I had not intended to reenter this debate.
First, I question the continuing use of ‘Anglican’ which is overwhelmingly a 19C and especially 20C usage. The adjective ‘Anglican’ was almost certainly not used in Charles’ time. That is a clear case of projecting to backwards, as one contributor has continually criticized. To suggest, incidentally, that all royalists might have been martyrs in Stuart times raises questions but I won’t venture further.I won’t pursue the red herring of Charles’ ‘miracles’ raised in the general discussion.
Second, as to issues of academic history. I have taught and studied in both ‘seminary’ and ‘university’ environments for many years and as a public servant was deeply and continuously involved with management of academic projects related to public policy issues. All historians work in a highly competitive academic environment. To state that ‘secular’ universities have status above that of all ‘seminaries’ is misleading. There are world rankings of universities of which only the top one hundred or so have internationally recognized research status. There are some ‘seminaries’—Calvin College comes to mind—which would rank well above many ‘secular’ universities in the American environment.
Third, my evangelical heritage and values have been clearly stated. I believe we should honor people in our liturgy, but as acts of affectionate and appreciative remembrance, i.e. a blend of ‘catholic’ and ‘protestant’ values.
Finally, I do not recall making any comment on episcopacy in this thread. My position on church government is akin to Churchill’s remarks on democracy. Episcopacy is better, overall, than the alternatives. It is a form of church government accepted by some 90% of Christians and must be respected for its longevity and utility and not necessarily for having Scriptural authority. I guess accepting episcopacy is ‘catholic’ and having reservations about how it works might be ‘protestant’ but I don’t want to engage in another fruitless exchange.
Share on Facebook
