Why I Don't Want a Christian America (and Neither Should You)

One of the greatest things about my seminary is the diversity. Having grown up and attended college up in homogeneous Western PA, I have a chance to finally meet people from an array of different cultures, nationalities, and ethnicities. Over the course of the year I have become quite good friends with a British student named Philip. We enjoy talking about theology, culture, and politics (usually over a beer), as well as occasionally and playfully mocking each others nationality.

One evening I brought up the recent retirement of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. I asked him who he thought his replacement would be. He informed me that typically the Church of England alternates between a theological conservative and a theological liberal. Rowans (at least from an Evangelical perspective) was liberal, so a conservative ought to take his place. Yet there is a complication: the Church of England is a state church, which means that the Archbishop of Canterbury is chosen by Parliament. The problem is that British Prime Minister David Cameron, as part of an effort to modernize the Tories by dropping the party's historical social conservatism, is a strong advocate of gay marriage. Whereas gay marriage is largely a social issue in the US, it is a messy political-ecclesial issue in Britain because the Church of England baptizes, marries, and buries British subjects. In other words, the legalization of gay marriage in Britain means that the Church of England would have to marry homosexual couples. However, while the Church has a broad social function, its primary religious functions are increasingly dominated by theological conservatives, whether Evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics, because these are the only people who still regularly attend church in Britain. Hence, against the wishes (and conscience) of the greater portion of its active members, the Church of England may soon be required to wed homosexuals. No doubt these Anglican parishioners will be quite upset. Social conservatism largely dead in Britain (hence, Cameron's decision to ditch this platform) so lobbying against gay marriage would probably only cause resentment. Philip told me that what this means is that the messy disestablishment of the Church sometime down the road is probably inevitable.

Thus, the irony is this: whereas American Evangelicals want to preserve a Christian America, British Evangelicals wish to hasten the end of Christian Britain.

Though American Evangelicals do not want to officially bind church and state together in America, they do tend to yearn for the days when Protestantism was unofficially established in American culture. Up until the twentieth century Protestants, or at least a Protestant ethos, wielded tremendous influence over public schools, colleges and universities, local governments, and local communities. The presence of a chapel on the campuses of many public universities is a testament to this fact. But as American high culture became increasingly secular, this cultural hegemony was challenged. Ugly culture wars were fought, and are still fought, between those who want to see a strong Christian presence in American culture, and those want Christianity banished from it altogether.

Christianity in America has been historically tied so close to American culture that many Christians don't know how to get along without being culturally established. Many Christians push for a Christianized America because their very identities are tied up with the national culture. As a result, the religious nature of American Christianity gets sidetracked by the nasty arena of politics. Three decades of lobbying by the religious right has done little more than cause deep-seated bitterness towards Christianity from non-Christians. Hence, Christians have allowed themselves to caught up in the messiness of identity politics, uncivil discourse, and resentment that dominates most of the public square.

Another one of the ill-effects of this cultural secularization was Protestant liberalism. Virtually all of the mainline churches were so inextricably tied to American culture as established institutions within that culture that they found it impossible to resist the rising tide of modernism. As a result the mainline denominations, just like the Church England, had to compromise their values due to a messy alliance with an increasingly secular culture. This compromise involved a nasty divorce proceeding, just as the Church of England may soon also face. The plethora of splinter Presbyterian denominations is a testament to the bitter separation that occurred between Evangelicals and the mainline cultural establishment.

The lesson to be learned is that a "Christian America" is a double edged sword. Culture can transform Christianity instead of Christianity transforming culture. For many Christians the line between Christianity and Americanism became so blurred that when the latter exerted pressure on the former to compromise their values, they had little ability to resist. Liberal Christians have largely given orthodox values in order to become "modern" or "progressive." Evangelical circles have compromised as well. The profusion of consumerist, therapeutic, and nationalist Christianity in American churches, particularly in the mega-church churches, is a witness to the fact that Christianity often prostitutes itself out when seeks cultural establishment.

If we are unable to learn from our own past, let us at least learn from what is going on in Britain right now. The Church must ultimately stand with one foot in the world and with the other in the City of God. We must strive for the difficult paradox of antithesis to and contextualization within our culture. Only then will the integrity of the body of Christ be kept.

A Cautionary Warning Concerning the "Relevance" Ethos

The decline of regular church attendance over the past two to three decades has spurred several recent surveys of American Christianity which pay special attention to why Christians leave the Church. Many Christians are understandably concerned by the exodus of people from the pews, particularly young people. Hence, there have been recent campaigns to make the church "relevant." The Emergent Church is an outstanding example of this.

First, let me say that I am an outstanding supporter of theological contextualization. There is a definite need for the Church to constantly contextualize itself in whatever cultural situation(s) it finds itself in and to make use of the "gold of the Egyptians" - a la Origen and St. Augustine. The reactionary and fundamentalist attitude that orthodox American Christianity has had over the last century is lamentable. I by no means desire a Christianity that is hostile to outsiders and adopts Bob Jones University's attitude toward to culture. The Church has been too cold, too political, and too legalistic and a prudent movement away from these things is most welcome.

Yet at the same time a word of caution is in order. Though many Christians are understandably upset by Christianity's bizarre and at times un-Christlike sub-culture, they can often be far too naïve self-depreciating. First, it must be recognized that there is more to the numbers than what meets the eye. The fact that people are leaving the Church doesn't imply the Church in America is declining. For most of America's history regular church attendance was considered to be a sign of upstanding citizenship and morality. Hence, many people attended church for formal or social reasons rather than from true piety. Similarly, many Catholics have historically attended Mass (during Christmas and Easter at least!) and engaged the rituals of the Catholic Church because it is part of their ethnic heritage. So as social approval for regular church attendance wanes and the importance of ethnic identity for Irish, Poles, and Italians lessens, it is likely that those who were once regular attendees for reasons other than true piety will cease to be so. To a great extent our society is polarizing over religion and the middle ground of vague, ethnic or formal Christianity is disappearing.

Secondly, it is naïve to take many of the reasons people give for leaving the church at face value. I know many people who claim to have left the church because Christians are "hypocritical" or "uncaring", when in reality they left the church because they disliked the strong claims Christianity made on their individualism. My generation's distaste for anything that gets in the way of our claim to individual autonomy is, I suspect, one of the reasons why so many twenty-somethings stop attending church regularly. For instance, a sermon that faithfully and pastorally preaches the Christian sexual ethic can easily evoke cries of "moralism" or "hypocrisy," despite the fact the pastor preached in a loving and Christ-like manner. Often it is simply the case that essential tenets or values of Christianity are at variance with the worldly values of a erstwhile church-goers. People say that Christianity is too homophobic, sexist, prudish, or authoritarian, when what they really mean is that they dislike the church's unalterable teaching on homosexuality, gender roles, chastity, and obedience in contrast to individual autonomy. These are Christian teachings and we cannot change them. We cannot reject the commands of Christ and adopt the ethos of the world without damaging the integrity of our faith.

Moreover, it is naïve to think that if the church simply became more "seeker friendly" and more flexible that unbelievers would be pouring in. We must remember that there is a sharp distinction to be drawn between a sincere seeker of spiritual experiences and a sincere seeker of the Triune God. In a secular society, we often forget that a mere desire for the spiritual does not equal a desire to be formed by God's will. People will charge the church with hypocrisy or moralism or exclusivity simply because they cannot and will not surrender themselves to God. If you pander to these people, you will find yourself adapting Christianity until there is little true Christianity left. The problem that such people have with Christianity is simply that it is Christianity. We must understand that the there is always the offense of the cross. It is foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling block for the Jews. So while it is wise to take a healthy dose of criticism in order to grow in sanctification, we must avoid self-flagellation over those who won't accept Christianity no matter how appetizing we make it.

On Drink

Many Evangelicals have the extremely odd notion that drinking is immoral. What is even odder is that they think that the moral ban on the consumption of alcohol is biblical, and moreover part of 'traditional' morality. The reality is utterly different. Indeed, not only is the moderate consumption of alcohol not immoral, it is in fact entirely good and wholesome. First, the prohibition of alcohol amongst Christians is a very recent thing and its inception has very little to do with any careful exegesis of the Bible. In the nineteenth century, most of the cultural elites, the bourgeoisie, in America were Protestants. For the bourgeois strata of society, work became a focal point for morality. It was generally believed, in a some what self-justifying manner, that wealth was the product of virtue, especially the virtue of delayed gratification. (Weber's famous Protestant work ethic pertains more to Victorians than it does to Puritans). Immorality, by contrast, was that which contributed to unproductively and sloth. The consumption of alcohol, therefore, was considered immoral because it represented immediate gratification and was believed to be inconsistent with the high ethical virtue of hard work. Moral opposition to drinking was reinforced by the prejudice of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) against continental Catholics (the Irish, Poles, Italians, etc.). These continentals did not share the ethics Anglo-American Protestants when it came to delayed gratification. Indeed, alcoholic consumption was quite common among ethnic minorities on Sundays (so-called 'continental Sundays'). Continental and Irish immigrants typically came from rural economies, or at least economies that were not industrialized, and therefore did not place the same priority on efficiency and productivity. Indeed, the concept of the clock and the workday were utterly foreign to them. Victorians viewed their poor adaptation to the strange new world of industrial-capitalist society as sheer indolence . In the eyes of pious Victorians, this confirmed the evils of drink. Thence sprung the temperance campaign and, eventually, prohibition. Evangelicals, of course, are heirs of many Victorian sensibilities. Therefore, the opposition of many Evangelicals to alcohol can be traced back to the nineteenth century Protestant work ethic.

But what do the Scriptures themselves have to say about the subject? It should be noted that until the nineteenth century, Scripture was not commonly interpreted as laying down a ban on alcohol consumption. Luther famously stated that he and Melanchthon essentially started the Reformation over ale in a tavern. The Puritans were anything but puritanical with regards to drinking; the first breweries in America were founded by Puritans. This favorable outlook on drinking can be traced to the fact that Scripture reveals Jesus to be the Lord of wine. For my case, I will focus on John 2:1-12; the Feast at Cana. Here is incontrovertible evidence that Jesus looks favorably on drinking; his very first miracle involves the creation of alcohol. If drinking was immoral, it is difficult to see why our Savior would create 120 gallons of wine. It is, of course, sometimes claimed that what Jesus created was unfermented grape juice. First this is completely unwarranted from the text. This interpretaton is foisted onto the text because of some Christians' preconceived ethical notions; alcohol must be bad, therefore despite all appearances to the contrary, it must be grape juice. Secondly, the words used to describe what the wedding guests had consumed and what Jesus created for them to consume are exactly the same; oinov from oinos, which means nothing other than "wine." It is obvious that the original wine was clearly alcoholic. The master of the feast expressed surprise that the that Jesus produced was of fine rather than of poor quality. This was typical; the poor wine usually followed the two days during which the guests methysthosin - literally, " have gotten drunk"- and therefore would have been so far gone as to not have noticed the reduced quality of wine. Therefore, we have Jesus turning water into wine which exceeds the quality, and therefore alcoholic content, of wine that was already potent enough to have gotten the wedding guests drunk.

In conclusion, we see that the Evangelical aversion to drink is not rooted in sound biblical hermeneutic, but in certain nineteenth century (bourgeoisie) sensibilities. In fact, a more careful look at the life of Jesus indicates that not only is Jesus not anti-alcohol, but may possibly be pro-alcohol. Throughout the gospels Christ uses the metaphor of a feast for the consummate kingdom of God, and in those days feasts were not non-alcohol affairs. As Jesus demonstrated at Cana, he is the lord of the (alcohol present) feast. Now I do not want to err in the other direction and say that there is something wrong with abstaining from alcohol. I think a proper analogy is marriage, especially since both marriage and the feast are used as metaphors for our union with Christ. Jesus and Paul both tell us that marriage is a good institution and is ordained by God. However, they also tell us that it is, like all elements of human culture, corrupted by sin. Furthermore, they tell us it good for some people to abstain from marriage if they feel so called. Accordingly, I believe that drink is a good think derived from God's good creation. However, like marriage it has been corrupted by sin. The abuse of drink can lead to alcoholism, debauchery, or poor decisions. Some people, such as recovering alcoholics, people with a low tolerance for alcohol, or people who simply do not know their limits, are wise to abstain. Some people may simply not like to drink. Therefore, what we need is to strike a balance that recognizes our freedom in Christ, but also weakness of our brothers.

Drink because you are happy, but never because you are miserable.

— G.K. Chesterton

Education

Recently I have been seeing a lot of reports on how America is falling behind on education. I'm not going to debate whether or not America is falling behind in education; I'm not qualified to make an opinion on that, though based on anecdotes I am sure it probably is. What I do take issue with is how these reports determined that America is falling behind in education. The same statistic I keep seeing over and over again is that Americans are less competent in science and math than South Koreans and Singaporeans.

So what? Are math and science the only two academic subjects?

Obsessions with math and science scores are what really burn me. It is treated as if there two subjects are foundation of all important knowledge. If we don't know the classics of literature, the history of our civilization, or art and music, it's fine. But God forbid if most students aren't apt at math and science. I remember when I was in high school and several schools in the area were forced to shut down their music programs and divert funds to math and science classes. I remember my music teacher encouraging us to do well on our standardized tests - not primarily because he cared about us being scientifically and mathematically competent, but because the music program at my high school could suffer as a consequence!

The obsession with math and science scores rubs me personally. I am not at all good at math and science. When I was getting ready to apply to grad school I took the GRE's. I scored in the top tenth percentile on the verbal section, but was in the bottom quarter in terms of the math. A similar fate befell me on my SATs (though not quite as lopsided; the GREs came after three years of mostly humanities/social sciences and little math). If I took a math/science competence test today I am sure that the majority of students from South Korea would make me look silly. Whoever does the reports on American education would probably idiotically assume that the American education system failed me, despite the fact that I graduated cum laude with high honors from college.

I remember when one of my professors shared an anecdote with my seminar class (It's something that humanities students do; it's where you are forced to make arguments and express ideas amongst your peers and your professor. It requires you to be smart, lucid, and well-spoken, and it doesn't require bubble sheets). He told us that once he went a lecture by the very prestigious scholar Peter Brown, where Brown shared a story from his childhood. He said that one day the headmaster at his school noticed that he was an especially bright young man (amazingly, he was able to do this without a standardized test) and called him into his chambers. The headmaster asked Brown what plans such an intelligent boy had for his future. Brown replied that he thought of becoming a scientist. The headmaster shook and his head and said, "No, no lad. A bright young man such as yourself shouldn't waste his intellect doing that."

That was in the 1940s. Much has changed since then. Primarily Western civilization, and America specifically, has been technocratic. It is assumed that if we pool enough scientists and bureaucrats together we can solve the world's problems through policy. Man is treated as if he were an object rather than a subject. We think that material bounty and prosperity, produced by social engineering, will usher in a utopia. American's especially are drawn into consumerism and technophilia. We just want a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington or, if lean further to the right, a bunch of venture capitalists and techno-wizards in the Bay Area, to find a technocratic solution to all of our problems.

Dr. T. David Gordon's analysis of technophilia

Thus the really important subjects are those that produce bureaucrats or scientists or software engineers or bankers; math and science. The humanities are treated as something nice to be added on top of a solid math/science based education. . .if it doesn't distract too much. . .and if you are into that sort of thing.

I think (and of course I am being very biased in this, though if you studied humanities you would find that an unbiased opinion is impossible) that the whole way education is viewed in this country is topsy-turvy. Humanities at are the core of an education; science and math are at the peripheries. Now, I'm not saying that physics and biological majors ought to drop out of their programs and become art history majors. What I am saying is that I think that the humanities are central to our understanding of humanity (as the name implies) and thus of ourselves. The real problems that face humanity involve human beings! Technocracy hasn't come near to solving our problems and never will, because the real devil isn't in the world, it's in us. I'm not saying that science, math, and technology aren't important, because they are. They can eliminate many evils in the world such as disease, malnutrition, and water contamination. They can also create new ones such as the maxim gun, poison gas, the atom bomb, and cyber bullying.

The point is that any real wisdom concerning the human condition involves the study of the humanities. I don't mean to say that the humanities will make us more humane; I've met enough humanities scholars to know that immersing yourself in history or literature does not automatically make you wise or a good person. There are other components necessary for wisdom and virtue, but I think knowledge about humanity is an integral part.

Currently, we are in a world that desperately needs wisdom. It is telling that the white collar crimes and corporate greed that helped precipitate the current economic crisis did not generate reflection on the what we as a culture valued, but rather calls for more government regulation of the markets. Most people have a naïve view of humanity and the human condition. Most alarmingly, the citizens of our Republic are incredibly ignorant of our civilization's history, of the kinds of law and government that govern our country, or of human nature generally. As technology, especially biotechnology, pose difficult ethical questions for us, most Americans are ignorant of ethics and lack moral guidance.

Again, studying the humanities will not provide a golden ticket to good future. There are other elements, not the least moral and religious elements, that are also required. However, a greater emphasis on the humanities, or at the very least the avoidance of a utilitarian descent into a math/science dominated educational system, might help to re-orient our culture's values. It might encourage us to look to the good, the beautiful, and the true, rather at the materially gratifying. It might give us a more nuanced view of the world and of humanity. It might make us a little more discerning when it comes to politicians and their policies. And it might make us better citizens.

In Defense of Liturgy

Upon recently moving to Philadelphia I have had to find a new church to become an attendee of. As I was visited various churches, I decided to evaluate my preference based on three criteria; the quality of the preaching, the sense of community in the church, and the liturgy. This is because I have become convinced that liturgy plays a central role in the life of the Christian church, no less than the preaching and fellowship. Most Evangelicals are “non-liturgical.” Now, in reality, all forms of worship are liturgical. Our English word liturgy comes from the Greek word leitourgia, which means “a public work.” So the real question is not whether a service is liturgical but how much we consciously ordered our liturgy.

Human beings are highly symbolic creatures. We are constantly having our beliefs and mentalities confirmed or challenged by the swirling sea of symbols that engulfs us. Symbols are meant to convey certain ideas people, and thus it is easy to understand that practically everything we do is symbolic. If I drive an Audi, a BMW, or a Ferrari I am trying to convey the idea that I am well off financially. The car you drive is a symbol. So are the kinds of clothes you wear or the type of architecture that your office building is constructed in, not mention the art, music, and literature of the culture around you. If you think that you are uninfluenced by symbols, most you simply haven’t thought about how influenced you really are. Symbols are most effective when they are strung together to form a ritual. A ritual, for our purposes here, is a group of symbols (or symbolic ideas) that are meant to convey a narrative. By participating in a ritual of symbols and symbolic acts we gradually acquire, to a certain degree, the narrative this ritual communicates. Think of the average American “work ritual.” Think how influential this schedule is on our lives. In pre-industrial societies people did not think in terms of “weeks” and “week-ends.” Time, for them, revolved around the seasons because they were tied to the land. But today weeks and weekends seem “natural” to us. Our ritual of the work week shows how highly we value work, production, industry, success, achievement, etc. Five days of hard work follow by two of rest (and often indulgence) reflects the modern American mentality of working hard so that we can enjoy brief but powerful moments of pleasure. The endless, repetitiveness of this cyclic ritual reinforces, for some people, the hallow meaninglessness of it all.

Therefore, we have seen that human beings are ritualistic (and therefore liturgical) creatures. We are daily (and often unconsciously) imbibed with mentalities and values from the kinds of rituals we engage in. Above I alluded to the modern ritual of work, which reinforces the narrative of our culture, which is based on achievement, sudden bursts of hedonism, materialism, work-aholism, etc. It is obvious that many of these things are in conflict with the Christian faith. And since Christians, who are commanded by the apostle not to be idle but to work, must engage in this work ritual, it is necessary that Christians have an alternative liturgy that counter-acts the worldliness of the worldly “liturgies.” By engaging in the church’s liturgy we are disciplined; we learn to train our hearts towards the story of the gospel rather than the narrative of the world. Most traditional worship services begin with a call to worship. The glory of God is extolled and we are invited to adore Him in the reading of a Psalm and the singing of a hymn. However, with the glory of God in view, we are moved next to grasp our sinfulness. Therefore, it follows that we confess our sins to God and ask for His forgiveness. We are given the assurance of the gospel; that Christ has died for sins so that we might inherit righteousness and everlasting life. With this in mind, the service proceeds to the preaching of the Scriptures. Through the Bible God instructs us; He develops the maturity of our faith. After the sermon we are called to partake in the Lord’s Supper, where we grow in our unity in Christ through communion with his spirit and meditation on his passion. We find our faith strengthened. What we see here is nothing less than our participation in the gospel narrative; the glory of God, human sinfulness, the Atonement of Christ, our sanctification through the Word and the Spirit, and our communion with God through Christ. Thus traditional liturgy trains us in the gospel and directs our gaze towards God.

Churches who do not cultivate such self-consciously liturgical services will fail to discipline its members in the story of the gospel. Even worse, they may allow the values and mentalities of the world seep in. This in fact is what I believe occurs often in church worship services. “Non-liturgical” services very often incorporate the “liturgy” of the world. Church services become aimed at entertainment or emotional experiences rather than disciplining people in the gospel. The average Evangelical service in America often reinforces our culture’s individualism and self-absorption. The church’s music is meant to make me feel a spiritual high. The sermon is meant to make me feel good. Worship becomes about what God can do for us rather than what we should become for God. A very well-meaning lady I once talked to said that her church was non-liturgical so that people off the street would feel welcome. I understand the desire of many Christians to make their churches look welcoming, especially because of the negative press that Christians often get in today’s culture. However, we must see what being “seeker sensitive” really means is that the liturgy of the Church is adapted to fit the liturgy of the world.

Our outreach to non-believers must be model on the outreach of Christ. True Christ took the form of a servant and humbled himself, even to death on the cross, for our sake, but he also rose from the dead and ascended to the right hand of the Father. Christ descended into our corrupt world so that he could ascend again, taking the saints with him. Likewise the Church needs to be missional to be sure, but in its condescension to non-believers the Church cannot forget that it must also ascend, taking those for whom it descended with it. The mission of the Church is to be the instrument with which God turns the gaze of men away from themselves and towards Himself. Unless we do this the Church ceases to be a vehicle for salvation and becomes merely a business selling entertainment, emotional experiences, or a temporal fix to an existential crisis. Unless the overriding concern of our liturgy is to discipline men in the adoration of the ineffable glory of God, we merely cater the desires of the world. When we do everything according to the desires to the non-Christian walking in off the street, we find ourselves controlled by the ethos of these same people. The worship of the Church ceases to be something established on a firm foundation, but rather something that sways back in forth with the changing winds of (usually popular) culture. This reinforces the idea that the Church, or even Christianity itself, is meant to whatever people feel that it should rather than what God would have it do. When the very worship of God is done to the desires of men, what else shouldn’t be?

Ultimately, the Church is meant to transform people, not people the Church. Our liturgy must reflect this fact. It must raise people up rather than bend down to do their bidding.

The Weakness of American Evangelicalism - Part II

Continuing discussion of why Evangelicalism is weak culturally in America today. In the last post I identified the conflict model, anti-intellectualism, and populism. Now we look at the last two character traits of Evangelicalism that contribute to this weakness and offer conclusions as to why this matters for Evangelicals.

Consumerism - This trait is to some extent the result of populism. With the over-arching emphasis being on numbers, churches have focused on policies that bring in the masses. Evangelical churches tend to emphasize the portion of the great commission in which Christ calls his Church to spread the gospel to all people, but ignores altogether Christ's command for us to make disciples. The result is that marketing takes precedence over spiritual formation. Church becomes a business and the gospel a product. This trend is not lost on non-believers. I heard one skeptic say recently that the Church is merely another business that is out to get people's money by peddling the greatest product possible; hope for life after death. The irony is that the shallow consumerism of Evangelicalism is one of the biggest turn-offs to potential converts. The mega-church pastor is an oft-ridiculed stereotype in modern American culture (for my critique of the stereotypical suburban mega-church pastors, see my blog post from last October: http://spicey-spiceitup.blogspot.com/2010/10/charlatans-and-gospel.html). Though I do not have solid data to back this up, I observe that most of the large "successful" churches drawn not from the mass 0f unbelievers, but from other churches. In any case, the result is that American Evangelicalism has become materialistic (of which the health and wealth gospel is an outstanding example) in order to draw in 'giving units.' It has primarily become about feeling good, managing your money, or merely being entertained. The end result is a Christianity that is utterly worldly. Paul in his epistle to the Colossians tells his audience to focus entirely the things above, where Christ is seated. Paul does not mean by this that Christians are to be other-worldly and Platonic. Instead, it means that we are to desire higher and eternal things such as beauty, love, peace, joy, hope, and the knowledge of God. These are manifested in God's creation and so we should enjoy them through the creation; I do not want to pose a spiritual/material dualism. But modern Evangelicalism has a knack for watering down these heavenly things into base substitutes. Love becomes sentimentality, peace and hope becomes feel-goodery, and joy becomes mere entertainment and amusement. The most immediate danger is that this is idolatry; unlike the heavenly blessings, which point to Christ, these things point only to the worldly. More to our purpose, they make Evangelicalism culturally weak, because it means that Evangelicalism focuses exclusively on the base rather than high. Is it any wonder that film, art, literature and music so dominated by secularism? Secularism dominates these areas when Christianity produces kitsch sentimentalism manifested in praise songs, Christian romance novels, and simplistic and shallow Christian movies. Ideas like existentialism and relativism are so influential today because they are manifested in art, literature, and film rather than in poor mimics of Hollywood blockbusters or chick flicks. Thomas Kinkade art and sentimental Christian novels are poor substitutes for the Sistine Chapel and Paradise Lost. The overall issue is that Evangelicalism becomes something that stoops down to the most base and vile elements of consumerism, instead of something that seeks to lift people up to the heavenly realms. Christianity teaches that humanity has a nature that was created good, which desires partake in higher things such as the beautiful, the good, and the true. But because of sin this original nature has been corrupted into a sinful nature in which people now desire the pleasurable, the self-serving, and the useful; yet the original nature has not been completely eradicated. It seems obvious which nature Christian outreach out to tickle.

Disunity - The fragmentation of American Evangelicalism is one of the biggest reasons why Christianity is so impotent. The Catholic Church puts Protestants to shame for this very reason. Catholics, despite being outnumbered by Protestants 2:1, run the most effective Christian education system (the sole elite Christian research university, Notre Dame, is Catholic), have a far more effective missions program, and give more to charities that Protestants. The reason is that Catholics are united, which means that they can pool their resources effective coordinate their use. Evangelicals are haplessly disunited and, apart from politics, disorganized. Indeed, Evangelicals spend almost as much time wrangling with each other as they do with non-Christian sub-cultures. My own tradition, the Reformed, is fragmented into dozens of small denominations which all strongly resist any unification because of minute differences. Disunity is preserved by a lack of Christian charity and a sense of pride often thinly veiled as "doctrinal purity." Like broader American culture, Evangelicals cannot cooperate towards a common good while agreeing to disagree in love. My guess is that God will chide us all far more strongly for failing to love another and effectively carrying out the Church's mission than He will for us communing with those who baptize infants, disbelieve in predestination, think that communion is merely a memorial meal, or practice a Presbyterian polity rather than an episcopal one. Of course nondenominational churches deserve a fair share of the blame as well. It is difficult to maintain any kind of cooperation between churches when anyone can break away and go its own way. As a result, any attempt to actually forge any kind of pan-Evangelical organization that actually has power to coordinate the resources and activities of Evangelical churches will always remain elusive. As a result, Evangelicals will be hapless in the effort do things such as create a good system of Christian schools, fund a top-tier orthodox Protestant research university, effectively pool resources for charities, or effectively organize missions both at home and abroad. The advantage of cooperation over going solo was not lost on the Preacher in Ecclesiastes: "Two are better tan one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if the fall, one will life up his fellow. . .And though a man may prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him - a threefold cord is not quickly broken (Ecclesiastes 4:9, 10a, 12).

The question naturally arises, of course, why should any of this matter? Why should Christians care about being culturally influential? Some Evangelicals no doubt think that it is best to remain 'pure' from the taint that might result from an attempt to redeem secular culture. Why not let the Spirit do its work? True, the Holy Spirit is the one who truly guides the Church towards the consummation and brings unbelievers to faith. But the Holy Spirit operates through the Church to achieve these ends. The building up the Church does not occur magically, but by the Spirit through the normal spiritual, psychological, and sociological phenomenon that constitute the original creation. Conversion and Church growth do not confound a limited psychological or sociological explanation. To put it simply, it is through the cultural influence of the Church that the Holy Spirit operates. If the Holy Spirit did otherwise, we might as well argue that Christians ought not try to spread the gospel (after all, we shouldn't risk tainting ourselves by interacting with nonbelievers) but instead leave it up to the Spirit to spontaneously convert people. The operation of the Holy Spirit does not make evangelism or a strong Church any less necessary. However, another objection might be levelled, this one from the other side of the aisle, so to speak. Isn't all this talk about cultural power simply a return to the mistakes of Christendom? First, let me say that when I speak of cultural power, I do not mean the cultural establishment of Christianity. I don't suggest that Christians try to imperiously coerce nonbelievers through commanding positions on the cultural heights. I mean something much more organic. I mean that Christians ought to have a strong presence in culturally powerful institutions so that the Christian vision is heard and taken seriously. Christianity is rejected today by secular society, not because it has been understood and refuted, but because it can be ridiculed with ease. Secondly, the goal of cultural strength should not be the Christianization of the artistic, educational, or political institutions. Instead the goal should be the building up of the Church. Christians are called not to conquer the City of the World but to build the City of God. Included in the City of God are those who are the Church's representatives in the artistic, educational, and governmental institutions. If there is to be a Christianization of society, it must only be done by the conversion of society into the Church, not by dominating cultural institutions so that society has a Christian facade. Ultimately our goal should be a cultural strong Church that is able to spread the gosepl of Christ, disciple its members, and effectively cultivate the the good, the beautiful, and the true.

The Weakness of American Evangelicalism - Part I

I contend that American evangelicalism is culturally weak. This means that in our increasingly pluralistic culture, Evangelicalism lacks cultural influence. I argue that this is due to six specific traits of American Evangelicalism. If the cultural weakness of Evangelicalism is to be overcome, Evangelicals need to reflect on how the American Church can be transformed into a stronger institution. Despite many improvements, the Evangelical Church at large requires sweeping reform. Nothing less than another reformation will do.


The fact of the matter is that American Evangelicalism was practically culturally irrelevant in the second half of the twentieth century. True, Evangelicals did gain sweeping political influence through the Religious Right. However, politics is only one part of culture, and ultimately not a very influential one. The modern state is increasingly run by bureaucrats rather than elected officials. One only needs ponder the lack of results, despite thirty years of political mobilization on the part of the Religious Right. Evangelicals might achieve victory for a time through politics, but ultimately the state is driven by far more influential aspects of culture. The Religious Right has ultimately done more harm for Christianity than good because it has spread resentment amongst non-Christians (and even some Christians). It has awakened fears that Christians desire a return to the Protestant Establishment in the United States. The reality is that law (politics) does not create cultural change, but rather is the product of cultural change. Law is the expression of the will of the cultural elite. The most powerful cultural centers in modern America are academia, elite media outlets, law schools/public policy schools, the arts, book publishers, literature, museums, etc. It is strength or representation in these areas that determine the strength of a particular cultural movement. And it is in precisely these areas that Evangelicals are the most impotent. This means that the influence of American Christians on contemporary culture is likewise impotent. The reasons for this are complex and I don't fully understand them myself. However, to a great extent they are a result of six traits of Evangelicalism.

Conflict Model - Evangelicals, by and large, don't view the non-Christian culture as a lot of poor souls that need to be won, but as enemy combatants that need to be conquered and subdued. It is telling that Christ commanded his apostles to make disciple (i.e. teach and instruct) the nations, not scream at them or dominate them politically. The conflict model emphasizes antithesis over relevance. It forgets that non-Christian culture contains much good and needs to be discipled , not obliterated and replaced by a "pure" Christian culture. In short, it forgets the common ground between Christians and non-Christians by virtue of the fact that both are still made in the image of God. The inability to connect with the good in non-Christian culture ultimately means that Evangelicals lack all relevance. The early Church fathers were especially good at finding the common ground between Christians and non-Christians, and the early Church was culturally stronger because of it.

Anti-Intellectualism - Most Evangelicals are suspicious (to say the least) of intellectual life. They view the modern university (not without warrant) as anti-Christian. I think that the university is only implicitly anti-Christian - i.e. it educates in a decidedly secular fashion, since most in academia aren't Christians - not explicitly so. However, the continued dearth of religious perspective in academia is the fault of Evangelicals to a great degree. Rather than formulate a comprehensive plan for real educational and intellectual cultivation, Evangelicals have simply retreated from academic life. Academia, at best, is something to be survived. What educational programs Evangelicals do produce are deeply reactionary and typically unscholarly. They don't teach Evangelicals how to think but what to think, and what Evangelicals are told to think (e.g. creation "science") often borders on intellectual dishonesty. Exposure to non-Christian views are avoided, and where there is interaction, Evangelicals are not taught how to critically examine the ideas, but to wave them away as liberal or secular hogwash. They are taught to reject wholesale "secular learning" rather than redeem what is good in it. All of this belies a deep lack of confidence on the part of Evangelicals in the intellectual credentials of Christianity. Additionally, despite the recent prominence of many orthodox Christians in intellectual life (George Marsden, Alvin Platinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Francis Collins, Mark Noll), Evangelicals are typically unsupportive of Christian intellectuals. In part this is because Evangelicals are suspicious of such Christian academics. They are often viewed as "tainted" by their academic pursuits, especially when they hold views (such as those pertaining to evolution) that most Evangelicals refuse to even entertain. While Evangelicals dump millions of dollars into politics, church programs, and popular Christian organizations, institutions that foster Christian learning are left underfunded or ignored all together. The sole research center funded at my undergraduate institution was a political one; the Center for Vision and Values. When reasons were given for giving generously to my Alma Mater, the rich experience of cultivating robust Christian learning was typically not one of them. Even the speaker at my baccalaureate couldn't help mixing Christianity with politics and civil religion. In short, Christian learning is often viewed as a means to an ends (e.g. training the leaders of tomorrow), not an end in itself. This means that Evangelicals are uninterested in the scholarly content of Christian learning, only its utility in the culture war. This devastating for Christian culture. Christians are right to affirm that academia is a critical component of the spread of secular culture, but the lament of Evangelicals to this effect is matched only by their impotence in doing anything to counteract it with a model of true Christian learning.

Populism - Evangelical neglect of culturally important institutions is typically justified by an erroneous understanding of culture. Evangelicals typically think that mass evangelism is the way to win cultural influence. What is ironic is that the rise of the mass evangelism movement runs parallel to the collapse of a Christian impact on culture. This is because cultural influence is not gained by numbers. Christianity, even if reduced to the 40% or so of those who we might say are true practicing Christians (as opposed to nominal - "in name only" - Christians), is still the largest single world view in the country. Yet its share in the culture economy is vastly below this. This is because it not quantity that matters but quality. Think, for instance, of the influence that people of Jewish ethnicity have due to the fact that they are typically well-educated and well-cultured (about 1.7% of the nation is Jewish, but one-third of the supreme court is Jewish). Jews, faced with extreme prejudice through their history in the Western world, had to form a strong culture or else be subsumed by the larger culture. Evangelicalism is typified by a misguided attempt to dominate popular culture. The problem is that pop culture is merely a vulgarized and commercialized interpretation of high culture. If we look at summer blockbusters, pop music, or television sit coms, we see commercial imitations of high culture trends such as existentialism, pragmatism, hedonism, and relativism. Evangelicals are puzzled why, despite the mass production of Christian movies, books, and praise music, Christianity lacks the ability to influence the lives of the average American. Evangelical churches routinely fail to even influence the lives of many of their congregants. The reason is that the Church cannot exist merely as a pop culture institution, because such institutions are inherently weak without high culture support. The average American falls for the ills of American pop culture, such as movies, songs, and TV shows that glorify sexual promiscuity and individualism because they have been prompted to do so through public schools, the media, secular colleges, film, and books published by secular-minded publishing companies. These areas of high culture continually preach human autonomy and moral relativism regarding traditional mores. Without such high culture support, the attempt to be "relevant" in pop culture makes Christianity look kitsch, sentimental, and weird to non-Christians and even many Christians. Often Evangelicalism makes Christianity look shallow and superficial due to its overemphasis on the popular. When this perception is exported through mass evangelism (think of those tracks you always find at the mall), the result can be that more harm has been done than good.