How in heaven’s name could a supernova result in the church being one?
Last week I asked how the church will ever be one. Especially since the Enlightenment created a “nova effect.” A nova is an exploding star. The sixteenth century marks the beginning of an explosion in the Western world of individualized ‘takes’ on what’s true.
This became a “spiritual super-nova” in the twentieth century.[1] A supernova is hyper-individualism permeating the Western segment of the church, fragmenting oneness. If you doubt it, read Divided We Fall: Overcoming a History of Christian Disunity by Luder Whitlock. He believes contemporary Protestants aren’t concerned enough about oneness. This is especially true of evangelicals, an especially entrepreneurial tradition that thrives in the “free market” environment of American Christianity, but often at the cost of oneness.
Whitlock sees ways that oneness might be restored. He’s a respected voice worth listening to. I’m not. But last week I did suggest a scenario where American Christianity never achieves oneness with the worldwide church. I got that from googling supernova. In a supernova, there are only two possible outcomes. The first is a black hole. This develops when the core mass exceeds three solar masses. The star implodes. The core’s gravitational field is so intense that nothing escapes. Not even light. The supernova disappears.
So might the modern Western segment of the church. It’s not that radical a thought. In the Western world before the Enlightenment, it was believed the visible world is an “image” or an “icon” of the invisible. Physics was a subdiscipline of theology. Physics tells us how the physical world functions. Theology tells us why it operate this way, what it depicts. In this model, a black hole could depict a spiritual reality, the Western church disappearing into a black hole in history. It could happen. Look at the ten tribes of Israel. They disappeared.
The second possible outcome is a neutron star. This forms when elements heavier than iron absorb rather than produce energy. An iron core is built up. When it becomes too massive, it collapses. If the core’s mass is less than about three solar masses, the collapse continues until the core consists almost entirely of neutrons which are compressed in a volume only 12 miles across but whose combined weight equals that of several Suns. A teaspoonful would weigh 50 billion tons on Earth. Such an object is called a neutron star.
A neutron star could depict a tiny core of Christians returning the church to oneness. How?
In his book “Against Heresies,” Irenaeus described the “core of the Tradition” held by the worldwide church. Note the word heresies. Before the Enlightenment, a heretic was someone who made their own decisions about what to believe.[2] In a supernova, practically everyone makes their own decisions about what to believe. A tiny core of Christians, a neutron star, wouldn’t. They’d return to the Tradition. This could result in the church being one.
It could happen. The sons of Judah were a tiny core of Judeans. They recognized how for 500 years the nation of Judah had been making its own decisions about what to believe. They recognized the result: exile. This tiny core of Judeans returned to the ancient paths.
In like manner, for 500 years most of the Western segment of the church has been making its own decisions about what to believe. A tiny core of Christians, a neutron star, could return to the West to the ancient paths, to the Tradition. Oneness could result, the very thing Jesus prayed for. The world might believe God sent Jesus into the world.
You might think this scenario is nuts. At least I’m serious about restoring oneness. I haven’t been for most of my Christian life. For decades I sort of assumed, yeah, sure, God’s church, Jesus’ bride, we’re one. I was wrong. We’re not. Leaders like Luder Whitlock recognize our disunity. Advent, a season of repentance, is a good time to contemplate whether you recognize it as well.
[1] Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007), 300.
[2] Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society (Eerdmans, 1989), 39-40.
Mike,
Thanks–as always–for a thoughtful and thought-provoking post. You are right about the atomized nature of the Western church, in particular in the U.S. And I’m an ardent supporter of tradition, (small t or large). But your post seems to stop just short of advocating submission to Rome. As much as I’m in favor of unity in the church, that’s a unity I can’t quite bring myself to get behind. I guess I’m too Protestant for that.
I can’t claim to have read the book you cite, Mike, but Divided We Fall: Overcoming a History of Christian Disunity by Luder Whitlock has a blurb attached to it at Amazon that, I think, disagrees with your version of oneness. You seem emphatic that we become one church under one tent. Whitlock (according to the blurb) emphasizes “God-honoring fellowship, laying out steps we can take to increase trust and develop understanding” and that “it is even more important for us to listen to each other and work together for the common good—despite our many differences.” That’s admitting different tents, but aims for love of one another. Would you say the blurb provided gets Whitlock wrong or that I get Whitlock and the blurb wrong – that the only way to accomplish these good things is one church under one tent, period?
Throughout the centuries, Christians have longed to be united with one another—supporting each other and working in harmony. But our reality is very different, and we need only to read the New Testament to realize that disunity has been with us from the start. What can we do to foster unity and deeper community in a world where so many relationships are fractured and fractious? Luder Whitlock Jr. explores God’s desire for unity in the church, overviews the history of global Christianity with an eye on its schisms and agreements, and points us toward the necessity of God-honoring fellowship, laying out steps we can take to increase trust and develop understanding, especially within the church. As governments grow increasingly unsupportive of Christianity, it is even more important for us to listen to each other and work together for the common good—despite our many differences.
Actually, David, I stop just short of advocating submission to the numerous Christian traditions predating the Enlightenment; not just Rome.
Actually, David, I’ll return the volley back to your court: since you’re in favor of unity in the church, what do you propose?