oxford movement (emphasizing
"Catholic" or "high-church" aspects of worship), crossed the Atlantic from
England, and greatly changed the nature of worship in many parts of the
American Church. Prior to this movement, the following were not acceptable
in the American Episcopal Church:
and there were many churches which would permit no hymn singing.
These things became acceptable (in many dioceses and congregations) because
of the Oxford movement.
In 1885, in a movement to encourage ecumenical activity and church inter-communion, the American House of Bishops adopted the "Chicago Quadrilateral." In 1888, the Lambeth Conference adopted it with some modification; their modified version is call the "Lambeth Quadrilateral." These moves were bitterly opposed by some. (The basics of these two declarations are printed in the Book of Common Prayer.)
Up until the American 1928 Prayer Book, in Holy Matrimony, the woman promised "to obey and to serve" the man in the first marital promise, and "to love, honor, and obey" him in the second question. The dropping of this requirement was opposed by some, who considered it to go counter to the Creation story in Genesis, where God made the man "a helper." The change clearly went against much biblical and Church tradition.
In the 1950s, re-marriage became permissible in the Episcopal Church after a divorce. Some were bitterly opposed to this, because Jesus himself was quoted as opposing divorce, except in the case of adultery.
Up until the 1950s, neither blacks nor women could serve in the Episcopal Church's national legislature, the General Convention. This position was justified by various quotations from the Bible, including Pauline declarations in Galatians and Titus hat the Christian duty of a slave is to be a good slave.
Summary: Many people oppose changes in the Church which have been made (or at least proposed) in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. They do not see the need for or the appropriateness of the changes, and many of these people seem opposed to changing anything of the Church of the 1950s or 1960s. Some quote various parts of the Bible to justify their positions. However, most would not repeal major changes made before 1960, including such anti-Biblical changes as the addition of the doxology at the end of he Lord's prayer, the redefinition of the sabbath, and the belief in the immorality of slavery.
Why is there a particular point at which changes should be stopped, and why is it the 1950s or 1960s?
In different ages, the world is different, and has different needs. Therefore God calls the Church to be and do different things in different ages. If the Church doesn't change, it isn't being faithful to God's call.
The problem remains, of course, as to which changes are willed by God, and which come from the other camp!
Some would say, the Bible is the
criterion. However, to use a narrow reading of the bible as the sole
criterion as to which changes are appropriate would cause us to reverse
most of the above-cited changes. And different people interpret the
Bi
e differently. Persons who advocate narrow readings, called
"plain sense" readings by the dispensationalists of the early 1900s, have
a difficult task to demonstrate that they are not being selectively plain-sense.
The Anglican answer is the equal-legged tripod of the Bible, tradition, and reason.
Please sign my guestbook and
view it.
Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.