Ranting to /dev/null

More thoughts on Anglicanism

I think one of the things that's so appealing to me about the Anglican tradition is that it's a corrective for most of the frustrations I've been having with the PCA. The PCA - as well as the OPC - has pretty much no understanding of liturgy. It has almost no understanding of women's role in the church (which, whatever that may be, isn't nothing). It is pretty parochial, and there's little understanding of what's going on in the denomination as a whole, much less the church at large. It has no memory, and seems quite content to reinvent the wheel on a wide number of issues (Got a problem? Ever thought to find out what the church has done with that problem in the past? Didn't think so.). What's worse, the few people who have actually heard about theology tend to be of a straight-shooting, rule-bound, non-relational style that gets under my skin. They also tend to think that John Piper and writers like him are the best thing since sliced bread (They aren't. Sliced bread is a lot cooler).

The Anglican tradition, on the other hand, has a deep and longstanding relationship with liturgy. They've got a whole book devoted to it, and they actually use it. It hasn't come up with answers I like regarding women in the church, but it's trying, anyway. It is a truly global church, and the connection between other congregations in this city, this country, and the world are palpable. It has a long and careful memory, and always asks what has been done in the past before rushing to any new conclusions. And the people who know about theology tend to be more relaxed about it.

On the other hand, the PCA has little problem with orthodoxy as such. Sure, most of the PCA is pretty bland, but there isn't much that's downright heretical, as in denying-the-creeds heretical. This, however, is something that the Anglican church is dealing with, in spirit if not literally. When you sit down in a room full of PCA elders, you don't have to ask the question "Do all of these people believe the Bible?" With Anglicans, you do. We've got some real moonbats, including one of the assistant bishops of the NYC diocese. Neo-paganism just isn't an issue with the PCA.

I'm not trying to say that one is better than the other. Both have their problems, and the problems of the Anglican church are, by any standard worth talking about, a lot more visible and serious than the PCA's. The PCA isn't on the verge of having its centuries-old international communion dissolve in the next few months, that's for sure. But I will say that when there are real differences of opinion in a community - which the PCA doesn't have, not really - it's a lot easier to maintain a sense of perspective. What in the PCA are issues divisive enough to force people and congregations out of the denomination are in the Anglican world on the level polite of dinnertable discussion. There are so many issues of such greater import that making common cause with people you don't agree with about everything is a lot easier and a lot more important. Especially when you've a sense of belonging to a Body that extends beyond the bounds of the few dozen people that you personally know.

I won't necessarily be Anglican for the rest of my life. The odds of finding another Anglican congregation as healthy as this one are slim, and may well change dramatically in the next few months. But for right now, I like their set of problems more than I like the PCA's set of problems. Besides, if we're going to be influenced by the tradition to which we belong, I'd rather stick with a long-standing, well-established, liturgically rich tradition.

So I guess that means I'm Anglican. At least for now.