THE BUSINESS OF THE CHURCH AND THE CULTURE WARS

Should we, the church, continue to fight against social innovations – the culture wars? This conflict serves to polarize society and bring contempt on the church. In a New York Times editorial, David Brooks argues that the church should focus on issues where it can make a positive contribution:

• Put aside a culture war that has alienated large parts of three generations from any consideration of religion or belief. Put aside an effort that has been a communications disaster, reducing a rich, complex and beautiful faith into a public obsession with sex. Put aside a culture war that, at least over the near term, you are destined to lose.

Brooks instead proposes:

• The defining face of social conservatism could be this: Those are the people who go into underprivileged areas and form organizations to help nurture stable families. Those are the people who build community institutions in places where they are sparse. Those are the people who can help us think about how economic joblessness and spiritual poverty reinforce each other. Those are the people who converse with us about the transcendent in everyday life.

The church has been discredited in the eyes of the West. Perhaps we must regain that "right to be heard" in ways that Brooks suggests. Perhaps we need to tweak our strategy. Besides, loving our neighbors and even our society is a high biblical priority.

However, we must not disparage our fundamental calling – loving God. And how are we to love God? By abiding in His Word (John 14:21-24; 15:7-14)! This entails being a light to the world, exposing injustices and destructive practices that others do not want exposed.

But isn’t our conservative program already painfully obvious to the world? Haven’t we already made ourselves odious to the very people we are trying to love? Perhaps we have already shed enough light into the darkness. And perhaps we need to apply our energies elsewhere, as Brooks suggests.

Certainly, we have to proceed with a balanced biblical approach, and this includes works of mercy. However, we cannot abandon our calling to be counter-cultural, exposing the sins of the world (Eph. 5:11).

Brooks is advocating for a nice and socially acceptable church, and many churches are listening. They too are tired of the culture wars and the scorn directed against them. They jealously observe the successes of the seeker-sensitive churches, which have toned down their message in favor of one that is willing to live with the prevailing culture.

They attempt to avoid public disdain by avoiding those conflicts that we are "destined to lose." However, there is a price to be paid. Initially, the Gospel could not penetrate the South with its anti-racial-slavery message. The evangelist soon learned, however, that he could make inroads if he simply left certain sins out of his message, but such an omission came with a high price tag - an unbalanced gospel and the Civil War.

During Jim Crow, the church wanted to remain relevant to the culture and failed to preach against sin.

I had attended a seeker sensitive church and an associated home fellowship group. We thought it proper to be "nice" Christians, offering only words of encouragement, never those unpopular words of correction. However, my wife and I silently watched as the brethren made shipwrecks of their faith.

Now I see that we had not fulfilled our Lord's calling. God had explained this calling to the Prophet Ezekiel:

• “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to the wicked, ‘You wicked person, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak out to dissuade them from their ways, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood." (Ezekiel 33:7-8 NIV)

Many churches have taken Brook's recommendations to heart. Even if they haven't extended membership to non-repentant gays, they are no longer speaking on controversial subjects like sexual sins. However, their silence speaks volumes to the brethren, especially to the church youth. It tells them that sexual sin is not an important topic.

In this artificial vacuum, the only voice that is heard is the voice of decadence that informs the world that sex should be enjoyed as casually as a hamburger.

This silence betrays both society and church. It also declares the church guilty before its God, as the Apostle Paul suggested:

• "Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of any of you. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God." (Acts 20:26-27 NIV) 

Had Paul not communicated the essentials of the faith, he would have stood guilty before God. We, therefore, have no choice but to abide in the light of God's Word. Failing to do so would make us blameworthy.

A church (or even a parent) must preach the Good News as well as the bad, words of approval as well as words of disapproval, words that are popular and words that will be met with scorn.

It is inevitable we will be hated. Jesus warned that this will happen. It doesn't mean that we are doing something wrong. More likely, it means that we are doing something right:

• “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also." (John 15:18-20)

Jesus also warned us that our blessedness does not depend on the blessings of society:

• "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5:10-12)

Nevertheless, we are to be peacemakers. Yes, we need to be a light on the hill, but we needn't be strident and antagonistic, but instead always humble, respectful, gentle, and faithful to our Savior.

Nor can we take social approval or the size of our church as an indication of God's favor:

• "Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets." (Luke 6:26 NIV)

What then must govern our lives? From where must our commendation come?

• “These are the ones I look on with favor: those who are humble and contrite in spirit, and who tremble at my word." (Isaiah 66:2 NIV)

The approval of the world is not a good indication of God's approval. Instead, the world is fickle. We are darned if we do and darned if we don't. If we speak against society's hypocrisies, we are darned. When we don't, we are also darned.

The churches in Nazi Germany were largely "nice" churches. They supported the social order and failed to meaningfully protest against the Nazis, and this failure earned them the ire of the world.

Brooks understandably points out that we have lost the culture wars and have suffered marginalization, but is this the main point?

Bible “Contradictions” and Confidence in the Face of them

The most potent way to attack Christianity is to attack its foundation – the Bible. As a result, it is easy to find lists of alleged Bible contradictions on line, which draw its detractors like honey draws bears. There is even an atheist bible listing an assortment of contradictions with predictable scorn.

When I debated Rabbi Yossi Mizrachi in 2007 – you can find this debate on UTube – he zeroed in on the question of contradictions, claiming that if he could find just one contradiction, this would prove that the New Testament could not possibly be the Word of God.

I accepted his challenge because, in theory, I agreed. I even agreed that there were many seeming contradictions. However, if the NT is God’s actual words, we should expect no less. If, instead, we could easily get our mind around Scripture so that it all made perfect sense, we would have every reason to suppose that this book was actually the word of man and not of God.

Admittedly, Scripture contains many perplexing passages, some of which yield way to understanding under closer scrutiny, and others remain resistant to our attempts to harmonize them. This shouldn’t surprise us. Even the Apostle Peter acknowledged that much of what Paul had written was difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:16). Nevertheless, this fact never caused him to be skeptical about Paul’s writings. After all, the miraculous workings of the Spirit had clearly validated Paul and the other Apostles (Heb. 2:3-4).

Therefore, we shouldn’t be overly troubled by the fact that we too are perplexed by some passages of Scripture. After all, scientists are perplexed by their “contradictory” scientific findings. Should this be a reason to jettison the entire scientific enterprise? Of course, not! Instead, these perplexing findings rightly serve as goads to provoke further research to understand our world.

Consequently, I regard these Bible “contradictions” as mysteries to be solved (or marveled at) rather than as indictments. Of course, the atheist will say:

•  Well, science has provided us with great and tangible benefits. It has proved itself, while Scripture has merely misled.

I think that we can make a similar claim about Scripture. Here is a brief list of proofs, each containing storehouses of evidence:

1.     Transformed Lives and Cultures

2.     Personal Authenticating Experiences

3.     The Non-Human Nature of the Scriptures

4.     Internal Consistency

5.     External Verification

6.     Wisdom for Life of the Word

7.     Validating Miracles

8.     Fulfilled Prophecy

However, I must warn you – even if you become skilled in the use of these various proofs, it doesn’t mean that you will pave inroads into the hearts of others. These hearts are already committed to their own carefully chosen paradigms and find the Christian revelation highly offensive.

However, I hope that these thoughts might make you more confident that you are on the right road and have a light to shine upon this resistant world.

Abstinence Ed vs. Sexual-Expression Ed

We are entrenched in a vicious culture war, and the question of sexually seems to be at the front lines. While one side wants to retain traditional Judeo-Christian values, the other seems to want to sexualize the children. Therefore, everyone is training their cannons on sex-education. Should abstinence programs be promoted to reduce STDs and teen pregnancies or their opposite? However, a recent study has just added its voice to many others in favor of abstinence ed:

• Researchers observed more than 1,100 ninth graders in Georgia who used the Choosing the Best (CTB) curriculum in 2009-10. The abstinence-based curriculum delayed the onset of sexual activity.

According to the study’s authors:

• “Data demonstrated significant impact of CTB at the end of 9th grade on commitment to abstinence, pro-abstinence beliefs and attitudes, intentions to maintain abstinence, and lower onset of sexual intercourse, and at the beginning of 10th grade on pro-abstinence attitudes…abstinence from sexual activity until marriage is the best way to avoid teen pregnancy, disease, and possible negative emotional consequences, and is the best way to help students focus on academic and other future-oriented goals.”

• The study’s success reassured Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA). “This new study adds to 22 other peer reviewed studies showing SRA [Sexual Risk Avoidance] education has a positive impact on student sexual behavior,” she said. “This rigorous research design adds an important exclamation point to the efficacy of abstinence-centered education.”

The stakes are high for both sides of the conflict, and so politics often trumps truth and the welfare of the children:

 

• Meanwhile, researchers say the Obama administration stonewalled releasing another report that showed abstinence attitudes positively impact teens…“Their anti-abstinence position is just as political, if not more so, than the pro-abstinence position of conservatives,” [Peter] Sprigg [FRC] told LifeSiteNews. “The liberals often claim it is conservatives who are anti-science, but when the research and the science goes against their ideological position, they are very eager to suppress the findings.”

The power to suppress findings means that science and scholarship have become tools to be manipulated by the powerful. However, the findings in favor of abstinence education seem to have escaped the censor’s scissor:

• “Anyone who opposes SRA abstinence-centered education must be honest in their antagonism,” Huber stated. “They can no longer say that the approach ‘doesn’t work,’ but must admit that their opposition is simply an ideological distaste for programs that encourage teens to wait for sex.” 

However, will the elite now listen or will their “ideological distaste” lead them to “normalize” any form of child sexual expression, to their very obvious detriment?

When the World Hates Us: What to Do?

The West is plunging into anarchy and sexual pleasure seeking, and the church has become the fall-guy. Preaching our biblically-based message against sin is no longer tolerated. Military chaplains are even warned against invoking “God” – let alone “Jesus” -in their prayers. The Apostle Paul wrote about these times:

·        But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God-- having a form of godliness but denying its power. (2 Tim. 3:1-5)

What does the church do in these times, especially in light of the growing intolerance and persecution? For one thing, we have to be mentally prepared. Paul counseled the church that persecution was inevitable:

·        In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. (2 Tim. 3:12-13)

Jesus also warned about the inevitability of persecution:

·        "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.  If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also (John 15:18-20)…in fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God.” (16: 2)

While it is so distressing to see the younger Christians re-making the church into a “kinder and gentler,” more indulgent, and socially acceptable “Christianity,” we have to remember Jesus words: “If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.”

These are the “compromisers.” They understandably feel the sting of social censure of the church. However, they are willing to compromise in order to achieve social respectability. They try to show the world that they are not like those “mindless evangelicals” who reject Darwin and the other things that the educated, upwardly mobile gladly embrace. For them, to be hated by the world is a sign of our narrow-mindedness. Consequently, they feel that we deserve the disapproval that we are receiving.

However, there is another group that believes that the church can sidestep the persecution and still remain the church. These are the “silencers.” Although they are reluctant to modify any major Christian doctrine, they believe that we can keep our offensive doctrines to ourselves and not offend the prevailing culture. They may argue that we are called to preach the Gospel and not opposition to our cultural ills. However, preaching the Gospel – the Good News – also entails an understanding of the bad news, sin and its consequences.

Others talk in terms of forsaking the “culture wars.” Blogger and self-confessed evangelical, Rachel Held Evans, is a good example of this:

·        We are tired of fighting, tired of vain efforts to advance the Kingdom through politics and power, tired of drawing lines in the sand, tired of being known for what we are against, not what we are for.

·        So my question for those evangelicals leading the charge in the culture wars is this: Is it worth it? Is a political “victory” really worth losing millions more young people to cynicism regarding the Church? Is a political “victory” worth further alienating people who identify as LGBT?...And is a political “victory” worth drowning out that quiet but persistent internal voice that asks—what if we get this wrong?

   

Evans is understandably concerned about “alienating” the sinner. But whenever we preach against sin, we run the risk of alienating the sinner! What then do we do, especially as society turns so angrily against the Gospel message? Also, Evans wonders “what if we got it wrong?” Well, there’s no better authority than the Bible. Here’s Paul’s advice to Timothy:

·        But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:14-17)

Scripture cannot be compromised; neither should it be silenced. The Gospel is still the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16). But perhaps we have to keep it in-house so as not to offend? Perhaps we need to abdicate the public arena for a while? Not according to Paul:

·        Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. (2 Tim. 4:2-4)

The myths – culture and moral relativism there is no absolute moral truth), evolution (everything coming uncaused out of nothing), materialism, naturalism (there is no design or intelligence outside of this world), one-world-consciousness, create-your-own-religion -  have certainly proliferated, along with an inexhaustible smorgasbord of teachers. However, nowhere does Scripture even suggest that when we see this happening, we should cover ourselves with silence. We are to be the “light” and the “salt” “in season and out of season.”

Paul admits that already, he is “being poured out like a drink offering” (2 Tim. 4:6). His end is at hand. However, he never counsels that other Christians should do their best to avoid such a fate, shutting their mouths.

John and Peter had been forbidden by the ruling court – the Sanhedrin – from publicly preaching Christ. Although they had been beaten:

·        The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ. (Acts 5:41-42)

The Apostles were a far cry from our compromisers and silencers. Oh Lord, let us have such conviction!

   

   

   

   

The Culture Wars: Is Silence an Option?

In light of the growing disdain for the evangelical, Bible-believing church, even among Evangelical youth, is it wise to continue the “culture wars” and to publicly proclaim our disdained opinions?  Many think not!

Blogger Timothy Dalrymple commented on a billboard sign purchased by the MissionGathering Christian Church in San Diego, a Bible-oriented “emerging church,” evidently wanting to distance itself from the evangelical church:

• “MissionGathering Christian Church IS SORRY for the narrow-minded, judgmental, deceptive, manipulative actions of THOSE WHO DENIED RIGHTS AND EQUALITY TO SO MANY IN THE NAME OF GOD.”  

Dalrymple astutely observed:

• They’re perpetuating the worst images of conservative Christians who support traditional marriage.  (2) They’re holding themselves our as a better alternative.  They are the good Christians, the more Christ-like Christians, who are not judgmental — even as they’re judging sixty percent of North Carolinians, a majority of Californians, over half of Christians in the United States and the great majority of Christians around the world.  In other words, (3) they’re saying “our hearts are with you” in that “we feel the same anger and scorn in our hearts as you do.”

However, even if Dalrymple is right, the problem remains – the evangelical church is alienating much of society and in the process is loosing the vast majority of its youth, according to recent surveys. Should we therefore keep a low political profile in hope that the prevailing culture might warm up to us once again?

Blogger Rachel Held Evans is convinced that we should:

• We are tired of fighting, tired of vain efforts to advance the Kingdom through politics and power, tired of drawing lines in the sand, tired of being known for what we are against, not what we are for.

• So my question for those evangelicals leading the charge in the culture wars is this: Is it worth it? Is a political “victory” really worth losing millions more young people to cynicism regarding the Church? Is a political “victory” worth further alienating people who identify as LGBT?...And is a political “victory” worth drowning out that quiet but persistent internal voice that asks—what if we get this wrong?

Held asks, “Is it worth it?” Instead, I think that we need to rephrase the question: “How do we honor God in our social engagement?” Certainly, we can’t support issues that He doesn’t support, but can we detach ourselves and remain respectfully silent? Can we fulfill our calling to be the “light of the world” with only our deeds? I don’t find any warrant for this in Scripture. Instead, we have been entrusted with the duty to also verbally defend the faith:

• I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. (Jude 3)

• But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. (1 Peter 3:15)

Our faith is being vilified within almost every institution of the Western world. In a recent release, our President equated the attempts to resist gay marriage with “prejudice.” Prior to this, Hillary Clinton likened efforts to resist extending full “human rights” to LGBTs to religious discrimination.

Even those calling themselves “Christian” denigrate the Biblical faith, leaving the impression that Christians – and by association, their Bible – are “bigoted” and “homophobic.” It is understandable that, when bombarded with a steady stream of such messages, the youth want to abandon what seems to be a sinking ship.

Can we remain silent? Doesn’t silence signal agreement? If we do remain silent, aren’t we, in effect, telling our youth that we have no answer to the charge of “bigotry?”

Perhaps we have been loosing so many of our youth because we have failed to be proactive enough in our defense of the faith - its rationality, love and justice? Perhaps we have rushed headlong into legislation without first establishing an adequate rationale or justification for our position?

   

Just recently, New York City school officials and Mayor Michael Bloomberg made a decision to ban “God Bless the USA” at a kindergarten graduation ceremony, because they deemed it “potentially offensive to other cultures.”

• Principal Greta Hawkins of P.S. 90 in Brooklyn reportedly pulled Lee Greenwood’s patriotic ballad from the June 20 graduation program saying the song is not “age appropriate” and could end up “offending other cultures.”

• The ban caught national attention after the New York Post reported that while the patriotic song was banned, the children would be hearing Justin Bieber’s teenage romance ballad “Baby.”

Shouldn’t Christians point out the hypocrisy of this decision? Isn’t “Justin Bieber’s teenage romance ballad ‘Baby’” even less “age appropriate?” Besides, isn’t the Bloomberg administration offending those who believe in “God?” Will not every law or edict offend someone? If we were to use “offending other cultures” as the ultimate test of a ruling, wouldn’t that mean that NYC wouldn’t be able to make a single ruling? Definitely!

Even worse, this ruling and many others like it send the message that the Christian faith is far more “offending” than others. How hypocritical of an administration that prides inside for being “inclusive!”

Here’s my point. Don’t Christians have a responsibility to speak up against the ubiquitous negative portrayals in the media and universities of Christians and the Christian faith? Should we remain silent as the media equates the Biblical faith with “hate speech?” Aren’t we required to make a defense for what we have committed our lives?

If the charge of “hate speech” goes uncontested, it becomes more than a charge but an indictment that will be used to silence the church, to fire Christians who speak of their faith, to shut down Christian businesses and even becomes an incitement to violence against those who spread the “hate speech.”

I don’t think that we have a choice. Silence isn’t an option when Christian are being expelled from universities because they have expressed disfavor regarding gay marriage and refuse to submit to the totalitarian process of re-education. Silence isn’t an option when Christians and Christian businesses are being targeted to perform acts that violate their faith, like being compelled to make tee-shirts for a Gay Pride event or to participate in an abortion. Silence isn’t an option when the State requires a Christian school or a home-schooling family to teach curricullum that violates their faith. Silence can not be an option when pastors can no longer teach the biblical faith because it can now be construed as a “hate crime.”

Held and others who preach against the “culture wars” – yes, they are engaged in their own “culture wars,” aren’t they – assume that if we adopt a live-and-let-live approach, our secular culture will adopt such an attitude towards us. However, there doesn’t seem to be any reason to suggest that this will happen. The church is vulnerable and the secularists smell blood.

Christian groups are fair-game. They are now required to provide insurance for procedures that violate the Christian conscience. College Christian groups are often either banned from campus or required to sign statements that they will alter their Christian charter.

This is serious. When we make small concessions and violate our faith, we then have to modify our theology to accommodate to and rationalize these compromises. However, we can’t modify the Bible without also disparaging it. The effect snowballs. One compromise will justify the next.

Nor will the secularist stop at the doors of the church. Many are now arguing that the church shouldn’t be privileged and remain exempt from federal employment guidelines. As corporations can’t discriminate according to faith or sexual orientation, the church also shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate in this manner. However, if the church can’t discriminate according to belief and life, then the church can no longer remain the church.

Ignoring the surrounding culture, as we hide beneath a blanket of silence, isn’t an option. We have to be the light, not only in defense of the faith but also in warning against sin.

Many of the “culture war” despisers argue that the church should be about its number one calling – the Gospel. Therefore, warning against sin and hypocrisy is an unhelpful distraction. However, calling the world to repentance is inseparable from the Gospel! God warned Ezekiel that silence wasn’t an option:

·        "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself…Say to them [Israel], 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?'” (Ezekiel 33:7-11)

Life meant repenting from sin. Ezekiel did not have the option of silence. Silence meant death. Life required a man who had the conviction to speak the truth, even in the face of social condemnation.