What do you think?
Rate this book
Against Christianity
How could a conservative Christian—an ordained minister with a beard, no less—be against not only Christianity, but theology, sacraments, and ethics as well? Yet that is the stance Peter Leithart takes in this provocative "theological bricolage."Seeking to rethink evangelical notions of culture, church, and state, Leithart offers a series of short essays, aphorisms, and parables that challenge the current dichotomies that govern both Christian and non-Christian thinking about church and state, the secular and the religious.But his argument isn't limited to being merely "against." Leithart reveals a much larger vision of Christian society, defined by the stories, symbols, rituals, and rules of a renewed community—the city of God.
162 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 1, 2002
40 people are currently reading
1064 people want to read
About the author
Peter J. Leithart
130 books372 followersPeter Leithart received an A.B. in English and History from Hillsdale College in 1981, and a Master of Arts in Religion and a Master of Theology from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia in 1986 and 1987. In 1998 he received his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge in England. He has served in two pastorates: He was pastor of Reformed Heritage Presbyterian Church (now Trinity Presbyterian Church), Birmingham, Alabama from 1989 to 1995, and was founding pastor of Trinity Reformed Church, Moscow, Idaho, and served on the pastoral staff at Trinity from 2003-2013. From 1998 to 2013 he taught theology and literature at New St. Andrews College, Moscow, Idaho, where he continues to teach as an adjunct Senior Fellow. He now serves as President of Trinity House in Alabama, where is also resident Church Teacher at the local CREC church. He and his wife, Noel, have ten children and five grandchildren.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 129 reviews
January 17, 2012
I found this book through Goodread's recommendations feature. When I first saw it, I took one look at the title and rolled my eyes. It seemed like it was going to be yet another "we hate religion" book similar to John Eldredge's latest disappointment and a certain vastly overrated youtube video that's been making the rounds lately. The problem with thhose books is that the word "religion" is poorly defined and basically becomes a blank canvas for the author to project onto everything he dislikes about modern Christianity. Naturally that word is then projected back onto the Pharisees so that the author can, through superficial eisegesis, claim Jesus' support for his tirade. Not only do I find this process theologically unsound, but it's also become vastly overdone and annoying. I was in no mood for yet another book like that and was therefore more than ready to pass Against Christianity by.
Thankfully, I took the time to read the description first. It quickly became obvious that Leithart's book is far, far from the mold I described above and I knew I needed to check it out. I do still find Leithart's use of the word Christianity unfortunate and unnecessarily provocative, but unlike others, he does do an excellent job of defining what he means by the word and never once does he go through the eye-rolling exercise of projecting his terminology back onto the Gospels.
Leithart is clearly very intelligent and has obviously done a great deal of research, but this in no way is an academic read. Rather, it reads like a manifesto for exploring the practical implications of the New Perspective on Paul, particularly the work of NT Wright. I couldn't be more excited that a book like this exists. I believe it represents the potential to turn the New Perspective into a movement, rather than just an academic dialogue (for as important as that piece is!) It also represents a critique of evangelicalism that is neither in the emergent camp nor the neo-Calvinist camp. It is a third, biblically faithful approach to moving the Church beyond the failures of modern evangelicalism in particular and post-Enlightenment Protestantism in general.
Leithart argues for things for the centrality of sacraments, liturgical worship, a traditional understanding of baptism, ecumenicalism and, perhaps most controversially, a revival and renewal of Constantinian Christiandom. At each of these points I found myself in nearly full agreement with him. There are some areas, such as his assertion that sacraments are ultimately no more than symbols, that I believe would need further discussion within a potential movement, but this is a wonderful starting point.
Most of all, this book is a call for the Church to be the Church that Christ intended. We are called to be a strong, united, revolutionary church. Against Christianity is a bold statement and one that needs to be heard. I hope and pray this book gains traction. Let the revolution begin
Thankfully, I took the time to read the description first. It quickly became obvious that Leithart's book is far, far from the mold I described above and I knew I needed to check it out. I do still find Leithart's use of the word Christianity unfortunate and unnecessarily provocative, but unlike others, he does do an excellent job of defining what he means by the word and never once does he go through the eye-rolling exercise of projecting his terminology back onto the Gospels.
Leithart is clearly very intelligent and has obviously done a great deal of research, but this in no way is an academic read. Rather, it reads like a manifesto for exploring the practical implications of the New Perspective on Paul, particularly the work of NT Wright. I couldn't be more excited that a book like this exists. I believe it represents the potential to turn the New Perspective into a movement, rather than just an academic dialogue (for as important as that piece is!) It also represents a critique of evangelicalism that is neither in the emergent camp nor the neo-Calvinist camp. It is a third, biblically faithful approach to moving the Church beyond the failures of modern evangelicalism in particular and post-Enlightenment Protestantism in general.
Leithart argues for things for the centrality of sacraments, liturgical worship, a traditional understanding of baptism, ecumenicalism and, perhaps most controversially, a revival and renewal of Constantinian Christiandom. At each of these points I found myself in nearly full agreement with him. There are some areas, such as his assertion that sacraments are ultimately no more than symbols, that I believe would need further discussion within a potential movement, but this is a wonderful starting point.
Most of all, this book is a call for the Church to be the Church that Christ intended. We are called to be a strong, united, revolutionary church. Against Christianity is a bold statement and one that needs to be heard. I hope and pray this book gains traction. Let the revolution begin
January 26, 2009
Just great. Repays multiple readings. On another reading, I rated it "stupendous" (finished May 03).
January 22, 2016
First let me say Leithart is NOT against Christianity. He is against treating the biblical faith as one among many valid, individualistic, personal views of the world, to be privately held with no direct public influence. He is FOR Christendom. He is only against "Christianity" as he defines it for the sake of argument. Unfortunately he never directly gives that definition, and it must be deduced from various statements throughout the book. Such as: "Such a procedure is compatible with [the] heresy of Christianity with its separation of "theology" and "practice", but it is not a biblical picture(107)." "Christianity proposes only ideas; it does not form a world or a city. Christianity offers the Church only as a new sort of religious association, not as a new eschatological ordering of human life (135)." "This is Christianity, the assumption that the Bible addresses only the private and personal(147)." Basically, he is against secular modernity, and the poisonous influence it has exerted on the church. That is the point he is making.
So does he make it well? That may depend somewhat on the reader. Which in itself is a weakness in any writer. In places it is a scholar's critique of the scholars. In places it reads like a collection of unfinished notes that the author was too lazy to make coherent. And at times Leithart is too clever to be helpful.
But in the end, taken as tongue-in-cheek, it is an important challenge for the too-comfortable Christian, and an appropriate corrective to the anabaptist "two kingdoms" error. I think it could have been done better and less confusingly, but I would still recommend it.
So does he make it well? That may depend somewhat on the reader. Which in itself is a weakness in any writer. In places it is a scholar's critique of the scholars. In places it reads like a collection of unfinished notes that the author was too lazy to make coherent. And at times Leithart is too clever to be helpful.
But in the end, taken as tongue-in-cheek, it is an important challenge for the too-comfortable Christian, and an appropriate corrective to the anabaptist "two kingdoms" error. I think it could have been done better and less confusingly, but I would still recommend it.
March 23, 2026
3.5/5
The last chapter is the best one, because it basically boils down to, “Oh, you’re telling me Christianity has gotten into some tangles by being involved in the public sphere? Doesn’t matter. Constantine was cool, and the potential pitfalls of Christendom are worth it.”
The quips about natural law and natural theology were dumb. I don’t know how you go about sticking natural law and the enlightenment conception of “human rights” in the same category.
The last chapter is the best one, because it basically boils down to, “Oh, you’re telling me Christianity has gotten into some tangles by being involved in the public sphere? Doesn’t matter. Constantine was cool, and the potential pitfalls of Christendom are worth it.”
The quips about natural law and natural theology were dumb. I don’t know how you go about sticking natural law and the enlightenment conception of “human rights” in the same category.
March 8, 2020
In "Against Christianity", Leithart argues not against Jesus, the gospel, or the New Covenant, but against the idea of Christianity is one of many religions, one of many life-choices, one of many ideologies. He argues against the "Church's adjustment of the gospel to modernity, and the church's consequent acceptance of the world's definition of who we are and what we are to be up to." He writes that "Christianity is institutionalized worldliness." p. 17.
Instead of a "religion" followers of Christ are to live God's "rival story"--a story full of stories, symbols, rituals, and community rules." p. 18 The book is short, and written as a sort of manifesto, or collection of brief thoughts and reflections on culture, religion, and what God has charged us to be.
So much of the book is negative--arguing against current, and customary ways of thinking and speaking, that it is even difficult to put words to what Leithart is trying to communicate. He fails himself many times. For example, chapter two is "Against Theology." He argues that, "Theology is a specialized, professional language, often employing obscure (Latin and Greek) terms that are never used by anyone but theologians, as if theologians live in and talk about a different world from the one mortals inhabit. Theology functions sociologically like the other professional languages--to keep people out and to help the members of the guild to identify one another. Whereas the Bible talks about trees and stars, about donkeys and barren women, about kings and queens and carpenters." p. 51 I appreciate what he's saying here, and he's right that much of the language of theologians is like this, and makes it difficult for the uninitiated to follow much of what theologians write and say.
I suppose Leithart had this kind of sentence in mind when he wrote that: "Augustine knew that empires--all empires--are of the earth and destined to crumble to the dust from which they came. Augustine knew that only the Church is a heavenly politeuma and that only the Church is an imperium sine fine, because he knew that only the Church has an undying ruler and that only the Church has been ingrafted into the eternal community of the Trinity." The only trouble, is that Leithart himself wrote that, less than twenty pages after his condemning others for "employing obscure (Latin and Greek) terms that are never used by anyone but theologians. So as I was saying, even Leithart has trouble following his own counsel in how he writes and speaks.
Yet at the heart of the book is a expose of how the church has become gnostic--compartmentalizing the gospel into areas of knowledge or limited scope of action, lest it utterly transform persons and the world. He does succeed in this, but he does not succeed in creating (or redeeming) our current existing and shared lexicon, and must resort himself, to using the very lexicon and mode of argument that he argues against, at least in many ways.
Instead of a "religion" followers of Christ are to live God's "rival story"--a story full of stories, symbols, rituals, and community rules." p. 18 The book is short, and written as a sort of manifesto, or collection of brief thoughts and reflections on culture, religion, and what God has charged us to be.
So much of the book is negative--arguing against current, and customary ways of thinking and speaking, that it is even difficult to put words to what Leithart is trying to communicate. He fails himself many times. For example, chapter two is "Against Theology." He argues that, "Theology is a specialized, professional language, often employing obscure (Latin and Greek) terms that are never used by anyone but theologians, as if theologians live in and talk about a different world from the one mortals inhabit. Theology functions sociologically like the other professional languages--to keep people out and to help the members of the guild to identify one another. Whereas the Bible talks about trees and stars, about donkeys and barren women, about kings and queens and carpenters." p. 51 I appreciate what he's saying here, and he's right that much of the language of theologians is like this, and makes it difficult for the uninitiated to follow much of what theologians write and say.
I suppose Leithart had this kind of sentence in mind when he wrote that: "Augustine knew that empires--all empires--are of the earth and destined to crumble to the dust from which they came. Augustine knew that only the Church is a heavenly politeuma and that only the Church is an imperium sine fine, because he knew that only the Church has an undying ruler and that only the Church has been ingrafted into the eternal community of the Trinity." The only trouble, is that Leithart himself wrote that, less than twenty pages after his condemning others for "employing obscure (Latin and Greek) terms that are never used by anyone but theologians. So as I was saying, even Leithart has trouble following his own counsel in how he writes and speaks.
Yet at the heart of the book is a expose of how the church has become gnostic--compartmentalizing the gospel into areas of knowledge or limited scope of action, lest it utterly transform persons and the world. He does succeed in this, but he does not succeed in creating (or redeeming) our current existing and shared lexicon, and must resort himself, to using the very lexicon and mode of argument that he argues against, at least in many ways.
May 20, 2013
This is a short book with four "against" chapters (Christianity, Theology, Sacraments, and Ethics) and one "for" chapter (Constantine). More accurate chapter titles would be: "Against Secular Modernism (or the sacred/secular dichotomoy)," "Against the Academy," "Against the Sign/Signified Dichotomoy," "Against the Privatization of the Gospel," and "For Christendom."
It is a little hokey at times (Leithart describes the book as "theological haiku") and certainly lacks the nuance that is expected in the academy. Leithart (sort of) apologizes for this, but notes that a short book like this can't be too nuanced, and further notes that his purpose is to provoke the intellect to consider something familiar from a different angle.
This is a great book with lots to ponder. Take it for what it is. The nuance, while important, is left out, which means two responses are illegitimate: knee-jerk opposition and knee-jerk unqualified acceptance. The book should get you thinking, not stop you from thinking and uncritical rejection or acceptance both miss the point. If you go around saying you're against Christianity or theology or the sacraments, and insisting that it is wrong to say one subscribes to Christianity, or studies theology you've missed the point.
It is a little hokey at times (Leithart describes the book as "theological haiku") and certainly lacks the nuance that is expected in the academy. Leithart (sort of) apologizes for this, but notes that a short book like this can't be too nuanced, and further notes that his purpose is to provoke the intellect to consider something familiar from a different angle.
This is a great book with lots to ponder. Take it for what it is. The nuance, while important, is left out, which means two responses are illegitimate: knee-jerk opposition and knee-jerk unqualified acceptance. The book should get you thinking, not stop you from thinking and uncritical rejection or acceptance both miss the point. If you go around saying you're against Christianity or theology or the sacraments, and insisting that it is wrong to say one subscribes to Christianity, or studies theology you've missed the point.
September 8, 2010
Christianity has become the label for the church marginalized by the modern secular state. So Leithart is against Christianity. Leithart calls the church to repent of its retreat and reassert its culture, language, and influence in the world at large, which includes the state.
Haven't we tried this before you ask? What about the evils of medieval Christendom? Leithart convincingly argues that the evils of Christendom were inconsistencies, and not a problem intrinsic to the social order. The church and state may cooperate in ruling under God without coercing the people. The church was never meant to rule Christendom but Christendom was supposed to be ruled by a state with "Christian politics."
Leithart agrees that the church's message to the state is countercultural, but he also maintains that this is compatible with a Christian political realm outside the church. Leithart doesn't talk much about the direction of influence between the state and the church, but seems to assume that both are in need of constant reform and renewal by the gospel.
This rings true. Modern liberalism has "cleansed" the public sphere of religion but his hasn't helped us agree or get along. We are more polarized than ever. What modern liberalism has done is take away the basis of persuasion and the Christian conscience of society. Without the ability to make religious arguments, we are at the mercy of our ruling appetites.
Patrick Henry proposed that a non-sectarian Christianity be declared the state religion of Virginia. Jefferson and Madison opposed Henry and this was never tried. What about Massachusetts Bay Colony? Well, I would point that that was a coercive Christendom that failed because it was too strong where it needed to be permissive to dissenters.
There is a lot more here than a defense of Constantinianism. There is a robust view of the sacraments as an efficacious union of the symbol and the reality. This also works for Leithart as a spearhead against the secularist divorce of the natural and the supernatural. Leithart also highlights ethical transformation as part of the gospel. He points to the work of Rodney Stark who documents the rise of christianity through social transformation in the cities.
Leithart's sword cuts through so many layers of secularist armor that it's shocking and refreshing at the same time. Only God can make obligatory. Otherwise everything is permissible and the state wields brute force while the culture festers.
Haven't we tried this before you ask? What about the evils of medieval Christendom? Leithart convincingly argues that the evils of Christendom were inconsistencies, and not a problem intrinsic to the social order. The church and state may cooperate in ruling under God without coercing the people. The church was never meant to rule Christendom but Christendom was supposed to be ruled by a state with "Christian politics."
Leithart agrees that the church's message to the state is countercultural, but he also maintains that this is compatible with a Christian political realm outside the church. Leithart doesn't talk much about the direction of influence between the state and the church, but seems to assume that both are in need of constant reform and renewal by the gospel.
This rings true. Modern liberalism has "cleansed" the public sphere of religion but his hasn't helped us agree or get along. We are more polarized than ever. What modern liberalism has done is take away the basis of persuasion and the Christian conscience of society. Without the ability to make religious arguments, we are at the mercy of our ruling appetites.
Patrick Henry proposed that a non-sectarian Christianity be declared the state religion of Virginia. Jefferson and Madison opposed Henry and this was never tried. What about Massachusetts Bay Colony? Well, I would point that that was a coercive Christendom that failed because it was too strong where it needed to be permissive to dissenters.
There is a lot more here than a defense of Constantinianism. There is a robust view of the sacraments as an efficacious union of the symbol and the reality. This also works for Leithart as a spearhead against the secularist divorce of the natural and the supernatural. Leithart also highlights ethical transformation as part of the gospel. He points to the work of Rodney Stark who documents the rise of christianity through social transformation in the cities.
Leithart's sword cuts through so many layers of secularist armor that it's shocking and refreshing at the same time. Only God can make obligatory. Otherwise everything is permissible and the state wields brute force while the culture festers.
November 24, 2021
A provocative title. Leithart's definition of "Christianity" is the church assimilated into modernity--"institutionalized worldliness." It is this "Christianity" that he opposes. He presents his case in four chapters (Against Christianity, Theology, Sacraments, and Ethics). Overall this was a good book. Leithart is a great writer (this was my first book of his to read) and he presents his arguments in fresh, illuminating ways. He's a punchy writer too--a few memorable examples of which are:
"Every church is an urban reality; every Christian lives in the suburbs."
"The Church is strange: . . . She is a city whose town square is in heaven."
"Worship trains us in the steps of walking, for dancing rightly through life."
"Unless we renounce Christianity, we will have no Christendom."
"The modern church is in exile; we have chosen exile and the Lord has delivered us to our desires. But we do not worship the God of permanent exile. We worship the God of exodus."
One of the strengths of this book is its examination of festival as the center of communal life--for the Church (in its sacraments and worship) as well as for the political community (in its public rituals and symbols). Leithart's arguments pair well with Josef Pieper's book Leisure: The Basis of Culture, which argues that at the heart of every culture is leisure, and at the heart of leisure is festival. He goes further: "if celebration and festival are the heart of leisure, then leisure would derive its innermost possibility and justification from the very source whence festival and celebration derive theirs. And this is worship.” Hence, Pieper called the Sabbath, "the festival-time."
Leithart makes the same connection. "[T]he modern city is an unprecedented attempt to form a civic community without a festive center." Rituals, whether in the public realm or in the private realm, shape and direct us. Our lives are ordered by the daily, weekly, and yearly rituals, most of which we practice unreflectively. And for the Church, Leithart argues, the sacraments serve as "rituals of a new society, public festivals of a new civic order." Secondarily, these rituals act as defensive armor against the democratic tendencies which surround us: "ritual is public, and no ritualized religion can be completely privatized. Ritual is action, and no ritualized religion can be completely intellectualized. Ritual is communal, and no ritualized religion can be completely individualized." Leithart argues that the Church is not meant to be merely a mediating institution existing within a larger culture or political community; rather the Church is a political reality which maintains its own unique culture and, as such, posits an alternative the earthly city. "In the New Testament, we do not find an essentially private gospel being applied to the public sphere, as if the public implications of the gospel were a second story built on the private ground floor. The gospel is the announcement of the Father's formation, through his Son and the Spirit, of a new city--the city of God."
But Leithart's presentation of sacramental theology (mainly in the chapter "Against Theology") is also the book's main weakness: it is unpersuasive to the extent he posits liturgical theology as an alternative to Word-centered, doctrine-driven theology. He makes a compelling case for the role of liturgy in the life of the church and for a higher view of the sacraments than is commonly held in the church today. In fact, this seems like the type of book that makes evangelicals light out for the Canterbury trail. But, when he proceeds to pit the two against each other (doctrine against drama; preaching and teaching against liturgy) he loses his ground. He seems to be so reactionary on this point that he overemphasizes the story/liturgy at the expense of dogma/theology. For instance, while he argues that the Christian story must have "one confession," he seems to prefer a vague and nebulous one. He also asserts the primacy of worship over doctrine in the area of discipleship, which doesn't seem to fit (who is it we worship and how are we to worship? Has the church not answered these questions through its theology and confessions?). The tendency toward a shadowy liturgical theology is enticing but can't be sought at the expense of rightly divining the Word, which leads back into doctrine. Though there are many who will be excited to jump on board--thus leaving behind the conflict and tension which comes with maintaining sound doctrine--it is not a viable option.
All in all, Against Christianity is worth reading and thinking over. The Lord Jesus Christ reigns, and his reign is a challenge to the rulers of this age who deny his sovereign rule (see Psalm 2). Leithart does a fantastic job of showing the Church's part to play in this challenge--how we are to position ourselves within the secular age versus the poor job we have made of it in recent history. "The mere presence of the Church means the end to 'business as usual' in the earthly city. Always and forever, an end to business as usual."
"Every church is an urban reality; every Christian lives in the suburbs."
"The Church is strange: . . . She is a city whose town square is in heaven."
"Worship trains us in the steps of walking, for dancing rightly through life."
"Unless we renounce Christianity, we will have no Christendom."
"The modern church is in exile; we have chosen exile and the Lord has delivered us to our desires. But we do not worship the God of permanent exile. We worship the God of exodus."
One of the strengths of this book is its examination of festival as the center of communal life--for the Church (in its sacraments and worship) as well as for the political community (in its public rituals and symbols). Leithart's arguments pair well with Josef Pieper's book Leisure: The Basis of Culture, which argues that at the heart of every culture is leisure, and at the heart of leisure is festival. He goes further: "if celebration and festival are the heart of leisure, then leisure would derive its innermost possibility and justification from the very source whence festival and celebration derive theirs. And this is worship.” Hence, Pieper called the Sabbath, "the festival-time."
Leithart makes the same connection. "[T]he modern city is an unprecedented attempt to form a civic community without a festive center." Rituals, whether in the public realm or in the private realm, shape and direct us. Our lives are ordered by the daily, weekly, and yearly rituals, most of which we practice unreflectively. And for the Church, Leithart argues, the sacraments serve as "rituals of a new society, public festivals of a new civic order." Secondarily, these rituals act as defensive armor against the democratic tendencies which surround us: "ritual is public, and no ritualized religion can be completely privatized. Ritual is action, and no ritualized religion can be completely intellectualized. Ritual is communal, and no ritualized religion can be completely individualized." Leithart argues that the Church is not meant to be merely a mediating institution existing within a larger culture or political community; rather the Church is a political reality which maintains its own unique culture and, as such, posits an alternative the earthly city. "In the New Testament, we do not find an essentially private gospel being applied to the public sphere, as if the public implications of the gospel were a second story built on the private ground floor. The gospel is the announcement of the Father's formation, through his Son and the Spirit, of a new city--the city of God."
But Leithart's presentation of sacramental theology (mainly in the chapter "Against Theology") is also the book's main weakness: it is unpersuasive to the extent he posits liturgical theology as an alternative to Word-centered, doctrine-driven theology. He makes a compelling case for the role of liturgy in the life of the church and for a higher view of the sacraments than is commonly held in the church today. In fact, this seems like the type of book that makes evangelicals light out for the Canterbury trail. But, when he proceeds to pit the two against each other (doctrine against drama; preaching and teaching against liturgy) he loses his ground. He seems to be so reactionary on this point that he overemphasizes the story/liturgy at the expense of dogma/theology. For instance, while he argues that the Christian story must have "one confession," he seems to prefer a vague and nebulous one. He also asserts the primacy of worship over doctrine in the area of discipleship, which doesn't seem to fit (who is it we worship and how are we to worship? Has the church not answered these questions through its theology and confessions?). The tendency toward a shadowy liturgical theology is enticing but can't be sought at the expense of rightly divining the Word, which leads back into doctrine. Though there are many who will be excited to jump on board--thus leaving behind the conflict and tension which comes with maintaining sound doctrine--it is not a viable option.
All in all, Against Christianity is worth reading and thinking over. The Lord Jesus Christ reigns, and his reign is a challenge to the rulers of this age who deny his sovereign rule (see Psalm 2). Leithart does a fantastic job of showing the Church's part to play in this challenge--how we are to position ourselves within the secular age versus the poor job we have made of it in recent history. "The mere presence of the Church means the end to 'business as usual' in the earthly city. Always and forever, an end to business as usual."
August 14, 2021
Incisive, provocative, and plausible. Leithart is a most difficult thinker to categorize and too learned and biblical to ignore. It'll take me some time to fully process the content of this little book.
There are several legitimate critiques here that sound like they spring out of a heart that loves God and his church. I disagree with him on his perspective on the sacraments, but this is minor compared to the grand ideas put forth in so few pages. His positive notion of Christendom is very attractive.
His idea of how the church and culture relate to each other sharply unifies the best of subversive engagement (loosely transformational) and stark separation. It would be separation from the world for the sake of absolute conquest of the world. Very Augustinian, Pauline, and Reformed. I mean to read it again.
There are several legitimate critiques here that sound like they spring out of a heart that loves God and his church. I disagree with him on his perspective on the sacraments, but this is minor compared to the grand ideas put forth in so few pages. His positive notion of Christendom is very attractive.
His idea of how the church and culture relate to each other sharply unifies the best of subversive engagement (loosely transformational) and stark separation. It would be separation from the world for the sake of absolute conquest of the world. Very Augustinian, Pauline, and Reformed. I mean to read it again.
February 23, 2022
Leithart argues that Christianity is Gnostic and that the Church's mission is not to proclaim Christianity, but to herald the Gospel; a message of Salvation, Redemption, and Restoration. We have disassociated the natural from the spiritual; what this verse "means to me" might not be the same thing it "means to you." We have created a sub-culture of a privatized religion that serves individuals, rather than a Covenant community that is known as the body of Christ by the way we love one another. Christianity has become a post-modern religion and Christians are to have nothing to do with it.
Christianity has become one of the many religions in the marketplace that a person can choose to be part of. There isn't anything much different about it over the LDS tabernacle around the corner. What flavor religion do you want? In America, we have many.
Throughout history, the ekklesia (gathering/community) of God has always been a force to be reckoned with. Not because the people are special, but because their God is YHWH. The polis (city) of God is supposed to be a physical, present reality of the citizenship we are actually part of; New Jerusalem above. Take one look throughout history and you will see that the people of God have always operated as a nation of their own or a sort of nation within a nation (when they were not in exile, that is). In history, the Church was prominent and was a threat to the principalities and powers of the times. Why? Because she proclaims a message that tears down strongholds. The gates of hell are unable to withstand her proclamation, because the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. When the Church is doing what the Church is commissioned by God to do, proclaiming the Lordship of Jesus Christ over all the nations and allegiance to Him alone, she comes in direct conflict with the city of man; the civil magistrate. This is inherently what happens when the Gospel is proclaimed and lived out faithfully by people of faith. The world hates her, because the world hates Him. Christianity gets along with the world, because Christianity is not the Church.
To say something is not a Gospel issue is to not take a stand for Christ. Everything is a Gospel issue. Politics are a Gospel issue. By declaring Jesus to be King, we are declaring that you (government) are under His authority and if you command us to defy Him, we will defy you. Those are fighting words. Those are comments that raise eyebrows of persecution.
These are the types of stands we see godly men and women have taken throughout our history. It is high time for the body of Christ to operate like the city of God again. To view this world as our King's; to subdue the earth and disciple the nations for His glory. To boldly proclaim the mystery of the Gospel, and, also, boldly live it.
Christianity has become one of the many religions in the marketplace that a person can choose to be part of. There isn't anything much different about it over the LDS tabernacle around the corner. What flavor religion do you want? In America, we have many.
Throughout history, the ekklesia (gathering/community) of God has always been a force to be reckoned with. Not because the people are special, but because their God is YHWH. The polis (city) of God is supposed to be a physical, present reality of the citizenship we are actually part of; New Jerusalem above. Take one look throughout history and you will see that the people of God have always operated as a nation of their own or a sort of nation within a nation (when they were not in exile, that is). In history, the Church was prominent and was a threat to the principalities and powers of the times. Why? Because she proclaims a message that tears down strongholds. The gates of hell are unable to withstand her proclamation, because the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. When the Church is doing what the Church is commissioned by God to do, proclaiming the Lordship of Jesus Christ over all the nations and allegiance to Him alone, she comes in direct conflict with the city of man; the civil magistrate. This is inherently what happens when the Gospel is proclaimed and lived out faithfully by people of faith. The world hates her, because the world hates Him. Christianity gets along with the world, because Christianity is not the Church.
To say something is not a Gospel issue is to not take a stand for Christ. Everything is a Gospel issue. Politics are a Gospel issue. By declaring Jesus to be King, we are declaring that you (government) are under His authority and if you command us to defy Him, we will defy you. Those are fighting words. Those are comments that raise eyebrows of persecution.
These are the types of stands we see godly men and women have taken throughout our history. It is high time for the body of Christ to operate like the city of God again. To view this world as our King's; to subdue the earth and disciple the nations for His glory. To boldly proclaim the mystery of the Gospel, and, also, boldly live it.
August 4, 2011
*The Church as a Counter-City*
This might easily be the best book that I have read in the past 3 years. I have re-read this book several times. By Christianity Leithart means the "privatized religion dominated by the Enlightenment." It can be "conservative or liberal," but the end result is the same: whatever external truth claims may be presented by such adherents, they seperate reality into sacred and secular.
Leithart makes a number of stunning observations. I simply cannot do a review of this book. It would take up too much space.
Leithart urges the church to recapture a distinctly Christian vocabulary and to have a distinctively Christian identity over against the city of this world. Such actions will permeate/transform/overthrow the civitas terrana.
Instead of trying to Christianize politics because that would be an *implication* of the gospel, Leithart urges us to see that the gospel *is* political. Caesar cannot tolerate liturgical worship.
He also deals with the privitization of Sacraments, ethics, and theology. His final chapter is an argument for Constantine and Christendom, easily worth the price of the book. In it he challenges and rebuts the finest ethical scholarship in the Christian world.
This might easily be the best book that I have read in the past 3 years. I have re-read this book several times. By Christianity Leithart means the "privatized religion dominated by the Enlightenment." It can be "conservative or liberal," but the end result is the same: whatever external truth claims may be presented by such adherents, they seperate reality into sacred and secular.
Leithart makes a number of stunning observations. I simply cannot do a review of this book. It would take up too much space.
Leithart urges the church to recapture a distinctly Christian vocabulary and to have a distinctively Christian identity over against the city of this world. Such actions will permeate/transform/overthrow the civitas terrana.
Instead of trying to Christianize politics because that would be an *implication* of the gospel, Leithart urges us to see that the gospel *is* political. Caesar cannot tolerate liturgical worship.
He also deals with the privitization of Sacraments, ethics, and theology. His final chapter is an argument for Constantine and Christendom, easily worth the price of the book. In it he challenges and rebuts the finest ethical scholarship in the Christian world.
Want to read
December 15, 2019Leithart is against Christian-ism. See Doug Wilson's comments here (and see his response book here).
In the final chapter, a foul-mouthed prophet named Stanley preaches to a king, and lo and behold, the king listens to him. The king then wants to know what to do, and Hauerwas—er, I mean, Stanley—has nothing to say.
Sometimes cultural leaders do listen, and here is a fine example of what to be saying when the ungodly do listen.
In the final chapter, a foul-mouthed prophet named Stanley preaches to a king, and lo and behold, the king listens to him. The king then wants to know what to do, and Hauerwas—er, I mean, Stanley—has nothing to say.
Sometimes cultural leaders do listen, and here is a fine example of what to be saying when the ungodly do listen.
March 15, 2009
Paradigm shifting. Drags you out of modern enlightenment Christianity.
May 24, 2016
Delightfully unbalanced. Deliciously insensitive.
May 31, 2022
I haven't so loved and been challenged by a book in a while. Very good read.
July 31, 2017
4.5 stars. Essentially, Leithart sets out to answer the question: What is the place of the Church in this world? In the preface, Leithart says it's a fragmented book, and it is, which makes it somewhat difficult to review, but that said, the advantage is that it offers arguments from many directions, achieving with grapeshot what a cannonball can't.
Leithart's argument is that the modern Church has privatised religion by intellectualising and abstracting doctrine, reducing the sacraments to nothing but symbols, and separated the gospel from daily life. This pale and truncated vision of the church he calls Christianity.
The book has five sections. I wish I could take each in turn, but I don't have time for that. First, against Christianity. In essence, the Church is the order of the new creation, the City of God standing opposed to all political and social organisations of man. This means the Church is political, but it is a new political order that proclaims Christ as ruler of every nation, person and institution. This means the Church is not another religion in the marketplace, jostling for its share of the customers. It is a new city, not a religion, reorganising human society and life from the ground up, demanding loyalty to Christ above any other loyalty. Religions do not do this: they allow you to worship Caesar, which is why Christians were singled out for persecution under Imperial Rome: they refused to worship Caesar. A major exception to this rule Islam, as it combines political and religious allegiance. The difference between Islam and Christianity is, however, that the former uses a real sword to conquer the world, while the latter uses the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God to convert the world. And this second sword does not kill, but brings the dead to life. Putting things another way, the Church really is the new world order (secular progressives, in their commitment to globalism also believe in a new world order, but one without Christ). If the Church is a city, it embodies a culture, and thus we cannot talk about 'Christianity and culture'. Culture always embodies religion. "The gospel announces a new creation [complete with a new culture, new regularities, new orders]. The gospel brings nothing less than a new world."
Against Theology: "Theology is always gnostic, and the Church firmly rejected gnosticism from her earliest days." Theology is a problem because it isn't in the Bible, and the Bible is preaching and prophecy, not theology. Theology deals with 'timeless truths', but the Bible deals primarily with real history, real people, real events, commentary on events, and "occasionally, reflections on the constants of life in the Proverbs." This leads to a really big problem: that of separating theory and practice. Theology means we have to separate the theory, and then apply it in our lives. In actuality, "all teaching is application." If theology is timeless truths, then all of life is outside theology, because all our life is temporal, which means that other voices will shape the life of temporalities. "Politics is left to politicians, economics to economists, sociology to sociologists, history to historians, and philosophy to madmen. Theology ensures Christians will have nothing to say about nearly everything." "Theology is a "Victorian" enterprise, neoclassically bright and neat and clean, nothing out of place. Whereas the Bible talks about hair, blood, sweat, entrails, menstruation and genital emissions." "Here's an experiment you can do at any theological library. You even have my permission to try this at home. Step 1: Check the indexes of any theologian you choose for any of the words mentioned [in the previous sentence]. (Augustine does not count. Augustine's theology is as big as reality, or bigger). Step 2: Check the Bible concordance for the same words. Step 3: Ponder these questions: Do theologians talk about the world the same way the Bible does? Do theologians talk about the same world the Bible does?" There are many more useful comments, to many for this review.
Against Sacraments: "Reformed Protestants generally adopt only one physical posture in worship - sitting to listen to a sermon - and therefore we are trained in only on spiritual posture. We are trained to accept as a matter of course that it is possible to think our way through life, all of life."
This is a fragmented review, because this short book has too much in it. But the book was really excellent: highly recommended. Even where Leithart may be wrong, he'll make you think seriously about who the Church really is, and what she's called to do, and how she's called to do it.
Leithart's argument is that the modern Church has privatised religion by intellectualising and abstracting doctrine, reducing the sacraments to nothing but symbols, and separated the gospel from daily life. This pale and truncated vision of the church he calls Christianity.
The book has five sections. I wish I could take each in turn, but I don't have time for that. First, against Christianity. In essence, the Church is the order of the new creation, the City of God standing opposed to all political and social organisations of man. This means the Church is political, but it is a new political order that proclaims Christ as ruler of every nation, person and institution. This means the Church is not another religion in the marketplace, jostling for its share of the customers. It is a new city, not a religion, reorganising human society and life from the ground up, demanding loyalty to Christ above any other loyalty. Religions do not do this: they allow you to worship Caesar, which is why Christians were singled out for persecution under Imperial Rome: they refused to worship Caesar. A major exception to this rule Islam, as it combines political and religious allegiance. The difference between Islam and Christianity is, however, that the former uses a real sword to conquer the world, while the latter uses the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God to convert the world. And this second sword does not kill, but brings the dead to life. Putting things another way, the Church really is the new world order (secular progressives, in their commitment to globalism also believe in a new world order, but one without Christ). If the Church is a city, it embodies a culture, and thus we cannot talk about 'Christianity and culture'. Culture always embodies religion. "The gospel announces a new creation [complete with a new culture, new regularities, new orders]. The gospel brings nothing less than a new world."
Against Theology: "Theology is always gnostic, and the Church firmly rejected gnosticism from her earliest days." Theology is a problem because it isn't in the Bible, and the Bible is preaching and prophecy, not theology. Theology deals with 'timeless truths', but the Bible deals primarily with real history, real people, real events, commentary on events, and "occasionally, reflections on the constants of life in the Proverbs." This leads to a really big problem: that of separating theory and practice. Theology means we have to separate the theory, and then apply it in our lives. In actuality, "all teaching is application." If theology is timeless truths, then all of life is outside theology, because all our life is temporal, which means that other voices will shape the life of temporalities. "Politics is left to politicians, economics to economists, sociology to sociologists, history to historians, and philosophy to madmen. Theology ensures Christians will have nothing to say about nearly everything." "Theology is a "Victorian" enterprise, neoclassically bright and neat and clean, nothing out of place. Whereas the Bible talks about hair, blood, sweat, entrails, menstruation and genital emissions." "Here's an experiment you can do at any theological library. You even have my permission to try this at home. Step 1: Check the indexes of any theologian you choose for any of the words mentioned [in the previous sentence]. (Augustine does not count. Augustine's theology is as big as reality, or bigger). Step 2: Check the Bible concordance for the same words. Step 3: Ponder these questions: Do theologians talk about the world the same way the Bible does? Do theologians talk about the same world the Bible does?" There are many more useful comments, to many for this review.
Against Sacraments: "Reformed Protestants generally adopt only one physical posture in worship - sitting to listen to a sermon - and therefore we are trained in only on spiritual posture. We are trained to accept as a matter of course that it is possible to think our way through life, all of life."
This is a fragmented review, because this short book has too much in it. But the book was really excellent: highly recommended. Even where Leithart may be wrong, he'll make you think seriously about who the Church really is, and what she's called to do, and how she's called to do it.
October 10, 2025
Pretty good overall, though I had my issues. Leithart’s central premise is bold and sweeping, and as with any argument that broad, he inevitably overextends—sometimes significantly—in order to make his thesis work.
The Good: A strong polemic against the modern gnostic tendency to compartmentalize the Christian faith and a refusal to apply it to all areas of life. A good antidote to current attitudes towards politics and the impulse to baptize worldly approaches to that sphere instead of consistently applying Christian ethics to the public square. Both in the obvious secular liberal sense, and the currently-in-vogue Machiavellian sense.
The Bad: Most of my issues stem from the way books like this—books on the Nephilim come to mind—grow so confident in their premise that they end up wholly reinterpreting or redefining important concepts. The result is often unnecessary antagonism toward those who don’t share the author’s system. Much of the overreach comes from Leithart’s view of the church, which sidelines the proper scope of both the civil and familial spheres. Now, this is a welcome assault when it pertains to the state, which has grown incredibly overblown in recent centuries. Leithart strikes a good balance there. But speaking as a Baptist who has read a lot of paedobaptists over the past five years, I’ve noticed that they often end up unfairly subsuming the life and practice of the family into the life and practice of the church. They, of course, must do this in order to preserve their system—but it remains a significant error.
The Ugly: I have no clue why Leithart structured the book the way he did. Numbered headers like lines of poetry, some sections barely longer than a stanza? Chapter headings formatted like part titles? Chaos! What were you thinking, Leithart? Haha. Or maybe I should be blaming the editor...
All in all, I enjoyed this one. Leithart’s style is sharp and his provocations are worth chewing on, even when I don’t follow him all the way.
The Good: A strong polemic against the modern gnostic tendency to compartmentalize the Christian faith and a refusal to apply it to all areas of life. A good antidote to current attitudes towards politics and the impulse to baptize worldly approaches to that sphere instead of consistently applying Christian ethics to the public square. Both in the obvious secular liberal sense, and the currently-in-vogue Machiavellian sense.
The Bad: Most of my issues stem from the way books like this—books on the Nephilim come to mind—grow so confident in their premise that they end up wholly reinterpreting or redefining important concepts. The result is often unnecessary antagonism toward those who don’t share the author’s system. Much of the overreach comes from Leithart’s view of the church, which sidelines the proper scope of both the civil and familial spheres. Now, this is a welcome assault when it pertains to the state, which has grown incredibly overblown in recent centuries. Leithart strikes a good balance there. But speaking as a Baptist who has read a lot of paedobaptists over the past five years, I’ve noticed that they often end up unfairly subsuming the life and practice of the family into the life and practice of the church. They, of course, must do this in order to preserve their system—but it remains a significant error.
The Ugly: I have no clue why Leithart structured the book the way he did. Numbered headers like lines of poetry, some sections barely longer than a stanza? Chapter headings formatted like part titles? Chaos! What were you thinking, Leithart? Haha. Or maybe I should be blaming the editor...
All in all, I enjoyed this one. Leithart’s style is sharp and his provocations are worth chewing on, even when I don’t follow him all the way.
January 25, 2025
Against Christianity, for Christendom. Leithart’s driving point is that the social order of the church is a city unto itself, a polis, that comes with its own culture. When this heavenly polis sets up a new outpost in the cities of man there will be conflict. And when there is conflict, what will the church do?
Will the church prophetically claim the lordship of Christ over everything? Or will she remain concerned with only the private lives of Christians? Assume she does stand fast and proclaim Christ faithfully and the leaders of the city listen. What now? Should she now back down and relegate herself again to the realm of private life, simply because we don’t want Christianity to be politicized?
This is a book against weak, loser, private, and emasculated Christianity, and for a robust, all-of-life, all-of-society, lordship-of-Christ Christendom. He argues against the claim that the church must always be a house of martyrs. The martyrs die so that the polis of Christ, and its culture, may go forth. When that happens we should rejoice, not wish the polis culture of the church had less influence.
I want to read this again soon. Highly recommended.
Will the church prophetically claim the lordship of Christ over everything? Or will she remain concerned with only the private lives of Christians? Assume she does stand fast and proclaim Christ faithfully and the leaders of the city listen. What now? Should she now back down and relegate herself again to the realm of private life, simply because we don’t want Christianity to be politicized?
This is a book against weak, loser, private, and emasculated Christianity, and for a robust, all-of-life, all-of-society, lordship-of-Christ Christendom. He argues against the claim that the church must always be a house of martyrs. The martyrs die so that the polis of Christ, and its culture, may go forth. When that happens we should rejoice, not wish the polis culture of the church had less influence.
I want to read this again soon. Highly recommended.
June 22, 2021
I feel pretty badly giving only 3 stars. I know this book must be excellent: it’s written by a pastor I very much respect and recommended by people I very much respect. But I couldn’t follow it. I’m sure this is due in large part to my not being very intellectual, and due in small part to my being constantly interrupted by my sweet children.
December 4, 2020
This book started off seeming like a grumpy old man splitting hairs. It slowly developed into a book where every theological hair was scalped and replaced with a new plug. What remains is a lush head of hair.
Oh, the hair is Christianity.
Oh, the hair is Christianity.
April 30, 2025
Really good read (listen). It is well written and thought provoking. I don’t agree with everything said and with some of the conclusions drawn but definitely want to get a physical copy to go through more thoroughly.
January 19, 2019
A needed criticism for anti-Christendom fanatics who makes the rounds on the blogs and wither in the church.
July 15, 2021
Leithart is one of those rare thinkers who is both a minority voice with appeal and benefit for all
June 14, 2022
Brilliant insights that swing into bonehead takes and back again. Lots of good things in here, and lots that just isn't well thought out. The exception would be the final chapter "For Constantine" which mounts a powerful defense of Constantine and Christendom and devastates anabaptist and related critics of them.
February 23, 2024
Just outstanding!
October 26, 2010
Peter Leithart has written a book calling the church to manifest the life of the kingdom of God, the kingship of Jesus Christ, in all the world through all we are and do. Part of this task is identifying some of the many ways the church today has adopted the values and traits and assumptions of the surrounding culture. This is essentially a call to the church to abandon "Christianism" (what Leithart is calling "Christianity") and become the kingdom of God under the Lordship of Jesus Christ manifest in all things in the world. This means subjecting all thought and life to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and seeing every area of existence as under the comprehensive and authoritative reign of Christ rather than the pervasive current dichotomy between sacred and secular so rampant in the church.
This book has sparked some controversy, or perhaps it is more accurate to say it has fanned the flames of a controversy that has long been crackling away. As readers of these reviews can see, there are some who have accused Peter Leithart of being a heretic because of this book. Of course if it is heresy to believe that faith is more than mere mental assent to a set of systematically organized doctrines; if it is heretical to believe that the other side of the coin of faith is faithfulness and an obedient life in areas we currently don't want God to mess around in; if it is heresy to believe that one's Christian faith truly lives (or at least is consciously growing) in obedient submission to the Lord Jesus in all things in order to be considered biblical faith, then Leithart is guilty as charged (and so were the reformers, who Leithart's accusers consider to be their forefathers in the faith). In fact, if this is the definition of heresy, than heretics abound even among the apostles and prophets.
In "Against Christianity", Leithart argues that Christianity has essentially become just another willing party under the cultural umbrella of the reigning and near universal assumed dichotomies of our day. The church is not its own unique and biblical culture but is just a subculture; a subset of the overarching culture of the day. In this short little unconventionally formatted book, Leithart shines a bright and unwavering spotlight on the follies of a church that has adopted the presuppositions of many generations of unbiblical thinking and practice, becoming unable to judge that much of what it rejects or denies are the very things it is called to be and do and much of what it accepts is diametrically opposed to the gospel.
I suspect that at least some of the objections raised to this book are, whether consciously or subconsciously, objections to its format. Leithart calls it "theological hiku". I think his presentation is effective in that he is using an unconventional, unscientific and unsystematic medium to communicate a message to call the church out of its captivity to modernist, compartmentalized thinking. The medium is an important aspect of the message (which Leithart argues at length, along with other things, in another recent book Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture). When God sent prophets to speak to a generation lost in cultural accommodation and idolatry, he frequently had them communicate their message in unconventional ways - ways that added to the affront of the message and made the recipients uncomfortable. And that is what the church needs to become, uncomfortable, before it will wake up out of its stupor.
This book has sparked some controversy, or perhaps it is more accurate to say it has fanned the flames of a controversy that has long been crackling away. As readers of these reviews can see, there are some who have accused Peter Leithart of being a heretic because of this book. Of course if it is heresy to believe that faith is more than mere mental assent to a set of systematically organized doctrines; if it is heretical to believe that the other side of the coin of faith is faithfulness and an obedient life in areas we currently don't want God to mess around in; if it is heresy to believe that one's Christian faith truly lives (or at least is consciously growing) in obedient submission to the Lord Jesus in all things in order to be considered biblical faith, then Leithart is guilty as charged (and so were the reformers, who Leithart's accusers consider to be their forefathers in the faith). In fact, if this is the definition of heresy, than heretics abound even among the apostles and prophets.
In "Against Christianity", Leithart argues that Christianity has essentially become just another willing party under the cultural umbrella of the reigning and near universal assumed dichotomies of our day. The church is not its own unique and biblical culture but is just a subculture; a subset of the overarching culture of the day. In this short little unconventionally formatted book, Leithart shines a bright and unwavering spotlight on the follies of a church that has adopted the presuppositions of many generations of unbiblical thinking and practice, becoming unable to judge that much of what it rejects or denies are the very things it is called to be and do and much of what it accepts is diametrically opposed to the gospel.
I suspect that at least some of the objections raised to this book are, whether consciously or subconsciously, objections to its format. Leithart calls it "theological hiku". I think his presentation is effective in that he is using an unconventional, unscientific and unsystematic medium to communicate a message to call the church out of its captivity to modernist, compartmentalized thinking. The medium is an important aspect of the message (which Leithart argues at length, along with other things, in another recent book Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture). When God sent prophets to speak to a generation lost in cultural accommodation and idolatry, he frequently had them communicate their message in unconventional ways - ways that added to the affront of the message and made the recipients uncomfortable. And that is what the church needs to become, uncomfortable, before it will wake up out of its stupor.
December 4, 2013
Leithart argues against not Christ or the Church, but against an intellectualized, privatized understanding of the Christian faith. For Leithart, "Christianity" offers a philosophy or an ideology when the point of the gospel is that the Church is a new society of redeemed people, the City of God, in Augustine's words. This means that theology ought to express the language and stories of the people of God, sacraments (baptism and the Lord's Supper) mark out the members of the city, and that the ethos of the City replaces other sets of values. Leithart's arguments for these understandings and against what he sees as distortions are expressed in the first four chapters: "Against Christianity," "Against Theology, "Against Sacraments," and "Against Ethics."
The fifth chapter, "For Constantine," contends that Christendom comes when the Church faithfully adheres to its calling as the City of God. This chapter is where you can see Leithart's postmillenialist views most clearly.
I really enjoyed following Leithart's arguments throughout the book, even though my sense of eschatology and the Christ-culture relationship is not very well defined.
The fifth chapter, "For Constantine," contends that Christendom comes when the Church faithfully adheres to its calling as the City of God. This chapter is where you can see Leithart's postmillenialist views most clearly.
I really enjoyed following Leithart's arguments throughout the book, even though my sense of eschatology and the Christ-culture relationship is not very well defined.
January 6, 2011
Lots of Presbyterians in my circles hate this book, but that's just because they didn't read past the title. It's really really fantastic! It is an exposition of the concept of the Kingdom of God and how the church needs to get with the Biblical program of world conquest! The church isn't just there to give people a spiritual side of life. It is life, and ought to govern all aspects of life. he finishes with a section on Constantine, which I think was a preliminary investigation for what turned into his book on Constantine. Read past the title, people!
October 29, 2014
Kirja vastustaa moderniin maailman ideologioihin sopeutunutta "kristinuskoa", joka ei näe itseään omana radikaalisti maailmasta erillisenä valtakuntanaan. Leithartilla oli monia hyviä ajatuksia siitä, kuinka kristinuskon tulisi nykyään ilmaista itseään. Tykkäsin erityisesti siitä kuinka hän puhui rituaalien tärkeydestä kulttuurin keskuksena ja myös kristinuskon keskuksena, jos se aikoo olla kulttuurinen voima. Pienenä miinuksena kirjoittajalta puuttui luterilainen ajatus kahdesta regimentistä ja sen vuoksi en ihan kaikkea allekirjoittanut kristinuskon ja maallisen vallan suhteesta.
November 21, 2025
Excellent. He addresses Clapp, Yoder, and Hauerwas respectfully and convincingly.
Death necessitates resurrection. Similarly, "a church forever martyred without relief is a cross without a resurrection". When our self-chosen exile ends, Leithart's book can remind us of what it means to be the Church.
UPDATE - Read it in 2015 and again this year (2025). Leithart provides such encouragement and aspiration for what the Church should be. Lord willing, I'll likely read again in 2035.
Death necessitates resurrection. Similarly, "a church forever martyred without relief is a cross without a resurrection". When our self-chosen exile ends, Leithart's book can remind us of what it means to be the Church.
UPDATE - Read it in 2015 and again this year (2025). Leithart provides such encouragement and aspiration for what the Church should be. Lord willing, I'll likely read again in 2035.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 129 reviews