Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The End of Protestantism...?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The End of Protestantism...?

    Hi, everybody! I recently started reading Peter J. Leithart's new book The End of Protestantism: Pursuing Unity in a Fragmented Church. In it, he offers reflections on the need for the assorted Protestant confessions to be subsumed in a new "Reformational Catholicity," which is the church's future. I'd like to start a discussion here of the thoughts that Leithart is putting forward. (Naturally, our Roman Catholic and Orthodox friends will look somewhat askance at some of Leithart's proposals vis-a-vis their groups, for fairly traditional reasons. I'd like, if possible, for this discussion not to lapse into a rehash of that.) For those who don't have the book, Leithart has already sketched some of these ideas in some freely available articles:


    Is Leithart thinking rightly about the current state of the church?
    Is his vision for a future Reformational Catholic Church a good and healthy one?
    Is it a feasible hope?
    "The Jesus Christ who saves sinners is the same Christ who beckons his followers to serious use of their minds for serious explorations of the world." - Mark Noll

    "It cannot be that the people should grow in grace unless they give themselves to reading." - John Wesley

    "Wherever men are still theological, there is still some chance of their being logical." - G. K. Chesterton

  • #2
    []
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by JB DoulosChristou View Post
      Hi, everybody! I recently started reading Peter J. Leithart's new book The End of Protestantism: Pursuing Unity in a Fragmented Church. In it, he offers reflections on the need for the assorted Protestant confessions to be subsumed in a new "Reformational Catholicity," which is the church's future. I'd like to start a discussion here of the thoughts that Leithart is putting forward. (Naturally, our Roman Catholic and Orthodox friends will look somewhat askance at some of Leithart's proposals vis-a-vis their groups, for fairly traditional reasons. I'd like, if possible, for this discussion not to lapse into a rehash of that.) For those who don't have the book, Leithart has already sketched some of these ideas in some freely available articles:


      Is Leithart thinking rightly about the current state of the church?
      Is his vision for a future Reformational Catholic Church a good and healthy one?
      Is it a feasible hope?
      My cynical 2 cents...

      Many of the Protestant churches in America are rotting from the inside out. From ordaining open and active homosexuals to treating the Lord as an ATM card to blatant power-hungry independent leaders of blind cult-of-personality congregations, sin is the order of the day, not any desire to unify under Christ and the Word.
      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      - Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        My cynical 2 cents...

        Many of the Protestant churches in America are rotting from the inside out. From ordaining open and active homosexuals to treating the Lord as an ATM card to blatant power-hungry independent leaders of blind cult-of-personality congregations, sin is the order of the day, not any desire to unify under Christ and the Word.
        Sadly, there's all too much truth to that. In particular, I think the distancing of many mainline churches from the historic faith and its summons to holy living - that's perhaps one of the biggest two obstacles on the road toward a Reformational Catholicism. I know Leithart addresses it briefly toward the close of Chapter 11, so once I get there, I'll sum up what he has to say. I wish he'd discuss it in greater depth. In the meantime, we can focus on moving faithful fellowships toward Reformational Catholicity, perhaps. And I appreciate that Leithart isn't shy about saying that the path there will involve plenty of repentance.
        Last edited by JB DoulosChristou; 10-28-2016, 08:47 AM.
        "The Jesus Christ who saves sinners is the same Christ who beckons his followers to serious use of their minds for serious explorations of the world." - Mark Noll

        "It cannot be that the people should grow in grace unless they give themselves to reading." - John Wesley

        "Wherever men are still theological, there is still some chance of their being logical." - G. K. Chesterton

        Comment


        • #5
          What is a Catholic who doesn't submit to the authority of the pope?
          What is a Catholic who doesn't hold to the sacraments?
          What is a Catholic who doesn't believe that confession to a priest is necessary for forgiveness?

          It seems to me that the author is willing to throw essential/defining elements of Catholicism under the bus to extend an invitation to Protestants to be a part of what they already are, which is Protestants.
          Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by JB DoulosChristou View Post
            Sadly, there's all too much truth to that. In particular, I think the distancing of many mainline churches from the historic faith and its summons to holy living - that's perhaps one of the biggest two obstacles on the road toward a Reformational Catholicism.
            You mean that Catholics have a great deal to confess in order to make the trek to Reformational Catholicism?
            Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

            Comment


            • #7
              Some of my own thoughts:

              I think Leithart gets it exactly, uncontrovertibly right on one major score: The present contours of Christian division are not what God wants to see. Leithart is right, I think, to call the church not to be satisfied with a denominationalism that "allows us to be friendly to one another while refusing to join one another," that "allows us to be cordial while refusing to commune together at the Lord's table." (Leithart may overstate the impediments to intercommunion within at least the Protestant world.) What we need is a visibly united church.

              On the other hand, Leithart (in the book) may be a bit incautious when he speaks of the church as not being one - because we do confess that in the creed, in the present tense. In one of the two articles, he says it better by calling us to act as if we're one. In fairness, even in the book, he goes on to say that the church is "one now" in important ways - but Leithart also criticizes Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox attempts to minimize the seriousness of the current state of affairs; he calls this "cheap solace, which only makes us complacent in the face of disunity."

              Leithart is at his best when hammering home the importance of Christian unity, reviewing the legacy of unity and division in both Old and New Testaments. "God made humanity to be one," but a united humanity in faithfulness - hence his judgment against false union at Babel, for "Babel was a perversion of God's own intention for humanity." The true project is Abrahamic unity, which is glimpsed from afar in the prophetic books: "The nations will stream to Zion and worship the God of Israel, beating their swords to plowshares and their spears to pruning hooks. It will be impossible to distinguish the homeborn children from the adopted. Egypt and Babylon, Philistia, Tyre, and Ethiopia will be registered as if they were Zion's own children." And Jesus came to establish that promise: "Jesus died and rose to repair the breach in the human race, to gather the scattered, to form one new man. ... The reunion of humanity in Christ is the gospel, the revelation of the one God against his many rivals."

              Another bright point: Leithart's vision of what a Reformational Catholic Church would look like is, with maybe a few quibbles here and there, absolutely beautiful. This is the centerpiece of the third chapter. This "reformed, united church of the future" will draw on the full riches of Christian history as a united treasure, even the now-divergent confessions which will "cease to serve as wedges to pry one set of Christians from another." This Reformational Catholic Church will "subject all teaching and preaching, every theological formulation, to the judgment of the Bible, the whole Bible," and "Leviticus, Proverbs, and the Epistle of James will loom as large as the Epistles of Paul." He describes the worship of the Reformational Catholic Church as beginning with sin and absolution; saturated with scripture all the way through; consistently eucharistic every week; involving all the people; physical, spiritual, passionate, colorful, beautiful. And Leithart makes an excellent case that this was what the Reformers actually wanted - that they would be happy with an "end of Protestantism" where Protestantism achieves its original chief end.

              And, to Leithart's credit, he does not pretend that this vision is a utopian one. He acknowledges theological diversity and indeed says that "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. ... Some opinions and teachers will be judged a threat to the gospel itself, and impenitent teachers will be expelled from the church. It will get ugly."

              That said, when Leithart speaks of removing liturgical 'division,' and when he gets fairly specific on the polity under which any given congregation in a future Reformational Catholic Church is governed, or the way it practices the sacraments, I get a bit uneasy. Perhaps he'll clarify this later, but I'm concerned that his project would involve a reduction of healthy diversity, God-glorifying diversity, in the direction of undue homogeneity.

              One example: in his original article, he writes, "A Protestant wears a jacket and tie, or a Mickey Mouse t-shirt, to lead worship; a Reformational Catholic is vested in cassock and stole." That gives me pause: do we really need to say that a cassock and stole are the universal uniform of the clergy? Is uniformity on that point really essential to the worship of the Reformational Catholic Church?

              There are other examples, too. Granted, he does rightly talk about the Reformational Catholic Church drawing on "the whole tradition of church music - medieval chant, sung with energetic rhythm, as it was composed; Reformation hymns and metrical psalms; Wesleyan communion hymns; and contemporary hymns from the global South. The church's musical culture will draw its inspiration more from the tradition of church music than from the sounds of commercialized pop music." (There's some good and bad in that sentence already: on the one hand, yes to the musical contributions of multiple current traditions and ethnic backgrounds; but even some of what sounds similar to 'commercialized pop music' is part of that heritage and should be retained.) On the other hand, it's hard to see how all of this can be done in equal measure by every congregation on a consistent basis, without some naturally gravitating one way and others another way, more or less. And in one of his articles, he suggests that "non- or anti-liturgical Protestant churches should adopt liturgies that more closely resemble the Roman Mass or Lutheran and Anglican liturgies." Why must a journey toward a Reformational Catholic Church involve those particular templates, to the limiting of further exercises of liturgical creativity within the flow of the Christian tradition?

              So I do have some very minor misgivings about some elements so far of how Leithart discusses church, and somewhat larger misgivings about the potential for effectively reducing the celebratory creativity of the church (which is also one of the more serious objections I actually have toward Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy in their present state). That said, I don't think these need to be insuperable. I think there's plenty of promise here, and Leithart is certainly right that Jesus wants us to pursue something in this general direction.
              "The Jesus Christ who saves sinners is the same Christ who beckons his followers to serious use of their minds for serious explorations of the world." - Mark Noll

              "It cannot be that the people should grow in grace unless they give themselves to reading." - John Wesley

              "Wherever men are still theological, there is still some chance of their being logical." - G. K. Chesterton

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                What is a Catholic who doesn't submit to the authority of the pope?
                What is a Catholic who doesn't hold to the sacraments?
                What is a Catholic who doesn't believe that confession to a priest is necessary for forgiveness?

                It seems to me that the author is willing to throw essential/defining elements of Catholicism under the bus to extend an invitation to Protestants to be a part of what they already are, which is Protestants.
                Leithart's work is explicitly addressed to "theologically conservative evangelical Protestant churches"; he suspects that Roman Catholics may be less ready to really receive what he has to say. (And "Reformational Catholicism" and "Roman Catholicism" are different things.) But he isn't shy about saying that both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism must, in a measure, die to self, "because death in union with Jesus is the only path toward resurrection." Leithart does note in one of the articles that a Reformational Catholicism pursued from the Protestant end has a good chance of shaking hands with an Evangelical Catholicism (a la Weigel) pursued from the Roman Catholic end.
                "The Jesus Christ who saves sinners is the same Christ who beckons his followers to serious use of their minds for serious explorations of the world." - Mark Noll

                "It cannot be that the people should grow in grace unless they give themselves to reading." - John Wesley

                "Wherever men are still theological, there is still some chance of their being logical." - G. K. Chesterton

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JB DoulosChristou View Post
                  Leithart's work is explicitly addressed to "theologically conservative evangelical Protestant churches"; he suspects that Roman Catholics may be less ready to really receive what he has to say. (And "Reformational Catholicism" and "Roman Catholicism" are different things.) But he isn't shy about saying that both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism must, in a measure, die to self, "because death in union with Jesus is the only path toward resurrection." Leithart does note in one of the articles that a Reformational Catholicism pursued from the Protestant end has a good chance of shaking hands with an Evangelical Catholicism (a la Weigel) pursued from the Roman Catholic end.
                  That is agreeable to me and something I've seen in out in the wild - rare, but it does exist.
                  That said, I have to wonder what distinguishes a 'Reformational Catholic' from a 'Protestant'.
                  They sound like the same animal who has thrown off different sorts of evil to arrive at the same spot.
                  Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                    That is agreeable to me and something I've seen in out in the wild - rare, but it does exist.
                    That said, I have to wonder what distinguishes a 'Reformational Catholic' from a 'Protestant'.
                    They sound like the same animal who has thrown off different sorts of evil to arrive at the same spot.
                    Leithart spends most of his original "The End of Protestantism" article explaining where he sees the distinctions between Protestantism and Reformational Catholicism. In brief, Protestantism is defined over-and-against Roman Catholicism, whereas Reformational Catholicism isn't, and retains healthy aspects of Roman Catholicism that Protestantism has at times jettisoned or forgotten.
                    "The Jesus Christ who saves sinners is the same Christ who beckons his followers to serious use of their minds for serious explorations of the world." - Mark Noll

                    "It cannot be that the people should grow in grace unless they give themselves to reading." - John Wesley

                    "Wherever men are still theological, there is still some chance of their being logical." - G. K. Chesterton

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JB DoulosChristou View Post
                      So I do have some very minor misgivings about some elements so far of how Leithart discusses church, and somewhat larger misgivings about the potential for effectively reducing the celebratory creativity of the church (which is also one of the more serious objections I actually have toward Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy in their present state).
                      A couple quick points:

                      Celebratory creativity was gradually curtailed in the early church because it had a tendency to verge into heresy. And the very stability of the liturgy has ensured that, e.g., tyrannical regimes could not induce alterations. Even if no one can preach openly, the beliefs of the Orthodox Church are hard-wired into its cycle of worship. Anywhere I go, no matter the language, I can follow the liturgy well enough to follow what's going on, and can know what they believe.

                      That said, deviating from Byzantine court dress of 1,000 years ago wouldn't change the meaningful content of the service, and I've seen such minor variations as reading certain 'silent' prayers aloud be roundly condemned.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        A couple quick points:

                        Celebratory creativity was gradually curtailed in the early church because it had a tendency to verge into heresy. And the very stability of the liturgy has ensured that, e.g., tyrannical regimes could not induce alterations. Even if no one can preach openly, the beliefs of the Orthodox Church are hard-wired into its cycle of worship. Anywhere I go, no matter the language, I can follow the liturgy well enough to follow what's going on, and can know what they believe.

                        That said, deviating from Byzantine court dress of 1,000 years ago wouldn't change the meaningful content of the service, and I've seen such minor variations as reading certain 'silent' prayers aloud be roundly condemned.
                        Those are good points. Perhaps there is something to be said for at least significant uniform blocks in the liturgy - not so much as to avoid heresy (which, in a healthy unified church, wouldn't be so hard to exclude from worship even without a fixed liturgy), but to avoid the pressure of tyrannical governments and to lend for trans-linguistic worship.

                        I think the first is a more potent consideration than the latter. I have to say, even after familiarizing myself with the general contours of the Divine Liturgy of St. James, I've had experiences of complete and utter confoundedness in Orthodox churches in Athens (and even, to an extent, Mount Athos - but nothing was as bad as Athens). So I'm skeptical that a fixed liturgy is either a necessary or a sufficient means toward trans-linguistic worship - though some elements there could help.

                        That's good food for thought. I do think, though, that we have to find a path that allows us to achieve those goals without inherently privileging the creative work of earlier saints over the creative work of current saints, especially not to the exclusion of the latter.
                        "The Jesus Christ who saves sinners is the same Christ who beckons his followers to serious use of their minds for serious explorations of the world." - Mark Noll

                        "It cannot be that the people should grow in grace unless they give themselves to reading." - John Wesley

                        "Wherever men are still theological, there is still some chance of their being logical." - G. K. Chesterton

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by JB DoulosChristou View Post
                          Those are good points. Perhaps there is something to be said for at least significant uniform blocks in the liturgy - not so much as to avoid heresy (which, in a healthy unified church, wouldn't be so hard to exclude from worship even without a fixed liturgy), but to avoid the pressure of tyrannical governments and to lend for trans-linguistic worship.

                          I think the first is a more potent consideration than the latter.
                          Oh, I'd much rather worship in the vernacular I understand; it's not so much trans-linguistic worship I value so much as trans-linguistic unity.
                          I have to say, even after familiarizing myself with the general contours of the Divine Liturgy of St. James, I've had experiences of complete and utter confoundedness in Orthodox churches in Athens (and even, to an extent, Mount Athos - but nothing was as bad as Athens). So I'm skeptical that a fixed liturgy is either a necessary or a sufficient means toward trans-linguistic worship - though some elements there could help.
                          Well, the Divine Liturgy of St. James is not typical Orthodoxy (and some would argue that it is not Orthodox); I've never experienced it myself, though I'd be interested in doing so.
                          That's good food for thought. I do think, though, that we have to find a path that allows us to achieve those goals without inherently privileging the creative work of earlier saints over the creative work of current saints, especially not to the exclusion of the latter.
                          New work is still being created in Orthodoxy, even if it's within traditional categories. When a saint is canonized, a service is written to commemorate them, and there are quite a few services recently written for, e.g., pre-schism English saints. St. John of Kronstadt, from the 20th century, is widely commemorated. St. Nectarios of Aegina's Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride, also from the last century, is a quite popular hymn to the Theotokos.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            Oh, I'd much rather worship in the vernacular I understand; it's not so much trans-linguistic worship I value so much as trans-linguistic unity.
                            Well, right - I think we can all agree to that. But you are right that it certainly is valuable to know that there's unity, and be able to practically worship together, across linguistic barriers; and I'll agree that fixed liturgical elements are sometimes helpful in doing that, even if they may not be the only way to achieve it and even if they aren't always successful.

                            Originally posted by One Bag Pig View Post
                            Well, the Divine Liturgy of St. James is not typical Orthodoxy (and some would argue that it is not Orthodox); I've never experienced it myself, though I'd be interested in doing so.
                            Woops, that one's my bad; I meant to say "the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom."

                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            New work is still being created in Orthodoxy, even if it's within traditional categories. When a saint is canonized, a service is written to commemorate them, and there are quite a few services recently written for, e.g., pre-schism English saints. St. John of Kronstadt, from the 20th century, is widely commemorated. St. Nectarios of Aegina's Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride, also from the last century, is a quite popular hymn to the Theotokos.
                            Okay, fair point - it isn't as though literally nothing new is being written.

                            That said, it seems more restricted in form and style, and less innovative in theological expression (which is both a pro (as you were right to note re: the prospect of heterodox and indeed heretical output (even if initially inadvertent)) and a con), than one might have found in the apostolic era, or (sometimes) at the missionary frontier of church expansion in later eras, and than one might hope to find in a reunified church.
                            "The Jesus Christ who saves sinners is the same Christ who beckons his followers to serious use of their minds for serious explorations of the world." - Mark Noll

                            "It cannot be that the people should grow in grace unless they give themselves to reading." - John Wesley

                            "Wherever men are still theological, there is still some chance of their being logical." - G. K. Chesterton

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              This is going to sound harsh but I really don't mean it that way.

                              If you'd like to know why I wouldn't be interested in Reformational Catholicism it would be the preceding debate (polite as it may be) about the liturgy.
                              I've no problem with people using this tool or having a preference but clearly going without the liturgy of some sort is out of the question.

                              Whatever specific liturgy you settle upon it cannot be supported as authoritative or correct from Scripture.
                              Scripture doesn't ban having a preference or following certain forms which sets you free to pick one but the Scripture also frees me to deny them all.

                              If 'unity' is having the same preferences then it isn't going to happen.
                              If 'unity' is adoring Jesus Christ than all those interested in that sort of 'unity' already have it.
                              Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X