Do any of you have a favorite Anglican Reformer? I am a big fan of John Jewel but I'd like to hear other candidates as well as why you admire them.
Most definitely it is the Right-Reverend Father in God Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, M.A., D.D. Cranmer is truly an ideal gentleman for any age, but as a reformer he is beyond inspiring. Whenever his fellow-reformers (such as Hooper) or rivals in theology (such as Gardiner) went too far, he would always show mercy and kindness. He purposefully tried to find compromise with Thomas More, and never let up attempting to get a reprieve for the man. There was something golden and innocent about Cranmer's person. Nothing could stop him from vigorously pursuing the Truth, regardless of its effects on his health. His godly way of carrying himself in the agony of his death is a primary example of his Christian character too. I admire him so much for a reason that many despise him: his Recantation. When he abjured the Reformation, and got the courage to reaffirm it in his last few days on Earth, I see not a conquering hero impossible to imitate, but a regular and humbled sinner like myself. He never went to the extreme of abandoning vestments, crosses, candles, or beautiful things, and yet had the courage to abandon the most powerful Oligarchy in the world with which that beauty was associated in his day. He is the initiator; the catalyst. ... but how can one compare our holiest martyrs, Cranmer, Latimer & Ridley, with or against each other? They were all resplendent with the highest natural virtues. I deeply respect Tyndale as well.
He also didn't realise till later that he was also a Husite. Of course he would have been much better of being an Anglican
The only way to know a person is to first know their life & times, in my opinion. A good preparation for reading Cranmer is thus John Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, a biography from 1694. Modern typeset: Volume 1: http://books.google.ca/books?id=bPjRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP3&dq=strype cranmer Volume 2: http://books.google.ca/books?id=cus...AXlyoG4Dg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false Volume 3: http://books.google.ca/books?id=yvj...AXlyoG4Dg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false You can download the PDFs if you wish. As for Cranmer himself, it is said that he wrote the Book of Homilies, or at least some of the homilies therein. It was difficult for him to be a writer while he embraced the Reformation, for he was a very godly archbishop and was constantly on the move. Many of his letters (necessary to write in that day!) survive, but few works/tracts. His primary and chief writings are the Book of Common Prayer (1549 & 1552) and the Defense of the "True and Apostolical Doctrine" of the Lord's Supper, in which deep theology washes over our ideas of Holy Communion. http://books.google.ca/books?id=mFgYAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=cranmer works&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tlweUfHVM4GB2gWhhYGQAQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA
Any time you read the prayerbook, your getting a little piece Crammer. The thing that always struck me with Cranmer is that he reminds me of something St Paul said of himself to the Corinthians: "Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." When the C of E was under the yoke of Rome, he was as Roman as he needed to be to get to a position to effect change. When under Henry, he wwas as catholic as Henry wanted, to get to a position to effect change. When under Edward, he was as protestant as he needed to be to effect change. While some might see him as just a chameleon bureaucrat following whatever spirit of the times was in control to survive, I see him as the most sensible of reformers, moving incrementally, doing what he had to so that he could do what he was called to, never wishing martyrdom on himself till there was no other option. But even at that, he still gave us reason to be inspired.
Two evangelical Anglican reformers I greatly admire (and they might not be classed as church reformers but they sought to reform society) are William Wilberforce who God had set two great aims for his life - to end the slave trade and to reform the manners of England. Another great Anglican reformer is Lord Ashley, the 7th earl of Shaftesbury who campaigned for the protection of children and workers in the midst of the industrial revolution. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/activists/shaftesbury.html It must have been exciting times living in those days!! There were so many passionate Christians who God raised up in this period!
"Reformer" is in the eye of the beholder. I also greatly admire the Wesley brothers and George Whitefield, though they would not generally be lumped in with Jewel and Cranmer.
All amazing names, except for the Methodists uggh. Yeah Jewel and Cranmer would wage a total war on Wesley an Whitfield, so I cannot see myself accepting anything of them.
What can I say? I started out life as a Methodist and when I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church it was March 3, 2001...John and Charles Wesley's feast day.
The Church in England from 1688 lost a about 8 Bishops and some 500 Clergy on a matter of principlal. The question was, having freely given their Oath of allegiance to one man, King James II, could they then abandon him and give the same Oath t,illegally to his nephew & daughter, the new King & Queen? Matters were undecided, but the next year 1690/1, the Whig Government of the day decided that not only could the non oath taking bishops , not serve the Church in England, but substitutions, should be made and intruders inserted within those sees that were unoccupied by catholic Anglican Bishops. That did indeed leave the Church of England as a maimed member of Christ dependent not on the Revelation of Christ and the Apostolic succession, but simply on the whims of the mainly Calvinist/ Independent, Whigs and not on the catholic Succession.From 1688 till some time in 1800s the succession existed within the much maligned Non Juring Churches, either Scots, or English ones.. All the rest is in so many ways, simply pant. No, just Anglicans like you, which there are too many of, but which it has been my great fortune to have avoided. Thankfully, there are more unlike you than notDon't believe him! Anglican Catholicism, relates to Revelation, what these people are trying to substitute is a watered down version. Revelation, is Christ's teaching to the apostles and apostolic fathers! This is Anglicanism as it has descended to us from early times, don't accept less!
Posts discussing the merits and demerits of methodism have been moved to a new thread here: http://forums.anglican.net/threads/a-discussion-on-methodism.664/