The Anti-Anglican?

It's not unusual for someone who has changed allegiance in some way to become very anti their previous position. So if someone changes their political affiliation, it can often be the case that they become very opposed to previously held positions. Similarly, within the Christian faith, if we move from one side of an argument to another, we can easily become very antagonistic to our previously held position in our zeal for our new discoveries. You may well have seen this on questions such as baptism, or predestination.

For me, this begs a question. Having moved out of the Church of England and started a church plant that has no Anglican affiliation, am I now an anti-Anglican? Not surprisingly, I've been thinking a bit about this recently!

I think there are many ways I could be tempted to become anti-Anglican. Perhaps the most significant I'm not going to talk about in this blog is antagonism due to my experiences with people within Anglicanism. However, while those experiences may make one more wary of specific people and more generally of people within churches, they're not a reason to be anti-Anglican as such.

I think Anglicanism should be defined theologically, So I want to think about theological antagonism. There are two spheres in which this sort of antagonism could play out. One is that, in leaving, I have fundamentally shifted my position from the classic Anglican position. The other is that I have left because the shift has been in Anglicanism.

I would broadly argue it is the latter, but with specific respect to the Church of England. So classic Anglicanism - i.e. based on the Prayer Book and Thirty Nine Articles - is, to my mind, Reformed Protestantism. I don't think I have shifted on that. The specifics of Anglicanism that other evangelicals have historically disagreed upon and which I could have shifted on, are usually thought to be infant baptism, episcopal government and establishment (which is particular to the Church of England).

Infant Baptism

In terms of infant baptism, I remain convinced, while hopefully generous and understanding of those who take a believers' baptism approach. I think I have shifted somewhat on the other two distinctives, although more the current practice, than the principle.

Episcopacy

With regard to episcopacy (i.e. having a system of church government with Bishops), evangelicals have commonly held that it is a good and proper form of church government (neither "superstitious" nor "ungodly" to quote Article XXXVI), but would often go no further than that, therefore allowing other forms of government. W.H. Griffith Thomas presents this position at some length, pointing to an extensive history to that view in his book Principles of Theology. That was and remains my opinion. My small shift has been to ask more questions about what to do when that system has completely broken down - as I believe it has in the Church of England. In particular, I haven't felt bound to stick with episcopacy.

Some might suggest that there were more faithful episcopal ways to go, e.g. AMiE or the FCE. That's true and episcopacy is certainly not something that would have stopped me going that way. For me, those directions didn't work out.

Establishment

This refers to the relationship of the Church of England with the government and crown in the UK. This relationship is complex (the Church of England is not as straightforwardly a state church, as some churches in other countries).

Clearly it isn't necessary Biblically to be an established church! The question for evangelicals has generally been whether it is acceptable. Within the limits of the Church of England (see Article XXXVII), which defines appropriate spheres for the government and the church I think this is broadly acceptable.

Not all within the Church of England are keen, including a fairly vocal bishop and I can understand why. In practice it can often create problems, particularly in 21st Century Britain. Increasingly, I have felt concerned at the church-state links. In an increasingly secular society and therefore government, any linkage is undoubtedly going to put strain on the church. Where that church is increasingly weak, I think this could lead to (and is in part responsible for) the dilution of the message of the church. That's not an "in principle" concern, but an "in practice" one I think, but it is significant.

So again, this means I'm happy (perhaps happier) operating under less influence from the government in a non-established church.

Conclusion

I write these things partly to help me realise that I am simply not anti-Anglican. That should help me keep my 'tone' right in discussion with Anglicans. I don't hate Anglicanism. Theologically I can understand why Anglican Evangelicals are at peace with their theology and I hope (given the above explanation) they can understand why someone like me can be at peace in a non-Anglican setting.

It makes me clearer that I left because the Church of England and the Diocese of Manchester are moving so fast away from historic Anglicanism, making it very difficult for historic Anglicans like me to stay. That is sad, but true.

It also makes me clearer that my commitment to Christ and the Reformed faith that I think represents his teaching best is critical to me.