Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church by Michael Horton is a book that slipped by me. I read several good reviews. I saw it in the bookstore.

But because I am an avid listener of Horton’s radio show, The White Horse Inn, I thought I would be already (overly, perhaps) familiar with the gist of the book. So my attention was diverted elsewhere.

Then, several weeks ago, John Frame, professor at Reformed Theological Seminary, wrote a scathing review of the book. Frame devoted so many pages to debunking Horton’s thesis that I became very intrigued. What is up with this book that it would cause such consternation from someone who agrees with Horton in so many areas?

So I decided to pick up the book for myself. It is always a dangerous thing to read a book after you’ve read an extensive review. There is always the possibility you will see the book through the eyes of the reviewer and not be fair to the author. But in this case, I think Frame’s review (though helpful in some respects) is unfairly tilted against Horton. After having read it for myself, I believe Horton’s book deserves careful consideration by all who are concerned about the current direction of evangelicalism.

Christless Christianity can best be described as “prophetic.” It is a wake-up call to the American church to shake off the slumber of consumerist complacency. It is a rallying cry to put Jesus back in the center of our preaching, worship, and devotion.

Because Horton’s work is prophetic, he occasionally makes judgments that may be too sweeping (as he himself admits [27]). But criticizing him for occasional generalizations is like taking Isaiah to task for condemning Israel’s false worship. Come on, Isaiah! Surely you don’t mean that all our offerings are in vain? The nature of a prophetic book is to passionately call people to renewed faith, and Horton fulfills this role admirably.

Horton does not accuse all Americans of denying the faith. Instead, he warns against being so distracted that we miss the essence of the gospel. We are inclined to turn in on ourselves and tell our stories rather than Christ’s. We make worship about our needs rather than his glory. We make salvation about self-fulfillment rather than rescue from sin and its punishment.

Those who are familiar with Horton’s work will not find any surprises in Christless Christianity. But nowhere else will you find such a well-written critique of the American evangelical church.

The chapter on Joel Osteen – “Smooth Talking and Christless Christianity” – is the single best treatment of Osteen’s theological outlook that has been written. Horton’s chapter on Osteen is so devastating that it’s like bringing out a bulldozer to displace a stone, or a high-powered fan to move a feather.

Frame was right to point out that there are places where Horton might swing the pendulum too far. Horton’s assertion that “Christianity is not a worldview, a way of life, or a program for personal and societal change; it is a gospel” (105) is too restrictive. It is true that the gospel is not a worldview or way of life, but Christianity is indeed a way of seeing the world. The gospel message itself makes little sense unless placed within the broader, biblical framework (“worldview”) in which it is announced.

In another section, Horton declares that “the worst thing that can happen to the church is confuse law and gospel” (122). While confusing the theological categories of law and gospel can indeed by dangerous, is this the worst thing that can happen? If so, why did Paul not specifically warn against this confusion of categories in Scripture?

Horton’s separation of law and gospel leads him to say that “any form of doing the gospel is a confusion of categories.” And yet, Paul himself speaks of “obeying the gospel” (Rom. 10:16; 2 Thess. 1:8). So does Peter (1 Pet. 4:17). Horton’s exhortation to carefully distinguish between law and gospel is good. But sometimes he creates such a dichotomy between the indicative and imperative that the complexity of the New Testament texts are flattened.

These quibbles aside, Christless Christianity is well worth your time. Horton is at his best when he is not only demonstrating where we are wrong, but where we should be right. One reason I have always admired Horton is that he recognizes temptations within his own theological tradition.

“Our temptation as Reformed Christians is to pride ourselves on bearing the marks of a true church regardless of whether people actually being added to the church,” he writes. (197)

He is absolutely right to insist that “without the marks, the mission is blind; without the mission, the marks are dead” (205).

In the end, Frame’s review strikes me as too sweeping (and surprisingly personal). Horton’s book, on the other hand, is strong medicine for a sick church. We need to heed many of his warnings if we are to be faithful to the gospel.