The Summer School of Theology is currently on at the Metropolitan Tabernacle. I was not able to be there for the Wednesday meetings but was present for part of Tuesday. I missed Jack Seaton and much of what John Thackway had to say. The final afternoon session was taken by Dr Masters himself. One of the concerns this year is to attack the new Calvinistic movement because of its questionable stand on Reformed worship and traditional views of worldliness. Dr Masters, as so often, was quite negative and his message turned into something of a rant.
My ears perked up when he mentioned blogs. He described two Reformed ministers discussing on their blogs which was the better performer, Elvis Presley or another. I would guess it is a reference to something that took place between Martin Downes and Gary Benfold. As far as Dr Masters is concerned we should have nothing to do with such things. One can see his point even if one does not agree on his idea of guilt by association. I suppose it is the public nature of blogs that has brought the subject into sharp relief and I must confess that I had to ask myself a few questions (as I am often doing when blogging). If someone tunes into this blog and finds a Marc Bolan video here, it is possible that they could assume that I am supportive of everything the man ever did. That, however, is not the case, anymore than if I feature Mozart of Tchaikovski. Indeed, if that were not the case it would be difficult to do much. Just because Dr Masters gives a platform to paedobaptist Joel Beeke I don't assume he has abandoned his Baptist position. If he watched England play soccer and cheered for them, I wouldn't assume he was condoning the antics of John Terry and others.
I am reluctant to say anything but having sat through it I thought I ought to make some response, however much less holy I would guess I am than Dr Masters.
Anyway the evening session was an excellent one - much more positive and in the end much more searching. Joel Beeke took us to the puritans on holiness and was teeming over with good and challenging things to say.
It was good to chat with him and others in the tea interval. It is amazing who you meet. It was good to bump into friends from India, Romania, Guernsey and the USA as well as your usual more UK types. Rhodri was with me and he bumped into people he knew too, which was nice. We also had chance to hear about the work in Baldock under Jonathan Northern, an attempt to repeat the Met Tab approach in a much more rural Hertfordshire setting.
24 comments:
Ah, fame at last! But really, Gary - if you can 'see his point' please can you tell me what it is? Are we really stuck in 1950s fundamentalism - 'rock and roll is bad!'?
And if you can see his point then why do you refer to Bolan et al on your blog at all - for whatever is not of faith is sin?
Whatever one may think of Peter Masters, he has very good reasons for saying what he said, concerning blogs.
Jenson
PS: Rock and Roll is bad - I am a living proof of that.
And what would Dr Masters think of Focus, Gary? Dutch they may be, but I cannot see Thijs and Jan in the sombre black suits of the Dutch Reformed!
And as for naming a song "Hocus Pocus".....!
Rocking on.
Pete
very valid points re the Masters Dr.
Jesus ate with publicans and sinners.
Jenson, I don't know anything about your story of course. But you may have wrecked your life with rock and roll, for all I know - but that isn't proof that the fault was in rock and roll. Consider the woman who says 'Sex is bad - I am living proof of that.'
We take our understanding of what is bad and what is not from Scripture, not from experience. And that is Dr Masters' problem: on this issue he isn't remotely interested in Scripture.
Not quite fame as you weren't mentioned Gary - I am only guessing the ref was to you. As for seeing a person's point - that is not the same as agreeing with them. Bolan's here because I like his music and I think there is something good to enjoy in it even though one wouldn't advocate the lifestyle (and recognising others may wish to differ for various reasons). Focus is interesting because it was because I had become a Christian that I was in part drawn to their music (being instrumental seemed less of a hassle to me, though again some would differ). Anyway I think we all need to be sensitive to one another's viewpoint. We are bound to differ on things. As you say Gary, faith is the thing.
One friend has taken my comment about Dr Masters' (above) in a much wider way than it was intended; I apologise if I was unclear.
I've made my admiration for some aspects of Dr Masters' ministry very clear elsewhere, and I stand by that. We all have our blind-spots, though; and I really do believe that he cannot see that his arguments here are not based on Scripture at all. The nearest I've ever seen to him attempting that is when he points out that Scriptures are opposed to worldliness; but he has not (to my knowledge)addressed the question of what worldliness means in Scripture.
I continue to regard him as a man of God and to be grateful to God for the work he's done at the Tab over many, many years.
I saw you on thursday, Gary (Brady). Any comments on that?
Always a joy to see you Jonathan. it must be harder for you to disagree with anything than it is for me. I'm afraid the schoolas a whole left me rather depressed. Was it even more negative than usual?
My comment above was meant to mean - did you not have anything to say about what you heard on Thursday? We spoke on tuesday.
In terms of negative, you missed one of the most negative talks (or most of) when you arrived, and then heard the most negative talk of the week, period.
You missed reams of positive on Wednesday, including a quite magnificent tour through Mark 14-15 on Wednesday night.
Honestly, Gary - hand on heart, I was not looking forward to the school at all, but overall I was encouraged and inspired. I don;t think one has to agree on every little point to be so.
I am going to review it in full and frankly, starting monday on my blog. I will say what I really think and you are welcome to feed back on it. Meantime there is some serious sermonating to be done.
"We take our understanding of what is bad and what is not from Scripture, not from experience..."
Gary, I totally agree. Problem is, even the JW would too! This leads to the same argument - A lot of issues in life are not mentioned in Scripture, so how can it be "bad".
e.g. Can a pastor say "damn it!" or "damn you!"?
e.g. Can a pastor's wife wear a short skirt to church?
If not, why not?
Gary,
By the way, Rock N Roll (I include Heavy Metal) has so influenced Western culture, most do not even realise that. Just like TV and the Internet.
I remember listening to an old recording of AW Tozer denouncing the evils of TV/Hollywood in a sermon preached when TV first came on the scene.
Look how far we have gone since.
Jonathan Sorry I'm a bit thick. I'm glad there were more positive elements. Looking forward to a full report.
Jenson - This may sound pernickity but the truth is that rock'n'roll (and TV and the internet) have been used to bring bad influences to bear on western culture. If Elvis had only done Gospel albums and every song had been a la This old house it is hard to see that much harm would have been done. I trust you see my point.
Jenson,
You say 'Problem is, even the JW would too!' What a strange thing to say on this blog! But perhaps you're not an evangelical? Evangelicals take their doctrine and their practice from Scripture alone, and we are not at all phased by the fact that other groups (JWs, Christadelphians) make the same claim, because we believe Scripture is clear - the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things.
True, a lot of contemporary issues are not mentioned in Scripture, but Scripture is sufficient for these things too, otherwise we have to look to another authority (experience, human reason, 'the church' - whatever) as you seem to be doing.
The issues you mention: can a pastor say 'damn you'? Of course he can: 'God will damn you if you do not trust Christ.' Can he use it as a curse? No - for the use of bad language is condemned in Scripture. (Ephesians 4.29) It's a little more complicated than that, because what constitutes bad language is culturally determined - there are no lists in Scripture that say 'you can say this, but not that'. If you doubt that bad language is culturally determined, check out 2 Kings 18.27 - 'piss' is no longer an acceptable word, but it was in the seventeenth century.
The same is true of a pastor's wife wearing a short skirt. How short is short? I'm old enough to remember when above the knee was thought revealing. To a previous generation 'a glimpse of stocking was regarded as something shocking'. A pastor's wife - indeed, a Christian woman - should not wear anything that a reasonable person might find offensive, but that will change with time, and there's nothing we can do about that.
Furthermore, there will be differences of opinion - but we don't respond to that by setting up someone's standard arbitrarily as 'the right one'.
Evangelical religion requires us to be grown-ups and to think; it requires us to consider others; it forbids us from setting up our own standards and insisting others follow them.
The godly Duncan Campbell never touched bagpipes again after his conversion, for they were a snare to him. John Bunyan would no longer play the church bells for much the same reason. But they are not absolute standards for all Christians everywhere.
Your own experience with rock and roll may well make it unwise for you to have anything to do with it; that doesn't make it an evil thing in itself, nor justify preachers ranting against it.
I hope that helps.
I should have said 'check out 2 Kings 18.27 in the Authorised Version'. Sorry
For the record, Jenson is an Evangelical. :-)
Thanks for these comments. Good to air the issues.
it is a good share,wonderful post,thank you
As a 19-year-old former musician who attends the Tabernacle, I have to say this has been a very bitter couple of posts on the School of Theology (or Dr. Masters' talk in particular). An open mind works both ways, sir...
By the way, Dr Beeke spoke at another, much smaller conference at the weekend. My friend and I had an opportunity to ask him regarding his thoughts on music and worldliness. His answer was very much the same as the answer Dr Masters has given me time and time again in his vestry. Maybe it's because he didn't touch a raw nerve by mentioning it openly but I don't see you taking HIM on either...
Douglas Thanks for contributing. I'm sorry you think bitterness has crept in. I hope not. I don't think my mind is closed to the truth either. I simply differ with the people who spoke on some things.
I'm glad you were able to get along to Hackney and hear Dr Beeke. I know him personally and he is a man of God. I'm sure you are right that there is little difference between him and PM on the music and worldliness issue. I am no advocate of many of the practices of today's churches either. I don't take the view, however, that certain styles of music cannot be listened to in any circumstances. I don't think I am taking an extreme or unbiblical stance in saying so. Every blessing.
OK. I’ve been thinking about this for a while and I’ll say what I think and see what happens.
Recently I witnessed a discussion with someone who had been to Spring Harvest and heard Steve Chalke. He argued that Steve had done good Christian work and should be cut some slack. The other person argued that Steve Chalke’s views on penal substitution were so abhorrent and anti gospel that Christians should avoid him and the things he was associated with. (I agree with the latter by the way)
I mention this here because it seems to me that Peter Masters, John Thackaway and the rest should be approached with the same degree of caution. They may be able to preach a gospel message convincingly (I don’t know having never heard them) but it seems to me that the only thing I ever hear about them is their condemnation of things they have decided are not ‘holy’.
Colossians 2 refers to such people and warns against them.
Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.
You might argue that while a little judgmental they are not attacking the gospel but I’m not sure I would agree.
• They set themselves up as judges on what is good and bad.
• They make burdens for people out of things which are neutral so that Christians feel guilty for enjoying things they didn’t ought to feel guilty about.
• In the case of hymns they make up ludicrous reasons for why certain hymns should not be sung attacking the writers and thereby setting up obstacles and division within the church.
• They would love to keep the church in the 19th century thereby making the gospel less accessible to people and criticise those who do things differently.
In all these ways they are a hindrance to the gospel and so I simply cannot understand people I know and admire not only not condemning them but in fact going along and so, encouraging them. I wouldn’t be worried about guilt by association to Marc Bolan, I’d be more worried about guilt by associating with pharisees and hypocrites.
As I say I know little of this crowd aside from this part of their work. I would love to be proved wrong. For this reason I'll remain anonymous if that's ok.
Just noticed the 'anonymous' comment. Remaining anonymous because you don't know much about the subject and might be wrong rather begs the question as to whether you should post at all.
I'm not saying that you don't have some good points, its just that there are some inaccurate statements in what you have said.
I just have a'thing' about anonymous 'hit and run' bloggers.
:-)
To anonymous
People go to the Tab and the School of Theology because Peter Masters preaches the Gospel, loves the Gospel and has a clear, consistent ministry.
I don't think Peter Masters being judgemental or legalistic. He is raising an issue which touches on personal holiness. Yes ... is to an extent a matter of conscience, but nevertheless does need addressing.
Pop music is sliding scale, with Elvis at one end and Eminem or possibly worse at the other end. Where we draw the line may vary from Christian to Christian, but is PM wrong to raise this issue? Surely worldly pop music, and raunchy videos are a huge temptation for teenagers. Do we simply avoid mentioning these things and hope for the best?
Anon I can see why you are saying what you are saying but I think you need to make more investigations before such sweeping statements. Eg it is unfair to say that they make up ludicrous reasons for why certain hymns should not be sung. There is no idea of keeping the church in the 19th century either. No problem with the anonymity. I'm much more with Alice's approach - thanks for it.
Post a Comment