Anglican Reformation

[mindlight]

This thread is about an Anglican view of the Reformation. Coming from an Anglican background and still broadly Anglican in my view of the world I have been asked to preach on Reformation Sunday in a German Lutheran church.

It strikes me that the Anglican Reformation was very different from the Lutheran one in a number of different ways. But Liberal, Evangelical and AngloCatholic views of it vary considerably!!!

There were reforming movements in England from a very early age. But Henry VIII got the title Defender of the Faith from the pope for opposing Luther. Then later Henry creates a national church in order to secure his divorce and allows reformation forces to work in that. I have always thought Anglicanism is more Catholic / Calvinist than Lutheran. It believes it stands in the apostolic succession but it also spawned Baptism and Methodism and the whole Puritan movement associated with the Mayflower colonists. The Reformation was more a process spanning centuries in the UK than a single event. Politics and theology are heavily intermingled in that process. You could argue the civil war in the 1640s and the victory of the Puritan Parliamentary forces in that was the moment the Catholics lost Englands heart. But others cite the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 and the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. But the basic idea that something was deeply wrong with Catholicism and that we needed to get back to the basics of the early church and scripture was there. For some AngloCatholics the Reformation has never really happened at all. I'd be interested in your views:

1) What are the theological distinctives of the Anglican Reformation.
2) Was it an event or a process, if a process what were the key events that led to it?
3) Is Anglicanism the same as the reformed church that broke away from Rome. If not what are the key differences today

 

[FireDragon76]

The Anglican reformation was not driven by theology so much as politics.

Elizabeth I is the real architect of the shape of Anglicanism as a broadly Reformed church that was intentionally vague on doctrine and holding within itself internal contradictions. Some Anglicans have, as Aidan Nichols pointed out, fallen in love with this sort of "platypus" and made it their own.

The Lollards, a pre-Reformation anti-clerical and iconclastic movement, contributed a great deal to the Puritan movement, which later split altogether from the Church of England. Luther's Reformation really had nothing quite like it.

 

[Albion]

But Henry VIII got the title Defender of the Faith from the pope for opposing Luther. Then later Henry creates a national church in order to secure his divorce and allows reformation forces to work in that. I have always thought Anglicanism is more Catholic / Calvinist than Lutheran. It believes it stands in the apostolic succession but it also spawned Baptism and Methodism and the whole Puritan movement associated with the Mayflower colonists. The Reformation was more a process spanning centuries in the UK than a single event. Politics and theology are heavily intermingled in that process. You could argue the civil war in the 1640s and the victory of the Puritan Parliamentary forces in that was the moment the Catholics lost Englands heart. But others cite the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 and the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. But the basic idea that something was deeply wrong with Catholicism and that we needed to get back to the basics of the early church and scripture was there. For some AngloCatholics the Reformation has never really happened at all. I'd be interested in your views:

The assignment here is a potentially a very big and complicated one, but I have highlighted in red some points that, for starters, seem to me to be dead wrong.

 

[mindlight]

The Anglican reformation was not driven by theology so much as politics.

In England theology and politics were far more mixed up. Hence the union of state and church in the monarchy here that persists to this day. But tensions between Rome and England and especially over Henrys desire to annul his marriage to Catherine warped the theological debate at least in Henrys mind. Previously he published a polemic against Luther in the Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (defence of seven sacraments) then he rejected Papal Supremacy entirely and assumed the role of Supreme Head of the church (a title which Mary rejected and which Elizabeth toned down a bit to Supreme Governor). He used the money from the split (Dissolution of the Monasteries) to fund his wars and extravagance. There was already a Protestant movement in the UK but without Henrys theological fickleness and immorality I am not sure the Reformation would have taken place in the UK. The state was too strong not to have been involved in it.

Elizabeth I is the real architect of the shape of Anglicanism as a broadly Reformed church that was intentionally vague on doctrine and holding within itself internal contradictions. Some Anglicans have, as Aidan Nichols pointed out, fallen in love with this sort of "platypus" and made it their own.

It was under Edward VI (and Thomas Cranmer) that much of the theology (42 articles) and liturgy (e.g. Book of Common Prayer) of the church were articulated. But yes I think Elizabeth was the one who cemented the hold of Anglicanism (39 articles). It was King James who provided the bible by which Anglicans would swear by. It was a process more than an event. Intially very messy but later more pure and integrated in its character. But as you say the church is a broad one and the liturgy allows a variance that does not exist in other churches . The difference between conservative Evangelicals, rational liberals and Anglo Catholics is profound.

The Lollards, a pre-Reformation anti-clerical and iconclastic movement, contributed a great deal to the Puritan movement, which later split altogether from the Church of England. Luther's Reformation really had nothing quite like it.

The Anglican reformation was grudgingly supported by many pre-existing Protestants, who wanted to go much further, because it was a step in the right direction. But as you say the Puritans would take things much further later. They were an important factor in the civil war and later in the American migration and then arguably by way of influence in the American revolution.

 

[FireDragon76]

Herny VIII's regime actually persecuted early English Lutherans, making Lutheran martyrs at English hands, such as Dr. Robert Barnes, who had been a student of Luther's in Wittenberg. Henry VIII attempted to use Lutherans only for political ends, to expand alliances and power, when that fell through, he had no more use for Lutherans in his kingdom.

Luther actually criticized Henry VIII for Barnes' execution:

“This Dr. Robert Barnes we certainly knew, and it is a particular joy for me to hear that our good, pious dinner guest and houseguest has been so graciously called by God to pour out his blood and to become a holy martyr for the sake of His dear Son… He always had these words in his mouth: Rex meus, regem meum [“my king, my king”], as his confession indeed indicates that even until his death he was loyal toward his king with all love and faithfulness, which was repaid by Henry with evil. Hope betrayed him. For he always hoped his king would become good in the end. Let us praise and thank God! This is a blessed time for the elect saints of Christ and an unfortunate, grievous time for the devil, for blasphemers, and enemies, and it is going to get even worse. Amen.”

I believe it is doubtful that Henry can be considered among the elect, or that he died in a state of grace. He did many wicked and impious things in his life, from destroying shrines and looting monasteries, to slaying confessors of the faith.

 

[mindlight]

The assignment here is a potentially a very big and complicated one, but I have highlighted in red some points that, for starters, seem to me to be dead wrong.

>>>>>Henry creates a national church >>>>>>

The reformation in England was initially a nation state taking control of the structures of clerical / papal power and giving them to a national king rather than the pope. The real work of defining the character of the church was accomplished under Edward VI and Elizabeth but depended on that control having shifted to a national church.

<<<<and allows reformation forces to work in that.>>>>

Key Catholic figures opposing the split with Rome were removed e.g. Thomas More. The doctrine of Papal Supremacy was rejected. Both of these things were things that Protestants were looking for.

<<<<Anglicanism.... spawned Baptism and Methodism>>>

That's a typo - I meant Baptists. The strongest view of Baptist origins is the English Separatist view of the 1600s in which opposition to the Anglican church was the reason to separate off and form ones own denomination. Baptists grew in this culture and then spread to America from it.

 

[mindlight]

Herny VIII's regime actually persecuted early English Lutherans, making Lutheran martyrs at English hands, such as Dr. Robert Barnes, who had been a student of Luther's in Wittenberg. Henry VIII attempted to use Lutherans only for political ends, to expand alliances and power, when that fell through, he had no more use for Lutherans in his kingdom.

Luther actually criticized Henry VIII for Barnes' execution:

That is true. Though having rejected Papal Supremacy the church in England was still very Catholic in character under Henry. There was talk among the Bishops of uniting with the Greek church rather than evangelical Protestants. The affirmation of the 6 articles of faith was a rejection of Lutheranism.

The articles reaffirmed traditional Roman Catholic doctrine on key issues:
1) transubstantiation,
2) the reasonableness of withholding of the cup from the laity during communion,
3) clerical celibacy,
4) observance of vows of chastity,
5) permission for private masses,
6) the importance of auricular confession.

Thirty-nine Articles - Wikipedia

The mess of this process seems much like BREXIT to me (not that I agreed with BREXIT). Its just the way England does things. We may get to the right result but do not exactly look like superheroes on the way!!!! Organic historical development rather than implemented preplanned perfection being the process.

I believe it is doubtful that Henry can be considered among the elect, or that he died in a state of grace. He did many wicked and impious things in his life, from destroying shrines and looting monasteries, to slaying confessors of the faith.

There is a deep deceit in his life. He was a king who got his own way no matter the cost. He was an adulterer and violent man who arguably murdered many of those who got in his way. But he was used by God. He is more a King Saul type figure than a David. Englands David was arguably Elizabeth.

 

[FireDragon76]

I actually don't think Lollards were Evangelicals (at least as Lutherans would understand it) so much as a radical medieval sect with a highly political character. Wycliffe's theology was predestinarian but it was otherwise medievalist when it came to justification. In fact that might explain the Puritan emphasis that heavily stressed conversion and piety, as well as a militant iconclasm that wasn't just aimed at religious images per se, but all symbols of the medieval world, in a way that continental Reformed churches did not, necessarily.

And I think that extra-Evangelical character of the Lollards actually made the internal contradictions of Anglicanism unbearable, and resulted in civil war, and later, separation of dissenters from the state church.

 

[FireDragon76]

I believe Lutherans have the most affinity for the religion of the Anglican high church. The Evangelical party's religion is far too puritanical, moralistic, and biblicist, by contrast.

Of course, Lutherans often have more of a minimalist or pragmatic sense of aesthetics than the high church in Anglicanism, and honestly this is something that Anglicans do better.

 

[Paidiske]

I remember doing some work (for an essay in a subject on liturgy) that looked at the Lutheran heritage of Cranmer's work. It was quite clear, looking at that, that early Anglican liturgies drew heavily on Lutheran resources and thinking (which is not surprising given Cranmer's links to Lutherans and Lutheranism). As an Anglican, Lutherans seem to me to be our closest cousins, theologically and liturgically, if not exactly in culture and ethos.

I would suspect that very high-church Anglicanism is not the closest, though, but more the latitudinarian approach, with its tolerance of diversity on adiaphora.

 

[mindlight]

I actually don't think Lollards were Evangelicals (at least as Lutherans would understand it) so much as a radical medieval sect with a highly political character. Wycliffe's theology was predestinarian but it was otherwise medievalist when it came to justification. In fact that might explain the Puritan emphasis that heavily stressed conversion and piety, as well as a militant iconclasm that wasn't just aimed at religious images per se, but all symbols of the medieval world, in a way that continental Reformed churches did not, necessarily.

And I think that extra-Evangelical character of the Lollards actually made the internal contradictions of Anglicanism unbearable, and resulted in civil war, and later, separation of dissenters from the state church.

The Lollards were precursors of the Lutherans in many ways. Bishop Cuthbert described Lutherans as the foster child of the Wycliffe Heresy. They held to consubstantiation for example 200 years before Luther did. Many of their 12 conclusions echo the themes of the Reformation. The desire to separate church and state is implicit in many of the below. That they ended up being hands on revolutionaries through their prereformation history was more to do with the power of the state in England than with their theology. Basically no reform was possible in England without some kind of use of force. The Puritans faced the same persecution and that ultimately drove them to the same fight or flight conclusions. Civil War or emigrate.

<<<<<<First conclusion: state of the Church
The first conclusion asserts that the English Church has become too involved in affairs of temporal power, led by the bad example of the Church of Rome.
Second conclusion: the priesthood
The second conclusion asserts that the ceremonies used for the ordination of priests and bishops are without scriptural basis or precedent.
Third conclusion: clerical celibacy
The third conclusion asserts that the practice of clerical celibacy has encouraged sodomy among the clergy.
Fourth conclusion: transubstantiation
The fourth conclusion asserts that the doctrine of transubstantiation leads to idolatrous worship of everyday objects (the communion wafers).
Fifth conclusion: exorcisms and hallowings
The fifth conclusion asserts that the exorcisms and hallowings carried out by priests are a sort of witchcraft and are incompatible with Christian theology.
Sixth conclusion: clerics in secular offices
The sixth conclusion asserts that it is inappropriate for men who hold high office in the Church to simultaneously hold positions of great temporal power.
Seventh conclusion: prayers for the dead
The seventh conclusion asserts that prayers for the souls of specific individual deceased persons is uncharitable, since it implicitly excludes all the other blessed dead who are not being prayed for, and that the practice of requesting prayers for the dead by making financial contributions is a sort of bribery that corrupts the Church.
Eighth conclusion: pilgrimages
The eighth conclusion asserts that the practices of pilgrimage and the veneration of relics at best are ineffectual for spiritual merit and at worst approach idolatry in their worship of created objects.
Ninth conclusion: confession
The ninth conclusion asserts that the practice of confession for the absolution of sins is blasphemous, because only God has the power to forgive sins, and because if priests did have that power it would be cruel and uncharitable of them to withhold that forgiveness from anyone in the world, even if they refused to confess.
Tenth conclusion: war, battle and crusades
The tenth conclusion asserts that Christians should refrain from warfare, and in particular that wars given religious justifications, such as crusades, are blasphemous because Christ taught men to love and forgive their enemies.
Eleventh conclusion: female vows of continence and abortion
The eleventh conclusion asserts that women in the Church who have made vows of celibacy are having sex, becoming pregnant, and then seeking abortions to conceal the fact that they have broken their vows, a practice which the text strongly condemns.
Twelfth conclusion: arts and crafts
The twelfth conclusion asserts that Christians are devoting too much of their energy and attention to the making of beautiful objects of art and craft, and that people should simplify their lives and renew their devotion to godliness by refraining from unnecessary endeavors.>>>>>>

The Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards - Wikipedia

 

[FireDragon76]

I remember doing some work (for an essay in a subject on liturgy) that looked at the Lutheran heritage of Cranmer's work. It was quite clear, looking at that, that early Anglican liturgies drew heavily on Lutheran resources and thinking (which is not surprising given Cranmer's links to Lutherans and Lutheranism). As an Anglican, Lutherans seem to me to be our closest cousins, theologically and liturgically, if not exactly in culture and ethos.

I would suspect that very high-church Anglicanism is not the closest, though, but more the latitudinarian approach, with its tolerance of diversity on adiaphora.

I was thinking of the old high church, prior to the Oxford Movement: they emphasized the sacraments as a means of grace. The Evangelical low church attitudes about the Lord's Supper and baptism really would not be consonant at all with Lutherans. Lutheranism as a theological system requires that grace be extra nos (outside us), not something that God just mysteriously places within us. And we believe baptism always regenerates (for similar reasons), which is a belief that many Evangelical Anglicans do not share.

Some Lutherans historically were receptionists (as are some Anglicans), but most have been consecrationists. If you talk to a lot of Lutherans now days, they tend to be consecrationists (if they have any kind of informed viewpoint at all), but that is more due to the 19th century revival of Neo-Lutheranism (similar to the Oxford Movement in the Church of England).

 

[mindlight]

I believe Lutherans have the most affinity for the religion of the Anglican high church. The Evangelical party's religion is far too puritanical, moralistic, and biblicist, by contrast.

Of course, Lutherans often have more of a minimalist or pragmatic sense of aesthetics than the high church in Anglicanism, and honestly this is something that Anglicans do better.

Anglo Catholics and Lutherans live in different universes. Liberal Anglicans have much in common with modern day Lutheranism which at least in Germany is hardly biblical at all in its instincts regarding evangelism, the Supremacy of Christ and the importance of scripture.

But old style Lutherans including Luther himself had much in common with modern conservative Evangelicals.

 

[Paidiske]

I actually think that the ground in Anglicanism is shifting, and that Anglican evangelicals today have little in common with what I think of as old-school traditional low-church Anglicanism. For example, evangelicals today (at least where I am) are abandoning prayer book liturgies and embracing what I think of as a pseudo-Baptist approach to liturgy.

And that doesn't seem to me to be a very Lutheran approach at all.

 

[mindlight]

I remember doing some work (for an essay in a subject on liturgy) that looked at the Lutheran heritage of Cranmer's work. It was quite clear, looking at that, that early Anglican liturgies drew heavily on Lutheran resources and thinking (which is not surprising given Cranmer's links to Lutherans and Lutheranism). As an Anglican, Lutherans seem to me to be our closest cousins, theologically and liturgically, if not exactly in culture and ethos.

I would suspect that very high-church Anglicanism is not the closest, though, but more the latitudinarian approach, with its tolerance of diversity on adiaphora.

The wars of religion in Germany illustrated a lack of tolerance for diversity and even the English Civil war was no where near as bloody. That had to do with political structures here and also mentality. This tolerance built into Anglicanism arguably saved England from many useless deaths.

Cranmer read a lot of Lutheran ideas into the BCP and Anglican liturgy but many of those ideas were older than Lutheranism in the first place and may have had English roots in some cases.

 

[Paidiske]

Cranmer also certainly drew on the Sarum rite, in particular.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Lollards were precursors of the Lutherans in many ways. Bishop Cuthbert described Lutherans as the foster child of the Wycliffe Heresy. They held to consubstantiation for example 200 years before Luther did. Many of their 12 conclusions echo the themes of the Reformation. The desire to separate church and state is implicit in many of the below. That they ended up being hands on revolutionaries through their prereformation history was more to do with the power of the state in England than with their theology. Basically no reform was possible in England without some kind of use of force. The Puritans faced the same persecution and that ultimately drove them to the same fight or flight conclusions. Civil War or emigrate.

<<<<<<First conclusion: state of the Church
The first conclusion asserts that the English Church has become too involved in affairs of temporal power, led by the bad example of the Church of Rome.
Second conclusion: the priesthood
The second conclusion asserts that the ceremonies used for the ordination of priests and bishops are without scriptural basis or precedent.
Third conclusion: clerical celibacy
The third conclusion asserts that the practice of clerical celibacy has encouraged sodomy among the clergy.
Fourth conclusion: transubstantiation
The fourth conclusion asserts that the doctrine of transubstantiation leads to idolatrous worship of everyday objects (the communion wafers).
Fifth conclusion: exorcisms and hallowings
The fifth conclusion asserts that the exorcisms and hallowings carried out by priests are a sort of witchcraft and are incompatible with Christian theology.
Sixth conclusion: clerics in secular offices
The sixth conclusion asserts that it is inappropriate for men who hold high office in the Church to simultaneously hold positions of great temporal power.
Seventh conclusion: prayers for the dead
The seventh conclusion asserts that prayers for the souls of specific individual deceased persons is uncharitable, since it implicitly excludes all the other blessed dead who are not being prayed for, and that the practice of requesting prayers for the dead by making financial contributions is a sort of bribery that corrupts the Church.
Eighth conclusion: pilgrimages
The eighth conclusion asserts that the practices of pilgrimage and the veneration of relics at best are ineffectual for spiritual merit and at worst approach idolatry in their worship of created objects.
Ninth conclusion: confession
The ninth conclusion asserts that the practice of confession for the absolution of sins is blasphemous, because only God has the power to forgive sins, and because if priests did have that power it would be cruel and uncharitable of them to withhold that forgiveness from anyone in the world, even if they refused to confess.
Tenth conclusion: war, battle and crusades
The tenth conclusion asserts that Christians should refrain from warfare, and in particular that wars given religious justifications, such as crusades, are blasphemous because Christ taught men to love and forgive their enemies.
Eleventh conclusion: female vows of continence and abortion
The eleventh conclusion asserts that women in the Church who have made vows of celibacy are having sex, becoming pregnant, and then seeking abortions to conceal the fact that they have broken their vows, a practice which the text strongly condemns.
Twelfth conclusion: arts and crafts
The twelfth conclusion asserts that Christians are devoting too much of their energy and attention to the making of beautiful objects of art and craft, and that people should simplify their lives and renew their devotion to godliness by refraining from unnecessary endeavors.>>>>>>

The Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards - Wikipedia

I agree that in many ways Wycliffe had genuine insights into problems in western medieval Christendom (as well as some that are just strange and bizarre- "arts and crafts" are not godly? The Lutheran in me says, "Nein!"), however the Lollards as a movement were not necessarily motivated by purely religious motives, but were also jealous, as minor nobility, and wanted more parliamentary power, and the teachings of Wycliffe seemed to provide justification for that.

The spirit of Luther is not actually so much a revolutionary, but as a pastor, and it is here that Luther differs from Wycliffe. Luther's primary concern was making sure that people had a bold confidence in God's grace. He was less interested in ecclessiastic and political reforms beyond that, which is one reason the Lutheran reformation is less political in tone. That makes early Lutherans distinct from the Reformed churches, and also Anglicanism. Luther would have been happy to remain Catholic, even with all the other messiness involved in that, except for being able to preach the message of grace, as the Augsburg Confession itself concludes.

The wars of religion in Germany illustrated a lack of tolerance for diversity and even the English Civil war was no where near as bloody. That had to do with political structures here and also mentality. This tolerance built into Anglicanism arguably saved England from many useless deaths.

Cranmer read a lot of Lutheran ideas into the BCP and Anglican liturgy but many of those ideas were older than Lutheranism in the first place and may have had English roots in some cases.

I think this speaks more to the premodern mind than anything. In Russia, people were burned at the stake, ironically at around the same time period, for refusing to cross themselves in the "right" way and not saying enough Alleluia's at the Gospel entrance.

If anything, the English civil war and European wars of religion helped give rise to liberalism in religion in general, as well as pietism. People stopped caring about correct doctrine quite so much and started focusing on reason and love. Not all a bad thing, IMO.

 

[FireDragon76]

I actually think that the ground in Anglicanism is shifting, and that Anglican evangelicals today have little in common with what I think of as old-school traditional low-church Anglicanism. For example, evangelicals today (at least where I am) are abandoning prayer book liturgies and embracing what I think of as a pseudo-Baptist approach to liturgy.

And that doesn't seem to me to be a very Lutheran approach at all.

We have some of those style churches in our denomination as well (which was really surprising to find out). So does the LCMS, oddly enough (a more conservative Lutheran denomination here in the US, akin to what you get in Australia in terms of Lutherans). It's a sort of generic global evangelicalism that's emerging. Blame Billy Graham and the Jesus People, "it's not a religion it's a relationship", with the expectation that God is immediately present and accessible in a way that classical Protestantism doesn't acknowledge.

You are right, it's not very Lutheran at all. Lutherans are alot more dialectical than a shallow kind of religion where God is more like a moralistic life coach looking over your shoulder all the time. But living in a predominantly non-Lutheran culture means alot of people don't know the difference.

 

[Albion]

>>>>>Henry creates a national church >>>>>>

The reformation in England was initially a nation state taking control of the structures of clerical / papal power and giving them to a national king rather than the pope. The real work of defining the character of the church was accomplished under Edward VI and Elizabeth but depended on that control having shifted to a national church.

The fact is that the Church in England was already about 1450 years old when Henry made his moves. It was not a new church, nor did he create a new church, etc. Even the Roman Church in some of its Medieval councils referred to it as the oldest church in the Gentile world.

<<<<and allows reformation forces to work in that.>>>>

Key Catholic figures opposing the split with Rome were removed e.g. Thomas More. The doctrine of Papal Supremacy was rejected. Both of these things were things that Protestants were looking for.

With the exception of Papal Supremacy, the comparison to the Continental Protestant churches falls flat. And a rejection of Papal Supremacy isn't necessarily Protestant, anyway, considering that the Eastern churches, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Armenian, etc. had long ago also rejected those claims. The Church in England under Henry remained Catholic in practice and theology, and he himself, interestingly enough, was never declared a heretic by Rome.

<<<<Anglicanism.... spawned Baptism and Methodism>>>

That's a typo - I meant Baptists.

I understood that to be your meaning.

The strongest view of Baptist origins is the English Separatist view of the 1600s in which opposition to the Anglican church was the reason to separate off and form ones own denomination. Baptists grew in this culture and then spread to America from it.

You said that the Anglican church spawned the Baptists. That is not so.

John Smythe, the founder of that church, studied in the Low Countries with Anabaptists and then tried to found a number of Baptistic churches in England--which was only partially successful. That branch of Christianity was imported into England; it was not a split-off from the Church of England.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

If we can consider the Church of England under both Henry and Elizabeth (Let's even include today's COE) Anglican I dare say the only distinctive of Anglicanism and it's one common universal feature is it's refusal to be subject to the Pope and that it is the Church of England. So there doesn't seem to be a comparison to Luther or Calvin's reformation, both of whom insisted on a particular theological vision which Anglicanism though trending towards Luther or Calvin doesn't really require since there are segments within the Anglican world that trend towards Catholicism.

I would also classify the creation of the Anglican Church as an event that started with Henry and was modified by successive Monarchs and Parliaments.