Deliberately obtuse still stands.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I think that fundamentalists made up their own definition of worldliness and it not only doesn’t wash (Biblically or historically), it also hasn’t produced good results.

You’re recommending Kent? Well, you two have a good time.

Peace.

Keith, your problem is that you want to redefine worldliness, along with the rest of the current Calvinist crop. It doesn’t wash.

See Kent’s comment on my review of Chapter 3 and follow the link to his blog and also to Peter Masters which Kent links in his article. Both excellent.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Final comments:

1. Well we’ll just have to agree to disagree here. I can’t see any way that “The Sopranos” is an example of sin that is not the result of a personal being abusing the world. People write the Sopranos, act in it, film it, edit it, compose and perform the music, etc. It is the worldly product of worldly people. I’m not trying to continue the argument, just wrap up without departing rudely.

2. I think that the confusion here is the result of our focusing on different facets of the question. You are focused on the difference between “world” and “flesh”. My comments were to point out how the concept of “inordinate affections” connects these two things at some level. We can’t keep this discussion going for me to clarify my point further, so suffice it to say that I do think there is a distinction between the “world” and the “flesh”. I probably don’t think the distinction is the result of as great a separation of the distinct items as you do, but I do think there is a distinction.

3. I think that here is the real crux of the matter. Perhaps here is our real disagreement — but then again, we’ve misunderstood each other a great deal so far, so perhaps not. Anyway, what you write in response #3 seems to miss the point of Jesus’ teachings. He said that to even look on a woman with lust IS committing adultery in one’s heart. To hate IS to commit murder. Etc. I think, I’m now seeing that you are wanting the category “worldly” to hold the “standards” items of fundamentalism (You mention “appearance” you mention “values” you mention being a “fan” of a tv show). Again I could be wrong, but I’m now thinking that you want “The World” to be movies and music and dress stuff and “The Flesh” to be thought life and internal desires. If so, no wonder the confusion and disagreeement. If what you are saying is that if I keep up certain “standards” I won’t be worldly, well I disagree. Again, we don’t have time to continue clarifying our points, but I will say that my disagreement should not be taken as saying that it doesn’t matter what we watch or where we go — it only says that those things aren’t enough to avoid worldliness.

4. I’m not sure I see how you can be a materialist without being worldly — again, unless it’s because materialism doesn’t fit within your “standards” and “values” category? Or, perhaps if someone is a “materialist” because they are fearful and insecure? But in that case the real problem is trust, not materialism. Anyway, I’m assuming that you’re talking about wealth/materialism not philosophical/materialism (matter is all that exists). In either case we have a form of worldliness, but the wealth/materialism type is definitely wrapped up with pride and lust.

5. “The world isn’t just my own lusts run riot, it is the lusts of humanity in general, but without the restraining hand of the Holy Spirit and often polished and refined with a very sophisticated and attractive manner of presentation.” I can agree with that. I just think that the way to avoid becoming a part of that world is to, by God’s grace, keep my own lusts and pride in check.

Ok, I think we can get somewhere now.

1. The example I gave you was of the Sopranos. It speaks very much of the world as we know it, glorifies what the world glorifies.

2. I think what I am reacting to is your statements above where you seem to imply this (at least to me). Here is one example: “Persons in the world can be “worldly” (lustful, proud) or, by the grace of God, not. Lusts and pride are not in the world separate from people.”

3. Yes, a Christian can sin by loving the world, such love can be a different thing from mimicking the exact behaviors of the world, but likely, if unchecked, will lead to a complete breakdown of his Christian values. We are all earth bound, and we share in common with the world the same lusts and drives that bring about the world in all its anti-God orientation. Hopefully, a Christian is spiritually minded, is walking in the Spirit, not the flesh, and is by the grace of God living to God and not to the flesh or the world. But a Christian can let his guard down, be enamored by the dazzle of the world, and betray a world-like value system, appearance, etc, while perhaps not imitating its full lustfulness (at this point).

To take the Sopranos example, the show is about some Mafia/mob type family, very violent and immoral (although the bits I saw weren’t explicit… I didn’t watch much of it). But a Christian can convince himself that there is nothing wrong with being a fan, wear Sopranos tee-shirts, mimic speech patterns of characters, etc, but not be actually committing immorality himself or anything close to the violent murders etc depicted.

Now, there are obviously internal lust/pride problems that are going on in that kind of behaviour as well, but it isn’t just ordinary self-driven lustfulness, it is a ‘world-inspired-behaviour’ that we can call worldliness (as well as a few other things).

4. Yes, we can have lusts that are not ‘things in the world’. I am working on a review of ch. 4 of Mahaney’s book. The subject is materialism. You can be a materialist without being particularly worldly. But obviously we do share the same flesh with everyone else in the world.

5. Yes, which is why the subject does get confused. My whole argument with Mahaney is that he is missing the point about the world. The world isn’t just my own lusts run riot, it is the lusts of humanity in general, but without the restraining hand of the Holy Spirit and often polished and refined with a very sophisticated and attractive manner of presentation.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

In all sincerity. The following are questions (not rhetorical questions) that should be able to be answered straightorwardly:

1. You say, “I have given you an example, but you refuse to accept it.” When did you give me an example? I don’t recall seeing one. Could I bother you to repeat it or point me to it?

2. You say that I, “assume that since someone “out there” or a set of someones “out there” also sin, and therefore it is personal to them, that there is de facto no real distinction between me and the world.” That is not what I assume (my thinking on this point is not connected to the fact that everybody sins), can you show me where I ever said that?

3. You say, “There is a world of sin “out there” that we call the world. It is distinct from me.” I think that you believe that it is possible for a Christian to sin by loving the world? Am I right about that? If so, when a Christian does sin this way, is he, while he is loving the world, not a part of the world? Is he not worldly?

4. You say, “There is correlation between my lusts and the world.” Do you think that you can have lusts that are not things that “are in the world”?

5. Finally, related to #3 and #4 above, can something not be distinct from something else AND also be a part of it or be in it? I am distinct from “the human race”, but I am also a part of it — no? The tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop is distinct from the candy coating, but it is inside of it — no?

Dave, I think I basically agree with the analogy.

Keith, you are trying to distract from the purpose of my post. I have given you an example, but you refuse to accept it. The reason you do so is to assume that since someone “out there” or a set of someones “out there” also sin, and therefore it is personal to them, that there is de facto no real distinction between me and the world. You ask: “any chance of an example of sin that is not the result of a personal being abusing the world?” which is not what I am saying.

I am saying that there is a world of sin “out there” that we call the world. It is distinct from me. It doesn’t matter that it is the consequence of other individuals and their sins, what matters is that it is a collective mindset in something ‘out there, beyond me’ that God calls the world and tells me not to love.

So again, you just want to argue. You are attempting to derail my point by confusing it with something else.

Obviously there is correlation between my lusts and the world, we’ve already admitted that. But there is also a distinction between me and the world, which, despite your protestations, you seem to practically deny.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jeremiah 33.3

What about this analogy?

The worldliness of the world system is like an unrestrained epidemic, but the bacteria is not “out there somewhere”; we are already infected.

So a focus on or constant proximity to the full blown cases and the attendant system of living both weakens our defenses and strengthens the bug.

Agree?

How do you love externally? If you love the things of the world it is YOU that is doing the inappropriate loving. By loving the world you are internally lusting (the two ing endings are important).

“Then you jump in and want to argue as if these things aren’t in the world distinct from myself and that I am wrong for criticizing Mahaney…”

I didn’t say you were wrong for criticizing Maheney (you may be, but that’s not what I said). Go look at my first post. I just said that, per your critique, you should not be calling for “ordinate affections” since that concept of worldliness is what you appear to be challenging.

“But in fact you do believe there is a world, that it is characterized by or contains these things, and that we are not to love it.”

Of course I believe there is a world (and I’m pretty sure that so does Mahaney). In this context, the things that are in “the world”, are the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. This “world” is characterized by these things — who would say otherwise? The point of discussion is HOW is it so characterized? What makes it so? That’s one of the things we (I thought) are discussing. Is it so characterized apart from persons (I did not say apart from you alone, but any person whatsoever)? Or, is it so characterized because of persons? And, if it is so characterized because of persons, HOW did they make it so?

“I think you just want to argue.”

Well, I’m tempted to say, “Back atcha” and leave it at that.

However, I will add that I do honestly think there are several important points here — important to real sanctification and holiness and growth in grace:

1. You can’t avoid the world merely by avoiding certain physical locations or cultural activities. Those who “don’t dance, don’t chew, and don’t go with girls who do,” can be just as worldly as those who do. Reference the pharisees, the gnostics, the mormons, etc.

2. Evil is not an impersonal force. God created all things and he created them good. Evil is the abuse of these good things. You can touch as little of this physical world as absolutely necessary to survive — or even less if you’re willing to die — and still be worldly. Reference the ascetics, the desert fathers, the monks.