The Church & Culture Question 1950--2000

What is the relation of the church and culture? "In the world yet not of it?" Salt? Light? Yeast? Are we to simply be the church, or to change to world? The issue emerges periodically as a hot topic of discussion -- especially during times when our thinking is shifting on the subject. The 1990's is such a time. Perhaps a short glance at the last 50 years among evangelicals might help us hammer out the position we will take in the first part of the 21^st century.

The 1950's Christians had a moral consensus in this nation. Sure, there was plenty of private, dirty linen but the public consensus generally supported Judeo-Christians values. Dwight Eisenhower, popular military commander of World War II, maintained a stable Presidency from 1952 to 1959, though the racial tensions in the South were a harbinger of the 60's to come. As for Christians, the main line church was in command. Their pastors hungrily consumed H. Richard Neibuhr's new book, Christ and Culture in 1951. He had set up the equation so that the "right answer" was number five: reform the culture. His book soon became sort of Magna Carta for a Christian liberalism bent on developing a "Great Society" based on Christian values -- a culture where people would not be judged by the "color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Main line denominational executives rallied their members to transform culture so that it might come to reflect kingdom values. What were the particular values they wanted to introduce into the culture and the political agenda? "Peace and justice."

Where were the evangelicals? Hiding in the hills! While "liberal Christians" opted for approach number five (transform-the-culture), most evangelicals functioned like they had picked number one (Christ-against-Culture separatism). Evangelicals went about their religion quietly, reaching people as they advertised (not in the newspaper but by word of mouth) their belief in a personal "born again experience." It was something the "formal church" or "liturgical church" didn't teach, they said. As for changing the culture, evangelicals (who seldom called themselves that in the 50's but rather preferred a denominational moniker) worried little about affecting "the world." They were too little. Too powerless. A minority. And they knew it. Many evangelicals even shrugged off their duty to vote, except to keep divorced candidate Adlai Stevenson out of the Presidency. (It would be several decades before a divorced candidate would be elected, but that time with the whole-hearted support of evangelicals).

Everything changed in the 1960's. John Kennedy was elected in 1960 in spite of opposition of most Protestants who thought he would "take orders from the pope." Kennedy was killed in the Fall of 1963 and Lyndon Johnson followed him and began enacting the "Great Society" legislation which began to establish the "Peace and Justice" society the transform-the-culture main-liners had called for since the 1950's.

Well, the justice part at least. The peace part was a another story. Many mainline Protestant church leaders opposed the war in Vietnam and attempted to persuade their members to follow suit. Some did. Many did not. By the end of the 1960's JFK and Robert Kennedy had been killed, LBJ had been driven out of the race, Nixon was president, and the streets and college campuses were full of anti-war activism, hippies, free love, and about one in ten people who claimed to be there actually went to Woodstock in 1969.

Where were the Christians? Divided. A few took their transform-the-world activism into the streets to march against the hottest social issue of the day (peace) or for the second issue, civil rights (justice) but most quietly sat back and watched the culture's "Christian consensus" unravel with the younger generation. The world-changers in the 60's were the radical young and their liberal leaders. The rest of the church stood by watching things crumble. Main line churches had greater sympathies with some evangelicals than their own liberal leaders and they were especially angered at any denominational monies diverted into something like the "Angela Davis defense Fund." In the 1960's evangelicals started calling themselves that: "Evangelicals." Their unifying flag became the increasingly popular "fortnightly" magazine Christianity Today, introduced by Billy Graham in 1956, and the NAE was rising in influence. The evangelicals locally were quietly winning people to their churches and developing an evangelical unity… which later leaders would harness for political purposes.

The 1970's started out with evangelicals focusing on evangelism. Bill Bright launched the first giant youth convention in Dallas, Explo '72 where 80,000 were trained in the use of Bright's "Four Spiritual Laws." The following year the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals) launched a related interdenominational effort at evangelism dubbed "Key 73." Evangelicals were focused on evangelism.

But by the middle of the 1970's, at about the time of Campus Crusade's "Here's Life America" and the "I found it!" campaigns were winding down, evangelicals started to lose interest in evangelism. Now they took a new interest in reforming the culture. Evangelicals were no longer on the side lines or located across the tracks. The "great churches" in the country were no longer the mainline downtown cathedrals -- they were evangelical churches. Christian TV rose to power and opinion magnates like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson wielded more power than the main line church executives on "Riverside Drive" in New York. Increasingly mainline members identified with these "Evangelical Popes" on TV. Nixon had used the term "Silant Majorty" and now the evangelicals founded the "Moral Majority on the notion that the country was full of people agreeing with these preachers -- if they could just be organized to make a difference at the ballot box. When the 1976 Democrat Presidential candidate Jimmy Carter claimed to be "born again" the rest of the country knew what he meant; convicted Watergate criminal Charles Colson had already written a book by that title explaining how he had himself been converted.

But evangelicals soon put evangelism on hold as political action took increasing attention. They were heady days; Newsweek magazine declared 1976 to be "The Year of the Evangelical." Evangelicals saw a chance to affect the world through the political process. We could reverse abortion rights, suppress the drive for gay rights, defeat attempts to pass an Equal Rights Amendment. We got access. Gained power. Elected Presidents. (Maybe we could even unseat one?)

Evangelicals and mainliners had switched sides. As evangelicals charged into the battle to reform the world, they passed the mainliners withdrawing. The 1989 book Resident Aliens by Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon outlined the main line alternative view to transforming-the-culture. They called the main line church to be the church -- as an alternative culture to the world. This book caused some change, but more like it merely reflected the change already taking place -- main liners were withdrawing from the culture wars -- progressively discontent with the strident tones of the evangelical generals in the battle. Evangelicals were entering the war to re-make culture. they used their mammoth mailing lists to gather together a great "Moral Majority" into a Christian Coalition to bring America back to its roots.

It's no wonder evangelicals believed they could do it. In 1980 they were the chief factor for the election of Ronald Reagan. At least they thought so. There must really be a "moral majority;" this was the proof. Evangelical's hope was high. They'd soon see a return to Christian values. Soon this nonsense about women getting an "equal rights amendment" would be gone. Soon there'd be no more talk about "gay marriages." Not too far into the distant future we'd see prayer reintroduced into the public schools, maybe even by amending the constitution. It wouldn't be long until we'd see abortion totally outlawed -- after all with just a few more Supreme court seats… And, if anybody could do it, Ronald Reagan could.

But evangelical were disappointed. Not in Ronald Reagan, for he was pronounced to have "done his best." But while Reagan had been an excellent cheerleader for the evangelical agenda, his administration just didn't pull off substantive changes. Like the Democrats use minorities to get elected, then largely forget their agenda for the next four years, Republicans had functionally abandoned evangelicals. At best evangelicals could say, "Without Reagan it would have been worse." Tapping this newfound evangelical power in 1988, evangelical preacher Pat Robertson tried a run for the Republican nomination for President and couldn't get anywhere against George Bush. Evangelicals weren't that excited about Bush, but at least he was better than the opposition.

The 1990's started off with sociologist James Davison Hunter's provocative book Culture Wars (1991) outlining the war. National newsmagazines started portraying a "culture war" under way with evangelicals (the "religious right") on one side and "progressives" on the other. The war was increasingly just that -- a war. War language was employed and militant strategies against abortion and gay rights were adopted. Onward Christian Soldiers was not sung so much as lived. Churches became political action outlets, something the American black church had always been. Chain-of-life organizers used the church. People blocked abortion clinics. Boycotts were organized. And, though evangelicals were never Bush-lovers, they quickly lined up behind him and fought against a Bill Clinton they did not trust, often passing around made-up gossip and circulating jokes of sexual innuendo about Hillary. (They guessed right about Bill at least!) Yet, even with the evangelical might lined up behind Bush, the country elected Clinton in 1992, then re-elected him in 1996; they did not impeach him for "having sexual relations with that woman" and in 1998 Newt Gingrich and the congress Republicans took a beating at the polls.

So, where is the debate about the church and culture now? In 1993 well-known Christian sports leader Bob Briner wrote Roaring Lambs, calling for Christians to quit complaining about the world and get out there and do something to make it a better place, i.e. quietly invade Hollywood, public education, and the media changing the culture from the inside out.

In 1995 Michael Horton (Where in the World is the Church) re-issued the call to reform the culture and, in a sense urged evangelicals to hang in there and win the battle they had started. Michael Horton's book then went out of print.

In 1996 popular Promise Keepers speaker Tony Evans wrote, Are Christians Destroying America? And scolded American Christians for being so sick themselves that they can't correct the culture. The effect of his book is to cause Christians to turn inward, not outward… finding a way to "get right with God" and remove the beam out of their own eye before they attempt to remove the speck in the culture's eyes.

A year later in 1997 Dean Merrill published Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Church, calling for the church to turn down the heat on their strident calls for social reform and to return to personal evangelism based on the idea that to change the world we must do it one life at a time.

In 1999, right at the close of the decade-century-millenium there are two books circulating. The first is by Rabbi Daniel Lapin an orthodox Jew (America’s Real War) and calls for Christians and Jews to unite, and keep at the battlefront, saying the culture war can be won and people should stay on the front lines and not surrender. On the other side of the issue (and by far the more popular view) are former Moral Majority-ites Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson (Blinded by Might) who believe the culture war is lost and evangelicals should abandon the battlefront, accept the fact that there is no "moral majority" and return to evangelism of individuals. These two writers were recently joined by Paul Weyrich, who coined the phrase "Moral Majority," and developed its strategy. Weyrich in a 1999 open letter now believes that there is not a moral majority at all, and probably never was. America, like Israel's Northern Tribes is "joined to its idols -- leave her alone." Therefore, Weyrich calls evangelicals to unplug their TVs instead of trying to get better programming, start home schooling instead of reforming the public schools, in other words, developing a complete parallel culture as an alternative to a godless public culture.

So where does that leave us in beyond 2000? Which turn in the road will evangelicals take?

Will evangelicals catch a second wind and return to the political battlefront with fresh energy and an intention to re-shape the culture in the image of kingdom values?

Will we surrender the culture wars and retreat into a parallel culture focusing on renewal and revival of ourselves before attempting another war?

Will we divert the energies we once focused on political action to education -- trying to persuade the world instead of coerce it by law?

Will we discover a kinder-gentler way to influence the culture through engagement and alliances rather than through organized political action, marches, life-chains, rescues, and boycotts?

What do you think? What will the evangelical do in the next decade?

But a far more disturbing question arises from a quick survey of the last 50 years. It is not about the relationship of the church and culture at all. It is about the church itself. Who are evangelicals today? Who are we? What have we become? It was at one time (for many) a conservative view of the Bible's authority, a lively expectation of God's presence in worship, and a belief in the born again experience. What is it now? Who are evangelicals after all?

But that is a topic for another time.

So what do you think?

By Cal Thomas & Ed Dobson (1999)

This book review by Keith Drury is one of a series on the church and culture. It is designed to encourage deeper thought and discussion as evangelicals hammer out a new paradigm for transforming culture.

 In this book, two former front line soldiers out of the Moral Majority movement admit the effort to reform America was at least a failure and probably an outright theological mistake. Blinded by Might is a blistering attack on the evangelical church's attempt in the 1980's and 1990's to reform the culture through the political process. Columnist Cal Thomas and pastor Ed Dobson, former staff workers at Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority level their sights at the now-defunct Moral Majority, and its progeny including James Dobson and the Christian Coalition. They are not cocky in their charges -- for they are essentially charging themselves with an unwise war in which they were ultimately defeated.

 Thomas and Dobson are both right wing Christian conservatives themselves. Yet they stand up and announce to all America that emperors Ralph Reed, D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson, Jim Dobson and Gary Bauer are wearing no clothes. Gutsy.

This book is no tell-all on the inner workings of the Moral Majority. In fact, you sense their real appreciation -- perhaps even admiration -- for the likes of Jerry Falwell personally. Rather it is an accusation that the religious right has taken up the weapons of this world to fight a battle to which it was never called.  And, thus the battle has been lost. The authors argue that after 20 years of waging this war to improve American culture we are worse off. At best the right can offer the anemic defense, "Well, if we hadn't fought, things could be worse."

But their charge is deeper than a lost battle. They accuse many (most? all?) of the generals in this war as being "blinded by might" -- i.e. caught up in the power of it all. They write an embarrassing description of fund raising practices common to the religious right, charging that the leaders in this lost culture war cling to their posts as generals, insisting on fighting to the end while benefiting from the power and appurtenances of their power. It reminds the reader of Vietnam… or maybe even Masada.

So what is their prescription? Join the Amish and forget voting? Re-enter the catacombs? No. They challenge the church to make evangelism the highest priority again. They say we should "Let the Church be the Church" (chapter 12) focusing primarily on the conversion of individuals -- reforming people one by one, abandoning what they call "Trickle Down Morality."

That's what Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson think…

So what do you think?

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE BOOK:

• The author's personal insider stories of days in the Moral Majority.
• The "body count" of the 20 years moral decline.
• The parallels to earlier lost culture wars at the Scopes trial and prohibition.
• The notion that losses in a culture war may usher in a subsequent great period of evangelism.
• The "Henri Nouwen" approach to power.
• The fascinating story of JFK's visit to speak at Liberty Baptist College.
• The frequent easy-to-read lists of principles or truths they espouse.
• The practical call to pray for our leaders.
• The chapter on Jim Dobson (chapter 9).
• The practical suggestions for what we should be doing.
• The ten falsehoods perpetuated by the religious right held up to theological and biblical light (Ch 12)
• The long excerpt from Sam Nunn's address at the National Prayer Breakfast.
• The excellent collection of interviews at the end of the book (85 pages) including an array from both side of the issues ranging from Jerry Falwell to Norman Lear [Jim Dobson refused and his refusal note is on p119).

BEST QUOTES

• "Two decades after conservative Christians charged into the political arena… it must be acknowledged that we have failed."
• "…despite all the time, money, and energy -- despite the political power -- we failed. Things have not gotten better; they have gotten worse."
• "no one talks about discipleship or maturation in one's faith. 'The Deeper life' was often mocked by fundamental evangelists who wanted scalps."
• "Jesus emptied himself of power that was rightfully his. We try to fill ourselves with power that belongs to the world and seek to usher in a kingdom not of this world by using the tools that are of this world.
• "One of the dangers of mixing politics and religion is that you begin to think the only way to transform culture is by passing another law."
• "Let the church be the church. The mission of the church is to declare the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ."
• "Why do so many American Christians need to feel wanted and appreciated and see their politicians reflecting the way they pray and behave? … Is it because of some deep sense of inferiority?"
• "Most Americans do not realize that in the middle of the nineteenth century the abortion rate per capita in America -- in a smaller population-- was almost what it is today."
• "Many in the Religious Right have fallen for the temptation of taking sides and declaring that God is on their side. The most blatant attempt to co-opt God is the Christian Coalition."
• "…politics has become for religious conservatives a false god."
• "We are not called to change the political beliefs of our opponents, but to announce the Good News. That is out only hope of transforming culture."

PUBLISHER: Zondervan, Hardback ISBN 0-310-22650-3

Examine Amazon.com page for this book.

By Rabbi Daniel Lapin (1999)

This book review by Keith Drury is one of a series on the church and culture. It is designed to encourage deeper thought and discussion as evangelicals hammer out a new paradigm for transforming culture..

About the time evangelical Christians are considering surrendering in the culture wars, along comes an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi telling us to stay in the battle. Although not directly about the church and culture, (You are in) America's Real War is perhaps the most recent book (1999) relevant to the subject from the right, though written by a fundamentalist Jew, not a fundamentalist Christian.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin, an orthodox rabbi sees America at war with itself, openly comparing our times with the civil war period. Once inside the book, Lapin exchanges the war metaphor for a tug-of-war imagery. We are divided over America's future. Those who want a secular nation are on one end of the rope, and orthodox Jews and serious Christians are on the other end. The winner will establish the future of America -- will it be a Christian nation, or a secular one. Simply put, he sees the only way to reverse America's decline is to return to our Judeo-Christian roots as a nation. Indeed, Lapin is not bothered that much if we become a fully "Christian nation," believing Jews are better off in a Christian nation than a secular one.

He sees our most recent slide from morality accelerating in the 1960's with the likes of the Supreme Court's school prayer decision, the introduction of the topless bathing suit, birth control pills, and even ties in Ray Kroc's McDonalds.

He credits Judeo-Christian values for the success of the Western world and especially America, arguing that "spiritual faith muscle" enables Christian nations to experience fewer deaths from natural disasters. He offers proof of the superiority of Judaism and Christianity over other religions with the claim, "90 percent of scientific discoveries of the past thousand years have been made in nations where Christianity is the prevailing religion."

Perhaps this book is more about America than the church. However anyone interested in the currently hot debate in the church over our involvement in the political process must read this book. Here are two different futures for America. He suggests that standing by and disengaging from this tug-of-war will only enable the secularists to win. Thus being a conscientious objector in this war is not an option.

That's what Rabbi Daniel Lapin thinks…

 So what do you think?

PROMINENT ELEMENTS OF THE BOOK:

• His fascinating zero-sum-game theory applied to time. He argues that technology has not changed the essential amount of time we spend working, traveling, or whatever -- we go more places and get there faster, but people with traveling jobs still spend about the same amount of time traveling today as their forefathers did by horse.
• Blasting attacks on the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League for positions contrary to Biblical positions.
• Lapin's (partially developed) theory, "There are many, many ways to worship God but only one way to reject Him" which supposedly results in greater unity on the secular end of the rope than on the religious end.
• His hilarious story of the three Jews trying to out-humble each other on the Day of Atonement.
• His "reverse engineering" of the secularist's agenda… showing how one interested in change must first tear down tradition and rewrite the past, especially exaggerating the bad effects of tradition before you can introduce something new (most pastors already understand how to do this, of course.)
• His detailed outline of quotations from the founding fathers supporting the notion that they intended to found a religious nation -- perhaps even a Christian one.
• The story of how "under God" got put into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 (especially read the excerpts from Docherty's address).
• His intriguing adaptation of Einstein's "thought experiments" to imagine an island culture developing if there were indeed no God -- how would it develop? Would they have a 365-day year? A seven-day week? Marriage? Property ownership? A fascinating experiment (chapter 27)
• The many chapters on the family, fathers-as-providers, stay-at-home moms, and family order which will delight the right and turn the left livid.
• His total ignoring of the Catholic contributions to this country.
• Never once quoting the "other" Testament.
• His connecting sexual intercourse and sexual reproduction with the Passover celebration.
• His claim than the character traits of Judaism and Christianity especially lend themselves to success in commerce and business success. (Chapter 25)
• His use of Joseph's Egyptian "20% of GDP Tax Reduction Plan" as an ideal economic model.
• His "Bag of $100 bills from Al Gore" illustration of the "comparative wealth" economic theory.
• Most Christians (except end-timers) will be startled at his typical rabbinical numerological-exposition of America's pyramid-eye symbol (actually Masonic!) and its 13 letter Hebrew-Latin exposition too complex (and silly) to be included here.
• The final chapters written Jew-to-Jew.
• His "friendly advice to Christians" calling for an end to evangelism/proselytizing.

REVIEW IN QUOTES

• "I believe America is in decline -- not compared to five or ten years ago, but when compared to the years following World War II up until the early sixties."
• "There is a tug of war going on for the future of our country…What do the two ends of the rope represent? I believe the basic question is whether America is a secular or a religious nation."
• "Why is only Christian participation in the democratic process perceived as a threat…?
• "What has changed in America in the last thirty-five years is that we have replaced an essentially religious foundation with a secular substitute."
• "Assaults on religious freedoms of the Jews and other minorities will come from the secular left, not from the religious right."
• "Jewish tradition teaches that the serpent was the embodiment of the animal world attempting to persuade humanity that its destiny lay not with God but with the animals."
• "Chaos is natural; It is society without God"
• "I reject the notion of theological compatibility between Judaism and Christianity; I do not believe a Jew can also be a Christian without betraying his Judaism." 

PUBLISHER: Multnomah, Hardback ISBN 1-57673-366-1

Examine Amazon.com page for this book.

By Dean Merrill (1997)

This book review by Keith Drury is one of a series on the church and culture. It is designed to encourage deeper thought and discussion as evangelicals hammer out a new paradigm for transforming culture.

 Dean Merrill is known best as the co-author of Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire, the story of the Brooklyn Tabernacle congregation (with Jim Cymbala). He is with the International Bible Society now, but as a former V.P. of Dobson's Focus on the Family he has a right to speak about our attempts to transform the culture through pressure tactics and political action.

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Church lays out a reasoned argument that the church has been mistaken in adopting the world's methods in attempting to transform the culture by bullying our way into the system rather than changing people one and a time. He calls for a return to this one-at-a-time approach and to personal evangelism. While not calling for Christians to wash their hands of the culture and simply let the world "go to hell in a hand basket," he invites us to calm, sensible, intelligent and persuasive intervention -- especially in working from the "street up" not "Washington down."

While not arguing against laws themselves, Merritt believes that legislation is a "clumsy way" to get morality in a society. He makes generous use of St. Paul's imagery as he outlines the limitations of "the