Now when the angel greets Mary, he says: “Greetings to you, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.” Well up to this point, this has simply been translated from the simple Latin, but tell me is that good German? Since when does a German speak like that—being "full of grace"? One would have to think about a keg "full of" beer or a purse "full of" money. So I translated it: "You gracious one". This way a German can at last think about what the angel meant by his greeting. Yet the papists rant about me corrupting the angelic greeting—and I still have not used the most satisfactory German translation. What if I had used the most satisfactory German and translated the salutation: "God says hello, Mary dear" (for that is what the angel was intending to say and what he would have said had he even been German!). If I had, I believe that they would  have hanged themselves out of their great devotion to dear Mary and because I have destroyed the greeting.

Bro. Martin is arguing against a charge that he mistranslated Rm 3.28 by adding in the word ‘alone’ to modify ‘faith’ where it says:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Martin’s point is that in translating, getting the meaning is more important than seeking a word-for-word correspondence. (He also says something to this effect, ‘If the papists don’t like my translation, let them write one of their own.’ He says this in a characteristically Martin-esque way.)

His letter is instructive and something that all of us concerned with the Bible and its translation should bear in mind. And it is entertaining to read at certain points!

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

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.

The second chapter is written by Craig Cabaniss, pastor of Grace Church in Frisco, TX at the time of publication.

Any publication that is the compilation of more than one author will almost inevitably suffer from uneven quality. It is the rare book that will find all authors of such a work putting forth a cohesive work of exceptional quality. (Occasionally a group of writers can collaborate on a total stinker, but we digress!)

The second chapter of Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World is, in my view, an excellent treatment of the subject. I thought the first chapter had some weaknesses, but none of these carry over into the second chapter.

The second chapter focuses on ‘television and film media’¹ but acknowledges the principles will apply more broadly than that narrow focus. Cabaniss says:

If we’re faithfully to resist the ever-present ‘desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions,’ we’ll need to sharpen our biblical discernment and wisely evaluate our media intake, for the glory of God.²

Sharp-eyed readers might notice that the quotation from 1 Jn 2.16 here comes from the ESV rather than the NIV that C. J. Mahaney was working from in the first chapter. The ESV is the default version of the book, Mahaney’s use of the NIV is a distinct choice to use a different version. No reasons are given for the choice, but the NIV is clearly inferior to the ESV in this verse.

Cabaniss starts his argument by saying, “Many of us don’t think about actively filtering our viewing. As long as we avoid the obvious traps of pornography, we don’t consider deliberate evaluation necessary.”³ This observation is very important. The modern church seems to be of the mind that if the Scripture does not directly address the morality of our ‘media consumption’, almost anything is fair game. Fundamentalists used to criticize evangelicals for this approach, but many wishing to retain the fundamentalist label today seem to adopt this same approach.

Cabaniss criticizes a ‘lifestyle of careless viewing’⁴ that leads to an inevitable ‘drift toward worldliness’.⁵ He notes the powerful influence of visual media and cautions against the naiveté of Christians who assume they are beyond its power.

Lest someone accuse him of legalism, Cabaniss points out that the problem with standards or rules of behaviour is not the rules themselves, but the motivation behind the rules. If we are seeking to gain God’s favour, we are attempting to sanctify ourselves by law – legalism. But if we are setting standards to guard our hearts and glorify God, we are walking as wise servants of God. His whole discussion of legalism is fairly reasonable.⁶

Cabaniss advocates the concept of Coram Deo, or ‘before the face of God’ as a guide to our use of media.⁷ The idea is that we live in the presence of God and the fear of God is our starting place when it comes to use of media. He uses Ephesians 5.1-14 as a main text in guiding our decision making with respect to living accountably before God. He says that this passage guides our thinking about what is pleasing and displeasing to God. He makes a strong statement about television programs based on Eph 5.3, which reads in the NIV to say “there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality…” Of this, he says:

It’s hard to imagine a stronger statement than ‘not even a hint.’ Not even a hint of immorality. Not even a hint of impurity. Not even a hint of greed. I wonder how our viewing habits would be adjusted if this verse was constantly scrolled across the bottom of our television screens like the CNN news headlines.⁸

He says:

We take part in ‘the unfruitful works of darkness’ when entertaining ourselves with things our holy God despises.

In response to the question, ‘how far do we take this?’ Cabaniss does allow that some art can depict a storyline that includes immorality in such a way that it doesn’t titillate. There is no graphic depiction of immoral acts, for example, but the suggestion that they are part of the story. But still, he insists, we must ask how impurity is represented when making discerning choices. Is impurity thought of as good? As costing nothing? As un-damaging to those involved? We need to be sober about these things.

Cabaniss goes on to address the kind of language used in media and by many in today’s culture (especially, he says, “among young adults”).⁹ While he concedes that merely cleaning up one’s language is no necessary mark of holiness, still, he insists, “words matter.”¹⁰ He cites Ephesians 5.4 here and the foolish talk that is the vocabulary of so many.

If we’re forbidden to speak with filthiness and crude sexual humor, we’re equally prohibited from listening to it when we have a choice. Just because we don’t personally tell obscene jokes, we’re not off the hook when we plop down our cash at the box office and hire someone to entertain us on the big screen with gratuitous immoral humor.¹¹

One of the most valuable parts of this chapter are a list of ‘discernment questions’ offered on pp. 57-59. Cabaniss has three categories under which his questions fall: “Time Questions” (use of time), “Heart Questions”, and “Content Questions”. One example of each:

• Am I skipping or delaying something important in order to watch this now?¹²
• Why do I want to watch this program or film? What do I find entertaining about it?¹³
• What worldview or philosophy of life does this program or film present? What’s the view of man’s nature? What’s the view of sin? Is sin identified as such? What’s the view of God-ordained authority figures? And how do these views relate to God’s view?¹⁴

As he closes the chapter he offers three suggestions to guide our viewing of media:

1. View Proactively – essentially, be ready to turn it off¹⁵
2. View Accountably – make our viewing habits accountable to someone else¹⁶
3. View Gratefully – seek out entertainment that is commendable and directs our minds towards God¹⁷

On “View Accountably”, I would suggest that this is perhaps a weakness that is contained in many popular writings on spiritual living these days. I find that ‘accountability’ as it is taught today is a kind of legalism. We need to learn to walk in the Spirit, not in the flesh, and it does seem that an ‘accountability partner’ is a fleshly means to a spiritual end. I am afraid it will only result in defeats and failure since sin is aroused by law (Rm 7.5). Still, I can see some use for accountability, especially as someone is sincerely trying to develop spiritual habits. It shouldn’t be considered a ‘cure-all’ however.

Cabaniss closes his chapter by saying:

While I’m optimistic about the possibility of watching for the glory of God, I’m also realistic about life in the mediasphere. For most of us, applying biblical discernment and viewing with discretion will mean watching less than we currently do. …

Many of us could use a vacation from viewing, some rest and relaxation from the constant distraction of entertainment media. Dropping the remote and getting off the sofa won’t guarantee we’ll escape worldly drift, but it’s a step in the right direction.

All in all, I would have to commend this chapter. If it is available as a standalone handout, I’d be happy to give this to anyone in my church. Cabaniss does an excellent job here and presents wise counsel for guiding our use of entertainment media.

1. p. 39
2. p. 39
3. p. 39
4. p. 40
5. p. 42
6. pp. 44-45
7. pp. 46ff.
8. p. 51
9. p. 54
10. p. 54
11. p. 55
12. p. 57
13. p. 58
14. p. 58
15. pp. 60-62
16. pp. 63-65
17. pp. 65-67

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.

The foreword is written by John Piper. In the forward, he makes the statement “What does it look like when the blood of Christ governs the television and the Internet and the iPod and the checkbook and the neckline? Most people have never even asked this question, let alone answered it. The only way most folks know how to draw lines is with rulers. The idea that lines might come into being freely and lovingly (and firmly) as the fruit of the gospel is rare. That’s why this book is valuable.” (p. 11)

The rest of the foreword is of little note, but this statement reflects the horror of ‘drawing lines’ found in most evangelical circles. The statement, as it stands, is basically nonsensical. I think that I get what Piper is after – we are not under the Law, but under grace. But there is a line. It isn’t drawn by a ruler, at least a not a man-made one. It is the rule of the revealed will of God, found in the Bible (and to some extent in nature, see Rm 1.26, 2.14, 27, 1 Cor 11.14). But we do understand that the New Testament attribute of godliness is adopted by a heart that orients itself properly to God, then applies itself to conforming to God’s expectations (rules), and not the other way around. This understanding is, I think, what evangelicals like Piper are after in statements like this, but the way they are stated express their seemingly instinctive abhorrence of the “R” word (“rules”). It weakens their arguments for godliness and opposition to worldliness, I believe, because it encourages a ‘shrinking back’ from the very expressions of godliness that God expects.

The first chapter of the volume is by C. J. Mahaney, pope of Sovereign Grace Ministries. The chapter has commendable points and raises issues that many evangelicals rarely, if ever, voice (at least from my perspective). So I commend Mahaney for raising these issues and being as forthright as he is. I think his chapter is handicapped by a significant error, but let’s commend him for the good he accomplishes along the way.

Mahaney begins with the story of Thomas Jefferson and his pen-knife. Jefferson famously compiled his own Bible, picking out basically those teachings of Jesus of which he approved. He felt quite comfortable ignoring much of the Bible. Mahaney makes the point that many who have whole Bibles in fact are operating as if they have their own custom Bibles after the manner of Jefferson because they ignore ‘inconvenient truths’ they find therein (my term). The verse that is the object of the question found in the chapter title and Mahaney’s Jefferson illustration is 1 Jn 2.15, “Love not the world”. He does a good job challenging the reader to think about this passage and applying it to daily life. He uses Demas as a warning illustration of the dangers of ignoring the verse (I think he might read a bit more into the story of Demas than the Bible provides, but the points he makes here are sound regardless). He notes (pp. 21-23) that the evangelical mindset is softening towards things of the world, noting, “The greater our difference from the world, the more true our testimony for Christ — and the more potent our witness against sin. But sadly, today, there’s not much difference. The lines have blurred. The lack of clarity between the church and the world has undercut our testimony for Christ and undermined our witness against sin.” (p. 23) I would say, “Amen!” to that! Amazingly, Mahaney even uses the words “slippery slope” to express his concern about the softening evangelical testimony — doesn’t he know that there is no such thing as slippery slopes? How gauche of him!

Mahaney’s definition of the world we are not to love is:

“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. Humanity at enmity with God.”¹

He defines worldliness this way:

“Worldliness, then, is a love for this fallen world. It’s loving the values and pursuits of the world that stand opposed to God. More specifically, it is to gratify and exalt oneself to the exclusion of God. It reject’s God’s rule and replaces it with our own (like creating our own Bibles). It exalts our opinions above God’s truth. It elevates our sinful desires for the things of this fallen world above God’s commands and promises.”²

The definition is acceptable in its first two sentences, but as he gets ‘more specific’, he veers off into a different idea entirely, the idea of idolatry. The problem with worldliness isn’t simply ‘idolizing’ things in the world, but adopting the values and pursuits of the world as if they are legitimate (godly) values and pursuits for a Christian. Hopefully I will be able to make this distinction clear as we go along in this review.

Mahaney is correct when he says, “[Worldliness] exists in our hearts. Worldliness does not consist in outward behavior, though our actions can certainly be evidence of worldliness within. But the real location of worldliness is internal.”³ As he tries to explain this, however, he moves to 1 Jn 2.16, as he should, but he is using the NIV which I think leads him astray in his thinking. This is how the NIV translates the familiar 1 Jn 2.16:

NIV 1 John 2:16 For everything in the world–the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does–comes not from the Father but from the world.

Compare this with the KJV and the NAU:

KJV 1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

NAU 1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.

The first and third phrases in the NIV are quite distorted from the original.

Mahaney quotes David Powlison on this, who, he says, is paraphrasing Calvin. “The evil in our desires often lies not in what we want, but in the fact that we want it too much.”⁴ Mahaney proceeds to give his version of the same quote: “The ‘cravings of sinful man’ are legitimate desires that have become false gods we worship. It’s wanting too much the things of this fallen world.”⁵

This, in a nutshell, is where Mahaney’s chapter begins to be lacking. Earlier, he had correctly talked about the world as “the organized system of human civilization that is actively hostile to God and alienated from God.”⁶ But now, he speaks as if the problem is not with the things we want, but with the way we want them.

David Powlison and his cohorts talk a lot about idolatry, and their ideas find a ready voice in Mahaney, who is quite close to Powlison, et al. The concerns they raise are often worthy concerns. Idolatry is certainly a problem in the human spirit. But the problem with worldliness isn’t simply with how you crave for things, but with what you crave for. Those things are ‘the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life’. These are things in the world we are not to love because they are evil in themselves.

The flaw in Mahaney’s argument is that he makes worldliness out to be the evil that is within. The real danger of worldliness is the attractive evil that is without.

Mahaney’s mistake is evident when he goes on to refer to ‘sexual sin’ as something included in the second category, ‘the lust of his eyes’. Most commentators, I think, usually refer to sexual sin under ‘the lust of the flesh’, the first category of 1 Jn 2.16. But since Mahaney appears to be confused about the meaning of these phrases by the error in the NIV, he mentions it in connection with the second category, warning his readers not to limit ‘the lust of his eyes’ to merely sexual sin.

You can see this expressed as he tries to make application:

“If you’re more excited about the release of a new movie or video game than about serving in the local church, if you’re drawn to people more because of their physical attractiveness or personality than their character, if you’re impressed by Hollywood stars or professional athletes regardless of their lack of integrity or morality, then you’ve been seduced by this fallen world.”⁷

You see, he is making the problem out to be an inappropriateness in your desires, not an inappropriateness in the object of your desires. (Inappropriateness in your desires is a problem. But it isn’t worldliness.) Worldliness is loving a world that is evil in itself and opposed to God.

The fact is that in many, many cases, there is something wrong with the new movie or video game that makes it inappropriate as an object of Christian affection. Perhaps we should say in ‘most’ or ‘almost all’ cases! There is something wrong with the ‘star’ mentality the world promotes, Christians shouldn’t be impressed with Hollywood stars or athletes at all.

Well, we could go on. Do you see what I am saying?

As Mahaney moves to the third category of 1 Jn 2.16, he talks about boasting. But he speaks of it in such a way as to be describing simple pride, a notable sin to be sure, but it isn’t the hubris of the world as the world that he is talking about.

Again, the mistakes Mahaney makes here seem to be the consequence of relying too heavily on the NIV in this passage. The way he handles the passage makes me wonder if he is aware of the underlying Greek. He doesn’t engage with it all and thus appears blissfully unaware of the real issues of the passage. Not that one must be seminary trained to be in the ministry, but this may be an evidence of his lack of training. What is surprising in this connection is the number of well-educated evangelicals who endorse his book. But, as evangelicals, I don’t expect them to engage carefully with this text either. They may not view the world positively, but their tendency is to view the world at least ‘neutrally. The Bible views the world negatively, and the Christian must be on guard against it.

Finally, as Mahaney comes to his conclusion in this chapter, he advocates that the solution is “the cross of Jesus Christ.”⁸ His solution is to replace the world with meditation on the cross. This is very Piper-esque, and the current rage and all that, but I think it is an anemic and indefinite response.

What is needed instead of worldliness is ordinate affections – loving the things God loves – and godliness – a sense of the terror of the Lord that governs the heart and mind. We won’t achieve these ends by merely keeping rules, but we must cultivate a love for things that God loves in order to overcome the love of the world. Mere mystical meditation on the cross is insufficient to overcome a skewed value system. We need to replace the spirit of the world with the spirit of Christ – the values of the world with the values of God.

In conclusion, I appreciate the desire of C. J. Mahaney to address this subject. It is a start. But there are some fatal flaws in the argument and I think some worldly Christians can read this chapter and remain in their worldliness.

1. p. 26, emphasis his
2. p. 27, emphasis his
3. p. 29, emphasis his
4. Powlison, quoted on p. 30
5. p. 30
6. p. 26
7. p. 31
8. p. 34

quoted by Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 100, 399 (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1943), 389.

“‘Even though an angel from heaven preach unto you any other Gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.’ It was not enough for the preservation of the faith once delivered to have referred to man; he must needs comprehend angels also. ‘Though we,’ he says, ‘or an angel from heaven.’ Not that the holy angels of heaven are now capable of sinning. But what he means is: Even if that were to happen which cannot happen, – if any one, be he who he may, attempt to alter the faith once for all delivered, let him be accursed.”

Vincent of Lerins , “A Commonitory For The Antiquity And Universality Of The Catholic Faith Against The Profane Novelties Of All Heresies,” in The Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. C. A. Heurtley, electronic ed. (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 2000), 8.22.