Saturday, March 18, 2017

Part Three: What I Wanted and What I Found


The Road to Anglicanism

A Little Biographical Interlude

At some point along in my young adulthood, I began to reflect on the “early church”—a common fixation for those who grow discontent with the highly modern, consumerist elements of American church life. We look wistfully back on a time when the Old Testament inheritance was not just historically but culturally part of faith and life; when scientific rationalism had not yet parsed everything into its vitiating spreadsheet; when the Holy Spirit was dangerously active in the daily affairs of local communities; when those who once sat at Christ’s feet were themselves the shepherds and stewards of the Church that He established.

Such reflections led me away from the predominantly academic realm and into the messy world of ecclesiology—that is, out of my books and into the pews, so to speak. Specifically, I was looking for two tangible realities that were largely missing from the faith communities of my youth: 1.) A recognition of both the historical and liturgical elements that one can trace back to the first century, and 2.) a genuine sense of the Holy Spirit’s power and presence in the life and transformation of believers (individually and corporately).

With respect  to the first consideration, my theological convictions made it all but impossible to entertain any of the churches broadly categorized as “Reformed,” no matter how stoutly liturgical they might be. The Episcopal Church was another group of semi-ornate enigmas, which my mind had somehow classified among the largely secular denominations committed to fundraisers and “civil rights,” offering little spiritual depth and no prescription for personal transformation. I had only a vague awareness of Orthodoxy at the time—perhaps as a kind of anthropological residue of impoverished peoples in Eastern Europe. So the natural place to start seemed to be Roman Catholicism—except, having been raised more or less to think of Catholicism as a cult, I had plenty of reservations there as well. Still, I was willing to look more closely at anything with legitimate historical credentials and suspend my preconceptions.

With respect to the second consideration, my hesitancy toward the abused term “charismatic” made my investigation a little more cautious. I wasn’t looking for an artificial psychological frenzy or an “emotional enema” (cf. Aldous Huxley), and I especially wasn’t looking for a new set of perfunctory behavioral expectations by which others could judge my legitimacy as a “true believer.” I read a few measured and intelligent books by respected members of mainstream charismatic movements and discovered some important observations and moving testimonies. I couldn’t, in the end, agree with everything, but it was clear to me that an intimacy with and humble reliance upon the Holy Spirit was essential. I had given lip-service to the idea for most of my life, but I didn’t really understand what I was looking for.

Following at times one impulse and then the other, I made both short and protracted ventures into a variety of local congregations over several years and locations. I hovered in more familiar haunts from time to time, but mostly those stints functioned as transitions to subsequent investigations. Sometime after I met my wife in 2004, we started regularly attending a Catholic parish in Chanhassen, MN. Sara, by the way, was raised as a faithful Catholic, albeit with a highly inclusive attitude toward other Christian expressions. This Minnesota parish was a warm and friendly place with thoughtful clergy, beautiful services, and many young families. Thus, in 2006, when my daughter was born, I began to think about her baptism. I won’t stop here to offer an explanation of how infant baptism became an important and desirable aspect of Christianity for me. I am sure there are numerous, intelligent explanations from all sorts of angles, but let it suffice for now to say that it is a long-standing practice of the Church (consider the book of Acts, for example). You can find it still today as an integral part the sacramental life in both Catholic and Orthodox parishes, as well as many traditional Protestant churches.

Around this time my wife and I, with little Lillian in tow, moved to Milwaukee so I could start graduate school. We showed up once or twice at the local Catholic parish and scheduled a meeting to discuss the parameters of our participation there as I also continued to weigh our next ecclesial steps. After a somewhat disappointing conversation with a lay-minister, I finally got it through my thick skull that if I wanted my daughter to be baptized as a Catholic I was implicitly (perhaps explicitly) committing to raise her in the faith and practices of the Catholic Church. And I finally realized (not sure why it took me so long) that I, too, would be unable to participate fully in their sacramental life unless I capitulated to the requirements of full membership. I was not ready for this, nor (as it turned out) would I ever be ready. I can outline why this is the case elsewhere, but for now, let me stick to the rough historical narrative.

For the next two years, Sara and I spent time at three or four different local congregations. We at some point, I think, had Lillian “dedicated” rather than baptized, which really just kicked the sacramental can down the road. Believe it or not, we ended our time in Milwaukee at a large Assemblies of God church, which was a bit emotive in its Sunday morning tenor, but evinced some of the vibrancy and sincerity we had ourselves lost in the exhaustion and isolation of parenthood and graduate study.  To abstract from the particular circumstances a bit, the trend for a few years was plainly a kind of vacillation between pursuing my historical/liturgical inclinations and satisfying my more immediate, personal desire for intimacy with God himself, all the while never forsaking my high expectations for theological depth, philosophical coherence, and hermeneutical rigor. I started to lose hope that all these things could exist together in a single parish let alone a whole tradition.

That burgeoning despair was stiffly curbed when we moved to Colorado.[1]

The Discovery of Classical Anglicanism in America

For our first several weeks in Colorado, we extended our excursion through comfortably charismatic congregations by attending the local Vineyard church. Many of my heroes in the Evangelical philosophical world had found homes in Vineyard congregations, and that was high praise in my mind. However, I had never lost the taste for real liturgy and a sense of reverence. This church, like many others, was something like a Starbucks and a movie theater, or perhaps a daycare attached to a concert venue. Now that we had two kids, I was more sensitive to what I would be training them to think of as proper worship. Dropping my kids off for playtime while I grabbed a latte and attended a rock concert was out of the question. So the search continued.

I can’t recall the parameters of the web search that led me to a small Anglican parish near Colorado State University, but a review of their website suggested that there must be more to Anglicanism than simply the British or Canadian label for the Episcopal Church. For those of you who may not be familiar with this tradition, here’s a very cursory synopsis.[2]  Others can feel free to skip ahead.

The English Reformation produced the Church of England (COE)—a predominantly Catholic faith (sans Pope) for several decades that was slowly reworked and formalized into a unique ecclesiastical entity—an optimistic “via media” between the Catholic faith and more staunch reformed theology. The faith and polity of the COE, which were exported through various means over the centuries, are known more generally as Anglicanism. However, many non-British peoples who loved this faith and yet were somewhat resentful of English hegemony preferred the moniker “Episcopalian” because it avoided the etymological reference to its country of origin.  When America famously parted ways with the British in 1776, the Anglican parishes in the colonies began to share this preference. Over time, as the Episcopal Church of the United States (TEC) grew further and further from its original faith and practice, many faithful clergy separated from TEC—sometimes joining the Catholic or Orthodox Churches, sometimes finding a place in other Protestant expressions. However, a large group of disenfranchised Episcopal clergy eventually sought to carve out their own jurisdiction under traditional, conservative bishops from traditional, conservative dioceses—mostly those in the so-called “global south” (e.g. Africa, Latin America, and Asia).  These bishops found it convenient now to reclaim the moniker “Anglican” since their desire was no longer to disassociate from England, but rather to disassociate from the modern Episcopal Church. All of this means, more or less, that the Anglican Church in North America (and related entities such as ACN, AMiA, PEARUSA, etc.) came to be comprised primarily of small start-up parishes that represent as best they can the classical, historical Anglican faith. The parish that I attended was originally part of the AMiA (Anglican Mission in America), deriving its identity both from these dedicated Americans and from the faithful clergy in Rwanda. Later, when the AMiA cut its ties with canonical Anglican authority, the parish retained its identity as a full part of the Anglican Communion through province of Rwanda, currently overseen by Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje.

Obviously I didn’t know any of this when I started to attend this particular parish, but even had I known of the excessive acronyms and the tenuous status of these parishes vis-à-vis the global Anglican Communion, the appeal of this particular community would have been undeniable. Here was a group of families deeply involved in each other’s welfare. Here was a parish with a strong commitment to the traditional practice of liturgy. Here was a parish that was explicitly charismatic, invoking and attending to the Holy Spirit. Here was a parish where the priest understood scripture and taught it faithfully. We sat on metal folding chairs in a pathetic little gym of a school that had probably never met fire-code, but it was better than anything I had ever before experienced.

From my perspective, there were very few problems with what I found in this community. The issues in the broader communion weren’t yet on my radar, and my dissatisfaction with my own spiritual growth had yet to hit critical mass (see the previous installments for details in that regard). In certain ways, I thought I had found the end to my ecclesiological quest.

Parish vs. Communion

For a long time—about 6 years—this was all I wanted. My ecclesial educators taught me that classical Anglicanism was the inheritor of “three streams”: 1.) the Catholic faith (whole/universal/historical), retaining apparent Apostolic succession to bolster the claim. 2.) Evangelical credentials—a commitment to Scripture, the Gospel, and missionary work. And 3.) Charismatic sensibility; that is, a prioritization of spiritual renewal, attentiveness to inner convictions, and genuine openness to the miraculous. This seemed amazing—even perfect.

What I didn’t know was that much of what I found at this particular parish was more like Orthodoxy than global Anglicanism. When I asked about liturgy, my priest gave me Orthodox theologian, Alexander Schmemann’s For The Life of The World. When I asked about prayer, my priest gave me, A Night in the Desert of the Holy Mountain, an insightful interview with an Orthodox monk. When I began to dig deeply into the works and reflections of Anglicans like C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright, or when I discovered podcasts by Archdeacon Michael McKinnon, I began to believe Anglicanism was supposed to be just like Orthodoxy except with open communion, fewer ritualistic carryovers, and a stronger commitment to Biblical teaching. But I was wrong (and not for the last time—it’s a habit of mine).

Without being unfair, I think I can say that Anglicanism is almost impossible to define at this point in history. There is a camp that likes to think of it as true “Reformed Catholicity.” There is a camp that uses the term to refer to Protestantism par excellence. There are some who think it is the most fulfilling version of progressive, religious quests for social justice. There are others who think they are simply restoring the faith of the early Church, perhaps with some of the useful cultural aspects of the English-speaking peoples of the British Isles. In my opinion, it is at its best when it is exactly as I discovered it in this parish in Northern Colorado, and yet it was still amorphous and inclusive enough to make almost every western Christian relatively comfortable.

Sorting It Out

The truth is, even though I eventually left, the deficiencies of this church (or any church) were not the central problem. Obviously, I don’t think Anglicanism is the answer, but it was at least a beginning to the answer for me, and my tenure as an Anglican, brief as it was, allowed me to find balance and process more deeply the hang-ups that had long separated my faith from what I now believe offers the fullest version of the true and ancient faith.  Nevertheless, underneath all my earlier “church shopping” forays (a horrific but accurate description) was an infectious sort of individualism—that is, a belief that it was up to me what a “good” Church should imply. I had done my reading; I had thought and studied and determined the “truth.” Why wasn’t there a church that conformed to (or at least accommodated) my brilliant vision? Once again, I had failed to see many of my own narcissistic assumptions. I wasn’t looking for The Church to which I could humbly submit myself for training in unity with God; I was looking for a church, rendered in my own image. 

[Next up--Part Four: The Invisible Church and Other Barriers]


[1] Note: During grad school, I met my first Orthodox friend, a patient and gentle person with a lovely story. He helped to broaden my view of both philosophy and theology, but at the time I regarded the primary obstacles to my joining as largely the same as those I had discovered in the Catholic church, though I dimly understood a few attractive differences, e.g. no papacy, no purgatory, etc. I went to my first Orthodox liturgy there in Milwaukee—the Paschal Vigil. It was beautiful, but very intense. The influence of this friendship and such experiences had a deep, incalculable effect. In 2008, while still in Milwaukee, we named our new baby boy Spiridon without any clue how common such a name was in the Orthodox world. Eight years later, we joined the parish of St. Spyridon in Loveland, CO and have now met six or seven others by the same name.
[2] To my Anglican friends: Please forgive this highly truncated and simplistic account.

No comments:

Post a Comment