“I think,” [Bishop Robert] Duncan says, “the 21st century will be for the archbishop of Canterbury what the 20th century was for the royal family.” That is, an era of diminution.
Because Protestantism has no structure of authority comparable to the Vatican and because it does not merely tolerate but enjoins individual judgments by “the priesthood of all believers” concerning beliefs and obligations, all Protestants are potential Luthers. Hence it is evidence of spiritual vigor that Episcopalians in Quincy, Ill., and Fort Worth will vote on disassociation from the U.S. communion on Nov. 7 and Nov. 14, respectively.
The Episcopal Church once was America’s upper crust at prayer. Today it is “progressive” politics cloaked — very thinly — in piety. Episcopalians’ discontents tell a cautionary tale for political as well as religious associations. As the church’s doctrines have become more elastic, the church has contracted. It celebrates an “inclusiveness” that includes fewer and fewer members.
But we know that all is well in TEC. There are signs of new life everywhere. We are including more and more members who are not comfortable in other churches. Signed, KJS
This seems like a rather forlorn lament by George Will, lacking his usual vim and vigor, but ending with his usual wry sense of humor. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the last I knew George Will was still an Episcopalian, albeit sort of a dinosaur, a conservative Republican one.
I love the ironic touch at the end. Isn’t it strange how a church that boasts of being so inclusive just keeps shrinking and including fewer and fewer people?
David Handy+
This syndicated piece has been picked up by lots of newspapers. More terrible PR for the TEO. Just wait till they start with the lawsuits in earnest. “The Episcopal Church [strike]Welcomes[/strike] Sues You.”
I believe that Will once was Catholic; but within the past year, he has termed himself agnostic.
#4 If that is true, I’m sure TEC helped him along.
I was interviewed by phone once by Will, and we spoke for an hour or so. He is very bright and affable, but I agree with #4. I had assumed some minimal Christian faith and was surprised when he allowed toward the end that he had no real interest in the church or faith; he was writing a story on cultural religious life in America (I was in the UK at that time). One gets something of the confirmation of that in this piece. Conservatives like Duncan are for him 1 in a million individualistic Luthers. Heirs of Jeffersonian deism, etc. Luther merged with american consumerism and ‘under my own vine and fig tree’ religion. Harold Bloom did a similar expose of certain forms of fundamentalism, which he likened to gnostic individualistic sects. This strand in the american consciousness has also of course been evaluated by sympathetic Christians, like Mark Noll.
“‘Progressive’ politics cloaked—very thinly—in piety”
Well put.
Without Jesus, I guess that’s close to agnosticism.
[blockquote]Because Protestantism has no structure of authority comparable to the Vatican and because it does not merely tolerate but enjoins individual judgments by “the priesthood of all believers” concerning beliefs and obligations, all Protestants are potential Luthers.[/blockquote]
I agree with this statement but not the assessment that the breech in this denomination is evidence of spiritual vigor. It is the Achilles Heel of the Reformation and with thousands and thousands of Protestant denominations, destroys unity in Christ.
I’m grateful to those who clarified that George Will is a self-professed agnostic. That just makes him a typical journalist in that sense (sadly, it seems that serious Christians are under-represented in print, broadcast, and web-based journalism, whick appears to be one of the most secularized of occupations).
As for the controversial issue raised by Will and highlighted by Dr. Seitz (#7) and Nikolaus (#10), i.e., whether Protestantism is inherently undermined or energized by its anarchical tendencies, since every Protestant believer is “a potential Luther,” I have found the thorough discussion of that complicated issue by evangelical Anglican theologian Alister McGrath very stimulating in his recent book “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea.” Suffice to say for now that I would agree with McGrath that this characteristic Protestant stress on each individual Protestant believer’s “right” and even “duty” to interpret the Bible for himself is simultaneously both Protestantism’s greatest strength and its greatest weakness. It is indeed a very dangerous idea, but also a very fruitful one too.
The “right” of private judgment provides for endless flexibility, adaptability to new cultural contexts, and creativity (on the positive side). But it does also seriously undermine the unity and discipline of the Church, as the ever-fragmenting history of Protestantism shows all too well.
How to adjudicate the conflicting pro’s and con’s of that essential feature of Protestantism may say more about the observer/analyst than about Protestantism itself. But personally, I’m highly sympathetic to Nikolaus here.
But if +Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted is another Martin Luther type figure (and I do think he is), then what shall we say of his earnest opponents who so ardently (and mistakenly) assert that the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing and overturning the old biblical condemnations of homosexual behavior in our day? Well, I think the answer is found in Luther’s sharp and relentless polemic against his critics on the radical left wing of the Reformation (Carlstadt and Thomas Munster there in Wittemberg, or early Anabaptists etc.):
The Spirit can’t be separated from the Word of God and set in opposition to it.
Luther castigated them as “Schwermerei” or fanatical dreamers, mocking them for imagining (in Luther’s vivid image) that they had swallowed the dove of the Spirit, feathers and all. They returned the favor by strongly attacking the great reformer for not being consistent and following his principles to their logical conclusion (unfettered freedom in biblical interpretation).
This great crisis in Anglicanism is indeed revealing that our lack of a working magisterium is a devastating weakness. Whether it will prove to be a fatal flaw still remains to be seen. I choose to see it as an opportunity to recover more of our patristic inheritance, and to develop a new, workable magisterium that can replace our defunct one (i.e., the English monarchy, which hasn’t acted as the Supreme Governor of the C of E since the bloodless revolution of 1689 with William and Mary).
David Handy+
[blockquote] The “right†of private judgment provides for endless flexibility, adaptability to new cultural contexts, and creativity (on the positive side). But it does also seriously undermine the unity and discipline of the Church, as the ever-fragmenting history of Protestantism shows all too well. [/blockquote]
[blockquote] This great crisis in Anglicanism is indeed revealing that our lack of a working magisterium is a devastating weakness. [/blockquote]
These are essential points in understanding what we are going through. I’ve appreciated your comments, David Handy.
You’re welcome, Laura. I’m glad if my remarks were helpful to someone.
But the whole question of the limits or constraints on valid biblical interpretation within the Protestant (and Anglican) world is a very big, complex, and difficult one. And it’s highly contested, as you probably know, Laura, or can easily imagine. I’d love to see that fundamental theological issue vigorously debated here.
David Handy+
Not sure why I should think Will has anything interesting to add in the area. If it were simply politics, then why wouldn’t Will himself be in an conservative evangelical church of some sort? And there are still conservative Episcopal churches.
Mainline protestantism is struggling because the institutions command no loyalty. We are franchises, not denominations. Megachurches work because they know that religion requires good business practices….
A curious fact that probably led to the writing of the article is that Will and Duncan are both graduates of Trinity College in Connecticut, a college founded by but now only loosely affiliated with the Episcopal Church.
RE: “Not sure why I should think Will has anything interesting to add in the area.”
I’m not certain why you would either — Will is, as you say, a conservative and doesn’t share the values and goals that you do.
That being said, the only thing I would worry about if I were on your side of the debate in TEC is that it’s an article that is so clearly and devastatingly written about the state of TEC [whether you agree with that or not] that it’s very bad publicity.
If I were a progressive leader in TEC — say working at 815 — I’d be concerned, and I’d be desperately trying to do something about it, since every article like this in a publication with plenty of readers by a well-known columnist lowers my cred and the prestige of the institution.
But then — they have been desperately trying to do something in the communications area, with some new blogs and various shifts in leadership. To no avail, as their communications department[s]are a transparent shambles, something which even progressives have bemoaned.