A number of people have asked me to lay out my thoughts on what is going to happen in 2020 in the Anglican Church of Australia. Others just want to know where we’re up to and what lies ahead. So here’s my update on the lay of the land and the contours I can see ahead.
What’s the current situation?
We’re in the middle of what I think is best described as a tentative ceasefire. Of course, with any ceasefire there’s opportunities for both sides to position themselves for the conflict that is yet to come. If you think all this language sounds combative then you’d be absolutely right. Both sides recognise that this is exactly what it is – a battle for the soul of the Anglican Church of Australia. There are clearly defined positions; one that seeks to uphold the orthodox view on human sexuality (but sees that as part of a wider issue – the authority of Jesus in the church through the Scriptures) and the other side that sees a liberalising of sexual ethics as a gospel imperative.
For both sides, therefore, this is a matter of fidelity to what they think is most important.
Every conflict, of course, has particular battles. Here’s what happened in 2019 (and in the run-up). The background is pretty clear – repeated General Synods (national parliaments) of the national church have upheld the orthodox position on human sexuality. The last General Synod even censured the Scottish Episcopal Church for legislating for same-sex marriage. In addition, the bishops of the church agreed together not to pursue changes to the doctrine of marriage without going through the appropriate constitutional processes. For the Anglican Church of Australia that process was abundantly clear – it would have to come from General Synod.
Despite this apparent clarity, a number of bishops have continue to actively pursue revisionism. Some did so quite openly, like Bishop John Parkes of Wangaratta who was quite transparent in his desire to have some form of liturgical blessing of same-sex marriage and, indeed, promoted such a motion at his diocese’s synod. Others attempted to persuade us that they were simply allowing their diocese to work out which way to go. Bishop Peter Stuart of Newcastle, who told the 2017 General Synod that we do not have a settled doctrine of marriage, would be the prime example of this course of action, speaking about a “Newcastle Way” to decide the matter, promising a “Faith and Order Commission” to examine the question and yet allowing (and effectively supporting) a “Wangaratta Bill” to be presented at Newcastle’s 2019 Synod. He has appointing a new chair of the Faith and Order Commission; Canon Andrew Eaton who is a known supporter of same-sex marriage.
The decision to support such bills was in clear contradiction to the intent and spirit of the Bishops’ Agreement.
Both Wangaratta and then Newcastle passed their bills but with differing outcomes. There was an expected protest against the Wangaratta bill which was referred to the Appellate Tribunal – a body which offers opinions on constitutional matters in the Anglican Church of Australia. The diocese was persuaded to hold back from using the liturgy until the Tribunal offers a ruling.
The Newcastle bill has followed a different pathway. It, too, was referred to the Appellate Tribunal but also required (under NSW law) ratification by the Diocesan bishop within 30 days. Those 30 days have long passed and the bill has now lapsed, despite attempts to write a clause into the bill that would override the legal requirement. The Newcastle bill appears to have died a quiet death and the Wangaratta bill is the focus of attention of the Appellate Tribunal.
There is little indication that the Tribunal will properly meet, let alone offer their opinion, before a number of other events are completed, the election of a Primate and the next session of General Synod.
A New Primate
More imminently on the agenda is the election of a new Primate (head bishop and chair of General Synod). I wrote previously back in November when the news was announced that the most likely candidate to be elected will be Geoff Smith of Adelaide.
Since then I’ve consistently heard about two other candidates who are understood to want their name to go forward and have been effectively working towards that end, even being spoken of as “running a campaign”. The first, Kay Goldsworthy, has already been discussed in my piece above. The second is Peter Stuart of Newcastle who was described by one source as “trying to position himself above theological camps”. I don’t think either candidacy will have even a remote chance at success and Geoff Smith remains the favourite.
The New Primate will inherit a fracturing church and his or her first major test will be chairing the upcoming General Synod.
General Synod: 31 May – 5 June
All of these matters are going to come to a head at the upcoming General Synod. We reported previously of the failed attempt to avoid full debate and voting on these contentious matters. There will now be a full session, including a “conference” and we should expect to see a climax of the conflict.
There is now no doubt that conservatives will present a number of very robust motions and they will do so with increasing confidence. The censure of the Scottish Episcopal Church at the 2017 session has shown that the weight of the General Synod is for the orthodox position.
Expect to see a motion, or several motions, that not only clearly reassert the long-held position of the church but also speak against revision of that position or ordination and consecration of candidates who’s life is not in keeping with clear Biblical standards. There may even be some strengthening of disciplinary canons. Whatever the specifics, I’m predicting a victory for conservatives in June. We will end up with a very clear position set out and upheld by the most important body in the national church.
Such a decision should also render the related work of the Appellate Tribunal somewhat redundant. If the General Synod has spoken clearly (and not for the first time) then what more is there to say?
After General Synod
All the above seems pretty straight forward and I can’t see anything happening to change the outcomes I’ve described. But what then? Well, on the basis of how things have played out in almost every other western province of the Anglican Church I think we’re going to see the following:
- A number of revisionists (possibly even a Metropolitan Archbishop) will ignore the clear (restated) mind of General Synod and push on with a renewed energy to legislate for same-sex weddings and related changes in disciplinary structures.
- Conservatives will begin disciplinary procedures against any clergy who participate in or preside over the new liturgies and against bishops who approve of them in their own dioceses.
- Conservatives will also refuse to meet with those who continue to openly reject Biblical standards as reiterated by the General Synod.
- The new Primate will be faced with a difficult decision – will they uphold the clearly-stated position of the General Synod and refuse to invite to meetings those who reject it, or will they still act as though we’re all united?
In one sense the answer to 4. will be partly academic. Either way I don’t expect conservatives to continue to pursue fellowship with those who have shown no desire to maintain catholicity, undermine the doctrine and discipline of the church and won’t uphold their ordination vows.
So what will the Anglican Church of Australia look like in 2021? My best guess is that we will have a sadly fractured church. Whether we are meeting nationally as the entire church depends on whether the new Primate will be robust in upholding the position of General Synod. If we don’t meet in this way then expect the bonds of fellowship within the GAFCON movement to be only strengthened and expressed more formally.
I also wouldn’t be surprised if we see planting of congregations by conservatives in those dioceses where the bishop or synod have rejected Biblical authority and the doctrine and discipline of the national church. We will also see oversight being offered by GAFCON bishops to those clergy and parishes who cannot, in good conscience, remain in communion with such dioceses and bishops.
The story of the Anglican Church of Australia is going to be decidedly different to that of other western provinces in the Anglican Communion. Our history and our constitution have left conservatives in a much stronger position than in England, Wales, New Zealand, the USA or Canada. We have no plans to leave the Anglican Church of Australia, but my best guess is that we’re rapidly reaching the moment when we’re not going to be able to recognise others as being part of that national grouping.
What do you think?
There is God’s church, comprising those people who are branches of the True Vine, and then there are human organisations such as the Anglican Church. It will not matter in the end whether the conservative Anglicans end up controlling the property and the brand name (which is really what is being discussed in this article). The truth is that the Anglican church has for too long accepted as members persons who are not born-again Christians. Historically the “conservative” Anglicans have included “High Church” members or Anglo-Catholics who practice idolatry and ritualism and often are unbelievers. There is no “magic bullet” in “conservatism” that will purify the Anglican church. What is required is reform on biblical principles. But where are the men capable of leading that sort of reform? They are nowhere to be seen, or so it seems to me.
maybe there are women out there who could lead reform… is our God too small as someone significant once said?
“the Anglican church has for too long accepted as members persons who are not born-again Christians”.
Every church accepts as members persons who are not born-again Christians. Paul and Christ both make the point that unbelievers will be found in our midst.
You would be on stronger ground if your complaint was about a church accepting persons as members who do not profess to be born-again Christians. Some Anglican churches do – that is hardly a surprise when we are talking about the third largest Christian denomination on earth with over 85 million members. But then, the same applies to every other denomination also.
” “High Church” members or Anglo-Catholics who practice idolatry and ritualism and often are unbelievers.”
Plenty of low church or evangelical members are the same, just as plenty of non-Anglican evangelical church-goers are also. The anglo-catholics have no monopoly on false piety or idolatry.
Thanks MichaelA.
My point is that conservatism as such will not save the Anglican church. It is not even the solution to the problem as defined by conservatives (clearly the problem as defined by liberals is rather different).
There are biblical methods for addressing the tendency to corruption and spiritual decay in the churches. Being conservative, while biblical and therefore laudable in itself, is only one of them. A viable system of church discipline, lived doctrine, good teaching, are also needed.
A lot of conservative Anglican church practices such as the use of vestments, ecclesiastical titles, altars and so on, derived from the Old Testament model of temple worship, are good if correctly understood but are also wide open to abuse, as described in the Old Testament. Beautiful as they can be, helpful as they can seem, they also present grave spiritual dangers.
Certainly there is need for reform. But surely just being ‘conservative’ is not going to achieve this. If Anglicans are determined to retain the episcopal hierarchy, and the temple worship model, they must (it seems to me) be doubly vigilant to adopt every possible biblical defence to protect the flock from wolves within and without.
“are good if correctly understood but are also wide open to abuse,”
Sure, so is every other type of worship and church government. Without exception.
“If Anglicans are determined to retain the episcopal hierarchy, and the temple worship model”
We retain episcopal hierarchy because we consider it biblical. I have no idea what you mean by “temple worship model”. Our worship is modelled on that of the apostolic church.
“they must (it seems to me) be doubly vigilant to adopt every possible biblical defence”
Your solicitude is appreciated. That is what we try to do, and it appears to me we are about as successful (and unsuccessful) as any other faith community.
I’m surprised you do not recognise the strong Old Testament element in Anglican worship. Surely terms like ‘priest’, ‘altar’, ‘sanctuary’, ‘incense’, ‘vestments’ are suggestive? In the dear old Anglican church near me there are even two lofty carved wooden cherubim, one on either side of the sanctuary entrance, guarding it.
Much of this imagery is good, in my view. In fact I delight in it, precisely because I recall that Jesus Himself worshiped in the Jerusalem temple, and because I think God’s people in worship ought to regard themselves as part of the historically continuous family of God. And I do miss that dear old church, with its many good people.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘apostolic church’. To me ‘apostolic’ would indicate the era of the original apostles i.e. the period of the New Testament effectively. I would say bishops and archbishops (for example) are an innovation of the post-apostolic church.
Thanks again for responding to my post.
Note that St Peter, in calling for the selection of candidates to replace Judas as a new APOSTLE, quoted the LXX, “His BISHOPRIC let another take.” The equation is drawn there. [Acts 1:20] St Paul’s continuing relation with those he ordained locally to govern his “church-plants” is quite clearly that of an “arch”-bishop. With St John at Ephesus, we see this clearly worked out on a “provincial” basis. It seems to underly the structure of churches addressed by St Ignatius, in 107AD, in his letters, however rudimentary it might be. The cohesion of the Church as ‘kata-holike’ — (a word coined by Aristotle to describe a botanical Genus, by their similarity; it was known, & already embraced by the Smyrneans!) the churches “in accord with the whole” is envisioned in our Lord’s High Priestly Prayer, St John 17. HE was not engaged in “wishful thinking” at that moment, approaching the depth of His Pascha. HE foresaw the stresses & strains of retaining Visible Unity, such that the unbelieving world would even be led to believe.
“St Paul’s continuing relation with those he ordained locally to govern his “church-plants” is quite clearly that of an “arch”-bishop.”
I am not sure that we can say that, Fr Chris. Paul is far more than any bishop or archbishop. He was an apostle, commissioned directly by God to give His commands to the Church (Eph 2:20, 3:5). Apostles were unique. Our episcopal government relies on the church selecting appropriate men to be bishops and archbishops, whereas Apostles were never selected by the church – rather it was the other way around!
I agree with episcopal government because it is clearly foreshadowed by Paul when he instructs Titus and Timothy to select appropriate men to be pastors, but he never suggests that Titus and Timothy thereby gained apostolic status or authority.
Thank you MichaelA! At least I have some support here, in the sense that your position seems to imply (1) that episcopal government is not mandated by the New Testament, but only ‘foreshadowed’ and (2) that even where it is currently practised, episcopal government derives its authority from consent of the governed, not from God-given authority passed down through generations of bishops and traceable ultimately to the apostles. My practical experience is that episcopal government is by no means necessary for churches. I have tried to suggest that in fact it lends itself to abuses that cannot occur in independent self-governing churches. The problem, it seems to me (forging ahead in anticipation of your agreeing to the above) is that as Christians we are obliged primarily to obey God and cultivate holiness. We cannot keep on saying “Oh well, we’re all human. Admittedly half the bishops are off the rails and the archbishop is crazy, but that’s not our fault”. If that is so, then we should separate from the church while it is in that state, and resume worship in some form with other believers who want to worship God in spirit and in truth. That’s what I have done. Otherwise one is constantly absorbed with political issues in church and the doctrinal conflict that dogs the Episcopalian system – which can hardly be pleasing to God.
People who do careful study of the Scriptures to discern the best system of church government come up with dogmatic conclusions that it is episcopacy, independency or Presbyterianism, with variations within those categories. When the gospel is preached faithfully, with all parts of the New Testament given equal weight, any of those systems produces and sustains godly Christians who are shining lights for God in the world. Without trying to sound divisive (and no doubt failing in that!) I believe the evangelical interpretation of the Bible is the best one and I think that the closest fellowship is had amongst evangelicals from all three forms of church government. I also appreciate some of the insights we get from Anglo-Catholics, such as their sense of awe and reverence when thinking on the majesty of transcendence of God.
I would add to my last sentence by referring to some of the hymns by Anglo-Catholics which enrich our hymn books. Mind you, some Anglicans and others today probably wouldn’t know much about hymn books and traditional hymns. Much of today’s “worship” (another much-misused word) consists of poor words set to strange melodies accompanied often by loud drums with other instruments occasionally just detectable in the background.
Thanks David. Appreciate your thoughts. I think many evangelicals are quite distressed to find their denominations, or parts thereof, drifting into liberalism and internal conflict. I think the issues raised on Anglican.Ink are terribly important, and need to be discussed. But while the exalted bishops and other church leaders are directing the ship of faith this way and that, often as the wind of public opinion (or the gale of personal self-interest) blows, it seems little thought is given to the distress caused in humble congregations.
Hi Stephen, there is a lot to cover here (which is not a criticism) so I will get straight to it:
“to imply (1) that episcopal government is not mandated by the New Testament, but only ‘foreshadowed'”
Sure, foreshadowed in the sense of permitted and implied. As I read the scriptures, episcopal government has more biblical support than any other system of church government. But I can fellowship with those who think otherwise, just as I can fellowship with those who disagree on mode of baptism, speaking in tongues or any other adiaphora.
“that even where it is currently practised, episcopal government derives its authority from consent of the governed, not from God-given authority passed down through generations of bishops and traceable ultimately to the apostles.”
No, I don’t agree with either proposition. The only source of authority within the church is apostolic teaching, i.e. scripture. “Consent of the governed” is modern secular-democracy-speak. Whilst I strongly support democracy, its not the same as authority within the church.
“My practical experience is that episcopal government is by no means necessary for churches.”
No system of government is “necessary” for churches, including the “independent self-governing” kind.
“I have tried to suggest that in fact it lends itself to abuses that cannot occur in independent self-governing churches”
I disagree. All sorts of abuses are rife in all kinds of churches, including the independent self-governing kind. God gives us no promise in scripture that ANY system of church government will protect us against apostasy, hardness of heart, heresy or any other problem one cares to name.
“We cannot keep on saying “Oh well, we’re all human. Admittedly half the bishops are off the rails and the archbishop is crazy, but that’s not our fault”.
We don’t say that. You appear to be fixated on a few western churches, e.g. England, ECUSA and some of the dioceses in Australia. But they are only a small fraction of Anglicanism. The vast majority of bishops are faithful bible-believing Christians, just like the majority of pastors in all churches.
“Otherwise one is constantly absorbed with political issues in church and the doctrinal conflict that dogs the Episcopalian system – which can hardly be pleasing to God.”
Actually I suggest scripture teaches us the opposite – what is pleasing to God is to engage in these doctrinal conflicts. It is only by them that witness is maintained and the truth discerned. In any case, the vast majority of the 85+ million Anglicans in the world are faithful biblical believers, so I am not going to leave just because we have a few apostates and heretics.
I’m afraid your endurance in debate is greater than mine Michael. No matter what I say you seem to say the opposite! In case you feel like adding a final nail to my coffin, you might care to indicate where I can find the data that establishes that “the vast majority of the 85+ million Anglicans…are faithful biblical believers”. I think I know what you are going to say, but you might as well say it and confirm my suspicions.
“No matter what I say you seem to say the opposite!”
I don’t think that is fair at all. I have set out where we disagree and also some points of agreement.
Re your new question, I am not aware of any data that establishes the faithfulness of Anglicans (nor of any data which establishes the faithfulness of members of independent congregational churches, for that matter).
The reason I am confident that the vast majority of Anglicans in the world reject the apostasy of ECUSA, Archbishop of Canterbury etc is because the leaders of the vast majority have made this clear through Gafcon, Global South and other meetings, as well as conferences and declarations. And also because on my travels in the world I frequently go to Anglican churches in these provinces and dioceses, and they are consistently bible-believing and faithful.
Thank you Michael! You are doing a sterling job. I do greatly appreciate your comments in spite of not being able to match your expertise in reply. I certainly agree with you that discussion on these issues is important and must continue. I’ve learned a lot from your responses to my comments and will do some more reading and hope to be better equipped to enter debate at this level. I’m still inclined to try to maintain some elements of my broad position, but cannot pursue this now. I’m very grateful that Anglican.Ink is providing a serious forum of this nature.
Stephen, I have read your comments with great appreciation. You have identified the most critical issue as follows. “There is God’s church, comprising those people who are branches of the True Vine, and then there are human organisations such as the Anglican Church”. The sterling job is to make this distinction, not to overlook it.
Thanks Stephen, same to you, and I agree that Anglican Ink is doing very useful work by providing this forum for exchange of ideas.
I’m afraid your endurance in debate is greater than mine Michael. No matter what I say you seem to say the opposite! In case you feel like adding a final nail to my coffin, you might care to indicate where I can find the data that establishes that “the vast majority of the 85+ million Anglicans…are faithful biblical believers”. I think I know what you are going to say, but you might as well say it and confirm my suspicions.
Hi Chris, thank you for your assertions, but respectfully, I don’t think they are what Christ or his apostles teach us. Just a couple of examples:
– When Stephen spoke fearlessly to the elders, he was witnessing for the gospel just as much as those who gave a sermon in church.
– When Peter castigated Ananias and Sapphira, he was witnessing for the gospel just as much as those who gave a sermon in church.
“While Paul gives salutary advice that we should reprove and correct false teaching, witness is not maintained and the truth discerned in this way. … instead, it is by our faithfully preaching and following the teaching of Jesus the Christ…”
You are trying to set up a false dichotomy. There is no conflict between “reproving and correcting false teaching” on the one hand, and “faithfully preaching and following the teaching of Jesus the Christ”. The one is merely part of the other. Yes, witness is maintained and the truth is discerned this way.
“This is what is pleasing to God, not our being adept at government in the institutional church.”
Notice how you have now switched from “reproving and correcting false teaching” to “being adept at government in the institutional church”? Conflating two different concepts. There is no reason why we cannot reprove and correct false teaching, faithfully preach the gospel, and understand government in the institutional church. To follow Jesus means doing all of these things, and many more besides.
Excuse me if I misunderstood. Cheers.
Michael, you know that St Matthias was nominated to replace the Apostle Judas, then Lots were cast for the selection. Casting of Lots among Jews was not “gambling” (as with the Roman soldiers at the Cross!) Rather it was a High Priestly Act, from the Torah. JESUS had taught the 11, after the Resurrection, what their new role actually was, using the OT as the “Blueprints.” Thus they acted. Thus the Apostolic Succession was initiated, & Matthias was “enrolled”. Thus he is added to the new Levitical (or better, Aaronic) “Genealogy.” It was a “roll” that would be extended.
You are aware that the Collect for St Matthias prays that “the Church, being preserved from false Apostles …” anticipates the potential problem of modern “episcopal elections”! (We do have a Number of JUDASES in their ranks today!)
The entire Church concurs that St Paul is to be named a true Apostle. {fringe dissenters notwithstanding}. Yet there was no indication that another of the original 12 had “left.” Likewise, St Barnabas is named as an Apostle {Acts 14:14, & BCP, June 11}, with no “vacancy” thus being filled. St Paul had to deal with “false apostles” — not among the Original Men, but others falsely Claiming to be added to that number. This makes clear that the number of Apostles was not originally “sealed” at 12, or 13, or 14, or …
So the Church has never been ashamed to call St Patrick “Apostle of Ireland”; St Bede is not reticent to call St Gregory the Great “our Apostle” (having sent St Austin to England). And so on…
[St Paul’s bitter experience with “false apostles” certainly initiated the tendency of the early Church to restrict the term to some number of the First Generation Apostles, to see the Twelve as foundational. But there remained a knowledge that the Apostolic Order continued, even if tainted by limits of human character. The Holy Spirit continues to work to supply grace in unimagined quantities, to overcome that deficit.]
Thus in St Paul’s Epistles, there are passages which seem to infer that Timothy, Titus, & others are grouped with him in the expression “us apostles,” “exhibited” to be mocked & scorned by the world.
The Hebrew legal term “seluach” underlies JESUS’ ordination (& anointing – krisas – (2Cor.1:21) -> “commissioned” & “sealed.”
Primary example is Elijah, I Kgs.19:15-17. Did ELIJAH do all he was commanded? NO! He gave his “commission” on to Elisha. Did ELISHA do all that remained? NO! Only part of it. It remained for *another* to fulfill the original commission given to Elijah (2 Kgs.9:1-3)
We see Moses tell Joshua, then lay hands on him, what Joshua’s commission was to be, as the Successor of Moses. This was no
“casual transmission” of duties!
“Seluach” & its plural “Seluchim” both come from the Hebrew for “send” (Cf. ‘Siloa’m’ – which means ‘Sent’ Jn 9:7. Aramaic) The legal sense is “sent with a duty, a commission” – not a “random” sending.
We see this with Saul of Tarsus, ‘sent by the High Priest with letters to … Damascus.’ (Acts 9:1) He is the HP’s “Plenipotentiary” with powers recognized even by Rome for dealings within Judaism.
Suppose Saul had reached Damascus, still breathing fire, there to find the work exceeded his personal capacity, it being a veritable rabbit warren of Followers of the Way. He would be fully able to delegate to any number of other men the duty conferred upon him in Jerusalem.
If one of them discovered a part of Damascus even more densely inhabited by the sought-after Followers, he could likewise share his responsibilites in a similar way; & so on. The Commissioner was *bound by his Commission* to extend & expand the labour force until the assigned duty was fulfilled.
IT IS THIS SAME LEGAL MODEL behind JESUS’ Great Commission,
Mt. 28:19-20. There was Precedent Understood to validate His Plan.
And the Visible Unity, in “fellowship WITH the Apostles” (Acts 2:42/ I Jn.1:3) is thus secured. Amongst the Apostles themselves, JESUS also had set down His Plan for THEIR unity, in the Ministry of St Peter, not terminated by his own death, but relayed to his own successors.
JESUS was not engaged in “wishful thinking” when He prayed for them; but surely in Divine Wisdom, He foreknew even the Borgias, — & even Pope Francis(!), — & others who would need the Apostolic Body to correct them; HE knew “what was in man!”
Note that the Levitical Priesthood also had “Three Orders.” The Apostles /episcopal Order = the High Priest-S, each of their jurisdictions modelling the Holy People; the Cohenim, doing the daily work of pastoring, offering sacrifices, & such, become known as the Presbyters early on, probably from the 70, whom JESUS modelled on the 70 Elders of Moses {Num. 11:16ff), & were accepted as part of the governors of the Church, in Acts 15, without question, a new Sanhedrin, if you will. The general Levites served the Temple in various ministries, such as singing, & the administration of the Temple charities, so they provided the first Apostles with the model for the Diaconate. The Anglican Missal Collect for the Octave of St Stephen calls him “Levite,” This underlies the diaconal role in the Liturgy: Levites carried away the precious Blood of the sacrifices in Silver Vessels, & so THEY are the proper ministers of the Chalice, as well as the Chanter of the Gospel.
{The Latin Church has done itself a disservice by suppressing saints’ octave days.}
The Russian Church, in mid-1917, after the Karensky Revolution, was allowed to elect its own Patriarch for the first time since the days of the oppressor, Peter the Great. The Synod gathered at Troitsa-Sergei Monastery & selected several candidates, including the Archbishop of Brooklyn, NY (who had very cordial relations with American Anglo-Catholics!) The names were placed in a Chalice on the Altar, & an aged blind monk, widely reputed for his holiness, was led by the hand to the Altar. After much prayer, he reached in & took one of the names, who became Patr. St Tikhon, who endured massive pressures from the Bolsheviks, & witnessed as a Confessor for all his sufferings; but the model was as close to that of the Apostles in Acts 1 as they could do.
A spiritual model should replace the political haggling & log-rolling (& deceits!!!) that now BLIGHT episcopal selections. We all know that!
And the removal of current-day Judases should be made much swifter!
Hi Fr Kelley, without replying to everything in your post, I think the following answers it adequately:
1. Matthias was chosen by lot because the other Apostles (even in council together) had no authority themselves to choose an Apostle. The process calls to mind the use of Urim and Thummim in the Old Testament, which was where God directly intervened to state his choice. So Peter and the other apostles acknowledge that they themselves have no authority to choose an apostle – only God can do that, by direct commissioning.
2. I agree that the number of Apostles were not fixed. That is shown by God choosing Paul, who is additional to the 12. However, there cannot be any more apostles after the first ones who saw Jesus in the flesh passed on to glory:
(a) The qualifications for an Apostle are that he must have (i) seen the risen Christ in the flesh; and (ii) been chosen directly by God for the purpose of conveying His truth to the Church.
(b) Nowhere is the Church ever given the authority to create more apostles. It can choose bishops, priests and deacons, but not apostles.
3. “The entire Church concurs that St Paul is to be named a true Apostle”
Paul never bases his authority on the concurrence of the Church. He bases it on his being commissioned by God, and having seen the risen Christ.
4. “But there remained a knowledge that the Apostolic Order continued, even if tainted by limits of human character.”
I disagree – at no point is the Church ever given authority to appoint new apostles. Rather, we are specifically told that neither the Church nor the existing Apostles had such authority.
5. “Thus the Apostolic Succession was initiated, & Matthias was “enrolled”.”
No he wasn’t, that’s the point of the passage in Acts 1. Matthias is not being enrolled as a successor, rather he is being enrolled as a replacement to fulfil a specific scriptural prophecy that Judas’ place will be taken by another. And Peter makes clear that the Apostles themselves do not have authority to choose the replacement.
6. ” initiated the tendency of the early Church to restrict the term to some number of the First Generation Apostles, to see the Twelve as foundational.”
I don’t think that was the reason. Rather, the scriptures themselves tell us that the original Twelve occupy an important and symbolic role for the Church, just as the twelve patriarchs did in the Old Testament.
7. “Thus in St Paul’s Epistles, there are passages which seem to infer that Timothy, Titus, & others are grouped with him in the expression “us apostles,”
I don’t believe there are any such passages. If you would like to cite which ones you mean, then let’s have a look at them. The detail is instructive.
8. “We see Moses tell Joshua, then lay hands on him, what Joshua’s commission was to be, as the Successor of Moses.”
Of course. Moses was directly ordered by God to do that. Nowhere are the original Apostles (including Paul, James etc) ever given authority to create new Apostles. Neither is the church given such authority.
9. It is true that there is no special word in the New Testament for apostles, just as there is no special word for bishops, or for priests or for deacons. The ordinary Greek words for messenger, overseer, old man and servant are used. But the context tells us plainly that special offices were established in the church, designated by these common Greek names.
10. “So the Church has never been ashamed to call St Patrick “Apostle of Ireland”
See 9 above. If that is meant in a general sense, then it is quite reasonable. The word apostle or messenger is also used that way in the New Testament in some places. However it does not mean that St Patrick held the New Testament office of Apostle.
Michael these are excellent points. Two further thoughts for your consideration. (1) I think many have seen the risen Christ in dreams and waking visions as part of a conversion experience, but clearly that does make them apostles (2) so perhaps it is the commissioning of Paul that marks him out as the last of the apostles. Even so one recalls the famous epitaph of John Newton, which states that he was “appointed to preach [by implication appointed by God] the faith that he had long laboured to destroy” – which clearly is intended to be reminiscent of the apostle Paul’s dramatic conversion.
Hi Stephen, thank you!
The apostles did teach that having seen the risen Christ was a necessary qualification to be an apostle, but that wasn’t enough. After all, hundreds of people (at least) saw Jesus after his resurrection, but only a few of those were called to be apostles.
Paul also refers to the working of miracles as a sign of being an apostle, but it seems to me on closer examination of those passages that Paul is citing the miracles as evidence that his claim to have been chosen by God for the office is an accurate one, rather than relying on the miracles as a qualification per se.
“I’m surprised you do not recognise the strong Old Testament element in Anglican worship.”
Hi Stephen, I am going to pick you on your change of terminology, as in my view it involves a subtle but real shifting of the goalposts. All Christian worship has “strong Old Testament elements” in it, because so does the Gospel! However, what you wrote in your post above was “temple worship model” which is a different thing. I disagree that there is any such model in Anglican worship.
Now let’s look at the points you propose in support of your contention. I suggest that your points display a profound misunderstanding of Anglican doctrine:
“Surely terms like ‘priest’, ‘altar’, ‘sanctuary’, ‘incense’, ‘vestments’ are suggestive?”
So now we have moved from “model” to “suggestive” – I agree with this walking back of your first contention, but why does “suggestive” matter? Our worship service is suggestive of many things taken from the whole scripture. You will find far more overt references to the New Testament.
Then let’s look at the actual words that concern you:
– “priest” – This word is a shortening of the Middle English word Prester, which in turn is a direct transliteration of the Greek word presbyteros, or “elder”. I know the Roman Catholic try to argue that it means sacrificing priest (and you appear to be conceding their argument!) but I disagree – there is no rational basis for such an equation.
– “altar” – there is only one reference to altar in Anglican worship, which is a quotation from 1 Cor 9:13 and thoroughly evangelical.
– “sanctuary” only appears in an obscure text called the second book of homilies where it teaches that the sanctuary in the OId Testament was the whole house of the Lord. i.e. the same as Calvin taught.
– “vestments” and “incense” are not referred to at all.
I suggest you need to re-think your concept of Anglican worship!
“In the dear old Anglican church near me there are even two lofty carved wooden cherubim, one on either side of the sanctuary entrance, guarding it.”
This is one architect’s idea, in one church building, whereas you are taking issue with a denomination of 85+ million people. But in any case, what is your doctrinal issue with it?
To be continued:
Continued:
“To me ‘apostolic’ would indicate the era of the original apostles i.e. the period of the New Testament effectively.”
That’s exactly what I meant.
“I would say bishops and archbishops (for example) are an innovation of the post-apostolic church.”
So are pipe organs, choirs, open prayer, altar calls, and many more things used in worship by non-Anglican evangelical churches, so what is your point?
This is not really a matter of worship but of church government. Yet no system of church government above congregational level is clearly mandated in scripture. By contrast, the idea of a “pastor to the pastors” has more suggestive New Testament support than either presbyterian or baptist/congregational styles of church government.
As for the title of the pastors to the pastors, if you don’t like bishop or archbishop, feel free to call them something else. It doesn’t change the nature of what they do.
The increase in recent years in the number of evangelical or almost-evangelical diocesan bishops in Australia has been an encouraging sign of orthodoxy gaining strength. At least that is the way it appears to one aging layman. That of course would in no way excuse any complacency as we fight the good fight against the enemies of the gospel, both human and diabolical. I was thinking of making myself available for nomination as Primate, but the obstacles appear too great.
“I also wouldn’t be surprised if we see planting of congregations by conservatives in those dioceses where the bishop or synod have rejected Biblical authority and the doctrine and discipline of the national church.”
I have been expecting the same thing, David, for some time now. Too many people are aware of what has gone on overseas. The key thing is whether these are Anglican churches, with links to the wider Anglican Communion (e.g. through Gafcon). That represents a real challenge to an Australian liberal diocese.