Not sure why you aren’t addressing me personally, but please don’t mistake passion for heavy-handedness.

Most churches are sorely lacking in truly spiritual fellowship — either falling into deadness, or running around like human missional dynamos attempting to replicate themselves with more human missional dynamos.

They’ve forgotten “be still and know that I am God” and “sweet hour of prayer”, and so the fellowship declines into what you call the Christian “subculture”.

But the answer isn’t to flee the so-called Christian subculture. It’s to make it truly spiritual, filled with the Spirit and the grace and love of Christ. And from the Life of Christ Himself flowing through people who have spent time with Him, He will build His Church.

I have read many of your other writings, and while I appreciate much of what you say, I wonder if you have any real concept of what we used to call a “quiet time”.

By the way, I originally had read the article on your website, and would have commented there, but there was no place for comments. It would be good to have you respond to me directly, as you haven’t done so yet.

thanks for posting my article. I am pleased to see it has generated so much thoughtful interaction. May it lead it an equal amount of mission!

Also, thanks for your outstanding six point response to the heavy handed critque. Your response was winsome, charitable and spot on.

Reader might check out a lot of my other writings to get a fuller picture of my theology of church and mission. This practical artcle doesn’t really get at that.

With you in the Gospel,

When I came here the smell, stench and corruption of legalism had made its indelible mark on the lives of the people. A deficient understanding of the gospel had seriously affected the people. Consequently opening up Romans 1-8 was used of the Lord to bring us to a more gospel-centered emphasis in our lives.

However as we moved away from legalism and pharisaical tendencies immaturity brought another challenge. Licentiousness began to threaten and as a result we saw a casting off of restraints and a tendency towards ‘I am free in Christ and the bible does not forbid it so i will do it’.

We have recently been addressing the wise and spiritual use of our Christian liberty in a pastoral attempt to help our people understand their freedom in Christ and how to handle it. As a result it has brought us again to the heart of the Christian life as Calvin speaks of it and expounds it from Romans 12v1-2; Titus 2v10-13.

A life of humble dependance on God, Father, Son and Spirit to enable us to pursue a life of self-denial that emanates in love for God and for our neighbors, be they brothers, friends or foes. This is what we are called to and what we must stay centered upon. It is what we must grow in and focus on if we would please God and if we would be effective in the world for Christ.

Working out our salvation in fear in trembling really is work !

Warmest regards

RB

To be honest with you both I never intended to initiate a full blown discussion; rather I simply wished to offer my two cents worth. I don’t leave comments often and when I have, I perhaps regretted it. I prefer to discuss face to face with people. However, I will do my best to give you a few thoughts on what I believe “worldliness” or “worldly” culture is, as far as I have learned so far, if you think that would be helpful.

It is a multi-faceted thing but it always has its root in the same place – the heart. The heart that loves God will love who He is – His character and will love His law, and it gives God His rightful place as the King of Kings. Most of all such a heart will love the Saviour, subsequent to a hatred of the sin that resides there, albeit a fledgling hatred at the beginning of conversion. Conversely, the heart that loves the world does not appreciate His character and despises His law (although still content to bathe in the benefits of it, e.g. criminalisation of murder, theft etc.). It worships self and seeks to feed self’s desires. It defies the need to be saved from the consequences and desires of sin, sometimes politely and sometimes with vehement opposition.

Worldliness is a love of the things of this world, even though they may not be sinful in themselves, more than God who created them (1 John 2 v 15-16). It worships the created thing rather than the creator, replaces God with idols and hates God’s law, preferring to live a life without its restraints. This results ultimately in moral degradation (Romans 1 v 18 – 31). In light of the Gospel, it loves sin more than obedience to Christ. (John 14 v 15)

Culturally this results in a negative omission to recognise God’s right to be the pinnacle of a culture’s affections and desires and His right to govern, shape and when necessary to restrict our culture; it also results in a positive promotion of that which is against God’s law and displeasing to Him. If culture is such then it follows that to love and embrace all aspects of it is to hate God (James 4 v 4).

If a festival or summer show or concert upholds and promotes sexual purity and does not encourage or facilitate drunkenness or blaspheme God from the stage, then sure, get involved if you have sufficient time on your hands and it gives you opportunity to evangelise people. If however, the event is characterised by any of the above demonstrations of open rebellion to God or even if the material presented has a moral looseness about it – or a juvenile or lowbrow take on life, then we have to consider if our participation, whether it be in the foreground or background, is going to dull the effectiveness of our testimony and our witness to others.

I really did appreciate this article more than you probably realise. I am just saddened by the desire in many quarters (and I am not including the author of this article) to be immersed in the culture without little or any acknowledgement of its dangers. I am also deeply concerned about the felt need to be hip, cool, even crude in an attempt to make people listen to the Gospel – hence my potential concern about the root source of the article.

God gives the Christian grace to overcome a wordly life and as a result to live ‘….sensible, righteous and godly lives…’, i.e with a sober-minded awareness of the dangers of worldliness, the brevity of life and the need to think eternally; upholding and promoting Gods laws; all this done with awe and appreciation of God and devotion to Him. (Titus 2 v 11-12) I believe this is how we should approach our culture as we seek to tell people of the good news of the gospel.

Is the use of guitar in the church “worldly”? How about the (dare I say it, *gulp*) drums?

Not promoting the use of drums, of course. Personally, my general opinion is they do not aid reverence in worship. But that’s my opinion. I couldn’t dogmatize it from Scripture.

Just wanted to get your thoughts…

Raja

I appreciate your willingness to be discerning, open to learn from the strengths of others while ascertaining and avoiding their weaknesses. Driscoll’s use of language has unquestionably been the subject of debate. He has confessed that he has at times stepped over the line. At the same time, he has defended the occasional use of strong and even coarse language in preaching. I’ve pointed my readers to the website of a friend who attempts to present even-handedly both sides of the debate and draws practical lessons at the end (click here).

I’d rather not resurrect that debate here. I do think, however, it would be helpful to our readers if you would provide us with a definition of “worldliness” or “worldly culture.” I ask this because often when this terminology is thrown around in discussion it’s not defined or understood in the same way by those in the discussion. As a result, the conversation doesn’t make a lot of headway. So, as I’m sure you would agree, it’s good to be on the same page when we’re attempt to ascertain what is and what is not “worldly culture.”

Thanks,
Bob Gonzales

1. “For example how should I ‘…participate with the city’ considering many summer events are not particularly God glorifying (and are perhaps evidence of this cultures obsession with entertainment and sensuality).”

‘I think the answer is simple, only the ones that a Christian can participate in with a good conscience’

Raji, I am not sure that the answer is as simple as you state. There has been a shift over many years in what is deemed ‘wordly’ and should be avoided and what is simply a matter of Christian liberty. R Barcelos addressed this point recently:

http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/my-pharasaic-heroes-or-bible-babies-in-fundy-bathwater/

The common Christian conscience out there today is one that has been difused by the uncertainties of post-modernism and softened by years of poor teaching on the dangers of loving the world and it’s values and tenants. I believe we should seek to change our culture where possible (although always with the gospel, not mere moral reform), but we should never carelessly immerse ourselves in it. I believe it is biblical to be wary of our hearts first and foremost, but also to be wary of the culture that has grown up around the degradation of man’s heart. Is it not naïve to imagine that our faith cannot possibly be shipwrecked by it?

David Wells points out:

‘The stream of historic orthodoxy that once watered the evangelical soul is now dammed by a worldliness that many fail to recognize as worldliness because of the cultural innocence with which it presents itself…….It may be that Christian faith, which has made many easy alliances with modern culture in the past few decades, is also living in a fool’s paradise, comforting itself about all the things God is doing…….while it losing its character, if not its soul’

You also pointed out that I should:

‘…..judge the article on the basis of Scripture. Usually the “consider the source” argument is the RB way of disregarding counterarguments that refute their already held position’

I did actually judge it on the basis of scripture as my reservation included citation from the bible but the source is also important however (as a useful and safe check), whether it be the RBS or the Vatican. Surely we are to test the source scripturally (and as a result either commend it or not as the case may be) – otherwise let this and other blogs start publishing articles (that may have good things to say) picked from Purpose Driven or Health and Wealth or Emergent blogs without any clarification or caution as to the serious errors that are intertwined within these movements.

The way I see it, I am taking the middle ground here, not an extreme position; I already stated that I appreciated much of what was said, but please let us clarify when necessary. I am not advocating retreat into a Christian bubble but at the same time we must not race headlong into the world’s culture with post-modern naivety. That would be thoroughly unscriptural. John McArthur will not condemn everything that Mark Driscoll has said or done – but he did need to point out that his explicit and potty-mouthed sermon style are not acceptable:

http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/posts.aspx?ID=4168

I feel strongly enough about that one issue alone, never mind his ‘fellowship’ with the Crystal Cathedral, to warn fellow Christians to be on their guard about him. However, as I have already stated……I am not writing him off.

Your brother in Christ,

T Millar

I think the answer is simple, only the ones that a Christian can participate in with a good conscience.

“Should I be wary of where this article, good as much of it was, was pulled from?”

Not necessarily, judge the article on the basis of Scripture. Usually the “consider the source” argument is the RB way of disregarding counterarguments that refute their already held position.

-RDani

We are yet seeing in a glass darkly but praise the Lord for the light we have received. Let us labor to love one another and serve one another for the sake of our glorious king.