Three years ago I waded into the via media of Anglicanism. When I searched for a "middle way" I was attracted to Anglicanism for one primary reason - the Anglican Statement of faith known as the Thirty-Nine Articles. I was disillusioned with the fragmentation of the evangelical movement and burned out from a series of difficult congregational church situations.
I wanted the doctrinal stability of the creed and the tangible experience of weekly celebration of the Lord's supper. My desire for a connection to the history of the church in the creeds, in a view of baptism and the Lord's Supper as more than just symbols found a worthy statement of faith - the 39 Articles of Religion. I saw in "Global South" influenced Anglicanism a respect for the history of the faith that I hoped would mitigate some of the conflict over interpretations of scripture without losing sight of the Reformation principle that it is the Scripture and not the church that is the final authority.
In the 39 articles I found the following things:
A firm commitment to the sufficiency of scripture - Article 6
That salvation is by faith alone - Article 11
That the church of history is fallible and has erred - Article 19
That the church is under the authority of scripture and not above it - Article 20
That the Roman notion of Purgatory is condemned as false - Article 21
That there are two sacraments, not seven - Article 25
That sacraments are effective only when received worthily and in faith - Article 25
That Christ is received in the Eucharist only when received worthily and in faith - Article 28
That Transubstantiation is condemned as "repugnant to the scriptures" - Article 28
That Christ is received in the Eucharist only an a heavenly and spiritual manner - Article 28
That there is only one offering of Christ "finished on the cross" - Article 31
That the Catholic notion of the Sacrifices of masses are "blasphemous fables" - Article 31
Needless to say, my comfort level in Anglicanism was primarily related to a belief that Evangelical Anglicans held firmly to these beliefs as written and as read plainly in a document of the Reformation era. Though there were a few things in Anglican expression I was not always comfortable with, I remained committed to the path I had chosen as the best path for the 21st century. A truly middle way. A way to work toward a 21st century Christianity that would speak with one voice - that of scripture - and not with the multitude of voices of denominational wrangling.
But in the last year, though associated with individuals I believe are sincere and believe they are doing what is right and in accordance with their own understanding of Anglican belief, I have been forced to ask myself if I can support, participate in or endorse the following:
-The statement, in response to a doctrinal concern, that the 39 Articles are "not a statement of faith" and are "not to be read according to the intent of the framers".
-That the sacraments are effective "ex opere operato" - by the work that is worked.
-That in Baptism, infants are regenerated through the sacrament and are assumed to be Christians unless they later reject their faith.
-That Paedocommunion, the giving of the sacramental bread and wine to small children is acceptable Anglican practice.
-That Confirmation is a sacrament.
-That certain Anglo-Catholic beliefs need to be considered to be "within the bounds" of authentic Anglicanism. These would, it seems, need to include:
-Eucharistic adoration
-Prayers for the dead
-Prayers to the virgin Mary
-I have had quoted to me the statement of John Henry Newman that the "Sacrifice of the Mass" is not the same as the "Sacrifices of masses" and so the "sacrifice of the mass" is at least allowable and not in conflict with the 39 Articles.
-And most importantly, in the context of all the above, I am faced with a fuller understanding of the following liturgical series of events in accordance with the 1979 Episcopal Liturgy, used by a large segment of Evangelical Anglicanism:
1. We offer to God gifts of bread and wine
2. There is a prayer for the Holy Spirit to "sanctify" the gifts "to be the body and blood of Christ".
3. At the breaking of the bread, the proclamation is made "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us".
... in short, there is a offering of Christ to the father strongly implied in the liturgy, a conclusion supported by 150 years of Anglo-Catholic influence. Whatever individuals in the Anglican church may or may not believe, this liturgy is clearly intended to teach Eucharistic sacrifice. (No one believes priests "re-sacrifice" Christ - the difficulty here is that Christ's work as high priest and victim are presented as ongoing and that the Eucharist is an "offering" of Christ to the Father united with his ongoing work. It flatly contradicts, in my mind, Hebrews 10 and the intent of the 39 Articles).
Needless to say, I have felt a bit of dissonance. For a number of months I have tried, wishing not to be divisive or too obnoxious, to probe into the question of how these forms of expression are consistent with the 39 Articles. The answers given, though impassioned and sincere, simply have not satisfied. And so I reach a crisis of conscience.
In my pleas over many months to remain true to the intent and language of the 39 Articles as a statement of the English Reformation, to simply be clear and not ambiguous in the expression of the theology of the 39 Articles, not one concession to the Evangelical Protestant sentiment was won with respect to liturgical expression.
It is not that I believe my fellow church members are being false or dishonest. I am told it is not "Romanism" they seek to hold to, but the faith of the undivided church of the early centuries. That is perhaps a legitimate perspective. But it is not in any cogent linguistic sense compatible with the 39 Articles on the points I mention above. They see no conflict - I see no possible agreement between the practices adopted and the language of the articles.
I have come to think it is just the nature of Anglicanism to state doctrine in a way that will allow for multiple interpretations. It occurs to me that no legal document or contract could ever be enforced if each and every word can have multiple and ill-defined meanings. But Anglicans believe, apparently, that ecumenical unity can be best achieved by stating doctrine in a way that gives a lot of leeway. The 39 Articles, in the end, mean whatever particular Anglican leaders want them to mean, and Anglicans will be quite content ignoring the linguistic contradictions.
I don't know what will come of GAFCON for Anglicans. I hear many things I tend to think are positive, yet the first document to come forth The Way, The Truth and the Life, though speaking highly of the 39 Articles, and the authority of scripture, endorses paedocommunion. (I find that hard to square with "right reception" of the sacraments "by faith" or the 1662 BCP rite of confirmation, which indicates no one is to be admitted to communion until of sufficient age to recite the creed, Lord's Prayer and Commandments.)
My expectation is that Evangelical Anglicans will make statements in support of the 39 Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and then will turn around and "make room for" Anglo-Catholics who will interpret nearly every word of those documents to mean something else. Perhaps odd alliances are needed to defeat the heretical teachings of Spong and Robinson, but such alliances do not inspire my confidence.
So with sadness, a sense of loss, and a sense the three years of my life have been spent running in circles in a doctrinal fog, I have come to this conclusion.
Anglicanism is not the answer I sought.
I can't support a set of doctrines I can't define, a set of doctrines with multiple meanings. And most importantly - I can't in good conscience endorse a communion liturgy and theology that purports to offer Christ's sacrifice again and again to the father - no matter what linguistic, metaphysical and mystical explanations are offered in support of this bending of scripture.
I have to move on.
Maybe I'll be cast as a divisive individual. I don't know how to balance the Scriptures exhortation to hold fast to sound doctrine with the admonition to seek unity. I keep finding those two things at odds. If I am cast as a pharisee, too concerned with cognitive propositional truth - so be it. I cannot live with the cognitive dissonance of two different theologies both being presented with a pretense of being compatible.
All I know is that the dissonance is not something I can live with.
No comments:
Post a Comment