Quo Vadis?

By Franklin Billerbeck

From the now defunct periodical Anglican Orthodox Pilgrim, Vol. 3, No. 1

Much ink has been spilled looking at options, as The Evangelical Catholic proves. The theological diversity of the recommendations (ranging from Protestantism to Orthodoxy) reveals serious differences among Anglicans which mirror the diversity of 20th century denominational Christianity. In 1976 I too started looking at these options. While I am home now, my 16 year search was very costly emotionally, personally, spiritually, physically, and financially. Perhaps what I have to say may be of some small help for those who are now in the very painful process of looking at options

By what criteria will you choose? One option is convenience and comfort. Where is it easiest to fit in and where will you have a good salary? If you believe there are a variety of options, then convenience and comfort are good criteria for choosing amongst those options.

Another criteria is Truth. This is potentially painful and costly. You might have to change your beliefs, admit error, and give up many material things. At any rate, this criteria requires much careful and prayerful investigation. If you find the fullness of Truth in one place, then that is where you must go. If the fullness of Truth is in many places, convenience and comfort can be the basis to decide which option to take. For me, eventually I found the fullness of Truth only in Orthodoxy. Therefore, I had no options.

Once criteria is established, the next question is orientation. To start with the 20th century is to confront a bewildering array of options—so many you cannot possibly investigate them all (some 23,000 according to recent estimates). I suggest starting at a different place—the one, undivided church. Surely that is what you want to be a member of! Therefore, look to Scripture and the early church fathers. Because the gates of hell will not prevail, the Church of Pentecost still exists today in an identifiable, locatable form. The key is—what did the undivided church believe and practice and where do I find all of that today.

In the course of investigation, be prepared to be challenged and to look at things with a different perspective. Take your time. While anger may be good reason to leave one denomination, it is not enough to sustain a person in another denomination. Leave only when you are sure of your decision.

For me, Protestantism was not an option. While it had Jesus Christ and the Bible, it lacked the fullness of the sacraments and the communion of the saints. Therefore, it was not doing everything the undivided church did and it did not believe what the undivided church believed about Holy Communion. Its roots were not apostolic and I had to believe the Holy Spirit let the church go astray for some 1,600 years until a reformer came along. As for unity, a scriptural hallmark of the church, the multiplication of denominations spoke volumes. Moreover, I did not believe that I, by myself, could interpret Holy Scripture—I needed the church to do that.

Were I to have used anything other than a theological basis for my decision, I would have become Lutheran. Being in northern Wisconsin (Lutheran territory), I could easily have married a Lutheran woman, been a Lutheran pastor and, in many ways, life would have been very good. The Lutherans had liturgy (and a solid musical heritage) and emphasized a shared faith. But they rejected Holy Orders (the priesthood), confession and unction. Luther himself would have eliminated parts of the bible (e.g. the Epistle of James) and, as near as I could tell, had deliberately changed other parts when he translated the Bible into German. Besides, that 1,600 year gap still bothered me!

I turned to the branch theory. Firmly believing in Anglicanism as a full and true branch of the Catholic Church, I looked at where I could go if that branch was destroyed. There were only two other viable options: Rome or Orthodoxy. Somehow the Holy Spirit clouded my thinking so I did not investigate the continuing Anglican movement until later, otherwise I would have certainly gone with them.

Though I shared a common western and liturgical heritage with the Roman Church, I could not theologically become a Roman Catholic. As an Anglican I believed the undivided church did not accept papal infallibility (that the pope, when speaking to the entire church, from the throne of St. Peter, on a matter of faith and morals, cannot error—declared dogma by Vatican Council I and reaffirmed by Vatican II). The Scriptural basis for this is largely from the text: Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church. The Roman teaching is that this invested St. Peter with infallible authority. The majority of church fathers had not accepted this teaching! A Roman Catholic Scholar, Launoy (1603–1678), collected the teachings of the church fathers on this passage. Of 85 fathers, 17 said Rock meant Peter, 44 that Rock meant the faith Peter had just confessed, 16 for Rock meaning Christ Himself, and 8 for Rock meaning all of the apostles. Moreover, when had the pope spoken infallibly? Estimates differed and no pope gave an infallible answer to the question. It is, for example, debatable whether the recent pronouncement by John Paul II concerning women’s ordination is or is not an infallible pronouncement. Granted, the pope was first among equals and that, from time to time, disputes were voluntarily submitted to him for resolution—but that did not make for infallibility!

For me, Papal Infallibility ruled out Roman Catholicism. As I learned more about Orthodoxy, I also rejected the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and its attendant conception of original sin. I was also troubled by Roman Catholic teaching on birth control and their practice of annulments. I also found the Roman Catholic approach very legalistic and judgmental. For the Catholics, Anglican orders are absolutely null and utterly void. Only because of an old Catholic strain, would an Anglican priest be ordained conditionally.

While I desired reunion with Rome, as an Anglican I could not accept Roman teaching. However, if I you accept Roman Catholic teaching, I think the only option is to become Roman Catholic—certainly you can’t remain an Anglican and could not become Orthodox. When push comes to shove, one is either Anglican, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox and there is a clear theological division between them! If Rome is what she claims, the one true Church, and you agree with her, then all the horror stories about Rome are irrelevant! You must go to Rome and defend the faith!

With Rome out of the question, I had only one option. Fortunately, but for the eastern Liturgy, Orthodoxy was clearly the closest branch to Anglicanism. So I started reading the Orthodox authors. Time and again I found myself saying: of course! Naturally! Any Anglican believes that!

As I read, my thinking gradually become more eastern. Soon I was too Orthodox! I accepted the Orthodox teaching that marriage did not dissolve at death (it was, after all, a sacrament done in the church and sacramental action exists forever—sins are not unforgiven at death, one is not unordained at death!), though one did not get married after death (see Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective, by John Meyendorff, available from Light and Life). Economy made sense—rules are the norm but must be applied in particular cases as is best for the soul in this fallen world. The Church is Eucharist and only with agreement on the fullness of the faith, can one share Communion (which was the practice of the undivided church). Simply believing Communion is somehow the Body and Blood of Christ is, contrary to Anglican practice, not enough! The church is one because of Eucharist and schism is not a division in the church (the church cannot be divided anymore than Christ can be divided) but a departure from the church. The filioque, of course, I had already conceded on historical grounds.

When I looked back at my Anglican upbringing, it was so close to Orthodoxy! But now there were three big differences. First, was Article VI—that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. Literally, of course, Scripture does not teach this view as both the ending of St. John’s Gospel (John 21:25) and Paul’s admonition to stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle (2 Thess. 2:15) should make clear. While Article VI may be interpreted in an Orthodox manner, frankly, it troubled me.

Second, clearly Anglicans were sharing Communion with people who rejected the faith and practice of the undivided church—even with those who rejected parts of the Creed! This was simply not the practice of the undivided Church.

Third, the branch theory did not sustain itself (see Anglican Orthodox Pilgrim, Vol. 2, No. 4) and when it fell, there went Anglicanism’s claim to apostolic authority—to be the same as the undivided church! Thus, when I finally examined the Continuing Anglicans it was too late! I wanted unquestionable apostolicity and nobody, especially no Anglican, could ever dare question Orthodoxy’s claim to apostolicity without destroying their own claim in the process. I had always feared being a traitor and deserting the Church. Even with the branch theory, however, going to Orthodoxy was not being traitor to the church—only jumping to a branch that was not about to be cut off from the trunk! Without the branch theory, I was joining the Church—the one church which alone had the fullness of the faith once delivered. By now, there was, for me, no branch theory left! Indeed, the branch theory leads naturally to disunity in the faith.

Was Anglicanism Church—I don’t know. That is a question up to God. Frankly, I don’t worry about it much. I do know that Orthodoxy is Church—a claim I can’t make about Anglicanism because Anglicanism’s faith and practice are not identical with that of the undivided Church (and the Continuing Anglican inclusion of the filioque seperates them from the undivided Chuch)—and that is enough for me. I also know that God loves mankind and desires our salvation. Thus, while there is no salvation outside the Church, we may not be able to determine the totality of where the Church is, for Church is the Body of Christ and it is Christ Who determines who is part of His Body.

For me, after 16 painful years, I had no choice other than to become Orthodox. And Orthodox Liturgy—I gave it time and came to love it!

In looking at options there will be much pain and many difficult decisions. However, do not simply lament the past and cry in your beer (as some seem want to do) but examine the key issues and pray! Move when you are fully convinced of the Truth. I pray that your search may be guided by the Holy Spirit and may be much shorter and less painful than mine.