An Independence Day Message from Abraham Lincoln

By Eric Von Salzen

One hundred and fifty years ago, almost to the day (July 10, 1858), Abraham Lincoln gave a speech at Chicago. He was campaigning for the United States Senate against Stephen Douglas (always referred to it seems as “Judge” Douglas, although he was in fact the incumbent senator). In the course of the speech, Lincoln referred to the celebration of Independence Day:

Now, it happens that we meet together once every year, sometime about the 4th of July, for some reason or other. These 4th of July gatherings I suppose have their uses. If you will indulge me, I will state what I suppose to be some of them.

He commented briefly on the growth and increased prosperity of the United States over the 82 years since its founding (not yet “four score and seven years ago”), and observed that we attribute this advantageous change to the work of our founders:

We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men, they fought for the principle that they were contending for; and we understood that by what they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity that we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these meetings in better humor with ourselves---we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better men in the age, and race, and country in which we live for these celebrations.

But what, then, Lincoln asked, about those Americans, perhaps half the population, who were not descended from the “iron men” who founded the country? How do the German, Irish, French, and Scandinavian immigrants, and those descended from them, connect with the founders? That question resounds for me. My German ancestors came here about the time that Lincoln gave this speech, and my Irish grandfather didn’t arrive until even later. Here’s Lincoln's answer:

If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,'' and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, [loud and long continued applause] and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world. [Applause.]

That brought Lincoln to the issue of slavery. The Declaration of Independence declared that all men were created equal. How could you square that with slavery? The Supreme Court had recently resolved that dilemma in the Dred Scott decision, by declaring that “negroes” were not fully human, were not “men”. Judge Douglas supported that decision (as we would say today, “It’s the law of the land”), and argued further that all the Declaration meant was that the Americans of 1776 were the “equal” of the Englishmen from whom they were descended.

According to his construction, you Germans are not connected with it. Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form.

That was good politics, of course. There were a lot of Germans in Illinois and the West in those days. But there was more to it than that. Lincoln was arguing to White men that their own freedom depended on freedom for Black men.

Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it.

Turn in whatever way you will---whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it! [Voices---"me'' "no one,” &c.] If it is not true let us tear it out! [cries of "no, no,''] let us stick to it then, [cheers] let us stand firmly by it then. [Applause.]

This message resounds as much for us today as it did for those who heard it in Chicago 150 years ago. More so. We have seen, over a century and a half, that denying the humanity of one class or race or group of people never stops with that one group. On a plaque at the Holocaust Museum you can read “. . . then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew. . . .”

In our Episcopal Church today we say “The Episcopal Church welcomes you”, and by and large we do. We didn’t use to. For a long time we weren’t any more welcoming to African-Americans than the rest of American society was, and we welcomed women only so long as they knew that their place was in the parish kitchen baking cookies and not in the pulpit, and most certainly not in the Bishop’s chair. I was reminded of how far and how fast we’ve come by a post yesterday on this blog that mentioned that the Church of England is now meeting in General Synod to debate the question of women bishops.

At the moment, the big question is whether our church will continue to treat Gays and Lesbians the way we used to treat African-Americans and women. We elected one openly Gay bishop, but in the last five years we have been observing a moratorium on electing any more. We have some openly Gay and Lesbian priests, but new ordinations are often on hold or are governed by a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. I don’t want to exaggerate the challenge before us. No one in the Episcopal Church today is “coming for” the Gays and Lesbians, the way the Nazis came for the Jews or the KKK came for Blacks and civil rights “agitators”. On the other hand, the government of Nigeria does appear to be “coming for” them, and the Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria seems comfortable with that.

The Episcopal Church, as I understand the situation, has paused in welcoming Gays and Lesbians not because we as a church are having second thoughts about whether such people are indeed our brothers and sisters in Christ. Those Episcopalians who agree with the Archbishop of Nigeria are a distinct minority among us. We have paused in response to the request of the larger Anglican Communion that we do so, because we think it important to maintain if we can a communion with other churches around the world with which we share historical ties.

Lincoln would have understood that. In the same speech he acknowledged that, although the Declaration said all men were created equal, for pragmatic reasons our founders adopted a Constitution that allowed slavery to continue.

It may be argued that there are certain conditions that make necessities and impose them upon us, and to the extent that a necessity is imposed upon a man he must submit to it. I think that was the condition in which we found ourselves when we established this government. We had slavery among us, we could not get our constitution unless we permitted them to remain in slavery, we could not secure the good we did secure if we grasped for more, and having by necessity submitted to that much, it does not destroy the principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let that charter stand as our standard.

And then Lincoln turned, as so often he did, to the words of scripture:

My friend has said to me that I am a poor hand to quote Scripture. I will try it again, however. It is said in one of the admonitions of the Lord, "As your Father in Heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect.'' The Savior, I suppose, did not expect that any human creature could be perfect as the Father in Heaven; but He said, "As your Father in Heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect.'' He set that up as a standard, and he who did most towards reaching that standard, attained the highest degree of moral perfection. So I say in relation to the principle that all men are created equal, let it be as nearly reached as we can.

Lincoln closed with these words:

I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal.

The speech, we are told was greeted with “a perfect torrent of applause and cheers.”

I would hate to see the Anglican Communion broken up over the question whether Gays and Lesbians are to be treated as our brothers and sisters in Christ. I believe that it is honorable for our church to pause for a time, as it has been pausing, and to engage fellow Christians in dialogue, if they are willing to listen as well as to talk. But I do not believe that my own Episcopal Church can continue much longer to deny all our brothers and sisters full participation in all aspects of the church. If the unity of the Communion can only be purchased at the price of injustice, then the price of unity is too high.

Irish Primate on Hooker and Romans 1

Long but good:

By the Most Revd AET Harper, OBE
Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland

There can be very few who would resist the view that Richard Hooker is even more formative of Anglican Theology and the Anglican theological method than was Thomas Cranmer of Anglican liturgy. Furthermore, the 16th century debate within which Hooker made his most significant contribution was one with striking similarities to the debate underlying the troubled state of the Anglican Communion today.

Hooker was appointed Master of the Temple in 1585, supplanting his cousin by marriage Walter Travers, who had exercised a very influential “readership” or “lectureship” there, obtained for him by his patron Lord Burghley in 1581. Indeed, Burghley was urging the Queen to appoint Travers to the vacant position of Master, most of the role and prerogatives of which Travers had assumed during the illness of the then incumbent, Richard Alvey.

Travers, however was a radical Calvinist and had earlier quit a brilliant career at Trinity College, Cambridge for Geneva and subsequently Antwerp. Archbishop Whitgift, in advising the queen on an appointment to the Temple, and being fully aware of the extent to which Presbyterianism threatened not only the Queen’s episcopal church polity but also, ultimately, her authority as ruler of church and state, proposed first Dr Nicholas Bond but then, the queen judging Bond’s health to be unequal to the task, Richard Hooker.

Whitgift’s case against Travers was not based primarily upon Travers advocacy of a Presbyterian polity, not least because of the power wielded by influential figures of a radical turn of mind like Burghley at the centre of political life. However, a non-ideological impediment existed: Travers could not be Master of the Temple, or indeed incumbent of any other cure in the realm, because he had never been properly ordained. Part of the reason he quit Cambridge in 1571 had been that he denied the efficacy of episcopal ordination. He was later ordained in Presbyterian fashion in Antwerp, but this required only selection by elders and approval by the congregation. In a private letter to the queen, Whitgift expounded all the reasons why the appointment of Travers would be a disaster for the Church and the realm, whilst in a letter to Burghley, the queen’s chief minister, he explained why, with his defective ordination and his resistance to episcopal ordination, Travers could not be appointed to this or any other incumbency in the Church of England. In such highly charged circumstances Hooker entered upon his ministry as Master of the Temple. During that incumbency he would debate Travers publicly and with great vigour, laying the foundations for the theological understanding and method that has underpinned Anglicanism ever since.

Largely because of the centrality of sacramental theology to the debates of the last two centuries in Anglicanism, attention has been almost exclusively focussed upon Book V of “The Lawes of Ecclesiastical Polity” to the neglect of the Preface and the other seven books. This is unfortunate and a matter that requires swiftly to be remedied, especially in respect of the manner in which Hooker dealt with Holy Scripture, how is to be esteemed and how it may be interpreted: an issue central to ou contemporary concerns. In particular, the crucial distinctions that Hooker makes between the whole body of scripture and what may be identified as the Law of God needs swiftly to be recovered. It seems, on the face of it, that such essential distinctions, which are central to the theological understanding of all things Anglican, have been allowed to disappear from view in the current ferment. Those distinctions were crucial in securing the Anglican position during the Presbyterian attacks of the 16th and 17th centuries specifically because those attacks were couched in terms of the biblical inappropriateness of the basis of Anglican polity. The arguments and understandings developed by Hooker in his day remain essential now to exploration of the scriptural dimensions of the current disputes amongst Anglicans.

It is no exaggeration to say that the debate within Anglicanism on the place of homosexuality in human society and the relationship of homosexual acts to the Law of God has become deeply visceral and that the quality of debate has suffered as a result. Furthermore, this specific issue has become the battleground upon which the authority and the interpretation of scripture within the Anglican tradition is being re-fought. Regrettably, most of the discussion appears to be taking place in ignorance of the earlier controversy and its outcome. However, the nature and the urgency of these matters are not dissimilar to those of the 16th and 17th century debate which gave rise to Richard Hooker’s magisterial treatise.

Sadly, the most vocal protagonists on both sides of the current debate, in so far as they speak from within the Commonwealth of Anglicanism, have paid scant heed to the Anglican principles established by Hooker. Whether this is by accident or design is not for this writer to judge. Certain it is that everyone engaged in this debate would do well to recall Hooker’s overarching admonition, issued in the Preface to his “Lawes”, namely that:

There will come a time when three words uttered with charity and meekness shall receive a far more blessed reward than three thousand volumes written with disdainful sharpness of wit.

[Note: that the spellings of Hooker’s text have been modernized but the grammar and sentence construction remains unaltered. All quotations may be found in the Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker]

As I have indicated, the controversy with which Richard Hooker was engaged focussed on issues to do with the form and governance of the Church and the sources of authority for that form and governance. Those who advocated a Presbyterian system claimed, in essence, that such a system was the only one consonant with scripture and church government in primitive Christianity. They also pleaded that the only authority that might be referred to or relied upon was Holy Scripture.

Hooker’s defence of the polity of the Church of England, as it had emerged under Elizabeth I, was that it could be entirely reconciled with the evidence of scripture as we have it, taking account of legitimate developments of tradition and the appropriate application of human reason. It is this three-fold cord of Scripture, Tradition and Reason that provide the essential components of the Anglican method. It is two of these three strands that are particularly applicable to the context and the issues of the current debate, namely Scripture and Reason.

It is necessary first to appreciate the reverence with which Hooker approaches Holy Scripture and the weight he attaches to it. Let the following two passages from Book II Chapter 7 stand as testimony:

Scripture with Christian men being received as the Word of God, that for which we have probable, yea, that which we have necessary reason for, yea, that which we see with our eyes is not thought so sure as that which the scripture of God teaches; because we hold that his speech reveals there what he himself sees, and therefore the strongest proof of all, and the most necessarily assented to by us (which do thus receive the scripture) is the scripture.

I grant that proof derived from the authority of man’s judgment is not able to work that assurance which grows by a stronger proof, and therefore although ten thousand general Councils would set down one and the same definitive sentence concerning any point of religion whatsoever; yet one demonstrative reason alleged, or one manifest testimony cited from the mouth of God himself to the contrary, could not choose but overweigh them all; in as much as for them to have been deceived it is not impossible, it is that demonstrative reason or testimony divine should deceive.

Thereafter, however, in Book II Chapter 8, Hooker goes on to articulate what has become a foundational insight in Anglican understanding. There he contrasts two extreme opinions:

Two opinions therefore there are concerning sufficiency of holy Scripture, each extremely opposite unto the other, and both repugnant unto truth. The Schools of Rome teach scripture to be so insufficient, as if, except traditions were added, it did not contain all revealed and supernatural truth, which absolutely is necessary for the children of men in this life to know that they may in the next be saved. Others justly condemning this opinion grow likewise unto a dangerous extremity, as if scripture did not only contain all things in that kind necessary, but all things simply, and in such sort that to do anything according to any other law were not only unnecessary, but even opposite unto salvation, unlawful and sinful. Whatsoever is spoken of God otherwise than as the truth is; though it seem an honour, it is an injury. And as incredible praises given unto men do often abate and impair the credit of their deserved commendation; so we must likewise take great heed, lest in attributing to Scripture more than it can have, the incredibility of that do cause even those things which indeed it has most abundantly to be less reverently esteemed .

In Book III Hooker goes on to address the character and authority of scripture and he identifies varieties of scriptural material. In particular, Hooker contrasts and distinguishes between what he calls “The Law of God” and “the Word of the Lord”. He is concerned to address the position of those who argue most vehemently that it is to add to the law of God and the words of the Lord when that which the Church has come to incorporate into its polity cannot be found specified directly in Holy Scripture:

True it is concerning the Word of God, whether it be by misconstruction of the sense or by falsification of the words, wittingly to endeavour that any thing may seem divine which is not, or any thing not seem which is, were plainly to abuse and even to falsify divine evidence, which injury offered but unto men, is most worthily counted heinous. Which point I wish they did well observe, with whom nothing is more familiar than to plead in these causes, “The Law of God, The Word of the Lord;” who notwithstanding when they come to allege what Word and what Law they mean, their common ordinary practice is to quote by-speeches in some historical narration or other, and to urge them as if they were written in most exact form of Law. What is to add to the Law of God if this be not? When that which the Word of God does but deliver historically, we conster (understand) without any warrant as if it were legally meant, and so urge it further than we can prove that it was intended, do we not add to the laws of God, and make them in number seem more than they are? [Book iii Chapter 5]

The point that Hooker is making very clearly here is this: adjudications found in that type of Holy Scripture that is essentially narrative in character have application in the circumstances, situation and historical context in which they originally arose but are not, without additional and compelling warrant, to be assumed to have subsequent universal application. Rulings that may have applied and been deemed valid at one time and in one specific circumstance need not necessarily retain that applicability and validity at another.

Thereafter, in Book III, Hooker goes on to assert the necessity of the application of Reason. He counters six positions advanced by those who oppose the application of human reason to the discernment of the Law of God and who take the view that the application of reason undermines the power and authority of the Word of God as set forth in Scripture:

By these and the like disputes an opinion has spread itself very far in the world, he writes, as if the way to be ripe in faith were to be raw in wit and judgment; as if reason were an enemy unto religion, childish simplicity the mother of ghostly and divine wisdom. [Chapter 8.5]

Such a position cannot even be sustained from scripture itself, Hooker points out. He, therefore, goes on to distinguish between those things which may be accessible through reason and those accessible only through the operation of grace:

Howbeit for all men’s plainer and fuller satisfaction, first concerning the inability of reason to search out and to judge of things divine, if they be such as those properties of God and those duties of men towards him, which may be conceived by attentive consideration of heaven and earth, we know that of mere natural men the Apostle testifies how they “knew both God, and the law of God”. Other things there are, which are neither so found, nor though they be shown, can ever be approved without the special operation of God’s good grace and spirit. [Book III Chapter 8.6]

Hooker adds, in the context of the use of reason by those advocating heretical beliefs, that, of course, reason can be wrongly used and improperly applied but Heresy prevails only by a counterfeit show of reason; whereby notwithstanding it becomes invincible, unless it is convicted of fraud by manifest remonstrance clearly true and unable to be withstood. When therefore the Apostle requires ability to convict Heretics, can we think it a thing unlawful, and not rather needful to use the principal instrument of their conviction, the light of reason? It may not be denied but that in the Fathers’ writings there are sundry sharp invectives against Heretics, even for their very philosophical reasonings. [Book III Chapter 8.8]

Having established the necessity of the application of reason, and having also demonstrated that Paul and the Fathers in their writings frequently employed reason and deployed it in defence of Christian truth, Hooker goes on to examine the issue of truth and knowledge.

There is in the world no kind of knowledge, whereby any part of the truth is seen, but we justly account it precious, yea that principal truth, in comparison whereof all other knowledge is vile, may receive from it some kind of light. [Book III Chapter 8.9]

That “principal truth” of which Hooker writes is the truth of the Gospel itself: that indeed God was in Christ justifying the world to himself. By comparison with such understanding all other knowledge is both feeble and unlovely, yet even that which by comparison is feeble and unlovely can add something, can indeed shed additional light on the truth of revelation and lead to deeper and more complete understanding.

No man comes to God to offer him sacrifice, to pour out supplications and prayers before him, or to do him any service, which does not first believe him both to be, and to be a rewarder of them, who in some sort seek unto him. Let men be taught this either by revelation from heaven or by instruction upon earth, by labour study and meditation, or by the only [unique] secret inspiration of the holy Ghost; whatsoever the means be they know it by, if knowledge thereof were possible without discourse of natural reason, why should none be found capable thereof but only men, nor men til such time as they came unto ripe and full ability to work by reasonable understanding? The whole drift of the scripture of God what is it but to teach Theology? Theology what is it but the science of things divine? What science can be attained to without the help of natural discourse and reason? “Judge you of that which I speak,” says the Apostle. In vain it were to speak anything of God, but that by reason men are able somewhat to judge of that they hear, and by discourse to discern how consonant it is to truth. Scripture indeed teaches things above nature, things which our reason by itself could not reach unto. But those things also we believe, knowing by reason that scripture is the word of God. [Book III Chapter 8.11,12]

Hooker’s advocacy of reason continues:

Exclude the use of natural reasoning about the sense of holy scripture concerning the articles of our faith, and then that the scripture does concern the articles of our faith who can assure us? That which by right exposition builds up Christian faith, being misconstrued breeds error: between true and false construction, the difference reason must show. Can Christian men perform that which Peter requires at their hands; is it possible they should both believe and be able, without the use of reason, to render a reason of their belief, a reason sound and sufficient to answer them that demand it, be they of the same with us oor enemies thereunto? May we cause our faith without reason to appear reasonable in the eyes of men? This being required even of learners in the School of Christ, the duty of their teachers in bringing them unto such ripeness must needs be somewhat more than only to read the sentence of scripture, and then paraphrastically [periphrastically?] to school them, to vary them with sundry forms of speech, without arguing or disputing about anything which they contain. This method of teaching may commend itself to the world by that easiness and facility which is in it: but a law or a pattern it is not, as some do imagine, for all men to follow that will do good in the Church of Christ. Our Lord and Saviour himself did hope by disputation to do some good, yea by disputation not only of but against the truth, albeit with purpose for the truth… there is as yet no way known how to dispute or determine things disputed without the use of natural reason… The light therefore, which the star of natural reason and wisdom casts, is too bright to be obscured by the mist of a word or two uttered to diminish that opinion which justly has been received concerning the force and virtue thereof, even in matters that touch most nearly the principal duties of men and the glory of the eternal God. [Book III Chapter 8.16,17]

It remains for Hooker to add one final qualification to his advocacy of the necessity of the deployment of human reason. That qualification is as follows:

In all which hitherto has been spoken touching the force and use of man’s reason in things divine, I must crave that I be not so understood or construed, as if any such thing by virtue thereof could be done without the aid and assistance of God’s most blessed spirit… For this cause therefore we have endeavoured to make it appear how in the nature of reason itself there is no impediment, but that the self-same spirit, which reveals the things that god has set down in his law, may also be thought to aid and direct men in finding out by the light of reason what laws are expedient to be made for the guiding of his Church, over and besides them that are in scripture. Herein therefore we agree with those men by whom human laws are defined to be ordinances, which such as have lawful authority given them for that purpose, do probably draw from the laws of nature and God, by discourse of reason, aided with the influence of divine grace. And for that cause it is not said amiss touching Ecclesiastical canons, that by “instinct of the holy Ghost they have been made, and consecrated by the reverend acceptation of all the world.” [Book III Chapter 8.18; quotation Violatores 25.q.1]

It is appropriate now to consider the implications of Hooker’s analysis and method for contemporary Anglicanism and to begin with Scripture, Reason and the Law of God.

Hooker makes an important distinction between material in Holy Scripture that can be determined as being the direct oracles of God and that which may be, or may have been, derived from what he calls “by-speeches in some historical narration or other.” Hooker specifically criticizes the use of such “by-speeches” by those who “urge them as if they were written in the most exact form of law.” He goes on, “What is to add to the Law of God if this is not?” Therefore, in seeking to identify those scriptural elements that possess universal application as the Law of God it is necessary to exclude all that may be accounted “by-speeches” associated with some form of mere narration and to refrain from interpreting them in any sense as “the most exact form of law.”

Self evidently, to distinguish between direct oracles and “by-speeches” requires the application of reason to the study of scripture. Reason cannot be excluded from the appropriation of the word of God in scripture. Indeed, Paul himself, as well as the Fathers, applied reason to the interpretation of scripture. In Paul’s case it was the interpretation of Old Testament scripture. In the case of the Fathers it was both Old Testament and the New. This being the case, it is inappropriate to exclude the application of reason to the writings of Paul, especially in respect of those sections in which Paul specifically exercises his own faculty of reason.

Turning briefly to the issue of Truth and Knowledge, it is clear that nowhere does Hooker exalt human knowledge to a position which might be said to rival the primacy of “that principal truth” to be found in scripture. He does insist, however, that knowledge enhances what may be known of the truth, indeed it is “precious”. Knowledge and understanding of the measure and mechanisms of the created order offer a deepening of insight into the mind, purpose and action of the creator. Knowledge, therefore, is valuable in itself.

Equally, where the various witnesses of scripture refer to that which comes to them as knowledge of the universe and the whole created order, it will be the responsibility of succeeding generations to assent to the truth of that knowledge only if that understanding as exhibited in the scriptures is accurate, but also to demur if, in the fuller light of contemporary knowledge, such an understanding may no longer be affirmed.

To what extent, then, may it be possible to say that the Patriarchs, the Prophets and witnesses such as St Paul may from time to time be mistaken? Not, surely, when they are declaring the oracles of God conformable with the Gospel of Christ; but, perhaps, where it may be said that they are defective in fact or in reasoned extrapolation, deduction or assertion based upon false premises. Such are tests we need to apply in all cases of scriptural interpretation as it may be applied to faith, truth, morality, and the Law of God. The scriptural evidence as it relates to issues of homosexuality and homosexual acts supplies such a case in point. Key texts therefore require to be analysed to discover their nature and status.

I draw attention, therefore, to one of the texts central to the current debate, namely Romans 1.18-27

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, for God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four footed animals or reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature and not the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. [NRSV]

Some preliminary observations are in order.

First, the passage deals directly with denial or suppression of the truth. The truth in question has to do with the nature and the worship of God. Whether Paul has in mind pagan devotees or apostate former Christians (and it seems most likely to be the latter,) in either case what can be known about God - which itself is something plain to be seen in the creation (In Paul’s words, “understood and seen through the things he has made”,) has been deliberately set aside in favour of the worship of idols represented by images drawn from the created order. Paul, then is very clearly referring to a grave contemporary issue for the Church in Rome.

Second, it is entirely clear that for Paul the created order is identified as of substance and significance in understanding the nature of God – “his power and his divine nature have been understood and seen through the things that he has made.”(v20) Here Paul applies the force of human reason to establish the position he is concerned to advocate. Refining and developing an increasingly deeper understanding of the things that God has made, therefore can only further expose us to a fuller encounter with the power and divine nature of God. The more we know and the better we understand the mechanisms of creation the better our insight into the power and divine nature of God through the things he has made.

Third, Paul declares as part of the narrative of events that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.”(v18) The wrath of God is against the suppression of truth. The truth suppressed is about the power and nature of God clearly revealed in creation. Punishment, therefore is visited by God on those who are complicit in the suppression of the truth and that punishment is that they are given up by God “in the lusts of their hearts to impurity to the degrading of their bodies among themselves.”(v24) “Degrading passions” (v26), therefore, are the punishment of God visited upon those who “exchanged the truth about God for a lie.”(v25)

Fourth, those “degrading passions” (v26), are identified as acts of homosexual intercourse: “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.” (vv26, 27) Two things are notable about this passage. The first is the implication that, having once been persons whose natural expression of their sexuality was to seek intercourse with the opposite sex, now (as a punishment of God) they have “exchanged” what was natural to them to that which is unnatural i.e. they are now defying their natural sexual orientation and doing so as a direct result of the operation of the power of God. The second point is this. Paul’s assumptions about what is “natural” and what “unnatural” are based upon the knowledge and understandings of the time, relying to a degree on the presuppositions of the Old Testament. If, on the basis of additional knowledge and the application of human reason, such assumptions and presuppositions are shown to be inadequate it will become an absolute requirement to re-visit the definition of what in this area may be described as “natural” and “unnatural”. Indeed, such an outcome would actually be consistent with the witness of Paul in Romans 1, for he is describing the suppression of what was natural and the substitution of what, in the case of those being punished, was unnatural.

Thus, in the case of the passage under discussion, the essentially narrative character of the account rendered by Paul, dealing with a particular situation involving what Paul interprets as the deliberate punishment of God on persons who defy and renounce the truth about Him, and featuring the application of reason and the contemporary knowledge of the time to the activities of persons who appear radically and wilfully to have changed their normal sexual orientation to embrace an orientation that was not originally normal for them, it cannot be held that what is unquestionably Holy Scripture is also a declaration of the Law of God. The only aspect that can be placed in the category of “Law” is the requirement to recognize the truth about God and not to exchange such acknowledgment of truth and the worship that goes with it, for the lie that anything other than the God revealed in scripture and through the created order is worthy of recognition and worship.

Indeed, this is the key, not only to the situation confronted by Paul but also to the situation confronted by the contemporary Church. The issue that confronted Paul and confronts us now is how to get across the damaging futility that will be encountered by those – they are a great majority throughout the world – who defy and deny the truth about God. Paul saw in the depravity of his contemporaries the punishment of God not on account of their depravity (which, Paul says was their punishment not their crime!) but on account of their denial and defiance, which was the sin that counted.

Romans 1, therefore, provides no declaration of the Law of God in respect of homosexuality and homosexual acts. Reference to such acts is what Hooker might call “by-speeches” in the context of an historical narrative and, as such, not a declaration of God’s Law. Furthermore, Paul, in his treatment of the issues, employs reason based upon the knowledge and presuppositions accessible to him in his day. These may be challenged if the knowledge base changes definitively. It is therefore inappropriate on the basis of Romans 1.18-17 and ff to judge or anathematize persons on the basis of sexual orientation. It will be necessary to scrutinize other sections of scripture in a similar way to discover whether elsewhere there may be established evidence of the Law of God in this matter and I have not attempted to do that in this essay. I remain committed to the view, however, that the tools of analysis which Hooker articulated are essential to our contemporary purpose and are especially relevant for the purpose of distilling the Law of God from the total corpus of Holy Scripture.

Finally, let us be clear on this: it has not yet been conclusively shown that for some males and some females homosexuality and homosexual acts are natural rather than unnatural. If such comes to be shown, it will be necessary to acknowledge the full implications of that new aspect of the truth, and that insight applied to establish and acknowledge what may be a new status for homosexual relationships within the life of the Church.

N. T. Wright - Thank You

From the BBC

Dr Tom Wright, a traditionalist himself, said Gafcon's plans to let parishes break from liberal bishops were ridiculous and "deeply offensive".

"The idea they have a monopoly on Biblical truth won't do," he said.

It comes as the Church of England's ruling body, the General Synod, gathers for a five-day meeting.

The meeting, being held at the University of York, is set to be dominated by the issue of women bishops

'Global sledge hammer'

The Global Anglican Future Conference (Gafcon) attracted about 300 bishops to a gathering held last month in Jerusalem.

It called for the creation of a council of primates and said the Archbishop of Canterbury's authority over the Communion should end.

Many of the 300 attendees plan to boycott this month's Lambeth Conference - a meeting of the Anglican Communion held every 10 years.

Speaking to the BBC's World at One programme the Bishop of Durham said Gafcon was "taking a global sledge hammer to crack the American nut".

"There's a lot of bits that's going to fly around the room if you do that, especially here in England where we do not have the same problems that they have in America," he added.

"The coalition of Gafcon is a very odd combination of hard-line evangelicals, who would never use incense in a communion service, who would never wear Eucharistic vestments, along with Anglo-Catholics from America for whom those things are absolutely de rigeur.

"You've also got people who are totally and passionately opposed to the ordination of women, and others who are not only happy with it, but promoting it. That's not a coalition that's going to last very long, to be honest.

"For me this is particularly frustrating. I spend 90 to 100 hours a week doing the work of the gospel and the kingdom of God in my diocese and around the place.

"And to be told that I now need to be authorised or validated by a group of primates somewhere else who come in and tell me which doctrines I should sign up to is not only ridiculous it's deeply offensive.

"The idea that they have a monopoly on Biblical truth simply won't do and we must stand up to this, it's a kind of bullying. 'We're the true gospel people, therefore you must listen to us'."

He said most traditionalist bishops in England did not support Gafcon and were "deeply worried about it".

"When one finds people coming high-handedly, who don't actually know what's going on, and say, 'We've now drawn up this list of 14 points and you've got to sign up to them and then we'll authorise you and you can be part of our club, and if you don't then we're going to sweep you aside'... anyone has a right to feel angry when faced with that kind of thing."

Article XVII

Since GAFCON, conversation in the blogosphere has focused a bit on the 39 Articles and, in particular, Article XVII which deals with predestination and election. It is important to be clear - these terms must not be read anachronistically - presuming that they are in any way related to the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination.

Edward Harold Browne wrote in his 1865 exposition on the 39 Articles that the tendency to see in this article a 'Calvinist' intention is gladly supposed by Calvinists and evangelical Anglicans. But, this is most likely erroneous and, indeed, anachronistic. Browne was writing in the middle nineteenth century when a small number of vocal and schism-leaning evangelical Anglicans were doing exactly what they are now attempting to do.

Here is Browne's exposition of Article XVII on Predestination and Election:

The doctrine of our own Reformers on this deep question, and the meaning of the XVIIth Article, have been much debated. The Calvinistic divines of our own communion have unhesitatingly claimed the Article as their own ; although the earnest desire which they showed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, to introduce the far more express language of the Lambeth Articles, shows that they were not fully satisfied with the wording of it.

On the other hand, the Arminians assert that the seventeenth Article exactly expresses their own views. The Arminians agree with the Calvinists in holding that God, by his secret counsel, hath predestinated some to life eternal, others to eternal death. They differ from them in that, whereas the Calvinists attribute this predestination to God's sovereign, irrespective, and though doubtless just, yet apparently arbitrary will, the Arminians attribute it to His eternal foreknowledge.

Now the Article says nothing concerning the moving cause of predestination ; and therefore speaks as much the language of Arminius as of Calvin. The latter clauses of the Article appear specially designed to guard against the dangers of the Calvinistic theory, and therefore the former cannot have been intended to propound it.

Moreover the sentiments concerning election most prevalent in the Church before the Reformation were that God predestinated to life and death, not according to His absolute will, but according as He foresaw future faith or unbelief; and there being no ground for supposing that the English reformers had been mixed up with any of the predestinarian controversies of Calvin and the Swiss reformers, there is every ground, it is said, for sup-
posing that the Article ought to be taken in the Arminian, not in the Calvinistic sense.

In what sense the English reformers really did accept the doctrine of God's election, and in what sense the XVIIth Article is to be interpreted, is truly a question of considerable difficulty.

The language of Cranmer and Ridley, and of our own Liturgy, Articles and Homilies, is remarkably unlike Calvin's concerning effectual calling and final perseverance.

It is also clear, that the English Reformers held, and expressed in our formularies, with great clearness and certainty, the universality of redemption through Christ. So that, in three out of five points of Calvinism (Particular Redemption, Effectual Calling, and Final Perseverance) the English reformers were at variance with Calvin.

Still, no doubt, it is possible that they may have been un-Calvinistic in all these points, and yet have agreed with St. Augustine on the general notion and causation of God's predestination; for we have seen that Augustine's views were materially different from Calvin's.

It is pretty certain that Calvin's system had not produced much influence, at the time the XVIIth Article was drawn up. It is true, the first edition of his Institutes was written early in his career ; and that contains strong predestinarian statements. But the great discussion on this head at Geneva, and the publication of his book De Predestinatione did not take place till A. D. 1552, the very year in which the Articles were put forth.

It has moreover been clearly shown, that the earlier Articles of the Church of England were drawn up from Lutheran models, agreeing remarkably with the language of Melancthon and the Confession of Augsburg. Archbishop Laurence has plainly proved
that the greatest intimacy and confidence existed between Cranmer and Melancthon; that for a series of years during the reign of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. both the king and the leading reformers were most desirous of bringing Melancthon to England, and that nothing but the death of Edward VI. prevented the establishment of Melancthon in the chair of divinity at Cambridge, formerly filled by Erasmus and Bucer.

All this must have been pending at the very time the XVTIth Article was composed.
Nay! there is even some reason to think that Cranmer was induced to draw up this Article by suggestion of Melancthon, who, when consulted by Cranmer (A. D. 1548) on the compilation of a public confession on this particular question, wrote recommending great caution and moderation, adding that at first the stoical disputations about fate were too horrible among the reformers, and injurious to good discipline ; and urging that Cranmer " should think well concerning any such formula of doctrine."

From such facts it is inferred that the Lutheran, not the Calvinist reformers, had weight, and were consulted on the drawing up of this Article; and that, as Lutheran models were adopted for the former Articles, so, although there is no Article in the Confession of Augsburg on predestination, yet the views of that doctrine current among the Lutheran divines were more likely to prevail than those among the Calvinists, who had as yet had no influence in Great Britain.

Cranmer's writings are, even more than Ridley's, free from statements on God's predestination. But Archbishop Laurence has brought several passages from Latimer, Hooper, and other contemporaneous divines of the Church of England, which show that they held decidedly anti-Calvinistic sentiments, and which prove that even the Calvinism of Bradford was of the most moderate kind.

If from the writings of the reformers we pass to the formularies of the Church, the Liturgy, the Catechism, and the Homilies, we shall find that they appear to view the election of God as the choosing of persons to baptism, the elect as identical with the baptized, or, what is the same thing, with the Church of Christ throughout the world.

Thus, in the Catechism, every baptized child is taught to say, " God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God." In the Baptismal Service we pray that the child now to be baptized, may receive the fulness of God's grace, and ever remain in the number of His faithful and elect children." In the daily service we pray, "Endue thy ministers with righteousness, and make thy chosen people joyful. O Lord, save thy people, and bless thine inheritance." Where God's inheritance, the Church, is evidently the same as His " chosen " or elect " people," whom we pray that He will bless, save, and make joyful. In the Burial Service, we pray God to " accomplish the number of His elect, and hasten His kingdom, that we with all those departed," &c.

In the Homily of falling from God all Christains are plainly spoken of as the "chosen" (i. e. elect) "vineyard of God," which yet by falling away may be lost. " If we, which are the chosen vineyard of God, bring not forth good fruits, that is to say, good works ....
He will pluck away all defence, and suffer grievous plagues ....
to light upon us. Finally, if these serve not, He will let us lie
waste, He will give us over . . . . " &c.

From all these considerations, it is more probable that an Article drawn up by Cranmer should have expounded the doctrine of ecclesiastical or baptismal election, than that it should have contained the doctrine of Calvin or Arminius. For both the other documents drawn up by himself, and the writings of his great counsellor, Melancthon, exhibit the clearest evidence of their belief in such ecclesiastical election. Add to which, the early fathers, whose writings Cranmer most diligently searched, are very full of the same mode
of explaining the truth.

The question still remains, after all this historical probability, “Will the wording of the Article bear this meaning?” or are we absolutely constrained to give another interpretation to it? Persons but little acquainted with scholastic disputations and with the language of controversy are apt at first sight to think the XVIIth Article obviously Calvinistic, though others, somewhat better read, are aware that it will equally suit the doctrine of Arminius: but both might be inclined to suppose that it could not express the opinions of Melancthon and of the majority of the primitive fathers, and what, we have seen reason to conclude, were Cranmer's own opinions.

The Founding of the Episcopal Church

by Greg Jones

The recent Jerusalem declaration made by the self-proclaimed ‘orthodox’ Anglican movement includes the statement that the 39 Articles are to be required as one of the mandatory fundaments of ‘orthodox Anglicanism.’ This is certainly bizarre – especially since they have not been that for the entire history of The Episcopal Church. Moreover, they entire concept of the GAFCON confessional statement being the basis of orthodoxy and the sole basis for the ecclesiastical validity of any provinces within the Anglican Communion, is completely out of line with Anglicanism in general, and The Episcopal Church’s own history. This is important, because most of the Americans involved with GAFCON have repeatedly said that The Episcopal Church has changed from what it once was. That is of course true in the same sense that the United States has ‘changed’ from what it once was – as do all growing things. But constitutionally and theologically – I’m not sure how true that really is. In terms of our forms, our ‘faith and order,’ at least as it pertains to primary doctrine – we have not changed that much as far as I can tell. Moreover, we have always possessed a great deal of diversity theologically – and have nearly come apart because of it – but managed to get through it out of love for Christian unity.

A Recap of Our Founding Years in Philadelphia

• The Episcopal Church’s faith and order owes a great deal to the General Convention of 1789. It was at that gathering that Episcopalians in the thirteen colonies really came together to form a cohesive church. Until that time, it was not clear whether the Connecticut and other New England states would join with the Middle Atlantic and Southern states who had already formed a united Episcopal Church entity. The Connecticut clergy especially were wary of the wider movement toward unity – and likewise – many in the Middle Atlantic and South were wary of the Bishop of Connecticut who was consecrated by the Scottish non-jurors, and who remained a Tory politically. In the 1786 General Convention, some worked against the acceptance of Seabury’s episcopacy – but the force of William White (still a presbyter) kept that from succeeding. In the three years after it, White and Provoost became bishops consecrated by the Church of England, and Provoost remained antagonistic to Seabury.
• At the 1789 Convention, however, and thanks to White’s strong leadership, the differences were overcome by unity. The 1789 General Convention adopted not the ‘radically’ amended 1785 Proposed Book, but rather a more mildly amended version of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer with, including some alterations to the eucharistic rite requested by the Scottish non-jurors. Notable among the amendments were the removal of the Athanasian Creed – despite efforts by Seabury to keep it in.
• Interestingly, the Thirty-nine Articles were not even accepted for the back-matter of the Prayer Book until 1801. Provoost and Madison opposed them, Seabury claimed to be indifferent to them (seeing them as too Calvinist), and it was William White who was their main advocate among the bishops. Ultimately, the Articles were adopted with minor changes consistent with the American situation – and they were to become bound with the Prayer Book, but not regarded as an intrinsic part of the Prayer Book. Formal subscription to them was not required of ordinands.

(These bullets above are my paraphrase of material from William Wilson Manross’ article on William White in Walter Herbert Stowe’s 1937 book, The Life and Letters of Bishop William White, pp. 113-116)

Craig Uffman on Rowan

from Covenant

By Craig Uffman | July 1, 2008

Much has been said from all bearings about Rowan Williams, laying blame at his feet for our humiliation as a particular part of the people of God at this particular time. “If only he would have _____…..”

Perhaps the GAFCON movement is indeed the working of the Spirit the way its leaders claim in their declaration. Many voices have weighed in on that question and it is not my purpose to consider that question now.

There are the those who have declared Rowan Williams irrelevant, in words remarkably similar to the refrains that have ever mocked authority in the euphoric moments at the barricades of history. My concern here is to observe that his detractors on all bearings continue to underestimate and misunderstand Rowan.

A key to understanding Rowan is his understanding of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, and the gospel entrusted to us: God has acted toward humankind and God’s Word to humankind is that God chooses from eternity to be in relation to us in spite of our rejection of grace. In other words, God is the One whose relation to us is utterly undetermined by our own actions: God chooses to love so that we might be.

Rowan’s understanding of Christian ethics is derived from this. In response to that Word, following Christ means being that presence to others whose relation to them is utterly undetermined by them so that they might be, and in being, become part of God’s way of blessing humankind richly.

Therefore one cannot expect Rowan to allow his relation to others to be determined by their actions, for he has resolved in advance to remain in a relation of Christ-centered fellowship to them no matter how much their actions testify to the Fall rather than to Grace. And when a brother sins, he goes to Matt 18:15-18 in order to help them see what Christian fellowship demands, but with the understanding that we are called always to provide sanctuary even for the brother who rejects our fellowship through his volition as reflected in his refusal to repent.

The notion that Rowan will choose to turn his back on either TEC or GAFCON does not take account of Rowan’s theology of what it means to be a resurrection community. He acts consistently, I think, according to that theology. It is maddening to those of us who want things resolved in a timely manner, or in line with a particular result (cast out the sinners, now! said the crowd in a frenzy). For these calls for a primatial separation of the sheep from the goats is exactly that: our own prideful reversion to the ways of the world.

I quote below from his Christ on Trial:How the Gospel Unsettles Our Judgement (p. 9):

Mark’s trial narrative passes sentence on our understanding of power and significance. Without this strange moment at the heart of the trial, we might be left with a false clarity about God and how God is recognized in Jesus: God becomes the illustration of what is highest or strongest for us. This applies not only to the crude identification of God with success or domination, and the resulting belief that failure in the world’s terms somehow indicates God’s absence; it applies also to the identification of God with what seems to us wisest or holiest, most spiritually impressive….It may be that we hear God most clearly in such moments of obstinate detachment from results and successes. People at times make gestures and stands, not for the sake of dramatizing their beliefs or for the sake of any result that might be guaranteed, but because there is simply nothing else that can be done with honesty.

Rowan regularly writes of “the ‘obstinate uselessness’ of witness to God’s truth.”

Later in this chapter:

How very tempting…to turn our emotional energy and imagination towards a ‘better’ Church, away from the embarrassing present moment. Nonetheless, it is here, in Jesus crucified and in the struggling and failing community, that the coming of the Human One in glory is made visible to the world.

I am deeply thankful that the Lord has given us Rowan as Cantaur at this time. What extraordinary moral courage it must take for him to resist the demands of those who would have us turn away from our embarrassing moment and place our trust in the power of a confessional plumbline. My prayers are with and for him.

The Sacrifice of Isaac - by Greg Jones

The testing of Abraham. The sacrifice of Isaac.

Last Sunday's story from Genesis may be the most vital story in the entire Old Testament. Commentators have long thought so, seeing in this strange, foreign, upside-down-from-what's-to-be-expected-story-of-faith every nuance of salvation history.

This tale of God's strange testing of Abraham, with its horrible potential, and Abraham's choice to trust God through it (his choice to sacrifice even his son, his heir, his legacy) trusting that if God calls for it then somehow God will make it all well, this is a big story.

We cannot even begin to know what Jesus, the Cross and the Good News are about if we haven't struggled a bit with this story. I've struggled with it for many years, joining twenty-five centuries of rabbis and twenty centuries of the Church, all looking at it, trying to make heads or tails of what seems an absolutely absurd request on the part of God.

Pretty much, the essential interpretation is that this story is about trusting God, against all the things that would conspire to make you lose that trust – even filial love, even reason, even common sense, even every bit of human knowledge about what's what.

It's about welcoming into your heart a God who is indeed very strange, very foreign, very other. It's about taking the biggest chance of all – and giving up all control – and saying, "God, I trust that you will make alright something that to me looks very, very bad."

Despite all evidence to the contrary in this story, Abraham chooses to trust that God's way is the good way. He says, "God will provide." Kierkegaard suggests Abraham's faith in divine absurdity is – oddly enough – the saving faith God requires.

Yes, the Salvation history of Scripture is dotted with folks who said, "Yes, Lord, I trust that you will make alright something which looks rather bad to me."

Consider those who said:

• "Yes, Lord, I will challenge the Pharaoh."
• "Yes, Lord, I will fight a giant with a slingshot."
• "Yes, Lord, I will bear this child named Jesus."
• "Yes, Father, I will suffer and die."

Actually, doing what God asks, being an instrument of salvation for others, isn't hard. No doing what God asks isn't hard, choosing to do it is. For, by Grace, God lifts up those who have chosen to be his instruments. God will provide those who serve Him.

Similarly, entering the Kingdom isn't hard, choosing to enter is. For by Grace, Jesus Christ has opened the door to the kingdom, and is holding it open with the hard wood of the cross. What's hard about choosing to serve God, to enter the Kingdom, is that you can't bring your stuff with you.

Everything we possess from proud desire, whether animal, vegetable or mineral, whether financial, social or mechanical, whether emotional, intellectual or otherwise, all the stuff we possess from proud desire cannot come with us into the kingdom.

Maybe it's a grudge, a sweet and sour grudge. Maybe it's an ideology, that has proven successful in this world. Maybe it's tribal or national or political convictions. No matter what, all of this stuff can become idolotrous, even one's own household can be, and idolotrous stuff cannot come with us into the kingdom.

As Jesus said, "God must come first." For, as Abraham said, "God will provide."

Yes, God will provide all that we need to follow him and do his will. This is the witness of the faithful. This trust in the providence of God is what inspires disciples to take chances, risks and challenges for the sake of what's right. It's what allows us to welcome God and other strangers into our very midst – and it's is how the Kingdom of God is grown.