Frame's Review of Horton's "Christless Christianity"

John Frame writes a very critical review of Mike Horton's, Christless Christianity. His conclusion:

I usually don’t review books at this length. But I have noticed that the theology of this book is becoming more influential in evangelical and Reformed circles, and I believe there is danger in that. I say that despite the fact that I agree with the book about many things. Most relevantly, I agree with Horton that the evangelical church needs to put more emphasis on man’s sin and the saving grace of Christ, less emphasis on what Horton regards as other things and what I regard as the lower-priority applications of Christ’s work. But he thinks this wrong emphasis is so bad as to put the church in immediate danger of Christless apostasy. I do not.

Horton’s alarmism is persuasive to many people, and I have been moved to try to show them their persuasion is premature. The problem is that the yardstick Horton uses to measure the American church’s allegiance to Christ is not an accurate yardstick. Or, to drop the metaphor, Horton measures the American church with a defective theology.

He comes on to the reader as a generic Protestant Christian with a passion for the historic doctrines of the atonement and of justification by faith alone. He writes engagingly. Naturally, then, other Protestants tend to resonate to his arguments. But Horton is not just a generic Protestant or even a generic Reformed theologian. He holds certain positions that are not warranted by the Reformed Confessions and which in my mind are not even Scriptural. To review, he advocates the following:

1. Attention to ourselves necessarily detracts from attention to Christ.

2. We should not give attention to the way we communicate the gospel, or to making it relevant to its hearers.

3. God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are a zero-sum game. The idea that man must do something compromises the absolute sovereignty of God.

4. God’s work of salvation is completely objective, external to us, and not at all subjective, internal to us. (Here he backtracks some.)

5. God promises us no earthly blessings, only heavenly ones, and to desire earthly blessings is a “theology of glory,” deserving condemnation.

6. Law and gospel should be utterly separate. There should be no good news in the bad news and no bad news in the good news.

7. Preaching of the gospel must never use biblical characters as moral or spiritual examples. Nor must it address practical ethical issues in the Christian life.

8. A focus on redemption excludes a focus on anything else.

9. In worship and in the general ministry of the church, God gives and does not receive; the congregation receives and does not give.

10. Analysts of the church must compare the Church’s focus on Christ with its focus on other things, rather than considering that many of these other things are in fact applications of Christ’s own person and work.

Horton considers adherence to these principles essential, so that departing from them constitutes Christlessness, and failure to emphasize them sufficiently leads to a false gospel. But not one of these principles is found in any Reformed confession. (#6 is found in the Lutheran confessions, but it is controversial among other Protestants.) And in my view, none of them are Scriptural.

So Christless Christianity is essentially an evaluation of the American church, not from the standpoint of a generic Protestant theology, but from what I must regard as a narrow, factional, even sectarian perspective. Readers need to understand this. If we remove #1-10 as measuring sticks for the American church, the church does not look nearly as bad as Horton presents it.

There is great danger here of further division within the body of Christ, as if there were not already enough. Arguments over redemptive-historical preaching (#7) have already split congregations apart. When one group presents these principles as the only orthodox position, but others (understandably) are not convinced, and the principles themselves are often unclear, we have a recipe for disaster.

And the church would do well, in my judgment, not to add principles 1-10 to its creed. The results could include intentional irrelevance (1-2), especially on social matters (5, 7, 8), Christian passivity (3, 9), intellectualism and impersonalism in our relation to God (4, 9), artificiality in preaching, not drawing on the richness of Scripture (2, 6-8), elimination of lay ministry (9), and poor theological analyses and evaluations of the church (10).

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.

HT: Z

Hermeneutical Spiral ~ Chapter 1

Osborne kicks off his comprehensive work in Biblical interpretation by devoting the first chapter to the discussion of context. The five chapters under the rubric of general hermeneutics deal with the respective topics accordingly: context, grammar, semantics, syntax, and historical and cultural backgrounds. The first chapter dealing with context is foundational. Without it the subject matter becomes absolutely meaningless.

Osborne divides his chapter into three key components within the subject of context. He begins by briefly examining the historical context of a biblical book. He encourages the use of commentaries, OT/NT Introductions, as well as reference works (i.e. dictionaries and encyclopedias). These works are all helpful in gathering the “preliminary data.” He stresses that these are not authoritative or final, but are merely helps and guides which aid the interpreter in understanding the ancient setting and milieu. The goal in the historical study is to grasp the authorship, date, audience, and intent of the biblical book. The historical context acts as a “filter” in which the text must be sifted through.

The logical context is the second component which Osborne observes, and the bulk of his chapter is spent discussing this most basic factor. An inductive study of a biblical book requires that the interpreter 1) studies the book as a whole and 2) diagrams the paragraphs within the book. After an elementary and inspectional perusal of the book has been read and the paragraphs within have been ascertained, a more thorough examination of those paragraphs must follow. Because the paragraph is essential to the flow and development of thought within a book, Osborne gives three stages in which the interpreter should read the paragraphs in order to determine the overall purpose of the book.

In studying the book as a whole Osborne first encourages the reader to skim through the paragraphs while taking notes in order to gain a big picture idea. Second, after charting through the text, the reader must then scrutinize the breaks in pattern or thought. Repetition and progression are key, and the greater the reader’s ability to highlight development and replication, the greater his understanding of the original intent. Third, Osborne promotes the subdividing of major sections within a unit of thought. This step regresses back from the first two steps and broadens the scope beyond the paragraph. Basically, the last step aids the reader by utilizing the data from the first two steps and stepping back in order to see how the patterns fit into the overall structure of the book.

Once the overall structure is established Osborne moves from studying the whole to examining the parts. Of course, the paragraph is where he begins, and he gives various methods of diagramming a paragraph (eg. grammatical, phrase or sentence flow, block, etc.). He prefers the block diagram simply for its ease and function. Although it is not as detailed as other methods, block diagramming helps “visualize” the possible flow of thought rather than rigidly “deciding” the details of the text.

Determining between the major and minor clauses is absolutely essential. A firm understanding of conjunctions (coordinating and subordinating) is also vital. Osborne’s healthy observation is right on when he points out two caveats when diagramming. First, he again emphasizes that diagramming is merely “preliminary;” it is not final. Second, the syntactical relationships within the text “aid” the reader in determining the patterns and breaks, but they do not always determine them automatically. He emphasizes that when the finer elements of exegesis are employed, the diagram must always be subject to revision.

The third and final major component in his chapter on context is the rhetorical or compositional patterns in communication. He refers to this as the “macro level of the organizational pattern” of a text. The grammar, semantics, and syntax he refers to as the “micro” level because of their more detailed structure. Osborne lists five rhetorical categories or patterns: 1) collection relations (repetition), 2) cause-effect and problem-solution, (question-answer, purpose, result, substantiation), 3) comparison (interchange, similarities/contrasts), 4) description (continuation, extension, summation, inclusio, chiasm), and 5) shifts in expectancy (climax, cruciality, omission).

Overall, this chapter on context sets the foundation for the rest of Osborne’s work. For him, rhetoric is different from genre studies in that the latter is peripheral to the communication process. His method of ascertaining the big picture first, through the examination of major structural patterns and breaks is crucial. Too often preachers and theologians stay in the minutiae or the micro-level, and they end up missing the main point of the authorial intent simply because they seldom or at times never step back and observe the macro level.