Both of these sources come at the question from the evangelical side of the spectrum, in the case of Clawson and Olson, it is on the outside of conservative evangelicalism looking in, whereas George and Dockery are more or less on the inside of the movement. Both sources offer some interesting observations of the so-called ‘conservative evangelical’ movement.

Clawson and Olson

The thesis of this piece is that the conservative evangelicals are essentially fundamentalists, albeit a new kind of fundamentalist. They aren’t the same as the original fundamentalists, but are analogous to them.

I contend that this growing concern expressed by MacArthur and many other evangelicals represents a new movement within evangelicalism toward what I have termed neo-fundamentalism.  This is not simply a return to the original Protestant fundamentalism of the early-twentieth century, though it is analogous to it.

The difference between neo-fundamentalism and fundamentalism is those against whom they are reacting. Clawson sees both neo-fundie and fundie as simply reactionary groups. Neo-fundamentalists are reacting to postmodernism in a similar way that fundamentalists reacted to modernism a century ago. Neo-fundamentalism grew out of evangelicalism in the 70s and 80s, according to Clawson, out of a reaction to the massive culture shifts of the 1960s when James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson ‘became increasingly negative towards the culture’. This reaction morphed into neo-fundamentalism as culture itself shifted from humanism/secularism to pluralism/relativism. The new reactionaries “constructed a genuine neo-fundamentalist alternative to any evangelical accommodation with postmodernity.”

All of that seems reasonable enough and it is precisely at this point that the conservative evangelicals become attractive to fundamentalists. The conservative evangelicals are reacting to something that fundamentalists also eschew. Fundamentalists find themselves nodding in agreement at this point of congruence. (And since the dominant culture is now thoroughly post-modern, fundamentalist attention is often focused on this major point of agreement than on points of disagreement.)

Clawson goes on to cite as evidence of his thesis three of the ‘most influential’ leaders of ‘neo-fundamentalism’: John Piper, Albert Mohler, and Mark Driscoll. Driscoll? A reactionary? To post-modernism? Hmm… Even Clawson seems to recognize the weakness of including Driscoll in the list, for he says: “he seems to lack the level of hostility towards secular culture typical of fundamentalists.”

One might therefore assume that Driscoll is not in fact a neo-fundamentalist. And yet Driscoll often shares the stage at national conferences with other neo-fundamentalist leaders. And while many of the older leaders often have gentle criticisms for him (especially in regards to his language choices), Piper and others have made it clear that Driscoll’s doctrine is acceptable to them and that they are unwilling to kick him out of the camp over stylistic differences. Indeed, Driscoll theology is completely in line with the older generation of neo-fundamentalists on everything from gender roles, to biblical inerrancy, penal substitutionary

Driscoll makes the grade for his ‘strong masculinity’ and his alleged hostility to “the deeper ethos of a postmodern culture.”

Well… whatever! Clawson’s thesis makes some interesting points but his examples and the significant cracks in their separatism seem to erode his argument rather than support it.

But please note that Clawson likewise argues for a distinction between fundamentalists and neo-fundamentalists (his term for conservative evangelicals).

George and Dockery

In the book, Theologians of the Baptist Tradition, James Spivey writes a chapter on “Benajah Harvey Carroll”. In this chapter he makes this observation about Carroll’s theology:

Carroll’s theology was influenced most by other conservative Baptists, especially Boyce, Strong, Spurgeon, and Broadus, whose catechism he recommended highly. To say that he was a conservative evangelical is not adequate. Though the term was not yet in vogue, he could be described as a “Fundamentalist.” His doctrine agreed with the basic tenets of The Fundamentals (1910–15), and he thoroughly disdained modernists as “cuckoos of infidelity.” This antipathy was directed against Northern liberals when he encouraged a group of fundamentalist Illinois Baptists to seek admission to the SBC (1910). Led by Landmarker, W. P. Throgmorton, they had intended to align with Ben Bogard, a sympathizer with Carroll’s nemesis, Samuel Hayden. In spite of strong resistance from some Southern Baptists, they were admitted partly because of Carroll’s support.¹

The reason for highlighting this paragraph is not B. H. Carroll, but the observation Spivey makes about conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. Clearly, Spivey also sees a distinction between the two groups. Spivey implies that conservative evangelicals might not disdain modernists as thoroughly as Carroll did, and certainly not as thoroughly as fundamentalists do. Though there are similarities that might cause an outside observer to confuse the two groups, significant differences remain.

Conclusion

The first point I want to stress in conclusion is that evangelicals are able to see a distinction between conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, even though many erstwhile fundamentalists seem to have a good deal of difficulty seeing the distinction themselves.

The second point is that if the conservative evangelicals are distinguished by their opposition to postmodernity, they maintain a general new evangelical  friendliness to modernity (but not modernism). Though they see the corruption of the evangelical church in its embrace of all sorts of worldly wisdom, yet they maintain a comfort level with the worldly wisdom of the 50s and 60s that birthed the new evangelical movement in opposition to fundamentalism.

And finally, if evangelicals are confused about the inclusion of Mark Driscoll in the ‘neo-fundamentalist/conservative evangelical’ orb, ought not fundamentalists continue to maintain their distance? The continuing failure of conservative evangelicalism to separate from Driscoll and his errors is an ongoing testament to the failure of neo-fundamentalism to have much of a concept of separatism at all. Praise the Lord that they seem to be seeing the dangers of cooperation with modernists. May they soon see the need to sever ties with hedonists and libertines.

P.S. I recommend the book, Theologians of the Baptist Tradition as a good overview of the progress of Southern Baptist theology. There are a few non SBC men mentioned, but most are SBC. The list of men and their theologies reviewed gives an interesting perspective into the progress of theology in the SBC, at least on the (mostly) conservative side of the scale.

1. Theologians of the Baptist Tradition (Timothy George and David S. Dockery)
   - Highlight on Page 177 | Loc. 4641-49 | emphasis mine

What makes this one interesting is…

• That the author is a pastor in the Harvest Bible Fellowship, James MacDonald’s organization.
• That the author is a graduate of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
• That some of the author’s co-bloggers are also graduates of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. (One is the son of a very close friend from ‘back in the day’.)

Given those connections, the separatistic bent of the blog post makes a bit more sense. (Although it remains to be seen if actual separation will take place.)

Along with making the post make a bit more sense, these facts raise some interesting questions:

• How do graduates of DBTS end up in a Harvest Bible Fellowship church?
• How do graduates of DBTS end up attending Southern Seminary?
• What will these young men do now?

It seems that this incident is a bit of a wake-up call to the Conservative Evangelical wannabes we seem to be producing in fundamentalist schools.

These kinds of associations are the fruit of evangelicalism. If you move into evangelicalism, you will inevitably find yourself in some partnerships that are exceedingly uncomfortable, especially for someone who still holds on to at least some of their fundamentalist instincts instilled by their fundamentalist church backgrounds and schools.

It’s got to be a bit of a shocker for these young fellows. I’ll be interested to see if they do what they must do – break fellowship with James MacDonald.

Money quote:

 And we kid ourselves if we think the Elephant Room invitation itself isn’t an endorsement of sorts.  We can’t downplay the associations by calling for people to suspend judgment and responding ad hominem against “discernment bloggers.”  We certainly can’t do that while simultaneously pointing to our association at The Gospel Coalition as a happy certification of orthodoxy and good practice, as Driscoll seems to do here with MacDonald. [emphasis added]

What a blessing it would be if men like Thabiti and the more conservative evangelicals would finally see that this is the crux of the fundamentalist-evangelical divide, and then get on the right side of it.

Modalism maintains that there is one God who manifests Himself successively as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but who is not contemporaneously all three. [Believer's Study Bible, electronic ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), Glossary.]

The ESV Study Bible expands on this with this paragraph:

One of the most fundamental ways to misunderstand the Trinity is tritheism, which overemphasizes the distinction between the persons of the Trinity and ends up with three gods. This view neglects the oneness of the natures of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. At the other end of the spectrum is the heresy of modalism (also known as Sabellianism, named after its earliest proponent, Sabellius, 3rd century), which loses the distinctions between the persons and claims that God is only one person. In this view, the appearance of the three persons is merely three modes of existence of the one God. For instance, God reveals himself as Father when he is creating and giving the law, as Son in redemption, and as Spirit in the church age. A contemporary version of modalism is found in the teaching of Oneness Pentecostalism. [Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2514-15.]

Sabellius, the man usually credited as the earliest proponent of the view was excommunicated by the Bishop of Alexandria in 260 or 261. The Sabellians appealed to Rome (the church in Rome played an early leading role, but there was as yet no papacy). In 262, the Bishop of Rome held a council and condemned Sabellius and his modalism along with tri-theism and subordinationism (an early variant of what would become Arianism).

False doctrines like modalism were condemned by the church in the third and fourth centuries. That settles the question, right?

Wrong! Heresies are persistent. They crop up, sometimes in modified forms, throughout church history. Sometimes orthodox men may mistakenly embrace a heretical view at some point of their theology. An example would be the Bishop of Alexandria mentioned above. He excommunicated Sabellius for modalism, but in doing so committed the error of subordinationism (Jesus less than fully God). When the Bishop of Rome also rejected Sabellius, the Bishop of Alexandria “The bishop of Alexandria very cheerfully yielded, and retracted his assertion of the creaturely inferiority of the Son in favor of the orthodox homo-ousios.”¹

Since that time, modalism, or some form of it, has been taught by a variety of erring teachers. Karl Barth is a most prominent example as the founder of Neo-Orthodoxy.² On a far less erudite portion of the ecclesiastical matrix, we find modalists in the heretical Oneness Pentecostal (United Pentecostals) movement. A most prominent representative of that movement is the popular teacher, T. D. Jakes.

T.D. Jakes is pastor of The Potter’s House, a church in Dallas, TX.³ The link above takes you to the doctrinal statement of The Potter’s House where you will find this point regarding the Trinity:

There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

At best, this is a very imprecise theological statement. The statement says in the second point:

Jesus Christ is true God and true man, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He died on the cross, the complete and final sacrifice for our sins according to the Scriptures. Further, He arose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven, where, at the right hand of the Majesty on High, He is now our High Priest and Advocate.

One can see some wriggle room here, for the statement on the face of it sounds orthodox enough. If Jesus is now at the right hand of the Majesty on High, he may be considered to be distinct from said Majesty.

In an essay critical of Jakes, Ryan Turner says this about Jakes’ apparent ambiguity:

Even as a result of various criticisms, Jakes will not affirm the orthodox position on the Trinity.  Instead, he skirts the issue and continues using the “manifestation” terminology.⁴ In one interview on a Los Angeles radio station, he even implicitly denies the Trinity and advocates a Oneness Theology view of God: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/februaryweb-only/13.0b.html.

Turner makes this conclusion about Jakes:

While one does not have to positively affirm the Trinity to be saved, if one denies it he or she is in serious biblical error and should not be teaching on major television networks like TBN.  Furthermore, it is true that the doctrine of the Trinity is not fully comprehensible by humans, but it is problematical when people like Jakes deny this orthodox teaching of Scripture even after numerous warnings and specific clarification.

I certainly agree with that conclusion, but probably would go further. It is one thing for a Christian to slip into an error of thought or speech on a subject like this through ignorance or lack of education. On admonition, a true believer ought to correct himself on such errors. If someone will not correct such errors when confronted with them, one has to wonder about the validity of the Christian testimony.

Jakes is no ignoramus. He is not untaught. He has been corrected and he persists in his errors.

Well, according to James MacDonald, Jakes is a ‘brother’:

I do not agree that T.D. Jakes is a Modalist. 
I affirm the doctrine of the Trinity as I find it in Scripture.  I believe it is clearly presented but not detailed or nuanced.  I believe God is very happy with His Word as given to us and does not wish to update or clarify anything that He has purposefully left opaque.  Somethings are stark and immensely clear, such as the deity of Jesus Christ; others are taught but shrouded in mystery, such as the Trinity. I do not trace my beliefs to credal statements that seek clarity on things the Bible clouds with mystery. I do not require T.D. Jakes or anyone else to define the details of Trinitarianism the way that I might.  His website states clearly that he believes God has existed eternally in three manifestations.  I am looking forward to hearing him explain what he means by that.  I am also excited to hear him state his views on money, which may be closer to Scripture than the monasticism currently touring reformed world.  I believe T.D. Jakes shows immense humility by being willing to step outside his own circles to interact with brothers in Christ who may see certain things differently.  Getting brothers together who believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone but normally don’t interact, is what the Elephant Room is all about.  Talking about issues that separate with grace and truth is what the Elephant Room is all about.  We are greatly honored that T.D. Jakes has agreed to participate.

I would have to say that MacDonald himself is squishy on the Trinity in this statement.

Why bring this all up? The subject came to my attention via Sharper Iron. There has been some discussion there, but most of it is skirting around a significant point for fundamentalists. (MacDonald clearly separates himself from a fundamentalist testimony in his blog. “I grew up with this separatist centerpiece of fundamentalist thinking, and I rejected it many years ago.” I don’t recall MacDonald’s background, other than that he is from Canada, I believe.)

The significance for fundamentalists isn’t just that James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll are teaming up to host T. D. Jakes at their conference, The Elephant Room. No, it also involves the participation of conservative evangelicals like Mark Dever.

Part of the controversy among fundamentalists these days involves the question of separation like this: “We agree that we need to be separate from apostates, but we don’t agree that we should separate from brothers like the conservative evangelicals – after all, they are separatists too… just not so separate as us.”

Well…

I wonder what some fundamentalists are thinking about this? Some of our fellow fundamentalists joined with Mark Dever in a recent conference. He is seen to be a “separatist, just not quite like us.” Is he?

Most fundamentalists would agree that T. D. Jakes should be kept at a distance. I don’t think we would be affirming him as a ‘brother’, would we? At best we would be expressing a good deal of uncertainty and doubt. We would say he shouldn’t be given prominent platforms, along with Ryan Turner, quoted above.

Well… what are Driscoll, MacDonald, and Dever doing?

Should fundamentalists join in common ecclesiastical cause with non-separatists who persist in “preaching the gospel” at events that include at best very questionable people, if not out and out heretics?

Before anyone gets hysterical, let me be clear on something: I don’t think Dever is the same as Jakes. I don’t think he is the same as MacDonald and Driscoll. But I think he is demonstrating that he doesn’t have any concept of separation that is remotely close to that of most self-professing fundamentalists, even those who are on the ‘leftish’ side of fundamentalism. The distinction between Dever (and men like him) and fundamentalists is very marked.

Yet there is a clamor on the ‘leftish’ side that we should join with the Conservatives. They are not so different from us, it is said. What? Why is it that Dever shows up at so many Driscoll events?

What should fundamentalists say about the trend towards wider cooperation?

1. Philip Schaff, vol. 2, History of the Christian Church (Galaxie Software, 2002; 2002) 12:152.
2. “Although Barth rejects modalism by name (p. 196), the shades of modalism, more complex than in its third and fourth century forms, are present throughout his thought.” Fred H. Klooster, “Karl Barth’s Doctrine Of Reconciliation
   A Review Article”, Westminster Theological Journal Volume 20, 2 (Philadelphia: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1957), 182.
3. His wife, interestingly, is listed as the “First Lady” of the church… whatever that means.
4. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/february7/5.58.html.

As I think back over these reviews, each chapter review was written as a ‘first impression’. My first impressions may be  more negative than need be. It is easy to be a critic. On the whole, I think that the book has some merit, in spite of my criticisms. However, it is not a book I can recommend on the subject of worldliness because of two weaknesses.

First is a redefinition of worldliness which makes the problem with worldliness to be a matter of ordinary lusts that inhabit every human heart rather than a captivation of the heart by the world. The reason this is so problematic is that there is something about the world that is very attractive to us and we are easily deceived by it. By muting the warning, the danger of deception increases.

What is it that makes the world attractive? Why, it is those very lusts we share with it. The things of the world are infused with these lusts, enveloped in them, marinated in them! They put the sizzle in the world’s steak, they put the sparkle in the world’s jewels, they are the kin of our heart. Our heart resonates to the touch of the world’s strings. Why is it that the world exploits sexuality to sell everything from automobiles to soap? Because the world appeals to our heart this way.

If the problem with the world is only a matter of the ordinary lusts of my heart, why would there be a need for a special warning against the world? No, the world itself is gorged with lusts on purpose to catch and deceive men’s hearts.

So the first weakness of the book is the redefinition of worldliness.

The second weakness of the book may be a little harder to see. It is the limitation of application to only certain aspects of worldliness. This is most easily seen in the chapter on music by Kauflin, who will not admit any worldly aspects to musical style at all. Yet worldly people can talk about a ‘sultry sound’. If that isn’t worldliness infusing music, I don’t know what it is. It is also seen on the chapter on clothes, specifically women and their clothes — as if men have no problems with worldliness and the way they dress. Is there no worldliness in men’s fashions? Well, blow me down! Amazing. Just those wicked wenches to whom we need to harp endlessly on modesty!¹ I think this limitation is a serious oversight.

In addition to these weaknesses, there is some weakness in making the whole book about particular applications. It is not that I disagree that there is worldliness in the media, in music, in ‘stuff’ and in dress, but that the whole concept of worldliness needs more thorough exposition from the scriptures and perhaps less specific application.

After all, can someone read this book and come away thinking, “Ok, I’ve got my media under control, my music is all theologically rich, I don’t have much stuff, and I’m a guy so why worry about clothes… I must not be worldly”?

This last is not meant to be as strong a criticism as the two main weaknesses.

On the positive side, I would say that it is good to see prominent evangelicals addressing the issue. A lot of what they have to say is good. The chapter on media is really quite good and would be a good resource as a stand alone essay. The chapter on modesty is good as well, it is a worthy topic to address. I think it is primarily based on a message by Mahaney that is probably available online. It might be worth pointing people to.

Bottom line: the book isn’t terrible, but it could have been much more. For me, it scores a 3 out of 5.

1. Please note, I think the overall teaching on female modesty in this book is well done. The focus is just too narrow when the subject is worldliness.

A friend of mine loaned me his copy of this little book for my review. Since it is a compilation of six essays by five Sovereign Grace Ministries clergymen, I thought it best to review the book section by section. Previously: Chapter One, Chapter Two, Chapter Three, Chapter Four, Chapter Five.

Jeff Purswell writes the last chapter of this book. He is dean of the Pastors College of Sovereign Grace Ministries and on the pastoral staff of Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

The last chapter of Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World is an attempt to turn a more negative approach to the world to a more positive approach. Purswell begins with an illustration of the boundless energy of his own young son and his efforts at restraining and training such a lad. He finds himself often saying, “no”, and his son seems to wonder, “But what can I do?”¹ In a book on resisting worldliness, Purswell is concerned that readers might have a similar feeling towards the subject. The last chapter, therefore, is an essay attempting to outline a positive perspective towards Christian living in the fallen world. He says,

It would be tragic indeed if we ignored, diluted, or otherwise marginalized the command this book began with: ‘Do not love the world or the things in the world’ (1 John 2.15). It would be equally tragic if we defined our relationship with the world simply in terms of negation. For John’s Gospel affirms both God’s love for the world (John 3.16) and his intention that we be in the world (John 17.18).²

My main criticism of this chapter can be seen, I think, from this quotation. The criticism is this – in a book about worldliness, it is astonishing that one would so badly confuse God’s call for separation from the world with the Christian’s mandate in the world. When the subject is worldliness, there remains a vital Christian concern about the world as defined by C. J. Mahaney in chapter 1:

The world we’re not to love is the organized system of human civilization that is actively hostile to God and alienated from God. The world God forbids us to love is the fallen world.³

In chapter 6, Jeff Purswell instead deals with the created world and the world of humanity in need of salvation. He does not have our relationship to the organized system of human civilization that is actively hostile to God in view at all. His subject matter, while ably presented for the most part does not relate to worldliness as such. As a result, in my view, he fails to be clear and allows for confusion to enter the mind of the reader. Should I love the world? Doesn’t the Bible say, ‘Love not the world’? Is the Bible contradictory?

The confusion, in part, comes from different senses of the term ‘world’. There is a sense in which the world must be totally opposed by the believer, the sense of ‘organized system’ as noted above; there is a sense in which the believer should be fully engaged in the world, but this is not the world system we are called to shun.

I believe the last chapter would be stronger if it re-emphasized the themes of the rest of the book, while making it clear that by avoiding worldliness we don’t mean some kind of ‘other-worldliness’ that seeks isolation from the created world or a failure to evangelize the lost world. The balance of the chapter was heavily weighted to these latter topics (about 95% I would estimate) while giving only cursory acknowledgement to the principle of separation from the world.

The first thing Purswell does in the chapter is attempt to create some understanding of his subject. He says we need a “biblical worldview” in order to approach the world properly. So he begins by offering us The World: A Biography.

In this, he attempts to give us the basic story of the world under four heads, “creation, fall, redemption, consummation.”⁴ He concludes the ‘biography’ with this paragraph:

What a story! The grandness of its scale, the integrity of its parts, the clarity of its moral vision, the nobility of its themes, and the authenticity of its narrative dwarf the greatest accomplishments of literature. What’s more, it’s all true! It conforms to reality. It elucidates the human predicament. It explains the world. It makes sense of our lives. There’s no dimension of reality it doesn’t embrace, no sphere of human existence it doesn’t touch, no aspect of our lives it doesn’t address. Here we find clarity for our lives, direction for our activities, and hope for our future.⁵

From this ‘biography’, Purswell offers three tasks to the believer:

1. Enjoy the World (pp. 147-154)
2. Engage the World (pp. 154-161)
3. Evangelize the World (pp. 161-168)

In fairness, I need to admit that Purswell does mention the “rebellious, independent, God-rejecting mindset of those who inhabit this creation… mankind in settled opposition to God.”⁶ This is at the beginning of the ‘Enjoy the World’ section. He says “we must not share this world’s outlook, live by its values, cherish its cravings, or pursue its goals.”⁷ But he quickly turns from this small caveat and spends his time advocating for enjoyment of the physical world.

Purswell argues for enjoyment of God’s world based on two principles: (1) that creation is God’s witness to himself [general revelation], therefore as believers we should take delight in what God reveals of himself through creation; and (2) that creation is God’s gift and God intended for man to enjoy it. This should involve us, he says, in knowing God, imitating God [through creativity, arts, other activities], and delighting in God. He does make one bizarre statement in this section:

The golfer who launches a drive 350 yards down the center of the fairway reflects the prowess of Providence.⁸

Somehow I have never thought of it that way. Of course, I’ve never been able to launch a 350 yard drive, either. Maybe 10 yards! I suppose that reflects the depravity of man.

Under the header of engaging the world, he still has the physical world in mind and ties our responsibility of engagement to the dominion command in Gen 1.28. He acknowledges the distortions brought on by the fall, but insists this command remains in force, thus mandating Christians to make no distinction between “secular and sacred” and to view every activity of life in this world as an opportunity to live out God’s command. Here he says:

Our jobs aren’t something to be endured until we can really serve God (at church, on a missions trip, or until we can get a job at a Christian organization) — they are serving God! They’re a channel by which we help to fulfill the cultural mandate, contributing our gifts and labors to those of others who develop and protect God’s creation.⁹

He goes on to discuss our attitudes to work in other ways and our attitudes and service to God in our homes.

From this point, he moves to the responsibility we have of evangelizing the world. I’ll just offer a few quotes to give something of the gist of his points here:

A biblical worldview can transform evangelism from a neglected Christian duty or a mark of elite spirituality to an exhilarating privilege for every believer.¹⁰

This cosmic vantage point should bring fresh perspective and motivation to a task we often shy away from. Far from being an optional extra of the Christian life, evangelism lies at the core of God’s campaign to restore his entire creation — the reconciliation of his rebellious image bearers to himself.¹¹

Strictly speaking, evangelism is sharing the message of the gospel … our daily lives in all their variety — vocation, relationships, study, community involvement, artistic endeavors, leisure — have the potential, when pursued for God’s glory, to demonstrate something of the gospel and its effects.¹²

That last quote might seem a bit soft. He does go from there to talk about serving “the poor and underprivileged”¹³ and such talk rings warning bells for me, but he goes on to say:

Of course, such endeavors are not a substitute for the evangelistic task, although the distinction between these responsibilities is increasingly blurred in the evangelical world.¹⁴

Most fundamentalists would have little disagreement with these three points. We might be a bit leery of the danger that preoccupation with social do-goodism might have for evangelism, but the essence of the message on these points are biblical.

The last section of the chapter is called The World and the Cross. Purswell begins this section with this paragraph:

Enjoying the world, engaging the world, evangelizing the world — all are ways by which God calls us to be in the world and love the world. We receive God’s earthly gifts, pursue God’s purpose in earthly life, and work for the salvation of people made in God’s image. All of life lived for the glory of God (1 Cor 10.31).¹⁵

Well, true enough, for the most part. But we are called to be in the world? Where else would we be? We are called to love the world in some ways? Where is that in the Bible? We are called to be stewards of all that God has given us and we are called to evangelize the lost. But love the world?

And that’s not all… wasn’t this book about worldliness? Purswell himself asks that question in the next paragraph. He says that it isn’t easy to live in this world and navigate between the concerns of loving the wicked world and loving the created world (my terms). He suggests that some have “strictly spiritual preoccupations”¹⁶ who forget the “good creation to be cared for and enjoyed.”¹⁷. Others delight so much in this world and this life that they basically give no thought to spiritual things and spiritual needs and make no impact for Christ in the world.

Purswell says the apostle Paul solved living with these two polarities by focusing on the cross (Gal 6.14). He says the cross “reinterpreted his [Paul’s] past”¹⁸ and “defined his present” and “determined his future” (Phil 1.21)¹⁹. He goes on to talk about how the cross ought to tell us who we are, interpret the world we inhabit, transform the way I look at others, and give my life purpose.

This is all sort of an echo of a Mahaney theme, The Cross-Centered Life. But how does this semi-mystical approach differ significantly from those who have “strictly spiritual preoccupations”²⁰ who forget the “good creation to be cared for and enjoyed”?²¹ It is hard to see how that can be achieved. He says,  however, if we will just do this cross thing:

We won’t be enamored of a fallen world that opposes God; it is for such a world that our Savior died. Nor will we ignore the world, untouched by its God-glorifying potential or unmoved by its needs.²²

I am not sure exactly how this is supposed to happen. The magic of sanctified meditation, perhaps?

While I don’t disagree with all the concepts taught in this chapter, I find it hard to reconcile with making them the final emphasis of a book on worldliness. It is almost as if there is a sense of guilt at being so ‘hard-edged’ towards worldliness in the first five chapters. This last chapter is the feel-good chapter. It seems to say, you know, the fall was bad, but it wasn’t that bad. You can still love the world. Just don’t love the bad parts.

And in the final analysis, it seems to me that the book is highly selective when it comes to ‘the bad parts’ of the world. A line is drawn about music, for example, that eliminates vulgar language and metaphors in songs, but leaves the concept of adopting any worldly style wide open. A line is drawn about immodest dress, but ostentation is barely mentioned, and men are not in the radar at all when it comes to appearance. A line is sort of drawn about ‘stuff’ but it is kind of hazy and ill-defined. A line is drawn about movies and entertainment, and for the most part seems to be drawn well. But in the final analysis, is it merely these four categories where we find the problem of worldliness? And in these categories, if something doesn’t fall under the excluding lines, is it all good? All permissible, at least? The warnings for the most part don’t seem as sober as they should.

The Scriptures are really unequivocal about our attitude toward the world. The world is not the friend of the believer or of God. Being good stewards of the earth is not the same thing as loving the world ‘in a good sense’. Being an evangelist and loving sinners is not the same thing as loving the world in any sense.

1. pp. 139-140
2. p. 140
3. p. 26, emphasis original
4. p. 141
5. p. 147
6. p. 147
7. ibid.
8. p. 153
9. p. 157
10. pp. 161-162
11. p. 162
12. p. 166
13. p. 167
14. p. 167
15. p. 168 – note that he takes 1 Cor 10.31 out of context here, but so do many fundamentalists! [pet peeve]
16. p. 168
17. p. 169
18. p. 169
19. ibid
20. p. 168
21. p. 169
22. p. 171

A friend of mine loaned me his copy of this little book for my review. Since it is a compilation of six essays by five Sovereign Grace Ministries clergymen, I thought it best to review the book section by section. Previously: Chapter One, Chapter Two, Chapter Three, Chapter Four.

Chapter 5 is the second chapter by C. J. Mahaney himself. The subject is ‘clothes’, but primarily in the sense of modesty and primarily addressed to women.¹ The subject is important to Mahaney as is seen by two appendices, one by his wife and daughters and one apparently a policy statement for Covenant Life Church concerning making godly decisions about dress for weddings.

As far as it goes, fundamentalists can have little complaint about the main thrust and teaching of this chapter. There are some small quibbles here and there, but the general thrust of Mahaney’s message in this chapter most fundamentalists would agree with. Some would want his applications to be tighter than as described in the appendix by his wife and daughters. But the general philosophy and teaching resonates with our sensibilities.

However, there is a complaint. The complaint is that Mahaney does not go far enough and is too narrow in his focus in his discussion of worldliness as seen in the clothes women wear. I will point this out as we review the chapter.

The first major section of the chapter is called The Attitude of the Modest Woman. The discussion begins:

Any biblical discussion of modesty begins by addressing the heart, not the hemline. We must start with the attitude of the modest woman.²

Mahaney begins his discussion by defining three terms, modesty, immodesty, and self-restraint. He says these are the heart issues front and center in 1 Timothy 2.9. Here are his three short paragraphs defining these terms:

Modesty means propriety. It means avoiding clothes and adornment that are extravagant or sexually enticing. Modesty is humility expressed in dress. It’s a desire to serve others, particularly men, by not promoting or provoking sensuality.

Immodesty, then, is much more than wearing a short skirt or low-cut top; it’s the act of drawing undue attention to yourself. It’s pride, on display by what you wear.

Self-control is, in a word, restraint. Restraint for the purpose of purity; restraint for the purpose of exalting God and not ourselves. Together, these attitudes of modesty and self-control should be the hallmark of the godly woman’s dress.³

There is a lot to like in this discussion. These attitudes are reflected in the choice of clothes a woman wears. Mahaney asks several probing questions pointing at personal motivation in choosing one’s wardrobe – seeking attention? worldly approval? presence or lack of self-control? “There’s an inseparable link between your heart and your clothes. Your clothes say something about your attitude.”⁴

In discussing The Appearance of the Modest Woman some of the first quibbles appear. On p. 122, I think he misunderstands 1 Tim 2.8 which is addressed to men. He takes the phrase “without anger or quarreling” to refer to dissensions and distractions in the church service. I believe this misses the context of the passage which is one that enjoins prayer for civil authorities so that believers might have religious freedom. The “without anger or quarreling” refers, I think, to the attitude towards civil authorities, not to dissensions in the church. A minor quibble, perhaps. But he then takes the idea of dissensions in the church and applies it to his understanding of 1 Tim 2.9, due to the ‘likewise’ with which the verse begins.

It is true that the ‘likewise’ refers to Christian conduct in public, especially in the public church meeting, but I don’t get the sense that the women were distracting or quarrelling, rather they were mimicking the world and its showiness just as the men were mimicking the world and its aggressiveness.

In explaining the teaching to women in 1 Tim 2.8, Mahaney makes this statement:

[Paul] is concerned because some of them are imitating the dress and adornment of the ladies of the Roman court and prostitutes. These women were known for their expensive clothes and jewelry and elaborate hairstyles; they dressed not only to attract attention but to seduce as well.⁵

Well… I don’t think the text gives us a clue who the models for Ephesian dress were in 1 Timothy. While I am not an expert, Tom Constable in his notes cites no less than five other commentators, none of whom identify ‘rich Roman women’ or ‘prostitutes’ as models here. This is important because much of the discussion of this chapter rests on the notion that the models of dress spoken against in our passage are either showy Roman elites or immoral seductresses. And while the comments about modesty through the chapter are wise and appropriate, this unwarranted narrowing of the meaning limits the application of the passage too much, especially since Mahaney will simply dismiss the ‘showiness’ of the rich Roman elites with this:

It’s been almost two thousand years since Paul penned his letter, but 1 Timothy 2.9 remains a pastoral concern. Today, the issue is immodest and sensual clothing more than ostentatious attire. Immodest dress has greater potential for distraction in our church and in our culture.⁶

Really? Ostentation is out? Who knew?

And the great problem is ‘distraction’? Isn’t it the heart issue?

I say this to note that I do appreciate the comments in the chapter addressing immodest dress, but the commentary and discussion rest on a shaky exegetical foundation that fails to address all that the passage addresses. Tom Constable, in his summary statement about this passage says:

Perhaps Paul gave these instructions to the men (v. 8) and to the women (vv. 9–10) partially to counteract the natural (fleshly) tendencies in males and females. Most men tend to be active, so it is important that they give attention to praying, which is more contemplative than active. Women like to look good, so they need to remember that good deeds are more important than good looks.⁷

The application of the passage is far reaching indeed. It is possible to be dressed in such a way that all the ‘enticing parts’ are appropriately covered, but the clothing still says, “Look at me.” Is that not true?

But my quibble with the exegesis may be minor, because Mahaney does say, rather boldly, “The issue was — and is — clothing that associates with worldly and ungodly values; clothes that say ‘look at me’ and ‘I’m with the world.’”⁸ Exactly.

Notice, here, however, the clear notion of the world being something outside one’s self, a distinction I faulted Mahaney for not making clear in chapter 1. The inner problem of the heart is the issue, but this particular inner problem is a love affair with certain aspects of the external world system that entice my flaunting of those heart issues in public display. In line with this thought, he also says:

This truth has timeless relevance. Consider who inspires your attire. Who are you identifying with through your appearance? Who are you trying to imitated or be like in your dress? Does your hairstyle, clothing, or any aspect of your appearance reveal an excessive fascination with sinful cultural values? Are you preoccupied with looking like women at school or work or the actresses, socialites, and models on magazine covers, or the immodest woman next door? Are your role models the godly women of Scripture or the worldly women of our culture?⁹

Mahaney does make it clear that he is not opposed to women and beauty or beautifying, citing several biblical examples including Esther and her twelve months of beauty treatments (Est 2.12). This is a rather unfortunate reference, because these beauty treatments were entirely worldly, designed to make the young woman as attractive as possible for her ‘one-night stand’ with the king. His positive mention of Esther in this context caused a resounding ‘clang’ of dissonance in my mind as I read that one! Well, I don’t think women should dress as plainly as possible in pursuit of modesty, but I just wouldn’t use Esther as a biblical foundation for that notion!

In arguing for modesty, Mahaney uses the testimonies of two young men and one young woman to talk about something many women seem unaware of, the battle men fight with lust aroused by sight.¹⁰ How many times have we heard this from fundamentalist pulpits? How refreshing to hear an evangelical raise these issues!

He does make it clear that our churches should welcome the lost who come in dressed like lost people. But as such people are won to Christ, they should be lovingly discipled and taught to follow biblical standards.

Oh, did I use the ‘s’ word? (Standards!) So does Mahaney. In A Word to Fathers, he says:

We must not simply oversee our daughters’ closets; we must teach them God’s perspective of modest dress and educate them about the temptations of men. And we must have clear standards informed by Scripture, not by culture. This will make it easier for them to follow our leadership when difficult choices are necessary.¹¹

In further discussion, he offers an appropriate warning about the ‘shopping’ habits of women especially (running some risks to do so). He cites a book called The Body Project by Joan Jacobs Brumberg that looks at changes in attitudes women have developed over the last century or so. This book shows that the culture shifted from a typical young woman’s desires to develop good character to her desires for looking good. He raises these especially appropriate questions:

So, what are you consumed with — your clothing or your character? What are you known for — your good looks or your good works? If you’re a mother, what is your daughter learning from you in this regard? She’s surely studying you; as she does so, what is she learning — the latest fashions or good deeds?¹²

Well, this should be sufficient for you to get a sense of the chapter. In his concluding remarks he offers the testimonial of a girls whose mind was changed on the subject after hearing his teaching about it. He also emphasizes that there are bigger issues at stake (the gospel) than one’s own selfish desires to look good or to be trendy. All of this is appropriate and appreciated.

Overall, then, I have to rate this chapter as perhaps the second best in the book, after chapter two. Mahaney makes appropriate applications and clearly sees there is a world out there that Christians should not imitate.

My biggest criticism is that he is too narrow in his application. I mean this in two ways:

1. Men and the way they dress are also an issue. Men like to mimic the world also. Men display heart attitudes by their clothing also. Men show what they love by what they wear also. Men can be immodest and sensual in their dress also, and are increasingly becoming so in our modern age. So there needs to be some pointed application to men as well as women in a book like this.
2. Narrowing the topic merely to immodesty in the sense of sensuality is a mistake. Showiness is still a problem. Broided hair, gold, pearls, costly array… still a problem. Many women overdo their attire in church and think they are ‘modest’ because they are ‘covered’. Well… there needs to be a much broader application in a chapter like this on the whole gamut of worldliness of attire that assaults our spirits everywhere today, including addressing such things as tattoos and hairstyles as well as clothing.

But lest I be too critical, I do have to applaud C. J. Mahaney for this chapter and the forthrightness and boldness with which he makes his points and applications.

I also have to commend Caroline Mahaney and the Mahaney daughters for their Appendix A which offers women wise guidelines for establishing one’s own personal dress code. Some fundamentalists would quibble here because the Mahaney’s allow for women dressing in slacks (as I do) and because they allow for dressing in shorts (which I would have some qualms about). Nevertheless, the suggestions are wise, practical, and on the whole, godly.

There is also an Appendix B which comes from the Covenant Life Church policies on choosing good dress for weddings. This is more and more a problem in our culture and I appreciate the attempt to address the issue in a forthright and godly manner.

1. “Now, this chapter is primarily written for women, not only because that’s who 1 Timothy 2.9 addresses, but also because this is a topic of particular concern for women. p. 119
2. p. 119
3. p. 120
4. p. 121
5. p. 122, with a note indicating that this paragraph was written by Mahaney’s wife and daughters on their Girl Talk blog.
6. p. 125
7. Tom Constable, Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Galaxie Software, 2003; 2003), 1 Ti 2:9.
8. p. 123
9. p. 125 – emphasis mine
10. pp. 126-129
11. p. 131, emphasis mine
12. p. 135

A friend of mine loaned me his copy of this little book for my review. Since it is a compilation of six essays by five Sovereign Grace Ministries clergymen, I thought it best to review the book section by section. Previously: Chapter One, Chapter Two, Chapter Three.

Chapter 4 comes from the pen of Dave Harvey who serves on the leadership team of Sovereign Grace Ministries. My understanding is that he is quite close to C. J. Mahaney and also serves on the board of CCEF, among other things.

The subject of “God, My Heart, and Stuff” is materialism and covetousness. Most Bible-believing Christians would agree with most of what is said in this chapter. But I’d also have to say that this chapter may be the weakest in the book. It is not weak because of the position it takes – it is weak because it is shallow in treating a serious subject. It reminds me of certain ‘story-telling preachers’ who occupy the hall of shame in the minds of some.

For example, Harvey begins the chapter by recounting the story of the man who wants Jesus to compel his brother to divide the inheritance with him. The man speaks up (as far as we know) in the middle of a session where Jesus is speaking against the Pharisees (Lk 12.13-14). Here is Harvey’s description of the man’s interruption:

As he spoke up, many in the crowd must have wondered, ‘Who is he? Does he seek a wise saying from the Great Teacher? Some blessing perhaps? Maybe a divine healing?

‘Teacher’ the man said, ‘tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.’ (Luke 12.13)

Talk about missing your cue!¹

After mentioning Jesus’ rebuke of the man (Lk 12.15), Harvey says this:

That’s the biblical equivalent of a flag on the field. It’s meant to stop the action.²

…

Now, before we align with Team Jesus and root him on, let’s remember that we’re more similar to Mr. Oblivious than we might like to believe. ³

Perhaps I am too critical of this approach, but it this kind of ‘lightness’ is evident many times through the chapter. I am not against humor, not even in preaching, but sometimes preachers seem to be more interested in getting a laugh than in really dealing with the passages. That was the sense I got throughout the chapter.

In addition to the ‘lightness’, this chapter suffers a bit from the same problem as chapter one: a misunderstanding of worldliness itself. In other words, Harvey is shooting at our own internal lust more than he is at those lusts incorporated and inculcated into the whole way the unbelieving world works and promotes itself. Or, as one of my readers says, “the collective abandonment of unsaved individuals to … their inordinate affections to the point where it becomes a societal norm.”⁴

We see this right at the beginning of Harvey’s argument when he says:

In exposing materialism, the real issue for Christ is not the stuff around us but the stuff within. The Savior loves us so much that he comes after our coveting hearts and rescues us from the seduction of a fallen world.⁵

Well, it is true that we have a problem with covetousness within, and that the covetous within is a real problem because of the appeal of the world without. Our souls resonate with the world’s melody – we are of a piece with the world.

But consider this: is it possible to be materialistic or covetous without being particularly worldly?

• What about misers?

A miser is someone who we would agree is covetous. We’d call them materialistic, wouldn’t we? Would we think they were particularly worldly? I don’t think so, at least not the way we normally use the term.

But Harvey does score some hits on covetousness:

But covetousness is a glutton for stuff. Through covetous attractions and distractions of the heart, our stuff takes on meaning in our lives far beyond what God intends. In fact, the apostle Paul makes the point that covetousness is a form of idol worship (Eph 5.5; Col 3.5). Idolatrous cravings maneuver our hearts  away from God and affix them to things of this world.⁶

Covetousness chains the heart to things that are passing away.⁷

When we seek happiness in stuff, we find that no amount of us makes us happy. Life becomes earthbound and chained to things that are passing away.⁸

Harvey identifies four ‘chains’ of covetousness:

1. My Stuff Makes Me Happy⁹ – in this section he attacks the idea that some thing you don’t have will make you happy and complete
2. My Stuff Makes Me Important¹⁰ – in this section he addresses the idea of the possessions making a statement about who you are
3. My Stuff Makes Me Secure¹¹ – here, the idea attacked is the complacency and lack of spiritual urgency men develop if they have great possessions
4. My Stuff Makes Me Rich¹² – this last chain is a little difficult to understand. He means to say that we become controlled by the things we own, rather than the other way around. I am not sure about his label ‘my stuff makes me rich’ – it doesn’t seem to communicate what he is after (but it is parallel with the others!).

As I mentioned earlier, all of this suffers from the notion that my internal coveting machine = a form of worldliness. While my internal coveting machine is a huge problem stemming from my flesh (and could be called my infernal coveting machine), by emphasizing the internals, the external problem with the world is minimized and, at points, ignored. We see this even as Harvey turns to his suggestions for a solution.

Remember the ‘Take care’ exhortation from Jesus. How do we cherish gospel freedom while being on our guard about covetousness.¹³

Once again, the focus is internal.¹⁴

Here are Harvey’s suggestions for overcoming covetousness. We do agree with the need to overcome covetousness and I agree with most of these suggestions, but we still aren’t talking about the world, and the other weaknesses already noted are still quite evident.

• Consider your true riches¹⁵ – this includes a quote from John Owen and ‘Calvinist contemplative spirituality’ (not the emerging church kind) that is all the rage these days.
• Confess and repent¹⁶ – I really agree with this, but he spends his time talking about confession and says nothing about repentance.
• Express specific gratitude¹⁷ – in which he asserts, “This gratitude isn’t something mystical that wells up inside of us after forty days of prayer and fasting. It’s simply the obedient response of those who understand their heavenly assets.”¹⁸ I agree with this.
• De-materialize your life¹⁹ – this is real repentance. I very much agree with this. We are trying to sell our house and move. A lot of stuff has been packed away and is in storage… when we move… a lot of it needs not to come back.
• Give generously²⁰ – this is 70 times 7 repentance. We need to learn to give and to give again. John Wesley is a prime example for us in this regard.

In analyzing this, I have to agree with most of it. I’m not much into mysticism, especially not the Calvinist kind, so the first suggestion doesn’t do much for me. But the rest are good. If a man really put this into practice, I would say that the world wouldn’t have much material hold on him, so to that extent this chapter is successful.

There is a brief section (pp. 112-114)) about training your children about covetousness. There is some value to this section, but the breezy style and brief treatment only give a hint about what could have been said.

I have been critical of this chapter in the notes above. In the final analysis, I can’t be absolutely critical because I believe the attempt is sincere. However the misguided re-definition of worldliness is spiritually dangerous and the breezy style cheapens a serious subject.

UPDATE: Corrected biographical info on Dave Harvey, on the board of CCEF, not CCEL. Thanks to Greg Linscott for bringing my error to my attention.

1. pp. 91-92
2. p. 92
3. pp.92-93
4. Thanks to d4v34x, or Dave, for that – see the comments on Mahaney: “Worldliness,” chapter 1.
5. p. 94
6. p. 95
7. p. 99
8. p. 101
9. pp. 99-101
10. pp. 101-103
11. pp. 103-104
12. pp. 105-107
13. p. 107
14. And note the ‘gospel’ reference. These are the people who talk about being ‘cross-centered’, ‘gospel-centered’ and definitely not ‘man-centered.’ Yet they constantly think and talk about man. So where is the centre?
15. p. 108
16. pp. 108-109
17. pp. 109-110
18. p. 109
19. pp. 110-111
20. pp. 111-112

A friend of mine loaned me his copy of this little book for my review. Since it is a compilation of six essays by five Sovereign Grace Ministries clergymen, I thought it best to review the book section by section. Previously: Chapter One, Chapter Two.

The third chapter of the book is written by Bob Kauflin, director of worship development for Sovereign Grace Ministries and pastor and worship leader of Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

I was forewarned by friends and other reviews that I would not like the music chapter by Bob Kauflin. As I read, I tried to be objective and read without a prejudicial spirit (how easy is that?). I have to say, to summarize briefly, I found many commendable thoughts in this chapter as well as a distinct difference. The distinct difference is to be expected given our differing philosophies of music and ministry, but the commendable thoughts encourage me that all is not lost in the thinking of men like Bob Kauflin. I think his views are not so far off mine except for the one sticking point, the distinct difference.

First, we have to say that it is commendable to address music in a book on worldliness. Many people do not take the more conservative view of music for which fundamentalists are known. Many of these simply dismiss the notion that music needs to be on the table in discussions about worldliness. To them, music is not an issue and anything goes. The only concession they might make is when lyrics are explicitly pornographic or rebellious or the like. But they absolutely maintain that music isn’t a matter of worldliness and shouldn’t be up for discussion.

Bob Kauflin isn’t in this category. His discussion really begins when he says:

Music can be more dangerous than most of us realize. It has the potential to harden our hearts and weaken our faith. In fact, a wise Christian understands that listening to music without discernment and godly intent reveals a heart willing to flirt with the world.¹

Now he also does say, at the outset, “no single genre of music is better than the rest in every way.”² He quotes Harold Best to the effect that classical culture or primitive culture are all one, and the music of any culture reflects the diversity of God’s glory. Quite frankly, such an assumption is culturally naïve. It is an essential flaw of thinking that contributes to the distinct difference I mention above. Some cultures are so thoroughly pagan that they are incapable of expressing themselves without the taint of their lusts imbuing every form of art they produce. Is it the ‘image of God’ they produce in their art? Well, maybe, but in a very perverted and corrupted form. We shouldn’t assume that any genre, or any culture, is spiritually neutral and therefore appropriate for glorifying God.

Kauflin argues that melody, harmony, and rhythm have no moral value by themselves and are “incapable of lying to us or commanding us to do wrong.”³ He says that music can’t teach us theological truth, which is true, but  no one is contending that it does… making this argument a bit of a straw man. He does say, in contrast, that “music affects our emotions in profound ways”⁴ noting that there are significant bodily effects from music as well as spiritual effects. This is the paradox of the chapter – on the one hand, we find Kauflin trying to maintain the distinct difference, but on the other, we find him acknowledging many of the arguments fundamentalists make concerning music.

For example, consider this statement:

The passions music draws out range from noble to base, from simple to complex, from God-glorifying to sensual. That’s why people who write advertising jingles, pop songs, and film scores can make a decent living. They know music speaks powerfully to our emotions. Most of us are touched by the music we hear, even when we’re unaware of it. In fact, sometimes we realize how music is affecting us only when we notice it’s not playing anymore.⁵

Exactly.

Kauflin says the reasons music affects us in this way are various. One is “learned musical principles”.⁶ I think he would say these vary over cultures. Also, he says, “attentiveness” makes a difference on musical effect. That is, music affects us more when we are paying attention to it. (I suppose that goes without saying.) He suggests a few other reasons that music affects us, but then says “no aspect of music affects us more than the things we associate with it.”⁷ He uses the metaphor of infectious disease, saying that because of ‘associations’ music is a ‘carrier’ of positive or negative influences. “And if we don’t realize what music is ‘carrying,’ worldly attitudes and desires can influence and affect our unsuspecting hearts.”⁸

Associations, according to Kauflin, make music a carrier through three elements: “content, context, and culture.”⁹ By content, Kauflin means the lyrics.¹⁰ By context, he means “the environments we connect with music — the places, events, and people that surround the music we listen to on a regular basis.”¹¹ By culture, he means “the values we connect with music” which vary over time and differ from group to group.¹² We’ll look at each of these categories in a bit more detail.

Content

Kauflin insists that when it comes to the lyrics, Phil 4.8 is an absolute standard for what music should lead us to think about. He says, “When I don’t even consider ungodly lyrical content in the songs I listen to, I’m allowing music to seduce me.”¹³ He notes that Christians can sing about being delivered from sin on Sunday morning, then remain enslaved to lyrics that promote those very sins through the rest of the week.¹⁴ Ungodly lyrics will have an effect on our spirits even if, as some claim, ‘I don’t listen to the words’.

Over time the lyrics to songs can weaken our defenses, blur our discernment, and redirect our affections toward the world. Listening to music is never neutral, because our sinful hearts are involved.

Drift won’t happen right away. And you probably won’t even notice it. … I’ve known guys who work out to songs with angry, profane lyrics because they say the music motivates them to push themselves harder. One day they find themselves singing along to words they used to tune out, words they would be embarrassed to repeat in the presence of their parents or a pastor.

Music with ungodly lyrics can persuade us to love things we wouldn’t ordinarily love.¹⁵

Fundamentalists will find much agreement with Kauflin in this section on the content of musical lyrics. Ungodly lyrics are a real problem.

It is interesting to notice, though, that in this section Kauflin uses the illustration about a king hiring a carriage driver and asking the candidates how close can they drive to a cliff. The wise ‘young fundamentalists’ laugh at us older fogies when we use the illustration. I wonder what they think of Kauflin using it?

Context

In this section, Kauflin maintains that past bad contexts for even Christian hymns can affect our feelings about a particular piece of music. He illustrates by a story where a man was saved out of Satanism having an attack of conscience when hearing a piece of music by J. S. Bach because of its similarity to music he heard in the Satanic cult. While I acknowledge that such contexts can cause individual believers some problems, the problem in this case is a mis-informed conscience, not an actual problem with the music.

Kauflin makes a point about the context of music being dangerous by saying “If you attend concerts or events where the artists or the crowd intentionally promote sensuality, godlessness, or rebellion, you’re flirting with the world. And you might not even be aware of it.”¹⁶ This is true, but it isn’t merely the association that is the problem. I doubt that such concerts are ones where J. S. Bach is being performed! He goes on to illustrate by mentioning Christian young people who “become attracted to a particular music group or style” who then start to “frequent clubs, bars, and concerts” to “fulfill their musical appetite”.¹⁷ “Over time their wardrobe, mannerisms, and attitudes changed to reflect their new influences.”¹⁸ The illustration supports fundamentalist contentions about style itself, I think.

Culture

In speaking of culture, Kauflin advances his notion that the culture of music varies and thus the ‘meaning’ of a particular piece of music changes as culture changes. I have heard others make this point, but I am not sure I agree with it. He speaks about songs that might have been considered ‘evil’ in the 50s and 60s, but “Many of these songs are now connected to a movie, a commercial, or a product rather than a rebellious generation. What they ‘mean’ has changed along with their cultural associations.”¹⁹ He says:

Culture isn’t the same as worldliness. … But worldliness — self-exalting opposition to God — is present in every culture and can be found in anything associated with the music we listen to: packaging, advertisements, pictures, and web sites, as well as musical artist’s clothing, attitudes, and interviews.²⁰

Well, we agree on this point. However, since Kauflin is committed to the notion that genre or style is neutral, he means mostly secular music requires discernment with respect to culture. He refuses to connect his warnings about attitudes or rebelliousness to particular styles of music.

At this point, maybe you’d like me to suggest a list of artists or music styles that every Christian should either pursue or avoid. Sorry, but that list doesn’t exist. And if it did, I’m not convinced it would be helpful. What’s appropriate for one person to listen to might be sin for someone else because of the differing associations we make. We rarely hear music in a vacuum. Depending on the state of our hearts, any song we hear is a potential carrier of worldly values and perspectives.²¹

Well, to say that I profoundly disagree with this viewpoint would be an understatement! Here lies the distinct difference between us.

Rather than a list, I offer you two questions.

First, does the music you listen to lead you to love the Savior more or cause your affections for Christ to diminish?

Second, does your music lead you to value an eternal perspective or influence you to adopt the mindset of this ‘present evil age’?

Subjectivism reigns!

Kauflin moves on from his discussion of associations to signs that you might already be compromised by the world through the music you listen to:

• “You seldom or never use Scripture to evaluate your decisions about music.”²²
• “Your music listening is characterized by objectionable content or ungodly contexts.”²³
• “Your priorities and schedule revolve around music.”²⁴
• “Your passion for Christ has waned; your passion for music hasn’t.”²⁵

In concluding this section, he makes a really remarkable statement:

When the music we listen to glories in what should shame us and directs our minds to earthly things, we’re being more than unwise. We’re exposing ourselves to a message associated with the enemies of the cross — the cross that purchased our forgiveness and freed us from the bondage of our sinful desires.²⁶

We can say, “Amen!” to most of the material in this section, keeping in mind the distinct difference.

The last section of the chapter turns to Kauflin’s advice for believers going forward. What should we then do? Here are his suggestions:

• Evaluate your intake of music.²⁷
• Delete or throw away music you’ll listen to only if you backslide.²⁸
• Listen to music with others.²⁹
• Make music rather than listen to it.³⁰
• Go on a music fast.³¹
• Keep track of how much music you buy.³²
• Broaden your musical tastes.³³
• Listen to old music.³⁴
• Intentionally thank God every time you enjoy music.³⁵

I find these suggestions to be of uneven value. Some of them seem rather weak to me. And all of them suffer from our distinct difference, the question of style. Both Kauflin and I could employ these suggestions, but we will arrive in different places because he thinks style is neutral while I do not.

In the final analysis, I think Kauflin’s contribution to the topic is interesting and partly helpful. Many of the things he says should be applied to the question of style as well. I think he is wrong to suggest that style doesn’t carry inherent meaning. Some of the things he says in the chapter (see some of the quotes I highlight above) suggest that he instinctively knows this. He is just in denial because he wants to approve worldly styles that Sovereign Grace Music employs. (That’s my opinion, I am sure Bob Kauflin would hotly contest it!)

He closes the chapter with these words, words I think highly appropriate for evaluating everything about music, including style:

That means music is no longer ours to use however we want. It never was. It was never meant to provide what can be found only in a relationship with the Savior.

Music is a precious gift, but it makes a terrible god.

By God’s grace, may we always know the difference.³⁶

1. p. 71, emphasis his
2. p. 70
3. p. 71
4. p. 71
5. p. 72
6. p. 72
7. p. 73
8. p. 73
9. p. 73
10. p. 73
11. p. 77
12. p. 79
13. p. 74
14. p. 74
15. p. 75 — It is interesting that again we have the idea of ‘drift’ … the slippery slope. When fundamentalists use concepts like this, they are laughed to scorn.
16. pp. 77-78
17. p. 78
18. p. 78
19. p. 79
20. p. 79
21. pp. 80-81
22. p. 81 – but he maintains that Scripture does not address style
23. p. 82 – here he acknowledges that music informs our view of the world
24. p. 83 – here he suggests that time and money spent can reveal idolatrous attitudes in the heart
25. p. 84 – here he suggests that music can actually seduce a Christian away from their initial attraction to Christ
26. p. 84
27. p. 85
28. p. 85
29. p. 85 – by this he means that your understanding and appreciation of musical nuances can be aided and informed by the reactions and comments of others
30. p. 86
31. p. 86
32. p. 87
33. p. 87
34. p. 87
35. p. 88
36. p. 89