Can you fix a couple of typos in the fourth paragraph, which should read:

I agree with that observation. Spurgeon’s college is closely linked to the Baptist Union, our main Baptist association, and is very much part of the evangelical mainstream. I’m not connected to it, but knew the principal when he was a pastor. It has an excellent reputation. Jonathan Hunt’s claim that it is liberal would be laughed at by virtually every British evangelical christian.

Like Jon Barlett, I live about 10 miles from the Metropolitan Tabernacle.

Joachim wrote, “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.”

I agree with that observation. Spurgeon’s college is closely linked to the Baptist Union, our main Baptist association, and is very much part of the evangelical mainstream. I’m not connected to it, but knew the principle when he was a pastor. It has an excellent reputation. Jonathan Hunt’s claim that it is liberal would be laughed at by virtual every British evangelical christian.

Masters and his church are independent, not part of the Baptist Union, which I’m sure they see as compromised. His church isn’t really an Independent Fundamental Baptist (that term isn’t used in the UK), but they are very much in the separatist camp.

I mention his status simply because, like it or not, there is a diversity of opinion within the evangelical world, and the vast majority of Christians do not share the particular approach that Masters takes. He represents a tiny minority of British christians, and most churchgoers over here will not have heard of him or know what he’s written. I wasn’t aware that his article had produced such a big response – and it is telling that it’s all come from the US.

To put this piece into context, Masters has produced a number of books and articles over the years on worship, which invariably attack contemporary worship music. He obviously has a hang-up about it, and this polemic is the latest in a long line of rants. His basic premise seems to be that contemporary music is inherently “profane” (his term) and therefore unsuitable for worship. He also takes a cessationist (non-charismatic) approach.

I disagree with him on both these counts, but that’s not to say that I approve of all contemporary worship music, nor do I agree with many aspects of the charismatic movement. But Masters’ approach is to create stereotypes and reduce shades of grey to black and white. His analysis is woefully simplistic and it lacks credibility.

Just on the subject of music, when singing a hymn in church last week (my church uses mostly contemporary music with typically one traditional hymn each service), I had a minor revelation. I realised (for the first time in 25 years – I’m a bit slow here) that it’s wrong to deny that hymns played on an organ create an atmosphere and provide an emotional experience. Yes, it’s a different atmosphere and experience to contemporary worship music, but an atmosphere and experience it still is. In other words, it is wrong to argue that contemporary worship music gives a “sensational nervous impact” but traditional hymns do not. That is simply not true, and all music has an emotional effect. In my view there is nothing about contemporary music to render it inherently unsuited to worship. That’s not to say I adopt an “anything goes” approach, nor do I think we should model our services on a concert, as Hillsong does.

But, in the Masters worldview, even the contemporary hymns of Townend and Getty are thrown out because of their style (guitars, keyboards, and drums are unacceptable) and the beliefs and associations of the authors (Townend is a charismatic). The sound theology and well-crafted music/lyrics aren’t even considered.

Here in the UK, one of the long-term influences on the church has been the Billy Graham missions from the 1950s and 1960s. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people became Christians at these events. The cascade effects from this have been significant with even greater numbers reached or inspired to spread the gospel. But, of course, the likes of Masters didn’t support Billy Graham because he doesn’t fit their theology. Sorry, but I have no time for such arrogance. What matters in eternity? Protecting a doctrine or bringing people to Jesus?

To bring this back to the subject in question, I’m not from the reformed camp so don’t share the distinctives of those that Masters condemns. But I recognise that the “New Calvinists” are sincere and devoted Christians, and I think their faith and passion should be celebrated, not bashed. As a charismatic, I’m pleased that some are questioning cessationism, and I hope that their desire for truth keeps them away from the deception that sadly is found in many charismatic and pentecostal circles. As far as styles of music and dress go, they’re non-issues.

Just to finish, one of the things that particularly concerns me about people like Masters is their reference points. His writing constantly mentions Calvinism, the Puritans, and the Reformation. It’s as if these movements are idolised. Rather, we should be studying the Bible and applying its message afresh to each generation, rather than trying to perpetuate the past.

I can never get my fill of debunking this one: Pretty much our sole source for the “debauchery” of the religions of ancient Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Phoenicia, etc. is Herodotus, whom most now regard as an unreliable narrator at best. There’s the pragmatic criticism that there’s very little evidence he personally ever left Greece.

And then there’s a number of other things that don’t line up at all. For example, the supposed carnality of Baal worship: Given that the Canaanites had pretty much the same holiness/cleanliness code as the Hebrews*, wouldn’t that have meant that all the people who had just enjoyed a vigorous evening of drinking and group sex in front of the idol would then have to be put to death by stoning? Odd, wouldn’t that be?

Oh and that burning-babies-alive-in-bronze-bull- furnaces Christians never tire of quoting to me? Very striking image. And, correspondingly, very little evidence it ever occurred. Given the neonatal death rates in the Iron Age, you’d think the Phoenicians wouldn’t have that many babies to spare. But, y’know, never let facts get in the way of a good talking point.

*Almost as if <a href=”http://www.amazon.com/Were-Early-Israelites-Where-They/dp/0802844162″*they were pretty much the exact same people*, huh?

1.) Citation needed.

2.) Remember what I said about the suspiciousness of the opprobrium being heaped on music by brown people?

*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.*

Yes. A species called “good” or “fun” music.

You can keep your constipated, bleached-out, Wonder Bre[a]d parlor tunes. I’ll be over here with the ethnic sorts and medieval people and yeah, the technovikings actually, y’know, *enjoying myself*.

I absolutely agree that we should be able to discuss these things with eachother, but too often these discussions turn into one side emotionally beating up the other side when ultimately maybe we should let the Holy Spirit deal with each individual heart. In the Society of Friends each yearly meeting has a Book of Discipline. I can’t speak for each yearly meeting, but in the Ohio Yearly an advice is read at the close of every meeting and every month we answer a querie.

This is the Fifth Advice:

5. Be on your guard, dear Friends, lest the love of pleasure take too strong a hold upon you. Choose such recreations as are pure and healthful. Let them be in harmony with your service to God and man; and in that service be ready at any time to lay them aside when called upon.

That one once motivated me to get Showtime taken off my television. A lot of people in the meeting don’t even own televisions. But, notice it doesn’t make references to specific things like the music we listen to, t.v. shows, or anything – it just puts it out there and then lets us search our own conscience and the Holy Spirit to deal with us.

We should be open to questions. Rants against t-shirts without tempering the message against greater sins, and indignation against fair questions are both anti-gospel.