Your explanation of the three broad groups of Anglicans was an eye opener. I think it’s something I had already sensed, but not articulated in my mind. Think I’m in the third lot! As I am currently struggling with my participation in local church, this talk was helpful, so thanks for that.
You’ve said elsewhere, I think, that the ‘Church of England has also been perceived as broad. (It isn’t actually. It is doctrinally thoroughly reformed. But that’s one for another time).
I agree with your position on that, but I’m also waiting for your explanation of it. When can I/we expect it?
Yes, I do softly beat that drum from time to time. I think it's probably the influence of Lee Gatiss and the Church Society, who point to not only the Church of England's founding documents, but also the history. Puritanism was very widespread and had a long legacy. It's not as if opponents of puritanism had particularly heterodox beliefs. The idea that the Church of England has always encompassed all kinds of strange beliefs and heresies doesn't really stand up to historical scrutiny. But I should write more on this. I might well do that when we come to commemorate puritan divines.
Good question. What I mean by that is that the alternatives to puritanism in the 17th century were not wildly outside the Overton window of acceptable beliefs. For example, the puritans were horrified by the Book of Sports, which permitted a whole range of sporting activities on the Sabbath. Many puritans could not understand why anyone would want to do Archery on the Lord's Day. This is a subject on which evangelicals can have arguments in good faith today. The followers of Laud in the 1630s had form of worship that seemed elaborate and ritualistic and Romish. But it was still Anglican. There was more than a pinch of Arminianism with it - but there are plenty of Arminians within the evangelical camp. When Quakerism emerged - which explicitly denies the divinity of Christ - or Unitarianism came along, these set up their own independent chapels and denominations since they were clearly incompatiable with the teaching, liturgy and canons of the Church of England. Does that make sense?
“Many puritans could not understand why anyone would want to do Archery on the Lord's Day. This is a subject on which evangelicals”
My dad would have fitted in well with that crowd! (And no, he was not that old.)
Thanks for reminding me about the peculiarities - and not Christian theology - of the Quakers. I knew that there was something wrong with them but I couldn’t remember what. They do make good rolled oats, however.
Does it make sense?
I’m enjoying the history lesson from you so much now that I have forgotten about the question. What am I trying to find out?
Ah. Yes.
I have to go searching for information about the Overton Window. That’s a new one for me. Until I know what that is, I’m probably not going to get the full picture of your answer.
The Overton Window is the range of 'acceptable opinions' at anyone time. So if you hold a view that's outside over that window, you're either crazy or a conspiracy theorist or whatever. It's quite a handy term. I guess it comes from a guy called Overton.
Sorry about resurrecting this old thread, but my comment makes sense here, (I think).
Since you used the expression, Overton Window, and I had to ask you what it meant, I can’t count the number of times I have heard it used since! Never heard it before you used it in the conversation with me, and now, I’d reckon, at least a dozen times since then.
Your explanation of the three broad groups of Anglicans was an eye opener. I think it’s something I had already sensed, but not articulated in my mind. Think I’m in the third lot! As I am currently struggling with my participation in local church, this talk was helpful, so thanks for that.
Thanks for the comment, Pat! Glad I was able to explain things a little.
You’ve said elsewhere, I think, that the ‘Church of England has also been perceived as broad. (It isn’t actually. It is doctrinally thoroughly reformed. But that’s one for another time).
I agree with your position on that, but I’m also waiting for your explanation of it. When can I/we expect it?
Yes, I do softly beat that drum from time to time. I think it's probably the influence of Lee Gatiss and the Church Society, who point to not only the Church of England's founding documents, but also the history. Puritanism was very widespread and had a long legacy. It's not as if opponents of puritanism had particularly heterodox beliefs. The idea that the Church of England has always encompassed all kinds of strange beliefs and heresies doesn't really stand up to historical scrutiny. But I should write more on this. I might well do that when we come to commemorate puritan divines.
“It's not as if opponents of puritanism had particularly heterodox beliefs.”
I’m not sure if I understand that.
If their beliefs were so orthodox, then why such a clash between the two groups? Why indeed the need for the Puritans?
Good question. What I mean by that is that the alternatives to puritanism in the 17th century were not wildly outside the Overton window of acceptable beliefs. For example, the puritans were horrified by the Book of Sports, which permitted a whole range of sporting activities on the Sabbath. Many puritans could not understand why anyone would want to do Archery on the Lord's Day. This is a subject on which evangelicals can have arguments in good faith today. The followers of Laud in the 1630s had form of worship that seemed elaborate and ritualistic and Romish. But it was still Anglican. There was more than a pinch of Arminianism with it - but there are plenty of Arminians within the evangelical camp. When Quakerism emerged - which explicitly denies the divinity of Christ - or Unitarianism came along, these set up their own independent chapels and denominations since they were clearly incompatiable with the teaching, liturgy and canons of the Church of England. Does that make sense?
“Many puritans could not understand why anyone would want to do Archery on the Lord's Day. This is a subject on which evangelicals”
My dad would have fitted in well with that crowd! (And no, he was not that old.)
Thanks for reminding me about the peculiarities - and not Christian theology - of the Quakers. I knew that there was something wrong with them but I couldn’t remember what. They do make good rolled oats, however.
Does it make sense?
I’m enjoying the history lesson from you so much now that I have forgotten about the question. What am I trying to find out?
Ah. Yes.
I have to go searching for information about the Overton Window. That’s a new one for me. Until I know what that is, I’m probably not going to get the full picture of your answer.
The Overton Window is the range of 'acceptable opinions' at anyone time. So if you hold a view that's outside over that window, you're either crazy or a conspiracy theorist or whatever. It's quite a handy term. I guess it comes from a guy called Overton.
Sorry about resurrecting this old thread, but my comment makes sense here, (I think).
Since you used the expression, Overton Window, and I had to ask you what it meant, I can’t count the number of times I have heard it used since! Never heard it before you used it in the conversation with me, and now, I’d reckon, at least a dozen times since then.
Amazing.