08 April 2011

Now I've done It....

I'm a deacon in the Convocation of Anglicans of North America.


To properly answer the question, we first have to examine, “why not stay Anabaptist?” There are several things that I had grown uncomfortable with over the years.
First, non-creedalism. Brethren are non-creedal, they don’t hold any creed as normative or prescriptive. Our Centennial Statement says so. I say this with irony, because it was written in the 1980s as a “snapshot in time” of the current state of Brethren belief, and has been latched onto and used as….our statement of faith, our “creed” if you will.
Yes, a creed is the invention of man, but it is a highly useful invention. It is a summary of the major tenants of our faith. To not have such a statement leaves each individual in the position of having to try to figure it out on their own or, more often, of just sort of having a vague idea what they believe and what the Bible teaches about various doctrines.
Second, free-church worship depends on the personalities up front, and often suffers as a result.  Sure, some can pull off a meaningful, grounded service. Many can’t, and the congregations suffer for it. This ties into my next point.
Lack of transcendence. We profess to worship a God who is spirit, who has filled us with his spirit, who can speak and cause things to be or cease to be. God, we proclaim, is amazing and beyond our comprehension, words cannot describe his majesty and holiness. How often is this communicated by our worship? Worship should give us a sense of being ushered into God’s presence, not a lecture hall or a concert.
Lack of history. To listen to and read much of the American evangelical church, Jesus died and was resurrected, nothing happened until 1950 when Billy Graham came on the scene, and now we’re here. That’s a bit simplistic, but reflects truth. By and large, we ignore 2000 years of church history. We overlook thousands of faithful saints who have sought after God with all their heart, mind and soul. Many of them preserved their years of learning and experience for us to learn from.
Instead, the evangelical church seems on a perpetual search for “the next big thing.” Most church conferences I have been to were either proclaiming to be that thing, or talking about what they thought it was, from small groups, to men’s ministry to whatever. We’re like kids who forget all the toys we have at home as soon as we step into the toy store, we want something new and shiny, instead of appreciating the heritage and message we have.
This ties into a disdain for theology, doctrine and depth. One of the last straws for me was a chaplain conference where theology was continually used as a negative thing that the speakers wanted to avoid or not go into. This was a conference of ministers. If we don’t discuss theology and doctrine, who will? Isn’t that part of our call?
Several people at this same conference stated this idea of “as long as you love Jesus and believe the Bible that’s good enough.” Well, that’s fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough. Ask a Mormon and he’ll answer yes to that question. Jehovah’s Witness? The “minimum standard” approach so we can “count” as many people as possible has led to pews full of shallow Christians.
Finally, at least in some Anabaptist circles, to include the Brethren, pacifism is at least a historical position. As an Army chaplain, I have issues with that, especially considering I see no biblical support for it.

So, why Anglican?

They have a strong evangelical heritage. While I am quite critical of modern evangelicals in some regards, it is largely because they have failed to be true to themselves by keeping scripture as primary. Anglicanism holds the sufficiency of scripture in all matters of faith and practice.
Anglicans hold to a historic orthodoxy. They are unashamed to recite the Apostle’s, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, as the church has for over 1500 years. As such, they are not a break with the historic church, but a true reform of it. They don’t think that one day they opened the Bible and suddenly they figured it out. They trace a long history back to the Apostles. The acknowledge that errors were made along the way, and thus reforms were necessary, but they don’t throw out everything.
A higher view of the sacraments. Baptism and communion are important. Jesus commanded us to practice them and they are more than a route ritual that we do “just because he said so.” We can’t honestly read John 6:22-59 and 1 Corinthians 11:27-30 and think that communion is nothing more than a shot of grape juice and a wafer. There is spiritual significance in the actions. I can’t explain it all, but I have experienced it in myself and others.
Sound doctrine without being suffocating. The Anglican confessions—the 3 creeds and the 39 Articles of Religion lay down a foundation, but they don’t tell us what color the curtains are. There is some room for divergence on some matters, for better or worse.
Balanced liturgy. 4 scripture readings, confession, creed, sermon, Eucharist in every service. That’s a healthy diet.
Transcendence. A liturgical service is different. I see that as a strength. There is no mistaking this gathering for something else. The vestments, the procession, the incense, it all calls us out from our normal workaday world to a glimpse of heaven. This is different, we are on holy ground, we don’t come lightly or ill-prepared because God deserves our best worship.
Ecumenical. I am wary to ever claim I have it all figured out, and the Anglican tradition is open to learning from both Catholic and protestant sides of the faith. The via media—the middle way of Anglicanism seeks balance in this and other areas.
Intellectual heritage. Anglicanism has some great theologians and thinkers throughout the years. Cranmer, Whitfield, Wesley, Hooker, Lewis, Elliot. The list goes on. This is a tradition that values reason.
Anglicanism is also willing to accept “mystery” in a divine sense. They don’t have to have it figured to the last detail, they understand that sometimes we just have to accept what we know and trust God for the rest.
The Book of Common Prayer. After the King James Bible and next to the works of Shakespeare, there is no other more influential literary work in the English language. It is a concise distillation of the liturgy of the hours and other more cumbersome Catholic prayers and services, served up in the language of the people and stripped of the errors that had crept in during the middle ages. It is a great resource for both personal devotion and corporate worship.
Episcopacy. The offices of deacon, bishop and priest are not only biblical, but they are pragmatic as well. Having suffered through other less structured forms of church government, I believe good leadership is necessary in the church.
There are issues in the global Anglican communion. The Episcopal Church USA is an unmitigated liberal disaster currently. However, world-wide, there is a conservative majority that is pushing for revival and reform. The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) is an exciting combination of those from the ECUSA who want a return to scriptural authority and those “new Anglicans” like myself who are drawn to all that is above in the Anglican heritage. This global groundswell is coming largely from the “global south” African and South American and some Asian diocese. It is an exciting time to see these former colonies standing up to call the Church of England back to her roots.

There have been influences along the way that have pushed and pulled me in this direction, from picking up a Book of Common Prayer as a young pastor for help with performing funerals and weddings, to discovering deeper in meaning in the Eucharist while doing field services in the Army. From learning how to sustain a regular prayer time by using written prayers to finding myself feeling increasingly empty in “contemporary” services. I have read and met people along the way who have guided me on my journey—both Anglican and non-Anglican. Some are personal friends, others are merely acquaintances. 
I pray this creates more friends than enemies, more discussion than condemnation, more understanding than confusion.

1 comment:

  1. Wow, Chris, this is exciting! Congratulations! When Michael told me you were studying Anglicanism, I was very interested, because since we left the PCA, I have been struggling with not being part of a church tradition. I also am drawn to "higher church" traditions and the acceptance of "mystery." I believe firmly in the Lord's Supper as more than a "symbol" or remembrance. I have often thought that if Michael were in agreement, I would like to become Anglican. Thanks for sharing all your influences in your journey.