Our visit was spurred by the fact we had heard he too had asked questions about authority and truth very similar to ours. He told us of his own struggle with these questions even as he headed up the his side of the debate in the Anglican synod.
Here I borrow from a friend's account to add more detail to the meeting with Fr Fleming.
I arrived at John Fleming’s home just before [the other two]. John welcomed me by saying “It’s been a long time” ... We sat down, and Peter led off the discussion, asking about the doctrine of vocation, especially citing those who said that since we were in the Lutheran Church and called to the Lutheran Church, that is where God wanted us to be. John replied that he was told much the same thing, but that it doesn’t follow either logically or theologically. Otherwise he said, no one would ever come to faith (being called from unbelief to belief) or be called to the priesthood (since this also means leaving a vocation for another one).
When we raised the issue of our vows, I refered to my suspicions of what he said on the tape that because his call to Rome was the call the truth, then his vows were null and void. I asked if this was not like a man who comes to me saying that God is calling him to leave his wife and marry someone else. John answered that the analogy does not follow, because in the former case, God’s call was based on objective, demonstrable truth, and in the latter case the “call” was no more than an undemonstrable feeling. Fair enough.
Peter asked how would know that this is truly the calling of the Spirit. John replied that with people such as ourselves, logic and intellect would play a great part in that calling.
We talked about [a Lutheran professor's] assertion that the Catholic church was where the orthodox liturgy was celebrated. John concurred with this to a certain
extent, as long as it included a validly ordained priest as the celebrant of the liturgy. Ipso facto, a Roman priest.
As I was listening to John, I knew that what he was saying was right. I have to become a Roman Catholic. I will not be able to continue ad infinitum as a Lutheran with a good conscience. I do not think that I can--given what happened at Pastors’ Conference--and take the line of “in statu confessionis”.
His telling of the Anglican story came to life in the following days as the same sort of arguments and tactics were used on the floor of the Lutheran synod, and also in private conversations around the fringe of the debate.
Anyone with half a brain conceded that our questions were valid. But most dismissed them by saying “If you argue that way you’ll never know anything at all.” Some people insisted that there was no such thing as absolute truth and thus thought we should ‘make’ the truth that suited us best. Most, however, were still convinced that their own opinion was the truth because it was ‘clearly’ evident in Scripture.
Synod came and went, the arguments got even less convincing on both sides of the debate, early attempts at rushed exegesis were ignored by the general assembly and with each new person at the microphone there was less Scripture and more resorting to common political gimmicks to convince people to vote their own way.
I left that synod not caring so much about the issue of women’s ordination, but wondering on what grounds I could teach the truth, absolve, preach, and consecrate in my own parish.
Because, if I could not be certain about the doctrine of ordination of men only, how could I be certain about ANY doctrine I was teaching? Beyond my own conviction, I had no guarantee of anything.
Next: A Letter to a Friend
No comments:
Post a Comment