Christless Christianity #2 – Which type of Church do you attend?
Jan 12th, 2009 by Nathan White
I am spending a few posts in the coming weeks sharing various excerpts from the Michael Horton book, Christless Christianity. This is the second post in what I hope to be a mini-series examining the claims of this book.
As I have said before, I highly recommend Christless Christianity to you, as I consider it to be one of the most important books written in the last few years.
Today’s topic: Two Different Types of Churches: Which Do You Attend?
“Imagine two scenarios of church life. In the first, God gathers His people together in a covenantal event to judge and to justify, to kill and to make alive. The emphasis is on God’s work for us –the Father’s gracious plan, the Son’s saving life, death, and resurrection, and the Spirit’s work of bringing life to the valley of dry bones through the proclamation of Christ. The preaching focuses on God’s work in the history of redemption from Genesis through Revelation, and sinners are swept into this unfolding drama. Trained and ordained to mine the riches of Scripture for the benefit of God’s people, ministers try to push their own agendas, opinions, and personalities to the background so that God’s Word will be clearly proclaimed. In this preaching, the people…are simply receivers –recipients of grace… Having been served by God in the public assembly, the people are then servants of each other and their neighbors in the world. Pursuing their callings in the world with vigor and dedication, they win the respect of outsiders. Because they have been served well themselves…they are able to share the Good News of Christ in well-informed, natural ways. And because they have been relieved of numerous burdens to spend all of their energy on church-related ministries throughout the week, they have more time to serve their families, neighbors, and coworkers in the world.”
This church certainly sounds like a dream, huh? I’m not so sure a local assembly could ever be this perfect, so to speak. But what struck me about this section was his description of the second scenario.
“In the second scenario, the church is its own subculture, and alternative community not only for weekly dying and rising in Christ but for one’s entire circle of friends, electricians, and neighbors. In this scenario, the people assume that they come to church primarily to do something. The emphasis is on their work for God. The preaching concentrates on principles and steps to live a better life, with a constant stream of exhortations: Be more committed. Read your bible more. Pray more. Witness more. Give more. Get involved in this cause or that movement to save the world. Their calling by God to secular vocations is made secondary to finding their ministry in the church. Often malnourished because of a ministry defined by personal charisma and motivational skills rather than by knowledge and godliness, these same sheep are expected to be shepherds themselves. Always serving, they are rarely served. Ill-informed about the grand narrative of God’s work in redemptive history, they do not really know what to say to a non-Christian except to talk about their own experiences and perhaps repeat some slogans or formulas that they might be hard-pressed to explain. Furthermore, because they are expected to be so heavily involved in church-related activities (often considered more important even than the public services on Sunday), they do not have the time, energy, or opportunity to develop significant relationships outside the church.”
(All emphasis mine)
I think it is safe to say that just as there probably isn’t a perfect church that matches all the traits Horton gives in the first scenario, their likewise isn’t a good bit of churches that match all of the traits given in the second scenario. However, I think we would be mistaken if we didn’t recognize that the vast majority of churches in this day align with the characteristics of the second, as opposed to the rarity of churches now days looking like the first. This is particularly true of ‘mega-churches’ in our day.
What do you think? Do the traits described in the first scenario align with scripture? Are the negative traits given in the second scenario really that bad?
And I...
nate,
i have searched all my libraries and cannot find this book anywhere. i can typically get Christian books of all sorts there (free!) but not this one.
*sigh*
i am still trying. i REALLY want to read it!!!! keep posting about it…although it may force me to go purchase a copy
Tiff–
It’s a fairly new book, so you might have to wait for your library’s to get it.
But you’ll definitely want to get it one day soon. I think it will present things in a way you’ve probably never heard before (it did so with me!).
Oh, and remember that you can read the first chapter for free, here:
http://www.christlesschristianity.org/
Thanks. Thanks A LOT.
When Josiah sees ‘Amazon.com’ on the bank statement I am going to have him call YOU…since it is all your fault for hooking me into that first chapter
I definitely agree Horton is making an astute observation here. I definitely agree with him somewhat.
However, I think we need to be aware of going to the extreme on either side of the spectrum. One tendency I see with reformed church is that we tend to be deathly impractical and irrelevant. By combating the “culture relevancy” philosophy, we tend to go the opposite extreme where everything is so lofty, heavenly, and high, that there is no practicality anymore. Personally, I sometimes like to hear that I need to read my Bible more, and pray more, and serve more:).
If all I hear is about what I need to do in the church, and how I need to act in my life, I will soon be left hungry and famished, desiring more than just milk. Conversely, if all I hear is about God’s nature–who God is, what God has done, How God has worked, etc. I soon become fatigued and lost in all the loftiness, where I’m saying to myself, “What in the world does this mean to me?”
Wasn’t Paul practical, sometimes? At the beginning of his epistles he tended to be very theological, but at the end of his letters, he was practical–”Children, obey your parents!”
Am I missing the boat, here?
Davide–
I see and agree with what you’re stating, and I think Horton would too in reading his book. But, understand that there is a distinction between ‘good news’ and ‘instruction’, between teaching and preaching, etc.
In other words, we proclaim the good news when we preach, and we instruct from God’s word, and derive from the already-preached good news, when we teach. Thus, all of those things you mentioned, exhortations, instructions, etc., are absolutely necessary, without a doubt. But we’re in danger if we confuse the order. The gospel must lay the groundwork or we’ll never get the instruction right. Furthermore, though I’m not sure I agree with Horton on this 100%, but he would say that the preaching on the Lord’s Day must be proclamation, and that teaching/instruction must come at other times.
What are your thoughts on that?
“Thus, all of those things you mentioned, exhortations, instructions, etc., are absolutely necessary, without a doubt. But we’re in danger if we confuse the order. The gospel must lay the groundwork or we’ll never get the instruction right.”
I’m absolutely with you on that. As far as Horton suggesting the exclusivity of proclamation on the Lord’s day, I’m just curious as to his basis for that statement. Does he give one?
Davide–
I have not heard him specifically defend that aspect. My speculation would be that he would defend it from the Sabbath point of view (remember, the Sabbath is an extension of the Regulative Principle of Worship), but I’m not 100% positive.
I’m curious as to how you see the Sabbath as an extension of the rpw.
We’ve talked about it before. God commands us in the frequency of our worship. Man does not decide when or how often to publicly worship. If so, we would be free to have it once a month, or even once a year if we like.
The 1689/Westminster bear this out by including the Sabbath in the chapter “Of religious worship and of the sabbath day”.
Sam Waldon comments on it: “Just as every other major element of worship is appointed by God and not by ecclesiastical authority, even so the day of public worship is not left for man to decide. By a positive, moral and perpetual commandment, God appoints the day.”
Waldron goes on from there and explains it further, but you get the gist.
Actually, I never thought about the Sabbath in relation to the regulative principle, but what you are saying makes sense.