Cultural renewal requires organizations dedicated to promoting a properly conservative understanding of society based on a proper understanding of God and man, and dedicated to getting people who have this understanding into positions of leadership.
On November 20, 2009 a group of prominent Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical Christians promulgated the Manhattan Declaration, a manifesto of Christian resistance to the legitimization of homosexuality, to abortion and euthanasia, and to the erosion of religious liberty. Although the Manifesto has drawn understandable fire from the Left, it has also been criticized heavily by many conservative Protestants, a group one would expect to support it. And therein lies a tale.
Two tales, to be precise. For one, many Protestants disagree with the Manifesto's assumption that Christendom is in essential agreement on Christian doctrine, as when it says:
We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration . . .
. . . It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season.
Nowhere does the Declaration admit that Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christians have fundamental disagreements over just what the Gospel is. The explicit positions of the Declaration concern homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia and religious liberty, issues on which all three of the main streams of Christianity essentially agree. But when it implies that Christendom is in agreement on the Gospel, the Declaration strikes a fundamentally dishonest tone.
But we haven't time to tell this tale, important though it be. There is another issue here, not widely known, which must be brought to light. Many protestant critics say that the Declaration misleads by directing Christians to fight a culture war that is actually a waste of time. In their view, evangelism — urging people to repent and have faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins — is sufficient (as well as necessary) for broader cultural renewal and the fighting of the culture war. In their view the Manhattan Declaration is misguided, or even anti-Christian.
But this view is mistaken. Is evangelism necessary for cultural renewal? Certainly. Is it sufficient? Not a chance. And the belief that it is — widespread within Protestantism — is weakening conservatism, as it discourages many protestant conservatives from challenging the Left's control of American culture. Belief in the sufficiency of Christian evangelism must be opposed.
I will not argue here for the necessity of Christian evangelism for the cultural renewal at which conservative activism aims. Most conservatives understand that we need Christianity for America to flourish.1 My main point is one most leaders of conservative Protestantism don't seem to acknowledge: In order to renew American society it is not enough that many people have saving faith in Jesus Christ. Nor does it suffice for them to have correct views of God, man and society that result from a proper Christian catechism. And it isn't enough even that they vote for the more conservative candidates and ballot propositions. No, cultural renewal requires organization and action for the specific purpose of cultural renewal. And this won't happen spontaneously.
To be sure, many conservative Protestants are gung ho for political activism of the conventional kind such as voting and lobbying congress. But the historic mainstream of Protestantism has generally held a "two kingdoms" view in which the Kingdom of God is not overtly manifest in the political order and therefore the church is not to be directly involved in politics.
(Granted, the church, when doing its job, is indirectly involved in politics: Part of the church's duty is to teach Christian truths about morality, government and the proper ordering of society, all of which are foundational for political theory and practice. But the church — as opposed to individual Christians — is not to be involved in the actual operations of politics.)
And from here it's a relatively small step to the belief that politics isn't important. Consider, for example, the following words from Pyromaniacs, one of the most influential conservative protestant blogs, opposing the Manhattan Declaration:
. . . the gospel is ultimately a more persuasive and more effective means of individual and cultural transformation than all the philosophical arguments, moralistic reason, and academic logic the brightest minds and most eloquent orators of this world have to offer. [Emphasis added.]
The author, Phillip R. Johnson (not to be confused with Intelligent-Design guru Phillip E. Johnson), is only one of a very large number of protestant leaders who have stated — or at least strongly implied — that proclaiming the Gospel is sufficient for cultural renewal and therefore that conservative sociopolitical activism is a waste of time and at least somewhat contemptible. And there is accordingly a widespread belief among the (non-liberal) protestant rank and file that the only way properly to renew society is to preach the Gospel of salvation through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. According to this model, social renewal can only occur spontaneously, as Christians come to reject their former false beliefs about how society should be ordered.
To be sure, many protestant leaders have not stated openly that Gospel proclamation is sufficient for cultural renewal. But so many of them have implied it, and so strongly, that this view is widespread within Protestantism. If these leaders have not meant to make this implication, it is their responsibility to make their actual beliefs clear. Until they do so, we are justified in assuming that Gospel sufficiency for social renewal is their position. And since very few thinkers have written about the actual mechanisms that drive cultural transformation and renewal, it is fully understandable that Protestant preachers, who are known to emphasize the sufficiency of Christ for personal salvation, would assume Gospel sufficiency also for cultural renewal.
But proclamation of the Gospel, although necessary, is not sufficient for cultural renewal. To see this, let's understand, at least in broad outlines, what "cultural renewal" means, and why belief in the Gospel is not sufficient to cause this renewal.
Cultural renewal means the renewal of American society's order, the vast complex of her laws, rules, regulations, customs, traditions, habits and so on. And to be renewed, this order would have to be changed so that it is no longer (as it is now) largely based on the false worldview of the Left, but instead reflects a more accurate worldview, one based on Christianity, on the accumulated wisdom of millennia of human experience, and on the unique experiences of the American people.
America's order was once broadly conservative (by contemporary standards), but liberals changed it through a centuries-long struggle that saw them seize control of the schools and universities, the news and entertainment media, the governmental and private bureaucracies and even — God help us! — many churches. Liberals now have near-total control over the institutions that tell Americans what reality is and how man should behave. When Americans tolerate mass immigration, a high illegitimate birthrate, widespread divorce and failure to marry, the legitimization of homosexuality and other sexual sins, the degradation of popular culture, the demonization of whites and Christians, increasing government intrusion into their lives, and the rest of the leftist ills we see all around us, they are not doing so spontaneously. They are doing so because our culture is whatever our rulers say it is, and our rulers mostly teach liberalism. Restoring a properly-ordered American culture will therefore not occur spontaneously. It will require deliberate action by non-liberals to retake control of the schools, the media, the governmental and private bureaucracies, and so on, so that the institutions having authority over society again teach, and rule in accordance with, a worldview that is more conservative, that is, more true.
And proclamation of the Gospel is not enough to bring about such a vast and fundamental transformation, for several reasons.
For one, both the Bible and common sense make clear that most people will not respond with genuine faith to the Gospel invitation. Those who believe will always be a minority. But even among the minority of those who believe, only an even smaller minority will be able to find one of the rare churches that teaches the entire biblical worldview, and therefore also teaches the biblical view of a properly-ordered society, including such elements as opposition to abortion and homosexuality, the importance of protecting marriage and the necessity of having a minimally intrusive government. Liberal churches, of course, teach liberalism. But even many (and probably most) evangelical churches teach mostly religious cliches, and one cannot form a correct view of what constitutes a properly-ordered society from cliches. By failing to teach correct biblical principles of social ordering, most evangelical churches are de facto (if not de jure) supporters of America's liberal order.
[I'm describing Protestantism, but it appears something similar is happening within American Catholicism. A writer whose name I don't recall once quipped that, aside from opposing abortion, the American Catholic bishops are like the Democrat Party leadership in clerical garb.]
And the bad news continues with one final point: Even if the new believer is fortunate enough to find a Bible-teaching church, he and other like-minded people will not spontaneously form themselves into groups or plan and carry out the activities necessary for cultural renewal.
Understand what's at stake: Without cultural renewal, the American people will not continue to possess sufficient personal virtue to sustain self-government, in which case our future will be either balkanization or tyranny. The first stages of these evils, in fact, have already arrived.
Cultural renewal to save our country will require both thinking true thoughts about our social disorder and its causes and taking action to remedy what ails us, and none of the existing conservative institutions delivers this combination. Politicians and political parties cannot afford to alienate voters by challenging our leftist status quo at the deep and decisive intellectual and spiritual levels. Private socio/cultural/political organizations such as Numbers USA or Focus on the Family lack the comprehensive worldview and sociopolitical understanding necessary for cultural change. The schools are dominated by the Left. And the church is not charged with leading a (socio-) political battle.
America's existing cultural order — consisting of all the left-leaning laws, rules, customs, habits and institutions — is not there because of the beliefs of John Q. Public. Most Americans, although they generally go along with our liberal order, are not particularly leftist in thought and deed. America's leftist order is here because leftists have organized themselves and taken effective action to bring it into existence. Our leaders rule in accordance with liberalism and John Q. Public goes along, as he always does. Although Christian evangelism is absolutely necessary as the foundation of a properly-ordered society, America's bad ordering will not go away spontaneously when more people come to faith in Jesus Christ. It will only be replaced when conservatives start doing the work of retaking control of America's ruling institutions. [Or, at the very least, creating parallel, non-liberal institutions that could one day form the basis of a renewed society.]
The conclusion is unmistakable: Cultural renewal requires organizations dedicated to promoting a properly conservative understanding of society based on a proper understanding of God and man, and dedicated to getting people who have this understanding into positions of leadership. America's current leaders mostly believe — and act in accordance with — liberalism, which explains America's decline. Christian evangelism is not enough. We also need culturally conservative evangelism.
Endnote
1. It must be acknowledged, however, that American society has sunk so low that it would be a social improvement even for her to emulate many pagan societies of the past or present. Pagan societies, for example, generally have much lower instances of feminism, divorce, and the promotion of homosexuality. But America-and the West in general-has been Christian for so long that Christianity is the only realistic hope for American social renewal. Furthermore, Christianity is true and paganism, where it contradicts Christianity, is false.
For all of the references in this piece to a proper Christian understanding of politics, the structuring of society, and the role of government, I’m not sure what precisely is represented by a proper Christian understanding of any of these subjects because I cannot think of any specific Biblical reference that would illuminate a proper Christian understanding of these subjects. Understand that I am by no means a theologian, but I was raised in a Christian church and have at least basic familiarity with theological views of most mainstream Christian denominations. For all of the information the Bible and Christian teaching contain on morally upright living, it seems that the type of information you describe – the proper ordering of society, role of government, and political issues – must be extrapolated from between the lines, as it were. But even taking this approach, I fail to reach the concrete and clear conclusions that you do on the proper Christian understanding of government and politics.
For instance, the Old Testament describes government of the Israelites by theocratic monarchy and of the pagans by secular monarchy, leading into Roman occupation and limited religious self-governance by the Jews in the New Testament. Jesus instructed his followers to pay taxes to the occupying Roman Empire and rejected resistance to the government, allowing himself to be crucified after a show trial conviction on spurious charges. the earliest martyrs were executed under similar circumstances. After Jesus’ death, the early Christian churches at the time of Paul’s epistles were living communally under a voluntary collectivism. None of these socio-political structures are described as being an ideal to aspire towards as part of a morally upright Christian lifestyle, but what I take away by implication is that Christianity isn’t that terribly concerned with any particular style or structure for government, and that whatever government one finds himself subjected to, regardless of how unjust, should be tolerated even to the point of accepting persecution and summary execution.
Similarly, although both the Old and New Testament admonish believers (first Jews and then converted gentiles in Paul’s epistles) not to practice homosexuality, fornication or “impurity” as the gentiles and pagans, neither Jesus nor any of the apostles taught that this admonition should be enforced by government outside of the church. On the contrary, apparently such sexual sin was rampant (judging by Paul’s repeated admonishment) and widely tolerated, if not embraced, by the government to which Jesus instructed his followers to pay exorbitant taxes and submit their very lives. It seems the expectation was that secular society would be immoral, if not amoral, and yet Jesus taught submission to secular government without personally embracing secular culture.
In terms of the structuring of society the Bible is equally politically agnostic, with societies ranging from ethno-religious structures complete with specific instructions against inter-breeding, as in the Old Testament Israelite conquests, to somewhat balkanized ethnic and ethno-religious communities co-existing under the same over-arching secular empire. Here again, there is no suggestion by Jesus or the apostles that culture or behavior should be changed by a concerted political effort to control the apparatus of public opinion; rather the church is called on by Paul to rigorously police itself so as to differentiate itself from secular culture, and changes in behavior seem to occur at an individual level as a result of religious awakening. It is probably from this type of interpretation that the Protestant church arrives at its conclusions about the proper method by which to influence secular culture solely by evangelism.
As I said, I am by no means a theologian, but I fail to see how politically conservative concepts like constitutional representative republican government, individual rights, and free markets flow as self-evidently as this article suggests from Christian teaching, leaving the conclusions about Christian political activism reasonably open to question from a strictly religious perspective. Not being a theologian, and deriving my political views from a secular basis, I am willing to concede that my interpretation may be incorrect, but I think the inter-denominational disagreement that is the subject of this article demonstrates that the author’s position is not necessarily “settled theology”, if you will.
Patrick Mulligan raises some important points, but he misses the thrust of my essay. He is correct to point out that Christianity (i.e., the Bible, and not the extra-biblical traditions that have arisen within the church over the centuries) does not specify exactly how society is to be ordered. That’s why I said
“[America’s] order would have to be changed so that it is no longer (as it is now) largely based on the false worldview of the Left, but instead reflects a more accurate worldview, one based on Christianity, on the accumulated wisdom of millennia of human experience, and on the unique experiences of the American people.”
Other sources than Christianity are necessary for the American sociopolitical order.
But Christianity does specify a bare minimum that any properly-ordered society must have, and America is currently far below these minimal requirements, with, to name just a few items, its celebration of sexual sin and abortion, its coddling of many criminals, and its high tax rates. The Bible provides more principles of just government than the typical Christian parishioner realizes, because most churches don’t teach these principles.
Mulligan also says,
“…although both the Old and New Testament admonish believers…not to practice homosexuality, fornication or “impurity” as the gentiles and pagans, neither Jesus nor any of the apostles taught that this admonition should be enforced by government outside of the church.”
True, the Bible does not record Jesus or the Apostles saying “I call on the civil government to enforce these moral principles.” But the general teaching of the Bible is that government must be just, that is, it must not approve of or promote sin. It may not be the government’s job to police the bedroom, but it certainly must not, as ours does now, use its power to force people to act as if various sexual sins are not sins. At the very least, a just government will allow individuals and groups to express opposition to homosexuality and to brand it as sinful.
Finally, when Mulligan says
“…there is no suggestion by Jesus or the apostles that culture or behavior should be changed by a concerted political effort to control the apparatus of public opinion; rather the church is called on by Paul to rigorously police itself so as to differentiate itself from secular culture, and changes in behavior seem to occur at an individual level as a result of religious awakening.”
he misunderstands my position. I didn’t say that the CHURCH should engage in a cultural war; I said that church leaders should stop saying that CHRISTIANS ought not engage in these behaviors. By citing the Reformation principle of the two kingdoms, I actually am agreeing with Mulligan that the church ought not be directly involved in culture war. But since engaging in culture war against liberalism is a good deed, and since Christians ought to do good deeds whenever it is within their power, the conclusion is clear: Let Christians fight liberalism.
Alan,
I’m not sure if I entirely agree with your premise, again from a purely religious perspective, that a Christian ought to necessarily labor to create a just government. I mean ideally, of course, one wants to live under a just government, Christian or not, and the Christian moral code would certainly uniquely inform a Christian’s concept of what exactly constitutes a “just” government. However, Jesus himself, and his apostles that followed, lived under a completely unjust government that, as I mentioned before, tolerated every manner of Biblical sexual sin, oppressed Jewish and early Christian minorities, and even crucified the son of God as well as executing many of his followers. And yet no effort was made by Christ or the early church at an individual or institutional level to fight or reform the government itself, but rather to proselytize the world with the Christian gospel. This method eventually paid off when Constantine converted and institutionalized Christianity throughout the entire Roman Empire.
That’s not to say that Christians shouldn’t involve themselves in politics, particularly in this country where civic awareness is so important and yet so sorely lacking, but merely to say that it doesn’t seem to me to be a necessary tenet of Christianity for Christians to establish Christian moral government. So I don’t think, again strictly theologically speaking, that the Protestant church and its members are necessarily wrong in disengaging from political discourse and instead relying solely on evangelism to change the secular culture, nor are other churches and their members any more theologically correct in engaging in political activism.
Here’s my main point. Culture never changes spontaneously. Culture is whatever its leaders say it is, regardless of the convictions of individuals. Culture only changes when people engage in purposeful activity designed to change it. If Christians (not the institutional church, but Christians) do not change the culture, either it will be changed by non-Christians, or it will not change.
Yes, faith in Christ is necessary. I never said it is not necessary. I said that it is not sufficient, which is a different assertion. We need to review our lecture notes from Logic 101. We need both faith in Christ and deliberate action to restore a properly ordered society, or to retake the culture, or however you wish to express it.
And here’s another thing: Most people instinctively think that “attempting to change the culture” means “voting, lobbying government, or giving logistical support to the foregoing.” While these are important, they are not decisive. As I pointed out (perhaps too briefly) in the essay, what is needed is to defeat the rule of liberalism by publicly defeating its fundamental ideas and by placing those who reject liberalism in positions of leadership. That’s what I really mean by “attempting to change the culture,” and, rather than being an un-Christian distraction from the Christian’s real business, it bears a strong resemblance to Christian evangelism and apologetics. I’m working working on an essay that makes an analogy between the Christian life and fighting liberalism.
Since most people have never considered the idea that this is how to win the culture war, we must constantly correct their instinctively-held understanding of how culture war is to be fought.
Alan,
I think you may have misunderstood me. I am not contending that a specific effort is not necessary in order to change a culture. This is true whether one is religious or secular, and it is by such an effort that the secular pseudo-religion of Marxian collectivism has become so entrenched in Western culture in the last century. I only disagree with you on two particulars: the Biblical basis for secular political principles, like individual rights, low taxes, etc. And the necessity of cultural and political activism from a theological perspective. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but you seem to suggest in the original piece that such an effort on the part of Christians is a religious requirement rather than a political necessity. All I meant to say is that I don’t think failing to engage in political activism is “un-Christian” anymore than engaging in political activism is “un-Christian”.
Patrick,
I’m not saying that all Christians have an obligation to participate in “culture war.” Culture war, like all wars, is fought by those who volunteer, or are drafted, for service. Any Christian who does not have a calling for the specific organization and activity I have called for can stay out of that particular fight.
And I also do not say that the Bible provides for all the ruling principles of government and society. The Bible is consistent with many different social and cultural orders. Our war against the left is largely one whose aim is to get the government to stop trying to force us to sin or to act as if we approve if sin, and to stop the government from trying to destroy our way of life via multiculturalism, mass immigration and such.
Of course, in a properly (or at least tolerably) ordered society, the government will support in some ways the majority religion, and will allow local jurisdictions to punish flagrant public attacks on the religion that is the foundation of society. And by the way, the government currently does just these things, except that the religion it honors and protects from conspicuous public attack is liberalism, not Christianity.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Sam Adams and Rachel Alexander, IC Politics. IC Politics said: The Manhattan Declaration and Conservative Evangelism: Cultural renewal requires organizations dedicated to promot… http://bit.ly/c6lQCr [...]
[...] are not enough: the battle for culture By bonald Alan Roebuck has published an important essay on the subject of what will, and what won’t, work for conservative Christians wanting to [...]
[...] the erosion of marriage and the decline of religious liberty. Alan Roebuck has a provocative piece at The Intellectual Conservative in which he urges this kind of cultural activism by Christians of [...]