RSSPlayful or Serious?
I have already mentioned that I wonder about FV institutionally or formally. Now I’ll raise the question of tone. Sometimes it doesn’t seem that I can take FV really seriously. Two examples will have to suffice. James Jordan, the pater familia of FV, wants to sing the service but he has no problem admitting to be one of Frame’s creative children. I know Frame has discussed song in worship, but I don’t think he had in mind chanting.
Then there is Peter’s musings about regeneration and apostasy. He says he wants to be pastoral. But raising questions about eternal security as his understanding of Saul’s new heart does, I’m not sure how that is very pastoral. Instead it seems more like an academic effort to make ST look more like the Bible. Academic exercises are fine. But if they lead embodied souls astray then they are just that — exercises.
So could someone please advise me on how seriously I’m supposed to take FV?
JMeyers
September 27th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Why can’t you take Jordan’s call to sing the Psalms as they were written seriously. Apart from the unfortunate connotations associated with the word “chant,” surely there’s an element of artificiality in the metrical Psalmody that could be corrected. The value of singing the very words of the Psalms and not some versified paraphrase is analogous to preferring a translation like the English Standard Version over The Good News Bible for use in worship. What difference does it make whether John Frame had this in mind in his book on worship music?
Peter is not merely “musing” about regeneration and apostasy; he is trying to faithfully exegete Scripture. It’s always pastoral to deal with difficult passages of Scripture. They are there for a reason. But then too, there’s a place for musing about passages with other pastors. It’s an iron-sharpening-iron exercise, as they say. I’ve often floated ideas or questions about various passages to fellow pastors or professors in order to see if they have any insight on a particular passage that I may have missed. Rather than question the “tone” of Peter’s thoughts on Saul’s new heart or dismiss his ideas because of their possible pastoral implications why not engage his analysis of the text and show him and us where you think his exegesis is weak or mistaken?
James Jordan
September 27th, 2007 at 9:06 am
I don’t think YOU are supposed to take FV seriously at all. FV is a conversation among exegetes, theologians, and pastors. If you want to be part of the conversation, you’d be welcome, but only sans the whif of sarcasm that, intentional or not, is coming through your posts here.
JMuether
September 27th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Jeff, The relevance of John Frame lies here: Jordan whole-heartedly embraces Frame’s creativity with respect to the Reformed tradition. But Frame employs that creativity in defense of contemporary worship which Jordan claims he opposed for 25+ years. Can you appreciate the difficulty of taking that claim seriously.
James Jordan
September 27th, 2007 at 11:50 am
I can’t appreciate it. Both John and I are setting out what we believe the Bible says. He’s wrong and I’m right, as it happens.
J. Pirschel
September 27th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
John,
Where are the limits to the “no” creativity clause? I remember well your quote from Hodge on the library office door about not doing any “new” theology. Yet, Kline was very “creative”. I mean the man used more hyphens than a feminist’s last name. Yet there seems to be nothing but appreciation for “that” kind of creativity. I would imagine it’s because you and others believe his creativity was “within” the bounds of the tradition and didn’t do damage to anything substantial. Others, of course, would disagree (did the Confession really envision Framework?).
That is why I asked yesterday (though it was never posted) how Darryl’s (and your) view of traditionalism makes peace with “animus imponentis” (since no assembly voted on such things, who gets to decide what the animus of the church officially is?)
D Hart
September 30th, 2007 at 7:54 am
I strikes me that animus imponentis is much more clearly a part of the sort of thing I am describing as a tradition than a Bible study is. Granted, it is not easily defineable. It requires wisdom and intuition.
And yes, I think Kline’s creativity is good and FV’s is not so good. Part of this determination rests on a sense of allegiance to a tradition.
JMuether
September 30th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Jesse,
The point of Charles Hodge’s widely misunderstood and often lampooned comment on the lack of anything “new” during his 50-year watch at Princeton was not to condemn creativity. How could it when Hodge himself was one of the most creative minds of the 19th century? Rather, Hodge understood that freedom and creativity are not products of our liberation from confessionalism (as Frame argued in the quote Darryl cited and and Meyers bellowed on another post). Rather we should seek to be creative within the tradition, and this is what Kline has done, in my judgment. Animus Imponentis is, as Darryl acknowledged, a difficult matter to determine. But OPC GA’s reception of the study report on creation in 2004 was, among other things, an animus-furthering action. Thus Kline’s views on creation find themselves within the confessional tradition. This to me is the incredibly liberating feature of confessionalism. It allows for theological reflection that is truly creative and even “playful” in the proper sense.
James Jordan
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:03 am
But that’s your opinion. Mine is that Kline is almost totally outside the Reformed tradition, and Rushdoony is totally within it.
D Hart
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
James, but yours is the opinion of one man. John’s is the opinion of a sect (your word). A sect at least is bigger than one man or a conversation. Scissors beat paper.
James Jordan
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Well, but my opinion is shared by the entire southern hemisphere, which is the church of the future and is thoroughly “theonomic.”
They don’t have the luxury of “common grace” since people are trying to murder their wives and kids. They have to get serious about Jesus’ Kingship, and His Kingship is very definitely gospel to them, as it was to Peter in Acts 2.
JMuether
October 2nd, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Wait. The entire southern hemisphere has heard of Meredith Kline? Who knew?