'Prayer' is the buzzword of the day

In a previous post, I wondered aloud whether two prominent conservative Episcopal churches would leave ECUSA and fall under the care of an African bishop in the Anglican communion. Well, it appears that both Truro and the Falls Church are officially moving in that direction. Dozens more are engaged in a period of prayer and reflection regarding their future with ECUSA, and seem to at least be seriously considering an exit strategy.

In addition, the NWI movement within PCUSA is likewise calling on like-minded congregations to enter into a period of prayer in deciding what their response should be to the PCUSA General Assembly results. Unlike the ECUSA churches, any PCUSA churches who decide to leave the denomination have at least a decent chance of holding on to some or all of their property.

Prayer, prayer, prayer. It is clearly called for in these difficult times. As an outsider, I am saddened by where things stand in these two denominations. The conservative doctrinalist in me says these churches should leave these denominations, and that they really should have left long ago. But the traditionalist in me is very wary of churches up-and-leaving their historical ecclesiastical roots.

Evangelicals have often split from each other over almost everything in the name of preserving their version of sound doctrine. Liberals often decry as schismatic any attempt to hold a church or a denomination to a set of essential theological and doctrinal standards that will, by definition, not include the views of everyone. And around and around we go.

I used to think that a conservative church trapped in a denomination that was clearly abandoning the historic Christian faith should get out without regret and not look back. To me, this was not a difficult decision to make, and is one that I would have made in an instant in the name of upholding the truth of Christ and our faith. But then I spent a number of years conversing with evangelicals who are still in the mainline, and feeling their angst at the thought of leaving their home and turning their backs on their ecclesiastical parents. I came to discover that their emphasis on community and historical continuity is not only noble, but needed as an antidote to radical evangelical individualism that constantly divides us and makes us think that history, tradition, community, and unity are completely expendable whenever it's convenient to toss them overboard.

So we're left with a dilemma. On one side, we have preserving sound doctrine and honoring Christ by standing for the truth. On the other side, we have a commitment to the unity of the Body and the wisdom of the church throughout the ages, and honoring Christ by promoting love and unity among us just as he commanded. What's expendable? What's more important? The answers aren't nearly as simple as either side makes it, and evangelicals in the mainline who are trying to honor both sides are caught in the middle with no easy way out biblically. This is not a cause for rejoicing, but for crying.

In the end, as I've said before, my own conviction would be to leave, because not only would I be standing up for the faith once delivered to the saints, but I would also be standing with my ecclesiastical heritage for most of its history until very recently. In the end, while it would be painful and give me no joy, I would probably conclude that it is the current version of my denomination that has broken away from both Scripture and its historic community and tradition, and is asking me to come along in this schism. As an evangelical who wants to be faithful to Scripture and my theological community and tradition (because I know I need both), I would have to decline this invitation, no matter how much they made their invitation sound like a vote in favor of unity. In the end, it's a vote for supporting their schismatic actions against the special revelation of Scripture and the historic church they descend from but have mostly abandoned.