AP
Reformed Thought for Christian Living
Darkness: The Conversion of Anglican Armidale, 1960-2019, by Thomas Fudge (February, 2024) Darkness is Professor Fudge’s “accidental (p.1)” book on the history of the Anglican Diocese of Armidale from 1960 […]
Darkness: The Conversion of Anglican Armidale, 1960-2019, by Thomas Fudge (February, 2024)
Darkness is Professor Fudge’s “accidental (p.1)” book on the history of the Anglican Diocese of Armidale from 1960 to 2019, and the battles between theological liberalism and evangelicalism. The book is thirteen chapters long, 800+ pages, and for the most part theology and history are interwoven. For Fudge, the watershed moment was the 1964 Election Synod where the evangelical Clive Kerle was elected Bishop of the Diocese. There is a printing error in the opening pages with part of the Index appearing out of place.
Fudge at least understands the nature of the clash between theological liberalism and evangelicalism: “the whale and the elephant are creatures so unlike they cannot live together. Clumsy efforts to achieve cohabitation have been doomed from the start (p.41).” They are not merely different streams forming the same river, but entirely separate rivers. It was, therefore, the necessary controversy.
Not being an Anglican, and not knowing the individuals nor the events that Fudge seeks to describe, I will try limit this review more to Fudge’s theology, focusing on the earlier and later parts of his book. In truth, many of his comments, in particular about individuals, were poor to say the least.
Firstly, a question about Fudge’s Introduction. Fudge later defines evangelicalism as subscribing to “the reality of sin, the inability of humanity to correct the estrangement from God, the necessity of penal substitutionary atonement as the sole means for redemption as the core of the gospel, the idea of new birth, the necessity of repentance, and a life of godliness (p.22). Given this definition, is he serious in suggesting in the Introduction that evangelical theology leads, at times, to violence (p.11)? If by violence he means personal aggression against another, then no evangelical believes that. The Scriptures very clearly speak against retaliation and violence (see Gen. 4:23-24, Prov. 3:31, Matt. 5:38-41, 1 Tim. 3:3, 1 Pet. 2:23; 1 Pet. 3:9). The only time violence is allowed is in defence of the innocent – and surely that is right – or, as justice, rightfully delivered on behalf of the State.
Be that as it may, the following points arise from the book;
Penal Substitutionary Atonement
One of the major issues raised by Fudge is Penal Substitutionary Atonement. The Westminster Confession states that “Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice (WCF 11.3).” At the cross, Christ Jesus took the punishment that sinners deserved to pay. In this way, He fulfills the Old Testament types as both our priest who appears on our behalf before God (Heb. 7:23-28), and at the same time, our sacrifice (Heb. 9:11-14). Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is the song of the Suffering Servant. It says of him;
“But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed (Isaiah 53:5).”
In Acts 8, the Ethiopian eunuch was reading this passage and he asked Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else? (Acts 8:34)” It says that Philip was able to tell him the good news about Jesus. At least seven times in the New Testament, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52-53 is identified as Christ Jesus (see Rom. 15:21; John 12:38; Rom. 10:16; Matt. 8:17; 1 Pet. 2:22-25; Acts 8:32-33; Luke 22:37).
At the cross, God the Son was forsaken by God the Father, bearing His wrath and under His curse (Matt. 27:46; Gal. 3:13). God’s wrath against sinners is propitiated, or appeased, by Christ’s death (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” He was reckoned a sinner, though as God the Son He was sinless, so that the penalty for sin could be paid in full. The cross both perfectly demonstrates the justice of God in that sin is dealt with, and it perfectly demonstrates the love of God in that Christ Jesus freely died for His people. Thomas Brooks said it well: “Our sins are debts that none can pay but Christ. It is not our tears, but his blood; it is not our sighs, but his sufferings, that can satisfy for our sins… Christ must pay all.”
Yet, in saying this, the Bible gives many other explanations, motives or outcomes of Jesus’ death: His suffering was an example to believers to follow (1 Pet. 2:21); it shows His triumph over “the rulers and authorities (Col. 2:15),” including Satan (Heb. 2:14); His death brings reconciliation between Jewish and Gentile believers (Eph. 2:15-16); His death ransoms us from futile living (1 Pet. 1:18-19); His death gives a new way of living (Rom. 6:6), and it shows us the meaning of love (Eph. 5:25-26; 1 John 4:10). The Bible frequently borrows from the world of slavery (redemption, ransom), the temple (sacrifice), the law courts (justification), our bodies (head, members) and even family (adoption, bride) to describe what Christ’s death achieved.
No believer that I am aware of has ever claimed that Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the only explanation for Jesus’ death, but that it is vital in properly explaining the Bible’s teaching, the nature of God, and the new life we have in Christ.
Fudge cites Broughton Knox as saying limited atonement is “a doctrine without a text (p.63).”Yet, with all respect to Dr Knox, the following references seem to show that His atonement covers His sheep (John 10:11,15) or the church (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25) and results in justification (Rom. 8:30), adoption into God’s family (John 1:12-13), salvation (Acts 4:12) and sanctification (1 Cor. 6:9-11).
At one point, Fudge says regarding Anselm (c.1033-1109), that the idea of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, “cannot be detected in the millennium prior to his time either in the Greek or Latin churches though one must recognize that Tertullian grappled with concepts of merit and satisfaction in the context of penance (p.412).” The impression is that it was an invention of the Reformation! Whilst other aspects of Christ’s death that were emphasized in the first millennium – and Penal Substitutionary Atonement may not have been as well articulated as it was by the Reformers – to say that it was not there, is untrue. For a history – albeit short – of Penal Substitutionary Atonement see Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced for our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007).
Authority of the Scriptures
In truth, the debate over the authority of Scripture is what stands at the heart of the battle between evangelicals and theological liberals. Fudge says that, “Despite evangelical protests, High Church traditions assert it is dangerous to draw an equation between the Word of God and the Bible. Certainly, for the Christian, there is an important relation, but that relationship is not interchangeable (p.53).” He urges the use of Scripture, reason and tradition as three legs on a stool by which we may know truth. But the obvious question is which of these three legs comes before the others when there is a conflict? Why should reason or tradition come before Scripture?
Fudge quotes Dick Franklin as saying, “Nothing goes more deeply against the grain than to contemplate how our most treasured beliefs might be superseded (p.68).” Again, to which we could ask: superseded with what? Franklin’s own truth or his preference for which should come first?
One of the erroneous parts of Fudge’s rejection of the authority of the Bible is his claim that Martin Luther’s “notion of the ‘Word’ does not equal the Bible (p.55).” He implies that Luther was not a defender of inerrancy (p.54). Yet this is unacceptable. Luther attempted to harmonize the Gospel accounts, and found it difficult, yet his conclusion was that if we cannot resolve problems within Scripture then the problem is with our understanding, and not with Scripture. He compared the Church Fathers with Scripture and said that “everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will: therefore I am ready to trust them only when they prove their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred.” That sounds very close to inerrancy! In his Brief Confession on the Holy Sacrament, Luther said of the Scriptures that, “Out and out, all and everything is believed or nothing is believed. The Holy Ghost doesn’t let Himself be divided or partitioned, so that He lets one part be taught and believed correctly and the other falsely.”
No human being can have perfect knowledge and perhaps we are far more influenced by our background, culture and language than we are willing to admit. Nonetheless, although our knowledge is not exhaustive, we can know truth. In regard to the greatest knowledge – knowledge of God – we can know something of Him from the twin testimonies of creation (Ps. 19:1-6) and His law written on our hearts (Rom. 2:15). This involves reason. Yet, decisively God speaks to us through His Word (Ps. 19:7-14). Truth’s foundation is ultimately God’s Word.
In pluralistic Athens, Paul was able to speak with reason to people of varied beliefs, yet at the same time he upheld the Scriptures as his foundation for truth. He drew them to God as Creator and Judge, based on the historical truth of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 17:22-31). May God give us these same convictions.
When the Scriptures are rejected as authoritative, that has an effect upon theology and preaching. Fudge says of one man: “As a rule, Wetherell avoided abstract theology. He rarely breached his own ten-minute rule declaring that longer homilies were ill-advised and seldom made a lasting impact. He never deviated from that practice. ‘My habit of preaching short sermons is always well received (p.191).’” It must quickly becoming boring listening to powerless, anaemic 10-minute pep talks about being better people week in week out. May God revive the true, sincere preaching of His Word!
In short, the conclusion of Rick Lewers, whom Fudge quotes with disapproval, is in fact correct: “Any departure from God’s Word and all doctrines proved thereby would be a departure from the Christian faith, resulting in a sect that must be called to repentance (p.63).”
Sacraments
For Fudge, the sacraments, especially the Lord’s Supper, seem to be about garments and incense. Yet, for the Apostle Paul, the Supper was about, “proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes (1 Cor. 11:28).” In particular, Fudge recalls the offense caused in 1962 when the Lord’s Supper was not celebrated at a wedding. Yet, the Apostle Paul says that the Supper is for those who first ”examine themselves (1 Cor. 11:28)” and it was celebrated as a church, when the church gathered. There is no evidence of private communions, such as at weddings.
The sacraments should not be treated lightly – they are commanded by Christ (Matt. 18:28-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-25)! Yet, sacramentalism surely dishonours their original intent.
Women clergy
Pages 636-653 cover the issue of women’s ordination. For Fudge, “an ideal of male sexuality and male-centred authority… appears to lie at the core of the restoration efforts motivating theology… in Armidale (p.637).” This may be true, but only as it swims downstream from the issue of the Scriptures’ authority.
Fudge questions whether historically the dominant position of the Church has been male only clergy. He cites Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2. Yet, it is important to distinguish between the two offices that are regulated by the New Testament: elder and deacon (1 Tim. 3:1-12; Phil. 1:1; Tit. 1:7-9). Phoebe likely held the office of deacon. She was not a presbyter, overseer or pastor (these terms appear to be used interchangeably for the same office). In the Bible, the qualifications for an overseer are clearly set out in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. Likewise, the qualifications for a deacon are clearly set out in 1 Timothy 2:8-13. The main point of difference is that overseers must be able to teach. Although the word “deacon” is not used in Acts 6, it would seem to lay out a good understanding of their role: to care for people. There appear to be both male and female deacons, such as Phoebe (Rom. 16:2; 1 Tim. 3:11). As a separate office, pastors/elders/overseers have the authoritative teaching function in the church (1 Tim. 3:2; 5:17; Tit. 1:9), and this is restricted to Biblically qualified men (1 Cor. 14:33-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-14).
Outside of this, the New Testament shows women rightly doing the following: they testify to the truth that Jesus Christ is risen (Luke 24:9); they prophesy probably regarding future events (Acts 21:9); they are “workers in the Lord (Rom. 16:12)” – a category that seems to be outside of elder or deacon; they help explain God’s truth (Acts 18:26); they faithfully pray and prophesy with their head covered (1 Cor. 11:5); and they teach younger women (Titus 2:3-5). All these things are good.
Fudge also cites Tertullian’s condemnation of women who teach and baptise as evidence of women’s ordination to the priesthood (p.638). Tertullian’s said: “It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the church; but neither (is it permitted her) to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say (in any) sacerdotal office.” Of course, there were groups, such as the Montanists, who had women clergy – although in the case of the Montanists they were also condemned as being outside of orthodoxy. What do we say to this? If, down through history, some parts of the Church have practised things contrary to the Scriptures, that hardly stands as a strong argument in favour of women clergy.The classic hermeneutic – in this order – is the correct one: Biblical exegesis, leading to theology, and examining history.
The weakness of Fudge’s argument is found in his poor scholarship. He says, “Paul’s statements about women appear contradictory. Galatians 3:28, 1 Corinthians 7, and Romans 16 seem to have a different tenor than 1 Corinthians 11:2-116 and 14:34-36, along with admonitions in Ephesians, Colossians, and the pastoral epistles (p.640).” Such a statement shows that he has simply not read the Scriptures closely. For example, in Galatians 3:28, Paul’s point is that men and women have equal access to the Abrahamic covenant promises. He is not speaking about who should be ordained to eldership.
Grasping at straws, Fudge says, “evangelicals like Kevin Giles and Julie (MacKay) Cook do not consider the ordination of women to the priesthood as a “gospel issue” and therefore not a matter of the faith (p.641).” And yet, it is clearly a matter of obedience to the Scriptures. Even more than that, the challenge to Giles and Cook is that if this is God’s good design for His people revealed in Scripture, then anything else is, in the end, harmful to both men and women. Thus, we must trust that God’s good design for men and women in the church, as laid out in the Scriptures, is for our best.
Sexual ethics
Another major issue taken up by Fudge is that of sexuality – although, in truth, this too swims downstream from the issue of the Scriptures’ authority – as he seems to recognise (p.657).
In 1998, eight Anglican bishops did not support the Lambeth Conference’s definition of marriage as being “between a man and a woman.” Fudge seems to imply that to approach the Scriptures with the presuppositions that “every human is born either male or female” and that “every human male and female is created heterosexual (p.654)” is an interpretive framework. He quotes Alfred Kinsey and the idea seems to be that human sexuality is complex, perhaps sitting somewhere along a spectrum.
Fudge states that an evangelical’s a priori assumptions regarding the Scripture’s teaching on sexuality “could be a recipe for permissiveness, cultural relativism, and the erosion of traditional Christian values (p.655).” In fact, the Scriptures wholly refute this (see Matt. 18:7-9; Rom. 6:1; Eph. 5:3; Heb. 13:4).
Fudge puts the challenge to evangelicals: how can they reconcile “the idea of justification by faith with a policy of exclusion (p.656)”? Yet Fudge thinks that treating gender and sexuality as crucial doctrinal matters is a novelty (p.657), and, therefore, Gafcon is schismatic within the Anglican communion (p.657).
The Apostle Paul addressed this exact argument in Romans 6. He says: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” His answer is memorable: “By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? (Rom. 6:1-2)” Paul then explains the way in which believers are united to Christ is His death, burial and resurrection from the dead, so that “we too might walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4).” Grace must always lead to holiness, not a licence to sin. The often-heard argument is that “the church has no business being in the bedrooms of the parish (p.666),” as though our lives can be divided into parcels of holy and unholy! Unrepentant sexual sin is amongst a list of signs that a person is not in the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11). In fact, Paul says that those who think and teach otherwise are deceived.
At one point, Fudge quotes from Greg Horsley: “Arguing from the Greek text, Horsley suggested the passages in question, particularly 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:26-27, did not speak to contemporary realities around homosexuality. Horsley argued that the Greek verb korinthiazomai ‘to practice fornication’ required a nuanced appraisal and it was likely that Paul spoke about sexual immorality in a general sense. More to the point, the ancient world knew nothing about genetics (p.665).” The problem with such as statement is twofold: Firstly, the verb korinthiazomai is not used in either 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 or Romans 1:26-27. Secondly, does Horsley put human behaviour down to genetics? That cannot be sustained. Biblically, our biology does not fully explain nor excuse sin. So too, it doesn’t make sense to identify someone by his or her sexuality. The Bible deals with sexual issues primarily at the level of behaviour and not identity.
The Lord Jesus could not have been clearer when He affirmed God’s original design of marriage and sex (see Matt. 19:3-7).
Some Lessons
