"The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world."

[Andrew Comings] I agree with Brian McCrorie’s assessment of the article. When you boil it down, it is all about the music. Growing up as I did in a context where music was THE ISSUE (the Bill Gothard organization), I can understand why so many of the YRRs are sick of it. There is a tendency to discard entire movements because of musical tastes—which is exactly what Masters does in his piece.

I take issue with the claim of this portion of your post and here is why. Here, you are claiming two things:

1. That fundamentally the article and/or objection is “all about the music”.
2. That Masters is discarding this movement “because of musical tastes” and you state this is “exactly what he does”.

Masters makes it clear that it is not the music, rather the “experience-indulgent-sensually” oriented ideology/theology of “charismaticsm” that is now accepted in this new Calvinistic sect, which uses, by and large in their meetings, the platform of music to initiate, heighten and validate their communal sessions. Masters is not challenging the music, in and of itself, but the acceptance of it and ANY OTHER “sensually” based mechanism as a source for spiritual experiences or issues of public liberties which we know that in fact are products promoted by cosmic diabolicus sold as indulgence, a lack of deportment, intemperance, and epicureanism.

The reason that music is being dealt with here so strongly is because music is the highly pronounced feature and/or mechanism of their alleged spiritual encounters and experiences and it is a form of music that has with it a very long history of wetting sensual and carnal appetites. But be sure, Masters does not cite music exclusively and appeals more broadly to the fundamental cause of it and OTHER elements being so readily accepted in ANY FORM. And to demonstrate Master’s validity in contending with this portion of the movement (music) and the necessity of addressing this prominent element of emergent/charismatic/Calvinism who claim a Puritan soteriology he states:

You cannot have Puritan soteriology without Puritan sanctification. You should not entice people to Calvinistic (or any) preaching by using worldly bait. We hope that young people in this movement will grasp the implications of the doctrines better than their teachers, and come away from the compromises. But there is a looming disaster in promoting this new form of Calvinism.

There is such thing as libertarian intemperance, epicureanism if you will. It just happens that in these gatherings these groups have made musical license their choice of immodesty and contradiction. If these groups were using another platform as extensively as they do music, such as drinking, flaunting wealth, and so on Masters would address them to that degree, and by the way, he does, if you recall, address other forms of indiscretion:[Quote] 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 [see endnote 1].

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.[/Quote] So it isn’t just music, rather a certain mentality lacking the integrity of discernment, maturity, composure and spiritual and personal poise to which he objects.

In my view, attempting to reduce Master’s article to major highlights and failing to recognize the broader treatment and consideration appears not just reactionary but quite unfair to our duty to weigh the the entire article with all of its components. He did not just dismiss an entire movement based on taste in music, he addressed a grossly incompatible theology and practice and rather naive, immature and imprudent indulgences and liberties not just privately practiced but given great ascension as virtuous, superior and enlightened by its leaders. I believe Masters is much more thoughtful than being guilty of “just discarding a movement over taste in music”.

[Alex Guggenheim]
In my view, attempting to reduce Master’s article to major highlights and failing to recognize the broader treatment and consideration appears not just reactionary but quite unfair to our duty to weigh the the entire article with all of its components. He did not just dismiss an entire movement based on taste in music, he addressed a grossly incompatible theology and practice and rather naive, immature and imprudent indulgences and liberties not just privately practiced but given great ascension as virtuous, superior and enlightened by its leaders. I believe Masters is much more thoughtful than being guilty of “just discarding a movement over taste in music”.

Thanks for saying this.

I am not at all surprised to see outrage at Master’s article. Sigh. I think I’m in the wrong crowd at SI anymore.

While it sometimes makes for interesting reading, I find the hasty generalizations and misrepresentations (such as of Master’s article) and judging just as harsh as those who many of you are criticizing. It is really sad. I see very little tolerance. You cry for tolerance, but you don’t really want tolerance for just anyone…it’s only if they agree with you. We ALL are that way. Very few of us really want to tolerate the other person, esp. if we deem them to be “in error.”

The most tolerant, are probably the ones not posting, or maybe even not reading all this stuff. They have other things to do in life besides picking fights —Oh, I meant, “standing for the truth” or “not tolerating error’— on the internet.

it is difficult for me to match a very strict theologlcal message, with most modern music. It doesn’t seem to go together. My kids go to a choir led by a very nice Catholic lady. She has no use for most of pop music. It isn’t because of her “convictions”—see simply sees most of it as not good music. (She’s a retired opera singer.) An interesting perspective. I’ve long wondered this about a lot of the whole reformed group. Josh Harris and his big thing against “lust”. I wonder what kind of music he endorses. What kind of women’s groups? How do they dress, how do they sing? What do they look like and who are they trying to imitate? I don’t know since I neither read Josh Harris nor follow him. I’ve been kind of curious. It seems like sending a mixed message.

I wonder how many on SI go to discos or have no problem with churches imitating discos with colored/revolving/disco lights, etc. in church. My guess is not many would have problems with it—at least not the ones who have no problems with most CCM being performed in churches and attend the major concerts. Doesn’t this seem just so “anti” christian culture? Somehow I can’t understand how the way many of the artists are trying to look fits with being Christlike. That’s just me. Here at SI, I think I’m in the minority.

I got the impression that Masters was pointing out that old reformed people believed that God was going to work—you didn’t have to try to appeal to the flesh (the reason many say that they use CCM is because it is what people like and they will come for), nor work gimmicks or manipulate people emotionally. God is going to work. Simply preach the word. Music doesn’t have to be a performance or a show.

[Becky Petersen] I wonder how many on SI go to discos or have no problem with churches imitating discos with colored/revolving/disco lights, etc. in church. My guess is not many would have problems with it—at least not the ones who have no problems with most CCM being performed in churches and attend the major concerts. Doesn’t this seem just so “anti” christian culture? Somehow I can’t understand how the way many of the artists are trying to look fits with being Christlike. That’s just me. Here at SI, I think I’m in the minority.

I got the impression that Masters was pointing out that old reformed people believed that God was going to work—you didn’t have to try to appeal to the flesh (the reason many say that they use CCM is because it is what people like and they will come for), nor work gimmicks or manipulate people emotionally. God is going to work. Simply preach the word. Music doesn’t have to be a performance or a show.

Becky … unless I am completely off, I doubt many on Sharper Iron are in churches that imitate party halls.

[Becky Petersen] That’s just me. Here at SI, I think I’m in the minority.
.

Don’t forget me. I know there are a few more in our little club.

[Becky Petersen] I wonder how many on SI go to discos….

I went to discos more than 30 years ago - does that count? Wore my bell bottom pants and platform shoes too, and had hair that would have resulted in my being expelled from most, if not all, Bible Colleges. 8)

Becky: Maybe there’s a way to find out someday, but my impression is that, yes, many at SI would use more contemporary music than the most conservative evangelicals/fundamentalists would use. But very, very few would favor having their churches in any way resemble a dance hall or the like.

In general, SI is pretty anti-“church growth movement” and anti-emergent and anti-“just do what will draw the crowd.”
Most of those who pitch for more contemporary music are—my impression—just not fond of the kind of reasoning they’ve heard against contemporary music… so they’re more “not against it” than actually “for it,” if you know what I mean.
Though it has some advocates here also.

Anyway, minorities and majorities will continue to challenge each other here, that’s for sure, and if listening and thinking is going on, that’s a good thing.

Becky,

I can understand why you feel that way. But there are many of us on here that only use conservative music in our churches. In fact, I might be too out there. I RARELY use gospel songs (been two years since we sang “Love Lifted Me”). Our hymnal is Joan Pinkston’s Hymns of Grace and Glory and tends to be flooded with older hymns. I do have Getty’s and some others in my personal listening though.

I am not defending Josh Harris. But from what I understand, his thoughts on modesty are very high. I was told by one Fundamental music person, “If Harris and Mahaney would make the same applications to their music they do to modesty, they would be stricter than most fundamentalists.” I do find that an intersting dichotomy from their theology and practice.

I don’t understand the mentality of men like Masters. They are quick to attack solid expositors like Piper, Mohler, and MacArthur, yet I don’t see the articles and sermons that speak out against Osteen, Robert Schuller, etc. Maybe I’m just not looking hard enough or in the right places. Where were the articles of outrage when Bob Gray, a professed “fundamental baptist” was discovered to be a sexual predator?
It reminds me of a zebra that is worried about a fly on its back while ignoring the tiger running towards it.

And just because some people seem to be overly sensitive, let me add a disclaimer: I’m sure Peter Masters is a very knowledgeable pastor that loves the Lord and is truly interested in the furtherance of the Gospel.

[Norm] I don’t understand the mentality of men like Masters. They are quick to attack solid expositors like Piper, Mohler, and MacArthur,

What statement from the article are you referring to as an attack on all 3 of these men?

I have been itching for the chance to respond to Alex’s comments, but alas real-world stuff has always cried louder for my attention. Now, however, I have a few solid moments, and so, with great fear and trepidation, here goes:

First off, having read Alex’s comments, and re-read Masters’ article several times, I have become much more convinced that yes,

fundamentally the article and/or objection is “all about the music”. (or, at least, mostly about the music…)

AND

That Masters is discarding this movement “because of musical tastes” and you state this is “exactly what he does”.

Consider these two paragraphs, which he uses in the beginning of the article to define the worldliness in the New Calvinist gatherings:

The author begins by describing the Passion, conference at Atlanta in 2007, where 21,000 young people revelled in contemporary music, and listened to speakers such as John Piper proclaiming Calvinistic sentiments. And this picture is repeated many times through the book – large conferences being described at which the syncretism of worldly, sensation-stirring, high-decibel, rhythmic music, is mixed with Calvinistic doctrine.

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.

Am I wrong in stating that he is defining worldliness by musical choices?

Also, notice how he paints a vivid picture of the raucous worship, while downplaying Piper’s message as simply “proclaiming Calvinistic sentiments”. More on that later.

This next paragraph is interesting:

Indeed, a far better quality Calvinism still flourishes in very many churches, where souls are won and lives sanctified, and where Truth and practice are both under the rule of Scripture. Such churches have no sympathy at all with reporter Collin Hansen’s worldly-worship variety, who seek to build churches using exactly the same entertainment methods as most charismatics and the Arminian Calvary Chapel movement.

1. He is assuming that lives are not sanctified in the New Calvinist churches. His assumption is based on what? As far as I can tell, music styles.

2. In this paragraph he also tries to lump the New Calvinists in with the church-growth crowd, claiming they are using their music to attract people. Does he know this is their reason? How?

3. I got a kick out of his “better quality Calvinism” remark. Says who? Why is it better? Because it uses music he considers “godly”? Up until now, this is the only aspect of the New Cavlinism that he has mentioned that he finds troubling.

This next paragraph almost made my chin drop.

The new Calvinists constantly extol the Puritans, but they do not want to worship or live as they did. One of the vaunted new conferences is called Resolved, after Jonathan Edwards’ famous youthful Resolutions (seventy searching undertakings). But the culture of this conference would unquestionably have met with the outright condemnation of that great theologian.

Of course they don’t worship like the Puritans, and neither does Masters. Neither did Edwards, for that matter. He sided with the “radical” Isaac Watts in including songs that were not verbatim scripture set to music, but rather (gasp!) hymns written by human authors. For information on this, read Marsden’s exhaustively researched biography of Edwards. He devotes some time to this subject. In fact, if you read Marsden, you will come away wondering where Masters gets his idea that Edwards would have given his “outright condemnation” to the Resolutions conference.

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.

His use of the phrase “charismatic style worship” here implies an argment that is at best a non-sequiter. The idea is this: Charismatics have bad theology. Charasmatics use lively music. Therefore, lively music is bad. I have seen this logic worked out in more areas than just music. Insert clapping hands (here in Brazil we have churches that will not even allow their young people to clap hands while singing “happy birthday”), raising hands, and the use of a myriad of instruments.

Also, I thought the insertion of John MacArthur’s name here was quite sly. Charismatic Chaos, anyone?

All of his four accusations against the leaders he had mentioned left me scratching my head, but the one that really got me was number two:

They are soft on separation from worldliness

Really? Has he never heard any of these men preach? Has he never read anything they have written? Up until this point he has not mentioned anything concrete to back up this accusation, except for music—and possibly raising of hands). I followed the directions after this accusation, and went to the endnotes, where I read this:

A recent book entitled Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World by C J Mahaney and others, hopelessly under-equips young believers for separation from the world, especially in the area of music, where, apparently, the Lord loves every genre, and acceptability is reduced to two misleading and subjective questions.

And so, once again…it’s THE MUSIC.

Bear with me as I quote one more paragraph:

Whatever their strengths and achievements (and some of them are brilliant men by any human standard), or whatever their theoretical Calvinism, the poor stand of these preachers on these crucial issues will only encourage a fatally flawed version of Calvinism that will lead people to be increasingly wedded to the world, and to a self-seeking lifestyle.

So here we have it. The entirety of these men’s ministries rises and falls on their musical choices. In fact, the most good he can bring himself to say about any of the men mentioned here is that they are smart, and friendly. That’s it. Forget the multitudes of people saved. Forget works like “Desiring God”, “The Gospel According to Jesus”, “Ashamed of the Gospel”, “Charismatic Chaos” etc etc etc. He is calling out men of God on one issue, and the most he can bring himself to say in their favor is that they are “brilliant”—and even that is a backhanded slap.

Pathetic.

I found it sad that he does not extend to Phil Johnson the same consideration that Phil Johnson extends to him in the response posted on this forum.

So…I will repeat it again. Despite attempts by others here to super-impose a deeper meaning, or interpret what he is “trying” to say, Masters’ screed, at it’s very core, IS about music.

Andrew,

A well written response with some strong points. However, since music is such a pronounced feature and treated as a significant gateway to spiritual experiences, this is precisely why it gets the heavy attention. Again, if another element were as elevated which existed as such a contradiction to Calvinisim’s practical heritage, I have no doubt it too would get the same attention.

While Masters crafts his writing to favor his context, he never personally diminishes either MacArthur or Piper. At most he states facts (an associate of MacArthur and Piper communicating “sentiments”), shading them with the color of his observation, something that should speak to the quality and integrity of his words. By the way, I regularly enjoy John MacArthur and have for years though I disagree with his Calvinism and Lordship salvation doctrines.

I don’t know to whom Sword and Trowel is addressed, but the article seemed remarkably insular. If it was directed outward, there was little attempt at engaging the reader and convincing him to re-examine his premises about the interrelations of worship, doctrine, and piety. Rather, it was simply repeated assertions that could not hope to convince anyone in disagreement. If it was directed inward, it seems rather bullying. Sort of like saying, “Don’t play with the bad Calvinists.” I think we’ve heard about a recent FBF attempt in that direction.

I’m disappointed because I think that I probably agree with Masters about some things. I am concerned about the worship atmosphere I found at Covenant Life Church and some conferences. I am worried about things in Driscoll’s ministry which I perceive to be incongruous with his stated theology. However, I think the Masters article is a flop, because it comes across as “grumpy old man syndrome.” Surely he could have articulated his thoughts in a more insightful, less abrasive, way.