Thoughts on the Horton-Frame Controversy (1)

In light of the recent controversy over the critical review by John Frame of Michael Horton’s book, Christless Christianity (The Alternative Gospel of the American Church), I would like to weigh in on the matter by offering some critical commentary of my own on some of the many issues raised in Frame’s review. I will not make it through the entire review in this post, for Frame has raised much too much to be addressed in one setting. So for the sake of readers I will take on one or two issues at a time resulting in multiple postings. I am “late” in this joining this discussion (only by a few days). Having read most of the other discussion threads (R. Scott Clark, White Horse Inn, Darryl G. Hart, Puritanboard, James H. Grant, Jr. Kim Riddlebarger, et. al.), I will try to avoid duplicatating them here. However, since we’re all referencing the same source using the same if not similar measures, some duplication will be unavoidable.

Frame opens his review by critiquing Horton’s “alarming” book title. This is not the first time Frame has critiqued the title of a book in a review, nor the subtitle. In 2006, Frame noted that N.T. Wright’s book, The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture, had a misleading subtitle, writing, “the book does not address those issues at all.”[1] Frame seems to like certain titles (and subtitles) more than others, a preference I am rather indifferent to. However, in Frame’s review of Brian MacLaren’s Generous Orthodoxy the title was not critiqued so harshly, rather it was praised. Of MacLaren’s book title, Frame wrote, “I love the phrase ‘generous orthodoxy.’ It has a nice ring…if ‘generous orthodoxy’ is a movement open to all who share these convictions and seek to practice them, sign me up.”[2]

But of Horton’s title (and subtitle), Frame writes, “We should keep in mind that such language makes the most serious indictments.” Frame proceeds to commendably explain the biblical implications of being “Christless” and pronouncing someone’s preaching as an “alternative gospel.” Two paragraphs into the review Frame provides a great quotable: “People who preach ‘another gospel’ are not Christian friends who happen to disagree with us on this or that matter. Rather, they have betrayed Christ himself. The whole church ought to rise up against such persons and declare that they are not part of the body of Christ and that they have no part in the blessings of salvation. Indeed, if they do not repent, they have no future except eternal punishment.” But I have not seen this posted yet by anyone in my Facebook feed…

Seizing on Horton’s title and accusing Horton of a “bait and switch,” Frame writes, “Notice how far we have come. From ‘Christless Christianity’ and ‘alternative gospel,’ to ‘well on our way,’ we are now exploring ‘subtle distortions and not-so-subtle distractions,’ even ‘good things’ that detract from Christ.” Future authors would benefit from Frame’s critique here if they paid attention to the over-critical reader’s (in this case, Frame’s) perspective. One wonders if authors such as Michael Ende are given a pass by Frame for titles such as Die unendliche Geschichte given the genre of the novel (fantasy), I mean, the “story” does end after all. My initial impression was that Frame was being extremely nitpicky and over-critical with Horton’s title (and subtitle), and since Frame is someone who is known for charging others with overstaing things, it was odd to find Frame engaging in the very thing he so often charges others of doing. But Frame’s critique of the title is only a segue into the “meat” of his review. Frame ignores almost all of Horton’s first chapter (which you can read for yourself here), and shortly after getting started he quotes Horton from the book (CC),

(Horton) Of course I am not denying… that Christians should have an interest in pressing issues of the day or that there is an important place for applying biblical teaching to our conduct in the world. But with Lewis I am concerned that when the church’s basic message is less about who Christ is and what he has accomplished once and for all for us and more about who we are and what we have to do in order to make his life (and ours) relevant to the culture, the religion that is made “relevant” is no longer Christianity. (145-46)

Frame chooses this paragraph to critique and uses it to introduce the first numbered section of his review. I’m not so sure though that we should follow Frame down the path he’s carved, and here’s why. Horton mentions two potential, specific, “basic” messages of the church: a) “who Christ is and what he has accomplished once and for all for us,” and b) “who we are and what we have to do in order to make his life (and ours) relevant to the culture.” In (a), Horton seems to be referring to what is revealed in Scripture about the person and work of Christ, and in (b) he seems to be referring to the contemporary, pragmatic means and methods of evangelism and church growth. These are clearly two separate messages, easily distinguishable from each other, and Horton appears to favor (a) over (b) on the basis that an overemphasis of (b) leads to religion that “is no longer Christianity.”

I do not think Horton should be faulted for this, but he seems to be saying that any church (or, the church) over a given amount of time (Horton is unclear as to the length) can be categorized as either emphasizing (a) or (b). From the language used by Horton (which I agree is rather vague here), we are left guessing that he means emphasis can be determined by a percentage of 51% or greater. This means that if out of 100 preaching hours, only 49 of them are about (a), then since that would be objectively less than 51% (tracking with Horton’s more/less terminology) it is no longer Christianity. Frame says Horton’s terms are “relative,” but as we can see, giving Horton a charitable reading (in the way Frame often demands) does not necessarily require Frame’s conclusion. 51% is objectively more than 49%, and 49% is objectively less than 51%. Horton’s “more/less” terminology refers to quantitative percentages which when framed as above is not relative at all.

One difficulty here is that Horton does not explain how a church that would devote 49 out of 100 hours to preaching (a) would fail to be Christian just because 51 hours are devoted to (b). Perhaps we would have to look to Horton’s other works for his reasons (a suggestion Horton makes in CC). But is it not possible for a church to be so filled with mature believers in Christ (rooted and built up in the Word, etc.) making up the majority of the congregation that the pastor instead enters the church into a season dedicated to “fruit” rather than “root?” After all, the 49 hours dedicated to (a), assuming they are biblically faithful, certainly should provide a strong enough foundation out from which the inevitable fruit ought to spring. A church of such living faith certainly warrants such an allocation, and if so, faithfully preaching Christ less than 51% of the time would not necessarily render the church non-Christian. If the expositional preaching schedule in a church leads to the Pastoral Epistles (1&2 Timothy and Titus, combined: 13 chapters, 242 verses, only 30 mentioning Christ, roughly 12%), it would be easy to see how less than 51% of the preaching would be “about who Christ is and what he has accomplished once and for all for us.” That would not necessarily negate the church’s Christianity given the nature of the literature. But Horton does not seem to be directly addressing this issue in the nature spoken of here, rather, he seems to be addressing the percentage of time devoted to preaching Christ and His redemptive work versus the mass-hysteria over the popular evangelical trends surrounding “cultural” “relevance.” I am perplexed as to how someone of Frame’s academic caliber could omit this from his review since it is so clearly stated by Horton in CC.

Anyone familiar with Horton’s ministry should understand that he spends an awful lot of time discussing the contemporary fad of making Jesus “relevant” to the “culture.” Horton is very critical of it at times, and rightly so. With the barrage of new books and websites committed to the supposition of Post-Christian America and the need for American churches to adapt to it or become irrelevant, Horton (et. al., including my pastor, Ken Jones) has met this new school head-on and offered another solution to the alleged mystery of Christ’s irrelevance: preach Christ according to the Bible and he will be relevant to those that believe. This is a solution that Horton finds grounding for in Scripture. Any Calvinist should agree with him, for if the relevance of the church’s head, Jesus, is contingent on the acceptance of Him by the natural man based on the presentation of Him by His church, then ultimately the church’s presentation determines whom the recipients of the benefits of Christ’s atonement are. Such a claim would contradict the doctrines of unconditional election and effectual calling.

Furthermore, in 1 Cor. 1:21, Paul says that God was pleased to save those who believe through the folly of “what” we preach (morias tou kerugmatos = lit. “foolishness of preaching”), not the degree of creativity in “how” we preach it or its perceived relevance to the natural man. Paul goes on to say that we preach a stumbling block, namely, “Christ crucified” (v.22). Paul continues to explain this in chapter 2,

And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. (1 Cor. 2:1-5)

So, Horton does not seem out of line with Paul at all on this issue, in fact, he seems to be making pastoral application of this passage very well. I take his concern to be valid on the basis of Paul’s admission of his intentionally avoiding crafty alterations to the roughness of the gospel and attempting to make it “plausible,” or as Van Til repeatedly said, “palatable to the natural man” (a phrase found numerous times in Van Til). Horton seems to be relaying the ideas of what Scripture teaches, that the elect will in fact believe the gospel through the foolishness of preaching (foolishness to the natural man, but to the elect, “the power of God and the wisdom of God.” [v.24]), and NOT via the wisdom of the world. Frame, being a disciple of Cornelius Van Til, should agree with this given Van Til’s emphasis on antithesis, a concept Frame says Van Til likely got from Machen and Kuyper that denies presuppositional neutrality among other things, defended by Frame in the past, though not uncritically.[3]  In Frame’s inaugural lecture upon assuming the J. D. Trimble Chair of Systematic Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Dec., 2006, Frame said, “Religious antithesis generates epistemological antithesis. Christians think differently from non-Christians; and when they don’t, they should.”[4]

Van Til was not the lone voice in teaching the antithesis, but he made it most accessible through his teaching and writings. Another disciple of Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, also promoted the concept. In a letter from Van Til to Bahnsen in 1985, Van Til wrote, “It is never about winning, Greg. It is about exposing their inconsistency. God does everything else. Never forget the antithesis.”[5]  Bahnsen defines antithesis as being “based on two Greek words: anti (‘against’) and tithenai (‘to set or place’). ‘Antithesis’ speaks of opposition or a counter point. As Christians we must recognize the fundamental disagreement between biblical thought and all forms of unbelief at the foundational level of our theory of knowing and knowledge.”[6] (emphasis mine to point out a cool name for a blog)

Although Frame has been quite clear that he believes Van Til was extreme, and that at times overstated the antithesis, he has not yet, to my knowledge, rejected it. However, it seems to me that if one objects to Horton’s statement (CC 145-46), one must reject antithesis or hold to beliefs “antithetical” to Van Til’s antithesis (which does not exclude Frame). In order to argue that the church’s message should be “focused” on making Christ and themselves relevant to the culture more so than preaching “who Christ is and what he has accomplished once and for all for us,” one must reject the antithesis and the “gorge” between the believer and non-believer. It assumes that apart from regeneration Christ actually can be relevant to the (unbelieving) culture. Maybe Frame has admitted that he no longer holds to an epistemological “gorge” of any degree between the two (antithesis) and that his latitudinarian tendencies leave no room for such discrimination, but as quoted from 2006 above, Frame said, “Religious antithesis generates epistemological antithesis. Christians think differently from non-Christians; and when they don’t, they should.” Alot can change in three years, but I suspect he has not rejected it outright.

Later in Frames review (an issue I may comment on at a later date), he makes statements that lead me to believe he still holds to the antithesis. Criticizing Horton’s appeal to secular statistics (stats given by people on the other side of the so-called gorge), Frame says, “I default to my habitual skepticism toward critiques of evangelicalism by non-evangelicals…statistical science is not religiously neutral.” (obvious antithesis language) So then on what grounds does Frame object to Horton’s statement? If Frame still believes that unbelievers will always find the Christ of the Bible irrelevant due to their (religious/epistemological) residency on the opposite side of the “gorge,” then it seems futile and even contradictory for him to oppose Horton and instead advance a message aimed to make Christ and Christians relevant to the non-believing culture over and against preaching Christ and the fundamental gospel. I do not think that Frame is intentionally doing this though.

My review leaves me with the impression that Frame, as I mentioned earlier, missed the point entirely. This is noticeable in his direct response to Horton that, to me, wanders off into an unnecessary discussion of the imprecise nature of measurability of the percentage-allotment that ought to be for preaching Christ vs. “other things.” This does not appear to even be a point Horton was contending for, and Frame often appears to be talking to himself in his review. Horton is pretty clear in stating his concern. Frame seems off-mark in his lengthy discussion of “emphasis,” asking, “What kind of wrong emphasis is Horton concerned about?” But as clearly seen from Horton’s quote, he is concerned “that when the church’s basic message is less about who Christ is and what he has accomplished once and for all for us and more about who we are and what we have to do in order to make his life (and ours) relevant to the culture.” (emphasis mine) But Frame does not see this too clearly, for if he had, he probably would not have asked such a misdirected question. Frame embarks on a deeper probing of Horton, giving no attention to the thrust of Horton’s point. Horton is expressing a concern not exclusive to some narrow sect of Protestantism, but also theological conservatives in broad evangelicalism (even Willimon and Catholics!). Notice how Frame’s response to Horton’s quote begins on the wrong foot, setting the angle of what looks to be a trajectory toward a straw-man:

(Frame) But “basic,” “less,” and “more” are relative terms. How much is too much? How much is just enough? Must every preacher spend a certain percentage of his time on Christ and the fundamental gospel, and another percentage on other things? Or may the percentages vary from week to week? Some churches have maintained the policy of having a gospel invitation in every service. Is that a good thing?

Frame goes on to say,

“Edifying a congregation may, and often does, require the preacher to give certain topics an emphasis different from that of Scripture itself. And it always involves applying biblical teaching to extra-biblical situations, to our lives.”

But Horton is clearly not at odds with this, for Horton said,

“Of course I am not denying… that Christians should have an interest in pressing issues of the day or that there is an important place for applying biblical teaching to our conduct in the world.”

An indication that someone’s rebuttal is “off” is when the rebuttal is an almost exact restatement of the statement being rebutted. Somewhere along the line, possibly in the early going of the review (or initial reading of CC), Frame fell off the mark and never really got back on. To illustrate this, let’s compose one statement out of two, one from each, John Frame and Michael Horton, as if from one person:

(Horton/Frame combined) I am not denying that Christians should have an interest in pressing issues of the day or that there is an important place for applying biblical teaching to our conduct in the world. Edifying a congregation may, and often does, require the preacher to give certain topics an emphasis different from that of Scripture itself. And it always involves applying biblical teaching to extra-biblical situations, to our lives.

As we can see, the composition of Horton’s and Frame’s statements presented as one demonstrate a coherency as if from one mind. Since Frame’s statement was made in response to Horton’s, we can conclude that Frame simply misunderstood Horton. I’m pretty sure that Frame and Horton “formally agree” (to use more Van Tilian language), for elsewhere Frame has stated “we cannot distort the Bible’s teaching in order to make it more palatable to people today.”[7]  I can only imagine Mike Horton’s facial expressions in reading Frame’s response. He must have been as perplexed as I was.

It is my hopeful guess that if this were explained carefully to Frame that he would see his mistake and retract his statements, along with a public apology to both Michael Horton and Baker Books, and everyone else that read the misleading review. There is much talk out there about John Frame having emotional hostility towards Mike Horton and WSC, a point I am unwilling to deny here, but there is also much request for interaction with the review apart from all that. I hope to contribute toward the latter. I admit that at times it is frustrating to read Frame’s comments and/or reviews of anything that involves WSC personnel since it reads much like “divorce” bitterness (mentioned by a friend on Facebook), Frame being the ex-wife and WSC the husband. The issues are many, no doubt, but many admire both John Frame and Michael Horton, and it is a disservice to their readers if both sides make this purely a personal issue rather than a much needed discussion where all parties subject themselves to God’s Word, the Bible.

As a non-Vantilian who has made several mentions of Van Til, I leave you with another quote from Van Til where he makes use of Warfield and Hodge on a related matter:

[T]his Christianity [not some minimal essence of..."Christianity itself, including all its ‘details’ and involving its ‘essence’ in its unexplicated and uncompressed entirety." Supplied: SM] we must bring to those who are dead in trespasses and sins. “It is,” says Warfield, “upon a field of the dead that the Son of righteousness has risen, and the shouts that announce His advent fall on deaf ears: yea, even though the morning stars should again sing for joy and the air be palpitant with the echo of the great proclamation, their voice could not penetrate the ears of the dead. As we sweep our eyes over the world lying in its wickedness it is the valley of the prophet’s vision which we see before us: a valley that is filled with bones, and lo! they are very dry. What benefit is there in proclaiming to dry bones even the greatest of redemptions? How shall we stand and cry, ‘O, ye dry bones, hear ye the word of the Lord!’ In vain the redemption, in vain its proclamation, unless there come a breath from heaven to breathe upon these slain that they may live.” “The Christian lives by virtue of the life that has been given to him, and prior to the inception of that life, of course, he has no power of action; and it is of the utmost importance that as Christian men we should not lower our testimony to this supernaturalness of our salvation.” Regeneration, we have seen Hodge argue, is unto knowledge, righteousness and holiness.[8]

____________________________

[1] Frame, J. M. (2007). The Collected Shorter Theological Writings. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.

[2] http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2005McLaren.htm

[3] Frame, Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1995), 187–213., and, Westminster Theological Journal 57:1 (Spring 1995), 81-102

[4] Frame, J. M. (2007). The Collected Shorter Theological Writings. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.

[5] Bahnsen, Greg L., Pushing the Antithesis: the Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen, American Vision, Inc. (2007)

[6] Ibid. 13

[7] Frame, J. M. (2002). The doctrine of God. A theology of lordship (146). Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.

[8] Van Til, C., & Edgar, W. (2003). Christian apologetics (2nd ed.). The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ.