Those that want to go back to the 1950s are numerous. Those that oppose this idea note that it was, among other things, a very racially bad time in America’s history.
Arguments for and against can be made. Very few of them are very Biblically-based. This is.
This entry was posted
on Friday, February 27th, 2009 at 2:36 pm and is filed under Church and Society.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
49 Comments(+Add)
Brilliant.
It’s just too bad that he hasn’t given an account of how culture is pluriform and how his own emphases tend to rise out of his own sub-cultural formation that is elevated over scripture.
I mean, “church discipline for stay at home dads”?
Really?
I have never met anyone who says you cannot preach through certain books of the Bible as he says.
**strawman alert**
Breaking the code:
(I hate when people criticize me for my Song of Solomon teaching so I will demean them by a false construct suggesting they themselves are worldly for their belief)
The emperor – clothes = voilà
Seems like a carefully crafted message to excuse the increasingly worldliness in the church and to staunch criticism about his ongoing sex campaign.
As a black person, I am under no illusion that the 1950s was just a gay-old-time or a period of Christian purity. In many respects, ignorance and racism reigned in many areas (and still does to a certain degree).
I am also aware that we can super-impose our own standards in place of holiness.
But the church is more worldly than it has ever been on the whole – and it is not getting better. The church is engaged in a game of monkey-see-monkey-do, not just in terms of how it “markets” to the unsaved and hold services, but also in our daily lives.
Worldliness has little to do with the culture either today or at previous times. It is a disease of the heart which demands its own, seeks its own pleasure, condemns with impunity, and most of all is marked with a tangible hubris and self righteousness, most times easily identified but sometimes under differing forms of camouflage.
Love not the world, neither the things in the world.
In this western capitalist society, most of the church is worldly and is blind to it all.
As I was walking through the Air Canada Centre (where the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Raptors play) on my way home from work, I saw a massive Johnny Walker statue, encased in glass, smack-dab in the middle of the massive hallway. Impossible to miss.
In a fairly convenient location on the bottom area – the area that would most likely be seen the least – were a few block letters: Please Drink Responsibly.
These ads (whether televised, billboard or whatever) are comical to me. “Buy, buy, buy our liquor and have a great time with friends!!!” is the main message, followed by a whisper, “be good.”
I wonder what the message received from his followers are, especially those that are new or immature in the faith when they are barraged with this sex message constantly? (ie: anal sex, oral sex, etc… delivered to 20-something singles? come on!)Just a question in light of my Johnnie Walker example.
I guess, according to his argument, we should do our best to rid the church of all those who are opposed to preachers not wearing suits and preaching a too highly saturated interpretation of SOS, all those who are content with a 1950’s church.**
**sarcasm alert**
On the other hand, ‘going to Jesus’ is a rather convenient way to justify doing whatever we want to do, isn’t it? Thus:
makes perfectly good sense to me.
On the other hand, I agree that we should be ‘going to Jesus.’ That’s what Scripture says: Fix your eyes on Him, the author and perfector of your faith. I think his illustration is poorly chosen.
sorry, i have too many hands in there.
OK, I have already made it clear that I am not a Driscoll fan, but I hardly think that preaching a few sermons that mention sex is “barraging” people with sex. I’ve heard these sermons, and they are not getting into the graphic details of these acts. They are acknowledging they exist and the only place they are acceptable is in marriage. They were in a context of a church service.
There are certainly things I don’t like about Driscoll, but the whole sex thing really isn’t one of them. Personally, I think it’s just something that’s an easy target for people.
Jerry – I agree completely with all your “hands”. I only agree with the “go to Jesus” premise.
Paul – the liquor advertisement is to be expected since it is most likely the unsaved. I find it monstrously more worldy how we, especially me, waste food, clothing, time, and money in general while we have ample opportunity to minister to a suffering world in a much more substantial way.
I know, a real downer…where’s the laughing revival when you need it?
Well, considering it got him on CNN and other major news outlet, I have a hunch he didn’t mind and probably took pleasure in being an “easy target” to the “fundies”. And the same joke about masturbation gets a little tired after you’ve done it 40 or 50 times on nationally syndicated television.
I admit my guilt as well.
Regarding the Johnnie Walker, I just saw that as a parable for these cutting edge pastors who seem to embrace the pop culture, but then put up a little disclaimer to prove no endorsement of sin.
I don’t agree with his definition of “worldliness”.
we can’t escape culture. Every church has expressed their understanding of the scriptures in culturally mediated ways.
The drinking issue is a classic one of how positions change or take a different level of importance depending on the time.
I always thought worldliness was:
The lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life.
nc – with the Johnnie Walker example, I was simply illustrating how a massive display delivers one message while on the same display, the more diminuitive message is offset with a caution (didn’t mean to speak about drinking per se).
nc – I agree with your definition of worldliness
In some ways he’s dead on. Most of what Driscoll’s critics think is worldliness – language, tv shows, Song of Songs, dress – is no where close to the mark. But just because he’s right about them being wrong doesn’t make him right.
Not a word in there about power, glorifying self, the demeaning and destruction of enemies or really, anything at all about the Biblical definition of worldliness.
Just because the Driscoll-haters are as wrong as they can be, doesn’t make him right.
Bo – I reject the “Driscall haters” moniker. I sincerely attempt not to hate anyone. And although I vehemently disagree with his style and some of his exegesis, I have not heard him demean or belittle fallen sinners or brethren that have stumbled. If you want a core definition of “worldly” – it is hating the mission field wherein God has placed us – the sinners in this fallen world.
I guess loving the world can also mean trying to redeem it through morality so you can live better and won’t have to wait in traffic because of a gay parade. Now that’s worldy!
I didn’t mean to imply that Driscoll does those things. Only that he didn’t define worldliness in that way.
Since the word “world” is kosmos, wouldn’t worldliness be loving the creation more than loving the Creator? That would fit in with nc’s definition about the lusts, etc.
Bo – didn’t you hear him say that “some people say you shouldn’t preach from certain books”? Wasn’t that a classic strawman? Have you ever heard someone say you shouldn’t preach from certain books of the Bible?
Rick,
It might be a bit of an oversimplification. There are about a million people out there who say you shouldn’t preach from S of S in anyway but in a non-literal way.
Orthodoxy means you have to preach Genesis as literal, and Song of Songs as metaphorical.
What?
Sex isn’t dirty. It’s just that rampart pornography has given it a dirty veneer. Unfortunately, that’s even touched SoS.
I will not unearth that argument again, but disagreeing with someone’s exegesis is different than “don’t preach from that book”. And one can make mention of the physical aspects of SoS without becoming provocative.
Telling someone they can’t preach S of S if they preach abotu sex is tantamount to saying “don’t preach S of S”. The book is about a romantic relationship for sanity’s sake.
Genesis – a collection of early migrations
Ruth – a documentary about dating after spousal death.
Exodus – planning, goal setting, and troubleshooting.
Song of Solomon – How to manual
Psalms – early songbook
Proverbs – self help advice
Daniel – the lion whisperer
Revelation – the early dungeons and dragons
* See, when you remove the spiritual element they all become much clearer and in tune with reality!
WHy do you think romance isn’t spiritual?
Bo – the entirety of Scripture is the overarching story of redemption with each narrative, each parable, each event, and everything else being a piece of that redemptive portrait. Even SoS has a redemptive message hidden and revealed within the romantic relationship between a man and a woman.
It is not just an obscure story included in the canon just to excite people or as an example on human romance. Its meaning is much more profound and much more redemptive than what appears on the surface. Only recently have preachers dicarded the revelation of Christ and His love for the more pragmatic and erotic teaching on human sexuality.
I’m content with Driscoll preaching a literal SoS. I just think his particular contemporary approach to it is off-base. His ‘literal’ approach incorporates too much ‘metaphor’ and ‘imagination’.** I highly doubt Solomon or whoever wrote it was thinking about half or less of what Driscoll says he was thinking about.
Now, back to the original post. I agree: Going back to the 1950’s is a bad idea and we have explored that elsewhere too. I think we should go back even further.
**I’m not suggesting imagination is bad or unnecessary. Again, this is just my opinion. I’m not an elder at his church, so I have no say so as to what he preaches. I’ll listen to much of what he preaches, but one sermon on SoS was enough to convince me that in this book his methods of exegesis are a bit flawed. Again: ALERT: THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION AND I HAVE CHOSEN TO RESPOND TO MY DISGUST BY IGNORING THAT PARTICULAR SET OF SERMONS.
(sorry for the loud letters.)
I’m not an elder at his church, so I have no say so as to what he preaches
Neither do the elders at MH…
Ouch!
nc – I find your quips so entertaining and insightful. After this latest offering I have elevated your status to Prophetic Satirist.
I, of course, and the Grand, High, Exalted, Mystic, Ruler of all intellectual entertainment.
It’s interesting to note that on the day of Pentecost, Peter admonished the men/women who had asked what they must do to:
Paul says to the Galatians (1:4):
It would appear that every age has a spirit associated with it. Whereas in times past, physical idolatry may have been predominant, today it may be spiritual.
Not sure if this might help but we had a post a few years back entitled The Spirit of the Age.
It deals with worldliness to a good degree.
To be saved from our present age of worldliness we need to be able to identify this spirit.
Sometimes we are way too analytical in everything, and especially people and things spiritual. (and by spiritual I mean in view of eternity) Pragmatism has us by the throat, and we see things in the short term and miss the many important and overarching truths.
We see a preacher stumble morally and our focus becomes cemented upon that one event and its consequences, and yet if we could step back and understand the redemptive possibilities, and just because a man sins it not only doesn’t change God, it opens the cross to a greater revelation to many who have themselves stumbled and sinned openly where most have just sinned mentally.
We analyze things externally and set up rules of worldliness that deal with outward behavioral modifications, and yet we miss the more profound issues of the inner man. We serve the spiritual on plates of pewter and refuse to serve the spiritual on plates of fine china because we are saving them for special occasions.
Labels, and compartments, and denominations, and marks of identity are what make us feel comfortable and stable, and in creating the identity for everyone and everything outside our own spiritual environment we construct a security which should come from knowing Christ but in practice comes from insulating ourselves against any dangerous incursions or excursions into the living spheres of human beings.
Our patience is minimal, and our forgiveness is usually much more deep and solid with a select few. Our doctrinal belief systems are well scripted and taught in our creeds and teaching materials with the precision and surety of an astronomical physicist, but seemingly cannot be duplicated in the public laboratory.
If we step back and actually read the Scriptures, starting with just Matthew chapters 5,6, and 7, with a literal interpretation and with a painful comparison with our own manifested experience, we just might find that our journey to follow Him has long since wandered off track. And with that inventory in hand, and if we still desired to go to Jesus as the post suggested, how might we begin again?
I have often thought that the most effective starting point for any believer from which to seek Christ like never before might be to see himself as the most undeserving, most spiritually ignorant, and most inwardly corrupt person on the planet. Perhaps then the Holy Spirit could be able to take that broken vessel and begin to reform it into the image of Jesus Christ, and not the image that so much of the church has sculpted and proclaimed was the image of Him.
Tis consmmation devotly to be wished…
The “spirit of the age” is what the “spirit of the age” always was. Pulling strings for your friends, using power to benefit yourself, defining your neighbor as people you like, indulging yourself with the gifts God has given you, forgetting orphans and widows, deluding yourself into believing that you control anything in regards to your own life, in short, doing anything less than loving God and loving others.
Of course this definition is fairly uncomfortable to anyone who believes there’s some sort of moral difference between their group and everyone else that merits the favor of God. Its much easier to just define worldliness as looking at porn and sipping a beer.
Who is more “worldy”:
- a believer who loves everyone and struggles with pornography
or
- a believer who hates and is self righteous but is morally victorious personally?
Again, only the Lord knows the hearts of everyone.
#35
By the Greek definition, a.
But both are strawmen in this sense; b who hates and who is self righteous may not, or a who loves everybody and struggles with porn may not even be saved.
Both assume a work of God has been done (a believer) for one cannot have self-righteousness and recognize their need to be saved by God, also in ‘loving’ everybody, one can point to that alone as the marker of their salvation, yet they may not be saved.
Unfortunately, we can only judged by our fruit, ultimately God himself knows who is saved. We only can examine ourselves in light of scripture.
Well I guess its a good thing we speak English and not Greek.
Nevermind I misread your statement and mine makes no sense. Sorry.
#38
LOL Jerry!
Hopefully you just don’t preach in greek….
My point was in line with the Lord’ s chastening the Pharisees being clean on the outside and dirty on the inside, which deals with external cultural sins being the exclusive measurement at the exclusion of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal.5:22).
My examples are not strawmen since I asked a question did not use either to leverage my point. It was just meant to provoke a deeper consideration than just “he smoke = he’s worldy mentality.
#40
He Smoke=he worldly is a bible-belt philosophy; heard weekly in Florida Baptist churches in their Sunday School classes!
LOL
Excellent, excellent point. Well taken.
I agree with this as well. But I do believe the spirit of the age we are living in leads us to these things, but the means to get us there shift from generation to generation. For example, how the Devil approached the early church (persecution) might be different than how he approaches the church today.
On the one hand I would not agree with his use of the term “worldliness” in this context. On the other hand I think he right about those wanting to impose the ’50’s on today.
Would it not be fair to say that though the 50’s weren’t the good ol’days they’re sometimes made out to be, that the level of sin has made increasing inroads in our society in general?
I wasn’t alive in the 50’s, but it’s failings, just like any decade of any century were there. However, contrast to 2009 and I think we have a different story.
Just as Rome became more and more wicked (or Sodom/Gomorrah), or Israel until it reached an intolerable level, isn’t our society going the same way? Just by the sheer amount of technology and accessibility, the potential to sin and exposure to sin has never been greater.
Talk to any public school teacher whose been in the system for while, Christian or non-believer, and they will tell you the same I think.
Everyone should read the book:
The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap
by Stephanie Coontz
Great read…it put the final nail in the coffin when it came to trusting the cultural mythologies of conservative evangelicalism.
http://www.amazon.com/Way-We-Never-Were-Nostalgia/dp/0465090974/?tag=fishtheabys-20
I just don’t know how you ever measure something like sinfulness that accurately. It seems in some area things that were once hidden are now out in the open more. Just because things are more exposed doesn’t mean people’s hearts and motivations are different.
I think also there simply more sin because there’s more people. Population increases exponentially, so it follows that the more people there are, the more sinners there will be.
This kind of reminds me of a business event I was at last week sponsored by a local bank. They did a survey of their customers and local business, and one question they asked was to name the top strength in our local economy and another question asked people for the weakness and the answer were reported in the form of “xx% say so-and-so is the top strength of our economy…”. Well the thing that was interesting to me was that some of the things made it on to both lists. Like for example, some people said the cost of living was one of top strengths, yet other people said that was one of our biggest weaknesses!
It just proves once more that so much of life is based on our perception of it. If you believe the world is getting more sinful, it’s easy to find things to bolster your claim. If you see the world ripe for harvest, it will make you see it in another way.
I hear you Phil but it would be hard to deny that the more people are exposed to sin, the more sinful they become. It is not a quantifiable measurement, but that doesn’t mean that something is not increasing or decreasing (think of something like love which also isn’t humanly quantifiable, yet we don’t doubt it exists or that our love for some is different than our love for others).
Take the credit crisis: all the banks did was make credit more easily accessible than ever before. By nature, people’s greed drove them to live beyond their means. It’s human nature that exposure to sin leads to acting upon it.
I’m not sure that people who see the reality of general degradation and who are believers just fold their hands and decide to nothing. This point doesn’t make sense. In fact, where there is greater sin, isn’t their greater need?
My point is that is impossible to build a case that things are getting better, unless you’re blind. Scripture also points to increasing sin and worldliness as we head towards the end of this age.
Well, things are worse in some areas and better in others. Diseases that killed hundreds of thousands of people years ago are now just memories. On the other hand we still have genocides. Human nature is still human nature.
I guess I just don’t buy the idea that everything is simple going to pot because it just lead to isolationism. It’s what I grew up around and many people I know are still like that. Rather than try and engage problems, they would rather sit back and complain about them.
Yes, people are sinners and sin is abounding, but grace is abounding more.
No doubt, but the subject here is worldliness.
Consider this: is it any coincidence that the 20th century is responsible for more murders through war and genocides as you mentioned, than EVERY OTHER century added up together in the history of man?
The reason: technology has enabled mass destruction like never before. Man’s nature, when exposed to sin and accessibility to evil is increased, naturally bends that way.
Sin is abounding and so is grace indeed, but worldliness within the church is also abounding along with it.