Is Today’s Church "Worldly"?

by Alan Nairne (1931-2009) eulogy

Is this a strange sounding word to the present generation of Christians? Perhaps like (personal) "holiness"? Or being "a pilgrim"? Or being "separated" from "the world"?

The very fact of asking the question, answers it. The applications of these words, to most of us, are little thought of. And if thought of at all I suspect that the results are pretty vague. But up until about the early 1960’s the conservative evangelical wing of the Church in the UK had a very well defined understanding of what the words implied, and lived by that understanding.

Today it is not so. At basic level I cannot think that there are many of us that would see a contradiction between the use of the "world" in connection with Christian "separation" from it and its use in, for example, John 3:16 "God so loved the world". And I believe that the theological explanation of its use by any one who has studied their bibles for a while would very easily trip from their lips. My NIV Study Bible is handy. One of the explanations of the word "world" given in it on John 1:10 is "the human system opposed to God’s purposes". Or, as I John 2:15 says, "all that is not of the Father" – which is about everything directly outside of God’s purposes in building his Church and Kingdom! Which is precisely what John says in I John 5:19, "the whole world is under the control of the evil one".

Because I live today I qualify as being part of the present generation. And yet, because I began life as a Christian in the mid 1940’s, I am not exclusively part of the present generation.

Then, and I guess until the 60’s at least, most conservative evangelicals in the UK would have had a very well defined sense of what being "separated" and not "worldly" meant. It was not so much that it was part of an accepted syllabus of teaching – I remember only one thought from one speaker from those days, though I am sure the subject must have been referred to frequently. But it was very much the power of example ("peer pressure" is today’s term) that taught us, I am sure. Most Christians (at least, the "best" ones!) just did not do certain things.

But even if today the applications of the words are undefined, we are not unaware of the Scriptures that speak of such matters. The first of the three most important ones is found in I John:2:15-17. The NASB (1973) is used.

Do not love the world, nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world, and the world is passing away, and also its lusts, but the one who does the will of God abides forever.

In James 4:4.

You adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

And Rom.12:2

...do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind...

J B Phillips’ rendering is interesting on this verse – do not let the world squeeze you into its mould.

It was in the application of these Scriptures that the Church in the UK once modelled its walk and accepted certain principles of behaviour. There are still groups of Christians who, give or take a point or two, hold to the old applications.

The following principles were the norm for conservative, though not necessarily for "liberal" churches. But please bear in mind that because they were never codified, considerable variation doubtless existed across the spectrum of conservatism. Many of the points given are therefore not definitive – they are as I remember them from within my own circle of fellowship. They are meant to paint a picture of a past generation.

• Total abstinence from alcohol. The fact that the Scripture does not teach total abstinence was ignored. Some families would, however, have wine for a Christmas "toast".
• Consequently, visiting the "public house" was off limits. (See below for a description of the UK "pub" for non-UK readers).
• Christians did not smoke tobacco.
• Card playing (spades, clubs etc) was off limits. "Gambler’s tools" I was told.
• Sunday was kept as the "Lord’s Day". Gardening, house cleaning, laundering, DIY, and the like were not carried out on Sundays. Meal preparation, washing up afterward and chores associated with daily living were OK.
• Film going was not normal. Certain high calibre films could have been the exception, as well as "Newsreel" cinemas – chiefly news with an accompanying comedy film.
• Most serious Christians for long held out against purchasing a TV set. Its advertisement – "brings the world into your home" made sure of that! This probably lasted for about five years, but those with families eventually succumbed for their sake.
• Ballroom dancing was taboo.
• Gambling in all its forms was eschewed. For some, even the office or charity raffle was declined, although the competition – because no stake money was involved - was permissible.
• Apart from professional bodies, membership of secular interest clubs was rare.
• The membership of a trade union was definitely frowned upon.
• Likewise, membership of a political party, to say nothing of being a politician was rare.
• Purchase of a Sunday newspaper was rare.
• Shopping would not be carried out on a Sunday. In any case the shops were, except for newsagents for a few hours, closed. I can remember travelling preachers having to justify buying a hot drink at a railway station!
• Suits (with ties!) were worn for Church.
• Going to the beach or another pleasure venue after Church was rare. Not that it was even thought about as few families had cars until a decade or so after the war. Most serious Christians were involved in Church twice on Sunday, three times if working with children in the afternoon.
• Sport was followed lightly in those days. It was not money driven, and it was less competitive. Media exposure was much smaller than today. Many Christians followed the scores – but many did not.
• Men did not wear long hair. But then, neither did "the World". Ladies wore hats in Church. But so also did non-Church ladies for many group meetings.
• Sex before marriage, by and large, did not take place. Consequently out of wedlock pregnancies were rare.
• Couples did not live together before marriage. (Except in well-to-do families the norm was to live with parents for a year or two after marriage until the deposit for a house was saved).
• Christian women DID NOT wear lipstick. Powder to take the shine from the nose was OK.
• Ladies dress was always becoming. But then, it usually was during the day, even in "the world". If a Christian couple went to a "society" function, the lady would not wear, for example, a backless dress. (I suspect that U.S.A. Christian culture was rather more relaxed. I remember the account given of one of the first meetings in UK in Voice, the official publication of the U.S. based Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International (FGBMFI) who jetted over here in the mid ‘60’s. The magazine was full of testimonies to conversions to Christ, but, seeing all these ladies photographed in backless dresses really stuck in my craw! That genuine conversions and backless dresses could go together was just too much for me!).
• I mention conscientious objection to military service because it is of historical interest. During wartime, and those years following when National Service was still in force it was very relevant, though opinion was sharply divided. I should think that it is rarely if ever thought about these days and will not be discussed.

Thinking about this list conjures up an age akin to that of the Victorian – as indeed it was. Culture change was far more rapid in the second half of the 1900’s than the first half. In fact it seems as if, by its standards, "the world" then was more "Christian" than most of us Christians today – if that does not sound too Irish!!

But before contrasting today’s norms with these old ones, I want to look at that Scripture which is found in II Cor.6:14ff.which says

Do not be bound together (A.V. says ‘unequally yoked’) with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness etc…

The consistent formal teaching of those earlier years was that marriage between believer and unbeliever was a clear transgression of this verse. The picture comes from the O.T. in Deut.22:10 which says "You shall not plough with an ox and a donkey together". The impossibility of the two animals coordinating their movements is clear. Just so, the serious Christian and the worldly non-Christian will find it impossible to occupy common ground.

You will notice that I said "will find it impossible". There is no cultural factor which can modify this fact. I believe that the prohibition is for all time. Interestingly, when the prohibition is set aside in the hope that the unconverted partner would be converted, any union is usually a disaster – as went the warning. Unfortunately such unions are not rare these days, and the result is that usually the Christian partner backslides. The fact that this does not always happen does not disqualify this statement. Even so, the partners live separate lives for much of the time. But even if (and it is a very big "if") a partner is converted the setting aside of this Scripture and its almost inevitable outcome is too big a risk for the serious Christian to take. (If any reader emails me to say how glorious has been their marriage to a partner who became converted, I shall rejoice, but it cannot negate a clear command of Scripture, and still in my view this application of the verses is non negotiable).

The same prohibition was seen as also applying to business partnerships. Where the non-Christian is very upright it can work. But, again, the risks are greater than the serious Christian will wish to take, unless they have been able to explore beforehand the implications in great depth.

But to go back to those bullet-pointed applications. Were they valid? Many of them were cultural norms of the day, and to flout them would have scandalised not only Christians, but non-Christians also; so even apart from the separation aspect they were valid. In one sense it was "easy" to be a Christian. Conform and you were "in". But correspondingly there were few external marks by which to recognise a Christian, for there was much more uniformity in those days when most folks dressed and acted similarly. So, whilst obligatory and valid, those which were cultural were not binding for all time. And, of course, today, whilst many of those norms have changed, so likewise have the norms for Christians changed, so there are still few external marks by which to recognise a Christian. And today, as then, the borderline between being "of" the world and being "separated" from it is not always easy to define, unless as I have said you belong to one of those groups which encourage narrow limits. I am NOT referring to Amish type communities!

So, as it is clear that the question of "worldliness" cannot be determined by legislation, may I offer a few unchanging principles?

1. No one, Christian or non-Christian, should engage in activity that is profligate of wealth, or injurious to health, or addictive. Smoking, now as then, certainly comes within that category, together with the ingestion of any narcotics. But then, so also does eating to excess, which can be as profligate, injurious and as addictive as narcotics. Despite this, both outside and within the church obesity is acceptable, as the size of waistbands witnesses – and it is nothing to do with hormonal imbalance!
2. We need to keep in mind the principle of not causing the "weak brother" of Romans 14 to "stumble". I know that this Scripture has been worked to death in the past, and has been used to manipulate Christian behaviour well beyond the limits of the text. Contextually it relates to the eating or non-eating of ceremonially "unclean" food. That is, food that has been associated with idolatry and which has been bought in the market place and, according to Jewish law, would therefore be ceremonially unclean. Paul says that he is persuaded that nothing is unclean in itself and therefore can be eaten and enjoyed. But if others felt that in all conscience they could not eat it, then for the mature believer to eat it with immature believers present was wrong. For if the latter were encouraged to eat and their consciences were defiled, then their growth in Christ would be hindered.
   Amongst Western Christians there is probably no parallel to this. But it is a principle that we should not forget. The new Christian’s Spirit-begotten desires will be to spend time with the people of God and the Word of God in order to grow. To encourage such a one to spend an inordinate amount of time, or devote an inordinate intensity of thought to activities other than these surely causes this immature Christian to stumble? Paul said, "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything" I Cor.6:12. And, "All things are lawful, but not all things edify" I Cor.10:23.
   But if there is no parallel in Western society to being "ceremonially unclean", how about a person who has been converted from either an addiction, or at least a strong attraction to alcohol being encouraged to spend time in the "public house"? This could take a person into an environment which they do not have the strength to resist.
   Perhaps non-UK readers need to know a little about the character of UK "pubs". These are premises which are licensed to sell alcoholic drinks. They vary a lot in character. At one end of the spectrum you have the country inn/hotel which both serves meals and has a bar at which alcoholic drinks are purchased and, whilst the former activity relies upon passing trade, the bar is occupied for the most part by locals. For the Christian to purchase food or call in for refreshment is surely in order. Despite the fact that, as I pointed out under the first bullet point, the Scripture does not teach total abstinence, some churches would teach this in view of the serious alcohol abuse that is so rife in UK, not only especially amongst the young, but amongst the older also.
   At the other end of the spectrum you have the town or city "pub" which is patronised by folks who will be either spending the whole evening and part of the night there, or being on a "pub crawl", and drinking far more than is good for them. "Binge drinking" with its anti-social after effects is currently placing a lot of strain on the UK police forces in maintaining law and order, particularly at closing time. Ought the Christian to spend any time in this environment for social reasons?
3. Then again. Did not Jesus say, "…for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also"? Clearly, that on which we devote an inordinate amount of time, or that on which we spend an inordinate amount of money, is that which has captivated our heart. That is, I suggest, a mark of "worldliness".
4. Moving from externals to the inner life. Jesus said quite unequivocally,
   ....do not be anxious for your life, as to what you shall eat, or what you shall drink; nor for your body, as to what you shall put on…..for all these things the Gentiles eagerly seek……therefore do be anxious for tomorrow…Matt.6:25ff.
   My observation is that far too many Christians are anxious, and worry about the future. I do not deny that job security, rising costs, the pressures of bringing up children, health and a multitude of other things are matters of concern. But if it was not possible to live our lives without worry, why did Jesus say it was? The answer clearly is that we are meant to put our faith in God to meet the requirements of each day. If we fail to do so, that is not just weakness, it is disobedience, and faithless. We are behaving exactly as the "Gentiles" behave, that is without faith, and Paul reminds us that whatever is not from faith is sin Rom.14:23. The principle is simple and I shall not therefore discuss it further.

Concerning those earlier days I think that one would have to say that Church members would be seen, because Sunday was used for Church attendance, as those who did not use the day otherwise. Nor, because they did not go to places of public entertainment, or, for some time at any rate, have TV sets, would they be able to converse on current entertainment. Most Christians would, of course, have had radios ("wireless" in those days!) and were familiar with current regional, national and world news. Because of these two factors, at least, I believe that in those days Christians felt that they were different from their non-Christian counterparts. This is not to say that it was all Biblically authentic. As I have said, much of it was cultural. Perhaps much of the "separation" was cosmetic; but there was sincerity, and it was carried out as unto the Lord.

But what is the situation today as regards those bulleted points in today’s conservative evangelical church? Having reviewed them I think we would all recognise that with the exception of smoking most, if not all of these points are now part and parcel of the normally accepted experience of the Church. This is not to say it is wrong because much of it was cultural. One would like to think that "no sex before marriage" would be honoured, but in today’s climate to think this would be naïve.

Today, as then, perhaps the most distinctive feature of Christians so far as public life is concerned is in the use of language. Clearly, Christians do not swear, use coarse language or use the Lord’s name lightly. Some manage to freely share their faith. Some have a buoyant faith during periods of adversity. Most serious Christians still do not gamble, though most are happy to enter a raffle. Some do not consider the National Lottery and Premium Bonds off limits.

But in some areas there is total identity with "the world". One thinks of the following of sport that takes place in many of its forms. In December 2004 the magazine Christianity had emblazoned across its front page "Idolatry. Has Britain gone sports mad"?. It has its hymn-like chants in church-like stadiums. It has its god-like heroes. It has the worship-like adulation of these gods. Unfortunately many of these gods on the pitch are foul-mouth and violent louts who, off the pitch are promiscuous with women and besotted with drink. And many Christians are totally caught up with this quasi religious fever. They rush off after Church to see matches on TV, and will absent themselves from Church if the two coincide and too often the subject forms the staple diet of their conversational fellowship. When taken to these lengths if it is not loving the world, then what is it? Is not this a dangerous approximation to "worshipping at the table of demons"? Can such also authentically "worship at the table of the Lord"? (I Cor.1014ff.).

We see a church also where so many marriages fail. One would expect this "in the world", but in the Church also? The reasons for these failures are many. Infidelity is frequent. Often it is the careers of husband and wife pulling them apart. Sheer selfishness is seen in some marriages. All this speaks of immaturity in their faith, and immaturity speaks of worldliness.

Many Christians are addicted to TV. This necessarily involves seeing programmes with bad language, and moral standards that are anti-Christian. I am not necessarily suggesting that equal time should be given to the study of the Word of God. (Why not, I wonder?) But I am saying that maturity in handling the Word of God and fellowshipping with its Author, and being able to build up the Church does not come this way. Too many Christian parents allow their children far too much liberty in both the time they spend looking at TV and failing to guide them in what is suitable content. Many children’s programmes are seriously infected with occult content, and they need to be trained to switch off the set when they see this appear on the screen. To fail in this is to leave a wide open door in their lives for the enemy to step in. non-Christian parents have no understanding of this, but should Christian parents be just as ignorant, or as careless as their worldly counterparts?

Finally, are not too many Christians concerned with, for example, getting the latest in technological gizmo’s when what they have is still perfectly usable? Certainly, in the audio/visual market technical improvements, with lower prices, make equipment "out of date" in six months, but with next to no value on the second hand market. To think of replacing it whilst it is still perfectly usable amounts to covetousness. And, Scripture would remind us that covetousness "is idolatry" (Col.3:5 A.V.). In this consumer society, covetousness is a snare to many Christians.

So, I have to confess that I see much that is accepted in the church that I can only class as downright worldly, and I am grieved. Yet, it is not all "doom and gloom". For I see much also that is encouraging. There are many congregations which have invested heavily of their time and finances in community building projects in association with the local authorities. These Churches now have a high profile in the local community, and their premises are put to use for not just a few hours each week, but for seven days. And because the community is familiar with the inside of the building on a weekday, they are happier to come inside for Sunday meetings. And they do, and get converted to Christ. No longer are these churches living in their ghettos.

I see also Churches using Alpha (for all its limitations which have been written about in certain quarters), or similar programmes, being used as a very effective outreach and evangelistic tool, with expansion in the congregations taking place as a result.

I see Christians who have been able to leave behind their "miserable worm" theology (despite their weekly confession to this in Anglican circles) and to move out of their ghettos and integrate into local clubs and institutions, and who have the opportunity to share their faith in Christ. Thank God too for the few, though often excellent, TV broadcasts and documentaries on Christian faith and activities. We need to pray that non-Christians will watch these.

Thank God too, for the up front Christians in the media. Cliff Richard may not be every Christian’s icon, but he has faithfully let his faith in Christ be known, and has stayed the course without a speck of mud attaching to him, and has no doubt encouraged many media personalities to do the same. One thinks of Gary Linneker, Kathie Staff, Cannon and Ball, Sally Magnusson, Pam Rhodes, Louise Jordan and literally scores of others who follow Cliff’s original example.

So, there is still hope for the Church of the Living God in these evil days. But may I implore my brothers and sisters to remember the dictum of James that "...pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, [is] to visit orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world" (1:27). And where we have failed to keep the faith in this respect, let us do a bit of healthy repenting and seek the Lord for grace to walk in a Biblically authentic "separation" from "the world".

Alan Nairne, September 2005

See also my article which deals with similar issues Come out of her, my people. (Rev 18:4) Dec 01