Church of England to impose 'rule book' of beliefs

Rule book?

What is the bible supposed to be?

This is how religions reproduce. Every now and then, when a religion becomes heavily pregnant with liberalism, it squeezes itself tightly into a conservative corner, and little radical chunks break off and head out into the world to thrive or die...depending on basic Darwinian principles.

Outstanding observation, Eorl.

Eorl


BRAVO! Eorl

Where is Halloween town?

BBB

King Charles was persuaded to impose the Book of Common Prayer on all the churches within his kingdom. Some of the problem was the paranoia about Catholicism that had existed since Hank made himself the Head of the Church of England. Charles was married to a Catholic who was permitted by the marriage contract to maintain a Catholic Queen's retinue. At the same time Charles was advised to impose greater uniformity on the churches, and bring to heel the dissenters and other minor religious sects. Fearing a return to Catholicism, people burnt alters and alter railings across the land. The finally straw was the imposition of the Book of Common Prayer.

The Scottish Kirk and Dissenters were so upset that they were in a state of revolt. The King found himself needing a whole lot more money to pay the army needed to quell the revolt. Parliament balked, and began to make "impossible" demands on the monarch. The result was the Civil War that first tore Britain apart, beheaded the King, and finally brought Oliver Cromwell to despotic power.

Both Roundheads and Cavalier armies indiscriminately ravaged the land. In the process many British citizens fled to the colonies in North America. One hundred years later in North America the memory of the devastation caused by imposition of a State Church still lingered. Hence, the Founders were pressed into the Constitutional Amendment separating Church and State.

Am I the only one who sees such actions as major giveaways? The bishops clearly admit that they want to change the rules, decide what is right to believe and what is not. Are they talking to god? Did god tell them to do this?
NO!
Enough said.

What is objectionable about this? Apart from the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury is attempting to impose some sort of doctrinal unity on the Anglican Communion, instead of allowing the provinces a measure of independence in these matters, what's so objectionable about a religion trying to maintain a consistent set of beliefs and ousting those who won't abide by it? What is the point of having a religion if you allow the members to hold any kind of heterodox beliefs?

Because what you propose goes against the grain of every protestant in america.

Gots to have rules. Otherwise, no one's a rebel.

Thanks guys !!!

BBB- it's about my avatar...

from Wiki
Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas is a 1993 Academy Award-nominated, stop-motion animated musical film about the inhabitants of Halloween Town who take over Christmas, directed by stop-motion animator Henry Selick. The film is loosely based on drawings and a poem by Tim Burton

I'm with Joe here.

Personally, I'm agnostic. I have doubts about Proud Protestants--or Proud Catholics who embrace New Age Dogma as part of their Christian beliefs.

If you have an established church, you have an established body of belief. Lacking that all you have is a congregation of people of good will. Mind, I'm not against Congregations of Good Will, but unsupervised Good Will can get pretty sloppy.

Hmm... What's the point of having a religion if you're going to redefine it when you want?

The Ground Rules have to be defined before they can be re-defined.

I know a very faithful Methodist who sees no problem with believing in reincarnation as well as the preachments of John Wesley.

If you believe that your church has a special covenant with god, you should agree with the other members as to what this covenant consists of.

Joe's point is right on the money. A religious community is, at least in theory, predicated upon an assumption of theological purity--that "our" doctrine is correct, unlike "their" doctrine. In the case of the Church of England, the waters are somewhat muddied by its foundation by Henry VIII. Ash has pointed this out, and has indicated, without going into great detail, that there was a major passage in the history of the Anglican Church, and of England itself, when Charles I backed Bishop Laud in the imposition of orthodoxy on the congregations of Protestants in England.

John Knox had been attracted to the religious theories of John Calvin, and he introduced Calvinism into England and Scotland--and in particular, this was effective in Scotland. Elizabeth tended to tolerate the "Puritans," as the practitioners of that form of Calvinism in England were known. (The term was derisive, but the Puritans wore the term as a badge of honor.) She was succeeded by her Scots cousin, James VI, who became James I of England, and who was responsible for the project to provide a new translation of the bible into English.

His son, Charles I, was a narrow-minded bigot when it came to religion, and his biggest supporter in the Church was Bishop Laud, who encouraged Charles with the doctrine of the divine right of kings, and was encouraged in his turn to attempt to impose the Book of Common Prayer on England, and rather stupidly, on Scotland. Scotland had already become the home of the Kirk, the national Calvinist church. Charles wanted money from Parliament to raise an army to impose the Book of Common Prayer on Scotland (even though Scotland had never participated in the Anglican Church), but Parliament was more interested in discussing religion, and the authority of the King and the Archbishop of Canterbury over religious practice--they weren't enamored of the principle, and a great many members of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords were by then Puritans.

So Charles dissolved the Parliament in 1628, and things went from bad to worse. As Puritans fled England to practice their religion elsewhere, a law was passed that would not allow anyone to leave the kingdom with more than a set amount of money--modern historians estimate that more than 12 million pounds in specie (gold and silver coins) was taken out of England in this period. Dissenting religions were proscribed, and laws passed during the reign of Henry VIII to punish "heresy" (for example, burning Baptists at the stake) were revived. But Charles' powers were curtailed by the fact that he could not get the money he needed to impose his will by force. The English had always been opposed to standing armies, and Charles had to scrape for ten years to raise enough money to put an army in the field against the Scots. In the meantime, Bishop Laud had been appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury, which signaled all the Puritans (who were still at least notionally members of the Episcopal Church) and the Dissenters (definitely not members of the Church) that there would be no compromise. In 1638, Charles finally marched an army north, which the Scots quickly defeated.

Charles attempted then to get more funds to fight the Scots by seizing "ship money," which was a voluntary levy on merchants of "the City" (that part of old, central London where the mercantile and banking interests were located) to pay for the Royal Navy and the protection it afforded to their overseas trade. John Hampden famously refused to pay his ship money as a result, and Charles was finally obliged to recall Parliament. They not only would not provide him the money he wanted, but they immediately began doing what he had sent them home for ten years earlier--discussing the "vexed question of religion."

This lead to the three English civil wars of the 17th century. Laud was seized in 1640 when the first civil war broke out, and was imprisoned in the Tower of London. He was tried in 1644, but he was not convicted. So, in 1645, Parliament simply passed a bill of attainder against him, and he was executed. Charles' armies were defeated in the first civil war, and he was seized, imprisoned, tried and executed.

The result of the Bishop's War (against the Scots) and the civil wars was the creation of the Presbyterian Church, the Independent Congregationalists (known simply as Congregationalists in America, they are the theological descendants of the Puritans), and the Society of Friends (Quakers) also rose to prominence in the same period. The effort by Charles and Laud actually lead to a further fragmentation of Protestantism in England.

Eleven years after Charles I was executed, his son returned to England with the restoration of the monarchy as Charles II. He was a very tolerant man for his age, which was probably a result of his experiences in life. He had been defeated at the head of a Scots army in 1651, and had only escaped England because English Catholics hid him, and passed him along to Lyme (which after the restoration became Lyme Regis in recognition of his escape from that port), from whence he escaped to France. He attempted to pass a measure for Catholic toleration, but Parliament was in no mood, and was impressed with the new powers they believed they held since the civil wars. He learned a lesson, and when Jews in London came to him to complain that they were being blackmailed, he sent a few of the boys around to talk to the bullies who were imposing on the Jews, and the problem was solved without reference to Parliament.

Parliament did pass two Test Acts, which required anyone who was to hold office in England to take communion in the Anglican Church. This meant that no Catholics, Jews or Nonconformists could serve in the government, army or navy. When it became clear that some people were attending Anglican services to establish a basis for entering office, the Occasional Conformity Act was passed to prohibit people from serving the government who did not regularly receive the Anglican communion, and/or who were known to attend other religious rites after taking the Anglican communion.

By comparison, this act on the part of the Episcopal Church is pretty mild. I think it fairly reasonable to assert that no one is going to lose their heads over the matter. Nevertheless, if the Church wishes to make ex cathedra statements about what is the doctrine of the Church, it is hardly reasonable for anyone who either does not practice the religion, or who does and claims to recognize the authority of the Church, to object. Those who disagree with the policies are free to establish other churches. If that happens, it will likely be accompanied by far less bloodshed than was the case in the 1640s and -50s. To that extent, one can say that a measure of civilization has been imposed on "the vexed question of religion."

What's the big deal? Religions can do whatever they want to their own doctrine. If the followers don't like it, they're free to choose a doctrine more to their liking.

I don't get the sense that the Archbishop of Canterbury is redefining church doctrine arbitrarily here. Rather, it seems that he is seeking to clarify the church's position on certain issues in accordance with established church doctrine. Whether everyone will agree with the archbishop's clarification remains to be seen, but I certainly see no problem with a church insisting that its members adhere to a common set of theological beliefs.

Precisely. I've always wondered why people join or stay with a religion that doesn't match their theological beliefs. I have a friend who is Roman Catholic except she doesn't believe in the immaculate conception or that Jesus was physically resurrected.

I've known people like that myself. A conversation I once had went something like this:

Me: You're a Catholic, but you don't follow the church's teachings on abortion?
Confused Catholic: That's right. I don't feel compelled to condemn abortion just because the pope says so.
Me: But church doctrine says that the pope is infallible on matters of doctrine.
CC: I don't agree with that.
Me: Well, then, you're not a Catholic, you're a Lutheran or something.
CC: Those kinds of distinctions don't matter to me. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Moslems, Hindus -- everyone worships the same god. They're just different paths to the same truth.
Me: Oh, in that case, you're not even a Lutheran, you're a Baha'i.
CC: I belong to the Catholic church because I agree with most of what it stands for. And that stuff that I don't agree with, I just don't agree with.
Me: Church doctrine isn't a cafeteria menu from which you can just pick and choose the parts that you like. If you don't follow all of the Catholic doctrine, then you can't be considered an observant Catholic.
CC: Says who?
Me: Says the pope.
CC: I don't agree with him on that.
Me: