Tuesday 19 July 2011

A Quandry...

I seem to have reached a point in my religious life where I am at a crossroads.  This is a crossroads that I thought I had dealt with in the not so distant past.  It is a question of vocation, faith and discerning the will of God both in my life and within my life in the Church Catholic.

I have struggled with many decisions of the Anglican Church of Canada in the past 35 years.  From Prayerbook Revision, to the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate, and now the current debate over human sexuality in the Church, I appear to be on the wrong side of popular opinion. 

Now all of these things in themselves are for me not issues that I would necessarily leave over.  I'm quite happy to use the BAS, and even some of the newer revisions of liturgies.

I receive the sacrament from women priests, have attempted to nurture a few vocations in female friends of mine considering ordained ministry, and have worked both collegially and accepted the pastoral ministrations of female priests.

On the third issue, I have plenty of gay friends within the Church, both ordained and lay who are strong supporters of the direction the Church is taking on this issue.  I have been to same sex marriages and even a church blessing.  My parish priest for years has been a partnered gay man, and I care deeply for him as a priest and as a friend.

So clearly I am able to deal, so why am I more actively discerning whether there is an actual place for me in the Anglican Church of Canada.

Firstly, I am rather tired of living in a ghetto.  My Anglo-Catholic conservative credentials are impeccable... Member of the Society of Our Lady of Walsingham, Probationer in the Fellowship of Saint John the Evangelist, member of the Guild of All Souls, member of the Society of King Charles the Martyr, member of the Prayer Book Society of Canada, member of the Anglican Communion Alliance, nevermind a few other groups that shall remain nameless.  I would be a member of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament but they never ever respond to my emails...I can chant De Angelis from memory, I own copies of the Parson's Handbook and Ritual Notes.  I say my daily offices from a smattering of extremely high AC sources, and I've grown an appreciation for lace and gin that I never thought I would.

Secondly, I'm tired of being the only one in a room.   There is nothing like sitting around a Diocesan Council meeting knowing you are the only one in the room who thinks these things.  It was a little better at General Synod, but not that much better  It is tiring and wears one down so greatly.   I always feel as though I will be drawn into an argument over my preferences in worship or what I believe the Church has taught and is teaching today, why we should care what the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches think, or why Tradition matters here and now.  I just want to be able to go into a meeting and think that on essentials, there is unity of belief, perhaps a pipe dream but it can't be any worse than it is.

Thirdly, I am afraid of what is to come... The storm clouds are gathering on the horizon for the next issues such as the Communion of the Unbaptised, a serious rethinking of the persons of the Trinity, a change in the sacrament of marriage, and generally a faith where sin and repentence and belief in the Risen Lord are removed and replaced by a creed of PC do gooderness, a hippy Pelagianism if you please.

So the options before be are many:

1) Do I continue on my merry way, in my ghetto (a ghetto that is sadly getting smaller and smaller) pretending nothing is wrong, fiddling while Rome burns.

2) Do I take an active role in attempting to reform the Church from within.  Do I stick my neck out like never before and take a clear stand for the Gospel?  Live out Keble's famous quote "if the Church of England were to fail, it should be found in my parish."

3) Do I sail into the uncharted waters of ANiC, where locally I would almost be as much of a fish out of water as I already am.  But is that a matter of trading orthopraxy for orthodoxy and which is more essential to the faith.  This would be an extremely hard road, that I'm sure would cost me many, many friends, but is that a cross that must be born?

4) Do I look towards to See of Peter, perhaps in a parish or in the formation of the Ordinariate.  The cultural change would be huge, I would be placing a barrier between many of the people I love and care for at the altar rail, and I would also have to greatly rethink any vocation to ordained ministry.   There are also the theological issues of the past 150 years that Rome has introduced or at least formalised.  But to be in communion with the vast majority of Christendom would truly be a gift from God.

5) What about the East? But I dont have the beard for that...

6) The golf course... sometimes I feel just like packing it all in...


So these are the questions before me, I would love your input, your thoughts, questions, concerns, or comments... We are not in this alone.

My final thought is that for me, the Christian Church must live as close to the words that title this blog.  We must believe what has been taught everywhere, always and by all.  For if we do not, we pull all the foundations out of our Church, and are left with nothing.


7 comments:

  1. This post brings up a lot of questions and concerns for me as I feel many of the same tensions as you. I have two immediate thoughts. They are, perhaps, two of the reasons that I feel comfortable remaining in the Anglican Communion at this point.

    First, the Nonjurors. I don't know how much you know about their complex history, but if you have a chance to even read the wikipedia article, I think you'd see the relevance to your own position. For me, the main example is that even though it seemed most if not all of the Church around them was departing from the way, they remained in faithful service even when deprived of their sees and livings.

    Second, there was a time in history when a majority of the Church was Arian. It seems that this may be the case for our own communion at the moment. No doubt many of the faithful felt as out of place in their dioceses as you and i do now.

    This, of course, doesn't solve everything. It doesn't even completely convince me ... but it may offer you some food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I hope you're finding good time for prayer, and some good counsel in your discernment. You're not alone, you are part of a community. Further, whatever your decision, the rest of the good Christian folk you know now will not cease to exist... friendship can overcome many boundaries. You seem to recognize a lot of the realistic pros and cons about whatever decision you make...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ben,

    I get the point about the Nonjurors... but I don't really see how this appeals to me staying within the ACoC, but seems to rather appeal to an ANiC position. I have always appreciated the Nonjurors, especially William Law and Thomas Ken, but I'm not sure how it exactly jives with my current mood. I would say I'm stuck somewhere between Pusey and Newman myself... though with not 1% of their combined intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. here's my take on the nonjurors, but I know that it's a complex history, so I could be missing something.

    I see them as being a different response than ANiC mainly because they remained within the church under the episcopal structure even though they believed that the Church and the King were acting inappropriately. Many of the priests and bishops who were removed continued to attend their parish church as laymen. They didn't break away from the CofE and create the ECiE or something ...

    The question for them as it was for the Oxford men, was whether the Church of England was an embodiment of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. If so, then their bishops, priests and deacons were successors to the Apostles. And if that were true, they were to be honoured and respected for their office-sake, even if they weren't good men (citing as evidence Our Lord's choice of Judas as an apostle even when he knew he would betray him). They didn't have to obey them if they felt they were teaching unorthodox doctrine or practices. But even then, they stressed non-resistance and passive obedience as the method of protest (for a good discussion of this, see JCD Clark English Society 1660-1832)

    So, if the ANiC folks had taken the nonjuror position, they would have remained in the diocese even if they were threatened, deprived of their pay, removed from their position, etc.

    Doing what they did (and I'm not making an implicit judgment here) brings into question the purpose of the episcopal system and the validity of Apostolic Succession. And if that's the case, then why see to go under another bishop? That seems much more Presbyterian than Anglican.

    I realize this is complex, I'm not trying to be comprehensive, just give you an idea what I'm talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I might be missing something, but this line from Wikipedia would seem to show a different church being formed

    "When the vacant sees were filled, some refused to recognise the new bishops and the nonjurors appointed their own bishops. In 1694, George Hickes (Dean of Worcester) was consecrated nonjuring bishop of Thetford and Thomas Wagstaffe was consecrated nonjuring bishop of Ipswich."

    ReplyDelete
  6. I can see why you'd say that, but I don't think that constitutes a new church being formed.

    The nonjurors contested the validity of William and Mary as monarchs as well as any monarch's right/ability/authority to depose a bishop(much less an invalid monarch).
    When the sees of some of the nonjuring bishops were filled, many considered these bishops illegitimate usurpers, as the sees they were filling weren't truly vacant because the monarch did not have the authority to depose a bishop (or clergy). It was a question of proper ordination and appointment.

    This seems to be significantly different than what ANiC are doing.

    I think, too, that there needs to be some nuance in one's understanding/definition of nonjuror. There was perhaps more diversity within the group than is regularly acknowledged.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Far more diversity, especially as one looks into the Usagers (really in many ways the first Ritualists) and the Non Usagers, who seem to be the ones that stayed within their parishes even when deprived of a living.

    ReplyDelete