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.
The Internet Monk Archives 
Hi,
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.
LikeLike
Hi guys,
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.
LikeLike
A large proportion of these comments are mere caricatures. For example, although McArthur and Masters have different stances on worship, they agree (in their writings) on many principles of worship. Driscoll a new Spurgeon?! Just because two men caused controversy does not mean they both had similar views! SSSSHHHH
LikeLike
Here’s an interview with Dr. Masters’ article.
LikeLike
*…debauched paganism of ancient Egypt.*
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?
LikeLike
Ooh and while we’re on the topic of unholy music, check out the music video I made of my trip to Japan.
LikeLike
*…which often find their genesis in the debauched paganism of ancient Egypt.*
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 “baggageâ€, to leave ones care’s and inhibitions at the door, to “let looseâ€, 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*.
LikeLike
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 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.
LikeLike
T, no doubt love of money is a great corrupter – you and I would agree on that topic. That being said, there is often a lurking pride in those who condemn the money maker. I’ve seen plenty of it. Trust me, I loathe the prosperity gospel, and the idea that success in this life hinges on accumulation of wealth, but within the ranks I sometimes sense a juvenile approach to freedom and false accusations against people who are wealthy, do cherish the gospel and seek to not be of the world.
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.
LikeLike
Maybe Dr Masters can get on the staff at Slice.
LikeLike
I doubt you’ll find many people who deny worldliness exists, the problem is so many people have turned their personal likes into holiness and their personal dislikes into worldliness ala Dr. Masters. All that text spent excoriating t-shirts, and not a line spared for the accumulation of power and wealth for personal use which is the truly, explicitly Biblically defined definition of worldliness.
Pouring contempt on non-Biblical ideals presented as Biblical is more virtue than vice.
LikeLike
Perhaps if people weren’t so immune to the idea that worldiness exists they wouldn’t react with contempt when reasonable questions are asked.
LikeLike
Perhaps if worldliness were defined in a way other than “that’s what they do” such questions wouldn’t be viewed with contempt.
LikeLike
Anna A, I do think a lot of this is down to personal taste. Now, there is a point about the worldliness, but on the other hand, if you’re someone who breaks out in hives when you hear young people’s music played way too loud, it’s easy to conflate “This is bugging the heck out of me because I don’t like the sound of this stuff” with “I don’t like the sound of this stuff because it’s not God’s way!”
For instance, I have heard that some places use jazzy-style music in worship. My opinion on that option would be that arson is not such a bad thing sometimes 🙂
But if people can get good out of it, good luck to them. You do have to question why you’re doing a certain thing (is this really going to work, or are we just trying to be trendy?) but yes – bad, syrupy 19th century hymns on reedy harmoniums are no better than blasting the congregation out of it with “Jesus Is My Homeboy” at jet-engine decibel levels.
LikeLike
Martha,
I like John Rutter’s Carols, but we don’t get over dosed with them over here. And I don’t overdose myself with the CD. If anything, at Christmas, I over do Johnny Cash.
But, we do agree on two things, Thomas Kikcade and Arvo Parte.
LikeLike
personally I think John MacArthurs church has gone liberal
“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing;…” II Cor. 6:17
LikeLike
T, once again it’s the over-reaction that perplexes me. When did I make a sweeping generalization? I’m not supporting Masters. I originally asked if the worldliness question holds any water. It’s as though how dare anyone ever make an observation.
Here’s the deal, people broadcast all sorts of things these days about their personal life, and then if they are questioned they become indignant. How strange. By your example I could assume you are a man (otherwise why state you enjoy women’s bathrooms), that you you use women’s restrooms, and then I am to what? Ignore it because I don’t know you, and that it’s your freedom?
And I do know it’s all about our hearts, but within that framework we should be able to discuss whether or not we’re missing something.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Professing Believers in Christ.
LikeLike
Ron,
Who’s we pale face?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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) 😉
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.”
LikeLike
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:
LikeLike
“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 🙂
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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 Musicâ€. — 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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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”.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Rob: You agree with him that Christians should be practicing a “Puritan” spirituality?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
“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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
*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.
LikeLike
*…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.*
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Masters’ article, that is, not iMonk’s.
LikeLike
“…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.
LikeLike
Doug Wilson has a really good response to this article over at his blog, dougwils.com.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Shinto’s more fun.
LikeLike
Martha and greg r for the win!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.”
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Aaron R., perhaps a good self-description would be a “Reformed Catholic.” See William Perkins, for instance.
LikeLike
yikes… I also think that MacArthur & Co. are fond of Dr. Masters too.
LikeLike
“Why do some British Christians who hold the doctrines of grace give enthusiastic reviews to a book like this? There have been times in the past when large numbers of young people have suddenly become intellectually enthusiastic about solid Christian doctrine, only to abandon it almost as quickly. One thinks of the tremendous response the unique oratory of Francis Schaeffer secured on university campuses in the 1960s, and no doubt some young people were truly saved and established, but very many more turned aside. Gripped by the superiority of a biblical worldview, they momentarily despised the illogical, flaccid ideas of this world, but the impression in numerous cases was natural rather than spiritual. The present new, heady Calvinism, shorn of practical obedience will certainly prove to be ephemeral, leaving the cause compromised and scarred.”
Couldn’t resist one more comment. Dr. Master’s concerns are defeated by his argument. If the heart of the issue is indeed about what Dr. Master’s coined to be the “true sovereignty” of God then this “true sovereignty” is perfectly carried out by using Schaeffer’s oratory to save some, to drive away others and to plant seeds in the rest for future generations. It’s not as if God was caught off guard by any theological messiness, as Dr. Master’s seems to forget throughout his article.
My last comment and this one shouldn’t leave the impression that I’m unsympathetic to Dr. Master’s concerns. I’m not. I think the current view of the fourth command, for example, our lack of reverence for the Lord’s Day (though every day is the Lord’s Day) is pathetic in all Christian circles. That said, I get the impression that Dr. Master’s is looking for a fight in this article that doesn’t just make me squirm because I can’t take an admonishment, but seriously makes me wonder why he’s not rejoicing over the resurgence of so many young seekers who are willing to ask themselves far more serious questions about faith than whether or not they pass some “True Calvinism” litmus test.
Anyway, I can see why MacArthur & Co. is so found of Dr. Masters. Though they may disagree on the mechanics of this issue, the tone (that is a tone that doesn’t embrace 1 Cor 1:10-12) here is very much in line with what that wing of “New Calvinism” embraces, which is a tone I’m praying will ultimately be purged from Christ’s church.
Brad
LikeLike
“The greater their doctrinal prowess, the greater their hypocrisy.”
Careful there, Dr. Masters! That’s a bold statement to make while lecturing others on their doctrinal insufficiency!
“You cannot have Puritan soteriology without Puritan sanctification.”
I bet this is true, one thing logically follows the other, and Calvinism is nothing if not logical. But I’m unclear why he’s equating Calvinism with Puritanism. I’d be grateful if someone clued me in here.
LikeLike
It’s so strange calling myself “Reformed.” I think I am more of a Kuyperian/Augustinian brand, but I almost identify more with Catholics than all of the new Calvinists.
LikeLike
“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.”
I couldn’t get this the mantra out of my head once I read the above quote:
“Electric guitars and drums bad, piano good…well, only the approved keys anyway.”
Got it.
As a neo-Puritan, New Calvinist (or whatever you want to call me) I wish we could first address the far more serious issues of Christians being really, really happy in Jesus so they’ll go preach the Gospel to their neighbor whom they currently hate, then we can start to worry about how 17th century worship techniques will make us better Puritans…
And seriously, why stop in the 17th century?! How’d they sing hymns in the third century? What did they sing? How about the first? And did you know the average first century rabbi preached for an average of about 2 minutes while the worship portion of “the service” was about 45 minutes?
The traditions of men are alive and well folks, alive and well.
End of rant.
Brad
LikeLike
I noticed that the only time “Jesus” was mentioned in the linked article was a disparaging comment about a teeshirt. Does the man imagine that he’s really calling people to Christianity? Then what the blazes happened to Christ?
Take care & God bless
WF
LikeLike
You know, I pretty much disagree with all of Masters’ observations here, but I myself was thinking that it is kind of hypocritical that Mahaney is invited with open arms to Resolved despite MacArthur’s well-known stance of cessationism and yet ol’ John can’t even muster a nice word towards Driscoll. Interesting to anyone else?
LikeLike
Mod edit. The last sentence was too much.
LikeLike
yes sir michael! pls have a separate post to clear all these labels…reformed baptist, calvinist baptist , spurgeon cult reformed church, first jonathan edwards reformed baptist, john piper church of passion etc…
it’s a very serious matter towards our relationship with Jesus….
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure that debating “are reformed Baptists really Calvinists” is interesting, but it’s not where this post is taking us. Let’s stay on topic.
LikeLike
>>when 90% of people say Calvinism it IS the 5 points they think of, not Covenant theology, infant baptism, etc.
Then it’s a historically and theologically unhelpful term.
LikeLike
…an incomprehensablr term.
Yeeeha!
LikeLike
“i.e. “Calvinism,†as having any relation to Calvin’s theology would certainly include more than the famed “5 points†and would indeed have something to say regarding infant baptism).”
Agreed, but what most when 90% of people say Calvinism it IS the 5 points they think of, not Covenant theology, infant baptism, etc.
LikeLike
….lol….that wasnt very Jesus shaped of you martha…but it WAS funny….
LikeLike
i believe this is a case of people putting their traditons and belief system ahead of the essentials of the Gospel and of Jesus.
i lean toward Calvinism in my personal theology but as iMonk has stated,
“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”
i admire the neo-calvinists in their efforts to concentrate their resources on evangelism and local church resurgence. that they strive to be Christ-centered in their preaching and that they want to engage the world to present Jesus and his Gospel. of course not everyone will agree with theologically or in terms of methods. but it does not mean one should belittle them just bec they are “puritan”.
one thing i love about this site is that it blows up my narrow-minded view of christianity and that having Jesus shape my life does often mean letting go of my long-held and highly-valued theology in order for me to see Him more clearly.
thanks for the insight iMonk.
alvin
LikeLike
You know, I had to laugh this afternoon when I saw all of my MacArthurite friends on Facebook had sounded the alarms and were scrambling reinforcements. I guess it’s not so much fun when the worldliness zingers start coming your way for once, is it?
LikeLike
I don’t know about the “shape” of the spirituality (an incomprehensablr term) but I do find that I agree with Dr. Masters completely.
LikeLike
Admit it – wouldn’t you love to send this man to a megachurch on any Sunday and then read the resulting article? I imagine the plume of fire could be seen from space 🙂
LikeLike
iMonk, you are correct in your assessment that Dr. Masters is simply regurgitating fundamentalist complaints.
For those unfamiliar with the alight differentiations, I offer this:
Calvinist = that guy in church who takes himself way too seriously
Fundamentalist Calvinist = that guy in church who is completely insufferable and still insists on organizing witch hunts
Fundamentalist Calvinist Baptist = *shudder*
LikeLike
Matt,
I don’t mean to be difficult. It sounds as if we can agree that “Baptist Calvinism,” as well as the “5 points of Calvinism” are contemporary constructs (or at least later constructs) having little to do with John Calvin or, indeed, with historic Reformed theology (of which, as you note rightly, Calvin and certainly “Calvinism,” whatever that is, is but a part).
Even so, I stand by my assertion that “Baptist Calvinism” is oxymoronic, at least in a historical sense, but also in a doctrinal sense (i.e. “Calvinism,” as having any relation to Calvin’s theology would certainly include more than the famed “5 points” and would indeed have something to say regarding infant baptism).
LikeLike
….it would seem to me that the final battle lines are now being drawn and defined..right down the middle of Christendom..a “bloody” show down of sorts is now immenient… the emergent fetus is soon to be born..and it is a “new thing”….on what side will we stand?…if it be of God who can resist it..lest we be found standing against God….
LikeLike
Jordan,
It doesn’t matter if it was at the Synod of Dort. In todays world there is a distinction. There are Baptist’s who hold to the 5 points of Calvinism, therefore, they are Calvinists. It isn’t difficult.
LikeLike
When I went to Westminster Seminary, for a time I thought I had died and went to Bob Jones University (which I narrowly escaped going to because I paid for my own college education and would not take out loans to go to BJU at my parent’s request). The ghetto mentality was oppressive at first – “we reformed people.” I kept looking around the room for who “we” was. It wasn’t me. I was reformed but not a “we reformed.” There was a suspicion of evangelicalism that disarmed me. By the end of my first year I knew that I couldn’t be in a reformed church, though I loved the theology. It was like the fundamentalism I had left in the tenth grade. There is something in me that says “flee” when I get too close to the reformed fire. And Masters reminds me why.
LikeLike
Matt,
Please point me to anywhere in the proceedings of the Synod of Dort where the five “points” where identified as “Calvinist.”
LikeLike
Jordan,
To say “Baptist Calvinist” is an oxymoron is a little ridiculous. It is as ridiculous, obviously, as saying that Spurgeon wasn’t a calvinist. Obviously, Baptists are not “reformed” in the sense of Eschatology, ecclesiology, etc. But there is a distinction in being “Reformed” and a Calvinist. A Calvinist holds to the 5 points of Calvinism. The Reformed are paedo-Baptist, Covenant Theology, Amillennial, Calvinists. etc. There is a distinction. Although, I say this as a New Covenant Theology, Amillennial, Calvinistic, Baptist. 🙂
LikeLike
That reference to Newman’s “essay” should have said “sermon.”
LikeLike
Despite being a Catholic with traddish leanings, I’m a secret fan of Spurgeon. I just have such a soft spot for the Victorian Christians and their writing/preaching style. Actually Masters’ essay reminds me of my other fave Victorian, J.H. Newman, who in one of his essays (while an Anglican) condemned the reading of novels as worldly and sinful. (Of course, Newman eventually wrote a short novel himself….)
LikeLike
Anyone who would self-profess such an oxymoron as “Baptist Calvinism” should hardly be one to throw stones…
LikeLike
Uh……I generally delete all “occasional” posts after a few days. I’d prefer to have other things on the front page. Just an editorial decision on my part.
LikeLike
Matt Svoboda: He says they are soft on worldiness… WHAT! MacArthur, Mahaney, Piper, soft on worldliness? Does he know them at all?
Many in the Reformed camp would consider these guys to be fundamentalists. 😉
A Jesus shaped spirituality has to make these choices and live with the results.
And the “results” might not be in for a few decades, and people a hundred years from now might ask, “what was all the fuss about?”
LikeLike
Well, to look on the bright side, I think it’s nice to see non-Calvinists coming to the defense of Calvinists here. Attacks like this from the outer extremes usually help us all see how much we really do have in common.
LikeLike
As a Pentecostal (and I suspect, Arminian to some extent), I’m a conscientious objector in the “Calvinism Wars.” But it does seem like a ridiculous argument. Here’s Peter Masters saying that we need to worship and behave in a style from the 1870s, and on the other hand are the New Calvinists urging us to worship and behave in a style from … the 1970s.
And I wonder if any of them are asking God what He’d like us to do in 2009.
LikeLike
Also,
He says they are soft on worldiness… WHAT! MacArthur, Mahaney, Piper, soft on worldliness? Does he know them at all?
LikeLike
I think Masters misses it here. Just because a Calvinist that is a little contemporary in music and is a continuationist there not a ‘real calvinist?’ I know he never comes out and says they are ‘real calvinists’, but that is certainly what he implies, as if Spurgeon and Masters personal form of Calvinism is the only ‘true or pure Calvinism.’ How is MacArthur not Puritan in practice? Also, Mark Dever, who fits in with those others is certainly as puritan-like as Masters himself.
All in all, I think Masters does show a type of legalistic Calvinism that says indirectly, ‘There is only one real form of Calvinism and it is mine-and Spurgeon’s of course.’
LikeLike
“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.”
Ah, that’s the kind of good, old-fashioned “there’ll be no butter in Hell!”-style preaching I haven’t heard for far too long 😉
He gravely disapproves of the “young people revell(ing) in contemporary music”, doesn’t he? Mind you, I can’t say I blame him: hip-hop stylings done by contemporary Christian musicians? I’d pray for deafness 🙂
See, *this* is the kind of Calvinism on this side of the pond that I’m familiar with; the kind where elders on the Scottish isles make people take their washing off the line on Sundays because you shouldn’t be hanging out your laundry on the Sabbath, not your fancy new-fangled American kind of Calvinism where young people at ‘events’ look suspiciously like they’re enjoying themselves, not contemplating their latter end and the torments of the damned.
LikeLike
I’ve never been a fan of Calvinism, but this is the first time that I have heard of sanctification portion of it.
I can appreciate the need for that aspect, but the examples of worldliness seem odd. I would think that the frequency of new cars vs making the older ones last, etc. would make more sense.
LikeLike
Great post! Masters had me engaged much of the time, substance trumps form unless you make form the substance. Too bad for him.
Another note, great insight on the vacuum that is fundamentalism and its power to cause “some of today’s reformed heroes lose some of their luster in these kinds of contentions”.
Finally, the “live it out” side of theology is never propositional anyway. Hit the streets and see “if you are in the faith”.
LikeLike
You are a gracious and fair reviewer, Sir Michael. It amazes me actually.
LikeLike
As an Orthodox Christian, the overwhelming majority of your article has no point of contact — until one reaches the final two sentences: “But our distinctiveness isn’t ‘the Puritan Lifestyle.’ It’s the Gospel and the Christ-centered life it produces.”
Yes, yes, YES! Absolutely, 100%, completely: the Gospel and the Christ-centered life it produces. That, my friends, resonates all the way down into the heart!
LikeLike
sharper iron picked it up (approvingly)
http://www.sharperiron.org/printpdf/7436
LikeLike
Mr Masters seems like an absolute joy to be around! He seems like the kinda guy you could have a beer with and listen to classic Dylan…
LikeLike
This is a good “check” for us regarding the topic of worldliness.
Separation is something my pentecostal friends often talk about, and my african-american church friends often talk about, but rarely do my hip calvinist friends talk about. I’m not in complete agreement with Dr. Masters (the line about hip-hop made me cringe) or with the views of some of my friends, but I greatly respect the fact that this topic is talked about. It NEEDS a part of the conversation of the young reformed movement.
He brings up a valid point about consecration and Romans 12:1-2. Which one of the superstar preachers would we go to to get schooled on this verse? And how does this work in the context of mixing it up with the culture?
I’m glad to get checked on this. I’m going to examine some areas of potential (unhealthy) compromise in my own life.
LikeLike
That was a great article. Not that I agree with him, but wow does he lay it out (or lay the TR out).
I think it has not been discussed because the TR have nothing to respond to – they have to agree with him, in which case they have put on the sack cloth and ashes. Easier to ignore him and thus not deal with his logic
LikeLike
If there’s actually a problem with cessationists and non-cessationists agreeing on essentials and disagreeing on that then I’d rather have more “problems” like T4G. Perhaps the advantage of such a conference is that it gives a clearer perspective from which to refocus concern about doctrinal error on points more essential than the above?
LikeLike
Master’s is picking at nits if you ask me, at least when he goes to mentioning the likes of Piper, MacArthur, and Dever. Worldliness? Attached to these guys? C’mon, seriously.
His response to T4G: “[that it somehow allows] every error of the new scene [to] race ahead unchecked.” He wasn’t at the T4G I was at.
Maybe I’m just being a little over-sensitive because he’s picking on all of my heroes, but I’m having a hard to relating to where he’s coming from.
LikeLike
the most interesting thing, from my vantage point as a youth pastor in the Seattle area, is the specific attack on music genre and clothing. i am honestly surprised to see these two categories fall under attack. i wonder if there is a deeper theological argument that Masters could develop, and how Driscoll and others might respond. it seems Masters’ categorical definition of “worldliness” could include everything from food to hairstyle!
but having been to some Christian concerts and conferences, as much as it pains me to confess, i think Masters has a point. one presenter as the Creation Festival said, “all Christians need to quit being branded by the culture. we need to quit wearing Nike and Abercrombie, etc.” his solution, “come to my tent where i have a bunch of gear to replace your old, worldly stuff.” honestly.
so what is Masters solution?
LikeLike
Nice piece. Great catch on Master’s comments and excellent reflection. Reading this I wonder how Master’s feels about Lloyd-Jones, who in my readings could be considered somewhat of a British predecessor to Mahaney (and maybe Driscoll) in America?
LikeLike
I agree with some of your take Imonk, but coming from a fundie background as well, you know that they say one doesn’t have to become like the culture to engage the culture, and even though I think fundie tactics and hangups can cause some undo focus on non-essentials, they have been succesful at engaging the culture at times on their own terms without “t-shirts and worship bands.”
LikeLike
I really appreciate your thoughtful piece on this subject. Some other blogs have actually been personally abusive towards Dr Masters.
Phil Johnson did write a little response to someone who asked him, I think it is on sharperiron. Essentially he said ‘I can love and respect PM without agreeing with everything he says’.
I wish it were the same for more folk, but I think that culturally this article seems more harsh on your side of the pond than on ours. We are also prone to name names more, I believe.
LikeLike