John Frame on Christians and Entertainment

Some food for thought on this New Year's Eve:

Some Christians may wonder how a fellow believer can give any support to the film industry, notorious as it is for anti-Christian bias and moral relativism. I would note that there is also a view on the opposite extreme: some Christian critics of culture insist that all Christians have a responsibility to become culturally aware, to become knowledgeable about cultural trends in art, music, literature, film, drama and so on.

I reject both of these extremes. A more balanced position, I think, is to recognize that Scripture tells us to be "in" the world, but not "of" the world. That means that we not only may, but must, be willing to live amid secular (anti-Christian) influence without ourselves compromising the faith. In this respect, it doesn't matter whether that secular influence comes from film, or from involvement in business, labor, neighborhood, politics, or whatever. Nor, within the general realm of media entertainment, does it matter whether we are talking about Beethoven or modern rock, Jane Austen or William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway or Jackie Collins, news or business magazines, TV or film, Disney films or films by Martin Scorsese. To avoid non-Christian influence altogether, we would have to live as hermits (assuming that we could even find some place in the world beyond the reach of modern communications and government). In all modern experience there is a heavy component of anti-Biblical teaching and influence. But complete isolation is not an option for biblical Christians. Even the Christian hermits of the ancient and medieval periods justified their existence as a life of prayer, and thus a life that was spent in and for the world. How can we pray for a world we know nothing about? We must not seek to isolate ourselves from the world, but rather to be salt and light in our fallen culture, to carry out our Lord's Great Commission.

That balance of being in but not of the world is sometimes difficult to maintain. One's choices in this area should be based in part upon his or her own moral and spiritual maturity. Some people, especially children, or those young in the faith, or those with special problems like alcohol addiction or unusual susceptibility to sexual temptation, should limit their exposure to secular culture in appropriate ways. But at the same time they should be trained in Christian maturity, so that eventually they can enter more fully the secular arena, not fearing that they will be compromised by the culture, but expecting to influence the culture positively for Christ.

Ra McLaughlin also notes John Frame's distinction between "hearing" and "hearkening":

John Frame offers a helpful distinction between “hearing” and “hearkening” that we can apply to lyrics and other aspects of music that influence us. Specifically, it is not wrong to listen to sinful ideas (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9-10), but it is wrong to adopt, follow or obey them (1 Cor. 15:33). If listening to the music tends to cause one to sin, then one ought not to listen to the music.

It is also worth noting that music tends to influence us in emotional ways that we cannot necessarily describe or analyze satisfactorily. Some music makes us angry, some arouses our libido, some makes us tired, some fills us with energy, etc. All of these influences can be used for good or for evil. But not everyone is moved in the same way by any given piece of music, and not everyone “hearkens” to what he “hears.” Whatever the feelings we get from music, we must use those feelings for good and not for evil. If we cannot avoid using them for evil, then we ought not to listen to the music that inspires them.

Boom Goes the Dynamite

It's good to take a break from all serious posts once in a while. So, check out what is quite possibly one of the funniest things you'll see in your life...

Thanks to Between Two Worlds for the tip!

On Francis Schaeffer and Presuppositionalism

Over twenty years after his passing, Francis Schaeffer's impact on the evangelical world can be clearly seen. His ministry to the troubled youth of the 1960's - characterized by a reliance on prayer and the working of the Holy Spirit - is a model for many ministries today. His books, from the trilogy of The God Who is There, Escape from Reason, and He is There and He is Not Silent, to works like True Spirituality, are still widely read. And his many students, ranging from Os Guiness to Nancy Pearcey, remain very visible in the evangelical community. Yet many Reformed scholars over the years have questioned his apologetical approach, and Schaeffer's style of apologetics and evangelism is one Bryan A. Follis seeks to clarify in his new book, Truth with Love: the Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer.

Being a student of Cornelius Van Til at Westminster Theological Seminary, it is important to note that there is much "common ground" between Schaeffer and advocates of presuppositional apologetics that is often overlooked. One of Schaeffer's favorite methods in dealing with non-Christians is "taking the roof off" -- putting oneself in the position of the non-Christian for argument's sake to show them the logical conclusions of their worldview, as Proverbs 26:5 says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."

And though many accuse Schaeffer of being a "rationalist," his reliance on prayer and the Holy Spirit to see lost people come to L'Abri and, ultimately, to Christ, is undeniable. In The God Who is There, Schaeffer answers the question "Where does the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit fit [in apologetics]?" by saying that no one will "believe without a work of the Holy Spirit." Thus though many apologists today seem to place such primacy on the human intellect, Schaeffer says that without the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, no one will come to Christ - something any presuppositionalist will be quick to agree with.

However, it is clear that Schaeffer saw some downsides to the presuppositional method of apologetics. Many presuppositionalists seem to follow a very rigid approach in dealing with non-Christians, and at times seem to be arguing a philosophical point just for the sake of it. However, Schaeffer believed that "each man must be dealt with as an individual, not as a case or statistic or machine," and therefore he believed that no one apologetic fits the needs of all people.

Schaeffer also saw presuppositionalists as seemingly committing some of the same crimes as the existentialists. As anyone familiar with his writings will know, Schaeffer talks often about Kierkegaard's proposed "leap of faith" to non-reason which existentialists make because they see the hopelessness of their own worldviews and thus make a nonrational leap of faith in something else - whether drugs, music or religion. Presuppositionalists' insistence that nonbelievers believe in Christian claims without any rational judgment of their own certainly seems like a "leap of faith." Of course, presuppositionalists will say this is not what is being done - instead of the nonbeliever putting faith in Christ himself, the Holy Spirit works faith in the nonbelievers' heart so that he or she may become a Christian - but to the outside observer, Schaeffer says, it certainly seems like nonbelievers are being asked to take their own leap of faith to Christianity.

Follis notes, "In contrast [to presuppositionalists], Schaeffer believed in the importance of rational discussion not only for explaining the Christian faith to others, but also for helping to ensure that the faith they express - if they come to belief - is real. Schaeffer maintained that since Christian faith is turned outward - to the person and the work of Jesus Christ - it is a faith that 'rests on content. It is not a vague thing which takes the place of real understanding, nor is it the strength of belief which is of value.'"

How can Schaeffer reconcile his belief that rational discussion is necessary with the Bible's claims that man actually knows there is a God, but suppresses this truth by his unrighteousness, and therefore, as presuppositionalists say, man's real need is to abandon his autonomy and submit himself to the Scriptures? Schaeffer believed that the Holy Spirit works in the nonbelievers' heart as he engages in rational discussion. As Follis says, "He did not believe that you established by rational argument that Christianity is true, and then (and only then) did the Holy Spirit take over to lead you into faith. For Schaeffer there was 'a constant interchange of faith and reason all the time.' It was never either/or; rationality and the Holy Spirit always interacted." Schaeffer's belief in rational discussion along with the work of the Holy Spirit, Follis argues, puts him in a league of other Reformed theologians, from Jonathan Edwards to John Calvin (presuppositionalism did not really develop until the 1900's with the writings of Abraham Kuyper and Cornelius Van Til).

Nevertheless, whatever one's beliefs about apologetics, it must again be emphasized that Schaeffer put ultimate hope in an individual's salvation on the Holy Spirit, and that Schaeffer was no evidentialist, as the book goes on to discuss. In the end, Schaeffer's primary concern was not academic apologetics but evangelism - the task of speaking the truth with love, as the title of Follis' book suggests. And this is actually the heart of Follis' book -- Schaeffer had great compassion for the many youth that came through L'Abri and believed apologetics was futile if its end goal was not the unbeliever submitting himself to the Lordship of Christ.

Having said all these things, should you buy the book? If you are an admirer of Schaeffer, have ever wondered about Schaeffer's opinions on apologetics, or are interested in academic debates about apologetics, then you should certainly read this book. Though the book sometimes lacks focus, jumping from one author's criticism of Schaeffer to the next, overall Follis presents a very interesting and informative portrait of one of the twentieth century's most fascinating evangelists. But otherwise, you probably won't get much from this book. The book's targeted audience is obviously very specific (so specific that I have never seen it any bookstores -- I had to buy it online), and it is at a high reading level (it was originally a doctoral dissertation but has now been expanded and revised for book format). But, the rule of thumb here is that if you are interested by what you read in this review, you will probably enjoy the book.

A Primer to Presuppositionalism

A few days ago I posted a primer to presuppositionalism over at allofgrace's SB Discussion Forum. Much of the material comes from Richard L. Pratt's Every Thought Captive, which I highly recommend for any further reading on the subject.

Revelation and Prophecy

I recently read Dr. Richard L. Pratt's paper, "Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions." Pratt, the former Professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary and currently the head of Third Millenium Ministries, suggests that the book of Revelation ought to be read in light of our understanding of Old Testament prophecies. Currently, most evangelicals treat the book of Revelation with an approach of wooden literalism, and try to read current events into the Bible. Even Reformed scholars generally have believed that though much of Revelation is symbolic, it is a book of things that will certainly happen in the future, with a belief that prophecies which do not come true are false prophecies.

However, an honest look at the Old Testament shows that many of the prophecies did not come true. Instead, they prophesy what MIGHT happen if people act a certain way. Few of the Old Testament prophecies were absolute decrees, and even these did not put in detail the timing or the manner of their realization. Thus, what if Revelation simply tells of what might happen if the seven churches in Asia did not heed God's warnings to them? The paper presents some interesting ideas and is worth a read.

Abandon All Hope, All Ye Who Enter

Here's my 500th shot at creating a blog that will last more than a couple weeks. I think this could happen, though.