Is Christianity supposed to be unworldly?

Inkfingers said:

By unworldly I mean ascetically turning its back on the world and physical life itself.

Click to expand...

That, however, is not the Christian ideal. Rather, it is to be IN the world while not being OF the world.

The one that loves the Kingdom of God, hates the kingdom of earthly god (satan)
The one that loves the earthly kingdom is an enemy of God, since both are the exact opposite, you can't love both.

Now that doesn't mean we ignore our world, and stay away from the non-believers. Christ, (the one without sin, without guild, the one who died for us so we may be righteous in Him) took pity on us, because He saw what the sin done us and how it controlled our hearts. It is from our own hearts that all the wickedness comes. That's why Jesus on cross said 'Father forgive them, for they do not know what they do' because He saw this wickedness that controlled us. Therefore we ought to be the same towards the ones that have been not saved. Now this doesn't mean you will run on the streets and shout gospels, no, the Spirit will guide you to whom to preach the Gospels and when. You will just not inside when to talk and to when be quiet.

There was a prevalent heresy in the early church days called Gnosticism. It was condemned by the overwhelming majority of the church. Gnosticism is the idea that, basically, the physical world is bad. They also had beliefs that the God of the Old Testament was evil, and that the God of the New Testament is good, and is here to free us from the physical world, and the God of the Old Testament.

I am not calling you a Gnostic. But their influence on the perception of Biblical principles is still in the world today, even after these thousands of years. Here is my take on these passages:

Enjoying the pleasures of this life is not inherently evil. There is nothing wrong with the physical: after all, who made the physical? God did. So we are to enjoy the good things of this world and praise God for them. The problem is when we put these pleasures before God, or put these pleasures, or the pursuit of these pleasures, before loving our fellow humans.

The physical is not bad, or else The Kingdom of Heaven wouldn't take place on a "New Earth." Again, the problem is putting the creation before the Creator. "Deny yourself" earthly riches to pursue the riches of the next earth. Store up your treasures in Heaven.

Again, do you want to have a nice life on this earth, or a nice life on the next earth? That is the message I take away from these passages.

I would absolutely love to hear your thoughts on my perspective. I am open to learning and to new perspectives. I absolutely love your question, it has forced me to think about my entire belief system all over again. I love you friend. God be with you.

Inkfingers said:

So I find myself wondering, is Christianity supposed to be about an abject denial and repudiation of physical life (with instead utmost emphasis placed instead on the 'here-after')?

Click to expand...

I think yes, even more so when things of this physical life might cause any hindrance for the work of the Spirit. God's purpose runs its course across history. The appointed times of the coming age is near and so God in His wisdom is preparing us for those days.

Inkfingers said:

It's not saying put god before procreation, for example. It's saying the ones who do not marry and procreate in a better condition than those who do. Paul explicitly says that it is BETTER to be unmarried and celibate than to have a family and children. The Apostles abandon their families to follow Christ.

Click to expand...

Actually, the entire reason Paul says it's better is because unmarried men are anxious of the things of the Lord. See 1 Corinthians 7:32. It's better to be celibate and serve the Lord. And that supports my point perfectly: we are to put the next earth before this one. The next earth comes before this one.

Jesus also said, "Some are born eunuchs. Some were made eunuchs by men, others are eunuchs for the Kingdom of God." This is Matthew 19:12. Paul is supporting Jesus, here: not marrying is good because it allows you to serve God. Not because the institution of marriage, itself, is something to abhor.

Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 7 how, if you can't control your urges, to marry. If the physical was completely evil, would Paul have said to do so?

I actually kind of agree with you, that we should take no thought for this world. But it's because this world is fallen and fading, not because the design and creation of the world is evil. God called His creation "good" several times in Genesis 1, remember?

I don't disagree with your conclusion to think not of this world. I was ascetic for a while. It was weird eating food. I remember not even thinking about where I was walking. But it's okay to enjoy the taste of food and think, "wow, thank you, good Father! Your food you have created is absolutely delicious! Praise you!" Because enjoying the good aspects of this world is an opportunity to please God

Inkfingers said:

By unworldly I mean ascetically turning its back on the world and physical life itself.

When I look at the Bible, I see Paul saying that childless celibacy is better than marriage. I see the disciples abandoning their families to follow Christ. I see martyrdom actively embraced again, and again, and again. I see Apostles sent out with the instruction to give no thought to food or bodily sickness. I see Christians told not to defend themselves if struck, but to (famously) turn the other cheek. Heck I even see Christians fasting to the point of injuring their bodies (and possibly their minds), thinking here of various mystics.

When people say they want to bury their dead family member, they are told to leave it to others. When people say they are worried, they are told to give no concern to the worries of tomorrow (an instruction that makes farming impossible - as backed up by the use of sparrows who neither sow nor reap).

So I find myself wondering, is Christianity supposed to be about an abject denial and repudiation of physical life (with instead utmost emphasis placed instead on the 'here-after')?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not.
1. Paul advocated celibacy for those who could handle it. There was intense persecution at that time and being married was an extra burden. Those who are not cut out for the single life should marry.
2. The disciples did not necessarily abandon their families. The gospels are the summary of 3-1/2 years of ministry. For sure they travelled around Israel, but Israel is not a huge place.
3. The Apostles went out with the assurance that God would supply their every need. From time to time it was not easy, but God came through. Paul wrote one of his last letters saying that he was amply provided for.
4. Christians were not afraid to die if necessary but they did not go looking for trouble. Paul was told of a plot to kill him so he left town. We read in the book of Acts how the disciples left towns where they were under threat.
5.Turning the other cheek does not mean to allow yourself to be beaten up. Slapping someone on the cheek was a terrible and degrading insult in biblical times. It was for a very long time in European culture also. You may have seen the movies where a swordsman challenges someone to a duel, forcing the issue by a glove to the cheek. We are called not to repay insult with insult. (1 Peter 3:9)
6. Not worrying about tomorrow does not mean you don't plan or prepare. You can plough a field and plant crops without worrying at all. Paul said that if people don't want to work, neither should they eat.
7. There is no biblical basis for fasting to the point of death. 6 weeks is dangerous. Fasting for the sake of it is pointless and may be counterproductive. Some people get immensely proud because they've fasted for so long.
8. I overlooked this point.... "Burying the dead". In those days a man might stay near the deceased father for up to a year. Lord Jesus was not saying not to go to the funeral. He was asking the disciple where his priorities lay.
Most Christians live normal lives. Most of us work, eat, marry, raise families and enjoy times of rest. Some are called to be apostles (called missionaries these days) or evangelists who travel a lot. Many Christians do face great persecution, and we should pray for them.

Inkfingers said:

So how do you square that with all the things that I mentioned?

The ascetic is IN the world but not OF it, by the way...

Click to expand...

It may depend on what is meant by the word. You do say "the ascetic is..." which suggests to me something more like the lifestyle of the hermit or (maybe) the monk. You don't seem to be using it as an adjective there.

But you may have meant only this: "Ascetic" implies abstention from pleasure, comfort, or self-indulgence as a spiritual discipline,

It is worth knowing that in Christian history, acceptance by church authorities of the kind of life that hermits wanted to lead was not well-received at first because it meant a real separation from the world, from the fellowship of the Christian assembly, and probably also from the reception of the sacraments.

So, the best approach for us probably is somewhere between the two extremes.

Inkfingers said:

So how do you square that with all the things that I mentioned?

The ascetic is IN the world but not OF it, by the way...

Click to expand...

I remember the Bible making lots of nods to the weaknesses and failings in our behaviour, so maybe it’s easier to say the Christian ideal is all of those things you listed. The Christian ideal is Jesus Christ, and Christ is a radical personality. Maybe even a person against the physical life (at least the physical life as we now know it.) He’s a healer too, so maybe it’s better to say Jesus, seen as the ideal, is against the system of things.

So Christ and His people aren’t against the physical things themselves, just the system of things and how they influence our physical and mental lives.

In addition, Christians (and Christianity) as a day to day thing have loads of fall back positions, they’re biblical fall backs too, they’re not just plucked out of nowhere to defend us having a chill day, chilling while all the “real” Christians are being murdered.

Christ taught about poverty, yet John could house and provide for His mother Mary for the rest of her life. “It’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into heaven.” Then Christ says all things (including the rich man going to heaven) are possible with God.

Paul writes approvingly of celibacy, while admitting marriage is a live option for two people who are enamoured with each other.

Christians are said to take no care for their bodies, yet they’re healers of other people’s bodies, which leads into their own healing.

Christians are said to be gentle, yet the Bible acknowledges a world at war and unbelieving governments “wielding the sword” to satisfy God’s purpose (a purpose He has with His peaceful people in mind.)

Maybe all of these aren’t spot on for your question, but my point is that the Christian ideal (like you shared) and the Christian ordinary (like I shared) are both compatible with the Bible description of Christianity in action. They’re both Christian.

Actions at the ideal end of the spectrum might sometimes seem reckless, but there’s so much more to it that rebounds to our good (and the good of the “physical world,” when understood as different from the system of things.)

Hmm..
Difficult.
We do still live in this world, and since we (are supposed to) love our fellow humans, we care about their well being.
Children in particular, for they are still innocent and vulnerable.
But children are targeted by evildoers and evildoings.
Those are worldly problems though.

Inkfingers said:

So Christians should endeavour to be unmarried and childless, like I said, because that is a superior/preferable condition to being married and having children.

Click to expand...

That wasn't the message of either Paul's epistle or the members here who responded to your question.

I actually did some research on asceticism just now - i had it confused with stoicism. Stoicism is the belief that all physical matter is evil. Asceticism is the belief that we should forsake earthly pleasures for the sake of God.

That is not say earthly pleasures are evil: that is stoicism, to a degree. Just that forsaking them to gain with God is better than indulging in them.

This sounds fun to me, haha.

I actually see your point. It has been eye opening discussing this with you. Much love, God bless you. Denying ourselves is always good advice. Always.

Inkfingers said:

So how do you square that with all the things that I mentioned?

The ascetic is IN the world but not OF it, by the way...

Click to expand...

I believe that will all depend on specific calling. The disciples, for instance, were younger single men without wives or children.... if Jesus, the Messiah said hey, don't worry about your uncle's or parent's funeral, come be my disciple then we should do it.

There are many missionaries who can't attend the funerals of various family members due to being overseas in the mission field yet today. Often we don't think about it so much today because we don't live with our extended families as much but back in Biblical times it was the norm, so more shocking perhaps than it is today.

Also the apostles were spreading the gospel at the final end of the old covenant and into the new. Before the destruction of the Temple they were in high gear to spread the gospel as much as possible before that time, there was a far greater urgency weighing on their souls, I would imagine.

Although I do imagine a good number of Pastors feel the same weight of urgency even today, as souls depend on it.

But some may have a far different calling. I once read a story about a Christian businessman who worked for some high level corporation and he used go frequently to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, where he could not actively proselytize. But what he did was take his Bible with him and have it by him on the table during various conferences and meetings and that opened the door to Muslim men to privately ask him questions about the Christian faith and he led several to Christ this way.

Other people are called to minister to their local communities and hold regular jobs in so doing and just be a living light of Christ while living a life of normalcy.

So it really and truly depends on what God's calling for the individual is. Are you bright and able to make a lot of money? Perhaps God gave you this gift to support the needs of your local church and those in the mission field.

For the body of Christ to work in a functional manner, each individual Christian brings to the table their own individual talents and callings. Sometimes this looks very mundane, but often there's something far deeper underneath that you may not as readily see.