Reformed circles in the UK seem to have a jaundiced view that despite everything she has done and is still doing to Gospel preachers and despite her appalling spiritual condition, the desire to rehabilitate semi-reformed Anglicanism into the reformed constituency is proceeding apace.
At the Westminster Conference in December 2012, three convinced Anglicans will be speaking on subjects that bear on the Great Ejection of ministers from the Anglican Church in 1662 under Archbishop Skelton who followed the policies of Arch. William Laud - Lee Gatiss, Andrew Atherstone and David Ceri Jones. Indeed, Rev Dick Lucas spoke at a recent Leicester Minister's Conference.
Is there an admission that dissenting brethren got it all wrong about Anglicanism after all? Is Anglicanism still "the best boat to fish from" for souls? Does it have a richness that is lacking in non-conformist churches? What is the present day appeal of this semi-reformed religious institution?
I just don't know! Reformers have consistently held that the Scriptures alone determine the faith and order of the Christian church, and while the Anglican church is doctrinally reformed, by no stretch of the imagination is she reformed ecclesiastically. She still copies the Pope's church in all outward appearances.
Yet, evangelicals within Anglicanism maintain that she is a reformed church in all respects. Hardly so. She had the opportunity to be reformed in the seventeenth century, but refused to leave the outward trappings of the Pope's church; yet she opted for the doctrinal position of the reformed church.
The trend amongst non-conformists is to accept Anglicanism as a reformed church in the same way that they are. I would like to know how they justify this position?
3 comments:
Someone with as many degrees as you should know that Archbishop William Laud was dead well before1662. So it was an impressive feat for him to eject the puritans who chopped his head off from the church (which apparently they shouldn't have wanted to be a part of anyway).
Reformed Anglicans get flak from other Anglicans all the time because they prioritise doctrine over aesthetics. Why are you also making aesthetics so central? Isn't that just as bad as what the Anglo-Catholics do? Why is the gospel not enough?
It is very amusing that an advert for "The Anglican Catholic Church" keeps popping up at the bottom of this blogpost. I guess the blogger has no control over this. But it shows that "Blogger" have a good sense of humour!
Yes, my friend Dr Lynch made a historical slip - yet Sheldon shared Laud's hatred for all things puritan. That said, Dr Lynch's theological evaluations are 'on target' in every respect. Indeed, how can a leaking and sinking ship be a good vessel to fish from? Fully-Reformed criticism of Anglicanism's culture of compromise is more than a concern over aesthetics. The fact is that the Church of England was a 'PC' pseudo-church in 1662. It is vastly worse in 2012, to put it mildly. At a time when the descendants of the Nonconformists seem to be growing weary of their time-honoured distinctives, it is urgent to rediscover and restate the heroic testimony of the Puritans of 1662. Dr Alan C. Clifford
Post a Comment