A Pastoral Letter: Thoughts and Reflections

Recently the presiding bishops of the Anglican Province of America and the Anglican Church in America released a statement on the merger process between the two provinces. I think that it is a very good, straightforward letter, and I applaud the bishops for their courage and honesty in writing it. The letter acknowledges some of the difficulties involved with trying to merge our two jurisdictions, but at the same time affirms our mutual commitment to work for eventual corporate unity. 

A process like this can take a long time, sometimes a generation or two. But it is best to have it take a while and wait for God's perfect timing so it gets done right rather than forcing it through because we think it suits our timetable and desires better. Considering how much time, energy, and other resources these processes consume it is best to be slow and methodical so we get the results that we want the first time around and avoid any unintended, negative results. This is what happened with the "Ecumenical Movement" of the 20th century in certain areas.

I can understand how some people would want to rush a process like this because it can make it seem as though the churches are "doing" something. That attitude reminds me of the rector of my old seminary who always had a major construction program going on - even if it wasn't needed and cost tons of money - because it conveyed "progress"... even if the seminary was mostly empty of students studying for the priesthood! Likewise, we have to have as our first priority spreading the good news of Jesus Christ and building the Kingdom of God. We need to engage in actions that will help us reach the lost and strengthen the Body of Christ and view mergers and unification programs as means to that end.

Personally, I see nothing wrong in simply spending an indeterminate number of years in fellowship and full intercommunion, while trying to work together on the ground and on other projects as much as we can. This has been happening in various ways between most of the continuing churches, so much so that we are already, for most practical purposes, one church. Once again, I applaud these two men for this letter and for their godly leadership, and may we offer prayers on their behalf, as well as on behalf of all of those involved in the process, and for all of the people of the two churches.

Conversations about the Continuing Church

In recent days I've had some interesting, very revealing discussions with folk - laity and clergy - about the continuing church, and was able to clear up a major misconception about the Church for them.

This was the misconception: not everyone in a continuing Anglican parish is there for strictly theological reasons... because they are ultra conservative and highly informed churchmen who strongly adhere to the theology of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible. For some reason these folk - both clergy and laity from other traditions - thought that was the case, but it is not. They were amazed to hear that continuing Anglican parishes are, for better or worse, just as diverse as every other church in the United States. My own parish is interracial and has people of all ages - newborns all the way up to retirees - each active and involved in their own way. The people have been drawn there, I have discovered, for all sorts of reasons: they like the little country "feel" of the place; they like the people; they like the rector; they like the hymns; they like the service; it is like how it was when they grew up, they like the theology; etc. In short, there is no single defining factor that seems to attract people to the church. In some ways I think the spectrum of theological beliefs runs the gamut, despite my best efforts to teach what the church teaches in a such way as to get them to believe it! Like folk in other traditions, many people that I have come across in the continuum have simply a basic knowledge of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, and some but much less knowledge of the Bible and theology. So anyone who thinks that continuing Church parishes are bodies dominated by conservative political or orthodox theological "groupthink" is just plain wrong. Our people are as diverse as the people in any other church out there.

The difference, however, between us and the larger, mainline churches is mainly our liturgy and, of course, related to that, the orthodox catholic teaching of the Tradition. The membership of the Episcopal Church, for example, also has diversity in belief. But their church also has diversity of teaching. We are different. The continuing Church is much closer to the Roman Catholic Church in this area, inasmuch as, like them, our membership may believe any number of things, but the teaching of the Church in specific theological areas is quite clear and is unequivocally taught and preached.

Anglican Theological Education, Part 2

While reading "Nineteenth Century Anglican Theological Education" I could not help but think about the relationship between, on one hand, the theological colleges and the ancient universities in England of that era and, on the other hand, the relationship between reading for orders and attending seminary today in the United States. The latter is of course how continuing Anglicans have traditionally prepared for ordination. Some people read for orders, while others chose to attend a seminary or divinity school. Personal circumstances usually dictate who follows which path. While in the APA reading for orders is far less common today than perhaps it once was there are still a significant number of folk in the larger traditional Anglican world who read for orders under the direction of a priest. It should be noted, of course, that there is a lot of tradition behind this, as before the Episcopal seminary system was established men in the United States had to read for orders.

An interesting parallel between the subject matter of the book and priestly formation for continuing churchmen in the 21st century is the whole question of effectiveness. In the period covered by this book there was lots of disagreement about whether or not the theological colleges were effective in preparing men for the ministry. The same question has often been raised with regard to reading for orders, and/or attending open of the unaccredited [by ATS] theological school that different jurisdictions have tried to establish over the years.

The issues that the old guard in England raised concerning the new colleges were largely cultural and social. Men who attended the ancient universities were thought to better prepared because they were more well-rounded and had contact with all different people in different fields of study, which improved their own theological thinking. They were also thought to be better socially prepared for ministry, since the universities were not isolated like the colleges (and especially the Roman Catholic seminaries). These opinions and more were held even despite evidence that in many cases those who attended the universities were less prepared in some equally important ways! If we think about it some of these same types of criticisms have been leveled against reading for orders.

But just as the establishment figures in England (mostly bishops) did not have actual evidence to support their prejudices, so it is today I think with those who criticize these alternative ways of educating clergy. Now, to my knowledge there are no reliable statistics about which way of preparing men for orders is most effective, or even agreement as to how effectiveness is to be judged. But if there is a connection between the situation in the Church of England in the 19th century and the continuing churches in America today, as I think there is, then we need only look at the theological colleges and their graduates to see that just as the schools became very well established, and just as their graduates went on to have very effective ministries and hold high offices, so those in the Church today who prepare for ordination by way of reading for orders or doing an unaccredited diocesan program also often go on to have very effective ministries and hold high office.

I would go so far as to say that in a lot of cases the alternative ways of educating certain men for the ministry are more effective and efficient than requiring them to attend seminary. This is certainly true of older men who offer themselves for ordination. The APA, following Episcopalian tradition and canons, is actually very flexible in this area and only requires a seminary degree for men who are under a certain age, and lets older men pursue Holy Orders via these other avenues.

So in the end, one of the "take aways" for me from this book was that just as many of the men who attended the theological colleges worked hard and proved their intelligence, godliness, and diligence by their effective ministries and advancement, so the same is true of many of those in our own day and age who have prepared for the ministry in some other way than going to seminary. As any priest who is worth his salt will tell you, attending seminary definitely does not mean one will have an effective ministry. The opposite may very well be the case, and not only will he have a crash and burn ministry, he will also have lots of debt.

Next time I want to write about some insights I gained from this book regarding founding theological colleges.