# Leithart/Trueman/Sanders - The End of Protestantism



## Hamalas (Feb 20, 2014)

I came across this today and couldn't be happier! I can't wait to see this discussion: Eclectic Shock - Reformation21 Blog & The Future of Protestantism | Davenant Trust


----------



## Philip (Feb 20, 2014)

This looks like it will be good. Fred Sanders is an excellent theologian.


----------



## SRoper (Feb 21, 2014)

Reading materials:

The End of Protestantism -- Peter Leithart

Glad Protestantism -- Fred Sanders

I'm not sure how Carl Trueman got involved, but I'm glad he'll be there.


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 21, 2014)

Trueman tells the tale here: Eclectic Shock - Reformation21 Blog Apparently Fred Sanders invited him to join.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 21, 2014)

SRoper said:


> Reading materials:
> 
> The End of Protestantism -- Peter Leithart


I hope Trueman provides a sound historical critique to the caricatures of Protestantism provided within that article.


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 21, 2014)

Me too, that article was absolutely atrocious.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Feb 22, 2014)

Hamalas said:


> Me too, that article was absolutely atrocious.


Content aside, am I the only person who finds Leihart's writing style to be horrendous. Also, I am unfamiliar with Sanders, who is he?


----------



## ZackF (Feb 22, 2014)

Unoriginalname said:


> Hamalas said:
> 
> 
> > Me too, that article was absolutely atrocious.
> ...



I like Leithart only when he is writing on literature or something else and not directly on theology.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 22, 2014)

Is "First Things" a general trash bin of theological thought? Just curious, as I'm not really familiar.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 22, 2014)

Kevin, this is from Wiki:
_First Things_ was founded in 1990 by Richard John Neuhaus, a prominent Lutheran minister and writer, who converted to the Catholic Church and entered the priesthood shortly after the journal's founding. Fr. Neuhaus served as the journal's editor-in-chief until his death in 2009 and wrote a regular column called, "The Public Square." He started the journal after his connection with the Rockford Institute was severed.​
It's a well-known R.C. mag that occasionally has interesting articles.


----------



## Philip (Feb 22, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> It's a well-known R.C. mag that occasionally has interesting articles.



It isn't RC, at least not officially. While many of the writers and staff are Catholic, it is supposed to be conservative and ecumenical in focus.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 22, 2014)

Unoriginalname said:


> Content aside, am I the only person who finds Leihart's writing style to be horrendous.



No, you are certainly not alone in coming to that conclusion. Most stuff the Federal Visionists put out largely consists of ill-informed rhetoric, "cute" asides, and glib caricatures of things that they do not understand.


----------



## Philip (Feb 22, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> No, you are certainly not alone in coming to that conclusion.



Fred Sanders' response to this article was along the lines of, "come on, Rev Leithart, we both know you're better than this."


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 22, 2014)

To put it ridiculously mildly, it is a tad difficult now to defend Leithart as a bastion of confessional Reformed orthodoxy. He is not merely being creative, as his defenders have argued. He has gone rather further. Jason Stellman has said that the reason he swam the Tiber is that he was being convinced of Leithart's actual arguments!


----------



## a mere housewife (Feb 22, 2014)

KS_Presby said:


> I like Leithart only when he is writing on literature or something else and not directly on theology.



I would have to do more research than I am willing to do at the moment so please take this with a block of salt, but I found Mr. Leithart's approach to literature to be also somewhat 'creative' (though I think I dislike using that word to mean inaccurate: creativity is not supposed to work against the grain of truth). Something I remember reading on Jane Austen in particular seemed to be simply pulling a redemptive rabbit out of a hat (again, if I'm remembering correctly, and I'm ready to confess to a faulty memory . If JA meant to write something of a redemptive nature, she executed it very badly, which is unlike her. Just wanted to insert that accuracy with texts is also important in approaching literary works or we aren't appreciating the work itself and we aren't really being addressed by something outside of our own conceptions.


----------



## arapahoepark (Feb 22, 2014)

greenbaggins said:


> To put it ridiculously mildly, it is a tad difficult now to defend Leithart as a bastion of confessional Reformed orthodoxy. He is not merely being creative, as his defenders have argued. He has gone rather further. Jason Stellman has said that the reason he swam the Tiber is that he was being convinced of Leithart's actual arguments!


That's sad, it really is.


----------



## ZackF (Feb 23, 2014)

a mere housewife said:


> KS_Presby said:
> 
> 
> > I like Leithart only when he is writing on literature or something else and not directly on theology.
> ...



I'll take your block of salt and raise you a bushel. It's been years since I've read some of Leithart's blog essays on Austen and others. It's very trendy for people to try finding redemption behind every bush, especially in the arts. Maybe he tried to crowbar some of that into Austen's work. What I remember is Leithart being pretty spot on about Austen's distancing her work from Romanticism and other observations. Of course I only read a few of his blog entries on this and not the book he wrote/compiled on Austen. Like Wilson, Leithart writes some poignant, spot on stuff but goes way off the reservation on some of the most important things in this life like how to get to the next life.


----------



## a mere housewife (Feb 23, 2014)

Zack, I'm sure that's true. My thought was mostly that if a person's method is unreliable, it's still unreliable when it comes to other literature besides Scripture. I haven't actually read any Leithart on theology -- but I would have been wary of his biblical hermeneutic after reading a bit of him on other literature with which I am familiar. It seemed like the same sort of 'agenda driven' reading that the feminists employ -- and with as little to support it, except a receptive audience.

PS. I do apologise if I've stated things too strongly. I confess that muting the actual voice of literature is one of those things that frustrates me -- especially in the name of 'A Christian perspective'. It ought to be only the godless world that pastes their own slogans over someone else's words. I haven't by any means mastered the art but I think truly listening -- to people or books -- is very important, very 'Christian'.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 16, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Unoriginalname said:
> 
> 
> > Content aside, am I the only person who finds Leihart's writing style to be horrendous.
> ...



His writing style goes back and forth. His earlier works are actually pretty good stylistically. His recent stuff, like his commentary on 1 John, is flat.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 16, 2014)

Here is my own response to his article. I've noticed that both Doug Kelly and Carl Trueman have at some point advocated the term "Reformational Catholic." I know there is more to Leithart's project than that, but I don't think the panel discussion will be a knock-down drag-out on that front. 

I reached for my pistol when he advocated Ignatius of Loyola, whose followers seek only the destruction of Protestant nations by any means necessary.


----------

