Subscribe via reader
Subscribe via Email
Follow via Twitter
Christless Christianity and Reformed Warriors
October 22nd, 2009 by James GrantLast year Michael Horton published Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church. Strong title, but Horton believes the American church is on the road toward accepting an alternative gospel. John Frame recently received Horton’s book here. Frame takes some hard hits at Horton in the review, and is very critical of the book overall. The internet has been abuzz about Frame’s critique; some really like it, but others are scratching their head about it.
Frame concludes his review by explaining that his concern with Horton is the alarmism in the book, as well as Horton’s theologically “narrow, factional, even sectarian perspective.” Then Frame ends the review by saying, “So I must render a negative verdict on this book, though commending the author’s passion for the purity of the church and for the gospel. In doing this, I must disagree with many friends and respected colleagues, who have commended this volume lavishly. They should have known better.”
Ouch…”They should have known better.” All those friends and respected colleagues that endorsed the book…”they should have known better.”
That would include me. I consider myself a friend of John Frame, and I suggested at the end of last year that Horton’s book was one of my favorite books of 2008.
With that kind of review, we should have known it wouldn’t take long for a response. Eric Landry at White Horse Inn responded here, and I noticed that D. G. Hart’s also responded here. I’m sure more will come, but I am interested in Hart conclusion:
Blame it on the tri-perspectivalism, but Frame does not see that his notion of evangelical unity does not make room for Horton or other confessional Protestants who critique born-again Protestantism. Does Frame mean to embrace Osteen more than Horton? He may not. But if he doesn’t, why not write his own review of Osteen, instead of waiting to rip Horton’s critique?
John Frame is in denial about being a warrior. But at least he is correct about his family ties to Machen.
Well, given that I like Horton’s book and am on the other side of the divide from Prof. Frame this time, I would tend to agree with Hart. There is a warrior behind this review from Prof. Frame, and at least he realizes that he has taken a stab at more than simply Michael Horton in this review.
Posted in Evangelicalism | 14 Comments »
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:57 pm
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
You know this is all about the 2KT. This is where the battle lies. Frame is a warrior of catholicity; wrong or not, isn’t that the battle where you would wish to die? You and I know el papa Frame is dead wrong on worship matters, but isn’t that catholicity what we ought to strive for? james, you know Hart is just a pugilist…you know you know.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
You made me laugh out loud Uri!
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:46 pm
I too liked Horton’s book. I too like Frame. Be that as it may, I think Hart was off; as are many who try to pull some sort of self-referential incoherency critique of Frame’s position in Machen’s Warrior Children in light of his critique of Horton. As Frame makes clear in that article, he’s not against theological debate per se,, or critique per se, he’s against the tone of debate and the penchant toward mischaracterization of your opponent that characterized much of the Warrior’s writings. As long as Frame isn’t doing that, then it’s wrong to claim he is working at cross purposes with his position in Machen’s Warrior Children.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Can’t wait to chat about this, JHG. There’s more baggage in Frame’s review, I’ll warrant, than (say) you or I would bring to the table (or at least dift baggage). But I do think a call for caution is appropriate.
If Horton’s general take was that the gospel was not as clear and as popular in pulpits as it should be, I’d buy the book, say amen, and go home. But I do think Frame has put his finger on some crucial points.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Ok, picture a man sitting on his office chair; his little kitty sits beside him. “Meowww,” says the kitty. The man gently pets the kitty…as he does so, he is whispering to himself: “I must be all that I can be!” I need attention; I need to prove to the world that I am the defender of Reformed Orthodoxy. The man overjoyed decides to share the good news with someone. “I need to give John a call,” he says. He dials. John picks up the phone. “Hey Muether, hope I didn’t wake you up again.” Muether answers: “Darryl, it’s three in the morning,” to which Darryl replies: “Yeah, I know. I’ve been working all night on this cool response to that crazy theocrat there at RTS.”
“Good night Darryl!”
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:48 am
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by jhgrantjr: Christless Christianity and Reformed Warriors http://bit.ly/9R2Uu...
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
Scott Clark has a good post regarding the axe Frame has to grind against Horton. I think he explains why Frame intentionally misrepresented Horton’s views on things like free will http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/frame-horton-triperspectivalism-subjectivism/#more-5745
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Yeah, because it is so typical for Frame to misrepresent people…take a look at his footnotes…just pure misrepresentation.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:19 am
[...] the White Horse Inn’s response. Then you should read James Grant’s post on the subject here. Grant is offers, what I believe to be, a knowledgeable, fair and balanced analysis. Finally, you [...]
October 24th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Scott Clark’s response to Frame is pretty sweet:
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/frame-horton-triperspectivalism-subjectivism/
Just in case Paul (in comment #4) missed it, Hart is saying that Frame is right about not being a child of Machen. Frame is a child of Erdman.
October 24th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Baus,
But you missed my point. Hart claimed that in virtue of critiquing and debating Horton, Frame was acting like a child of Machen. That’s why Hart said that Frame was “in denial” about his Warrior child status. How could Frame be “in denial” about being a Warrior child if, as you claim, Hart said Frame was not a Warrior Child. Hart’s deal was the Frame was inconsistent in denying to be a Warrior Child while, at the same time, exhibiting Warrior Child traits.
Now, I happen to think Hart is right, though he failed to show it. Hart thinks Frame is saying in Machen’s Warrior Children that debate or critique qua debate or critique is wrong. However, Frame is talking about tone and a penchant toward misrepresentation, not debating per se. That is where Hart should have hit. I feel Frame misrepresented and failed to grasp Horton. So he exhibited Warrior Child status. Horton would not recognize himself in Frame. But, Frame teaches his students that your interlocutors should recognize their thoughts in your portrayal of them.
So, as Hart said, Frame is a Warrior Child but can’t admit it. I agree here, but disagree with Hart’s reasons.
I’d add that those who are proud of being Warrior Children are showing that they have failed to understand Frame. No one should be proud to be a Warrior Child in the sense Frame used the term. For in that sense, a Warrior Child is someone who has a divisive and unChristian tone to their critiques, and they also fail to represent their opponents fairly. Who would want to be like that?
Hope that helped.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Am following the discussions here.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
[...] of the other discussion threads (R. Scott Clark, White Horse Inn, Darryl G. Hart, Puritanboard, James H. Grant, Jr. et. al.), I will try to avoid duplicatating them here. However, since we’re all referencing [...]