Presbyterianism and the Reformed church
- Thread starter arapahoepark
- Start date
- Status
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Isn't Presbyterian an assumed Reformed position? 
It's a pretty amazing piece of historic revisionism. Mind you, I think there's a vital place for revisionism done well. I don't think this piece is particularly well done.
The author believes the 39 Articles (1571) are the settled and proper Reformation stance, sufficiently mending Romanist error. He has a special animus to de jure Presbyterianism, which he sees as a thoroughly alien system to all truly Reformed churches, be they English, Dutch, Scots, or etc. He has little love for the "regulative principle."
He doesn't appreciate the Westminster Standards (WSs); however, he notes "Like that written at Westminster..., none of the other three confessions which have been used in the Church of Scotland since the Reformation mention anything of the system of polity known as “Presbyterianism”. In other words, he acknowledges that the WSs do not espouse Presbyterian church government per se (though perhaps certain statements could be interpreted as inimical to episcopacy).
It's hard to say exactly, but it seems that he cannot conceive of a well-formed statement of faith coming out of what he considers a "rebellious" convention. It seems to me his Erastian mind shows at this point. But regardless, the vagaries of history show Scotland willing to adopt the Assembly's output, as being consistent with their then-present ecclesiastical forms, in the interest of unifying the church across both kingdoms (which had a single monarch). All the author can see is Scotland's abandonment of her own national, Knox-influenced reformation.
I don't think that this piece represents a very good "trace" of the history of interest in and the development of a biblically faithful church polity, beginning with Calvin and the Continental reformers in Switzerland. It's one thing to dissent from the conclusions of a certain line of thinking about church government. It's another to marginalize significant aspects of a wider picture of development in that area.
So, for instance, how did Reformed church-polity maintain integrity and develop in conditions of a total absence of state sponsorship, and indeed often of state-persecution? And how would appreciation of those developments impact the thinking of some devout churchmen in places like England, that had a very different sort of Reformation progress? These are important questions that are mainly irrelevant to the person who is quite parochial in what he approves. And in his parochialism, he completely glosses over the real theological concerns of those who did (and still do) fear a return to error even under a formal (creedal) testimony of orthodoxy.
The author does remind us that there was a time when Reformed and Presbyterian churches mainly functioned within the framework of Establishment, and when even Presbyterians in Scotland found it expedient to have an administrative role for one called "superintendent," who exercised many of the functions the "bishop" had in the previous era. Transitioning to a time where the chief, usually temporary or term functionary in Presbyterianism is the Moderator, has taken considerable time. And there are still Presbyterian bodies (even conservative ones) in which elected officers or bureaucratic appointees gain and wield, maintain and increase, positional power.
But honestly, if the author hopes at some point in history to see a Reformed Anglican Established Church, that has a place (even a chief place) at Protestantism's "table," he especially needs to pray for a spiritual rebirth, a new Reformation in England; because there isn't much life there. And wishing that the "errant" Presbyterians would just come back home again is neither realistic, nor especially historically attuned. Does he care at all about the attack on conscience that was the "Great Ejection," Batholomew's Day, Aug.24, 1662? Many Presbyterian-minded clergy, who were still willing to work within the Episcopal system, lost their livings. The CoE demanded from them the kind of obsequiousness that had been the hallmark of Roman authoritarianism.
It may have been future Archbishop Gilbert Sheldon, but someone of the time is reported to have said--in response to the stated fear that the Act of Uniformity might well drive out the Puritan/Presbyterian faction from the CoE--words to this effect: "I rather fear that it will be insufficient for the work."
The author believes the 39 Articles (1571) are the settled and proper Reformation stance, sufficiently mending Romanist error. He has a special animus to de jure Presbyterianism, which he sees as a thoroughly alien system to all truly Reformed churches, be they English, Dutch, Scots, or etc. He has little love for the "regulative principle."
He doesn't appreciate the Westminster Standards (WSs); however, he notes "Like that written at Westminster..., none of the other three confessions which have been used in the Church of Scotland since the Reformation mention anything of the system of polity known as “Presbyterianism”. In other words, he acknowledges that the WSs do not espouse Presbyterian church government per se (though perhaps certain statements could be interpreted as inimical to episcopacy).
It's hard to say exactly, but it seems that he cannot conceive of a well-formed statement of faith coming out of what he considers a "rebellious" convention. It seems to me his Erastian mind shows at this point. But regardless, the vagaries of history show Scotland willing to adopt the Assembly's output, as being consistent with their then-present ecclesiastical forms, in the interest of unifying the church across both kingdoms (which had a single monarch). All the author can see is Scotland's abandonment of her own national, Knox-influenced reformation.
I don't think that this piece represents a very good "trace" of the history of interest in and the development of a biblically faithful church polity, beginning with Calvin and the Continental reformers in Switzerland. It's one thing to dissent from the conclusions of a certain line of thinking about church government. It's another to marginalize significant aspects of a wider picture of development in that area.
So, for instance, how did Reformed church-polity maintain integrity and develop in conditions of a total absence of state sponsorship, and indeed often of state-persecution? And how would appreciation of those developments impact the thinking of some devout churchmen in places like England, that had a very different sort of Reformation progress? These are important questions that are mainly irrelevant to the person who is quite parochial in what he approves. And in his parochialism, he completely glosses over the real theological concerns of those who did (and still do) fear a return to error even under a formal (creedal) testimony of orthodoxy.
The author does remind us that there was a time when Reformed and Presbyterian churches mainly functioned within the framework of Establishment, and when even Presbyterians in Scotland found it expedient to have an administrative role for one called "superintendent," who exercised many of the functions the "bishop" had in the previous era. Transitioning to a time where the chief, usually temporary or term functionary in Presbyterianism is the Moderator, has taken considerable time. And there are still Presbyterian bodies (even conservative ones) in which elected officers or bureaucratic appointees gain and wield, maintain and increase, positional power.
But honestly, if the author hopes at some point in history to see a Reformed Anglican Established Church, that has a place (even a chief place) at Protestantism's "table," he especially needs to pray for a spiritual rebirth, a new Reformation in England; because there isn't much life there. And wishing that the "errant" Presbyterians would just come back home again is neither realistic, nor especially historically attuned. Does he care at all about the attack on conscience that was the "Great Ejection," Batholomew's Day, Aug.24, 1662? Many Presbyterian-minded clergy, who were still willing to work within the Episcopal system, lost their livings. The CoE demanded from them the kind of obsequiousness that had been the hallmark of Roman authoritarianism.
It may have been future Archbishop Gilbert Sheldon, but someone of the time is reported to have said--in response to the stated fear that the Act of Uniformity might well drive out the Puritan/Presbyterian faction from the CoE--words to this effect: "I rather fear that it will be insufficient for the work."
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
