The implications of the Gospel are staggering, both on a horizontal and vertical level. On the vertical(our relation to God) we have, among many things, Justification, peace with God, adoption, reconciliation, eternal life, in short – “every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places”(Eph 1:3). But my focus in this post is to look at one of the horizontal implications of the Gospel, particularly as it relates to relationships and interaction within the Body of Christ. Before I begin though, my attention is going to be on the local church, that is, that local body of believers to which you associate yourselves with.
The question of how believers relate to one another is not some new subject to be discussed. The New Testament itself is full of admonitions to “love one another”, “have brotherly affection one for another” and so forth. The question is: How does this play out on a practical level, especially between young men and young women? The answer to that question may vary from person to person, but I would like to propose two principles which I believe should be universal.
1. Universal Approachability.
When a person becomes a Christian, he or she is no longer one, but is added to the family of God. While that is true of every believer, it is demonstrably seen in the context of the local church. There believers are brought together as one body, as a small picture of the universal church. This means that your fellow member within your church assembly is your brother or sister in Christ. If that is the case (and it is), then that means our interaction with each other should be done in light of that reality. Unless there are clear cases of church discipline (e.g. 1 Cor 5), we are not to purposefully ignore our brethren. To do so when there is no clear reason for sin, is a violation of New Testament teaching on the nature of the church. Guys should not be ignoring the girls, and girls should not be ignoring the guys. One member of the church should be able to approach any other member of that same body for conversation and fellowship. And we should insure that we are not putting up artificial barriers that would prevent people from coming to us. I know there are personality differences and some people will get along better with certain people, but if such things are used to avoid one another or simply not get to know them, then I would challenge you to consider what the Bible means to “love one another”. You don’t grow in love by avoidance or by ignoring each other. Now I know, depending on the size of your church, you might not be able to get to everybody on a given Sunday; I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about a continual practice of not approaching certain people for whatever reason. Again, if there are cases of sin, that’s another question, but if it’s just you not doing your duty as a fellow member, then the fault lies at your feet.

2. Degrees of Closeness.
Now, while I would argue that as Christians we should be able to approach any of our fellow members for fellowship, I am not saying that there will not be different degrees of fellowship. For instance, we are going to naturally be closer to some people than others. There’s nothing wrong with that. In some respects, it is even a good thing. This is true whether it is guys with guys or girls with girls. Now in our discussion, the question comes, “What about guys and girls, how close should they be?” This question is far more difficult to answer. Bottom line, there are emotional attachments that can very potentially and very naturally arise between a guy and a girl in a friendly relationship that may or may not be desired, depending on where the relationship is heading. That is certainly something to be considered. Again, emotional attachment is going to vary from girl to girl and guy to guy. What makes one girl more emotionally vulnerable, may not another, same with a guy. If there are certain topics or areas that you feel are wrong for you to discuss with a girl or a guy: don’t talk about it with them. There’s no command saying you have to. Simply avoid discussing such matters as cause you to stumble.
However, don’t use such fears as reason to not talk to guys or to talk to girls. Guard your heart is not first of all a call to avoid your fellow members.

Summary: Be one who can approach anybody and anybody can approach you, and within those you approach, have ones whom you can be completely open and close with for mutual encouragement and edification.

Thanks for all of your encouraging comments on my last entry. You’re keeping me motivated, guys. I know it can be awkward to leave comments on the blog, but if you’d written only half of what you emailed/said on the phone/in person… we’d have bumped up our search engine results another notch!

Is honesty obsolete?

“Confess your sins and faults to one another, that you may be healed.” That’s what the bible says. How often does our interaction with one another reflect this? Is honesty obsolete?

In our culture, avoiding awkwardness seems to represent the unofficial goal of human communication. For this reason, we often resort to avoidance. Is this ever justified? Are there circumstances in which it’s ok to deliberately avoid contact with a brother or sister? Well, church discipline is one. There’s a process of exhortation and rebuke, after which the impenitent is to “be to you as a Pharisee and a tax collector.” But here’s a convicting question: for some of our brethren, HOW would we treat them differently if they WERE under church discipline? If we already avoid them, already “pass by on the other side,” what’s the difference between the “Pharisee and tax collector” treatment, and our day to day relationship (or lack thereof)? I’m not talking about people in the church we simply haven’t gotten around to meeting yet, or even those we’re not as close to. I’m talking about people in the church who’ve known each other for years and don’t talk. Some people are outgoing, some are not. But seriously, is the “personality” excuse good for more than the first 10 years?

The subject of “avoidance” is confusing to me, and I wonder if there are brethren anywhere who experience the same difficulty. I’ll tell you in what circumstances I resort to deliberate avoidance: A. When I’ve been told “don’t come around.” B. When I feel that NOT avoiding someone would send the wrong message/hurt my testimony. C. When, after repeated attempts to establish a friendship, there is zero or negative response on the other side.

And it’s interesting, though. We have a responsibility to all of our brethren. We’re supposed to be in fellowship with all of them. But is fellowship an individual decision? Is it possible for one person to “fellowship” with another, even if their fellowship isn’t reciprocated? I don’t have an answer on this one. I don’t know that my reasons for “avoidance” are valid. They are my convictions. They seem expedient. But expedient and biblical aren’t the same.

What are some of your reasons for avoidance? Come on, don’t be shy… if it weren’t for avoidance, everyone would talk to everybody. And that doesn’t happen. Not any time, not in any church: not ever. Though somehow, I don’t think it will be like that in heaven.

• James 2:15-17 – “If a brother or sister is without clothes and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you don’t give them what the body needs, what good is it? In the same way faith, if it doesn’t have works, is dead by itself.”
• 1 John 3:17-18 – “If anyone has this world’s goods and sees his brother in need but shuts off his compassion from him-how can God’s love reside in him? Little children, we must not love in word or speech, but in deed and truth.”

If providing for the material needs of our brethren is so important, how much more is it crucial to provide for each others’ spiritual needs? I’ve said it before and I’ll reiterate: our relationships should be a model of Christ’s love for us, His giving of Himself. We don’t have to earn our way with Him. Why should we have to earn our way with each other?

And here’s another thing that’s troubling:
A brother told me, recently: “You can love someone in the church and not be friends with them.” Pragmatically, that statement makes a great deal of sense. Biblically, I wonder sometimes. In heaven, are there going to be those among the saints with whom we have no fellowship? Will it be too awkward? Or is this just a “for now” kind of thing?

I wonder what all of this has to do with the “emotional purity” movement? Honestly, folks, has “protecting our hearts” become such an obsession that there is no room for openness, for compassion, for love? Our Savior’s mission did NOT include marriage, but He was comfortable with Mary and Martha, dined at their home, and enjoyed fellowship with them. Now Christ was pure in all things: tempted as we are, yet without sin. Was He simply unaware of the dynamics involved in male/female relationships? Was He ignorant of the potentiality for “intimate” self-revelation, resulting in unfulfilled promises, and unkept commitments? Considering that He, Wisdom, was present at the founding of the Earth, that He created them male and female, that He breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life: I think our Lord is more qualified than we are on the subject of relationships! (Pardon my possibly misplaced colon… and all my grammatical fumbling. Most of what I write is supposed to sound good to the ear: I’m a public speaker, not an author/I’m a doctor, not a vulcan! says McCoy). You know, I’m beginning to think I WANT to be single for the rest of my life. But I’m very thankful that there’s more to friendship than guys + girls you intend to (hopefully) marry. And for the female friends I confide in, thank you for being there. Thank you for your commitment as friends and sisters in Christ.

I believe the doctrine of emotional purity is a destructive heresy that has the potential to destroy the next generation. I challenge its adherents to defend it biblically.

And thus the awkward turtle rises SLOWWWWLLLY out of the pond, awkwardly bumping its shell on the humped back of the whale of fail.

Keeping it real,

Matt

The following is my letter to Heather Paulsen, author of the book: “Emotional Purity: An Affair of the Heart.”

Dear Heather,

My name is Matt Clark. I am a believer in Jesus Christ: reformed, confessional. I’ve read your book, and I just ran across your blog today.

I respectfully disagree with the premise of your book, and have personally witnessed the destructive influences of this and similar perspectives for many years. I have witnessed the tension among those who subscribe to such beliefs even now: It is my conviction that your views impose an extra-biblical, critical and suspicious spirit among young, single Christians, that renders authentic relationships in the church all but impossible.

In churches where these and similar views become prevalent, a unified “next generation” of young Christians is impossible. The single guys hang out on one side of the church, and the single girls on the other. And I’m not only referring to the younger, awkward teens. I’m talking singles in their mid/late twenties! We Christian guys don’t want to break our sisters’ hearts with unfulfilled commitments. We don’t want to fall into lustful dissipation. But we desire Christian fellowship with ALL of our brethren, regardless of age or gender, single or married status.

The guys have one recourse: they can more or less randomly speak to one of the girls’ fathers, and ask to pursue what is basically an engagement. They don’t know any of their sisters well enough to really distinguish between one or the other (except with regard to physical attraction) so why not take a chance? The guy usually gets permission. Then when the courtship begins, the “couple” finds they are NOT right for each other at all. So why not move on to the next girl? I actually had a buddy tell me he had a literal “list” of sisters he was “gonna” try and court. Broken hearts. Why? He didn’t know ANY of them well enough to make that determination. Why didn’t he know them? Because guys and girls must keep their emotional distance for “safety’s” sake. Can you expect a man and a woman to go from carefully guarded acquaintance-type relationships to courtship headed straight for marriage?

The ladies have one recourse: wait for the guy who by outward appearances has the most to offer. How much money does he make? Is he in the ministry? Is he popular? I don’t blame them: As a consequence of rash judgement, I was personally duped by a young lady who wasn’t even close to the person she portrayed herself to be. Lesson learned. Without the opportunity to get to know someone, how can you honestly commit to entering the sacred covenant of marriage with him/her?

On February 22nd, I made a vow: NOT to pursue any romantic attachment for three years. The reasons for this were many and varied, but chief among them was the desire, as a recently converted man, to be free to pursue Christ honoring relationships with all of my brethren, without the possibility of ulterior motives. This came from the realization that, though I was raised in the church I currently attend, I didn’t really KNOW a lot of my fellow believers, especially the opposite sex. I may know their favorite movies, books, video games and school subjects, but I don’t really KNOW them. And when I think of, in the past, expressing interest in some of theses ladies, I can’t help but feel ashamed. How can you ask someone to (fill in the description of your choice) “go out”/date/court without a pre-existing, honest, mutual friendship to light the way? If you can’t make it as friends, you certainly can’t make it as… more than friends.

Our relationships with ALL our brethren are a type of Christ’s relationship with the church. Christ is not “guarded” (your words) with the church. He does not keep a circle of “safe friends” (as you refer to) for whom He reserves special revelation about Himself. No. Anyone who desires to draw near to Him is received with open arms. We care about our sisters. We desire to care, not from a distance, not merely in our prayers, but through appropriate fellowship in the context of the local church. We understand that this cannot be accomplished in our own strength, and in addition, it must be a mutual fellowship. In courtship, the guy does the pursuing, the approaching: he takes the lead. In friendship, well… friends approach each other. There is no such thing as a friendship in which all the initiative is taken on only one side. We do not seek such relationships in order to explore the possibility of romance, but we recognize that without a solid foundation of Christian fellowship such romance will never be possible.

Love isn’t safe: Christian love OR romantic love. It requires more than a “protect our hearts” mindset. Definitely the potential for lust and immorality, inherent in our fallen natures, is very real. But the devil has a field day, when, in a desperate effort to avoid the pit on one side, we plunge headlong into the bog on the other.

I desire understanding. If you are willing, I’d like to publish your response on my blog.

In Christ,

Matt

I was checking my email and ran across [a Yahoo headline that no longer works- it was on a terrorist bombing in Peshawar, Pakistan]. Besides the fact that this article deals with the Unreached People Group of the Day, I was struck by something else, something much more personal.

My uncle, aunt, and two cousins spent a great deal of their lives in Peshawar, the town in which this attack took place. My aunt and uncle worked with relief organizations, such as Mercy Corps and Afghan Aid, in various countries throughout their lives, including Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Haiti, East Timor, and Kiribati. I have always loved to learn about other countries, and I would look forward to the times when they would return to the States and bring with them pieces of the cultures they lived in: clothing, purses, rugs, toys. Their modest farm in Knifley, KY (pop. 150) could easily have been mistaken for an art gallery or international museum, including both treasures from overseas and artwork created here in Kentucky by relatives. While they were living in the States, my aunt taught at a nearby college and helped with some local history projects. Their involvement in both worlds also expressed itself in their ability to cook for us a fragrant, spicy meal of curries as well as hearty venison sausage or squirrel stew (yes, I liked it a lot…) I also have memories of the family coming to my school to do presentations. I have fond memories of times we traveled together to New Jersey to visit family and of a trip my dad and two aunts took to Seattle. I even have a video from when I was 12 where my cousin (on my mom’s side) and I had made my bedroom into a library and my aunt was visiting at the time (I’ve always been a librarian at heart…)!

But there is the sad side of this story. On Dec. 8, 2002, my younger cousin (then just a few weeks shy of 18) shot and killed my aunt and uncle at their farm here in Kentucky. It is ironic, as they had been in some of the most dangerous parts of the world, and here it was that the greatest danger came to them at home and from their own son. There is a complex number of reasons of why this happened, many of them emotionally charged, but it boils down (very strikingly so) to the neglect of Eph. 6:4- “And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.” While they showed the outward appearance of being religious (they went to church, would attend my family’s church when they visited, sent their kids to Bible camp), in the home they acted differently. Unfortunately, they taught my cousins that there were no absolutes, that we must be “tolerant” of all religions and philosophies, and that it is through experience and not through rules that we learn what’s right and wrong.

The real tragedy is that, for all my aunt and uncle did, for all the humanitarian efforts they made, for all the places they traveled to, they lived and died without Christ. I remember once, before I was converted, looking at a collage of pictures and photos and seeing a rendering of (what men think looked like) Jesus. Even then, I wondered why they had a picture of Him when they never really talked about Him.

The Lord gave me many opportunities to witness to my aunt and uncle and cousins. The church the family attended was Presbyterian Church (USA), and I got the impression that they were far more liberal than their church. I remember praying for them fervently and seeking to be a witness in both word and deed. I was sharpened theologically and spiritually as I would interact with them and study on my own such things at the exclusivity of Christ, the authority and inerrancy of the Bible, and faith in Christ versus works righteousness. After my aunt and uncle were murdered, as my family and I stayed at a long-time friend’s house in case my younger cousin came for us too, I asked myself, “Did I say enough? Why weren’t they converted?” While I had not yet grasped the truth of God’s sovereign election, I knew two things, and they were what comforted my soul in those dark, cold weeks of mid-December: 1. I couldn’t convert them. It was my job to pray for them and be a witness. 2. I had done my job.

Eccl. 7:2-3 says, “Better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting, for that is the end of all men; And the living will take it to heart. Sorrow is better than laughter, for by a sad countenance the heart is made better.”

This was true in my case. I took note that outward religion divorced from a living, breathing relationship with Christ is meaningless. I saw that one can be moral before the eyes of society and yet in the secret of one’s home live a completely opposite life. I learned the importance of redeeming the time and speaking to others about Christ and eternity, for life is but a vapor. And I experienced the loss of unconverted loved ones, something I will have to face in the future, unless God does an amazing work.

I will leave them to God, but that does not take away the sadness I feel upon occasion when something reminds me of my aunt and uncle. I have had multiple opportunities to witness to my cousins. The younger is in prison for life without possibility of parole until 2028. The older is confused and worldly, though thankfully, by God’s common grace, he’s grown less cynical and undisciplined. But my heart goes out to them, and I pray that they will turn to Christ, for He alone can satisfy their souls and save them from eternal destruction. They are not outside of God’s reach…

When this passing world is done,
When has sunk yon glaring sun,
When we stand with Christ in glory,
Looking o’er life’s finished story,
Then, Lord, shall I fully know,
Not till then, how much I owe.

When I hear the wicked call
On the rocks and hills to fall,
When I see them start and shrink
On the fiery deluge brink,
Then, Lord, shall I fully know,
Not till then, how much I owe.

When I stand before the throne,
Dressed in beauty not my own,
When I see thee as thou art,
Love thee with unsinning heart,
Then, Lord, shall I fully know,
Not till then, how much I owe.

When the praise of heav’n I hear,
Loud as thunders to the ear,
Loud as many waters’ noise,
Sweet as harp’s melodious voice,
Then, Lord, shall I fully know,
Not till then, how much I owe.

Chosen not for good in me,
Wakened up from wrath to flee,
Hidden in the Saviour’s side,
By the Spirit sanctified,
Teach me, Lord, on earth to show,
By my love, how much I owe.

- Robert Murray M’Cheyne

Providentially enough, a sister and I had been thinking upon this song over the last week, and the two of us sang it together yesterday afternoon. In both of our lives, the Lord has been working on showing us our pride and sin and then showing us the sufficiency of our great Savior.

For both of us, and I am confident for all believers, the anticipation of not sinning is probably one of the things [now, I would say THE thing] we most look forward to (second only to seeing our Lord Jesus face to face!) I can’t imagine what it will be like not to sin! No more pride, no more discontentment, no more faithlessness, no more jealousy.

But today I was pondering another aspect of this truth. I will not only never sin against God Himself, but I will never sin against my brethren! No more putting my own interests above theirs. No more comparing myself with them and thinking I am more spiritual. No more getting on their nerves, or they on mine. No more doubting the Spirit’s work in their lives. No more fear of hurting my brethren with unneeded words, and no more hurting them by withholding my words.

It will be a wonderful thing to converse with the Old Testament saints and with the disciples and with people like Luther and Spurgeon and Edwards and Ryle. It will be a sight to see when I stand among the millions of blood-bought children of God, having known and befriended some in my lifetime. But much more do I look forward to standing among the brothers and sisters that I meet with Lord’s Day by Lord’s Day and prayer meeting by prayer meeting. They are the ones I’ve cried with, laughed with, rejoiced with, confided with, sung with, prayed with, read Scripture with, heard preaching with, broke bread with, and fellowshipped with. They are also the ones whom I’ve had disagreements with, who I’ve sinned against, and who have sinned against me. And to stand there in Heaven, rejoicing that we’ve made it, that the good fight of faith was not in vain! And I have a feeling that there won’t be anything a simple, hearty “I love you, (fill in name here)!” won’t forgive. [which is how it should be here in this life as well].

One sister will be telling about how the first thing she ever saw with her eyes was the face of her Savior. Another will be telling about how she no longer has back pain or medication to hinder her worship. Yet another will speak of how she no longer battles depression and how she’s never experienced such joy. And there are those who no longer have to deal with the sadness and trials of unconverted spouses or unconverted children or unconverted family members (hopefully we will be rejoicing that they’ve been converted!) [there's been a few more of these added since I wrote the post!]. We will also have no more anxiety, no unrighteous anger, no discontentment, no more pride, no temptations to be man-pleasers.

Praise God for the family I call my local church. We are not perfect, but we have a perfect Savior and Shepherd over us! Come quickly, Lord Jesus…

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

The Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing. But for us, it is the power of God unto salvation, for everyone who believes. One of my pastors, James Williamson, recently left RBC Louisville for Ndola, Zambia. He’s starting a ministerial college for African pastors. Before he left, it was as if he was trying to cram a whole lifetime’s worth of passion and concern for us into a very short time. His messages were always good, but the ones before he left were fantastic. One of the themes he emphasized was that the Gospel is not only for the unconverted, but for Christians, too. Simple, but at least for me… amazing! We need forgiveness every day. We need Christ every day. We can’t make it on our own. When we’re overwhelmed at our remaining sin, when we feel like giving up–there is a fountain open for sin and uncleanness. He ever lives above, making continual intercession for us.

We need daily cleansing, daily strength: our daily bread. And the sacrifice our Savior made is just as relevant to us today as the day we first believed. We need to pray that by the Spirit, the work of Christ will become increasingly precious to us. There might be a couple of people in our lives that we’d give up our own life to save. Maybe it’s your mom or dad, or your girlfriend or wife. There is something lovely in those people that calls out to us, that demands everything from us, even the ultimate sacrifice. But our Savior gave His life for the unworthy. That means us. People who hated Him. People who, if He were on earth today, might have been in the crowd yelling “Crucify! Crucify!” For we had no king but Caesar. We were the “masters” of our fate. We were the “captains” of our own souls. There was nothing about us that “measured up”. Poor, wretched, miserable, blind and naked was our identity.

But He freely offered Himself for us. We are still unworthy. But clothed in the perfect righteousness of Christ, we will stand one day, faultless and blameless before the throne of God. That’s the way our Father in heaven looks at us. We serve Him primarily out of love, not fear of punishment. We trust Him, so we obey Him. There’s no need to work out our own righteousness. Indeed, it’s impossible. There’s no need to “put our best foot forward” in order to try and pay off our debt to God. Our debt has been paid. But when we’re with a brother or sister, perhaps we’re tempted to demand our “pound of flesh”, every last ounce of respect, kindness and affirmation we think we deserve. In light of what we’ve been forgiven, that’s rather disgusting, don’t you think?

Luke 7:41-47

⁴¹There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.

⁴²And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?

⁴³Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.

⁴⁴And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.

⁴⁵Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.

⁴⁶My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.

⁴⁷Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

Father, forgive us.

We’ve had 250 individual hits in the last 3 hours. The Lord is working great things. Thanks to Johnny Farese, Richard Barcellos, Marie Peterson and other promoters. And hey… don’t hesitate to comment, no matter how small the content might be. Every comment promotes the blog in search engines like Google, Yahoo, etc.

Thanks again.

Matt