Church of England

Forgive me if I have facts wrong...

I understand that the church of England came into existence when King Henry the VIII wanted to divorce his first wife. She was not giving him the sons he needed to ensure the line of succession. All those involved were Catholic. The Pope would not grant him a divorce, so he split from the Catholic church, announced himself as not only King but also Defender of the Faith in England. And he granted himself a divorce.

 

Henry VIII was a real theologian, and his writings reflect and profound concern for Christianity.

Many of us high church baptists consider the CoE our theological homeland. Worship at our church is taken primarily from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, and we have a very good working relationship with our Episcopal neighbors.

Joshua

 

As someone who comes from England, perhaps I can shed a little light on the subject - Henry VIII may once have been a sincere man but he had a couple of wives murdered!

As for their theological position, generalisation is always diffcult but at this present time in history very few people who log on to this site would feel comfortable in a C of E church. Whilst we have much to be thankful for to them in years gone by, the church is in a sorry state now.

In a recent poll large numbers of the ministers(this is not the members) said they did not believe in the virgin birth or the bodily resurrection of Christ. Many are not 'born again' as we would understand that phrase and yes it is a very libral church.

Understanding of theology is poor, (much is focused upon tradition - infant sprinkling for anyone who would like it and communion for any who wish to go up with no warning of self-examination).

Preaching is not expositary (but please read anything you can get your hands on by J C Ryle, first bishop of Liverpool about 150 years ago), but a homily on social decline. Often the life changing power of the gospel will not be preached. Often a gospel of works (giving generously to the church restoration fund) is preached louder than the cleansing blood of Christ.

Church government does not match the model we find in the NT as it is hierarchichal. The Bishops are appointed by government - what do they know about the qualifications of an Elder - I suspect that they have never read Timothy or Titus on the subject. Churches buildings will often have an Alter - not the Lords Table. Yet the supreme sacrifice of the Lamb has been made and there is no need for any other!

Many are involved in the ecumenical movement and are happy to join with the church of Rome. One fellow rang recently and asked us join them. When his inviation was declined he asked if the Spiritualist Church across the road might be interested!

They are soon to appoint another ArchBishop - he is almost the top dog, (the Head of the Church of England is not Christ but the Queen). He was seen however, taking part in Druid ritual (pagan ritual) just a couple of days ago.

It is not all doom and gloom. There is an evanglical wing of the Church of England - (addressed recently by John MacCarther Jnr), born again men who are working hard to bring the good news of Christ to a lost generation, but they are a small section. I have had the privelage to sit under the minstry of a godly man in the C of E but this appears to be the exception rather rule.

I could not with all conscience join the established state church in England but would rather remain a non-confirmist. I hope this helps.

Swindon

 

My understanding is, that while Henry VIII made the split from the RCC, it was not until his daughter's reign, Elizabeth I, that the CHurch of England was legitimately organized. Something about not wanting England to be ruled by Rome.

I could be wrong...

 

Warm Christian greetings!

As an Englishman I agree with what our brother from Swindon has said. There is a very small conservative Evangelical wing but they do not appear to have had any success in halting the spiritual decline in the C of E. The new Archbishop of Canterbury is strongly pro-gay.

I don't want to be rude but, quite frankly, it is apostate, and if you have any sense you won't have anything to do with it.

Kind regards,

Robert J Hutton

 

Does anyone understand why Queen Elizabeth II appointed this new Archbishop? I am beginning to wonder why she could not find someone more conservative?

I can't see that King Henry VIII "murdered" two wives. I would say that they were guilty of treason under the laws of that time and were executed legally.

 

Usually the 1979.

Obviously, our church isn't going to consider the CoE apostate for being pro-woman or pro-gay; although we do preach a stronger gospel message than I think you hear in many Anglican pulpits.

Joshua

 

I just borrowed the Charles Laughton video from the library about "The Private Life of Henry VIII" which is about all I know. Please explain the case to me more.

 

Oh, don't go to any extra work on this point. I am sort of like Shakespeare on royal politics--I just take the straight party line and try to stay out of trouble that way. Do we agree that English nationalism demanded that King Henry VIII produce a son at all costs? In my opinion, you can see a glimpse of the same thing in the pressure on Prince Charles to marry and have children. Personally, I think that Prince Charles will be a disaster as King, but then nowadays his power is merely ceremonial. Some try to say that King Henry VIII became Protestant merely for divorce. I think that he was a Protestant, but then I think that divorce is justified in cases of adultery, especially with the aids epidemic. English nationalism comes into play, but English law has proven to be advanced over Roman law, so the English improved the world. Only ancient Rome could hold Europe together with an iron fist (and no velvet glove), and that was the Will of God.

 

With all due respect, I do not see the evidence that King Henry VIII was not a Protestant at heart. The English are interested in freedom. Bloody Mary must have sealed the English as Protestants. The Church of England used to be true to the doctrines of Christianity until their theology went to neo-orthodox, perhaps with the fad of higher criticism.

As much as I like Queen Elizabeth II, I think that she must be a poor theologian to have appointed this current Archbishop of Canterbury, who is just another disgrace to Lambeth Palace.