Ok, I’m completely perplexed! I’ve seen and read it all now. I do not seek to be ugly in this post, perhaps someone can explain this to me. I just looked over this month’s copy of my Alma Matter’s publication, The Baptist Vision, and had a couple of things jump out at me. One, is that Peter Masters, the Calvinist Pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle is listed as an Editor of the Baptist Vision. That’s cool, I can handle that, in fact I can applaud the fact that brethren can choose to agree to disagree and still seek to honor Christ. I happen to know that Calvinist leaning students at Crown aren’t treated with the same deference reserved for Dr. Masters. Recently, it has been affirmed again at Crown that Calvinism is not a welcome teaching, which is obviously their prerogative. Again, this begs the question of what Dr. Masters is doing as an editor of the Baptist Vision, but that is really not the point of this post.
On page 9 of the Baptist Vision Dr. Masters has some comments on Spurgeon’s sermon on “The present financial crisis.” Allow me to reproduce his final paragraph.
“A parallel spiritual situation is the policy of many evangelical (and reformed) leaders who are building churches on a foundation of entertainment, contemporary worship and worldly lifestyles. The reputations of such churches (including reformed mega-churches in the USA) will collapse horribly in the coming years, just as the churches of the big names of nineteenth-century evangelical compromise collapsed to liberalism.”
If you go to his website you will find that he specifically calls out John MaCarthur as one of these poor misguided souls who dabble with compromise in music.
I’m not interested in debating the merits of Dr. Master’s opinions, at least not in this post, and He is more than welcome to them. What blows my mind is that MUSIC STYLES are worth calling out a Pastor by name and predicting his and Piper’s and Mahaney’s churches will collapse horribly because of said musical compromise, even as he as a Calvinist is a co-editor of a quasi-Arminian’s pamphlet. What’s wrong with this picture? Of course, music style is so much more important than what you believe about the Gospel, right?
My only point in this post is that certain side battles are elevated to a level of importance that is almost laughable! When you will call out someone who agrees with you 100% on the Gospel because of his music, while you hold hands with someone you disagree greatly on the Gospel because his music is as boring as yours you have redefined hypocrisy, or at least have some serious issues with your priorities. All of this, of course, is my humble opinion, especially the "boring" part. May God help us make much of what really matters and quit the trivial nonsense!
On page 9 of the Baptist Vision Dr. Masters has some comments on Spurgeon’s sermon on “The present financial crisis.” Allow me to reproduce his final paragraph.
“A parallel spiritual situation is the policy of many evangelical (and reformed) leaders who are building churches on a foundation of entertainment, contemporary worship and worldly lifestyles. The reputations of such churches (including reformed mega-churches in the USA) will collapse horribly in the coming years, just as the churches of the big names of nineteenth-century evangelical compromise collapsed to liberalism.”
If you go to his website you will find that he specifically calls out John MaCarthur as one of these poor misguided souls who dabble with compromise in music.
I’m not interested in debating the merits of Dr. Master’s opinions, at least not in this post, and He is more than welcome to them. What blows my mind is that MUSIC STYLES are worth calling out a Pastor by name and predicting his and Piper’s and Mahaney’s churches will collapse horribly because of said musical compromise, even as he as a Calvinist is a co-editor of a quasi-Arminian’s pamphlet. What’s wrong with this picture? Of course, music style is so much more important than what you believe about the Gospel, right?
My only point in this post is that certain side battles are elevated to a level of importance that is almost laughable! When you will call out someone who agrees with you 100% on the Gospel because of his music, while you hold hands with someone you disagree greatly on the Gospel because his music is as boring as yours you have redefined hypocrisy, or at least have some serious issues with your priorities. All of this, of course, is my humble opinion, especially the "boring" part. May God help us make much of what really matters and quit the trivial nonsense!
Hidden in Him!
Tony
7 comments:
you hit the nail on the head. well, all except the "boring" part.
the "separation" and "militancy" of modern fundamentalist is very misguided and inconsistent.
Interesting post. Why is it that we have to devote so much energy to tearing the other guy down? Can we be thankful for Piper, MacArthur, and others? Or must we feel jealous/threatened?
Good post.
I have been intriqued by Sexton's close friendships with Calvinists and yet he denounces it. When he visited GSBC a year ago for a Spurgeon lecture that I attended, he said: "Never call yourself a Calvinst" But he never said don't be one.
I have a little booklet by Peter Masters called: "Are We Fundamentalists?" and in it, he explains how he is being attacked left and right by the seeker sensitive churches in England and they are labeling him as a Fundamentalist. So, it sounds like he's taking on the label since Christians are historically labeled by their enemies: Christian, Baptist, Protestant, etc..were all names given by their enemies.
I have found that fundamentalists have a glue that holds them together tighter than the gospel - it's the KJVO position, standards, legalism, and old fashioned style.
Fundamentalists have a very low view of the gospel, preaching and the Bible. They value all the wrong things.
"Fundamentalists have a very low view of the gospel, preaching and the Bible. "
Wow - really? Talk about a blanket statement. That is really a whacked statement. Could it not be said that new evangelicals have a low view of the gospel, preaching and the Bible as well? (since preaching is actually non-existent in many churches today)
I like this too...
"Interesting post. Why is it that we have to devote so much energy to tearing the other guy down? ... Or must we feel jealous/threatened?"
Isn't this exactly what you do when you attack those in the Independent Baptist movement that you don't agree with? Spend so much energy tearing the other guy down? Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?
I just don't understand how it is ok to attack an Independent baptist who attacks someone else and justify it as a crusader for truth and justice.
I don't love everything everyone in the movement does, but it is not up to me to question their motives and why they do what they do.
Isn't it better to go on your merry way and do your thing as you see fit, rather than devote time criticizing them?
Anonymous friend,
Thanks for posting. A couple of thoughts...
I would be the first to acknowledge that there is much shallowness in parts of what is known as "New-Evangelicalism." I have never even pretended otherwise.
As to "tearing the other guy down" and your implied acusation of hypocrisy, I'm sorry, it just doesn't stick. Pointing out inconsistencies in someone who is calling others out over pretty irrelevant issues while cozying up with those he has HUGE differences with in the area of soteriology is not "tearing someone down."
There was no attack, just pointing out the hypocrisy of his position. He's more than welcome to his beliefs, I didn't single him out because of them. He attacked my brothers in the Gospel over trivialities, however, and he should be able to take the heat of having the light shone on his hypocrisy.
It sounds like you are trying to be a fair minded guy (gal?), would you not agree that it seems a little silly for him to call out John MacArthur over music while embracing Clarence Sexton and ignoring REAL and SUBSTANTIVE differences, just because they think alike on the non-important matters of preference?
I think you stnad on shaky ground.
No matter where you stand on Calvinism, you make a good point.
Anonymous quoted and said: "Fundamentalists have a very low view of the gospel, preaching and the Bible. "
Wow - really? Talk about a blanket statement. That is really a whacked statement. Could it not be said that new evangelicals have a low view of the gospel, preaching and the Bible as well? (since preaching is actually non-existent in many churches today)
RB: Yes it is a blanket statement. I guess I should have said "many or most" as I have observed fundamentalism. New Ev's very much have a low view of the gospel and preaching too, I would have to agree..but isn't that also be a whacked blanket statement also on your part? Not all NewEV's have a low view of the gospel.
But then again, what do you mean by New Evangelical? Anyone who is not a self proclaimed fundamentalist?
Post a Comment