Comments on: dumbing worldliness down?

By: Keith

Keith — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:23:29 +0000

Improper attitudes are specifically prohibited. Of course, these attitudes can be attached to anything: Work, home maintenance, sports, evangelistic visitation, Preaching, etc. So, there is no list of “things” that can be defined beyond specific sins. Certain “attitudes” are worldly and sinful. They can be defined and discussed.

By: ox

ox — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:57:05 +0000

In reply to Chris.

Hi Chris

Well, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I think that perhaps Dave hasn’t said all he means about worldliness. Partly he is making a certain case about separation and wasn’t making a case about worldliness. I personally think this was the weakest part of his presentation concerning separation, but perhaps there are things I am missing.

I don’t want to be wishy washy here, but I do think the way things have been stated need to be questioned for clarity at least. I am quite happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood what was said.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:36:22 +0000

Don,

I also read the Doran series with slight dismay. One of my favorite quotes on the matter is from Chuck Phelps: “A church that fails to define worldliness is helpless to defend against it.” I think we can also say that a church that defines worldliness incorrectly is helpless to defend against it.

Dr. Doran used up a lot of ink without getting to the heart of the matter. That is rather disconcerting to me. His thoughts border on the “if it’s not specifically forbidden, it’s A-OK” arguments I am too familiar with hearing.

We need to nail this definition today. Worldliness is too prevalent and too destructive in our churches; we’ve got to be certain people understand what it is!

You’ve done a good job with it here. Thank you for making these observations.

Chris