Some thoughts from Walker Morrow, Diocese of BC.
I have found myself in the peculiar position of being an Anglican. Innocuous enough, perhaps, but a position of increasing complexity as time goes on. Especially seeing as how the Anglican church seems to find itself in the peculiar position of tearing itself apart.
Now, I entered into the Anglican church at a time when, at least in my particular parish, the whole “same-sex blessing” debate was coming around. I had also joined a web-forum formed by the United Church at around the same time, so I sort of got the debate with both barrels, which was doubly exhausting. And it really was exhausting. Try holding a position when you find yourself in constant defense of it. Try holding a position in a church famous for not taking positions. It’s not possible. But I tried. And I kept going, even though I found and continue to find myself increasingly dissatisfied and disillusioned with the current Anglican establishment.
I perhaps saw more of that than most, as I found myself involved in the kind of “politics” behind the Anglican church of Canada, going to the Anglican Synod for my Diocese as a delegate, all that jazz. And I did voice my displeasure. But I have found that it is a fruitless venture to do so, mainly because of the aforementioned structure of modern Anglicanism.You see, to me at least, the modern Anglican model is sort of a vacuous, amorphous, swampy kind of thing. A morass of relativism, gone to the extent of being without any position but that of relativism, and finding itself in the position of honoring a technique of discussion and debate which has failed, and which has proven to be of no use in the current crisis that the modern Anglican church finds itself within. And as I mentioned before, it’s exhausting. You can’t hold any kind of firm position in a relativist model of thinking, without feeling like you are forcing yourself upon other people, and without feeling as if you are being hurtful and argumentative.
And yet at the same time, one must continually defend oneself from that same relativist thinking. It’s like waves pounding on a beach, and I can only stay within the Anglican relativist model for so long before I have to remove myself for a time, just to recharge. The Anglican politics, the Anglican niceties, and the Anglican hierarchy, all of them are tiring, unless of course, one decides to submit oneself to the Anglican politics, niceties, and hierarchy. Unless of course, one can find a means of expression, which is what I tried to do, in this blog, in the local Anglican paper, and in my column in the local secular paper.A nd I have found that even that doesn’t solve anything, and that, if anything, it only makes things worse. Because, if I was in any other firm school of thought, or religious belief; in Catholicism, for instance, if I say something, if I hold a strong opinion, and someone, particularly within the Catholic establishment, firmly disagrees with me, then an argument ensues. There is conflict, and if I really push things, then I’m out, I’m a heretic, and even if I have not conceded philosophically or theologically, I have at least had the chance to debate. But within Anglicanism, there is no debate. There is dialogue. A useless thing if ever there was one. I found that whenever I would write something inflammatory, I would get no response whatsoever. Sure, I’d get a response from those who agreed with me, or I might get a comment along the lines of “that’s interesting”, but I would not get a sense of having run up against a firm belief. Instead, I ran up against the sort of sticky morass of relativistic thinking, which seems able to assert itself, while at the same time not asserting anything. Crazy-making, really.
My pastor would feel the need to “talk” to me, and at the end of the conversation I would find myself feeling as if I’d merely been relegated to the category of “just not understanding the situation”. And if I am ever removed from the Anglican church, then it will be for the heinous act of simply being “intolerant”, or for not being understanding.There’s no possible debate which can be had in such an environment, and particularly in such a nice environment, where you always feel horrible for asserting your opinions.
It all came to a head after I went to the aforementioned Synod, and wrote an article on the second part of it for the local Anglican paper. The article was rejected by the editor, as apparently it showed a “lack of understanding”, and undoubtedly compassion, for certain issues within the local Anglican community.Never mind that the article was an opinion piece. Never mind that I am under no obligation not to be biased. And never mind that said rejection came dangerously close to toeing the Anglican party line, particularly as I had criticised a move by our current bishop.Oh, but I did have the chance to have the article published – that is, if I reworked it to the editor’s standards. Needless to say, I did not do so.
Later, I received a phone call from my pastor, the second awkward conversation to be had with him because of my written words. I think that he felt that my writing, which he felt was rather “cynical” ( imagine me, being cynical. ) was more suited for politics than the topic about which I was writing. Apparently he wanted to make sure that I wasn’t upset about having my article rejected. I also learned that I was one of a very few amount of people, like two or three, who had had an article rejected by this current editor. Now, I appreciate him taking the time to call me, and make sure that I wasn’t unhappy, and I appreciate his words on my writing, on which he did compliment me, not just for that particular article, but for my other writing in the other local paper. I do appreciate that, and it was a nice thing to do. Which prompted me to make the final decision to stop. The only thing that will continue to result as I try to “rage against the machine” will be hurt feelings and awkwardness. And in the end, I will accomplish very little, for those who disagree with me will not understand, and those on the fence, or in agreement with my position, do not need me there to speak for them. If they cannot speak for themselves, or cannot muster the willpower to leave the church entirely, then I am not willing to shoulder that burden for them.
And so I will remove myself, slowly from the Anglican establishment, as I have been trying to do for some time now, and I will cease trying to “rock the boat”, although I might find myself doing so at some point in the future, if I have the chance. But I won’t necessarily be going out of my way to do so, and I won’t be doing so on a regular basis or be seeking to do so.That’s also why I decided to stop the blog “disestablishmentanglicanism”, and turn it into this current blog, with a different name, and a different address. I have stopped the very small campaign that I was on, as I have recognised the futility of trying to reform the Anglican church of Canada. It is impossible, and only the continual implosion and self-destruction currently wracking the Anglican establishment will serve the purpose of reform now. I might post the occasional rant, or thought, or criticism, but in the end, I have capitulated. There’s no point anymore. And while I will continue to occasionally go to my local Anglican parish, I will try to remove myself more and more from the inner workings of the Anglican church, and I will try to remove myself more and more from what aspects of Anglican worship that I can.
And in closing, all that I can say is that my foray into the Anglican church came at a time when there were a lot of changes within myself to face, as well as changes from without, in the Anglican religion and establishment. Said establishment, and the breaking down of its’ system of dialogue, was exhausting and hard to deal with, and quite frankly led to its’ fair share of hardening and cynicism within my person. I’ve had my trust betrayed, my words devalued, and in the end I have accomplished nothing that could not have been accomplished by others, if it were not for their apathy and failure to act.The realization of the futility of my words, and my own position, in the face of the greater establishment, is a sobering one.
Sentiments shared by many.
Thanks very much for the link!
I may be wrong, and I appologize if I am, but my take on the piece is that Walker’s frustration with the ACoC comes more from a lack of opportunity to debate the theology of the ACoC with the institutional leadership than out of a strong disagreement with ACoC theology itself. Would I be correct in assuming that Walker’s frustration would be placated if such a debate was possible even though the ACoC did not repent and change it’s current direction?
What a tremendous synopsis of life in the Canadian Anglican church. Reminds me of the old line “Those who don’t stand for something, fall for everything.”
It would be great to have your insight and talent working positively for a church, instead of always being drowned in dialogue?
Walker,
Thanks for sharing your experiences. I’m sure that they mirror those of many others who don’t have the ability to communicate that you do.
One of the successful tactics employed by the ACoC is to wear down the “opposition” by talking. Eventually, one either feels guilty to be in a minority, or just plain worn out by having to defend one’s position.
There have been some posts on the BLOG that cite few or no changes to the doctrine of the ACoC and therefore they assume that there is no change. What most of us have experienced is a profound rejection of the doctrine of the church carried out in the PRACTICES of the church. It’s an ACoC “in” joke that no-one believes the 39 Articles or even the creeds. Snide remarks and snickers follow some naive delegate’s reference to them. By the time the ACoC gets around to actually changing the canons, the practices will have been in place for decades.
The way of the cross is not meant to be easy but the blood of the lamb is precious beyond life itself.
Peace,
Jim
I understand your wanting to leave the establishment of the Anglican Church of Canada behind you. Our Bishops seem to have no real desire to defend the faith of our Fathers, but to develop a new faith which takes our Church away from historical Anglicism. Paul warned us about false teachers in the last days who preach a false Gospel. I wonder how many of our leaders believe in their
hearts the creeds when they stand and speak them. May you find
a Church which is faithful to the Gospel.
A friend of mine was part of the interview committee for a new priest for his church. He had to try to ask how orthodox the priest was without really asking the question – the priest’s response was “Well, I don’t have to cross my fingers when I say the creeds, if that’s what you mean!” (He got the position…)
#5
Jim: regarding the 39 Articles, I do not subscribe to XX1:
“GENERAL Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes,”
Or XXXVII, which states that:
“The King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions [e.g. Canada] unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.”
Does this make me party to an in-joke? Or heretical?
Being a synod delegate is a great eye opener, you are surrounded by new people completely over whelmed by the speed of motions made and the other delegates who know the ropes and have their amendments ready with seconders at hand all to further the apparent agenda which was wink wink nod nod enough said….., agreed before hand with the princes at the front table. Opposition was harumphed and treated with barely concealed contempt. Two synods was enough for me, I remain in my pew though waiting to see how this all plays out, for now. God help us.
S.
Noli #8,
I don’t think that those two articles are what people are concerned about when they talk about believing the 39 Articles. I’m not a fan of the Queen of England (or King) being the head of the Anglican Church. I think this is a product of a paticular era, and belong to a by gone age. These two articles in particular are concerned with Church order not theology. Church order can change, doctrine or theology doesn’t (that is, right think about God in the past isn’t any different then right thinking about God today). The doctrine of the 39 Articles was true before they were written, it was true when they were written, and that same doctrine is still true today. Church order or structure can change at need (not for no purpose, but at real need).
Rev Brian DeVisser
Pastor Kanata Lakes Fellowship
Noli,
I’m going to assume that you’ve dug up one of the earlier copies of the 39 Articles. The “current one” is this one (attached). As you can see, the references to the civil authorities has been winnowed out. So it looks like you’re not party to an in joke after all.
As established by the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, in Convention, on the twelfth day of September, in the Year of our Lord, 1801.
[The Twenty-first of the former Articles is omitted; because it is partly of a local and civil nature, and is provided for, as to the remaining parts of it, in other Articles.]
The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article, omitted in the version of 1801, reads as follows: “General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.”
[This Article is received in this Church, so far as it declares the Books of Homilies to be an explication of Christian doctrine, and instructive in piety and morals. But all references to the constitution and laws of England are considered as inapplicable to the circumstances of this Church; which also suspends the order for the reading of said Homilies in churches, until a revision of them may be conveniently made, for the clearing of them, as well from obsolete words and phrases, as from the local references.]
The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article reads as follows: “The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: neither hath it any thing, that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.”
Peace,
Jim
Hello Noli (8)
In regards to article XXXVII, like it or not, Canada is presently a “Constitutional Parliamentary Democracy”, which means that we Canadians have as our “Head of Government” the Prime Minister, and also have as our “Head of State” the current Monarch. That is why all of our coins continue to have an image of Her Majesty on the obverse. I am also pleased to note that our Canadian coins continue to have “Dietus Gracious Regina” (or an abbreviation) on the obverse, which translates to “Reigns by the Grace of God”.
Also note that our Governor General is not the Queen’s representative to Parliament, but is in fact the Queen’s representative in Parliament. Canada is not a republic, and hopefully will never be one.
Today, the role of the Queen and the Governor General are almost entirely ceremonial. That Canada continues to have a Queen is part of both our heritage and current Canadian identity, and this I believe to be very important. Otherwise we might as well become the 51st State.
Just as the Queen is mostly ceremonial in the Government, she is also mostly ceremonial in the Church. Thus she is to this very day the Anglican Church equivalent to “Head of State”, and the Primate is the Church equivalent to “Head of Government”. This is part of our Anglican heritage and identity.
In regards to Article XXI, that Canada does not have “Princes”, and even in England where the authority of Princes has all but evaporated over time, results in this particular article being “outdated”. Not because the Church has changed, but because there effectively no “Princes” left for this Article to apply.
If anyone wants to read the Homilies, they are here. As far as I know, ECUSA never did get around to updating the Homilies.
http://www.footstoolpublications.com/Homilies/Homilies.htm
As the established relgion of England, the 39 Articles contain both spiritual and temporal guidance for the practice of religion. John Wesley shortened the 39 to 25 articles.
I agree with Brian that some of the Articles are about discipline rather than theology, which leads a bit to the foolishness of credal vs non-credal doctrine.
Apologies for the lateness of my reply. I’ve been meaning to for some time. Thanks to all for your kind words.
Winter Traveler: I think you’re right, and I wonder if the two things aren’t actually related. I think that the reason that the Anglican church is considering such radical and in some cases, unfounded, change, is that it has lost its ability to debate, and has sunk into the trap of moral relativism, at which point the pursuit of what is True is abondoned for that which feels good; so called Love. And in the cases where there might be some sort of actual valid religious idea, it is quickly drowned out by the relativist model of thinking. I think that if the mainstream Anglican church were able to properly debate such things, and if its administration was properly run, that any problems with its theology would be more easily dealt with, and less potentially devastating to the over-all community. I think that having such an opportunity for true debate would be quite beneficial to not only helping those such as myself with their frustrations, but also to the theological issues which threaten the Anglican church so much today.
Tim: Well, I tried, anyway. Sometimes, I guess the pen is not mightier than the sword. Or instead, the pen pales in comparison with the dialogue
I’ll see in the future if I am willing to take up the topic more ( that is, more than in general conversations, and discussions like this one ). I think it’s probably best if I try and remove myself from the web before I start to thrash around…
Jim: It’s an odd mix, these days, between a regard for legalism, and a disgregard for where responsibility and blame lie, like playing the hierarchical system. For instance, the Bishop of the Diocese of British Columbia felt justified in locking the parishioners of St. Mary’s out of their church-building and involving the diocese in the process of litigation over land, all because of the legalism of ownership, and the parishioners’ position in the Anglican hierarchy. But when it comes to laying the blame; when it comes down to who is responsible for parishioners leaving, and schisms in the church, he and his administration seek to put the blame upon the people in the lower reaches of the hierarchy!
Sandra: I know, it was interesting to see how the process worked, and after the first sitting, it was interesting to hear the things that sort of went on behind some of the motions… I honesty felt a little bit out of my depth after the proceedings, and after I heard more about what was undoubtedly going on in the background.
John and Kate: It’s sort of odd, to me. I mean, isn’t the point of being a religious leader to be rooted in the tenets of your religion? I don’t think that means that every pastor should have an encyclopedic knowledge of every bible verse, or every canon, but surely they should at least get the ‘stand firm’ part. I mean, even when someone changes their position on something, it is because they have held firm to the pursuit of what is True and Right. And surely that is a worthy goal to hold to, instead of, as Tim brought up, not standing for something and falling for everything.
Thanks again to all for their comments. It’s good to be amongst those who are willing to attempt a reasoned discussion, as opposed to a ‘Reasonable Dialogue’.
Cheers!
-Walker