More Puddles in My Path

By Robin G. Jordan

One of my favorite sayings was collected by the seventeenth century Anglican priest and poet, George Herbert. It is “every path has its puddle.” My life has its share of puddles. Sometimes I pick my way around them. Other times I splash right through them. One grows philosophical about the puddles in one’s path. They are a part of life.

One puddle that appears now and then in my path is the questioning of my Anglican credentials and with them whether I am entitled to comment on things Anglican. It is sometimes inferred that I am not presently affiliated with any existing Anglican body in or outside of North America, and therefore I have no right to draw attention to the problems of the Anglican Church in North America or any other Anglican body. By the same logic, however, no one should draw attention to the problems of any group or organization of which they are not a part. For example, Americans and Europeans should not draw attention to the human rights violations of the Chinese government. They are not Chinese nationals.

It is also inferred that I am not truly Anglican. But I must ask, “When did compromising one’s beliefs and affiliating with a body that is not committed to the teaching of the Bible, the doctrine of the classic Anglican formularies, and the maintenance of the Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical character of historic Anglicanism become the mark of a genuine Anglican?”

When I recently shared my views on the rites that the ACNA Prayer Book and Common Liturgy Taskforce is preparing, on Soundings, the official blog of the Diocese of San Joaquin , I was accused of being biased, causing distractions, and making judgments beforehand. It was further alleged that the admission in the bio on my website that I am presently not affiliated with any existing Anglican body in or outside of North America is “telling.” No explanation of how it is telling was offered. When I submitted my response for moderation, it was not published. I was offered no explanation.

The response was not derogatory or offensive. I asked why not being presently affiliated with any existing Anglican body in or outside of North America is “telling.” I noted that such comments usually carry with them the inference that I have no right to draw attention to the problems of the ACNA or any other Anglican body. I pointed out where such logic led. I offered an explanation of why I am not presently affiliated with an existing Anglican body in North America similar to following explanation. I further pointed out if not being affiliated with any existing Anglican body in North America reveals anything, it is my own unwavering commitment to what I believe. (I would add that it also reveals the abysmal state of the North American Anglican Church.)

For those who wonder why I am presently not affiliated with an Anglican body in North America, I live in a region of Kentucky that has no Anglican church that is committed to the teaching of the Bible, the doctrine of the classic Anglican formularies, and the maintenance of the Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical character of historic Anglicanism. I sized up the Anglican churches in the region when I first moved here. The Episcopal Diocese of Kentucky is liberal and the five Episcopal churches in the region—one parish and four missions—are served by liberal pastors. The region has one Anglican Church in America (ACA) parish, which uses the American Missal. At the time of my last visit to the church, its congregation and its priest were considering converting to Roman Catholicism and joining the US ordinariate. While I might endeavor to start an Anglican church committed to the teaching of the Bible, the doctrine of the classic Anglican formularies, and the maintenance of the Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical character of historic Anglicanism, assuming that I was successful, it would have no North American Anglican body that shared this commitment, with which it might affiliate. Affiliation with the Anglican Church in North America would entail sacrifice of its commitment to the teaching of the Bible, the doctrine of the classic Anglican formularies, and the maintenance of the Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical character of historic Anglicanism. The ACNA does not offer the kind of environment in which such a church would flourish and grow, much less multiply itself. It would at best occupy a marginal space in the ACNA and would be at high risk of losing its identity. Affiliation with the ACNA would also involve compromising my own beliefs.

I am not going to speculate on the reason that the Soundings moderator declined to show me the courtesy of publishing my response. The withholding of my response does suggest to readers that I could not answer the accusation that the admission in the bio on my website that I am presently not affiliated an existing Anglican body is “telling.” It is misleading to readers and reflects poorly upon the Diocese of San Joaquin.

On Anglicans Ablaze I do not review comments before they are published. Readers are free to express their opinions provided that they do not use derogatory language or otherwise attack the character of those with whom they disagree. I do not allow anonymous posts. I also remove duplicate posts and spam as well as posts that I judge to be offensive. Occasionally my spam filter will block the publication of a legitimate comment and I correct the problem when it comes to my attention.