We had midterms this past week, which caused no little stress in my life. This was the perfect storm of schoolwork, and I cannot remember doing more work in one week since I had to write my senior thesis in a week, and then preach that Sunday, a couple of years ago. Praise God for his strength through this week, but I am very glad to have been lifted out of Sheol. (Okay, I might be exaggerating a little bit there.)
Changing the subject, I have been very interested, since I took a Puritan Spirituality class last January, in the relationship between Puritans (who largely led to my Presbyterian denomination) and Anglicans. Certainly, many Anglicans were Puritans, but there were many parts of Anglicanism that caused Puritans to reject the Church of England with great passion. The problem then was not the same problem that we have now–that is, the growing liberalism in the (western) Anglican church that almost wholly rejects the true gospel–but mainly a difference over whether the priest would wear vestments (or even if we should call the pastor a priest!), the use of art and lavish architecture in churches, and the celebration of holy days. Strict Puritans followed the “Regulative Principle of Worship” rigorously, while Anglicans were more likely to appropriate certain elements of the Catholic tradition into their worship (that is, they followed the Normative Principle of Worship). On the other hand, however, most of the doctrine itself in the Anglican church is highly influenced by John Calvin and his Puritan offspring. (Just take a look at the 39 Articles some time.) One day, a PCA friend in seminary with me mentioned that he was hoping that more Anglicans would join the PCA instead of mainly Baptists, so that more and more of the PCA membership in the future would bring in a high, rather than a strictly memorial, view of the sacraments. That comment, though, caused me to wonder whether we Presbyterians might benefit from resurrecting the old Anglicans by reading their theology and poetry, just as we benefit from reading the old Puritans. With that in mind, I picked up a book with some of the poetry and writings of John Donne and George Herbert, two of the greatest writers in the English language, both of whom were Anglicans and wrote substantial Christian poetry, sermons, and essays in the 17th century. So, when I have time this semester, I’m going to try to get into some of their poetry, and I’ll try to pass along the best of it to you. As a good example of John Donne, read “At the Round Earth’s Imagined Corners.” I sang a gorgeous arrangement of this song in high school, and I found a YouTube video of another high school singing the song here. It is a breathtaking, vivid account of the hope of the resurrection. As an example of George Herbert, allow me to present a poem he wrote on one of my favorite subjects. It is entitled “Holy Baptism,” and, as you will see, Herbert was big about formatting his poems:Since, Lord, to thee
Oh let me still
A narrow way and little gate
Is all the passage, on my infancy
Thou didst lay hold, and antedate
My faith in me.
Write thee great God, and me a child:
Let me be soft and supple to thy will,
Small to myself, to others mild,
Behither ill. Although by stealth
My flesh get on; yet let her sister
My soul bid nothing, but preserve her wealth:
The growth of flesh is but a blister,
Childhood is health.
As a quasi-Anglican/Lutheran with several Calvinist friends, I appreciate your interdenominational openness. Denominational differences have always baffled me and that fact that present Anglicans and Lutherans do not necessarily think the same things as old Anglicans and Lutherans only exacerbates my confusion. About the only thing I am sure of label-wise is that I am Protestant, but that does not narrow things down very much.
Tangentially, I am also having difficulty deciding how to label my political stances as well. At this rate, I am going to have to join some third-party that has very well defined positions and therefore will never be electorally viable.
The At the Round Earths Imagined Corners video gave me goosebumps. That was one of my favorite pieces we sang.
On similar notes as Ben’s comment, I appreciate interdenominational openness (something I touched on in my last post). I think the division of denominations do more harm than good–and of course the whole “non-denominational” attempt is merely another faction.
I would place myself on the “high” view of the sacraments and of Presbyterianism, and even though I’ve chosen the PCA, I could almost as easily see myself as an Anglican or Lutheran. I was discussing infant baptism with someone, and they remarked that within the PCA infant baptism is no more than a baby dedication. I disagreed with that (for one, it’s a blanket statement), and while I’m sure some see it that way, I myself would disagree. If I ever have kids and undoubtedly baptize them, I would reserve much more significance and importance for it than a dedication (which I’m not insinuating should be taken lightly either, but it’s not baptism.)
Speaking of sacraments, are you referring to the two: baptism and Eucharist, or the seven?
Two things:
How was your visit to the Greek Orthodox church?
I feel as though I should be vaguely insulted that my comments are awaiting moderation.
Ben–
I mainly posted the YouTube video for you, since you sang it with me. 🙂
One of the best parts about Beeson is its interdenominational vision. I love it because I am constantly learning from people outside of my own tradition. It is a very healthy thing, I think.
Join the Constitution Party.
Lindsey–
I’m sorry that you were moderated, but that shouldn’t happen any more after now. I think that, once you have been approved, you can post as much as you want. So, feel free. 🙂
Also, I have not yet gone to the Greek Orthodox church, but I am planning on doing so next Sunday (i.e., not tomorrow).
As far as PCA infant baptisms being “dedications,” I think that that is a perception that a lot of people have (although that isn’t so much the case where I go to church), which is why I would like to see the general view of the sacraments raised within the PCA. Honestly, I think that we need to start looking back toward some of the earlier reformers (Anglicans and people like John Calvin alike) in order to accomplish this.
And, to answer your question, I only believe in two sacraments, when we define “sacrament” as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. I do, however, think of many things as “sacramental,” but that’s another post entirely.
Lindsey – Just curious: Do you still think that having the Lord’s Supper every week makes it less significant/meaningful? I recall you saying that a year or so ago; I was curious if your newfound Presbyterianism (or maybe just Zion’s weekly practice) had changed your mind. 🙂
Jacob and Lindsey,
I’m curious, how high a view of the sacraments would you advocate? Would you go so far as to declare the baptized child regenerate, as the Anglican Book of Common Prayer does?
Well, I wouldn’t advocate quite so high of a view of the sacraments (as I think an earlier post made clear), but I’m not so sure that the Anglican Book of Common Prayer is actually suggesting that the water baptism itself has regenerated the child beyond any doubt. To my understanding, Anglicans do not believe that the sign itself regenerates.
Instead, the 39 Articles states: “Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.”
So, baptism is a sign of something real–Redemption and New Birth that comes through Christ–but just because it is a sign of something real does not mean that the recipient necessarily and infallibly has the reality. Notice that the 30 Articles puts a condition that, to gain the benefits of baptism, one must “receive Baptism rightly.” Infants that do receive baptism rightly (i.e., with faith, which is a gift that comes from God, even if no one is able to recognize that faith until the child grows older) are regenerate; those that do not receive baptism rightly–without faith–are not regenerate.
Nevertheless, there is no reason to assume that the child does not have faith, since we believe the covenant promises of God. Now, if the child grows up and never demonstrates any fruit of the Spirit, then we should rightly doubt the child’s regeneration and practice church discipline.
I would note that the same would be true of someone who professed faith and seemed to be regenerate. In such a case, there would be no need to doubt that profession of faith unless that person in some way causes us to doubt their regeneration, and then we should initiate church discipline.
So, to get back to answering your question, I *think* that, when the BCP says, “Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is regenerate…,” it is making as much of a pronouncement as a Baptist would make at an adult’s baptism concerning the status of regeneration of the one being baptized.
Does that make sense?
Jacob, that makes sense to me, but I’m still curious what you (and Lindsey) mean when you advocate a “high view of the sacraments.” What you’re describing doesn’t seem any different to me than what is taught in reformed covenant theology about infant baptism (i.e. as it’s practiced/believed in the PCA), so I’m still unclear on what it is you think needs to change.
Bethany–
I absolutely agree with you, and that’s actually my point. I have heard/read things from a lot of PCA members (especially in this part of the country) that betray a more Baptist view of the sacraments. They would be uncomfortable with the way that I just described infant baptism (and they would take a strictly memorial view of the Lord’s Supper), even though that position is very close to that of Calvin.
Now, to my understanding, neither Zion nor Faith (the church I am at right now) takes the lower view of the sacraments, but that is not universal across all PCA churches, especially here in the South. So, it isn’t the official doctrinal stance of the PCA, but the personal views of the PCA’s members that I think needs to change.
That is why I would like to see more Anglicans come into the PCA rather than all Baptists; we Presbyterians share a common theological heritage with Anglicans in regard to the sacraments. I love Baptists, but I disagree with their views on this matter.
Can I just nod my head vigorously at what Jacob has just said? That seems a cop-out, but I doubt I could have stated for myself what Jacob just did rather eloquently. And I agree whole-heartedly.
To reiterate for myself on Jacob’s last comment that from what I have read of reformed covenant theology seems to take the “high” approach. But the actual practice and personal belief I think varies and can be quite low in some cases. I haven’t been to every PCA church across the country, but in my limited experience and discussion, there seems to be some fluctuation (which, is not surprising) and for me at least, I would hope to always attend a church that had a high view of the sacraments. And like I said: if I weren’t a Presbyterian, I’d be an Anglican.
To answer your question Bethany, I would now disagree with what I said a year ago (do not repeat what I said then!) as weekly repetition has actually increased the significance of the Eucharist for me. I think part of it is due in great part to the care given at Zion in explaining and serving it, rather than rushing through it. The repetition reinforces and reminds. That’s a great strength and a draw for me, for liturgy as a whole. And therein lies a post I’ve been meaning to write. Maybe I’ll get to that later this week.
And to Andrew, yes, I would go that far. But with the understanding that Jacob so nicely outlined. I think Protestants kind of freak out if we appear to come too near the line of “salvation through baptism” and sacrifice something like what it is in the Anglican Common Book of Prayer for a watered down version just so EVERYONE knows that’s NOT WHAT WE’RE SAYING.
Jacob – I see what you’re saying now. I would agree with you that it is quite common for people who attend PCA churches (and even people who join PCA churches as members) to not agree with, or even know much about, the doctrinal standards of the PCA. I doubt that you’ll find many PCA churches where the pastor/elders/leadership don’t uphold the doctrines (if you do, their presbytery should be informed ASAP), but I’d think at virtually every PCA church you’d have members who don’t. I think especially at larger churches (above 200 people, say), that’s more and more the case. I would say that Zion and its leaders have quite a high view of the sacramanets, but I can think of many congregants who probably don’t as much. Different PCA churches probably vary in how aggressive they are in addresses that issue, in trying to teach and persuade their members of the doctrinal standards of the PCA, but I’d think (hope) that the standards of the churches themselves are fairly across the board. The fact that so many members can and do disagree with those doctrines is, I think, a natural consequence of a denomination in which one doesn’t have to agree with all their doctrinal standards to become a member (as opposed to a Baptist church). I think that’s a good thing, but, like you say, there are a lot more people coming from a Baptist or hazy, non-denom. background to the PCA than from Anglicanism or Catholicism, so these things are probably more proliferated. Perhaps the solution isn’t just trying to lure more “high church” folks to the PCA, but more effectively shepherding and teaching the members it has.
Lindsey: Regarding your quote, “I haven’t been to every PCA church across the country, but in my limited experience and discussion, there seems to be some fluctuation (which, is not surprising) and for me at least, I would hope to always attend a church that had a high view of the sacraments.”
Which PCA churches have you been to, and in what respect did you see the fluctuation in upholding the doctrinal standards of the PCA?
Sorry to add a third comment, but since there’s no option to delete or edit your own comments, I must add to my most immediately previous comment to Lindsey:
I’m not asking to try to be an ass; I’m genuinely curious, because my understanding is that the various presbyteries keep a fairly tight rein on what goes on as far as pastoral teaching. I myself have only been to a handful of PCA churches (8 in total, I think, and only 4 of those as a regular member), so my impressions may be off-base.
Well Bethany, I think you answered your own question for me in your response to Jacob. Like I said, my experience is limited. If you want to get specific, I was referring to attending four PCA churches in AR, two in MS, 1 in KS, and Zion, and then of course numerous discussions with PCA friends and professors at college. While I can’t say I’ve examined the leadership and doctrine relationship at all of those, from what I do know, they all maintain a “high” view of the sacraments.
When I was referring to fluctuation, it was within membership. And I think that’s true of any church, in any denomination. You have people who are knowledgeable about reformed covenant theology, and others who would probably say, “So why exactly do we do it that way?” And while I think the PCA would benefit from the a greater influx of Anglicans than Baptists (not that the Baptists should be turned away, but you know, this has already been discussed in the comments) you’re right in saying that regardless of who comes and from where, it’s effective teaching that is needed so that people know why their church does this or that. Obviously you can’t force members to hold the same views (nor should you insist upon that), but teaching everyone from the original members to the newcomers why (for example) you take communion every week is I think, vital. Does that answer your question?