|
 |
|
| "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" This verse is often quoted by those who wish to separate themselves from error. It sums up the impossibility of having any meaningful co-operation with those whose doctrinal positions are so very far removed from ours. The ground on which we stand is not, of course, our own opinion, nor is it simply the opinion of a previous generation. Rather, we stand on "The impregnable rock of Holy Scripture." How can we have anything to do with those who stand upon another foundation? Yet many evangelicals, both within the Church of England and without, are doing just that, and many seem oblivious to the fact.
To see why evangelicals must not do this, it will help to look at another odd partnership, that of ritualism and liberalism. To many, it would seem impossible that they should have anything to do with each other. The truth is that they are bedfellows - strange ones perhaps, but bedfellows nonetheless.
Our Established Church is both ritualistic and liberal. We see this in the theology of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is a liberal Catholic, and in the revised liturgy of the Church of England.
Liberalism
Dr. Rowan Williams is a liberal. Nobody can doubt that. He denies the know ability of God through revelation, saying, in effect, that the Bible is simply a collection of human opinions, gathered over several centuries, and of very little practical value for us today. Indeed, for any to claim to speak in the name of God is `dangerously (exhilaratingly) close to the claim that in their speech, their active presence, the absent God who is never an existent among others is actually present: a claim of stupendous importance in legitimising any bid for power.' Rather, he says, consider the Incarnation. Jesus was born a baby, and babies are silent on deep theological issues. Babyhood is God's way of saying that he has nothing to say on many subjects. He goes further. God is, he claims, like a nine-year old spastic child, whose inarticulate wants must be interpreted by those nearest him.
How can we know what is true? We need a standard of orthodoxy, and that comes from our own situation. He defines orthodoxy as that which most accurately describes our own situation, and best helps us to deal with it. The past is no help, as we do not live in it. Instead, we must turn to those things that address us most clearly.
In 1990 Dr. Rowan Williams started a forum called Affirming Catholicism, a post-liberal body. Post-liberalism is, in short, a development of liberalism, but one that tends to reject the most overtly sceptical conclusions, while never actually embracing historic Christianity, though it may often use the language of historic Christianity. Visitors to affirmingcatholicism.org.uk who are prepared to trawl through the archive section will find a piece by Rowan Williams entitled `Catholic and Reformed.' In it, Dr. Williams affirms the place of the Reformation for Anglicans, and argues that we cannot be Anglicans if we deny the Reformation. But to him the Reformation means always questioning long-held convictions, opening ourselves up to judgement, and allowing that other traditions may have something to teach us. Therefore we must be pluralistic because we have no right to say that we alone are right.
In all this, however, he contends that ritual has an important place, because in the elaborate services we are, `caught up in the worship of heaven.' He makes the ritualistic approach the norm, and allows the validity of other forms of celebration only in that they make him look more closely at his usual form.
Ritualism
The Church of England is, by a process of revisionism, on the path back from the Reformation to a pre-Reformation doctrine. This is particularly apparent to anyone who takes the trouble to examine the process of liturgical revision that has taken place in recent decades. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer is the formal standard of worship within the Church of England, but it has been superseded, in effect, by various alternatives. These alternatives are supposed to be just that, though in practice they replace the Prayer Book, and have a very different doctrinal basis.
To see what that basis might be, it is best to turn to the Communion Service, in its variant forms. One could do this also by comparing the Prayer Book doctrine of sin with later versions. It would also help to have the 1549 Book of Common Prayer open at the same time. When Archbishop Cranmer began the work of making an English liturgy according to Reformed doctrine, he was not immediately successful, as it is clear from the reaction of Bishop Gardiner of Winchester, who was able to read transubstantiation into the service. When the revision of 1552 was published, Cranmer had not only tightened up the language, but had re-ordered the service as well. As a consequence, the Roman mass was excluded completely from Anglican worship. The new services, in a word are seeking a return to the 1549 and possibly a pre-1549 position. This is often done by employing deliberately ambiguous language. The Reformation benefits of Gospel-based services are being thrown out by revisers who must hate the Gospel, as there is no other rational explanation for their actions.
The result is, that while the Church of England is increasingly liberal in its practice, it is also increasingly Roman Catholic in its worship. It has to be said that the Alpha Course is actually a means of aiding this decline, rather than of halting it. It is sufficiently doctrinally neutral on the key areas of controversy to allow all sides to be at ease with it. Conviction and definiteness are not popular with today's Christian, it seems.
The Result
So, we might ask, how does a man of Dr. Williams' intellectual and liberal mindset accept the `drama and dignity of the mass? (For that is what it is.) The answer, I suggest, is simple.
Liberalism has no Gospel. Liberalism recognises no sinners in the hands of an angry God, who has justly condemned sinners to death. Liberalism knows no propitiatory sacrifice, no atonement, no justification by faith through grace alone, no hope of life in the world to come. It is a bankrupt system, with no point of contact with man's greatest need, his condition before God. So how can liberals continue, for they have nothing to say to people? They turn to ritual, to elaborate methods of `worship', where they are the centre, and the people are the spectators. This is how they find meaning in religion, and it is meaningless.
The problem is not limited to the Church of England. Any denomination can fall into this pit, any independent local congregation. Once the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ ceases to be the raison d'etre of the minister and people, once the preaching of salvation to lost sinners has been set aside, once living as the redeemed people of God is abandoned, all that is left is an empty act of `worship.' This need not to be liturgical to be ritualistic, it need not require fancy dress, silver or gold implements, candles, or incense. All it requires is a confidence in the service itself, rather than in Jesus Christ who is to be worshipped as Saviour. It requires faith in what we do, rather than in what he has done. And all are capable of falling into this gross error, this denial of the Gospel.
Liberalism and ritualism may make strange bedfellows, but they are to be found cohabiting in churches up and down our land. It is time they were both evicted from our places of worship. Only the Gospel has the right of abode, and it alone is to be welcomed by those who profess and call themselves Christian.
The Rev. E.J. Malcolm is minister of St. Mary's Castle Street, Reading, and a P.T.S. Council member.
Originally published in January - February 2004 issue of Protestant Truth. |
|---|
|
| back to magazine page |
next article |
|
