September 20, 2001 1001pm CDT
On Anglo-Catholicism and my inevitable conversion thereunto:No, I haven't abandoned the Augsburg confession, nor do I plan to. I remain a resolute Augsburger, despite my proclivities toward the English ecclesia. Anglo-Catholicism, for those who don't know, is that branch of Anglicanism distinguished (at least today) by conservative theology, a high view of the sacraments, and a high regard for the church as an corporate body (as opposed to an amalgamated one). A good number of you are familiar with my leanings toward this sort of theology within the context of Lutheranism, but may be unfamiliar with my stance toward similar movements in other traditions. Well, here it is.
The reason I am not an Anglican today is that there was no conservative Anglican parish for me to join when I at last came to the conclusion that I was an outsider in mainstream evangelicalism. Not that I consider that a bad thing. I believe Lutheranism to have a much more robust systematic theology than Anglicanism, even if I am not terribly happy with the way Lutherans in the United States have structured their church polities. Nonetheless, I remain enamored of Anglicanism for its splendid Christocentric liturgies and its profound respect for the holy. I am afraid that Lutherans (myself included) tend to internalize their faith, rather than trust in the means which God has provided for communicating Grace to the faithful. Anglicanism, like Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, is all about those means. The Church, through the agency of its ministers, communicates grace to the faithful via the Word and Sacraments. That is the theory in Lutheranism, but it is the practice in Anglicanism. Unlike the pre-reformation traditions, Anglicanism does not make the mistake of denying forensic justification, though it doesn't really affirm it either. Which is the real problem with Anglicanism, I suppose.
From my perspective, Lutheranism has everything right in theory while Anglicanism (or specifically Anglo-Catholicism) has it right in practice. While there are certainly Lutherans who maintain a high view of the Church and the Sacraments, and there are certainly Anglicans who have a good understanding of exactly what it means to be declared righteous before God because of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, both sides still have a way to go. Lutherans, particularly in North America, need to take a good, hard look at the way we govern ourselves. Yes, polity is an adiaphoron, but the polity we use does reflect our ecclesiology. Congregationalism, while appropriate for the circumstances of American Lutheranism 150 years ago, yields many nasty side effects. We have left-hand offices like "district president" whose primary role is an administrative one, not a pastoral or apostolic one. As such, there is no formal system for pastoral care for those in the ministry themselves, so those needs must be met by informal arangements between pastors of geographically proximate parishes. Even more dangerous is the lack of means by which to maintain the apostolic doctrine and good order. Stray parishes may do whatever they please without fear of reprisal from their authorities. If we have a high view of the Church, we need to have a high view of the Church beyond the parish level. Of course, the parish, or the local ecclesia, is a specially ordered institiution, and needs to be held in the highest regard. But our superstructure need not be quite so disorganized.
Anglicans, on the other hand, need to take a firmer stand on matters of doctrine. It is remarkable to me that one ecclesiastical tradition can continue to harbor Reformed, Lutheran, Pietistic, Catholic, and Ultra-Liberal theologies under the same umbrella. Of course, in the last twenty years, we have seen that umbrella deteriorate as conservatives begin to form their own continuing jurisdictions which operate parallel to the official Anglican bodies. Even among those splinter groups, however, there is no common confession. I would love to hear the Anglican Church in America release a Catechism affirming, in no uncertain terms, the doctrine of forensic justification and clarifying their doctrine of the Sacraments. As it stands, those issues confuse me. I can't tell whether the Anglo-Catholics are Lutheran, Reformed, or Romanist on these points. Newman's "Tract 90" deals with these issues, but he appears to waffle and make concessions to all sides. I am forced to conclude that the movement can not come to a conclusion about these most important of all issues. Despite this, I realize that I could become an Anglo-Catholic while maintaining my Lutheran theological views. Heck, I could even become a cleric. As far as I can tell, nothing in the Anglo-Catholic tradition contradicts anything I believe, and my theological opinion would probably be welcome within that community.
Instead of becoming a Lutheran Anglican, I suppose I might just as well import Anglo-Catholicism to the Lutheran community, though I suppose it will be a bit more difficult to do. For one thing, American Lutheranism is not inclined to high-church ideas. Even those conservative Lutherans who have a high view of the Sacraments are skeptical of hierarchy, and even when our worship is formal and ceremonial, it is still quite simple. We do have monastics, and a few parishes really do practice "high-church" worship, but those are really on the fringe, and they are admired but not imitated by other conservatives. For me to become an Anglo-Catholic in this community would be to place myself in that fringe. Of course, for me to become an Anglo-Catholic within the Lutheran community might not mean all that great a change. I am already inclined toward that sort of thing, even if those around me are not. And while I am at it, I might as well drop this "Anglo-" bit, because while I have an English name and a distant English heritage, I am not really English. And I don't suppose there is much about Lutheranism that is all that English either. So basically I would become a "Catholic Lutheran." Hmmm...
11:16:22 PM 
|
|
