I was just over at the Alliance of Confessing Evangelical's website, and noticed that they have more then one member on their council who is an Anglican.
This brought to my mind the issue of the Anglican church in relation to Evangelicalism and Christianity as a whole.
For me, the term "Anglican" has always been a bit perjorative. I've always seen the COE as a bit of a half-Rome. There has been a strong trend towards ecumenism in recent years. Long before this recent dispute over the gay bishop, they were allowing homosexual preiets. And then there is the following piece, written by Charles Spurgeon:
Hmmm.......As an RE (reformed episcopalian), I honestly think the term 'anglican' is a bit to broad today. So much is put under that banner. The problem is the same as all other denominational labels.......unity. I know several pastors, fathers, and bishops under the 'anglican' banner that are quite evangelical.
The notion of a 'half-roman' is not without some merit. The worship is generally liturgical; ecclesiology obviously episcopal; and some traditions are certainly similar. However, I find the theology more reformational; just not radically protestant. Via media.
Ecumenism is an issue. Anglicans tend to view Rome as fallen brothers rather than all out lost. I also think many anglicans would be amryldians as well.
The problems have been around for a good time. The REC was formed in the 1800's due to some of these problems. Several ECUSA parishes have left for more conservative alliances.
Please realise that I am not an expert on these matters.
At the Synod of Dordt the Church of England was recognised as a Reformed church and its two representatives took a full part in the proceedings, agreeing in doctrine with their Reformed brethren.
That many Anglican churches have moved a long way is undoubted. This is particularly true in North America. The situation differs in other parts of the world. The church is much more evangelical in South America, South-East Asia and Africa. Even in England you will find a number of congregations which are clearly and outspokenly evangelical.
That the Church of England has many difficulties, I do not doubt. That there are, noentheless, faithful ministers and congregations in it I do not doubt either.
Yes Henry, you're absolutely right <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" /> However, totalitarian States of all sorts have always regarded it as important to control religion. You can see this in Dan 3 where everybody had to worship the statue that Nebuchadnezzar erected. It was felt that if people were allowed to worship as they wished, they'd be wanting to have a say in government next!
Even the early reformers wanted one territorial church in each area. Hence their persecution of the Anabaptists. When that evil man, Henry VIII of England, split with the Pope, he was determined to keep religion firmly under his control. To show his impartiality, he beheaded six Romanists and burned six Protestants on the same day; the former for treason because they refused to recognize him as head of the Church, the latter for heresy because they would not accept the doctrine of transubstantiation.
After they kicked out James II in 1689, the British decided that they would have no more Romanist Monarchs. So until 1910, the King or Queen at his/her coronation had personally to disavow the doctrines of the Church of Rome. Even the present Queen had to promise, 'To uphold the Protestant Religion, reformed by law', and to this day, no English monarch is permitted to be married to a Roman Catholic.
The downside of this is that the State (Anglican) Church is now almost totally apostate and the vast majority of Britons do not have the first idea of what Christianity is. In the national Census of 2000, 71% of the population described themselves as Christian <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wow1.gif" alt="" />, yet only about 7% of them ever go to church. They believe that because they're British, because they're not atheists and because they were 'christened' into the C of E as babies, they must be Christian.
I know this because it was what I believed for thirty years <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />
Thanks for the response, Steve. I studied a bit of that in high school- but I needed the refresher!
It's a tad perplexing to see these examples of compromise on this issue. Sure, there's probably lots of Christians in the Church of England, but should they stay there?
Hey William, Since you're a Reformed Episcopalian, do you know a guy named Daniel Dunlap? He came over to England a few years ago to do a Phd in theology at Oxford Univ and at the same time pastored a 'Free church of England' church in Exeter. He did some of the teaching at the part-time seminary where I studied. He went back to the USA to become Dean of some posh seminary over with you.
Yes. I have never personally met Dr. Dunlap, though. I did speak with him over the phone about two years ago, discussing seminary. I am not aware of his current positions within the REC. I did not see his name under the faculty list at the Pennsylvania seminary, though I am sure he was in Houston. I am sure he was dean for a time as well, and he may still be. The website went down a couple weeks ago and the section for Cranmer Theological isn't up yet. Here is the link however
I was perusing through some old threads and remembered this one. Having recently spoken to a couple of bishops along these lines I thought I might comment again.
There seems to be three sides to Anglicanism;
1) Anglo-catholic. basically Rome without a pope. Still hold to regenerational baptism, hyper covenantal concerning children, very tradition oriented, etc.
2) Charismatic. Those with a less literal understanding of scripture. Even some hints of modern charismatic beliefs. yet still hold to the basics, as held to by the Church.
3) Evangelicals. The four and five point calvinists. The reformer types. Less traditional with more emphasis on preaching.
These lines are blurry at times. Some conservative pastors can preach in a manner more characteristic of modern preaching. Some Charismatics are hyper-covenantal. Some evangelicals still hold to old traditions in practice. Within the REC, I would say we are centered on evangelical, but with a little of new and old in the mix. I do know every ordained male upholds TULIP tho the L can at times seem lost. None support gay ordination. Some are a bit hyper-covenantal. Most are A-Millenial tho a few are pre. None are post. All have a high view of tradition but uphold sola scriptura. Feel free to ask any further questions and I'll attempt to answer.
Finding a good episcopal/anglican type church is the same as anywhere. Some are good but some are not. As for the CoE, I don't think it is nearly as influential as it used to be, and of lat it has had significant problems. Whether or not it can continue to remain acceptably christian or not is another matter.
God bless,
william
Last edited by averagefellar; Fri Dec 10, 20044:14 PM.
Would you say the Church of England is the same today as it was when Spurgeon wrote that article?
I just read that article and I think Spurgeon was quite ballenced in his critisism. He didn't throw out the baby with the bath water in his critisism. An example of that is:
Quote
Towards the Evangelicals of the Establishment we cherish the most loving feelings; we blush for their inconsistency in remaining in communion with Papists and Infidels (these are plain names for Puseyites and Essayists), but we heartily rejoice in their vigorous protests and earnest testimonies against the errors of their denomination. In our very hearts we feel the sincerest affection for our brethren in Christ, who are the salt of Episcopacy and the lights of their dark Church.
There are a few theologians in the Church of England that I am very greatful for. JI Packer, who wrote my favortite article defending doctrines of grace and the late D.Martyn Lloyd-Jones.
I agree in principle. While I wish for ecumenicism, I do not do so at the cost of truth. We can easily understand this concerning the ordination of gays today. I refuse to attend an ECUSA church, currently. I will not compromise on this issue. I also enjoy Ryle, McGrath, and I believe Horton used to be Episcopal. As for me, I am way evangelical and conservative. I won't worship in a parish where a crucifix is used.
have you read Evangelicalism Divided by Iain Murray (Banner of Truth) You might find it helpful in understanding particularly the British perpective of evangelicals in the Church of England.
Presbyterian by conviction, married to a Reformed Baptist, attending an evangelical congregational church which is dual affiliated to The Evangelical Fellowship of Congregational Churches and the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. I am also a member of the evangelical group Reform linked with the Church of England.
That should indicate my evangelical catholicity! I was brought up in the CofE but never heard the gospel from it.
These agreed statements are also interesting, in particular as they redefine the church from being "a congregation of faithful men" to being one identified by baptism. Iain Murray's book has much more on this shift within Anglican evangelicalism.
I didn't revive this thread! I happen to be reading Evangelicalism Divided at the moment and it struck me that the REC/APA link up may contain seeds of the same issue of identifying the church. Googling simply turned up some new and pertinent links.
I happen to watch Anglicanism issues from a UK perspective which is only natural given the local dominance of Anglicanism amongst protestant church goers.
In any case, it's entirely up to you whethre or not to respond.
FWIW I'm coming to the conclusion the REC issues are more to do with lurching from fundamentalism to High Church and missing the middle ground of Reformed protestantism on the way.
