Faith and Authority

Article 20 of the 39 Articles:

The church has authority to decree forms of worship and ceremonies and to decide in controversies concerning the faith. However, it is not lawful for the church to order anything contrary to God's written Word. Nor may it expound one passage of Scripture so that it contradicts another passage. So, although the church is a witness and guardian to holy Scripture, it must not decree anything contrary to Scripture, nor is it to enforce belief in anything additional to Scripture as essential to salvation.

What happens when Christians disagree? Where do we turn for answers? Who decides who is right and who is wrong? Such questions aren't academic. Just think about some of the disagreements we may have: Maybe we disagree on music: what sort should we have on a Sunday? Maybe we disagree on the formality and structure of our services: when, where and how should we conduct our gatherings? Maybe it's a point of practice, such as baptism: sprinkling or full immersion, believer's baptism or infant? Or if we up the stakes, maybe we disagree about the role of women in the church? Can they preach God's word? Should women be ordained as spiritual leaders? Maybe we disagree about the nature of marriage: as long as two people love each other, does it really matter whether it's one man and one woman or two men or two women?

These are not purely academic questions. These, and many like them, are very practical – and we often talk about these things, don't we? But when we do, we may fail to realise that they are all outworkings of a more fundamental disagreement – and that concerns authority. Where do we turn to get the authority to argue our point of view? Feelings? Experience? Preference? Tradition? The church? The Bible?

Of course, to raise the question of where we get our authority may not resolve our differences (be it music, structure, mode and nature of baptism) but it does bring clarity. And this is the reason behind Article 20. It seeks to bring clarity to the nature and extent of the authority of the church. When the article was written, it was seeking to clarify the nature of the authority of the reformed church compared to the Roman church. The break with Rome was pretty huge. We celebrate the 500th anniversary of it this October. It's known as the Reformation. It was a seismic shift in many ways, made possible in this country initially by Henry VIII – think of it like 'Brexit Mark 1' with the leader of the country taking on a huge euro-centric institution with many unresolved problems. And the problem that this Article was addressing concerned the authority of the Pope, who embodied the church, was the keeper of Scripture and, in effect, had ultimate authority. But how could a fallen human being be given that much authority? That's part of what the original 'Brexiteers' sought to address!

The problem was even they couldn't agree (contemporary lessons to be learned here surely!) and so at the other end of the spectrum, some of the reformation groups reacting to the abuse of the church's power, said that the church should have no authority at all – that it should be the responsibility of the individual Christian to work out what was right or wrong. In the midst of these two extremes, Article 20 seeks to provide a balanced middle way, which sees the ultimate authority reside with God. And, as I hope we will come on to see, it has a searing relevance for the church in the 21st century. So I have three simple headings to help us break this down: what the church can do; what it can't do and what it must do. Firstly then,

1. What The Church Can Do

The Article mentions two things straight off. Firstly, the church "has authority to decree forms of worship and ceremonies" and secondly, it can "decide in controversies concerning the faith". Why can we say that? Well firstly we have to understand something about authority itself and where we sit culturally with it! Authority can be defined as this: the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.

Who has that power or right over you? Every organisation - be it a school, business, the military, a family, a trust, whatever – every organisation has its rightful sphere of authority, and yet there is a massive crisis of authority in our culture today. Because the only authority that is acceptable to most of us is the one that is consciously self-imposed: I want a job, therefore I will accept the authority of the organisation. If I don't like it, I can leave and get a different one. In other words, to a certain extent, I can choose which authority I sit under. But the Christian perspective recognises that ultimate authority lies in God. He is the creator of everyone. He is the Lord of everyone. And once we grasp this basic universal principle, the question of authority simply becomes one of trying to find God's will and God's mind on any given issue. And the good news is not only that God has revealed himself to us, but that he has chosen to give us a written source in order to know his truth and bring ourselves under his authority. That's why the Bible is so special. It is the Creator's written word to his creation.

But we have to be honest. There are some things that we won't find in here. According to Hebrews we know we should not stop meeting together…but you'll search in vain to find out what time of day people met, how long for, what those services consisted of and what kind of language was used. We know from Paul that we should sing Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs…but you'll search in vain to find out what instruments should be used or exactly when and how they are used in the gatherings. We also know that Jesus himself told us to break bread and drink wine in remembrance of his death and anticipation of his second coming…but you'll search in vain to know what ceremonies accompanied them and who presided over them. It is exactly these sort of things that Article 20 is addressing when it says that the church "has authority to decree forms of worship and ceremonies".

But it also has authority to "decide in controversies concerning the faith". Now, in case you're sat there thinking: 'Jon, you've been a little light on arguing from Scripture so far', let me introduce now the passage we heard read earlier from the book of Acts… because this passage is one that both demonstrates the church's authority and shows where that authority is rooted. So turn back to Acts 15.1:

But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers [i.e. new believers], "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

A bit of background: Paul and Barnabas have been telling non-Jews they can be saved – accepted by God – simply by trusting that Jesus' death paid for all their sins to be forgiven. But now some Jewish Christians are saying, 'Actually, that's not enough. You must be circumcised as well.' This is clearly a controversy concerning the faith! Read on in verse 2:

And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

Why? Why were they appointed to go there? Because, the church – through its leaders – had the authority to decide in matters of faith. So, Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem and meet with the leaders, they discuss the issues, they search the ultimate authority of God's word (in this case our Old Testament) and then decide this controversy of faith. And, this pattern has been followed repeatedly over the years. The church, through its leaders, has found it necessary to make doctrinal statements (in accordance with the apostles' teaching) in order to clarify issues that have been misunderstood or misapplied.

One very famous example comes from the 4th century, when a chap called Arius began teaching that Jesus had been created - basically calling into question Jesus' own claim to be God. It was down to a group of church leaders, led by a brave man called Athanasius, to oppose Arius. And after due consideration and diligent searching of God's teaching through his word, they decided on this controversy of faith…which resulted in one of the main creeds that we still say today – declaring the biblical truth that Jesus is indeed of the same nature as God the Father (begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father).

So this is what the church can do - decree forms of worship and ceremonies (which is great because all churches need to decide how they're going to govern themselves and function) and decide in controversies concerning the faith. But, there is a massive caveat! In fact there are three, and these form my second point:

2. What The Church Can't Do

i) The church can't "order anything contrary to God's written Word".

In other words, it can't do anything that goes against the teaching of the Bible. And here wonderfully, we see clearly where the supreme authority lies for us as Anglicans… not with an individual, not with an institution, but it lies with God's written word. The authority of the church is subordinate to the authority of Scripture. And back in Acts 15 the early church leaders had that mind-set too. When Paul and Barnabas got to Jerusalem and explained what they had experienced, verse 13 says "they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles". What happens next? James stands up and defers to the part of God's written word that he already had. Verse 15: "And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written" and he goes on to quote the Old Testament book of Amos to back up their decision.

Sadly today – churches can, and do, order things contrary to God's written word. An obvious contemporary example of that concerns the redefinition of marriage, which is completely contrary to God's written word. We know from the start that God ordained marriage – Genesis 2 says that "a man will leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh." We know that both Jesus and Paul referred back to this passage to teach about marriage – one man plus one woman, exclusively, for life! But in the space of a generation, the church has allowed teaching contrary to Scripture to erode this truth – whether it be the 'for life' part (divorce), the 'exclusivity' part (adultery) and now the 'one man and one woman' part (through same sex marriage). But the church does not have the authority to order anything contrary to God's written word. That's the first caveat.

ii) The church can't "expound one passage of Scripture so that it contradicts another passage"

Why not? Because we are convinced that because Scripture is God's word, it is without error. Therefore, if in our limited understanding we interpret passages of Scripture that contradict another passage, we must be wrong, because God can't be! In fact, in the original 'olde worlde' language for this article the word "repugnant" is used – "the church may not expound one part of Scripture that it be repugnant to another." And that's a great way of putting it: to contradict Scripture with Scripture is repugnant – because God's word is pure and holy and without error. One obvious example of this, not at all unrelated to what is going on in Acts 15, is the issue of salvation. If I were to ask you: 'how are we saved?' I'm sure that most of you would tell me, 'It's all an act of God's grace and nothing we can earn.' Indeed, it's this truth that the original 'Brexiteer reformers' fought so hard for: Salvation through Christ alone, by faith alone, by grace alone. Some of you may well think about quoting Paul. Just quickly turn to Galatians 2:16 where he writes this to new Christians in Galatia:

…we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ ... because by works of the law no-one will be justified.

In other words, our salvation is not dependant on any of the things we do. We can't earn it. So that's Paul; then there's James - another apostle. Just quickly turn to James 2:24 where he says this:

You see a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

What?! What is going on? Surely, they both can't be right. Is James denying the heart of the gospel of grace? Or did Paul get it completely wrong? Well, neither! This clause of Article 20 reminds us that we must work at a solution because God's word can't be wrong. When we read God's word we must think about context, we must think about genre, we must think about history, we must think about so many things because otherwise we can make the Bible say whatever we want it to say. So let us think about history to solve this one. We've just been reading in Acts 15 how James fully supported Paul's preaching of salvation by grace alone. Later on in Acts we can read how James defends Paul's reputation among Jewish believers in Jerusalem. We have no record of these chaps being in disagreement. In fact, quite the opposite – on the foundational truths they were completely united. So then we need to think about context and language. And actually, when we do a bit of digging, we find that the Greek word for justify has two different nuances.

Paul is using it in the sense that we are declared righteous – just like a verdict in a legal proceeding – 'not guilty' (even though we are!). Paul is looking at the root of our salvation – at the moment of salvation we are justified through faith and nothing else. But, on the other side of the same coin, James is using the word in the sense that we need to demonstrate that righteousness. So James, isn't concerned with the root of salvation, he is concerned with the fruit – the fruit of good works. We could say that Paul looks from God's perspective, while James looks from the human perspective. And when we see that, and understand that, we see that it is far from repugnant – it is, in fact, wonderfully glorious and again reassuring. The church cannot expound one part of Scripture so that it contradicts another.

iii ) The church can't enforce belief in anything additional to Scripture as essential to salvation.

Look back to that passage in Acts – because that is exactly what is going on there. Verse 1 again:

Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.

And verse 5:

It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.

So here was a group who were basically teaching 'Jesus plus…'. They were saying, 'Jesus isn't enough to make you acceptable to God. You need Jesus plus...' – in this case, Jesus plus circumcision and living under the whole law of Moses. God is very clear in his word, that we must not add anything to it. In the Old Testament reading we heard earlier (Deuteronomy 4.2):

You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.

In the New Testament – at the very end, in Revelation 22.18-19 we read this:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

And yet the sad thing is that 'Jesus plus…' is still being preached all around us in the church today. For example, official Roman Catholic teaching says to be acceptable to God you need Jesus plus the sacraments, or Jesus plus the intercession of the saints or Mary – and so on. That isn't to say no Romans Catholics are saved; but it is to say that official Roman Catholic teaching doesn't get the gospel right. Another example of 'Jesus plus…' teaching can be found in the prosperity gospel which, at its most poisonous, says that real Christians will be healthy and rich. Implication? If God isn't blessing you with wealth and health you are not saved. But, once again, we see how reassuring this Article is, because the bottom line is this: the church has no authority to enforce belief in anything extra to Scripture as essential to salvation. Please don't be taken in by any form of 'Jesus plus…' teaching. The gospel is that Jesus' death on the cross did everything necessary to put you right with God forever, so that, through repentance and faith in Him, all you need is Jesus… full stop! So that's the three things that the church can't do, which although expressed in the negative, I find really encouraging! Finally the Article states:

3. What The Church Must Do

Quite simply the church must be "a witness and guardian to holy Scripture…" which as we've already established, is the ultimate authority. In other words, we (the church) are charged to proclaim and preserve the Bible and its teaching. This is our application this morning – we are all the church - we all have a responsibility to do this. But incredibly, we're not left to be witnesses or guardians in our strength. In Acts 1:8 Jesus says:

you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.

In other words, God in us helps us to be witnesses and proclaim the truth. This is Paul to his young protégé Timothy (2 Timothy 1.14):

By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.

In other words, God in us helps us to be guardians of the truth. Two quick thoughts about how we do that practically to close. Firstly, we need to witness in both word and deed. We need to live our lives in such a way so that not only do we tell people that our ultimate authority is Scripture, but that we show them by the way we live. So when, for example, we have to sacrifice other activities so that we don't give up meeting together (be it Sunday, Wednesday Home Group or prayer meeting), we do so as a witness to God's word.

Secondly, we can only be guardians of the truth if we know the truth! And so, we must listen to the Bible and read it regularly. And then we must be ready to defend it on our front lines – or at least try to. It isn't enough (really it isn't) to leave 'the defending' to great organisations like the Christian Institute, or to Church leaders. You know sadly, much of the church in this country today (and even worse – especially many in the Church of England who claim to ascent to these articles) seem to want to witness to an unbelieving world with a vague, wishy-washy gospel that has not been faithfully guarded and protected. Yes now, just as much as it ever has been necessary, our church leaders (especially in our denomination) need to decide on controversies of faith and provide clear biblical leadership. But it's not just their job. As the individuals who make up the church we have a responsibility to know and tell the gospel, and keep bringing an unbelieving world back to ultimate authority and truth of God's word.