Dear Mr. Phillips,

Two questions, if I may, regarding comments you made during your sessions. First, you stated that you disagree with the theology of Charles Finney, and I was curious as in what ways (I am not a “student” of Finney, but I do find some of his perspective regarding “revivial” to be interesting). Second, you discussed “sensual” music. As I realize there is a percentage of conservative home schooling families who reject any use of music that has a “pronounced” beat (including contemporary worship music), I am curious if you share that perspective (I do not, although I do have grevious concerns regarding CCM that goes beyond the style of any music). God’s blessing on you and yours!! Sincerely, D.G

Dear Brother Groesser:

Thank you for your kind letter. I thank God and am refreshed to hear that the ministry of the Word touched hearts. If so, it is the work of the Holy Spirit, not the preaching of a man. Forgive me for just offering a brief response, but I hope it will be of some help:

1. Charles Finney introduced man-centered philosophies of revivalism into the church. He specifically rejected the emphasis on the sovereignty of God by the leaders of the First Great Awakening, like George Whitfield. Consequently, he sought to influence, and even to coerce, responses through an apeal to technique, emotionalism and pressure. Finney believed he could create “revival” if the proper emotional climate was created. In contrast, the great Reformers and preachers of the First Great Awakening believed that only God sent revival and that it came through the pure preaching of the Word. I disagree with Mr. Finney’s approach and believe it has been the source of great confusion within the church that lingers and dominates to this day, having produced a cheap, easy-beliefism Gospel. For an excellent overview of the problem created by Finney please read Revival and Revivalism by Ian Murray, published by Banner of Truth. I often require that my students read this book and I would recommend it for elders, students and anyone concerned with methods. At Vision Forum we reject the notion that methodology is neutral.

2. The musical question is more complex. I fear I can not in this letter adequately begin to address it. At the outset we must recognize that music is a language in and of itself, that it communicates a message, and that the message must be evaluated. The common statement that musical composition is neutral is utter folly. It is about the most un-neutral means of communication in the universe (except for every other means of communication). I do not believe that there is only one acceptable genre of musical expression. To the contrary, I believe there is an infinite amount of potential diversity of genre that could be pleasing to the Lord. The critical issue with every genre, and every manifestation of that genre ( i.e. a specific composition) is that it is consistant with God’s principles of design. He is the creator, we are the created. Our goal is to imitate him, not to develop our own standards. To state an obvious principle of design—-“God is not the author of confusion,” consequently music which is pure chaos is inconsistant with God’s principles of design. Some Christians hope to impose a relativistic standard on other Christians by asserting that it is impossible to make judgements about whether music is consistant with God’s principles of design—-i.e. “what is chaos to you, is order to me.” I have seen children pull this stunt on their parents: “Mommy you may think my scowl and temper tantrum are bad attitudes, but I believe they are really good attitudes. It does not fly in the home and it should not fly with honest Christians in their evaluation of music. The Bible requires that we evaluate attitudes, cultures, philosophies, and yes—-musical expression. The simple answer to your question about beat is that I do not for one moment believe that the existence of a beat makes music inherintly sensual. I do, however, believe that secular rock culture has produced heavy beat-driven music which is extroardinarily imbalanced, and communicates a distinctively sensual message with corralary effects on the spirit and the body. To the extent that Christians mimic such practices, or deem them neutral, I believe this is a mistake. We should strive to take every note captive to the obedience of Christ.

May God give us all wisdom to live in the 21st century with holiness.

Blessings, Doug Phillips