Anglican/Orthodox Pilgrim Newsletter
Vol. 2, No. 1, Winter 1993
ORTHODOXY AND ETHNICITY
by Franklin Billerbeck
Upon hearing I was likely to leave The Episcopal Church and
become Orthodox, a then leading member of E.S.A. remarked:
"How could you? The Orthodox are so, so ethnic!"
Indeed, many Anglicans perceive Orthodoxy as an ethnic labyrinth
in which no foreigner can long survive. They would have you
believe that most Anglicans who join Orthodoxy soon return
"home": unable to endure the ethnic enclave they
believe is Orthodoxy. To them, Orthodoxy is a strange, forbidding
mystery, a world which no westerner can hope to understand.
Such a view simply does not square with the facts. There are
many converts, a number from Anglicanism, who are very happy in
Orthodoxy. Unfortunately, many Anglicans merely assume the
Orthodox are too ethnic. Convinced their assumption is correct,
without of course ever having seriously examined the issue for
themselves, they simply write off Orthodoxy as "not
viable". But if orthodoxy is "not viable" for
westerners, how do you explain that 2,000 hard core Protestant
Evangelicals have found a home and a mission in Orthodoxy? They
have now been Orthodox for about 6 years—long enough for any
honeymoon to end! If fundamentalists can make the transition,
surely Anglicans can. If westerners can't survive in Orthodoxy,
how do you explain that over one-half of the clergy in the
Antiochian Orthodox
Archdiocese are converts! If Orthodoxy is so foreign, how do
you explain that The Collect for Purity (Almighty God, unto whom
all hearts are open all desires known . . .) is in an Orthodox
Liturgy? No, your name does not need to end in
"opolous" or "inski" to be Orthodox. In fact,
Heers, Reeves, Olnhausen, Green, Trigg, O'Callaghan, Doyle,
McCauley, Morse, Grossman, and Gillquist are all names of people
who are happily Orthodox.
Surprised? You shouldn't be. After all, Orthodoxy claims to
be nothing less than the catholic (universal) church. The same
church which our Lord commanded to "go and teach all
nations". This includes America. It also should come as no
surprise then that there are English people who are Orthodox,
Japanese people who are Orthodox, Arabs who are Orthodox,
Ugandans who are Orthodox, and Indonesians who are Orthodox.
Closer to home, the Orthodox have significant missionary activity
ranging from Mexico and the Caribbean in the south, to Alaska in
the north; nevermind the missionary activity to "average
Americans" within the continental 48 states (the Antiochian
Orthodox, for example, have tripled in size in the past 25
years).
ANGLICAN ETHNICITY
Indeed, Orthodoxy embraces all cultures and ethnicities, even
Anglican. There is even an Orthodox Liturgy based largely on The
Book of Common Prayer, the Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon. And,
yes, Anglicans are ethnic. Looking back on Anglicanism, I am
surprised to realize how truly ethnic it is. Consider the terms:
guild, vestry, undercroft—they have an ethnic identification.
There is also a certain Anglican aloofness, formality and even
perhaps arrogance. Consider, for example, Delafield, Wisconsin.
In a city of 5,000 people where The Episcopal Church has fewer
than 100 baptized members, the local church, pardon me, Episcopal
Church, used to proclaim itself as: "The parish church of
Delafield." Why? Are there here shades of English ethnicity,
of being the state church? Moreover, when seeking the local
Episcopal Church, you can often tell the building by its
architecture, if not, at least in the United States, by its red
doors.
Hyfrydol (the traditional tune to "Alleluia! Sing to
Jesus") and the Healey Willan communion setting are both
characteristic hallmarks of an Anglican congregation. For that
matter, so is the Anglo-Catholic practice of twirling a censor in
a 360 degree circle (or its variant, the Queen Anne twirl,
roughly resembling a figure eight). Anglican identity is
historically grounded largely, not in what it is, but in what it
is not. It has played itself off, found its identity, largely by
contrast to others. Thus it is not Roman Catholic but claims to
be catholic.
Though not Roman Catholic it is not Fundamentalist, for it
retains the seven sacraments. It is not eastern, but it claims to
be Orthodox. The real problem is to identify exactly what
Anglicanism is. This is a part of Anglican culture and a real
part of the Anglican mindset. Moreover also in Anglicanism is
lack of a doctrinal basis—there is no confessional statement
akin to that used in many protestant denominations (e.g.,
Westminster Confession), no clear method to interpret Holy
Scripture, and, frankly, little serious attention to doctrine.
Indeed, the doctrinal differences amongst Anglicans are startling
and Anglican doctrinal ambiguity classic. Notable too are the
movements that periodically change the face of Anglicanism:
Elizabethan Anglicanism, Classical Anglicanism,
Anglo-Catholicism, etc. Mind you that a cross on the altar (not
to mention statues or icons) was not always well received, as the
Church of the Advent in Boston can testify to.
Also inherent to the Anglican mindset is the notion of a
fractured church i.e., the branch theory and the notion that each
has a part of the Truth. The notion that there is only one
church, with one identifiable structure, as Scripture says and
Tradition bears witness to, which alone possesses the fullness of
the faith, that any other "church" is simply not
holding that fullness of the faith "once delivered" and
is in error, is, frankly, a concept alien to Anglican thought.
Equally alien to Anglican thought is the notion that heresy
can have eternal consequences. With such a mindset and approach
to doctrine, it hardly seems a surprise that Anglicans, unlike
the undivided church, seem soft on heresy. In fact, the notion of
denying communion for doctrinal reasons is not even listed in the
Book of Common Prayer 1979. Read the reasons for denying
communion on p. 409 under "Disciplinary Rubrics".
"Notoriously evil life", "done wrong and are a
scandal" and "hatred" are the only reasons listed.
No clear word about doctrine here! "Notoriously evil",
at least in current practice, does not include such things as
practicing homosexual acts. Not surprising then is that some
Anglican clergy who become Orthodox and are ordained to the
priesthood find it a challenge to pastor a congregation where
doctrine is not an issue and is not open for dialogue or debate;
where the real issue is sin.
As a group, Anglicans tend to be genteel and cultured. There
is a particular sense of Anglican decorum, even to the point of
absurdity. Part of this cultural identity includes the notion
that it is improper to cause a "row". Thus many
Anglican congregations would probably find it a shock to have
their priest condemn, from the pulpit, abortion as murder and to
deny communion to someone who helped procure an abortion. Yet
this is exactly what the Sixth Ecumenical Council teaches!
Anglicans would be stunned if a deacon hurled the Book of the
Gospels at Bishop Spong and denounced him as a heretic. Yet it
was none other than Athanasius who hurled the Gospel Book during
an ecumenical council. Rather than respond in horror, Anglicans
apparently see nothing wrong with reciting the Nicene Creed with
bishops who reject its explicit teaching; apparently they see no
contradiction between claiming to uphold the
Nicene/Constantinopolitan faith, as expressed by the Nicene
Creed, and sharing communion with heretics who reject that
faith—nevermind that the same councils which proclaimed the
creed, excommunicated those who rejected the faith expressed
therein. Is it really so outrageous to expect that Anglicans, who
claim to be catholic, refuse to share Eucharist with those who
view Christianity as but one view of Truth, who reject the
authority of Scripture, ordain practicing, unrepentant
homosexuals, bless same sex marriages, and question the Virgin
Birth? But of course such blunt action is hardly in the Anglican
mindset. Such a position would likely be viewed as being
radically conservative.
Anglican ethnicity is rooted in the British Isles and in the
particularly English experience and worldview. In the United
States, Episcopalianism was traditionally associated with the
upper social class of society. To be Episcopalian was often
viewed as being part of the powerful, elite and often wealthy
element in society. The Episcopal church has even been referred
to as the Republican party at prayer. To the extent that one
really values this identity, they could view becoming Orthodox as
going to a lower class and thus not a desirable option.
Anglicans looking at Orthodoxy will soon realize their own
ethnicity. They may also come to realize much of their ethnicity
is valued and cherished. Remember that Orthodoxy, because it is
the fullness of "the faith once delivered" and offered
to the entire world, embraces, transforms and makes new all
cultures. Moreover, before 1054, England was herself fully
Orthodox and a number of English saints are to this day
commemorated in the Orthodox calendar.
FUSING FAITH AND CULTURE: THE ORTHODOX APPROACH
Precisely because Orthodoxy claims to be catholic
(universal), it is at once both the ultimate expression of one's
ethnicity and the ultimate rejection of ethnicity. Because
ethnicity is absorbed into the faith, the faith becomes the
ultimate, God centered, expression of ethnicity. Because the
faith ultimately transcends ethnicity and creates a deeper unity
than any ethnic bond, the faith is also the ultimate rejection of
ethnicity.
It works like this. Take the case of Russia. When
missionaries went into Russia the entire nation ultimately became
Orthodox. The entire culture became drenched in the Orthodox
faith. All of life, its customs, its habits, its expressions
became immersed in and an integral part of the Russian expression
of the Orthodox faith. Yet the culture retained its unique
characteristics—Russians did not have to give up being Russian
to become Orthodox. The culture was absorbed into the faith and
the faith permeated all aspects of the culture. Russian culture
and ethnic identity was, like all things, made new in Christ
Jesus. The uniqueness of the Russian culture was thus given its
ultimate expression—it was made part of the Kingdom. Thus the
Russian expression of Orthodoxy is and ought to be different than
the Greek expression of the same faith. But the same faith unites
Greeks and Russians into something more, namely, the body of
Christ, the church.
Orthodoxy embraces and cherishes culture and cultural
difference. Rather than cut off and isolate church as something
alien to our everyday life, a box we fill on Sundays from
10:00-11:00, for the Orthodox, culture becomes a means of
expressing and living our faith every day. Faith and culture are
fused. As a result it becomes hard even to conceive of being
Russian without being Orthodox, or being Greek without being
Orthodox. And herein lies the problem.
Our culture has not yet been baptized into Orthodoxy. Thus we
conceive of Greeks and Russians as Orthodox but they are
different from us. We view their faith as something unique to
their culture and not adaptable to ours. We view their faith as
so cultural that we cannot readily conceive of it as being
universal; we can't conceive of being Orthodox without also being
Greek or Russian. Indeed, the same holds true for some Orthodox
in America—thus they might ask you: "Are you Greek?"
If you say "No, but I'm Orthodox" or "No, but I
want to learn about the Orthodox faith", you may startle
them for a minute, but then they will likely accept you. After
all, the Orthodox are very aware that people of various cultures
are Orthodox and they are very accepting of cultural difference
while valuing and preserving their own unique cultural identity.
To an Orthodox it would seem unthinkable to ask you to deny your
ethnicity to become Orthodox. After all, ethnic identity is
simply part of being human. Thus when Ethiopians, for example,
attend St. George's Greek Orthodox church in St. Paul, MN, they
are not asked to give up their culture. They are accepted as
Orthodox and their culture is valued as being part of who they
are: fellow Orthodox Christians. Naturally the respect is mutual.
Orthodoxy's ability to fuse culture and faith is a great strength
but also, in a way, a great weakness, especially in America.
When immigrants came to the United States, they banded
together; thus easing their transition into an alien America and
preserving their culture and their faith. Many immigrants were
delighted just to be in America. Their goal was to be accepted.
Because of the link between culture and faith, they were careful
to preserve both. What they failed to see was the golden
opportunity to make America Orthodox. Rather than try and do
missionary work and convert America, they tried to retain their
faith and their culture as an isolated box of their existence,
while simultane- ously trying to be accepted by society at large,
to be recognized as true "Americans". That is changing.
AN EMERGING AMERICAN ORTHODOXY
As the Orthodox church here in the new world takes in many
converts and as the generations become further removed from the
"old country", Othodoxy in America is changing in two
respects. First, it is becoming missionary minded. The goal is to
convert America to Orthodoxy! The goal of some Antiochian
Orthodox is to plant 500 new churches by the year 2000. Orthodox
are becoming less concerned about being accepted as legitimate
members of American society and more concerned with making
American society Christian. Thus we seek to proclaim our faith
and to critique and confront American culture. We stand, for
example, unequivocally opposed to abortion (murder) on demand, to
immoral sexual practices such as homosexuality, to instant
gratification as the driving force of life, abuse of various
kinds, and environmental suicide (yes, environmental issues are
theological issues). We affirm the dignity of human life, the
centrality of the family, the need for work and sacrifice, and
the equal but different roles of men and women. American culture
has yet to be baptized into Orthodoxy. The mission of Orthodoxy
in America is not unlike that of the our earlier mission to the
ancient Roman world: win the people and the nation for Jesus
Christ.
Second, what is gradually emerging is a uniquely American
expression of Orthodoxy. We are very early into this process. But
what is starting to happen is only natural. People of various
ethnic groups born and raised in America are going to incorporate
their own culture into their expression of the Orthodox faith.
The faith will not change. The expression of that faith will
become uniquely American, just as there is a uniquely Russian and
a uniquely Greek expression of the Orthodox faith. Thus such
things as, for example, pews and organs (largely unknown in the
"old country") may become a normal part of the American
expression of Orthodoxy. American musical expressions may well
find a place in the life of the church in much the same way that
there is a distinct Greek chant and a distinct Russian chant.
Such a change will come about very gradually—it will not be
imposed from on high. Anglican converts to Orthodoxy have a
wonderful opportunity to contribute to this process. Entire
congregations can come over and preserve their unique identity
and character. Indeed, because America is a melting pot, it seems
likely that a variety of ethnicities will find continued
expression within American Orthodoxy. Ultimately, the goal is to
make America, with all of its various cultures, truly Orthodox so
that our culture, our thinking, our expression is so united with
the faith, that it is almost impossible to conceive of being
American without being Orthodox.
Are the Orthodox ethnic? Yes, and both we converts and the
"native Orthodox" are proud of our ethnicity. Our
heritage is part of who we are.
PRACTICALLY WHAT MIGHT ONE FIND
Enter then into an Orthodox church and who knows what
ethnicity you will discover. The liturgy may be in English,
Greek, Arabic, Spanish, Old Church Slavonic or a combination of
these. It depends upon the needs of the local congregation. As
that congregation changes, its needs may change too. In Madison,
Wis. the local Orthodox church uses about 48% English, 48% Greek
and 4% Old Church Slavonic. St. Mary's Greek Orthodox Church in
Minneapolis uses almost all English, whereas St. George's Greek
Orthodox Church in St. Paul, Minn. has more Greek. Our Antiochian
Orthodox Mission in Mequon has never so much as used a
"kyrie eleison", let alone Agios O Theos (Holy God).
Remember that the church must adapt to the needs of her members.
The liturgy you will encounter will most likely be that of St.
John Chrysostom—eastern rite. It might be in traditional English
(with Thee and Thou) or it might be in contemporary idiom (with
You and Your). If you attend a Western Rite parish under
Antiochian jurisdiction, you would likely encounter the Divine
Liturgy of St. Tikhon, based on the Book of Common Prayer.
Besides language and liturgy, you might also be able to expand
your culinary horizons!
What about those interminably long services the Orthodox are
noted for? Well, only the spiritually weak complain about
services being too long! But realistically, the average
celebration of the Eucharist takes about an hour and a quarter to
an hour and a half, (or just about as long as many Anglican
celebrations) depending upon communions and sermon. Of course
special occasions last longer. And you might also be able to
attend Matins (Morning Prayer) before the Eucharist. Matins takes
about 45 minutes and, unfortunately, is often poorly attended.
I've found the Orthodox to be very warm and welcoming once
you get to know them. Again, it varies from congregation to
congregation. Some congregations make you feel welcome from day
one on; in other congregations it takes a while to get to know
the people. Like Episcopalians, making everybody feel welcome on
their first visit is not always our strong suit.
Moreover, at first Orthodoxy will likely feel strange and
foreign. This is normal. Take your time. Do some study of the
faith and the Orthodox approach (it is different than the western
approach). Take time to get familiar with the eastern liturgy—it
will grow on you! A relationship with the church, like true love
as distinguished from infatuation, rarely happens
overnight—rather it grows and develops over time. Indeed, part
of the process of conversion is creating a new circle of friends
and readjusting old relationships. Your true friends will support
you in whatever decision you make. Some may be happy for you and
some may feel hurt and angry. There is no way of knowing.
Ultimately, of course, neither ethnicity nor friendship is a
criteria for choosing a church. The only ultimate criteria is
Truth.
But don't let this discourage you. The good and important
things in life always take time. Remember that one congregation
does not the entire church make and congregations vary. Take time
to get to know as many Orthodox as you can. Be sure to try and
attend some national conferences. I was truly stunned by how many
former Anglicans I met at the Pastoral/Liturgical institute held
at St. Vladimir's Seminary. Indeed, one contact just kept leading
to another. When I spoke with Fr. Fester, the Evangelism Officer
for the Orthodox Church in America, I asked him to take a quick
guess, "off the top of his head" as they say, what
percentage of clergy and what percentage of lay people in the OCA
(Orthodox Church in America, one of the major Orthodox
jurisdictions in the United States) were converts. At least 25%,
or one in four, in each category, he replied. Of course it varies
from area to area and even parish to parish. Further
investigation revealed former Anglicans, now Orthodox, were to be
found from Florida to Massachusetts and from Texas to California.
There is even a former Anglican monastic community, now Orthodox,
alive and well in Georgia. And they have been Orthodox for about
fifteen years now. Moreover, fully one-third of all OCA bishops
are converts and Bishop SERAPHIM, Bishop of Ottawa and the
Archdiocese of Canada, is a former Anglican. Historically, The
Episcopal Church has been a conduit for people journeying into
Orthodoxy. This was noted by Sara Loft in her study of converts
to Orthodoxy within the OCA (Converts Respond, Orthodox Church in
America, Syosset, New York 1984, p.3 [available from Orthodox
Christian Publications Center, P.O. Box 588, Wayne, N.J.
07474-0588]). In her study of converts, Loft found that from
1978-1983, 24% of the converts were former Episcopalians! The
only group larger was Roman Catholic with 33%. From 1953-1983,
clearly a much longer period, 21% of the converts were
Episcopalian and 30% Roman Catholic. In both cases, Episcopalians
were the second largest group of converts to Orthodoxy! And in
the Antiochian jurisdiction, in the past few years no fewer than
eight congregations have been formed primarily from Anglicans.
From Baltimore, MD to Concord CA, and from Milwaukee, WI to
Fort Worth, TX Anglicans are coming home to Orthodoxy. Indeed,
the person I mentioned in the introduction who told me the
Orthodox were so, so ethnic, turned out to become Orthodox
herself less than a year latter. Before you just write off
Orthodoxy period, or dismiss it as being too ethnic, do some
investigating on your own. Granted, some Episcopalians have had
bad experiences with Orthodoxy (I personally know of at least two
such cases) but there are many, many Anglicans (literally
hundreds), who have found in Orthodoxy a home which only the
fullness of the faith could provide. You owe it to yourself to go
beyond the boundaries of Anglicanism and actually get in touch
with the Orthodox. Don't hesitate to contact former Anglicans,
now Orthodox—they can be of great help both because they know
Orthodoxy and they know Anglicanism; in a word, we share with you
a common heritage, a common culture. Take your time. Don't judge
Orthodoxy by one quick visit anymore than you would judge a book
by its cover or a T.V. program by one 10 second sound bite. In
the end, I am sure you want to be only where Our Lord wants you
to be.
If you are looking at options, I would ask that you
investigate Orthodoxy and give it a fair investigation. Pray,
read, study and take to heart the words of Philip to Nathanael:
"Come and See".
A FORMER ANGLICAN: NOW 38 YEARS IN ORTHODOXY
by Frank Billerbeck
If I were an Anglican today, one concern I would have with
Anglicans going to Orthodoxy is whether or not this is just a
flash in the pan, a brief infatuation which will not survive the
test of time. Thus I tried to find a former Anglican who has been
Orthodox for many years and, frankly, though I found many of
them, ten to fifteen years in Orthodoxy just was not long enough.
My search finally led me Hartshorne, Oklahoma and to
Archimandrite Thomas (Green). (An Archimandrite is a celibate
priest in the Orthodox church.) I spoke with Fr. Thomas for about
an hour over the phone. It was a wonderful experience and I would
like to share parts of that with you.
Back before the days of computers and jet passenger planes,
Archimandrite Thomas was an Anglican Augustinian monk living in
Florida, part of Good Shepherd Monastery. That was back in the
1950's, part of the golden era of Anglo-Catholicism and
Episcopalian growth and expansion.
What caused him to look elsewhere? While hesitant to
criticize Anglicanism (it was after all his home for 36 years) he
told me that the seeds of current problems were present back
then. Looking back, he says that Anglo-Catholics did not realize
the liberalism then present in ECUSA. In a word, they were
deceived and if one scratched the surface, Anglo-Catholicism was
largely a facade. As he said, his mother never could understand
why he became Orthodox, but then she was isolated as to much of
what was happening in the church. As to later events he is still
surprised at how quickly Anglicanism caved in and at how little
protest there was from the Anglo-Catholics over women's
ordination.
Nevertheless, in the 1950's there was laxity in marriage
discipline which particularly caused him to reconsider
Anglicanism. In conscience he could not remain Anglican, so, in
1956 he left. While he had been dissatisfied for 2-3 years, it
was still not easy to leave. As he told me "I can't say
there weren't times I found myself longing for the Anglican
Church because it had been my home for 36 years of my life."
Yet, once the dye was cast, he did not look back. He attended
Holy Cross Greek Orthodox seminary for a year and met a
Syrian/Antiochian Orthodox priest who was also a former Anglican.
The Syrian/Antiochian jurisdiction placed greater emphasis on
English and, under Antiochian jurisdiction, he was ordained a
priest in 1957. In the early 1970's he transferred to OCA
jurisdiction. He has faithfully served Orthodox congregations in
California, Massachussets, Arizona, and Oklahoma.
I asked how he dealt with the fact that Orthodox have an
ethnicity different from Anglicans. He told me that he soon found
he "had to take the attitude I am becoming Orthodox and I
should not expect the Orthodox to become Anglican and at times it
will be difficult because, more so than Anglicanism, Orthodoxy is
identified with the national heritage of the people." As he
pointed out, however, being raised in ECUSA, we did not realize
how English the Church really was. By becoming Orthodox he has
met groups of people he never would have had he remained an
Anglican, such as Ethiopians, Eritreans, Albanians, and
Romanians.
Now semi-retired in Hartshorne, his congregation of some 20
souls is doing well. The people are very serious about and
dedicated to the faith and give generously, even though most are
retirees. He is accepted in the community and is leading a Bible
study of 1st Corinthians. The Bible study group consists of 3
Anglicans and one person of Greek descent! Church services are in
English.
Archimandrite Thomas is living proof that Anglicans can
convert to Orthodoxy and survive. If ever you are near
Hartshorne, Oklahoma, I suggest you visit Fr. Thomas. He is a
wonderful person, a faithful priest, and has an interesting and
unique background—and he has also been Orthodox for 38 years.
EDITORIAL: COME HOME!
by Fr. William Olnhausen
The 1989 convention which formed the Episcopal Synod of
America was perhaps the last in a series of gatherings which
raised the hopes of traditional Episcopalians. Here, it seemed to
many, was an "ecclesial structure", a kind of
"shadow province", which offered some chance either to
hold traditional Anglicans together till the Episcopal Church
turned around or else to lead them to a safe haven elsewhere. Six
diocesan bishops, out of the 95 Episcopal dioceses, appeared to
commit themselves to do whatever was necessary to maintain the
traditional ministry of the Episcopal Church, and to cross
diocesan lines (with or without the diocesan bishop's permission)
in order to minister to traditional Episcopalians who so
requested. The bishops who stepped out to form ESA are to be
admired; they had been under almost unbearable personal pressure
to conform to the PECUSA party line. They still have not sold
out.
Nevertheless, three and a half years later, what has the
Synod produced? (1) One retired bishop who bravely ministered to
one traditional parish in another diocese. (2) An Episcopal
Missionary Diocese headed by the same bishop, which established
some new congregations and then, apparently in frustration,
founded a new Episcopal Missionary Church, leaving the Episcopal
Church and the Synod behind entirely. (3) A small number of
tracts and publications. (4) No further movement toward a new
province which can protect traditional Episcopalians. (5) No
perceptible influence on the Episcopal Church or the Anglican
Communion, both of which continue down the path to destruction.
Indeed, the decisions to ordain women in England, South Africa,
and Australia appear to assure the victory of heterodox religion
in the Anglican Communion. (6) Most disturbing of all, ESA has
produced no clear sense of direction. What does the Synod plan to
do?
Our specific questions about the Episcopal Synod of America
are three-fold:
(1) What is the Synod's vision of the future? The handwriting
has been on the wall since 1976. Where does Synod leadership plan
to go when life in the Episcopal Church is no longer
institutionally possible, as it will likely become? If there is
some plan for the future, ESA has been remarkably successful in
keeping it secret.
Some ESA folk clearly hoped to maintain a traditional
Anglican province in communion with Canterbury. With that option
now closed, will ESA join with other dissident Anglicans in the
world to become yet another "continuing Anglican"
denomination? This option is based on the assumption that
traditional Anglicanism (without Canterbury) is viable. But will
the real "traditional Anglicanism" please stand up and
identify itself? Is traditional Anglicanism Anglo-Catholic?
Evangelical? Liberal? High Church? Low Church? Broad Church?
Isn't it precisely traditional Anglicanism's nebulous definition
of itself which has led to the present chaos? Theologically and
morally, Anglicanism has failed. It contained within itself the
seeds of its own destruction. Are those who wish to return to the
safety of Episcopalianism as it was in, say the 1950's prepared
to endure its collapse again - twice in their lifetime? This is
not the solution.
Will ESA go to Rome? But the Roman Church is as deeply
disturbed as Anglicanism. Is the American Roman Church really
interested in taking in conservatives? How many Episcopal
parishes have found a genuine welcome there? Many old-fashioned
Anglo-Catholics still long for the Roman Church as she once was
in 19th century England—but have they taken a hard look at her
as she is today, especially in America?
Or will ESA make the right choice and move towards Orthodoxy?
We see each of these tendencies among various ESA folk. This is
likely why the Synod is unable to move. We suspect, therefore,
that ESA, despite its good intentions, is destined to become what
Bishop Terwilliger warned of years ago: a splinter group that
begets only more splinters. In any event, "where there is no
vision the people perish", and ESA has had a hard time
retaining support without a clear vision of the future. In fact
"not to make a decision is to make a decision". Present
ESA policy appears to be to hang on till the last traditional
Anglican dies.
(2) Why do ESA bishops not take the simple, obvious step of
breaking Eucharistic fellowship with bishops who have consecrated
or given consent to the consecration of female bishops, and also
with bishops like John Spong who have publicly professed
non-Christian doctrinal and moral principles? To be in communion
with heresy is to participate in it. Unity at the altar has
always implied unity in the faith. To withdraw from communion
would set boundaries, define terms, and require no complicated
structural break for now. For ESA to remain in communion with
those who are destroying the Episcopal Church's faith and order
seems self-defeating and exceedingly non-traditional.
(3) Why is ESA still even trying to remain within the
Episcopal Church? By its actions, Anglicanism has rejected its
Catholic identity and has forsaken the "branch
theory"—neither of which were ever accepted by either Rome
or Orthodoxy. The issues today all cut across Western
denominational lines, and the old denominational structures no
longer make sense. There is every evidence, judging from
membership and attendance statistics, that God is destroying
them. Why are traditional Christians clinging to the Episcopal
Church? We former Anglicans who are now Orthodox would like to
say to ESA and its beleaguered supporters: Come home!
How can the "foreign, Eastern, ethnic" Orthodox
Church be a home for Anglicans, you ask? Let me tell you:
(1) Orthodoxy is no more "foreign" than
Lutheranism, Roman Catholicism, and, yes, even Anglicanism.
Perhaps one of Anglicanism's difficulties in the United States
has been precisely that it is "English ethnic", planted
on foreign soil. Have you ever considered that the Bible itself
is an Eastern document? That doesn't seem to be a problem for
Americans - although the Western presuppositions which Western
Christians have imposed upon the Scriptures may help to explain
their current state of confusion about the Bible. Furthermore,
the Orthodox Church is not just ethnic but multi-ethnic. Indeed
Orthodoxy is Greek, Russian, Arab. It is also American. In the
United States, there is a rapidly developing "American
ethnic" Orthodoxy, within which Americans can quickly feel
at home.
There are many former Anglicans who are Orthodox. Within my
own Antiochian Archdiocese, well over half the clergy are
converts, and perhaps 20% of the total are former Anglicans. Just
in the last four years, this Archdiocese has taken in Episcopal
congregations (or portions thereof) in suburban Milwaukee,
Denver, Boulder, Fort Worth, Concord (California), Omaha, and
suburban Baltimore. But in the end the question is: which do you
value more, your Anglican ethos or your faith? If you had to give
up one, which would it be? Are you now sacrificing your Christian
inheritance and that of your children and grandchildren for a
"mess of [English] pottage"?
(2) Anglicanism's roots are Orthodox. Many of us taught that
early pre-Roman Catholic British (Celtic) Christianity was
"very much like modern Orthodoxy", "Catholic but
not Roman Catholic". That argument can scarcely be made
today, but in the beginning it was true. St. Irenaeus of Lyons
wrote that:
"the Church, although scattered over the whole civilized
world to the end of the earth, received from the apostles its
faith... [and] carefully preserves it, as if living in one
house. She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she
had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously,
teaches them and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth.
For the languages of the world are different, but the meaning of
the [Christian] Tradition is the same. Neither do the churches
that have been established in Germany believe otherwise, or hand
down any other Tradition, nor those among the Iberians, nor those
among the Celts, nor in Egypt, nor in Libya, nor those
established in the middle parts of the world." (Against
Heresies: Book I)
That Church which has always been united in the faith and
remains so today, without addition or diminution, is the Orthodox
Church. In the days before papal power and Western doctrinal
innovation divided West from East, British Christians ("the
Celts") were part of the primitive Orthodox unity - for the
British Church was united with the rest of Orthodoxy in the faith
and in Eucharistic fellowship. I have discovered that all my
early British heroes and heroines were Orthodox! The Orthodox
Church in America today publishes a little booklet titled
"Saints of the British Isles". (Does the Episcopal
Church have such a pamphlet?) The official calendar of the
Antiochian Archdiocese of North America commemorates the likes of
Joseph of Arimathaea, Alban, Columba, Aidan, Patrick, Brigid,
David of Wales - and also Aristobulus, the first Bishop of
Britain, whom the English have long forgotten, but the Eastern
Orthodox still remember! In this context, does Orthodoxy seem
like home? Indeed, it does.
(3) Most important, Orthodoxy is the fulfillment of the
highest Anglican ideals. Anglican Catholics sought to be
patristic, emphasizing the continuity of the faith throughout
history, loyal to the "faith once delivered to the
saints", neither adding to it nor subtracting from it.
Anglican Evangelicals wished to be true to the Scriptures,
Christ-centered, emphasizing personal devotion to the Lord.
Classical Anglican liberals (as opposed to the authoritarian
modernists now wielding power) wanted to avoid legalism and
externally imposed authority, but rather to allow each person a
free response to God. All these ideas are fulfilled in Orthodoxy
- but brought together not in antithetical movements and parties,
as Anglicans often did, but in genuine synthesis. Anglicanism
failed not because its ideals were wrong, but because Anglicanism
did not know how to recreate primitive Christian unity; because
the Church cannot be recreated but can only re-entered; because
Anglicanism was, in Bishop Terwilliger's words, "not a
church but a series of movements"; because Anglicanism has
been part of Western Christianity, blown this way and that by the
winds of Roman Catholic and Protestant controversies, reactions
and counter- reactions, reformations and counter- reformations.
And now, as the Roman and Protestant systems are collapsing,
classical Anglicanism is going under, too. But Anglican ideals
are everyday reality in the Orthodox Church.
Let me speak of what I have seen in eight years of close
association with Orthodoxy, after three and one half years as an
Orthodox priest. Orthodoxy is genuinely united in the Catholic
and Apostolic faith. I have yet to meet or hear of anyone in
Orthodoxy who denies any article of the Creed. Orthodoxy is
profoundly Scriptural. Orthodoxy is not only Christ-centered but
Trinity centered, with deep personal devotion to Father, Son and
Holy Spirit. What holds Orthodoxy together is not externally
imposed authority but rather personal conviction and conversion.
But the Orthodox have an aversion to ecclesiastical movements;
there are no Catholic, Evangelical or liberal parties. In
Orthodoxy the highest Anglican ideals are harmonized and exist
not as warring factions, not just living together under one roof
but married, united in worship, in theology, in prayer, in daily
life.
Is the Orthodox Church the "perfect church"? Of
course not. It is filled with sinners. It has many problems. But
the faith is not one of them. Bishop Kallistos (formerly Timothy
Ware, a convert from Anglicanism and author of The Orthodox
Church and The Orthodox Way) writes that as the Western
denominations progressively lose their grasp on the fundamentals
of Christianity, more and more people must turn to the Orthodox
Church to find "simple Christianity".
As so we say again to traditional Anglicans: Come home to
Orthodoxy! Why stay in Egypt when God offers you a land where you
can be free? Why remain in a post-Christian denomination which
has failed, where you are not welcome, when you could live in
peace, propagate the faith, and leave a Christian heritage to
your children? Why cling to the past, when you could bravely move
into the future? God bless you for your faith, your courage, your
hope and your intentions. Don't waste them.
|