Davenant Trust & First Things: Future of Protestantism

The Future of Protestantism

 28 Apr 2014   Posted by Steven Wedgeworth         

The Future of Protestantism: A Public Conversation will be hosted tomorrow night at Biola University in La Mirada, CA. Notice that it begins at 7pm Pacific Standard Time. A live webcast will also be available, and you should subscribe to it on the link at the right side of the webpage in order to stay updated. The Event is sponsored by The Davenant Trust, First Things, and Biola’s own Torrey Honors Institute.


We here at TCI are very excited about this event and, along with most of you, are eagerly awaiting that day when we will no longer have to see Peter Escalante’s visage as through a glass dimly. More seriously, the topic of discussion is of utmost importance. Dr. Fred Sanders gives some explanation of how it all came together here, saying:

This particular conversation has an online backstory. In November of last year, Peter Leithart used his regular column space at First Things to declare The End of Protestantism and provoke his readers to “envision a new way of being heirs of the Reformation, a new way that happens to conform to the original Catholic vision of the Reformers.” A minor social-media uproar ensued (at least among some of my friends, students, and alum). So here at Scriptorium Daily, I posted “Glad Protestantism,” an objection to at least the rhetorical strategy, and some of the substance, of Leithart’s post. Peter replied to my post (“Deploring What’s Deplorable“) by focusing helpfully on two questions:  1. Do anti-historical, know-nothing Protestants exist, and 2. what should be done about it? I was about to write another post (is there a word for a rejoinder to a surrejoinder? I hope not.), when Matthew Anderson intervened with the suggestion that it would be better and more fun to get together and talk things out in a public forum. Great idea: and Matt has been instrumental in pulling this together.

This is the immediate context, of course, but I think it’s safe to say that there’s an even larger context for this conversation. Dr. Leithart’s essay, “The End of Protestantism,” was not the first time he has expressed his views on these ideas. Indeed, the larger “Federal Vision” controversy/conversation is relevant here. Back in 2007, Dr. Leithart had this to say about the Federal Vision:

Broadly speaking, Christian theologians spent the twentieth century with ecclesiology, the ecumenical movement and Vatican II being the most visible results. “Federal Vision” theology is an effort to drag conservative Reformed theology, kicking and screaming, into the twentieth century. (That’s not a typo or mistake; I know it’s the twenty-first century.)

For the rest, see:
 http://calvinistinternational.com/2014/04/28/future-protestantism/

Peter Leithart v. Donald Philip Veitch

Mr. (Rev. Dr.) Peter Leithart expresses his views at: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/11/the-end-of-Protestantism.  The oddballish title is "The End of Protestantism."  I've already had one English Evangelical Pastor write and say that Peter doesn't know what he's talking about on the English ecclesiastical scene.  Ah, but Peter thinks he does. 

(1) What the heck is going on here with Mr. Leithart? It is by no means clear.

(2) What was his doctorate in? E.g. Knowing “more and more” about “less and less?” Or, knowing where he’s strong and staying “in that channel of that strength” rather than making more orbital and national comments "outside the channel?" In other words, the PhD in OT may not be qualified or widely read enough to deal with, say, 6th century church history, etc.   Or, the Ph.D. in church history may not have the bibliography in OT studies.  Or, a cardiologist may not be licensed to do dentistry? Or, a criminal lawyer may have no background in the laws of estate and living wills (beyond a law course in it and the basics for the licensure exams). Or, is Peter an omnibus Doctor? I just don’t know.

(3) Why, of course, Protestants have viewed themselves as “Catholics.” I’ve been confessing the Apostles and Nicene Creed for decades in Anglican services…the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.”   We realize we were condemned and anathematized until softer expressions arose at Vatican II although Trent remains in full force.  Weekly, this Prayer Book man has confessed faith in the one, true, holy and catholic church..." weekly, in fact. Or, in Reformed contexts, that solid little Catechism, the Heidelberger, assuredly confesses this. What world is Peter addressing? What's the agenda here?  Wider reading? We agree.  Wider engagement with patristics? No one would have it otherwise.  Appreciate the medieval period? Why of course.  But, so what.  While affirming those things, we remain Protestant, Reformed, Confessional, Catholic, fully Creedal and liturgical Churchmen.  So, what's the gig?

From my world, different from the Reformed and Lutheran Confessional worlds (in some parts but united on a good many others), we get a a good word from Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Henry Wace, Dean of Canterbury…a Protestant, Reformed, Catholic, and Anglican Churchman of the better sort.  Note his embrace of Catholic, Protestant and Reformed.  Peter, what say you to Dr. Wace below?

“But this assertion of the sole and paramount authority of Holy Scripture in controversies of faith is not merely of cardinal importance in the controversy; it indicates the whole character of the position which our Church assumes. It indicates, as I have said, that the Church of England is a Protestant Church. What is the meaning of that designation? The late Archbishop of Canterbury, in the remarkable legacy which he left us in his parting – we may almost say his dying – utterances in Ireland, declared that `people must very much mistake both the Church of Ireland and the Church of England if they imagine that everything wrapped up in the word Protestant is going to be overwhelmed.’ He had seen before him at Dublin the motto, that the Church of Ireland is at once `Apostolic, Catholic, Reformed, and Protestant.’ ‘There was not one of those words,’ he said, ‘that could be spared;’ and he added that, ‘if ever we began to doubt whether it was necessary to lay so much emphasis upon that last word, events which have been occurring in the last few weeks . . . . warn us that that word is not to be forgotten. No,’ he exclaimed emphatically, ‘it is not a word to be forgotten, but it is a word to be understood; a word which must not be used as a mere earthly, secular war cry.’ `It is a word to be understood.’ There is no truth which at the present moment we have more reason to take to heart. What is the meaning of the word `Protestant?’” Dr. Wace wrote this for a ladies’ group on the value of the Thirty-Nine Articles. http://churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/39A/iss_doctrine_39A_Wace.asp

(4) While we’ve had a troubled, terrible and grievous history, we’ve had good moments too. To wit, we’ve always understood ourselves as “Apostolic, Catholic, Reformed, and Protestant.” I can’t think of any professorial or academically-driven Reformed or Lutheran Churchmen who’d deny that either.
 
(5) Or, for example, this handy, little volume. Note the title, Mr. Leithart.  Also, he was an Evangelical Anglican and Principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford.  Thomas, W. H. Griffith. “The Catholic Faith: A Manual of Instruction for Members of the Church of England.” No location: Forgotten Books, 2012. http://www.amazon.com/The-Catholic-Faith-Instruction-Members/dp/B008FH3JNU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377136851&sr=8-1&keywords=W.H.+Griffith+Thomas+Catholic+Faith

(6) I realize you’re not Anglican, Mr. Leithart.  I also realize you're American.  Further, I realize you have few credentials in commenting on English ecclesiastical life other than your few years at Cambridge.  I realize you've had a checkered history in the PCA.  I realize you've worked in Mr. Wilson's Federal Visionista camp for years.  I realize the entire Presbyterian world has challenged your FVism.  Fair enough. But, who the heck, Peter, are you writing about and why? What's the game here?
 
(7) Or, Mr. (Bp.) John Jewel’s apology for the “Catholic Church” of England? Which he wrote before the Arminian and Caroline Captivity–and ruination–of the Church of England in the early 17th century.

(8) Or, “The Second Helvetic Confession” was a confession that Mr.(Canterbury) Matthew Parker endorsed; he wrote Heinrich Bullinger in 1566 that it expressed the beliefs “of all of us” (the episcopal bench). A lengthier document, Mr. Bullinger’s Decades was required for ordinands in the Church of England.   Dr. R. Scott Clark provided an outline of the Decades at:
 http://clark.wscal.edu/bullinger.php . The “Decades” is available at: http://www.amazon.com/The-Decades-Henry-Bullinger-Volumes/dp/1146886381/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380934921&sr=8-1&keywords=heinrich+bullinger+decades+volume+1 . The Second Helvetic Confession is at: http://www.ccel.org/creeds/helvetic.htm

(9) Peter says this in closing: “It’s time to turn the protest against Protestantism and to envision a new way of being heirs of the Reformation, a new way that happens to conform to the original Catholic vision of the Reformers.” What are you talking about? 

What is he talking about?

I already am an Apostolic, Catholic, Protestant, and Reformed Churchman.  With Dr. Wace, we'll keep the terms, thank you.

Something else is roiling here, but he is not clear on the agenda.