Proceeding with Caution

I've jokingly referred to myself as Angstlican. While on the one hand I've been worshipping in an Anglican church, I'm doing so cautiously and very self-consciously. In the spirit of this blog---a place to work through Christian fellowship issues "on paper"---I'd like to talk a little about my adventures in Anglicanism.

First, let's get this one thing straight: I haven't gone Episcopalian. 

While the term "Anglican" generally means of the Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is a member in the USA; there are any number of "Anglican" offshoots: the vast majority of these view the Anglican Communion as apostate. "Anglican" implies a very wide range: it encompasses everything from low-church Reformed groups, to high-church Anglo-Catholics (including Roman Catholic sympathizers), to the liberal Anglican Communion (including the Episcopal Church in the USA).  And within any given branch of Anglicanism, there is wide variety between individual churches and even more between individual Anglicans. So "anglican" and "episcopalian" are far from equivalent terms.

Further, most of the more traditional Anglican churches practice closed communion, and I am not "in". I am very much a long-term visitor. So while it's true I've been worshipping in an Anglican church, I am certainly not "Anglican" to them. I am very much a visitor.

And finally, one lesson I have been slowly learning is, group identity is pretty much just an idol to be avoided. After years of claiming not to be in a denomination, I finally realized my association with "brethren" amounted to exactly that. I am not interested in buying into that sort of situation again. So regardless of where I worship, I am endeavouring not to identify myself as anything other than a Christian. That may or may not go over well with anyone else, it might even cause some ruffled feathers if it should ever come up in conversation... but that's not my problem. I can't allow their sensitivities to occlude what I see as a Scriptural course of action.

Second, I take the Bible as the infallible, authoritative, inerrant Word of God. If God has given us His written Word, then we must be responsible to know what it says and submit to it.  Someday I will stand before God and give an account of what I have done, that ought to motivate me to master the contents of His Book.

I see nothing in Scripture to indicate I need tradition, history, or creeds to understand it. I do see solemn warnings and condemnation to the Pharisees for elevating their tradition over the Scripture: "Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition [Ye] hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:6--9, KJV).  Let's be clear that "commandments of men" is a very wide phrase. It includes high-church creeds and dogmas as well as low-church doctrines and personal pet theories. It includes the well-intentioned as well as calculated heresy. This is a trap anyone can fall into.

All my actions need to be governed by the Word of God.  To the extent that doctrine and practice line up with Scripture, I can participate in them. But when I see something that can't be rectified with Scripture, then I need to draw the line. I am not fit to be the judge of orthodoxy, but I will personally stand before God to give an account... anything less than testing everything against the Word of God is negligence.

The Anglicans I know tend to be somewhat awed by anything sufficiently old. There is almost a sense where they are more concerned with "the Catholic faith" ("Catholic" in the sense of "one Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church," not "Roman Catholic") than the Biblical one. And to be honest, there is a ditch on both sides of the road with this one: on the one hand, there is the danger of completely ignoring the Word of God because of our traditions; on the other hand there is the very real danger of "private interpretation" and "wresting the Scripture to our own destruction."  I've seen people fall into both errors just in my own short time on the earth... I have certainly done both.

I think one thing to consider is, all the major heresies in the history of the Church occurred in the first four centuries. The idea that "they were closer in time to Christ than we are" is demonstrably irrelevant: the Gnostics were active and flourishing in the time of the Apostles...  there would be no Nicene Creed, except that Arianism had grown into a major force in the Church. Antiquity is certainly no assurance of correctness.

I am content to accept church history, tradition, and creeds to the extent that they are useful. If a tradition, creed, or history helps me understand Scripture, I accept it thankfully. But it ultimately has to pass that test. And frankly, I am trying to teach my children the same thing. If anyone, living or dead,---including me---teaches them something not verifiable by Scripture; then it might be worth considering, but it's not authoritatively true. And if it flat-out contradicts Scripture, it's false.  "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:7, KJV.

Once again, I side with Thomas Cranmer: it's OK to include what Scripture is silent on. Calvin took the opposite view, that it's only OK to include what Scripture specifically endorses. Scripture is silent on things like holidays and whether we should have a dedicated building: but since it doesn't condemn, I am OK with doing them. So I'm not minimalist so much as I am unwilling to accept anything on its own merit. Everything---everything---must be subject to the Word of God.

Third, I am utterly disinterested in the current Anglican fad of groveling on the banks of the Tiber. I can think of nothing less relevant to me than whether I have Rome's approval, unless it is the opinion of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 

I have examined the claims of the Roman Catholic Church in enough detail to reach a conclusion, and I simply can't reconcile them with the Word of God. The cornerstone of Roman Catholic theology is the claims to being the One True Church. Since it is demonstrably historically untrue that either the Roman Church or the papacy represents a single unbroken succession from the Apostles to now, the discussion is fundamentally over. I've nothing against the countless true believers in the Roman church, but I'm not interested in drinking that particular brand of Kool-Aid.

So to all the Anglicans who seem determined to trek back to Rome, I wish you well, but I'll sit this one out. I'm not interested in working for what God offers freely.

Finally, my tenuous association with Anglicanism (see #1) is not because I buy into Anglicanism per se, but because I have found a local church where I've been able to worship sincerely. It may well be this is the only decent Anglican church in existence (which I don't believe), and I certainly don't endorse everything these people do and believe (although my points of disagreement may be surprising to some). But I've found a place with 70 palm trees and 12 wells, and I've been enjoying the respite from the desert. I make no assumptions that God wants me here permanently, but I'm enjoying the stay while it lasts.