Customer Reviews

Against Christianity

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is a book that should be read by all Christians, but sadly probably will not be. When Leithart says he is against "Christianity" he does not mean the the Christian faith, but the privatized, individualized religion that turnes everything into propositions and is reductionistic in its outlook.

He uses many weapons in his "deconstruction" of "Christianity" from John Millbank to Henri de Lubac to Alasdair MacIntyre to Stanley Hauerwas. He shows that Church is supposed to be a city, a polis, where we opperate as a community, not as a schismatic, divided body. Unfortunately today, it is seen as better to have the body of Christ divided, but this is not what Jesus prayed for.

The church is supposed to the the civitas dei, the city of God, as Augustine taught. However, with our privatized faith, this is impossible to have. We want to defend "truth" from error, yet we err in our fundamental understanding of what the church is. This is a greater error than all the other erros that we point out in others.

Dr. Leithart also does a great job showing the political implications for the gospel. This sounds bad in post-Social Gospel America, but the Gospel does have social implications. Leithart also argues that the body of Christ is a tangible body, which is entered into by baptism. This is a terrific teaching, and has terrific implications for all of life. May we all take what Dr. Leithart says seriously.

This the second book by Pastor Leithart that I have read (A House for My Name is the other), and here he has written a book that is quite difficult to read. Not because he uses bad English or his composition skills are lacking, but because he taking on such an overarching subject. I think one of the main things I took away from reading this book is that we must constantly be aware of false assumptions. When we go to church, when we read the Bible, when we pray, when we think about God, or when we write book reviews about good books we've read we must (by faith) seek to understand everything from the right perspective.
The most glaring false assumption this book pointed out to me was the assumption that the "Christianity" that I am surrounded by here in 21st Century America is 'prima facie' the faith once delivered to the saints found in Holy Scripture. If you are looking for a book that may help you, anger you, confuse you, and edify you all at the same time: this is your book.

Peter Leithart is by no means a heretic. John Robbins of Trinity Foundation seriously overreacts when he says that this book is heretical. It seems the "heresy of heresies" in modern Christendom (if you read the book you get that) is to tell the truth. Leithart attacks "Christianity" as we have fashioned it. He is not attacking God, nor is he attacking the Church. He is attacking the silliness that naturally ensues when men try to fashion either in their own image.
Leithart attacks the false dichotomies we have drawn in order to systematize the teaching of scripture. (For example: "Is baptism a symbol or a reality?" - Clearly a false question. It is both). What Leithart seems to be arguing is for a life-encompassing view of Christ, one which does not submit to Procrustean systematization or "sacred vs. secular" compartmentalization. The Church is called to be a culture of her own, and to eclipse all other cultures with hers. Leithart argues that "Christianity" sets itself up as just one more popsicle stand within a broader culture, the "real" one we live in. He writes,for example: "Contextualization be damned. The Church's mission is not to accomodate her language to the existing language, to disguise herself so as to slip in unnoticed and blend in with the existing culture."
Leithart argues for a belief in a Christian culture, one in which Christ is recognized and honored as the head of all things, in which worship is once again narrative, retelling (rather than systematizing) the mighty acts of God, and one in which the idea of modern "Christianity" is gone from our minds. Amen, come Lord Jesus. Thy Kingdom Come!

No, it's not latest Michael Martin Rant; Leithart means by "Christianity" the "privatized, spiritualized, intellectualized, depoliticized form of religion" now called by that name. This book addresses in William F. Buckley form the shortcomings of modern Christianity in ethics and practice. It prods the conscience, but is probably above the head of the persons who most need to hear what it says.

I did have reservations about Leithart's polemics against intellectualism, especially since he uses scholarly sources well and has a Ph. D. of his own. His challenge to obtain the work of a theologian, and look for the words he uses in a concordance, fits better in the mouth of a Jehovah's Witness. On the other hand, Leithart's commentary on individualism -- that which makes our sacraments lifeless hulks, and our churches into floating communities of one that pass like ships in the night -- deserve our attention.

This book will leave readers wishing for a more direct approach, one that does not wind its way through a forest of words to reach the stream in the clearing. But then, anything worth having is not usually free.

Peter Leithart, who teachers theology and literature at New St. Andrews College in Moskow, Idaho, makes a compelling case in his book, Against Christianity, that the modern church has lost her step with what it means to be Christ followers. He does this in four negative chapters with one positive chapter at the end. I saw now summarize each chapter and, then, follow up with what I believe are the strengths and weaknesses of the book.

The first chapter, entitled, Against Christianity, sets forth the idea that Christianity is not a private, spiritual religion, but a culture unto itself with all the things that make a culture significant. These things include ceremonies (see baptism and communion) and festivals (see the church calendar). The main point to glean from this chapter is that Leithart believes Christianity is a public religion that has bearings on the here and now.

The second chapter, Against Theology, is a referendum against those who would treat the truth's of Christ following as primarily located within propositional truth. Leithart prefers story to be the medium in which truth is communicated. Though, he is cautious to not completely through out propositional truth, he just wants us to consider it more a of second class citizen to the truth communicated through stories.

The third chapter, Against Sacraments, is where Leithart clarifies what he meant in the opening chapter about how Christ following requires a public-ness to it. He goes to great lengths to demonstrate how the signs of the covenant (baptism and communion) play an invaluable role in communal formation. He, also, thinks that the use of the traditional church calender and liturgy is also an effective, perhaps even necessary, tools for effective Christ following.

The forth chapter, Against Ethics, Leithart attempts to weld closely the notion of faith and works. I believe he is greatly indebted to the New Perspective on Paul in this regard and, especially, NT Wright. Part of what Leithart is trying to say is that in order to be a Christ follower you must want to follow Christ.

Finally, the last chapter, For Constantine, articulates Leithart's conviction that Chrisendom was not a mistake and that the separation of church and state in any sort of radical way is contrary to the gospel. I am reminded of the Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper who famously believed that Jesus looked out into the whole world and declared, "Mine!" There is no real distinction for Leithart between the religious and civil worlds; Christ follows are to work to "convert" civilization.

There is much in this book to love. Protestants have often strayed into gnosticism (believing the spiritual to be valuable while denying that the material is of divine concern) and this is a good book to correct this misguided view of things. Another thing I enjoyed about the book is his commitment to typological readings of the Old Testament. Finally, I thought he was witty, which made the book more interesting :)

One thing I did not like about the book was there seemed to be a view of culture that seeks homogeneity. This does not sit well with me. I am persuaded that Christ followers do need to have an organic culture that is universal in scope that is primarily demarcated by the administration of the sacraments and the preaching of the Word, but, at the same time, I think we are not called to "convert" other cultures, in my mind anyway, but to transform them. For example, the creation narratives at the beginning of Genesis, it has been suggested fairly persuasively, are derived from other ancient near eastern cultures, but have been transformed to fit the theological needs of the people of Israel. Other examples could be brought forward as well.

Another thing I did not find so interesting about this book was that I came under the impression that he was in love with the medieval church for all its rituals and symbols, plus all its festivals, but, on the other hand, he rejects Roman Catholicism, the source of those rituals, on the grounds of theology--something he is supposed to be against! I will not press him to hard on this one though, I think he has significant resources to respond to me here.

The last complaint I have about the book is that no matter how much Leithart wants to convince us that his picture of New Testament Christ following is organic to the texts, he simply cannot. Many of the things he says make a lot of sense in regard to the New Testament, but, on finally analysis, he really is dependent on post modern sociology and anthropology to make his case. I don't find this problematic, I just think he needs to be up front about it from the beginning. Leithart is a person of his age.

In conclusion, I found most of the book to be quite enlightening. I agreed with a lot of what he had to say and he said it in clever ways. If I were on Amazon review (which I am now;)) I would probably give the book 4 stars because it does tell a story that needs to be told (of how conservative Protestants have erroneously given up on the material universe) but find his inner logic to fail him at times. None the less, I think anyone interested in the directions Evangelicalism is going should read this book.

Against Christianity

A good book for those who are interested in theology and/or are ready for revolution in church practice. You may not agree with everything that Leithart says, but dang the guy is smart, and he knows how to write.

Not everyone is a Peter Leithart fan. Being a member of the "Federal Vision" camp essentially means putting a big target on your back and then seeking to stroll across a firing range. But Leithart has something to say in this book and folks shouldn't let their differences on other theological issues ( i.e. Paedo-Communion, the imputation of the "active" obedience of Christ, etc.c) interfere with hearing him here.
In this book Leithart is seeking to slap the Church out of its dogmatic slumbers and awaken Her to the presuppositions and assumptions which She has, perhaps unconsciously, adopted from the secular world. Here he issues a clarion call to vibrant Christian witness that is centered on the expectation that God actually intends for His people to claim every aspect of human life for the Gospel.
Too long the Church has made Her nest in dualism and, particularly in this country, nodded Her head to mission while bending Her knee to Mammon. Leithart calls this attitude "Christianity." It is not the doctrines of the Church that he opposes.... it is the heart of the Church that he is "against." Along the way he indicts a dualistic, spiritualization of theology, the observance of the sacraments, ethics and then, contra most prevailing views, gives an apology for Constantinism. He does so in concise, readable, accessible prose that communicates well.
Whether you agree with him or not.... this is a book thoughtful and concerned Christians ought to read.

"It is an error to think that once we've systematized the propositional content of scripture, the result is a 'worldview' called Christianity to which we can give our assent, and there an end"

Leithart tells us clearly that Christianity is not "religious" beliefs over against "secular" or "political" or "social," it is not a layer added onto human life. It is life.

The church is a way of living together before God, a new way of being human together. The gospel is the announcement of a new city through His Son and the Spirit.

The church is a salvation.

The gospel is an inherently political community.

Theology, on the other hand, is an invention of biblical scholars.

This book take that compartmentalized view of Christianity and throws in on the fire. Leithart then goes on to explain why he is against sacraments, against ethics and against theology.

The church is where it all happens, where we gain salvation, where we live, where we have a community here and now and our roots in heaven.

In "Against Christianity," Dr. Peter Leithart of New St. Andrew's College in Moscow (Moscow, Idaho)revives the case made by Catholic Hilaire Belloc that "Christianity" is an abstraction.
In making his case, Dr.Leithart (a Presbyterian minister whose denomination entertains nostalgia for the 16th century "Kirk" established by John Knox) cites several prominent Catholic thinkers, including St. Thomas Aquinas, Alasdair MacIntyre, Rene Girard, Father Graham Ward, plus Jesuit Cardinals Henri de Lubac and Jean Danielou. (And that's just for starters.)
Also cited, at least twice, is Dr. John Milbank, a high-Anglican Catholic and co-founder of High Anglicanism's "Radical Orthodoxy" movement out of Cambridge University -- where, coincidentally, Dr. Leithart obtained his doctorate in Systematic Theology.
Milbank names as his own leading light the great Catholic theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar (in addition to the aforementioned DeLubac and MacIntyre).
Dr. Leithart points out that from the Church's birth, a "Christian" always meant belonging to a tangible, physical, institional reality, by means of which one entered into the intra-Trinitarian communion of love. No Born-Again theology here, to be sure. He also praises high Liturgy and the allegorical interpretation of Scripture villified by Luther and Calvin. He praises the "early" (apparently also including "High") Middle Ages for and integration achieved between Church and state, public and private, due in no small part to the Scripture-saturated nature of theology at that time. (Note: Aquinas and Bonaventure were considered "biblical commenators".)
No wonder two Presbyterian synods seem to consider Dr. Leithart's movement "too Catholic" -- and that his movement responds in turn with overheated anti-Catholic vitriol.
Where Leithart appears to falter, however, is in denying the autonomous sphere of political authority named by God in Romans 13 and 1 Peter.
In other words: it isn't enough for the Gospel to "inform" and permeate political culture. The implication seems to be there IS no legitimate political authority apart from the Church - in clear contradiction to Peter calling Christians to "honor" the Dionysius-worshipping emperor, and Paul insisting that Diana-worshipping state officials are "ministers of (the one true) God."
Dr. Leithart strangely accuses the Church Fathers of having inventing 'secularism'due to their theology of the Sacraments, and ignores the explicitly sacrficial nature of the Lord's Supper which the Didache, Justin Martyr (d.165), Irenaeus (d.185), Cyprian, and Augustine all take for granted.
He also claims to find the only place where Paul engages philosophy to be at the Aeropagus, as narrated in Acts.
He thus passes over in silence the fact that Hebrews 1 is packed with Philo's Middle Platonic languate and categories, and that Paul does, in fact, engage philosophers while disputing which Stoics and Epicureans (also found in Acts).
Most seriously of all, however, is a peculiar implication regarding the "Prophet Stanely" in a semi-humorous anecdote in which it's implied that 'religious freedom' is somehow a 'bad thing.'
Disturbing as this would be, if it were to accurately reflect his denomination's thought, it would, in fact, fit in well with what John Knox was all about. Excellent sources for this can be found in G.K. Chesterton's chapter "The Protestant Hero" in his work entitled, "The Crimes of England"; the treatment of Catholics as found in the Constitution of New Jersey in the 17th-19th centuries; and under the heading "John Knox" in the (old) Catholic Encyclopedia [www.newadvent.org.]
Dr. Leithart also faulters on the matter of St. Augustine's "ecclesiology" where he claims this good bishop would never have denied communion to a believer. Augustine explicitly held ecclesial communion with the Church of Rome and Bishop ("Blessed Peter"), and could hardly be concieved of as being willing to offer the Eucharist to the Donatist schismatics whom he exhorted to rejoin the "Ecclesia Catholica."
Dr. Leithart also seems to err in claiming that the protestant reformers were right in wanting a more "Hebrew" and less "Greek" Christianity. This is a Bultmannian reading of Scritpure, and goes against the research of the great Protesant Dr. Martin Hengel, whose works underscore just how "Hellenized" Christ's milieu actually was.
In addition, while the good Doctor points out that Christians just can't agree on what constitutes a sin anymore, there's a good reason for this: and it dates back to the 16th and 20th centuries, respectively - when Luther trivialized divorce, and the Anglicans trivialized contraception at Lambeth.
The early Christians had no doubts about the evil of contraception. And one would do better to read such Protestant works as "The Bible and Birth Control" by Charles Sovran, and "Open Embrace" than reading Dr. Leithart on this particular issue.
This may sound like a lot of negativity. If it does, than I suppose I owe Dr. Leithart an apology. Because, to be frank, evangelical and other Christians can learn a great deal from his book - which is why I unhesitatingly give it three stars.