ANGLICANISM AND CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22306, 21 January 1938, Page 7

ANGLICANISM AND CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

TO 10 K EPITOB UF THB FKEB3. Sir,—lt will be agreed by more judicial minds that it is a waste of time and a breach of common scn.se to base any constructive criticism of the report of the Archbishops' Commission on Doctrine upon the slender basis of a highly condensed cable. I am surprised that Ihe Rev. Frank B. Seward puts forward a detailed criticism on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church on such flimsy grounds. 1 would counsel him as well as Anglicans to await the full report, meantime directing attention to two point;-. First, that the report is an examination into "the extent of existing agreement within the Church of England." and the possibility of removing or diminishing differences rather than a new declaration of faith. Next, that the Church of England is not afraid to publish the results of such an examination. On this latter point the difference of standpoint between the Anglican and Roman Communions of the Catholic Church is well stated in the joint essay of two Anglican (and "Anglo-Cath-olic") priests, the Rev. Wilfred Knox and the Rev. Alec R. Vidler, entitled "The Gospel of God and the Authority of the Church" (published a few weeks ago by Hodder and Stoughton). Some quotations will explain to Roman Catholics and others why we are not afraid to re-examine our doctrinal statements, and the difference between the Anglican and Roman view of "authority." "Christian doctrine is authoritative." they affirm, "because it commends it- , sell as the U'uth to those who avo comI pelent judges of the matter. Who are I 'competent judges? Not armchair i critics nor academic theorists, but those who have submitted the Christian system to the test of a full practical experience and of a free intellectual examination. . . . Christian doctrine as a whole is authoritative because it has been found, by those who are competent judges, to be the best and most satisfactory explanation of the facts of Christian experience. "It is not difficult to see how this applies to the doctrines upon which Christians are agreed" (e.g., the existence of a God of love, belief in Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Word of God). "It is when we turn to doctrines about which Christians disagree that the authority of the Church's teaching seems less obvious. ... Doctrines about which the competent judges disagree certainlv appear prima facie to be less authoritative than those about which there is general agreement. But the qualifications for competent judgment should be noticed. They are full practical experience and free intellectual examination. "And it is here that we can claim that the conditions which prevail in the Church of England secure for its doctrine, in matters where Christians disagree, a degree of authority which must be lacking where the conditions for competent judgment have been compromised. "The Church of England is here in a peculiarly strong position, both because it admits and includes the widest variety of practical Christian experience (i.e., of the main Catholic and Evangelical traditions, together with fresh forms of experimentation) and also because it allows 1o its members, and especially to its theologians, a wider intellectual freedom than any other Church. This combination of comprehensiveness with freedom raises the authority of the agreed living teaching of the Anglican Communion to a very high level. .... . "On the other hand, a Church which disallows wide intellectual freedom for j the re-examination of its teaching (and the claim to infallibility is necessarily to a greater or less extent prohibitive of such freedom) weakens thereby considerably the authority of its own distinctive doctrines. This is the case with the Church of Rome. While that Church does provide for a large variety of types of Christian experience, the extreme rigour of its doctrinal system and the methods by which it suppresses the free examination and discussion of its traditional teaching ate extremely damaging to the authority of specifically Roman doctrine." . . , It will be perceived how baie oi hope, then, is the prospect of any reunion with the Papacy on the Anglican side. Mr Seward may rest quiet in his Procrustean bed. The writer's quoted further remark that "while it is true that greater varieties of interpretation will be found among Anglican teachers" (i.e., than amongst Roman, because of our greater freedom), "yet these variations concern almost entirely secondary or subsidiary elements in the Church's doctrine. The real practical difference between the Anglican and Roman systems does not lie in their methods of initiating children or converts into the rudiments of the Christian faith and life but in what they are encouraged to do afterwards. While the Roman Catholic is required docilely to accept what he has been taught and to believe that it is sinful to doubt or question the Church's doctrine, it is part of the Anglican system to aim at getting all the members 'of the Church to think out their faith as fully and as freely as their capacities and opportunities permit. . . . The authority of Christian doctrine is sustained in the Anglican Communion not by a system of rigorous discipline but by the freedom by which it is continually being tested and developed. And the fact that under these conditions the Church of England, so far from breaking up, has preserved and is increasing its cohesion and unity, is a far more remarkable testimony to the truth and authority of its doctrinal system than any that could be derived from an engineered uniformity." On which grounds. I will leave Mr Seward to tread alone, so far as I am concerned as an Anglican, the tradi- j tional slimy path of those who have a bad case.—Yours, etc., Woolston, January 18, 1938. H. O. HANBY.

TO THB SDITOB Or TBI PBI3S. Sir,—The Rev. F. B. Seward's letters remind one of the fisherman who never tires of throwing a bait in the hope of a bite. He would not touch Anglicanism with a barge pole, but he does not mind a little angling or wrangling, with a pen! It is said people who are not sure of themselves always want to argue. Propaganda, of course, for he always comes back for "the kill," i.e., last word; nevertheless, he is not an ambassador of the King of Love whose will was that all men should come to a knowledge of God and be saved by "love." Argument concerning pride and privilege will never win the world for God. If the Roman Church has something to share which will give joy, happiness, peace to mankind, why not adopt the example of their King who "emptied Himself of His Glory and took upon Himself the form of a servant . . . and humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross." When St. Peter saw the vision of the sheet let down from heaven containing the common and unclean, he said in effect, "I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole, heretics, infidels, common unclean": and yet God's Spirit warmed his heart and made him think again. Is that Rome's atittude to-day? Yet somebody nursed Rome in the Christian faith? Maybe St. Peter, most decidedly St. Paul, who died there. The world to-day does not want argument and wrangling on the meaning of theological phrases which at the best are imperfect. A man is not saved by belief in the Virgin Birth, or the resurrection of the body. He is saved by his belief in and loyalty to Jesus Christ. If he believes that He is Divine and sent from God; if he accepts His teaching and "lives" it to the best of his ability, all else falls into its proper place. The first and great commandment is Thou shalt "love."—Yours, etc., J. EVANS. Lvttelton. January 1&. 1938*

TO THE EDITOR 09 THB PRESS. Sir,—Years ago it seemed that the final war would be a religious one between the Roman Catholics and the rationalists or naturalists, but time has widened the outlook. Rome has joined the dictatorship countries, and the Communists have adopted naturalism, so that if the war does happen it will bo political as well as religious. In the meantime, also, the democratic nations and the Protestant churches have to find their places—still rather nondescript. They arc indeed the earths greatest powers, but seem lame, oldfashioned and vague. They certainly admit full internal dissension out oi which new forms may arise, but who can tell whether such new forms will be laid on the old-fashioned Christian bases or will be perfused with the unscrupulous advantage-grabbing of the new policies. Over this latter Rome has cast its captivating mysticism, (an atmosphere very different, by the way. from that created by its local exponents) and the Anglican Church has been forced into the arena. From the summary of the report it seems to have been compelled to hedge. To admit the higher or modern criticism into the 39 articles is very brave, may delay dry-rot, and postpone dissolution. The effect of a naturalistic partv in every Anglican Church is difncult'to visualise, but it would exhibit a growing naturalism rather than a reaction to Rome. Democracies have seemed generally to fit in with the Protestant churches, and it will be probably conceded that the more a democratic country is permeated by the very general Labour Government principles the more evident is its tendency to Communism. Therefore it seems likely that the Anglican lead will materially aid the development of a bloc against Rome and the dictatorships.— YOUIS t4C - JAS. R. WILKINSON. Rangiora, January 18, 1938.

TO TUB BDITOB OF TUB raESS. I Sir—The Rev. F. B. Seward Was' I given a typical Roman controversialist's reply to my letter. What is awkward to answer is airily dismissed as being "much irrelevant matter. Evidence of our Lord's alleged intention as to Peter's spiritual primacy over the Church could be produced, he says, and even has been produced—but it i*> not going to be on this occasion; nor is any reference given by him to any work in which this alleged evidence has been produced. The real reason for this studious brevity is, of course, that not so much evidence exists. Another controversial dodge exliiDited by Mr Seward is to say (without giving any reason or example) that l evidently confuse the Immaculate Conception with the Virgin Birth. Since my letter gives no indications of my i being such a fool as to confuse the alleged immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary with the virgin birth of Jesus, your readers will no doubt correctly view Mr Seward's desperate Plight. „ , Lastly, as to the Council of Ephesus. Mr Seward knows quite well that the official jjoctrine of the Church of England is contained in the Book of Common Prayer, more especially in the 39 Articles—not in the decisions of general councils. Many Anglican theologians certainly do accept the decisions of certain early church councils, including this one, but the official doctrine of the Church of England is that general councils can err, and have erred. Our Lord had two natures, human and Divine. Mary was the mother of his human nature, but it is not competent for a general council or anyone else without heresy to maintain that she was also the mother of our Lord's Divinity. A perusal of Gibbon. Milman, or any other standard writer dealing with the history of the fifth century, will convince any unbiased reader that Nestorius was right on this question of theotokos. though heretical on some others, and grossly misrepresented by the assemblage of bishops. I pass by the suggestion that such a familiar theological matter as the notorious Nestorian controversy was unknown to me.—Yours, etc., F. K. TUCKER. January 19. 1938.

to ins iDJioB or ma mens. Sir.—ln the Anglican Church we find three conflicting parties;—the LowChurch, the Modernists, and the Anglo-Catholics. The Modernists reject a dogmatic basis as :in essential bt Christianity. To the Modernist, the creeds are no longer expressions of his sincere and genuine belief. He would retain them, if at all, not because of their truth, but for sentimental reasons. These ruins of a former faith are to bo kept, for the present, solely for their traditional or historical interest. The recital of the Creeds by a Modernist Anglican clergyman, in the liturgy, is, for him, but the mere formality that gives him admission to the pulpit to which he may preach the clear contradiction of what he has just declared to be his belief. The fabric of revealed religion 1 is believed by Modernists to have cracked and crumbled in ihe atmosi phere of modern scientific thought. Criticism is alleged to have corroded ihe contents of the Creeds of Christendom. And so. in the pulpit, the Modernist preacher gives a "restatement" or a "rcinterprctation" of the Creed; and his "restatement" is found io be a denial and his reinterpretation a "misinterpretation" so glaring as to bear no relation to the clear meaning of the words he affects to reinterpret. Bishop Barns, Bishop Henslcy Henson, Dr. Major, and Dean Inge are the guiding lights of this party. All Anglicans recite the Apostles' Creed and say, "I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord." But the Modernists do not believe that Jesus is truly the Son of God. The Modernists deny the divinity of Christ and by doing so forfeit their claim to be called Christians. Dr. Major, a noted Modernist, says, "Let it be clearly realised that Jesus Himself did not claim to be the Son of God in a metaphysical sense such as is required by Nicene Theology (i.e., the Creed). He claimed to be God's Son in a moral sense, in the sense in which all human beings are Sons of God, i.e., as standing in a filial and moral relationship to God, and as capable of acting on those moral principles on which God acts." But the Nicene Creed leaves no loophole for Anglican Modernists to deny the Godhead of Christ. The struggle against Arianism and Neslorianism in the Church, of the early centuries, issued in a statement of Christian truth in which there is no possible ambiguity, Jesus Christ was God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, become man for our salvation. He existed as God from all eternity: He did not cease to be God when He became Incarnate. The Catholic Church stands committed to this doctrine "for ever." We believe that it was under the protection and guidance of the "Spirit of Truth" who abides for ever in the Catholic Church; that the Creed was formed, as a touchstone of orthodoxy, to distinguish those who had a right to the name Christian from those whose false doctrines about Christ deprive them of the right to bear His name. There is no true Christian charity in being indifferent to heresy. But the Divinity of Christ is not the only article of the Creed which many Anglicans deny. All Anglicans say: "Born of the Virgin Mary," yet many deny the Virginity of Mary. All Anglicans say, "I "believe in the Holy Catholic Church," but none of them joins it, or if he does, he ceases to be an Anglican. All Anglicans say, "I believe in the Communion of the Saints." but few dare enter into communication with the Saints. All say, "I believe In the forgiveness of sins," but the vast majority ignore the Sacrament of Confession. Anglicans may recite the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed, which contain the essentials df Christian doctrine, but most Anglicans certainly do not realise what the words imply, and many unfortunately deny them. As a guide and teacher of Christian Doctrine, Anglicanism is a house of confusion.—Yours, etc., (Rev.) P. J. COONEY. Lyttelton. January 20, 193 a

TO TAB EDITO* OF THB PaBSS. Sir,—Father Seward is, as I expected, quite ready with his answer to my question as to when the "Anglican sect" began. It was November, 1534. There it is, pat—as pat as a Penny Catechism. Now I want to know what was the precise event which generated this sect in that month. Unfortunately I have no easy access at present to 1h: larger and more detailed histories. Fn March of that year the Convocation of Canterbury and in May that of York formally declared that "the Bishop of Rome hath no greater jurisdiction conferred on him by God in this realm of England than any other extern (foreign) bishop." Perhaps it was these declarations which led to the birth six months later of this "Anglican sect," of whose history I have always had quite a different idea. At any rale, we know the date — November, 1534. And that quite knocks out that other answer so commonly given in all good faith by Roman Catholics who take it on trust from their instructors—that the Church of England was started by Henry VIII because he wanted to get rid of his wife and the Pope would not let him, so he started a new Church and got his own way, or words to that effect. Now it appears that he got his own way under the old Church: for early in 1533 his marriage with Catherine of Aragon was annulled and he was married to Anne Boleyn, nearly two vcars before the "Anglican sect" began, if Father Seward is correct in his date. All of whicn goes to show that this tabloid history will not do.—Yours, etc., F. N. TAYLOR. Ambcrley, January 20, 1938.

TO 'Jill! EWTOK OF THE I'HESS. Sir, —I have been reared up to be- ( lieve in God and the teaching of His Son. Now I have visited many sects and always find the same backbiting spirit, one for another. I cannot reconcile these habits with the written words of the Master, and these things being as thoy are, the question comes to my mind: are all the sects, from largest down, wrong at some point in their teaching and therefore liable to condemnation before Christ? The forces of evil all over the world are the same set, wherever we find them. Therefore, it is one set of circumstances or power trying to drag us down. . The Master came to set an example of escape from this power. Now seeing how He was hated of religious bodies of His time, another question has risen for me, and perhaps some kind person can help me. If there is a sect which is closer than any other to the Master I should like to be of it Is there one which all others disapprove of and even hate? Following ancient reasoning, that one is I'Kely to be the most right. I know of the doctrine of most of the leading ones and I cannot see they are nearly right, especially when one sees the bitterness and jealousies between them. Hoping this will not give rise to unseemly tempers, etc., but cause a little honest thinking about what would be the Master's will—Yours, etc., alex McDonnell. , Gcraldinc, January 20, 1938. |

TO THE EDITOII Or THB W.KSK. Sir—l have read a letter in your issue'of January 18 in which the Rev Frank B. Seward says, inter-alia, thai the Apostles' Creed should be reversed as regards the belief in the virgin birth of Christ and a general resurrection are concerned. This miraculous event of the Virgin Birth was necessary in order that Gods promise made to Eve that the seed of woman should bruise the serpent s head (Gen. iii. 15) independent of man, should be kept, ~ _ . • As regards the resurrection, Paul in 1 Corinthians, xv, 13-18, 51-55 clearly shows that the body must be raised to enable it to put on incorruption and Immortality. Your correspondent claims that the doctrines of Christianity are vested solely in Peter's chair. I would point out that this assertion has no Foundation in fact, as St. Peter was never in Rome, much less was he ever a bishop there. It is news to me and no doubt to mrny more, that the Papacy has no desire or intention of promoting a union with Anglicans or Christendom in general on account of us all being heretics. This assertion does not square with the well known fact that the Pope is still striving to form such a union, even to getting his own priests ordained as such in Anglican churches, the better. I suppose, to wean them away from their faith and win them over to the Roman Catholic Church. No, Anglicans, if they are wise and prudent, will steer clear of Romanism and Popery, and remain true to the teachings of Luther, and thus uphold the glorious freedom won for them through the ushering in of the Reformation, with its light and liberty of conscience and worship, in preference to joining up with the doctriiies, beliefs, and practices of a religion founded on superstition and idolatry. —Yours, etc., C. E. KNIGHT, Evangelist. Open-air Campaigners of New Zealand. Dunedin, January 19, 1938. [Subject to the right of reply of the Rev. F. B. Seward, this correspondonce is now closed. —Ed., "The Press."]