Written by Bruce A. Little |
Monday, January 2, 2023
What could be discarded from the local church operation that seems objectionable to the world but have the message remain the same? However, the changes created a worldly ethos that nullified the message that was proclaimed. Soon, as part of the friendly look of the local church, the meeting place was scrubbed of all religious symbols and replaced with symbols of entertainment—flat screens for example. Music followed much the same path and sermons became more theologically innocuous. Evangelicals began to parrot pet phrases of the Woke crowd to virtue signal to the culture and let the young people know they “got it”, they were “cool.”

In 1984, Francis Schaeffer, speaking of evangelical Christians, points out that “very few have taken a strong and courageous stand against the world spirit of this age as it destroys our culture and the Christian ethos that once shaped our country” (GED, 310). He goes on to claim that the primary battle is the “spiritual battle which is being fought in the heavenlies” (GED, 310). This he notes “is a life and death struggle over the minds and souls of men for all eternity, but it is equally a life and death struggle over life on this earth” (GED,310). In this spiritual battle many evangelicals have not only lacked the courage to stand for truth, but a good number have actually imbibed the spirit of this age in the name of being relevant.
Unfortunately, many evangelicals have ignored Schaeffer’s warning as they have become complicit either by remaining silent or actually accepting some ideas of groups such as the Social Justice Warrior, a movement owned by the spirit of the age. They seem oblivious to the redefinition of social justice, thinking they are virtuous for defending such a noble idea—Justice.
Of course, Justice is a noble idea but according to Isaiah 59:14 justice must be grounded in Truth, not lies. Every Christian ought to be a concerned defender of equal opportunity and equal protection under the law when those terms are defined in the normal use of the English language. It is not that there must be some evangelical crusade against all of this, but at least evangelicals should expose the anti-human, anti-Christian rhetoric of all forms of Wokeness so to protect the church against its insidious ideas.
Quite to the contrary, evangelicals try to walk a fine line where they give mouth support to the authority of Scripture while virtue signaling to the world that evangelicals are benign creatures and truth does not matter. It seems to me that evangelicals made a misstep earlier which has led to either an uncritical acceptance of Woke doctrine or simply remaining silent.  As many young people turned away from the church, understandably evangelicals became worried.
Read More
Related Posts:

At the heart of Life in the Negative World is practical advice for individual Christians and for Christian institutions as they seek to be faithful in a changing cultural landscape. Renn groups his advice into three parts: living personally, leading institutionally, and engaging missionally. The outline is easy to follow, and the advice is down to earth and full of good sense.

On June 2, 1987, the National Enquirer published a photograph of Donna Rice sitting on the lap of Gary Hart. When, earlier that spring, rumors surfaced of an affair between the actress and the Democratic Senator, the backlash had been strong enough to end Hart’s promising campaign for president. The photograph captured Hart wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the words “Monkey Business”—that unfortunate phrase being the name of the yacht on which he and Rice had sailed on an overnight trip from Miami to Bimini. Hart’s political career was over. Later that fall, Gail Sheehy was to publish a long expose of the scandal in Vanity Fair. Sheehy wondered, “How could a man so dangerously flawed come so close to persuading us that he was fit to lead a superpower through the perils of the nuclear age?” Sheehy was dismayed that so many people failed to grasp the real issue. “The key to the downfall of Gary Hart is not adultery,” Sheehy wrote. “It is character. And that is an issue that will not go away.”
To read Sheehy’s article today is to visit a foreign land. Written decades before the #MeToo movement, the article refuses to turn Rice into a victim, focusing instead on “the world of Donna Rice [that] is much darker than it seemed.” (It should be said that Rice later returned to her Christian roots and championed, among other causes, the opening of the Museum of the Bible.) As for Hart, Sheehy paints him as a man torn apart by an unhealthy, almost devilish obsession with sexual escapades. Sheehy takes for granted that a president devoid of basic integrity and self-control is a danger to himself, to the country, and to the world. “If character is destiny,” Sheehy opined, “the character issue predicts not only the destiny of one candidate but the potential destiny of the United States he seeks to lead.”
By contrast, when news broke in 1998 of Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, much of the country wasn’t convinced that private sex acts had much bearing on whether the president could do his job or not. And in 2016, in the wake of the leaked Access Hollywood tape, most conservatives concluded that Donald Trump’s sexual sins did not disqualify him from holding the highest office in the land.
These three sex scandals are mentioned in the first chapter of Aaron Renn’s new book, Life in the Negative World, and they highlight what he has labeled “the three worlds of evangelicalism”—the transition from a society that retains a positive view of Christianity (1964–1994), to a society that takes a neutral stance toward Christianity (1994–2014), to a society that has an overall negative view of Christianity (2014–present). The different political fallouts for Hart, Clinton, and Trump illustrate well how things have changed.
In the positive world, having an affair or being part of any sex scandal could be a career or campaign killer, even well past the era of the sexual revolution. In the neutral world (Clinton’s time), it would be damaging but probably survivable. In the negative world, violations of traditional Christian moral norms are no big deal unless they involve transgressions of one of the ideological taboos of the new public moral order, such as a feminist stance toward gender relations.
Renn’s argument is not that America used to be Christian or lived faithfully by Christian norms. Critics of Renn’s framework have been quick to point to America’s poor record on race, even when the country was much more “Christian.” But Renn’s “three worlds” thesis isn’t a way to grade the overall Christianity of the country. It’s a framework for understanding how society views the reasonableness of Christian truths, the validity of Christian arguments, and the obligation we all have to live up to a basic standard of Christian virtue. Renn claims that we are living in a negative world, one that is deeply suspicious of Christianity (especially when it comes to issues of sexuality). He makes a persuasive case.
I started following Aaron Renn—listening to his podcast, reading his articles, getting his newsletter—several years ago, a little before his article “The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism” was published in First Things. He’s different from the usual pastors, theologians, and historians I follow. When he veers into theological or church matters, I take his insights with a grain of salt (as people might do when I veer outside of those lanes). But I listen to Renn because he is a serious Reformed Christian layman. With experiences and expertise different from mine, he invariably has opinions and insights I hadn’t considered before.
For example, Renn argues that none of the familiar models of Christian engagement works in the negative world. The “culture war” strategy, as he calls it, specialized in decrying the erosion of our moral character. This strategy is truly effective only if our views are in the majority. In the positive world, it might be possible to raise the standard of Christian virtue and hope that a winning coalition will rally to our side. By contrast, the “seeker sensitivity” strategy argued for maximum personal and ecclesial flexibility so as not to turn off the suburban would-be churchgoer. This strategy often functioned as if aesthetic style and personal relationships were all that stood in the way of non-Christians’ embracing Christianity.
Read More
Related Posts:

James’ problem with the rich is not their money but their master. In serving money they oppressed the poor, ran roughshod over the helpless, and exploited whomever they could for their own gain. Rejecting the model of the Master, they sought to be served rather than serve. 

You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. (James 5:5, ESV)
My guess is that we won’t find James 5:1 in one of those verse-a-day packets: “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you” (James 5:1). Yet that verse and the contrast it presents captures the tension we face each and every day as disciples of Jesus Christ, seeking of first importance the kingdom of God and His righteousness.
Earlier in his letter, James discourages believers from discrimination on the basis of station. He says they should not give preference in the assembly to a man wearing fine clothes over someone sporting shabby clothing. Beyond the level playing field of all being mired in the same sin and all being in need of the same grace, James levels particular criticism of the rich. “Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?” (James 2:6)
Now as he winds down his letter, James addresses the rich themselves. “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days.” (James 5:1–3).
What is James’s problem with those who have wealth?
Read More
Related Posts: