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.