Horton, Frame, & Goldilocks

In the well known fairly tale, “Goldilocks and the Three Bears,” Goldilocks is forever being presented with extremes. The porridge is either too hot or too cold. The chairs were either too big or too small. The beds were either too hard or too soft. Fortunately, at each juncture she found one that was “just right.” The Reformed Church in America is having a Goldilocks moment at this current point in history.

Federal Vision is too legalistic. R2Kt is too anti-nomian. Is there anybody who is just right? John Frame is too broad. Mike Horton is too narrow. Is there anybody who is just right?

I read Mike Horton’s Christless Christianity. I read most of John Frame’s critique of Horton’s Christless Christianity. All I can say is give me something “just right.”

Let me try to explain what I see going on here. Horton comes from a school that believes that the cult should be kept tight while Christians ought to be able to handle the culture in a pluralistic broad fashion. Frame, on the other hand, obviously believes that the cult should be a large tent — indeed so large a tent that Frame finds himself defending numb-skulls like Joel Osteen and Chuck Smith. To be honest if Frame’s model were to be followed the Church would be largely indefinable by virtue of how it would include almost everybody. Frame is just plain wrong in how he would define the parameters of the Church. Indeed, in a move that is more than odd for a Reformed theologian he seems to almost completely ignore the historic Reformed “marks of the Church” in his critique of Horton.

If Frame gives us the “too broad” characterization of the Church, Horton brings in our Goldilocks moment by giving us a “too narrow” version of the Church. Frame is correct when he faults Horton for his loose usage of Theology of suffering vs. Theology of glory. Horton and his R2Kt chums have a bad habit of even slapping this “theology of glory” pejorative even on Reformed people that don’t agree with their innovative and unique style of Reformed theology. Frame is also right when he points out Horton’s incipient Lutheranism in the way Horton frames the Law vs. Gospel dynamic. This Lutheranism is constantly seen in the R2Kt model that Horton would foist upon the Reformed Church. Often one wishes the R2Kt guys would just go to Wittenburg and be done with it. Frame is again correct when he faults Horton’s “Moralism” categories. I know what it means to preach Redemptive-Historical sermons. I really do get it and do often preach that way. But Horton and the R2Kt crowd end up suggesting that any sermon that is imperative oriented is “moralism.” This reverts back to their Lutheran mindset on the Law.

As I read Frame’s critique it was “Goldilocks and the Three bears” all over again except I can’t seem to find that damn third bear where everything is “just right.” Were we to follow Frame’s vision of the Church we’d be holding hands with Pelagians and Word Faith guys like Chuck Smith and Joel Osteen. Yuck … how disgusting is that? However, on the other hand were we to follow Horton’s version of the Church we’d be standing next to guys like Darryl Hart and R. Scott Clark who would refuse to hold our hands because we are stinky theonomists who are icky “theologians of glory.”

One more issue before wrapping up. I can’t help but get a chuckle out of John Frame who waxed eloquent about the dreaded character of the “Machen’s Warrior Children.” According to Frame we needed to get away from the Reformed tendency to always want to fight. And yet here is Frame in all of his warrior regalia fighting with other people in the Reformed Church. The irony is apparently lost on John but remains delicious to those in the know.

In the end Horton has many good points in his book “Christless Christianity” concerning the reality that the Church is missing Christ. The problem however is when Mike goes all Lutheran on us insisting that unless we become R2Kt we are missing Christ as well. Mike’s porridge is too hot. Frame has many fine observations regarding Horton’s hot porridge but the problem is that John’s multi-perspectivalism mitigates his ability to draw proper lines. John’s porridge is too cold.

And here I sit looking for some porridge that is “just right.”

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him. View all posts by jetbrane