I think with the neutrality thing, I’m thinking of passages like John 3:16. The point of the use of the word “world” there is not to emphasize that it is good or bad.

However, I agree that in most of the uses in the NT, the sense is certainly bad, and I also affirm total depravity, so in that sense even “world” as “neutral” is in reality “depraved.” I’m looking more for how it’s used in context, and either way, I wouldn’t equate “world” with “culture.”

1. “World” in the NT is not the same thing as what we mean by culture. So I’m not really making any definitive points about culture in this post. Next week I’ll be explaining what I think the best NT equivalent to our understanding of “culture” is.

2. “World” in the NT is not always a bad thing; it depends on the context. Sometimes “world” is simply neutral, sometimes it is good (Jesus loves it, after all), and sometimes it is completely contrary to God (friendship with that is hatred toward God!).

So everything you said certainly is true of one use of “world” in the NT, and it certainly affects “culture” (whatever that is; more next week). So I agree with everything you said in that respect.

But I have a bit of disagreement with your conclusions: I think #3 is the most powerful argument.

Fair enough. I’m no prophet, and it may turn out exactly as you suggest. Nevertheless, if as a church leader, I run the risk of contributing to the possible demise of what hymnals bring to private and corporate worship, I’m going to err on the side of conserving what has worked towards piety, rather than promoting something that could possibly have the opposite effect. That is to say, the losses I endure by staying with hymnals seem to me to be much smaller than the potential losses of projections carrying the day, and the possible benefits of projections do not seem enough for me to add to the momentum of the movement.