Frame contra Horton regarding Christians in Culture
- Thread starter crhoades
- Start date
- Status
rmwilliamsjr
Puritan Board Freshman
thank you VERY much for the links
did you see
often in my Doctrine of the Christian Life, forthcoming
in Frame's footnotes...hurrah.
did you see
often in my Doctrine of the Christian Life, forthcoming
in Frame's footnotes...hurrah.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Possibly the 12th greatest online article I have read. Frame stopped shortof giving the death-blow, but he did provide us with the ammunition.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
From the Frame article:
Here's a minor technical quibble:
Now with Blinded By Might, Thomas certainly was critical of Christian social activism, but if Falwell likewise criticized it in the 1990's, I must have missed it since he's continued making his political statements unabated albeit not from under the banner of Moral Majority. In fact, Thomas interviews Falwell in the book and Falwell defends the Moral Majority and Christian political activism.
The Falwell that Frame describes here is more reminiscent of the 1960's Falwell who criticized MLK and the Civil Rights movement, saying it distracted from the gospel, etc. (It think it was primarily at Schaeffer's behest that Falwell began speaking out on abortion and other political issues in the 1970's). Perhaps Frame was thinking of Ed Dobson (no relation to James), a pastor and former Moral Majority figure who co-wrote Blinded By Might with Thomas.
[Edited on 4-20-2006 by Pilgrim]
Here's a minor technical quibble:
Now with Blinded By Might, Thomas certainly was critical of Christian social activism, but if Falwell likewise criticized it in the 1990's, I must have missed it since he's continued making his political statements unabated albeit not from under the banner of Moral Majority. In fact, Thomas interviews Falwell in the book and Falwell defends the Moral Majority and Christian political activism.
The Falwell that Frame describes here is more reminiscent of the 1960's Falwell who criticized MLK and the Civil Rights movement, saying it distracted from the gospel, etc. (It think it was primarily at Schaeffer's behest that Falwell began speaking out on abortion and other political issues in the 1970's). Perhaps Frame was thinking of Ed Dobson (no relation to James), a pastor and former Moral Majority figure who co-wrote Blinded By Might with Thomas.
[Edited on 4-20-2006 by Pilgrim]
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
With all due respect to Dr Horton, he did criticize some aspects of Christian activism that very few people actually hold to (ie, nobody has ever advocated taking over the state via the sword).
I don't want to derail the thread, Jeff, but I am interested in your views on theocratic politics. I mentioned something along the lines of it on the "Clarkian Political Theory" thread and really was encouraged by what I read. Maybe via email or U2U.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
I will say that my views on "Christian political activism" are somewhat undefined at this point. And I am almost totally ignorant when it comes to the specifics of "Klineanism". But what direction I presently lean will no doubt become clear in this post and perhaps subsequent ones.
Frame says Horton attacked a straw man at one point but, with all due respect, I think Frame may have attacked an even worse one when he said Horton was against youth ministry. Frame wrote that Horton "even argues that we should not make special efforts to reach young people." Horton criticized a particular style of faddish youth ministry that is not too far removed from the travesty that Bob Vigneault endured this past Lord's Day. I think such a service is the danger that Horton warns against, namely the church pandering too much to popular culture, and is the result of the culture influencing the church instead of the other way around. Perhaps there's a bit of the New School/Old School divide at work there as well although of course Horton isn't a Presbyterian.
[Edited on 4-20-2006 by Pilgrim]
Frame says Horton attacked a straw man at one point but, with all due respect, I think Frame may have attacked an even worse one when he said Horton was against youth ministry. Frame wrote that Horton "even argues that we should not make special efforts to reach young people." Horton criticized a particular style of faddish youth ministry that is not too far removed from the travesty that Bob Vigneault endured this past Lord's Day. I think such a service is the danger that Horton warns against, namely the church pandering too much to popular culture, and is the result of the culture influencing the church instead of the other way around. Perhaps there's a bit of the New School/Old School divide at work there as well although of course Horton isn't a Presbyterian.
[Edited on 4-20-2006 by Pilgrim]
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
For a free preview of the book check out this site:
http://www.reformedperspectives.org/hof2006.asp/category/hof/site/
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
In Defense of Christian Activism: Assessing the Views of Michael Horton and Meredith Kline
Christian activism, by which I mean simply any Christian attempt to improve society, has had its ups and downs over the centuries. If you read a book like D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born[1], you should be impressed at the great influence of the Christian gospel, and specifically Calvinism, upon western culture. I don't want to minimize the wickedness of fallen culture. But for now I'm making the point that there is good as well. Kennedy and Newcombe emphasize that Christians, for distinctively Christian motives, have vastly influenced western culture in such areas as help for the poor, the abolition of slavery, teaching of literacy, education for all, political freedom, economic freedom, science, medicine, the family, the arts, the sanctity of life. Without Jesus, without his Gospel, without the influence of his people, all these areas of culture would be vastly different and very much worse.
http://www.christianculture.com/cgi-local/npublisher/viewnews.cgi?category=3&id=1145485285
Christian activism, by which I mean simply any Christian attempt to improve society, has had its ups and downs over the centuries. If you read a book like D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born[1], you should be impressed at the great influence of the Christian gospel, and specifically Calvinism, upon western culture. I don't want to minimize the wickedness of fallen culture. But for now I'm making the point that there is good as well. Kennedy and Newcombe emphasize that Christians, for distinctively Christian motives, have vastly influenced western culture in such areas as help for the poor, the abolition of slavery, teaching of literacy, education for all, political freedom, economic freedom, science, medicine, the family, the arts, the sanctity of life. Without Jesus, without his Gospel, without the influence of his people, all these areas of culture would be vastly different and very much worse.
http://www.christianculture.com/cgi-local/npublisher/viewnews.cgi?category=3&id=1145485285
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
Well he knew that Gentry had just written a book again Klineism, so no reason to give the death blow away for free.
CT
I quite agree. I very much like both Frame and Horton. I found Horton's article to be true as far as it went as a polemic against the incorrect strains of Christian activism.
Frame's article is about 3 times longer. In other words, Horton didn't even have the room to develop many ideas so he leaves an open-end to which Frame steps in and derides him for eschewing youth ministries or even translating the Bible into English! Does Frame really need to read between the lines that much?! Seriously, what most Christian Churches consider to be "relevant" these days in terms of Concerts during worship, "cool" youth ministers, and "Christian" imitations of pop culture almost need go unsaid. That Frame would mischaracterize Horton so is below the belt.
I found many other mischaracterizations where Frame chose to assume the very worst out of every point where Horton had to be brief due to the constraints of a Christianity Today article.
I love both men and their work. I've heard there's some acrimony between them and I hope that it will mend.
Rich. Well said.
Frame did a good job of refuting "retreatism", which is a distortion of the Two-Kingdoms concept. I think Horton would agree with many of Frame's points. I know I do and I agree with Horton's view (or should I say the classical protestant-Augustinian view?).
The Two-Kingdoms view does not hold retreatism/anti-cultural engagement as a plank in its system. It does hold that activism by the Church as an institution is beyond its calling. In other words the classic doctrine of the Spirituality of the church as held in the South by Dabney and Thornwell, as well as in the North by C. Hodge. Kuyper himself fleshed out (or perhaps reminded) christians what this meant for their daily lives. I am one of those who is not so sure Kuyper meant it in the way some of those who claim him think he did.
Christians should be active in the culture in the spheres and callings that God has placed them. This activity corresponds with the nature of their particular callings. The church is to proclaim the gospel; individual christians are to work according to the nature of their particular callings in the world/culture, and are to do so with christian grace and character. How is this retreatist exactly?
There is a familiar theme also. Frame derides The Two Kingdoms view as "Lutheran". Why? Because Luther held to it, or because he invented it? Luther here was only standing on the shoulders of Augustine. I have never heard Augustine be called a Lutheran.
I say this is familiar because there is a certain vocal group that is labeling things that are classically reformed as "lutheran" assuming that Luther and the reformers had nothing in common. So far they have labeled the reformed doctrine of justification as "Lutheran", the reformed view of law/gospel as "Lutheran", amillenialism as "Lutheran", and the Two Kingdoms as "Lutheran". Some even call some of these positions "Southern Presbyterianism" as if there is a disconnect even within the Old North. I guess C. Hodge was a southern Presbyterian then.
When one is seeking to be reformed and hears from trusted teachers that these positions are "Lutheran" it is easy to see why they are rejected out of hand with no in-depth study by newbies to the reformed faith. One of the sides has their history wrong, and it would be best to go to the sources ("ad fontes") rather than take our contemporary hero's word for it. (I am speaking in general here about all of us, not Frame or anyone on this board particular).
I understand Frame is coming out with his views on this in his new book Doctrine of the Christian Life.
If one wants to take the time to actually understand "Horton's" view, even if you end up rejecting it, I would suggest his book: Where in the World is the Church?
Horton's view is also available in his book,
Made in America subtitled,
The shaping of Modern American Evangelicalism.
I have listened to many of the "White Horse Inn" programs and agree that his position, as related to youth ministries, is not that they are as a whole useless. The program usually critiques the evangelical model of youth ministries, as was already mentioned, as being seeker oriented, and entertainment based. This they typically deem dangerous for if the entertainment waxes old, so does it's audience, never nailing home even basic doctrine.
In the "two kingdom views" I always find Horton's point to be that, although one is involved in the cultural and social reform, this is not the gospel. In short he's trying to push the church to seek theological reform as priority, and then part of social reform.
Made in America subtitled,
The shaping of Modern American Evangelicalism.
I have listened to many of the "White Horse Inn" programs and agree that his position, as related to youth ministries, is not that they are as a whole useless. The program usually critiques the evangelical model of youth ministries, as was already mentioned, as being seeker oriented, and entertainment based. This they typically deem dangerous for if the entertainment waxes old, so does it's audience, never nailing home even basic doctrine.
In the "two kingdom views" I always find Horton's point to be that, although one is involved in the cultural and social reform, this is not the gospel. In short he's trying to push the church to seek theological reform as priority, and then part of social reform.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
A couple of points
1)It is not correct to act as if this is Horton's first writing on the issue so being brief is not an excuse. Kline, Horton as well as other Klineans have established a clearly defined view point of how the Bible and special revelation is to be applied to the culture.
2)Rebuttal nearly always takes longer than to write than the original piece that one is rebutting.
CT
rmwilliamsjr
Puritan Board Freshman
i'm reading for a Sunday School class on the ministries of mercy. There is a significant issue here that i'd like to get more information on.
The relative priorities of evangelism and social activism and the justification of the answer.
it looks like a temporal order. saved then activism.
it looks like an issue of absolute priority, God is to be first and everything else a distant 10th.
the issue is often framed as the relative value of, or priority of, evangelism and the ministries of mercy. can people point me to reading on the topic?
tia
The relative priorities of evangelism and social activism and the justification of the answer.
from J.Frame's reply
it looks like a temporal order. saved then activism.
from M.Horton's essay
it looks like an issue of absolute priority, God is to be first and everything else a distant 10th.
the issue is often framed as the relative value of, or priority of, evangelism and the ministries of mercy. can people point me to reading on the topic?
tia
Fair enough but don't put words in another man's mouth when you're criticizing him. A good portin of the article dealt with extreme examples (straw men) that Horton would reject.
Nomos
Puritan Board Freshman
Richard Williams said:
"There is a significant issue here that i'd like to get more information on.
The relative priorities of evangelism and social activism and the justification of the answer."
I think one's eschatological convictions bears a lot of weight on how active one is socially. Some of Bahnsen's audio on postmillennialism has been helpful (cassettes, you can borrow) and I always enjoy North's works on the subject (they're free and I know how much you like him!)
Further, how can one be active socially without a normative framework in which to first, evaluate the situation, and then later to attempt to correct it? For this topic, I recommend Dooyeweerd's Critique of Theoretical Thought! (kidding, of course)
Blessings,
Ryan Jankowski
Rincon Mountain Presbyterian Church, PCA
Tucson, Arizona
"There is a significant issue here that i'd like to get more information on.
The relative priorities of evangelism and social activism and the justification of the answer."
I think one's eschatological convictions bears a lot of weight on how active one is socially. Some of Bahnsen's audio on postmillennialism has been helpful (cassettes, you can borrow) and I always enjoy North's works on the subject (they're free and I know how much you like him!)
Further, how can one be active socially without a normative framework in which to first, evaluate the situation, and then later to attempt to correct it? For this topic, I recommend Dooyeweerd's Critique of Theoretical Thought! (kidding, of course)
Blessings,
Ryan Jankowski
Rincon Mountain Presbyterian Church, PCA
Tucson, Arizona
It seems to me that much of Frame's so-called refutation of Horton's view is straw-man hyperbole. As was mentioned above, Horton's space was very limited and just exactly what he is left saying is rather convoluted and mostly negative.
I do think that is is important to point out, however, that the same misunderstandings of the limits of Church power that Frame exihibits when he supposedly applies <his version of> the Regulative Principle to all of life (instead of just Lord's Day worship) are the root of his issues in this article. That is, he fails to understand the difference between the Church as an institution attempting to affect changes in culture, such as when the Southern Baptist Church condemns Disney World, binding its members consciences as to where they may go for vacation, and my ability to, as an individual, (who is on board with Horton) vote certain ways, and donate monies to certain organizations I believe fight for ideas that are in line with my Christianity in the public arena. (Hows that for a run-on sentence??)
Another defining difference between Horton and Frame is, if I'm correct in my understanding of Frame's eschatology as post-mil, those between a strict a-mil view vs. post-mil. I have to admit I haven't the eschatalogical wherewithall to flesh that out, but I believe that was Ryan's point in his post above as well.
In addition to all of this, it is important to recognize the context by which Horton is informed. The CRC fits his descriptions rather well in their church growth approach to new plants, its youth ministries as entertainment, and its hyper-Kuyperian "culture redemption as Church mission" outlook.
Their embrace of egalitarianism by punting the question of female ordination back to classis back in the mid-'90s was directly related to the latter point. Horton, as a URC minister, is informed against an ecclesiology that focuses so heavily on the secondary means by which we are salt and light that it minimizes or even neglects the means of grace that God has given as tools for growing His Church.
Ideas directly related to this issue are nicely presented by Elder DG Hart (of the OPC) in his book "Recovering Mother Kirk" if anyone is interested in further study.
I do think that is is important to point out, however, that the same misunderstandings of the limits of Church power that Frame exihibits when he supposedly applies <his version of> the Regulative Principle to all of life (instead of just Lord's Day worship) are the root of his issues in this article. That is, he fails to understand the difference between the Church as an institution attempting to affect changes in culture, such as when the Southern Baptist Church condemns Disney World, binding its members consciences as to where they may go for vacation, and my ability to, as an individual, (who is on board with Horton) vote certain ways, and donate monies to certain organizations I believe fight for ideas that are in line with my Christianity in the public arena. (Hows that for a run-on sentence??)
Another defining difference between Horton and Frame is, if I'm correct in my understanding of Frame's eschatology as post-mil, those between a strict a-mil view vs. post-mil. I have to admit I haven't the eschatalogical wherewithall to flesh that out, but I believe that was Ryan's point in his post above as well.
In addition to all of this, it is important to recognize the context by which Horton is informed. The CRC fits his descriptions rather well in their church growth approach to new plants, its youth ministries as entertainment, and its hyper-Kuyperian "culture redemption as Church mission" outlook.
Their embrace of egalitarianism by punting the question of female ordination back to classis back in the mid-'90s was directly related to the latter point. Horton, as a URC minister, is informed against an ecclesiology that focuses so heavily on the secondary means by which we are salt and light that it minimizes or even neglects the means of grace that God has given as tools for growing His Church.
Ideas directly related to this issue are nicely presented by Elder DG Hart (of the OPC) in his book "Recovering Mother Kirk" if anyone is interested in further study.
- Status
