Friday, February 27, 2004 AD
Why do people leave?
The "webhamster" at the Classical Anglican blog-hosting service was kind enough to try to dissuade me from joining what he described as the "slow, sad exile" from Anglicanism. The current betting is that he failed, largely because my leaving is not actually directly connected to the whole Gene Robinson thang, but to a combination of my own personal/family circumstances and to a growing, positive conviction of the truth of Lutheranism. But the webhamster did suggest I post a longer item expanding on the reasons I gave him for the move, so here goes.
There are really three key aspects to my departure from Anglicanism: the first was leaving our previous church, for reasons unconnected with the wider Anglican crisis (at that time a cloud no larger than a man's hand), but rather with a general crisis in evangelical Anglicanism that is too-often overlooked (namely, what does it actually mean today when an Anglican describes themself as an "evangelical"?). The second was trying, and failing to return to the fold. The third was discovering Lutheranism.
Step One: leaving our old church
Our position was that we'd left our C of E church nearly three years ago, as it came increasingly to be evangelical in name only: the vicar was steadily abandoning biblical teachings on original sin; Scriptural reliability; the historicity of Adam, Abraham & Moses; judgment & hell; substitutionary atonement; and (the final straw) even justification by faith (the more recent news that he was now shifting position on homosexual relationships - apparently, it turns out the Bible doesn't address the issue of faithful, monogamous same-sex couples - came as no surprise whatever). (Sadly, this flight from evangelical doctrine is far from unusual within "evangelical" Anglicanism in the Church of England.)
Well, actually the final straw was the birth of our first son: whatever we might have felt able/willing to put up with, we didn't want our son growing up hearing nothing but (i) error in church, and (ii) us complaining about error on the way home from church.
Since then we've been in an independent evangelical church (which, at the time of our switch, was pastored by a friend of ours). I'd continued to "self-identify" as an Anglican, retaining my memberships of Reform and Church Society, subscribing to Virtuosity and CaNN etc. But where my position differs from many in the "slow, sad exile", is that the issue has not been "Should we leave the Anglican church?", but "Is there any way for us to get back in?"
Step Two: trying to return
Option one was a church about 20 minutes drive from us, a staunchly conservative evangelical church whose vicar is a member of Reform, and of which one of our elder son's godmothers is a member. But there were two problems. First, it was further away than we would have liked. Secondly, the weekly "gatherings" were just too "low church", low church to the point of outright irreverence - symbolised for me by the sight of fleece-wearing ministers singing with their hands in their pockets, though a more serious objection was the minimal liturgy, illogically used: one item a week, in the same position in the service, but completely different each time: one week a confession, the next a declaration of faith (but never one of the ecumenical creeds), the next an expression of praise. There was a slight sense of tokenism to it. And overall, the services lacked any real sense of the "vertical" element. (However, we could possibly have lived with this church had it been closer to us, and had it not been for "the Lutheran thing").
Option two was a church about 3/4 minutes away from us, historically an evangelical church. We knew it was a bit "broader", a bit more "open evangelical", a bit more "charismatic" than we'd ideally want. But it was a local church, and we were willing to give it a fair crack of the whip.
One Sunday we went along, and it was a complete disaster: the first time we have ever walked out during a sermon. A laywoman “preached” on the topic, “Too busy not to pray”. Having defined prayer as “an interface”, she went on to lead the congregation in a visualisation exercise. My wife decided at this stage she'd had enough, and that one of the benefits of a local church was she could leave me sitting there while she walked home. I got as far as the end of the exercise, at which point we were told to "Imagine the water lapping at your feet as you stand by the shore… that’s what prayer is, an interface, letting God wash over you". I picked my wife up in the car about half-way home.
The church concerned posts the texts of its sermons online, and looking at these it became apparent that, while that Sunday had represented a nadir, the general standard of preaching was not much better. In any event, from my point of view at least, it was increasingly the case that trying this church had been a last-ditch attempt to find a way to avoid going over to Lutheranism.
The fact is, the main thing we've looking for has been a local church that believes and proclaims the gospel, that worships God in a biblical and orderly manner, and that will baptise our younger son. Having drawn a blank in the C of E, we found we were living within a couple of miles of one of the very few confessional Lutheran churches in the UK, a church which (on initial evidence), met those criteria. What's more, we found ourselves in growing agreement with the teachings and general ethos of Lutheranism.
Step Three: discovering Lutheranism
I don't propose to go into detail on this, having posted elsewhere on this topic. The suggested reading I set out in that earlier post says it all better than I could.
But among all the other factors (the centrality and clarity of Lutheranism's emphasis on justification, the sharp distinction of Law and Gospel, the emphasis on the theology of the cross, etc, etc), one stands out above - and in a sense "behind" - all others. That is the Lutheran approach to the Word of God, and in particular the emphasis on the Word's instrumentality and effectiveness, and the way this then carries over into its doctrine of the sacraments.
The point is that, while the benefits of the Gospel are received by faith alone, the effectiveness and truth of the Gospel depend on God's Word, not on human faith. The sacraments are the Gospel wrapped up in physical elements, and likewise depend for their truth and effectiveness not on human faith, but on God's Word of institution (eg, "This is my body"); though the benefits are received only by faith. (Contrast the position of the 39 Articles, in which the Lord's body and blood are received only by those who have faith, and baptism unites to Christ only those who "receive it rightly" - thus making the sacraments' effectiveness conditional on faith).
This approach to the sacraments has resolved issues that have troubled me ever since I returned to Christianity from atheism, ten years ago: namely, having been baptised as an infant, but only later really come to believe the gospel, what did it actually mean for me to say, "I am baptised"? I'd beaten off the baptistic challenge to my original baptism, without ever really getting a handle on what that baptism had meant (other than knowing it meant something). The Lutheran teaching on baptism finally scratched that itch good and proper (see my post on baptism, below).
I'm not saying these emphases are necessarily absent from Anglicanism in principle, just somewhat obscured by other things, and difficult (if not impossible) to find in practice. As I said in a post on my previous blog, in the Church of England one generally either has to choose faithfulness to the Gospel (usually combined, however, with more than a dash of Zwinglianism and "pop-Christianity") or liturgical order (usually combined with very much more than a dash of either crypto-Romanism or outright unbelief). It's rare you're going to find both, and there comes a point at which one has to say, "What I'm actually looking for here is called Lutheranism, and the best place to find Lutheranism is in a Lutheran church".
Conclusions
So it can be seen my move is not directly connected with the general crisis in Anglicanism. However, the Current Unpleasantness (as Chris Johnson calls it), and the likelihood of the Church of England being convulsed by the same issues within the next few months or years*, were scarcely incentives to return to the fold.
(* ISTM there are two runaway trains heading towards each other on the same stretch of track, with the dear old C of E tied to the rails in the middle. One train is the Global South and other orthodox, classical Anglicans, who at some point will require the C of E to decide which side it is on. The other train is the liberals and revisionists (and open evangelical "useful idiots"), who are pushing (or suffering to be pushed) the homosexual agenda within the C of E itself. Forgive me for lacking any desire for me and my family to be caught in the middle when the trains collide!)
So perhaps if my situation has any wider application, it is this: once you deeply unsettle people in the way the Anglican church has over the past few years, you make people reassess what they actually believe. When you do that, a certain proportion of them are going to change their minds. I was trundling along quite happily as a "39 Articles" Anglican, whistling as I read my library of JC Ryle books, and would probably have continued along those lines to the end of my days, however out of step I might have felt with much of contemporary Anglicanism. But finding no actual place where I could be an Anglican in practice, that opened me to the possibility of looking elsewhere.
There are really three key aspects to my departure from Anglicanism: the first was leaving our previous church, for reasons unconnected with the wider Anglican crisis (at that time a cloud no larger than a man's hand), but rather with a general crisis in evangelical Anglicanism that is too-often overlooked (namely, what does it actually mean today when an Anglican describes themself as an "evangelical"?). The second was trying, and failing to return to the fold. The third was discovering Lutheranism.
Step One: leaving our old church
Our position was that we'd left our C of E church nearly three years ago, as it came increasingly to be evangelical in name only: the vicar was steadily abandoning biblical teachings on original sin; Scriptural reliability; the historicity of Adam, Abraham & Moses; judgment & hell; substitutionary atonement; and (the final straw) even justification by faith (the more recent news that he was now shifting position on homosexual relationships - apparently, it turns out the Bible doesn't address the issue of faithful, monogamous same-sex couples - came as no surprise whatever). (Sadly, this flight from evangelical doctrine is far from unusual within "evangelical" Anglicanism in the Church of England.)
Well, actually the final straw was the birth of our first son: whatever we might have felt able/willing to put up with, we didn't want our son growing up hearing nothing but (i) error in church, and (ii) us complaining about error on the way home from church.
Since then we've been in an independent evangelical church (which, at the time of our switch, was pastored by a friend of ours). I'd continued to "self-identify" as an Anglican, retaining my memberships of Reform and Church Society, subscribing to Virtuosity and CaNN etc. But where my position differs from many in the "slow, sad exile", is that the issue has not been "Should we leave the Anglican church?", but "Is there any way for us to get back in?"
Step Two: trying to return
Option one was a church about 20 minutes drive from us, a staunchly conservative evangelical church whose vicar is a member of Reform, and of which one of our elder son's godmothers is a member. But there were two problems. First, it was further away than we would have liked. Secondly, the weekly "gatherings" were just too "low church", low church to the point of outright irreverence - symbolised for me by the sight of fleece-wearing ministers singing with their hands in their pockets, though a more serious objection was the minimal liturgy, illogically used: one item a week, in the same position in the service, but completely different each time: one week a confession, the next a declaration of faith (but never one of the ecumenical creeds), the next an expression of praise. There was a slight sense of tokenism to it. And overall, the services lacked any real sense of the "vertical" element. (However, we could possibly have lived with this church had it been closer to us, and had it not been for "the Lutheran thing").
Option two was a church about 3/4 minutes away from us, historically an evangelical church. We knew it was a bit "broader", a bit more "open evangelical", a bit more "charismatic" than we'd ideally want. But it was a local church, and we were willing to give it a fair crack of the whip.
One Sunday we went along, and it was a complete disaster: the first time we have ever walked out during a sermon. A laywoman “preached” on the topic, “Too busy not to pray”. Having defined prayer as “an interface”, she went on to lead the congregation in a visualisation exercise. My wife decided at this stage she'd had enough, and that one of the benefits of a local church was she could leave me sitting there while she walked home. I got as far as the end of the exercise, at which point we were told to "Imagine the water lapping at your feet as you stand by the shore… that’s what prayer is, an interface, letting God wash over you". I picked my wife up in the car about half-way home.
The church concerned posts the texts of its sermons online, and looking at these it became apparent that, while that Sunday had represented a nadir, the general standard of preaching was not much better. In any event, from my point of view at least, it was increasingly the case that trying this church had been a last-ditch attempt to find a way to avoid going over to Lutheranism.
The fact is, the main thing we've looking for has been a local church that believes and proclaims the gospel, that worships God in a biblical and orderly manner, and that will baptise our younger son. Having drawn a blank in the C of E, we found we were living within a couple of miles of one of the very few confessional Lutheran churches in the UK, a church which (on initial evidence), met those criteria. What's more, we found ourselves in growing agreement with the teachings and general ethos of Lutheranism.
Step Three: discovering Lutheranism
I don't propose to go into detail on this, having posted elsewhere on this topic. The suggested reading I set out in that earlier post says it all better than I could.
But among all the other factors (the centrality and clarity of Lutheranism's emphasis on justification, the sharp distinction of Law and Gospel, the emphasis on the theology of the cross, etc, etc), one stands out above - and in a sense "behind" - all others. That is the Lutheran approach to the Word of God, and in particular the emphasis on the Word's instrumentality and effectiveness, and the way this then carries over into its doctrine of the sacraments.
The point is that, while the benefits of the Gospel are received by faith alone, the effectiveness and truth of the Gospel depend on God's Word, not on human faith. The sacraments are the Gospel wrapped up in physical elements, and likewise depend for their truth and effectiveness not on human faith, but on God's Word of institution (eg, "This is my body"); though the benefits are received only by faith. (Contrast the position of the 39 Articles, in which the Lord's body and blood are received only by those who have faith, and baptism unites to Christ only those who "receive it rightly" - thus making the sacraments' effectiveness conditional on faith).
This approach to the sacraments has resolved issues that have troubled me ever since I returned to Christianity from atheism, ten years ago: namely, having been baptised as an infant, but only later really come to believe the gospel, what did it actually mean for me to say, "I am baptised"? I'd beaten off the baptistic challenge to my original baptism, without ever really getting a handle on what that baptism had meant (other than knowing it meant something). The Lutheran teaching on baptism finally scratched that itch good and proper (see my post on baptism, below).
I'm not saying these emphases are necessarily absent from Anglicanism in principle, just somewhat obscured by other things, and difficult (if not impossible) to find in practice. As I said in a post on my previous blog, in the Church of England one generally either has to choose faithfulness to the Gospel (usually combined, however, with more than a dash of Zwinglianism and "pop-Christianity") or liturgical order (usually combined with very much more than a dash of either crypto-Romanism or outright unbelief). It's rare you're going to find both, and there comes a point at which one has to say, "What I'm actually looking for here is called Lutheranism, and the best place to find Lutheranism is in a Lutheran church".
Conclusions
So it can be seen my move is not directly connected with the general crisis in Anglicanism. However, the Current Unpleasantness (as Chris Johnson calls it), and the likelihood of the Church of England being convulsed by the same issues within the next few months or years*, were scarcely incentives to return to the fold.
(* ISTM there are two runaway trains heading towards each other on the same stretch of track, with the dear old C of E tied to the rails in the middle. One train is the Global South and other orthodox, classical Anglicans, who at some point will require the C of E to decide which side it is on. The other train is the liberals and revisionists (and open evangelical "useful idiots"), who are pushing (or suffering to be pushed) the homosexual agenda within the C of E itself. Forgive me for lacking any desire for me and my family to be caught in the middle when the trains collide!)
So perhaps if my situation has any wider application, it is this: once you deeply unsettle people in the way the Anglican church has over the past few years, you make people reassess what they actually believe. When you do that, a certain proportion of them are going to change their minds. I was trundling along quite happily as a "39 Articles" Anglican, whistling as I read my library of JC Ryle books, and would probably have continued along those lines to the end of my days, however out of step I might have felt with much of contemporary Anglicanism. But finding no actual place where I could be an Anglican in practice, that opened me to the possibility of looking elsewhere.
