Evangelicals and Beauty
Read an article I recently wrote for the American Reformer entitled “Evangelicals and Beauty” here.
C. S. Lewis, ‘A Very Poor Thomist’?
To read an article I recently wrote for the American Reformer on C. S. Lewis, visit https://americanreformer.org/2022/12/c-s-lewis-a-very-poor-thomist/.
Brett McCracken on “Cool Christianity Is (Still) a Bad Idea”
Brett McCracken on “Cool Christianity Is (Still) a Bad Idea”
A dozen years ago I read with delight Millennial Brett McCracken’s book Hipster Christianity: When Christianity and Cool Collide. I remember thinking how fascinating it was that this young self-proclaimed hipster was skittish about making his religion, his experience of Christ’s church, another “cool” consumer commodity.
McCracken’s book appeared alongside another great book by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck entitled Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be), published during those years when Mark Driscoll (whose ministry has recently been discussed in the podcast “The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill”), Donald Miller, and Rob Bell were growing in popularity.
My friend David Williford recently reminded me of these books, and the ideas in them, when he sent me a Gospel Coalition article McCracken wrote a couple of years ago entitled “Cool Christianity Is (Still) a Bad Idea.” In it, McCracken reflects on the book and how dated and silly much of what it described—a hipster mentality that seemed to many to be inherently disingenuous in an attempt to appear cool—is today.
But, as he says, that’s just the point. The never-ending quest for relevance—the quest for cool—will always make evangelicals look terribly dated when looking back on what they did just a few years earlier. This is very much unlike the continuity with the saints and martyrs of the Christian past the church has always pursued, which is ever-relevant because it testifies to deeper doctrines and practices that can’t be reduced to—that even defy—the passing fads of pop culture.
McCracken is not advocating a “drawing of the line” at some “golden age” in the past—1970? 1950? 1850? Instead, he encourages what all Christian leaders of all ages have always advocated until very recently: maintaining continuity with the Great Christian Tradition, not being a slave to the market—to our current cultural moment.
As McCracken says, “‘Cool Christianity’ is, if not an oxymoron, at least an exercise in futility.” This is because a “relevance-focused Christianity sows the seeds of its own obsolescence. Rather than rescuing or reviving Christianity, hipster faith shrinks it to the level of consumer commodity, as fickle and fleeting as the latest runway fashion.” Furthermore, he notes, “Chasing ‘relevance’ is exhausting and unsustainable.”
The reason this approach is not sustainable is that the enduring values of the gospel, which transcend generations and times and cultures and taste groups, militate against the “inherent transience of ‘cool’ that makes ‘cool Christianity,’ unsustainable by definition. Today’s hip, cover-boy pastor is tomorrow’s has-been. This year’s fast-growing, bustling-with-20-somethings cool church is next year’s ‘I used to go there’ old news.”
I talk to Free Will Baptist pastors everyday who are seeing slow growth in their churches that’s arising more from conversions and baptisms of unchurched people than from transfer growth. Yet they’re discouraged because they’re comparing themselves to the non-denominational mega-church and celebrity ideal.
They’re ready to throw in the towel because of the slow yet genuine growth they’re experiencing in their church of fifty or seventy-five or a hundred, as they faithfully pursue the ordinary means of grace, planting and watering with God giving the increase.
It’s just this kind of pastor who needs to read this article. Reading it could help encourage discouraged pastors to continue in the ordinary means of grace that the Spirit has blessed in communities and mission fields across the ages, and, as they zealously labor in the gospel God’s way, God will give the growth. And it will be sustainable.
Reflections on the Overturning of Roe v. Wade
This is a profound time of thankfulness as we express gratitude to God for the recent United States Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. This is a moment for which we have prayed a long time, and I wanted to take a few minutes and record several thoughts that have been on my mind over the past few days as I’ve reflected on this historic decision.
To quote Richard Weaver, ideas have consequences. The idea that every human life has value and the idea that every human life has essential rights the Constitution guarantees, such as life, liberty, property, habeas corpus, and the due process of law, have consequences. The idea that those who are pre-born or elderly or ill or disabled, as human persons and thus divine image-bearers, have the same rights and liberties as those already born or young or healthy has consequences.
The Conservative Legal Movement
However, if ideas remain theoretical and never grow into plans, then policies that lead to human flourishing will never be developed. The maturation of the conservative legal movement is one of the best examples we have of ideas, over time, turning into plans and eventually effecting policies. A coherent, intelligent, well-conceived conservative legal movement developed after the U.S. Senate defeated President Ronald Reagan’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court Robert Bork in 1987. Had that not occurred, we would not have had conservative scholars and practitioners with the legal and jurisprudential expertise to be nominated and confirmed for the Court now.
This is an example of the maxim that “politics is downstream from culture.” As conservative religious people, we have put too many of our eggs in the basket of the “horse race,” of trying to get people elected to office. But once they’re elected, too often we just fixate on the next election. But politics is indeed downstream from culture, and the conservative legal movement is a prime example of how an intellectual and cultural shift, together with philanthropic resources and single-minded determination, has resulted in a policy shift of momentous proportions.
We must remember, though, that such a shift took thirty-five years to take effect. And the pro-life movement worked for nearly fifty years for this moment. The conservative legal movement and the pro-life movement played the long game. They persisted and did not give up. They focused on ideas and on changing the way people think. This long-game mentality is perhaps the greatest takeaway from these movements.
But thinking of the conservative legal movement brings to mind how out of sync much of the American public is with the clear, constitutional language used in the majority opinion that overturned Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. That is because the jurists that formed the Court’s majority in this case affirm the traditional notion of originalism.
Originalism holds that justices need to go back to the intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution and its amendments to determine the meaning of those documents. It holds that the job of the federal courts is not to introduce new ideas. It is not to legislate from the bench. Jurists are not to act as ethicists or sociologists or legislators to figure out what new laws they need to enact and enforce those laws on the states.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s role is simply to determine if laws or legal actions are constitutional. The Court’s majority opinion in this case rightly held that Roe and Casey were unconstitutional and thus the question whether a woman has the right to end the life of her preborn child must be decided by each state.
The only constitutional way to guarantee, in every state, the right to receive or perform an abortion is to pass an amendment to the Constitution. Everyone on all points of the political spectrum knows that could not have happened in 1973 and could not happen now. Likewise, to make abortion-on-demand illegal in all fifty states will require an amendment to the Constitution, which is just as unlikely at this juncture as a pro-choice amendment. Sadly, however, many individuals fail to understand how the American constitutional system works.
Christian Worldview Education
This leads me to the next thing that has been on my mind the last few days: we conservative evangelicals need to place more emphasis on Christian worldview education. That emphasis will lead to greater ethical literacy, including knowing how to explain how biblical ethics lead to human flourishing while providing for religious liberty for everyone. It will also lead to greater literacy regarding our role as Christians who are also citizens.
The recent Gallup poll that shows there are fewer people who believe in God should come as no surprise to us. At the very same time that we have allowed K-12 schools to become dominated by precise progressive-secularist ideology, we have dumbed down our churches almost in inverse proportion. The past few decades are when we should have become more intent on training our children in serious theology and Christian truth and how it relates to the culture around them. Instead, we have dumbed down our religion and, to quote Neil Postman, become intent on “amusing ourselves to death.”
It should not be surprising to us that our retreat from serious thinking and preaching and teaching about God’s truth—our substituting of entertainment for worship, motivational speaking for preaching, CEO leadership for shepherding, and marketing for evangelism—has been unsustainable. It has produced fewer serious Christian believers. And studies have shown that serious Christian believers are also the ones who invite people to church or share their faith. Further, the vast majority of new believers join churches because of the influence of a friend or family member.
George Barna has shown over and over again that many evangelical churches’ recent numerical success has increased at the same time that the spiritual health of their members has plummeted. Fewer and fewer of the members of seemingly successful churches can pass a basic Christian worldview quiz, give more than a few percent of their income, attend church or pray or read Scripture more than a handful of times a month, and invite people to church and share their faith.
The upshot of all this is that we cannot expect there to be more Christians when secular progressives pour more and more money into education and training that comports with their worldview while conservative Christians put paltry resources of time, priority, and funds into education and training that comports with their worldview. Yet a strong emphasis on education and training is what we see at the heart of the long game that the conservative legal and pro-life movements have played.
Committing Ourselves to Action
Now that the Court has overturned Roe, we as Christians will need to put our money where our mouth is. We’ll need to be intentional about supporting unwed mothers, who are divine image-bearers like the children they carry in their wombs. This will require our unflagging support of crisis pregnancy centers, adoption, and foster care.
This is what Jim McComas so eloquently reminded me of the day Roe was overturned. He is leader of our own Free Will Baptist Family Ministries, which sponsors ministries such as these, including a crisis pregnancy center known as The Hope Center, which is worthy of your financial support. We will need to pour more resources into these efforts than ever before.
We must also be intentional about continuing to speak the truth in love, standing strong on Christian teaching while tangibly demonstrating the love of Christ to people with whom we differ. Jesus was a perfect example of what it means to combine clear truth-telling and sharp rational thinking with compassion, meekness, patience, and humility. We must strive to be like Him as we combine truth and grace. We must model civility and understanding while being uncompromising on truth and virtue.
We must realize that ideas have consequences, that elections have consequences, that now is not the time to withdraw from the public square. At the same time, we must stop neglecting public life at the local and state levels, focusing only on the federal level. We must reinvest ourselves in helping our children to be Christian citizens who understand how their government works and are patriotic, without making politics and our country into an idol.
Finally, it is vital that we commit ourselves to sound Christian worldview teaching in the church, the home, and Christian educational institutions. And it is crucial that we provide financial resources for this task and for the educational institutions that provide leadership for it.
Thanks be to God for this historic ruling. May we prayerfully and faithfully move forward in our individual and corporate calling to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ and do everything we do to the glory of God.
We Need to Listen to Carl Trueman
Carl Trueman, who teaches at Grove City College and is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is an increasingly rich source of wisdom for evangelical Protestants. A recent piece I read of his in First Things is very good and can be found here. While readers of this blog will, like me, find important things on which to differ with Trueman, in this First Things article and in his other books and articles, his basic instincts are right.
His most recent book, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution is one of the most important books thus far in this century. Recently that book’s arguments have been summarized in the briefer book, Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution.
Those books are on the Christian view of the broader culture, but they flow out of Trueman’s confessional Protestant view of the church and its teachings. His views on these things are seen in books like The Creedal Imperative. His podcast The Mortification of Spin is also worth listening to. He and his co-host Todd Pruitt are a lot like orthodox Presbyterian versions of us Free Will Baptists.
That very sentence is complicated—I can’t go into all the ways that I disagree with Trueman here. But Trueman is in many ways a kindred spirit despite those important denominational (and other) differences. I’ll never forget when he and I were on a panel at Southern Seminary with J. D. Greear, Josh Harris (who has since apostatized), and another minister, and we just happened to be sitting on one side of the platform and were the only ecclesially confessional people on the panel. It was funny that, even though he was the strictest Calvinist on the panel—and I was the onlyArminian!—we came down on the same side of most of the issues.
Two Observable Shifts
His writing and podcasting about the church dovetail with what I tell my students: Recently there are two observable shifts in some quadrants of evangelical Christianity:
- From theology to experience
- From tradition to culture
These shifts don’t always represent a complete disregard of theology or tradition. They represent a move away from theology and Christian tradition being the solid “place to stand” from which many evangelicals see their faith and how it connects with the world around them. Thus the shift to experience and culture as the main reference point of many evangelicals can be subtle. But Trueman clearly picks up on this phenomenon.
Trueman, like the stock-in-trade evangelical Protestantism we all inherited, strongly affirms that the New Testament vision of the church’s doctrine and its practice, as mediated by the Protestant Reformation, is normative for the church of the present and the future just as it was in the past.
Yet many evangelicals have moved from having two feet firmly planted in this broadly biblical-Reformation theology and practice that has dominated the consensus of evangelicalism up until now. They’ve moved at least one foot—and in some cases both—away from the consensus of Christian tradition to the consensus of modern popular culture in things that don’t violate the Ten Commandments. And they’ve moved away from theology to subjective experience as the primary reference point from which to evangelize and disciple non-believers in an increasingly secular age in the West. Thus they’ve whittled down their message to what it takes to be converted and to keep moral commands (the Ten Commandments).
In our case, a lot of the issues of “what do you teach in church,” “what do you do in church,” and “how do you conceive of spirituality” are obviously tied to the consensus of the Protestant tradition. Of course Trueman would be Calvinist Presbyterian and I would be Arminian Baptist. But we would both share the same basic convictions on the importance of maintaining the normativity of New Testament doctrine and practice.
So, while we would maintain our denominational distinctives, neither Trueman nor I would find ourselves in serious disagreement with the best-selling commentaries and Bible study resources and homiletical resources from the Reformation through the mid-twentieth century on the most basic principles of how to teach and practice the Christian faith in the context of the local church.
Church and Culture
But I also sense in Trueman that he sees these shifts in some quarters of evangelicalism as affecting their views on culture and society as well. One sees that in this most recent First Things article. These moves in the church—from a privileging of theology toward a privileging of experience, and from a privileging of Christian tradition toward a privileging of contemporary culture—are bleeding over into how Christians approach culture.
Trueman talks a lot in this article about Friederich Schleiermacher, one of the poster boys of Protestant Liberalism. One of his most famous books was On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers. Liberalism started out finding ways to make Christianity more palatable to “polite society” in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. At first these ways did not seem to threaten the “core” of the faith—how to be converted or obey the Ten Commandments. But eventually Christians like Schleiermacher grew so accustomed to accommodating Christianity to the tastes of its “cultured despisers” that that accommodation starting subtly bleeding over into areas that did violate conversion and the Ten Commandments.
Trueman thinks this is happening again. Evangelicals have gotten into the habit of accommodating Christian faith and practice to popular culture to make it more attractional. Now in bigger questions like race, sex, and gender, they’re trying to find ways to frame their Christian commitments in a way that is more acceptable to modern culture. He gives one example of framing the correct Christian opposition to racism in terms of contemporary critical theory, which rests on foundations in postmodernity that are poles apart from Christian theology.
So the “core” of Christian faith is becoming smaller and smaller as evangelicals hungry for cultural approval do everything in their power to adjust their Christian faith to make it more attractive to what Paul calls “the natural man” (1 Corinthians 2:14). But Trueman agrees that this seems like a poor strategy for spreading a countercultural gospel that operates on a completely different set of rules from secular culture. Attractional Christianity—trying to make the Christian religion seem appealing to secular culture—is doomed from the start because, as Paul says, “the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
I think we need to listen to Trueman. We’re not going to agree with everything he says, but his basic instincts, informed as they are by the Bible and the Reformation, give evangelicals much-needed wisdom in an increasingly bewildering age.