There are books for me that earn the distinction of having messed with my imagination. I recently finished reading Peter Leithart's book The End of Protestantism: Pursuing Unity in a Fragmented Church, and even in the midst of reading it I knew he was messing me up in so many good ways. This is my first Leithart read, but I'm already deep into my second. I got tired of seeing him in the footnotes of some of my favorite writers and so decided to take him on myself. I highly recommend this one for pastors and those who care deeply about the future of the church globally.
The book begins with a Biblical call to unity in the church and a deep confession and recognition that our current state of division is not what Jesus prayed for and desired - nor is it what the world needs in order to be able to see that a new creation is breaking in. The second section is an amazing exploration on the rise of denominationalism since the Reformation. Although Leithart acknowledges some of the very good things that have happened due to the explosion of denominations, he offers a remarkably insightful critique of not only the inherent flaws of a global Church divided by denominations, but also of the unique American varieties of denominations and non-denominational movements. (His critique of the American church is worth the price of the book). In the last third of the book Leithart not only imagines what a globally unified church might look like, but he also points to current moments of upheaval and change as signs that perhaps God is working to bring about the unity Christ prayed for and toward which the Spirit is moving. For Leithart, what may seem like a tearing down and an up-rooting may be the beginnings of God's new planting of unity.
There is so much in The End of Protestantism that is worthing pondering and debating. But here are three thoughts or reflections that I have had since finishing the book that I can't quite get away from.
First, reading the book made me realize that I have very little imagination for unity. At one point Leithart writes, "Paul expected - demanded - that the church's unity be visible in table fellowship, in loyalties and allegiances, in the names Christians adopt for themselves. The unity of the church is not an invisible reality that renders visible things irrelevant. It is future reality that gives present actions their orientation and meaning. Things are what they are as anticipations of what they will be" (p. 19). I have said similar things in sermons about Paul. The great apostle could not imagine starting a church for Gentiles and another for Jews. For those two divided groups to find unity in the Spirit was, for Paul, a sign that the new creation was breaking in.
I preach those things... but in reading the book I realized I don't really have an imagination for ecclesiological unity. I confess that I have settled for trying to be a leader in a small fragment of the Body of Christ, but I have very little imagination for actual Christian unity. The unity of the Church is clearly part of the immeasurably more than I currently have the ability to hope or imagine.
Second, Leithart's exposition of the American church exposes that what is best about the American church is also killing it. Leithart argues that the two things that make the American church unique are its commitment to civil religion and its connection to the market. Again, the chapter on the American church is SO GOOD. I have said so much and have gotten in so much trouble for wanting the American church to separate itself from its history of nationalistic idolatry that I'm going to leave it alone here.
However, Leithart argues that part of what has made the American church "great" (or at least more alive than the European church) is the way it has been shaped by a market economy. For Leithart, the European church slowly separated itself from the older state church monopolies. In America, however, the church - following a market economy - kept innovating and offering itself in new and ever more "relevant" forms to possible constituents (or customers). On the one hand, this was great because it kept the church flowing with new energy and ideas. But on the other hand, it formed people into the very thing it was offering. People ceased to become worshippers and members and rather became consumers of faith and the customers of an ever more innovative church. As I often say, the church ceased to become something we are and became a place people go (to shop for the goods of Jesus). Here are a couple of my favorite quotes:
American denominationalism was not the end point of a long process of de-monopolization, as it has been in Europe. It is the original condition of American Christianity... In a pluralist situation religion becomes a shopping mall, and when religious consumers realize they are making choices, they also realize that their choices might have been different. Religion becomes relative rather than absolute, subjective rather than objectively given. Religion weakens. Tolerance increases. Zeal cools (p. 65).
Recent studies of American religion have emphasized its consumerist character: Americans shop for churches. Again, that is not a flaw but a design feature of American Christianity. It dissolves the norms of doctrine and practice, transforming them from norms into consumer options. Our divisions come to seem "normal," the "natural expression of a Christian marketplace with churches representing different options for a variety of spiritual tastes." A marketplace ideology thus "can anesthetize us to the wound of division." And it seduces us into thinking of the church, or our particular brand of church, as a consumer choice (p. 79).
There is so much here to think about. If Leithart is correct, what has made the American church "great" is the imprint of the market (and its placating American individualism). But that is also what has turned pastors into managers and worshippers into consumers. Our people leave for the new and exciting because that is what we have formed them to do. That's how we "got" them in the first place. This is the American church's version of Frankenstein's monster.
Finally, I am struck by the conviction that God may be tearing down and destroying so that he can replant and build up something new. I was reading a blog from another pastor a few weeks ago decrying the declining stats of the North American church (in this case the Church of the Nazarene). The focus was thoughtful, but it was also a typical American response to the problem. The Nazarene Church in North America is declining because we have failed to keep up with change. We have not been innovative. We have not dared to be creative. We have failed to pay attention to the needs (more likely wants) of the coming generations...
I don't doubt that at some level all of that is true. But I will admit to being exhausted of trying to throw only technical and market solutions to what may indeed be spiritual and theological problems. The problem may indeed be the message we are offering and not just the hipness, relevance, and cultural savvy of the messenger.
However, more than that, the gnawing feeling I have - and that Leithart raises as a possibility - is that our nationalistic, homogenous, market-driven forms of Christianity are in the process of being torn down by God, so that a people that better reflects the unifying prayer of Jesus and the "unity in diversity" work of the Spirit of Pentecost can be planted and re-built. What we may be experiencing is not just the failure of culturally uncreative pastors but the birth pangs of a new creation.
As I have said elsewhere in writing about exile, no one wants to be a leader during times that resemble exile. I would rather be on Solomon's retirement plan for priests than hiding in a cave with Elijah. But if this is a time of contraction for the American church so that we can relearn faithfulness, or if this is a time in which denominations are falling apart so that the beauty of a holy, unified, diverse, and global church might be re-birthed... blessed be the name of the Lord. He gives a takes away... My heart will choose to say. Lord, blessed be your name.
I sincerely hope that is not the case. Maybe the answer is offering fewer theology and more leadership courses in seminary. (I fear that attitude only exacerbates the very problem that is killing us). But it could be the case that God is up to something new.
I hope God can give me the imagination for it. And I hope I get to serve long enough to see some of that unity come to fruition.
"... in reading the book I realized I don't really have an imagination for ecclesiological unity."
This strikes me as an intrinsic feature of Protestantism, and one key reason that I am not and could not be a Protestant.
Posted by: A Friend Who Would Prefer to Remain Anonymous | December 22, 2018 at 12:34 PM