Trying to Live as a Positive Christian Influencer in a "Negative" World

 I begin by mentioning three articles that I think are worth thinking about. I finish with some--probably unfinished--thoughts about where I find myself, in this regard, in my emeritus phase of life. 

Here are the three articles:

• Welcome to the Negative World: Why We Need American Reformer, Aaron Renn
• A Critique of Tim Keller Reveals the Moral Devolution of the New Christian Right, David French
• How I Evolved on Tim Keller, James R. Wood
• Plus, note the bonus article at the end.

Aaron Renn (I don't really know much about him, but I found his article helpful because it solidified and clarified some observations of my own. OK, I'm not above accusations of egotism.) presents a view of the American political/cultural world that identifies three phases concerning how the world around us sees Christianity--in particular what I as an Evangelical would call a "Christian, Biblical, ethic and lifestyle." Perhaps the oft-misunderstood and often maligned term "Biblical Worldview" is what I mean. 

Renn sees what I see in the current state of affairs: From about 2014 through the present, he sees the world regarding Christianity as a bad thing, "Being a Christian is now a social negative . . . .Christianity in many ways is seen as undermining the social good."

This "Negative World" state follows a time, pre-1994, in which Christianity was actually seen as a positive thing. In the eyes of the world, "failure to embrace Christian norms hurt you." In between the "Positive" and "Negative" view that the world in general casts on Christianity, Renn sees a "Neutral" phase. Christianity "no longer had dominant status in society. . . . [Yet] Christian moral norms retained residual force." 

While the timeline differs, this view of the evolution of American culture has a similarity to what Allan Bloom wrote in The Closing of the American Mind, and to Gene Edward Veith's observations in Postmodern Times. It is something that the late Francis Schaeffer talked about more than fifty years ago. According to the New Testament, Christians have never lived in a Christian world, however, there were times and places in which Christian values--different values in different settings, never the whole package--held greater sway and were held in greater esteem than they are here and now. As I have observed life from my keyhole in the Alleghany Highlands of Virginia, this evolution rings true. It used to be that here in this little mill-town that when a new mover-and-shaker moved to town that he (almost always it was a he) would join one of the socially well-respected churches in town. In my observation, that membership often had little if any truly Christian rationale, rather it was just what one did if one wanted to succeed in this area. Being considered a "church-goer" was an asset in this community. That is no longer a given.

I also see this evolution played out on a bigger stage in the lightning-fast--for a historic, cultural change--way in which the American culture has changed its views on homosexual marriage, and even all matters sexual. Clearly, we are no longer living in our grandparents' age, or even our parents',  sometimes not even our older siblings'.

Don't despair; I will get to the other two articles. But just a bit more groundwork:
Obviously, all generalities are always wrong!

These cultural changes are not monolithic. There are still those of us who think a Christian lifestyle, including a commitment to Biblical ethics is not only good for folk on an individual basis, but that being guided by a traditional understanding of Scripture makes for a better society. Also, while nones don't want to be bothered by religious demands, many are willing to live and let live. If their neighbors want to go to church, be prolife, and raise their children in the faith they don't mind. "Just leave me alone," they say.

The question is how do we respond?

Lately, I've been reading some of David French's stuff. I find his non-strident, yet conviction-driven, well-thout-out stances on public issues to be worth listening to. Often I find myself agreeing with what he has to say. This morning my inbox contained this article, "A Critique of  Tim Keller Reveals the Moral Devolution of the New Christian Right." I have mostly appreciated Pastor Keller (for those of you who don't know, Keller was for many years the Pastor of Redeemer Church in New York City. He has written a number of books and has generally been influential in helping Evangelicals reach thoroughly postmodern young adults.) I've also been impressed--or maybe depressed--with some of the shenanigans of the "Christian Right," and I had heard that some folk in my tribe were less impressed with Keller than they used to be, so I clicked on the article.

Shortly into French's piece he referred me to an example of what he was talking about. James R. Wood explains "HOW I EVOLVED ON TIM KELLER." I figured I ought to look at both sides of the squabble so clicked on Wood's article. As near as I can tell Wood's gripe concerning the now retired pastor comes down to Keller's continuing commitment to being winsome,to his determination to keep evangelism as a priority over political action.

Keller’s apologetic model for politics was perfectly suited for the “neutral world.” [says Wood] But the “negative world” is a different place. Tough choices are increasingly before us, offense is unavoidable, and sides will need to be taken on very important issues. Recent events have proven that being winsome in this moment will not guarantee a favorable hearing.

Wood goes on to say,

During the 2016 election cycle, I still approached politics through the winsome model, and I realized that it was hardening me toward fellow believers. I was too concerned with how one’s vote might harm the “public witness” of the church, and I looked down upon those who voted differently than me—usually in a rightward direction. “Public witness” most often translates into appeasing those to one’s left, and distancing oneself from the deplorables. I didn’t like what this was doing to my heart and felt that it was clouding my political judgment.

I have seen this tendency, too. I call it a "desire to have a place at the table." Think back to when you were in high school. Everyone wanted to eat lunch with the cool kids. You'd think we would have gotten over it, but, I confess, the desire is still there. Here is my problem, though, with Wood's concern. Yes, the syndrome he describes is a possibility. It's not a given. Growing up doesn't mean all adolescent urges are taken away. Being grown up means knowing we don't have to act on those urges.

Getting back to French's article:
You can tell that French thinks highly of Keller. It sounds like he considers him a friend. In a sense this article is a friend doing what a friend does--watch your friend's back. You'll note it didn't take French long to come to his buddy's defense.

I encourage you to read for yourself French's challenge to the past neutrality of the world, concerning opposition to Christian values. But since some of you won't, basically he says it wasn't so. He presents the very unChristian behavior he observed as he grew up in "deep blue America, the ridicule he endured in law school, and the opposition that Keller and other church planters faced in planting churches in Manhattan as exhibits A, B, and C. You can decide who has it right. I've already said that Renn's friendly, then neutral, moving to hostile paradigm seems about right to me. I would point out that Renn's paradigm doesn't make the claim that the world behaved according to Chrsitan standards, but that they had a favorable impression toward those who did. I also pointed out that not every place changed to the  degree and at the same time as every other place. I don't have any problem believing that things turned hostile at Harvard and in New York well before most places.

That being said, I think French is weak here. It's good for him that this really isn't the key point of the argument he is making.

Where he is strongest and "rightest" is toward the end of his article. 

Yet even if the desperate times narrative were true, the desperate measures rationalization suffers from profound moral defects. The biblical call to Christians to love your enemies, to bless those who curse you, and to exhibit the fruit of the spirit—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control—does not represent a set of tactics to be abandoned when times are tough but rather a set of eternal moral principles to be applied even in the face of extreme adversity.

Moreover, Christ and the apostles issued their commands to Christians at a time when Christians faced the very definition of a “negative world.” We face tweetings. They faced beatings.   

A long time ago a professional counselor, a friend of mine, asked me if I, as a pastor, would go to see a client of his, who had been referred to him by the court. My friend said, "What John (not his real name) needs is the Lord. In the context I'm in I don't have the freedom to tell him that." (My friend switched contexts not long after.) I went to see John. He was open to talking about what it means to follow the Lord, so over a period of a couple of months, he and I talked a number of times. Sadly, I don't believe John ever became a follower of Christ. One of the last times I saw John, he was obviously distraught. When I asked what was wrong, he replied that someone had just pulled a gun on him. At this point I knew enough about John and his obnoxious ways to lead me to believe that John hadn't been the victim of a robbery. His was a failure to get along that had escalated to a near tragic conclusion. We only spoke for a few moments that day, but before I left, I said, "John, I've lived in this town a long time and have dealt with a lot of people. No one has ever pulled a gun on me. Has it occurred to you that just maybe your troubles, including this recent threat, has something to do with the way you behave?" Now you know why visit with John didn't last long that day.

Clearly, whether it is different than the past, or more of the same, we live in a time in which the world, especially the world's elites, is not friendly toward Christian ethics. So what do we do? Do we fight political fire with our own sanctified flame? Do we follow some version Rod Dreher's Benedict Option, and to one degree or another retire to the Monestary? Both are tempting. I think French, however, in his closing sentence points to a better option. "When fear and hatred dominates discourse, a commitment to justice and kindness and humility is precisely what the moment requires."

Humbly, I agree. I fear that too many Evangelicals are like John.

Let me add a bonus:
My friend Bart Gingerich, a Priest in the Anglican Church of North America weighs in here.

[E]vangelicals would do well to understand the current moment and act accordingly with a cool-headed sobriety and determination. At present, denial of the negative world creates unnecessary consternation, conflict, and confusion. If evangelicals are going to minister wisely and navigate our cultural context, they need to know the times (1 Chronicles 12:32).

"Cool-headed sobriety and determination." I like that.