Christless Christianity, part 3

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.