21st C British Evangelism

 We should certainly make full use of the internet and other technologies. 

But in general, we would be wise to expect evangelism to be slower and harder than it was in 1800, 1900 or even 1950. 

Many people have much less background in the Christian faith. To some it will have novelty appeal. As it is less familiar, it may face less contempt. But some people still think they know it and they don't need it. It is not really known but it is rejected nevertheless. It does not seem plausible. Or at least not any more plausible than many other alternatives. Atheism may seem intellectually credible. Buddhism may have its attractions. To some Biblical Christianity will seem impossible or toxic. If someone is interested in the big questions of life, it might not be obvious to head to their nearest bible or church. 

The narratives of our culture are different from Reformation times. No doubt people ought to feel their sin and guilt and fear the penalty of a just God, but they may be more interested in how to live an authentic fully human life than how to avoid the fires of hell. We must get to sin and judgement, but we must also think about likely ways-in or points of contact for the gospel story.   

The witness of our lives, homes and families will be increasingly important if the wider culture decays. Evangelism may include things like fostering and adoption and long term service in deprived communities as well as having others round for meals. 

And evangelism must priorities our own families and our own churches. It is no good giving out lots of tracts and losing the kids or the regular but somewhat nominal church goers. 

Evangelism must be a deep work and it must be demonstrated in a gospel culture if it hopes to impact our wider culture. We must know and live and love the story of Jesus if we are to share it with others and invite them in. 

The English Seasons

 Each of the seasons has its own particular glories. To my mind, it is hard to think that this is not somehow connected to themes of birth, death and resurrection; creation, fall, regeneration and consummation. 

The objectivity of Scripture

 Professor Paul Helm has written a helpful little book about the doctrine of Scripture: Just Words? Special Revelation and the Bible (Evangelical Press, 2019). 

One of the things he stresses is the objectivity of the Bible. To be sure there are parts of the Bible which focus on inner feelings. But much of the Bible is concerned with public history. This sets it apart from some other religious texts which largely pass on teachings. The Bible is about real events, indeed, the Event of the cosmos which changes everything: the incarnation, death and resurrection of the God-man. The Bible is thus a true story of this world from creation to New Creation with Jesus at its origin, centre and climax. 

And, in our somewhat post-modern relativistic context, where truth is sometimes claimed to be subjective, it is useful to emphasise that the Bible claims to introduce us to The Word who is The Truth, not to someone who might prove to be true for me. One of the marvels of the Bible, in fact, is that although it was addressed to particular people at particular times about particular issues, all God's people around the world and down the centuries have found that it speaks to them with convincing and life-changing power. This is more than the experience of millions. It is because the Bible is True, objectively and subjectively and if not exactly timelessly, then at least for all times and places and people.  

The Bible offers an objective solution to the objective problem of all people: salvation from sin. The Bible may well, eventually, make us feel better, it should help us to be better, but it is first of all a message of the good news of rescue for sinners because of what God has done. It calls for a subjective response, but also a clear, observable change of allegiance which is more than a matter of something going on in my heart. It transfers me to a new kingdom and makes me a member of a new people with a new life and a new destiny. 

Becoming an expert

 What does it take to become an expert on something or to do something really excellently?

You need a pretty narrow field or a well defined something: goal keeping, making wooden chairs or Calvin's doctrine of Scripture. 

Of course intelligence (the right kind of intelligence for the job) and conscientiousness will be important. Depending on the task you may need openness and creativity. Some spark of natural ability would of course be a great start. 

Almost certainly you need lots of practice. And for that you will likely need a deep interest or commitment. You will need some kind of pay back or motivation. Why are you doing this thing and going on caring about how you are doing it? This thing ought to do something for you.  

But it is no good just to do the same thing again and again if the results are not improving. Make a million rubbish pipe racks and they will still be rubbish. You need critical reflection on your practice. You need to get better. A little bit better every so often over long period of time and you will soon be very good, much better than many others. 

Quite likely you need some outside help: a master who will train the apprentice, or a coach, or a PhD supervisor. 

And speaking of PhDs, that might give us an idea of the amount of time needed. You may well need an undergraduate degree and then a master's degree and then three years of full time work. After that, with any luck, you will have made an original and significant contribution to scholarship and written something that is in principle worthy of publication. You will be an expert. You may well know more about your thing or do your thing better than anyone else in the world. 

So with some background maybe you could do this in 6 years part time. Or in 10 years as a hobby.

Is this a church?

 One of the most pressing current theological questions, it seems to me, is how you recognise a church. This is so because you know you ought to belong to a church. If your church is not a church, you ought to get one!

What is the proper unit? The local congregation? Or something smaller - a homegroup or a cell or a congregation, perhaps? Or something larger? A benefice? Or some other group of churches? Or diocese? Or province? Or denomination?

And what are the essential marks?

The C of E has done some thinking about this.  

Evangelical Anglicans are sometimes accused of lacking an ecclesiology but this is harsh. The Reformed Thirty Nine Articles of Religion contribute a formal statement:

XIX — OF THE CHURCH
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

The Reformed have debated whether discipline should be included. Or is it a matter of the right administration of the sacraments.  

The C of E generally holds that something beyond the local congregation is essential. Likely this Article thinks so. Notice that it speaks of "the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch... also the Church of Rome". These are not single congregations with one vicar who all meet in the same building. 

(For more on this, we would all like to read Lee Gatiss 'The Anglican Doctrine of the Visible Church' Evangelical Quarterly: An International Review of Bible and Theology (2020))

In fact, though evangelicals don't always like it, it is arguable that bishops (the role, not this use of the term bishop to mean bishop!) go back to the New Testament. It seems bishops were well established during the 2nd Century and were generally thought of as pretty important by the 5th. Timothy Bradshaw writes that Anglican ecclesiology "strongly affirms" the office of the bishop, but in precisely what manner is controversial. In his view, evangelical Anglicans generally agree with Anglicanism more broadly that bishops a more ancient and not to be abandoned. However, he says: "episcopacy is ministerial to the church and it cannot be said to be a test of a true church. It may be said to be of the church's 'bene esse' or well-being, not of its 'esse' nor its 'plene esse' or fullness of being." (The Olive Branch, p175) Hilary and Jerome both suggest that bishops are kinds of presbyters (p176) and Cranmer, Jewell and Field held that bishop's superiority over priests was more a matter of custom than divine command (p177). Bradshaw summarises: "All the evangelical doctrinal authors cite lists of representative texts to show that 'no bishop, no church' is a post Tractarian distortion." (p177).     

How much independence a diocese or a province has or should have could be discussed. 

So, maybe an Anglican doctrine of the church requires:

The Word

The Sacraments

And also probably:

Something beyond the congregation 

Bishops (as a matter of custom and order)

But the question still arises to what standard? Must it have the right Bible? Must it preach it well? How many sacraments and how administered? What links must the local congregation have and to whom? And must the bishop be a good chap? Could the bishop be a woman? What must the connection to the historical episcopate be?

This issue of how to spot a church was a question at the Reformation. Was Roman Catholic baptism valid? Was the Church of Rome a true church in any sense? Calvin argued the church of Rome was not a church, but there were churches among them. Hooker thought the Roman Church was a church, but one in very serious error. 

This matters because if you are not in a church you should be. 

But all churches can and do err. If you are in a church which is in very serious error, you might stay and pray and work for reformation. 

Biblical models of pastoral ministry

 There are of course a number of different biblical terms and models for the minister (servant), presbyter (elder), bishop (overseer). 

Perhaps the most prominent is "pastor", so much so that we forget that it is a metaphor. Pastor means shepherd. Jesus is the Good Shepherd whom under-shepherds should always keep before them. 

Of course with any model we need to think about what the Bible means by it. We must avoid word association or illegitimate totality transfer. What you (rightly or wrongly) think of as Shepherdy may not be what the Bible has in mind.

The modern Australian shepherd who looks at his sheep from time to time from his vehicle, is rather different from the ancient near eastern shepherd who may have slept with his sheep at night, would have called them by name and led them to new pasture and so on. It is not often today that a shepherd has to fight off a wolf or a lion or a bear, and barbed wire is certainly a help in a way in which it was not in the ancient near east. 

It would be an instructive exercise to make a list of all the models, terms and descriptions of the ministry found in Scripture. 

Good ordination services may be a help. 

We would probably find that our thinking about ministry owes more to the business world and the secular leadership books than we would care to admit. 

The British Army has a surprisingly well defined leadership doctrine which despite its official and sensitive status is freely available online. Their concept of servant leadership and their stress on values and standards, respect, humility, followership, the power of example, discipline, obedience, loyalty, challenge and the maxim do as you would be done by no doubt owe much to a biblical tradition and Christian heritage. Things are not often literally exploding in Christian ministry, but the Christian is engaged in a spiritual battle. The LORD is a warrior. The Messiah has fought and triumphed. The minister must aim to please Christ his captain and must not entangle himself in civilian affairs. 

An argument for lay evangelism and ministry

 Which as it happens, I stole from my Lay Reader whose sermon I was able to listen to on Facebook. 

When the Vicar talks about Jesus, he is only doing what he is paid to do. We expect him to go on about God. We can kind of filter it out. He is a hired hand. His livelihood and his professional status might be thought to depend on people giving to his church and attending it. 

But what of the lay person? He or she is more disinterested. What reason does she have for expounding the excellence of Jesus other than the fact that she finds Jesus excellent? She may want you to go to her church, but largely because she loves to go herself and she thinks you would love it. Maybe she would ideally like you to give to her church, but she first puts her money where her mouth is as she thinks it worth giving to. 

(Provoked by 1 Thessalonians chapter 2: dare to tell others the gospel). 

How long should I spend preparing a sermon?

 It is sometimes said that one should spend one hour in preparation for every minute one intends to speak. To my mind, this is not very helpful advice. If you are a free church pastor who might preach three forty minute sermons a week, it will be quite impossible. Some people say that it takes them longer to prepare a good ten minute sermon than an average twenty minute one. I can well imagine that is true if one wants to be clear, concise, engaging and true to the text. It takes some time to work out what can be left out. So I suggest forgetting about time per minute. 

The true answer is it all depends.

How long do you have?! What else have you got to do?

How well do you know your text?

Your hearers?

Have you preached on this passage many times before?

How are your languages?

Are you an able speaker?

Does the text touch on doctrines, or history, or pastoral or apologetic problems you have to do lots of work on?

How is your praying?

If you are generally very well prepared and experienced, you may be able to get away with very little preparation on some passages or texts. This might be a good or a bad thing!

You might say you have always been preparing your sermon for a lifetime! True enough. But you should I think spend at least some specific time in preparation. 

I have heard it said that people like an off the cuff sermon from time to time. Or that Father So and So always used to prepare his sermon walking from the Rectory to the church. Whether it was ten miles or twenty yards is not always disclosed. But frankly, if this is your regular pattern, I think it is disgraceful negligence. The public preaching of the Word is (along with prayer and administration of the sacraments and... and... and...) one of the most important things any minister, any human being, can do and I think it demands some deliberate and specific dedicated effort and thought from you. And more than ten minutes! 

You should spend enough time in preparation to do an acceptable job. You want to say something true and useful about the good news of Jesus Christ from this text. And once you know what that is, you should try to force yourself to do a bit more work to make your sermon more than adequate. I find this last 10 or 20% the hardest for me, but it is wise if at all possible to not settle for good enough if one has the ability and capacity to make the sermon better. Eventually the law of diminishing returns might cause you to stop before you have Yhe Perfect Sermon, but could you relatively easily add value to "that will do"?

My advice would be: begin your preparation (even if only slightly) as early as you can. Read Sunday's text a few times on Monday. (And for goodness sake decide what the text is going to be so that you have some time to actually prepare not wonder what to preach on!) These first readings may give you an idea as to whether you will need more time or less in the study this week. Have a look at your diary and have an idea when that might be. Of course your week may have to change, but you should plan some time to prepare. You may even feel you need to track down some extra study material on some particular question. If you don't start your sermon preparation until Thursday, that might not be possible. 

You might do a fair bit of preparation while you walk the dog or wash the dishes or drive the car but I really think it will also help you to apply your bottom to your chair and get out a pen and paper or a laptop.

I recommend spending at least two main sessions in sermon preparation. By the end of session one (which might be, say, a morning or an afternoon), try to have a sense of how you will preach the passage: what is the main thrust of the sermon going to be? After this four hours work, where are you in terms of a theme / aim sentence and any kind of points or structure?

There is great value in sleeping on it and maybe consciously or unconsciously mulling over the sermon / allowing it to mature. 

 Much of session two can then be spent refining your outline and working on how to say it etc. What will your introduction and conclusion be? Are there any main illustrations? Things to explain carefully? Objections to anticipate? Applications?

Some people also swear by some time on Saturday night or Sunday morning spent on the sermon. If you are going to preach some from memory, this may be a help. Or you may be one of those people for whom a bit of adrenaline and a deadline might do wonders. It doesn't say in the Bible that it is necessarily sinful or foolish to spend 6am - 10am on a Sunday working on your sermon, but for myself I'm not sure that would be an ideal regular pattern - not least as we have a service at 9:30am. 

Towards a Collect for Latimer and Ridley

 

Almighty God,

whose faithful servants Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer

bore courageous witness to your pure gospel even to the point of death,

cause the holy light of your Word so to shine in our hearts and in this land

that the hope of your church shall never be extinguished,

through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Have we had enough of experts?

 Who or what is in fact accepted as a trusted authority in the UK today?

No longer the Bible or the church. Not the Vicar.

Certainly not politicians. 

The police feel less safe to many than they have for some time.

Journalists are low in the lists of the trusted. Some are sceptical of "The Mainstream Media". 

Apart from anti-vaxers, maybe its the GP?

One big idea?

 I have sometimes been a bit sceptical of the idea that bible books / passages always have one big idea and that this should be reflected in every sermon. 

I think it is sometimes legitimate to preach something that is obviously not the main point. 

But I think we can say at least this:

(1) Your sermon should ideally have some kind of unity and coherence

(2) It should also have a purpose which is more than filling time or even pointing out a few things of interest. There should be application - an intended transformation or responses. And see also (1).

If you find there are many interesting things that a bible reading says, I think it would certainly serve your preparation to think about any big ideas or aims of the book or section. Why does it say all this here? How does this fit in and fit together? This can help you to focus and to work towards coherence and purpose in your sermon. A view of the whole will likely illuminate the working of the parts. 

And thinking about the purpose or aim of the text for the first readers will help you to think about the aim(s) of your sermon - taking into account your hearers' different situation. It is conceivable that a warning to Old Testament readers could serve as a comfort to us, for example. God's word of salvation and judgement has proved to be true so we who are trusting in Jesus in the midst of suffering can be sure that vindication is coming. 

The body of Christ

 We may distinguish at least three senses of "the body of Christ":

(1) The natural biological body of Christ received from Mary, born, crucified, risen, glorified, enthroned in heaven

(2) The church

(3) The bread of the Eucharist

Each usage would be either obvious from the bible or demonstrably biblical. 

If we ask where we see the body of Christ today, we might say it is supremely as (2) the church gathers at the Lord's Table (3). 

One of the problems of eucharistic theology has been that we have confused (1) and (3). The bread does not turn into Jesus. Jesus is not in with or under the bread. But the bread is more than a picture of Jesus.

(1) and (3) cannot be separated for at the Eucharist, (3), the church (2) receives Jesus (1). We feed on Jesus in our hearts by faith, empowered by the Spirit. The body of Christ is in heaven and we lift up our hearts in the power of the Holy Spirit to join with him in the heavenly assembly, where we are already seated with Christ. Though we may note that, strikingly, Calvin also say that "Christ descends to us both by the outward symbol [the bread] and by his Spirit." (Institutes 4.17.24, FB vol 2, p1390)

It is Christ - the real true and whole Christ as he is now - Christ with his body (1) and soul - who is received by the church (2) in the Eucharist (3), not in with or under the bread, but in this meal, by bread and faith and Spirit. The bread is not substantially Christ, but Christ is received instrumentally by it.

As Stephen Long argues, Calvin rejected theories of Christ's ubiquity or enclosure with bread but he argued for true representation. The bread is not a bare symbol but what seems to be offered here is truly given. 

 (Inspired by the final post in this series: https://theopolisinstitute.com/conversations/bodies-and-the-body-of-christ/)

On Following The Science and Following Jesus

 

From The Rectory

 

We have frequently heard over the last year about the government “following The Science” – or not. But this is somewhat confused. “The Science” hasn’t always spoken with one voice. And there is a step to be made between expert scientific advice and political policy. There are many scientific voices to which our beloved leaders ought to listen. And there are lots of other issues for them to consider too.

 

To change topic slightly, some people also assume that The Science has disproved biblical Christianity. But again, may I say, this is rather confused. Many scientists are committed Christians. (Professor John Lennox, an Oxford mathematician, for example, is well worth reading and listening to on the Christian faith. You can find more at: johnlennox.org). And it is a step from the claims of contemporary science (even if we can agree what they are and can agree with them) to conclusions about God.

 

One author has said that science and Christianity are “unnatural enemies.”[1] It is true that Darwinists have sometimes gone to war against Biblicists, but some Christians would claim that a kind of theistic evolutionary theory can be reconciled with the teaching of the Bible. Certainly it is true to say that the Bible is far more concerned to tell us that God made the world rather than to go in to details of how he did so. The Genesis account is clearly not a modern scientific description, but that does not mean that it is not true in more important ways.

 

Historically, Western scientists have seen their endeavour as thinking God’s thoughts after him. They have delighted both to read their bibles and to explore the natural world, which they called “the book of nature.” God’s creation reveals a wonderful and powerful creator. The book of Scripture directs us to the book of creation: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” (Psalm 19v1). To study the natural world is to explore the ways of God and think his thoughts after him. The more we discover about the human body, for example, the more we might appreciate that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139v14). And this might move us to worship our Maker.

 

Although many of the Western elite today would call themselves atheists, the bible makes the bold claim that human beings are made in the image of God with a kind of intuitive knowledge of him. According to St Paul: God’s “invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.” (Romans 1v20).

 

Not only are science and Christianity potentially compatible, it can be argued that modern science requires something like the God of the Bible. It’s hard to see why science would even work if there were no God. If the world is purposeless and chaotic, it is odd that scientific laws work so well. But if gravity and the laws of motion are God’s habits, it makes a lot of sense. An intelligently designed universe is most likely to be amenable to intelligent investigation.

 

So science and theology can be friends. But both are needed. Science is excellent at telling us how things work. But we also need to ask why questions. The Science can get us so far in some areas, but there are other considerations. In fact, we need not only rational exploration of God’s creation but for God to reveal himself to us. God not only shows us what he is like by what he has made but he speaks. The God who said “Let there be light” has entered his creation in his Word made flesh, Jesus, The Light of the World. May he cause the light of the knowledge (the science) of God to dawn in our hearts.  

 

---

[1] The title of a helpful book by Dr Kirsten Birkett, Unnatural Enemies: An Introduction to Science and Christianity (Matthias Media, 1997)

 

Infra or Supralapsarianism

 A friend recently asked me what the right answer is on this. The truth is I haven't really thought about it very much. We need to be clear exactly what the issue is. I think it is open to question whether or not this is a sensible question and how much difference it really makes. 

You can find some discussion of various approaches here: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/lapsarian-views/

The debate is about the logical (not temporal) order of the divine decrees for reprobation and salvation. 

On a supralapsarian view, God means to save some and damn others and therefore decrees the fall and so on. 

On an infralapsarian view, God decrees the fall and means to save some out of the damned mass of humanity. (We might still need to ask why he decrees the fall). 

Now, God is timelessly eternal. And his thinking is not like ours. We sometimes think by logical deduction. But God knows all things we might say intuitively. And God's relationship with reality is also rather different from ours. Though God can "imagine" things that do not exist, certain "thoughts" or decrees of God actually constitute reality. 

In so far as there is a Reformed consensus, it is infralapsarian. All the confessions speak in this way and whilst they do not exclude, supralapsarianism, none affirm it. The Supra- view is a minority report in the Reformed tradition. Packer (Anglican Heritage, p96-98) says the Puritans spent a generation from the 1580s and 1620 embracing supralapsarianism, which Beza taught, but then retreated from it. Prominent supralapsarians include Franciscus Gormarus, a key participant at Dort, William Twisse, the 1st prolocutor of the Westminster assembly & Samuel Rutherford. Barth is a kind of supralapsarian.

It would seem to me very odd to imagine a decree of damnation entirely without reference to the fall. The fall must surely be the judicial grounds of damnation. 

Romans 9 is obviously an important text in this debate. 

Letham (Systematic Theology) argues that there is a case for supralapsarianism if we accept that that which is last in execution is first in design. The house is finally constructed according to the initial plan. This is of course especially so in the case of an omnipotent actor. 

Some of the objections sometimes given to supralapsarianism seem weak to me. 

Richard Muller, Dictionary, p292, is a bit surprising on this. He equates supralapsarianism with double predestination for the glory of God, which seems the correct view to me. We may say that God's predestination is not symmetrical, but even if he passes over some that effectively decrees their reprobation. 

Neither should we worry that supralapsarianism makes God the morally responsible author of sin in a way that other views do not. We have this problem either way if God is entirely sovereign. And we have useful things to say about it. It enough that human beings are the proximate and responsible cause of their falling away from the good. 

It is true that the Bible normally speaks redemptive-historically and therefore it might be said infralapsarianly. We should be cautious about speculating about the secret decrees of God, but I think we can appeal to mystery a little too hastily (as in my view Packes does, whilst admitting that there is a certain logic to the supralapsarian view). 

 Robert Raymond's systematic theology makes a modern case for supralapsarianism. 

The most compendious recent book on this is said to be J V Fesko, Diversity within the Reformed Tradition: Supra- and Infralapsarianism in Calvin, Dort and Westminster (Reformed Academic Press, 2003).

On the ministerial declaration of assent (C of E)

 To my mind The Thirty Nine Articles of Religion are a jolly good thing and are much neglected in the dear old C of E to its loss. 

The Church of England requires a "declaration of assent" (found in Common Worship and in Canon C15) from its ministers but the form today is not explicitly that of full, clear assent to each and every one of the Articles in all its fullness. The church does not require strict subscription. It does not get into the business of anyone taking exception to any articles.

 This declaration could be read in a very weak manner. Much depends on how much difference one allows between "revealed in... set forth in" and borne witness to by. Do these mean essentially the same thing without repeating the same word three times? It does seem possible and even sensible to me to think that the C of E sets out a descending hierarchy of authority here: the Bible is the revelation of God; the creeds set out what the Bible reveals; and the Articles are an additional witness to it.

The Articles could be thought to give a useful yet weak, partial and erring witness to faith revealed in the Scriptures and set forth in the creeds. Almost anything could be said to be an inspiration and guidance even if one went off in a largely different direction. But this is not the position of the Church of England and it is hard to see how someone who thought the Articles to be basically wrong could honestly make such a declaration. For example, the Articles are clearly Augustinian and Anti-Pelagian. If their witness, inspiration and guidance has any practical significance at all, it is hard to see that it could mean less than this. The system of salvation taught in the Church of England is clearly by grace through faith not by works. The Declaration of Assent surely commits all ministers to as much. And to some version of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, for example.  

Yet if we read the Declaration alongside Canon A2 and A5, we can go further:

The C of E officially holds that the Articles are agreeable to the Word of God and may be assented to by all members of the Church of England, though the C of E does not in fact obviously require that kind of assent from anyone. 

The Articles are very much a product of their time and are in principle reformable. Some changes might be helpful. And a new declaration of faith might also be useful. I think someone could be ordained even if they entertained doubts about the nature of Christ's decent into hell or the lawfulness of oaths to the civil magistrate. But it is clear what the C of E holds on these matters. And it seems to me that it could conceivably be a breach of canonical obedience to teach against the Articles if instructed not to do so by one's Bishop. 

A brief history of subscription and an analysis of the current situation can be found in: Martin Davie, Our Inheritance of Faith: A Commentary on the Thirty Nine Articles (Gilead Book Publications, 2013) p70ff

See also Mark Thompson, A History of Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles Churchman 124/1 who treats the declaration above only very briefly but also gives some global / GAFCON relevant information and directs us to Packer, A Guide to the 39 Articles Today (London: Church Book Room, no date). 

Packer usefully says:  The Articles

come to us as prior judgements, time-honoured judgements, on specific issues relating to the faith of Christ, as set forth in the Scriptures. They come to us as corporate decisions first made by the Church centuries ago, and now confirmed and commended to us by the corroborative testimony of all later generations that have accepted them, down to our time.... It is a prime obligation for Anglicans to take full account of the expository formulations to which our Church has bound itself; and to ignore them, as if we were certain that the Spirit of God had no hand in them, is no more warrantable than to treat them as divinely inspired and infallible.

 

How to apologise

Christians of all people should be good at apologising. We know that we are guilty hell-deserving sinners. We do not (or should not) mind admitting that we are wrong inside and we do wrong things. Apologising can be humiliating. But humility is good for us! Failure to apologise might show a proud pretence. God knows all anyway. Judgement day will reveal all. What have we to lose? Maybe only an ill-deserved reputation. Perhaps the world would be better (even for me) if I were more open and honest.

Christians should be quick to apologise. But sometimes maybe we can be too quick. I think it can be a mistake to apologise if you are not convinced that you have probably sinned. This can lead to a conditional apology: "I am sorry if..." Which is not ideal. And not very easy to receive. 

The best apologies will be full and clear. What specifically are you apologising for? This should ideally be in the form: "I am sorry that I / we...." You should state what you did wrong and wish to repent of. "I am sorry: I was angry and shouted and was rude and unreasonable." You are admitting the sin and taking the blame. 

There could sometimes we scope for an "I am sorry that I upset you" apology. But we don't want to blame the person we are apologising to! We might be better to say, "I am sorry that I upset you by being hasty / rude / unthinking / insensitive / stupid / crass."

In English we can use "sorry" to express regret or admit sin. You are only apologising if you do the latter. "I am sorry that you are a crazy person who over reacted to my righteous anger by sulking" is not an apology. "I am sorry that you are making me feel awkward and I am saying this in an attempt to make you be nice to me", is not an apology.

Sometimes we will need to apologise for something where others were involved. Your civil servant or administrator may actually have made the mistake, but perhaps you are responsible: you may actually have been neglectful (failed in your instruction or your checking) but even if your only mistake was to employ this idiot, you should take responsibility. Even if the mistake was perfectly easy and understandable from an otherwise responsible and diligent person, the CEO of Tescos will do well to own and apologise for the action of the checkout assistant. Real apologies are pretty rare and can be powerful. This is a great opportunity for leaders (and especially ministers of the gospel) to lead. 

You may wish to include your pleas in mitigation. There can be a case for that. "I was new / dyslexic / busy / distracted by the death of my mother. I hope you will accept that this was a stupid mistake rather than deliberate malice", but it is probably best to minimise this. It is all too easy to drown out your apology by attempted justification. Say: "This is a significant unacceptable error / sin and I'm sorry."

Ideally, your apology should be at least as public as the sin. "I'd like to take this opportunity to say sorry for snapping at Julie the other day. It was very rude of me and I apologise." This sets a good example and helps to establish a culture of what we do around here. The other person is publicly vindicated. Julie might have been belittled in the eyes of some and it is right that she should be honoured as the innocent wronged party and I should be ashamed.  

Your apology should involve some offer of recompense or restitution if possible and appropriate. "I'm sorry I broke your vase. Please let me buy a new one."

You may find something in this Radio 4 Something Understood programme on Saying Sorry of interest. It mentions this Guardian article on The non-apology apology.