Orthodox Anglicanism

Review: The Future of Orthodox Anglicanism

Brian K. Miller on May 18, 2020
The Future of Orthodox Anglicanism, edited by Gerald R. McDermott. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2020. 280 pages.

In The Future of Orthodox Anglicanism, Gerald McDermott has collected a series of essays from Anglican leaders around the globe. The contributions range from enlightening accounts of Anglicanism’s history and influence in far away places, to encouraging glimpses of how Anglicanism could help our peculiarly 21st century problems, to discouraging glimpses of how Anglicanism could disappear entirely, with more of a whimper than a bang.

McDermott’s own chapter on “Ancient-Future Anglicanism” is one of the best in the volume. It succeeds so well because McDermott identifies where and how Anglicanism may offer help in dealing with the unique struggles of our modern world—a place where being merely evangelical is not enough. The only path forward for Anglicanism’s relevance is by doubling down on our distinctives and offering an alternative to the evangelicalism that has defined the mainstream American religious experience. An alternative that takes English reformer Richard Hooker to heart when he reminds us that Christianity isn’t a do-it-yourself project, but rather that “if we have the custom of the people of God or a decree from our forefathers, this is a law that must be kept.”

McDermott warns about what will happen if Anglicanism undervalues its distinctives. “Anglicanism without the beauty and power of its liturgy and sacraments will become just another Evangelical alternative,” he writes. “It might continue to use the ‘Anglican’ moniker, but it will be indistinguishable from many nondenominational networks that are denominations by another name.”

McDermott’s point should be relatively uncontroversial, but a few of the other contributors embrace a minimalist approach that leaves us wondering if that is the case. The Rev. John W. Yates III expresses concern about ex-evangelicals turning to Anglicanism and becoming too invested in Anglicanism’s traditions and ceremonies, warning that we should instead focus on the essentials of “salvation by grace alone through faith alone.” The Very Rev. Andrew C. Pearson rightly suggests Anglicanism should focus on missions, but also warns against focusing on our distinctives. The Rev. Gerald Bray confusingly argues that there was never anything distinctive about Anglicanism at all, but that the Oxford Movement ruined whatever it was that Anglicanism was not. Bray’s commitment to Anglican un-distinction is so steadfast that he even suggests our theology of baptism is a “thing indifferent” that we should be prepared to leave aside.

These contributions leave the casual observer scratching his head. It’s somewhat baffling that anyone can observe the current state of North American Protestantism and conclude that we are suffering from an unhealthy commitment to distinction and tradition—or argue that our current ailments can be laid at the feet of a few 19th century priests who saw themselves as combating a vacuous liberalism in their day. (If you must have a sweeping “where-it-all-went-wrong” explanation for modern Anglicanism’s fractured state, there are so many more obvious candidates that don’t require bashing your co-religionists with only the thinnest historical evidence.) As a layman, I also can’t quite understand why some Anglican clergy seem to think their job is to persuade me that Anglican distinctives are unimportant, rather than encouraging me to be the best Anglican I can be. Someone who took Gerald McDermott’s proactive approach and set out to explain the theology of sexuality in the Prayer Book’s Marriage Rite, or the rhythms built by regular use of the daily offices, or Anglicanism’s unique views on political theology or revivalism would have had something helpful to offer. But aversions to distinctives leave us with generic calls to “return to scripture,” which are doubtlessly well-meaning but not especially useful.

It’s almost a cliché to say that Anglicanism’s future is in the Global South, but the contributions to this volume only affirm that even more. The chapters by the Bishop of Egypt and the Archbishop of Kenya are some of the most hopeful entries in the book. Both contain a wealth of history about their respective churches, providing concrete examples of how the Anglican past is reaping fruit in the present and is poised to influence the future. Bishop Anis’s history of the church in the Middle East—specifically the rich history of cooperation with the Coptic Church—leaves us hopeful that the Anglican churches in that region may one day offer a meaningful ecumenical example for the rest of us.

Hope often comes over us with a feeling that is more melancholy than we expect. This is probably because, unlike mere optimism, hope is a virtue and requires something of us beyond a good disposition. I felt something of this melancholy hopefulness while reading the chapters on Anglicanism in Africa and the Near East. Melancholy because there is a good chance that Anglicanism in the Global North is in its twilight. Hopeful because I know I am part of a tradition that spent centuries quietly ministering to the faithful and spreading missions around the world. Those missions are now bearing more fruit than anyone could have imagined, and are largely untainted by our democratic minimalism and progressive error. So to adapt a phrase from Winston Churchill, we now have only to wait in hope, “until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

_________________________________________

Brian K. Miller is an Attorney who lives in Washington, D.C. His writings have appeared in Forbes, Public Discourse, Providence, The University Bookman, Quillette, and National Review.

  1. Comment by Alex Wilgus on May 18, 2020 at 4:49 pm

    Strange that Barbara Gauthier’s essay doesn’t merit a mention. Especially since it defines Anglican distinctives *as* those universals that the broader church ought to aspire to.

  2. Comment by Theodore Edwards on May 26, 2020 at 3:47 pm

    At my Episcopal seminary in the 1970s when Prayer Book revision was happening, one of our great leaders made the point that the contemporary idiom of Rite II with Anglican distinctives removed could become the liturgical rallying point for a variety of faith groups oriented toward eucharistic worship; yes, these groups could coalesce around the Episcopal Church. That never happened. Instead we have a bare-bones skeletal liturgy that endures in a dated way.

    I put back the distinctives: Prayer of Humble Access, Comfortable Words, and Summary of the Law to make Rite II distinctively Anglican again. The people appreciated it.

    And with the Covid-19 matter and now common online worship services, we are seeing a return and even renewal of Morning Prayer.

    There is no future in being plain vanilla — let the Episcopal Church be distinctive again!

  3. Comment by Jeffrey Walton on May 26, 2020 at 4:11 pm

    Good point, Theodore. I very much appreciate the Prayer of Humble Access in our services. Some clergy aren’t wild about it because it usually follows the confession of sin and absolution (they see it as redundant) but Cranmer’s words are helpful as we prepare ourselves to enter a posture of receiving the Eucharist.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.