What Is Worldliness?
“Don’t drink, don’t smoke; don’t cuss, don’t chew; don’t go with girls who do.”
This humorous mantra is not so foreign to the ears of some conservative Christians. While its origin is unknown, it is often attributed to fundamentalist preachers of the mid-late twentieth century. The aim of this saying was to combat the problem of worldliness.
Nearly everyone reared in a religious setting has encountered some mode of engagement with the world. Sometimes it concerns which schools are acceptable to attend. Other times it entails a specific posture toward leisure and entertainment. Still others focus on a specific protocol for clothing and dress. Though these seem like narrow concerns, each has historically been seen as aspects of life where the threat of worldliness was imminent [1].
While we may speculate as to why these specific areas have been codified in the preaching of many, that is not my aim in this essay. Christians of all stripes affirm the legitimate, Scriptural warning about conformity to the world (cf. Rom. 12:1-2). Yet determining what constitutes “the world” has often been elusive for many Christians. So, in this essay, I will survey relevant passages in order to cultivate a watchful eye for worldliness today.
The “World” and Creation: “Good, But Broken”
Creation is the starting point for understanding worldliness. Some would expect to begin with the Fall, since worldliness is a problem tied to human sinfulness. Yet by affirming creation’s inherent goodness, we avoid the mistake of thinking worldliness applies to everything in the world.
For instance, Paul warns Timothy of false teachers that condemn and forbid things that God created as good (1 Tim 4:3-5). Specifically, he names food and marriage. Both were blessed and encouraged by God prior to the Fall. God designed them for pleasure, delight, and provision. Unfortunately, both are easily corruptible. Sin has complicated human relationships, especially marriage. Additionally, food becomes problematic because its production is tied to the earth that stands under the curse of thistles and thorns. Under the midday heat human beings have toiled—and still do today—for a meal [2].
Establishing the human condition as well as the state of our natural resources is crucial to understanding worldliness. We must affirm the goodness of creation while acknowledging the sway sin holds over such goods. This helps us to see the earth, in terms of the physical realm, for what it is—good, but broken.
The “World”: Earth, Nations, and Fallen Humanity
A second crucial step for understanding worldliness takes us back to seventh grade English. There we learned about homonyms: words spelled the same, yet possessing different meanings. For instance, “sharp” may describe a person’s intellect, prowess in fashion, or an object’s ability to cut. “World” is such an example in the New Testament.
David Wells helpfully summarizes the way that “world” (kosmos) functions in Scripture:
First, the word is used of the earth itself. God, we are told, ‘made the world and everything in it’ (Acts 17:24)…Second, kosmos is used of the nations of the earth, the human fraternity. It was into this ‘world’ that sin came through Adam (Rom. 5:12), and it is this world—the entire human family—that will stand before God in judgment…[but] the third basic sense of kosmos refers to fallen humanity en masse, the collective expression of every society’s refusal to bow to God, to receive his truth, to obey his commandments, or to believe in his Christ [3].
Recognizing these distinctions is crucial since they make sense of Jesus’ prayer:
I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that youtake them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world (Jn. 17:14-16).
In other words, the church should flee the world only in this third sense of the word—that is, fallen humanity. However, biblically the church must not become “other-worldly” in reference to the creation and to the peoples of the earth [4]. Wells helps us to see that no one is worldly simply because they live in the world or participate in cultural and social structures. Rather it has to do with desires and habits oriented around the world’s ways. This is borne out further in John’s first epistle.
The “World” and Lust: “Fleeting, Yet Powerful”
Sometimes the biblical writers offer succinct summaries of important topics. John does so with worldliness in 1 John 2:15-17 where he warns us not to love the world. Clearly he isn’t speaking of the creation since it is God’s magnificent gift. And he cannot mean the earth’s peoples, since they are the object of God’s love, and should be the object of the Christian’s love. No, John is calling us to something subtler.
John identifies three chief entailments of things “in the world” that Christians shouldn’t love: the lusts of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. He says nothing of films, art, or any other cultural artifact—though the Roman world certainly had their own. Instead, he refers to three human tendencies that are fleeting, yet powerful. Each merits some attention.
“Lusts” is another way of speaking of wrongful or sinful desire—that which humans long for and pursue. As the New Testament teaches clearly, the “flesh” is that fallen, depraved human condition. It is what belongs to the Christian’s former self, or characteristically sinful way of life. Yet this is a quite general portrait.
The second phrase, “lust of the eyes,” fills the frame a bit. What do the desires of our eyes have to do with worldliness? The Bible goes to great lengths to remind us that we walk by faith, not by sight. In our fallen state, we only trust the visible. We are easily enticed by the sights around us. We value style over substance, and perception over reality. Even the Israelites couldn’t wait for Moses to bring God’s truth down from Mt. Sinai, so they constructed a visible, tangible god—one that would satisfy their visceral desires for religious experience. Our twentieth century eyes lead us astray in similar ways whether in the elements we import into worship or the everyday consumer decisions we make.
Finally, the beloved apostle warns us of the “pride of life.” What we own, it seems, can potentially own us. Depraved people pursue wealth, fame, pleasure, and other forms of personal glory. Yet each of these can enslave us. They lead to false confidence in who we are as opposed to the sovereign Lord.
While a textbook definition of worldliness isn’t evident anywhere beyond these passages, they do offer much to consider:
First, worldliness is tied to a fallen condition human society and culture stand under. Second, worldliness is identified with sinful desire, especially what appeals to the human eye. Finally, created goods that humans turn into objects of prideful confidence are worldly.
The rest of the New Testament only affirms John’s admonitions. James relates worldliness to wrong desire (Jas. 4:1-10). Paul exhorts the Corinthians to avoid the fleeting things of this world, then laments of his co-laborer Demas who had forsaken him out of love for the world (1 Tim. 4:10). The temptation remains with us today. This is why a practical theology of worldliness is essential.
Constructing a Practical Theology of Worldliness
Once we have studied the biblical record concerning worldliness, we must consider the practical implications. Many Christians agree on the category of worldliness, but deciding what conduct, language, and cultural artifacts are “worldly” is where disagreement lies.
Much of previous Christian admonition about worldliness was ineffective because it offered an endlessly detailed list of proscriptions—what Leroy Forlines deems “long-list legalism”—rather than offering biblical-theological wisdom for navigating the world [5]. However, given the texts briefly surveyed, here are several practical conclusions:
(1) Be slow to condemn something solely because of its social or cultural location.
(2) Be slow to embrace something solely because it is desirable, and just because Scripture does not specifically forbid it.
(3) Because worldliness involves spiritual forces, human sinfulness, and material goods, it is subtle. Thus it will require vigilance.
Charles Spurgeon once commented, “I believe that one reason why the church of God at this present moment has so little influence over the world is because the world has so much influence over the church” [5]. If Spurgeon is correct, then it is even more crucial for Christians to take Scripture’s admonitions about worldliness seriously. It will require both cultural and spiritual discernment.
Fundamentally, it is a question of holiness. Scripture says “be holy, for I am holy” (1 Pt. 1:15-16). When the spirit of the age sets the terms for Christian living, personal purity and integrity is compromised. It led Demas to desert Paul, and it can lead us astray too. But Scripture’s wisdom is a powerful guide in helping us to be in the world, but not of the world.
_______________________________________
[1] These emphases are often falsely attributed solely to twentieth-century fundamentalism. However, when we survey the historical record we find each of these areas of human culture challenged by Christian moral thought throughout the centuries.
One surprising example is the words of fourth-century bishop John Chrysostom who lamented the lack of church attendance by parishioners on account of work obligations, as well as their attendance at theaters, athletic events, and festivals. See Steven McKinion, Life and Practice in the Early Church: A Documentary Reader (New York: New York University Press, 2011), 58, 91.
[2] Norman Wirzba and Fred Bahnsen, Making Peace with the Land: God’s Call to Reconcile with Creation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011). Wirzba and Bahnsen take up this subject in great detail.
[3] David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 37-39.
[4] Wells, 38.
[5] F. Leroy Forlines, The Quest for Truth: Answering Life’s Inescapable Questions (Nashville: Randall House, 2001), 247-278. Forlines helpfully compares and contrasts long-list legalism and short-list legalism.
[6] Charles Spurgeon, “How to Become Fishers of Men” (sermon, Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, Sermon no. 1906; no date).
Recent Comments