Will Anyone Speak Against Worldliness?

No, no evangelicals at all have written against worldliness. Not one.

I feel like a good parallel to “love not the world” might be “hate your father and mother”….I think its a question of prioritization rather than categorization. Perhaps, the “things of this world” are not suggestive of inherent evil so much as they have a derived evil because they can usurp the position and priority of God?

Todd,

I think that’s a good characterization. I have often offered a shorthand definition of worldliness as seeking satisfaction from anything other than my relationship with Christ. That aligns directly with what you have described. In this way things that are inherently good, inherently evil, and inherently neutral (assuming there is such a thing) can all be considered worldly in the right context.

So, Pearson meant that things are evil? Really? He addresses affections in 1; in 2 he grounds a desire to train one’s affections with a cruciform basis; in 3 he refers to priorities. So how is he somehow addressing the notion that things are evil?

As to his reference to “very few”, he did not say that no one at all has written on it. “Very few” seems to point to more than none. He says “many remain silent” which is certainly true…

Grace and peace…

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Todd,

I think that’s a good characterization. I have often offered a shorthand definition of worldliness as seeking satisfaction from anything other than my relationship with Christ. That aligns directly with what you have described. In this way things that are inherently good, inherently evil, and inherently neutral (assuming there is such a thing) can all be considered worldly in the right context.

So then - and I agree with you both on this - the issue isn’t as much the world as much as it is idolatry (which, btw, is why I linked to those books by Piper in my first post).

That seems to fit in nicely with the thrust of 1 John.

Jay,

Perhaps you should be less trigger happy to criticize anything you perceive to be a criticism of evangelicalism. Sam has already pointed out the basic fallacy of your post (i.e., arguing against something that Pearson doesn’t say), so I’ll just state my agreement with his point here.

I’ll also just toss in a couple of quotes from evangelicals that seem to affirm Pearson’s point as well:

“In the word worldliness is contained one of the great problems of evangelical Christianity in our time. Here in the West, in the English-speaking world, churches and Christians have been seriously compromised by worldliness.” Ligon Duncan

“Evangelical Christianity is becoming increasingly worldly. Materialism, hedonism, violence, sexual misconduct, pluralism, and divorce are becoming as common within the church as without. As a result the church is losing its distinct identity as a people set apart from the world.” R. Kent Hughes

Pearson has done nothing other than point out a problem which seems plain to many people, but is being addressed by a relative few. I’ll not waste both of our time by multiplying links which are aimed at criticizing a supposed obsession with worldliness, but I think there are more of those than the ones like you linked above. The balance in our day definitely is not toward Puritanism, that’s for sure.

It’s not about ‘evangelicalism’, Dr. Doran, just like it’s not about ‘Fundamentalism’. It’s about priorities.

I live in a section of New York where good churches and solid believers are hard to find. As a result, I deliberately choose not to prioritize between ‘them Evangelicals’ and ‘us Fundamentalists’. I’ll take comfort with either “side” so long as they are obeying Matthew 28:19-20. I don’t have the time or the patience to try and discern whether or not they’re in the right camp. And frankly, I’m so sick and tired of the factionalism between the two that I wonder why I waste my time even discussing it. If that makes me an ‘evan-jellyfish’, a ‘compromised brother’ or ‘not a real fundamentalist’ - so be it. I don’t care about the label anymore.

Pearson wrote:

If we bring it up, we face ridicule and labels. “Legalist!” some shout, having little understanding of what legalism really is. “Traditionalist!” others say, as if we don’t have a rich church history and a very old Book as our guide. “Isolationist!” the more thoughtful may counter, having seen some create odd sub-cultures. “Anti-Missionalist,” the more edgy will say, as if being of the world is a necessary part of being in the world to reach the world. Fearing these reprisals, many remain silent about this elephant in the room of Evangelicalism. However, God is not hesitant to speak on this issue. He says, “Do not love the world.”

So what if they do? Jesus commented:

“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

“A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household.” (Matthew 10:16-25, ESV)

I’m tired of being sliced and diced into ‘categories’ because I acknowledged that some evangelicals have actually written about this. It seems to me that they ought to be noted and applauded for doing the right thing instead of ignored or marginalized.

I think there is a perception among some fundamentalists that we are less worldly as a whole then evangelicals.

I’m not so sure there is much difference

Jay,

Pearson did not slice anybody into camps—he decried the tendency to ignore worldliness and criticize those who don’t. Evangelical is a large category of which there are plenty of sub-groups (including historic fundamentalism) and, subsequently, his concern applies to all of them. Perhaps I should let Pearson speak for himself on this, but I think you are misreading his point to think he is pointing from fundamentalism at evangelicalism (N.B. his reference to Biblical Separatists vs. Fundamentalists).

It is not about camps and labels. It is about the call of Christ to be in the world, but not of it. Lest the point of the OP get lost, I’ll step aside and leave the discussion, I hope, to the questions that Pearson asked.

First, Pearson’s approach distracts from the more important issue. Instead of concentrating solely on exhorting against the dangers of worldliness, he vaguely complains that not enough evangelicals are “speaking out” about it. But that unhelpfully puts the focus on whether “enough” evangelicals are concerned about worldliness and gets a significant number of his readers off into the tangent of pointing out that quite a number of prominent evangelicals have in fact expressed similar concerns. (To the extent that Dr. Doran apparently doesn’t realize that his citation of evangelicals who share Pearson’s concerns undermines Pearson’s complaint that evangelicals aren’t speaking out about worldliness.)

Second, Pearson is pretty squishy about the definition of worldliness. His first set of questions and, to a lesser extent, his third set of questions sound very much like a call to be different merely to be different. Priorities and objects of affection in common with the unsaved are, ipso facto, worldly. In other words, rather than being defined by the objective, unchanging word of God, what is worldly is defined by what the current culture favors, whether or not those things are consistent or inconsistent with the Bible. But that’s the wrong distinctive. What’s ungodly and unbiblical is worldly, not just what “the world” happens to do or love at any given time. Should I not build buildings the same way an unsaved builder builds because, by definition, his methods are worldly? Should I not watch a G-rated or PG-rated movie because it’s a blockbuster and therefore worldly because the world loves it? Pearson’s touchstone appears to be wrong, which means that either some of his applications are going to be wrong or he’s not going to be consistent with his own standard.

i think it is a bit confusing.

The author concludes:

For all of our faults and failures, personal separation from worldliness is something that Biblical Separatists have continued to speak against without apology. The lifestyle of stranger and pilgrim in this world and culture is ok with us, and we think it is ok with God.

It’s confusing because, for example, if we amassed the amount of s*xual sins being unveiled in fundamentalist churches, it would seem like a lot of worldliness. I could choose another type of sin, like pride, for example. So it’s kind of confusing what is really going on.

And, for example, is David Platt evangelical or fundamentalist? He talks very pointedly about materialism.

Or Ann Voskamp.

or the issue of adopting—I think “evangelicals” as a whole, have come at this more with God’s heart than fundies have, overall.

so it does confuse me a little bit, if his point is really accurate or not.

[dmyers]

Second, Pearson is pretty squishy about the definition of worldliness. His first set of questions and, to a lesser extent, his third set of questions sound very much like a call to be different merely to be different. Priorities and objects of affection in common with the unsaved are, ipso facto, worldly. In other words, rather than being defined by the objective, unchanging word of God, what is worldly is defined by what the current culture favors, whether or not those things are consistent or inconsistent with the Bible. But that’s the wrong distinctive. What’s ungodly and unbiblical is worldly, not just what “the world” happens to do or love at any given time.

Well said, DMyers. Very well said.

If one’s point is that few are speaking about an issue, showing that a few people are speaking about it doesn’t invalidate the point. To invalidate that point would require showing that more than a few are speaking about it (truly, it would require showing that many are in fact speaking about it).

Likewise, showing that some folks in one category or another have acted contrary to biblical teaching on worldliness or argued for not being worldly doesn’t invalidate the point either.

So, here’s my takeaway on this, fwiw, there is so much rancor built up about the subject of worldliness that it has become the third rail of public discourse among believers. It doesn’t matter why or how you touched the rail, you will get shocked by it. That seems true no matter what you write—someone will jump on it because you were too soft, too hard, too fuzzy, too clear (i.e., beyond the Bible).

If one’s point is that few are speaking about an issue, one should make at least some effort to support that point rather than just throwing it out there no differently than a reckless, unfounded generalization. Otherwise, one undermines one’s credibility.

Also, when one’s unsupported point is rebutted with several specific counter-examples, one does not advance one’s point by yet again providing no support at all for the point and instead complaining that the counter-examples are not numerous enough to prove the detractors’ belief that “many [however many that is] are in fact speaking about it.”

(A point I meant to make in my first comment above: Isn’t one who makes the point that too few are concerned about the issue that one is concerned about essentially patting oneself on the back for being bold enough to express one’s concern?)

And, to repeat myself a little, one’s (unsupported) point that few are speaking about an issue is a wasteful distraction from one’s other (presumably more important) point that today’s Christians (evangelicals? fundamentalists? both? only one and not the other?) are too worldly. Isn’t one?

[dmyers]

If one’s point is that few are speaking about an issue, one should make at least some effort to support that point rather than just throwing it out there no differently than a reckless, unfounded generalization. Otherwise, one undermines one’s credibility.

…and that’s why I reacted the way I did about the ‘evangelicals’ who do write about it…because there ARE some evangelicals that are taking it seriously, and we end up looking stupid or malicious when someone from “our” circles opens up with this statement that divides “us” from “them”:

There is an elephant in the room of Evangelicalism that very few want to talk about.

and closes the first paragraph with:

Fearing these reprisals, many remain silent about this elephant in the room of Evangelicalism. However, God is not hesitant to speak on this issue. He says, “Do not love the world.”

I’m going to be blunt now and probably make people angry, but I think this needs to be said, so I’ll say it. This whole article reeks to me - absolutely reeks - of the attitude of the Pharisee in Luke 18:11-12:

The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men [who will not speak against worldliness]. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.

I’m probably overreacting a little, but the whole thing struck me as a little self-serving.