Anglican and Reformation Theology Comparison

Anglican and Reformation Theology

Comparison of Anglican and Reformation Theology

Among the bewildering number of Christian theologies, the Reformation and Anglican varieties have had an immense influence through the centuries. Begun around the same time in the sixteenth century's response to the dominant Roman Catholicism, both of these schools of thought and faith deviated in significant ways from the mother church. Anglican theology grew partially out of, and was heavily influenced by, developments on the continent. Avis (2007) writes, "When the English reformers disclaimed any intention of promulgating new doctrines this did not mean that they did not have an argument over doctrine with the Church of Rome" (p. 42). After claiming that Anglicans hardly revised the Christological and Trinitarian dogmas, he goes on to say, "Issues concerning salvation, the sacraments, the ministry and authority were the storm centres of Reformation controversy" (Avis, 2007, p. 42). The same was true of the continental Reformation, which began with Luther's Ninety-five Theses (1517) tacked to the Wittenberg church door. Out of these theses flowed the whole of Reformed theological adjustments to the tradition, which caused quite a radical transformation in church life.

On the other hand, Anglicanism proposed something closer to a middle way between Reformation and Catholic theologies. The beginnings of Anglicanism are often traced to the work of Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1532 to 1556. Influenced by continental Reformers, he gave the English reformation its own unique character. According to R.T. Beckwith, it was Cranmer who got authorization for the English translation of the Bible, created the unique English liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer (1552), and authored the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion (which were completed in 1571) that constitute the Anglican confession of faith (1988, p. 21). Beginning with these texts, the Church of England developed its own brand of religious reflection and practice. The liturgical Book of Common Prayer was taken to be the fundamental expression of Anglican doctrine. Its authority for Anglicans rests on the notion of lex orandi lex credenda, "the law of prayer is the law of belief."

This essay aims to compare these two branches of the Christian theological tradition, focusing on their early formulations in the sixteenth century. It will highlight some of the biblical grounding for each position by drawing attention to the key ways in which scripture was understood in support of their positions. By formulating this comparison, it should become clear how purely Reformed theology and Anglican theology tackled the issues of scripture, salvation, sacraments, and the trinity. This approach will give a general idea of the biblical sources of authority, forms of worship, and belief structures that were used to found the two positions.

Scripture

For the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer and others), the Bible alone was authoritative. This is the important doctrine of sola scriptura. The status of the churchman as historically continuous with a tradition was not as relevant for them. The church was founded on the gospel. Luther uses Hebrews 11:1 to say that the church cannot be identified by its outward characteristics since it is invisible. Furthermore, it is founded on preaching and proclamation. Luther based his view of preaching on Romans 10:17. As George (1988) says, "Luther did not invent preaching, but he did elevate it to a new status in Christian worship" (p. 91). This was crucial in the turn toward vernacular and toward the spoken and heard, rather than the read, text.

Both Reformers and Anglicans shared a view from scripture that allowed the vernacular to take hold. In the first place, God commands all to read the Scriptures (Dt. 31:11ff., 17:19ff.; Jer. 36:6ff.; Jn. 5:39, 20:31; Rom. 15:4). Furthermore, the word of God is a spiritual sword for the believer's protection (Eph. 6:17). 1 Corinthians 14:6ff. implies that church language should be in the common tongue. Moreover, these theologians point to texts asserting that people should be instructed and wise, which was interpreted as a need for them to be able to read (Col. 3:16; 2 Cor. 8:7; 1 Cor. 14:5; Phil 1:9; 2 Pet. 1:5). Finally, they point out that Christ taught in own mother tongue. As a result, the Reformers and the Anglicans believed firmly in changing the language into the vernacular and making the biblical text accessible to the masses.

Tradition, however, was not wholly rejected. Luther wanted independence from the Catholic church, but he did not despise previous tradition. Speaking of the creeds, which were neither supplements to scripture nor authoritative texts, George (1988) says, "Rather they protected the true intention of Scripture against heretical deviations" (p. 82). Thus Luther was able to affirm creeds, conciliar decisions, and the sayings of the church fathers if they were judged to be scriptural. At the same time, Luther had his own little canon within the canon. Reardon (1981) says, "Of supreme value, he judges, are St. John's gospel and the same writer's first epistle, the epistles of St. Paul, especially Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, and the First Epistle of Peter" (p. 69). The epistle of James was suspect as it had less of gospel and more of law about it.

The radical reformers went farther in rejecting traditional interpretations of scripture based on this principle. McGrath (1999) argues that the magisterial reformers (non-radicals like Luther and Calvin) did not elevate private judgment above corporate judgment in matters of scriptural interpretation (p. 156). That would have led to chaos. Rather, they were less consistent and allowed the influence, for example, of the Church Fathers since they thought them to be developing a scripture-based theology. McGrath sees this resulting in doctrinal conservatism. Nonetheless, there was a renewed emphasis on returning to the very words of the text with greater or lesser variations of reliance on traditions.

The actual interpretive methods used to approach scripture were less significant than the idea that everyone had the right to interpret its teachings. Interpreting Joshua 6:1-20, Luther prophetically summons the Christian to interpret the text. Later, however, the variance of interpretations led to disputes and political revolts. Most reformers came to believe that one could only interpret scripture correctly if one had fluency in the original languages. McGrath (1999) states, "It is one of the ironies of the Lutheran Reformation that a movement which laid such stress upon the importance of Scripture should subsequently deny its less educated members direct access to that same Scripture, for fear that they might misinterpret it" (p. 165).

Despite its creedal tradition, Anglicanism likewise stressed the fundamental authority of scripture. This aligns Anglicanism with the Reformation principle. Hughes (1965) writes, "This is evident not only everywhere in the writings of the Reformers and in the Book of Common Prayer, but also in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England, in which the comprehensive character of the scriptural principle is amply illustrated" (p. 19). Hughes cites statements showing how these English reformers (like Cranmer, Jewel, and Ridley) believed that God is the author of the scripture. While mediated through human language, it can be taken as immediate voice of God. This view is based on Hebrews 1:1 and 2 Peter 1:21. These "declare respectively that is was God who spoke to the fathers by the prophets and that holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (Hughes, 1965, p. 27). To shore up the notion that the scriptures are the testimony of the Holy Spirit to Christ, texts from John (5:39; 14:26; 15:26) were utilized. As to the practical profitability of scripture, 2 Timothy 3:16 was used.

According to Cranmer's Article 20, scripture constraints ecclesiastical authority, subordinating it to the word of scripture. It declares that "it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another" (Thomas, 1976). In effect, this article declares that the church cannot abuse scripture, and that its primary power is over the rituals and controversies of faith, which it is to negotiate by reference to the scriptures. Scripture rules individual faith, whereas the church rules the administration of ceremonies.

With respect to interpretation, the Anglicans advocated the literal sense, which was also the spiritual sense. Allegory was thrown out. Scripture was sufficient, inspired, and authoritative, as shown by 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:21, and 1 Corinthians 14:37. In addition, Cranmer's Article 7 considers the Old and New Testaments a single non-conflicting unity in which the old law and promises are applied and given new expression in the new (Thomas, 1976). But Anglicanism asserted reason as an aid to interpretation. This contrasts slightly with the Reformers. The Anglican Richard Hooker thought that reason was the human tool needed to understand its secrets and benefits. Eppley (2002) states, "In this manner Hooker claimed that in all but the most extraordinary circumstances reason, empowered by the holy spirit, was the highest standard to which Christians should turn when interpreting the Bible" (p. 262). To combat subjectivity, he called for interpretation to be subject to church authority, which was the voice of reason. Reardon (1981) echoes this interpretation: "Hooker sets out to refute the puritan contention that in religion holy scripture affords the sole and absolute authority and rule" (p. 280). Hooker shows that the narrow principle of sola scriptura "disregards the larger context of the divine law in creation within which even the scriptural revelation must be placed if we are to understand its proper scope and purpose" (Reardon, 1981, p. 280). Not far from the Reformers, they upheld the idea that the directly inspired written word contains supernatural revelation. There is perhaps less emphasis on preaching and proclamation in the Anglicans than in the Reformers.

What is the status of the creeds and traditions? In Anglicanism, the Nicene, the Athanasius, and the Apostle's creeds are stressed as true because they are taken to concur with biblical truth (Article 8). Had they been found to contradict scripture, they would have been questioned rather than proved. Creeds are guides for personal development and exist in harmony with such biblical texts as 1 John 5:1, John 4:21, and John 3:36 regarding trust and belief of a person. Anglicanism incorporates a heavy dose of the teachings of the Church Fathers. Tradition supplements scripture. In essence, Anglicanism realizes that one's approach to scripture is to a greater or lesser extent already influenced by reason and tradition. The biblical text presupposes their utilization. In addition, in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (1888), the Apostle's and Nicene creeds are endorsed as sufficient statements of faith. Beckwith (1988) writes, "Its points were 1. The supremacy and sufficiency of the Scriptures; 2. The Apostles' Creed, as the baptismal symbol (no longer so today) in many places, and the Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith; 3. The two dominical sacraments; 4. The historic episcopate" (p. 22). This position was affirmed in this later statement of Anglican identity and unity.

Salvation

In his Ninety-five Theses, Luther criticizes the all-embracing claim of the Pope to give plenary remission of sins through indulgences. In thesis two, repentance does not refer to the sacrament of penance as administered by the clergy, but to inner repentance that produces outward mortification (Aland, 2004, p. 55). The entire series of statements can be read as a condemnation of the papal practice of selling indulgences. This practice, Luther believed, was corrupt. For example, thesis fifty-two states: "It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security" (Aland, 2004, p. 59). In other words indulgences cannot remove sin or guilt (thesis seventy-six).

According to McGrath, it is impossible to understand the Reformer's view on salvation without grasping the network of biblical thought related to redemption through Christ (1999, pp. 101-02). This network includes many kinds of biblical images: images of Christ's victory over sin and death that can be shared through faith, images of changed legal status, images of changed personal status, images of liberation, and images of restoration to wholeness. In this context, Reformers such as Luther and Calvin stressed grace and justification by faith, not by works. McGrath (1999) says, "The doctrine of justification by faith alone is an affirmation that God does everything necessary for salvation" (p. 113). This view came out of a deep reflection on Paul's epistle to the Romans and his notion of God's justice. Realizing that God gives grace (Matt. 7:7-8), true repentance became the result, not the precondition, of grace. Righteousness is God's work imputed to the person. This revised Luther's understanding of texts such as Romans 1:17 and 4:7 that speak of God's justice. This view of justification by faith is based in preconceptions of bondage to sin and depravity that Luther took from Romans and John 8:34-44.

Likewise, Anglicanism saw the need for salvation as the need to regenerate from a sinful nature. Sin is a condition (Rom. 7:18, 8:7; Eph. 2:1). The Anglicans, like the Reformers, uphold an Augustinian view by which original sin is passed on naturally and exists as a fundamental characteristic of all humans (Article 9). Opposing Catholicism, it said that baptism cannot eliminate this sinful nature, even after faith. This basic fallen condition means that humans cannot turn to God on their own strength and will (Article 10). In other words, there is no real choice in the matter of grace. Hughes (1965) characterizes the Anglican view this way: "The necessity of faith is not a necessity of human initiative, but a necessity of response to the divine initiative" (p. 54). No one can choose to be good in God's sight. Salvation cannot be won through works, but only through the grace of God. This view is based on Philippians 2:13, and, in Cranmer, a reformed understanding of Romans 3 (Brooks, 2002, p. 248). It is an affirmation of justification by faith alone, and as such a refutation of Roman doctrine of the Mass.

Hooker's Anglican ideas of justification followed a typically Calvinist trajectory. He rejected all notions that humans could earn salvation. Eppley (2002) states, "While nothing a human being could do was meritorious or efficacious toward salvation, Hooker recognized sanctifying righteousness and its fruit, good works, as a necessary accompaniment to justifying righteousness" (p. 254). According to Eppley, participation in the Word of God was the first of Hooker's prerequisites for salvation (2002, p. 256). Salvation must be conceived through what the scriptures teach. Cranmer's Article 6 says, "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation" (Thomas, 1976). Here the Bible, and no other text, teaching, or tradition, is necessary for grasping the message. At the same time, this seems to discount any form of salvation that would come outside the text (as, for example, through the Holy Spirit in reformed theology, or through sacrament and tradition in Catholic theology).

However, unlike the Reformers, the Anglicans placed greater value in the sacraments. Eppley says that "the sacraments were also central in bringing Christians to salvation" (2002, p. 256). In other words, salvation comes through the scriptures, but this is mediated through the sacraments as well. The sacraments were necessary, not because they bestowed grace but because they placed the believer into the assembly. The sacraments dispense grace, sanctification, and salvation.

In terms of justification, Article 11 says, "We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works and deservings" (Thomas, 1979). In this way, justification is not linked with sanctification, which is impossible since the sin nature remains. It is clearly based on the substitutionary death of Christ applied to the human believer as found in biblical texts that speak of Christ's purifying blood (Matt. 11:19, 12:37; Luke 7:35; Acts 13:38-39; John 13:10; 1 John 1:7; 1 Thess. 5:24; Rev. 13:8). Article 18 says that a person can be saved only through the name of Christ (Thomas, 1976). It does not come through any affiliation with law or sect. As Article 31 states, "The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone" (Thomas, 1976).

Sacraments

Luther attacked the sacraments vehemently in The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520). George (1988) writes, "Luther attacked the 'mechanical' doctrine of the sacraments, that is, the idea that the sacraments by virtue of their being performed (ex opera operato) conveyed grace to everyone not in a state of mortal sin" (p. 93). In Luther's view, the sacraments were promises of God to which signs have been attached. For example, one could receive salvation without baptism. It was not necessary in the same way as receiving and believing were necessary. In other words, faith was more important than the sacraments, which only expressed belief and were not sufficient for salvation. Luther retained nonetheless a high view of the two major sacraments, eventually tossing aside the other five.

Luther accepted a modified form of transubstantiation. The body and blood are indeed really present in the Eucharist, based on a literal interpretation of Matthew 26:26. Luther's views were received with disbelief by other reformers. Zwingli, for instance, saw the sacraments primarily as a "declaration of allegiance of an individual to a community" (McGrath, 1999, p. 180). It is how one proves one's belonging to the church. He interprets Matthew 26:26 metaphorically, on the basis of his interpretations of other texts (such as John 1 and 15) in which "is" means "signifies." Furthermore, Zwingli elevates the preaching of the Word above the sacraments. McGrath writes (1999), "Where Luther included a new emphasis upon preaching within the context of the eucharist, Zwingli insisted that preaching displace the eucharist from its customary weekly Sunday celebration" (p. 188). Yet for all the Reformers, the sacraments formed the basis for inclusion within the Church, and thus were identity-giving.

With respect to Baptism, Calvin shows both sides of the Reformation position. In the first place, baptism is an initiatory ceremony that demonstrates the loyalty and pledge of the faithful to the ecclesial community (ala Zwingli) (see George, 1988, p. 139). But he adds the more Lutheran view that baptism is a sign of the remission of sins and new life in Christ (ala Luther). For all the Reformers, baptism was based less on Matthew 28 than on the baptism of John the Baptist in John 1. Infant baptism was affirmed, inferred from texts about children such as Luke 18:15-17, Mark 10:14, Matthew 18:10, arguments from the analogy of circumcision (Gen. 21:4; Col. 2:11ff.), the notion that the faithful are children of Abraham (Gal. 3:7, 29), and examples such as Acts 16:33 where all the family is baptized at conversion.

Anglicanism depicts the church as an assembly of the faithful in which God's word is preached and the sacraments are administered. Referencing Cranmer's zeal for patristic inheritance, P.N. Brooks (2002) writes, "If scriptural principles laid firm foundations, patristic consensus frequently furnished the coping stones of profound respect for genuine church tradition" (p. 247). Both the preaching and administration, in Anglican view, must be done in the common language (Article 24). This clearly deviates from Catholicism and follows the lines of Reformation theology with its emphasis on the vernacular and its understandability in the congregation. Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer assimilates some of the Reformed doctrines, particularly in its revised form of 1552. For instance, as Reardon (1981) remarks, administrative words for the Eucharist were deleted and replaced by more Zwinglian notions, as were the words "altar" and "mass," in addition to no provisions in the liturgy for anointing of the sick (p. 259). Yet, as Brooks (2002) says, "the Eucharist was not discussed in isolation but carefully related to Christian proclamation as a whole" (p. 247).

Article 25 outlines the Anglican position on the sacraments, clearly relegating the five additional sacraments (confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction) to a secondary place. It affirms the two major sacraments as biblically based: "There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord" (Thomas, 1976). These two are the only ones taken for biblically established. Furthermore, these are not tokens of profession only, but "sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace" that God's work is done invisibly in the person. Anglicanism does not worship the sacraments, nor does it affirm that merely partaking of the sacraments invests the participant with saving grace. They are outward signs of a divine work accomplished invisibly. For example, the Eucharist is a sign both of Christian bonding and of redemption.