Truth Magazine

By Johnny Thompson

I was going to the prom! I thought about it for days, and then decided to go. After all, I would be a senior but once. So why not?

I well knew that informing my parents would be most difficult. I was a minister’s son who had been taught all my life the problems and dangers involved in the modern dance. I decided to tell them at breakfast.

“Dad,” I said, “since I am a senior, I have decided to go to the Senior Prom.” I waited for his reply, but there was only silence. I expected my father to take me to task severely. I thought certainly that mother would cry. But still there was silence, a terrifying silence. Then my father replied, “So you are going to the prom?”

“Yes sir,” I said, “after all I’ll be a senior only once.” He looked at me and then hung his head. Then he said words I’ll never forget: “Son, your mother and I have tried to teach you for the past sixteen years what is right and what’s wrong. We’ve done our best to bring you up as a Christian young man. But you’re right Son, you are a senior. You are almost grown. So if you have decided to attend the Senior Prom, go ahead, but please remember this: if the Lord should come and find you there, please tell Him that you came because You wanted to, not because We sent you.”

Those sobering words shook me into reality. I then knew that this was a temptation that I must overcome. I must not go! I have never regretted not going, but continue to thank God that I was given the strength to throw my influence, fully behind the church and its work in the community. Remembering this temptation, I take encouragement from James 1:12, “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love Him.”

Truth Magazine XXIII: 22, p. 359
May 31, 1979

 

By Marshall E. Patton

Dancing is an age old problem in the church, and it continues to present itself anew with each rising generation. While the problem appears over and over, dancing itself appears in a new form from generation to generation. This study shows, however, that the same basic evil in dancing of the past is likewise present in that of the current generation – hence, the problem, regardless of the form or the generation.

Objectivity

One aspect of the problem is found in the fact that far too many do not study the issue objectively. All too often social, sometimes a party spirit, and other pressures make for a prejudicial, biased, and opinionated study. Some hold that preachers are so bound by antiquated views, tradition, and a desire for acceptance among their peers that their teaching is void of objectivity; that because of these pressures they simply can not “get with it” in this modern hour. Bible class teachers are sometimes viewed in much the same light, and others who oppose dancing are thought of by some as radicals, “kill joys,” and objectors without due regard for facts.

In the hope of greater objectivity, let it be observed that while the possibility of such on the part of some exists, surely, more serious thought shows such views to be a reflection upon the integrity of our teachers in general as well as a threat to our future security. Those who are experienced, who are void of a reputation of extremism, :and who are recognized as careful students of the word are well schooled in the dangers of such pressure influences. Among these we find many who have the faith and courage to search out and stand for truth regardless of such influences and consequences. The consensus judgement of such is worthy of the greatest respect and study.

Consensus Judgment

I believe that it goes without debate that the consensus judgment of the more faithful among us (preachers, elders, deacons, Bible Class teachers, and others) is that dancing, as opposed in this article, is wrong. It would be folly for one seriously ill physically to ignore the consensus judgment of the best qualified in the realm of therapeutics. Likewise, we must conclude that it would be equally foolish to ignore the consensus, judgment of the best qualified in the field of Bible knowledge. Young people, especially, should be very careful to avoid the path of folly in their study of this issue.

Inconsistency

Inconsistency poses a problem for both the guilty and the observer. All of our literature – that used in Bible classes, religious papers, tracts, books of sermons, etc. that deals with this subject sound a unanimous voice against dancing. The Christian, therefore, who engages in such finds himself at variance with the literature throughout the brotherhood as well as the oral teaching thereof. This puts him in a bad light with his fellows and at a disadvantage to explain his inconsistency to others.

Dancing in the Bible

The dancing of which one reads in the Bible may be divided twofold. (1) There were dances expressive of great joy and gratitude on occasions of victory and signal favors wrought or bestowed at the hand of God; also dances by which devotion, honor, and praise were shown unto Him (e.g., Ex. 15:20; Judges 11:34; 1 Sam. 18:6; 2 Sam. 6:14; Psa. 30:11; 149:3; 150:4; Lk. 15:25). In these dances men and women danced alone – no mixed dancing. (2) There were dances for amusement, pleasure and entertainment. There often involved hilarity, revelling, and mixed dancing (e.g., Ex. 32:19-28; 1 Sam. 30:16; Job. 21:7, 11-20; Matt. 14:3-6; Mk. 6:21-28). Concerning the two kinds of dancing, only the former has any semblance of approval. Even then, those involving some religious aspect (praise unto God) are found in the Old Testament. There is no authority for such in the New Testament age (John 4:23, 24).

Works of the Flesh

Among the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21), we find “Lasciviousness.” Webster defines this word as follows: “Wanton, lewd, lustful – tending to produce lewd emotions; the synonym of licentious, lecherous, salacious the antonym of chaste.” Again, it is defined: “Indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females” (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, p. 79, 80). There are two expressions in the above definitions worthy of special attention, because they identify, beyond doubt, the modern Disco dance (as well as others), namely, “tending to produce lewd emotions” and “indecent bodily movements.” The suggestive positions, provocative movements, and seductive gyrations of the Disco dance and other forms of the modern dance are here identified as lasciviousness.

If one were trying to produce lewd emotions by indecent movements of the body, could he do better than employ the bodily movements of such dances? In order to see more clearly the lascivious aspect, omit for the moment the presence of music, and ask the question, “Is there a Christian woman anywhere who would condone another woman engaging is such bodily movements before her husband even in her own living room?” The-presence or absence of music does not change the lascivious aspect. One thing wrong with dancing is that it takes and grants privileges that are not tolerated anywhere else in decent society. Even if a mature Christian (one schooled and experienced in the control of his passions) should be able to withstand temptation, we need to remember that the average man of the world is void of such strength, and many could care less.

Sometimes women say that such does not so effect them. Perhaps there are exceptions – more often among teenage and single girls. This point involves a study of the psychological and biological differences between the male and female, which space limitations forbid just now. However, just remember that no matter how innocent one may be of lewd emotions in such dances, he cannot be sure that such does not “produce” or “tend to produce lewd emotions” in another. Remember, “Lasciviousness” is condemned in these words “they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

“Revellings” is also listed among the works of the flesh. A study of this word as defined by Webster and by lexicographers shows that it means a lack of restraint and self control; emotional excitement; that which is boistrous, loud and noisy. While this word may not be descriptive of every form of dancing that falls into the category of amusement, pleasure, and entertainment, it is descriptive of the modern dance hall and that associated therewith. It, therefore, must be considered in a study of this theme.

A few years ago, Paul Harvey, under the heading of “Pagan Dance Nothing New,” said:

“I had no business in that night club except that friends insisted I ‘should know what’s going on.’

“It was one of those places where, in suspended cages, girls wiggle and giggle to a jungle drum beat. Later, I’m told, they dance on tabletops among the customers. I didn’t wait.

“Anyway, I said, `that’s one degree of vulgarity that I’ll never get on TV!”

“Now three shows feature little else: ‘Go, Go,’ ‘Shindig’ and ‘Hullabaloo’ (Cf. “American Bandstand” – mep).

“And many variety shows are interspersed with similar pagan fertility rites.

“Choreographers must never have read anything more profound than `Billboard’ and ‘Playboy’ if they genuinely consider their product avant-garde. It is, conversely, as old as the Old Testament and as unimaginative as burlesque.

“The Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, the Egyptians, the Arabs, the Turks, the Sardinians, the Mongolians, the Chinese – certain alley cats and dissolute dogs – long ago allowed such self-expression as is masqueraded as ‘new”‘ (Paul Harvey, ABC News, Via Bedford Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 52, Jan. 16, 1966).

According to an AP dispatch from Hollywood (sometime ago), Ginger Rogers said of the twist:

“The twist is ungraceful, vulgar, and exhibitionism personified. I think it’s scandal. It is the most obscene dance I’ve ever seen, worse than the shimmy ever was” (Via God Speaks to Today’s Teenagers, by James Meadows).

Space limitations preclude further quotes which show that even many “not of us” put those who engage in such dancing in a bad light. This is significant in relation to the issue because of the principle of influence (Matt. 5:16).

It should also be observed that in listing the works of the flesh, Paul adds to “lasciviousness” and “revellings” the expression “and such like.” These works of the flesh identify acts that would excite to unlawful desires and passions on the part of either the performer or observer. Furthermore, it does not meet the issue to say that properly supervised and sponsored dancing falls into a different category. Supervision can have some control over the aspect of revelery, but one cannot supervise the thoughts, emotions, and passions of another.

Dancing, as opposed in this article, identifies the participant as foolish, inconsistent, indulging the works of the flesh, condemned by the Scriptures, and without hope of heaven. Repentance is mandatory by a loving Heavenly Father who would have all men to be saved.

QUESTIONS

1. Name some influences that often keep one from studying this issue objectively.
2. Is it foolish to ignore the consensus judgment of the best qualified on any issue?
3. What is the consensus judgment of the best qualified teachers and most of the more faithful in the church on dancing?
4. In what problem of inconsistency does one who engages in the modern dance involve himself?
5. Distinguish between the different kinds of dances found in the Bible.
6. Are dances of devotion, honor, and praise unto God authorized in the N.T.?
7. Are dances for amusement, pleasure, and entertainment approved in the Bible?
8. Does the change in the form of dancing from generation to generation change its basic evil?
9. Define “lasciviousness.”
10. May one be guilty of “lasciviousness” who does not experience lewd emotions himself?
11. Identify “lasciviousness” in different forms of dancing.
12. Does “revellings” apply to the modern dance hall?
13. Does the modern dance limit one’s influence for good? How?
14. While the supervision of a dance may control in some measure the revelry aspect, can it control the thoughts, emotions, and passions of the participants?
15. What did Paul say of those who “do such things” (Gal. 5:21)?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 22, pp. 357-359
May 31, 1979

By Mike Willis

When I was young enough to barely remember going to worship services, I distinctly remember attending a gospel meeting at a congregation located not far from my home at which the preacher condemned worldliness. He preached extensively about the sin of worldliness and condemned the very appearance of evil. Finally, he came to the application of his lesson and applied the passages pertaining to worldliness to playing dominoes. About 10-15 people responded to the invitation that night, primarily to confess unfaithfulness in the matter of worldliness. I specifically remember the young, local preacher personally confessing his worldliness in playing dominoes.

Things have indeed changed since those days. When I was a lad, the brethren discussed whether playing cards and dominoes were sinful in an effort to avoid any resemblance of interest in things worldly or doubtful. Even when some practices which did not violate a clear Bible principle were condemned (as in the case above), an earnest effort was made to oppose worldliness and to keep the church pure! Today the “clergy” is discussing whether or not homosexuality, prostitution, fornication, gambling, and any number of other sins are wrong and churches are filled with such filth. In fact, many of the things condemned in the Bible as being sinful have now been legalized and become respectable in American culture. In many cases no effort is made to oppose worldliness and to keep the church pure. I am reminded of Paul’s statement, “for the fashion (schema) of this world passeth away” (i.e., it is constantly in a state of flux and change).

I must frankly confess that I liked the old days better when the distinction between right and wrong was clearly admitted and acknowledged. Those were the days in which the majority of sinners practiced their sins undercover because society as a whole rejected them because of their immorality. Yet, I cannot find a time machine which enables me to be removed from this decade and placed in that of a few years ago. All things considered, I am not even sure that I would want to be. Yet, I do admit that I liked the aspect of the old society better than that which exists today.

Gospel Preachers and Worldliness

I have been disappointed in the stand which so-called “preachers” have taken on any number of issues relating to morality. I have seen denominational clergymen on television defending homosexuality and stating that the Bible teaches that we should love everyone and not condemn others simply because they have a different form of sexual expression than we have. I have heard radio programs in which preachers discussed the topic, “when is lying not lying?” I have participated in a talk-radio program in which a denominational preacher refused to “condemn” prostitutes for their sin in his special ministry to prostitutes. Indeed, the denominational world around us has capitulated on the subject of morality.

It appears to me that this period of time should be especially ripe for preaching what the Bible says about morality. I cannot help but believe that there are literally thousands of Americans who are sick and tired of clergymen pussyfooting with Satan and who would like to hear what the everlasting gospel has to say about morality. I think that they are tired of hearing discourses on nuclear power plants, supporting guerrillas in South America, communal living, and other such social topics. I think that they would appreciate good gospel preaching on such topics as clean, godly living.

Unfortunately, the likelihood of them hearing these kinds of sermons is diminishing. Not a few of those who purport to be gospel preachers are compromising on the subject of worldliness. In an age that is being threatened by evils of over-indulgence of alcoholic beverages, gospel preachers are defending social drinking. In an age that is crazed by sexual stimulation through immodest apparel, gospel preachers are participating in mixed bathing. In an age when divorce and remarriage for unscriptural reasons is becoming socially accepted and the American family is being unscripturally altered, gospel preachers are teaching that those guilty of destroying homes through fornication have the scriptural right to remarry. Uncertain sounds are coming from the trumpets of those who should be sounding clarion notes for repentance.

Some of the stories which I hear regarding gospel preachers scare me inasmuch as they indicate what is no longer being preached. I have talked with men who relate that they had a discussion with another preacher regarding whether or not social drinking was wrong. I have been told of preachers who were housed in motels during gospel meetings being found mixed bathing by the local evangelist. On some occasions, the local evangelist simply jumped in the pool with them. Others among us are heavy smokers. These things indicate at least this thing to me: these men are not preaching against social drinking, mixed bathing, and smoking!

I am saddened to hear of a preaching brother becoming involved in some gross act of immorality such as fornication. Usually, however, such a man humbly repents before God, tries to reconstruct his life on the basis of God’s word, and resolves to serve the Lord throughout the remainder of his life. I have compassion on such a brother and suffer with him through the agonies which his sin brings to him. However, I know that this man will continue to preach against worldliness, perhaps even holding himself up as an example of how it can cause any of us to fall.

Such does not happen among those involved in social drinking and mixed bathing. Most of them are unwilling to admit that what they are doing is sinful. They are persuaded that there is nothing wrong with it, except that some old fashioned brethren think that it is wrong. Hence, they must practice their sins undercover, lest these “old fogeys” detect them. Having reached these conclusions, such brethren will not repent of the immorality which they are practicing. Rather, they will continue to practice them in secret.

This erosion of moral conviction among preachers is sometimes seen in secret lasciviousness followed by secret fornication followed by a cover-up. They refuse to repent, run from their error by moving to a new area, and either explicitly lie when questioned or else implicitly lie by maintaining a “righteous” silence. Those who refuse to repent of worldliness and who “get away with it” are likely to repeat and increase their sins.

How long has it been since you heard a good sermon on such things as dancing, mixed bathing,, social drinking, and other forms of worldliness? Are we no longer hearing these kinds of sermons because these sins no longer pose a threat to the spiritual development of Christians? Have they quit being practiced by the society around us and no longer are in vogue? We all know the answers to these questions! The reason that some brethren are no longer preaching on these subjects is that they have become convinced that they are not sinful!

The Unchangeable Word

Yet, my brethren, God’s word has not changed in this generation. It is the same today as it was in the first century. What it teaches about worldliness is still true, regardless of who teaches otherwise. Read its condemnation of ungodly behavior:

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21).

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate, affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: for which thing sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: in the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him (Col. 3:5-10).

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them (Rom. 1:28-32).

The Scriptures speak just as certainly today regarding the condemnation of these acts of wickedness as they ever did at any time in the past. Though time has changed, societies have changed their laws, denominational preachers have changed their beliefs, and American culture has treated as respectable things which God has condemned, God’s word remains the same.

In a time when denominational clergymen and, unfortunately, some “gospel preachers” (I use the term accomodatively; when these men quit preaching what the gospel has to say about these subjects, they ceased to be worthy of the description “gospel preacher”) have quit preaching on such topics as worldliness and some among them have actually begun to defend what the Bible specifically condemns as sinful, we need to pay special attention to Paul’s warning, “Be not deceived!” He wrote,

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

Let us be careful that we are not deceived on these matters. What God has said shall not be changed by the presumptuous words of twentieth century clergymen!

A Corrupted Society

Ours is indeed a corrupted society. It reminds me of that society which existed during the days of Isaiah. He mentioned a group of men that had blurred the distinction between right and wrong. Condemningly he wrote, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Isa. 5:20). If you think that this has not happened in America, look around you. Witness what has happened with reference to homosexuality. Talkmasters, television hosts, news commentators, justices, and practically everyone else have defended homosexuals; similarly, they have hurled every kind of disparaging remark imaginable at those who have done what they could to condemn homosexuality as sinful.

Tax dollars have been used to pay for abortions. Those who have defended the rights of the unborn baby have been stereotyped as a bunch of narrow-minded, bigoted idiots. Indeed, our society has blurred the distinction between good and evil, right and wrong.

There is always the danger that the society around us will determine what we preach rather than God’s word. Even preachers can be conformed to the world in the message which they preach rather than being solely guided by God’s word. None of us are above falling into conformity with the world around us. Yet, God’s word is quite clear in revealing that what God has spoken is the criterion for determining right and wrong rather than what society around us is saying. Hence, we need to especially be careful in this moment of time and space to “be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12:2).

Is there yet a clarion voice calling the wicked to repentance? Is there a voice crying in the wilderness, “Repent ye”?

Conclusion

I think that there is yet a host of voices crying in the wilderness of immorality, shouting for men to repent of their wickedness and turn in humble obedience to the Lord. It is true, indeed, that a number have muffled their trumpet by compromising in such respects as smoking, social drinking, mixed bathing, and other aspects. However, I am convinced that the greater number of gospel preachers are still preaching what God’s word has revealed on these and a number of other topics.

Brethren, let us hold forth God’s word as a light in the midst of this crooked generation. As the lights of denominations become progressively dimmer as they compromise point after point of God’s revelation, the world around us will see the pure message of God as we clearly preach it. Those with honest and good hearts will be drawn to this message. Let us not compromise with worldliness but rather reprove it (Eph. 5:11).

QUESTIONS

1. How has society changed in recent decades with respect to its practice of an attitude toward worldliness?
2. Relate anything which you have seen as evidence that denominational clergymen have capitulated on the subject of worldliness. Do you think that the members of these denominations appreciate the stand which their clergymen have taken?
3. How long has it been since you heard a sermon on mixed bathing, dancing, social drinking and smoking?
4. Has society’s acceptance of these forms of worldliness changed God’s condemnation of them?
5. Can a man be a faithful gospel preacher while refusing to preach on such subjects?
6. How do you think the world around us will receive strict teaching against worldliness?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 22, pp. 354-356
May 31, 1979

By Hiram Hutto

To trace the development of the word from which we discuss worldliness (kosmos) is an interesting, if somewhat disappointing, exercise. Initially it meant an ornament, then the ordered or beautiful arrangement of the universe, next the earth, then the inhabitants of the earth – most of whom are bad, and thus finally the evil that characterizes the world. It started out beautiful and attractive, but ends up bad and ugly. Most sin is that way. It can take something good and lovely and misuse it so that the result is evil. And this is doubly demonstrated in the title of this article. Doubly, because it takes something good and misuses it; but then to compound the tragedy, the bad is endorsed and becomes respectable so that something evil is portrayed as something good! “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil” (Isa. 5:20). But perhaps you wonder: Just what is respectable worldliness?”

Let it be noted to begin with, by respectable worldliness I do not mean that such is respectable with God. The very concept behind worldliness eliminates any idea of God’s approval of it. John tells us that it “is not of the Father” (1 John 2:16), and James says, “friendship with the world is enmity with God” (James 4:4).

Just as goodness stems from the good, and kindness from the kind, so worldliness stems from the world (“the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,” 1 Jn. 2:16). It has both its origin and fruition in the kind of thinking and/or action which springs from such considerations. Fundamentally, worldliness is an emphasizing (Which often runs to obsession) of that which is temporal, material, physical (which frequently involves the sensual) at the expense of (and more often than not, to the exclusion of) that which is spiritual. It is the opposite of spirituality. Clearly this can involve “a multitude of sins.” As a rule, however, worldliness is thought of in terms of that which is either immoral or tends to immorality, and, to be sure, there are many worldly people who hate both God and all who would live godly. Yet there are many others to whom immorality is abhorrent, who nonetheless have little or no interest in God or spiritual things; who emphasize the material, the physical at the expense of, and all to frequently, to the exclusion of, the spiritual. All such are worldly. They “mind earthly things.” And they do this, not only in their own lives, but so uphold it, exalt it, and encourage it, that such have come to the looked upon by most people as not only not degrading, but positively desirable, respectable.

By respectable worldliness, then, I do not mean the immoral, the vulgar, the sensual, but rather that which the world considers respectable, and this in areas that in themselves are honorable, noble, and upright. This has had its influence on the church. For example, I do not preach to many people who are murderers or bank robbers. I would like to think that most assemblies to whom I preach are not characterized by too many adulterers (and one would be too many to be a part of the people of God) or drunkards. And chances are good that most in these audiences would find such repugnant. Yet they have been so affected by the world’s standard of respectability that many are guilty or respectable worldliness, and without some intense vigilance, many more will be. Let me illustrate.

An industrious brother (concerned about the high cost of living, the needs of his family, the requisites of a good education for them) takes a second job. This he does, knowing when he does it that rt will entail his being unable to assemble with the saints as the word of God teaches, and if not that, surely knowing that it will preclude his being available for any significant amount of his individual responsibilities in the church.

As the world looks on this type of individual, he has many respectable qualities. He is concerned about his family’s financial welfare and future. He is no leech on society. He wants to provide for his own, and even the Bible endorses this (1 Tim. 5:8). But he attains one lesser goal at the expense of a more important one. The one he attains may be good, noble, and respectable, but it is “worldly” nevertheless, because it emphasizes the physical and material at the expense of the spiritual. And certainly he has not sought “first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33).

And what shall I say about working mothers? First of all, I want to say, because the Bible shows, they do right to work! But the word of God also tells them where to work. It does not say, “good secretaries, excellent clerks, workers in factories.” It says, “workers at home, keepers at home” (Titus 2:5).1 Tim. 5:15 shows there is more to this than sweeping floors and washing the dishes. It says, “guide the home.” This is a spiritual endeavor, and to “farm it out” so as to increase income for things, is to exchange the spiritual for the material. How depressing that people no longer believe that the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world. What a tragedy that Christian mothers have allowed themselves to be cheated out of one of the noblest of tasks by having the false idea foisted upon them that they cannot be “fulfilled” unless they get out of the house and into the business world. So successfully (respectable) has this been done that 16 million USA mothers with children under 18 work outside the home. Forty per cent (40%) of the women who have children under 6 years of age leave them with somebody else while they go off to work. What is it that prompts such? Will it help them participate more in “church work”? Will it increase their opportunities to visit the sick, to attend Bible classes, and do many other activities in the Lord’s work? I do not recall ever hearing anyone say, “I think leaving my children to someone else will help them and me grow spiritually.” Quite a few just “took the job temporarily, till we get these unusual expenses paid.” (And these turn out to be about as temporary as taxes!) I visit in some of these homes, and from what I observe, they certainly could not be said to be in any kind of dire financial circumstances. Most of them are in financial circumstances as good as most and better than many. Was it spiritual reasons that demanded they so do? And consider this:

1. The training of children is not the responsibility of the government. It is not the responsibility of the grandparents, and not the responsibility of baby sitters. It is the responsibility of fathers (Eph. 6:4) and mothers (1 Tim. 5:14). It is a spiritual activity and no part-time job.

2. Who is going to be the source of “influence” on that child while its mother is away at work? Who will nurse it when it cries, kill its bruised knees, warn it against the dangers that lie ahead? Does the nursery really care about the kind of TV being watched?

3. Frequently such arrangements allow the child to spend most of its waking hours with someone other that its mother. I have even known children who called the “sitter” mother, but would not call the mother, “mother.”

4. It is an open secret that many, many wives are too tired after a “hard day at the office” to be the spiritual influence and companion that she needs to be.

5. We will not discuss the resentment, the temptations, etc. that come her way. But for two excellent lessons dealing with this entire subject, see one by Horace Huggins, and another by James Cope in the 1979 Florida College Lecture Book.

If this results in the emphasis on the material at the expense of the spiritual (and the evidence seems overwhelming), it is worldliness. The world may “respect” it but it does not change it.

Free Time

Vacations exert a wholesome influence. They can refresh the individual and stimulate a renewed vigor in the return to normal activity, and I believe such can be justified by the scriptures. But Christians can never take a vacation from God! This is true whether it involves a two-week vacation or simply a weekend at the lake. But there are many members of the church who abuse such blessings and during these times emphasize the material and physical at the expense of the spiritual, and that’s worldliness. The spiritually minded person does nothing but that he first considers it in the light of how it will fit in with the will of God for his life. Of primary importance is: Will this allow me to discharge my obligation and enjoy the privileges of being a child of God?

1. What shall I do? There are many things that the world calls respectable that a child of God cannot engage in because he has a different standard. Since other articles in this issue will probably deal with this, I forego a discussion of these here.

2. Where shall I go? Those who are concerned about this world will consider the scenery, the entertainment (and there is plenty of this that is respectable), but the spiritually minded person, while he can enjoy the scenery and the respectable entertainment, is primarily concerned with such things as: Will it be where I can worship with God’s people while I am away from home? Far too many members of the church wait till Saturday or Sunday morning, if then, to “look for a Church of Christ.” The spiritually minded did that before he left home. I am thrilled that I know a teenager who toured the western states with a foreign friend, but before beginning, wrote various congregations along the route to insure attendance at church services would be possible. And I cannot emphasize it too strongly; a Christian ought to have the same convictions away from home that he has at home! If he cannot conscientiously worship with a liberal congregation at home, he ought not to worship with one away from home. Just having up a sign that says “Church of Christ” is not enough. A Christian wants the vacation, but not at the expense of spiritual considerations.

There are members who get so involved in civic affairs, all of which may be perfectly good and wholesome (respectable), but they can become so involved in them, that some even miss the services to attend to such. And I am delighted that I know others who let it be known to begin with that, with them, God comes first and they will engage in nothing at any time that interferes.

Marriage

Perhaps the problem that eventually led to the flood was begun when the children of God began to be more concerned with the physical beauty (“fair”) than they were with spiritual qualities (Gen. 6:1-2). When a person takes only the materialistic and physical into consideration in choosing a wife or husband, he is making a grave mistake. These may be respectable considerations, but they are too often at the expense of the spiritual. Is she attractive? Does he have a good paying job? (And this does not mean that you must try to find the ugliest one around, nor one who is “on welfare.” Ugliness is no guarantee of spirituality, and laziness is certainly no virtue.) The thing that really matters is the spiritual. Is he a faithful Christian (not merely, “Is he a member of the church?”) Will she help me in the rearing of our children to be Christians? What are his/her spiritual qualities? Is he actively engaged in the Lord’s work? Companions may be respectable in the eyes of the world by the world’s standards (she is beautiful; he is successful), but what about in the eyes of God?

These are but a few of the many areas that demonstrate the need to be concerned about “respectable worldliness.” Those involved in it usually bear very little, if any, fruit for God, but like those sown on the thorny ground, “the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and . . . become unfruitful “(Mk. 4:19)

Attitudes That Prompt Worldliness

1. An erroneous evaluation of life. It says things “here and now.” Iii so doing it turns the world upside down. It puts the world on top and the kingdom somewhere below that. It says, “I will seek the physical and the material, and then I will add the kingdom of God later.”

a. Things come first. Yet Jesus said, “A man’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things which he possesses” (Luke 12:15). Respectable worldliness contradicts this.

b. Time. It says, “Later.” The Bible says, “Boast not thyself of tomorrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth” (Prov. 27:1). Respectable worldliness fails to properly evaluate life.

2. Satisfaction With Mere Membership. No need is felt to supply something for the edifying of the body (Eph. 4:16).

3. Indifference To Individual Growth and Development.

The admonition of Peter to `grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 3:18) is not appreciated. All such will remain a spiritual dwarf or baby.

4. A “Free-Loader” and a Sponge. “Let George do it” attitude.

5. Nearsighted. “. . . Seeing only the things that are near” in this world, such are mindful of this world, rather than seeking the one that is to come (See Heb. 11:14-15 for the proper evaluation).

What Is The Remedy For Respectable Worldliness?

1. Recognize the danger. In fact, in some ways it is even more dangerous than the immoral and the ungodliness. This will indeed sap the very vitality from a person’s spiritual well being, but it does not look all that bad. One of its most fearful dangers is in its subtlety. It stems from what appears to be respectable motives; so many others are engaged in it, etc.

2. Look at things through the eyes of God. Before beginning any activity, ask: What will this do with my relationship with God? Would I want to appear before God right now? Will it allow me, yea even encourage, my wholehearted participation in all phases of His work, both in the church and as an individual Christian?

3. Seek transformation rather than conformation. Never be content to be as the world is, or as it approves. Remember, “God does not see as man seeth” (1 Sam. 16:7) and His ways are higher than man’s ways (Is. 55:8-9). “And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12:2).

4. Get involved in the work of the church.

5. Seek the association of other Christians. Perhaps it would be better to seek it among these who are somewhat ahead of us in spiritual development. If you want to be a better tennis player, play with someone a little better than you are. If you want to develop spiritually, be with those who are a little more spiritually advanced than you are.

Consequences of Respectable Worldliness

1. God is robbed. Anytime we do not give God that which is rightfully His, we are robbing God. Since we are to “seek ye first his kingdom and his righteousness” Matt. 6:33), to put anything else first (and that is exactly what respectable worldliness does) is to rob Him of what belongs to Him.

2. The church is robbed. If you do not share in the work and function of the congregation, it is being deprived of one more talent and time.

3. The individual is robbed. He is robbed of spiritual development. He is robbed of true peace of mind. He is robbed of the contribution of that most valuable possession, himself. And worst of all, he may be robbed of his soul in heaven for “the world passeth away and the lusts thereof, but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever”‘ (1 John 2:17).

QUESTIONS

1. What is worldliness?
2. Is respectable worldliness different from other kinds of worldliness in degree but not in kind?
3. What are some reasons that prompt respectable worldliness?
4. List some of the results of respectable worldliness other than those listed herein.
5. Give some specific illustrations other than ones in this article and explain why they are “worldly.”
6. How may a person avoid this sin? Be specific.
7. What quality of being a Christian is the opposite, explain why it is opposite, and list some ways to cultivate this.
8. Give some Bible examples of people who were guilty of respectable worldliness and tell wherein their worldliness lay.
9. Give some Bible examples of people who had opportunity to practice respectable worldliness, but did not.
10. Do you see any symptoms in your life that may indicate a yielding to respectable worldliness.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 21, pp. 346-349
May 24, 1979