Why I Remain An Anglican -- Part One

During the last couple of years I, like so many of those I know, have had to reconsider what I had always believed were the commitments of a lifetime. While these have not included my commitment to our Lord Jesus Christ seeking to be his faithful servant, they have included a lot of what I used to consider to be the givens that have for decades followed on from that faith in Christ. Questions have arisen like can I continue to maintain the vow of canonical allegiance to my bishop within the context of the larger church? Should I stay in ECUSA which I have served for nearly 30 years? Should I return to England?

Even more disturbing has been whether it is possible for a person seeking to be faithful to Scripture to remain an Anglican in these difficult circumstances, or has error finally run me off? If I come up with a "no" to this last question, then where on earth might I go and what might I do?

Such is the stuff that has fed countless prayers and had me walking the hardwood floors of our home in the wee small hours. My concern above all else has been obedience to Christ, not necessarily what makes me feel comfortable or what it might do to my income when I retire. This latter attitude is that of the fool in Jesus's parable, for I do not know when my soul will be required of me. While I remain here on earth that soul in concert with the body that houses it must put loyalty to the Lord above all else.

I have always considered myself to be what I would describe as a congenital Anglican, some of this almost goes with being English, but it is also something that has become an ingrained conviction. This means that whether I should remain Anglican is a question that has been the most disturbing. I confess to a continuing deep affrection for the Anglican way of being Christian, although I recognize there are other ways of obedience. I also confess to being increasingly irritated by the way in which we seem determined to constantly put our tradition down.

Yet the Anglican environment has been the setting in which my faith has been nurtured, has developed, and continues (I hope) to mature. Even if I ceased being an Anglican, all the treasures of this heritage would stay with me, enriching and haunting me until that day when I am finally called Home.

This has seriously raised the possibility of being an Anglican in one of the separated Anglican bodies, and I certainly considered this -- especially when I received a couple of flattering invitations from leaders of those various groups. I have learned and benefited a lot from these brothers and sisters, and take great pride in telling you that my own private communion set was dedicated by the presiding bishop of one of those churches. Yet it is not among these good people that I belong.

I have been (and continue to be) profoundly troubled by the actions of ECUSA, whose willingness to diverge from the catholic faith has, I am forced to conclude, as much to do with ignorance of God's revelation as a slide into aping the culture rather than challenging the culture's presuppositions. Yet this has been going on for a long time and we have not adequately countered it until now.

I would have to say that the whole Robinson and human sexuality embroglio is merely the tipping point in a long drift in this province away from the essence of revealed faith, and the institutional orthodoxy that is reflected in a larger part of the rest of the Anglican Communion. I would agree with Harold Bloom that the established religion of America is a modern form of Gnosticism, and much of the Episcopal Church has come to resemble this characterization.

However, over the last couple of years, as I have prayed over, pondered, and sought counsel about being in these circumstances, I have realizing that concentrating my thoughts on the negatives of ECUSA is of no use at all, for all they do is increase the density of the fog meaning that I will myself start hitting icebergs. The whole thing then comes about me and not about the environment in which I have been set to be a witness to the truth.

To use an analogy, there is a lot about the history as well as the current behavior of my own kith and kin that deeply disturbs me, so if I were to cut my ties with them I would have done so a long time ago; but blood is stronger than water, and something far more ontological persuades me that I must stay connected, and even reach out to the ones with whom I have been at odds. Being at one with my own family overrides their attitudes and misbehaviors, although it does not allow me to condone what some of them are up to. So it is with Anglican Christianity, as well as the American mainline incarnation of it, which is the one to which I belong.

However, there have been serious moments when I have wondered if, perhaps, maybe, I would fit somewhere else. I have looked at Rome as an option, for example. I was watching the funeral of John Paul II, and a little voice murmured in my ear that at a push I could handle this. Rome has a magnificence that gives it a magnetic appeal to countless Western Christians who are separated from it, and I have watched a steady trickle of friends swim the Tiber. But as I looked more closely, and as I viewed what was going on outside St. Peter's Basilica on that spring day I recognized that being a Catholic goes with a package that is as troublesome to me as the misdeeds of ECUSA.

In JPII's funeral there were two of them that hit me. The first was Rome's theology of the eucharist, which made me most uncomfortable when they reached the Canon of the Mass, and then there was the place given to Mary in their devotional life. When I was in seminary I had the luxury of being able to spend a whole term just studying the nature of Roman Christianity in the wake of Vatican II. While there was much to encourage my heart, there was also a great deal more that made Roman Christianity indigestible to me -- and I realized on that April day that these concerns have not been ameliorated by the passing of the years.

I can never believe about authority what Roman Catholics are bound to believe, especially the manner in which the church's magesterium is anchored in (what is to me) an unacceptable theology of the papacy and the place in Christian believing of the Bishop of Rome. JPII might have been one of the greatest Christians ever to hold that office who has attracted many into the Roman obedience, but just as one should not judge Anglicanism merely by its shortcomings, neither can we measure the grandeur of Catholicism merely by the life of one of its most significant sons.

I believe that despite the dark stains marring that era, the cleansing that took place at the Reformation was essentially beneficial to Christianity as a whole, and especially Anglicanism. It grieves me that despite Catholicism's richness it was neither prepared then nor has it been prepared since to test substantial elements of its doctrinal edifice against the essence and substance of Scripture.

The trouble is that while the Roman Catholic doctrine of development allows for a piling up for fresh insights into the tradition, it does not seem to have the capacity for subsequent questioning of the accumulated tradition -- or perhaps the reassessment, modification, or abandonment of components that might be inappropriate. This was something that one of the most significant converts to the Roman obedience, John Henry Newman, wrestled with. Newman discovered to his cost that as he sought in those Victorian days to make better sense of the doctrine of development, his rich and helpful work came under the scrutiny, and then outright ban of the Vatican.

While I cannot reach into the hearts and souls of those who have become Roman Catholics in recent years, I am totally unable to follow them. I wish them well, but I also wish they had not done it. I am sorry, too, that most are unwilling to keep in touch with those of us they leave behind.

Eastern Orthodoxy has become a less fashionable destination for disgruntled Anglicans than it was 12-15 years ago, which is hardly surprising, because even in its most Americanized forms Orthodoxy remains distinctly alien and ethnic. Now there is much about Orthodoxy that appeals to me, especially their deep devotion to the Holy Trinity, but having worked closely with the Russian Orthodox for the best part of a decade, I find myself in a position where I can admire them without necessarily wanting or needing to be part of them.

While Orthodoxy is much closer to classic Anglicanism than Rome is, I do have problems with a religious tradition that has not been tried and tested by either Reformation, or the challenges of the Enlightenment that have so influenced those of us who are Westerners.

While many Orthodox Christians might disagree with me, I also find that its liturgy-centered approach to mission and evangelism leaves something to be desired -- and while some of their approaches to outreach might be imaginative, they are major exceptions. A further discomfort I confess to having with Orthodoxy is my perception that it is inflexibly male-dominated, and while I have misgivings about some of the ways we have sought to enrich the ministry of women, I would rather have tried doing something than basically saying the church got it right a millennium ago and we don't need to go back to that.

There are endless other Christian traditions that I admire, and from which I have gained, from Lutherans to the Salvation Army. But I have been formed in a particular way which has so profoundly shaped me, that I could no more adopt being part of something else than I could fly to the moon. Probably the least likely Christian tradition in which I might fit would be that which is either broadly Baptist or broadly Pentecostal, although Christians from each of these settings has played a significant role in my life in the past.

All this brings me back to my lifelong love affair with Anglicanism, and my realization that while things are more fluid in the Anglican Communion now than at any time in my life, as well as the parlous state of the North American franchise of mainstream Anglicanism, as far as I am concerned there are no alternatives. Through my questioning I have concluded that I am in no position to abandon this church until this church abandons me.

At the end of his very helpful little monograph exploring the biblical basis for remaining united or separating from an erring body, Mike Thompson, an American priest who is Vice-Principal of Ridley Hall, Cambridge, writes, "One of the great things the Anglican Church has going for it is that it does not have some of the walls that some other churches have, firewalls that protect the Church of the Immaculate Perception at the cost of people. Tolerance means we leave room for mistakes. Sometimes our leaders make big mistakes, as we do. But I would rather be part of a group that risks erring on the side of tolerance than one that 'safely' errs on the side of separation. The truth is, try as hard as we can, human beings are going to continue to err and make messes until glory. If we can learn to listen to the worldwide church before making big decisions, these messes can be minimized" (Michael B. Thompson, When Should We Divide?, Cambridge: Grove Books, 2004, page 27).

I agree with Mike wholeheartedly, despite the fact that it leaves me in an uncomfortable position. I also still believe, with my old friend and mentor Jim Packer, that at its best Anglican Christianity is the finest way of believing. So, for better or worse, "Here I stand," as was said by the greatest of Reformers. Whatever the outcomes my intention is to work for the restoration and reformation of the church, and in uncertain times that means learning to listen carefully to what God might be saying.

(This is only the first of three pieces I am writing on this topic. More will follow about the richness of the Anglican heritage, which I believe often gets overlooked because we are concentrating on the problems and not the benefits of our tradition).

"You are asking the wrong person." About your liturgy? Canons? Constitution? Council in Trullo?
All these are involved in what you said as to the ACC being Tridentine and so forth. So, if I asked the wrong person, maybe you could pass my question(s) along to your priest and he could pass them along to his bishop and maybe we both could get some answers.
Have a great day.

Re: anti-Catholic. If you don't believe that there is a strong strain of anti-Catholicism tied up in English Anglicanism, just read anything by Charles Kingsley. Not just The Water Babies, but Westward Ho! or any of his other books. Or read his disputation with Newman.

Just because some people jump to the accusation of anti-Catholicism when it isn't warranted, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And if you read Kingsley, or many of the other writers of that same period (though he is the one that jumps out, and the one who was most widely read), you will see that this is true. I find that reading these books in their youth has colored the attitudes of many Englishmen. They haven't THOUGHT about it -- it's just reflexive, like the reaction of many Southern Baptists to the Scarlet Woman.

It's a shame that you were among people who didn't favor theological analysis. I think you would have been happier at our parish. There is serious discussion and give-and-take here, both with our priests and with our fellow Sunday School students. (Our permanent deacons are both converted Baptists, and they have put the Baptists' strengths in Biblical exegesis and powerful preaching into service here in a big way. But Monsignor's homilies are not to be despised either. . . delivered in a classic Irish brogue that hasn't diminished despite his having been in the country 30 years or so . . . )

"and then there was the place given to Mary in their devotional life

this being a late and parochial RC obsession you see -- unknown to the Orthodox, not to mention his own cherished Anglican tradition in the thousand years between Gregory the Great and Henry VIII."

Right! Just imagine what he would think seeing us "Orthodoxers" chanting praises to the Most Holy Theotokos at every Liturgy, not to mention the Akathist Hymns we celebrate, the kissing of her Icons in our churches, homes, offices and other workplaces, the visions of our people and the miracles we believe she is responsible for! You Latins are almost protestant with regard to Panagia compared to us! :) Like I said, he wouldn't be happy with us.

Its a shame you havent checked out the history of the Anglican Church further back than King Henry VIII (whose actions were simply the last straw, not the beginning), and that you havent read further into the ACC site which explains our faith.

We are more catholic than the many liberal RCC parishes that exist where I live. 1) the Priest faces the altar, not the congregation 2) the Body and Blood of Christ are handled by the Priests, not by lay people 3) our missle is the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, which many RCC churches are beginning to turn to because of its inherent traditions.

I got shoved out of the RCC because of the actions of one particular priest; and then snubbed out by fellow priests and friends...mainly because I had the audacity to report the first priest mentioned to the Archbishop, along with 14 other people, who then removed him. The very possibilty of seeking out spiritual guidance was made far more difficult by those who sought to punish me for something that wasn't my crime.

I agree with you that many Anglicans do not know the history of their church any better than they should, but I don't think it is a recent phenomenon. It has been ongoing since the 18th century. I just finished reading a chapter in a book about 18th century English society that gave examples of the very laments you gave. I don't think Henry VIII was any better to England than a Roman king could have been as far as religion goes, but I know enough to understand that Rome does not own the entire story of the church in England.

yours in Christ

I can do that, actually!

I do not mean to sound snarky, so please forgive me if it comes across that way. I said Tridentine because that is what I have been told is the tradition we follow, but again, I am not theologically strong enough to argue the points. I am however part of our church's forum list on another site, and I can transpose your question to them.

Best regards,
Alkhin

"our missle[sic] is the 1928 Book of Common Prayer"
Been there and done that, from my childhood actually.

I'm not here to criticize, only to counsel. A book to look into is Michael Davies, CRANMER'S GODLY ORDER. It's a very good presentation of the traditionalist RC take on the 1549 and 1552 editions of the BCP.

But that's not the full story. For a look further back, read Gerald Eliard, MASTER ALCUIN, LITURGIST.

But where did it really start Alkhin? It started in Jerusalem, didn't it, just as it says in Canon 32 of the Council in Trullo.

The best you can say of the 1928 BCP is that it is a few remnants of the Divine Liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem the Brother of the Lord as taken to Rome by St. Peter, as revamped and restructured (but with a heresy here and there thrown in) by Alcuin of York, as further refined by the Norman Bishop of Sarum in 1066, as redesigned and added to by the heretical Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer, as improved upon in 1662 by the Restoration crowd, with its Orthodox paschalion destroyed in 1552 by King George II, as revised in 1789 and then again in 1928.

Would you not rather have the original, or something very close to the original?

"I am however part of our church's forum list on another site, and I can transpose your question to them."

Hey, cool. By all means, do so.

Snarky? Nah. You're doin fine,....for a Texan. I used to attend St. Paul's in San Antonio back in the dark ages when Fr. Joseph was the pastor. http://stpauls-satx.org/

I don't happen to be in this jurisdiction, but the British Orthodox Church publishes a quarterly, The Glastonbury Review.

I would offer a WARNING to anyone who reads anything produced by the "British Orthodox Church" to be aware that they are not in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople but are part of the Egyptian Coptic Church. I have much admiration for the perseverance of the Coptic Church in Egypt but the BOC sometimes comes off as THE Orthodox Church of Britain which is not the case. It is a tiny jurisdiction unrecognised by most Orthodox worldwide.

The best you can say of the 1928 BCP is that it is a few remnants of the Divine Liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem the Brother of the Lord as taken to Rome by St. Peter, as revamped and restructured (but with a heresy here and there thrown in) by Alcuin of York, as further refined by the Norman Bishop of Sarum in 1066, as redesigned and added to by the heretical Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer, as improved upon in 1662 by the Restoration crowd, with its Orthodox paschalion destroyed in 1552 by King George II, as revised in 1789 and then again in 1928.

Would you not rather have the original, or something very close to the original?

Yes, that would be great... I would love to see something like that come to fruition! I attended our Provincial Synod in 2003, and the subject of establishing a BCP along its original format was brought up as a discussion. I was only able to follow bits and pieces of it, as I was assisting a booth in its sales and I was only there as an observer, rather than a delegate. I may be going out on a limb here, but I think the 1928 version was settled upon in the Affirmation of St. Louis in 1977 because a majority of the members were most familiar with that. As the ACC goes on, I think I might end up hearing more about going to the source, as it were.

Of course, speaking as a child of Vatican II, the 1928 BCP is already rich and wonderful for me.

Hey, I was a sixth-generation High Church Episcopalian (or fourth-, if you count one intervening Methodist), had my Perfect Attendance Sunday School pin with TEN (count 'em) TEN bars . . . my gggg grandfather was baptized at St. Giles Cripplegate, the church where Cromwell was married and Milton is buried. Have you heard the expression, "Now you're telling Noah about the Flood"?

We weren't discussing the Venerable Bede or Alfred the Great -- just my opinion as to why so many Englishmen today are automatically suspicious of the Catholic church. IMNSHO it was the Anglican reaction to the Oxford Movement in Newman's time (and the political issues associated with that time) that generated most of the reflexive anti-Catholicism in the English church today. (The Irish Question hasn't helped either.)

It's a shame that you ran afoul of a rogue priest. They do exist, in every denomination (I could name several in my former ECUSA diocese). Sounds like the Abp did the right thing though.

He did indeed, and for that I am grateful. I think it was everyone else's reaction to it that made it hard for me to see the RCC as a home anymore. I tried to stay true to my catholic roots (little 'c') and find a church that was close to what I was familiar with, and for a time the ECUSA looked like it was the answer...but alas, hubby and I began to see some things that were very wrong. I feel so strongly about where I am now with the ACC because I really believe God guided me there.

Please forgive my hostile tone. I know exactly what you are talking about concerning the English prejudice. It would be one thing if they knew why, but if all they can come up with is just ingrained bias, rather than real theological knowledge (right or wrong) then it is indeed pointless to keep calling oneself Anglican. I guess I am so eager to tell people about my church, I tend to let it color my reaction to others.

It's o.k. . . . this has been a stressful period for all concerned . . . in ECUSA especially. It was quite a wrench to pull away from ECUSA, mostly just because of tradition and inertia. I wish we had made the move sooner, but it's a major, major decision to change churches (at least if you're trying to do the right thing.)

Unfortunately, in our diocese we don't have the option of an Anglican parish. The only "high" Anglican parish left is in severe crisis, their long-time rector just left to become chaplain of a convent in Maryland, and the average age of the parishioners is about 75 (I'm really not kidding - when we went there there were oxygen tanks in the back row for the regulars.) Add to that that the bishop is threatening to close them down (he wants their very valuable realty) and that they are over an hour away from our house, you can see how it's unworkable with two teenagers. And the parish may not survive much longer in any event. It's a dreadful situation, and I'm glad to be watching it from the sidelines instead of in the middle of the mess.

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.