The fifth and final installment of this series will (I hope) encapsulate everything that I have said so far. There is one final element of the Anglican spirit that I have struggled to put into words, but I think that it underlies almost everything that I like about Anglicanism. This element is their comfort with mystery.
I have done my best throughout this series to avoid insulting Presbyterianism (I apologize if I have failed), but I am trying to describe Anglicanism from my own perspective, so I have often contrasted Anglicanism and Reformed Presbyterianism. Of the many things that I like about Anglicanism, this comfort with mystery is probably where they contrast most starkly with their Presbyterian brethren. Presbyterianism, as is the case with many Reformed traditions, emphasizes the intellect. Some would say that they are overly-intellectual. To their credit, they have intentionally emphasized doctrine in a world, and a Church, that has abandoned coherence and objective truth. They teach that every man (and woman) is a theologian and has the responsibility to study God's Word and to personalize their faith.
The downside of this, of course, is that it can lead to restlessness and speculation. Presbyterians often suffer from an inordinate compulsion to distinguish and define, to answer every single question imaginable. They sometimes find it difficult to rest in what God has revealed, systematizing and theorizing beyond the boundaries of God's Word. Anglicans, however, are more comfortable with mystery. They recognize that God has not given us all the answers. They understand that mankind is finite, so we wouldn't be able to grasp all truth even if God had revealed it to us.
This drive may also lead to discord and division. Anglicans are certainly not strangers to denominational splits, especially in the past two decades, but Presbyterians are painfully accustomed to breaking off and forming new denominations. Their desire for doctrinal purity has often gone too far, causing interpersonal strife and unnecessary separation. Anglicans have done a better job avoiding confrontation (perhaps too much) because they tend to focus on the fundamentals.
Let me offer a couple examples of what I mean by comfort with mystery. Reformed folks spend endless hours debating predestination. Some have under-emphasized man's responsibility in salvation, a few going so far as to become Hyper-Calvinists, refusing even to share the Gospel with those who don't show signs of God working in their lives. Anglicans, even those who would embrace the label of Calvinist, are often much more comfortable affirming that God is sovereign over all things, including salvation, and that men are free agents who must respond to the Gospel. Many consider God's sovereignty and man's free will as incompatible concepts, but Anglicans have no problem affirming both.
Another example is the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation was one of the most divisive topics during the Reformation. The idea that the priests' words literally transform the bread and wine into the physical flesh and blood of Christ was abhorrent to the Reformers. The Reformers themselves split into several camps as they attempted to define the way in which Christ is present in the Sacrament. Lutherans developed the view now known as Consubstantiation, Zwinglians denied the literal presence altogether, and Calvinists taught that Christ is literally present, spiritually. Anglicans went back and forth on the issue, and they do still hold to a variety of views on this issue, but they are generally less concerned with defining how Christ is present in the Sacrament. They are comfortable simply affirming Christ's promise that the bread and wine are His flesh and blood, even if we don't know exactly how that works. Jesus called us to eat His flesh and His blood in the Sacrament, and that's all we need to know. To be sure, they eschewed Transubstantiation, but they weren't/aren't preoccupied with defining exactly how Christ is present at the Table. They simply know that He is present. Certainly it is a mystery that our minds cannot comprehend or define.
These examples illustrate how Anglicans are comfortable affirming two concepts that are difficult to synthesize. The Bible often teaches concepts that appear to be impossible or contradictory. In fact, many of our fundamental views are difficult for finite man to fathom. The Trinity transcends human understanding. The Incarnation, the uniting of humanity and divinity in the Person of Christ, is impossible for finite men to define. The indwelling of Christians by the Holy Spirit cannot be empirically demonstrated or scientifically explained. Balancing this dynamic tension, as it has often been called, requires us to confess the limitations of man's reason. The Bible does not teach contradictory ideas, but it sometimes seems that way to our finite minds. We should be zealous to examine the revelation God has granted us, but sometimes all we can do is embrace the truth and marvel in humility. This sense of mystery is not popular in our post-Enlightenment world. Anglicans, however, have an appreciation for the voices and ideas of the Early Church, which is, perhaps, why they are so comfortable embracing mystery, especially sacramentally.
None of this is to say that truth is subjective or that theology is unimportant. Using our God-given reason to study and systematize God's Word is a worthy venture, but there comes a point at which we must embrace our finitude. We must be satisfied with the Revelation that God has granted us, humbly embracing the truths that we have been given, even when they don't make sense to us. We also need to live in peace with those with whom we disagree on secondary matters. The fundamentals of the faith are non-negotiable, but we will not always agree on how to apply them to our worship and practice. Good and necessary consequence, to use the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, is often highly subjective. One man's logical deductions are another man's logical fallacies. We need to unite over those things that are clearly revealed and extend grace everywhere else. This is the only way that we can find peace, both externally as the Body of Christ, and internally as individuals searching for our place within that Body. What could be more comforting, more restful, than surrendering our own reason before the throne of our infinite, unfathomable God, embracing the mystery of His nature and works?
I have done my best throughout this series to avoid insulting Presbyterianism (I apologize if I have failed), but I am trying to describe Anglicanism from my own perspective, so I have often contrasted Anglicanism and Reformed Presbyterianism. Of the many things that I like about Anglicanism, this comfort with mystery is probably where they contrast most starkly with their Presbyterian brethren. Presbyterianism, as is the case with many Reformed traditions, emphasizes the intellect. Some would say that they are overly-intellectual. To their credit, they have intentionally emphasized doctrine in a world, and a Church, that has abandoned coherence and objective truth. They teach that every man (and woman) is a theologian and has the responsibility to study God's Word and to personalize their faith.
The downside of this, of course, is that it can lead to restlessness and speculation. Presbyterians often suffer from an inordinate compulsion to distinguish and define, to answer every single question imaginable. They sometimes find it difficult to rest in what God has revealed, systematizing and theorizing beyond the boundaries of God's Word. Anglicans, however, are more comfortable with mystery. They recognize that God has not given us all the answers. They understand that mankind is finite, so we wouldn't be able to grasp all truth even if God had revealed it to us.
This drive may also lead to discord and division. Anglicans are certainly not strangers to denominational splits, especially in the past two decades, but Presbyterians are painfully accustomed to breaking off and forming new denominations. Their desire for doctrinal purity has often gone too far, causing interpersonal strife and unnecessary separation. Anglicans have done a better job avoiding confrontation (perhaps too much) because they tend to focus on the fundamentals.
Let me offer a couple examples of what I mean by comfort with mystery. Reformed folks spend endless hours debating predestination. Some have under-emphasized man's responsibility in salvation, a few going so far as to become Hyper-Calvinists, refusing even to share the Gospel with those who don't show signs of God working in their lives. Anglicans, even those who would embrace the label of Calvinist, are often much more comfortable affirming that God is sovereign over all things, including salvation, and that men are free agents who must respond to the Gospel. Many consider God's sovereignty and man's free will as incompatible concepts, but Anglicans have no problem affirming both.
Another example is the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation was one of the most divisive topics during the Reformation. The idea that the priests' words literally transform the bread and wine into the physical flesh and blood of Christ was abhorrent to the Reformers. The Reformers themselves split into several camps as they attempted to define the way in which Christ is present in the Sacrament. Lutherans developed the view now known as Consubstantiation, Zwinglians denied the literal presence altogether, and Calvinists taught that Christ is literally present, spiritually. Anglicans went back and forth on the issue, and they do still hold to a variety of views on this issue, but they are generally less concerned with defining how Christ is present in the Sacrament. They are comfortable simply affirming Christ's promise that the bread and wine are His flesh and blood, even if we don't know exactly how that works. Jesus called us to eat His flesh and His blood in the Sacrament, and that's all we need to know. To be sure, they eschewed Transubstantiation, but they weren't/aren't preoccupied with defining exactly how Christ is present at the Table. They simply know that He is present. Certainly it is a mystery that our minds cannot comprehend or define.
These examples illustrate how Anglicans are comfortable affirming two concepts that are difficult to synthesize. The Bible often teaches concepts that appear to be impossible or contradictory. In fact, many of our fundamental views are difficult for finite man to fathom. The Trinity transcends human understanding. The Incarnation, the uniting of humanity and divinity in the Person of Christ, is impossible for finite men to define. The indwelling of Christians by the Holy Spirit cannot be empirically demonstrated or scientifically explained. Balancing this dynamic tension, as it has often been called, requires us to confess the limitations of man's reason. The Bible does not teach contradictory ideas, but it sometimes seems that way to our finite minds. We should be zealous to examine the revelation God has granted us, but sometimes all we can do is embrace the truth and marvel in humility. This sense of mystery is not popular in our post-Enlightenment world. Anglicans, however, have an appreciation for the voices and ideas of the Early Church, which is, perhaps, why they are so comfortable embracing mystery, especially sacramentally.
None of this is to say that truth is subjective or that theology is unimportant. Using our God-given reason to study and systematize God's Word is a worthy venture, but there comes a point at which we must embrace our finitude. We must be satisfied with the Revelation that God has granted us, humbly embracing the truths that we have been given, even when they don't make sense to us. We also need to live in peace with those with whom we disagree on secondary matters. The fundamentals of the faith are non-negotiable, but we will not always agree on how to apply them to our worship and practice. Good and necessary consequence, to use the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, is often highly subjective. One man's logical deductions are another man's logical fallacies. We need to unite over those things that are clearly revealed and extend grace everywhere else. This is the only way that we can find peace, both externally as the Body of Christ, and internally as individuals searching for our place within that Body. What could be more comforting, more restful, than surrendering our own reason before the throne of our infinite, unfathomable God, embracing the mystery of His nature and works?
Comments
Post a Comment