Chad Lawrence is keen to warn his audience against forms of Pietism and thinks he's found it hiding in the works of New Calvinist author David Platt.
Platt's 'Radical: Taking Back Your Faith From the American Dream' was released in 2010 and made a splash in Evangelical circles. Platt's work has some problems to be sure - he rightly wants to counter American consumerist norms but equates the rejection with a model of piety which is expressed by means of the highly flawed and corrupt 'missions'-ministry approach common in modern Evangelicalism and a kind of missional approach which tends toward an agenda of social transformation. And for the record, a mega-church is hardly the venue for Pietism to sink roots.
I think the greatest exception (by some) to Platt's argument is the attitude he expresses about money and yet Platt's own life reveals he's not very radical at all. It's easy to call upon the Church to give lots of money when you're rich. And when comparing your standing of living versus others in Evangelical spheres, it's easy to justify your wealth. How many pastors living in mini-mansions see themselves as humble because they're not living in one of the palaces so typical of TBN-type ministers? How many live off several hundred thousand dollars a year but feel justified because they're not making millions? It's the same prosperity gospel - just a different style.
Radical Inc. lists Platt's salary as zero and yet he's clearly bringing in a substantial income. There's lots of way to make money from non-profits that can be categorized as other than a salary. He also has book royalties and I'm sure he does well speaking at conferences - well enough to buy a $1 million dollar plus home, drive a Range Rover, and travel first class. Now someone might say a million dollar home is no big deal in a place like Northern Virginia which (as part of the Washington DC metro) is admittedly a high-end market. MacLean Bible Church is located less than ten minutes away from the Tyson's Corner Mall - an area associated with affluence.
In the end, I don't really care about Platt - he's just another deceived deceiver, a phoney, a false shepherd. The Church is full of them and they're all over Christian radio. It's nothing new.
If
he really was serious about re-thinking cultural norms about money
and lifestyle and challenging the Church on these fronts, I would be
interested. But he's just full of hot air - another mega-church
pastor standing in front of a rock band, another fake-smile celebrity
leading a 'ministry'. They're a dime a dozen.
But he's used in
this piece as a foil - a warning regarding extraordinary piety and
the call to live a zealous Christian life versus the kind of Ordinary
Means of Grace Christianity found within Confessional Reformed and
Lutheran circles. The latter is a piety wed to simple and regular
church attendance and living a faithful life that doesn't require
making a splash.
There's something to be said for this. There's nothing wrong with being just an average working guy who lives by running a lawn mower, operating a cash register, swinging a hammer, or driving a bus. Apart from the lives of the apostles, the New Testament's picture of the normal Christian life is one of humble obedience, patient suffering, quietly working with your hands, and praying in your closet all the while loving your neighbour with joy. Paul rightly points out that not many of the mighty are called.
Unlike Horton, I would except many occupations, specifically those connected to government, finance, and the corporate sector - jobs that represent a fundamental ethical conflict with the calling of New Covenant life. These are occupations wed to a system of violence, exploitation, usury, and empire.
And in addition to what I would argue as ethical compromise, there's an additional danger in viewing 'normal' through the lens of middle class values and expectations. Sure there's a lot of 'normal' non-earthshaking people who faithfully attend church but are in the grips of mammonism and its values, and build their wealth off the exploitation, pain, and suffering of others. They don't see it because they've deliberately chosen not to see. They could use a 'radical' re-think even if Platt's exhortations ring hollow.
The assumption (argued by Lawrence) that if you just work hard in the Free Market context of America you'll probably be financially well off is a lie rooted in false assumption. If you're ethical in your work, you most likely will not flourish, and you will certainly not climb the ladder unless you are persistently closing your eyes to endless compromises, and training your conscience to embrace large-scale rationalisation. Faithful Christian living in the context of American Capitalism will rarely translate into wealth or even middle class status.
Further, the Protestant Work Ethic resting on the notion of Vocation were born out of the Magisterial Reformation's reaction to Roman Catholic piety and the construct that emerged in light of Christendom - a two-tier system of nominal culturally functional Christianity, and the higher calling involving the taking of orders, monasticism, and the like. Both poles in the Catholic model are distortions, and the Protestant answer only complicated the problem and effectively baptised secular life and ultimately secularism. Neither are in accord with New Testament teaching.
Platt is right to criticise the large buildings, and the way institutional Christianity drinks up the Church's finances and how they are not used to higher ends. Of course, Capitalism has its own ethical system at odds with New Testament Christianity and thus many American believers are likely to think in terms of Capitalist framing when it comes to poverty and the ethics of helping the poor. And when this leads to an ethical dilemma, the tendency is to start redefining terms and concepts. In the end, being Biblically faithful ends up becoming a moral deficiency - something Donald Trump Jr. understood and expressed. The luminaries of modern Libertarian Capitalism (Rand, von Mises, Hayek, etc.) were all unequivocal in their condemnations of New Testament Christianity. They understood (rightly) that it is incompatible with the economic system and ethics they advocated. And yet, that economic system is now reckoned among the canons of orthodoxy in the American Church and rigorously promoted by its intellectuals.
For my part I have little time for those who think the ethical solution is found in patronage - justifying the ill-gotten wealth of the mammon-obsessed middle and upper classes who solve the problem through token largesse and philanthropy. It's what I expect of someone like Andrew Carnegie who wanted to make a name for himself and cover over his dark and bloody deeds. It's not a Christian way of thinking about ethics and how to live and it cannot even begin to address the systemic nature of modern capitalist inequity and legalised corruption.
Lawrence wishes Platt had positive things to say about wealth to which I would respond he needs to re-read the New Testament - including the nature of how it redemptive-historically interacts with the Old, which in turn informs how we understand worldly riches and glory in the context of figures like Abraham and Solomon. I must say I'm disturbed by Lawrence's mishandling of passages like 1 Timothy 6.17 - making it say something that it doesn't. Paul was not justifying indulgence but rather challenging the Church to think differently about money and to understand its snares.
While Platt's challenges are legitimate and worthy of serious consideration, they fall flat as he clearly does not practice what he preaches.
We are to seek the welfare of the city in which we live as exiles but we must not forget that latter point - that we're exiles and pilgrims, not patriots. As exiles we obey laws and pay taxes as commanded and yet others use the notion of seeking the welfare of the city as a justification for political activism and deep personal (and financial) investment. The city's welfare is transformed into a quest for power and all of this is confused with unbiblical notions of citizenship which grow out of ancient Greece and Rome as well as the Enlightenment, but are not found in the New Testament. Even Paul's appeals to citizenship in Acts are at best pragmatic-tactical moves in order pursue his apostolic course, avoid torture, or avoid falling into the hands of the Jews. He shames public officials but never pursues the 'justice' a citizen would if truly concerned about issues such as legality and right governance. It's just not there. His appeal to Caesar has nothing to do with the integrity of Roman law and concerns for civics and the upholding of jurisprudence. He's trying to avoid the Jewish plot to assassinate him and he's determined to preach the gospel in Rome. Further he marvels in the ways of Providence and is delighted at the glorious and very fitting symbolism of an apostle arriving in Rome while in chains. Such 'strength in weakness' piety flies in the face of middle class values and its understanding of 'success'.
I will grant that Lawrence raises some legitimate points when it comes to Platt's global focus versus the ordinary and local realities in which most of us dwell. As one who lives in a very provincial context (Northern Appalachia), a more global and cosmopolitan focus is desperately needed - and I'm speaking primarily of the Church. But at the same time there are those who become caught up in larger circles and end up despising the ordinary and often the humble.
There is admittedly a danger of fads and 'the next big thing' - a consumerist tendency that seems to dominate the culture. Evangelicalism is particularly susceptible to this. For many the life of Word and Sacrament isn't good enough. They want exciting worship and something more that is sought in social engagement or endless small group gatherings and the like. This can quickly go astray.
And yet I also have known many Reformed and Lutheran Confessionalists who diligently attend church on Sunday and are otherwise moral people - and yet their lives don't seem to be overly engaged with Christianity. There's no evident desire to grow in the knowledge of God and His Kingdom. They are worldly - not in the sense of loitering in local bars or spending their time with sleazy businessmen or bookies, but worldly in that they seem given over (apart from a few hours on Sunday) to the world and its concerns and this is reflected in a lot of their thinking about money, success, family, career, lifestyle, entertainment, and most of all - time.
It is not a lifestyle in which the Christian is challenged. Sanctification stagnates, mortification is non-existent (which is often the case theologically) and comfort rules. Instead of struggle, their lives seem to be characterized by compromise and the path of least resistance.
Additionally there's something to be said about when the ordinary fails to be effective. Yes, the Word is effective and yet there are times when it can become obscured. Many churches are not diligent in their use of the sacraments and the teaching regarding them is poor and effectively negates their import. I do believe they are effective regardless and yet these realities always exist in a dynamic of faith, and if the faith isn't there, an argument can be made about limitation. We see this in the gospels and Christ's interaction with those who faith was weak - Matthew 13.58 comes to mind. Of course this problem is further tangled by disagreements over the nature of faith.
Preaching also contains a dynamic - it's God's Word in so far as what is being taught is faithful to it. And while poor delivery can still be effective, and Paul certainly has no time for rhetoric or flowery oration - a poor teacher can limit effectiveness. And there are a lot of poor teachers out there, a lot of men who have no business being in the pulpit, who seem (despite seminary degrees) incapable of handling the Scriptures. They are there because of a flawed ecclesiastical system that turns preachers into educated and certified hired guns looking for a pay-check.
On the one hand there is a serious problem in the church with men who refuse to step up, take the time to learn, and lead. At the same time the system (which is desperately stretched) so often limits men who lack the proper credentials, who haven't sought an institutional imprimatur. They are shut out, silenced, and denied the ability to serve the Church beyond the token and downgraded office of eldership (as it exists within the pastor-denominational system). The political dynamics of the denominational and seminary system play a part in creating this unfortunate situation.
The bottom line is a lot of people are struggling. They want to be fed but instead are subjected to feeble teaching - itself a mishandling of God's Word. Many preachers do not preach but read from manuscripts. Catechetical preaching is even worse as it simply teaches a system in lieu of God's Word.
Others merely teach topically. Many pretend to exegete but fall into topical discourse. Many preachers also succumb to moralism. Many more rely on gimmicks - screen graphics, Madison Avenue-inspired alliterative point schemes and the like - and lots of levity if not outright comedy.
A lot of churchgoers are frustrated and yes, they look for something more. Some find it in para-church ministries - radio shows and YouTube podcasts. Others get pulled into fads. Often there's a double aspect to the bad teaching - poor instruction from the pulpit but also poor instruction (generally speaking) about the nature and function of the Church. People don't know what its for, what it's about, and why we meet. In both cases, the fault lies with the pulpit. And increasingly a lot of people aren't seeking greater knowledge about the Kingdom, but instead put a Christian gloss on worldly pursuits and interests. The vacuum (as it were) is filled by FOX and other Right-wing influencers. It's not about the news of which there is little. It's about tapping into a vibe, an ethos, a current of fear and anger. The fact that so many churchgoers are falling into this - spending dozens of hours a week on FOX and but one or two on Church and the things of God is also the result of pulpit failure. A lot of these people have simply lost their way and if challenged will become defiant. Many need to be disciplined and (most likely) put out of the Church, but that's not going to happen is it? Often this is due to the financialised nature of the Church and the way it operates.
In many cases this arrangement has become normal. I realize that someone like Horton would also (likely) be critical of this now commonplace reality and while I greatly appreciate the emphasis on the ordinary means of grace and while I certainly do not advocate much of Platt's 'radical' platform - at the same time Platt raises valid points. One can wish that someone would bring that message and yet without the middle class packaging. But then if it were so, they are unlikely to be a celebrity and the subject of articles and online attention.
In the end the problem is all the parties involved - Platt, Horton, and Lawrence have sought to either eliminate or oversimplify the dichotomy that emerges when Christians must live faithfully in the world. On the other hand I might say to Platt - no, it's actually very simple but the real New Testament calling is actually far more radical than you've been willing to entertain. And there's an additional danger - if one seeks to be radical for the wrong reasons - what emerges can end up being but another iteration of worldly thought and patterns of action.
This exchange provides some good food for thought and reflection but I think each party has (to some extent) missed the mark.