In the last few posts, we’ve looked at the poison of pragmatism in the church. Inevitably, a pragmatic mindset goes hand in hand with worldliness—to successfully attract the world, you have to be like the world.

Worldliness is rarely even mentioned today, much less identified for what it is. The word itself is beginning to sound quaint. It is reminiscent of a day when men wore wigs, women wore bonnets, and everyone dressed in black. Today, many believe that worldliness is simply the paranoid cry of an isolated prude. But all of that is a convenient caricature from those who have thrown the church’s doors open to the ways of the world.

In reality, worldliness is the sin of allowing one’s appetites, ambitions, or conduct to be fashioned according to earthly values. “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 world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever” (1 John 2:16–17).

Yet these days we have the extraordinary spectacle of church programs designed explicitly to cater to fleshly desire, sensual appetites, and human pride—“the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life.” To achieve this worldly appeal, church activities often go beyond the merely frivolous. For several years a colleague of mine collected a “horror file” of clippings that reported how churches were employing innovations to keep worship services from becoming dull. In recent years, some of America’s largest evangelical churches have employed worldly gimmicks like ballet, slapstick, vaudeville, wrestling exhibitions, and even mock striptease to spice up their Sunday meetings. No brand of horseplay, it seems, is too outrageous to be brought into the sanctuary. Burlesque has become the liturgy of the pragmatic church.

Moreover, many in the church believe this is the only way we will ever reach the world. If the unchurched multitudes don’t want biblical preaching, we are told, we must give them what they do want. Hundreds of churches have followed precisely that theory, actually surveying unbelievers to learn what it would take to get them to attend.

Subtly the overriding goal is becoming church attendance and worldly acceptability rather than a transformed life. Preaching the Word and boldly confronting sin are seen as archaic, ineffectual means of winning the world. After all, those things actually drive most people away. Why not entice people into the fold by offering what they want, creating a friendly, comfortable environment, and catering to the very desires that constitute their strongest urges? As if we might get them to accept Jesus by somehow making Him more likable or making His message less offensive.

That kind of thinking badly skews the mission of the church. The Great Commission is not a marketing manifesto. Evangelism does not require salesmen, but prophets. It is the Word of God, not any earthly enticement, that plants the seed for the new birth (1 Peter 1:23). We gain nothing but God’s displeasure if we seek to remove the offense of the cross (cf. Galatians 5:11).

Is All Innovation Wrong?

Please do not misunderstand my concern. It is not innovation per se that I oppose. I recognize that styles of worship are always in flux. I also realize that if the typical seventeenth-century Puritan walked into Grace Community Church, where I pastor, he might be shocked by our music, probably dismayed to see men and women seated together, and quite possibly disturbed that we use a public address system. But I am not bound to any particular musical or liturgical style. Those things in and of themselves are not issues Scripture even addresses. Nor do I think my own personal preferences in such matters are necessarily superior to the tastes of others. I have no desire to manufacture some arbitrary rules that govern what is acceptable or not in church services. To do so would be the essence of legalism.

My complaint is with a philosophy that relegates God and His Word to a subordinate role in the church. I believe it is unbiblical to elevate entertainment over biblical preaching and worship in the church service. And I stand in opposition to those who believe salesmanship can bring people into the kingdom more effectively than a sovereign God. That philosophy has opened the door to worldliness in the church.

“I am not ashamed of the gospel,” the apostle Paul wrote (Romans 1:16). Unfortunately, “ashamed of the gospel” seems more and more apt as a description of some of the most visible and influential churches of our age.

Has History Repeated Itself?

I see striking parallels between what has happened in the church today and what happened a hundred years ago. The more I read about that era, the more my conviction is reinforced that we have seen history repeat itself.

I have referred to Charles Spurgeon several times in this blog series already because there are many features of late nineteenth-century evangelicalism that correspond to contemporary issues, particularly those that arose during the episode from Spurgeon’s life that has come to be known as “The Down-Grade Controversy.” I will continue to reference Spurgeon’s writings on these matters for the penetrating scriptural insight they still offer the church.

I share at least two things in common with Charles Spurgeon: Both of us were born on June 19, and like me, he pastored one congregation for virtually all of his ministry. The more I read of his writing and preaching, the more I sense a kindred spirit.

By no means, however, do I view myself as Spurgeon’s equal. Surely no preacher in the history of the English language has had Spurgeon’s facility with words, his ability to convey the authority of the divine message, his passion for truth, or his grasp of preaching combined with such knowledge of theology. He was also a churchman par excellence, innately gifted as a leader. Pastoring in troubled times, Spurgeon filled his 5,500-seat auditorium several times a week. His own flock’s esteem for him remained undiminished until his death. I sit at his feet, not by his side.

I also do not find the kind of altercation Spurgeon touched off in the Down-Grade Controversy desirable. Spurgeon himself blamed the conflict for his death. Leaving town for a rest in 1891, he told friends, “The fight is killing me.” Three months later, word came back that Spurgeon was dead. He had not sought a fight. But refusing to compromise what he felt were biblical convictions, he could not avoid the controversy that ensued.

Worldliness has the potential to de-church the church. It is the nullification of truth, holiness, and zeal for God, the opposite of everything the Lord’s people are called to be. If the church continues on the path of worldliness, it will one day wake up to find that it has made its existence meaningless, having removed all distinction between it and the unbelievers it was trying to win. Still, the church of today careens down this futile road, attempting to convert people to what they already believe, bring them where they already belong, give them what they already love, and make them what they already are. It is an exercise in vanity.

Meanwhile, they are embarrassed by the gospel of Christ, which Paul calls the very power of God (Romans 1:16). They neglect the living and enduring Word of God (1 Peter 1:23), which is able to save souls (James 1:21). Thus, they forego the key to any truly effective ministry.

While controversy is distasteful to me, there is a fire in my bones that constrains me to speak plainly regarding my biblical convictions. I cannot keep silent when so much is at stake.

I pray that the Lord will deliver His church from the same kind of downhill slide into worldliness and unbelief that devoured the church and exhausted her spiritual stamina more than a hundred years ago. To defend herself from that, the church must walk away from pragmatism and cling fast to the wisdom of God. That is what we will address next week—the Lord’s plan for His church over against the world’s.

(Adapted from Ashamed of the Gospel.)