What In the World Is “Worldliness”? Providing Some Biblical Clarity On a Misused Term
Posted by deangonzales on October 25, 2009
Sometimes it’s a compliment to be described as a “worldly” Christian. It may simply denote that you’re a very “down-to-earth” person who can enjoy the temporal blessings of this life, not as idols but as a gift from God. In this sense, a “worldly” believer is neither glum nor prudish nor ethereal. Instead, he holds a very robust view of life. Professor Leland Ryken recently defended the Puritans as such in his book Worldly Saints: The Puritans as They Really Were.1 No doubt, one of the aims of Ryken’s work is to provide us with a portrait of the kind of Christianity we should emulate.
More often, though, the words “worldly” and “worldliness” are intended in a negative sense. In fact, the Bible primarily uses this terminology or concept negatively. Christians are warned against “worldliness” and urged to pursue godliness. The apostle James, for example, speaks in no uncertain terms when he writes, “Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (Jas. 4:4). Obviously, James’s warning is intended to motivate believers to steer clear of an inordinate attachment to this world. Similarly, the apostle Peter speaks of “the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire,” which he wants his readers to avoid and instead to “make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue” (2 Pet. 1:4-5). And there’s the strong admonition from the apostle John: “Don’t love the world.” In contrast, John wants us to “do the will of God” (1 John 2:15-17). So there’s a good kind of worldliness. But there’s a bad kind of worldliness too. Most often, the biblical writers use the terminology in a negative sense, as do many Christians today.
Unfortunately, some Christians today have redefined “worldly” and “worldliness,” wittingly or unwittingly, in ways that don’t correspond to the biblical use of the terminology. Consequently, they end up condemning what the Bible doesn’t necessarily condemn and failing to condemn what the Bible actually condemns when it censures worldliness. In light of the imbalanced and unbiblical definitions that exist today and the potential harm they cause (condemning what’s really good and excusing what’s really bad), it’s imperative that we develop an understanding of “worldliness” that’s thoroughly biblical.
To this end, I’d like to offer what I believe is a biblical definition of “worldliness.” I want to construct this definition primarily from 1 John 2:15-17, which is often viewed as the Bible’s locus classicus (i.e., key text) on the subject of worldliness. In its entirety, the text reads,
Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world– the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does– comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever (NKJV).
In its most basic sense, worldliness may be defined as an inordinate love for the world. To gain a fuller understanding of the concept, however, we need to demarcate clearly what worldliness is not and tease out from the text a fuller description of what worldliness is.2
1. “Loving the World”: What It’s Not
The Bible identifies at least four ways in which the Christian may and even should relate to the world.
(1) The Christian may and should admire and enjoy God’s creation.
The apostle John was no Platonist or Gnostic. He didn’t teach that matter is inherently evil. He didn’t view the visible world as intrinsically bad. On the contrary, John held a biblical worldview that views all of creation as God’s “handiwork,” which reveals God’s glory and wisdom (Pss. 19:1-6; 104:24; Rom. 1:19-20). We may look at creation and sing, “This Is My Father’s World.” By way of contrast, “the world” John censures is “not from the Father” (1 John 2:16). Accordingly, there’s nothing unspiritual about vacationing in Yellowstone Park or sightseeing the Grand Canyon. Admiring and enjoying the mountains and the trees and the rivers and the valleys and the stars and the myriad species of animal life God has made are a good and wholesome pursuit.
(2) The Christian may and should appreciate some facets of human culture.
A simple and biblical definition of human culture is mankind’s attempt to carry out the creation mandate to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:26-28).3 This being the case, John doesn’t require Christians to be “counter-cultural” in the absolute sense. He doesn’t entertain the false notion that only Christians can produce good culture while unbelievers can only produce bad culture. Such a view would entail a denial of God’s “common grace.” Common grace is a broad concept that embraces not only God’s general benevolence to all human beings (whether believers or non-believers) but also his restraint of human depravity and his endowment of physical, intellectual, and aesthetic capacity so that even unregenerate people may produce literature, music, technology, and a host of other goods and services that benefit humanity as a whole.4
So the Bible doesn’t require us to reject all human culture unless it originates in the church. If this were so, we couldn’t enjoy Mozart’s music. We couldn’t drive a Toyota. We’d have to stop using the Internet because former Vice President Al Gore invented it! But such an absolute rejection of human culture cannot be John’s or the Bible’s concern. As a matter of fact, we’re actually commanded to adapt to non-sinful aspects of human culture in our attempt to win lost people to Jesus, as did Paul and Jesus (1 Cor. 9:19-23; 10:31-11:1).5
(3) The Christian may and should have contact with human society.
In his high priestly prayer, Jesus twice describes his disciples as “in the world but not of the world” (John 17:14, 16). Sandwiched between these two descriptions is the following petition: “I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one” (17:15). Apparently, Jesus doesn’t want the Father to extract the disciples from the world but only to protect them from the world’s temptation. And we get a better idea of Jesus’s intention by comparing the disciples’ relation to the world with Jesus’s mission described in verse 18: “As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.” In other words, Jesus commissioned the disciples to make contact with the people of the world, just as Christ himself came to seek and to save the lost. Commenting on this text, Arturo Arzurdia correctly remarks, “[Jesus’s] clarion call for them was to a worldly Christianity” (emphasis his).6
Therefore, we don’t avoid “the love of the world” by removing ourselves from human society. There is a sense in which we’re to be separate from the world, but it’s not physical separation. We don’t obey the teaching of John and the rest of Scripture by secluding ourselves in a monastery or by building ourselves a little “house on the prairie.”
(4) The Christian may and should express love to people who live in the world.
In 1 John 2:15, the apostle tells us, “Do not love the world.” But in his Gospel, he informs us, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). The “world” God loved and for which he sent his Son on a mission to save is Adam’s fallen race. Strikingly, God loves even those who are his enemies, and he expects us to do the same (see Matt. 5:43-48).
So we don’t violate John’s prohibition when we invite our unsaved neighbor over for a meal. We’re not “worldly” (in the bad sense) when we cultivate a friendship with an unconverted workmate or classmate for the purpose of doing them good or seeking an opportunity to share with them the gospel. This is why Jesus could be known as a “friend of sinners” (Matt. 11:19) without violating the apostle James’s censure: “friendship with the world is enmity with God” (Jas. 4:4).
In summary, “worldliness” is neither simply enjoying God’s creation nor accommodating to human culture nor having social intercourse with sinners nor showing them kindness.
2. “Loving the World”: What It Is
So what is John forbidding when he tells us, “Do not love the world or the things in the world”? I’d like to make three observations from John’s teaching that should provide us a clearer idea of the vice from which John is dissuading his readers.
(1) John describes “the world” and “all that is in the world” not primarily in terms of “things” or even “deeds” but in terms of heart affections and attitudes.
This is seen in at least two ways. First, John’s prohibition is directed toward the heart, not toward a particular object or activity. He doesn’t say, “Don’t touch such and such” or “Don’t drink such and such” or “Don’t listen to such and such.” The Greek word translated “love” refers to an attitude, affection, or inclination of the heart. Second, John’s description of “all that is in the world” does not refer to material objects or to human activities per se but to the way in which we view such objects or activities. Movie theaters, electric guitars, sports cars, dancing, drinking beer, smoking cigars and card playing are not the real problem. The real culprit is the human heart: “For all that is in the world–the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions–is not from the Father but is from the world” (emphasis added). This is not to deny that worldliness manifests itself in “worldly” behavior. Verse 17 implies that behavior is a component of loving the world. But John zeros in on the essence of worldliness and defines it primarily as a matter of the heart.
(2) John’s description of the worldly heart bears a striking resemblance to Eve’s assessment of the forbidden fruit in Genesis 3:6.7
Eve responded to the Serpent’s temptation by assessing the forbidden fruit as “good for food and pleasant to the eyes and desirable to make one wise” (Gen. 3:6). The structure of the Genesis text suggests that “good for food” and “pleasant to the eyes” somewhat parallel and serve to reinforce one another. Interestingly, God himself had already described the Garden fruit trees in similar language (2:9), making Eve’s assessment technically correct. The fruit was genuinely beautiful, delicious, and nutritious. However, our first parents assumed the prerogative to overstep God’s divinely revealed boundaries for human loyalty and to take what did not rightfully belong to them. In essence, Adam and Eve attempted to usurp the role of God. Similarly, when we think of John’s description of “the lust of the flesh” and “the lust of the eyes,” we need not restrict the objects of desire to things that are in-and-of-themselves sinful. In other words, John is not merely thinking of clear perversions of God’s moral law, such as serial murders or prostitution or homosexuality or bank robbery. On the contrary, according to Genesis and the apostle John, a person may inordinately desire that which otherwise may be harmless and part of God’s good creation. Food, clothing, houses, cars, sporting events, personal vocations may be legitimate in themselves. Yet a person may desire them in a way that manifests a heart that is discontent, covetous, and insubordinate to God’s revealed will.
Not only did Eve assess the fruit of the Tree as “good for food” and “pleasant to the eyes,” but she also evaluated it as “desirable to make one wise.” Once again, her assessment was technically correct. In the OT “the knowledge of good and evil” is synonymous with “wisdom.”8. So the fruit held out the promise of obtaining wisdom, which in turn held out the prospect of a higher kind of life (i.e., access to the Tree of Life). But if eaten without God’s permission and in disregard of God’s prohibition, the Tree of Knowledge could only provide humans with a counterfeit wisdom, what the NT calls “the wisdom of this world” (1 Cor. 3:19), and would result in God’s death-curse (i.e., barred access to the Tree of Life). What does this have to do with John’s expression “the pride of life”? I believe John is referring to a kind of human pride that manifests itself in an independent attempt to find meaning, purpose, and fulfillment in life apart from God. In the words of J. David Hoke,
The world, as John speaks of it, is defined as the way of thinking and living that fails to acknowledge God as central. It is the world system of living without God. It is a philosophy of life and a way of thinking. It is really an attitude of the heart.9
So when John uses the term “world,” he’s not thinking of the created world as such. Nor is he thinking of human beings as such. Nor is John condemning all forms of human culture that do not originate from Christians or the Church. Rather, he has in mind a philosophy or worldview in which God is not in the picture—or if God is in the picture, he’s marginalized or domesticated to serve our agenda.
(3) John not only defines worldliness in terms of what it is (sinful affections and attitudes) but also contrasts it with conformity to the revealed will of God.
According to verse 17, “The world is passing away and the lust of it, but he who does the will of God abides forever” So loving the world is the opposite of doing the will of God. What does it mean to “do the will of God”? Doing God’s will is not merely abstaining from what the Bible identifies as sinful behavior. It’s not enough to say, “I haven’t cursed my parents, murdered another human, committed adultery, cheated on taxes, or committed perjury.” Indeed, it’s possible to have an outwardly decent life and yet be as worldly as the devil! In fact, it’s possible to have a long list of personal standards to which you conform and taboos from which you abstain and yet still be worldly. Pastor Jim Savastio underscores this point in a blog article entitled “Dog Holiness”:
There’s a problem with having a view of holiness that merely focuses upon outward elements. By the typical fundamentalist view of holiness, Amish people and even many Muslims can lay claim to holiness and, in fact, have attained a superior holiness. In point of fact, my dog (a wonderful fellow to be sure) has attained an even great degree of holiness. He has never smoked, he never watches television, has never darkened the door of a movie theatre, he does not walk around with headphones zoning out with an MP3 player. His traits are such that he is quite often praised. He hears, “Good boy!” as much as any other phrase. But is he truly holy? Is he godly? Far from it! Though my dog is good, he is not holy!10
Doing God’s will is not just refraining from scandalous sins. Nor is it conforming outwardly to a man-made list of “dos and don’ts.” Nor is it merely engaging in religious activities. The Pharisees of Jesus’s day may have been outwardly decent, may have adhered to a log list of human traditions, and may have regularly attended the synagogue. But they were some of the worldliest people who ever lived!
In summary, what in the world is “worldliness”? Worldliness is a failure to love the Lord out God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our strength (Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:27; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). In negative terms, worldliness is choosing the pleasures and the riches of this world as our chief portion and deepest delight above God and in contradiction to God’s revealed will. To the extent that you and I fail to give God our highest devotion and to the extent that we substitute earthly pleasures and treasures for God—to that extent we’re guilty of worldliness.
Practical Lessons
With a biblical understanding of “worldliness” in view, allow me to speak a word to those who may be living under a misconception of what worldliness is and is not.
(1) To the more conservative brother or sister
The problem of labeling “worldly” what the Bible itself doesn’t identify as worldly is not limited to some branches of fundamentalism. It can also be found among Reformed believers. For example, Peter Masters, pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, has recently censured a number of well-known Calvinists for promoting “worldliness” largely because they don’t share his narrow perspective on what kind of music is and is not appropriate for Christian lyrics.11 But as we’ve seen, worldliness is primarily a matter of the heart (Prov. 4:23; Matt. 15:19). True, a worldly heart will eventually manifest itself in worldly behavior (Matt. 7:15-19). But even here, we must be careful to define worldliness as a failure to conform to God’s will as revealed in Scripture, not necessarily a failure to conform to what you or I personally don’t like. If we can’t demonstrate from the Bible that a given practice is sinful, then we should refrain from dogmatically classifying it as “worldly.” To do so is to promote a kind of unbiblical legalism that obscures rather than clarifies true holiness.
(2) To the less conservative brother or sister
The Bible may not condemn your favorite food or drink. You may have the liberty to enjoy a glass of wine or beer. You may have the freedom of conscience to listen to a wide variety of music or watch some of the latest movies. Perhaps God has blessed you financially so that after giving liberally to his kingdom and providing for the basic needs of your family, you have money left over to buy a Lexus or a fishing boat or a summer cottage in the mountains. All of this is fine and well. But beware of assuming that you’re not worldly simply because the Bible doesn’t condemn engaging in that specific activity or owning that particular gadget. Having a strong conscience in-and-of-itself is not the essence of godliness. In fact, the apostle Paul warns that a strong conscience can sometimes lead to pride, and pride is certainly worldly! The real question is not whether we’re free to play an electric guitar or to attend a movie theater or buy a Macintosh computer. We need to ask ourselves, “Does this activity or this possession have an unhealthy grip on my soul?” “Can I engage in this recreation or purchase this gismo for the glory of God?” “Does this liberty I’m enjoying hinder me from the enjoyment of God?”
The point is that John’s words should be convicting to all of God’s people regardless of whether you’re more or less conservative, whether you have a strong or weak conscience. The potential of loving this world in sinful ways is a danger for every Christian because every Christian still has remaining sin in his heart (1 John 1:8). Therefore, let’s be careful to define worldliness biblically, let’s recognize it when it springs up in our heart, and let’s repent of it when it begins to get the upper hand in our life (1 John 1:9).
(3) To anyone who’s not yet a true Christian
If “worldliness” is defined as a heart that finds its highest enjoyment and fulfillment in a world where God is either absent or marginal, then you’re a “worldling” in the fullest sense of the term. And according to the apostle John, you’re going to perish along with this present world. Indeed, you’re only hope is to acknowledge and repent of your sinful worldliness, looking to Jesus Christ as your only hope of salvation. He who does the will of God abides forever,” and the first thing God commands you to do is to is to receive his Son as your only of salvation from his justice and wrath. As John later writes, “For whoever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith” (1 John 5:4).
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
- I highly recommend the book as an introduction to the Puritans. Zondervan first published it in 1990, and it’s still in print and may be published on Amazon.com. [↩]
- For a fuller treatment of this subject, I recommend Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World edited by C. J. Mahaney. [↩]
- See D. A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited (Eerdmans, 2008) and/or John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life (Presbyterian and Reformed, 2008), pp. 853-908, for more elaborate definitions and discussions of human culture from a biblical point of view. [↩]
- God’s common grace is evident in the first pages of Scripture and from the very earliest times of human civilization. In Genesis 4, Moses highlights cultural advancements in animal breeding, metallurgy, and music among the descendants of Cain who knew not the Lord (4:20-21). Moses “expressly celebrates the remaining benediction on that race, which otherwise would have been deemed void and barren of all good,” says John Calvin. “Let us then know, that the sons of Cain, though deprived of the Spirit of regeneration, were yet endued with gifts of no despicable kind; just as the experience of all ages teaches us how widely the rays of divine light have shone on unbelieving nations, for the benefit of the present life.” Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, trans. John King (repr., Baker Books, 2003), 1:218. For a fuller treatment of the subject of common grace, see Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1972). [↩]
- A Jew might argue that Jewish culture excelled all other cultures since much of it was developed within the parameters of special revelation (Rom. 3:1). Nevertheless, when Paul ministered among the Gentiles, he didn’t demand that his target audience conform to Jewish culture. Rather, he accommodated himself to non-sinful aspects of Gentile culture in order to make the gospel more intelligible and to remove any unnecessary obstacle that might deprive Paul of an opportunity to make the gospel known to non-Jewish people. [↩]
- Connected Christianity: Engaging Culture Without Compromise (Christian Focus, 2009), 18. [↩]
- Some commentators try to draw a connection between John’s three-fold description of “worldliness” and the devil’s three-fold temptation of Jesus (Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-). While there are certainly conceptual parallels between the First Adam and Second Adam, the structural parallel between Genesis 3:6 and 1 John 2:16 is, in my opinion, clearer. [↩]
- In 1 Kings 3:9 Solomon prays, “Therefore, give to Your servant an understanding heart to judge Your people, that I may discern between good and evil.” God answers his prayer and declares in verse 12, “Behold, I have done according to your words; see, I have given you a wise and understanding heart.” See also 2 Samuel 14:17-20. For a scholarly study that demonstrates the semantic parallel between “the knowledge of good and evil” and biblical “wisdom,” particularly, the kind of wisdom need by rules who had to render judicial decisions, see W. Malcolm Clark, “A Legal Background to the Yahwist’s Use of ‘Good and Evil’ in Genesis 2-3.” JBL 88 (1969): 266-78. [↩]
- “Fatal Attraction” (Internet; http://www.horizonsnet.org/sermons/1jn08.html; accessed April 23, 2008. [↩]
- “Dog Holiness” (Internet; http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com/?s=dog+holiness; accessed on April 23, 2008. [↩]
- See Peter Masters, “The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness” (Internet; http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/?page=articles&id=13; accessed on October 24, 2009). [↩]
10 Responses to “What In the World Is “Worldliness”? Providing Some Biblical Clarity On a Misused Term”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
[...] recently wrote an good article concerning ‘worldliness.’ The article is titled: What In the World Is “Worldliness”: Providing Some BIblical Clarity On a Misused Term Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)InerrancyStop wasting God’s [...]
October 26th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Thanks Dr. Bob, GREAT POST!
October 26th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Great stuff Bob, thanks for taking the time to give this some clear thinking. I have thought of it this way: in defining worldliness it is not enough to say “worldliness is what worldly people do.” You have provided a good treatment of this. I do think that it is worth noting that by some of the confused definitions of worldliness, Jesus himself was very worldly.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
And this was precisely Christ’s point when referring to the latest slander that represented the shifting standards of legalism, that He was a “glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners,” especially in contrast with John the Baptist. I have been witness to Reformed believers upbraiding the children of another because the children spent their time with the wrong kinds of friends. The question of motive never arose. As with every selective ascetic, that topic was far outside the pale of their interests.
I, too, read the piece written by Masters and remembered that his predecessor, Spurgeon, had once condemned the pastors of his own time for entertainment they indulged in when attending the theatre. The younger Masters seemed to be paying homage to the convictions of the elder Spurgeon and playing it a bit safe among the society which he frequents. Yet, why not condemn a common practice that is more “worldly” by far but which is hardly ever properly addressed? I felt the point you had made was most insightful that in adding to the Scriptural conditions of righteousness, we are not merely adding more restrictions to Scripture but often removing others. We often fail to condemn those things which are truly “worldly” while crying out against what is not.
I would contend for instance that, among other things, an inordinate obsession with politics is a hindrance to the most substantial means of change in the Gospel. And yet many of those who blast “worldly” music are more inclined to discourse on the latest political gossip than they are to inquire of their neighbor what the LORD had nourished them with in His Word this week.
In each case, I believe the same motive drives them both: a fearful need for control which springs from a lack of faith. It reminds me of the story of the monks on pilgrammage who were approaching a river dangerous to ford. Nevertheless, in their need, they were prepared to try it when one of them spotted a troubled young woman further along the same bank, obviously engaged upon the same project. The elder monk caught her attention and encouraged her to allow him to help. He lifted her into his arms and carried her to the other side, followed by his young companion.
After they had continued on their way for some distance, the older monk sensed that the younger was troubled about something. He asked him what was on his mind and the younger hesitantly responded, revealing the source of his inner struggles. It seemed to him strange that the older man, so much wiser and more pious than he, should have been willing to be so wantonly tactile with a young woman. It went against the grain of the restrictions of their holy vocation.
The elder monk responded with an illuminating question of his own… “My young monk, I placed that woman on the opposite riverbank and left her behind some miles ago. Why are you still carrying her?”
Even the most outwardly pious can become unhealthily absorbed and controlled by the world and its appearances, revealing their piety for the cage it has become. This too is vanity…
November 10th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
[...] exactly is "worldliness?" What In the World Is ?Worldliness?? Providing Some Biblical Clarity On a Misused Term | RBS Tabletal… Metropolitan Tabernacle – The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness And which of these articles [...]
December 8th, 2009 at 7:01 am
[...] might help: What In the World Is ?Worldliness?? Providing Some Biblical Clarity On a Misused Term | RBS Tabletal… __________________ jason d. deacon @ Sovereign Joy Community Church reformed baptist (LBC.1689) [...]
February 27th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
[...] Scripture alone. For a definition of "worldliness" and some practical ramifications, see What In the World Is Worldliness?: Providing Some Biblical Clarity on a Misused Term. Your servant, Bob Gonzales Jr., Dean Reformed Baptist Seminary Easley, South Carolina [...]
February 27th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
[...] Scripture alone. For a definition of "worldliness" and some practical ramifications, see What In the World Is Worldliness?: Providing Some Biblical Clarity on a Misused Term. Your servant, Last edited by Dr. Bob Gonzales; Today at 10:22 PM. Bob Gonzales Jr., Dean [...]
April 18th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
[...] recently defended the Puritans as such in his book Worldly Saints: The Puritans as They Really Were.1 No doubt, one of the aims of Ryken’s work is to provide us with a portrait of the kind of [...]
August 4th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Thank You Bob, great post. Let me just add a simple definition in Pastor Piper’s Book, “Finally Alive”, page 137, commenting on 1 John 2:15-17:
Here are the forces in the world that have to be overcome (v. 16):
“the desires of the fl esh and the desires of the eyes and pride in
possessions.” That could be summed up as desires for what we don’t have, and pride in what we do have. When we don’t have what we want, the world corrupts us with covetousness. And when we do have what we want the world corrupts us with pride.
Oskar