Will Anyone Speak Against Worldliness?

I think actually we are evaluating this article inaccurately. Look at exactly what the man wrote—it’s appx 1/4th of the entire post so i dont think it’s a small issue.

He says that worldliness is the elephant in the room of evangelicalism, and I think the “very few” that are willing to address it is unclear—does this refer to Biblical Separatists/fundamentalists are unwilling to address it? or to evangelicals themselves unwilling to address it? I actually think that it’s referring to fundamentalists … But then the ending is confusing.

Anyway, just being hypercritical and exact here, as I was taught to be at BJ :D or from my English-teacher mother, take your pick ;)

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

…

[conclusion:] 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.

Is it really an elephant in their room? in our room?

Gah. I have to stop thinking this. it’s just making me go round and round. …

the comments on the post are basically the same conversation we are having here. So …

[Jay]

But in any case, I think David Cloud wrote something on worldliness a few weeks ago - “The Merging of Calvinism and Worldliness” was the exact title. Does that count, Ron?

No.

Actually, in my English classes - from grade school all the way through college - the word “Anyone” was meant to be inclusive of everyone. Not “some”, not “partially”, and not “the select few”…especially when terms in the article like these are used: “very few”, “us”, and “our”.

Rhetoric, Jay, It’s a common way to use language. And it might be what Pearson intended. But even if he didn’t, it strikes me that the title is actually a question, not a statement. I assume that in your English classes — from grade school all the way through college — they taught you what a question mark means. And the answer is “Yes, some have, but it seems relatively few,” which is what the article says. And for all the discussion, no one has supported the idea that worldliness is a common theme or spoken of by more than few, relatively speaking. It may be the case that it is, but that hasn’t been supported, has it?

In the end, the take away should be that we should be talking about worldliness, not debating the use of rhetori

Larry you missed the point of the first paragraph of the article I linked to. The first paragraph was a parody of what he was criticizing.

Yes, he finally said that in a comment later on. It wasn’t clear, and the common use of the tactic makes it hard to parody in the manner in which he tried. But even at that, it is still a useful tool of persuasion at times. And even if his first paragraph was a parody, it seems that the whole argue did the very thing he was trying to write against doing. It would kind of be impossible not to.

This reminds of Yogi Berra’s line: “No one goes there anymore; it’s too crowded.” Of course he also said, “I didn’t say half the things I said.” But these kinds of categorical or semi-categorical statements are common and accepted. They are not generally parsed for mathematical accuracy, but used for rhetorical purposes, similar to hyperbole.

i still disagree that “very few” in evangelicalism have addressed worldliness.

But to use DMyers standards, you would actually have to support that by showing that more than a few have addressed it. And even if you did, what would it prove? Again, I think you have missed the point of the article, which was to encourage people to think about worldliness. If your definition of “few” is larger than is, then fine. I don’t think the point hinges on that. I don’t think there are a lot of people who want to talk about what worldliness actually is. If you do, then fine.

At least that’s the opinion of this young member of the YRR who doesn’t really understand rhetoric or how language works.

Fair enough. But the way language works is an important part of communication, and it is worth recognizing what people do with the language they use. Again, what exactly Pearson was doing, I don’t know. But I would tend to believe he wasn’t trying to evoke a conversation about what “few” means.

And this reminds me why I don’t like to get in this conversations. It is hard to communicate, and I am not good at stopping.

Pearson, you need to write more. I have rarely observed Christians to get so exercised over such basic, simple stuff. I find the quote of the ancient Pogo fitting: “We have found the enemy, and he is us!” Do more. It is really cathartic.