Review of Peter Leithart’s “Against Christianity” - Part 2
I’ve been spending much less time writing and a lot more time reading but I hope to get back into writing some more. Reading doesn’t help anybody but myself – that is, at first.
Continuing from where I left of...
Leithart goes on to say that we have made the Church strange and alien to the world. Strange in the sense of being something completely different than social and political institutions. Of course, the Church is strange. She is “a city whose town square is in heaven” (pg 17), a “polity without sword and shield. Of no other society can that be said.” (pg 17-18). But at the same time the Church is a culture just like any other culture. She “fits” in this world. God “did not intervene in a world of rituals and meals with spatuals and gleals”, nor did He “enter a world of books with blurks” (pg 18). Instead of throwing something utterly foreign into this “world of stories, symbols, rituals, and community rules” (pg 18), (Here comes N.T. Wright stuff) God introduced “into this world of stories, a rival story; into the world of books, God came with His own library; into a world of symbols and rituals and sacrificial meals, the Church was organized by a ritual bath and a feast of bread and wine; in the midst of cultures with their own ethos and moral atmosphere, God gathered a community to produce the aroma of Christ in their life together.”(pg 18) Althouogh Leithart is not denying the spiritual nature of Christ’s kingdom he is showing that its spiritual nature does not make it foreign or outside of this world. In fact, he claims that “if the Church is God’s society among human societies, a heavenly city invading the earthly city, then a territorial conflict is inevitable.”
Through the use of a story about Peter, Paul, John, and Barnus (a religious marketing consultant) Leithart makes the excellent point that God’s law and Christ’s Lordship are not merely private – instead they rule over all of the polis (in other words, the realm of politics is not outside of God’s law and Christ’s Lordship). At the end of the story Barnus says “Gentlemen, I’m very sorry. I can’t help you. You have completely misunderstood what we’re doing here. I don’t think you’re starting another religion; you’re doing something else entirely. I am a religious consultant, not a political revolutionary.” (pg 24)
On page 25 Leithart makes an interesting statement. He says, “Heaven is in our midst, and we are in the midst of heaven. Responding with homage and worship to the authority of the risen and ascended Lord, the Church is formed as a polity”. If we look at the endnote we read “…the Church is the true polity or commonwealth, and the phrase “political society” is analogously applied to other political communities.” (pg 145) If I understand him correctly then I think he’s saying that the Church’s government and form is of the truest form and other political groups and whatnot take their cues from Her – of course they probably don’t realize that that is what they are doing, but that’s another point.
According to Leithart, in the Greek world, when a general assembly of the polis was gathered together in a public space the name given to that assembly was ekklesia. Of course, this is the same word that is used to describe the general assembly of the Church and Leithart infers from that (and other data of course) that the “Church presented herself not as another “sect” or cult that existed under the umbrella of the polis; she was an alternative governing body for the city and the beginning of a new city.” In my mind this seems to conflict with Rushdoony who makes a clear distinction between the Church and state yet (rightly) sees God’s law governing both. If Leithart is saying that the great triumph of the church in the end will mean the coming of power of the Church over the city then I think I would have to disagree. I don’t believe that the power of protection through force is given to the Church - but maybe Leithart doesn’t believe that either. At this point in the book he is still doing much more tearing down then building up. It won’t be until the last chapter that he unveils his vision for how all this is going to fit together. Do doubt that many others will be wondering in like manner as I as they read this part of the book. It would seem that Leithart is arguing for a reinstitution of catholic rule but we will see that that is not exactly true.
This ends my review of the first chapter. I’ll finish with some quotes and comments.
Interesting quotes:
“If Christ has not restored human community, if society is not “saved” as much as the individual, then Christ has not restored man as he really is. Salvation must take a social form, and the Church is that social form of salvation, the community that already (thought imperfectly) has become the human race as God created it to be, the human race that is becoming what God intends it to be.” (pg 32)
“Today, McDonaldization is a challenge to Christians because it involves the spread of Western idolatry of mammon on a global scale, the United Nations is a threat because it is a false church, claiming a false catholicity. Globalists are enemies because they preach a false gospel, an eschatological message of international peace and plenty that will be achieved through liberal political and capitalist economic institutions.” (pg 34)
Concluding comments:
Leithart claims that if we are going to stand for the true gospel we must stand against Christianity. Of course, what he means by “Christianity” is that philosophy which is only mental and private concerning “eternal truths” taught in the scriptures. If that is ones’ definition then I too must stand against Christianity, but I would not make it matter of membership in the true visible church. I make that point because I think that many, upon reading this first chapter, might be under the impression that Leithart is claiming that all those adherents to Christianity are not truly part of the church. Of course, this is not true but it would be an easy pit to fall into. This book is especially hard hitting to Baptist who tend to preach a privatized religion and have a low view of Baptism and covenant community – they seem to be very much in the “grips of Christianity”. But this is also true of those super reformed Presbyterians (Trinty Foundation) who misunderstand the nature of Christ’s kingdom.
Over all I think the point Leithart is making is good. The controversial manner in which he is making it is over the top.
Continuing from where I left of...
Leithart goes on to say that we have made the Church strange and alien to the world. Strange in the sense of being something completely different than social and political institutions. Of course, the Church is strange. She is “a city whose town square is in heaven” (pg 17), a “polity without sword and shield. Of no other society can that be said.” (pg 17-18). But at the same time the Church is a culture just like any other culture. She “fits” in this world. God “did not intervene in a world of rituals and meals with spatuals and gleals”, nor did He “enter a world of books with blurks” (pg 18). Instead of throwing something utterly foreign into this “world of stories, symbols, rituals, and community rules” (pg 18), (Here comes N.T. Wright stuff) God introduced “into this world of stories, a rival story; into the world of books, God came with His own library; into a world of symbols and rituals and sacrificial meals, the Church was organized by a ritual bath and a feast of bread and wine; in the midst of cultures with their own ethos and moral atmosphere, God gathered a community to produce the aroma of Christ in their life together.”(pg 18) Althouogh Leithart is not denying the spiritual nature of Christ’s kingdom he is showing that its spiritual nature does not make it foreign or outside of this world. In fact, he claims that “if the Church is God’s society among human societies, a heavenly city invading the earthly city, then a territorial conflict is inevitable.”
Through the use of a story about Peter, Paul, John, and Barnus (a religious marketing consultant) Leithart makes the excellent point that God’s law and Christ’s Lordship are not merely private – instead they rule over all of the polis (in other words, the realm of politics is not outside of God’s law and Christ’s Lordship). At the end of the story Barnus says “Gentlemen, I’m very sorry. I can’t help you. You have completely misunderstood what we’re doing here. I don’t think you’re starting another religion; you’re doing something else entirely. I am a religious consultant, not a political revolutionary.” (pg 24)
On page 25 Leithart makes an interesting statement. He says, “Heaven is in our midst, and we are in the midst of heaven. Responding with homage and worship to the authority of the risen and ascended Lord, the Church is formed as a polity”. If we look at the endnote we read “…the Church is the true polity or commonwealth, and the phrase “political society” is analogously applied to other political communities.” (pg 145) If I understand him correctly then I think he’s saying that the Church’s government and form is of the truest form and other political groups and whatnot take their cues from Her – of course they probably don’t realize that that is what they are doing, but that’s another point.
According to Leithart, in the Greek world, when a general assembly of the polis was gathered together in a public space the name given to that assembly was ekklesia. Of course, this is the same word that is used to describe the general assembly of the Church and Leithart infers from that (and other data of course) that the “Church presented herself not as another “sect” or cult that existed under the umbrella of the polis; she was an alternative governing body for the city and the beginning of a new city.” In my mind this seems to conflict with Rushdoony who makes a clear distinction between the Church and state yet (rightly) sees God’s law governing both. If Leithart is saying that the great triumph of the church in the end will mean the coming of power of the Church over the city then I think I would have to disagree. I don’t believe that the power of protection through force is given to the Church - but maybe Leithart doesn’t believe that either. At this point in the book he is still doing much more tearing down then building up. It won’t be until the last chapter that he unveils his vision for how all this is going to fit together. Do doubt that many others will be wondering in like manner as I as they read this part of the book. It would seem that Leithart is arguing for a reinstitution of catholic rule but we will see that that is not exactly true.
This ends my review of the first chapter. I’ll finish with some quotes and comments.
Interesting quotes:
“If Christ has not restored human community, if society is not “saved” as much as the individual, then Christ has not restored man as he really is. Salvation must take a social form, and the Church is that social form of salvation, the community that already (thought imperfectly) has become the human race as God created it to be, the human race that is becoming what God intends it to be.” (pg 32)
“Today, McDonaldization is a challenge to Christians because it involves the spread of Western idolatry of mammon on a global scale, the United Nations is a threat because it is a false church, claiming a false catholicity. Globalists are enemies because they preach a false gospel, an eschatological message of international peace and plenty that will be achieved through liberal political and capitalist economic institutions.” (pg 34)
Concluding comments:
Leithart claims that if we are going to stand for the true gospel we must stand against Christianity. Of course, what he means by “Christianity” is that philosophy which is only mental and private concerning “eternal truths” taught in the scriptures. If that is ones’ definition then I too must stand against Christianity, but I would not make it matter of membership in the true visible church. I make that point because I think that many, upon reading this first chapter, might be under the impression that Leithart is claiming that all those adherents to Christianity are not truly part of the church. Of course, this is not true but it would be an easy pit to fall into. This book is especially hard hitting to Baptist who tend to preach a privatized religion and have a low view of Baptism and covenant community – they seem to be very much in the “grips of Christianity”. But this is also true of those super reformed Presbyterians (Trinty Foundation) who misunderstand the nature of Christ’s kingdom.
Over all I think the point Leithart is making is good. The controversial manner in which he is making it is over the top.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home