Sociological notes on 1 John 2:15-17

1) The relationship between the world (KOSMOS) and desire is complex. Verse 16 indicates that desires and boastfulness make up the contents of the world – the desire of flesh, eyes, and boastfulness of life constitute the “all that is in the world” (PAN TO EN TO KOSMO). More on this point below. The end of verse 16, however, suggests that the world is the source of desires and boasts: The desire of flesh desire of eyes, and boastfulness of life are from the world (EK TOU KOSMOU). Desires thus make up the world, yet the world is also distinguished from the desires such that the world produces, evokes, provokes desires and boastfulness. Verse 17 distinguishes the world as its desires as if the desires are accompaniments of the world.

2) John’s suggestion that the world is made up not only of “things” (TA EN TO KOSMO, v. 15) but of desires is a rich insight. He doesn’t limit the world merely to the artifacts that are evident in the world, nor to the institutions and practices of the world. The plural reference in verse 15 covers these multiple manifestations of the world, but at the heart of what John calls the world, the source from which the world flows, is desire. To put it more sociologically, (sinful) human culture – its institutions, practices, products – are all embodiments of evil desire or boastfulness. John hints that we should evaluate the world not only on the basis of what’s done or what things it contains, but on the basis of desire. And desire has a multiple relationship with culture: Desires are the “contents” of culture – culture is made up of embodied dreams, aspirations, lusts; on the other hand, the world is the source of desire, evoking certain kinds of desire. John’s sociology thus encourages us to ask what desires are embodied in roads, buildings, automobiles, iPods, coffee, customs, schools, and so on. John encourages us to seek to penetrate below the surface of cultural life to the desires that are provoking and provoked by the world.

3) Does John suggest that the “world” is the product of desire and boastfulness, but the church (or kingdom, or whatever the opposite of world is) is the product of non-desire? Or is he suggesting that the culture of the world and the culture of the church are both products of desires, albeit radically different desires? The latter fits John’s argument better. He begins by talking about contrasting and competing loves – love for the world and love for the Father. Verse 16 changes the terms to “desire” and “boastfulness” as John describes the desires and boastings that animate the world. But the connection of verses 15-16 suggests that the desires are expressions of love: Love for the world is manifest in the desires of the flesh, of the eyes, and the boastfulness of life. Love for the Father, it follows, would be manifest in different desires. Culture corrupted by sin and culture redeemed by grace are both products of desire. The difference, as Augustine knew, was ultimately in the “loves” that drive the city of God and the city of man respectively.

4) What are the specific desires that characterize the world, and are evoked by the world? It’s not easy to determine what John means by flesh, eyes, and boastfulness of life; nor is it clear that he intends this as an exhaustive catalogue of the desires and impulses that come to expression in the world. It is tempting, though, to suggest that John is saying that the world arises from sexual desire (flesh), desire for power (eyes – judgment), and boasting in wealth (BIOS in 2:16 means “wealth” in 3:17). Jeff Meyers suggested to me that these are perhaps corrupted forms of the gifts of God – life, word, and authority – which are available within the ark (manna, tablets, rod).

To make specific application to our day: Desire for money comes to expression in financial institutions, government policies, advertisements. Boasting in wealth drives conspicuous consumption. Desire for sex not only drives much of entertainment and marketing, but is often behind the development of contraceptives, the massive and lucrative institutions of the abortion industry, educational policies, and so on. Desire for power is most nakedly apparent in the agon of electioneering, but also drives social snobbery and class consciousness and all their associated practices and artifacts of social distinction.

It is important to see not only that these institutions and ways of life are products of desire but that they are evokes by the ways of the world: They are “from the world.” Thus, advertisements not only arise from greed, but provoke greed; the soft pornography pervasive in the entertainment industry not only comes from lascivious producers but provokes lasciviousness; institutional arrangements not only arise from lust for power, but encourage that lust.