The End of Protestantism: Pursuing Unity in a Fragmented Church

by Peter J. Leithart

One of the unforeseen results of the Reformation was the shattering fragmentation of the church. Protestant tribalism was and continues to be a major hindrance to any solution to Christian division and its cultural effects. In this book, influential thinker Peter Leithart critiques American denominationalism in the context of global and historic Christianity, calls for an end to Protestant tribalism, and presents a vision for the future church that transcends post-Reformation divisions.

Leithart offers pastors and churches a practical agenda, backed by theological arguments, for pursuing local unity now. Unity in the church will not be a matter of drawing all churches into a single, existing denomination, says Leithart. Returning to Catholicism or Orthodoxy is not the solution. But it "is" possible to move toward church unity without giving up our convictions about truth. This critique and defense of Protestantism urges readers to preserve and celebrate the central truths recovered in the Reformation while working to heal the wounds of the body of Christ.

Genres: Theology, Church History, Christian, Church, Religion, Cultural, Nonfiction

240 pages, Hardcover

Published October 18, 2016

About the author

Peter Leithart received an A.B. in English and History from Hillsdale College in 1981, and a Master of Arts in Religion and a Master of Theology from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia in 1986 and 1987. In 1998 he received his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge in England. He has served in two pastorates: He was pastor of Reformed Heritage Presbyterian Church (now Trinity Presbyterian Church), Birmingham, Alabama from 1989 to 1995, and was founding pastor of Trinity Reformed Church, Moscow, Idaho, and served on the pastoral staff at Trinity from 2003-2013. From 1998 to 2013 he taught theology and literature at New St. Andrews College, Moscow, Idaho, where he continues to teach as an adjunct Senior Fellow. He now serves as President of Trinity House in Alabama, where is also resident Church Teacher at the local CREC church. He and his wife, Noel, have ten children and five grandchildren.

Reviews

[Alex Strohschein · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like Douglas Wilson remarked in his earlier review, Peter Leithart's "The End of Protestantism: Pursuing Unity in a Fragmented Church" is an up-and-down affair; after some chapters all I could do was groan but after others all I could say was "Amen!"

Leithart laments the obvious fact that Christians have not lived out the high priestly prayer that Jesus prays in John 17 - "that they may be one as we are one." Throughout the book Leithart will interact and prod Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, but he focuses primarily on his "own camp," what he is most familiar with, which is Protestantism, particularly conservative Protestantism (this makes his frequent nods to the Church of South India, conceived from the binding of the Anglican, Presbyterian, and Methodist Churches, frustrating because it is a powerful example of how unity could legitimately occur but it is also in a much different context than the American churches; if Leithart wanted to see a united Protestant church closer to home he could have instead looked north to the United Church of Canada, formed in 1925 by the merger of the Methodists, Congregationalists, and two-thirds of Canada's Presbyterians - but Canada's United Church is appallingly heterodox). He believes conservative Protestants should coalesce into "Reformational Catholicism." I appreciate how much Leithart sees this ecclesiastical fragmentation as a true tragedy and scandal (though I have doubts as to how much the separation between Methodists and Mennonites keeps non-Christians up at night). I confess to being pessimistic about unification (Leithart admits all the challenges of his proposal and that sometimes he writes in an overly idealistic, though imaginative, manner) and so I tend to think "Yes, we EVENTUALLY all shall be one at the ESCHATON, but not a day before," but Leithart earnestly desires Christians here and now to overcome their differences and come together as one body.

I was also amazed at Leithart's biblical vision. He mines the Old Testament (!), especially in the "Intermezzo" to show how God is always creating, deconstructing, and resurrecting His people in different eras and in different ways. He recounts the events of 1-2 Kings where His people are split into the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah and how Israel enters into apostasy and both kingdoms endure exile under eventually be joined again (p. 171-172).

Leithart writes sensitively with a broad but reflective perspective. We are continuously reminded that 81% of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump (this is a more complicated story than that bare stat "demonstrates") but Leithart exhorts Protestants to come together in racial reconciliation and he points out the amazing missional work being carried out by immigrant churches (interestingly, he notes that African immigrants are the highest skilled immigrants and that these immigrants are appalled at the work ethic and familial breakdowns among many African-Americans, p. 142-143). He also chides white evangelicals for being too individualistic; this individualism among white evangelicals makes them blind to social sin because they tend to conceive of sin as being strictly individual. Due to this, they are ignorant or oblivious of how institutional and social structural sin has severely harmed and hindered other groups such as African Americans (p. 92 or, why you probably shouldn't listen to John Piper on sin and racism; see also James K.A. Smith, 'Imagining the Kingdom,' p. 140n82).

Leithart is clear that he has serious qualms about Roman Catholicism (see below), but he is also frustrated with the anti-Catholicism that has historically been rampant among Protestants (I am with him on that! - my pet peeve is when evangelicals ask someone "Are you Christian or Catholic?"). Towards the end of the book, Leithart exhorts Protestants not to caricature Catholic doctrines (last week I heard a sermon that did just that regarding indulgences) and to instead be charitable and take the time to understand differing views on doctrines (p. 175). Leithart notes that Roman Catholicism has often been a threat to "Americanism" (indeed, "Americanism" as a civil religion is, according to Leithart, one of the Christian Church's chief adversaries) and that this fierce social polemic has also been tied up with ethnicity and nationalism (p. 93-98). I would note, though certainly not in DEFENCE of anti-Catholicism prejudice, that until the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church itself was not all that friendly to Protestants; indeed, even now different branches of Protestantism are "ecclesial communities" in the eyes of official Vatican policy, not legitimate churches (p. 93-94, 130, 172). At the end of the book when he returns to potential reconciliation with Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, Leithart rightly challenges these two great branches of Christianity on their refusal to allow Protestants (their brothers and sisters in Christ) at the Table for Our Lord's Supper (he who is the host, after all, p. 170). In this way, Leithart seems to be following N.T. Wright, who also draws parallels between Peter withdrawing from the Gentiles to eat only with Jews in his 'For All God's Worth.' We are most a family when we are eating a meal together and in many respects, Protestants are much better at this than Orthodox or Catholics because Baptists can partake of communion with Presbyterians and Nazarenes and vice-versa. If we want to take Jesus' prayer for unity seriously, it just might be that the Baptist, Presbyterian, Nazarene, Mennonite, Anglican, and Pentecostal eating bread and drinking wine around the communion table are being more faithful and obedient to Jesus' words - and catholic - than Catholics (p. 170).

Leithart, a Reformed theologian, also writes appreciatively of Pentecostalism, provocatively declaring that its penchant for testimony, egalitarianism, the supernatural, and the Holy Spirit make it ideal for postmodernity. (p. 140-141).

On page 131 Leithart appears to make a very sloppy error when he states that Constantinople fell in 1563; this actually happened over 100 years earlier in 1453.

And yet...and yet, while Leithart's proposal for fragmented Protestantism to give way to unity is something we should rightly long for, the book is an idealistic manifesto. I believe it is simply too complicated, especially when it comes to denominations and establishing a common liturgy (as Leithart envisions in chapter 3). Leithart correctly points out that conservative Methodists often have more in common with conservative Presbyterians than liberals in their own denomination; for instance, conservatives will hold to the authority of Scripture and the traditional understanding of marriage. In that sense, denominational loyalty does seem to matter as much. However, within denominations there can ALSO be conservatives and moderates who disagree on issues. In Vancouver, BC there is a prominent Mennonite Brethren church that is Calvinist and opposes women's ordination (basically Mars Hill Vancouver) while another Mennonite Brethren church a few blocks away lacks the Calvinist bent and supports women's ordination. Even within individual congregations there can be sharp differences of opinion.

I appreciate Leithart's concrete suggestions for helping to facilitate unity (such as local pastors meeting together regularly), but I wonder how unity would actually be achieved. What doctrines would be essentials and what would be deal-breakers? Some suggest limiting non-negotiable beliefs to the classic confessions of the creeds but there are also pressing anthropological issues that divide Christians. To use an example mentioned above, would supporter's of women's ordination be willing to sacrifice it to gain ecclesial unity? Would opponents of women's ordination accept female pastors and priests if this would achieve unity? Leithart admits that there will not be 100% agreement on every issue, but what will serve as the essentials? He DOES mention that the unity he is envisioning would be among "conservative Protestants," but many orthodox Christians would not consider support for women's ordination a liberal position while other conservative Christians view it as verging on heresy. The same could be said about creation and evolution? Perhaps one way forward would be to recover "mystery." If all Christians simply acknowledged that Jesus is MYSTERIOUSLY present in the bread and the cup but not demand strict intellectual consent, could we not all come to Our Lord's Table?

In many respects there is already a broad unity among conservative Protestants, especially when one looks at denominational affiliation among students involved in parachurch organizations. My campus ministry was sent by the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada but during my time we had (at least!) Reformed, Presbyterian, Anglican, Alliance, Baptist, and Adventist members as well (I appreciate Leithart's comments that methods like the "Four Spiritual Laws" pioneered by Campus Crusade for Christ have allowed evangelicals of all different stripes to proclaim a common message). Though Leithart stresses we must not be INDIFFERENT to theology (indifference is lazy and not truly ecumenical), this indifference has actually fostered a weak ecumenism based on ignorance. At least in the circles I frequent, most laity do not prioritize doctrinal beliefs as much as Leithart seems to suggest (even if I wish they would!); they go to churches based on worship and/or sermon style, proximity to their home, the community, if the Sunday school is good for their children, etc...(p. 79-80). But as Leithart points out, "Christians of different persuasions live peaceably together primarily because they can do so WITHOUT resolving their differences. It is an easy way. I am sure I would have fewer tensions in my marriage if I never saw my wife, but that would be a legal separation rather than a marriage. Jesus did not say, 'They will know you are my disciples by your mutual indifference' (p.76)." I appreciate Leithart's exhortation to dialogue and debate about theological differences rather than refuse to mention them at all. Perhaps one solution would be for major denominations to collectively craft a program along the lines of Alpha but that is more forceful about discussing doctrines and tenets and to have this program taught by representatives of these different denominations (e.g. an Anglican, a Baptist, a Methodist, and a Pentecostal would teach the course together).

I think the place to begin with unity would also be between Protestants of differing denominations but who identify as part of the same "branch." For instance, (as I have often wondered), why haven't the Anglican Church of North America and the Anglican Mission in the Americas (both theologically conservative Anglican churches) merged? Before expecting conservative Anglicans to merge with conservative Presbyterians and Pentecostals, they should join with their fellow Anglicans first. Similarly, among evangelical Presbyterians in the USA, could not the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church in America, and the recently-formed ECO unite together? Leithart himself is now a member of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, which was only founded in 1998 (still in its infancy by denominational standards!); while realizing this move was related to his desire to work out of the Theopolis Institute, it's somewhat ironic for Leithart to be advocating for the "end of Protestantism" when he is a member of a fairly new denomination in and of itself. But, in hopes of setting the stage for unity, this is why evangelicals should support their fellow evangelicals who still reside in the Protestant Mainline in their mission of church renewal - conservatives in the United Methodist Church, the PC(USA), the Disciples of Christ, etc...these dogged, determined holdouts might be pivotal in helping to bridge the gap that separates the mainline from separated conservatives, the PC(USA) (for example) from the PCA.

I purchased "The End of Protestantism" the same day I also bought Kevin J. Vanhoozer's "Biblical Authority After Babel: Retrieving the Solas in the Spirit of Mere Protestant Christianity." Both have their strengths and weaknesses; I think Leithart is more irenic and liturgically-focused than Vanhoozer but I find Vanhoozer's book more compelling or at least achievable. Vanhoozer points out that at Pentecost, Christians proclaimed a shared Gospel in many different languages and that this is akin to contemporary denominations; Presbyterians stress the power of the preached Word, Pentecostals offer riveting testimonies and the power of the Holy Spirit, Mennonites teach us of simplicity and call us to live out the radical ethic of the Sermon on the Mount, etc...as much as Leithart includes all the "best of" of denominations in Reformational Catholicism (it DOES sound amazing!), I think generous orthodoxy (which wouldn't include Brian McLaren!) among conservative/traditional Christians in their separate tents would ensure that the textured distinctives of each branch of the Church would not be smoothed over. And, of course, if we look to the Roman Catholic Church, we see a Church that may be VISIBLY unified but that has deep divisions beneath the surface ("What has 'First Things' to do with 'Commonweal'?").

[Tony Villatoro · Rating 5 out of 5]

A case for a united "capital C" church. This is what this book is about. Peter Leithart envisions what a united church could be. He notes what divides churches and lets us know of the case for denominationalism is while at the same time making a case against it. Through history, he summarizes the Old Testament in recapping the story of the Hebrew exiles. Leithart, then, highlights movements like African Christianity, Chinese Christianity, Pentecostalism, the immigrant church, and other factors that we must think about, when it comes to bringing the church together. He writes about being too catholic for the “catholic" and details what reformed catholicity looks likes. In this vein, he unpacks what reformational catholic theology is. He draws out topics like Soteriology, Sacraments, Bible, and Liturgy. For all the references to the word “catholic," it would be good for all my Protestant brothers and sisters to read this book. Ha!

Here are some quotes.

First sentence:
Jesus prayed that his disciples would be united as he is united with his Father (John 17:21). -1

Today’s churches are not blank slates. Our history of division is real, and we have to journey through it to read a destination past it. Divided, we share in the agony of the cross, and future reunion is a promise of resurrection after the cross. What is needed is not a return to one or the other existing churches but faith to walk in a way of being church that does not yet exist. We must walk by faith to be what we will be. What is needed is a death to our present divisions so the we may raise reconciled. -26

Protestant churches will have to become more catholic, and Catholic and Orthodox churches will have to become more biblical. We will all have to die in order to follow the Lord Jesus who prays that we may all be one. -36

In short, if Protestants were to become Catholics, it would be the end of Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, Methodism, Baptist churches, and he whole range of other churches. It would be the end of Protestantism. -37

The Reformers did not intend to form a new church. They did not wish to divide the church. They hoped to reform the one Catholic Church, and their catholic reforms were motivated by a catholic spirit. They longed to see Jesus’ prayer answered, that the church would be ones all the disciples were united in the truth that is the Word of God. They aimed for a reformed Catholicism, and they would be the first to rejoice at the end of Protestantism if that meant Protestantism had achieved its end - a church reformed according to the Word of God. -39

“The true stability of the church, the restoration of the world, consists in this, that the elect be gathered into the unity of the faith, so that with one consent all may lift their hearts to God.” (John Calvin) -40

The Reformation was an effort to restore the visibility of a social form that had been nearly buried under what the Reformers considered the rubble of Roman error. The reformation was a retrieval, not a rejection, of catholicity. -41

Denominational Christianity was the colonial replacement for the traditional networks of the Old World. -60

Denominationalism may be dying. Or, given the tumultuous history of American denominationalism, what looks like death could be nothin more than preparation for yet another reincarnation. -69

Christians are named by the one name conferred on them in baptism, by the one faith they confess, by the one table they share, by the one Good Shepherd who leads his church through his ordained undershepherds. If our name is “Father, Son, and Spirit,” then our name cannot be Lutheran, Reformed, or Orthodox. IF we are named with the name of Jesus, we cannot refuse to acknowledge each other as brothers and sisters, cannot refuse to welcome brothers and sisters to the Lord’s Table, cannot refuse to take familial responsibility for one another. If we are members of one another, we cannot name ourselves as not-him or not-them. Denominationalism institutionalizes division. So long as we are denominational Christians, we will not be one as the Father and Son are one. -72

From the looks of a denominational church, one might conclude that the Spirit never arrived to overcome the divisions of Babel. -76

Denominationalism keeps us safe among people of our own kind, ensconced comfortably in our tribe. It guards us against the vertiginous disorientation of serious debate and upsetting differences of opinion. It justifies our failures of responsibility for our brothers and sisters by helping us forget that they are our siblings. We acknowledge that we are brothers and sisters. Then, in the next breath, we are Cain: Am I my brother’s keeper? -79

The unity and disunity of American denominationalism have made it impossible for the church to manifest the unity of the Father and Son. -88

[American denominationalism] cannot overcome Babel because the denominational church is a Christianized Babel. -89

The racial division within American churches persists to this day, as nearly 90 percent of Americans attend racially homogenized churches. -91

To address the racial divisions in the churches more effectively, evangelicals have to repent, not (or not only) of our racism, but or our Americanism. -93

American Protestantism has typically opposed Catholicism less for Protestant theological reasons than for American civil religious reasons. -93

The Mexicans had to be suppressed not because they taught transubstantiation or venerated Mary but because their commitment to a foreign church made them seem un-American. -97

We do not want our worlds shattered, even if we know God will rebuild from the rubble. We want to keep our old, familiar names. We do not want to die. Only Jesus makes this bearable. -103

If God is alive, why would we think that the church reached its final form in 1517 or 1640 or 1965? Why would Protestants think that the Refomartion marks the end of history? Why do we think we can keep these names forever? We cannot. Division cannot be the final state of Christ’s church. The names we now bear cannot be our final names. Luther’s protest against Rome was necessary, and we should reverently say that the division of the church, like the division of Judah and Israel, like the division of heaven and earth at the beginning, was in some mysterious sense “from the Lord.” Yet if the gospel is true, this division is at best provisional. Jesus prayed that we would be “perfected in unity,” and this unity must be visible enough for the world to notice and conclude that the Father sent Jesus (John 17:23). -115

The restructuring of the global church offers an occasion to overcome the painful divisions of centuries. It opens an opportunity for Reformational Catholicism. -122

Pentecostals place classic Protestant and evangelical doctrines in a new setting and rearrange the emphases to such a degree that they are arguably offering a fresh doctrinal synthesis. -137

If more churches in America became filled with strangers, it will become a solvent of the Americanness of the American church. -145

We Westerners should get used to being challenged to revisit our faith when we hear it sung in a new tongue. -148

God is remapping our world, and it is high time for us to die to our institutionalized divisions and reorient ourselves. -148

American Protestantism is undergoing epochal shifts in each of these areas. Worship styles have changed, and there is a surprising revival of liturgical interest in traditionally anti-lliturgucal churches. -151

We are deluded. We are all Laodiceans, boasting of our health and wealth when we are poor, blind, wounded, and naked. No tradition has been spared the desolation of division. Every Christian tradition must be as ready to receive as to give. -167

In Scripture, truth divides, but it divides in order to unite. -168

Does not Orthodoxy come under the same Pauline condemnation as the fundamentalist churches that close the table to everyone outside? To become Catholic I would have to contract my ecclesial world. The communion I acknowledge would become smaller, less universal. I would have to become less catholic - less catholic than Jesus. -171

It is time to bring Protestantism to its end by turning Protestants into Reformational Catholics. -172

There must then be a way of insisting on doctrinal truth while simultaneously striving to overcome doctrinal division. -173

Catholics and Protestants must stop caricaturing one another’s theology. -175

Debates over the real presences have had the unhappy effect of obscuring the obvious: the Supper is a supper, a communal meal of joy and thanksgiving. -177

Denominationalism makes us "nice.” But doctrinal unity does not come when we are nice. Unity comes when we are truthful in prayer, prayerful in truth. -178

I hope to see fragmented Protestantism, anti-liturgical and anti-sacramental Protestantism, thinly biblical Protestantism, anti-traditional Protestantism, rationalist and nationalist Protestantism slip into the grave - and I will not hesitate to turn that grave into a dance floor. Insofar as these are things that make Protestants Protestant, I am hoping for the death of Protestantism. -191

Last Sentence:
The Creator who said in the fifth and ninth and nineteenth centuries, “It is good,” will not finish his work until we come to the final Sabbath, where everything will, once and for all, be very, very good. -191

[Shaun Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

[Disclaimer: I did receive a copy of this book from the publisher and served on the launch team for the book. I should also note that an academic review will appear in a forthcoming issue of Toronto Journal of Theology.]

Stanley Hauerwas says on the back cover of this new volume, “Leithart simply cannot write a dull book.” I have found this to be true. The End of Protestantism is indeed a captivating read. Leithart is not only enjoyable to read, however, but is also challenging and insightful. This volume serves a few functions.
First, Leithart, as the title indicates, is focused on the “end” of Protestantism. By this he not only means end as in termination, but also telos. Leithart argues that the goal of the early Protestant Reformers was not to start new churches, but to reform the one Catholic Church according to the Scriptures. Leithart seeks to recapture this vision and in this way, this book serves as a qualified defense of the Protestant Reformation. Leithart argues, hwoever, that Protestantism was never meant to be a permanent entity. Rather, it was meant to be temporary—it was meant to be a means to an end—the reformation of the church. Therefore now, Leithart advocates for what he calls a “Reformational Catholicism.” He does not want to be associated simply with what he or other Protestants are against (i.e., Protestants as anti-Catholics or anti-Orthodox). Rather, Leithart wants to advocate a positive vision of what the church is and should be. This vision would likely not satisfy contemporary Catholics or Orthodox because of Leithart’s argument that the church should not appeal to (dead) saints or venerate icons. At the same time, some Protestants may find that his calls for liturgical vestments, a unified liturgical calendar, and celebrations of the saints “too Catholic.” Leithart has something to challenge and offend everyone. As someone who self-identifies as a “free church catholic,” I found much of Leithart’s description of a future Reformational Catholic church appealing. Also, my own tradition has tended to argue that the Reformers did not adequately reform the church, and so their writings have often been neglected. While I have pursued some reading of Luther and Calvin on my own, I learned much from Leithart’s discussion of the Reformers.
Second, Leithart seeks to correct misconceptions of ecumenism that are prevalent among conservative Evangelical Protestants. They often perceive ecumenism as reducing Christianity to a lowest common denominator or being indifferent to doctrine. Leithart notes that there may indeed be a certain level of truth about these accusations in relation to certain kinds of ecumenism. He argues, however, that it is denominationalism, the current division of the church into different tribes, that is guilty of these charges rather than ecumenism. Denominationalism settles for the divisions present in the church and treats these differences as market options or as indifferent. Ecumenical activity, instead, requires Christians to take doctrinal differences seriously and to discuss them in depth. Connected with these themes Leithart notes, “Every proposal for the reunion of the church is necessarily also a proposal for the reformation of the church (25). And he argues, following one of my teachers, Ephraim Radner, that we should not take our current denominational affiliations seriously because they do not have ontological status. Rather, “We must die to what we are now, so that we might become more and more what we will be” (19). While not uncritical of aspects Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthdoxy, Leithart encourages Protestants to avoid stereotyping them and coming to more fairly understand their theology. Following the New Delhi statement on Christian unity and other similar documents, Leithart discusses unity as both a gift and a calling. He says, “We are what we will be, and what we will be is one body united by the Spirit to the Son in communion with the heavenly Father. That is the essence of the church” (p. 5).
Third, Leithart helpfully situates the reality of Christian division and denominationalism in its setting in the liberal social orders of the western church, particularly in the US. He shows that the church has overly accommodated itself to liberal social order and so this has weakened the church’s witness. While I know from one of Leithart’s other books, Defending Constantine, that he is skeptical of the work of Yoder and Hauerwas, this is an area in which Leithart comes closer to their work. As someone who has been greatly influenced by Hauerwas, I find this aspect of Leithart’s work in The End of Protestantism refreshing. As an example, Leithart says, ““Reformational Catholicism implies that the most basic political base for the Christian is the church. The church, not America or its interests, is the international context for evaluating and responding to global political events” (190).
Leithart’s work is not above criticism. For example, in his picture of what the future “Reformational Catholic church” will be like, he says that the future church will teach the whole Bible, which is an admirable desire for the church. He says in this context, however, “No one will shy away from the death penalties of the Torah or be embarrassed by Joshua’s extermination of the Canaanites” (28). I do not think these texts should be avoided, but if early Christians like Origen and Augustine seem squeamish about the plain sense of these texts, what makes Leithart think future Christians won’t be? (I know this is a small point in the course of this book, but this seemed like an odd thing for Leithart to drop in the middle of it.)
Also, I have a concern that Leithart’s description of a future united Reformational Catholic Church is 1) idealized and 2) an example of Leithart making/describing a church in his own image. That, however, is a temptation and danger we all face. As someone who has devoted himself to ecclesiology as a primary focus, it is one I must face going forward.
Also, Leithart raises a few questions that are important for those interested in Christian unity. For example, his suggestion that Christians work toward unity on a local level is important, and his paradigmatic example of the Church of South India is a common one, but if Christians create local united churches, how do they do so in such a way that their unity has implications for the church catholic rather than simply creating another Christian denomination? I’m not holding Leithart responsible for answering this question, but it is one that others must ponder and seek to answer.
Despite any concerns I may have, I highly recommend this book. Leithart's work is is timely, particularly as churches prepare to commemorate and lament the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. Leithart offers a powerful vision of Christian unity as a gift of God and a calling for God’s people. He aims this vision at theologically conservative Evangelical Protestants—a group that has often distanced itself from ecumenical activity—correcting misperceptions while not remaining uncritical of some of the directions the ecumenical movement has gone in. I see similarities in what Leithart offers here as the Princeton Proposal for Christian Unity (which can be read in In One Body Through the Cross, edited by Jenson and Braaten). Also, while Leithart primarily addresses Evangelicals, I think Christians in other Christian bodies would benefit from his contribution to ecumenical ecclesiology. The endorsers of the volume on the back cover demonstrate this, as they include a United Methodist turned Episcopalian (Hauerwas), an evangelical but mainline Presbyterian (Richard Mouw), an evangelical editor (Mark Galli), a European Reformed Christian who teaches in Canada (Hans Boersma), and a Roman Catholic (Thomas Guarino).
For more information on this important contribution to ecumenical theology, check on the website that has six helpful short videos at http://www.theendofprotestantism.com and this lecture that Leithart gave on this topic at Austin Graduate School of Theology (https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL...).

[Scott W. Blankenship · Rating 5 out of 5]

What was the goal of Protestantism? To have a great multitude of fragmented and fractured churches? Or was it to reform the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

The Reformers wanted the ladder, and we should too. Taking Jesus prayer in John 17 seriously, Leithart argues persuasively that we should pray, desire, and hope for the reunification of the Church. That God's people would be one as the Father and the Son are one. Protestantism must die and Reformational Catholicism must rise in its place.

[Noah Senthil · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bold, provocative proposal for the future of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. It’s biblical, theologically, and historical, and there’s nothing squishy about this kind of ecumenism.

I found his arguments against denominationalism convincing: denominationalism is institutionalized division. But he’s attuned to all the merits and blessings of denominationalism as well. This book is actually much more modest and reasonable than it appears, though it’s still bold in its narrow assertions about what the future of the church should be.

The long reflections on global Christianity were illuminating, and I also appreciated the piercing lament about the way race has shaped American denominations to this day. The whole book, in some sense, is a critique of “Americanism,” which is obviously warranted. The divisions within the church are bad. Very bad. What’s worse is that most Christians, even pastors, do not care. But wonderful things are still happening in the church today, perhaps even fresh and unpredictable things, whereby God will build something out of the rubble.

According to Leithart, a remapping of Christianity has occurred in the last century. It’s no longer accurate to categorize the church as Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. The rise of Christianity in the Global South, especially via versions of Pentecostalism, is actually changing everything. And this may provide new opportunities for ecumenism.

However, Reformational Catholicism is best employed at the local level with pastors and lay Christians reaching across denominational lines, meeting together, praying together, serving together—and not least of all, arguing about their differences until unity is achieved.

Overall, this book was very good, and I’d like to see a revised and updated edition sometime soon.

[Brenda · Rating 5 out of 5]

Five stars because I think the author is correct; Protestantism--especially in its current form--cannot possibly be God's purpose for the church since Jesus prayed that we, the church, be one. In fact, it is hard to imagine greater division than that which exists in American Protestantism. Leithart does not claim to have all the answers but he does propose a hopeful path forward, and also identifies areas where ecumenism is happening in ways that are faithful to the teachings of scripture.

I also gave it five stars because often in books like this, I find myself disengaged by the end as the author's points become esoteric and beyond the interest and grasp of the intended audience. Not so with this one. In fact, Leithart's passion and love for the Body of Christ was more evident than at the start, which drew me even more to appreciate and agree with his thesis

I found it encouraging and a little unsettling, but I have great respect for Leithart, so I trust him as a wise guide.

[Joel Ken · Rating 4 out of 5]

A modern day exposition and application of Jesus' prayer for unity in John 17 - amongst other parts of Scripture, John 17 is simply the driving force and basis of Leithart's agenda - and how this should impact ecclesiology today between the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant church.

[Austin Gannett · Rating 4 out of 5]

Peter Leithart is, simultaneously, provocative and substantive. This may seem like an odd thing to say, but it is a rare quality for any theological writer to possess; he can both grab and hold the reader's attention through gifted prose, and present substantial theological arguments with relative ease. A good friend of mine one quipped, "Leithart is such a theological maverick". He's right, and this book is no different.

For anyone familiar with Leithart's writings for a while, or a consistent reader of his blog over at First Things, this book will come as no surprise. The unity of the church catholic (universal) has been a passion/theme in Leithart's writing for some time. Indeed, this book has been brewing for some time now, and found its impetus, in a particularly thought-provoking post by the same title on First things in 2013. It started a small blog storm, and eventually led to a conference panel titled "The Future of Protestantism". Now, a few years later, Leithart has expounded upon that post, and many others, in book form. He has also answered many of his critics responses in the process.

So, what is "The End of Protestantism" as Leithart sees it. It's important to note that this isn't just a doomsday tale - an easy shot across the bow at denominationalism - though, Leithart doesn't let denominationalism off of the hook. This is also not some utopian vision of what the church could look like - in fact, Leithart goes to great lengths to disspell this idea. Instead, this is a substantial proposal of what the church *should* look like -a clarion call for the "end" of Protestantism in two ways: the actually "end" finality of American (this is his focus) denominationalism as it has severed/divided Christ's Body (the church) into, literal, pieces; but, it's also a call for Protestantism to seek its "end" (telos/goal) which is the unity of the Body, that Christ prays for in John 17, in the "not yet" kingdom of God. He calls this proposal, "Reformational Catholicism".

Leihart grounds his proposal in Christ's prayer in John 17:21, "that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me". This is both the jumping off point for the proposal and its substance - we have not taken Christ's prayer and call for the unity of the church seriously enough, and out American denominational spirit is a testament to this, "Denominationalism is not union. It is the institutionalization of division. Our friendliness is part of the problem. It enables us to be complacent about defining ourselves not by union with our brothers but by our divisions" (4). He pulls no punches when it comes to denominations, and rightfully so. He connects our denominationalism with our Americanism in the U.S. church suggesting it has hurt our prophetic witness, "It (American church) cannot overcome Babel because the denominational church is a Christianized Babel" (89). This is one of Leithart's strongest points, because he goes on to point out that not only is the American church divided along denominational lines, but, as a result, racial/ethnic lines - to its shame: over 90% of U.S. churches are racially homogenized (91).

So, there are many problems with American Protestantism: denominational divisions, racial divisions, and not taking the call for unity of Christ's Body seriously. Is this merely Leithart brow beating the Protestant church? Is this merely a negative book that offers no hope? No. Leithart devotes just as much time/ink to hope for the future. Indeed, part of his argument is that we should be the future church in the present, or "Be *now* what you *will be*". We are called to practice this unity now. One of things I most appreciated is that Leithart devotes an entire chapter to some of the benefits American denominationalism has brought to the church, and even goes so far as to claim it is/was God's intent for a time (a great chapter of biblical theology and Leithartian typology is devoted to this). So, the news isn't all bad. One of my favorite proposals comes from, likely, the most "utopian" chapter in the book, and from a end note (Leithart has a whole book worth of end notes). He is making a strong case for Reformational Catholicism (chapter 3), and dreaming of what this church might/could look like, and then he dreams further in an endnote: "I can dream in more detail: Churches in the future will use bread, not specially prepare wafers, stressing the continuity between the church's feast and the meals of daily life. They will use wine, not grape juice, not only because Jesus drank wine but because wine symbolizes the maturation of the goods of the earth and because wine induces Sabbatical restfulness. Churches will stress the Supper is a meal by sitting to eat, as the crowds did in the Gospels" (Endnote #18 p.196-7). And this is a just a taste of of his vision for the future church.

Finally, he ends the book with some more practical, daily examples of how pastors, and laymen can pursue this vision - bringing this grand vision back to earth. I thought these were extremely helpful. Indeed, I think this could make a great follow-up/companion reading to James Davison Hunter's "To Change the World" as Leithart expounds on some of Hunter's observations, all the while I believe, giving "feet" to part of Hunter's "faithful presence" proposal.

However, while reading, I couldn't help but catch the vision, while still feeling that it was "far off" - that it was too "not yet" to be realized in any practical sense. And, that may still be my main grudge at the end of this: How then shall we live? The examples felt, maybe, a bit too limited in scope for such a grand proposal, and in that way, fell prey to the "utopian" critique. I'm still unclear how Leithart sees the "give and take" of denominations in regards to doctrine. He mentions that it will be painful, but isn't always clear what doctrine should remain settles, and what can be held loosely. In this way, it's hard for me to see this sort of ecumenism leaving the confines of local "pastor's groups" or "cross-denomination missions efforts". These are good things, but fall short of actually practicing church together. Though, I will always take a strong proposal for unity, no matter how "utopian," because we need to catch the vision as the Body.

Additionally, a minor note of personal critique: I am ardent fan of footnotes, but I can't stand end notes. This is something I have wished for in other Leithart books as well (particularly Between Babel and Beast).

[Disclaimer: I received this book from the publisher as part of the Launch Team]

[Michael · Rating 1 out of 5]

While I have learned much from Peter Leithart, I knew there was some funkiness to where he has been going for a while. I read this in hopes to find an answer. But instead I got nothing in return. Leithart said many true things. There were many moments of "yes and amen!" and many moments of cringe takes. Leithart is promoting something, that eschatologically will come true, so no issues there. But he seeks to get from point A to point Z without offering anything substantial towards how we do so. The cart goes nowhere without the horse in front of it. This is the murkiest thing I have read, and that's saying something.

[Bradley Davis · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars

Split down the middle on my take. Tere are pets I live and try to live personally, and still there are proposals that seem poorly thought out. I know that's not the kind of thinker Leithart is. I always benefit from reading him. Perhaps he felt more detail in some areas was behind the scope of this work. It will be hard to pursue these ideas without more specificity, however.

What I appreciate most about this is the absolute necessity of Jesus' church being one. I couldn't agree more. And to that end, I take his encouragement to pray for this kind of unity seriously. And I hope we see it soon.

Recommended for pastors who want to think through helpful ecumenism. You may not agree, but you'll be wiser for having thought through it.

[Shawn Paterson · Rating 3 out of 5]

The third chapter is great.

[Amy Hansen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very well written, thought provoking book.

[Dan Glover · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars. This was excellent. I would like to review it in detail at some point but I just don't have time right now. I am now reading Vanhoozer's "Biblical Authority After Babel". These books compliment each other, not because they agree on everything but because they make very good conversation partners. And they do agree on quite a bit, even though the approach is from different angles. Leithart is not denying the necessity of the Reformation, and Vanhoozer is not cheering Protestant Christianity in an unqualified manner. Vanhoozer's Mere Protestant Christianity is not so far away from Leithart's Reformational Catholicism. Vanhoozer notes his vision is catholic, as was that of the Reformers, and Leithart lists the many areas that the Reformers took legitimate issue with the Roman Catholic Church and which Vatican II did not sufficiently (if at all) address. They are not so far apart, as Fred Sanders recognized here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2...

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

As indicated in the title, Leithart not only calls for the end of Protestantism, but a completion of Protestantism, which achieves its goal. He believes that the Reformation was necessary, but it's original intention was never to be permanent. The Reformer's goal was not to start other churches, but rather to reform the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. He grieves over the denominationalism that has come out of Protestantism, saying that it "institutionalizes division" and that "division is evident when churches define themselves over against one another." Within these pages there is a biting critique of our present divisions in the Church, while at the same time a tower of hope for true biblical unity. I highly recommend this book as a source of deep conversation among the clergy and laity of our churches across ecclesial and denominational lines because unity in the body of Christ is inherent to the gospel. In John 17:21, Jesus prayed that we would be one, so that the world may believe the gospel. My only critique comes with Leithart's way forward. One is left wondering if the Reformational Catholic Church of the future that Leithart envisions is made a bit in his own image, though I have to admit, from my own ecclesial background, that image is an attractive one. But it's difficult for me to imagine brothers from different ecclesial backgrounds pastoring congregations just down the street from my own who will find this vision as attractive. Even so, this book is a great beginning to what has the potential to be a fruitful conversation for the Church of Jesus Christ, especially the part of that Church that resides in the United States. Unity in the body of Christ is that important. And when this is realized, brothers and sisters will begin to treat one another as they are, brothers and sisters.

[Coyle · Rating 3 out of 5]

"the core of the book’s argument is that the time for Protestantism has passed. It was useful—even necessary—in the 1500s, but today we’ve moved beyond the denominationalism that seems to be its logical consequence and are ready for a re-creation of the church. This view can only be held if we believe that there can be a “moving on” from the truth held by a given stage of church history.

On the other hand, if we live in the same stage of covenant history as the Early Church, the Medieval Church, the Reformers, and all other believers from Pentecost until the return of Christ, then we need not be on the lookout for big re-creation events. We may of course enjoy and appreciate revivals when and where they come (and be very grateful for the work that God does through them), but rather than seeing such events as breaking us from other believers and moving us into a newer, higher stage of history, we ought to see them as binding us to our brothers and sisters of the past who live in the same tension between the already and the not-yet. The Reformation, like the Great Awakening, like the conciliar movement of the Late Middle Ages, like all great actions of history are not steps ascending towards a glorious unified future, but are rather retrenchments reaffirming that we all hold the same truth in the already as we wait for the not-yet-arrived glorious future to come to us with the return of Christ.
"

Read the rest here: https://mereorthodoxy.com/reviewing-t...

[Josh McInnis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Inspired and motivated by Jesus's "high priestly prayer" in John 17 for the church to be one as He and the Father are one, Peter Leithart consolidates his musings on how the Church should go about pursuing unity and catholicity, what this unity might look like, and suggestions for how unity could begin to be pursued.

I especially appreciated Peter Leithart's summary of the rise of Christianity in the global South and throughout the non-Western world, as he provided examples of how denominationalism already is in decline and how Christians are in a situation where they may be be able to take advantage of one of the epochal instances of God's pattern of breaking down in order to build up, as we pursue unity of the Church.

[Scott · Rating 3 out of 5]

Peter Leithart thinks that Protestantism has been tried and found wanting.

In his new book, The End of Protestantism: Pursuing Unity in a Fragmented Church, Leithart asks the question: if Jesus prayed for unity in his high priestly prayer in John 17, and there’s not unity, why are we then not pursuing it? The unity that Leithart laments is the visible unity that is definitely not displayed by the church as know it currently. And if that’s the case, why not call for the end of Protestantism through a return to what Leithart calls Reformational Catholicism.

While I am not persuaded by Leithart’s vision, I think that there are some things that are worth commending.

First, reading Leithart is a pleasure. His prose is filled with word-play and creative disruption toward existing ways of thinking about the church. His chapter, “A Reformed Church,” is essentially a long meditation on what he envisions the church ought to look like. While it is not without problems, it’s hard to not be moved by the way he works through his vision.

Second, it is at least encouraging to think about ways in which Protestants of a variety of stripes might learn from other denominations—including Roman Catholics and Orthodox. There is a common heritage among all stripes of Christians that is worth retrieving, and as we recognize the ecumenical deposit that we each are nourished by, it’s important to remember that there are still things one can learn from a variety of traditions.

Like I said, however, there are still many questions that remain.

First, what are “Reformational Catholics” to do about disagreement? Leithart seems to think that such distinctions between bodies are ultimately trivial with his suggestion that as these traditions disagree, “it will get ugly.” But, more to the point, will it even get there? For instance, I don’t see it very likely—no matter the level of repenting on any side—that an iconoclastic Calvinist will ultimately cozy up with a tradition that venerates images. For one of those traditions to waver on that point is more than just a secondary issue, but is ultimately about faithfulness to God.

Second, I think that Leithart’s postmillennialism causes him to have an over-realized eschatology when it comes to witnessing the type of unity that he’s calling for. This is a point that was raised by many others and I certainly agree.

Third, I wonder as well if there is also a crisis of authority at play. This is not simply about shrugging the shoulders and getting over our parochialisms, but ultimately about the principum of authority: is it the church or Scripture? And if it is Scripture, what do we do with disagreement? Again, one man’s secondary issue is another man’s faithfulness to orthodoxy.

Fourth, I wonder if there’s a category for types of fellowship that don’t include formal church membership, but include ventures in cooperation. Already some of these types of cooperations exist, but it seems that this is not enough for Leithart. However, the best type of ecumenism, in my mind, is one that recognizes that benefits of learning from those different from yourself, while also making ecclesial judgments that might exclude. I don’t think this militates against the fidelity that Jesus desires for his churches.

In conclusion, Leithart’s book is worthy for consideration and a delight to read, but his solutions for Reformational Catholicism ultimately fail to convince.

CONTENTS:

1. An Interim Ecclesiology
2. Evangelical Unity
3. A Reformed Church
4. The End of Protestantism
5. The Case for Denominationalism
6. The Case against Denominationalism
7. Denominationalism’s Dividing Walls
8. From Glory to Glory: The Pattern of History
9. The Restructuring of Global Christianity
10. American Denominationalism and the Global Church
11. American Denominationalism in the 21st Century
12. A Way Forward: From Present to Future

[Joe Hyink · Rating 4 out of 5]

This really is an excellent book. Leithart takes the difficult task of envisioning an ecumenism that does not downplay doctrine. Rooted in Jesus' prayer for visible unity among His people, Leithart describes a "Reformational Catholicism," a true catholicism that is the true "end" (telos) of Protestantism. It is not simply practical unity for the purposes of social work (like abortion marches). Rather, it is a humble recognition that the Church we are a part of includes many people who are not part of churches like my own. It is a humble recognition that the problems in the church down the street or the denomination across the globe is part of the same body that I am part of.

Leithart's vision is rooted in the future. Because of Jesus' prayer, we can be confident that the church WILL be visibly unified someday. Not surprisingly, though, his vision of what the future church looks like is oddly similar to churches currently in his tribe. This is unavoidable, certainly, but that is a high hurtle for those who disagree with many of those particulars.

I was particularly intrigued by his description of the relationship between this unity and doctrine. Leithart argues that denominationalism hardens our doctrinal differences because we don't have to listen to anyone else about the contentious points of doctrine. To achieve the visible unity that Leithart hopes for, we must be willing to take on those hard battles once again. And in the meantime, we need to learn to live with each other and love one another in visible unity in the midst of wide differences.

A couple points of dissatisfaction for me. First, I was disappointed by the fact that so many of the sources and examples of his vision were precisely the type of ecumenism that he argues against, the type that says that doctrine is a barrier to unity. The typical arguments from the typical ecumenical crowd are found wanting precisely due to their downplay of doctrine. But yet, (by my understanding) many of the sources Leithart draws from contradictions a very central part of his thesis.

Second, while he provided a few actual examples of his vision being striven for practically in a very similar way as he hopes for, I didn't see much with regard to the role of doctrine. My hesitation to an ecumenical mind (along with many other Protestants') has been the importance of maintaining biblical and doctrinal integrity. So I am attracted to his vision that says that we should strive for a unity while still maintaining the importance of doctrine. At the same time, I thought that his examples of ecumenism were particularly lacking in this. They were inspiring examples of pastoral care but none that showed a strong role of doctrinal dialogue (much less progress!) he argues for.

This is a very important book, primarily due to the vision Leithart casts. Not surprisingly, the ideology is based in the Bible, so he can be forgiven for not being able to come up with a lot of practical paths for achieving that vision. To criticize the book on the basis of its absence of clear solutions is to miss the main point of the book. For me to be persuaded that Leithart is wrong, I need people to show how his interpretation of Scripture is wrong. In the meantime, I enjoy daydreaming with him about the future unified church and wondering how our sovereign Lord will guide us to that destination.

[Arthur Cook · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thought provoking book, no doubt. However, the entire idea is a sentiment that went looking for a proof text. He builds a castle on John 17:23 without taking any time to exegete the text itself. And so, the whole is predicated on an unproven assumption that what Jesus meant in that verse was that he wanted the Father to bring the Church as an institution to the point of being united under one roof.
Now, when I read the early church Fathers, particularly Augustine, I admit to feeling the same pull; the wistful longing that the church could return to the church prior to 1054. Yet, surely that is a naive and flowery view of history. As if there weren’t deep divides in the church in the first few centuries.

The desire for unity is surely a godly sentiment. Yet, I am unconvinced that a global visible church in history is what Jesus was asking for. Reading the verse in context with the rest of the prayer it is impossible to think Jesus was praying for the church as an institution. And there is no scriptural reason why (and none discussed) we wouldn’t consider Jesus’ prayer to be answered immediately at Pentecost. All true believers are one and partake in the same Spirit. To say this remains to be accomplished seems irresponsible.
To wish this existing unity to be more visible is a noble desire. To long for people to hang up the guns and take down the harps is commendable.

I do resonate with a lot of his thoughts on the failure of denominationalism. The world is being redivided as we speak. It’s a good thing. “For there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.”
If churches would drop the Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, and so on off of their signs, it might benefit the world.
I also share his desire for catholicity in the truth. As every Christian does.

Martin Lloyd Jones addressed this topic far more biblically in his book on Christian Unity.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really good, or at least thought-provoking where it wasn't so hot. I found it to be a grand vision that has me excited for the future, though I found myself cringing at times. I'm not convinced that each church should strive to be a micro-cosm of the macro-church, but I am fully persuaded by his vision that we should seek unity and treat each other as brothers, even if wayward or misguided brothers with unbiblical practices. I did not agree with his view of American civil religion being the root of denominational liberalism. He might be partly right, but I think it's an oversimplification. Also, he is simply incorrect that "In America, civil religion cannot be established by law" (p 159). We have plenty of laws (murder, theft, adultery) that come straight out of the Ten Commandments, not to mention that states are permitted to have established churches if they choose, as many did in 1776. At times it seems like he gets a cart before a horse or sees causation where it's mere correlation. The last chapter that discussed how pastors are to do this was the best, as this is something that can be put into practice now.

Whatever my quibbles were though, this book helped me think about the little-c catholic church as Christ's church...it's all one body, it's all one table. If Christ prayed that we would be one, who are we to divide over minor differences? The hard part to grasp is what the hard conversations will look like in his vision...what kind of conversation will a confessional Presbyterian have with a free-will Baptist? How do we reconcile the continuationist vs. cessationist debate? I'm all in favor of avoiding a least-common-denominator Christianity, but it's hard to see how we get 'there' from 'here' without separating back into our camps to avoid talking about infant baptism every week. So overall, this is a great launching point, but I think it needs to be further fleshed out in some areas.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 5 out of 5]

A compelling vision, written intentionally in an idealistic/visionary manner to provoke the reader's imagination at what a "Reformational Catholic," fully unified church across the globe would look like. This is the first book I've read from Leithart, and his style shook me up in the best way possible. He is unapologetic in calling out errors on all sides of the dis-unification of the church, but he moves between the poles of "seemingly-impossible-ideals" and "practical-steps-that-could-really-work" with incredible ease.

This is also a vision with profound biblical basis. The 'intermezzo' section caught me completely off-guard with its zoomed-out, holistic, theological interpretation of God's activity through both testaments, and how this can provide a deep, healthy biblical-theological vision for global church unity. This may have been my favorite chapter in the book (well.....probably 2nd to the 'case against denominationalism....).

Overall, I found myself moved, provoked, convicted, and deeply inspired towards Jesus' prayer that his church would be ONE. As a Protestant myself, I found myself deeply dissatisfied with the splintered church in America, and I'm thankful for Leithart's wake-up call.

[Chadd · Rating 5 out of 5]

A call for unity from an unexpected source. Leithart is a very conservative Protestant theologian, but he trust the Spirit and the scripture to lead him to interesting places. This includes a radical call for Christianity unity based on Jesus prayer for unity. Leithart explains the good and bad of denominationalism and Protestantism, and paints a vision for a unity (truly) catholic church.

Leithart not only is very biblically and theologically sound, he is a very enjoyable writer. It means that if the arguments don't convince you, his enjoyable writing will. Bear in mind, this is a very academic book, and not written for a lay audience. But many lay Christians will find a lot to chew on and some interesting insights in this book.

I have thought about some of this stuff in the past, but have always clung to my Dutch Calvinist tradition. After reading this book, I am sold on the vision. If I need to give up my beloved Heidelberg Catechism for the sake of Christian unity, I will offer it to the fire gladly. My new prayer is that there are fewer Christian denominations but more Christians when I die than when I was born.

[J · Rating 4 out of 5]

After reading the first few chapters, I was a very skeptical reader. I've always believed pluralism to be a wonderful thing in a society. Is that not the very basis for America? People of different backgrounds and ideas living together with mutual respect and harmony?

The author clearly anticipated my position. He addressed my concerns and explained why I was Biblically wrong on each point. His argument thoroughly engaged me and won me over.

The third part of the book outlines a Utopian view of what the future of a unified church could look like. My ignorance of certain catholic positions made some of the points go over my head, but a lot of his ideas for Protestants resonated with me.

The reformation's goal was to reform the unified Catholic church. Somewhere along the line we decided that being Protestant was the final form of the church and no longer tried to be apart of a global, unified church. As the author points out, God breaks things apart to create something new. The church is definitely been broken, I'm excited to see what new unified forms that could take.

[Mark Lickliter · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think I will write a more in-depth review later, but for now I'll just say this book is largely a utopian pipe dream. Leithart is at least aware of this, and acknowledges it several times in his book. He sees the ideal future of the church as Reformed Catholicism. He claims that Jesus' prayer for unity necessarily entails denominationalism ending, and one network of churches. Not sure Scripture really teaches that, and it seems like a very big assumption and an expectation for the future of the church. I could happen, but does Scripture demand such an interpretation? I think if it were that obvious, then it wouldn't have taken 500 years of church history to realize it. Sometimes it seems like everyone just wants a new and novel idea to push.

[Robert Renteria · Rating 4 out of 5]

Articulate, challenging but how....?

This is a challenging and good presentation of an unpopular topic in Christian circles. I appreciate the perspective. The writer should be commended for courage as well as articulation. Leithart is willing to ask hard questions... however, are those who should be listening willing to even hear? I believe this is a topic needs to be more on the forefront of pastors and church leaders who communicate historical Christian faith as a means to live. If this becomes a more front and center dialogue, Christian faith would be a must. How does one present this topic to their leadership without being renounced, rejected and/ or ignored? This is the arena that needs time be explored to round out the viability of implementation.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

The three stars is an average. There were sections of the book that were much higher, and others that were confusedly lower. My main complaint is that the book doesn't live up to its name. The exegetical and theological work did not support the claim of the title at all, and the demographic and cultural analysis (quite good in itself) might just as easily have provided someone with the data he needed to argue for our time being the true beginning of a fragmented Protestantism. There were some great sections but the overall effect is what you get when brilliant murkiness is combined with ardent hope.

[Michael Kidd · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have grown in a deep appreciation for Dr. Leithart over the last few years. I was excited to read this book. However, my excitement died down about halfway through. Dr. Leithart is an excellent thinker and solid theologian. But this book read like a half-baked idea; like he wrote the book before he finished processing all that he saw and felt. To be sure, I agree with his assessment and conclusions. And the vision he is putting forward is a much needed one. I just think the book was poorly written and poorly organized. However, it is worth notimg that chapters 8 and 12 were worth the price of the book on their own.

[Micah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perhaps it was with careful intention that Leithart makes his own theological and denominational bent so hard to pin down throughout this hopeful book on church unity. The cynic in me finds his "Reformed Catholicism" little more than everyone doing christianity his way, but the believer was deeply moved and even convicted by his reflections on John 17, the tragedy of denominationalism, and his practical suggestions for fostering healthy ecumenicalism in one's own community.

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this one slowly in an attempt to understand some frustrations with the fragmentation in the Church. His basic premise is that denominationalism contradicts Jesus’ high priestly prayer and impairs Christian witness, and Leithart has me fairly convinced. Some chapters are more persuasive than others. Idealistic, but I use that term positively here as a work speaking a much needed and often unheard narrative.

[John Knox · Rating 3 out of 5]

I loved parts, and I hated parts. I thought Leithart was onto something, and then a few seconds later I thought he missed the point. In short, I wanted to give it both 5 stars and 1 star. So it got 3.

The impulse that he has is good. And Christians are simply in sin to be ok with a divided church. It’s a place to start with questions, but certainly not one with many answers.