I’ve recently stumbled across an amazing article called “Christless Christianity” by Michael Horton. He deals with a lot of things, but mostly about how Christians always want to make Christianity essentially about themselves, rather than Jesus and his finished work on the cross. He rightly points out that today’s uber-hip Emergent Church movement is the most recent example of this tendency in the church. The Emergent movement (as a whole; I acknowledge there are exceptions) raises the bar on the law, while downplaying the significance of the cross–the only hope we’ve got. Here is a right-on excerpt from the article:
Today, partly in response to the appalling lack of genuine discipleship in a post-Christian era, many Protestants like Stanley Hauerwas and Brian McLaren encourage us to recover the Anabaptist legacy, which, as I mentioned, focused on Jesus as moral example. In A Generous Orthodoxy, Brian McLaren explains, “Anabaptists see the Christian faith primarily as a way of life,” interpreting Paul through the lens of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount rather than vice versa. The emphasis falls on discipleship rather than on doctrine, as if following Jesus’ example could be set against following his teaching. What happens when the Sermon on the Mount is assimilated to a general ethic of love (i.e., pure morality), and doctrine (ecclesiastical faith) is made secondary? Christ himself becomes a mere example to help people become better non-Christians. In fact, McLaren writes, “I must add, though, that I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts.” “I don’t hope all Jews or Hindus will become members of the Christian religion. But I do hope all who feel so called will become Jewish or Hindu followers of Jesus.” It is no wonder, then, that McLaren can say concerning liberal Protestants, “I applaud their desire to live out the meaning of the miracle stores even when they don’t believe the stories really happened as written.” After all, it’s deeds, not creeds that matter. McLaren seems to suggest that following Jesus (pure religion) can exist with or without explicit faith in Christ (ecclesiastical faith).
There is nothing especially postmodern about any of this, of course. It is simply the legacy of the Enlightenment and its moralistic antecedents. If following Jesus’ example of love (never mind his exclusive claims, divisive rhetoric, and warning of judgment) is the gospel, then, of course there will be many Buddhists and liberals who are better “Christians” than many of us who profess faith in Christ. As Mark Oestriecher, another Emergent church writer, relates, “My Buddhist cousin, except for her unfortunate inability to embrace Jesus, is a better ‘Christian’ (based on Jesus’ description of what a Christian does) than almost every Christian I know. If we were using Matthew 26 as a guide, she’d be a sheep; and almost every Christian I know personally would be a goat.” Yet at the end of the day, “radical disciples” will burn out, too, and realize that they, like the rest of us, are hypocrites who fall short of God’s glory and need someone outside of them not only to show the way but to be the way of redemption. (empasis mine. -AZ) Although McLaren himself does not deny the Christ confessed in the creeds, he believes that what is most important about Jesus Christ is his call to discipleship, which allows us to participate in his redeeming work, rather than his unique, unrepeatable, completed work for sinners two thousand years ago.
COMMENTS
8 responses to “Michael Horton on "Christless Christianity"”
Leave a Reply
So helpful Aaron! Thanks.
Horton reveals the problem with the Emergent Church so clearly. I think it is possible to substitute a bunch of contemporary and not so contemporary church movements (The New Perspective, Progressive, etc.) in for “Emergent” and see the parallels.
Yes, Sean. It’s no coincidence that the Emergent movement explicitly identifies N.T. Wright as one of their main theological influences. Read the quotes from emergent pastors in Eddie Gibbe’s book, Emerging Churches. Wright is, of course, a theologian who identifies with some of the main conclusions of the New Perspective camp. And he is hot stuff among evangelicals (Case in point: he is speaking in November at my old church in Boston, Park Street Church). Wright says a lot of good about a lot of things, but his theology has been used by the emergent people to swing their focus away from the cross and the atonement and towards the “Deeds, not creeds” thing Horton talks about.
I agree with Sean and would add a large swath of mainline protestant denominations as well. The Jesus Seminar folks are awfully popular with left-leaning clergy, especially Crossan’s “theory” that there are “death” Chrisians who place utmost importance on the substitutionary death and resurrection of Christ and believe our chief role as disciples is to spread the Gospel, and the “life” Christians who place utmost importance on the life and teachings of Jesus and believe that our chief role as disciples is emulation. In these terms, I’d rather be a “death” christian holding to the Lord of Life (CREEDS) than a “life” christian looking simply for a moral example (DEEDS).
At the turn of the 20th Century, this type of positive appraisal of humanity was reigning supreme thanks to 19th Century liberal protestantism. Then we had the two world wars, and Karl Barth and his friends came along and said, “oh crap, we forgot about sin and human depravity.” In short, the wars were a game changer about how we thought of ourselves. This of course drove the theologians back to scripture where they—once again—found a healthy emphasis on human depravity and sin.
Say what you want about Barth’s theology, but we need to repeat his call for a return to an appropriately scriptural anthropology…esp. in the academy.
This emergent thing is a cancer, and all the more dangerous because it’s addressing legitimate concerns.
D.A. Carson’s book on the Emerging Church is also very good! -JAZ+
Mike Horton is an intelligent and staunch defender of the Gospel, and he’s also one of the most piercing critics of the contemporary Western Church. In short, he’s the man! Love this excerpt Aaron.
Any of you who haven’t gotten into his radio show/podcast “The White Horse Inn”, do yourself a favor and subscribe for free on iTunes. It’s 30 minutes, once a week, and totally worth your time! Plus you get to listen to “Uncle” Rod Rosenbladt as well!
Let me make a brief plug for two great books by our beloved Fitz Alison:
(1) The Rise of Moralism
(2) The Cruelty of Heresy
Both books spend a lot of time exploring why “moral example” Christian theology (which goes back 1900 years) is not just wrong but deeply CRUEL to suffering needy people.
My favorite part of RISE is the section on the two sides of Jeremy Taylor.
Aaron and others on the thread have made the connection between the EC and NT Wright.
Here’s a wonderful essay explaining and critiquing the New Perspective on paul and NT Wright in particular.
http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086%7CCHID560462%7CCIID1660662,00.html
It’s more than just good; parts of it are also really funny. For example:
“Perhaps I should pause right here and tell you a little bit about how and why I began to read on this topic, and my initial reaction to Sanders and Wright, in particular. I want to mention this, because I find, in talking with evangelical students who are enamored of Wright and the NPP, that they are often dismissive of anyone who has a criticism of Wright, and assume that the only reason that you are critical is that you haven’t read Wright, or that you haven’t read Wright right, or that you haven’t read enough of Wright, or that if you had only read more of Wright, you would believe that Wright was right, and so on.”
The article has a long affectionate tribute to our own PZ halfway through it.