In short, it comes down to The Social Issues. I do not believe that homosexual relationships should be treated equally to heterosexual ones if we base that equality on the proposition that they should have valid, legally-recognized, church-blessed "marriage". I do not believe in abortion or other pro-death issues. I do not believe women have been given the same teaching and pastoral authority as men.
Those things effectively meant I could never really find a home within the Episcopal Church.
Still, I'd long been fascinated by Anglicanism. And superficially, what was there for a cradle Protestant not to like? All the ritual, half the guilt, none of the Popes. Where do I sign up?
In 2006 I found myself faced with the decision to choose a church home. I'd never really bothered looking for one in my adult life because for a goodly portion thereof, I hadn't been much of a Christian. I was briefly attracted to TEC though because I'd come to understand a bit about the history of Anglicanism and how similar (in some ways) it is to Catholicism. Seemed like it would be worth checking out.
Given my rubric above concerning The Social Issues, obviously I concluded that TEC was no place for anybody who beleived in Biblical authority. Not finding a much better alternative in near proximity to my home, I just figured I'd play it safe, visit a Southern Baptist church and resume Church Search 2006 later.
As it happened, "later" never really came because I quickly fell in with the Southern Baptists. It wasn't very long before I found myself teaching a small group of 20/30-something single adults like myself. That ended in a very unpleasant way but not before I began confronting some uncomfortable passages in the Bible.
I've since come to understand that an inactive, disengaged Southern Baptist church member can claim a belief in Sola Scriptura without much trouble. Speaking from experience, I can tell you that it isn't difficult.
However, it takes a little bit of hard work and a lot of self-deception to maintain Sola Scriptura if you are in any type of leadership or pastoral role.
As I was in the former, chapters such as John 6 and John 21 were an incredible pain in the neck to teach from. And when it comes to church authority, Matthew 16 was no picnic either. To an evangelical, someone who professes to take the Bible literally, "These things must happen soon" means "These things will happen much later", "Behold, I am coming quickly" means "Chill out, I'll come slowly" and "eat my flesh and drink my blood" means "Do this as a commemorative metaphor".
That, I guess, is taking the Bible "literally". And somewhere, David Cross is shaking his head in frustration.
In any case, those troublesome bits of doctrine were sore points for me. On the one hand, I wanted to believe that the Catholics, Anglicans and others who interpreted those passages more literally than I wanted to were wrong. And not because the preponderence of the facts didn't support their argument. But because I'd been taught my whole life the standard nonsense evangelical interpretation of those passages... but had found them pathetically wanting.
After absenting myself from Southern Baptist Church #1 (or being forcibly shown the door depending on how you look at it), I soon started up at Southern Baptist Church #2. Even though SBC #2 was a much more pleasant environment compared to the back-biting sharktank that was (and probably still is) SBC #1, I never completely settled in. Partly that's because some old faces from SBC #1 would occasionally show up at SBC #2. But partly it was due to my growing distrust of reform theology.
To avoid my enemies and to start dealing with my growing disregard for most of the reformers, I left SBC #2 (on good terms, I can assure you) and began studying Anglican doctrine. As some of you may know, Anglicanism is an interesting, bewildering, thrashing hydra. You've got low church borderline evangelicals, high church Anglo-Catholics and broad church moderates. Each, any or all can be theologically conservative and politically liberal, theologically liberal and politically conservative or any combination you can think of.
Because of that, it's exceedingly difficult to make firm judgments about Anglicanism in general because the almost unprecedented amount of leeway and flexibility the movement allows.
I'd heard about the Anglican Church in North America not long after it had formed. I had been briefly tempted to visit an ACNA parish even when I was happily (and even not-so-happily) attending SBC #1 but at the time there really was no rational justification to leave. But then an irrational justification was forced upon me. So in short order I found a small ACNA parish near my house and began attending services there each week.
In fact, I'd begun visiting not long before Holy Week in 2013 so I was able to get what I think is the full Anglican experience pretty early on. And I loved it!
But what interested me most was Anglo-Catholicism: Essentially Roman Catholicism with no Popes and fewer pointy hats. Were you to seat an Anglo-Catholic next to a Roman Catholic and tell them not to talk about bishops of Rome, they'd probably get along famously. And there's even a sub-group of Anglo-Papists who love the Pope but not quite enough to join his church to be in communion with him.
A good example is the letter St. Ignatius wrote to the Smyrneans. He identified as heretics anybody who didn't believe that the Eucharist is not the body and blood of our Lord. Considering that St. Ignatius had been taught and trained by St. John, um, wouldn't he know what he was talking about when it comes to as crucial an issue as the Eucharist?
In any case, I found myself embracing a lot of the Anglo-Catholic theology I researched. And in effect, "Anglo-Catholic theology" is basically Roman theology. What I found was a world of theology and history that I never suspected even existed! Gone were the questions and confusion over key passages of Scripture. It felt like these were the answers I'd always been looking for.
After that, the wheels started turning. If the Catholics were correct about those Bible passages and other doctrines (and I am convinced that they are), might they also be able to justify other peculiarly Roman issues such as Marianology, the Papacy and other things? Possibly.
More research. And more answers! Every questionable doctrine, every sketchy belief, every misconception, every misunderstanding, all of it was clarified when I found trained, qualified, authoritative sources to deal with my questions.
I'd always said that I'd join the Catholic Church if they could ever find a way to address my main concerns about their beliefs. Well, it sure looked like God had put me on a path to find all the answers I needed. The Catholic Church is the one our Lord started.
What justification is there anymore to not join?
The other consideration is the future of Anglicanism. As I have said before, ACNA hasn't caught on the way I think most people in ACNA expected it to. But simply put, the numbers were never great to begin with and they're only dwindling. Is ACNA or any representation of Anglicanism even going to be viable in the United States twenty years from now? Maybe. But maybe not.
Now, true, we can't base our spiritual and church-going judgments on popularity. But given as I'd come to the realization that although the Anglicans are right, the Catholics are righter insofar as doctrines and beliefs are concerned, there was simply no rational, spiritual or any other argument for staying in the Anglican church.
I should mention that in the middle of all this, I spoke to my priest from my Anglican parish. I explained what I was going through and he offered some very helpful advice. He said I should press on with my search for as long as it takes. And if my final destination is to stay at his church, fine by him. But if it takes me to Rome, so be it.
That remains the long major encouragement I've gotten in this process so I value it, him and his counsel dearly.
So that's basically how I found my way into and subsequently out of Canterbury. In the final analysis, I believe that Rome didn't leave Canterbury. Rather, Canterbury left Rome. As an Anglo-Catholic, the split from Rome bothered me. Still does, in fact. I pray for reunification someday.
But until then, the split from Canterbury bothers me less as a Roman Catholic than the split from Rome did as an Anglican.
No comments:
Post a Comment