Mar 10 | True Faith: Thoughts on John Jewel’s Apologetics (Lent Journal #4)

I believe I have found a good friend in John Jewel. I admire his use of rhetoric immensely – absolutely no thought is offered without a citation from either Scripture or the Church Fathers. I love his wry assertion that so far he has had no satisfactory arguments with Catholics over English misuse of Scripture, which in his mind only confirms that the English are in the right and the Catholics know it. His theology appears “down to earth” and very approachable for many levels of intellect. He has a tone in his apologies that is more than simply apologetic – it is didactic. All of this is relayed by someone who appears to live a Christianity that owes much to Celtic philosophy – celebrating and accommodating to human needs (denouncing celibacy, celebrating worship in the vernacular with the desire that the people know what they are asking rather than praying like parrots). This seems to come through further in his support of the early and Eastern Church fathers that were laying down doctrines before Aquinas and “established” Catholicism. I delight in Jewel’s assertion that Christianity itself was once thought of as heresy! (I imagine a thoroughly English twitch of the lips resembling a smile here). He is perfectly certain in his own brand of faith.

I leave little italicized notes to myself to keep my thoughts organized when I read heavy stuff like this. I found: “We want to appeal to Scripture to bypass someone dictating rules, but we have to recognize Scripture’s non-subjectivity.” This appears to have been written in response to a question about Jewel’s basis for authority. Today, Anglicans might make pretty much the same arguments against papal authority, but rather than church fathers we might quote moral ethics, or Lord Acton’s celebrated thoughts on absolute power. What I can’t help but wonder is how we would distinguish ourselves from other denominations today if we were asked to provide an apologetic response. Even N.T. Wright would probably use more respectful language than Jewel, but what would he say? What would any of us say? Right now we’re being called to explain and justify ourselves not only as a religion but as a denomination (particularly in conversation with mainstream Protestantism, into which we fit uncomfortably in many cases). We can no longer make any assumptions about the world and Scripture. Quoting Scripture is one of the last resources of justification within the church world, but it doesn’t hack it outside and it is crumbling on the inside as well, because we in the Western world are fighting the Post Modern struggle. Meanwhile, African churches shake their heads and wonder what our problem is. Jewel’s simple apology and explanation of Anglicanism is something we can celebrate, but it does leave plenty of wiggle room for us, and for some people this is frustrating. Our evangelical brothers and sisters seek solace in the Word, while the more Anglo-Catholic among us fill mostly empty churches with our smoke.

I’m not entirely sure what Jewel offers us today. I continue to appreciate his recalling of our roots in Scripture and the fathers. My main source of comfort lies in his delightful quote: “True faith is lively, and cannot be idle.” Although it is taken out of context, I can’t help but find hope in the struggle when I hold up this thought. And of course, I take deep comfort in knowing that the struggle itself may not even matter: “The fundamental question for an Anglican is, “Have you been changed by love?”’[1] Yes. We all have. Why then should we fear?

-Clarity