Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again, and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned, which say, they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.
by the Rev. Michael B.E. Kurth
A friend recently invited me to a dinner fundraiser to support a criminal justice reform agency in New York City. I’m always game for getting dressed up and supporting a good cause – May is gala season in New York, after all. Dinner was lovely – a bright green salad to start, crispy chicken thigh with creamy polenta as an entrée, and triple chocolate mousse that became the perfect good night hug to end the evening.
The night wasn’t about the food, of course, but for raising funds and awareness of a nonprofit whose aim is to increase educational opportunities inside American prisons. Throughout the evening, graduates of the program took the microphone to share how education changed the trajectory of their life, from a life in prison to a life of promise. A few refrains stick in my head: “I believe in education. I believe that you are so much more than the worst thing you have done in your life.” When it came time to eat, graduates of the program sat at every table, taking their place at the banquet feast alongside the organization’s ardent supporters. Upon sitting down, it was impossible to determine the felon from the Fortune 500 financer. No one asked about each other’s background, what put them in jail, or the lessons learned behind bars. We all shared a meal in the hope that the resurrected life experienced by the program’s graduates could continue for others still on the inside.
Who does forgiveness belong to? Are some sins worse than others? Is anyone (or any sin) beyond pardon? These are a few of the questions that swirled in my head on the train home that evening. They are also questions Archbishop Thomas Cranmer addresses in Article XVI of his Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. Some of these questions seem a little more straightforward with explanations that can be excavated through a dive into Cranmer’s (and, hence, Anglican) theology of sin and baptism; other questions have been wrestled about for millennia and resist easy explanation. Above all, Article XVI confronts two pertinent theological issues that the newly reformed Church in England needed clarity on: sin and baptism.
Theologians have forever grappled with understanding sin, as it is elemental to our experience as fallen humans and our relationship with God. The Jewish and Christian notion of sin has roots in the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Though the Hebrew word for sin (chatah) is not explicitly mentioned Genesis 3, the first human’s disobedience to God has been interpreted as sinful. The predominant outcomes of The Fall are humanity’s banishment from the Garden of Eden and our mortal fate. Yet God maintains care for Adam and Eve in their banishment, clothing them with “garments of skins.”[1] Yes, they disobeyed God by eating fruit from the tree God commanded them not to eat from. But despite their disobedience, God maintains love for humanity, providing care for them even in their punishment.
The first scriptural mention of chatah in the Hebrew scriptures comes in the story of Cain and Abel. Cain converses with The Lord in the moments before he kills Abel, and The Lord ominously foreshadows to Cain that “sin is lurking at your door.”[2] Cain’s punishment for murder is greater than he can bear: he will no longer be able to till the ground for its fruits and is forced to become a fugitive wanderer. Harsh indeed. But, like the care given to Adam and Eve, the Lord cares for Cain in his banishment, marking him and sealing the fugitive wanderer as his own. Cain killed his own brother. Yet the Lord preserves his life and promises him protection, for he is much more than the worse thing he has done in his life.
The Fall in the garden and Cain’s banishment reveal humanity’s constant wrestling with sinful actions contrary to God’s desire for harmonious relationship with us and one another. Interpretations of our origin stories have led theologians to believe, in the words of Saint Paul, that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (all, except for Christ: see Article XV).[3] Patristic theologians grappled and formulated a Christian notion of sin, with one theologian’s thoughts emerging as the clear winner (Augustine. Augustine always wins). In Confessions, Augustine states that it is humanity’s will that is the origin of evil, and the will is something we’ve had since birth.[4] As sinful humans, our response must be to repent, turn toward God, profess our faith in Christ crucified, and be baptized in the waters of salvation.
In the time before (and after) Augustine, opposing theologians spread ideas that the church ultimately deemed heretical. Novatian, an Italian priest in the third century, preached that serious sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven. Pelagius posited that humans are without original sin, and that the will can choose good without the divine aid of God’s grace. Others even taught that it was impossible for the regenerate to sin.
Article XVI addresses such heresies clearly and succinctly. Cranmer tees up Article XVI in the final sentence of the previous article: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.”[5] This reaffirmation of 1 John addresses the basic human belief that (going back to The Fall) we can and will operate away from God’s desired goodness for us.
With the premise that humans are sinful and will continue to commit sins, Cranmer addresses deadly and unpardonable sins, using the established the work of Thomas Aquinas and the Roman theology of sins against the Holy Spirit as a launching point. Like Aquinas (who argues that some sins are graver than others), Cranmer maintains that “Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable.”[6] Cranmer does not name a tier of sins like Roman teaching (unpardonable sins, mortal sins, venial sins and the vices represented in the seven deadly sins). Rather, Cranmer acknowledges that not every deadly sin after baptism is a sin against the Holy Ghost. His acknowledgment that “not every sin” is a sin against the Holy Spirit leaves room to interpret that some sins are sins against the Holy Spirit. However, he does not identify the unpardonable sins, nor does he claim there to be mortal or venial sin. Instead, he insists that even our deadly sins (sins Rome defines as lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride) are not necessarily sins against the Holy Spirit. We will commit such deadly sins, even after we have been baptized. But they are pardonable, as long as we repent.
Fragments of Cranmer’s baptismal theology become apparent in the second part of Article XVI. First, he refutes the notion that one cannot sin after baptism. This is inherent in the introductory sentence and outright rejected in second half of the article. Second, he confirms the orthodox theology of the gift of the Holy Spirit given at baptism. Finally, Cranmer acknowledges that in our sin, we depart from the grace given to us by God. The great irony, of course, is that we may only “amend our lives” and “rise again” by the power of that same grace we have strayed from.[7]
Article XVI ends with a condemnation on those who disagree with Cranmer, the only condemnation specified on antagonists in all thirty-nine articles. In particular, Cranmer condemns those who say “they can no more sin as long as they live here,” as well as those who “deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.” The first group to be condemned, those who say the baptized can no more sin here on earth, are rightly cast aside with ease. However, Cranmer’s condemnation of those who withhold the place of forgiveness deserves more attention.
The place of forgiveness. As a “miserable and wretched sinner” myself, I’d love to discover this place, though I know what Cranmer has in mind is not a physical destination.[8] Instead, Cranmer is speaking of the merit of forgiveness, the worthiness of forgiveness, the act of forgiveness embodied by the penitent.
Forgiveness always has a place in our world, because it is a vital act of our relationship with God and one another. In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus shows us how to pray to God, and a vital part of such prayerful connection is asking for and showing forgiveness. In his final moments on the cross, Jesus embodied true forgiveness, pleading for mercy for those who knew not what they did, and reception in heaven for a fellow victim of crucifixion. God is the source of all forgiveness, and God’s grace enables us to welcome those who have wronged us, and, when necessary, enables us to become the one who grovels with repentance.
When discussing forgiveness, we ultimately must examine the Prodigal Son, perhaps Jesus’ most famous and provocative parable. A wealthy man has two sons, between whom he divides the wealth of his property. The younger leaves town with his riches and squanders his fortune, while the elder stays at home and continues his life alongside his family. Upon the wasteful son’s return home, he begs for forgiveness. When the father welcomes him with open arms and a fabulous feast, the elder son is miffed. Why such celebration for a son who threw away his life? Why not celebrate the son who stayed true to the family? The father responds to his eldest: “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.”[9]
The younger son is much more than the worse thing he has done in his life. While the father sees this, it not so with the elder son, who demands his father deny forgiveness. Little does the eldest son know, of course, that forgiveness is not his to generate; forgiveness comes through the grace and mercy of the Father, embodied by the father. The father does not condemn either son; rather, all are to enjoy the great banquet prepared for them.
The image of the Prodigal Son resounds across Article XVI. The younger son is wasteful, committing great sins after receiving his share of his father’s property. His sins, however, are not unpardonable, an idea reproduced in Cranmer’s explanation to the faithful. The young son returns home to his father and shows true repentance, proclaiming he has sinned against heaven and before his father. By the grace of God the younger son amends his life, and by the forgiveness and reception of the father he is forgiven. The ‘place of forgiveness’ in this story, an idea rejected by the elder son, is restored by the father in light of the younger son’s true repentance in returning home. As Cranmer mandates, the place of forgiveness is not to be denied to those who truly repent.
And then they feast. On the menu for their celebration that evening was the family’s fatted calf. I’m reminded, though, of a simple green salad with crispy chicken thighs and triple chocolate mousse. Whether an unknown prisoner or a long lost son, we are to rejoice when the lost have been found. We are to welcome them and not deny the place of forgiveness to those who truly repent. I witnessed such rejoicing and welcome at the banquet dinner last month as I dined with ex-convicts, members of our society we are so quick to deny welcome and forgiveness. Indeed, I must seek forgiveness for the ways I’ve denied the place of forgiveness, and for the many ways I am complicit in the failings of the American criminal justice system.
As Cranmer imparts in Article XVI, we are all sinners. But not every sin is an unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit. Repentance and the place of forgiveness is not ours to deny. Through the grace of God we can amend our lives and rise again. Because God loves us, we are forever loved and valued so much more than the worst thing we have done in our life.
Despite our mortal sinfulness and our desire to depart from grace given, God will continue to care for us. God cared for Adam and Eve after the Fall and for Cain in his wandering, just as the father cared for his prodigal son upon his return home. God’s sweet, amazing grace fills us all with love and mercy. Through even the lowest moments of our lives, we live with the knowledge that through grace we may rise again.
Michael B.E. Kurth is the curate at Christ’s Church in Rye, New York. He is a 2018 graduate of Yale Divinity School, Berkeley Divinity School at Yale and the Yale Institute of Sacred Music. While at seminary, he was awarded the John A. Wade Prize for the greatest originality in expository preaching at Yale University. He is a lover of hymns and his Bernese Mountain Dog puppy named Cozy.
[1] Gen 3:21
[2] Gen 4:7
[3] Rom 3:23.
[4] Augustine, Confessions, Book 7.
[5] Article XV
[6] Article XIV
[7] Article XVI
[8] Thomas Cranmer, A Sermon of the Misery of All Mankind, Book of Homilies: Sermon 2.
[9] Luke 15:31-32.