LEITHART, Peter J. The End of Protestantism: Pursuing Unity in a Fragmented Church. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2016. pp. 225. $21.99 (Hardback). ISBN: 978-1-58743-377-1.
As of 2003,[1] there are roughly one thousand distinct Christian denominations in the United States. It was the prayer of Jesus that his children will join together as “one” as God is one (John 17:21). What’s wrong with this picture?
Peter Leithart’s The End of Protestantism takes aim squarely at evangelical Protestant (and largely American) denominationalism as a troubling obstacle in the way of the public unity of the church that God seeks for his people. Denominations, Leithart argues, are the adverse of union, the “institutionalization of division.” While he acknowledges that divisions are an inevitable aspect of church experience, he contends that “denominationalism allows us to be friendly to one another while refusing to join one another” (3). The principal concern for Leithart is that beyond the basic confessional traditions, the Protestant churches have gone beyond these core affirmations with their own “doctrinal formulations [that] function as shibboleths to expose and exclude those who mispronounce” (172).
In some sense, Leithart should have called this book, “The Death of Protestantism,” given how many times he calls for the death of this divided manner of church (e.g., 6, 36, 38, 165, 191). Leithart makes this ‘death-wish’ plain, if uncomfortable:
“I dearly hope that the Protestant tribalism of American denominationalism dies. I will do all in my power to kill it, not least in myself. I long to see churches that neglect the Eucharist blasted from the earth. I hope to see fragmented Protestantism, anti-liturgical and anti-sacramental Protestantism, thinly biblical Protestantism … slip into the grave…. Insofar as these are the things that make Protestants Protestant, I am hoping for the death of Protestantism” (191).
In another sense, however, Leithart’s title is appropriate, tapping into a double-meaning of “the end of Protestantism.” End can mean “demise,” but “end” can also refer to the intended goal; in this sense, the “end of Protestantism,” was not the fractured divisiveness we see today, but rather beginning with the Reformers, it hoped for an eventual reunion of Protestant and Catholic under one united church (however difficult to imagine, however painful to re-establish).
In what follows, I will attempt to organize the material in his book thematically rather than chapter-by-chapter with the hopes that such a presentation serves the reader in capturing Leithart’s vision more succinctly. I will conclude with some modest evaluation.
Reformational Catholicism
Leithart’s distinct ecumenical appeal is to “his own tribe,” which he defines as “conservative, Protestant evangelicals” (5, 172). His hope is that his comments ‘in-house’ will prove instructive and generative for other believing churches elsewhere. For this reason, he calls his vision an “interim ecclesiology” which prayerfully envisages the groundwork for more sustained and visible unity in the future throughout the churches everywhere. What Leithart hopes to accomplish among Protestantism is what he calls a “Reformational Catholicism,” a vision he believes is inspired by the catholic vision of the earliest Reformers. To be clear, Leithart’s vision of a united Church will ultimately sweep in a wide reunion of East-West as well as Catholic and Protestant. He decidedly does not, however, merely expect Protestants to simply become Catholic or Orthodox (Leithart seeks to preserve the core of Reformation distinctives for the church). Nevertheless his goal is that all the churches (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant — and whatever confessing church in between) would be purged each in their unique way and would learn from the other in a momentum of mutual exchange, reception, and learning — a daunting task indeed.
What does it Look Like?
What does a truly united church look like? Leithart deserves credit for not shying away from particulars, even matters of preference. His is a practical vision of a united church that will be sure to excite many and infuriate many more. For Leithart, the future reunited church will bear no denominations, but will unite together in faith, sacrament, and mission. “Everyone will accept the whole of the tradition” (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant). They will retain the great confessions of the Reformation, of Trent, and the Catholic Catechism, and former factions will study and learn from the other in mutual exchange. He may have already lost some readers here, but there is indeed more. Pastors and theologians will “not hold to absolutely uniform beliefs” (29), but will “follow Scripture wherever it leads.” Church discipline will be effective in its clarity since expulsion will actually be regarded as “expulsion from the church“ and starting a new church will be regarded as an act of “schism.” It will have a “liturgical structure,” but will also bear a “Pentecostal energy.” As for music, the Psalms will dominate the repertoire together with Hymns and prayers. Music will be accompanied by strings, horns, and drums, drawing more from the tradition of church music rather than commercialized pop music.” He’s even considered clothing: “everyone will have a white robe hanging on a rack at the church … with extra robes for visitors,” pointing to the heavenly vocation of the church’s future. As for leadership, “each congregation will function as an assembly of a single church,” and all leaders will recognize the ordination and authority of the others. Instead of “competing for membership,” churches will coordinate to provide the best pastoral care for as many people as possible. Churches will join forces with community and civil leaders and local law enforcement in concerted efforts to maximize care for the poor and the homeless. Churches will serve as centers for the needy and places of safety and healing.
Ethiopian Christians in white robes
Leithart is not naïve to the realities and obstacles that await such a path. Repeatedly where he discusses the features of a united church (chs. 3 and 12), he warns that “it will get ugly.” Warns Leithart,
“Fights will break out. There will be more theological battles in the reunited church than there are today, because in a reunited church believers will be reluctant to relieve pressure by breaking from the church and because Christians of different views will have to learn to live together, dwelling in each other as the Son dwells in the Father” (29).
The reunited churches in the future, imagines Leithart, “will have made enough enemies to make imprecatory psalms meaningful” (32). Churches are not merely divided over the sacraments, over authority, or justification by faith. They are divided on women leaders, on gay marriage, on universalism. If churches come together in unity despite these differences, people will be left out, and things will likely get ugly indeed.
How Do We Get There?
Leithart is less particular in articulating how the churches actually achieve unity (ch. 12). He appeals first to theologians to follow a way of humility in keeping doctrinal integrity while seeking to overcome doctrinal division. He pleads that “if we are one body, Catholicism’s errors are errors within the church of which we too are members.” Pastors are vital to his roadmap insofar as they can bring churches together at the local and metropolitan level. Pastors must foster relationships with pastors from other denominations. Christians and laypersons everywhere are called to pray (a point he does not make pro forma but believes is essential to any movement toward unity).
Leithart’s distinct contribution to the ecumenical dialogue is his insight from Scripture and history of a pattern of God’s creation of new communities out of the “shattered” remains of what has gone before. “Ecclesial maps have changed in the past. They will change again” (5). In Scripture, the pattern is clearly defined for Leithart: From the new community after the Flood, to the new people out of Babel, to the worship of the wandering Tabernacle, to the worship around the Temple, to the reunion of north and south after the exile, God has constantly created anew his people out of the rubble of the older pattern. The temple of the Old Testament gives way to a new and living holy temple of living stones, both Jew and Gentile. The pattern does not stop with Scripture. From Constantine, to the Schism, to the rise of the Catholic church, to the Reformation, God is ever at work among the church in re-creating new communities.
The End of Protestantism is shot through with anecdotes, compelling stats, and figures — all pointing to what God is up to in the world (e.g., the surge of Pentecostalism and non-Denominationalism, or the generosity of recent Catholic ecumenical overtures). Such phenomena in the world, he believes, points to a remapping of the church before our very eyes. Space will not permit going through many of these examples in any detail (primarily in chs. 9-11). Two primary examples emerge as particularly significant for Leithart. The first is the United Church of South India, who has taken the historical step of uniting Presbyterians, Methodists, and Anglicans together in one united church, bridging both episcopal and non-episcopal churches in an unprecedented manner. The movement in India is not perfect, but it provides hope that similar overtures can be accomplished elsewhere. The second model that figures importantly for Leithart is a “receptive ecumenism” proposed by Paul Murray. Receptive ecumenism involves inter-church hospitality, welcome, listening and an ecumenism of gift exchange.
In one of Leithart’s great moments in the book (167), he claims that receptive ecumenism is rooted in the idea that each church stands sorely in need of the other; each church is lacking critically in something the others have. Therefore, no single church (Presbyterian, Mennonite, Methodist, etc.) can be said to be self-subsistent. Each church, as Leithart artfully states, is a Laodicea all its own — blind and in need.
Assessment: Preserving vs Pursuing Unity
Central to Leithart’s vision for unity is Jesus’ high priestly prayer that God’s people be one as God is one. The subtitle of Leithart’s book is “Pursuing Unity in a Fragmented Age,” and much is repeatedly made of this pursuit of unity among the churches. Significantly less attention, however, is paid throughout the book on the “unity” that is already present by virtue of a Christian’s baptism into “one Lord” and “one Spirit” (1 Cor 12:12-13). Leithart, of course, is aware of this. He acknowledges that “the church’s unity is a fact, rooted in Christ himself.” However, he presses that “the unity of the church is not an invisible reality that renders visible things irrelevant. It is a future reality that gives present actions their orientation and meaning” (18-19). Leithart, thus urges that the church practice in the present what it will be in the future. But to assert that the church’s unity is mainly “a future reality,” already minimizes the truth that is presently real concerning God’s church as a result of the shared fellowship of the Holy Spirit. The Apostle Paul was indeed deeply troubled with church divisions, but not because they must change course and now “become one.” The unity of the one body has always ever been the basis for the appeal. This is why Paul urges Christians to “maintain the unity of the Spirit of the bond of peace,” rather than to “pursue” such unity (Eph 4:3). It is why Paul appears more concerned with the local unity of the churches in Ephesus, or the church in Corinth as such rather than how the Ephesian and Corinthian and Philippian churches can also come together in unity and shared table fellowship.
This leads me to my most pressing concern with Leithart’s overarching vision. I wonder whether “unity” on such a far-reaching scale bears more weight than it is able to sustain in Leithart’s biblical program. Indeed, unity was a central aspect of Jesus’ high priestly prayer, but it was not the only thing Jesus prayed for (lest we neglect the church’s sanctification, their mission into the world, the response of faith for the believers in the world, and the glory of God in all the world). Could Leithart be making more of unity than is necessary for the “church to be the church” in the world and for the world? Must Leithart’s fully-orbed reunion be the “end” in itself that we ought to strive for?
I humbly propose that we might retain the best of Leithart’s vision but frame it more helpfully under the umbrella of proclamation and witness, rather than unity. I myself have found that the greatest hindrance of church denominations is her entrenchment of separating God’s people into like-minded and like-skinned believers. Denominations tend to breed homogenous enclaves of people like themselves. The gospel’s ability to embody God’s reconciling love in Christ is hamstrung when her churches fail to exhibit the very type of reconciliation among weak/strong, Jew/Gentile, or slave/free that the Bible clearly upholds. Unity in the form of bridging denominations, unity in broad confessional agreement, reconciliation even in Protestant/Catholic (or Catholic/Orthodox) circles holds true promise for forming waves of change wherever God’s spirit is moving within his people. But expressed this way, unity is not the end itself. Unity, insofar as it can be achieved, serves the greater and potentially more exciting end of making him known. Would this not fit better the Scripture’s vision for the church? Should we pursue not simply a hard-fought unity for its own sake, but a visible assembly of reconciled sinners, who are now serving as reconciling ambassadors, standing together as a pillar of truth for a world in need of God’s love?
In Praise of His Vision
None of the above remarks should detract from the importance of The End of Protestantism. This book deserves a very wide reading among pastors, laypersons, and professors — not because his ecumenical project promises to convince a critical mass of readers (it may not). Rather Leithart’s call promises to spark many conversations toward a movement whose momentum has already been picking up speed in the churches of the world. This book can spur churches to re-imagine their task and their place among other churches in her area. Momentum is on the side of a more effective public witness, an increased solidarity, and a meaningful reconciliation within the various churches of God in and for the people of this world.
Christianity Today editor, Mark Galli, calls this “a book on church unity that could actually make a difference.” He is right. Peter Leithart is right that we ought to be deeply disturbed by the “friendly” but divisive denominationalism that characterizes much of the church. He is right that the “religious right” movement often aligned with a form of denominationalism is barren and that God is up to something new around the world. He is certainly right about the tendency of denominations to create and entrench ethnic segregation. He is right in his hunch that “immigrant” churches bear the promising position to lead the way out of American denominational tribalism and towards a truly integrated (though hard fought) unity in reconciliation, ethnic inclusiveness, and ministry to the needful among the church’s sphere of influence. He is especially right that the Bible is most at home in a contentious social arena where differences in race, culture, class, and gender find reconciliation in one body through the Holy Spirit. Such unity within the sphere of such radical conflict was indeed the birthplace of the church. It must be the space the church occupies today if it is to recapture the full scope and force of the Biblical teaching of reconciliation, unity, and love for neighbor.
[1] According to the American Enclyopedia of American Religion, 2003.
<KS>
1 Comment
Leave your reply.