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.