Will Anyone Speak Against Worldliness?

It is interesting how people get different things out of what is, in reality, a very short, almost devotional-style article. I took it as a quick article encouraging separation from the world, nothing more. The title implies that there are many Christian leaders who can do a better job of emphasizing this. No argument there.

Jay - I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t see a “fundamentalism vs. evangelicalism” thrust from the article at all. It is merely a call for Biblical separation, which is Biblical, after all! A militant stand for separation has been a fundamentalist hallmark, but I didn’t take this as an “us vs. them” article.

However, I do understand the frustration with the “fundamentalist” label. I am a fundamentalist, but I view it as more of a philosophy of ministry rather than a label I attach to myself.

For example, I wouldn’t stand in a pulpit and say,

“Independent, fundamental Baptists have always stood for separation!”

I would say,

“True Christianity has always stood for separation from the world.”

I’m not sure I’m making too much sense, but I’d rather act like a Biblical fundamentalist than spend my time talking about fundamentalism.

That’s about the only word I can come up with at this point. Seriously, both of you have read enough people’s writing to know that introductory paragraphs begin with generalizations (like Ligon’s comments about Mahaney’s book and Hughes’s opening lines for his own book, both of which I cited above). Are we to conclude that both Duncan and Hughes have undermined their credibility by offering the generalizations they did? Somehow I don’t think you’d make that case.

Jay, you may want to reread your post above about how tired you are of people slicing and dicing groups and consider how self-righteous your words might be sounding before you start pointing out the speck in your brother’s eye. From my vantage point, neither of you are guilty of self-righteous actions, but if you’re going to judge by the standard you have, then you need to live up to it too.

I have a guess that the author would include more than the camp/movement/idea/thingie/whatever-some-call-Fundamentalism in his moniker “biblical separatist.” For the record, it should be noted that at his original post and here, the F-word was introduced by people other than the OP author. He said “biblical separatist” not the F-word.

And, it should be noted that he has not compared the quality or quantity of non-worldliness of Biblical Separatists to anyone or any group—that again is what some have done here and have attributed to him.

As to Biblical Separatist, personally, when I use the term I generally include conservative evangelicals in the main. This would include to some extent the authors someone mentioned earlier. I will not speak for Pearson (there are already enough people here who clearly are not reading him, but seem to be speaking for him), but I have seen enough of his thoughts, and know him well enough to know that he likely did not start the dog’s breakfast that some here are attributing to him. [Some of them have yet BTW to admit their red-handed red herring-ness and have instead moved away from their lapsus linguae (or is it lapsus calami?) and switched the subject.]

Is it comically sad how quickly the P(h) word came up (in light of the author’s own sentiments)…or mebbe I’m overreacting???

Is it too much to say that in a short post, Pearson packed a high-level remark about the need for Biblical Separatists to do something which many in Evangelicalism are not doing—write about the need to love God more than the world, and to be circumspect as to what that means?

You make a good point - the author said “Biblical Separatists,” not “fundamentalists.” This is why I don’t believe it was intended to be taken as an “us vs. them” piece. Surely people don’t disagree that worldliness needs to be condemned more strongly by Pastors across the world?

[Dave Doran]

That’s about the only word I can come up with at this point. Seriously, both of you have read enough people’s writing to know that introductory paragraphs begin with generalizations (like Ligon’s comments about Mahaney’s book and Hughes’s opening lines for his own book, both of which I cited above). Are we to conclude that both Duncan and Hughes have undermined their credibility by offering the generalizations they did? Somehow I don’t think you’d make that case.

Jay, you may want to reread your post above about how tired you are of people slicing and dicing groups and consider how self-righteous your words might be sounding before you start pointing out the speck in your brother’s eye. From my vantage point, neither of you are guilty of self-righteous actions, but if you’re going to judge by the standard you have, then you need to live up to it too.

I haven’t called anyone any names, P-word or otherwise. I haven’t accused anyone of being self-righteous. I’m at a loss to see how I’ve invited anyone to accuse me, or contemplate accusing me, of being self-righteous on this. (I freely admit I’m often self-righteous; I was making a concerted effort not to be today, here.) I’m quite sure that my comments haven’t been ridiculous, whether others agree with them or not. I’m even more sure that calling my comments ridiculous does not constitute a substantive response.

Perhaps the introductory paragraphs of some books begin with generalizations. Hopefully, somewhere in such books, the authors at least make an attempt to support such generalization. This would be particularly true if the books bear a title asking whether anyone will speak about Topic X, thus leading with the implied generalization that no one (or almost no one) is speaking about the topic.

For what it’s worth, the Duncan and Hughes quotes are not really on point. Duncan’s statement doesn’t go any further than scripture in saying that worldliness is a serious problem. He doesn’t draw any lines between evangelicalism and any other ism, or within evangelicalism. (Hopefully, at some point later in the book he intelligibly defines worldliness, and does so without reference to what the majority of unsaved people are doing or liking this year.) Hughes’s generalization is as bad as Pearson’s, unless Hughes in fact makes an effort later in the book to demonstrate that evangelical Christianity is becoming increasingly worldly. If he does, his evidence can be evaluated. If he doesn’t, I’m inclined (with, I think, better scriptural authority) to believe he’s wrong. Christians of every stripe have always been too worldly (hence the Apostle John’s admonition in the first place). I’m skeptical of any sweeping claim that today’s Christians, overall, are measurably better or worse than yesterday’s.

Dave, I welcome a substantive response. In the absence of a substantive response, I’d prefer no response. Thanks.

[dmyers]

I haven’t called anyone any names, P-word or otherwise. I haven’t accused anyone of being self-righteous. I’m at a loss to see how I’ve invited anyone to accuse me, or contemplate accusing me, of being self-righteous on this. (I freely admit I’m often self-righteous; I was making a concerted effort not to be today, here.) I’m quite sure that my comments haven’t been ridiculous, whether others agree with them or not. I’m even more sure that calling my comments ridiculous does not constitute a substantive response.

Actually, I’m fairly sure those accusations were aimed at me, not you, but whatever. I didn’t call Pearson any names either, but it’s obvious that my view is incorrect and not worth considering, so I’m going to bow out for now. I’ve got better things to do anyway.

To 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.

Out of curiosity, how would one go about proving that few are speaking about something? Would you catalog all the times they didn’t speak about it? Make a bibliography of all the books they didn’t write about it? Seriously, perhaps I am dense, but how in the world would you support the point that few are speaking about something?

quite a number of prominent evangelicals have in fact expressed similar concerns

Can you give us an idea of this “quite a number of prominent evangelicals”? How many and what are their names?

[Jay]

[dmyers]

I haven’t called anyone any names, P-word or otherwise. I haven’t accused anyone of being self-righteous. I’m at a loss to see how I’ve invited anyone to accuse me, or contemplate accusing me, of being self-righteous on this. (I freely admit I’m often self-righteous; I was making a concerted effort not to be today, here.) I’m quite sure that my comments haven’t been ridiculous, whether others agree with them or not. I’m even more sure that calling my comments ridiculous does not constitute a substantive response.

Actually, I’m fairly sure those accusations were aimed at me, not you, but whatever. I didn’t call Pearson any names either, but it’s obvious that my view is incorrect and not worth considering, so I’m going to bow out for now. I’ve got better things to do anyway.

Jay, I was hoping that was the case when I first saw Dave’s comment. Near as I can tell, though, the only comment directed at you is the one sentence that begins with your name. Every other sentence is to “both of you” and “neither of you.” So, I had to treat all but that one sentence as directed at me as well.

To Jay,

I was actually going to ask this this morning, but I decided not to, but now I will go ahead: Who is slicing and dicing you? and where? And how? So far as I know, you weren’t even addressed, were you? It was a pretty generic article.

Then you say, you reacted the way you did 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”.”

So now you, who resent being sliced and diced into categories, have invoked those categories you rejected. So do you want the categories or not?

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 wonder how you are not included in this? Are you not claiming to be better than all these others? Aren’t you claiming to be better than this author by attributing to him the attitude of a Pharisee? “God I thank you that I am not like other men who slice and dice into camps and have attitudes that reek of the Pharisees.” The way you have framed it leads open the question of whether anyone could ever speak about anything.

I’m probably overreacting a little.

Yeah, I would say you have overreacted more than a little on more than one point here. I would suggest it might be a good time to reconsider what you have said here. If you don’t like his point, that’s fine. But I would keep it on his point, which wasn’t about you.

But how would this be self-serving?

[Larry]

To 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.

Out of curiosity, how would one go about proving that few are speaking about something? Would you catalog all the times they didn’t speak about it? Make a bibliography of all the books they didn’t write about it? Seriously, perhaps I am dense, but how in the world would you support the point that few are speaking about something?

Larry, first, I never asked for proof; I simply asked for support. Second, it’s not really that difficult. If it’s intended to be an empirical claim, you at least take a stab at an empirical assessment; e.g., “I performed a word search for ‘worldly’ and ‘worldliness’ in the archives of CT, T4G, TGC [etc.] and found only x articles that even touched on this.” (In the old days, perhaps you’d say you checked the (printed) Index of Periodicals for x period of time and found x articles whose titles addressed this, etc.)

Or, if you don’t want to take the trouble to do that (or if you don’t like the results you get when you do), you either narrow the claim or you make it an anecdotal claim; e.g., “I follow x blogs/periodicals, and I recall only x posts/articles in the last x time speaking about worldliness,” or “In my experience in x circles, almost no one is speaking about worldliness.”

Better yet, you simply say that you want to address the topic because you feel that it’s under-addressed. You don’t make sweeping claims about what (other?) evangelicals are doing or not doing and accuse all but “very few” evangelicals of ridiculing and labeling or of “fearing” those who do when the topic is worldliness. Nor do you title your post to question whether “anyone” is willing to say what you’re about to say (you brave soul, you).

Calvin on 1 John 2:15 in his Catholic Epistles:

We must bear in mind what I have already said, that a corrupt mode of life is here mentioned, which has nothing in common with the kingdom of God, that is, when men become so degenerated, that they are satisfied with the present life, and think no more of immortal life than mute animals. Whosoever, then, makes himself thus a slave to earthly lusts, cannot be of God.

[Larry]

To dmyers,

… .

quite a number of prominent evangelicals have in fact expressed similar concerns

Can you give us an idea of this “quite a number of prominent evangelicals”? How many and what are their names?

Sorry, didn’t see this the first time I read your comment. See Jay’s first comment and Dave Doran’s first comment.

[Jay]

[dmyers]

I haven’t called anyone any names, P-word or otherwise. I haven’t accused anyone of being self-righteous. I’m at a loss to see how I’ve invited anyone to accuse me, or contemplate accusing me, of being self-righteous on this. (I freely admit I’m often self-righteous; I was making a concerted effort not to be today, here.) I’m quite sure that my comments haven’t been ridiculous, whether others agree with them or not. I’m even more sure that calling my comments ridiculous does not constitute a substantive response.

Actually, I’m fairly sure those accusations were aimed at me, not you, but whatever. I didn’t call Pearson any names either, but it’s obvious that my view is incorrect and not worth considering, so I’m going to bow out for now. I’ve got better things to do anyway.

Jay, you (and everyone else) may have known/realized this from the get-go, but I only just realized that Pearson is also at DBTS with Dave Doran. (I know, I know — the post in question is on DBTS’s site, but for some reason I missed that.) Makes Dave’s defense more understandable (and I don’t mean that in any pejorative sense).

DMyers,

Thanks for that. I am not sure your methodology achieves your aim since all that would do is test a very narrow slice, and it wouldn’t give any sense of whether or not something substantive or accurate was being said about it.

I am not sure that a brief, generalized, popular level article even requires such a standard. Writing has different purposes, and it seems to me that perhaps you are imposing your purpose on someone else’s writing.

Nor do I think such a standard would be invoked for anything other than a topic like this (but I have no support for that, other than my general impression of the blogs and articles I read). Worldliness is one of those topics that tends to bring out a different standard than other topics.

If someone said, “Few evangelicals are writing on the topic of using Hebrew in sermon preparation,” I doubt we would have a similar response from Jay about slicing and dicing, or yourself about the audacity of making such a statement without support (although there might be (probably are) more articles on Hebrew than worldliness in the blogosphere of evangelicalism). Might it be that the response here is driven by oversensitivity on the topic?

Seriously, it was a short, generalized article, and it is hard to imagine that the statement could be controversial. Do you really believe that many evangelicals are talking about worldliness these days? I am sure there are some.

I asked for some names, and you refer to Jay and Dave’s comments. So considering those we come up with less than ten names. Does that really mean that many are speaking out about it? I would imagine in the world of evangelicalism (with tens of thousands), the existence of a couple of books and a few articles by about ten people really don’t disprove that “few want to talk about worldliness.” And remember, Pearson never said no one was talking about it. That was Jay’s first overreaction, and one apparently carried on by you. I am sure there are more than ten, but don’t you think it’s fair to say that there isn’t much teaching on worldliness these days?

I would just caution against (1) overreaction to something that wasn’t said, (e.g., “no one is writing about it”), and (2) imposing your expectations of formal standards on a popular level article.

In the end, it seems to me that this discussion went off track by taking an introductory comment and treating it as if it were the point, rather than focusing on the point of the article. That might actually be a profitable discussion: What is wordliness and what should we say about it?

Hey folks,

I missed the discussion today— I apologize (I think) for that. I definitely agree with what Sam, Tyler, and Pastor Doran said about my intent and the heart (even if some mind in specificity and clarity was lacking) behind what I wrote. My purpose was to express a genuine concern that Pastors and people alike not hesitate to speak out against world-love and to fight against it themselves. I think the general tide is against it in the American church, but I also would be glad, very glad, to know that more are calling people to holiness than I know of.

Perhaps, I should have stuck more closely to the main point of the article, which was to search our hearts with honest, Spirit-helped evaluation to check for a love of the world, evidenced in giving in to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and boastful pride. However, I often hesitate to be as honest as I should be in evaluating myself and in preaching to others for fear of being labeled by other believers (wrongly, but labeled nonetheless) in some of the ways I mentioned. At the end of the day I should confidently speak and apply the Word as a pilgrim.

My post was certainly not about movements/labels other than “Evangelicalism” as inclusive of those who believe in sin and the Savior’s death for sin and the gospel— not about Evangelicals, Conservative Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, etc. I do call for commitment to biblical separatist principles—particularly separation from the world in this case. Sorry to some that I didn’t mean more than that, and to others that it seemed I did.

Blog posts are too short to answer possible objections, give lots of examples, etc. so I definitely ask pardon for that.

Overall, I hope we can all agree on what John wrote!