Christless Christianity: Necessary Assessment but the Pendulum Swings

As a born and raised evangelical, and someone who remains "evangelical" despite the loaded connotations of the term, Horton's Christless Christianity was a punchy read, necessary for me to grapple with. Even while there were certain areas I disagreed with the author, this book forced me to give an honest look at my own church tradition, and ways that it can perhaps be re-aligned to a more Biblical, Gospel focused model.

Christless Christianity begins with a critical assessment of the modern Americanized Gospel. Horton laments the "Pelagian" heresy that is the de facto religion of the human heart, which Horton argues, exists even in our most conservative houses of worship. This heresy limits Jesus to an example to follow or a means to a better life. The gospel is good advice, not any more "good news" of a reality outside of us by which we are shaken and confronted. We emphasize "deeds not creeds" as we climb the ladder to "your best life now" and higher levels of Spirituality. Horton is bitingly critical of Osteen, McLaren, Charles Finney among others--characters who in their own way each minimized the doctrinal proclamation of "Christ crucified" for their own brand of moralistic self-improvement. Even our orthodox houses of worship are not exempt from the critique, as Horton writes:

Whatever churches say they believe, the incoherent answers offered by those entrusted to their ministry substantiate my argument that a moralistic religion of self-salvation is our default setting as fallen creatures. If we are not explicitly and regularly taught out of it, we will always turn the message of God's rescue into a message of self-help.

To this I give a hardy amen. "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism" is the religion of the masses and if anything it has gotten worse in the insipid post-modern current 10 years following the publishing of this book. We have made God in our own image, and He is someone who is nice! Someone who helps us along with our stories; as opposed to a fearful God who is the main character. A God who, as C. S. Lewis wrote, is characterized by "strong, skillful hands thrust down to make, and mend, perhaps even to destroy." A holy God who breaks us with his demands (law), yet meets us in our weaknesses in Christ Jesus (gospel).

Though I am very much inspired with Horton's main thrust, I felt that he at times went too far in his critiques of evangelicalism. Horton throughout maintained a rather disparaging tone towards calls to effort, or to love and good works, or to live worthy of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He writes when tackling the legal undertones of modern religion: "The best efforts of the best Christians, on the best days, in the best frame of heart and mind, with the best motives fall short of that true righteousness and holiness that God requires." To this I cannot help but ask: can no Christian ever please God? Surely communal believers who have been redeemed in Christ Jesus can begin to walk in the law with obedience, because their efforts, though flawed, are being guided by the Holy Spirit who indwells them. Indeed, this is John Calvin's third use of the law (Institutes, 2.7.12); but such Christian effort must be rooted in Christ's sanctifying power within us, not our own.

At one point Horton even bemoans the Christian youth summer camps' call to "surrender all" as if these calls were ever a Pelagian's way to win heaven's favor. Throughout the book it seemed to me that Horton confuses "calls to respond" to the gospel message (repent and believe) with the Pelagian heresy of "earning your own way" or "following right advice". But the gospel is to be responded to, and true belief will yield to repentance and surrender. Surrendering to Christ's Lordship is a most natural response to the gospel proclamation Horton rightfully holds high.

Horton makes good points about the modern religion's similarity to the ancient heresy of Gnosticism. Where traditional Christianity was historical and creedal, Gnosticism was largely experiential. There was no outside deity who demands our worship, in Gnosticism we ourselves are forms of deity and our experience determines truth. No doubt there is a connection here in modern religion, but does Horton swing the pendulum too far in his assessment of the church? Just because the Christian religion is creedal / historical does not mean that it is non-experiential, and to say so denies the rich experience offered in the Christian's union with Christ. Christians have the privilege of experiencing the truly mystical indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who internally testifies with our Spirit that we are sons of God (Romans 8:16). To admit this does not negate the necessity of doctrine and gospel centered proclamations.

If every call to obedience is deemed Pelagian and every internal experience Gnostic--we may find ourselves embracing a cognitively heavy, but dry religion; a scholasticism that while doctrinally orthodox, is missing that necessary vibrancy of life. Jesus told the woman at the well that a day is coming and now is when the true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and in truth. We need both, and any minimization of one will lead to an unbalanced religion missing the fullness of all that God has to offer his church.

As an aside, I feel that a chunk of Horton's writing could be taken out. He is perhaps unnecessarily repetitious in his thought, continually rephrasing and paraphrasing sentences mentioned earlier. Also I found the frequent back and forth of "Pelagian view" one paragraph and correct "Gospel-Centered view" in the next paragraph a bit tedious to read. While this is a minor criticism, would it not be simpler to state the false view in the beginning part of the chapter, and debunk it in full in the latter part?

Despite my critiques, do not take this review as a negative one. I enjoyed this book and I am amazed and saddened at the seepage of individualistic, consumeristic culture into the church. Horton's call to embrace the gospel message, to know Christ and Him crucified, is so necessary for the American church today. His exposure of the Pelagian tendencies in pop culture and denominations both liberal and conservative is most welcome. His description of the individualistic "all you can eat buffet' view of gnostic internal spirituality is illuminating, and his call to precise doctrinal creeds is noted. His almost simple description of the church being a place where the members weekly receive the "means of grace" through Word and Sacrament is truly refreshing. But the pendulum continued where it should have stopped. Not all calls to obedience are Pelagian (if rooted in the gospel), and not all internal Spiritual experience is Gnostic (if it is indeed of the Spirit of God). We can retain the baby while removing that dirty bathwater, but Horton is perhaps slightly less measured--and that is my main critique.