Review: Reformation of the Church by Iain Murray (part 3 of 12)
This post is the third of what will ultimately be twelve essays interacting with Iain Murray's book The Reformation of the Church.
________________________
In Section III of The Reformation of the Church, Iain Murray begins the examination of “The Need for Reformation” with three excerpted articles, one on the many abuses in the Church of England in the sixteenth century and two on the relation of the state to the church. Thomas Wilcox, in “The Necessity of Reformation”, written to Parliament in 1572, lays out various ways in which the English church still resembled too much the Roman church and failed to reflect the standards of Scripture. Among the abuses he attacks are absenteeism, scarcity of preaching, lack of a plurality of elders, corruption of the office of deacons, and failure of “ecclesiastical discipline.” William Ames, writing in 1631, continues a dialogue “Concerning a National Church” by responding to an essay by Dr. John Burgess. In the excerpt, Ames argues that a state-run hierarchy ruling local churches is found nowhere in Scripture, and that unity among particular churches is found primarily in common confession, not in organizational rule. Finally, Charles Hodge, writing in 1863, surveys various ways in which state and church related to one another throughout history, showing that the separation of church and state that has characterized the United States is both biblical and a historical innovation.
Wilcox’s thoughts on needed reform in the Church of England are significant in light of recent discussions because they essentially represent an application of the regulative principle beyond worship (formal services, that is) to the rest of church life and polity.[Blogger's note: This refers to discussions among myself and my fellow interns.] He goes on for several pages elaborating on the stark contrast between the Anglican church, with all its extant ceremony and extra-scriptural offices and practices, and the early church of the Apostolic age, when the church simply observed the ordinances of Christ in what John Cotton later called “their native puritie and simplicitie.”
Wilcox’s boldness in so frankly laying out all the ways the church needed reform is both breathtaking and inspiring. In a time when disagreeing with the civil and ecclesiastical authorities could have dire consequences, it took great courage and commitment to the rule of the Word of God to declare, “we in England are so far off from having a Church rightly reformed, according to the prescript of God’s Word, that as yet we are not come to the outward face of the same.” Though Hodge’s assertion that the Reformation in England was effected by the civil power rather than the clergy or the people, surely men like Wilcox must have played a large role in pushing the English church beyond mere separation from Rome and towards true Scriptural reform.
Ames’ thoughts “Concerning a National Church” seem to represent an important development both for the modern idea of the separation of church and state and also for the autonomy of the local congregation. Ames is not writing as a Congregationalist, and in fact his argument leaves open ample room for organic bottom-up organization such as Presbyterianism, over against the top-down hierarchical episcopacy. However, some of his statements such as, “I never read either in Scripture or in any orthodox writer, of a visible particular Church,” reflect a growing awareness in the Reformation world of the rule of Scripture for church government, which formed the basis for congregationalism to be recovered by some of the English Puritans.
________________________
In Section III of The Reformation of the Church, Iain Murray begins the examination of “The Need for Reformation” with three excerpted articles, one on the many abuses in the Church of England in the sixteenth century and two on the relation of the state to the church. Thomas Wilcox, in “The Necessity of Reformation”, written to Parliament in 1572, lays out various ways in which the English church still resembled too much the Roman church and failed to reflect the standards of Scripture. Among the abuses he attacks are absenteeism, scarcity of preaching, lack of a plurality of elders, corruption of the office of deacons, and failure of “ecclesiastical discipline.” William Ames, writing in 1631, continues a dialogue “Concerning a National Church” by responding to an essay by Dr. John Burgess. In the excerpt, Ames argues that a state-run hierarchy ruling local churches is found nowhere in Scripture, and that unity among particular churches is found primarily in common confession, not in organizational rule. Finally, Charles Hodge, writing in 1863, surveys various ways in which state and church related to one another throughout history, showing that the separation of church and state that has characterized the United States is both biblical and a historical innovation.
Wilcox’s thoughts on needed reform in the Church of England are significant in light of recent discussions because they essentially represent an application of the regulative principle beyond worship (formal services, that is) to the rest of church life and polity.[Blogger's note: This refers to discussions among myself and my fellow interns.] He goes on for several pages elaborating on the stark contrast between the Anglican church, with all its extant ceremony and extra-scriptural offices and practices, and the early church of the Apostolic age, when the church simply observed the ordinances of Christ in what John Cotton later called “their native puritie and simplicitie.”
Wilcox’s boldness in so frankly laying out all the ways the church needed reform is both breathtaking and inspiring. In a time when disagreeing with the civil and ecclesiastical authorities could have dire consequences, it took great courage and commitment to the rule of the Word of God to declare, “we in England are so far off from having a Church rightly reformed, according to the prescript of God’s Word, that as yet we are not come to the outward face of the same.” Though Hodge’s assertion that the Reformation in England was effected by the civil power rather than the clergy or the people, surely men like Wilcox must have played a large role in pushing the English church beyond mere separation from Rome and towards true Scriptural reform.
Ames’ thoughts “Concerning a National Church” seem to represent an important development both for the modern idea of the separation of church and state and also for the autonomy of the local congregation. Ames is not writing as a Congregationalist, and in fact his argument leaves open ample room for organic bottom-up organization such as Presbyterianism, over against the top-down hierarchical episcopacy. However, some of his statements such as, “I never read either in Scripture or in any orthodox writer, of a visible particular Church,” reflect a growing awareness in the Reformation world of the rule of Scripture for church government, which formed the basis for congregationalism to be recovered by some of the English Puritans.
posted by Jeff at 7:29 PM
<< Home