The final comments about Horton's Christless Christianity have to do with the charge of Gnosticism in American Christianity and Horton's use of secondary sources to argue his position in the book.
I have a hard time identifying American Christianity with the Gnostics of the early church era. I am not convinced by his arguments that this is true. To make this argument, Horton depends on the work of Harold Bloom, especially his work The American Religion. Here, Bloom sees Gnostics under every rock. His own Gnosticism becomes the lens through which he interprets American Christianity. However, Bloom's work has been criticized by Martin Marty and Alfred Kazin. They say that the charge of Gnosticism might stick if applied only to non-Christian American religion and the search for spirituality. Bloom, however, tries to make it stick to Christianity in the United States. The Gnosticism he sees appears in the private aspects of Protestantism. He especially takes a shot at the Baptist idea of "soul competency." As defined by Baptists, this means "the God-given freedom and ability of persons to know and respond to God’s will. Baptists believe that God gives people competency--that is ability--to make choices. Human beings are not puppets or machines." There is nothing particulary Gnostic about this.
It seems that Horton has used Bloom's work and the work of Harold Lee (who agrees with Bloom) rather uncritically. It is this uncritical use of secondary sources which bothers me about his book. Rather than do his own investigation of the use and place of Christ in American preaching, he relies on the work of other people, not to illustrate his own research, but in place of it.
Horton's book would have been better if he concentrated on Joel Osteen and the prosperity gospel movement and done so with his own analysis.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Christless Christianity, Part 2
In chapter 3 of Christless Christianity, Mike Horton analyzes the ministry of Joel Osteen and others like him. This is one of the most passionate chapters in the book. Osteen's ministry becomes the paradigm to analyze popular religion in the United States. Horton's analysis of Osteen can be summarized in the phrase facere quod in se est (do your best) from medieval theology. Osteen even seems to think that God will "make it up" in regard to difference between God's expectations and our efforts. Osteen may not be a theologian, but he seems to have grasped the essentials of medieval Christian theology.
A curious aspect of Horton's analysis is his statement (which he admits sounds heretical), "it is probably worth telling Americans that you don't need Jesus to have better families, finances, health, or even morality." I think Horton is saying that this is the gist of most American preaching. Christians as well as most Americans do not need to believe in Jesus to have all the good things of life. However, for those of us who live in the already/not yet period between the resurrection and Christ's return, having Jesus is no guarantee of any of these blessings. Indeed, following Christ can mean family divisions, poverty, illness and death.
Turning to chapter 4 (How we turn good news into good advice), Horton uses the law-gospel distinction to analyze modern religion. His discussion raises a couple questions. One concerns his assertion that we are not to live the gospel, but only believe it. He resists the idea of living the gospel because he thinks that makes it a message about us. I think Paul would disagree. He wrote in 2 Corinthians 3:2, "You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. And you show that you are a letter from Christ, delievered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts" (ESV). Paul seems to be saying that the Corinthians were living gospels because of the work of God's Spirit in them. Paul also wrote to the Ephesians, Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (5:1-2) (ESV). Again, Paul seems to say that imitating Christ is not law, but gospel. Paul gives practical advice, instruction and calls to discipleship which may be considered as gospel because they grow out of our justification and salvation in Christ.
A second question about law and gospel arises when Horton says we need "a fresh encounter with God's law in its full force." The question is this: did Jesus and Paul preach the law? It seems that the answer must be, No, because they preached the good news of the kingdom. It must be said that Peter and Paul, when addressing the Jews, spoke about the Jewish rejection of Jesus and the judgment that would follow if they did not repent and believe in Jesus. Jesus preached "repent and believe the good news." The problem with American preaching may be that pastors do not know how to preach the gospel because they do not know how to preach Christ from the OT, and they do not know how to ground behavior in the work of Christ. Whenever pastors give good advice, instruct their hearers in the teachings of the Bible and call them to discipleship, they need to ground all that in the work of Christ which people are called to believe.
It is finally in this chapter that Horton tells us what he means by "Christless Christianity." In his words it
does not mean religion or spirituality devoid of the words Jesus, Christ, Lord or even
Saviour. What it means is the way those names and titles are employed will be
removed from their specific location in an unfolding historical plot of human rebellion
and divine rescue and from such practices as baptism and communion.
If he had put this in the first chapter and organized the book around this definition, this work would be more clear, cogent and concise.
More to follow.
A curious aspect of Horton's analysis is his statement (which he admits sounds heretical), "it is probably worth telling Americans that you don't need Jesus to have better families, finances, health, or even morality." I think Horton is saying that this is the gist of most American preaching. Christians as well as most Americans do not need to believe in Jesus to have all the good things of life. However, for those of us who live in the already/not yet period between the resurrection and Christ's return, having Jesus is no guarantee of any of these blessings. Indeed, following Christ can mean family divisions, poverty, illness and death.
Turning to chapter 4 (How we turn good news into good advice), Horton uses the law-gospel distinction to analyze modern religion. His discussion raises a couple questions. One concerns his assertion that we are not to live the gospel, but only believe it. He resists the idea of living the gospel because he thinks that makes it a message about us. I think Paul would disagree. He wrote in 2 Corinthians 3:2, "You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. And you show that you are a letter from Christ, delievered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts" (ESV). Paul seems to be saying that the Corinthians were living gospels because of the work of God's Spirit in them. Paul also wrote to the Ephesians, Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God" (5:1-2) (ESV). Again, Paul seems to say that imitating Christ is not law, but gospel. Paul gives practical advice, instruction and calls to discipleship which may be considered as gospel because they grow out of our justification and salvation in Christ.
A second question about law and gospel arises when Horton says we need "a fresh encounter with God's law in its full force." The question is this: did Jesus and Paul preach the law? It seems that the answer must be, No, because they preached the good news of the kingdom. It must be said that Peter and Paul, when addressing the Jews, spoke about the Jewish rejection of Jesus and the judgment that would follow if they did not repent and believe in Jesus. Jesus preached "repent and believe the good news." The problem with American preaching may be that pastors do not know how to preach the gospel because they do not know how to preach Christ from the OT, and they do not know how to ground behavior in the work of Christ. Whenever pastors give good advice, instruct their hearers in the teachings of the Bible and call them to discipleship, they need to ground all that in the work of Christ which people are called to believe.
It is finally in this chapter that Horton tells us what he means by "Christless Christianity." In his words it
does not mean religion or spirituality devoid of the words Jesus, Christ, Lord or even
Saviour. What it means is the way those names and titles are employed will be
removed from their specific location in an unfolding historical plot of human rebellion
and divine rescue and from such practices as baptism and communion.
If he had put this in the first chapter and organized the book around this definition, this work would be more clear, cogent and concise.
More to follow.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Christless Christianity
The recent discussion in the blogosphere over John Frame's review of Michael Horton's book Christless Christianity (http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2009Horton.htm) has led me to buy a copy of Professor Horton's book to read for myself. I finished the book a few days ago, but today is the first chance I've had to post my own comments. This entry will focus on Horton's book. I will evaluate John Frame's response in another post.
In general, I found the work to be uneven. Chapters 6 and 7 are well written and thought out. The arguments are clear, concise and cogent. The work of Christ is clearly spelled out in Chapter 6 and a call to faithfulness is well presented in Chapter 7.
The earlier chapters, however, seemed to me to have been written in a rush. There is a sense of passion in his arguments, which is not wrong in and of itself, but makes these chapters less well thought out than the closing chapters. I found myself making a number of comments about what he was saying. I will return to these chapters below.
Second, I think a better subtitle such as A Critique of Joel Osteen and the Prosperity Gospel would have been preferable. This is where the meat of Horton's argument is directed and would have saved him from Frame's criticism of painting with a broad brush.
Third, Horton is right in describing some parts of evangelicalism (to say nothing of liberalism) as vacuous. I have worshiped in some churches where the prayers and the sermon really said nothing useful. He is also correct in identifying a particular kind of American Christianity. In this regard, he could have strengthened his case by refering to the work of Mark Noll in his book America's God which clearly describes an American theology that has been shaped by American ideals. For instance, on page 54 Horton says, "It is not secular humanists but we ourselves who are secularizing the faith by transforming its odd message in some less jarring to the American psyche." This is precisely the point Noll makes in his work.
I will now review the first three chapters of Christless Christianity as well as chapter 5.
In chapter one, Horton describes what he means by Christless Christianity. It is that Christ is not preached in the apostolic sense. Instead, Jesus is a prop "for our own play." Sermons address issues like marriage, spiritual disciplines. Some of what Horton writes is similar to Ed Clowney's test of a Christian sermon: If a rabbi could preach that sermon, it wasn't Christian.
Yet, Horton's argument in chapter 1 is not totally convincing. He does not paint a clear picture of what he really means by a Christless Christianity. The closest he comes is his oft repeated phrase, "Do more, try harder." While this may be true, he says this is what he assumes "to be the regular diet in many churches across America..." (p. 17). He does not say at this point what grounds he has for that assumption. It is almost like he is setting up a straw man to knock down. As his discussions in the book later show, however, he is not setting up a straw man. If he had introduced some of that evidence in this first chapter, his arguments would be on firmer ground.
At the end of the chapter, Horton acknowledges that his judgments may be too sweeping or ill-informed. He further claims not to have any "particular wing, movement, person, or group" in mind. Further reading in the book reveals, however, that he does have particular persons in mind. Aside from that, he does make judgments that are too sweeping.
Chapter 2 is dedicated to naming the American captivity, which he calls "moralistic, therapeutic deism." Part of his arguments in this chapter are anecdotes, part based on the research of George Barna, Christian Smith, James Davison Hunter and other researchers, as well as magazine articles and even television dialogue. The closest Horton comes to dealing with primary sources is when he analyzes the preaching of Charles Finney. Yet, there is a difference between the Arminian, Semi-Pelagian preaching of Finney and the preaching recorded by Barna and others. He is right that some of Finney's preaching could be called moralistic, but it is a stretch to call it therapeutic and deistic.
Horton's sources in this chapter are one problem for me. Using secondary sources may be a time saving device, but in the age of the Internet, he could have searched for sermons online to evaluate and draw his own conclusions.
A second problem for me in this chapter is the structure. On page 48 he notes the work of Marcha Witten who analyzed a number of sermons regarding the prodigal son preached by Southern Baptist and PCUSA pastors. Yet, it is not until page 55 that he more or less begins to deal with the results of her work. The intervening pages are a side trip in which he again discusses the problem he sees with some parts of American Christianity. When he begins to discuss her findings, he does so uncritically. Witten found that the sermons treated God as the extravagent lover. Horton seems to accept this conclusion. Yet, is this not the point of the parable, especially as described by Tim Keller in his book The Prodigal God? Horton laments the absence of any need of a mediator or Christ's atoning work. He seems to have forgotten that this is a parable and must be understood as such. Witten found (and Horton accepts) that the preachers had a variety of things to say about the younger son and critiques the pastors for what they said and did not say. Some of their comments about the younger son are moralistic and perhaps do not take seriously enough his actions. But the parable is about God and is meant for the Pharisees. Neither Witten or Horton seem to get this.
More later.
In general, I found the work to be uneven. Chapters 6 and 7 are well written and thought out. The arguments are clear, concise and cogent. The work of Christ is clearly spelled out in Chapter 6 and a call to faithfulness is well presented in Chapter 7.
The earlier chapters, however, seemed to me to have been written in a rush. There is a sense of passion in his arguments, which is not wrong in and of itself, but makes these chapters less well thought out than the closing chapters. I found myself making a number of comments about what he was saying. I will return to these chapters below.
Second, I think a better subtitle such as A Critique of Joel Osteen and the Prosperity Gospel would have been preferable. This is where the meat of Horton's argument is directed and would have saved him from Frame's criticism of painting with a broad brush.
Third, Horton is right in describing some parts of evangelicalism (to say nothing of liberalism) as vacuous. I have worshiped in some churches where the prayers and the sermon really said nothing useful. He is also correct in identifying a particular kind of American Christianity. In this regard, he could have strengthened his case by refering to the work of Mark Noll in his book America's God which clearly describes an American theology that has been shaped by American ideals. For instance, on page 54 Horton says, "It is not secular humanists but we ourselves who are secularizing the faith by transforming its odd message in some less jarring to the American psyche." This is precisely the point Noll makes in his work.
I will now review the first three chapters of Christless Christianity as well as chapter 5.
In chapter one, Horton describes what he means by Christless Christianity. It is that Christ is not preached in the apostolic sense. Instead, Jesus is a prop "for our own play." Sermons address issues like marriage, spiritual disciplines. Some of what Horton writes is similar to Ed Clowney's test of a Christian sermon: If a rabbi could preach that sermon, it wasn't Christian.
Yet, Horton's argument in chapter 1 is not totally convincing. He does not paint a clear picture of what he really means by a Christless Christianity. The closest he comes is his oft repeated phrase, "Do more, try harder." While this may be true, he says this is what he assumes "to be the regular diet in many churches across America..." (p. 17). He does not say at this point what grounds he has for that assumption. It is almost like he is setting up a straw man to knock down. As his discussions in the book later show, however, he is not setting up a straw man. If he had introduced some of that evidence in this first chapter, his arguments would be on firmer ground.
At the end of the chapter, Horton acknowledges that his judgments may be too sweeping or ill-informed. He further claims not to have any "particular wing, movement, person, or group" in mind. Further reading in the book reveals, however, that he does have particular persons in mind. Aside from that, he does make judgments that are too sweeping.
Chapter 2 is dedicated to naming the American captivity, which he calls "moralistic, therapeutic deism." Part of his arguments in this chapter are anecdotes, part based on the research of George Barna, Christian Smith, James Davison Hunter and other researchers, as well as magazine articles and even television dialogue. The closest Horton comes to dealing with primary sources is when he analyzes the preaching of Charles Finney. Yet, there is a difference between the Arminian, Semi-Pelagian preaching of Finney and the preaching recorded by Barna and others. He is right that some of Finney's preaching could be called moralistic, but it is a stretch to call it therapeutic and deistic.
Horton's sources in this chapter are one problem for me. Using secondary sources may be a time saving device, but in the age of the Internet, he could have searched for sermons online to evaluate and draw his own conclusions.
A second problem for me in this chapter is the structure. On page 48 he notes the work of Marcha Witten who analyzed a number of sermons regarding the prodigal son preached by Southern Baptist and PCUSA pastors. Yet, it is not until page 55 that he more or less begins to deal with the results of her work. The intervening pages are a side trip in which he again discusses the problem he sees with some parts of American Christianity. When he begins to discuss her findings, he does so uncritically. Witten found that the sermons treated God as the extravagent lover. Horton seems to accept this conclusion. Yet, is this not the point of the parable, especially as described by Tim Keller in his book The Prodigal God? Horton laments the absence of any need of a mediator or Christ's atoning work. He seems to have forgotten that this is a parable and must be understood as such. Witten found (and Horton accepts) that the preachers had a variety of things to say about the younger son and critiques the pastors for what they said and did not say. Some of their comments about the younger son are moralistic and perhaps do not take seriously enough his actions. But the parable is about God and is meant for the Pharisees. Neither Witten or Horton seem to get this.
More later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)