Worldliness is a state of mind in which our thinking is governed by the mind and outlook of the world. How do Christians identify and combat worldliness in their recreation, entertainment and amusements? This report gives some principles to guide us. R

Source: The Messenger, 1996. 6 pages.

Worldliness: How to Identify and Combat It

In 1978 the Synod of the Free Reformed Churches published and sent to all our congregations a Pastoral Letter on Worldliness. Recently, in the July/August issue of The Messenger, this letter, slightly updated and revised, was brought before our readers' attention again. Why? Because the problems dealt with in this letter are still very much with us and the warnings contained in it are as much needed today as eighteen years ago, perhaps even more so. Shortly after the first publication of the Pastoral Letter, the ad-hoc Synodical Committee on Ethical Matters conducted a survey to measure the impact this Letter had made upon our congregations. The survey showed that while many copies had been distributed among our people and even outside our denomination, very little had been done in the way of a "follow up." While many had apparently read the document, there were no indications that it was being taken seriously. Several consistories reported that they had urged their societies to study the Letter but they did not mention whether this was actually done or not. Other consistories stated that the issue of worldliness was dealt with in the preaching and at family visitation, but again no mention was made that the Pastoral Letter played a significant role in this.

Worldliness:  How to Identify and Combat ItAt the urging of the consistory of Hamilton, Synod decided to publish the Pastoral Letter again, this time in our denominational magazine. What will be the effect this time? Perhaps it is too much to expect that a letter such as this, even though approved by Synod, will make much of an impression. In most cases, I'm afraid, it has about as much or as little effect as a sermon on this subject is likely to have. There is a momentary impression perhaps; people may talk about how awful this or that form of worldliness is, but then it is business as usual.

Is there anything the church through its consistories and broader assemblies can do to stem the tide of worldliness? There are those who say no; nothing that we can do will have any effect. Only the Holy Spirit can change sinners' hearts and when that happens, when a person is born again, his nature is transformed, his old habits change, his desires will no longer go out to the world, etc.

Others disagree with this rather passive approach and feel that the Church ought to do something. But what? Warnings alone are not enough, apparently. Pointing out the dangers of various sinful amusements and practices may help a little, but not much. What then? Discipline? Some would advocate going this route. But where to start and where to draw the line — that is also a problem. There are no easy answers.

It may help us a little to see how other denominations have dealt with the problem of worldliness, both in former days and in more recent times. We should realize that we are not the first generation of Christians who have had to wrestle with this problem. To limit ourselves only to churches of Reformed persuasion on this continent, let us look at how, for instance, the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), has dealt with the issue before us. Unlike our Free Reformed Churches and several other Reformed denominations who have never made official pronouncements regarding worldliness, the CRC has on more than one occasion made Synodically binding decisions relative to this issue.

The first one of these came in 1928. Reacting to two overtures, the Synod of 1926 appointed a committee to study the dangers of worldliness in general, with special focus on such "popular evils as card-playing, theatre attendance and dancing." This committee did its homework and presented to Synod 1928 a report called Worldly Amusements. In this report all manifestations of worldliness, but especially the above-mentioned amusements, were condemned as sinful and unbiblical. As to the question what the Church should do with those who indulge in such amusements, the Committee advised Synod to heed the following 6 points of which I will quote only numbers 1, 2, and 5:

  1. To urge all of our professors, ministers, elders and Bible teachers to emphasize in this age of prevailing worldliness especially those doctrinal and ethical principles which our people must clearly understand and firmly adhere to in order not to be swept away by this mighty tide.
  2. To urge all our leaders and all our people to pray and labour for the awakening and deepening of spiritual life in general and to be keenly aware of the absolute indispensability of keeping our religious life vital and powerful through daily prayer, the earnest searching of the Scriptures, and through engaging in those practical Christian works which are the best antidote against worldliness.
  3. Worldliness:  How to Identify and Combat ItTo urge consistories to deal in the spirit of love, yet also in view of the strong tide of worldliness which is threatening our churches, very firmly with all cases of misdemeanor and offensive conduct in the matter of worldly amusements; and where repeated admonitions by the consistory are left unheeded, to apply discipline as a last resort.

Synod adopted these recommendations, plus four principles, by which all amusements (recreations) should be judged.

  1. The first of these principles concerns the honour of God. God's honour requires that the Christian's amusements should at the very least not conflict with any commandment of God:
    a. that we and our children should be keenly aware, also in our amusements, of our covenant relation to God as His peculiar (special) people;
    b. that the Christian shall deem it a matter of loyalty to God not to further the interests of an institution which is manifestly an instrument of satan for attack on the kingdom of God.
  2. The second principle by which we should judge our recreations is man's welfare. From the welfare of man we conclude:
    a. that there is a legitimate place in life for such amusements as are recreative for body and mind;
    b. that no physical recreation or mental diversion should be tolerated which is in any way or in any degree subversive of our spiritual and moral well-being;
    c. that, even when our amusements are not spiritually or morally harmful, they should not be allowed to occupy more than a secondary, subordinate, place in life.
  3. The third principle by which our recreations should be judged is that of the separation from the world unto God. This principle:
    a. Does not imply that Christians should form separate communities or should shun all associations with ungodly men;
    b. Forbids friendship, in distinction from fellowship, with evil men;
    c. Requires that we shun all evil in the world;
    d. Demands a weaning away of the heart from the transient things of this present earthly sphere.
  4. The fourth and last principle in this connection concerns our Christian liberty. Christian liberty, the report states:
    a. consists in freedom from the power of sin; in freedom from the law: its curse, its demands as a condition for earning eternal life, its oppressive yoke; and in liberty of conscience with reference to human ordinances and things neither prescribed nor condemned, either directly or indirectly, in the Word of God;
    b. Christian freedom is limited in its exercise by the law of love, the law of self-preservation, and the law of self-denial, which often requires the renunciation of things in themselves lawful.

Finally Synod declared: While several practices are found in our circles which cannot pass the muster of these principles and while all our amusements, not only theatre-attendance, dancing and card-playing, should be judged in the light of these principles, yet Synod feels constrained ... to call particular attention to this familiar trio. It greatly deplores the increasing prevalence among us of these forms of amusements and urgently warns our members against them.

These decisions of Synod 1928 regarding worldly amusements were reaffirmed by several subsequent Synods until in 1966 the CRC reversed its stand in a fundamental way when it adopted the Study Committee's Report on the Church and the Film Arts.

There is much, very much, in the Committee's Report on Worldly Amusements and the Synod's adoption of its conclusions and principles, with which we as Free Reformed churches can wholeheartedly agree. Especially the principles outlined in this report are of great and abiding value because of their firm basis in Scripture.

Yet, despite the sound Biblical reflection that went into producing this report, the Synod's adoption of it in 1928 turned out to be very controversial. Especially the singling out of three particular forms of amusement and the threat of church discipline drew heavy criticism. Synod after Synod was required to clarify especially these aspects of the decision. We need not concern ourselves with the details of this debate, but we should note that some of the questions raised in connection with these Synodical decisions are very important for all who, faced with similar problems, may be tempted to make similar decisions.

Worldliness:  How to Identify and Combat ItWas it right for Synod 1928 to single out these three forms of amusements as especially sinful and was it right to threaten offenders with discipline even as a last resort? The answer to these questions cannot be a simple "yes" or "no." Those who say it is wrong to catalogue sins should realize that our Reformed fathers had no such qualms, for they did precisely that in the Form for the Administration of the Lord's Supper. That Form warns all those who are defiled with specifically mentioned sins that they should keep themselves from the table of the Lord on the grounds that they have no part in the kingdom of Christ. From this we may conclude that it is entirely proper for a church to warn its members from time to time against prevailing sins — not necessarily the same trio of 1928, of course, but any other symptoms of worldliness that are deemed harmful to vital godliness.

While this is true, there is also a danger here. Experience teaches that the cataloguing of sins, however necessary it may seem at times, can easily lead to abuses. For one thing, it is impossible for a church to draw up an exhaustive list of sins. Any list can only be a partial one and can for that reason lead to serious misunderstanding as to what worldliness really is. For many people worldliness consists in indulging in certain worldly amusements or habits such as the three mentioned by the CRC Synod of 1928. We can, of course, add to those three or substitute them for other, more up-to-date forms of recreation such as TV watching, renting videos, listening to certain types of music, etc.

But the danger with any such listing of sinful or allegedly sinful practices is, that people may think that as long as they do not practice any of the things mentioned on the list they are all right or at least better than others who do engage in them.

I think, therefore, that the CRC in 1928 was not wise in singling out these three forms of amusements, no matter how prevalent these evils were at the time, and however well-intentioned Synod was in taking this courageous and unpopular stand. Since any cataloguing of sins is bound to be incomplete, many other forms of worldliness are overlooked and because they are not mentioned, people will tend to regard them as less sinful, while in fact they may be even more dangerous than the ones that appear on the church's index.

I stated that while we should have the highest respect for the intentions of this 1928 Synod, the decision made by that assembly was not wise because it singled out three particular forms of worldliness, while leaving out many other expressions of the same evil. Any catalogue of sins, no matter how long and detailed, is bound to be incomplete. The result is that people can easily draw the conclusion that as long as they avoid the things mentioned, everything is all-right with them. The fact is, however, that there are other forms of worldliness which are just as harmful to spiritual life and perhaps even more so than the items appearing on the official list.

This is especially true of sins which are not so obvious and visible and therefore difficult to identify. I'm thinking of the minister who is more concerned about the applause of men than the approval of God. I'm thinking of the elder, who with all his orthodox views, has a cold and loveless heart and does not know the meaning of the word serve. What about the lady who comes to church to show off her new hat or dress or the young man who can't make it to catechism because he has baseball practice; the newly-weds who rely on the pill to keep babies away so they can save and buy all the things they "need;" the gossip who spends hours on the telephone peddling the latest scandal; the Sunday coffee hour where the reverend's sermons are dissected and denounced; the church-consumer who flits from one preacher to another in search of someone who will tickle his fancy; the retirees who can think of little else than where to spend their next vacation? Are these not manifestations of worldliness? Yet they are seldom recognized as such because they are not on the church's index.

What is worldliness? It is basically this: a state of mind in which our thinking is governed by the mind and outlook of the world. Worldly Christians are Christians who fail to realize that the whole of their thinking must be Christian and that the whole of their outlook must be spiritual. Worldliness, therefore, has to do with principles before it is concerned with conduct and activity. It is important to keep this in mind when dealing with the question as to whether the church should discipline members who engage in what are thought to be worldly amusements or practices.

The answer is not a simple yes or no. It is true, of course, that once a denomination or congre­gation has determined that certain things are sinful and censurable, it has to have the courage to enforce it's own rules. If, as the CRC in 1928 did say in connection with the well-known trio, and as later the Netherlands Reformed Congregations have said about watching TV, these things are censurable offences, discipline would seem to be in order.

Worldliness:  How to Identify and Combat ItHere is precisely where the problem comes in. Here is where the shoe pinches. May the Church of Christ make such laws and bind them on the consciences of her members? The answer, it seems to me, has to be no. In this connection it is important that we distinguish between rules and laws in our Church Order. We may make new rules, but never new laws. Rules are necessary for "the maintenance of good order in the Church of Christ" (Article 1 C.O.), but human laws have no place in the church. As we read in Article 32 of our Confession of Faith, "We reject all human inventions and all laws which man would introduce into the worship of God, thereby to bind and compel the consciences in any manner whatever."

The Church Order contains both man-made rules and divine laws. The former may be altered at the synodical level (Article 87), but the latter may never be changed. Rules ought to be observed, but laws must be obeyed. So, while the rulers in the Church (the elders and ministers) may make rules, they may not make laws, for that would mean adding to the laws which Christ, our only Master, has given us in His Word. Not even when the church meets in its broadest assembly, the synod, may new laws be made which are binding on the consciences of her members.

Much is at stake here, very much. Man-made laws dethrone Christ as the King of the Church. By such laws Christ is robbed of His royal prerogative as Lawgiver.

It is possible, of course, that such laws are made with the best of intentions and that the motives are pure, as was certainly the case with the decisions of Synod 1928 when it condemned theatre going, playing cards and dancing. That Synod was wrong, however, in making this a new law. Not that those amusements were not sinful — they were and are — although some would say there is room for discussion here.

If they are wrong they are wrong, not because Synod 1928 said so, but because the Word of God condemns such practices. As someone wrote shortly after this synodical decision,

When is there a case of misdemeanor and offensive conduct in the matter of amusements? Is it when one does not heed the admonition of Synod in regard to the familiar trio? Or is it when one leads a worldly life transgressing the laws of God? Surely the latter is true. Yet many people in the CRC for many years following 1928 were afraid to go to movies, play cards or dance because their Synod had forbidden these forms of entertainment. Rightly or wrongly the decisions of '28 came to be regarded as prohi­bitions or laws which, if disobeyed, could lead to church discipline.

Without intending to do so, the CRC, by identifying these three forms of entertainment as sinful, bound the consciences of her members to herself, rather than to Christ Who alone is Lord of the conscience. What happened, in fact, was that the conscience of the church was substituted for the conscience of the individual believer. Whenever this happens you have a reversion to Roman Catholicism. That church, especially during the Middle Ages, thought for the individual, prescribing in minute detail how each member was to conduct himself or herself, and thus destroyed a sense of personal responsibility.

Worldliness:  How to Identify and Combat ItThis is always a danger whenever the Church passes laws relative to moral issues and conduct. When a Free Reformed girl on being asked why she does not dance, can only reply, "because my church is against it," that danger is present. When a young man is asked why he doesn't go to shows and can say no more than, "my church forbids movie attendance," we have an example of the same danger. What both should say is, "I am a Christian and I don't belong in a theatre or on a dance floor." That would be an indication that they were guided by their own conscience — a conscience informed by the Word of God rather than by some ecclesiastical law.

As I. Van Dellen says in his brochure on Ecclesiastical Decrees: "The Christian must never behave in a certain way merely because the church bids him do so, but he must ever walk conscientiously in the way of God's com­mandments. He must lead a Christian life, not in obedience to the church, but in obedience to Christ his Lord. Virtue practised because the church commands it is not virtue. Only then is virtue virtue when it is practised because Christ commands it."

Does this mean that the Church should never do anything in the way of disciplining delin­quent members? For instance, if a member of the congregation is known to frequent theatres, bars or adult bookstores, should this just be left to his conscience? Of course not. If this is known to the consistory, he should first be warned and if his behaviour does not change, he must be dealt with in the well-known way prescribed by our Church Order.

What about TV, VCR or computers (Internet)? The mere possession of such equipment provides no grounds for discipline, for the sin is not in the device, but in its use. If, however, it is known that a certain member spends night after night watching all sorts of immoral programs, or rents X-rated videos, the consistory would certainly be within its rights to admonish that person, and if he does not heed the warnings he should be asked to abstain from the Lord's Supper which is of course the first step of censure.

Why is discipline called for here? Because in this case the individual is clearly violating the laws of God. Watching immoral films or reading pornographic books and magazines inevitably stirs up fleshly lusts and thus leads to violations of the seventh commandment.

Here is clearly a task for ministers and elders. Both from the pulpit and at family visits the subject of worldly amusements and other forms of worldliness need to be addressed. In this connection let me point to Article 55 of our Church Order. That article says, "The office bearers shall with all the possible means at their disposal counteract the effect of all heretical, revolutionary, and immoral literature and worldly amusements and in the preaching as well as in catechizing and house visitation warn against everything that imperils the purity of the Christian life."

The Church of Christ has always had to deal with the problem of worldliness. The difficulty, however, has always been how to identify and combat it. I've tried to show how to do both. The key here, I believe, is to recognize that sin is never in things, but in persons. Material objects are not evil in themselves. The evil and the sin is in man, in his soul, in his spirit and in his mind. Sin is an attitude, which if not subdued, leads to an act.

Man's primary need, therefore, is that his heart be changed, for out of it are the issues of life. That's why David prayed, "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me" (Psalm 51:10). Once our heart is purified and our spirit renewed, our desires will follow suit. They will be refocused. Then, what we once loved we now begin to hate and what we formerly hated now becomes our delight, so that we can say with another psalmist,

Though in a lowly station,
The service of my Lord
I choose above all pleasures
That sinful ways afford.

Add new comment

(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.