Thread: The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness

Metropolitan Tabernacle - The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness



The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness,from Sword & Trowel 2009, No. 1 by Dr Peter Masters

WARNING. THIS MAY HURT. A WHOLE LOT. READ WITH CARE.

Thank you. I have often felt the same about some of these guys. I can't put down Piper or MacArthur, but the ideas in general here are great.

Imo, Dr. Masters is spot on.

I read this article a while back and couldn't agree more. Great to read it again though...I seemed to have somehow overlooked a page (I had been lent a "paper copy," guess I must have flipped over a page ), therefore, causing me to have somewhat of a half&half opinion. Having the entire article in front of me now...well as I mentioned, I couldn't agree more. Thanks for the post!

Ouch!

I'd say the author actually went too far. While he is very correctly condemning the worship that is forbidden by the RPW, it is not the case that Christian rap/rock is worldly or intrinsically immoral. If it is, he'd have to do more than assert its worldliness.

While I believe there is some merit to the content of the article, both the tone and the target seem to be off. I think it would be good to consider of whom this "New Calvinism" consists. The vast majority of the leaders AND the congregants of these men did not start out Reformed at all. Piper didn't grow up Reformed; I don't know about JMac but he went to Bob Jones, not exactly a bastion of Reformed theology.

The "New Calvinism" is a few old guys leading a whole bunch of young guys into a more Reformed Christianity than they grew up with. It is a movement in transition. I fear that although most of the people on this board came from backgrounds farther away than the "New Calvinism," some will not allow this movement the same freedom to grow. Some instead turn around and say, "How dare you not progress toward 'pure' Reformed theology as fast as I did?"

Mahaney and Harris are a great example. Look up the historical roots of Sovereign Grace, and you will find that a few decades ago, they were a run-of-the-mill Charismatic group. Now, they've replaced their Arminianism with Calvinism, their whatever with covenant theology, and their shallow contemporary music drivel with extremely God-centered, doctrinally rich contemporary music. Also, their "charismatic" standing these days is little more than having a big place for subjective leading in the life of a Christian.

So... even though one can and probably should take some time to lovingly point out faults and defects, why aim the cannons at the people coming to join us?

Any other flaws in the article aside, this is spot on:

You cannot have Puritan soteriology without Puritan sanctification. You should not entice people to Calvinistic (or any) preaching by using worldly bait.

With that premise laid, it's hard to disagree with the conclusions that he draws.

Originally Posted by Confessor

I'd say the author actually went too far. While he is very correctly condemning the worship that is forbidden by the RPW, it is not the case that Christian rap/rock is worldly or intrinsically immoral. If it is, he'd have to do more than assert its worldliness.

Agreed. He's conflating use of certain music altogether instead of said music being used out of its place.

Look, I'm definitely no fan of this newfangled "Calvinism." It is truncated, withering, and highly deficient. However, I don't like it when people miss the point altogether in their critiques. Using loaded language like "worldly" to apply to a musical style (apart from lyrics, sinful nostalgia, etc.) just isn't helpful. Criticize the disregard for the RPW, yes! Criticize poor preaching and practice in the stated meetings of worship, yes! But calling a certain arrangement of musical notes and beats as being inherently "carnal," "worldly," etc. to all individuals without exception (again, apart from lyrics, past sinful nostalgia attached thereunto)? No thanks. That's unprovable, biblically speaking.

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.

What would you say to a person whos "newborn christian instinct" prompts him to preach that alchohol is sin?? Well the Baptists would praise him and the Presbys would ignore/boo him. Jesus said that we are salt and light and yet how can salt work if it stays on the shelf and never comes in any meaningful contact with the meat? How can a candle do anything if it stays in the noon day sun and never ventures into the darkness. I dont have a problem with sanctification but I do not think this is an article calling for that. It is calling for near totall separation from the world. I wonder if he realizes that most hymns are written to the style of the bar tunes of their day.

Joseph, as an aside, the "Bar" is referring to musical form and not a tavern.

Overboard.
He states some good points, but the idea of a genre of music like hip-hop being intrinsically worldly is ridiculous. The fact is there is an entire culture at stake, and God was pleased to save some from within that culture, and use them as indigenous missionaries to that culture.
The music of that culture is no more intrinsically sinful than the pagan Bill Gates' Windows program I use to navigate to the Puritan Board.
As far as rousing emotions, several voices in harmony singing hymns does the same for many. We should just speak songs to one another if that's the case.
Overall, I see Masters' concern as valid. I also see his "throw the baby out with the bathwater" thinking a bit wrong-headed.
No one that I know argues for Hip Hop or rock or contemporary gospel as a substitute during the Lord's Day gathering for Worship. Yet a wholesale rejection of all cultural styles on the basis of the perceived superiority of MY cultural style seems to me to be anti-Gospel. Who goes to other cultures as a missionary and imparts to them not only the Gospel, but OUR mandates for listening choices as well?

Originally Posted by Joshua

Joseph, as an aside, the "Bar" is referring to musical form and not a tavern.

I apologize for not stating this. But the matter still remains that the hymns are patterned after secular music their day.

Originally Posted by Unashamed 116

But the matter still remains that the hymns are patterned after secular music their day.

From whence do you derive this info? Just curious.

I forgot. Rap and Rock and Roll uses the Devil's rhythm and induces you to take drugs and have promiscuous sex.

The author has a point somewhere in there, but he utterly lost it when he overstated his case against speakers and conferences and Calvinstic hip hop, rap, rock and roll, or other music. If those genres of music are inherently corrupted because people use them for sinful purposes, we might as well kill ourselves because then everything around us, including typing and writing, is sinful by association.

I really wish he hadn't overreacted, because I think that a good critique of the new American Calvinism is very needed. However, rather than focusing on the "sinful jungle beats" of music not used in worship, he should focus on the lack of doctrinal training in Presbyterian mega-churches and the hero worship that's growing in popularity. One shouldn't forget to know the trendy, fad-like treatment of Calvinism and Reformed theology and general. People throw around terms they hardly comprehend because it's "cool" and they look smart. (I've been guilty of this.)

...When you look at their ‘favourite films’, and ‘favourite music’ you find them unashamedly naming the leading groups, tracks and entertainment of debased culture, and it is clear that the world is still in their hearts......
True Calvinism and worldliness are opposites

can't argue with that

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by Unashamed 116

But the matter still remains that the hymns are patterned after secular music their day.

From whence do you derive this info? Just curious.

A few discussions with a music prof at a local college.

Interesting how he critiques "New Calvinism"... Has he been to some "Reformed churches as of late? It's easy to criticize the newly converted, etc. Lets start reforming the Reformed churches before we blow torch babes in Christ.

Originally Posted by TrueConvert

Overboard.
He states some good points, but the idea of a genre of music like hip-hop being intrinsically worldly is ridiculous.

No one that I know argues for Hip Hop or rock or contemporary gospel as a substitute during the Lord's Day gathering for Worship. Yet a wholesale rejection of all cultural styles on the basis of the perceived superiority of MY cultural style seems to me to be anti-Gospel. Who goes to other cultures as a missionary and imparts to them not only the Gospel, but OUR mandates for listening choices as well?

That is so true... the word says that people of every tribe, language, tongue and nation are going to be saved. That sounds like a multicultural, multiethnic celebration to me. It is just as silly to say that it is sinful for Aboriginals or Masais or whomever to do what they do when they worship, as it is to say that it is sinful for a particular subculture to worship in a certain way. I don't think it is realistic to expect every culture around the world to conform to one of our choosing. I don't like using methods of worship as means to attract people rather than the gospel, but that is not the same as simply praising God within the context of your culture.

Feel free to try to convince me that I'm wrong about this or that I am misunderstanding the RPW, as it is an entirely new concept to me. (I first heard of it when I joined this board a few weeks ago...)

Originally Posted by Zenas

I forgot. Rap and Rock and Roll uses the Devil's rhythm and induces you to take drugs and have promiscuous sex.

The author has a point somewhere in there, but he utterly lost it when he overstated his case against speakers and conferences and Calvinstic hip hop, rap, rock and roll, or other music. If those genres of music are inherently corrupted because people use them for sinful purposes, we might as well kill ourselves because then everything around us, including typing and writing, is sinful by association.

Good point.

People throw around terms they hardly comprehend because it's "cool" and they look smart. (I've been guilty of this.)

Me too.

Originally Posted by Zenas

I forgot. Rap and Rock and Roll uses the Devil's rhythm and induces you to take drugs and have promiscuous sex.

The author has a point somewhere in there, but he utterly lost it when he overstated his case against speakers and conferences and Calvinstic hip hop, rap, rock and roll, or other music. If those genres of music are inherently corrupted because people use them for sinful purposes, we might as well kill ourselves because then everything around us, including typing and writing, is sinful by association.

I really wish he hadn't overreacted, because I think that a good critique of the new American Calvinism is very needed. However, rather than focusing on the "sinful jungle beats" of music not used in worship, he should focus on the lack of doctrinal training in Presbyterian mega-churches and the hero worship that's growing in popularity. One shouldn't forget to know the trendy, fad-like treatment of Calvinism and Reformed theology and general. People throw around terms they hardly comprehend because it's "cool" and they look smart. (I've been guilty of this.)

It strikes me that many of the arguments against rock/rap music are similar to those used against alcohol. Perhaps the "misuse" clause also applies to music?

I think his main criticism is in this type of music being used in church or church-related activities.

As far as whether a particular style of music is inherently sinful: I don't think the suggestion is implausible. But what kind of information would you need to be able to say one way or another? Just because something is practiced by different cultures doesn't mean that it's Godly. God doesn't endorse every aspect of human culture. And the fact that contemporary tunes were used for hymns in the past doesn't say anything about the type of music involved.

On the other hand, there does seem to be at least a correlation of rock music with sinfulness. Perhaps it's a cultural/historical accident that "sex, drug, and rock and roll" go hand-in-hand, but just maybe there is more to it. It's the fans of rock music themselves who came up with that expression, so evidently they found it particularly expressive of that kind of lifestyle. Besides, something doesn't necessarily have to be inherently sinful to be a problem, if it's overwhelming tendency is to sinfulness.

Too often people make a knee-jerk reaction on this issue on way or another, usually based on what their own musical preferences are. I think the author makes some good points, and it's something that at least needs to be seriously considered.

I started in this "New Calvinism" and as far as the 5 points of Calvinism it's amazing!

Then I started searching out more than just the 5points and through comparing Puritans to people such as R.C.Sproul and all those "New Covenant Baptists" I found that the Puritans and original Reformers are light years beyond it seems.

I think it's great to give people John Piper etc. books as a start as far as soteriology but I would never give someone a book on Covenant or Worship from these guys.

Even though I adhere to the RPW including non instrumental Exclusive Psalmody I still think Reformed Soteriology "HIP HOP" has it's place, I love a good dose of Shai Linne once in awhile. If one is say that everything the world does is sin then we would have no chance of drinking beer, NO BEER!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!

This author says ALOT of good things, but I am not going to go AMISH!!!

If anyone reads the translations to classical style opera music, you will find enough sex laced profane lyrics to make almost anyone blush.

The survey of music I went through in college opened my eyes to this, and showed me that almost all forms of instrumental music have been used wickedly.

Originally Posted by louis_jp

As far as whether a particular style of music is inherently sinful: I don't think the suggestion is implausible. But what kind of information would you need to be able to say one way or another?

To call something inherently sinful (i.e. it is applicable to all persons without exception, for example, the mere listening to a "rock beat" would be sinful for all people without exception, which is what is asserted) it needs to meet a few things:

1. It should be either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture (God's Law).

2. It must be universally applicable if we're going to call it inherently wicked.

Don't misunderstand me. These things can be sinful for some folks who have certain struggles associated with or related to the listening of certain kinds of music. Nor am I saying that music is neutral. I'm saying that it doesn't affect all people in the same manner (positively or negatively). We cannot be holier than God so to call something universally sinful for all people without exception without biblical warrant is going beyond God's standard.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by louis_jp

As far as whether a particular style of music is inherently sinful: I don't think the suggestion is implausible. But what kind of information would you need to be able to say one way or another?

To call something inherently sinful (i.e. it is applicable to all persons without exception, for example, the mere listening to a "rock beat" would be sinful for all people without exception, which is what is asserted) it needs to meet a few things:

1. It should be either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture (God's Law).

2. It must be universally applicable if we're going to call it inherently wicked.

Don't misunderstand me. These things can be sinful for some folks who have certain struggles associated with or related to the listening of certain kinds of music. Nor am I saying that music is neutral. I'm saying that it doesn't affect all people in the same manner (positively or negatively). We cannot be holier than God so to call something universally sinful for all people without exception without biblical warrant is going beyond God's standard.

Fair enough, although my point was more to the tendencies or dominant characteristics of the thing. It doesn't need to be sinful 100% of the time to 100% of people for it to be a problem.

Originally Posted by louis_jp

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by louis_jp

As far as whether a particular style of music is inherently sinful: I don't think the suggestion is implausible. But what kind of information would you need to be able to say one way or another?

To call something inherently sinful (i.e. it is applicable to all persons without exception, for example, the mere listening to a "rock beat" would be sinful for all people without exception, which is what is asserted) it needs to meet a few things:

1. It should be either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture (God's Law).

2. It must be universally applicable if we're going to call it inherently wicked.

Don't misunderstand me. These things can be sinful for some folks who have certain struggles associated with or related to the listening of certain kinds of music. Nor am I saying that music is neutral. I'm saying that it doesn't affect all people in the same manner (positively or negatively). We cannot be holier than God so to call something universally sinful for all people without exception without biblical warrant is going beyond God's standard.

Fair enough, although my point was more to the tendencies or dominant characteristics of the thing. It doesn't need to be sinful 100% of the time to 100% of people for it to be a problem.

Sure, so we shouldn't call it 100% sinful nor do so 100% of the time it's brought up. The problem is not with the inane substance (i.e. music, alcohol), but the depravity of men who are listening, imbibing, etc.

I haven't heard anybody do either of those things.

Originally Posted by louis_jp

I haven't heard anybody do either of those things.

Masters did it when he made sweeping generalizations of certain kinds of music as "worldly" and "carnal." He's also done it before. He does the same thing with alcohol consumption. I am a staunch defender of piety, but it's the biblical piety, and not the pietism of perfectionism. Now, I know that Masters is not perfectionist, but he takes the subjects of music and alcohol too far.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by louis_jp

I haven't heard anybody do either of those things.

Masters did it when he made sweeping generalizations of certain kinds of music as "worldly" and "carnal." He's also done it before. He does the same thing with alcohol consumption.

There is a difference between generalizing (even sweepingly) and a statement of 100%.

I am one post away from being able to thank several of you formally.

I don't think he went far enough myself. But, of course I'm EP.

Speaking as one who has burned his records in the past and then had to go out and buy them again. I'm sorry, but I don't find any of the arguments I've heard against popular music styles remotely convincing.

Modern "churchianity" including the "New Calvinism" has much deeper problems than "the music it digs".

Originally Posted by louis_jp

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by louis_jp

I haven't heard anybody do either of those things.

Masters did it when he made sweeping generalizations of certain kinds of music as "worldly" and "carnal." He's also done it before. He does the same thing with alcohol consumption.

There is a difference between generalizing (even sweepingly) and a statement of 100%.

Okay, Friend. Masters call the music from the Passion Conference worldly in the fleshly sense. Puts quotes around the term Christian when he discusses Hip Hop. Why? Because he denies that said music can be associated with Christianity, etc. I agree that such does not belong in worship. I don't think music period belongs (in the sense of instruments, etc.), but to castigate an arrangement of notes, divorced from lyrics, etc. as "carnal" or "worldly," well that's saying that all instances of said music are 100% carnal and worldly.

Originally Posted by Blueridge Believer

I don't think he went far enough myself. But, of course I'm EP.

As am I, but that has nothing to do with the inherent "sinfulness" of certain musical genres. Absolutely nothing, Friend.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by Blueridge Believer

I don't think he went far enough myself. But, of course I'm EP.

As am I, but that has nothing to do with the inherent "sinfulness" of certain musical genres. Absolutely nothing, Friend.

I'm not sure why you're insisting on that point. If Masters said that the music was 99.5% carnal and worldly, would you be okay with it? What about 98%? 92%, etc., etc., etc. It seems like you're clinging to the idea of inherent sinfulness to dismiss his point entirely.

I am dismissing his point entirely, because he's calling a certain kind of musical/beat arrangement as inherently "carnal" and "worldly." He cannot biblically prove that assertion, so he shouldn't make it. He does his valid criticisms and points no favor when he mixes it with such other things.

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

The last sentence is slanderous. It is a violation of the Ninth Commandment in my estimation. Drug-induced musical forms is a stupid statement. You can't induce drugs into music. While you can write music while drug and alchohol induced the music itself is not drug induced. And I know plenty of people who write contemporary music who are not drug induced. I am sure that some classical pieces of music have been written while partaking of alcohol and or drugs. I can't prove that and the author of this article can't prove that the contemporary music sang at these conferences were written one way or another.

He is out of bounds on this call.

Well he says that the musical "forms" are drug-induced, going back to his point that this form of music was created out of the counter-culture.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

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

The last sentence is slanderous. It is a violation of the Ninth Commandment in my estimation. Drug-induced musical forms is a stupid statement. You can't induce drugs into music. While you can write music while drug and alchohol induced the music itself is not drug induced. And I know plenty of people who write contemporary music who are not drug induced. I am sure that some classical pieces of music have been written while partaking of alcohol and or drugs. I can't prove that and the author of this article can't prove that the contemporary music sang at these conferences were written one way or another.

He is out of bounds on this call.

Thank you very much. I definitely 2nd the sentiments of this post.

Originally Posted by louis_jp

Well he says that the musical "forms" are drug-induced, going back to his point that this form of music was created out of the counter-culture.

So then, I guess anytime we have a new musical form of expression introduced should we consider it naturally sinful?