# Christian Hedonism ( John Piper) - Is it right? - articel



## Reena Wilms

I just read a articel from Peter Masters, and here he really speaks negative about John piper. Please read ,and ley know what you think about this.

Christian Hedonism - Is it right?
by Peter Masters

( Sword &amp; Trowel 2002 No 3 pp 10-16. )

'Christian Hedonism' is a term adopted in the literature of Dr John Piper to describe his scheme for sanctification and advance in the spiritual life. Certainly, it is a very strange term, because hedonism is, for Christians, a bad word. Hedonism means the pursuit of pleasure as the chief good, but in the case of this new scheme of spiritual living, it refers to the pursuit of pleasure in God. 

Christian Hedonism says that the pursuit of happiness in God is the overruling source of power and energy for the life of the Christian. The proposer, Dr John Piper, is a prominent evangelical preacher in the United States, who began to popularise his views in 1986 with the publication of his book, Desiring God. In this he maintains that delighting in God is the pivotal issue in the Christian walk; the central and the most important part of the life of faith. 

Dr Piper makes much use of the little sentence, 'God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.' Indeed, the pursuit of joy in God is held as being one and the same thing as glorifying God. 

Interesting and attractive 

Why should this article set out to assess this teaching? The answer is that many pastors and people are being influenced by it, but very serious cautions need to be sounded. 

It is not surprising that believers find Christian Hedonism or 'delighting in God' interesting and attractive. To delight in the Lord is a magnificent and biblical exercise. But Dr Piper's formula for its use undoubtedly alters the understanding of sanctification long held by believers in the Reformation tradition, because it elevates one Christian duty above all others. 

Delighting in God, we repeat, is made the organising principle for every other spiritual experience and duty. It becomes the key formula for all spiritual vigour and development. Every other Christian duty is thought to depend on how well we obey this central duty of delighting in the Lord. The entire Christian life is simplified to rest upon a single quest, which is bound to distort one's perception of the Christian life and how it must be lived. 

Whatever the strengths of Dr Piper's ministry, and there are many, his attempt to oversimplify biblical sanctification is doomed to failure because the biblical method for sanctification and spiritual advance consists of a number of strands or pathways of action, and all must receive individual attention. As soon as you substitute a single 'big idea' or organising principle, and bundle all the strands into one, you alter God's design and method. Vital aspects of Truth and conduct will go by the board to receive little or no attention. This is certainly the case with Dr Piper's method, as we will show. 

The same goes for all the attempts at constructing a single-principle formula for sanctification that have been devised over the years. One thinks of the branches of the holiness movement, each of which has invented a single overriding principle, whereby one particular spiritual duty has been made superior to all others, these being made dependent upon it. 

You cannot reorganise the Lord's way of accomplishing the fruits of godliness without many duties being swept out of view. 'Single-principle' systems do not intend to cause harm, but, inevitably, they do. To borrow a piece of modem scientific jargon, biblical sanctification is a system of irreducible complexity. Not that it is too complicated - having only seven or eight well-known component virtues which must all be kept to the fore in ministry. 

It may be helpful to refer here to the founder of this new 'delighting in God' method of Christian living. Dr Piper, now in his mid-fifties, has for the last twenty or so years been the senior pastor of a very large church in Minneapolis. Prior to this, he was an academic, a seminary professor. 

Without doubt he is a Calvinist, and much of his written output is entirely admirable (although his presentation of the work of Christ and justification has been challenged).
Dr Piper is particularly noted for passionate communication. Those who know him say that his entire heart is in what he teaches. He is clearly no mere 'performer'. He writes and preaches with a distinctive and compelling style, achieving a popular 'flow' which everyone can follow, and yet without sacrificing depth of reasoning. He also produces many extremely powerful, expressive sentences (although these often mingle with others rather overloaded with superlatives). This reviewer must own that he finds Dr Piper too keen on producing startlingly original ways of looking at everything, and seldom are these to be found in the Bible. He is a master of the oblique approach, but at times his rather contrived reasoning leaves one grateful that Scripture, by contrast, is so straightforward and free from philosophical gymnastics. 

Dr Piper's main proposition - that we must delight in the Lord - commends itself to us all. It touches every conscience. It is scriptural. It is necessary. It is neglected. Accordingly this scheme for Christian living will naturally seize our attention and challenge us. The great problem arises from it being made the supreme issue of life, and the core of our obedience to God. Is the key aim to delight in God? Is the root of all righteousness to delight in God? Is delight in God the only true and worthy motivation for good deeds? In Dr Piper's scheme, every other Christian virtue, from love to temperance, is dependent on this. We cannot have either motivation or energy for the life of faith unless our prime aim is to be delighting in God. This, in a nutshell, is the method which is proposed. 

At times in his books Dr Piper wants us to see this as an old idea, but his claims are not convincing. It does tend to look no older than C S Lewis, whose famous book, Weight of Glory, had an explosive influence on Dr Piper in his younger years. In the course of this book, C S Lewis criticised people who regard the self-interested pursuit of joy as something ugly and wrong, insisting that it is a Christian duty for everyone to be as happy as he can be. (This is characteristic of the mystical drift of C S Lewis.) 

Dr Piper tells us that while browsing in a bookshop as a young man, he found Weight of Glory, read the passage on the pursuit of joy, and was overwhelmed by a whole new view of the Christian life. From that moment he began to develop the determined and passionate pursuit of pleasure in God as the supreme and all-controlling principle of life. 

Dr Piper often quotes Jonathan Edwards, who said much about delighting in God and Christian joy. By reference to Jonathan Edwards, Dr Piper effectively says, 'Look, this is as old as the hills. This is the way our forebears thought.' Certainly Jonathan Edwards provides choice passages about delighting in God, as did the English Puritan writers, but at no time does he frame a system in which this becomes the key principle of Christian living. Joy in God always sits alongside other equal duties. 

Although Dr Piper seeks to root his system in the past, he seems at the same time well aware that it is a brand new idea. Frequently, he virtually admits it by using the language of innovation, and saying, in so many words, 'This is explosive'; 'This is stunning'; 'This is radical'; 'This is dangerous'; 'This is not safe'; 'This is surprising'. Dr Piper really knows that he is promoting something novel. He even uses the term, 'my vision', and that is what it is, for however well intended, it is Dr Piper's personal vision. He also calls it 'my theology'. 

Dr Piper's publisher calls his book a 'paradigm-shattering work', and bids the reader join Dr Piper 'as he stuns you again and again with life impacting truths you saw in the Bible, but never dared to believe.' The reality is that no one ever saw them like this in the Bible until Dr Piper pointed them out in the 1980s. 

A special matter for concern is Dr Piper's use of Scripture, because his books appear to establish every point with a host of relevant quotations. He takes the reader through every step with biblical validation. This obviously commends his viewpoint to readers, but the Scriptures quoted never actually support the thesis Dr Piper presents. I do not for a moment suggest that his use of Scripture is devious or manipulative, but he is clearly so carried along by his 'vision' that he sees corroboration where it is not to be seen. Here are some examples of this. 

In Deuteronomy 28:47-48 we read - 'Because thou servedst not the Lord thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things; therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies.' 

This is quoted in support of the idea that the pursuit of enjoyment of God is the key motivating action for all other Christian virtues. However, the text does not actually say this. It is obvious that the force of the charge is that the Israelites had forgotten their privileges, and refused willing obedience to God. 

The verses do not go further and charge them with failure to pursue delight and pleasure in God as their prime objective. Dr Piper's thesis injects itself into the text, rather than receiving support from it. 

We may glance also at Psalm 16 as a typical example of Dr Piper's use of quotations. 'Thou wilt show me the path of life: in thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore' (Psalm 16.11). A look at the context shows that David is speaking about eternity, about Heaven. Although there is wonderful joy even while on earth, this is mingled with trials. The psalm does not say anything to support the idea that delighting is the key to spiritualising. To the relaxed reader such texts may appear to be supportive, but in reality they are not. 

A different and larger picture 

A most significant quotation comes from Psalm 37, particularly verse 4 'Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.' This verse is seen by Dr Piper as a powerful rock and foundation for delighting in God as the fundamental duty, the key step in living the Christian life. But if we examine the opening block of eight verses we see a very different and larger picture. Duty number one appears in the first verse - 'fret not thyself.' So does duty number two - 'neither be thou envious.' Then comes duty number three (in verse 3) - 'trust in the Lord, and do good.' Then comes duty number four (verse 4) - 'delight thyself also in the Lord', which actually means comfort yourself (the Hebrew means pamper yourself). Duty number five (verse 5) is 'commit thy way.' Number six is 'rest in the Lord.' Number seven is 'wait patiently.' Number eight is 'cease from anger.' 

There are at least eight distinct exhortations in this grouping of verses, and delighting is by no means the first. Clearly, what the psalmist has in mind is a set of distinguishable and relatively equal duties. He does not single out one saying, 'If you get this right, the others will follow.' David is inspired to provide a multiple-track method of sanctification in which attention must be given to a number of duties at the same time. 

This is exactly what traditional evangelicalism presents. David describes the multi-track teaching taken up by the Reformers, the English Puritans, and the great Continental dogmaticians. 

Thus, a psalm to which Dr Piper appeals in order to justify his central organising principle, actually teaches the opposite, upholding a multi-track approach to sanctification.
It is therefore necessary to say take great care with the Scriptures advanced by Dr Piper. They are obviously quoted in all sincerity, with passion and conviction, but they never truly support his very singular scheme. 

Dr Piper quotes the Puritans for support, when plainly they take a very different view. Richard Baxter is quoted, as if to demonstrate that he placed delighting in God in the central place. But Richard Baxter in 1664-5 wrote A Christian Directory, the most comprehensive treatise on Christian conduct ever penned, and this follows the multiple-track approach throughout. Nearly 1,000 pages of small type provide (in Baxter's words), 'A sum of practical theology, and cases of conscience; directing Christians how to use their knowledge and faith; how to improve all helps and means, and to perform all duties; how to overcome temptations, and to escape or mortify every sin.' 

Baxter nowhere suggests that any single element of the spiritual life can be singled out and made the basis of success in all the others. 

Puritan divines characteristically took hold of each duty and virtue, defining it, listing the impediments to its accomplishment, and identifying the encouragements and helps. Each one received individual and careful attention. 

Matthew Henry is also quoted in support of Dr Piper's scheme, but not realistically, because he also gives equally close attention to each Christian virtue, each problem, each sin tendency. In a work as large as Matthew Henry's wonderful commentary it is not hard to find quotations which may seem to support the 'joy-is-everything' idea, but it is certainly not the great commentator's position. All Christian duties overlap a little and help each other, and quotations to this effect are numerous. 

Puritans are multiple-track 

As we have noted, the Puritans are multiple-track if they are nothing else. They focus on mortifying sin, enduring, obeying and praying (with agonising). They press upon us the duty of self-examination, including even self-humiliation. Then they extol the duties of praise, thanksgiving, reflection, yes and joy in the Lord. However, it is multi-track. All duties are as important as each other. If it is possible to see one duty lifted a little higher than the others in Puritan literature it is probably obedience, not the pursuit of joy, but this is no doubt endlessly debatable. 

We remember also that the Puritans had a place for the child of light walking in darkness (Isaiah 50.10). They paid a great deal of attention to the problem-times of spiritual gloom. The great confessions, the Westminster and the Baptist confessions, ascribe two reasons for spiritual darkness, when the clouds roll across the heavens. Reason One is the possibility of sin. Reason Two is the possibility that God brings about this darkness Himself, in His grace, to bring out our faith and trust, and so cause us to deepen and advance. Besides these, the old writers also see the believer living out life as an alien in a hostile world, oppressed by the sin and unbelief around, and yearning for home. 

These trials and tribulations must be borne. They cannot simply be anaesthetised away. They are part of the faith-building process. Disappointment and sorrow and grief are essential for self-examination by both individuals and churches, and also as the fuel of compassion to lost souls. 

There is no adequate and balanced view of trials and heartaches in Dr Piper's system. In fact, as far as I can see, the only way he addresses spiritual heaviness is to urge repentance for coldness of heart. This is the kind of shallowness even a brilliant man will stumble into once he subsumes the whole range of biblical principles and virtues under one. 

We may think again of Richard Baxter, noting how he once preached a great sermon entitled The Causes and Cure of Melancholy for the Cripplegate Morning Exercises at 5t Giles, in the City of London. How long that sermon lasted is anyone's guess. This writer has estimated two hours. A friend insisted four hours. Whatever the length, Richard Baxter could never have assembled such a mass of priceless observations and counsels if he had been strait-jacketed within the 'pursuit of joy in God' system. He was, however, free to concentrate on depression and all its aggravating causes, then provide help, without the distraction of an artificial formula for the spiritual life. 

Jonathan Edwards' view 

Or take Dr Piper's quoting of Jonathan Edwards, when he wrote 'God is glorified not only by His glory being seen, but by its being rejoiced in. When those that see it, delight in it, God is more glorified than if they only see it.' Is Jonathan Edwards saying that delight in God is the channel and organising principle for all Christian activity and progress? 

No, for we take account of the environment in which he ministered. His language was always influenced by the sickness of the society in which he lived. It was a church-going age. Practically everyone was theoretically a biblically enlightened, well-instructed Christian. Yet he was anxious to distinguish between those who had real spiritual life, and those who did not. His language here cuts between those two groups. It reflects the burden of his message: that you can be a merely theoretical Christian, or you can be a spiritually alive Christian. The former will only see, whereas the latter will be filled with passion. Equally, his words challenge a cold or backslidden believer to resume a fervent walk with the Lord. There is no implied endorsement of Dr Piper's unique system of sanctification. 

At times Dr Piper reflects a fear that his teaching could lead to a mystical serenity. His fear is well grounded, and this writer is sure that it does lead to this. He frequently uses the language of direct mystical communion. Although the joy pursued is derived from reflecting on the Lord, the end is still subjective, and this will lead to a self-conscious nurturing of happiness. This will become for many an unhealthy preoccupation, emotions being artificially 'cranked up' (a feature of other single-dominant-issue movements). 

Dr Piper also employs New Testament passages to support his thinking, but not appropriately. Take Acts 20.35 where Paul quotes the words of Christ, saying 'I have showed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.' Dr Piper expounds this to mean that the delight and pleasure which we procure from reflecting on the Lord, is the essential motivation and energy for all good deeds. Christ is shown to be the authority for this. 

However, Paul does not teach that we must fuel our generosity from the happiness derived from contemplation of the Lord and His blessings to us. This activity is precious, but it is not the vital driving force of our giving. Neither Christ nor Paul teach this - they simply state facts. If we give until it hurts, then we may derive comfort from the fact that it is more blessed to give than to receive. It is not a lesson in how we may motivate and energise ourselves for giving, as if our performance of compassionate deeds depended on our basking in the delights that are ours in Christ. 

It may have been during the course of the Sermon on the Mount that Christ gave His words. If not, He certainly gave similar teaching there. In each of the Beatitudes, the Lord speaks of the outcome or reward for a trial borne or a duty performed. He does not set out to tell us how to motivate ourselves for the duty, but how we may be comforted and encouraged by the ultimate blessing. Our motive will be an inborn desire to obey Christ and please Him and live out His standards. We will also be motivated by compassion for others. These are our motives and longings. To fulfil duties only for reward is to diminish or cheapen Christian character, and to hinder any real personal advance. In other words, our appreciation of God is one matter, and our desire to obey Him is another. The two are linked, but one does not take care of the other. 

Dr Piper, however, says that even Christ motivated Himself by thinking about the future reward. He quotes Hebrews 12.2 where it is said of Christ - 'who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross'. 

Says Dr Piper, in effect - this is wholesome, this is holy, this is righteous, this is what motivated Jesus Christ. He could go through with the cross, only because He could set it against the future joy. 

Achievements of redemption 

But this is not right. The Lord Jesus Christ indeed could go through with Calvary because He saw the joy that was set before Him, but this joy refers not to bare emotion, but to the joyful accomplishment of a host of redeemed people in glory. It was not the anticipation of His own future joy that energised and motivated Christ, but the happy result of Calvary, namely our salvation and deliverance; including our joy. (Loosely speaking, 'joy' is a metonym in this text.) 

When the Lord went to Calvary it was an unselfish act. We repeat that in Hebrews 12.2 the word 'joy' represents the achievements of redemption. Christ's strength came from His view of what would be accomplished. So great was His love and compassion, that the goal of millions of saved people moved Him to pay that unthinkable price. 

No, the love of God must be seen here in all its wonder, quite apart from the joy of God. Similarly the love which is put into the heart of the Christian at conversion is a pure and wonderful quality that cries out to be expressed. It may be suppressed and tarnished for periods by sin, and it certainly needs to be nurtured, but at the same time, it is a wonderful quality in itself. It is unselfish and un-self-seeking (as in 1 Corinthians 13). It is a tiny, minute, microscopic fragment of an attribute of Almighty God. It is not right to reduce it to a neutral thing, dependent on the stimulation of pleasure - however sacred that pleasure may be. It is a love that endures, even when the faculty of emotional feeling is burdened by grief, or jaded. 

Some degree of love is in everyone, even the unregenerate. Unconverted people can carry out some beautiful and entirely unselfish acts. Perhaps a small capability of love has been preserved in the heart of the ungodly, not because it is deserved, but to leave a language for the Gospel. People would be unable to understand the wonderful love of Christ, and His act on Calvary, if there was no recognition or concept of love left in the world. 

The love which comes with the new nature at conversion is a much more wonderful quality. It may certainly be energised and stimulated to some extent by reflecting on the fact that God will be pleased with this, but it ideally acts naturally, out of Christ-likeness and compassion, and then out of duty and obedience to God. Christian Hedonism really reduces love to cause and effect. It sounds so spiritual and God-centred, but it is an emasculated love. 

Dr Piper reinforces his idea for strengthening love from Hebrews 10:34, where we read - 'For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.' Says Dr Piper, the reason why the people of God could accept persecution, with loss of their goods, was that they had joy in God, and in the certainty of a future inheritance. But this idea is not the intention of the passage. 

Compassion for God's servant 

The word 'joyfully' is obviously selected to show how willingly the Hebrews accepted persecution, the price of helping the Lord's servant. It is not intended to show that they laughed and leapt for joy as they were punished. Nor is it an insight into their mental processes. 

Did they say to themselves, 'Can I allow my home to be seized? Now let me do some spiritual calculations. Let me consider - what are my gains?' On the contrary, the text tells us that the motivating factor was compassion for the servant of God in his bonds, so they identified with him, visited him, fed him, and all those other acts which brought fury upon their heads. Then, as they lost their goods and their homes, they fortified and comforted themselves with the thought of their heavenly wealth. The latter did not precede and give rise to their sacrificial behaviour. Their love of the Truth and compassion for an apostle gave rise to their behaviour. 

Dr Piper's system of delighting in God goes too far in ascribing every spiritual act and desire to one factor, and depriving each virtue of its own value and power. 

One of the great problems with this 'delighting in God' scheme of spiritual advance is that it unwittingly puts self-interest right at the heart of the Christian life. Dr Piper clearly would not intend this, but it is inevitable. Pursuit of joy in God has always been embraced as a Christian duty, but it must never be elevated above others so as to detract from their inherent virtue, nor must it eclipse the negatives of the Christian life - the 'thou shalt nots'. 

We obey God because it is our duty, and, of course, because we love Him. We obey Him because He hates sin, and because it destroys and harms those around us. We obey Him because He is the One Who knows all things, and is infinitely wise. We serve Him and seek the spiritual good of others out of indebtedness and out of compassion. We must be multi-track in our pursuit of godliness, and not simplify the method of the Word. 

Andrew Murray, who died in 1917, a powerful writer, and a man of immense compassion and evangelistic fervour, inspired thousands through his books to adopt a single-issue system of sanctification. But for all its lofty goals and many truths, it tampered with the full-orbed biblical method, and could never work well. In the event it also provided the snare of spiritual pride. 

Thinking of a more recent single-issue writer, there is the case of a Christian psychologist, a sincere man, whose books are extremely popular today. He reduces the process of sanctification to the simple formula of 'blocked goals'. In some ways this runs fairly close to Dr Piper's vision, but like all single-dominant-issue systems it cannot work. There are numerous such systems. In all cases, certain sins go untouched; certain problems never come under the spot-light. 

What does the 'delighting in God' scheme have to say about some of the rampant ills of the present-day Christian scene? What does it say about the charismatic movement, and the abandonment of reverence through contemporary Christian music? What does it say about irreverent Bible translations, and other appalling trends? The answer is that Dr Piper goes in exactly the wrong direction on such matters. 

Why is this? Is there some intrinsic weakness in his scheme, causing him to show such poor discernment and concern? This writer believes that there is. All single-dominant-issue schemes tend to be blind to individual matters of deep concern. Their major preoccupation creates a kind of tunnel vision, and perception fails. Dr Piper concentrates on seeing his delighting system in all the Bible, so that his recognition of the rules and principles which bear on other issues is seriously impaired.
Experience with Toronto Blessing 

In fact, Dr Piper's system runs so near to the mystical-emotional basis of charismatic experience that it is not surprising to find him endorsing it in large measure, and claiming great blessing from his own experience with the Toronto Blessing. We understand he advocates charismatics and non-charismatics in the same church, and encourages all the trappings of charismatic life. Hedonism is hardly protective of principle. 

When delight is everything, doctrine suffers a setback. When subjective emotions are unduly elevated, the proving and testing of all things becomes impossible. On charismatic matters, and on modem worship matters also, Dr Piper is - to put it gently - an unsafe shepherd, and the fault lies not in his Bible, nor in his capacities, but in his system. As the better aspects of his ministry earn respect from his readers, so the poor guidance on potentially disastrous issues will mislead them.
God's Word does not provide a single organising principle to govern and drive all the component duties of the spiritual life. 'Christian Hedonism' is not drawn from the teaching of the Lord, nor of Paul. However, the Bible does provide a clear prescription for the Christian life, listing a number of spiritual and moral duties, all of which must be given direct and individual attention. We are given famous lists (such as the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, and the lists of 1 Timothy 6:11-12 and Galatians 5:22-23 ) and we must set our minds to accepting a multiple-track righteousness. We will pay a high price for any kind of clever system that reduces biblical duties to an artificial formula, however sound and inspiring many of its elements may seem to be. 

Dare we question the apostle when we read the list of 1 Timothy 6.11-12? Will we say, 'But just a minute Paul, you have left out the organising principle. You have left out any wonderful simplifying factor. You have left off the formula which will make it all come together.' Of course he has, because there is no such formula. It is multiple-track righteousness. Seeking happiness is certainly not our prime goal. This is the recipe for emotional self-indulgence, subjectivism, and self-centred mystical 'communion' with Christ. 

How is it that some notable teachers have endorsed Dr Piper's books? Presumably they have appreciated the many fine sentiments, and have automatically and graciously passed over the author's exaggerated emphasis on his big idea. Reviewers cannot always be expected to put themselves in the shoes of students and younger believers who are at risk of basing their entire approach to life on such material.


----------



## Wannabee

I can see where he's coming from. I think Masters puts too much emphasis on Piper's use of the word delight, or pleasure. Maybe I'm missing something, but I find Piper's work refreshing and motivating. His emphasis seems to be on God Himself, as his own personal delight. 
He points out that if we are putting God first in all aspects of our lives, then all our desire will be conformed to His will, therefore we will delight in Him. It goes hand and hand with the first answer to the catechism, &quot;The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.&quot; God is not glorified if there is not joy in those who claim to serve Him.

[i:3765802a80]Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.[/i:3765802a80](Psalms 37:4)


My :wr50:

Joe


----------



## George Bailey

*Turning point to becoming 'Reformed'*

Finding Piper's book online via a discussion forum (Ligonier's old one) was the turning point (as in 180 degrees) for me to joining the &quot;Reformed&quot; camp. The concepts in JP's book &quot;Desiring God&quot; turned on a switch for me. I don't struggle with Christian motivation, nor with desiring the Supremacy of God in everything. 
Yes, there are deeper tomes, but I think this is an excellent starting point. I've bought multiple copies and have given them to Dispie/Arm friends that I'm trying to share my passion with.

Piper, though Reformed, can NEVER be accused of being part of the &quot;Frozen Chosen&quot;. His passion for God's supremacy is inspiring.

(disclaimer: all of the work in my heart and mind is truly credited to the Holy Spirit, not to a certain teaching, of course Lest I sound like a cult-follower type, in praise of John Piper's messages!)

Brian


----------



## luvroftheWord

[quote:3284b792f9]
When delight is everything, doctrine suffers a setback. When subjective emotions are unduly elevated, the proving and testing of all things becomes impossible. On charismatic matters, and on modem worship matters also, Dr Piper is - to put it gently - an unsafe shepherd, and the fault lies not in his Bible, nor in his capacities, but in his system. As the better aspects of his ministry earn respect from his readers, so the poor guidance on potentially disastrous issues will mislead them. 
[/quote:3284b792f9]

Masters is nothing more than a dried up intellectual neo-Calvinist who is scared of subjectivism and sensationism. He represents the stereo-typical Presbyterian theologian, who fears above all else that he might actually FEEL Jesus in his worship. Oh dread! The last thing we want is to be emotional. Its just not pious enough. 

What Masters has written above is a picture of what is wrong with the Reformed church today.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Guys, my opinion is a bit of both camps. I am certain that we ought not to stifle the joy of the Christian. But Master's idea is targeting the problem I personbally see with Piper's book. Don't get me wrong, I like Piper to a great extent, but dislike him in certain ways. masters said, &quot; because it elevates one Christian duty above all others.&quot; Even if Masters is a neocalvinist, that does not make this statemtn worng, and it does challange Piper to widen his grip on how sanctification works, because I know, in practicality, this is not the paradigm for the Christian life. Master's is not wrong about the Reformers and the Puritans, he is quote on track.

Personally, I have read everything in print by Piper, and I have read his &quot;Desiring god 3 times&quot; his &quot;Future Grace&quot; twice, and his &quot;Pleasures of God&quot; twice. I am unsettled with packaging sanctification with a fortune cookie phrase. this is what I think Master is getting at, though he could have done it in a more &quot;Reformed&quot; manner than he did. 

And luver -

When masters said:
When delight is everything, doctrine suffers a setback. 

this can be very true, depending on one's veiws. I have a sinister eye toward the &quot;mega church&quot;. Piper has over 20 pastors in his church. His congregation is huge. HJis sermons are quanit - I have heard many of them. Soemtimes they are quite good. But is everyone there on the same page as &quot;Dr.&quot; Piper?

Masters said in your quote:
On charismatic matters, and on modem worship matters also, Dr Piper is - to put it gently - an unsafe shepherd, and the fault lies not in his Bible, nor in his capacities, but in his system. As the better aspects of his ministry earn respect from his readers, so the poor guidance on potentially disastrous issues will mislead them. 

This is true. Piper's position on the gifts of the Spirit, in MHO are faulty to the hilt. 

But in terms of his book &quot;Desiring God&quot; alone, I am &quot;OK&quot; with it because I understand more than he is telling us. But not everyone does.

Ok luv-
you call me &quot;dried up&quot; too now.

[Edited on 9-14-2003 by webmaster]


----------



## luvroftheWord

Dont be offended, Matt. I have my problems with Piper too. I guess the reason I quoted that was because I have my own axe to grind against the modern Reformed tradition. Masters reminds me of the generic Reformed Christian sitting in the pew who looks at any kind of expression of our emotions in worship as being &quot;too subjective&quot; and &quot;too charismatic&quot;. I know. I've seen it too often in my short time attending Reformed churches. In the last church I attended, if a person raised their hand in the singing of a song in praise to God they were looked upon suspiciously. This is just plain and simply not biblical. There is nothing wrong with subjectivism in our worship. After all, though we are a corporate body, do we not each have a relationship with Christ personally? Do we not also experience him as individuals? I am all about stressing the importance of theology. But it has been the over-emphasis on objective truth and the neglect of the existential that has made the charismatic movement so attractive and the biblically solid churches unattractive to Christians today. The average person can read the Bible and see that Christianity is an experiential religion. Why can't the Reformed community have BOTH?

Don't get me wrong. I am in no way Charismatic in my theology. I agree with Reformed theology in my views of the miraculous gifts, and it does concern me when people like Piper and Grudem endorse such movements as the Vineyard and the like. But you don't have to be a Charismatic to have an experiential faith.

So looking back, I guess my post didn't have much to do with the article after all. Masters just kinda brought me annoyances to the surface.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

[quote:d12e9ce994][i:d12e9ce994]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:d12e9ce994]
He represents the stereo-typical Presbyterian theologian, who fears above all else that he might actually FEEL Jesus in his worship. 
[/quote:d12e9ce994]

Just to clarify, I believe Masters is a Reformed Baptist, and pastor at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London.


----------



## luvroftheWord

[quote:fa36dd3f38]
Just to clarify, I believe Masters is a Reformed Baptist, and pastor at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London.
[/quote:fa36dd3f38]

Well again, looking back I don't think much of what I had to say was concerning Masters after all. But even still, I would lump the average Reformed Baptist into the same category. I've been there and done that before as well.

In one of my classes at RTS we have been briefly surveying Presbyterian church history in North America. We talked about the Old School-New School splits, North and South splits, etc. Whats interesting is that one of the elements involved in these splits was the experiential nature of Christianity. In the 1700's Gilbert Tennant preached a sermon to the Presbyterian elders of his day condemning them for their dry intellectualism and even suggested that perhaps they needed to be converted. I'm not sure I would go that far, but the point was clear.

I just hope I can live to see a day where the Reformed churches can take their wonderful doctrinal convictions and merge them with a very subjective and existential view of Christian living that stirs us emotionally. One thing Piper is absolutely right on is when he says that the whole argument that &quot;love is commanded in Scripture, and since you can't command the emotions, love must not be an emotion&quot; is baloney. Anyone who has any kind of meaningful relationship with anyone knows this isn't true. 

I know we could get into issues here about contemporary worship, etc. but we should probably just stick to the subject at hand.


----------



## PASSION4TRUTH

I love all of you guys and appreciate your comments. Let me make a few please.

[1] Dry dead cold intellectualism that merely adheres to correct propositional facts is not Biblical Christianity.

[2] Erratic unbalanced self-induced emotionalism that only admires experiences is not Biblical Christianity.

[3] We need to seek to be consistent and balanced in our approach to dealing with the &quot;head and the heart.&quot; Edwards does an excellent job in his works and so does Richard Baxter and Spurgeon.

[4] I used to hate the word balance but realize now that maintaining the Biblical boundaries is a necessity. Webmaster has on the intro page to this site &quot;Love God with all of your mind&quot; but we all know that he would equally affirm that we should &quot;love God with all of our hearts&quot; and &quot;our souls.&quot; When we make statements about particular realms of theology and make distinctions in areas that are intricately related (like the head and heart, the notional belief of truth and the emotional expression of truth in action) we are in the same type of dilemma when we speak about the humanity and deity of Christ. Overemphasing one is bad (notice I did not say stressing. We can stress the Sovereignty of God but never should we overemphasizer it to the negelct of mentioning the responsibility of man.) 

[5] Keeping a Biblical balance will mean not making truncated divisions. We are created in the image of God and function as emotional and rational beings. Christ wept and rejoiced. Christ reasoned and preached. Why can't we have both the way He did?

[6] In relation to Piper, I can admire and appreciate his work without worshipping the man or adhering to every thing he says. I think he does not try to offer a cure all approach to sanctification but merely is trying to help us maintain the proper Biblical balance of head and heart so we do not suffer the conseqquences of failing to do so (Deut. 28:47). This is not a moot point. If we ask Piper why he wrote the book, i am sure he would not say &quot;to make everyone a bunch of hedonistic charismatic emotionally excited radical ignorant maniacs who only pursue happiness to fix all of their problems as a Christian.&quot; {Perhaps I am wrong; we need to ask him} I am sure that he knows the dangers of being lopsided [listen to his famous cussing sermon] in any area of theology.

[7] Masters is a little too critical in his article but it was insightful.

[8] I hope we all realize that there will probably always be this imbalance. Some of us, simply due to God's design and our personal traits, will be more emotional than others. Some of us are more rational than others. We need to accept one another in the Lord (Rom 15:7) and appreciate these differences and stir one another up to grow in the areas we are weakest. I always challenge my charismatic friends to read more Reformed literature and they always challenge me to listen to inspiring praise music. I think the church needs to embrace what Edwards said in the first line of Religious Afections. We need those desires and we will have them if we are Christians. We need those rational apprehensions of truth, and again, we will have them if we are Christians.

[9] As for the term Christian hedonism, I can deal with it because right now I can't think of why not too. [good reason, huh?]

[10] Has Piper responded to the article?

God bless you all for reading my crazy ideas.


----------



## cupotea

*IS PIPER'S TEACHING DIFFERENT THAN THE PURITANS?*

I have read much of Jonthan Edwards works and I have read Piper on this subject. All Piper is doing is taking Jonathan Edward's teaching and putting it into todays English. Jonathan Edward's as well as all Puritans taught that our chief end is to GLORIFY GOD AND ENJOY HIM FOR EVER. Piper, just like Jonathan Edwards, wrote about the enjoying God for ever. Piper also writes about the glorifing of God. So did Edwards. We must be careful when we say that the Puritans or the Reformers did not teach something. I so often read or hear some one throw out that idea when they diagree with someone.:flaming:


----------



## KayJay

Just a few :question::question::question:s

Isn't one of the things that made people like Edwards so great is that his entire life flowed out of his enjoyment of God? Honestly, I can't imagine writings like his coming from a &quot;dry intellectual&quot; bound up in legalism and manufactured &quot;fruit&quot;. Hope that makes sense...I'm new - verbalizing my thoughts is hard since I don't get to talk about this to many people!

My other question is regarding the Spirit/flesh distinction in Scripture. Throughout the NT Paul constantly uses this language. You really get the impression (at least I do) - that &quot;walking in the Spirit&quot; is a black and white thing. You are either in the Spirit or in the flesh. You can't just be SORT of in the Spirit right? This being the case - what exactly does it mean to be &quot;walking in the Spirit&quot;? I don't know that Scripture states it explicitly. I guess I have unfortunately resorted to pragmatism on this issue barfy: bummer...) and I've assumed - even before I started reading Desiring God that being Spirit led revolved around knowing God and enjoying/glorifying Him.

What do yall think???

KJuzzled:


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Maybe it would be better to say &quot;We are eschatological masters of the world&quot; rather than &quot;God is most glorified in us ...blah blah blah.&quot;

For a short study on what an &quot;EMW&quot; is, check here: (There are 4 articles on this study from Paul and Philippians)

http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/McMahonEschatologicalMastery.htm


----------



## KayJay

oops - I may have been unclear - pragmatism because enjoying God has been the most effective means of sanctification for me...I think...perhaps God knows otherwise


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Puritan 65 said:

I have read much of Jonthan Edwards works and I have read Piper on this subject. All Piper is doing is taking Jonathan Edward's teaching and putting it into todays English. Jonathan Edward's as well as all Puritans taught that our chief end is to GLORIFY GOD AND ENJOY HIM FOR EVER. Piper, just like Jonathan Edwards, wrote about the enjoying God for ever. Piper also writes about the glorifing of God. So did Edwards. We must be careful when we say that the Puritans or the Reformers did not teach something. I so often read or hear some one throw out that idea when they diagree with someone.

True, but I believe Edwards and the Puritans went further than Piper. Piper has attempted to package the &quot;disinterest&quot; idea in a quaint saying, and it is impossible to do so - that is why people have a hard time thinking Piper is really representing the idea correctly.


----------



## shelly

[quote:78b42f064d]
How is it that some notable teachers have endorsed Dr Piper's books? Presumably they have appreciated the many fine sentiments, and have automatically and graciously passed over the author's exaggerated emphasis on his big idea. Reviewers cannot always be expected to put themselves in the shoes of students and younger believers who are at risk of basing their entire approach to life on such material.
[/quote:78b42f064d]

As I told someone a few months ago who cautioned me against going to the church we are now attending because it was &quot;going Calvinist&quot;, there are worse things than Calvinism. So now I say that there are worse things than delighting in God as a central focus of life. I didn't realize how starved I really was for God. We went to this new church and they kept pointing everything to God, even in Sunday School the focus was God no matter what the topic was. That shouldn't have been such a shock, because it was a church. But it was the contrast between the focus of this new church and the IFB churches we had come from that really had us saying &quot;Wow&quot; and trying not to sit there with our mouths hanging open. I'm being literal, not just figurative. It's a good thing we're married because we could poke each other and let the other one know the mouth was hanging open, again. At this church we heard for the first time, and often since then, the quote &quot;God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.&quot; Being still in shock over the church change, it took us about 5 months to &quot;get it&quot;.

The article talks about sanctification in multiple ways. Well, I'm sorry, I can only handle sanctifying in one way at a time. If the list gets too long and complicated I'd be inclined to discouragement and get the ostrich syndrome.

Just my thoughts on the topic, from a real beginner.

shelly


----------



## Daniel David

I completely embrace Piper's view. In fact, my preaching has several things that I try to focus on / remind people:

1. Those who are saved are part of the New Covenant, and not the Old.
2. Salvation is past, present, and future.
3. Be obedient to God and have a good time doing so.

Really, Piper only misses the boat on the timing of the rapture.


----------



## luvroftheWord

Piper misses the boat on a lot of things, but we have much to learn from his Christian Hedonism books, such as [u:69f98b8fa6]Desiring God[/u:69f98b8fa6].


----------



## Coram_Deo

As a regular attender at Bethlehem Baptist every Sunday morning, I must admit that Piper's preaching style, which seems so tied in with his view of Desiring God, is absolutly amazing. I grew up in a church where theology wasn't important and desiring God in such a way wasn't viewed as &quot;pleasurable.&quot; It was more of a dry, mundane, burdensome sort of worship and I always hungered for something more. When I got to school I got hooked up at Bethlehem and it blew me away. Piper's passion for delighting in God i believe is one of the truest ideas in the church and needs to spread. 
I think John Owen would back this idea in the Glory of Christ. Where Owen suggests seeking the glory of God, Piper equates this to seeking the pleasure and joy and delight in God. After all He is our richest of faire. I've seen in my own life that when I seek after God to be completely delighted and overpowered by His glory, this is when I seem closest to God. I guess I fail to see where Piper may have gone wrong or not hit some things right on with this idea and book. Some more clarification would be appreciated. Thanks.
grace and peace,
michael


----------



## Timothy William

A question from someone who is very new to these ideas: is saying that God is most glorified when we are most content in Him the same as saying that our goal should be to deliberately seek pleasure and contentedness in Him? If (and often when) I focus primarily on my contentedness in Christ I tend to not obtain this nearly so well as when, in faaith, I trust that obedience and submission will eventually make me content, even though at the time I am reluctant or even fearful to obey. 

Perhaps this different from the experience of most, but I can focus on being secure and content in Christ too much if I make that my main goal, by wishing to feel joyous and secure before doing anything difficult, and end up with neither joy nor achievement. Conversely, if I trust that will make me secure and glad in Him if i obey then I, to an extent obtain both.


----------



## Jie-Huli

I am currently attending Pastor Masters' church, the Metropolitan Tabernacle, and just a couple weeks ago I went to his home for tea, where we discussed, among other things, John Piper and his writings.

Pastor Masters' point is not that Piper is wrong on the importance of delighting in God, but just that he puts too much emphasis on it to the exclusion of other important principles, and hence his ministry becomes lopsided and unbalanced. In other words, it is not appropriate to try to organize the entire Christian walk under this one unifying principle, because this one principle, though true, does not fully equip a believer for the Christian walk. Subjective experience is overemphasized, and thus it is harder for the Christian to discern between truth and error, and a wide range of flawed movements and practices are accepted into the church. Pastor Masters would point in particular to Charismatic practices and modern worship music in Pastor Piper's church.

In fact, Pastor Masters views John Piper as something of an enigma; he expressed an appreciation of some of Piper's teachings (particularly on calling Christians to simpler lifestyles and better stewardship), but finds his ministry sadly unbalanced.

Pastor Masters is certainly not a cold intellectual. But he takes his responsibility as a Pastor of God's flocks extremely seriously, and is hence very strict in his discernment and appraisals of modern teachings and movements. Given the wide range of errors infecting modern Christianity (liberalism, worldliness, charismaticism), I think severity in discernment is most appropriate.


----------



## luvroftheWord

[quote:94f311c1d0]
Pastor Masters would point in particular to ...modern worship music in Pastor Piper's church.
[/quote:94f311c1d0]

Oh good heavens, NO! Anything but contemporary worship music! Everyone knows how dangerous it is to be contemporary.

Masters should find something better to complain about than that.

[Edited on 11-6-2003 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## RICK

I don't think Piper is trying to suggest in the least that &quot;Desiring God&quot; is all a person needs to know and practice to be a Christian. If he did he wouldn't have written &quot;Pleasures of God&quot; and &quot;Future Grace&quot;. 

I furthermore don't think Piper believes that all he has written on these subjects is a full-orbed picture of the Christian life either. 

He is mainly trying to penetrate a dumbed-down, numbed-down evangelicalism with a precious truth: God is not glorified by our obedient but joyless duty. 

Our goal is not our happiness--it is our recognition of the source of the greatest happiness in the universe, and our proper response to it. That response is not a byproduct of something else, such as dutiful obedience, but must be sought after diligently in itself. Thus, we [i:fdd210228f]seek[/i:fdd210228f] to be happy [b:fdd210228f]in God[/b:fdd210228f]. We don't seek to be [i:fdd210228f]obedient[/i:fdd210228f] first, (unless by obedience we mean &quot;delighting in God&quot; ) lest we find happiness in [b:fdd210228f]our obedience.[/b:fdd210228f] And we are [i:fdd210228f]all[/i:fdd210228f] seeking to be happy--every minute of our lives--let's not fool ourselves.

The Biblical mandate:

[b:fdd210228f]Psalm 37:4[/b:fdd210228f]
&quot;Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.&quot;


Desiring God is an expanded critique of Jonathan Edwards' 1st resolution:

[i:fdd210228f]Resolved, that I will do whatsoever I think to be most to [b:fdd210228f]God's glory, and my own good, profit and pleasure,[/b:fdd210228f] in the whole of my duration, without any consideration of the time, whether now, or never so many myriad's of ages hence. Resolved to do whatever I think to be my duty and most for the good and advantage of mankind in general. Resolved to do this, whatever difficulties I meet with, how many and how great soever. [/i:fdd210228f]


I've read and heard much from Piper on this subject, and he constantly reminds us that Christian Hedonism is not for our own selfish end, but for God's glory. In fact, it is the only way God is glorified! I am convinced that his premise [i:fdd210228f]&quot;we all seek to happy--period&quot;[/i:fdd210228f] is correct. It's simply a question of what we are going to be happy [i:fdd210228f]in[/i:fdd210228f] that is the real question. 

Perhaps he hasn't articulated this truth as intricately as Jonathan Edwards does in &quot;Religious Affections&quot; and &quot;Charity and it's Fruits&quot;, but we have to consider the audience he's writing to. Not everyone is as enlightened or well read as the people on this board, not by a longshot. What he's trying to do is bring the cookie jar down from the top cupboard so the kiddies can have a taste. Let's not blame him for that!

[Edited on 11-7-2003 by RICK]

[Edited on 11-7-2003 by RICK]

[Edited on 11-7-2003 by RICK]


----------



## JWJ

In reading these posts I am still amazed on how many people have missed the point regarding Piper's theology and thereby still &quot;protect&quot; him. Though I enjoy reading and listening to Piper, and his works have helped me and my ministry, he nevertheless has many shortcomings-- the main is his &quot;lopsided&quot; and &quot;unbalcanced&quot; ministry.

I agree 100% with Webmaster and what Jie-Huli wrote. The point is that we all are at times guilty of &quot;putting too much emphasis on certain elements to the exclusion of other important principles, and hence our ministry becomes lopsided and unbalanced.&quot;

We fallable sinful men need to be always watchful in our theology and open to criticisms of others. 

JWJ


----------



## Jie-Huli

[quote:ce86348064][i:ce86348064]Originally posted by RICK[/i:ce86348064]
I don't think Piper is trying to suggest in the least that &quot;Desiring God&quot; is all a person needs to know and practice to be a Christian. If he did he wouldn't have written &quot;Pleasures of God&quot; and &quot;Future Grace&quot;. 

I furthermore don't think Piper believes that all he has written on these subjects is a full-orbed picture of the Christian life either. 

He is mainly trying to penetrate a dumbed-down, numbed-down evangelicalism with a precious truth: God is not glorified by our obedient but joyless duty. 
[/quote:ce86348064]

Hello Rick. I do not mean to caricature John Piper's work. I know he does discuss many other subjects besides &quot;Desiring God&quot; in his ministry; he is a good preacher, and I have benefited spiritually from much of his work, including the &quot;Christian Hedonism&quot; sermons. I think his main premise that God is glorified through our delight and satisfaction with Him is true and important. At last, though, I would have to agree with others that Piper's work, taken as a whole, is somewhat unbalanced, and that problems have creeped in because of this.

[Edited on 11-7-2003 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## JonathonHunt

[/quote]

Oh good heavens, NO! Anything but contemporary worship music! Everyone knows how dangerous it is to be contemporary.

Masters should find something better to complain about than that.

[/quote]

It isn't dangerous to be contemporary, only dangerous to be worldly!

He is complaining about worldliness in the church. That is how he sees it, and I agree with him. Whether you agree that CCM represents worldliness or not, you will understand that those who think it does will complain until the Lord returns!


----------



## The Gentile

How does contemporary christian worship equate with worldliness?


----------



## JonathonHunt

I'm weary of the 'CCM is worldly..no it isn't, yes it is' debate. I have my position and I'll stay there. Of course, what some might call CCM, I might call perfectly acceptable worship. What others might call CCM, I might call a rock concert.

For a british perspective on the perceived worldliness of CCM, see 

http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/Pages/ISSUES.html

A site that deals with the whole issue with articles by several people is www.freedomministries.org.uk


For your interest.

I don't want to debate it right now particularly, but you have asked the question.


----------



## The Gentile

Johnanthan,

I didn't mean to provoke you to an argument. It's just that you seem to be very certain about what you think regarding this issue, and i wanted to know why. However, i want my thinking to come from a biblical perspective, not a British or an American one. So, when your ready to reason from the Scripture, i'd love to hear what you have to say. 

Thanks, brother


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:c6f1473335][i:c6f1473335]Originally posted by The Gentile[/i:c6f1473335]
How does contemporary christian worship equate with worldliness? [/quote:c6f1473335]

This issue has to do with the heart. The flesh wants what it wants. The right knowledge (heart) brings forth orthodox music. Contemporary music does not in itself break the RP in the same way that Bach does not break the RP. However, put some words to the music and here is where the issues arise. (I always have been concerned w/ drums. Even though they are mentioned in the scriptures, I have a hard time believing they were played like they are played in a rock concert.)

Much of what is brought forth out of contemporary Christian music, in my opinion, breaks the RP. Now, this is not to say that one should exclude the USE of contemporary music in their worship altogether, just that one would need to be quite selective in exactly one brings to the table in this regard. For listening pleasure, one person might find it worshipful, another not. To me, if the lyrics are not theologically sound, out it goes.

For example, I have seen some members say that they love Caedmons Call. I recall looking over the lyrics on the 2nd CC album (green cover) and saw alot of scripture, but no Jesus mentioned. To me, this is a tragedy. I am not aware if the previous or follow up albums mention the name of Jesus (For the record, I do not accept -implication- as a justifier. No Jesus, out you go!).

I believe someone also embraced U2 as a Christian group. Ridiculous! I used to be a U2 fan. In fact, my flesh still desires their music.

[Edited on 3-24-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## JonathonHunt

The above article is an argument from scripture. Just pointed out that the author is british, that's all.


----------



## The Gentile

[quote:dcd688a220]Much of what is brought forth out of contemporary Christian music, in my opinion, breaks the RP. Now, this is not to say that one should exclude the USE of contemporary music in their worship altogether, just that one would need to be quite selective in exactly one brings to the table in this regard. For listening pleasure, one person might find it worshipful, another not. To me, if the lyrics are not theologically sound, out it goes. [/quote:dcd688a220]

This is a good point, Scott. I agree with you. Biblically, i think it's impossible to maintain the argument that &quot;these&quot; noninspired songs are acceptable, but &quot;those&quot; aren't. And, &quot;this&quot; instrument is acceptable for musical accompaniment, but &quot;that&quot; one isn't. 


[quote:dcd688a220] The above article is an argument from scripture. Just pointed out that the author is british, that's all.[/quote:dcd688a220]

Ok, i thought you made it a point of perception. Just to note: the use of Scripture in an argument doesn't make the argument a biblical one. But i can't really take that it up with Dr Masters :grin:


----------



## Radar

Masters:

Look at me! I'm over here! Hey! Hello?! Yoo Hoo! Need attention here! Comin' after you next! Hey! Please!?


----------



## JonathonHunt

Eh? You yanks are weird sometimes...


----------



## Me Died Blue

[quote:4031da8c46][i:4031da8c46]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:4031da8c46]
For example, I have seen some members say that they love Caedmons Call. I recall looking over the lyrics on the 2nd CC album (green cover) and saw alot of scripture, but no Jesus mentioned. To me, this is a tragedy. I am not aware if the previous or follow up albums mention the name of Jesus (For the record, I do not accept -implication- as a justifier. No Jesus, out you go!).[/quote:4031da8c46]

Does John Newton's &quot;Amazing Grace&quot; mention Jesus apart from implication? Do the PSALMS mention Jesus apart from implication??? I don't understand your problem with having some songs that don't [i:4031da8c46]explicitly[/i:4031da8c46] mention Jesus. A good sample of a typical Caedmon's Call lyric is, &quot;I am thankful that I'm incapable of doing any good on my own.&quot; What's wrong with a song that focuses on thanking God for that type of theme, just because it doesn't [i:4031da8c46]explicitly[/i:4031da8c46] mention Jesus? (And for the record, there are many, many songs of theirs that [i:4031da8c46]do[/i:4031da8c46] mention Christ explicitly. One example is in their song &quot;We Delight&quot;: &quot;We're delivered by blood that flows from the Tree, draw us near to You, vessels of your mercy. Before the invention of man, glorious Trinity.&quot

[quote:4031da8c46][i:4031da8c46]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:4031da8c46]
I believe someone also embraced U2 as a Christian group. Ridiculous! I used to be a U2 fan. In fact, my flesh still desires their music.[/quote:4031da8c46]

I definitely agree that U2 is by no means a Christian band. But your saying &quot;my flesh still desires their music&quot; confuses me - are you saying you think it's wrong to listen to secular music?

In Christ,

Chris

[Edited on 3-24-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## Scott Bushey

What did Paul say, &quot;All things are permissable, but all things are not [i:ee15cb73d3]profitable[/i:ee15cb73d3]&quot;?


----------



## alwaysreforming

*Contemporary Worship Music*

I left &quot;Luvr of the Word&quot; 's church because I moved to a different state (St. Paul's Pres. ROCKED, however!!! (thanks, Craig) ... and anyway, the new church I attend (PCA) uses a mixture of contemporary and traditional. I don't have a problem with &quot;contemporary&quot; per se, but what I DO have a problem with is when we substitute a newer song that is only marginaly good, for one of the tried and tested hymns that were so great from the hymnal. If we're gonna bring in a new song, lets make it have a WHOLE LOT going for it so it warrants a place in our precious line-up. So many of them have rather trite lyrics, and the music behind it sounds either cheesy and/or just not very masterful.

I love a lot of the new stuff; there's a lot of good out there. But one of the reasons I like the older hymns so much, besides the mastery of both theology (lyric) and melody, is that it sounds &quot;different.&quot; It sounds &quot;set apart&quot; for worship. When we try too hard to give newcomers what they're used to on the &quot;outside&quot; I think we're shortchanging them to an extent. They don't care that our music is different than what they hear outside the church, they EXPECT it!

And for you, Scott: I used to be the world's BIGGEST U2 fan! In fact, I was just listening to some today. I was listening to &quot;Gloria&quot; and the lyrics were:

&quot;... I try to stand up, but I can't find my feet. I try to speak up, but only in You I'm complete. Gloria, in te dominae; gloria exultate!&quot;

Yep, they rock! (but no, not a &quot;Christian&quot; band) In fact, I knew a lady who was very good friends with Bono, and she said he used to read the Bible EVERY day (but this was about 15 years ago). I think since then he's probably lost a bit of his &quot;Biblical zeal&quot;.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Paul,
I agree..........


Christopher,
I am 45 years old. I saw U2 in a club in san Antonio, Texas while about 35 Mexicans watched in awe. I could have comfortably lied on the floor about 3 feet from Bono.........

I was a punker for years. Music WAS my God. I have the marks to prove it. And yes, for me, certain music is wrong. Some bring back the memories. When I hear &quot;I will Follow&quot;, my mind does things.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Scott, now I understand what you meant before, since some U2 songs are inevitably attached to memories and thoughts in your mind. At first I had thought you were saying it was wrong to listen to them at all...but after all, you never said that, you only said that [i:81474f7971]your[/i:81474f7971] flesh still desires their music sometimes--so I guess I was assuming too much and putting words in your mouth. Sorry about that.

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## JonathonHunt

[quote:92d19e9626][i:92d19e9626]Originally posted by alwaysreforming[/i:92d19e9626]
I left &quot;Luvr of the Word&quot; 's church because I moved to a different state (St. Paul's Pres. ROCKED, however!!! (thanks, Craig) ... and anyway, the new church I attend (PCA) uses a mixture of contemporary and traditional. I don't have a problem with &quot;contemporary&quot; per se, but what I DO have a problem with is when we substitute a newer song that is only marginaly good, for one of the tried and tested hymns that were so great from the hymnal. If we're gonna bring in a new song, lets make it have a WHOLE LOT going for it so it warrants a place in our precious line-up. So many of them have rather trite lyrics, and the music behind it sounds either cheesy and/or just not very masterful.

I love a lot of the new stuff; there's a lot of good out there. But one of the reasons I like the older hymns so much, besides the mastery of both theology (lyric) and melody, is that it sounds &quot;different.&quot; It sounds &quot;set apart&quot; for worship. When we try too hard to give newcomers what they're used to on the &quot;outside&quot; I think we're shortchanging them to an extent. They don't care that our music is different than what they hear outside the church, they EXPECT it!

And for you, Scott: I used to be the world's BIGGEST U2 fan! In fact, I was just listening to some today. I was listening to &quot;Gloria&quot; and the lyrics were:

&quot;... I try to stand up, but I can't find my feet. I try to speak up, but only in You I'm complete. Gloria, in te dominae; gloria exultate!&quot;

Yep, they rock! (but no, not a &quot;Christian&quot; band) In fact, I knew a lady who was very good friends with Bono, and she said he used to read the Bible EVERY day (but this was about 15 years ago). I think since then he's probably lost a bit of his &quot;Biblical zeal&quot;. [/quote:92d19e9626]


Alwaysreforming, your post is right on - excellent. Couldn't agree more. A lot of modern lyrics are 'ok' but are they as good as what we already have? Usually not! Nothing wrong with altering quaint words in old hymns to make them usable incidentally. (I mean minor changes, not ripping the whole thing apart to take the 'thees and thous' out!)

You're right about sounding different too. Hymn/Psalm singing is distinctive and I like it that way.

We also have a huge amount of stuff under 'contemporary'. Most PB members might think they sing 'contemporary' hymns or have 'contemporary' tunes to sing them to. Well, my previous church used about 650 tunes, and I suppose up to about 100 were either new (last 15 years) or substantially re-edited. Of the new ones, no-one would ever think they were new...because they were in 'traditional style'. So, are they 'contemporary' by our definition?

A lot of what is called 'contemporary christian music' in the UK is simply a rock band performing in front of a group of head bangers who call themselves a church. That's a world away from some new hymns and tunes that go with them, isn't it!

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by JonathanHunt]


----------



## FrozenChosen

[quote:2c139e65a9][i:2c139e65a9]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:2c139e65a9]
[quote:2c139e65a9]
Pastor Masters would point in particular to ...modern worship music in Pastor Piper's church.
[/quote:2c139e65a9]

Oh good heavens, NO! Anything but contemporary worship music! Everyone knows how dangerous it is to be contemporary.

Masters should find something better to complain about than that.

[Edited on 11-6-2003 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:2c139e65a9]

Perhaps I can explain a recent experience I've had that might show why I would shy away from &quot;contemporary worship music.&quot;

I'm am finishing up my Freshman year here at Auburn and a lot has gone on. I joined up with BCM (Baptist Campus Ministries) because I had a friend that went there. I read [i:2c139e65a9]Chosen By God[/i:2c139e65a9] early in my first semester and I was a well-grounded Calvinist. Fortunately, half of the students in leadership positions were closet Reformed Baptists and so we got along pretty well. The music was decent and non-distracting, and the lyrics weren't wrong but left a bit to be desired. (The instruments consisted of two guitarists who sung, an acoustic bass and a djembe hand drum)

While I attended BCM I went to First Baptist Opelika a handful of times. The college &quot;Sunday school&quot; program was known as Revolution. We're talking rock band material. They'd play basically covers of the more contemporary worship stuff (think Third Day) and they'd act like rockers more than ministers. Their guitarist made that &quot;ohwowthisishardtoplayIrockforhittingthesenotes&quot; kind of face as he played extremely simple [u:2c139e65a9]guitar solos[/u:2c139e65a9]. The music actually wasn't that great, and the lyrics were unimpressive. If you wanted to be taught, it would be better to sit in a corner with earplugs and read a psalm.

I don't even want to touch on the disgusting choral theatrics of the main service (the traditional one even).

Fast-forward to around February or so. I began to go to Encounter, a sort of inter-campus ministry organization. Similar to Revolution, although the speaker was a Piper fan. I could finish some of the speaker's lines before he did. Anyways, the worship was a little bit better lyrically, but there was also a percussive element of the show, and the fact that I instinctively said &quot;show&quot; might clue you in to how it felt.

I also will point out that one of my friends spoke more highly of the guitarist's abilities (riffs and effects and all) than the message given that evening.

In early March I finally knuckled down, starved for good teaching and good musical worship, and I went to RUF like a good Presbyterian. I was stunned. I can't describe my first experience there as anything but a delicious and humiliating feast on God's Word.

The &quot;band of musicians&quot; felt more like a &quot;band of ministers.&quot; There were two guitarists, a bassist, a pianist, and a hand-drum djembe guy. The music was well done, not so as to be distracting by either high skill or lack of skill, and served as a well pleasing backdrop.

We sung hymns and some later praise music with great lyrics.

My point in all my ramblings is that Masters is probably going against the trend of contemporary worship in the fact that 1) it emphasizes a quick emotional response over teaching, a true change, the state of your heart, and prayer, and 2) is generally comprised of poor lyrics and rock music theatrics.

(((EDIT)))

I underlined &quot;guitar solos&quot; for a reason, I just forgot to get to it.

Perhaps the most nauseating thing in a &quot;worship meeting&quot; for me is a guitar solo. Usually they distract from the reflection on the lyrics and focus on &quot;hey look at my musical skill.&quot;

Also, as a music fan, they're revolting in the sense that they're horribly simple. The point of a guitar solo is to wow you with technicalities.

If I want a guitar solo I'll listen to some Van Halen, some Led Zeppelin, or some Dream Theater.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by FrozenChosen]


----------



## robot

Last summer I went to a highschool retreat at one of the big lakes in Southern California. The worship band was the most theatrical thing I have ever seen in my entire life. Every song had a light show and movies/pictures changing on a massive projector corresponding with it. The band pretty much ripped off Radiohead, Sigur Ros, and Mogwai, but added Vineyard-esque vocals to it. It was unbearable.
The worship band also sold hats, shirts, and cds on the outside of the &quot;worship ampitheatre.&quot;

I don't mind if worship isn't 100% old hyms, but still... it shouldn't bring glory to the people singing, all glory must go to God.


----------

