Posted on 01/17/2005 7:48:37 AM PST by sionnsar
Many of us well-meaning Anglicans, in an attempt to dissuade those who might "jump ship" to another church in response to our theological Ringling bros. act, often use the phrase "the grass isn't greener on the other side." What we mean, of course, is that they are trading one set of problems in our church for another set of problems in a different church. While this is certainly true, it seems to me that the way we often use that phrase reveals an underlying premise:
All the problems that all churches face are all equally the same, so we may as well just stay and make the best of it wherever we are.
I have long subscribed to the "grass isn't greener" philosophy, but now I am beginning to rethink my position on this. I'm beginning to think that in my well-meaning attempt to keep folks genuinely Anglican (and not Roman, Eastern, Amia, or Continuum), I might just be messing with what the Spirit of God is doing in someone else's life.
Let's talk about green grass for minute. In places where the grass is green, it means that the climate is good for growth. There is plenty of sunlight and rain to nourish the grass. Where grass can't grow is in places where there is too much sun and dryness from lack of rain. Our beloved Episcopal Church, as a whole, is becoming (and in many places is already) a barren desert. There may be plenty of sun, due to the fact that most of our Bishops and our PB are constantly trying to tell us how great things are (commonly referred to as blowing sunshine up the ...). But the showers of God's Holy Spirit are being withheld for the most part. Without a doubt there are Oases throughout the land, but basically what we are dealing with here is a barren wasteland of a church.
What does all this mean? In my thinking, it means that the grass IS greener on many "other sides." It means that the Good Shepherd's presence is going to be more evident and palpable in many other "pastures." Shepherds watch their flocks in green pastures where the sheep can be well-fed, not in deserts where they have to wander endlessly to find a good meal. And as far as one-to-one comparisons of the problem-issues in other churches, I find that these comparisons don't hold up to the light of experience. Many don't mind exchanging a certain kind of liturgy for a place where they can grow in the Lord. Many don't mind trading spiritual barreness for an "extral-mural" Anglican body where the Spirit of God is working freely. Many just want a place where the sacraments are duly administered and the Word of God duly preached.
I must make something clear at this point. I am not advocating a massive exodus from the Episcopal Church (although that is already happening somewhat). I am not suggesting that the only option for those who are truly seeking the Lord is to leave for another body. I myself feel no need to go anywhere else (in part because I am blessed to be in a "green" diocese with a real shepherd). But I, for my part, am going to be a little less judgemental of those who are simply tired of wandering in the desert looking for something nourishing to eat and some living water to drink. It is an issue of vocation and judgement.
It's an issue of vocation where people are concerned. We have to honor what the Spirit of God is doing in the lives of those who simply cannot abide by what is happening in our church at the present time. God is calling people away from the desert so that they may enjoy the abundant life in a greener pasture. On the other hand, God is certainly calling many to stay for one reason or another. God's will is unscrutable at times, but we must be faithful to the calling he has placed on us as individuals.
It's an issue of judgment where the Episcopal Chruch is concerned. Just as God withheld rain from Israel in the time of Elijah, he is withholding the shower of His Spirit on our idolatrous Church at this time. God's judgement upon ECUSA, as David Virtue notes, is not going to be fire and brimstone or thunderbolts from the sky. The slow, grueling bleed-out we are experiencing is judgement enough. Our once proud and vibrant church is shrivelling fast. And people leaving for other churches is part of that judgement.
I'm not going anywhere. God has called me to "fish in this boat," in the words of John Stott. But I am going to be more cautious and prayerful in my advice to those who are contemplating leaving ECUSA. And I am certainly not going to argue that the "grass isn't greener" in every case. Because just maybe it really is.
Interesting essay...it called to mind the classic Erma Bombeck piece, "The Grass is ALWAYS Greener Over the Septic Tank."....Methinks there's an obvious message in that...
Many don't mind exchanging a certain kind of liturgy for a place where they can grow in the Lord.
When I joined my Continuum church one of the things I struggled with was that it was so high-church (I grew up low-church). It was so... Catholic. But it was so much home, so right, in so many other ways I adjusted to it.
(My wife laughs -- she says I haven't seen "nosebleed high.")
I am not advocating a massive exodus from the Episcopal Church (although that is already happening somewhat).
An interesting admission, confirming my suspicions based on visitors to our church of late.
I couldn't agree with you more but I just have to call to your attention the first response to this thread.
You have FReepmail.
God bless and Goodbye - to these threads.
TNT
BTW, FR seems slow today. Postings & FReepmail seem to take many minutes to come up sometimes...
"All the problems that all churches face are all equally the same, so we may as well just stay and make the best of it wherever we are."
Yes, all churches face the same problems, but not all of them promote abortion on demand.
I can assure you it is. What made it possible for us was (1) there was no good alternative, (2) the church we found had the old '28 liturgy (ironically, the first Sunday I dreaded it because I remembered it being long and boring as a child -- but it didn't take me long to see it was so much more beautiful than the '79), and 3) the church was genuine.
The feeling of leaving was eventually balanced by the feeling of having returned home.
Jesus said,"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me..."
Now I realize that this verse (Matt. 10:37) is in a passage dealing with devotion to God, at the cost of division with those unbelievers of immediate relation.
But spiritually speaking, if you are devoted to church family more than the Word, then you have already put God in second place.
If someone gave you an original 1928 Caddy, but you find that the engine had been stolen years before, and was scrapped. Then it's best to go find another original that hasn't been hopelessly marred. You can't just put another motor in it because it would still not be "original".
The original church, fresh off of the assembly line, is found in the Book of Acts. Remission of sins was through baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, not man's ideas mixed with God's commandments. Iron and clay do not make an alloy.
God bless you as you do your best to live for him.
Amen! It is great to see others proclaiming the simple truth of the Gospel.
If God created the Church, then you don't need to go to the Book of Acts, or any other book, to find it. It's still on earth, just as much alive as it was then. God doesn't make junk, and, in particular, he doesn't make the kind of junk that would break down to the extent that you would have to go back to the original blueprints to try to re-invent it.
After all, how can you possibly believe that God's handiwork has fallen apart, and you are competent to try to put it back together again? (Nor, of course, do I think have that competence, either.) What, you think that man's sin has ruined God's work? Is he really that incompetent? And, even if it had, what qualifies you to put it back together ... you aren't without sin either, are you? (And, at the risk of being repetitive: I am not, either.)
That having been said, the Anglican church has been on the wrong path for a long time now, and I am not claiming that it bears that charism of divine protection.
For me, in leaving a different denomination, the final decision-maker was:
"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Romans 16:17)
We live in the age of the new testament chuch, but I will point out a parallel of disarray that was discovered and corrected during the law in the old testament.
In 2 Kings chaps. 22&23, king Josiah is made aware of the book of the law that had been lost (for quite some time, evidently). When it is brought to him and read, he is alarmed that they have not been obedient to it. He read it in the ears of the people, purposing in his heart to obey all of the law.
The Book of Acts is the blueprint, it has not changed, men have lost it and changed/added rules (like the Pharisees).
"The Book of Acts is the blueprint, it has not changed, men have lost it and changed/added rules (like the Pharisees)."
Yeah, that's right. Some folks have made up a rule like, "Don't believe anything unless it's in the Bible." Trouble is, that rule isn't found in the Bible.
All churches do not face the same problems. The ECUSA seems to be fairly unique in its problems. Many of the churches have dispensed with the problems of female ministers and practicing homosexuals quickly with the word "no". Mine is one of them.
Just to repeat a point that is made frequently here, there are many of us who are not Episcopalian who pray for God to provide you with the wisdom and courage to do what is necessary to fulfill His Plan.
Although we do not have an official prayer team, many of us ask in prayer for a Way to made clear for you and your families to re-establish a church that is conservative, a church that practices Christianity in a Biblical way.
I am one of them. There are many, many more.
"Yeah, that's right. Some folks have made up a rule like, "Don't believe anything unless it's in the Bible." Trouble is, that rule isn't found in the Bible."
Thank you for your response.
Oh, but the rule you mention IS in the Bible!
Romans 3:4 "...yea, let God be true, but every man a liar...".
Psalms 19:7,8,9 "the law of the Lord is perfect, coverting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
Ping.
you wrote: "...the old '28 liturgy (ironically, the first Sunday I dreaded it because I remembered it being long and boring as a child..."
I would hope that someone would take up this point (in another thread, supposedly) because I've heard similar comments from many other life-long Episco/Anglicans (is that a proper term ;-) ?) You don't suppose the beautiful liturgy that us old fogey's love so much has anything to do with our struggle to attract families with young children and/or our inability to keep young people in the church once they hit the age of majority? I think it's a topic worth exploring...
"...but not all of them promote abortion on demand."
There you go!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.