The story of Joseph and Mary’s journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, and finding there “no room in the inn,” is perhaps the classic Christmas text. Along with Luke’s subsequent account of the shepherds (2:8-20) and Matthew’s account of the Magi (Mt 2:1-12), it is highly symbolic as well, of a world that is too busy for the Eternal, that is cruelly self-absorbed, that is too selfishly preoccupied to accommodate an expecting mother, the bearer of the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior of the world. The world then, and now, has “no room” for Christ. It has room for vocations and avocations, room for pleasure and recreation, room for the pursuit of wealth and even room for worry and the anxieties of life, but no room for Jesus.

Making room

Jesus’ “Olivette Discourse,” His eschatological teaching found in Matthew 24 and 25, ends with a description of judgment day. Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, placing the former on His right, and the latter on His left. He says to His sheep,

“Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.”Cross references:

1. Matthew 25:34 : Matthew 25:40; Luke 19:38; Rev 17:14; 19:16; Isa 6:5
2. Matthew 25:34 : 1 Kgs 2:19; Psalm 45:9; 110:1
3. Matthew 25:34 : Psalm 37:22; Isa 65:23; Eph 1:3
4. Matthew 25:34 : Matthew 19:29; Rev 21:7
5. Matthew 25:34 : Luke 12:32; 22:29
6. Matthew 25:34 : Matthew 20:23; 1 Cor 2:9; Heb 11:16
7. Matthew 25:34 : Matthew 13:35
8. Matthew 25:35 : Isa 58:7; Ezek 18:7, 16; James 2:15, 16
9. Matthew 25:35 : Matthew 10:42
10. Matthew 25:35 : Job 31:32; Rom 12:13; Heb 13:1, 2; 3 John 5
11. Matthew 25:36 : Matthew 25:35
12. Matthew 25:36 : Luke 10:33, 34
13. Matthew 25:36 : James 1:27
14. Matthew 25:36 : 2 Tim 1:16; Heb 10:34; 13:3

 (Mt 25:34-36)

The sheep, also called the righteous, will then ask,

 “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?” (Mt 25:37-39)

The answer?

“Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” (Mt 25:40)

Jesus says that in our era, the era of His absence, our response to Christian brethren in need is our response to Him. We have an obligation to help destitute fellow Christians, to welcome them, to feed and clothe them, to invite them in and put a roof over their heads. Jesus says that as we do so, even to the “least” of these brethren, we do it to Him. A needy, faithful congregation represents Christ in the world, and our response to them is to be the same as our response would be to the incarnate Christ. We cannot say, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” language condemned by James, and fail to “give them what is necessary for their body.” Such is a dead and useless faith, a faith that cannot save (Jas 2:14ff). A faithful, destitute congregation needs housing, and we are able to provide it. There may have been no room at the inn, but there must be room at the Independent Presbyterian Church.

Our mission

Yet, we also recognize that we couldn’t accommodate jut any self-described Christian congregation, not without compromising our mission. We couldn’t, for example, share our facilities with congregations that denied the Trinity or denied justification of faith without condoning their errors, without implying that our differences were irrelevant. We are not doctrinal minimalists. We have never sympathized with those who say all that matters is that we love Jesus. We have always insisted that it is vital that we identify who Jesus is and define what Jesus has done. The Apostle Paul warned that there are those who preach “another Jesus” and “a different gospel” (2 Cor 11:4). There always have been those who will use the terminology yet deny the reality. The Apostles charged the church to “guard the gospel” (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:13,14). The church is to serve Christ as “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

We can speak of the church’s 3-fold mission. Jesus assigned to the church not only the “Great Commission” (“Go therefore and make disciples” – Mt 28:18-20), not only the “Great Commandment” (“love one another” – Jn 13:34), but also the “Great Guardianship” (“guard what has been entrusted to you” – 1 Tim 6:20). We may no more neglect this aspect of our mission than any other. Fail to guard the gospel doctrines and we not only fail the “Great Guardianship,” but we also lose the “Great Commission” and the “Great Commandment” in the process. What is it about Christ Church Anglican that makes it possible to cross denominational lines to extend our hospitality to them without compromising our understanding of the gospel? After all, there seems to be some irony, if not inconsistency, in open-minded progressives, or liberals, who boast of their tolerance and acceptance of difference, evicting a congregation of the same denominational heritage, while we Presbyterian conservatives, noted for our exclusivity and narrowness, are welcoming the same with open arms.

Substantial agreement

We are able to accommodate Christ Church Anglican because we share a substantial biblical and theological agreement that transcends denominational differences. Theological harmony exists between our congregation and theirs based on the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Communion, their doctrinal standard in their completed form since 1571, and our Westminster Standards, our Confession with its Larger and Shorter Catechisms, our doctrinal standards since 1647. The Thirty-Nine Articles were largely written by Thomas Cranmer (1489–1556) and Nicholas Ridley (c.1500–1555). Our Westminster Confession of Faith began as merely a revision of the Thirty-Nine Articles. The Westminster “Divines,” as they have been called, did not find the Thirty-Nine Articles unacceptable. They agreed with them. However, the Thirty-Nine Articles were never intended as a complete theological system. Consequently the ninety-six English theologians at Westminster, all of whom were ministers of the Church of England (i.e. Anglicans), along with the eleven Scots, who were Presbyterians, determined instead to write a complete confession. Yet the roots of English-speaking Presbyterianism are found in the Church of England and its Thirty-Nine Articles, with respect to which we Presbyterians and Anglicans have substantial consensus on the essentials.

Let us note that we are not saying that every member of their congregation or ours believes all the doctrines of our churches. We’re not even saying that our denominations always have happily coexisted. The Restoration period from 1662–1688 was a difficult time for Presbyterians in Britain at the hands of their royal and Anglican persecutors. Rather, we are describing what the churches as churches affirm and believe. For Christ Church Anglican and Independent Presbyterian our doctrinal statements are not antiques, to be dusted off and discussed occasionally, and then placed back in our ecclesiastical attic. Too many Episcopalians and Presbyterians are such in name only. We, however, actually believe our historic doctrines.

First, we affirm together the authority of Scripture. Articles VI and XX of the Thirty-Nine Articles affirm the sufficiency and finality of the authority of Scripture in all matters of faith and practice, as does Chapter I of the Westminster Confession of Faith. This is the rub of the issue for Christ Church Anglican today and for the church in every era. Is the church guided by Scripture or ruled by Scripture? Is it the source of religious truth or a source? Is the Bible, though perhaps full of pious wisdom, ultimately dated and passé? Must Scripture ultimately defer to the Zeitgeist, to the spirit of the age, and be dragged along on the coattails of political correctness? The Independent Presbyterian Church and Christ Church Anglican agree that the Scriptures are to be taught and kept “until heaven and earth pass away,” as Jesus said, down to the “jot and tittle,” Jesus even condemning anyone who “annuls” “one of the least of these commandments” found in all of the Law and the Prophets (Mt 5:17-19). For us, Scripture is inspired, God-breathed, infallible and authoritative (2 Tim 3:16). It governs the life of the church and lives of Christians.

Second, we affirm together the ecumenical doctrines of Christianity, those agreed upon by the whole church catholic. We embrace the doctrine of the Trinity, using the language of Nicea (A.D. 325) (their Article I; WCF II); and we embrace orthodox Christianity, affirming the dual nature of Christ with the language of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) (their Articles II and XV; WCF VIII). This non-negotiable core (we would have thought) of ecumenical Christianity, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant, has been under attack for years, by “progressive” theological liberals, most notably, the writers of The Myth of God Incarnate over 30 years ago, and their heirs today who occupy pulpits and chairs of theology in leading universities throughout the world. We stand together affirming the essential doctrines of Christian orthodoxy and their sources, summarized so succinctly by Lancelot Andrewes (1555–1626), sixteenth century minister of the Church of England: one Bible, two Testaments, three Creeds (Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian), four General Councils, and the church as it developed over the first five centuries.

Third, we affirm together the evangelical doctrines of the Reformation, as follows:

            1. Original sin and the bondage of the will are affirmed by Articles IX & X (WCF VI). We agree, in other words, about the nature of the human condition, about the problem of humanity, about the human circumstances that the gospel addresses.

            2. The finality and sufficiency of Christ’s atonement is affirmed in Article XXXI of the Thirty-Nine Articles (WCF VIII). It says,

“The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone.”

At the same time the sacrifices of the Masses are denied as “blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits,” and Article XXII (WCF XXIX.2,6)denies the doctrine of purgatory, along with prayer to saints and the adoration of images and relics as being “repugnant to the word of God” (WCF XXI.2,4). We agree that Christ and Christ alone is the Savior and Mediator, without supplementation and without assistance.

            3. Justification by faith only is affirmed by Article XI (WCF XI), saying salvation is “not for our works and desirings.” Article XII (WCF XVI) defines good works as “the fruits of faith” which “spring out of a true and lively faith.”

            4. Two, not seven, sacraments are affirmed by Article XXV, those of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which are defined as signs and seals of redemption. The baptism of infants is affirmed (by Article XXVII). Article XXVIII defines the Lord’s Supper as a spiritual meal: transubstantiation is denied as “repugnant to the plain words of Scripture.” We are said to eat the Body of Christ “only after an heavenly and spiritual manner” and to receive its benefits by faith; communion in both kinds is affirmed, that is, the cup is not to be denied to the people. (See WCF XXVII–XXIX). A solidly evangelical and protestant understanding of the sacraments is affirmed by the Thirty-Nine Articles.

            5. Even predestination and election are affirmed by Article XVII (WCF III, V, IX, and X). It says,

“Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to delivery from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour.”

The whole ordo salutis, the “golden chain” from election to glorification is affirmed. This doctrine is said to be “full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons” and is said to “kindle their love towards God.”

We may summarize items 1-5 by noting that the central program of the Reformation is affirmed by the Thirty-Nine Articles even as they are by the Westminster Confession of Faith: sola scriptura, solo Christo, sola fide, sola gratia, soli Deo gloria. These doctrines are under assault today from a number of quarters. The exclusive claims of Christ are scorned in our day of religious relativism. Article XVIII affirms salvation only by the name of Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life (Jn 14:6). Katharine Jefferts Schori, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, has announced that Jesus is not the only Savior or the only way to the Father. She openly and frankly reiterated this position at a town hall meeting at St. Peter’s Church on Skidaway Island. Our congregations affirm together with the Apostle Peter:

And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.Cross references:

1. Acts 4:12 : Acts 13:26; 28:28; John 4:22; Heb 2:3; Jude 3
2. Acts 4:12 : 1 Tim 2:5
3. Acts 4:12 : Gal 1:7
4. Acts 4:12 : Acts 10:43; Luke 24:47; John 20:31

 (Acts 4:12)

There is but a hair’s-breadth of difference between an evangelical Presbyterian and an evangelical Episcopalian/Anglican. The present generation of Presbyterian ministers have been profoundly influenced by the writings of British evangelical Anglicans such as J. I. Packer (e.g. Knowing God), J. R. W. Stott (e.g. Basic Christianity), J. A. Motyer (The Bible Speaks Today), P. E. Hughes (various commentaries), Colin Brown (New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology), Geoffrey Bromley, Joyce Baldwin, Alistair McGrath, and so on. I personally studied at Trinity College, Bristol, England, an evangelical Anglican theological college, for my first two years of theological education.

Disagreements

Of course there are areas of disagreement between us. We don’t attempt to paper over them.

First, we disagree on church government. They hold to an episcopal or hierarchical form, we to a Presbyterian or representative form.

Second, they give greater latitude to the role of women. Christ Church Anglican does not believe in ordaining women as ministers. They are not clergy. However, they do serve as deaconesses and take a more visible and public role in the services of the church.

Third, they allow greater latitude in outward ceremonies, Article XXXIV granting to the church “authority to ordain, charge, and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority.” Our regulative principle is considerably more restrictive (WCF XX and XXI).

What can we say about these things? Simply, they’re wrong and we’re right! They, of course, believe the opposite. We’re willing to overlook these things and agree to disagree, since they do not “strike at the vitals of true religion,” as our Book of Church Order expresses it (21-4; 34-5). We stand shoulder to shoulder affirming the core of the gospel and the central mission of the church.

Difficulties

Will there be tensions between us? Have there ever been house guests with whom there were not? I imagine that they are going to leave their dirty socks on the floor, empty glasses in the family room, and the beds unmade. Some of them probably will even come to act as though they own the place. No doubt we’ll get petty about minor disturbances. We’ll eventually begin to wonder, “when will they be leaving?” We’ll become touchy about our things. We’ll begin to yearn for simpler times. Yet, I trust that we’ll learn to let love cover a multitude of sins (Prov 10:12; 1 Pet 4:8). I trust we’ll both learn to be kind, tender-hearted, forgiving each other as God in Christ has forgiven us (Eph 4:32). I trust we’ll learn to let our own periodic annoyances be deferred in favor of the greater cause of Christ. Our prayer must be for that perfected unity that will convince the world, in Jesus’ words, “that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me” (Jn 17:23). We have an opportunity to demonstrate true Christian unity, unity in the truth, unity that recognizes differences, but also recognizes the priority of the historic gospel over secondary issues. May our two churches, Anglican and Presbyterian, meeting under the same roof, at great cost to them and at some inconvenience to us, provide a weekly reminder of our greater unity in Christ.