Prelim Review: Mike Horton's "Christless Christianity," 9-28.

Preliminary Review of Michael Horton’s “Christless Christianity” (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2009), pp. 9-27

The Rev. Dr. Mike Horton raises provocative, expansive, and important questions about American, if not English and Western, Christianity across seven short, fast and readable chapters. We ponder Mike’s opening salvo in Chapter 1. Mike has been thinking a long time on this proposition.  In light of God's Being, Word, our Confessions and liturgies, what shall think?

We ponder chapter 1, pp. 9-27, Mike’s introduction and opening salvo. Chapter 1, “Christless Christianity,” is so entitled like the book itself, "Christless Christianity." As a Reformed and Calvinistic Anglican of an older sort than most readers, the questions Mike raises resonate but invokes wider questions. (As a Senior Churchman, this scribe comfortably calls him “Mike” rather than Dr., Professor, Rev’d, or the like. I easily call Bishops by their first names. I also call USMC Generals and USN Admirals by their first names. Never mind the Colonels and Captains. Mike won't get a pass, like other Profs.) Where is Mike going in chapter 1, his setting and setup for the remaining six chapters? Is his claim too expansive?

Mike’s theme is that America, across the theological divide, Protestant liberal or evangelical, is fast becoming “Christless.” Mike says, “In fact, my sense urgency...is pervasive, crossing the conservative-liberal spectrum and all denomination lines” (Horton, 27). That is the grand thesis, the widespread drift towards Christlessness.

If the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church, the church’s assimilation to the world—according to Mike—is the silencing of the biblical message. In short, here is Mike’s thinking: God and His redemptive story versus the narcissistic, American, co-hortative and trumping story of God as our life coach (supporting “our story”). Mike says:

Jesus has been dressed up as a corporate CEO, life coach, culture-warrior, political revolutionary, political revolutionary, philosopher, copilot, cosufferer, moral example, and partner in fulfilling our personal and social regimes. But in all of these ways, are we reducing the central character in the drama of redemption to a prop for our own play? (Horton, 25, emphasis added)

(The answer is preliminarily obvious.) This is an important question, the co-opting of the biblical message with redefinitions to suit modern predilections—ourselves and our own narcissistic narrative.  Mike’s thesis is that these self-aggrandizing redefinitions define the grand, national, and trans-denominational narrative. Implicit is the sub-text that Americans are falling prey to the redefinitions, not due to lack of zeal, although that—itself—warrants examination. Can Mike sustain the enquiry and cross-examination? Mike’s thesis and cross-examination warrant inquiry.

Mike limits his thematic liabilities to four large caveats—caveats that are as wide as his fears and his singular claim. The defenses, or caveats, are quite large.

The caveats are as follows.  First, Mike tells us, there are many faithful Pastors, congregations and Churchmen who are exempt from the claim. This single caveat appears to be as wide as the claim itself, to wit and in summary (and essence): “Let me, Mike, indict the entire nation, all publishing enterprises, all media centers of advertisement, all churches, all seminaries, all writings, all Professors, and all pulpits while excluding all those to whom the massive indictment might be imputed.” Big stuff! Mike’s claim cannot get much wider, but he makes it. Obviously, one shall require a wide set of sociological data to get at this…that awaits us. Second, the endpoint of “Christlessness” is not here, Mike avers, but “we are well on our way." Clear specifics are needed: definitions and specific dates, names, and quotes and needed. We are reminded of B.B. Warfield’s similar prognostications about Protestantism in the late 19th-century. How and where will Mike extricate himself, if at all? Third, the issue of zeal is not at bar, but rather: deeds rather than creeds. Aside from Mike, one thinks of Rick Warren’s infamous, famous, fatuous, anti-intellectual, non-confessional, anti-historic, anti-liturgical and gross, if not most highly stupid, claim to this effect…deeds not creeds. It is hard to believe that a pulpiteer would make this stupid claim, but Warren has and did: Deeds rather than creeds.  Halfwits will approve, not careful and thoughtful Churchmen or Churchwomen.  This ignorant claim finds roots in Protestant liberalism in the late 19th-early 20th century. Fourth, larger inquiries on the matter are referred by Mike to his three other books: Made in America, Power Religion, and Beyond Culture Wars. A brief summary by Mike would have been helpful here…even a paragraph. Ergo, Mike’s expansive claim needs those contexts for fairness. Clearly, Mike has been thinking about this thesis for years. Due to that alone, Mike warrants a careful ear. Is this book simply an update and rehash of the earlier ones? We’ll see. Mike’s concern is that evangelicalism is not just like theological liberalism, but is becoming theologically vacuous (Horton, 23). That is hardly novel.  He quotes the evangelical Anglican, John Stott, to wit, “growth without depth.” That is hardly new. Mike’s four caveats in Chapter 1 are self-limiting propositions that insulate him from counter-objections and wider liabilities and rebuttals.  Mike, that is convenient and unhelpful.

Having said that, Mike’s inquiry and proposition warrants additional scrutiny. Confessional Lutherans will, if catechetized, feel the force of Mike’s proposition. To the extent that a Presbyterian has ingested his Westminster standards, he or she shall feel the force of the inquest. Ditto, for Reformed Anglicans reared in the Reformed faith and the old Prayer Book. Baptacostals, we suppose, Mike's target audience, will not feel the force of the question, given their backgrounds.  In fact, Mike seems to incessantly be arguing with his own non-confessional, non-liturgical, and broadly evangelical background--with American revivalists, Anabaptists, dispensationalists, and other non-confessional evangelicals.  While that is not our background, it is Mike's and he is working it. Whatever the background, Mike's proposition MUST BE ENGAGED.  Mike's question hangs in the air melodramatically, earnestly, liturgically, confessionally, biblically and with concern. 

Rightly or wrongly, Mike's question and asseveration--notwithstanding his caveats--must be engaged and answered.  Catholic Christians of the Reformation need to engage and answer Mike's challenges.  To him, Mike, we are thankful.  Thank you, Michael.

Yet, is it simply a re-baked thesis in search of publication?  To wit, is it Baker or Horton simply seeking a rehatch of an old idea?  As to Baker Books, we have little doubt that a $$-growth-narrative is involved.  If a Baker-rehatch of an old idea from Mike's older books, this one from e.g. 2009, Mike had been working on a far more important project--The Christian Faith (1000 pages).  While we distrust publishers in Grand Rapids, MI, Mike's concerns are not doubted, assuredly.  We know his concerns from earlier years. More to follow.

The Second Sunday in Advent.
The Collect.
O BLESSED Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning; Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace, and ever hold fast, the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.

David Wells: Thoughts on the Disappearance of Theology, 1-20.

We're also doing some work and posting on Facebook entitled "Exposing the False Prophets—Reformation Christians Against TBN" at:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&ref=nf&gid=308173344359

We post that article here.

1. Some observations on an heavy-hitter, Dr. David Wells, and his worked entitled “No Place for Truth: Or, Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology?” (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 1-20. Dr. Wells has two credible, earned doctorates and taught theology for years. One has to ponder him long and hard. Why? He's already done the decades of pondering.

2. A weighty question made more stunning by the passage of 17 years since the publication. Emergent churches, rampant Neo-Montanism (Pentecostalism), Arminian and non-Confessional evangelicalism, non-liturgical worship, worship frenzism with "Shine Jesus Shine" and drum kits, Rick Warren and Joel Osteen, for starters. Some forum members have used the term "evangellifishdom."

3. Dr. Wells laments entering seminary students with little connections with the past, little knowledge of literature, philosophy, history and even the ability to write a “research paper.”

4. Simple remedy: establish strong pre-seminary requirements for entrance including 1 year of Greek and Hebrew. Create a pre-seminary equivalent of the GRE. Also, let seminary students enter doing exegesis rather than vocabularies, paradigms and syntax. If not ready, offer one-year of remedial work at the seminary prior to entrance to graduate theological work.

5. The question is not whether there will be a theology, but rather will it be a good or bad one. The biblical writers and Jesus had theology. "No Creed but Christ" is ridiculous. What can and do you confess with words, life and piety?

6. Dr. Wells has watched “with growing disbelief” as the evangelical church has passed into “theological illiteracy.” Evidences: entering seminary students, most evangelical publications, and their churches. Quite a statement by the Professor. He also lays blame on the churches for this. Ouch! Also, secularization and relativism. We would add failures to catechetize children and youth. And failures to offer collegians and young adults serious but accessible studies in Sunday School, such as R.C. Sproul's video materials. Churches will have to own up to their problem.

7. A quote: “The stream of historic orthodoxy that once watered the evangelical soul is now damned by a worldliness that many fail to recognize as worldliness because of the cultural innocence with which it presents itself.” Ouch again, Professor. Rubbing the behind with that spanking.

8. What is disappearing is the "passion for truth."

9. As for passion, we may well speak of “lovelessness” and “lukewarmness” for God’s Self-disclosure. Also, a substantial love of “my experience” over truth, notably amongst the Montanists. Dr. Wells, however, has a wide audience in view. Ouch, Dr. Not so hard,

10. God is sovereign and just in all His judgments. And His mercy extends to believers, their children and offspring, as many as the Lord our call shall call, to those who love Him.

Preach Reprove Rebuke & Exhort - 2 Tim 4:2

"The Pharisee Card" as the tool to silence inquiry, analysis, exposure and, where necessary, rebukes and chastisements. Preach Reprove Rebuke & Exhort - 2 Tim 4:2. What do you do when you confront someone with their false doctrine and Bible twisting and they accuse you of being a Pharisee? You need to hear this segmen...t of the Fighting for the Faith Radio program about those who play the Pharisee Card. We've seen Crouch/Pentecostal defenders "play the card." Rich Warren is now playing the card. My view? A sign of desperation at being reproved and rebuked. A sign of one losing in reasoned, Confessional, Biblical inquiry.

http://www.extremetheology.com/2010/01/playing-the-pharisee-card.html

Very commendable and recommended.

Confessional or Non-Confessional Christianity? A Big Dustup at Heidelbog

We appreciate this rugged, hand-to-hand combat between Dr. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary (California) and Rev. John Frame of Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando, FL). The "framing" perspectives are "Maximal Confessional Faith" versus "Minimalistic Confessional Faith." What should we "confess" to the fallen, dying and drifting world?

Assuredly, Dr. Clark is in the corner with his view along with Dr. Michael Horton, the butt of Rev. Frame's rather fierce review; allegedly, Rev. Frame is the latter, the minimalist, the broad evangelical. The gloves are off. To switch the metaphor, Rev. Frame has attacked a theological shark and, as a result, may have lost limbs in the process, if not his life. We'll have more to say on this combat in the Church Militant.

Of course, the new Anglican household runs the gamut from Tractarians to charismatics--they have no "Confessional" core, unlike better days. Those clerks could not follow much of this anyways...since theological literacy is required. (We, as you can tell, take very dim views of ACNA clergy.)

A good post by Dr. Clark with implications for how one assays, assesses and relates to the mish-mashing subjectivists in high places.

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/frame-horton-triperspectivalism-subjectivism/#comment-12564

I don’t know what’s in your garage, but from time to time mine has become pretty cluttered and stuff has to be pitched. What we keep and what we pitch says something about us. People have theological garages too, in which they keep all their theological influences and that collection can say a fair bit about the owner of the garage too. Recently John Frame wrote a review of Mike Horton’s book, Christless Christianity. In that review John opened up his garage and gave us a peek as to what he has kept, wants to keep, and what he wants to throw away.

Most people probably know John only from his books and to those who don’t live and breathe Reformed theology, piety, and practice he seems like a sweetly-reasonable bridge builder between Reformed theology and broad evangelicalism. Thus, folk who don’t share much in common with Reformed theology as it is (or at least ought to be) confessed and practiced by the Reformed churches favor John’s work not because it gives them insight into that odd creature in the zoo (Reformed confessional theology) but because its message is, “Sure you’re Reformed too!” The spirit of the age (Zeitgeist) is subjectivist (I define reality) and inclusivist (everyone plays and everyone wins) and John’s theology fits right in. That’s great unless, of course, one knows well the Reformed theology of the confessions and the older writers. In that case things are rather more complicated since John has lobbed out several radical proposals over years, which, if adopted and implemented, would virtually transform Reformed theology and, as I’ve said before, not in a good way.

With this pointed review we seem to be thrown again into controversy. Any disagreement of this sort is unpleasant but sometimes these things are necessary. For those who aren’t aware, this disagreement isn’t new. It’s roots go back several years to a difficult episode in the life of my school. For some years now, John has complained in print (e.g., in his infamous essay on “Machen’s Warrior Children” —for more on this see Darryl Hart’s response) and again in his recently published 1200 page festschrift (”celebration book”) that the arrival of “the historical theologians,” whom he characterizes as “traditionalists,” more or less wrecked the seminary.

You know how it is in some families. Well, at WSC circa 1998-2001, when John was unhappy, everyone was unhappy and boy was he unhappy. We tried to talk but John wasn’t having any of it. With the arrival of Darryl Hart as Academic Dean and Professor of Church History John had enough and left for greener pastures and with him went the controversy. Since that time we have been at peace and joyfully busy training pastors to preach the whole counsel of God and to reach the lost and judging from comments in the festschrift John has been happier too. So far, so good.

Into the (not entirely) quiet comes the review. Eric Landry, at the WHI blog has published a response to Frame. Fair-minded readers who’ve read Horton’s book (and the marvelous follow-up, Gospel Driven Life) will not recognize the book in John’s review. The WH response explains why that is. In the publishing business John’s review is known as a “hit piece.”

Books reviews are notorious for becoming opportunities for settling scores. In that sense it would be tempting to say with the cops on Monty Python, “Right then, nothing to see here, move along,” but there is something to see here.

This review is a fine distillation of most of what makes John’s theology what it is. Consider this: In the “Warrior Children” piece Frame endorses Norman Shepherd as one of the most brilliant theologians of our time. He says the same thing in the recent festschrift and Shepherd reciprocates in the same volume by acknowledging Frame as his “defender.” This is the same Norman Shepherd who was dismissed by WTS/P in 1981 because, during a seven-year controversy, he was unable to explain how his teaching agreed with the Word of God as confessed by the Westminster Standards. Shepherd genuinely does not understand that he has taken a Pelagian or at least Pelagianizing position. He genuinely doesn’t understand the difference between sola fides (faith that is alone) and sola fide (by faith alone).

In his volume published in 2000 Shepherd made flatly Pelagian arguments (which have roots in his 1959 ThM thesis which had Pelagian arguments). On this see the relevant chapters in Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry where these things are documented. For more on the development of Shepherd’s theology see Guy Water’s essay in the festschrift for Palmer Robertson. For that matter see Palmer Robertson’s history of the Shepherd controversy. Either Norm Shepherd is a technically incompetent, biblicistic, moralist who teaches covenantal Arminianism (when covenant is in view the theology is essentially Arminian) on a trajectory toward Socinianism or he is a genius who has made a great breakthrough in Reformed theology.

Both assessments cannot be right.

Blessedly, many of the (NAPARC) Reformed churches (PCA, OPC, URCNA, RCUS, RPCNA) have considered Norman Shepherd’s proposed revisions of Reformed theology and rejected them. John (and Shepherd) may be right that Shepherd is a visionary and the rest of us are just trapped by the dead weight of traditionalism, but we haven’t seen it and this piece isn’t likely to help us see it.

Consider also that, in the review, Frame ends up siding with Joel Osteen versus Horton (whose theology he calls “narrow, factional, even sectarian”) on the question how obedience relates to wealth and remonstrates with Horton for being too hard on Osteen. What kind of a theology cannot see that what Joel Osteen says is utterly incompatible with biblical and historic Christianity?

What kind of theology even bothers to look for something redeeming in Osteen’s message? It is a theology that is premised upon an intentionally vague (but not brief), broad, inclusive evangelicalism, upon the progressive wing of the old evangelical coalition, which is in the process of cracking up.

As Darryl Hart has argued, “evangelicalism” doesn’t really exist. In short, John is an evangelical latitudinarian. How can he be the theologian of a broad, inclusive, socially influential movement if it doesn’t exist or if it’s at odds with basic Christian doctrine? Thus, a priori, there must be some way in which Osteen (who, after all speaks to 30,000 weekly in person and to millions on TV) is right.

Could there be a deep, structural connection between John’s theology and Osteen’s “glory story“? I think there is. There’s a connection between his long-standing support for Shepherd’s revision of the covenant of grace into a covenant of grace and works. It’s no accident that picked the issue of works and wealth with which to support Osteen. In traditional Protestant (both Lutheran and Calvinist) categories, Osteen, Shepherd, and Frame are theologians of glory. A theology of the cross is about Christ for us (Christus pro nobis) for righteousness, not for wealth or this-worldly power and influence. The theology of glory is about what we can do for/with God.

In the interests of duct-taping evangelicalism together, Frame is advocating confessional minimalism and multi-perspectival inclusivism. By contrast, in the interests of a genuinely biblical and Reformed theology, piety, and practice, Horton is advocating confessional maximalism. He still believes not just the broad outlines (from some perspective or other) of the faith confessed by the Reformed churches but he actually believes the stuff between the first article and the last. He actually wants to see that inform our piety (the way we relate to God) and practice (the way we live out our faith). The practical fruit of John’s theology is that Reformed churches become less distinct from broad evangelical churches. Frame is explicit that, in his view, this is a good thing. He’s argued for this sort of “evangelical” ecumenism in his book Evangelical Reunion.

Horton is arguing for a sharp antithesis between what today constitutes “evangelicalism” and confessional Reformed theology, piety, and practice. The function of the review then is to discredit, partly by misrepresenting him, Horton’s case so as to strengthen confidence in the broad, inclusivist approach to evangelicalism.

This review is an outstanding example of latter-day latitudinarianism. If you want to know where latitudinarianism leads, check out Julius Kim’s chapter in CJPM. What happened to the Church of England when it was over run by Latitudinarians?

Finally, the odd thing about this version of Latitudinarianism is that John seems to have room in his theological garage for theonomy, Norman Shepherd, the Federal Vision, and Joel Osteen but he doesn’t have room for Mike Horton his ilk. That’s an interesting garage but it’s not one in which folk who still believe the Reformed faith should want to live.