Being in it and not of it

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Ok still struggling to see how this works.  Is getting an unnecessary purely aesthetic boob job embracing wickedness or the natural man (woman)?  Is seeking success in business so one makes more than another embracing wickedness or the natural man or woman?

I will reserve comment on the former.

On the latter, the question presupposes that success in business is a zero-sum game. I don't concede that it necessarily is.

It's like comparing gambling to making a business transaction. With gambling there is always at least one loser. A business transaction ideally is a win-win proposition.

 

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I will reserve comment on the former.

On the latter, the question presupposes that success in business is a zero-sum game. I don't concede that it necessarily is.

It's like comparing gambling to making a business transaction. With gambling there is always at least one loser. A business transaction ideally is a win-win proposition.

 

Isn't it of the world to think of it that way?  Business transactions are worldly ventures, no?  Something other worldly?  or extra-worldly? 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Isn't it of the world to think of it that way?  Business transactions are worldly ventures, no?  Something other worldly?  or extra-worldly? 

When I was teaching at BYU many years ago, I used to talk to my students about what defines "the world" against members of the church. It was always fascinating that, eventually, someone would say, "There's not really much difference between us and the world." Yup. 

[Storm Rider]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

The world, in that phrase, is a metaphor for ''wickedness and the natural man.'  The phrase has nothing to do with church membership or that kind of delineation.   It comes from verses in the NT where Jesus teaches that His followers are not to be 'of the world.'

That doesn't seem controversial to me.  I think it's amazing when people can remember who they belong to.  Choosing to belong to God, rather than the secular world, is an awesome thing!

 

At first I thought it an odd criticism given that the statement comes directly from Jesus' own teachings.  Then as I thought about it I took it as a compliment - the Church of Jesus Christ is being accused of emphasizing his teachings.  If we are to be condemned, please, condemn us of teaching and following Jesus' gospel. 

Edited September 14, 2017 by Storm Rider

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So nothing's of the world, then?  It only depends on whether we can really figure out or decipher all that makes someone do what they do? 

For instance, I may want to advance in my job so I can make more money, have more means to do fun things, buy a second house, boat, and all that.  But that desire might not really be of the world because I also want to support my family and give more money in tithing.  So it's a good thing to work to get ahead.  It's not an of the world thing?  That'd be kind of odd because it is certainly a worldly thing to do that, no? 

Or a woman may want to look better, more attractive because it may help her advance in her career, or feel more confident so she can have more attention, but it might not be of the world to get a breast enhancement deal, because she also may just need to get out of a slump in life and wants to feel better about herself?  (this example works because you used the phrase in reference to ladies who tend to spend time and money on getting physical enhancements)

How would we ever really nail down how to preach this injunction if that is the case? 

If we say that doing things that are of the world is sinning and nothing more, then how does that phrase fit?  The added problem to that is of course, we all sin.  Thus we are all of the world while also being in it.  We can't and will never achieve the idea that we can be in the world and not of it.  Right? 

Remember, wickedness, sin, the natural man = 'the world'.  I think a lot of your scenarios and questions fall away when you remember what the metaphor stands for.   

So, if something means embracing wickedness, sin, and the natural man it's 'of the world'.   Can getting a boob job be 'of the world'?  Sure.  Is getting a boob job always 'of the world'?  No.  It depends on the person who's getting one.

Are our choices and decisions motivated by pride? Greed? Sex (outside of marriage)? Anger? Envy? etc. etc. 

I don't understand your focus on deciphering and categorizing what other people are doing.  The phrase has nothing to do with judging other people.  It's about whether or not we personally are 'in the world but not of it'.  It's an internal judgment between God and us.  We don't need to nail down whether or not other people are being in the world.  We just have to worry about whether or not we are of the world.  If we aren't sure where we stand on a choice we want to make, study, prayer, and listening to the Holy Ghost will let us know.

"Be in the world but not of it" is a metaphor for 'choose God, follow Him, don't worry about what secular society says is wrong or right or what pressure they exert.'  Are we always going to do that?  No.  Does that mean the phrase is problematic?  No.

It doesn't need to be any more confusing or difficult to understand than that.  Like I said before, it's not really a controversial subject.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If study, pondering and prayer had us fooled for 100 plus years during the ban, how will it work now if we insist on being wrong about something in a similar way? 

if you want to read the 1949 statement:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2004/04/21/a-statement-from-the-first-presidency/

First, I think you are relying on overbroad generalizations.

Second, there were countervailing viewpoints on blacks and the priesthood amongst the brethren.  That would have been a fairly significant indicator that the matter was unsettled, and hence some were not "fooled."

Third, the lack of revelatory provenance was also an indicator.

Fourth, the lack of scriptural support for the priesthood ban (and the explanations for it) were also an indicator.

Fifth, the priesthood ban was very much an outlier in terms of scriptural support, logical defensibility, etc. (female ordination is, very arguably, another outlier).  So there aren't too many further "somethings" that I think we need to worry about.  

Sixth, your concern presupposes infallibility.  That's not our thing.  We are operating by faith.  That faith includes allowances for errors/mistakes by the Brethren (but not, I think, errors sufficient to lead the Church "astray").  If the Brethren are wrong about non-essential or speculative points of doctrine (not happening much these days, I think), or about administrative issues, etc., then we lump it.  It makes no sense to, in essence, say "Yes, I will sustain the Brethren, but only to the extent they never make a mistake and never say anything that I find problematic or objectionable, in which case forget it."  That is unreasoned and unreasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Remember, wickedness, sin, the natural man = 'the world'.  I think a lot of your scenarios and questions fall away when you remember what the metaphor stands for.   

So we can be in our sins but not of our sins? Is ok to die in our sins?

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So, if something means embracing wickedness, sin, and the natural man it's 'of the world'.   Can getting a boob job be 'of the world'?  Sure.  Is getting a boob job always 'of the world'?  No.  It depends on the person who's getting one.

Perhaps there are tons of women in the church who feel they have been of the world but really weren't upon getting boob jobs?   

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are our choices and decisions motivated by pride? Greed? Sex (outside of marriage)? Anger? Envy? etc. etc. 

I'd challenge that each of these always factor into our decisions.  I can't imagine escaping these.  If so then everything we do is of the world.

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't understand your focus on deciphering and categorizing what other people are doing.  The phrase has nothing to do with judging other people.  It's about whether or not we personally are 'in the world but not of it'.  It's an internal judgment between God and us.  We don't need to nail down whether or not other people are being in the world.  We just have to worry about whether or not we are of the world.  If we aren't sure where we stand on a choice we want to make, study, prayer, and listening to the Holy Ghost will let us know.

It might let us know.  I don't know that you can be absolutely sure of this.  

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

"Be in the world but not of it" is a metaphor for 'choose God, follow Him, don't worry about what secular society says is wrong or right or what pressure they exert.'  Are we always going to do that?  No.  Does that mean the phrase is problematic?  No.

It doesn't need to be any more confusing or difficult to understand than that.  Like I said before, it's not really a controversial subject.

Ok.  If you say so.  I guess my questions or concerns of no use.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Isn't it of the world to think of it that way?  Business transactions are worldly ventures, no?  Something other worldly?  or extra-worldly? 

Why is it "worldly" to think of it that way? Your conclusion is not self-evident to me. Expliquez vous.

Seeking a mutually beneficial outcome through wholesome cooperation strikes me as a sublime endeavor of the sort that will prevail in the eternities. I reiterate that I don't see why it must be regarded as "of the world."

 

[Guest]

"Being in the world, but not of the world", is not an LDS teaching or doctrine, (at least not something we or our leaders came up with) it is the words of Jesus Christ in the NT, and maybe other places. It is not only sound "Biblical teaching and doctrine", it is a simple teaching too and for, Spiritual survival. It is a teaching to help us all avoid being "Lukewarm", causing God to figuratively and physically, "spew us out of his mouth". It is also a doctrine spelled out by the Apostle Paul, for us not becoming a "stumbling block", which puts our salvation at risk, as well as others. It is true that many teachers, seek to teach or apply this in so many ways, but they are doing their best. We still have the perfect teachers, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, to teach us the full importance of this teaching and how, and to what degree, we should live it. It is to them that we should look to know how to apply all his laws and doctrines.

 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

1-So we can be in our sins but not of our sins? Is ok to die in our sins?

2-Perhaps there are tons of women in the church who feel they have been of the world but really weren't upon getting boob jobs?   

3-I'd challenge that each of these always factor into our decisions.  I can't imagine escaping these.  If so then everything we do is of the world.

4-It might let us know.  I don't know that you can be absolutely sure of this.  

5-Ok.  If you say so.  I guess my questions or concerns of no use.  

I've numbered your statements and questions to make it faster for me to answer them using my phone. 

1-I have no idea what you mean or are trying to say.

2-Perhaps, but that doesn't have anything to do with the topic. As long as there is a delineation between sin and righteousness, there will be people who think they are being sinful/righteous but are wrong.  That doesn't mean the delineation shouldn't exist.

3-I disagree. 

4-I'm just speaking from my experience. If your experience differs that's fine.

5-You've asked for my opinions on the topic and I've shared them. I'm not sure what else you want.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

............................................................

I don't mean to get after Bluebell, when I question her ideas, I hope that is obvious.  I mean no offense here.  I'm just quite curious how this teaching/idea works, because I've never seen it work very well within the Church.  it seems to mean nothing and yet everything. 

The brethren might be said to be in the world but not of it, I suppose.  But what does that say?  That they are more spiritual?  or what?  Do they not participate in the world?  have they not found success by following rules, sometimes arbitrary ones that helped them succeed in the world?  Does that not, then, suggest they are as much of the world as anyone else? 

Sounds as though you are straining out some gnats and swallowing a lot of camels.  We might even ask whether the Church (any church) should be in the world but not of it.  Should a church or synagogue or mosque become fully secular and fully participate in the dog-eat-dog world?  Should any sacred organization get down and dirty with all the rest?  What happens when we leave behind prayer, Scripture-reading, and participation in holy sacraments?  What happens when we adopt the ways of the world?  What happens when we adopt a carousing, cussing, and crafty lifestyle?  What happens when lying, cheating, and stealing become normal instead of holy activities?  Well, for one thing,  people in that Great and Spacious Bldg won't be laughing at you.  Instead, you'll be doing the laughing and everybody will think you're cool.  This is the Doctrine of the Two Ways, the Way of Life and the Way of Death.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The brethren might be said to be in the world but not of it, I suppose.  But what does that say?  That they are more spiritual?  or what?  Do they not participate in the world?  have they not found success by following rules, sometimes arbitrary ones that helped them succeed in the world?  Does that not, then, suggest they are as much of the world as anyone else? 

Jesus lived in the world but taught that His kingdom is not of this world. We do the same and say the same. We try to follow His example in the world and in His kingdom, so we are both in the world and as part of His kingdom, are also not of it. It's all about grace, really. He possessed it in this world to carry out this feat, and we rely on it.

[strappinglad]

I get the distinct feeling of moving goal posts in this thread. Can one be in the world and not of the world and be a used car salesman? How about a Brazilian rain forest remover? A politician ? a medical doctor? A teacher?

The BoM indicates that there are but 2 churches only. A person can be in the world and of the Church of the Lamb or in the world and of the Church of the Devil. On any given day some will try a foot in each camp. The goal is to get to the point where there is no more desire to do evil, thereby have both feet firmly planted in the Church of the Lamb.

 Now if I can just overcome the sin of pride when I have been able to overcome all the others.

[Rain]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 Most of my comments and questions in this thread have gone unaddressed. 

It has been 10 hours since you posted this so I don't know if you feel the same way or not.  Do you?  If so,  which questions and comments do you feel have not been addressed? 

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, I think you are relying on overbroad generalizations.

Second, there were countervailing viewpoints on blacks and the priesthood amongst the brethren.  That would have been a fairly significant indicator that the matter was unsettled, and hence some were not "fooled."

Third, the lack of revelatory provenance was also an indicator.

Fourth, the lack of scriptural support for the priesthood ban (and the explanations for it) were also an indicator.

Fifth, the priesthood ban was very much an outlier in terms of scriptural support, logical defensibility, etc. (female ordination is, very arguably, another outlier).  So there aren't too many further "somethings" that I think we need to worry about.  

Sixth, your concern presupposes infallibility.  That's not our thing.  We are operating by faith.  That faith includes allowances for errors/mistakes by the Brethren (but not, I think, errors sufficient to lead the Church "astray").  If the Brethren are wrong about non-essential or speculative points of doctrine (not happening much these days, I think), or about administrative issues, etc., then we lump it.  It makes no sense to, in essence, say "Yes, I will sustain the Brethren, but only to the extent they never make a mistake and never say anything that I find problematic or objectionable, in which case forget it."  That is unreasoned and unreasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hey Smac, I had asked, "So it seems, the leaders, the prophets of the past embraced a "of the world" teaching and propounded it as true revelation from God. "

You answered, "To some extent, yes"

I think that covers it.  I haven't presupposed infallibility.  I'm pointing out that it's nearly impossible to clear ourselves from being of the world.  We'll always have some element.  I thought Bluebell's response interesting, earlier when she said, "It depends on the person who's getting one.

Are our choices and decisions motivated by pride? Greed? Sex (outside of marriage)? Anger? Envy? etc. etc."

I had to question this, to which she disagreed.  But it seems to me if ever I can dig deep enough in me and am honest enough with myself, whenever I make a choice and do anything one or all of these motivations factor in to some extent.  If I sit down to catch a game, I do so at the expense, perhaps, of my kids, even though I really just get passionate about the games.  Maybe I get a little angry inside in that I feel like I deserve it, in a prideful way, after all I do, or whatever.  I mean it certainly might not be the initial or main motivation but it's there.  It certainly does seem like such motivations are always part of what we do.  If that's the case then it seems to me we'll never be in the world but not of it.  It may be one of those outlandish ideals, I suppose wherein we set up for ourselves an expectation of perfection. 

I'd question what we use this phrase for is really what Jesus intended or meant.

 

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

I've numbered your statements and questions to make it faster for me to answer them using my phone. 

1-I have no idea what you mean or are trying to say.

2-Perhaps, but that doesn't have anything to do with the topic. As long as there is a delineation between sin and righteousness, there will be people who think they are being sinful/righteous but are wrong.  That doesn't mean the delineation shouldn't exist.

3-I disagree. 

4-I'm just speaking from my experience. If your experience differs that's fine.

5-You've asked for my opinions on the topic and I've shared them. I'm not sure what else you want.

I'm not sure what more to say in some respects.  You told me that "the world" is always equal to sin or natural man or whatever.  So I asked my question of whether you see it as we are in sin, but not of sin (using sin as a replacement for "the world" but I suppose we could say natural man or some of the other words you used, as in we are in natural man, but not of natural man or whatever)? 

Ultimately I don't think anyone ever sheds the of the world, at least as we've tended to use the phrase, nor that anyone can.  It appears you disagree with a pretty fundamental element of this to me--whatever we do we have multiple conflicting motivations that drive us.  And if not every time, most times we choose something we have in the  mix of our motivations pride, or selfishness, or greed or envy or anger.  I say that knowing I know myself only.  If ever I dig deep enough or get honest enough with myself when I evaluate why I do something I can find something in there that is a non noble motivation helping to move me.  I can't really imagine others being free of that.  But if you are, then you are definitely above me in every imaginable way.  or it could be you simply haven't been able to be honest enough to accept the flaws.  beats me.  It feels like we're nowhere in addressing my concerns here, but it seems you are settled anyway and have no more input.  So we can move on.

I'll just add, it does seem like we misuse this phrase often.  We tend to treat the words in the New Testament about not being of the world in a way that may not be intended, or so it seems to me.  I think the idea in the NT is much simpler.  It's an effort to say when you commit to Jesus in a covenant-type way you aspire to a future heavenly state.  I don't think it's commentary on our ongoing complex mix of motivations and intentions.  I don't see it as a good way to determine the why we do something (as you put it "It depends on why someone is make the choices they are") as we work through our aspirations.  In my experience the phrase is used to contrast Church members to those who aren't.  Thus my comments on your tribe application.  You seemed to dismiss that, which is fine.  I can't tell what you intended on that either.  It felt like you had something to say about it when you claimed Church members don't seem to know how it is to work, but then you ended by saying there's nothing controversial about it--as if the meaning and application is clear. 

With that, thanks for the effort.  It was enlightening in a sense. 

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Hey Smac, I had asked, "So it seems, the leaders, the prophets of the past embraced a "of the world" teaching and propounded it as true revelation from God. "

You answered, "To some extent, yes"

I think that covers it. 

If we are overgeneralizing, yes.  Otherwise, no.

Quote

I haven't presupposed infallibility. 

I presumption of infallibility appears to underlie questions like "If study, pondering and prayer had us fooled for 100 plus years during the ban, how will it work now if we insist on being wrong about something in a similar way?"

In an LDS context, we are taught that leaders can be inspired and still make mistakes.  That they can be called of God and still make mistakes.  That they can hold authority and still make mistakes.  So the people who fret about leaders making mistakes are usually those who superimpose notions of infallibility on the leaders of the Church.  Others, however, are operating on faith.  That faith includes allowances for errors/mistakes by the Brethren (but not, I think, errors sufficient to lead the Church "astray").

Quote

I'm pointing out that it's nearly impossible to clear ourselves from being of the world. 

"Clear ourselves?"  As it utterly and completely?  You are correct.  We are striving for perfect adherence to the precepts of the Restored Gospel, but will always fall short.  Hence the need for repentance.  Hence the need for a Savior and Redeemer.

Quote

We'll always have some element.  I thought Bluebell's response interesting, earlier when she said, "It depends on the person who's getting one.

You are referring here to women who are getting plastic surgery (specifically, a "boob job").  To be fair, Bluebell said: "Can getting a boob job be 'of the world'?  Sure.  Is getting a boob job always 'of the world'?  No.  It depends on the person who's getting one."

That is a nuanced and reasonable statement.  I have a good friend who is a very, very good and decent person.  Many years ago he underwent a rhinoplasty procedure to reduce the size of his nose.  I am quite content to leave unjudged that decision.  It's a personal one, and my weighing in is neither necessary nor appropriate nor helpful.

Broadly speaking, I think Bluebell is correct.  I think there are legitimate reasons for plastic surgery, and also less-than-legitimate ones (at least from a "Gospel" perspective).  

Quote

"Are our choices and decisions motivated by pride? Greed? Sex (outside of marriage)? Anger? Envy? etc. etc."

They can be.

Quote

I had to question this, to which she disagreed.  But it seems to me if ever I can dig deep enough in me and am honest enough with myself, whenever I make a choice and do anything one or all of these motivations factor in to some extent. 

Okay.  I think we may be descending into a big of navelgazing here.

Quote

If I sit down to catch a game, I do so at the expense, perhaps, of my kids, even though I really just get passionate about the games.  Maybe I get a little angry inside in that I feel like I deserve it, in a prideful way, after all I do, or whatever.  I mean it certainly might not be the initial or main motivation but it's there.  It certainly does seem like such motivations are always part of what we do.  If that's the case then it seems to me we'll never be in the world but not of it. 

With respect, I think you are being a bit too exacting in your expectations of yourself (and others?).  None of us are perfect in our adherence to the Gospel.  "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."  (Romans 3:23).  That is why we need to focus on regular repentance, on enduring to the end, and - most important - on relying on Jesus Christ.  Nephi put it well:

Quote

And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.

So we strive to be "in" but not "of" the world.  We'll probably screw that up on a regular basis, so we conduct a self-inventory, repent as necessary, make course corrections and reparations as necessary, and then carry on, "relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save."

Quote

It may be one of those outlandish ideals, I suppose wherein we set up for ourselves an expectation of perfection. 

That expectation is only "outlandish" if we are relying on our own efforts to achieve "perfection."  But that is not what we are supposed to do.  Moroni put it well:

Quote

And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith.

"Relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith."  I've always loved that phrase.

Quote

I'd question what we use this phrase for is really what Jesus intended or meant.

This phrase can be misunderstood.  Jesus said: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."  (Matthew 5:48).  This can also be misunderstood.  Hence context is important.  And further study.  And prayer.  And guidance from inspired leaders.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 14, 2017 by smac97

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure what more to say in some respects.  You told me that "the world" is always equal to sin or natural man or whatever.  So I asked my question of whether you see it as we are in sin, but not of sin (using sin as a replacement for "the world" but I suppose we could say natural man or some of the other words you used, as in we are in natural man, but not of natural man or whatever)? 

Thanks for clarifying.  Here is what Jesus says about it in the John 17.  Maybe it'll help.

14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.  15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.  16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

It might also help to remember that in the scriptures, Babylon (in all it's wickedness) is another metaphor for 'the world.'

I suppose your sin analogy could work, in as much as we are often times surrounded by sin (so it could be said that we live in sin), but that we should not be of sin (we should not embrace sin).

Quote

Ultimately I don't think anyone ever sheds the of the world, at least as we've tended to use the phrase, nor that anyone can.  It appears you disagree with a pretty fundamental element of this to me--whatever we do we have multiple conflicting motivations that drive us.  And if not every time, most times we choose something we have in the  mix of our motivations pride, or selfishness, or greed or envy or anger.  I say that knowing I know myself only.  If ever I dig deep enough or get honest enough with myself when I evaluate why I do something I can find something in there that is a non noble motivation helping to move me.  I can't really imagine others being free of that.  But if you are, then you are definitely above me in every imaginable way.  or it could be you simply haven't been able to be honest enough to accept the flaws.  beats me.  It feels like we're nowhere in addressing my concerns here, but it seems you are settled anyway and have no more input.  So we can move on.

For me it's about remembering what our covenant relationship with the Savior means for us.  Ultimately, it means that as long as we have faith in Christ, try not to embrace sin, and repent when we do, then we are not 'of the world.'  Perfection is not required.

It's about what we want.  The scriptures teach that those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, receive it.  When we hunger and thirst, it means we don't have food or water, but we want them.  To hunger and thirst after righteous means that we don't have righteousness, but we want it.  And wanting it is enough; Jesus will share His righteousness with us. 

 

[Gray]

19 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Is worldly sinful in all cases?  I think that's the type of question this phrase/teaching raises.  Some might say, what's wrong with doing the worldly steps of advancing in one's career?  Well, worldly is sinful, one might say. 

Is it sinful to enjoy and follow sports?  Or play sports?  or read books not related to church stuff?  Or travel to embrace culture and learning?  Because all of those things can certainly be said to be worldly, no? 

Worldly can mean a lot of things - focused on wealth, pleasure, selfishness etc. Those things are found "in the world" and "the world" and "worldly" are shorthand terms to convey that meaning.

Is it really fair to condemn the entire world as having those attributes? Of course not. They're found in abundance in the church as well. They're just as "churchly" as they are "worldly." But that's the shorthand. 

Maybe it was more of a fair comparison in the first century. To be of the world was to be in full rejection of God's distributive justice and God's peace.