The January calendar of Lesser Feasts and Fasts (no, I’m not going to address Holy Men and Holy Women) has one of my least favorite commemorations, that of William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury. Fortunately for my Protestant sympathies there is still no commemoration of King Charles I.

Even though my liturgical sensibilities tend toward the Angl0-Catholic, as I said in a recent post, I’m always rooting for the Protestants in the English Reformation. Certainly that’s true when we get to the seventeenth century (and let’s be real, the English Reformation didn’t end until the Restoration in 1660). But Laud is no hero of mine. Even if his liturgical sympathies corresponded to mine, his political ones did not. And besides that, he lacked political sense. His attempt to impose a prayer book on the Scottish church was bone-headed, and his whole-hearted support for Charles I was all about putting your money on the wrong horse. Charles may have been deeply religious and of authentic faith, but scholars agree that he was not a very good ruler, apparently not terribly intelligent.

True, the Presbyterians and Puritans were pressing their point, but surely some compromise short of revolution was possible.

As I write this, I wonder about the relevance of the seventeenth century experience for contemporary Anglicanism. It may be that we have an Archbishop of Canterbury and Primates who are urging centralization when there are powerful forces moving the other direction.

For more information on Laud, the place to begin is Affirming Laudianism. Hattip to David Sibley.