Let’s Talk About Worldliness.

“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.”  1John2:15

              Let’s first define our terms. What do we mean by “worldliness”? It is assumed that unsaved people are worldly, but just what do we mean when we say this or that Christian is worldly? Truly in this matter it can be said  that “worldliness is in the eye of the beholder.”   How so? Because so many good men differ as to what is or isn’t worldly. Granted that there are a good many areas where there is practically unanimous agreement that a thing is worldly but then we get into shades of differences that divides even the most separated of God’s people into various camps. I don’t know of anybody who would claim to be the final authority on the subject and there are so many areas where the Bible does not specify in a particular matter other than on principle, that it becomes more a matter of personal choice and taste than on a “thus saith the Lord”. For instance some who stick to the Book in other matters of separation will declare that it is worldly for a man to wear a beard, whatever the style. Chapter and verse please. Particularly in view of the fact that in Bible times most men wore beards including our Lord.

I would appreciate the reader just to accept this article as one man’s take on the subject. I have been called both a legalist and a liberal. To those on  the left I am a legalist. To those on the far right I am a liberal. You can be as sound as a dollar in doctrine but still be labeled a liberal in other areas. Something I learned just recently. Failure to dot every eye and to cross every tee in matters of dress, music, activities, etc. can earn you the title once reserved for infidel preachers. My, my! On the other hand the ones who accuse those who preach separation of being  legalist ought to learn what the word means. It is obvious they don’t really know. In case the reader doesn’t know, a legalist is one who teaches that you must keep certain laws in order to be saved. Salvation is not the issue. Separation is the issue. I don’t know of any Baptist brethren, no matter how far out their stand is on separation, who believes that law-keeping is required in order to be saved. The terms “legalist” and “legalism” are totally out of order in describing the teaching of separation. I do believe that some who teach separation can drift into being “legalistic” if they are not careful. Here is a person who is so “rule” oriented that they come off as being a legalist when they really aren’t.

 There was a day when it was expected that churches and preachers would be against worldliness. Worldly churches were the exception. Today they are the rule. The average church is definitely worldly and that puts churches and pastors who teach separation in the minority. Here we go with the Remnant situation as described in the main article in this issue. It is only  a remnant of what used to be called evangelical churches that practice separation. Even the so-called “holiness” churches have gone the way of the world. The words worldly, worldliness and separation are not found in their vocabulary. Christians who bring up such matters are looked on as really weird. One family who had visited our church several times thought the services were just great. They were out of the Calvary Chapel group and were going to talk to us about becoming Baptist. That is until they heard that no shorts were to be allowed at the July 4th picnic. They were surprised that we were so “legalistic” and they never came back. A family who had Assembly of God background fell in love with our services (No, we are not charismatic or anything close to it.) and wanted to join but before we ever got to the baptism issue the issue of selling alcohol in their convenience store came up. Of course they had “prayed about it” and the Lord had told them it was OK to sell it so they were very surprised when we would not accept them into our church even if they received Baptist baptism. There was a time when the Assembly of God churches would not have tolerated such a thing among their members.

          So we have a remnant of churches that teach separation. They are part of a larger group who profess to believe the Bible, profess to go by the Bible, believe in getting people saved, and would fight to keep the doctrine pure but just do not teach or practice separation. The remnant that takes a stand against worldliness have much in common. They believe that Hollywood is from the pit of hell and that it is wrong to support Hollywood by attending the theater, they believe that all gambling is wrong including the lottery. They believe that all worldly “fads” like ear rings on men, bleached or orange colored hair, “grunge” pants with the crotch down to the knees, body piercing, etc. are to be shunned. They believe most all TV is ungodly particularly the sitcoms and soap operas. They are against alcohol as a beverage including wine and beer. They have strict convictions against men with anything other than a man’s hair cut. They are certainly against rock music in general and rock concerts in particular and don’t believe there is such a thing as “Christian Rock”. Honky Tonk music is totally out as is nearly all country western music. Gospel songs of that style are not much appreciated either.They also believe that modest apparel is to be worn by both sexes; tight clothing on a man is just as bad as tight clothing on a woman, a dress ought to be at least no shorter than about one inch below the knee and slits on dresses that go above the knee have no place on a godly woman. Their Youth Camps and Colleges do not allow mixed swimming and they generally avoid public beaches. Women who wear dresses that show any amount of cleavage are privately admonished to button the top button or to otherwise cover up. This is on top of plain preaching on the subject.

 Within this remnant of  churches which take their stand against worldliness is a remnant that also takes a stand against women wearing slacks or jeans or pants of any sort including  pant suits. Their numbers are quite considerable and whether you agree with them or not such a conviction is to be respected. The degree of pressure brought to bear on the women in these churches vary with the individual pastors and churches. With many it is simply a matter of having rules that govern dress on church activities. With others it is akin to the unpardonable sin. Churches that do not make an issue of women wearing pants, even though they meet all the other criteria, are viewed as “liberal”.   We would recommend that preachers young in the ministry arrive at their own convictions in this matter. There is one primary verse in Deuteronomy that forbids men and women from wearing clothes that “pertain” to the opposite sex. There is one other verse in 1st Timothy that commands women to wear “modest” apparel, sometimes used in defending the no pants on women issue. To be considered is the possibility that Deut.22:5 is really addressing the underlying issue of homosexuality, assuming that people who dress in the clothes of the opposite sex are homosexuals. Also to be considered is to what extent is the clothing issue a cultural matter. Certain cultures have men and woman in almost identical clothing while others have distinct differences. How much similarity is acceptable? In Bible times men and women both wore robes. Was there a distinct difference? Undoubtedly but so is there a distinct difference between men’s pants and women’s slacks. On the other hand the principle of clear lines of distinction between masculinity and femininity as a general principle ought to be honored and observed. In other words God meant for men to be masculine and women to be feminine. Who could argue against that? But does that leave room for a woman to throw on a pair of overalls to slop the hogs in? What do you think?

Within this remnant who are against women wearing pants is a remnant who not only do not allow their women to wear pants but they also do not allow their women to cut their hair. The late Dr.John R.Rice would have been in this number. Read his booklet, “Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers.” Now it’s the “no pants on women” crowd who is viewed as liberal; doesn’t the Bible say that if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her and that her hair is given her for a covering? That if she cuts it at all she might as well shave her head?  (Read 1Cor.11) At least that is what Dr.Rice believed the Bible taught. Though he was a personal friend of mine we did not share the same convictions on a number of issues.Of course within this remnant who do not believe a woman is to cut her hair is another remnant who do not believe in women wearing any kind of make-up. They take a pretty dim view of the “old barn needing a coat of paint” joke. So your women do not wear pants nor cut their hair but only a liberal hussy would paint herself up like a Jezebel! Or so the thinking goes.

 But we are not done yet for within this remnant whose women do not wear pants, cut their hair or wear make-up is another remnant who not only observe all the above but they also do not wear any jewelry! No rings, ear rings, necklaces, brooches, watches, pins, etc. and of course in their minds those who do are pretty worldly. Now this is pretty deep stuff don’t you think? Where does all this end? Probably with the Amish and certain of the Mennonites. What’s your point preacher? I don’t know, I think maybe it’s just that we shouldn’t be so quick to despise or judge the one whose convictions are a little more or a little less than our own.

So some of you don’t allow sound tracks of any sort to be used in your services, no problem but you commit the greater sin of judging when you lump everybody who does allow certain selected ones to be used as “liberal”. Whole articles have been written against the “wicked” sin of clapping hands in church yet I find more in the Bible for it than you can find against it. I remember Dr.Rice saying that fundamental Baptist are good at making Pharisees out of people. I remember Dr.Hyles saying that the maxi-coat was ideal for the ladies in his church to wear during the Chicago winters to keep their legs warm but because they identified with the wrong crowd (the avant-garde crowd) he did not approve of them at that time but that the time would come when he would approve of them. He was pointing out that though some things were not wrong in themselves yet they would identify you with the wrong crowd, but when that distinction did not exist such things would be permissible. Can you imagine how worldly the colorful tie was at one time? Remember when colored shirts were a no-no for the man of God? How about the paisley tie? The first time I saw a preacher wear one I said to myself, “That is one worldly preacher!”. I’m still leery of the person who is so quick to jump onto the latest fashion.

 Worldliness, I believe, means all that we have insinuated above but it is by no means limited to these so-called worldly things. In the larger sense I believe it simply means to be preoccupied with the things of this world. To be preoccupied with the accumulation of wealth, to be preoccupied with sports, to be preoccupied with hunting or fishing, etc. Even though you are not worldly in the usual sense of the word as it is used in this article you are, as a matter of fact, a worldly Christian and you need to deal with it as much as the person  who is seduced by Hollywood and the pleasure mongers of this world.

 By the way, it is easy for the weak Christian of Romans 14 to accuse the strong Christian of worldliness and it is easy for the strong Christian of Romans 14 to accuse the weak Christian of legalism. To bring such accusations into this chapter is to pervert the Word of God. The subject matter is weak, immature faith compared to or in contrast to, strong, mature faith. Remember, all things are lawful but all things are not expedient, all things are lawful but we are not to be brought under the power of any. 1 Cor. 6:12

BACK