Harvesting the Drama Metaphor for Ethics Part 1

I'm carrying on a series of earlier posts (see here and here) on how we can harvest the drama metaphor (theatrical metaphor) as a means of bridging the three disciplines of biblical theology, systematic theology and ethics. Here in this post, we are exploring how the drama metaphor can be applied to the discipline of ethics.

Samuel Wells has attempted just that in his Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2004). We shall summarise and evaluate his first section, where he sets out the presuppositions of his methodology.

Wells' proposes in the first section of his book (consisting of 4 chapters) that the theatrical notion of improvisation is 'an appropriate mode in which to understand the nature and purpose of Christian ethics' (p.11) He begins first by showing that the discipline of ethics has always 'been subject to the church's understanding of God an it's location in society more generally' (p.11), and he does this in the first chapter by painting broad strokes of how ethics has been practiced in the six historical eras of the early church; Christian empire; decay of empire; Middle Ages; modern, and postmodern times, before concluding that 'in common with the early church this book's approach seeks first to understand ethics specifically for Christians, rather than more generally "for everybody"' (p.30). In another words, 'ethics is theological' i.e. it is about 'imitating God, following Christ, being formed by the Spirit to become friends with God.' (p.31). In fact, Wells goes further to suggest that it is particularly 'ecclesial ethics' that is on view here as a distinctive theological ethic. Ecclesial ethics focuses on the traditions and practices of the church and the character and acts of God, and sees the key location of theology as being in the practices of the church (as opposed to the other primary locations of sacred text, events, or set of doctrines) (p.37). He writes:

"Theological ethics requires the written text, but is not limited to the written word. It assumes interpretation, but can never be just a verbal matter, written or spoken. It inevitably involves the organisation of interpretation and its structuring into doctrine, but this exercise must always be a support to something else, not an end in itself. That something else is the embodiment of the text, the events it describes, its interpretation and systematic construal in the practices and performance of the community. [...] It is what happens when words leave the page, when thoughts leave the mind, when actions ripple through other lives and cause further actions and further thoughts. It is what happens when narrative becomes drama." (p.46)

Wells proceeds to give a brief account of Hans Urs Von Balthasar (p.46-51) and N.T. Wright (p.51-53), two theologians who have given consideration to the notion of theology as drama and the bible's storyline as drama respectively. Wells himself ends up with the concept of a Five-Act Play (he follows the five-acts suggestion of N.T. Wright but differs from Wright in that he collapses Creation and Fall into one Act and includes in the eschaton as Act 5). Wells suggests that the five-act proposal enables the drama from becoming either too "epic" or too "lyric", and hence 'balances the need for a genuinely human dimension to the drama, with the need for a genuinely divine shape' (p.53). He concludes the third chapter by providing a helpful account of the common mistakes one can make in failing to understand the significance of the five-act drama (p.53-57). In the last chapter of this section, Well pushes on to the final step of his presuppositions in his methodology - and that is, 'if the Christian story is drama, then ethics, the embodiment of that story, is appropriately regarded as performance' (p.59). Well succinctly reviews the works of the those who have capitalised on the notion of performance (Lash, Brueggemann, Vanhoozer, Craigo-Snell), before providing some criticisms of the notion of performance - the main one being that the notion of performance is tied too tightly to the Script and hence runs the risk of merely being merely repetitive. As Wells puts it,

"It is not that the text of Scripture is not, or should not ,be fixed. It is that there is a dimension of Christian life that requires more than repetition, more even that interpretation - but not as much as origination, or creation de novo. That dimension, the key to abiding faithfulness, is improvisation." (p.65)

That is the task of Wells in the second section of his book, where he will seek to outline six practices that characterise improvisation in the theater and show how these six practices might characterise Christian ethics also.

While not having completed the book yet, a few quick pointers in terms of an evaluation are in place. While Wells has provided a plausible argument in laying out the presuppositions of his methodology, the presuppositions could be further challenged at each point. For example, firstly, Wells aligns himself with the 'early church' era and states that ethics is primarily for Christians before it is 'for everybody'. While this is largely true, one questions if Wells has underplayed the 'universal' effect of theological ethics. i.e. isn't the five-act play more 'universal' in scope than what Wells has made it out to be in that the whole world is involved in the first and second and final fifth act as well? Afterall, the drama is God's meta-narrative and his comprehensive explanation of reality for all, and not just for Christians. How Christians act and behave in the fourth-act is in turn affected and has some continuity with the first to third act, hence theological ethics has something to offer to the rest of the world as well. Not that Wells does not cover these points, but his presentation could have accounted for this aspect more. Secondly, Wells reliance on the Yale tradition (Frei, Kelsey, Lindbeck) is clearly seen in that the primary location for theology and ethics lies in the practices of the church, hence there is a strong emphasis on the church's performance and improvisation in Act 4 of the drama (and hence also Wells' concerns over the notion of performance being tied too tightly to the Script). This need not be the only and necessary model for the drama metaphor to work. In fact, Vanhoozer's The Drama of Doctrine capitalises on the notion of drama while giving primacy in location of theology to Scripture (or the Script). Thirdly, without having read on more, the notion of improvisation needs to be defined further, otherwise it is left open to a lot of questions, e.g. does it give enough attention to the fact that some aspects of Christian living might be better described under the notion of performance (even if it is repetitive performance) than improvisation, for e.g. obeying Jesus' commands not to divorce? The notion of improvisation might also inevitably become a parking station for justifying either blatantly wrong practices or the 'grey' practices. But in all fairness to Wells, this third comment needs to be further justified itself by reading the rest of his book.

5 Influential Books

I've been tagged by David to provide 5 books that have influenced me. Here's how it goes:

"1. Name the five books (or scholars) that had the most immediate and lasting influence on how you read the Bible. Note that these need not be your five favorite books, or even the five with which you most strongly agree. Instead, I want to know what five books have permanently changed the way you think.
2. Tag five others."


I'm going to tweak things a little. Instead of narrowing to books that have influenced how I read the bible, I'm going to broaden the category to include books that have influenced me in other ways, or books that I have just simply enjoyed reading. Here goes:


1. Romans by Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

Looking back, it was Dr Jone's sermon expositions on the book of Romans (collated into a series of 11 books just covering Romans 1-11!) that really introduced me to the world of expository preaching that sets hearts on fire! They also introduced me to Reformed Doctrine and generated within me the seeds of interest in systematic theology



2. God's Big Picture by Vaughan Roberts.


Personally, I still think this is the simplest and clearest book written to date on Biblical Theology. Only at a 160 pages, it introduced me to the story-line of the bible and the theological motifs associated with it (i.e. biblical theology). Roberts acknowledges his indebtedness to Graeme Goldsworthy and his book is really a restatement of Goldsworthy's ideas - though I have to admit that it is written in a somewhat more readable fashion (A famous evangelist in Sydney once described this book as 'Goldsworthy without tears'!)



3. The Holy Trinity by Robert Letham.

If you have only time to pick up one book on the doctrine of the Trinity, it would have to be this. Letham's treatment of the subject is organised and clear - he begins with the biblical foundations (OT and NT), then looks at the historical development of the doctrine (both Eastern and Western church), then looks at modern discussion on this topic (covering Karl Barth and Moltmann and Pannenberg among others), before ending with the implications of the doctrine (on the 4 areas of the incarnation; worship and prayer; Creation and Missions, and understanding of persons and personhood).



4. The Drama of Doctrine by Kevin Vanhoozer


Read this in my last year in college. This book is really about how we should think about doctrine and a probe into the nature of doctrine. Dr Vanhoozer proposes that the drama metaphor (or the theatrical metaphor) is particularly suitable for describing what doctrine is - Through the Word of God (the Script), God calls us to participate in his (theo)drama. Doctrine provides us with the direction we need for a fitting participation in this drama. What I really like about Dr Vanhoozer's proposal is that it bridges the gap between doctrine as cognitive and intellectual understanding and practice (or praxis). I hope to re-read this book again at some point and write a post on it.



5. The Gagging of God by D.A. Carson


As mentioned in my earlier posts (see here and here), what I appreciated about Carson's book is his ability to draw out the implications of the biblical story-line (by considering key moments in salvation history) for our lives. He shows us the great theological motifs that arise from the bible's story-line and in doing so, provides us a model of how one can do systematic theology keeping the larger biblical theological framework in mind.



A couple more books I could further add on, but that's for another time another place.


As for tagging, you know what? Most of the people on my blog list have already been tagged before! Guess I'm one of the last!

More from Bonhoeffer - A quote and an interesting comment

From The Cost of Discipleship (First Macmillan Paperbacks Edition; New York: Macmillan, 1979), 63:

"Discipleship means adherence to Christ, and, because Christ is the object of that adherence, it must take the form of discipleship. An abstract Christology, a doctrinal system, a general religious knowledge on the subject of grace or on the forgiveness of sins, render discipleship superfluous, and in fact they positively exclude any idea of discipleship whatever, and are essentially inimical to the whole conception of following Christ. With an abstract idea it is possible to enter into a relation of formal knowledge, to become enthusiastic about it, and perhaps even to put it into practice; but it can never be followed in personal obedience. Christianity without the living Christ is inevitably Christianity without discipleship, and Christianity without discipleship is always Christianity without Christ."

A good reminder that the study of Christology must never be divorced from a life of discipleship! Broadening out the application, it's also a good reminder that the study of theology should never be divorced from a life of worship to the one who has first and foremost graciously made that possible!

The second comment concerns a point Bonhoeffer makes in his book, where he discusses Jesus' call to discipleship offered to his disciples. Here, he presses home the importance of grasping the two-fold proposition that only he who believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient believes, though Bonhoeffer's emphasis is on the latter (p.69). He allows that it is necessary to separate faith and obedience from the viewpoint of justification, but even in doing so, their essential unity must never be lost sight of (p.69). Bonhoeffer goes on to say:

"Only the obedient believe. If we are to believe, we must obey a single command. Without this preliminary step of obedience, our faith will only be pious humbug, and lead us to the grace which is not costly. Everything depends on the first step. It has a unique quality of its own. The first step of obedience makes Peter leave his nets, and later get out of the ship; it calls upon the young man to leave his riches. Only this new existence, created through obedience, makes faith possible." (p.70)

We see the importance of the first step in obeying the preliminary call (of Jesus) for Bonhoeffer. What's interesting is what he goes on to say:

"The first step must be regarded to start with as an external work, which effects the change from one existence to another. It is a step within everybody's capacity, for it lies within the limits of human freedom. It is an act within the sphere of the natural law and in that sphere man is free. Although Peter cannot achieve his own conversation, he can leave his nets. In the gospels the very first step a man must take is an act which radically affects his whole existence." (p.70)

It's interesting to see what the above speaks of Bonhoeffer's view of God's sovereignty and human free will. He almost seems to be suggesting (through his description) that the first act is completely an act of libertarian free-will, which will then beg the question what happens if man does not take this first step, are God's salvation purposes for that person thwarted then? Also how does that square with biblical passages like Eph 2:1 and Rom 8:7-8?

But Bonhoeffer is aware of the implications of his statement, and goes on further to counter some of these possible implications, mainly that this first step does not merit us salvation. He states:

"[...] we must add at once that this step is, and can never be more than, a purely external act and a dead work of the law, which can never of itself bring a man to Christ. As an external act the new existence is no better than the old. [...] Of course, the work has to be done, but of itself it can never deliver from death, disobedience and ungodliness. If we think our first step is the pre-condition for faith and grace, we are already judged by our work, and entirely excluded from grace." (p.71)

A good caution there from Bonhoeffer. But still, it doesn't fully answer the earlier question raised. I recognise that Bonhoeffer's trying to urge upon us the urgency and importance of following Christ, but does he risk more by phrasing it in what seems to be libertarian freewill terms?

The Curious (and Sad) Case of Benjamin Button

My wife and I finally had the chance to watch The Curious Case of Benjamin Button on DVD this week (okay... we know it's a little late, but what do you do when you've got two young children and have no opportunity to go to the movies?).

It's an interesting movie, rather slow moving at certain points. But really, in the end the movie should be called The Sad Case of Benjamin Button. What is valued as something precious by many - the elixir of youth - actually turns out be a curse for Benjamin Button. What at first seems attractive and ideal - starting life old and ending it young - actually loses its appeal as we see the effects played out in the life of Benjamin Button. Not only does he face a lonely existence most of the time, he is forced to cut himself off from the woman he loves and the child he has fathered. This was highlighted most clearly in one scene where the late-fifties Benjamin comes back to visit his wife and teenage daughter in their dance studio, except he enters not as one with grey hair and wrinkles on his face, but as a young teenager with the budding glow of youth on his face. It was at that point that I understood why Benjamin had made the choice earlier to leave his family, despite loving them - there was no way he could carry out his role as a father and provide the sense of normality to his family.The other sad scene in the movie is at the end, where he lies as a infant baby in his lover's arms, who by now was probably in her eighties - he's lost his memory, lost his ability to speak, and as you look at Benjamin spend the last few moments of his life as an infant baby - you feel an overwhelming sense of sadness instead of joy.

Which brings home the lesson for me - no use having the elixir of youth when you have it alone, while everyone else around you grows old with the seasons of time. The elixir in such a case becomes a poison, cutting you off from everyone you love and every relationship that matters to you. Which brings home yet another point - what really matters in life in the end is not growing old (or young in this case). What really matters is who you grow old with. It's the relationships that matter - being able to say 'I love you' to the people you love, holding their hands (no matter how wrinkled their hands or yours are!), parenting your children as they grow up - these are the things in life that make life precious, not the elixir of youth, but rather what I call the elixir of life itself.

Reflections of Bonhoeffer on Sermon on the Mount 1

One of my recently completed tasks was to write a series of bible studies for my church on the Sermon on the Mount. That set me thinking about how we should understand the ethics in the Sermon. Upon the recommendation of my friend at Moore (thanks Steve!), who's currently doing a 4th year project on that topic, I've picked up a copy of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Discipleship. Will be posting some reflections of my reading as I plough through the book.

For starters, Bonhoeffer in his first chapter begins with a blasting exposition against 'cheap grace' which has very often replaced the 'costly grace' Scripture advocates for. Here's an excerpt:

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting to-day for costly grace. Cheap
grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjack's wares. [...] Grace without price; grace
without cost! The essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance;
and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing. [...]

Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system. It means forgiveness of sins proclaimed as a general truth, the love of God taught as the Christian "conception" of God. An intellectual assent to that idea is held to be of itself sufficient to secure remission of sins. [...]
In such a Church, the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin. Cheap grace therefore amounts to a denial of the living
Word of God, in fact, a denial of the Incarnation of the Word of God. Cheap grace means the
justification of the sin without the justification of the sinner. [...]

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap
grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.[...]

Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble, it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.

Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock. Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and
it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son [...] and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not
reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.

I like how Bonhoeffer states things. It has actually given me an insight into how we should perhaps understand the Sermon on the Mount - precisely as costly grace. Some writers in understanding the Sermon have emphasised the grace component so strongly that I think they have not done justice to the serious ethical implications of actually living out the Sermon (for e.g. in such interpretations, the Sermon is merely presented as an impossible ideal which drives us to realise our sinfulness and how far we are away from God's righteousness and hence the need for Jesus). Others have swung to the other extreme and so emphasise on living out the requirements of the Kingdom that they run the danger of almost portraying that it is by living this way that we enter the kingdom. I suspect Bonhoeffer's costly grace might give us the right paradigm to begin understanding the Sermon. Obedience to the Sermon is called for; the requirements of the Kingdom are pressed upon our hearts; discipleship and witness is intrinsic to the Sermon - and here is where it is costly. But it is also grace because it is Jesus we are obeying, the one who has first and foremost fulfilled the requirements of the Kingdom and the requirements of his own words! And it is also grace because in giving up our life, we actually find it, or more correctly, we actually find it being given to us. I like how Bonhoeffer states things. It has actually given me an insight into how we should perhaps understand the Sermon on the Mount - precisely as costly grace. Some writers in understanding the Sermon have emphasised the grace component so strongly that I think they have not done justice to the serious ethical implications of actually living out the Sermon (for e.g. in such interpretations, the Sermon is merely presented as an impossible ideal which drives us to realise our sinfulness and how far we are away from God's righteousness and hence the need for Jesus). Others have swung to the other extreme and so emphasise on living out the requirements of the Kingdom that they run the danger of almost portraying that it is by living this way that we enter the kingdom. I suspect Bonhoeffer's costly grace might give us the right paradigm to begin understanding the Sermon. Obedience to the Sermon is called for; the requirements of the Kingdom are pressed upon our hearts; discipleship and witness is intrinsic to the Sermon - and here is where it is costly. But it is also grace because it is Jesus we are obeying, the one who has first and foremost fulfilled the requirements of the Kingdom and the requirements of his own words! And it is also grace because in giving up our life, we actually find it, or more correctly, we actually find it being given to us.

Driscoll on Pornography

Apologies for the recent silence. I was away in church camp for the whole of last week. Coming back, one of the most immediate tasks which I've been up to is to prepare a series of bible studies for the Sermon on the Mount. One of the studies covers Matt 5:27-30, where Jesus reveals the shocking truth that harbouring lust for a woman is equivalent to committing adultery with her. I'm trying to extend the application/implication of this passage into an area troubling most men - pornography and (related to that) masturbation.

And to help me with that, I've discovered on the web Mark Driscoll's little unpublished booklet Porn-Again Christian: A frank discussion on pornography & masturbation (available here). I have to admit to you: this booklet is indeed a FRANK, and may I add no holds barred, discussion on the topic, all given to you Driscoll- style. What I appreciated about this little booklet is not only the theology - which Driscoll derives mainly from the bible, stating the relevant bible passages in his usual matter-of-fact in-your-face style of writing, but yet in the very next sentence shocking you with the implications of the passage in such a way that it's hard for you to forget. But what I also appreciate is that this booklet is very practical, and the practicality comes through a series of Q&A that Driscoll has put up, with the questions being real-life questions that he has encountered through his pastoral counselling sessions. What's valuable is also the last two chapters, with the first one covering James Dobson's interview with serial killer Ted Bundy, hours before he was executed. In that chapter, Bundy reveals the influence of pornography in his life, and how it was formative in leading him down the slippery slope he took. The second chapter consists of Justin Holcomb's article written to military men who may be struggling with the idea of visiting prostitutes while being out there. In it, Justin highlights the very sad predicament of many women trapped in the sex trade, with some moving real life stories. The point is to confront us with the harsh reality - the sex trade works on supply-demand economics. There wouldn't be a supply if there was no demand from us men - either through 'softer' means like pornography, or 'harder' means like the active seeking of prostitutes itself.

All in all, a short but very helpful booklet in helping us think through this (real but very often kept silent) area. A word of warning though - which Driscoll himself gives us - because this booklet is targetted at men, the tone might not be well suited for some women, and hence, it might not be best for them to read this booklet (p.3). Also, some parts may be a bit disturbing, but I guess that's how the point gets through and stays in our heads. But overall, this is definitely a booklet to be read; and not only read, but after that, to be prayed through where we confess to God our failings in this area, and find the forgiveness we so badly need in Jesus; and having done that, to ask for his strength to be led by His Spirit in tune with the new desires He gives us (Rom 8:13-14).

7 Things that I appreciate about John Frame on Open Theism

I've just finished John Frame's No Other God: A Response To Open Theism (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2001). Here's 7 things that I appreciate about it:

1) Frame gives a clear outline of what Open Theists are arguing for, in contrast with what classical traditional theism teaches (p.22-23):

Traditional Theism:

a. emphasises God's sovereignty, majesty, and glory

b. God's will is the final explanation of everything

c. His will is irresistible

d. He is caring and benevolent, but he is glorified equally in the destruction of the everything.

e. He is supratemporal

f. He knows everything in the past, present, and future.

g. He is essentially unaffected by human events and experiences.

Open Theism:

a. Love is God's most important quality

b. Love is not only care and commitment, but also being sensitive and responsive

c. Creatures exert an influence on God

d. God's will is not the ultimate explanation of everything. History is the combined result of what God and his creatures decide to do.

e. God does not know everything timelessly, but learns from events as they take place.

f. So God is dependent on the world in some ways

g. Human beings are free in the libertarian sense

2) While some proponents of Open Theism portray it as something new and as a contemporary option for a "new model" of the doctrine of God (e.g. John Sanders, Clark Pinnock), Frame shows us Open Theism is actually rooted in the classical doctrinal error of Socinianism (from Lelio Socinus (1525-62) and Fausto Socinus (1539-1604)), who denied not only that God foreordains events, but that he also has foreknowledge of these events.

3) Frame reminds us that while love is an important attribute of God, it is another thing to make love the single central attribute of God, like what the Open Theists have done. In fact, the kind of love they want to see in God is one of "vulnerability". Frame instead argues that the essential attributes of God are "perspectival" (his goodness, his wisdom, his eternity, his love, his lordship) - each of them describes everything that God is, from a different perspective. He states, "In one sense, any attribute may be taken as central, and the others seen in relation to it. But in that sense, the doctrine of God has many centres, not just one." (p.52).

4) While armed with a strong systematic theological and philosophical background, Frame nonetheless begins and anchors his arguments in exegesis of Scripture passages. This is seen for example in his impressive listing and exegesis of Scriptural passages where he argues for God's will as the ultimate explanation over everything incl. the natural world; human history; individual human lives; human decisions; (even) sins (in terms of God's foreordination of it); and faith and salvation (chapter 5). He even highlights the exegesis of the Open Theists, outlining their presupposition in the passages which they exegete, and their silence in those key passages which they have left out.

5) Where key decisions regarding presuppositions and definitions have to be made (especially when considering the accusations Open Theists throw at us), one appreciates Frame's robust defence of classical reformed theology or philosophical concepts that support the reformed theological framework. For example:

• Addressing the question raised by Open Theists that God's will seems to be able to be "thwarted" at times, Frame helpfully distinguishes between Reformed Theology's distinction of God's decretive will and his preceptive will, where God's decretive will is his eternal purpose by which he foreordains everything that comes to pass, while his preceptive will is his valuations, as revealed to us in His Word. God's decretive will cannot be successfully opposed, while it is possible for creatures to disobey God's preceptive will - as we often do. Another simpler way of putting it, "God does not intend to bring about everything he values, but he never fails to bring about what he intends." (p.113)


• In rejecting libertarian freedom (a major presupposition for Open Theists where true freedom is devoid of influences of anything or anyone), Frame instead proposes compatibilist freedom (p.131-132), a freedom that takes into account how our actions arise from the deepest desires of our hearts. Such freedom is compatible with determinism which is the view that every event has a sufficient cause other than itself. Compatibilist freedom means that even if every act we perform is caused by something outside ourselves, we are still free, for we can still act according to our character and desires. What is insightful is Frame's analysis of how libertarian freedom ultimately destroys moral responsibility (p.126), while compatibilist freedom provides a genuine condition for moral responsibility.

One must not think that Frame simply jumps to his philosophical framework immediately in order to defend his Reformed theological framework, but instead he supports his philosophical suggestions from Scripture as much as he can. And at all times, Scripture guides his philosophical framework, rather than vice-versa. This is seen especially in his honest treatment of the question of evil. Rather than try to provide a robust philosophical defence against the Open Theists' argument that libertarian freedom provides a logical and 'tighter' answer to the problem of evil (i.e. God took a 'risk' with evil in granting humankind libertarian freedom), Frame acknowledges Scripture does not lead us down a path towards a water-tight logical answer to the problem of evil, but instead leaves it as an ultimate mystery, focusing instead on the hope of its elimination in the consumation.

6) While relying on a strong reformed framework of traditional theism, Frame is no blind slave to it either. Instead, guided by the voice of Scripture, Frame 'modifies' traditional theism where necessary. This is seen clearly in Frame's treatment of:

• the question of whether God is in time? Based on Scripture, Frame argues that because God is both transcendent and immanent, God is both the Lord in time and the Lord above time. Because God's redemptive actions in Scripture are temporally successive (worked out in salvation history), it not only testifies to his sovereignty, but also to the importance of temporal relationships in the divinely ordained course of history. God is both 'inside and outside of the temporal box - a box that can neither confine him nor keep him out. That is the model that does the most justice to the biblical data (p.159)'


• the question of whether God changes? Once again, in a similar approach to above, Frame affirms that God is unchanging in his essential attributes; in his decretive will; in his covenantal faithfulness, and in the truth of his revelation. However, because God exists both above and within time, God is unchangeable in his atemporal or supratemporal existence, but 'when he is present in our world of time, he looks at his creatures from within and shares the perspective of his creatures' (p.176). In this sense, I think Frame's proposal offers the best explanation to those passages in Scripture where God relents. God's 'relenting' (seen from the perspective within time) is the means by which his decretive will is carried out (seen from the perspective outside of time). Frame's analogy is interesting: "History is like a novel written by God. In a great novel, the author brings about everything that happens, but events can also be explained within the world that the author creates. God's historical novel is a logical, temporal sequence, in which one event arises naturally out of the one before. When God himself becomes an actor in the drama, he acts in accordance with that sequence." (p.178)


• the question of whether God Suffers? Frame suggests that God has feelings and emotions, and in this sense he objects to portrayals of classical theism which portray God's impassibility as him being devoid of emotions of feelings. But God's emotions and feelings do not cause him to suffer injury or loss, unlike us. Frame also suggests that because the person of Jesus suffered on the cross (and what suffered was not the human "nature" but the person of Jesus), and because the persons of the Godhead are in perichoretic relationship, you could say God suffered as well, though not having the same exact experiences of suffering and death that the Son has.

7) Frame's last chapter in the book where he shows how Open Theism (while being located under the Doctrine of God), inevitably affects all other doctrines like biblical inspiration, sin, redemption, Assurance, Heaven and Hell and Guidance. He also provides an honest sharing of how Open Theism has helped him see that there is more "give-and-take" between God and his creatures than traditional theology has generally acknowledged, but cautions against what Open Theism has destroyed - divine sovereignty and human responsibility before God. His conclusion is worth remembering:

"A gospel of grace is a gospel of divine sovereignty. That message may be distasteful to modern people, but it is the word of God, and without it we have no hope. Free will leaves us in despair. Only sovereign grace can bring salvation, faith, and hope" (p.212)