Blogging in the name of the Lord: John M. Frame

This is the second in our series of interviews with Christian bloggers. In the hot seat today is...

John Frame

GD: Hello John Frame and welcome to Exiled Preacher. Please tell us a little about yourself.

JF: I was born in 1939, raised in the Pittsburgh area. I came to trust Christ as savior and Lord around the age of 13, through the youth and music ministries of my home church. Almost immediately I took an interest in theology, being encouraged by leaders in the church and the proximity of such theology professors as John H. Gerstner, Robert L. Kelley, and James L. Kelso. I majored in philosophy at Princeton University, then attended Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. At Westminster, my teachers were largely from the “old faculty” that had been teaching there since the 1930s, including Cornelius Van Til, John Murray, and E. J. Young. I also studied there with some younger guys like Meredith Kline and Edmund Clowney. Then some grad study at Yale with people like George Lindbeck, Paul Holmer, and David Kelsey.

I taught at Westminster in Philadelphia from 1968-80, at Westminster in California from 1980-2000, and have taught since at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL.

My wife Mary and I have five children, three living on the west coast and two with us in Florida.

GD: Your blog is called "Works of Frame and Poythress". What made you start blogging?

JF: Our site, Works of Frame and Poythress, is not really a blog, but a repository of articles, reviews, and some books by Vern Poythress and myself. There is a blog page, but that just reproduces the articles in blog format. At the moment, I don’t have time to blog, since I’m trying hard to finish some publishing projects, especially Doctrine of the Word of God. However, I do have an interest in blogging, and it strikes me as a likely post-retirement activity.

GD: In your opinion, what are the strengths and weaknesses of theology blogging?

JF: Strengths: (1) It’s a great way to bypass the system of publishers and copyrights, which often slow down and otherwise inhibit the distribution of ideas. (2) It’s a means to distribute ideas for discussion, which one has not completely thought through or has not been able adequately to document. (3) It’s inexpensive. (4) It provides a way of sharing aspects of one’s life other than the professional. (5) Bloggers often provide responses to developments with a speed not possible in other media.

Weaknesses: (1) The downside of freedom of expression (above) is inadequate oversight. Theology in blogs is often not supervised by the church in any meaningful way. (2) Blogs have become virtual sewers of slander, character assassination, bad arguments, ideological dogmatism, etc. (3) It is hard for the average web-surfer to distinguish the good from the bad.

GD: Which theology blogs (if any!) have you found helpful?

JF: I don’t spend a lot of time on blogs and web sites, but there are some I visit from time to time and have found useful. A number of them are written by friends of mine, and I like to keep up on what they are doing.

First our own site, of course (http://www.frame-poythress.org/), which includes not only my contributions but those of my friend Vern Poythress, one of the most profound Christian thinkers around. I have also profited from Exiled Preacher and from these: Andrew Sandlin,
Center for Cultural Leadership, Common Grounds Online, Helm’s Deep, Paul Helm’s theological and philosophical writings. John Armstrong, Monergism, Reformed Blacks of America, Reformation 21, Third Millennium Ministries, together with their associated sites, Reformed Perspectives, Reformed Answers, and their Discussion Forums. Many of my own writings can be found at Reformed Perspectives. Third Millennium is the ministry of Richard Pratt. Triablogue, Truth XChange, Peter Jones’s site exposing neo-paganism. World Magazine Blog, especially the contributions of Andrée Seu.

I also occasionally look in on sites where I generally disagree with the content, but which are interesting to me for some reason. I prefer not to list those here.

GD: What is it that you enjoy most about being a systematic theologian?

JF: 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.

GD: Why should pastors be interested in systematic theology?

JF: As I said, systematics, rightly understood, deals with the real questions about thought and life that pastors have to deal with. This includes questions about theological controversies, but also about ethics, evangelism, church order, contemporary religions and ideologies, social order, and so on. Now of course if you understand systematics as a more abstract and academic discipline, its connection to the pastorate is less direct. But even then the pastor should be able to draw on the writings of traditional systematicians to draw applications for his own ministry and his own people.

GD: You employ a multiperspectival approach to systematics, regularly bringing normative, situational and existential perspectives to bear upon your theological discussions. When did you first think of this approach and why do you believe that it is so helpful?

JF: In a university philosophy course (maybe 1959), I was impressed with the professor’s ability to look at philosophers and philosophical ideas from various angles. It later occurred to me that this is an important aspect of Christian thought. Only God can see everything simultaneously from all perspectives. Since we are finite, we need to seek the assistance of people with other perspectives from our own, and especially from God himself, who has revealed something of his own perspective to us.

As for the threefold perspectives, they have a number of roots. Cornelius Van Til, drawing on the Westminster Confession 16.7, taught me to think of ethics in terms of goal, motive, and standard. He also emphasized the correlation of revelation given from God, nature, and man himself ABOUT God, nature, and man himself. Edmund Clowney also developed a series of triads correlating the officers and ministries of the church with Jesus’ offices as prophet, priest, and king. Vern Poythress showed me some additional triads from the field of linguistics that correlated significantly with these. So in my own work, I tried to bring all these together in a broader system. I think it derives ultimately from the three persons of the Trinity.

Why is it helpful? Well, in understanding God’s revelation, we need to understand his world (“general revelation”) in the light of his word (“special revelation”) as applied to ourselves in his image (what I now call “existential revelation”). These I call “situational,” “normative,” and “existential,” respectively. Misunderstanding of any of these can lead to wrong conclusions and/or to theoretical and practical confusion. So the three perspectives serve as checks and balances on the theologian. When we advance an idea, does that idea do justice to Scripture (the normative question)? Does it show a good understanding of the situation or question to which we are trying to apply the Bible (the situational question)? Do we as theologians have sufficient intellectual and spiritual maturity to be trusted on this matter (the existential question)? We need to keep asking these questions at each stage of the theological inquiry. For more on all this, see here.

GD: What do you intend by "meaning is application"?

JF: People tend to think of “meaning” as some strange kind of object that we dig for underneath the surface of language. Actually, to ask the “meaning” of something is to ask a very practical question. It is to say, “I don’t understand this language; what can I make of it?” Now this kind of question arises in very different contexts, such as the following: (1) If you are confronted by Gen. 1:1 in Hebrew, and you don’t know the language, you might say, “what does it mean?” In this case, you are asking for a translation into English. (2) But let’s say that you already have a translation. You might still have a question about the passage, such as “Who is God?” or “What does it mean to say that God ‘created’ the heavens and the earth?” Here the question of meaning is not a request for translation, but for explanation. (3) But let’s say that you already have some idea who God is, and what creation is. You might still ask “what does it mean?” because you don’t understand what role this statement should play in your life. These three types of questions (and I could mention others) are very different, but they are all questions about meaning.

So it’s difficult to come up with a general definition of “meaning,” unless you make it very broad. But I do think that most questions about meaning have a situation in common: a person is looking at some text that he cannot really make use of, without some help. That is, in general, he cannot use it (here I nod to the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein); he cannot apply it to what he is doing. Application is anything that resolves a question or problem with a text: a translation, a paraphrase, an explanation of the historical setting, an understanding of context. Context is especially important; but there are many contexts: the immediate passage, the book it is from, the other works of the author, the life of the reader, and our general worldview. I think that in most cases, then, when we ask the meaning of a biblical passage, we are asking how it “applies” to ourselves, as we seek to answer some question or use it in some situation.

GD: If time travel were possible, which figure in post-biblical church history would you most like to meet and what would you say to him?

JF: Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria during the controversy over the Nicene formulation of the Trinity. He is a great hero of mine. I would ask how he was able to be so steadfast in his purpose, with most all of the world, and even the church, were arrayed against him.

GD: In your preface to Always Reforming (IVP Apollos, 2006), you have a little dig at fellow "triangulator", Kevin Vanhoozer. What did you make of his proposals for dramatising theology in The Drama of Doctrine?

JF: Kevin is a former student of mine, and I have a huge admiration for his work. He has done more than anybody to promote conversation between Reformed theology (of which he is a strong representative) and contemporary theologians, both evangelical and liberal. More than anyone I know in the Reformed community, he has gained the appreciation of the theological mainstream, without compromising the authority of Scripture or its doctrine of redemption.

If I took a “dig” at Kevin in my Preface, it was also a dig at myself. When people like Kevin and I try to do theology by triangulating norms, situations, and existential factors (as in my above description of triperspectivalism) there is the danger that the simple truth of Scripture will get lost amid all the complexity. In the Preface I was only seeking to warn theologians of this danger. There are dangers both on the side of oversimplification and of overcomplication, and we need to guard against both. Sometimes the meaning of Scripture is obvious: God exists, Jesus is God in the flesh, Jesus gave his life as a sacrifice for the sins of his people. Even here there may be some need of clarification, to some hearers. But we dare not lose these basics as we seek more sophisticated understandings.

Now the idea that Scripture is “drama” is one of many attempts to summarize what kind of book it is. Theologians today are pretty well agreed that Scripture is not a list of theological propositions or of ethical commands. But what is it, then? Kline argued that it has the elements of a “treaty” between a great king and a vassal. But that is not, certainly, its overall literary form. Others have said that the Bible is “history;” but Psalms and Proverbs don’t fit well into that model, at least as history is understood today; nor does Revelation. David Kelsey pointed out that the differences between theologians in their use of Scripture often arise less from their doctrines of Scripture than from their ideas on what kind of book the Bible is, how it should be “construed.” (See here).

“Drama” is one such “construal,” and there is much to be said for it. It incorporates the idea that Scripture has a historical narrative, but it also allows for literary features, character development, moral teaching, worldview communication, etc., such as we don’t always connect with narrative alone. So I think that as a general model for construing Scripture, drama is a promising vehicle. But in literary terms we would never think of a collection of 66 books, with many different authors, subject matters, and points of view, as a “drama,” as we use the term today. Scripture is like a drama in many ways, and “drama” is a useful metaphor for construing the whole. But it is best, I think, to say that Scripture is sui generis. It incorporates many literary genres, but it escapes categorization.

We would certainly be wrong to think that any construal will be a theological watershed, a way of finding large numbers of answers to theological questions that we would otherwise have missed. If we agree that Scripture is “drama,” what difference does that make in answering questions about whether God’s love is universal, whether Christ was able to sin, or whether the return of Christ precedes or follows the thousand years of peace? At most, a construal of Scripture will have subtle effects on the theologian’s emphases and priorities, on what he is likely to take literally or figuratively, etc. So I tend to be more interested in specific theological questions than about large questions of structure, model, or construal.

GD: Is it possible to be both faithful to the Scriptures and contemporary?

JF: Yes. I think Vanhoozer is a good example of this. I think the concept of theology I outlined above encourages, indeed requires, both faithfulness to Scripture (because it is God’s revelation) and contemporaneity (because we are applying Scripture to the world in which we live). Certainly the theologians of the past, especially the writers of creeds and confessions, are helpful to us now. But we need to understand our own times and speak the language of our own times if we are to do our job as theologians.

GD: Why do you think that a persuppositionalist apologetic is better and more biblical than evidentialism? Do presuppositionalists have any time for things like the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection, the "proofs for God's existence" or Intelligent Design?

JF: “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.

GD: In both Peter Enns' Inspiration and Incarnation and Andrew McGowan's The Divine Spiration of Scripture, serious Reformed theologians have called into question the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Is the inerrancy of Scripture still worth fighting for?

JF: I would not live or die for the term “inerrancy,” which is an extra-biblical term and is often used in confusing ways today. But as I understand it, the main idea behind the term is that Scripture, being God’s word, is completely true in everything it teaches. Scripture explicitly affirms that it is true (as in Ps. 119:160, John 17:17). So when God speaks to us, we dare not find fault with anything he says. Our responsibility is simply to believe what he says and to do what he tells us to do. That principle is still worth fighting for. In fact it is the watershed issue of our time: will we believe God, or will we follow human wisdom? This is nothing less than the question of whether God in Jesus Christ is Lord.

GD: Who is you favourite fiction writer?

JF: Mark Twain.

GD: Care to name your top three pieces of music or songs (Christian or otherwise)?

JF: Handel, Messiah; Bach, St. Matthew Passion; Mozart, Symphony 40; Brahms’ Second Piano Concerto. “Arise, My Soul, Arise” is probably my favorite hymn right now, in the Eleanor Tracey arrangement.

GD: Which theological book have you found most helpful in the last twelve months? It is a must read because....

JF: Believe it or not, Holy Spirit Revivals, by Charles Finney (New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 1999). Finney here is very different from the picture of him given in the standard Reformed polemics. He is thoroughly dependent on God’s sovereign working, through the prayers of his people, to reach the lost. His opponents, as he describes them, appear to me to be hyper-Calvinists, not authentic Calvinists: people who think that an inquirer should wait passively for the Spirit to change his heart, rather than obeying the biblical command to repent and believe. On that issue, assuming that he has described it correctly, I certainly would have been on Finney’s side. His Systematic Theology, however, contains some significant errors and confusions. He should have stuck to evangelism.

GD: That's a surprising choice, I must say! Now, what does a systematic theologian have to say about the credit crunch?

JF: Scripture doesn’t forbid borrowing and lending, but it does warn of dangers in this (Prov. 22:7) and commends those who are generous in giving to the needy. Similarly, it doesn’t condemn riches as such or the use of luxuries, but it often presents riches as a spiritual snare. We should not set our heart on riches or use them to oppress the poor.

The credit crunch has occurred because in our society borrowing has become a central feature of daily life and material things are valued disproportionately. And everyone assumes that government has the responsibility to prevent and to solve the problems these attitudes create. Scripture summons us, rather, to repent and turn back to God.

GD: What is the biggest problem that faces Reformed Evangelicals today and how should we respond?

JF: The issue of the authority of Scripture, as I described it above, is the most pressing theological problem, and we need to be uncompromising in our allegiance to the Bible as God’s word. This means saying no to fashionable philosophies and theologies, to much that is called “biblical criticism,” to those who attempt to limit Scripture to certain spheres of human life, to those who would put tradition (Protestant, Catholic, ethnic, denominational, or any other) on a level rivaling Scripture.

GD: Well, John Frame, thanks for dropping by for this conversation.

JF: My pleasure, Guy. Thanks for the opportunity to engage your readers.

GD: No problem.

Watch this blog for more conversations on theology and preaching.

Blogging in the name of the Lord: Tim Challies

First in the hot seat for this new series interviews is uberblogger....

Tim Challies

GD: Hello Tim Challies and welcome to Exiled Preacher. Could you tell us a little bit about yourself?

TC: Thank you for doing this little interview! I’m a pretty boring person so there is not a lot to say. I am a married father of three who lives in Oakville, Ontario (a suburb of Toronto). Though my training is in history, I am currently self-employed as a web designer. I run a blog called Challies.Com and a book review site called Discerning Reader. I am the author of The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment.

GD: Why did you start blogging?

TC: I began challies.com back in 2002. My parents and siblings had recently moved from the Toronto area down to Atlanta and I began a little web site so I could post pictures of my children for the benefit of my family. One day I got it in my head to write an article and to post it on this little site (again, for the benefit of my family). Another article or two followed this one. From there Google and the other search engines worked their magic and other people encountered the articles. Soon others began reading the site and I learned that I enjoyed writing articles. One thing led to another; the pictures of the children came down and more articles went up. The rest, as they say, is history.

GD: What kind of things might an uninitiated reader find on your blog?

TC: In the course of an average week a reader might find links to other interesting articles and sites, one or two book reviews, and four or five articles dealing with any number of subjects. I do not plan the blog days or weeks in advance, so what comes out every day is just what is on my mind that morning.

GD: What have you found most enjoyable about blogging?

TC: The most enjoyable aspect, and this may sound hopelessly selfish, is that it challenges me to constantly be learning and growing. If I were to stop reading the Bible, if I were to stop reading good books, I’d very quickly run out of things to say. So the blog keeps me constantly seeking to learn, to grown, and to apply.

GD: Yours must be one of the biggest evangelical blogs around. Phil Johnson of Pyromanics called you, ”The World’s Most Famous Christian Blogger”®. Any hints for perennial underachievers like er, me?

TC: I think the best thing bloggers can do is to focus on creating good content. There are many tricks to driving readers to a blog, but it is far more difficult to create dedicated, day-by-day readers. To do this you will need to focus on creating very good content—the kind of thing that people will want to read on an ongoing basis.

GD: Oh, so it's content that counts. I was kind of hoping that you'd share some of the tricks. Now, is there any truth in the rumour that Adrian Warnock "discovered" you?

TC: I’ve heard this rumour too. I have quite a poor memory but that memory includes nothing about Adrian discovering me. If anything I think “The Passion of the Christ” found me. I wrote a very early review of it that was read tens of thousands of times and which drove a lot of traffic to my site.

GD: What does your family think of your blogging habit?

TC: I’ve asked my wife what she thinks of it and she assures me that it has been a good thing in my life. And my children are convinced that I’m famous because I have a blog.

GD: Your book, The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment came out earlier this year. What's it all about?

TC: The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment is a book that looks to the Bible to seek what God teaches on the subject of spiritual discernment, a term I define as the skill of understanding and applying God's Word with the purpose of separating truth from error and right from wrong. Written for the general reader and in a way that is suitable for a wide audience, the book teaches people to think biblically so they might act biblically. It appeals for discernment, teaching the importance of this discipline and applying it to the lives of Christians.

GD: Name three of your top Christian favourite authors. Why so good?

TC: I try to read very widely but have not been reading seriously for all that long. Hence I have not had time to come up with a long list of favorite authors. Having said that, I do enjoy the books from some of the usual suspects—R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Mark Dever and others like them. Their books have always challenged me and I have benefited greatly from them.

GD: What is the most enjoyable non-Christian book that you have read recently?

TC: I do try to read quite a few non-Christian books. It is too easy, I think, to focus exclusively on Christian books. I have greatly enjoyed Malcolm Gladwell’s two books (The Tipping Point and Blink) and have little trouble recommending them. I think Christians who read too little outside of the Christian genre are missing out. There are some great books available beyond the bounds of the Christian bookstores.

GD: Who was the most influential figure in your theological development?

TC: My parents were by far the biggest factor in my theological development. Though very new Christians when I was born, they spent a year at L’Abri and there they gained a very solid theological grounding. They passed this on to me and to my four siblings, all of whom are committed believers in Jesus Christ.

GD: What is the most helpful work of theology that you have read in the last twelve months. It is a must read because....

TC: I suppose this would be Overcoming Sin and Temptation by John Owen. It is a difficult read but one that is very rewarding. Owen challenged me in the way I understand sin and challenged me to dedicate every effort to overcoming it. He showed that we cannot simply stand back and wait for the Spirit to sanctify away our sin, but that we must join with the Spirit in this work. Ask around and you’ll find multitudes of Christians who can attest to this book’s power and influence in their lives. That book is being challenged by Jonathan Edwards’ The Religious Affections for top spot, but I’ll withhold further comment until I’ve finished it.

GD: Good choices there. What would you say is the biggest challenge facing evangelicalism today?

TC: This is an issue to which I’ve given a lot of thought, but an issue which is remarkably difficult to answer. Still, the issue that has continued to trouble me for several years now is the sufficiency of Scripture. There was a time when Christians were rejecting the Bible as infallible and inerrant; today, though, it seems that Christians are affirming those traits while perhaps tacitly denying its sufficiency. The question for the church today is whether we will really allow the Bible to guide our faith and practice or if we will let other factors and other philosophies guide us. When we play up other factors we necessarily downplay Scripture.

GD: Tell us your top three songs or pieces of music.

TC: I listen to a lot of music and my top three songs may well vary from week-to-week. Recently I’ve been listening to the three CDs by Sojourn and have been greatly enjoying several of those tracks. I’ve also been enjoying the latest CDs from Sovereign Grace Music and have found several favorites on those albums as well.

GD: Lastly, which blogs do you enjoy reading most and why?

TC: Because I seek to point people from my site to others, I read (or at least skim) quite a few other blogs (probably 100 or more). Among my favorites would be Justin Taylor’s “Between Two Worlds” (Justin provides a good roundup of interesting new stories), "Boundless Line", Al Mohler’s blog and a quite a few that wouldn’t be of any interest except to friends and family.

GD: Well, thanks Tim for dropping by for this little chat. See ya!

Blogging in the name of the Lord, Series 4

Coming soon.....

Blogging in the name of the Lord, Series 4.
A new set of conversations with top theology bloggers.

Through Western Eyes by Robert Letham

Through Western Eyes, Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective,
by Robert Letham, Mentor/Christian Focus, 2007, 320pp

Eastern Orthodoxy looks a somewhat strange version of the Christianity faith when viewed through the eyes of Reformed Evangelicals. I mean, all those hairy priests wafting plumes incense all over the place in buildings resplendent with dazzling icons. What's all that about? Robert Letham helps to shock us out of our prejudice by first of all narrating the rich history of Eastern Orthodoxy. Many of the great heroes of orthodox Trinitarian Christianity were from the East. Athanasius was a redoubtable defender of the deity of Christ in the face of the Arian heresy. He also emphasised that Christ became Man in order that human beings might participate in the divine nature, making deification a key aspect of Orthodox soteriology. The Cappadocians, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzen helped to give welcome clarity to the church's doctrine of the Trinity. The teaching of the somewhat cantankerous Cyril of Alexandria on the relationship between the divine and human natures in the Person of Christ was highly influential at the Council of Chalcedon. Easter Orthodoxy is profoundly conscious of this valuable theological heritage. In so much as Orthodoxy has a doctrinal basis, it is the creedal statements produced by the seven ecumenical councils. The great Reformed confessions such as the Westminster Confession of faith (and its variants, the Savoy Declaration and the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession) draw on the language of the the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. In keeping with historic orthodoxy, the Reformed gladly confess that the Son is of the same nature (homoousion) with the Father and that the Trinity is a union of three persons (hypostasis) in the one being (ousia) of God. We have cause to be profoundly grateful to the Fathers of the Eastern Church.

It was news to me that Cyril Lucaris, who was to become Patriarch of Constantinople embraced Calvinism while serving in Poland during the Reformation. He published a Calvinistic confession of faith in 1629. Sadly, Lucaris was murdered by Turkish emissaries and his body dumped in the Bosporus. But as Letham points out, while there has never been a Calvinistic pope, Orthodoxy can boast at least one Reformed patriarch.

So much for the history. In the next part of the book, Letham turns his gaze upon Eastern theology. Immediately one is struck with the otherness of Orthodoxy as the writer introduces us to a typical Eastern church service replete with icons, arcane priestly ceremonies, and prayers to the dead. The use of icons in worship was once the cause of serious controversy in the Orthodox Church with the iconoclasts insisting that the use of images is idolatrous and contrary to the second commandment. The iconodules, led by John of Damascus responded that icons are not there to be worshipped. They simply act as a window into the unseen spiritual world and so are aids to salvation. Icons of Christ are permitted because in his humanity he is the image of the invisible God. The iconodules won the day and their position was ratified at Nicaea II, the only ecumenical council not usually accepted by Protestants. The argument that visible representations of Christ are permitted because he took a true human nature is suspect. We cannot divorce his humanity from the divine Person of the Son. That way lies Nestorianism. When it comes to prayers to the dead, Letham rightly says that there is nothing wrong in asking other believers to intercede with God on our behalf. The problem is asking dead Christians to do so. There is no biblical evidence that the dead in Christ are able to respond to our requests for prayer, so there is no point in trying to enlist their help.

For the Orthodox, Scripture is part of the living tradition of the Church along with the declarations of the ecumenical councils and later Church teachings. This robs Scripture of its critical authority over the traditions of the Church. Tradition is valuable, but even the most ancient traditions of the Church are subject to the scrutiny of the Bible. That said, Orthodoxy is right to stress that Scripture was given to the Church and that the Church and Scripture are mutually dependent. Orthodox worship is full of Bible readings, with huge chunks of Scripture being read to the congregation. This is a challenge to some of our Reformed churches, where the Minister will simply read the few verses that will form the basis for his sermon rather than whole chapters from the Word of God.

Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodoxy does not have a hierarchical structure of authority. It is a family of self-governing churches. The Eastern Church resists the claims to papal primacy (based supposedly on Matthew 16:18), holding that the church is led collectively by the bishops. Like Rome, the Orthodox teach that there are seven sacraments rather than simply baptism and the Lord's Supper as found in Scripture. But the Eastern Church is is not as dogmatic as Rome about the number seven. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are esteemed as pre-eminent among the mysteries. Baptism brings the candidate into union with Christ and actually confers forgiveness of sin. At the Lord's Supper, the consecrated bead and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, but Orthodoxy makes no attempt to explain the mystery, unlike the Roman dogma of transubstantiation. In the East, the Eucharist is seen as a propitiatory sacrifice on behalf of the living and the dead. The Reformed (at least Reformed Baptists!) teach that baptism is a symbol of grace already received by faith. The Lord's Supper is no trip down memory lane, it is an act of communion with the risen Christ who is present at the Table by the Spirit as the faithful eat bread and drink wine together. But there is no change in the substance of the elements and the Lord's Supper is not to be understood in sacrificial terms. There is little room for preaching in Orthodox services, with greatest attention being given to highly visible icons and ceremonies. The Reformers recovered the New Testament's emphasis on the preaching and hearing of the Word of God. We encounter the living God as he addresses us through the Christ-centred Word, preached in the power of the Spirit. We cannot see God, but we can hear him.

Letham devotes a chapter to the divergent understandings of the Trinity in the Western and Eastern traditions of the Church. The West, following Augustine has tended to approach the Trinity starting with the one divine essence. This can lead to difficulties in appreciating how the three relate to the one. Augustine famously spoke of the Trinity in terms of the Father as lover, the Son as loved and the Holy Spirit as the union of love between the Father and Son. Needless to say this perspective leaves in doubt the full deity and personality of the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity has often been neglected in Western theology, piety and worship. In the East however, the Trinity is central to the Church's theology, worship and life, with due emphasis being given to the three Persons. But the Eastern doctrine of God is complicated by a distinction between the divine essence, which is unknowable, and the divine energies through which he reveals himself to us. This view, first formulated by Gregory Palamas, leaves us in doubt as to what God is really like. A basic principle of Christian theology is that God's self-revelation is a true depiction of his inner life. The imminent Trinity is revealed in the acts of the economic Trinity. The differences between Eastern and Western Trinitarian theology come to the fore in the filioque controversy. The West added to the Niceno-Contantinopolitan creed the phrase, the Holy Spirit 'proceeds from the Father and the Son'. Letham discusses at length the arguments for and against filioque. He attempts to resolve the age-old differences over the doctrine of the Trinity in East and West by asserting with Gregory of Nazianzen that the one and the three are equally ultimate in God.

But what of the Eastern view of salvation? The East tends not to take the plight of man in sin quite so seriously as the Western Augustinian tradition. The Reformed argue biblically (Ephesians 2:1-4) that since the fall, man is dead in trespasses and sin and therefore is unable to move towards God. In the East it is held that man is able to respond to God's offer of grace. Salvation is viewed synergistically rather than monergistically. However, many Eastern Orthodox theologians have taught a doctrine of justification by faith alone that is comparable to the classic Reformed position. But where the West tends to view salvation forensically, the East focuses on deification, that the Son of God became man to enable us to partake in the divine nature. As Letham points out, the forensic and participative aspects of salvation are both rooted in the believer's union with Christ. Orthodoxy dislikes the Reformed doctrine of predestination, which it confuses with arbitrary fatalism. Protestant converts to Eastern Orthodoxy are required to renounce a version of predestination that bears no resemblance to the historic Calvinistic teaching. The Reformed doctrine of predestination asserts both the absolute sovereignty of God and the responsibility of human beings.

In a helpful chapter, Areas of Agreement, Misunderstanding and Disagreement, Letham pulls the threads of this study together. He welcomes positive aspects of Eastern theology such as the centrality of the doctrine of the Trinity, strong emphasis on union with Christ, and the unity of theology and piety. But he does not ignore areas of substantive disagreement like the tendency in the East to downplay the preaching of the Word of God, the veneration of Mary and the saints, and a synergistic understanding of salvation. If dialogue between the East and Reformed Christians is to make progress, we need to remove misunderstandings and yet be clear where real differences remain. At the very least Letham has enabled Reformed believers to have a more unblinkered and sympathetic understanding of Eastern Orthodoxy. The theologian has no time for the kind of ecumenism that simply papers over the cracks, yet he longs for the visible unity of the church of in answer to Jesus' prayer in John 17.

One big issue that Letham avoids facing is that Orthodoxy, which heroically resisted atheistic Communism in the 20th century, is often intolerant of other manifestations of the Christian faith, especially Evangelicalism. Evangelicals in Russia and some former Soviet countries are feeling the pinch at the moment. It is another sad case in church history of the persecuted turning persecutor once the pressure is off (witness also the Puritans, who fled from persecution in England only to persecute Quakers in the New World). Eastern Orthodoxy needs to address this matter urgently.

Through Western Eyes can be viewed as a companion piece to Letham's The Holy Trinity In Scripture, History, Theology and Worship, P&R, 2004. Those who are tantalised by his proposal on resolving the filioque controversy are referred to this volume (which you can see reviewed here). But this is a work of ecumenical theology in its own right that helps us look at Eastern Orthodoxy from a Reformed Perspective with appreciation, integrity and honesty.

The end of the world?

An edited version of my Morning Thought, for BBC Radio Wiltshire

Talking about the end of the world used to be the preserve of cranks and eccentrics. You would sometimes see them in town centres wearing sandwich boards that proclaimed, “THE END IS NIGH”. But now it seems that almost everybody is at it. News reports tell us that global warming will mean the end of life as we know it.

Muse tapped into this sense of unease in their song, “Apocalypse please”, singing,

It’s time we saw a miracle
Come on, it’s time for something biblical
To pull us through
And this is the end of the world.

The other week our children came home from school asking, “Is the world going to end today, dad?” It was the day when the Large Hadron Collider at Cern was switched on. Apparently, the collider was going to re-create conditions moments after the Big Bang. There was a danger, it was reported, that the experiment could have created a super massive black hole which would have swallowed up the whole universe. Well, that didn’t quite happen like that did it? Responsible scientists said that the end of the world scenario was highly unlikely anyway. But just in case you are still worried, you can sleep easy in the knowledge that the £5bn machine has developed a fault and won’t be operative again until Spring 2009. Perhaps the end isn’t quite so nigh?

But I don’t believe that the world will end because of a scientific experiment or anything like that. God made this world and he upholds it by his power. The destiny of the universe is in his hands. The Christian faith is all about having a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. But there is more to it than that. In Jesus, God has acted to rescue the world from evil and suffering. What we look forward to is not in fact the end of the world, but the renewal of creation when Jesus returns. Of that new creation it is written,

“And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.” (Revelation 21:4).

If you share that hope, then don’t worry. It’s not the end of the world!

You can listen to recordings of this week's breakfast show here. I'm on about 40 minutes into the programme.

The Greatest Love of All

An edited version of my Morning Thought, for BBC Radio Wiltshire

Whitney Houston’s song The Greatest Love of All proclaims,

Learning to love yourself
It is the greatest love of all

Is that right? I don’t think so. True love is about reaching out to others rather than self-fulfilment. We all know what love is, but it is difficult to define it in words. The family paper we had when I was a lad carried the “Love is” cartoon strip. Some of them were quite good, with things like, “Love is… wanting to give her the moon and the stars.” And “Love is… a feeling to treasure.” Well, that’s all very nice and romantic, but there’s more to love than that. On yesterday’s show Graham was talking about acts of kindness. He spoke to a “secret millionaire” who had helped people in need. That kind of generosity which seeks the good of other people is getting close to what love is all about.

According to the Christian faith, love is the chief virtue. The apostle Paul spoke of “faith hope and love, these three, but the greatest of these is love”. (1 Corinthians 13:13). Without love faith, charitable giving and even martyrdom are totally without profit. John wrote in one of his letters, “He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” (1 John 4:8). Did you catch that? “God is love.” The one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit exists in an eternal union of love. He loves us too. Do you doubt that? Then consider this display of God’s love,

God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8).

Now, is easy to love our friends who are kind and generous to us. It is not so easy to love our enemies. But God loves his enemies, “sinners” like you and me who have turned their backs upon him. To receive God’s offer of new life in Christ is to immerse your soul in love.

This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. (1 John 4:10).

Now that’s the greatest love of all.

You can listen to recordings of this week's Graham Seaman breakfast show here. I'm on about 45 minutes into the programme.

Credit Crunch

An edited version of my Morning Thought, for BBC Radio Wiltshire

Many of us are feeling the pinch from the "credit crunch". Politicians are trying to get to grips with a new world of collapsing banks and high oil prices. The US treasury is putting together a 700 billion dollar package to buy up the “toxic assets” of American banks. Getting out of the red is always a costly business. But that’s a whole lot of money to pay off bad debt.

The idea of debt features in the Lord’s Prayer, which famously begins,

“Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name”

As a child, I had to recite the Lord’s Prayer every day in school. It didn’t mean a lot to me then. Perhaps familiarity had bred contempt? But it really is a wonderful model of true prayer. In it, Jesus instructed his followers to ask God for many things like, “Give us this day our daily bread.” He also said that we should pray,

“And forgive us our debts,
As we forgive our debtors.”

Now, Jesus wasn’t talking about finance here. He was suggesting that we are morally and spiritually indebted to God and we need him to write off the debt. What’s all that about? Well, God made us for himself, and he calls us to live for his glory. If we live as if he did not exist, and disregard his pattern for our lives, then we are getting ourselves into a spiritual credit crisis. We are “in the red” as far as our relationship with God is concerned. But Jesus tells us to pray that the debt will be cancelled. Can God just do that? He can, but there is a price to pay. As I said, it will cost a staggering 700 billion dollars to wipe out the bad debts of US banks. But the price of our forgiveness is much higher. God bore the cost of our “toxic assets” in his own Son, Jesus Christ. The Christian can sing,

On the cross he sealed my pardon,
paid the debt and made me free.

That’s gospel economics.

Mumbling thoughtlessly through the Lord’s Prayer never did anybody any good. But if you would know the God whose grace is free of charge, then try praying,

“And forgive us our debts,
As we forgive our debtors.”

You can listen to recordings of this week's Graham Seaman breakfast show here. I'm on about 45 minutes into the programme.

Creation the Bible and Science Conference: Day Two

Speakers from left: Robert Letham, Paul Helm, Philip Eveson,
Jason Ramplet, Stephen Lloyd & Stuart Burgess. (John Currid absent).

The New Testament and Creation
Dr. Stephen Lloyd

The quietly spoken, yet persuasive Dr. Lloyd began his paper by comparing the story of the Bible, namely creation, fall, redemption and restoration with the story of Darwinism, which is the evolution of life from amoeba to man. Lloyd, who holds a PhD in materials science, wished to address the issue of whether these two grand metanarratives are compatible. He suggested that controversy over the interpretation of Genesis 1 is really a distraction. What matters is the whole Bible's doctrine of creation. The acceptance of Darwinian evolution has huge implications for Christian theology.

1. Agony and death in the story-line of the Bible.

Romans 8:18-22 tells us that the non-human creation was subjected to futility and entropy as a result of the fall of man. With the fall of man, disease, corruption and death entered the world. In the Bible, death is not a biological necessity, it is the punishment for sin. Some who wish to reconcile the Christian faith with Darwinism argue the fall did not bring physical death, as death is a natural part of biological life. For them, man may have died spiritually when he sinned, but this had no effect upon the physical world beyond man's "bad stewardship". Since fall man has failed to properly fulfil the "cultural mandate". But many important Scriptures stand against the "bad stewardship" reading. Romans 5:12 & 14 and 1 Corinthians 15:21 tell us that physical death came into the world because of sin. Jesus' death was physical as well as spiritual. Arguing from solution to plight, we can see that Christ's death dealt with both the spiritual and physical aspects of death. Death is "the last enemy" (1 Corinthians 15:26), which will be destroyed when Jesus returns. The Bible's story becomes incoherent if death is simply "natural", as Darwinian evolution demands.

Lloyd did not develop the point, but he said that animal suffering and death were also due to the fall, rather than being natural phenomenon. God declared the pre-fall creation "very good". In the evolutionary story, things like death, disease, and earthquakes are just the way things are. But it is hard to see how God could regard such a disordered world as "good". In reality, such things are part and parcel of his curse upon a fallen world. Salvation has to do with the restoration of the physical as well as the spiritual realm. Christ healed the sick as an anticipation of the renewal of creation. On the cross he wore a crown of thorns, signifying that in him, God's curse upon creation will be removed. Christ's resurrection - a physical event was the first installment of the renewal of creation, Romans 8:23, Revelation 21:4.

The Bible's story of creation, fall, redemption and restoration cannot be reconciled with Darwinism.

2. The flood

The flood of Genesis 6 to 9 was an act of judgement that "de-created" the world because of man's sin. The subsidence of the flood waters was an act of re-creation that points forward to the new creation, 2 Peter 3:3-10. Darwinism cannot accommodate a global flood. But a global flood is a major element in the Bible's story. Noah was a kind of new Adam, Genesis 9:1. The global claims of the gospel arise from God's global promise after the flood, Genesis 8:22. After the flood, life was more suited for sinful man with human age span drastically limited. The flood inaugurated an era of grace, 2 Peter 3:9. Prior to the flood, there were only eight righteous persons on earth - Noah and his family. After the flood multitudes of people have been saved.

3. Adam and the Bible's story

Key biblical passages insist that Adam was an historical figure and that he was the head of the human race - Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22. According to the Bible, Adam was specially created in the image of God, Genesis 1:26. Darwinism contradicts this by insisting that human life evolved around 100,000 years ago from pre-human hominids. But if a some point, human beings evolved from Neanderthals then Adam cannot have been the biological ancestor of all mankind. He was just one of the lucky ones who evolved from a pre-human to human state. How, then can Adam have been the representative head of all human beings, so that his sin meant sin and death for humanity? Darwinism makes a mockery of the Bible's account of the federal relationship between Adam and the human race.

Lloyd showed convincingly that the acceptance of Darwinian evolution is a huge theological liability for those who wish to hold to the integrity of the Bible's story.

Design Arguments - Stepping Stones or Stumbling Blocks?
Prof. Paul Helm

In a well-argued, robust and sometimes humorous address, Paul Helm distinguished between a theology of nature, that takes into account the witness of Scripture and natural theology that seeks to argue from nature up to God. He criticised William Paley's design arguments for failing to take into account things like disease and suffering in nature. God does reveal himself in creation, Romans 1:20, Acts 14:15-18, 17:22-31. But we have to be careful in using intelligent design arguments to refute the theory of evolution by natural selection. Helm's emphasis on the "weirdness" of creation ex nihilo gave pause for thought. Creation as described in Genesis 1 is a singularity. God is now resting from his unique work of creation. In his providential dealings with the world, he respects the integrity of secondary causes. Genesis 1 is an historical account of origins. But we cannot reconstruct what happened back then from scientific principles. Creation ex nihilo is the ultimate singularity where the laws of science as we currently understand them break down.

In summing up, Helm argued that we need to be flexible and gracious in our apologetic approach, as we seek to win a hearing for the gospel. In his address, the Prof offered some important correctives to some evangelical approaches to apologetics. His proposals are well worth pondering. You can read this excellent paper on his blog, here.

Authority: the Bible and Science
Dr. Jason Ramplet

As Ramplet, Research Associate at The Faraday Institute pointed out, in life we are constantly pondering the demands of different authorities. Authorities from the rules of the road to cultural conventions call for our obedience. Both the Bible and science have some authority. God the creator us also the one who made the world for us to investigate and subdue. His truth is one.

1. The authority of the Bible

Some would seek to use science to undermine the authority of the Bible. Others compartmentalise Scripture and science saying, "Science tells us how the heavens go, the Bible tells us how to go to heaven." But Genesis 1 has something to say on how the heavens go, as God made the stars. It was God's authoritative speech acts that called the world into being and that summoned Adam from the dirt.

2. The authority of science

The Bible is authoritative but its scope is not exhaustive. We cannot look to Scripture to tell us how to make a cake or manufacture a clock. Extrabiblical knowledge is important. The cultural mandate of Genesis 1 demands that we "subdue the earth" and that involves some scientific activity. The authority of science arises from four principles:

1) The repeatability of experiments.

2) Experimental data is superior to theoretical speculation.
Theories must answer to the world. Darwin was an experimental scientists before he was a theoriser. Multiverse theory is sheer speculation.

3) Science is a corporate endeavour.
Research is a social activity. Scientific communities peer review new proposals. At this point Ramplet suggested, "the devil is a blogger". I 'm not sure what exactly he meant by that. Does he have any peer-reviewed experimental data to prove his case, I wonder?

4) Nature is set against us.
It is by the sweat of our brow that nature reveals its secrets. We also have to take into consideration the epistemological effects of the fall. Unbelieving scientists have to assume God even to deny him.

3. The supreme authority

Under this heading, Ramplet argued that we must try to keep the scientific consensus on Darwinian evolution in tension with the biblical doctrine of creation. Both science and theology have their own integrity. We know nothing as God knows it. We are his vice-regents with finite secondary knowledge. We must accent the value of science and theology.

This last point was most controversial when it came to discussion. Some scientists in the congregation cast doubt on the so-called "Darwinian consensus", suggesting that it was a forced consensus that subjected dissenters to bullying and intimidation. [See here for Paul Helm's thoughts on Micheal Reiss' dismissal from the Royal Society for suggesting that creationism be taught in science lessons]. Others expressed concern that Ramplet had overly compartmentalised the Bible and science. One pastor asked how the speaker would advise a teenage girl who said that the teaching on evolution in school was different from what she had been taught about creation in church. Ramplet seemed to argued that biblical creation and Darwinian evolution were both valid and should be held in tension. I think that in accepting theistic evolution, Ramplet has allowed the authority of science to trump the authority of Scripture. He has failed to take on board the incompatibility of macroevolutionary theory with the Bible's basic story line, as demonstrated so ably by Stephen Lloyd. It was good to have an opportunity to discuss Ramplet's proposals. But his equivocation on this vital point made for a less than rousing end to an otherwise exceptionally helpful conference.

The conference was held under the auspices of the John Owen Centre. CD's of each address and a nifty MP3 CD containing all the addresses can be ordered here.

Losing it

An edited version of my Morning Thought, for BBC Radio Wiltshire

One of the topics for discussion on the show this week is, "losing it". We tend to think that anger as a bad thing. It is associated with outbursts of uncontrollable rage, when we “see red” and really let rip. But anger is not necessarily a bad emotion. Sometimes it is the only right response to evil and injustice. A few years ago, we visited the Imperial War Museum in London. The museum had a holocaust exhibition. Faced with the horror of what happened in the 1940’s, I not only felt sorrow for the victims of Hitler’s “Final Solution”, but also anger at the mindless slaughter of millions of human beings.

You may be shocked to hear me say this, but the Gospels record that Jesus was sometimes provoked to anger. He was angry with the religious establishment’s cold hearted indifference to human suffering. He was so angry at the commercialisation of God’s house, that he turned the money changers out of the temple. Now, Jesus never “lost his rag” out of personal pique. Unlike some of us he wasn’t grumpy or irritable. But Jesus cared too much about human beings to shrug his shoulders and walk away when he saw the vulnerable exploited or oppressed. Anger, then can be a fitting response to wickedness and injustice. Anger in that sense is compassion with teeth.

But, we cannot ignore the dark side of anger. One of the Bible’s many wise proverbs says,

A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control.
(Proverbs 29:11).

We can allow anger and resentment to burn in our hearts. That is what wreaks lives and ruins relationships. There is a far better way, the costly way of forgiveness. This is not easy. But it is not easy for God to offer forgiveness to people who have turned their backs upon him. He offers us forgiveness because Jesus willingly died on the cross for the wrong things we have done. The forgiving God calls those who trust in him to be forgiving people,

Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. (Eph 4:31& 32).

It is far better to forgive than to rage.

You can listen to recordings of this week's Graham Seaman breakfast show here. I'm on about 45 minutes into the programme.

Monday Morning Blues

An edited version of my Morning Thought, for BBC Radio Wiltshire

The silence of your slumbering bedroom is rudely interrupted by your alarm clock. Still dazed by sleep, you opt for the snooze button so you can grab ten more minutes in bed. Before you know it, your trusty clock is at it again. It is Monday morning, work beckons and you find yourself thinking “Why bother?”

Now, some people have very interesting and fulfilling jobs like brain surgeon, radio presenter, or preacher! But many of us have more humdrum work in offices, factories and shops. Some try to find a way off the treadmill with dreams of fame and fortune. They buy lottery tickets, promising themselves that if they win, the first thing they’ll do is jack in their job. My daughter tells me that I should try and get on X-Factor. Suffice to say that I have a brilliant face for radio and you don’t even want to hear me sing! Many who audition for that show tell us that there must be something more to life than what they are doing at present. They want an exciting new career as a pop star.

I’m reminded of some words from a song by The Smiths,

If you must go to work tomorrow,
Then if I were you I wouldn’t bother.
For there are brighter sides to life
And I should know because I’ve seen them,
But not very often.

I can understand how people can reflect on life and think, “Is this all there is, slaving away to earn a crust?” But there can be more to life than this. God made us for himself, that we might live for his glory. Living for the glory of God gives life meaning and purpose. The humblest task then becomes an act of worship and praise. The Christian faith gives us the ultimate answer to Monday morning blues. “Why bother?” Listen to this,

Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. (Colossians 3:23 & 24).

With Jesus, what we do in work echoes in eternity.

You can listen to recordings of this week's Graham Seaman breakfast show here. I'm on about 45 minutes into the programme.