Whatever Happened to Worldliness?
You don’t hear much preaching against worldliness these days. Having grown up hearing negative references to “the world,” “worldly” and “worldliness” on a fairly regular basis, the absence seems odd to me sometimes. On the other hand, where worldliness is still a frequented topic, the term seems unclear, disconnected from biblical intent—or both. Whatever happened to worldliness?
More than one phenomenon is occurring.
First, we have a problem of omission. In some cases, this is due to nothing more than uncertainty by pastors and teachers as to how to handle the subject effectively. But sadly, in many ministries, the neglect is due to philosophies of ministry that embrace worldliness as the number one way to “reach people” and achieve “relevance.” What has happened to worldliness in these cases is that—as a pulpit and classroom topic—it has been shelved.
Second, in some ministries, the terms “worldly” and “worldliness” occur rarely from the pulpit simply because they occur rarely in Scripture. Though references to “world” abound in the Bible, “worldly” occurs only twice in the KJV (Titus 2:12 KJV, Heb. 9:1 KJV). The 1984 NIV uses it ten times (Luke 16:9 NIV; Luke 16:11 NIV; 1 Cor. 3:1 NIV, 1 Cor. 3:3 NIV; 2 Cor. 1:12 NIV, 2 Cor. 1:17 NIV; 2 Cor. 5:16 NIV, 2 Cor. 7:10 NIV; Titus 2:12 NIV). Still, the term “worldliness” does not occur in the Bible at all. So, what has happened to worldliness in these ministries is that it is being handled biblically using different language.
Third, in more traditionally fundamentalist ministries, we have another problem: obscurity. A thing is obscured when it’s only partially visible, when it lacks clarity—and it may lack clarity despite the fact that we refer to it quite frequently. What has happened to worldliness in this case is that it has been confusingly distorted either by inconsistent use (equivocation) or by consistent misuse (often in the form of an assumed, though faulty, definition).
PTC, Culture and “the world”
A week or so ago I attended (and this time, participated in) the second, bienniel Preserving the Truth conference in Troy Michigan. The focus this time around was “Christ and Culture.” Since the conference organizers (and most attendees, I’m pretty sure) are traditional fundamentalists, attention to “culture” meant there would be a good bit of attention to “the world” and the idea of worldliness.
Personally, I applaud that. Though fundamentalism has always had some missing links in its thought about culture and the world, we can hardly do worse in this day an age than to ignore the topic completely. It’s a huge battlefront—and will be an even larger one in the future as Christian sexual ethics in particular become more and more incomprehensible (or “hateful” in some cases) to the average American.
But in addition to giving thoughtful attention to a vital subject, the plenary conference speakers made several timely and important obserations. A few worth noting:
- Christians must cultivate (no pun intended) awareness of the ways our culture influences us. Way too much oblivious absorption is going on.
- By default, believers should view cultural norms and trends with suspicion.
- Christians must approach cultural questions with a humble, yielded, “living sacrifice” attitude (in contrast to a “my rights,” a.k.a. “my liberty,” emphasis).
- The affections in that sense are indeed integral to handling the old “what about believers who don’t see the harm and how do we help them?” problem.
- Similarly, we do “need to get past an act ethic to a virtue ethic” (Paul Hartog’s phrase, if my notes are accurate. The idea is that we need to see values as the key—and understand how things that are good in themselves become bad because they are part of a messed up set of values.)
- The “world” passages truly are extremely important for ordering our relationship to culture.
Whatever it is, we’re agin’ it!
But these strong points were accompanied by the long-standing problem of definition. We cannot properly apply the “world” passages to cultural matters unless we first understand what the world, in the negative biblical sense, is. And even then, we’re only half way there. Once the intent of Scripture is clear to us, we must have an equally clear understanding of the life choices we’re facing. To hitch up the trailer, you have to align both the powered vehicle and the trailer then successfully join them. And the right sort of hitch combination is required. So we have to understand the Word and the culture before we can apply the Word to the culture.
Arguably, confusion about the meaning of “world” and “worldliness” has hindered both sides of that application process. Too often, “the world” is, in the minds of leaders, synonymous with an unexamined set of no-no’s. And then, in the more muddled cases, both the no-no’s and the idea of “the world” become part of an impenetrable bit of circular reasoning: Why is cultural trend A wrong? Because it’s obviously “of the world.” How do we know it’s “of the world”? Because it’s obviously wrong.
Many who grew up hearing this sort of case against certain musical styles or entertainment venues or clothing trends came to the conclusion that the whole question of worldliness ought to be dismissed as nothing more than some traditionalists’ method of imposing their stodgy tastes on everyone.
But that’s a tragic mistake.
In cultures, things such as fashions, musical styles, language, etc., have both meaning and influence. More importantly, the NT is full of warnings about our relationship to “the world.”
In my view, the road back to taking worldliness seriously—and also to getting it right—starts with understanding and teaching what “the world” means in the New Testament and doing so in a way that is persuasive, memorable and handy. It’s a tall order, because the topic is complex—not easily reducible to soundbytes. But it’s work well worth pursuing.
(Tomorrow or Friday, we’ll post an article by Les Lofquist that includes such a study of “the world.” In the mean time, if you have a few minutes, take in Dave Doran’s January 11 video or Kevin Bauder’s excellent audio series—if you can find it. We’re still looking for a link. An article series of my own is available here at SI, though I tend to see it now as a slightly clumsy first effort.)
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 12 views
I’ll add to the judgment track that the problem, as far as fundamentalism goes, is not really a “judging when we shouldn’t” problem so much as a “judging what and by what” problem.
That is, if we judge that a believer is, in the vernacular, “not right with God” because he applies a passage differently, how have we reached that conclusion?
Not all applications are created equal.. we’re talking about degrees of certainty, and sometimes the degree of certainty is quite high. Nobody here would argue (I’m pretty sure) that using web porn is OK since the Bible mentions neither the Web nor the visual stuff we call porn. It’s an application with a very high degree of certainty.
We can’t categorically say “all applications are ‘just man made rules’ ” to be dismissed as trivial points of contention.
One thing the conference got me seeing is that while we need to be humble and cautious in how we judge others (they really did emphasize this… along w/ emphasizing the need to not be ambiguous and tentative about what’s clear) having a yielded spirit really does solve a whole lot of problems up front.
While we have to avoid judging motives more than is warranted, some make it pretty clear in their words, facial expressions, tone, etc., that they really are only interested in being as cool or self-indulgent as they possibly can while maintaining a claim of devotion to Christ. There’s no convincing somebody like that to take a serious look at what they’re doing and “prove all things.”
It’s not a coincidence that (as M. Minnick pointed out at the conf.) Rom.12.1 comes before 12.2… there does have to be a laying on the altar first before asking “what is good in this culture that I should enjoy?”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
In studying for a sermon on the mount series, I read D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. In reference to treasures on earth/in heaven, he described worldliness as anything that was temporary, or thus related only to this world. It made me rethink my definition of worldliness. (Of course, different Scriptural contexts may have differing shade of meaning or application.) Aaron is right that worldliness is not being preached. It appears to me that the topic needs to preached [correctly!] more now than 40 years ago.
John Uit de Flesch
[Aaron Blumer]The only possible conclusion we can draw is that “world” does not always refer to the same thing (whether the Greek is kosmos or aion) and we have to discern on a passage by passage basis what we’re looking at.
Well, duh… of course. But I’m pretty sure you already knew that I didn’t mean the created world.
[Aaron Blumer] If a hockey game is “of the world” in the sense of John 17:14 we should never attend or view one at all. There’s no room for moderation there. On the other hand, if the game is “of the world” in the sense of 1 Cor. 7:33 (an exact match in that example is not likely!) the activity’s relationship to the world is in itself, not relevant to when or how we use time in that way. Other factors dictate.
I would say that a hockey game pretty well fits into both of these passages in certain ways. But the command is to love not the world, it is not ‘come out of the world’. We have to be careful with our involvement with things like a hockey game, it certainly can’t dominate our lives and be a driving force in our thinking. But it can be enjoyed on other levels.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Let me try an introductory stab at making some objective distinctions. This is a similar debate that often occurs when we discuss terms such as “worldly music” and CCM. A poor response that is often raised is that this is a purely subjective analysis as the Bible gives us no “objective standards” to determine what is worldly and what is not. R.C. Trench gives the following classic definition of aion:
All that floating mass of thoughts, opinions, maxims, speculations, hopes, impulses, aims, aspirations, at any time current in the world, which it may be impossible to seize and accurately define, but which constitute a most real and effective power, being the moral, or immoral, atmosphere which at every moment of our lives we inhale, again inevitably to exhale.
Building upon Trench’s definition, I define worldliness as anything produced by our zeitgeist world view which utilises forms to satisfy the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. Galatians 5:19-21 offers objective elements for evaluating the things of the world.
Others will say how can we apply these definitions in the world around us. There are things that we should be able to discern with sanctified common sense in our dress and conduct as, “Doth not even nature itself teach you” (1 Cor 11:14). Scripture is filled with commands to weigh up the value of all things (Isa 7:15; 1 Thess 5:21; Heb 5:14; Eph 5:10; Philp 1:9-10; 4:8). For instance, the Scriptures record that there is a singing style of a harlot (Isa. 23:15) and a dress style of a harlot (Prov. 7:10). As these are not set forth in definitive detail, clearly the Bible expects us to be able to work it out!
It is interesting the unsaved world can parse such cultural forms and make objective conclusions but many Christians deny that this is possible. When I read a newspaper, I note they can look at the dress and conduct of a person and deduce it is “sexy” or “rebellious” or “provocative.” The Westminster Confession makes clear that the Bible is sufficient to judge what is worldly and what is not:
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
My Blog: www.oldfaith.wordpress.com
Church Sermons: Cornerstone Sermon Audio
…But I’m pretty sure you already knew that I didn’t mean the created world.
That wasn’t clear to me. Your “world” seemed to include everything material as well as everything cultural… Which is kind of what I’ve been talking about: overly broad generalizations about “the world.”
I really can’t recommend Kevin Bauder’s series highly enough. (Link is now in the main article). I’d love to see it get to written form.
One thing that all the studies I’ve seen pick up on:
You have “world” and “age” used in the NT in the sense of all that is temporary. But there is a much more sinister sense as well. I’ve posted some examples of the latter up the thread already.
The “all that is temporary” sense calls for a relationship of detachment. The anti-God order sense calls for a relationship of uncompromising rejection.
[Westminster Confession] by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men…
I love the good ol’ Westminster, but this statement illustrates an unavoidable problem… We have to “deduce from Scripture” and when we do, the deductions become part of a “tradition of men.” We don’t add the latter to Scripture, of course, but they do become part of the body of faith of various congregations. The trick is to keep re-evaluating the traditions, giving them the respect they deserve without ascribing something like infallibility to them.
But the dominant attitude in American Christianity in general is to assume that these traditions/deductions are not of any value.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer][Westminster Confession] by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men…I love the good ol’ Westminster, but this statement illustrates an unavoidable problem… We have to “deduce from Scripture” and when we do, the deductions become part of a “tradition of men.” We don’t add the latter to Scripture, of course, but they do become part of the body of faith of various congregations. The trick is to keep re-evaluating the traditions, giving them the respect they deserve without ascribing something like infallibility to them.
But the dominant attitude in American Christianity in general is to assume that these traditions/deductions are not of any value.
Aaron, I do not believe the Confession is teaching here concerning mere church tradition when it refers to matters “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” The proof texts attached are:
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (1 Cor. 11:13-14)
How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying…. Let all things be done decently and in order. (1 Cor. 14:26, 40)
So the Bible is teaching that there are standards that can be objectively determined. These are true in every century, culture, and continent. They don’t become part of church tradition as they are objective standards derived from inviolable Scriptural principles.
My Blog: www.oldfaith.wordpress.com
Church Sermons: Cornerstone Sermon Audio
[Aaron Blumer]I love the good ol’ Westminster, but this statement illustrates an unavoidable problem… We have to “deduce from Scripture” and when we do, the deductions become part of a “tradition of men.” We don’t add the latter to Scripture, of course, but they do become part of the body of faith of various congregations. The trick is to keep re-evaluating the traditions, giving them the respect they deserve without ascribing something like infallibility to them.
But the dominant attitude in American Christianity in general is to assume that these traditions/deductions are not of any value.
The Westminster statement needs to be understood in historical context. “Good and necessary consequence” is speaking of a syllogism (consequence) of valid construction (necessary) in which both premises are drawn from Scripture (good) or perhaps one is from natural law or intuitive knowledge. These deductions, then, are not a layer of tradition added on top of Scripture; they are merely an explication of Scripture. For example, the Trinity is known by good and necessary consequence, since there is no passage of Scripture that gives us the whole doctrine of the Trinity; yet, the Trinity is not usually understood by orthodox Christians as being a layer of “tradition” on top of some pure biblical layer. At least, it’s not like the tradition-theory of pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism, which is pretty explicitly extra-scriptural.
This definition of consequence is much stricter than what most people think of when they hear a phrase like “deduced from Scripture.” In my opinion, it’s too strict. But, there is no room for subjective wiggle room. It’s not a question of my deductions vs. yours. The disagreement comes largely about the premises. Once agreement is reached there, it’s a very simple and secure move to the conclusion.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
The Psalms give us the standard by which we ought to judge all music. God’s original design was for man to use the talents that he has, to glorify God, to express truths about the created order, and to minister to his brethren. Therefore, music that does not bring glory to God, is not Godly.
We don’t have any of the music of the Psalms. At best, the Psalms can show us what song lyrics should be like, though even as that they don’t stand alone, since we have three different kinds of singing legitimized in Col. 3.16.
But this returns us to the problem of definition. Everyone agrees that music must glorify God. The problem emerges in identifying what glorifies Him and what, in that sense, does not. To do that, we have to gather and infer principles from Scripture then hitch those principles up accurately to the choices we’re facing today. So there are several very human, error-prone steps in that process.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]We don’t have any of the music of the Psalms. At best, the Psalms can show us what song lyrics should be like, though even as that they don’t stand alone, since we have three different kinds of singing legitimized in Col. 3.16.
But this returns us to the problem of definition. Everyone agrees that music must glorify God. The problem emerges in identifying what glorifies Him and what, in that sense, does not. To do that, we have to gather and infer principles from Scripture then hitch those principles up accurately to the choices we’re facing today. So there are several very human, error-prone steps in that process.
We have an example of Spiritual songs in the Exodus, when Miriam leads the women of Israel in a song of praise, after Pharaoh’s chariots are swallowed up by water.
We also have the Spiritual song found in the book of Luke, that Mary sang, when she heard the Spirit-filled words that Elizabeth uttered, upon sensing that her baby had kicked inside her womb.
I don’t think it’s true, overall, to say, “You don’t hear much preaching against worldliness these days.” Well, it might be, depending on who “you” are. This is a perspective issue. I think this is aimed at one particular type of person: a person who grew up in a specific type of fundamentalist church. People in that type of church don’t hear that much of that type of preaching anymore, because … well, it wasn’t sustainable. Worldliness in fundamentalism was (is?) primarily about taboos. Taboos are designed to put clear markers between those who are in and those who are outside of a tribe.
Other Christians hear about worldliness a good deal. But the word is κοσμος, and many strains of Christianity tend to take that in a more cosmic sense. For example, Catholics appealed to teaching about the κοσμος to argue for more just international relations. Liberal protestants and progressive evangelicals identified the κοσμος with racism, sexism, and systems of entrenched economic poverty.
I think that some of your broader concerns about entertainment and culture can be addressed along the same general lines as other Christians have. Where I think fundamentalists need to remake their thinking, other than getting over taboos, is having a sense that even their stand against the world is rooted in an even deeper mission for the world.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
There’s been a good bit of taboo thinking, I agree.
But not all of that is bad. There clearly is an “us” and a “them” and 2 Cor 6 is full of that, to name one passage.
But I grew up with a variety of perspectives on “the world” and “worldliness.” Some speakers were parroting cliches. Others were trying to preserve fundamentalist identity. More than a few were simply trying to articulate the biblical call to live holy lives and “be not conformed.”
When we look at the statements of Scripture on kosmos (and aion), what we come away with is an understanding that is in some ways more complex and in other ways simpler.
Where simpler comes in is that we’re able to pretty easily avoid this…
… Catholics appealed to teaching about the κοσμος to argue for more just international relations. Liberal protestants and progressive evangelicals identified the κοσμος with racism, sexism, and systems of entrenched economic poverty.
Not that the biblical teaching on kosmos/aion doesn’t have some applications to international relations and social issues, but they are clearly not in focus.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron, thanks for the article and the links at the end. Both Bauder and Doran were helpful. I especially appreciated the careful analysis of the world “World” as used in scripture.
Discussion