"The Nature Of Christian Belief"

"The Nature of Christian Belief" is the title of a Report to the Church of England Synod by its House of Bishops. Published in April 1986, it was the fruit of the bishops' reflection on a widely publicized debate in the General Synod in 1985. The debate had centred on the Bishop of Durham's views about the virgin birth and bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus. There was deep disquiet that his views undermined confidence in the literal truth of these fundamentals of the gospel story.

The Report re-affirmed the literal truth of these miracles as the official doctrine of the Anglican Church. As to the Lord's birth: "The central miracle, the heart of the Christian understanding of God, is the Incarnation itself... the belief that Our Lord was conceived in the womb by Mary ... without the intervention of a human father can be held with full intellectual integrity". As to the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus, the Church's teaching was that He "truly experienced human death; that that state of death was ended and wholly overcome; that there was genuine continuity between his dying self and his risen self; that the mode of existence of the Risen Lord was one in which his full human nature and identity, bodily, mental and spiritual, were present and glorified for eternal blessedness; and that his mode of existence was observed and experienced, and its essential secret grasped, by numbers of his disciples in personal encounter". It's a cause for thankfulness that these great truths were endorsed in contrast to concepts of religious philosophy which attempt to explain away the literal miracles of the Lord's virgin birth and bodily resurrection.

Yet the Report also proposed liberty for individual bishops to have divergent views on these vital truths. "Divergent views to be found among scholars of standing are reflected in the thinking of individual bishops ... A bishop may properly enter into questionings on matters of belief ... But in all he says he must take care not to present variant beliefs as if they were the faith of the Church; and he must always make as sure as he can that his hearers understand what that faith is and the reasons for it".

The depth of one bishop's personal reservations was soon apparent! There had been judicious praise for the Report, though some fundamentalists were dissatisfied. A leading evangelical made the point that the bishops had not come out unambiguously enough on what they actually believed in; until they did there would be continuing confusion. But the Bishop of Durham strongly reaffirmed his personal views. Referring to the virgin birth and empty tomb he said: "What sort of God are we portraying and believing in if we insist on what I will nickname 'the divine laser beam' type of miracle as the heart and basis of Incarnation and Resurrection? If we do so insist then we are implying if not portraying a god who is at best a cultic idol and at the worst a very devil". Durham was emotionally overcome as he went on: "We are always trying to pin God down by getting it cut and dried and decisive. God is always wanting to set us free to share in the mystery". He further called for a less firmly rooted view of God and acceptance of differences of belief within the Church.

Dr. Jenkins' speech received a standing ovation, and he was later thanked by the Archbishop of Canterbury for a "moving and personal exploration of the questions before us". But one reviewer commented: "Instead of bowing out, Durham has counterattacked, deepening and widening his position, and the whole doctrinal muddle is back to square one". The outcome remains to be seen.

"What saith the Scripture?" Leadership of New Testament churches of God was entrusted to elders "holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching" (Titus 1:9). They were responsible to "hold the pattern of sound words" (2 Tim. 1:13). There is �~no scriptural precedent for church leadership by those without personal conviction in the accepted truths of the faith. Departure from this guidance in God's word calls for deep heartsearching among all who love the Lord Jesus Christ. If a church tolerates leaders who openly express their disagreement with basic truths about the Lord, should disciples of Christ remain in fellowship with that church? We believe not. The challenge of Heb. 13:13 rings out clearly in our time: "Let us therefore go forth unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach". Christians of that day were called to leave their traditional religious setting and go forth unto Him, outside the camp. There they united with other disciples who had responded to the call. Together they joyfully served the Lord in divinely constituted churches of God. Should we be content with anything less today?

unknown | Nov 1986
Focus