Evangelicals, America, the Future

What will future life for Evangelicals in America look like? Should we accept our diminished influence in the culture or fight for freedoms that are slipping away?

 One school of thought says Christians should fight for traditional principles like religious liberty and free assembly. In other words use the courts and legislators to defend values and space in the culture. Progressives are increasingly hostile to Christian values and religious influences in business. The Oregon bakers forced to pay a fine (emotional hardship) for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding are emblematic.

David French of National Review:

This is exactly the time when the Evangelical church needs to lay down a marker, to signal that it will not go quietly. But to do that it needs to do something that it rarely does: ask its members to take a stand. Oh, the church is good at asking them to do things that the world likes, such as volunteering at homeless shelters or digging wells in poor villages overseas. It’s good at helping repair broken homes and broken lives. It’s decent at transmitting the truths of the faith to the next generation. It’s terrible, however, at defending its own essential liberties.

We aren’t to the point yet where all institutions and all legal common sense is gone but it isn’t far off and Evangelicals are not yet comfortable protesting, marching and boycotting. Maybe they never will be. Most have never had to face a legal system completely at odds with the teachings of Christ. The culture too has always reflected religious value in the law, “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not steal”. Law in America reflects the founders’ understanding of human nature, nature that requires restraints on the worst tendencies of people lest evil triumph over good.

 By not fighting tough, Christians acknowledge the limits of the courts and legal system to work on their behalf.  But also they see the future and it isn’t bright for people who stand for Christ. Why appeal to a legal system that invents language and finds in the Constitution (apparently) the right for same sex couples to marry? Not to mention support for the ‘rights’ of abortion? David French is a lawyer who has done pro bono work for religious groups and understands more than most, the passivity of our modern churches.  

I think what is really going on here is Evangelicals see where all this is headed and they are mentally preparing for a society that rejects their values. The culture is moving in the direction of anti-tradition, not just anti-Christian. Businesses that employ traditional male and female bathrooms are said to be ‘bigoted’; states like North Carolina that put in measures designed to protect women and children from predators see reduced business overall. It might seem fatalistic from the position of a law professor to not challenge laws. But, it isn’t exactly quitting either.

Viewing Evangelicals as a voting block or just another victimized group in the myriad of victimized groups in America is an incomplete picture. This is part of the problem with not understanding why they don’t protest and march against injustices like civil rights marchers in the sixties. They just aren’t conditioned for it yet.

French is right we don’t fight the winnable battles when a little push back would do. Many Christians doubt how effective it would be to start a legal war.

Another different opinion on culture and Christianity is from Rod Dreher:

Put bluntly, given the dynamics of our rapidly changing culture, I believe it will be increasingly difficult to be a good Christian and a good American. It is far more important to me to preserve the faith than to preserve liberal democracy and the American order. Ideally, there should not be a contradiction, but again, the realities of post-Christian America challenge our outdated ideals.

In our time, the Benedict Option does not offer a formula (at least not yet), but it does call for a radical shift in perspective among Christians, one in which we see ourselves as living in the ruins (though very comfortable ones!) of Christian civilization, and tasked with preserving the living faith through the coming Dark Ages.

True believers are scarce but essential in this brave new world. One might call it the Book of Eli Option instead after the dystopian film where Denzel Washington carries the Bible across a desolate American landscape. To be fair to Dreher, he proposes something practical in an increasingly hostile country. In the choice between liberal democracy and Christianity, Rod chooses Christ and offers a way to pass on Biblical values to the next generation. He does encourage Christians to engage with the world around them but it is clear he doesn’t think much good can be done right now.

The Benedict Option emphasizes disciplined family lives, something not present in the modern church according to Dreher.  Rod doesn’t say we should ignore our neighbors or refuse to share the faith. He just thinks the faith should be preserved—the true faith. The weakness of The Benedict option is that it treats Christianity like an heirloom to be stored in box and taken out for polishing on occasion. This isn’t a picture of a strong confident believe that overcomes a world system set against it.

 I see echoes of this type of thinking present in the last fifty years or so with the home school and Christian education movements. I am not criticizing either one; they both exist (in part) because parents didn’t like the values being taught in public school and made a change. The problem comes when kids go from Christian daycare to Christian elementary and church camp. They enroll in Christian high school, Christian college and a job working for a Christian business or church. How is this different from Mr. Dreher’s idea? Other than the monastery and the harmonious chanting we’ve had this version of our own little club for quite a while. What do we have to show for it? A culture that hates Christianity.

I am a product of this culture of Christian exceptionalism so I understand it better than most. I wouldn’t have an appreciation for the scriptures or a world view explaining good, evil and human nature through time without it. But the Benedict option is incomplete although it places value on the tenants of scripture and its role in our lives. Followers of Christ need to ask pointed questions regarding faith and how willing they are to let it guide them. Also, we have to be honest about the life of Christ and who it was for. It was for the lost. He came to "seek and save the lost" (Luke 19:10). Everything we believe must follow that core principle. I suspect if it becomes the highest goal, the cultural stuff will fall into place.