Riffs: 06:15:09: Dr. Peter Masters Rips The New Calvinism
June 15, 2009 by iMonk
Read: The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness by Peter Masters.
The current reformed and Calvinist revival loves Spurgeon, as well they should. It’s a regular feature of the most influential new-Calvinism web sites and ministries to quote Spurgeon for and against whatever the issue of the week happens to be. Spurgeon’s face is as much a brand logo of the new Calvinism as you will find.
Spurgeon’s church, The Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, is still in business, and that church has a prominent pastor, Dr. Peter Masters, who has a very influential voice for Calvinism across the pond. Dr. Masters isn’t a major voice in America, but many of the Calvinists you like, especially of the Macarthur variety, have been to the Tabernacle and preached at Dr. Master’s conferences.
His newsletter is still The Sword and Trowel, an obvious indicator that it remains the voice of Spurgeon’s kind of Christianity. It is not an exaggeration to say that Dr. Peter Masters sees himself as a successor to Spurgeon’s brand of particular Baptist Calvinism, and he writes and preaches with this responsibility frequently in view. Be careful. I am not saying Dr. Masters claims any of the authority of Spurgeon, but he does not run from representing his views on Biblical Calvinism as in line with the Calvinism and overall theology of Spurgeon.
So, if you will, please take a cold drink, follow the link to Dr. Master’s column on the current condition of American Calvinism, and when you’re done, return to this web site for a few observations.
In short, Dr. Masters calls out the new Calvinists, from A-Z, for compromise and abandonment of true, Biblical Calvinism. It’s the biggest throwdown within the current Calvinistic family I’ve ever read, and I’m stunned that no one- particularly at Challies, Between Two Worlds or Teampyro- has picked this one up. If I’ve missed it, my sincere apologies.
Who gets tagged as a compromiser? Sheesh. Who doesn’t get tagged?
Called out are……everybody. Driscoll. Piper. Mohler. People associated with Macarthur. Mahaney. T4G. Resolved.
Here’s the meat of the piece. (The “book” he references is Colin Hanson’s Young, Restless and Reformed.)
Resolved is the brainchild of a member of Dr John MacArthur’s pastoral staff, gathering thousands of young people annually, and featuring the usual mix of Calvinism and extreme charismatic-style worship. Young people are encouraged to feel the very same sensational nervous impact of loud rhythmic music on the body that they would experience in a large, worldly pop concert, complete with replicated lighting and atmosphere. At the same time they reflect on predestination and election. Worldly culture provides the bodily, emotional feelings, into which Christian thoughts are infused and floated. Biblical sentiments are harnessed to carnal entertainment. (Pictures of this conference on their website betray the totally worldly, show business atmosphere created by the organisers.)In times of disobedience the Jews of old syncretized by going to the Temple or the synagogue on the sabbath, and to idol temples on weekdays, but the new Calvinism has found a way of uniting spiritually incompatible things at the same time, in the same meeting.
C J Mahaney is a preacher highly applauded in this book. Charismatic in belief and practice, he appears to be wholly accepted by the other big names who feature at the ‘new Calvinist’ conferences, such as John Piper, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, and Al Mohler. Evidently an extremely personable, friendly man, C J Mahaney is the founder of a group of churches blending Calvinism with charismatic ideas, and is reputed to have influenced many Calvinists to throw aside cessationist views.
It was a protégé of this preacher named Joshua Harris who started the New Attitude conference for young people. We learn that when a secular rapper named Curtis Allen was converted, his new-born Christian instinct led him to give up his past life and his singing style. But Pastor Joshua Harris evidently persuaded him not to, so that he could sing for the Lord. New Calvinists do not hesitate to override the instinctual Christian conscience, counselling people to become friends of the world.
One of the mega-churches admired in the book is the six-thousand strong Mars Hill Church at Seattle, founded and pastored by Mark Driscoll, who blends emerging church ideas (that Christians should utilise worldly culture) with Calvinistic theology.
This preacher is also much admired by some reformed men in the UK, but his church has been described (by a sympathiser) as having the most ear-splitting music of any, and he has been rebuked by other preachers for the use of very ‘edgy’ language and gravely improper humour (even on television). He is to be seen in videos preaching in a Jesus teeshirt, symbolising the new compromise with culture, while at the same time propounding Calvinistic teaching. So much for the embracing of Puritan doctrine divested of Puritan lifestyle and worship….
A final sad spectacle reported with enthusiasm in the book is the Together for the Gospel conference, running from 2006. A more adult affair convened by respected Calvinists, this nevertheless brings together cessationists and non-cessationists, traditional and contemporary worship exponents, and while maintaining sound preaching, it conditions all who attend to relax on these controversial matters, and learn to accept every point of view. In other words, the ministry of warning is killed off, so that every error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked. These are tragic days for authentic spiritual faithfulness, worship and piety.
If Masters were in the states, we’d say he’s selling fundamentalism. The call for separationism from anything not independent Baptist and fundamental; the insistence on excluding contemporary music and anything remotely Charismatic; the concern that anyone following the Puritans be…..Puritan in style and message. All of this is recognizable as fundamentalism.
Masters is upfront with his issues: Puritan theology divested of Puritan “lifestyle.” No compromise with the world means putting a host of issues, like dress and charismatic worship, into the category of essential matters.
Does the critque of someone like Peter Masters matter to American Calvinists? Probably not very much to the Young, Restless and Reformed who are listening to Piper at Resolved right now as I am typing. But Masters is raising the issue of the shape of true reformation, an issue that the eclectic, cafeteria-style new Calvinists would like to avoid.
It’s not just the issues that separate mainstream Calvinists from people in a bunker in Wyoming. It’s the issues that separate the OPC and the PCA; the issues that differentiates Mark Driscoll from Mark Dever; the issues that cause John Macarthur and John Piper to have such radically different views of Mark Driscoll.
Masters wants to be representing the “old line” of English Calvinism that culminated in Spurgeon and led to a resurgence of Calvinism in Britain under Lloyd-Jones and Banner of Truth. Instead, he comes off advocating a kind of “Calvinistic bunker;” trying to avoid any contact between the Christian and the culture.
In his day, Spurgeon had a great deal in common with Mark Driscoll. His popularity was of the superstar variety. His language was often described as “racy,” with no implication of profanity, but with a good deal of shock on the part of the religious establishment. Spurgeon’s preaching style took him out of the church and into public venues, where he became one of the few preachers to ever have someone in his audience trampled to death by a panicked crowd. Hyper-Calvinists and traditionalists found Spurgeon to be a dangerous innovator. Spurgeon might have identified more with Masters than with Driscoll, but the younger Spurgeon would have understood Driscoll.
In the future, don’t be surprised if a significant number of the young reformed follow the interpretations and style of men like Peter Masters back into the ghetto reformed theology sometimes seems to prefer, and don’t be surprised if some of today’s reformed heroes lose some of their luster in these kinds of contentions.
Reformed Christianity’s uneasy relationship with fundamentalism has been going on for a long time. At times, the reformed and their fundamentalist cousins are on the same page, but other times they couldn’t be more different. One doesn’t have to look far to find major league reformed blogs that flirt with fundamentalism one moment, then repudiate fundamentalism the next. Is it possible to detect a bit of frustration on Masters’ part toward men who he has judged as “with him” at one time, but who now seem far too tolerant of the other team.
The association of some Calvinists with fundamentalist ideas about culture and separation is nothing new, but a call-out from someone as prominent as Peter Masters is. It will be interesting to see if any of the leaders of the “new Calvinism” respond to Masters’ case.
For myself, I appreciate Dr. Masters’ zeal for a Christian community that reflects the totality of his own theological commitments. This is one of the great strengths of fundamentalism. Unfortunately, this community is not Jesus-shaped, but shaped into the image of a history of pure reformed practice. Once again, we see the tortured quest for the true church, this time identified as those who have renounced teeshirts and loud worship bands.
Those who fall into the center or the boundaries of the “truly reformed” are nervous that others are engaging culture with Christ and the Gospel rather than with the ideal of a pure, separated reformation. When Christ engages culture, there is a separation- a separation of what is essential to the Gospel from what may be engaged, appreciated and used within culture. There is a quest to put the Kingdom above any form of the church in culture and history, a quest that is never completed, but which is seen in the kinds of ecumenical Calvinism many have come to appreciate.
The question of faithfulness to the Gospel, scripture and the example of a faithful church is always relevant and needed. But not every answer is equally faithful to Jesus himself. Would Jesus stand apart from Christians with bands, tee shirts and Charismatic friends, and stand with those who confess the Puritans as model Christians? I do not think so. They would not matter as much to him as they do to some advocates of relevancy, and they would not offend him like they do Dr. Masters.
A Jesus shaped spirituality has to make these choices and live with the results. Following Jesus doesn’t take us into the bunker or make us so much like the world Christ cannot be seen. But our distinctiveness isn’t “the Puritan Lifestyle.” It’s the Gospel and the Christ-centered life it produces.
Love Spurgeon, but I’m not a Calvinist. Just doesn’t seem like a fair assessment. New Calvinists don’t seem anything comparable to the forces Sprugeon confronted during the downgrade controversey. These are crazy times.
I guess we Lutherans have similar fusses going on right now.
I visited the Metropolitan Tabernacle when I was in London last year and I heard Masters preach. I must say, I preferred what I guess would be considered a “new-calvinist” church that I attended the rest of the time I was in the UK.
The people I spoke with at the Tabernacle were very kind, but visited the church seemed a bit surreal. It’s not located in the best area of town, and it seemed to me like everyone that came had commuted to get there. All the church ladies within the church contrasted with the street vendors across the street.
Master’s sermon explore a few verses in scripture, he picked up going through the text from where he left off the week before. I have learned more about the Bible listening to Dever, Mahaney, etc. and much more application of how to truly live in this world without being of it.
In a city that needs to hear the gospel so much, I find it funny that Masters worries about American churches using nontraditional music and a pastor in Washington state who wears t-shirts.
I couldn’t have written such a gracious review, Michael; I’m too young, restless, and Reformed (though I’m sure we could argue whether I’m actually Reformed or not).
I understand the desire sometimes to separate oneself from the world completely because that would seem to make fleeing temptation so much easier, but as a good Reformed-ish-whatever-I’m-called, I know that I’d find a way to succumb to temptation anyway.
I also know that Jesus didn’t get called a friend of sinners by setting up a Puritan village. I don’t expect Calvin, Edwards, or Charnock would care much for my loud music, but neither do my grandparents.
Scold me if I’m shooting my mouth off, but it sounds to me like this guy is wishing it was the 1800s all over again.
Masters has been around a long time. My wife of 30 years took her brothers to the Met Tab for Sunday School when he was there! We then attended the charismatic Anglican church down the road. I’m afraid that even then he was no Spurgeon, showing little grace to those who did not hold to his views. Sorry if this is critical, but it’s the way it is. The Met Tab is a parody of what it was in the past.
Martha said, “Admit it – wouldn’t you love to send this man to a megachurch on any Sunday and then read the resulting article?”
That WOULD be an interesting read, Martha.
I think I need to read up on what people mean when they say they are “Reformed.” Growing up Catholic, if someone was Christian but not a Catholic, we called them Protestants. But I saw here where someone who is a Pentacostal said they are not Reformed, so Reformed can’t just mean Protestant. Maybe Protestant is a term that is no longer in favor?? Someone here who knows can answer me and I will look around the internet too. Thanks.
OK, I did a search on what “Reformed” means and tell me if you think this page captures the meaning well. From:
http://www.crcna.org/pages/reformation.cfm
“How did Calvin get along with other church leaders of his day?
Opposing Roman Catholic teachings of the time, he agreed with the other Reformers that Salvation is by grace alone through faith, and not by our own good works.
The Bible alone is the authoritative Word of God for our lives—not church tradition or what church leaders say.
All believers are priests of God, anointed in Christ to serve him always, everywhere, in all they do.
God gave us two sacraments, baptism and communion, which are signs and seals of God’s promises.
A clergy’s blessing of the communion bread and wine do not really turn them into the actual body and blood of Christ.
The original sinful condition in which we are born as well as our actual sins are all fully washed away by Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross.
Prayer should be directed to God alone, not to saints or to Mary. In fact, all believers are both sinners needing God’s constant forgiveness and saints whom the Holy Spirit is already remaking to be like Jesus.”
Once again, we see the tortured quest for the true church, this time identified as those who have renounced teeshirts and loud worship bands.
I’m 53 and not that fond of ear splitting worship music, but this sentence speaks loudly to me. I smell “one-true-church-ism” and I’m looking for the Glade..
true compromise is worth talking about, but this ??? we can do better
GREG R
The amusing side to this is that there are a bunch of traditional reformed types on your side of the pond who would have the same critique of Mark Driscoll.
And yet Peter Masters would fail their “If X turned up as St Peter’s Geneva would he be allowed to be a member” test, as the Metropolitan Tabernacle rebaptises.
When I was in London Recently I visited Spurgeon’s College and there I got the impression that Dr Peter Masters was considered rather extreme and that Metropolitan Tabernacle almost was a sect, very isolated from other churches at least in London.
Martha and greg r for the win!
Shinto’s more fun.
iMonk – Have you read the series by Bob Robinson at Vanguard Church about the young Calvinists? He argued that there’s really two groups. First, there are the neo-Puritans who tend to draw from the English Puritan tradition and are primarily concerned with the sovereignty of God over human salvation. Then he said there are the neo-Calvinists (in the historical sense of the term) who tend to draw mostly from the Dutch Reformed tradition and are concerned with the sovereignty of God over creation. Personally, I found it helpful and I’m surprised it hasn’t been getting more love in the blogosphere.
“In times of disobedience the Jews of old syncretised by going to the Temple or the synagogue on the sabbath, and to idol temples on weekdays.”
Evidence please. Nice little anti-Semitic, supercesssionist lob. I almost stopped reading at this point.
Back to the topic. I’m really at a loss as to why anyone would want to hold up Puritans as some sort of model of grace. Are these same people proposing that we return to hanging Quakers in Boston Commons? (See “Boston Martyrs” in Wikipedia if interested.)
My simple observation is that Calvinism’s understanding(s) of election seems to crank out a host of self-assured, smug Christians. This in turn gives secularists who argue that religion is just a tool to help people feel that they are better than the guy across the street a lot of ammunition. And I’m sure a lot of these modern-day Puritans would like to hang me as well.
Joachim: Spurgeon’s college is fairly liberal and bears no comparison to the Pastors College that he founded many years before. It was the disastrous pastorate of the american AC Dixon which detatched the Tabernacle from its many ministries, like the College, and the Orphanage.
Jon Bartlett: A parody, eh? Based on your extensive knowledge of the life and work of the church? Thought not.
For the benefit of those who doubt, this church might not be in ‘the best part of town’ but that is where the action is at. Folks are being saved and a great deal of outreach continues daily. This is no ivory tower – the church was dead on its feet in 1970 (about 30 members, all over 70) when Dr Masters arrived, and is now thriving. By British conservative reformed standards, it is huge.
For those who bemoan a lack of ‘grace’ – whether you agree or disagree, consider that Dr Masters believes that this is a crucial issue. He doesn’t enjoy controversy, believe me.
Doug Wilson has a really good response to this article over at his blog, dougwils.com.
“…Once again, we see the tortured quest for the true church, this time identified as those who have renounced teeshirts and loud worship bands.”
More than that, it’s identified as a total repudiation of anything that falls outside, or fails to stand up to the litmus test of, their “kosher” definition of Christianity. Masters totally lost me when he said this:
“We are told of thunderous music, thousands of raised hands, ‘Christian’ hip-hop and rap lyrics (the examples seeming inept and awkward in construction) uniting the doctrines of grace with the immoral drug-induced musical forms of worldly culture.”
Now, I’m just as quick as many others here to question the sincerity of a lot of the hyper-popularized and over-hyped Christian Rap and Hip-Hop/Rock/Metal/Ska stuff out there, but I’m just as willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and accept that there is genuine spiritual sincerity to be found there – but what really bothered me was his clear disdain for secular music. I happen to listen to some of those “immoral drug-induced forms of worldly culture” and while quite a lot of it is indeed garbage, there’s also a lot of it out there which speaks about the need for social justice, a critique of, and anger at materialism and consumer culture, and a questioning of what this world all means and why things have to be the way they are.
This really is a clear example of a “Bunker Mentality” in Christianity, and I really wish people would stop. It ties into the whole “Wretched Urgency” way of thinking that always irritates me; a quest for “moral purity” that turns into an almost MacCarthy-esque witchhunt directed at anything which doesn’t conform to their interpretation of Christianity. Ugh.
Anyway, sorry. Rant over.
Masters’ article, that is, not iMonk’s.
About rock music and worship, I am reminded of Joseph Ratzinger’s comment that any music that encourages listeners to “free themselves from the burden of conscience” or to “lose themselves” is inherently dangerous and unsuitable for worship. Rock and dance music doesn’t always do this but it often does, especially praise and worship music. I think this critique is on target but the blanket charge that rock music is drug-induced, satanic or immoral misses the mark.
True worship music sharpens the intellect, sensitizes the mind to divine things and lifts the spirit to God. False worship music, which is typical of pagan music and much contemporary fare, encourages self-negation, abandonment of inhibition and the degeneration of the mind. It attempts to lower the mind so that the divinity may enter and take over, which is a pagan concept.
*…with the immoral drug-induced musical forms of worldly culture.*
It so very very very interesting that “immoral” music is *always* the music most influenced by brown people.
If syncopation is inherently evil then so is alcohol and t-shirts and black cats and babies born as twins and cutting your toenails at night and solar eclipses and *every other bit of arbitrary tiki-god superstitionist bullshittery ever devised by the mind of man.*
*About rock music and worship, I am reminded of Joseph Ratzinger’s comment that any music that encourages listeners to “free themselves from the burden of conscience” or to “lose themselves” is inherently dangerous and unsuitable for worship.*
Only if you consider the “baseline”, un-altered state of the human mind to be good and desirable. That is, the state when you’re on NO mind-altering substances (and what ISN’T a mind-altering substance? Eating a decent meal affects your state of mind.) is supposedly the best one? The super-conscious, Cartesian, “I”-self for whom all thoughts are internally vocalized?
No. It is good and natural and healthy to get “out of” that particular Self through music and dancing and sex and yeah, discrete enjoyment of mind-altering substances ranging from buttered toast to beer to a bit of mary-ja-hwanna. The logical, rational I-self is highly overrated, at least as a 24-7 state of being.
J, I can tell you were under the influence of food when you wrote this.
Sigh.
I’m not angry with you, J. I’m just disappointed.
J,
You are quite right that all sensory input is, by definition, mind-altering. But you seem to be talking about music that simply deadens the mind or reduces it to a disengaged rationality, like a sacred syllable being chanted over and over. This is far from what I am picturing.
There is a species of music, in many genres and all over the world, that encourages the listener to let go of “baggage”, to leave ones care’s and inhibitions at the door, to “let loose”, to let oneself be absorbed into the collective experience, to tap into the raw subconscious. It is a common feature of dance and techno music, and it is ubiquitous in many tribal and mystery religions, which often find their genesis in the debauched paganism of ancient Egypt. Most cultic rituals are unimaginable without this sort of music.
Good music should draw up to God man in his entire person, along with his cares, his inhibitions, his flaws, his limits. The end result should be a true joy, which is happiness founded upon reason, not frantic bursts of emotion or soul-deadening hypnotism.
To be fair to Dr. Masters, I wonder if part of his disdain for rock-concert type gatherings is because of the case of the Nine O’Clock Service, an Anglican alternative Christian worship service started in 1986 by a group of Christian musicians and artists and aimed at attracting in unchurched youth.
It became famous for its “rave Mass” style, where the celebration of the Lord’s Supper was, as the name implies, more like a rave and less like the Anglican Communion service. It was hailed as the model for Anglicanism to follow, as it successfully attracted a ton of young people, but it finally imploded in 1995 among accusations of cult behaviour and sexual impropriety:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_O‘Clock_Service
So, like I said: being fair to Dr. Masters, this kind of ‘attract young people by copying contemporay cool’ has previous, at least in England.
Sure does seem like Dr. Masters is confusing questions of taste with questions of theology. Of course there is a point at which reveling in the popular culture dilutes your message to indistinction. But accusing someone of hypocrisy because they don’t hold the cessationist line and don’t believe the Devil resides at 220 beats per minute? Dr. Masters is making a doctrine out of a lifestyle, and I cannot see building a church or going to the cross over these items.
jfm,
[Mod edit: I removed jfm's comment.]
Dr. Masters has some thoughts which are worthy of consideration, but they are largely lost in his ranting about contemporary music in churches and at conferences. I love hymns as much as anyone, and personally, I prefer a more “traditional” church service over one which has painfully loud music. However, the brothers and sisters who like it louder than I do still love God and are concerned with seeing Him glorified and lost souls saved. Masters is simply wrong in his emphasis here.
“Good music should draw up to God man in his entire person, along with his cares, his inhibitions, his flaws, his limits. ” – Curtis
Yes, Yes, Yes. Prrrrrrreach!
I have had my bad experiences with manipulative, sensory religious experiences, but it is the exception, not the rule. The whole being needs to be addressed by our faith.
Otherwise, we end up sounding like Rabbit in “Winnie the Pooh’s Most Grand Adventure”:
Never trust your ears Your nose, your eyes
Putting faith in them Is most unwise
Here’s a phrase you all Must memorize
In the printed word Is where truth lies
Never trust your tummies Tails, or toes
You can’t learn a thing From any of those
Here’s another fact I must disclose
From the mighty pen True wisdom flows
Never trust that thing Between your ears
Brains will get you nowhere fast My dears
Haven’t had a need For mine in years
On the page is where The truth appears
Some of these posts remind me of the old Bill Gothard spiel: the devi’s to be found in the bad, bad bass beat…. don’t let the heavenly melody get swallowed up in an electric guitar….and so on; seems just plain whacky, today, but it seems even whackiness gets a reprise..
if the lost of England are getting saved, though, I give the gent more than applause, he’s doing something right…but I don’t have to share his taste in music, or clothes, to recognize that.
Greg R
Monk
I can’t drink, drive, comment and spell correctly all at the same time.
Cut me some slack.
Yeehah!
If it’s a redneck contest, I win, hands down.
I just can’t buy into Dr. Masters’ take on consecration vs. worldliness. It seems that his definition of consecration is conforming to the trappings of a very specific religious culture at a very specific point in its history. Worldliness, in his view, seems to include everything else under the sun.
As I see it, if a guy with a mohawk and numerous tatoos and piercings exemplifies the character of Christ in his life and relationships more than a clean-cut guy in a three-piece suit, then the guy with the mohawk is less worldly and more consecrated (in the true sense of the words) than the poster boy for Bob Jones College.
Judging Godliness by things like styles of dress and music is just the easy way out and (if I read the Gospels correctly) more characteristic of Jesus’ enemies than His followers.
Rob: You agree with him that Christians should be practicing a “Puritan” spirituality?
I didn’t choose to be a Calvinist, it just went that way.
Puritan spirituality had many blind spots. look at the history of the Baptist movement, the Puritans were such legalists the Baptists had to move out. If you want to see how successful Puritanism was at Kingdom growth, just check in at your local Puritan church…oh.
No, not in particular.
I agree that the clowns have usurped the circus.
I agree that yhe emphasis is on the show and not the substance.
Puritanism, while draconion, and putside of my zone would be a vast improvement over the foolery.
I am not to be taken too seriously or without food.
Sorry, for once I’ll come back on a comment!
Jonathan Hunt
“Spurgeon’s college is fairly liberal”. Come on, pull the other one. I’m 10 miles away and most of the Baptist ministers around are Spurgeons products. Not a liberal amongst them, unless “fairly liberal” means “not totally fundamentalist and/or Calvinist”.
“Based on your extensive knowledge of the life and work of the church? Thought not”. I thought I had made it clear that I had based it on my in-law’s experience. I could also add tales of Peter Master’s visits to the local medical schools Christian Union…..
I value the diversity of the church greatly, but the comment that described Met Tab as a sect is not far off the mark.
“Good music should draw up to God man in his entire person, along with his cares, his inhibitions, his flaws, his limits. The end result should be a true joy, which is happiness founded upon reason, not frantic bursts of emotion or soul-deadening hypnotism.”
So what then? I find I get a “frantic burst of emotion” out of Bach, Beethoven, Rimsky-Korsakov and Shostakovich. Does that mean that’s all of a sudden not “Godly music”?
Based on the same token, when I listen to tracks like The Great Destroyer, or In This Twilight, from the album Year Zero, I find a lot of spiritually relevant themes being strongly communicated in the lyrics and tone – yet, surprise, surprise, they’re songs by Nine Inch Nails, a group that would *on the outset* to Masters exemplify the drug-addled, sex-crzed demonic, truly abhorrent evil he and others love to point out so many times in Secular Music.
This is the problem I have with Christians who seem to have such a legalistic bent when it comes to defining minutiae like what media should and shouldn’t be consumed – the lines being drawn are almost always arbitrary, and even hypocritical in many places. It reminds me of an interaction I had once with a staunch Calvinist who advocated throwing away all evil classical music simply because it didn’t fit his specific definition of “Praise Music”.
On the whole I with most that Masters is missing something here, but in his defense I will ask: Does anyone get concerned that the worldliness argument holds some water? I mean there is some pretty impressive twisting and bending going on by some people when it comes to justifying what is worthy of listening to.
Just because something moves a person doesn’t convince me that it’s valid spiritually or honoring to God. I know because I like some things that strike me as anything but pleasing my flesh.
This is the problem I have with Christians who seem to have such a legalistic bent when it comes to defining minutiae like what media should and shouldn’t be consumed – the lines being drawn are almost always arbitrary, and even hypocritical in many places. It reminds me of an interaction I had once with a staunch Calvinist who advocated throwing away all evil classical music simply because it didn’t fit his specific definition of “Praise Music”. — Rampancy
Where does this end? With everything burned except for endless recitations of the Koran — I mean the Bible? If they want “legalism defining minutiae”, why are they drinking it watered down when Wahabi/Salafi/Talibani Islam can give it to them straight on the rocks? (And you get Calvin-topping God’s Soverignity and Utter Predestination in the package, too…)
On the whole I with most that Masters is missing something here, but in his defense I will ask: Does anyone get concerned that the worldliness argument holds some water? I mean there is some pretty impressive twisting and bending going on by some people when it comes to justifying what is worthy of listening to. — Ron
You get stupidity on both sides in pretty much everything; why should this be any different?
Lewis wrote that the Devil sends sins in matched opposing pairs, so that in distancing yourself from one you end up committing the other. And Worldliness and Hyper-Pure Legalism are one of those matched pairs.
P.S. Was Masters Predestined to “rip the New Calvinism” from before the foundation of the world?
Not in the way he defines worldliness. Much of the church has embraced his methodology in defining worldliness which is to draw a line in the sand between us and them, and then to define easily seen attributes of they as worldliness. And so worldliness is defined as wearing t-shirts, while accumulating wealth and power is given a free pass.
I once saw a staunch UAW member who was a deacon get really upset when I suggested it was more worldly to wear a suit and tie than t-shirts and shorts because the powerful and wealthy wear suits and we’re called to a life of servanthood. He really popped a gasket when I suggested he was more like the CEO of GM when it came to church matters than he was a line worker.
“I didn’t choose to be a Calvinist, it just went that way.”
Willow, oh so close! You should have said, “I didn’t choose to be a Calvinist, it chose me.” Then trade marked it and sold tee shirts. Dr. Masters could then have another worldly thing to rant about
rampancy and HUG,
I’m only talking about the suitability of music for worship (which for me, to be fair, means the Mass). Outside of worship, by all means, expand your range of music.
An interesting quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Back to the topic. I’m really at a loss as to why anyone would want to hold up Puritans as some sort of model of grace. Are these same people proposing that we return to hanging Quakers in Boston Commons? (See “Boston Martyrs” in Wikipedia if interested.)>>>>
Gee… I hope not…
Re: Rock Music,
I grew up during the height of the hysteria over rock-n-roll being “The Devil’s Music.” It seems to me that it did an incredible amount of damage to parent/child relationships – with parents freaking out over the music their kids were listening to. Of course, the more the parents freaked out, the more the kids loved it. I think Alice Cooper even said in an interview that their goal was to make parents hate them because then the kids would love them. To this day, I still know people who are now in their late 30’s to early 40’s who are either completely estranged or partly estranged from their parents and the church. Personally, my mom took the, “If I ignore it, it will go away” approach, and I thank her for it.
A few years ago Mom and I went to see a friend who was dying of cancer. The friend was the same age as my mother. She had one daughter who is my age, and one daughter who is six years younger. I can’t remember what got said, but Mom and I just looked at eachother. Our friend cried and said that she knew, when we looked at eachother, that we were thinking exactly the same thing. The reason she cried was because she didn’t have that kind of relationship with either of her daughters. Later mom said, “Maybe if she’d spent less time fighting her kids over little things like the music they listened to and more time just loving them, she would have had that kind of relationship with them.”
I think Alice Cooper even said in an interview that their goal was to make parents hate them because then the kids would love them. To this day, I still know people who are now in their late 30’s to early 40’s who are either completely estranged or partly estranged from their parents and the church. Personally, my mom took the, “If I ignore it, it will go away” approach, and I thank her for it.
I still wonder. People invest an awful lot of time in music. I mean, I thoroughly enjoy certain music, and I’m glad that there is redemption of many styles, but the apparent love and defense of what much of the world presents confuses me. It’s as though it’s unreasonable to suggest that something may be more than harmless. The mere statement that something might wisely be avoided brings charges of fundamentalism or some lengthy discourse as to why it’s enjoyed, without even considering that it may be best if set aside.
Ron,
I’ve never seen advice that something might be wisely avoided reacted to harshly. Then again, I’ve rarely seen the issue framed that way, its usually framed in a harsh manner that makes demands and give commands, which I might add would be something that is probably best wisely avoided.
T, It’s not so much that harsh reactions occur (although sometimes they do), it’s more the sense that this young, restless reformed group dislikes the idea that something they prefer could be questioned, and that if a question is posed charges of bunker mentality start to fly.
What I’ve sensed in growing measure is an indignation towards anyone who suggests that something might not be helpful, even though a person has a right to enjoy it. I agree that commands and lectures have done great damage, but the flip side now seems to be great lengthy posts on why we should never question a person’s use of liberty.
Not everyone who thinks some people have a misguided view of music or entertainment is a Peter Masters.
I still wonder. People invest an awful lot of time in music. I mean, I thoroughly enjoy certain music, and I’m glad that there is redemption of many styles, but the apparent love and defense of what much of the world presents confuses me. It’s as though it’s unreasonable to suggest that something may be more than harmless. The mere statement that something might wisely be avoided brings charges of fundamentalism or some lengthy discourse as to why it’s enjoyed, without even considering that it may be best if set aside.
Maybe it’s like the eating of meat offered to idols in 1 Corinthians, and it should be left up to each person’s conscience. Before I left my old church some kid (teenager) brought his cd player with all this secular music into the church, and he got emotionally beaten up by the youth leaders for it. The essentially took his cds away from him – including ones that didn’t actually belong to him – and replaced it with a couple of that sappy crap they play on the CCM station. That I know of, that kid has never come to church again. But, I did talk to him afterwards, and I told him that it was wrong of them to take his music away from him. However, it was equally wrong for him to bring it into the church knowing that it would offend/upset certain youth leaders.
Another strange belief I run into with people who grew up in the same time period I did is that you can’t listen to both secular and Christian music. Who says? Is there a rule somewhere that says this? Not that I’ve ever been very good at following rules.
To throw some fuel on the fire, I can sympathise with the attitude (though not the expression) to a certain extent.
How many of you love (or at least don’t mind) John Rutter’s Carols? Show of hands, please!
Okay, they drive me up the wall. The local classical station plays them over Christmas (and occasionally at other times) and I have to turn off the wireless before I throw it at the wall. Treacly, gloopy, sentimental goop and cheap music (as Noel Coward put it); not even *good* music (IMHO) but easy button-pushing stuff that engages the emotions and elicits the calculated reaction of warm fuzziness and good vibes. Like Thomas Kinkade – oh, I beg his pardon, Thomas Kinkade Painter of Light TM (ooh, I’m really stepping on some corns here!)
And yet people love them. God bless those who do, and get feeding from them, and good luck to them. They not only do nothing for me, they actively drive me away. Most (oh blast, why not go for full-out offensiveness?) all contemporary Christian music does the same for me. To throw an example of our own into the mix (so I’m not only bashing Americans), same with Dana. I recognise the sincerity and applaud the good intentions, but I would stick pins into my eardrums before I’d sit down and listen to CDs of ‘Christian’ music.
Then again, my notion of “contemporary Christian composer” is Arvo Part, so shows what I know.
(And never mind the rant I could launch into about how Karl Jenkins is not a classical composer; he’s a pop musician. ‘Mass of the Armed Man’ my foot! The only Armed Man Masses worthy of the name are those by Josquin Desprez)
Before I left my old church some kid (teenager) brought his cd player with all this secular music into the church, and he got emotionally beaten up by the youth leaders for it. The essentially took his cds away from him – including ones that didn’t actually belong to him – and replaced it with a couple of that sappy crap they play on the CCM station.
Okay, this makes my point exactly. So some ignorant youth leaders react in the most egregious way so now it seems no one should inquire as to what people listen to, and btw, I don’t listen to our local CCM station, the music is generally bad.
We should be able to discuss with each other how we spend our time, and engage in thoughtful, humble discussions. Not every recorded sound should be shrugged at and left to each individual to discern. Some of it is vile, and if we refuse to consider the possibility, well, I personally don’t want to be part of a group that is that intellectually dense.
I realize that we have great freedom in how we spend time, but I sense such an irrational fear of fundamentalism that we can no longer have honest discussions and exhort each other in certain areas.
Ron,
Who’s we pale face?
Professing Believers in Christ.
T, are you bothered that someone might inquire about something not specifically written about in Scripture? I realize we are not to bind the conscience on something that is not forbidden, but does that mean we should never ask whether something is edifying to the body or an individual? This isn’t about forbidding a person to listen to music, it’s about helping each other from the questioner to the listener.
Ron,
I’m more bothered that a guy who only knows that I read IM would think its all good and proper to go telling me what’s wise and unwise. If I confessed I enjoy using women’s bathrooms to use the rest room you wouldn’t know if that were an issue, or as normal as what every other woman in the world does when she’s in public.
You want to discuss my personal habits? Then get to be part of my life. Be my Paul, Timothy, Silas or Phoebe, but don’t be Dr. Masters lecturing large groups of Christians he’s never met about things he knows very little about.
And that’s probably why you see so many people having so many issues when an article like this is posted. Dr. Masters has no love for any of the people he’s talking to. All he can do is make sweeping generalizations about eating meat and so everyone who he’s never met, and never loved who enjoys meat are going to blow him off as a blow hard fundamentalist who abuses the scriptures.