Frame's Negative Review of Horton's Christless Christianity
Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 11:53AM 
John Frame--who was Michael Horton's professor (and mine) during his time at Westminster--has published a decidedly negative (and to my mind, mean-spirited and completely wide of the mark) review of Michael Horton's book Christless Christianity.
Frame's review can be found here: http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2009Horton.htm
Here's a reply posted today on the White Horse Inn blog: http://www.whitehorseinn.org/archives/166.html
Michael is perfectly capable of defending himself. He'll do that when and how he sees fit.
But given Frame's lament about "Machen's Warrior Children," his open disdain for the law-gospel distinction, his long-standing support and defense of Norman Shepherd, his rosy assessment of contemporary American Evangelicalism, and his history of muddying Reformed theological distinctions (perspectivalism, anyone?) sadly, Frame's negative review comes as no surprise.
Kim Riddlebarger
As is so often the case, Darryl Hart says it better than I ever could: Hart's Review of "Frame's Review"
Kim Riddlebarger
Scott Clark gives some historical (institutional) background to Frame's "hit piece" as Scott correctly calls it, as well setting forth a compelling case as to why John Frame is much more of an Evangelical latitudinarian, than a confessional Reformed theologian. This is must reading. Scott Clark on Frame
Reader Comments (28)
I'm also interested in the relationship of this to CCM and worship-patterns.
This debate must not go away. It must be hashed out clearly As for those who can't handle a necessary engagement or think it unbecoming Churchmen, it might be better for such adovcates to retire from the Church Militant.
As an aside, it surprises me that this "Tri-perspectivalism" is still alive. Back in 1979, I just thought this was Frame's quirkly, gee-wizardry, gosh-golly approach to theology, but I see, he's still propounding it. It' attained magisterial, even conciliar, levels of popularity and authority. But not here, sorry.
That said:
As far as the history, that goes both ways. So much so, that when I defended Frame on a point where I thought he was objectively right, R.S. Clark accused me of being a crypto Hindu by "worshiping Frame as a sacred cow." My disagreement with Clark was due strictly and only to my "hero worship." The anymosity and mean-spiritedness cuts both ways.
Lastly, I have yet to see a scholarly critique of Triperspectivalism and think the view can be stated and put in ways that avoids some of the rather weak and reactionary objections I have seen. FWIW, in the new feschrift, Dr. James Anderson has a piece on triperspectivalism and epistemology. I read a rough draft of it and would recommend that it be interacted with by triperspectival nay-sayers. On a related note, Frame himself admits that his triperspectivalism is best seen as a pedagogical device. That in and of itself removes the fangs from almost all the critiques I have seen. Anderson also ellucidates points about it TP that show most lay critiques to be wide of the mark.
The best way I know to describe such a view is to describe it as a kind of wheel of fortune. Someone has to start the wheel and someone has to stop it and someone has to say what it means and, in my experience, only authorized persons (Frame, Poythress or another one approved by JMF) get to play. The rest of us are on the outside scratching our heads. When we try to play we're told "You don't know the rules, go away" or "your throw doesn't count because you broke the rules."
"What are the rules?"
"Well, there's first base, second base, and third base."
"Great, that makes sense."
"Wait, there's more. After the game begins, first base modifies second base, and second base modifies third base."
"Uh, okay. I guess I can imagine how that might be."
"There's more. When the game really heats up, first base, second base, and third base become identical."
"Uh, who says when that happens?"
"The ump."
"Who wrote the rules?"
"The ump"
"Who says who gets to play?"
"The ump"
"Who says what the score is?"
"The ump"
You can see that this not exactly a field of dreams or perhaps it is.
Where are the links to these "critiques?" Are they scholarly? Published in journals? My friends as WSCAl tell me that when they ask you profs in class for critiques, things get all silent. BTW, Muller and Wright didn't offer criticisms of TP. Yeah, they disagreed with Frame on things, but Muller disagrees with you on some things. Does that mean RCC is debunked?
"The best way I know to describe such a view is to describe it as a kind of wheel of fortune."
Is that really "the best way" Scott? As a scholar, did you not learn to represent opponents in the best light? Would these kinds of pejoratives and lables have worked at Oxford?
"Someone has to start the wheel and someone has to stop it and someone has to say what it means and, in my experience, only authorized persons (Frame, Poythress or another one approved by JMF) get to play. "
Scott, I'm confused. Are you pretending that you're critiquing TP here? I would also think that the obvious wouldn't escape you. This is the way you play all the time.
"The rest of us are on the outside scratching our heads."
This, coupled with the above, seems to commit the No true Scotsman fallacy. And, I don't think I need to add that this still isn't "critique." For you to rip on Frame's critique of Horton, and then come at TP with this kind of stuff, strikes me ironic.
"When we try to play we're told "You don't know the rules, go away" or "your throw doesn't count because you broke the rules."
And is that rejoinder in print somewhere, Scott? Or are you making things up again?
Let us all know when a critique of TP comes out, people are tired of hearing your repeated say-so's that it's "dangerous." Until then, you sound like the benighted that try and critique TP by declaiming, "It's relativism!" That's not a critique, not a good one at least, it just makes the utterer sound stupid.
A major challenge is to place Horton’s warnings in the correct context.
Theologian Benjamin Breckinrigde Warfield (1851-1921) addressed the idea of Christless Christianity in the early 1900s; see The Harvard Theological Review, v. pp. 423-473; also, The Works of Benjamin Brenkinrigde Warfield 10 vols., BakerBooks, 1932; in vol. III, Christology and Criticism, Warfield’s article “Christless Christianity”. Warfield was responding to an attempt to make Christ some vague person, which people could never really know the truth about because of what was termed as the unreliability of “truths of history.” Warfield explained that what was at stake was the very nature of Christianity or the essence of Christianity (p. 349). “The Christ Myth” by Professor Arthur Drews was published in the early 1900s and used as anti-Christian propaganda. Warfield tells us, “There is asserted here something more than that religion is independent of Jesus. That was being vigorously asserted by the adherents of the Monistenbund; and as for Drews, his ‘Christ Myth’—like the ‘Christianity of the New Testament’ of his master, von Hartmann, before it—was written, he tells us, precisely in the interests of religion, and seeks to sweep Jesus out of the way that men may be truly religious” (p. 316) (The Works of Benjamin Brenkinrigde Warfield 10 vols., 1932; in vol. III, Christology and Criticism, article “Christless Christianity”).
.
Warfield quotes German philosopher, Rudolf Eucken, comments about Christ, “’We can honor him…as a leader, a hero, a martyr; but we cannot directly bind ourselves to him, or root ourselves in him: we cannot unconditionally submit to him…’ Eucken thus quite purely carries on the tradition of a non-historical, which is, of course, also in the nature of the case a Christless Christianity” (p. 323).
“The question” says Warfield, “thus concerns not Christianity in its historical sense, but ‘our religion,’ ‘of to-day’; and it might perhaps be better phrased, not, Is Christ essential to the Christian faith? but, Is the so-called Christianity of today to which Christ is not essential still Christian?” (pp. 349-350, My Emphasis). This is Horton’s point!
In his book, Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church, Michael Horton argues that the American church is on its way to a Christless Christianity by presenting a message which “moralize, minimize, and trivialize Christ in different ways” but does not raise to the point of heresy, says Horton (p. 24 Grand Rapids, BakerBooks 2009). However, whether one reads Warfield’s description of Christless Christianity (pp. 313-367) or Horton’s description of Christless Christianity (pp. 1-270), both are appropriate polemics against a flawed view of Christianity. Horton says “…many Christian Leaders are converting sin—a condition from which we cannot liberate ourselves—into dysfunction and salvation into recovery.” For example, Horton notes that Reformed preacher, Robert Schuller encourages people not to use terms like sin and justification but “shame and [low] self-esteem” become the fundamental issues in life that need to be addressed. He says evangelical leader, Rick Warren informed a national TV audience that Jesus came into the world to give us a “’do-over,’” like in golf. “I realize” says Horton, “that a lot of people who might gravitate toward a more therapeutic approach to life, including their faith, would nevertheless balk at the accusation of works-righteousness. The key to my criticism, however, is that once you make your peace of mind rather than peace with God the main problem to be solved, the whole gospel becomes radically redefined….One may feel guilty, but no one actually is guilty before God.” Horton then rightly explains, “’How can I, a sinner, be right before a holy God?’” is simply off the radar in a therapeutic mind-set. Once the self is enthroned as the source, judge, and goal of all of life, the gospel need not be denied because it’s beside the point. But people need to see—for their own good—that self-realization, self-fulfillment, and self-help are all contemporary twists on an old heresy, which Paul indentified as works-righteousness” (pp.38-40).
Warfield appropriately ends his article on Christless Christianity with this quote, “’Christ is Christianity itself...without His name, person and work, there is no Christianity left. In a word, Christ does not point out the way to salvation; He is the Way itself’” (p. 367). “[T]here are people” says Lloyd-Jones, “that talk about Christianity without Christ…There is no Christianity without ‘the blood of Christ’….His atoning substitutionary sacrifice” (D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones God’s Ultimate Purpose, pp.17-18, 1978).
A major challenge is to place Horton’s warnings in the correct context.
Theologian Benjamin Breckinrigde Warfield (1851-1921) addressed the idea of Christless Christianity in the early 1900s; see The Harvard Theological Review, v. pp. 423-473; also, The Works of Benjamin Brenkinrigde Warfield 10 vols., BakerBooks, 1932; in vol. III, Christology and Criticism, Warfield’s article “Christless Christianity”. Warfield was responding to an attempt to make Christ some vague person, which people could never really know the truth about because of what was termed as the unreliability of “truths of history.” Warfield explained that what was at stake was the very nature of Christianity or the essence of Christianity (p. 349). “The Christ Myth” by Professor Arthur Drews was published in the early 1900s and used as anti-Christian propaganda. Warfield tells us, “There is asserted here something more than that religion is independent of Jesus. That was being vigorously asserted by the adherents of the Monistenbund; and as for Drews, his ‘Christ Myth’—like the ‘Christianity of the New Testament’ of his master, von Hartmann, before it—was written, he tells us, precisely in the interests of religion, and seeks to sweep Jesus out of the way that men may be truly religious” (p. 316) (The Works of Benjamin Brenkinrigde Warfield 10 vols., 1932; in vol. III, Christology and Criticism, article “Christless Christianity”).
Warfield quotes German philosopher, Rudolf Eucken, comments about Christ, “’We can honor him…as a leader, a hero, a martyr; but we cannot directly bind ourselves to him, or root ourselves in him: we cannot unconditionally submit to him…’ Eucken thus quite purely carries on the tradition of a non-historical, which is, of course, also in the nature of the case a Christless Christianity” (p. 323).
“The question” says Warfield, “thus concerns not Christianity in its historical sense, but ‘our religion,’ ‘of to-day’; and it might perhaps be better phrased, not, Is Christ essential to the Christian faith? but, Is the so-called Christianity of today to which Christ is not essential still Christian?” (pp. 349-350, My Emphasis). This is Horton’s point!
In his book, Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church, Michael Horton argues that the American church is on its way to a Christless Christianity by presenting a message which “moralize, minimize, and trivialize Christ in different ways” but does not raise to the point of heresy, says Horton (p. 24 Grand Rapids, BakerBooks 2009). However, whether one reads Warfield’s description of Christless Christianity (pp. 313-367) or Horton’s description of Christless Christianity (pp. 1-270), both are appropriate polemics against a flawed view of Christianity. Horton says “…many Christian Leaders are converting sin—a condition from which we cannot liberate ourselves—into dysfunction and salvation into recovery.” For example, Horton notes that Reformed preacher, Robert Schuller encourages people not to use terms like sin and justification but “shame and [low] self-esteem” become the fundamental issues in life that need to be addressed. He says evangelical leader, Rick Warren informed a national TV audience that Jesus came into the world to give us a “’do-over,’” like in golf. “I realize” says Horton, “that a lot of people who might gravitate toward a more therapeutic approach to life, including their faith, would nevertheless balk at the accusation of works-righteousness. The key to my criticism, however, is that once you make your peace of mind rather than peace with God the main problem to be solved, the whole gospel becomes radically redefined….One may feel guilty, but no one actually is guilty before God.” Horton then rightly explains, “’How can I, a sinner, be right before a holy God?’” is simply off the radar in a therapeutic mind-set. Once the self is enthroned as the source, judge, and goal of all of life, the gospel need not be denied because it’s beside the point. But people need to see—for their own good—that self-realization, self-fulfillment, and self-help are all contemporary twists on an old heresy, which Paul indentified as works-righteousness” (pp.38-40).
Warfield appropriately ends his article on Christless Christianity with this quote, “’Christ is Christianity itself…without His name, person and work, there is no Christianity left. In a word, Christ does not point out the way to salvation; He is the Way itself’” (p. 367). “[T]here are people” says Lloyd-Jones, “that talk about Christianity without Christ…There is no Christianity without ‘the blood of Christ’….His atoning substitutionary sacrifice” (D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones God’s Ultimate Purpose, pp.17-18, 1978).