- \n
- Culture warriors overestimate the power of government to change the hearts and minds of the people it governs<\/strong><\/li>\n
- Culture warriors operate on a faulty and unbiblical definition of power<\/strong><\/li>\n
- Culture warriors have adopted a tone that is utterly foreign to the one we find modeled by Jesus himself<\/strong><\/li>\n
- Culture warriors allowed the Christian church to be reduced to a voting bloc and the handmaiden of a political party<\/strong><\/li>\n
- Christians who fight in the culture wars have produced an anemic, partisan church that is driving away non-believers in record numbers<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
With these bullets (and to be fair to Jonathan, bullet points hardly contain the depth and nuance of a book, but he chose them so I\u2019ll address them) I think Jonathan accurately describes a number of myths about the culture wars \u2014 myths successfully created and perpetuated by our secular opposition.<\/p>\n
First, culture warriors do not overestimate the power of government to change hearts and minds. \u00a0We do recognize, however, that the law and government are well-equipped to protect human life and that is in fact one of the core, biblically-ordained roles of government. \u00a0Sadly, however, our government enforces with the power of its sword the \u201cright\u201d of a woman to pay a doctor to kill her child. \u00a0In an ideal world every child is a wanted child (and we should never cease to pray and work for such a world), but even unwanted children have a right to live and a right to the protection of governing authorities. \u00a0Every \u201cculture warrior\u201d I know understands that the ultimate answer is the Gospel. \u00a0Every culture warrior I know also understands that the government can and should do more to protect innocent life.<\/p>\n
Jonathan\u2019s second point is closely related to his first, but I find that when you look at the actual policy arguments put forward by culture warriors (and we\u2019re both using the term broadly, I know), they\u2019re quite limited in scope. \u00a0End legalized abortion. \u00a0Maintain current definitions of marriage. \u00a0Maintain traditional free speech standards. \u00a0Maintain the traditional place of religion in the public square. \u00a0Each one of those positions is a specific reaction to specific legal changes initiated by an aggressive, opposing cultural force. \u00a0You will note that (mainstream) culture warriors do not advocate any governmental position that mandates belief or violates the rights of conscience of any individual. \u00a0We are not asking too much of power \u2014 only that it not be used for improper ends.<\/p>\n
Third, which of Jesus\u2019s many tones is Jonathan referring to? \u00a0The tone he took when driving money-changers out of the temple? \u00a0The tone he took when calling the Pharisees \u201cwhite-washed tombs\u201d? \u00a0The tone he took with the woman at the well? \u00a0The tone he took when he healed the sick? \u00a0The tone he took while dying on the cross? \u00a0Jesus\u2019s tone varied greatly depending on the circumstances and the message \u2014 and so does the tone of the \u201cculture warriors\u201d I know and work alongside. \u00a0To be clear (and as I said in my post), we make mistakes all the time, but the culture warriors I know are diligently and prayerfully following Christ\u2019s call on their lives in both message and<\/em> manner.<\/p>\n
Jonathan next gets directly at a point I make in my letter. \u00a0Just because that is the image<\/em> of the church in the eyes of many does not mean it is the reality<\/em>. \u00a0The reality is the church is by every objective measure focused on helping the poor more than fighting the culture war, but that fact is largely unknown because we don\u2019t control our image in popular culture. \u00a0The other side would have us change not by different messaging but through an abandonment of the field. \u00a0Al Mohler wrote on Monday<\/a>: \u201cBut when my phone rings with a call from a reporter these days, the question I am asked is never adultery or pornography. \u00a0It is about homosexuality.\u201d \u00a0When it comes to homosexuality, we are addressing the obsessions of others. \u00a0(Don\u2019t believe me? \u00a0Here\u2019s a test: track your pastor\u2019s next 25 sermons. \u00a0How many deal with homosexuality?) \u00a0When it comes to abortion, the blood of the innocents cries out for justice.<\/p>\n
Fifth, when Jonathan talks about an \u201canemic, partisan church,\u201d which church is he referring to? \u00a0Take a look at the chart below:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/9\/2012\/05\/fluctuating-flocks.jpg\" "\\"fluctuating")
<\/a>Putting aside the Muslim faith (where immigration is playing a very large part in growth), the denominations that are growing are hardly known for their timidity in the culture wars. \u00a0The denominations that are shrinking are those that have largely abandoned the field on, say, abortion and gay marriage (they are partisan in other areas but not known as \u201cculture warriors\u201d). \u00a0Even more striking, these denominations have shrunk in size even as the population has grown. \u00a0So, yes, believers are leaving certain churches in droves \u2014 just not the \u201cculture war\u201d churches.<\/p>\nThe greatest threat to the church is not fighting abortion or voting in droves for Republicans. \u00a0The greatest threat to the church is the path taken by the Mainline \u2014 abandoning orthodoxy. \u00a0Of course we can do a better job in presenting our message to the culture. \u00a0We\u2019re fallen and flawed people, after all. \u00a0But let\u2019s be clear, to be accepted as \u201cpost-partisan\u201d we have to give up any effective <\/em>advocacy against legal abortion. \u00a0The instant you are effective is the instant you are no longer post-partisan.<\/p>\n
You\u2019ll note (as my critics certainly have) that I place abortion at the center of my argument. \u00a0My argument against post-partisanship is not free-standing. \u00a0In other words, it\u2019s driven by the context of our times, and much like during the slavery debate prior to the Civil War, our relevant political parties have chosen sides on the issue of life. \u00a0They have chosen sides in a way that is different in kind from their marginal differences on war and peace (Obama continued every single existing Bush war policy and tactic), entitlements (where the primary argument is over rate of growth, not their existence), and tax rates (where again the difference is over small changes in percentages, not existence). \u00a0Even in the arena of gay marriage there is more in-party diversity than exists on the abortion question.<\/p>\n
The intentional, legally-protected taking of human life on an industrial scale is a moral monstrosity condemned by every single strand of Christian orthodoxy. \u00a0Every one. \u00a0There is no coherent comparison between abortion and our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (Are unborn children trying to kill their mothers?), where our nation faced \u2014 and still faces throughout the Middle East \u2014 governments and individuals bent on killing as many Americans as they can. \u00a0While Christians can certainly debate the wisdom of any given conflict or military tactic, to compare our response to 9\/11 and the 33 year Islamic Jihad against America (beginning with the hostage crisis in 1979) to the legally-protected intentional killing of millions of innocent children is, quite simply, depraved.<\/p>\n
Jonathan claims that my tactics and the tactics of those who fight with us have \u201cfailed us so miserably.\u201d \u00a0Yet the last five years have seen a record number of successful legislative efforts to regulate and restrict abortion and now the number of Americans who call themselves \u201cpro-choice\u201d is at a record low<\/a>. \u00a0And that progress has occurred in the face of decades of relentless demonization of pro-life advocates, not just at the hands of the mainstream media and pop culture, but also \u2014 sadly \u2014 at the hands of Christians who are ashamed of the movement\u2019s steadfast efforts.<\/p>\n
When the \u201cculture warriors\u201d of 1860 looked to cast their vote, they had but one real option. \u00a0But now, with the benefit of hindsight, Christians are rightly proud of the stand that they took, the witness they presented to our nation, and the votes they cast. \u00a0Sure, not all the Republicans of 1860 had truly biblical views of race, slavery, and individual liberty, and the party was deeply flawed on a number of levels, but their view of human life was fundamentally different in kind than the competing views of the Southern Democratic or Constitutional Union parties. \u00a0Simply put, until both political parties embrace not just the repeal of Roe v. Wade<\/em> but the legal protection of innocent life \u2014 from conception until natural death \u2014 I will be a partisan of the only party that has made the correct choice.<\/p>\n
Catching up on the debate:<\/strong><\/p>\n
My original post: \u201cAn Open Letter to Young, Post-Partisan Evangelicals<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n
Jonathan\u2019s response: \u00a0\u201cFaulty Logic and False Choices: A Response to David French<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n
- Culture warriors operate on a faulty and unbiblical definition of power<\/strong><\/li>\n