# Culture and Worldliness



## Kiffin (May 7, 2010)

In connection with the New Calvinist thread, I believe it is necessary to start a new thread defining terms. It seems to me that good men and women misuse the terms _worldliness_ and _culture_ by making them synonymous. I would argue that they are not.

Straight from one of my Christian anthropologies, “Culture is the total way of life of a group of people that Is learned, shared, adaptive, and integrated.” Another way to put it is that culture is a learned hermeneutical process that is used to interpret one’s surroundings and proceeds to generate behavior.

For example, some here in America when they see a jumping grasshopper or a beetle of some sort, will view it simply as an insect and will find it disgusting if one of them would make it into their house—if this were to happen, they would shoe it out, or kill it. In Thailand, or some other Southeast Asian country, some will view the sight of an insect as potential lunch. Who is wrong? I would say nobody. They just have different ways of implementing their hermeneutic. When these two cultures cross paths, they both need to exercise grace towards one another—either by1) not eating grasshoppers in front of them who would find it disgusting or 2) for the other group to not make it obvious that they are grossed out.

The examples can go on and on. Culture is the way we view and interpret music, dress, food, transportation, education, language, government, area of living, etc. Can one’s culture be sinful? Of course. Especially here in the States where sex may be interpreted as “something that we can do before marriage” by some. That would be sin! Sin is sin across cultures—lying, pre and extra-marital sex, stealing, murder, and so on.

I would define _worldliness _as sinful motivations behind an action or actual sinful actions themselves. Committing sin is worldliness (sins defined in the Bible—lying, stealing, etc). Buying a car isn’t necessarily a sin, but its motivation can be! Greed, jealousy, covetousness are sins that could have been committed by the buyer—thus he could have partook in worldliness when he bought the car. All cultures can practice worldliness. But participating in a culture is not necessarily participating in worldliness. We all have a culture. Nobody is cultureless. The way we interpret things isn’t necessarily the same as your neighbor. Let’s exercise grace my brethren.

Ok that’s it for now. What thinkest ye?


----------



## py3ak (May 7, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> I would define _worldliness _as sinful motivations behind an action or actual sinful actions themselves. Committing sin is worldliness (sins defined in the Bible;lying, stealing, etc).


 
If you make _sin_ and _worldliness_ synonymous then it seems you lose any distinct advantage from employing multiple terms. I would think of worldliness more as a sinful mindset that exposes you to easy domination from certain sins. 
Thinking about worldliness in Scripture, my impression is that it's condemned on the grounds of perishability, vanity and corruption. In other words, we should not love the world ("love" and "world" being defined in such a way as to conflict with the love of the Father) because it is fleeting, because it is unfruitful, and because it is filthy.

This is an important question: no Christian can deny that we are not to be conformed to this world, but rather to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. So what the world is, and what conformity to the world is, are matters of vital importance.


----------



## Kiffin (May 7, 2010)

py3ak said:


> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> > I would define _worldliness _as sinful motivations behind an action or actual sinful actions themselves. Committing sin is worldliness (sins defined in the Bible;lying, stealing, etc).
> ...



I'm not sure where we disagree. If we take on your definition, culture and worldliness remain distinct from one another. Would you agree?


----------



## py3ak (May 7, 2010)

I didn't say we did disagree, except that I think that "sinful" and "worldly" can't be entirely overlapping categories. Of course worldliness and culture are distinct; it isn't, after all, intrinsically sinful to speak English.


----------



## KMK (May 7, 2010)

I like John Owen's line that Rev Winzer quoted in the other thread: 

Worldliness is "living affections to dying things."


----------



## MW (May 7, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> Can one’s culture be sinful? Of course.


 
On the other thread you claimed that abstention from culture was impossible. Here you claim a culture can be sinful. But if a culture can be sinful then abstention from that sinful culture is mandatory on the Christian. I think you are maintaining some confusing categories and definitions.

Culture is not simply interpretation, although that will play an important part in one's involvement. Culture refers to development and improvement. It is the way man acts organically in relation to people, things, and facts; what may be called the stuff of creation. As such, "culture" is never neutral.

You seem to be carrying on the idea of hand in glove. Culture is the glove and the moral entity is the person who fills it. This itself is based on a deception. It makes culture something which the moral entity happens to fill. So man just happens to have this world around him and is forced by some law of necessity to be involved in it. That is evolutionary theory. The biblical view is that man is the organism and culture is the organisation which develops from himself. As such, culture is always a moral undertaking. Every aspect of culture is therefore susceptible of moral evaluation.


----------



## jayce475 (May 7, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> In connection with the New Calvinist thread, I believe it is necessary to start a new thread defining terms. It seems to me that good men and women misuse the terms _worldliness_ and _culture_ by making them synonymous. I would argue that they are not.
> 
> Straight from one of my Christian anthropologies, “Culture is the total way of life of a group of people that Is learned, shared, adaptive, and integrated.” Another way to put it is that culture is a learned hermeneutical process that is used to interpret one’s surroundings and proceeds to generate behavior.
> 
> ...


 
Much of what you are saying is entirely reasonable. The issue at hand is where the two overlap. We cannot take a certain aspect of Black American/Australian Aboriginal/Asian Chinese/Anglo-Saxon/Middle Eastern Muslim/Modern American culture that is clearly not sinful like languages (as seen in Acts 2) and say that we can engage in this culture without practising carnal worldliness. Much of every single culture is depraved and we ought to be very careful about how we engage them. I would agree in your example, there is a necessity to practise grace and it is entirely harmless (you make South East Asians sound like we eat everything though). That is one aspect of culture. You've listed other aspects such as " music, dress, food, transportation, education, language, government, area of living". Let's break them down.

Music: We've debated this to death. Clearly we differ. Probably in terms of both everyday music and that which is suitable for worship. The same applies for all forms of entertainment. Much of entertainment is based on self-gratification that shuts God out of one's sight and needs to be engaged with extreme precaution if one ever sees a genuine need to do so.

Dress: Modesty in dressing within every single culture needs to striven for. People from both cultures that are interacting need to dress in such a way that is not considered immodest in the other culture (and that includes dressing up and dressing down). If you come over to Australia and wear sandals to church, nobody will mind and no one considers it irreverential as long as we're not that shabbily dressed. If one of another church background comes and claims to be seriously stumbled by it, then the congregation will need to dress up for the sake of this person. The chasing of worldly fashions is however bringing things too far and making an idol out of clothing.

Food: Same principle applies. Clear biblical guidelines are provided on food. The idolatry of food in that I get over here in Australia, as well as in Singapore, borders on the ridiculous though. If a person drives for a few hours to go to a particular restaurant at the expense of any more useful activity, the food consumes him. 

Language: Not inherently sinful, though different languages came about as a result of sin. However, if you are talking about the broader concept of communication, it is not so clear cut. I treat communication disorders and have come to realize that there needs to be sensitivity applied when people communicate, especially when it comes to pragmatics, vocabulary selection and non-verbals. We need to employ communication in such a way that both parties are not offended.

Transportation and area of living: Erm, how are these really cultural? Perhaps I'm a bit dense. Anyway, if they are, they are not inherently worldly. Unless you are talking about really exceptional cases like choosing which community to live in (Catholic or Protestant) within Northern Ireland.

Government: This is a non-issue. We pray for wisdom and try to vote in the most godly government we can in accordance to biblical principles, but once they are in, we always submit. Regardless of whether one is a Christian in Greece or Indonesia, he has to submit to the authorities.

Education: There are many reasons for why many conservative Christians do home-schooling. I am not familiar with the in-and-outs of this and have always been schooled in secular institutions. Others may shed some light on this.

How about we look at some other little stuff that I have come across over the years in my Asian culture.

Incense: Some Chinese are adamant that they should be allowed to offer incense to their ancestors. This is intrinsically linked to paganistic ideas of ancestor worship, but many claim that they can do it without actually worshipping their ancestors, and that they are merely making it a show of respect. This issue comes up in every single funeral of a non-Christian Chinese person in Singapore. 

Hand clasped: Over in Thailand, many Christians clasp their hands while praying and worshipping. This hand gesture has its roots in Buddhism and there are some who contend that believers should not use them. 

Chinese martial arts and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM): Much like Yoga, some portions of TCM and most branches of martial arts have spiritual underpinnings that are clearly non-Christian and possibly even satanic. Should TCM be used as long as we in our minds ignore the spiritual aspects of it? Should Chinese martial arts be considered acceptable as long as we don't become a Taoist or Buddhist convert because of it, notwithstanding that I would have to fill my mind with thoughts that are ungodly and say some chants? "It's all in the heart isn't it? As long as I believe in Jesus Christ in my heart, why be so particular about the externals? TCM heals people and martial arts are just so cool. How dare those legalistic people tell me that they're not good!" That's what some have presented to me. Many churches in China and Singapore offer TCM and Chinese martial arts are church ministries.

In conclusion, not all aspects of culture are the same. To simply say that we can engage in culture without taking a step back and looking at how the bible calls for us to practise biblical separation. The main issue does not lie in our definitions of worldliness and culture, but rather in how biblical separation is practised.


----------



## Kiffin (May 7, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> > Can one’s culture be sinful? Of course.
> ...



What I mean, is that nobody can claim they are without culture or work transcendent from it. 

When someone's interpretive is sinful that prompts sinful action, it must be corrected.



armourbearer said:


> Culture is not simply interpretation, although that will play an important part in one's involvement. Culture refers to development and improvement. It is the way man acts organically in relation to people, things, and facts; what may be called the stuff of creation. As such, "culture" is never neutral.



Who has authority to determine what is developed and improved? This is where Western missionaries have failed in the mission field. Some Westerners in the past (and still today) have assumed a pure non-syncretistic form of the gospel and therefore are in the best position to judge other groups of people. They have mistaken Western methods as "Christian." This results from a unilinear evolutionary theory, a theory that suggests that there are higher levels of culture and that "lower" ones should evolve to complex high cultures--this leads to cultural superiority and racism.

---------- Post added at 07:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:43 PM ----------




jayce475 said:


> In conclusion, not all aspects of culture are the same. To simply say that we can engage in culture without taking a step back and looking at how the bible calls for us to practise biblical separation. The main issue does not lie in our definitions of worldliness and culture, but rather in how biblical separation is practised.



Jason,

I agree that separation should be practiced. But I think some judge to fast, to those who do not separate from the things they do. What make have sinful associations to one, may not be true for the next. That's why I always appeal to Romans 14.

Oh yeah BTW, we do eat everything!!!


----------



## Prufrock (May 7, 2010)

Are there not higher levels of culture? While it's good to be sure we do not confuse "western values" with "Christianity," is it also possible that we might take it too far the other way? We cannot forget that, in a large part, many aspects of "Western culture" are often the result of the Christianizing of Europe for centuries. We need to be sure that, in attempting to not impose some "Western culture" on other cultures, we do not neglect or throw out concepts which are the practical results of Christianity as worked out over hundreds of years. I don't want to sound like a bigot, but it seems we have a tendency too often to buy to much into the fruits (not necessarily the roots) of the largely anti-Western sentiment that is spreading through our country.


----------



## MW (May 7, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> What I mean, is that nobody can claim they are without culture or work transcendent from it.
> 
> When someone's interpretive is sinful that prompts sinful action, it must be corrected.



The interpretation itself is generally regarded as worldview or perspective. The action flowing from the interpretation is culture. Nobody works without culture because work is culture. Action is righteous or sinful in relation to its conformity or non conformity to the law of God. 



Kiffin said:


> Who has authority to determine what is developed and improved? This is where Western missionaries have failed in the mission field. Some Westerners in the past (and still today) have assumed a pure non-syncretistic form of the gospel and therefore are in the best position to judge other groups of people. They have mistaken Western methods as "Christian." This results from a unilinear evolutionary theory, a theory that suggests that there are higher levels of culture and that "lower" ones should evolve to complex high cultures--this leads to cultural superiority and racism.


 
God alone has authority to determine development. Things can only be received as good because they are sanctified by the word of God and prayer. "Unto the pure all things are pure." If one is not willing to accept God's instruction then "unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled."

Simply saying Western missionaries have failed in the past is not going to establish any point. By what standard did they fail? Wherein was their failure? What is being deemed a "failure" might have been a success according to a different standard.

There is a higher level of culture. This is clear from the Christian's expectation that he shall inhabit new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. "Righteousness" exalteth a nation. There is no higher culture than that which accords with the will of God and reflects His glory. The Bible does not condone racism because it sees mankind as one race; but it does encourage culturalism, which is clear from the fact that certain cultures are denounced, e.g., slow bellies.


----------



## jwithnell (May 7, 2010)

EJ, your original post and later thoughts on missions are excellent points to raise.

Here's an extension, if I may? The US likely has the most fragmented culture that has ever existed under one flag. Not even considering the many recent nationalities, not that many people (considered as a percentage of the population) watch the same shows, listen to the same music, have the same moral upbringing etc., etc. Some of us remember an entire summer when people asked: "Who shot JR?" Even those of us who hated Dallas, knew what they were talking about and could be conversant on that non-issue. 

So when does a culture cease being a culture? And how can we as Christians deal with worldliness since the later is almost an outworking of the former?


----------



## jayce475 (May 7, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Kiffin said:
> ...


 
In the context of Romans 14, we are looking at things that can be done to the glory of God. More importantly, things that are not inherently sinful, especially since the ceremonial law has been done away with. However, for us to start categorizing the myriad aspects of culture all into this category, we risk serious compromise. According to the bible, not celebrating Jewish festivals and not following the food laws is not sinful for gentiles, so there is no issue of sinful association if the Jews did open their eyes to Jesus' teachings. However, there are many things that do have sinful associations. Be it rock music or Chinese martial arts, no matter how we cut it, there are sinful associations. To suggest otherwise is to blatantly disregard their roots. For such things, we ought to be very very careful with them, and if need be, practise full biblical separation from it.


----------



## Kiffin (May 7, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> God alone has authority to determine development. Things can only be received as good because they are sanctified by the word of God and prayer.



I have to agree here. But I'm saying that people need to judge on the basis of Scripture and not their Western counterparts.



armourbearer said:


> Simply saying Western missionaries have failed in the past is not going to establish any point. By what standard did they fail? Wherein was their failure? What is being deemed a "failure" might have been a success according to a different standard.



To assume their "cultural" expression is superior to others.


----------



## jayce475 (May 7, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > God alone has authority to determine development. Things can only be received as good because they are sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
> ...


 
Unless concrete examples of how Western missionaries in the past have failed are provided, no discussion of it will go anywhere.


----------



## Kiffin (May 7, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> Be it rock music or Chinese martial arts, no matter how we cut it, there are sinful associations.



In Romans 14, Paul told the weaker brethren to not judge those who choose to partake. So for rock music or TCM, this same grace must be extended.

Both, to abstain or to partake, do it for God's glory.


----------



## jayce475 (May 7, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> > Be it rock music or Chinese martial arts, no matter how we cut it, there are sinful associations.
> ...


 
So basically you're outright disagreeing with what I've said in post #12. Seems like the key to unlocking this biblical truth lies in a proper exegesis of Romans 14. Let's seek some help from those well-versed in Greek to exegete Romans 14.


----------



## Kiffin (May 7, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> > jayce475 said:
> ...


 
Romans 14

1As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, *and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him*.

I don't think exegesis is needed.

---------- Post added at 08:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 PM ----------

Ok ladies and gentlemen...I'll be back on Sunday night or Monday.


----------



## jayce475 (May 7, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> > Kiffin said:
> ...


 
Eating is a different matter from TCM and rock music and I have explained my reasons above. So we're deadlocked, unless we search the scriptures. We cannot apply scriptures in anyway we like, so bolding a particular scripture is not going to help the discussion. We need explanations of Romans 14 both exegetically and within the covenant theology framework. If there is anyone out there who can do so, please help


----------



## Prufrock (May 7, 2010)

The context of Rom. 14 involves Jewish ceremonies; those who were weak referred to those whose consciences' were bound to expired ceremonies. If it comes to be understood that certain actions stem from sinful practices or beliefs or are based upon values antithetical to Christianity, then Romans 14 does not apply.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 7, 2010)

Prufrock said:


> The context of Rom. 14 involves Jewish ceremonies; those who were weak referred to those whose consciences' were bound to expired ceremonies. If it comes to be understood that certain actions stem from sinful practices or beliefs or are based upon values antithetical to Christianity, then Romans 14 does not apply.


 
Amen


----------



## py3ak (May 8, 2010)

Henry Fielding gives his understanding of worldliness in the following words:

"The Gentleman whom Mr. _Jones_ now visited, was what they call a Man of the World; that is to say, a Man who directs his Conduct in this World, as one who being fully persuaded that there is no other, is resolved to make the most of this."


----------



## Kiffin (May 10, 2010)

Prufrock said:


> The context of Rom. 14 involves Jewish ceremonies; those who were weak referred to those whose consciences' were bound to expired ceremonies. If it comes to be understood that certain actions stem from sinful practices or beliefs or are based upon values antithetical to Christianity, then Romans 14 does not apply.



It also dealt with eating meat offered to pagan idols (similar to 1 Corinthians 8). I'm sure you would agree that this has a "sinful association."

MacArthur NT Commentary on Romans [yeah yeah, he's not Reformed. He's still an able scholar though]


> In the early church, many Jews who came to faith in Christ could not bring themselves to discard the ceremonial laws and practices in which they had been steeped since early childhood, especially the rites and prohibitions the Lord Himself had instituted under the Old Covenant. They still felt compelled, for example, to comply with Mosaic dietary laws, to strictly observe the Sabbath, and even to offer sacrifices in the Temple because they were given by the true God.
> 
> On the other hand, many converted Gentiles had been just as strongly steeped in pagan rituals and customs from false gods, and they felt repulsed by anything remotely connected with such evils. Many Gentiles, for example, could not bring themselves to eat meat that had been offered to a pagan deity and then was sold in the marketplace.



Thus, I believe Romans 14 still applies.

---------- Post added at 12:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 AM ----------




jayce475 said:


> Unless concrete examples of how Western missionaries in the past have failed are provided, no discussion of it will go anywhere.


 
Concerning Western “failure”

I really didn’t think this would be a point of disagreement and that it would be agreed upon that the West has failed in its assumption of cultural superiority and that it had confused things European/American for Christian. Western evangelism muddled itself with cultural imperialism. 

I think the following quotes will aid the discussion.

From _The American Evangelical Story_ (Doug Sweeney)

p98


> By the 1920s and 1930s, however, the missionary movement had come under fire from several quarters. A growing number of mainline Protestant leaders, and foreign nationals too, complained that America’s missionaries employed imperialistic methods and promoted racist view in their evangelistic practice. The modern missions movement boomed in the very period when America entered the international state. As a result, the gospel was not the only thing America sent overseas. American politics, commerce, and culture often attended the Christian message. Many patriotic Christians who loved the American way of life—and who prided themselves on the blessings of their nation’s “righteous empire”—often neglected the crucial task of distinguishing biblical Christianity from the rest of American culture.



p108-110


> While evangelicals did not invent the sins of racism or ethnocentrism, the slave trade, segregation, discrimination, or racial hate groups, literally millions of white evangelicals have either participated in or sanctioned one or more of these things, distorting their common witness to the gospel…But such accommodation to slavery on the part of evangelicals established a pattern of prejudice that would plague them for years to come. Before the middle of the twentieth century, most of the leading white revivalists condoned discrimination.



From _The Great Commission _(eds. Martin Klauber and Scott Manetsch)

p69


> John Elliot established a mission to the Indians of Massachusetts that thrived up to the1670s, when King Philip’s War between the English settlers and the natives brought Indian relations to a permanent low. Two Thomas Mayhews (father and son) enjoyed success on the Massachusetts islands of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard. Both of these missions received sponsorship from the colonial government, and both assumed the necessity of raising “savages” to a state of European-style civilization before they would be ready for a Christianization that would last.



p72


> Missionaries found “their chief encouragement” in boarding schools, where they had visible success in initiating young Indians into white Christian ways. Here was missionary paternalism at its height, absorbing Indians into the missionary household and supplanting the entire parental role. Now that the Indians were removed physically from their homelands, the missionary with government assistance removed them culturally from their heritage as well. Missionaries found the results of the boarding school system cheering, well worth considerable expense, for many students received Christ and some even went to the ministry themselves…Yet the emotional damage to parents and children, and the outright cultural loss, was severe.



p117


> Dr. David Livingstone, one of the foremost English missionaries in the nineteenth century, considered “civilization” as a key component of the modern missionary agenda, arguing that “civilization, commerce, and Christianity” needed to go hand in hand for any to succeed.





> Americans had a troubled relationship with empire, especially after the development of the new European imperialism in the 1870s, with its extraterritoriality, concessions, and indemnities. But they too fell easily into the lure of empire, creating an unofficial, if interdenominational, establishment. The Congregational minister Josiah Strong, in Our Country: Its Possible Future and Its Present Crisis (1885), called for a mission of “Anglo-Saxon Christian civilization” to the world. Missionaries to Hawaii helped overthrow the monarchy and facilitated the annexation of the islands by the United States. At the end of the Spanish-American War, President William McKinley struggled over what to do with the Philippine Islands, newly liberated from Spain. As he explained to a group of ministers who had called him at the White House, after days of struggle he prayed and said that God had told him to take the Philippines, “to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them.” This civilizing and Christianizing language was commonplace among British and American missionaries in the early century.




---------- Post added at 12:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 AM ----------




jwithnell said:


> So when does a culture cease being a culture? And how can we as Christians deal with worldliness since the later is almost an outworking of the former?



Sorry that this slipped through the cracks! Well, culture doesn't cease to exist--it changes and adapts. As far as worldliness, we need to renew our minds daily, asking God to help us recognize when sin is sin.


----------



## jayce475 (May 10, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> 
> jwithnell said:
> ...


 
If I'm not misreading you, a line is being drawn in between worldliness and culture as if they do not overlap. That's not fully reasonable, however nicely it may appeal to our logic.



Kiffin said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> > The context of Rom. 14 involves Jewish ceremonies; those who were weak referred to those whose consciences' were bound to expired ceremonies. If it comes to be understood that certain actions stem from sinful practices or beliefs or are based upon values antithetical to Christianity, then Romans 14 does not apply.
> ...


 
Yes, MarArthur is certainly not reformed I wish not to pit one commentary against another, though you are willing, perhaps just take a look at Gill's commentary on 1 Cor 8:7 and Rm 14:2 for yourself to see where we're coming from.


----------



## Kiffin (May 10, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> > [/COLOR]
> ...



Since some interpretations can be sinful, they can overlap, but not _necessarily_.



jayce475 said:


> Yes, MarArthur is certainly not reformed I wish not to pit one commentary against another, though you are willing, perhaps just take a look at Gill's commentary on 1 Cor 8:7 and Rm 14:2 for yourself to see where we're coming from.



John Gill on


> *Romans 14:2
> For one believeth that he may eat all things*
> 
> He is fully persuaded in his mind, that there is nothing in itself common, or unclean; that the difference between clean and unclean meats, commanded to be observed by the law of Moses, is taken away; and that he may now lawfully eat any sort of food; every creature of God being good, and none to be refused, because of the ceremonial law which is abrogated, provided it, be received with thanksgiving, and used to the glory of God:
> ...



John Gill on


> *1 Corinthians 8:7
> Howbeit, there is not in every man that knowledge*
> The apostle is not speaking of Heathens, in whom there was no knowledge of the one true God, the author of all things, and of the one Lord Jesus, the only saviour and Redeemer; but of Christians, in whom there was the knowledge of these things, but not in all of them; the knowledge of this, that an idol was nothing; for though they knew that an idol was not God, and had no true deity in it, nor was it any true representation of God, yet fancied that it had an influence upon food that was offered to it, to defile it, and render it unclean, so that it ought not to be eaten; and since there were such persons that were so ignorant and weak, it became those who had more knowledge to be careful how they laid stumblingblocks in the way of such, to the prejudice of their consciences: that there were such, the apostle affirms,
> 
> ...



Not sure what you want me to read. Those who are weak are those who believe that idols have divine power. In the examples you suggest, TCM and Rock music, do you believe they have power?


----------



## jayce475 (May 10, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> > Kiffin said:
> ...


 
Precisely they don't. That's why the context doesn't apply.


----------



## Kiffin (May 10, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> Precisely they don't. That's why the context doesn't apply.


 
Umm...That's why the context does apply. Since some have the knowledge that idols have no power and that there is only one God, and that he created everything, some were permitted to eat. Nevertheless, they must eat with caution since some do not have that knowledge.

For Rock music and TCM, some of us have the knowledge that they have no power. Some have the knowledge that there is nothing intrinsically evil about those things. Thus, some can can participate in those activities without an offended conscience.


----------



## jayce475 (May 10, 2010)

By the way, I'm not actually against TCM per se, just as how I don't necessarily see all the musical arrangements that might be perceived as rockish but accompanied by biblical lyrics as satanic. However, engagement with them need to be handled wisely, rather than just taking 2 Cor 6:17 and saying that we'll be damned if we come into contact with them, or swinging to the other extreme where Christian liberty is being misapplied (and using Rm 14 and 1 Cor 8) and used to claim that these stuff are "neutral" and can be freely partaken of as long as one's heart is in the right place.

---------- Post added at 05:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:00 AM ----------




Kiffin said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> > Precisely they don't. That's why the context doesn't apply.
> ...


 
In this you are making the leap from claiming that conservative-leaning brethren warning against such things and saying that they ought to be biblically separated from by virtual of their sinful associations are believing that they possess divine power. Sinful association/=possession of divine power(the context of 1 Cor 8). Instead, both sides acknowledge that they do not possess divine power, so your argument is naught.


----------



## Kiffin (May 10, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> By the way, I'm not actually against TCM per se, just as how I don't necessarily see all the musical arrangements that might be perceived as rockish but accompanied by biblical lyrics as satanic. However, engagement with them need to be handled wisely, rather than just taking 2 Cor 6:17 and saying that we'll be damned if we come into contact with them, or swinging to the other extreme where Christian liberty is being misapplied (and using Rm 14 and 1 Cor 8) and used to claim that these stuff are "neutral" and can be freely partaken of as long as one's heart is in the right place.


 
I agree..that's why both sides need to extend grace.



jayce475 said:


> In this you are making the leap from claiming that conservative-leaning brethren warning against such things and saying that they ought to be biblically separated from by virtual of their sinful associations are believing that they possess divine power. Sinful association/=possession of divine power(the context of 1 Cor 8). Instead, both sides acknowledge that they do not possess divine power, so your argument is naught.


 
Maybe then, I am misunderstanding the "conservative" argument. For TCM and rock music, what is the potential association if not paganism then?


----------



## jayce475 (May 11, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, I'm not actually against TCM per se, just as how I don't necessarily see all the musical arrangements that might be perceived as rockish but accompanied by biblical lyrics as satanic. However, engagement with them need to be handled wisely, rather than just taking 2 Cor 6:17 and saying that we'll be damned if we come into contact with them, or swinging to the other extreme where Christian liberty is being misapplied (and using Rm 14 and 1 Cor 8) and used to claim that these stuff are "neutral" and can be freely partaken of as long as one's heart is in the right place.
> ...



If by extending grace you mean having a proper discussion about the dangers of said areas, searching the scriptures to better understand them, having much prayer about them and seeking godly counsel from church leadership before coming to a better conclusion on how to interact with these areas, then grace may be extended in such a manner. If by extending grace you mean just closing one eye to such issues and don't be bothered about them when other believers are into them, then no that seems most disagreeable.



> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> > In this you are making the leap from claiming that conservative-leaning brethren warning against such things and saying that they ought to be biblically separated from by virtual of their sinful associations are believing that they possess divine power. Sinful association/=possession of divine power(the context of 1 Cor 8). Instead, both sides acknowledge that they do not possess divine power, so your argument is naught.
> ...


 
Undeniably, there are paganistic roots to them, which makes them associated to sin. These should be enough grounds for some sort of biblical separation. However, clearly nobody believes that they hold any divine power, which is why 1 Cor 8 can't be applied directly to this in such a manner. On top of the paganistic roots, even if one refuses to acknowledge that this association with sin is enough for separation, there are also other possible reasons explaining why they should be treated with much caution. The carnal worldviews fed by rock music, the self-indulgence found in much of Christian rock, and the unbiblical concepts of the material and immaterial within the TCM framework are all potentially harmful to one's faith if one does not approach them carefully.


----------



## Kiffin (May 11, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> If by extending grace you mean having a proper discussion about the dangers of said areas, searching the scriptures to better understand them, having much prayer about them and seeking godly counsel from church leadership before coming to a better conclusion on how to interact with these areas, then grace may be extended in such a manner. If by extending grace you mean just closing one eye to such issues and don't be bothered about them when other believers are into them, then no that seems most disagreeable.



By grace, I mean what Paul says:
"3Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him."




jayce475 said:


> Undeniably, there are paganistic roots to them, which makes them associated to sin. These should be enough grounds for some sort of biblical separation.


Isn't this what we're debating--to separate or not? Again, read the verse quoted above. Everyone must be convinced in his own mind. MacArthur (everyone's favorite )says:


> A mature believer rightly sees no harm for himself in dining in an idol's temple in some family or community event. He does not accept the pagan beliefs or participate in the pagan practices, but he can associate with pagan people because he is spiritually strong; he has spiritual knowledge.





jayce475 said:


> However, clearly nobody believes that they hold any divine power, which is why 1 Cor 8 can't be applied directly to this in such a manner.


You just stated above that they have paganistic roots. I'm confused . Because some (you say all) believe that they have NO power, then some have liberty; liberty that must not be flaunted nor forced upon weaker ones--nevertheless, they have the right. What is interesting to me is that you seem to apply principles in 1 Cor 8 and Romans 14 everywhere else but here. I just came across the "thee and thou" thread and you suggested that Romans 14 be applied there-


jayce475 said:


> I went into my current church scratching my head on why so many of the deacons and elders were praying this way, only to find myself also praying in this manner about half a year later. Scriptures are often quoted during prayers and it is really difficult (not to mention sometimes off-putting) to transition between "you" and "thou". *This is probably an area where Rom 14 does apply.* It's alright if brethren using modern versions prefer not to have such prayer language, but grace ought to be extended to those who do use it. Often it can't be helped, considering some of us read, meditate on, memorize and study from the Authorized Version.


It looks like an inconsistency to me.




jayce475 said:


> The carnal worldviews fed by rock music,


Not all rock music feeds carnal worldviews, especially Christian rock.



jayce475 said:


> the self-indulgence found in much of Christian rock,


You say "much" and not all. Good.



jayce475 said:


> and the unbiblical concepts of the material and immaterial within the TCM framework are all potentially harmful to one's faith if one does not approach them carefully.


I agree.


Jason, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. We're coming from two different schools I guess.


----------



## jayce475 (May 11, 2010)

There is nothing intrinsically sinful about different forms of prayers, nor are there associations with sin. You keep looking past the point of belief in divine power being different from associations with sin, so there's no point in trying to push this discussion further. This is not an area where I can ever agree to disagree, as the parable of the soils makes clear the dangers of worldliness. Culture engaged wrongly simply leads to worldliness. But we shall end the discussion as it is not going to go anywhere.


----------



## Kiffin (May 11, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> There is nothing intrinsically sinful about different forms of prayers, nor are there associations with sin. You keep looking past the point of belief in divine power being different from associations with sin, so there's no point in trying to push this discussion further.


 The immediate context is that some avoid eating meet because of the sinful association with paganism. There are some who are liberated from that belief, and there are those who are not. Paul, both in Corinthians and Romans, makes an appeal to both sides to respect each other’s beliefs.

You say that this does not apply to music and TCM because they do not hold any divine power, thus making music and TCM void of the principles that Paul sets forth. But then you say Paul’s principles could apply to how we pray? I agree with you (on prayer), but I believe your application is arbitrary. Paul’s principles should extend beyond “pagan meat”—like how you extended it to word usage in prayer.



jayce475 said:


> This is not an area where I can ever agree to disagree, as the parable of the soils makes clear the dangers of worldliness.


 wow



jayce475 said:


> Culture engaged wrongly simply leads to worldliness.


 Who's disagreeing with you?



jayce475 said:


> But we shall end the discussion as it is not going to go anywhere.


Agreed.


----------



## ThomasCartwright (May 19, 2010)

James 4:4 warns us “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” As A.W. Tozer once remarked, “Pure Christianity, instead of being shaped by its culture, actually stands in sharp opposition to it.” Thus, worldliness is having the same desires, goals, and values as the lost. William MacDonald and Arthur Farstad observe,



> The world does not mean the planet on which we live, or the world of nature about us. It is the system which man has built up for himself in an effort to satisfy the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. In this system there is no room for God or His Son. It may be the world of art, culture, education, science, or even religion. But it is a sphere in which the name of Christ is unwelcome or even forbidden, except, of course, as an empty formality. It is, in short, the world of mankind outside the sphere of the true church. To be a friend of this system is to be an enemy of God. It was this world that crucified the Lord of life and glory. In fact, it was the religious world that played the key role in putting Him to death. How unthinkable it is that believers should ever want to walk arm-in-arm with the world that murdered their Savior!



Reformed Christianity has always been characterised by a combat between the living God of the Bible and the idols of the age. This is a clash between two opposing and antithetical cultures and presupposes that we have a culture. The Bible never offers a sanitized U-rated version of what the world offers, but a clear presuppositional paradigm of guidance. Until the 1960s, the Church believed that spiritual worship was never to be confused or mixed with, or even tainted by, the debased end of the popular entertainment spectrum. Nothing is ultimately meaning-neutral, once moral agents use it. If God is obligated to accept all worship given to Him, then why did He reject Cain? Worship that does not please God is ultimately an act of the flesh, and idolatry. David DeBruyn responds to the claim of musical relativism,


> 1.	There is no objective standard to judge music by, if what you mean by objective standard is some kind of Ten Commandments of melody, harmony and rhythm. But then, there is no ‘objective standard’ for judging what God means by ‘Be angry and sin not’ or ‘let us worship Him acceptably with reverence and awe’ or ‘rejoice in the Lord always’. Where do I go to find out what kind of anger is pleasing to God? Where do I go to find out what constitutes ‘reverence and awe’? In other words, we have confused categories. We want propositional definitions for affective truth. Later on in the interview it is suggested that artistic forms don’t submit to the same kind of absolute judgements as other things do. And this is partially true, but the truth it omits turns the flavour of the argument towards something less than true. Affective, and therefore artistic truth, is not explained in the black-and-white forms of propositional truth. To expect it to be so would be to expect it to be something other than art. However, does that mean it has no standard in God’s universe to be judged by? Is there no such thing as the true, the good and the beautiful? Is it impossible to approve the things that are excellent (Phil 1:10)? Aesthetic judgment is not to be separated from moral judgment. God expects us to subsume them all in our thinking and judging (Phil 4:8, Heb 5:14).
> 2.	It is of course true that our preferences are shaped by culture. We ‘don’t come out of the womb liking Handel’. But all that says is that our loves are shaped by our culture. What it fails to deal with is whether those loves are pleasing to God, or whether the culture in which they were shaped was pleasing to God. Some cultures have made a virtue of shrewd betrayal. If you grow up in this culture, you will know doubt love such a thing. This does not make such a preference morally acceptable. What is being attempted here is to suggest that preferences do not have moral dimensions, and that if the preference is shaped by a culture, then only cultural imperialism or elitism would suggest that such a preference is morally dubious. Once again, we need an understanding of culture that goes beyond superficial notions of ethnicity and food preferences, and reckons with the moral imagination and religious worldview of a group of people.
> 3.	I was a little disappointed with the response to the question about the negative associations of rap music. The answer seemed to suggest that everything is worldly, and therefore everything is redeemable. That seems to be a confusion between the world of John 3:16 and the world of I John 2:15. Not everything in the world is worldly – I Timothy 4:4. It is fairly clear that while God can redeem many things, in some cases such redemption can only be accomplished when the thing itself has been utterly transformed. God can redeem pornographers, but we all understand the contradiction of Christian p0rnography. God could redeem a nudist colony, but not by turning it into a Christian nudist colony. Sometimes the depravity of something requires either its complete transformation or even its destruction to be made pleasing to God.
> 4.	Finally, I resonate with the idea that all things must be submitted to the glory of God. However, the danger is that we can use this as a ‘Get Out of Jail Free Card” for all our actions. If I’m doing this for the glory of God, then it trumps all other objections. This seems to me to be a form of pragmatism. The end – the glory of God – always justifies the means.



The existence of this culture war invariably presupposes conflict. Courage is required to participate. However, just as in Exodus 32, many are claiming to worship the true God using the music of the devil. Culturally naïve saints in the church argue that music genres are neutral and God accepts any type as He made them all. To deny that words have meaning is to deny the authority of Scripture. Furthermore, although individual musical notes may be neutral in combination they convey a message, and the spirit of that message has moral significance. Everything that exists was created by God to do His will. Therefore, nothing is neutral.

Kent Brandenburg also gives a useful example of culture and association with worldliness bu a profane setting:



> In 1989 the National Endowment for the Arts funded an exhibition of Andres Serrano's work, which included a photograph of a crucifix submerged in the artist's urine. It was known as the Mapplethorpe exhibition because of the inclusion of Robert Mapplethorpe's work in the funding.
> 
> I think that the Serrano work and Christian Rock parallel almost exactly. I understand that those who enjoy and appreciate Christian Rock in almost every instance would not enjoy Serrano's art, but the two, Christian Rock and Serrano, provide an apt comparison. They both portray Christ in a profane setting. Both blaspheme Christ with their medium.
> 
> ...


----------

