More on John Frame

The Exiled Preacher has done it once again in providing us a fascinating interview in his Blogging In The Name of the Lord series with his latest discourse with John Frame. John Frame has been very influential in my theological and spiritual development so I was of course very interested. His comment on systematic theology was clarifying: Among all the theological disciplines (exegesis, biblical theology, historical theology, practical theology) systematics is the one that adds it all up. When we have a question about God, or Christ, or salvation, systematics is the discipline that looks at all the biblical data, sifts through all the work of past theologians, and tries to formulate an answer. So it answers questions of the form “what does the whole Bible say about…?”
I could not easily get excited about working through scholarly problems about, say, how Turretin’s view of the sacraments developed from 1680-83, though I’m happy that God has provided the church with people who have that kind of skill and interest. But I can get very excited about questions of what we today should believe and do (about the sacraments, the hypostatic union, abortion, or anything else). So to me systematics is the most directly contemporary, practical, and pastoral of all the theological disciplines.

Also, as a presuppositionalist, (due much to his influence) I found his answer worth consideration to those in the evidentialist camp, “Presuppositionalism” simply means that in all our thought God’s word is our supreme authority. We presuppose it, in the sense that its teachings take precedence over any other ideas we have, from any other source. “Let God be true, though every man a liar,” Rom. 3:4. That means that we must presuppose God’s revelation in all fields of study and all our conversation, even in apologetics, when we are arguing the truth of Christianity with an unbeliever. We cannot at any time pretend to be “neutral.” We should, rather, honestly admit our bias. Of course we should point out also that non-Christians are biased in the other direction: according to Rom. 1, they know God, but they repress that knowledge, exchange it for a lie, prefer not to have God in their knowledge. Insofar as evidentialists deny these biblical teachings, presuppositionalism is far better and more biblical.
But none of this forbids us to use evidences in our apologetic encounters. The Bible itself says that the heavens declare the glory of God. We should assume, then, that study of the heavens will validate Scripture, not falsify it. And we should be ready to use the Bible’s own evidences for its truth: the New Testament’s citations of the Old, the witnesses of 1 Cor. 15: 3-11, and so on. But we should not present these as neutral observers. Rather we should point out that these evidences must be seen through the eyes of faith, and that they make no sense without faith. Indeed, nothing can be rightly understood apart from faith, for everything is God’s creation and bears witness to him.

It’s a great read about this thoughtful and insightful teacher. Read the whole article here.

Transcendent or Immanent

What shall we say, is God transcendent or immanent? It is a very interesting question in the realm of worship. How do we see God and in light of this how do we then worship Him? There are numerous verses that support the facts that God is both transcendent and immanent. For example, Heb 12:28 & Is. 6:5 display his immanence. The Psalms are full of passages that demonstrate his transcendence. Conversely we read of His immanence, too, in passages such as John 15:15. Matt. 6:9 & Heb 2:11-12.

John Frame offers us his view, with which I agree, in his book Contemporary Worship Music. On page 14 we read, A biblically balanced view of worship must take into account both God's transcendence and his immanence, his exaltation and his nearness, his majestic holiness and his unmeasurable love. This balance is not always easy to maintain. Churches that focus on divine transcendence are in danger of making God appear distant, aloof, unfriendly, unloving, devoid of grace. Churches that focus on God's immanence sometimes lose sight of his majesty and purity, his hatred of sin, and the consequent seriousness of any divine-human encounter. To maintain this balance, we must go back again and again to the Scriptures themselves so that we may please God in worship rather than merely acting on our own intuitions.

An excellent point, indeed. I have been in churches that have emphasized one or the other and left knowing something was missing. Granted, we are imperfect and this is a tough challenge to meet but where does your church fall? Does the pendulum swing wildly to one side or the other or does it rest somewhere in the middle. May God grant us the grace to see how we should correctly worship Him.

Apologetics

A good but brief post on apologetics can be found here at Chris' Considerations. He briefly outlines the three types, Classical, Evidential and Presuppositional, and provides links for further study. I'm a Van Tillian Presuppositionalist myself. One's presuppositions are always the starting point. A good source on Van Til can be found at http://www.vantil.info/. A Primer on Presuppositionalism by Joel Garver is here. Of course, in my opinion, no one else knows Van Til on this subject better than John Frame. Check out an Introduction to Presuppositional Apologetics here and here.

Always Reforming

I got home yesterday to find my copy of Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology had arrived in the mail. I quickly opened its pages to read the preface and then the introduction. It was refreshing to read Frame write in the preface, Reformed theology has often professed to be "always reforming" (semper reformanda), but it has often been to focused too much on its past achievements (reformata) at the expense of seeking new insight(reformanda). How very true. It was this thought that enticed me to purchase the work. A few pages later in the introduction A.T.B. McGowan writes, In our twenty first century we face many complex issues, which earlier generations have not been required to face and it will not do merely to restate old ideas in the old familiar words and try hide away from the modern world. It simply is not an option to create little communities of people who attempt to live as people did in earlier centuries, using seventeenth-century language and seventeenth-century Bibles and circling the wagons against the outside world. Apart from anything else, we do our children a serious disservice if we fail to address the issues that present the most serious challenges to their remaining in our churches.
McGowan goes on to state he has no problem with the Westminster Standards and neither do I. But, its time to consider writing new standards that will address todays issues. Amen to that.
I'm anxious now to delve into this work of several authors that explores the issues of todays church with the underpinnings of semper reformanda.

Out With the Old and In With the New

So, what should we make of the following?:

From this one example, we may judge what is to be thought of the whole class—viz. that the whole sum of righteousness, and all the parts of divine worship, and everything necessary to salvation, the Lord has faithfully comprehended, and clearly unfolded, in his sacred oracles, so that in them he alone is the only Master to be heard. But as in external discipline and ceremonies, he has not been pleased to prescribe every particular that we ought to observe (he foresaw that this depended on the nature of the times, and that one form would not suit all ages), in them we must have recourse to the general rules which he has given, employing them to test whatever the necessity of the Church may require to be enjoined for order and decency. Lastly, as he has not delivered any express command, because things of this nature are not necessary to salvation, and, for the edification of the Church, should be accommodated to the varying circumstances of each age and nation, it will be proper, as the interest of the Church may require, to change and abrogate the old, as well as to introduce new forms. I confess, indeed, that we are not to innovate rashly or incessantly, or for trivial causes. Charity is the best judge of what tends to hurt or to edify: if we allow her to be guide, all things will be safe. - Institutes, Book IV, Ch. 30, paragraph 3, emphasis mine.

Calvin, here, is approving of change, advancement, improvement in the church. We cannot continue to worship as we once did in the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries or we shall fail in our mission to evangelize the world. We must adapt, we must "as the interest of the Church may require, to change and abrogate the old, as well as to introduce new forms." To cling to forms or traditions for the sake of them is defeating God's purposes and therefore our own. We must forge ahead and modernize our forms of worship, albeit carefully, but modernize we must. We should not, as Calvin states above, "innovate rashly or incessantly, or for trivial causes." Innovation should come cautiously and through much prayer.

Modern theologian John Frame concurs. Some time ago I posted from his Worship in Spirit and Truth where he wrote on page 8, ...And we should make sure that our worship is edifying to believers (1 Cor. 14:26). First Corinthians 14 emphasizes the importance of conducting worship, not in unintelligible "tongues," but in language understandable to all. Even an unbeliever, when he enters the assembly, should be able to understand what is taking place, so that he will fall down and worship, exclaiming, "God is really among you" (vs. 25). So, worship has a horizontal dimension as well as vertical focus. It is to be God-centered, but also to be both edifying and evangelistic. Worship that is unedifying or unevangelistic may not properly claim to be God-centered. Further he points out on page 67, ...Scripture also tells us, and more explicitly and emphatically, that worship should be intelligible, It should be understandable to the worshipers, and even to non-Christian visitors (1 Cor 14, especially vv. 24-25). And intelligibility requires contemporaneity. When churches use archaic language and follow practices that are little understood today, they compromise that biblical principle.

Church leaders should give careful thought to and make much prayer over this issue. Change is necessary, it is part of life. As we change, society changes and the world changes the church cannot allow herself to be left behind.

John Frame on the Regulative Principle and Music

Continuing on from the post on 5-26, Contemporary Worship Music - A Starting Point, let's look at Frame's view on the Regulative Principle (RP) in so much as it relates to music in the worship service. Before we begin, Frame's basis, and I heartily agree, is 1 Cor 14. Music, as in all parts of worship, must be understandable to anyone who may join the service. So, not only the spoken word but also the music must be in the vernacular.

From the WCF 21.1, ...But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.

Frame does not deviate from the accepted and applied understanding of the confession here at 21.1. Where he would differ in understanding is in 1.6 as it would apply to 21.1. 1.6 states, ... there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. Here there is not even agreement of past or current adherents to the confession of the definition of "circumstances." Regardless, these decisions should still be made to the Glory of God. Further he writes concerning this, ...the term best suited to describe the sphere of human judgment is not "circumstance," but "application" (pg. 41, Worship In Spirit and Truth). Applications would include issues such as Scripture instructing us to pray, but does tell us what words to pray. Scripture instructs us to meet, but not when or where. We must us our best judgment in these issues. So, some issues are and some are not common to human actions and societies. Hence, the RP for worship applies here as well. This does not give us carte blanche to do as we please in worship. We must exercise godly judgment. We must, however, recognize that Scripture draws distinctions in different situations. Such as, to use Frame's examples again, the Lord's Supper is not an common meal, if some are hungry let them eat at home, not at the worship service. He advocates that in the decision making process that we are always subject to Scripture whether about worship or any other sphere of life. Lastly, he adds, Human wisdom may never presume to add to its [Scripture] commands. The only job of human wisdom is to apply those commands to specific situations.

Carrying this into the realm of music, Scripture does not in my opinion, based again on 1 Cor. 14, define what we are to sing. Often, I believe we should sing the Psalms or other portions of the Bible, but that's based on pragmatic reasons rather than biblical. It would be great to sing the Psalms to modern music. Frame in his book Contemporary Worship Music expertly lays out his position on this.

Returning to the first principle, he rightfully claims on page 67 of WISAT, ...Scripture also tells us, and more explicitly and emphatically, that worship should be intelligible. It should be understandable, to the worshipers, and even to non-Christian visitors (1 Cor. 14, especially vv. 24-25). And intelligibility requires contemporaneity. When churches use archaic language and follow practices that are little understood today, they compromise that biblical principle.

I hope I have accurately portrayed Frame's views here. To be sure, buy the book, give it a read and let's explore this area of RP and CWM.

John Frame on 1 Corinthians 14

In studying worship in the church I have found John Frame’s book Worship In Spirit & Truth most helpful, reasonable and very balanced. Many answers to the "how & why" of worship can be answered in 1 Cor. 14 &, in fact, it is the most quoted passage in the book. The book on the whole was very refreshing.

On page 8 he writes ...And we should make sure that our worship is edifying to believers (1 Cor. 14:26). First Corinthians 14 emphasizes the importance of conducting worship, not in unintelligible "tongues," but in language understandable to all. Even an unbeliever, when he enters the assembly, should be able to understand what is taking place, so that he will fall down and worship, exclaiming, "God is really among you" (vs. 25). So, worship has a horizontal dimension as well as vertical focus. It is to be God-centered, but also to be both edifying and evangelistic. Worship that is unedifying or unevangelistic may not properly claim to be God-centered.

On page 67 we read, ...Scripture also tells us, and more explicitly and emphatically, that worship should be intelligible, It should be understandable to the worshipers, and even to non-Christian visitors (1 Cor 14, especially vv. 24-25). And intelligibilty requires contemporaneity. When churches use archaic language and follow practices that are little understood today, they compromise that biblical priciple.

Referring to contemporary Christian worship music Frame asserts on page 117...To a certain extent, these developments in church music legitimately reflect the biblical and Reformation principle that worship is to be intelligible, and therefore vernacular, and in one sense "popular" (1 Cor. 14).

Again referring again to music he states ...If we are to pursue the biblical goal of intelligible worship (1 Cor. 14), we should seek musical settings that speak the musical languages of our congregation and community. To do this is not to cater to human taste, but to honor in his desire to edify people in his worship. (page 140)

May we all spend some time rethinking our traditions and preconceived notions and seek out what Scripture truly teaches concerning worship.

Worship in Spirit and Truth

Music Is Not Amoral

I find this kind of thinking about CCM here on Christian Research Net most disturbing. The line of reasoning, of what there is, does not even make sense. Its a huge leap to go from Cain whose worship was unacceptable, to Jubal, his descendant, the "father of all who play flute and harp," to the assertion that all music is amoral. What? To the author, I respectfully fail to see the logic. God is the ultimate first cause of all things, including all music styles, and therefore all music is good. It is what man does with it that makes it worshipful or sinful. Not to mention the fact that Cain's unacceptable worship had nothing to do with music. For the record, I have not read this book and based on this blurb I won't. I hope the author's reasoning is much clearer in his book. For a better understanding of this issue I recommend John Frame's books, Worship In Spirit & Truth and Contemporary Worship Music: A Biblical Defense.