How to Destroy Western Civilization - A Review

I believe Peter Kreeft will be remembered well after he stops writing. There may be a lull in popularity of his works, but he will be included in anthologies of thoughtful Christian writers of this era. Indeed, his dozens of volumes published over the last decades are all helpful. Some more than others. But they all reflect someone who has thought deeply about Christianity, culture, and the way human thought has developed over time.

How to Destroy Western Civilization and Other Ideas from the Cultural Abyss is a 2021 volume published by Ignatius Press. It’s the sort of book that a younger author with less of a catalog would not be permitted to publish, but it will sell some copies because it is Peter Kreeft and some people (like me) will buy it just because of that.

This volume is a collection of essays and pieces of writing that all reflect on the general theme of things that are wrong with the thinking of our present age. Kreeft demonstrates his characteristic thoughtfulness alongside his playful wit as he rehearses some of the themes that run through all of his works.

How to Destroy Western Civilization is not the place that someone new to Kreeft should begin. This is a volume that requires a little more context than it contains. The eighteen chapters are really eighteen distinct works. Some of them appear to be works that were formerly addresses to schools, some are online posts that are designed to draw a wry laugh, some appear to be articles or excerpts of works that may have been drawn from (or become) longer works. This potpourri approach to this volume is good for someone who already enjoys Kreeft and understands his work; it would be a challenge for the beginner. This problem is not helped by the lack of any introduction or annotations regarded where any of the works (which appear to be drawn from a significant span of time) were drawn.

That being said, there are some delightful aspects to this concise volume. Chapter Five, for example, is simply a list of internal conflicts within liberalism—by which Kreeft means progressivism. Thus, “Extremism is extremely bad,” is followed by “Don’t trust words,” which comes a little before “Absolutely no absolutes.” His point is well taken, and if it is seen as a caricature, that’s because it’s a little near to the truth for some sensitive souls. We also get an essay on heroes in Chapter Ten, which is an unironic reflection on why our age lacks people and characters that can be looked up to. Chapter Six offers a reflection on what the shift from Socratic logic to symbolic logic has cost our culture because it makes thoughts about the concrete of this world into abstract concepts. The fourteenth chapter helps clarify the problems with some contemporary understandings of freedom.

Kreeft is, in many ways, a man of the Middle Ages, much like one of his heroes, C. S. Lewis. He thinks differently than even many contemporary conservatives because he has feasted more on ancient and medieval thought than on contemporary debates. He is a man within our time, but perhaps more comfortable in another one. This makes all of his books, even this one, well worth reading.

How to Destroy Western Civilization and Other Ideas from the Cultural Abyss

By Kreeft, Peter

Buy on Amazon

All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes - A Review

One of my best recent investments has been in a subscription to the Mars Hill Audio Journal.

I’ve known about Ken Myers for years, but with so many free podcasts and sermons, I’ve never felt justified in paying for the material. I was tremendously wrong.

The first inkling of the error of my delay came when I purchased a single edition, “The Christian Mind of C. S. Lewis,” because one of the contributors to that edition also contributed to a book I was editing with the same title. After I listened to that hour-long recording a few times, I was ready to plunge into a full subscription.

Since I began listening to Ken Myers conducting interviews on a regular basis, I decided to finally pick up a copy of his book, All God’s Children & Blue Suede Shoes: Christians and Popular Culture. The book was originally released in 1989, but has remained in print since. Crossway released a reprint edition with a new introduction in 2012. In the world of publishing, that is a pretty significant record for longevity. It is well deserved.

The constant refrain of Myers and Mars Hill Audio Journal is to pursue permanent things. So much of what passes for culture in our age is intentionally temporary and of little durable value. Modernism, which is a nebulous movement with many tentacles, demands that we believe that what is new and shiny must be better than what is old and well-worn.

Myers’ book is intended for Christians, it is not a generic critique of culture for a broad audience. It offers a consistent reminder that Christianity should have its own unique culture, which should have a distinct shape. And, since that shape is caused by the character of our immutable, impassible God, it stands to reason that an authentically Christian culture should seek after permanent things.

More significant, I think, to Myers is that Christianity should reflect a degree of excellence in its culture, rather than subsisting on the edges of the mainstream of popular culture, picking up the crumbs and copying the worst trends of a few months or years ago.

In this way All God’s Children & Blue Suede Shoes espouses something similar to Andy Crouch’s concept in Culture Making or what T. M. Moore argues for in Culture Matters. In some way, Myers also seems to be pushing for the recovery and restoration of permanent institutions, much as James Davidson Hunter does in To Change the World. All God’s Children & Blue Suede Shoes was a foretaste of what the Mars Hill Audio Journal would become four years later. It is a vision that has withstood the past thirty years quite well.

The book begins by describing the dangers of popular culture, beginning with its tendency toward trendiness. Everything is temporary and disposable. There is an immediate gratification that finds itself fulfilled primarily in a disenchanted materialism. That bleeds into the way that even Christians make decisions, where dollars and cents are the only real consideration for vocational changes and entertainment selection. The soul is not fully considered.

As Christians, Myers argues, we should be seeking after durable things. We should seek to value beauty, goodness, and truth. Those are qualities to our distinctly Christian culture that should go beyond merely gluing a Bible verse onto the cover of a journal or modifying rock and roll lyrics to have a gospel-centered vibe. Instead, we should be looking for transcendent qualities in our literature and our music.

This means that sometimes we will prefer art that has been created by non-Christians much more than that that has been created by believers. Because, if a novel points us deeper into the human experience as it ought to be, then that is a cultural artifact that deserves preservation. At the same, Christians should be more capable of creating those durable works of art because we should have a stronger sense of the transcendent, because the transcendent God lives within us immanently.

This is the tragedy of Christian sub-culture. Too often it is kitsch and cliché. Too often it is derivative. Instead of forming new Austens and Dostoevskys, popular Christian culture knocks off Danielle Steel. Biblical manhood becomes a caricature of tavern culture, except without the good beer. Our worship music starts to sound like the top 40, except without the resonance that even that tissue paper culture has.

Myers calls us to a deeper relationship with culture. To cultivate enjoyment in complex artforms that exalt the human soul, lifting them toward God. This is hard work, as he notes, but it is also an act of worship.

The downside of Myers perspective is that he seems to cut himself off from those occasional snippets of popular culture that use a throwaway medium to make a deeper point. For Myers, good music seems to end with Bach, though he’s willing to accept the value of Jazz. And yet, there are times when the collective weight of a seemingly vacuous television series can make a deeper point. Those cases are, admittedly rare, but following Myers too closely would cut us off from those opportunities. Of course, when we consider the amount of work it takes to sift through the tares to get those few heads of wheat, he may be on to something.

It’s hard to place this book, exactly. It is one that I’d like to read with my teenagers as we think about what good music, movies, books, and art ought to do to us and for us. But it is a book that presumes that the reader has some awareness of good and bad quality and has an ability to make discerning choices. For those that are raised on the cotton candy of cartoons, super hero films, and Christian prairie romance novels, Myers’ thesis may be a hard pill to swallow. And yet, if we are to recover our love for transcendent things and our culture-making Christian character, then the Church needs to listen more carefully to people like Myers.

All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes (With a New Introduction / Redesign): Christians and Popular Culture (Volume 7)

By Myers, Ken

Buy on Amazon

Cultural Catechesis

"Together our mind-molding media constitute a nonorganized religion of missionaries who are evangelizing religious people out of their primitive superstitions like poverty, chastity and obedience and into the missionaries' new, 'enlightened' religion of greed, lust and pride (that is, money, sex and power); out of peace with neighbor, self and God and into peace with the world, the flesh and the devil." - Peter Kreeft, How to Win the Culture War, pg 53.

How much time per week does the average Bible-thumping, confessional evangelical Christian spend in church activities?

Even for those who are at church every time the doors are open this is probably 5-6 hours per week. A small percentage of those individuals will be heavily invested in daily Bible reading, listening or watching to sermons from biblically faithful preachers, and reading good books. But as the hours of catechesis into faithful Christianity grows, the number of people in the population declines exponentially.

The Christian Mind of C. S. Lewis: Essays in Honor of Michael Travers

Wipf and Stock

Buy on Amazon

The average time spent being catechized by scriptural influences will be much lower when you count in the quarterly attenders who claim to be “born again,” but whose engagement with the body of Christ has been choked out by travel soccer leagues, frequent business trips, weekend travel, or brunch. There are certainly exceptions, but many people who vocally claim to be Christians on their Facebook wall probably sit through one 1-hour service per week at best and often much less.

Now, consider how much time those same Christians spend listening to talk radio, watching television news, reading articles (or at least headlines) of websites, or select the proper meme to reflect the appropriate level of outrage at the current flashpoint in the culture war.

Who are most people receiving most of their catechesis from?

Let’s be honest. Who are most of us receiving most of our catechesis from?

The answer is fairly obvious: Even our most faithful church attenders are often being catechized more thoroughly by their media intake than by the word of God.

Is our future bound up in whether Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow are correct about the trajectory of our world? Can Jim Cramer help us know how to store up heavenly treasures?

And, again, as Paul writes to the Philippians: “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” (Phil 4:8)

If we hold the Gospel to be of first importance, we will think about the true, honorable, just and excellent more than the battles around us. If we do that, the sources and time spent on our catechesis will likely change dramatically.

How to Think - A Review

It is an understatement to argue that our nation and, indeed, the world is significantly divided. This is not a new phenomenon, really, though the nature of the division is somewhat different. Anyone who lived through the social polarizations of the Vietnam era in the US is likely to recognize some similar patterns of division, especially in the apparently significant division of thought between younger and older generations.

However, as Neil Postman shows in his classic volume, Entertaining Ourselves to Death, our culture has cultivated an alternative epistemology by producing and consuming media that shape us in ways that tend to undermine our ability to sustain cogent thought for extended periods of time. My review of that book left more questions than answers about how to overcome this seismic shift in the way we know.

In his book, How to Think: A Survival Guide for a World at Odds, Alan Jacobs actively tackles that challenge, offering an approach to thinking that promises to begin to unravel the tangled know to social dissonance.

Summary

After outlining the problem and its significance in the introduction to his book, Jacobs proceeds to offer some helpful considerations of the nature of thinking and how to do it better. For example, he begins by arguing that thinking must be done in community. Despite the intellectual isolation that often gets attributed to Descartes––I think, therefore I am––Jacobs shows that solitary thinking, divorced from the community, results in antisocial rationalities that often lead to internal conflicts within someone’s vision of the world. Thinking together helps form people for community and sharpen thinking to prevent rational inconsistencies.

Part of thinking together, as Jacobs notes, is ensuring we come to an understanding of the position of others before we respond. Much of our division is the result of people actively misrepresenting their intellectual opponent’s position. This is enabled by our contemporary social climate because there is a prevalence of repulsion to outgroups, whose status of being gross justifies people’s ignorance of their position. For example, many academics (by their own writing) actively despise orthodox Christians and the feeling is reciprocated in many cases, not least because of a regular pattern of condescension and abuse. Those who think will have to overcome our tribalism and seek to understand the position of humans with whom we disagree.

Add to the social dynamic the confusion of communication forums and you have a recipe for incomprehensibility. For example, there are few forms of communication that have a defined audience. The internet makes it possible for someone’s offhand comment or argument shaped for a particular hearer to be dissected, masticated, and hurled back at the writer with incredible bile. For example, a few years ago, TGC contributor, Gaye Clarke write an article about her transformation regarding her views on race and humanity. The article was, fairly plainly, intended to help white evangelicals remove their racial blinders. The language she used, therefore, did not match the latest terminology and Clarke was trolled, abused, and harassed by activists who find her terms repugnant. The article was removed, the woman defamed, and the prejudices of Clarke’s intended audience against “Social Justice Warriors” was confirmed. The conversation has no defined borders. Similarly, the “Sea Lion” phenomena, is when someone overhears (literally or on the internet) a comment not intended for them and persistently harasses the participants in the conversation demanding a response. The technique does much to further division and little to aid communication.

Division is augmented and fertilized by attempts to change and control vocabulary. The standard terminology from five years ago is this year’s hate speech. Or, certain terminology is considered to be permitted only to people within a special demographic. The point is rarely to further human knowledge, but more often to create a power dynamic that disadvantages someone from an out group. For example, the term social justice arose from Roman Catholic literature, but has since been coopted to imply a whole host of anti-human policies. Likewise, the political left is getting increasingly belligerent in their insistence that the only “pro-life” position is full socialism. Jacobs show that words matter, how we use them is important, and that thinking people have to sometimes get beyond delimiting terminology to actually examine differing the support for other positions.

Another critical aspect of Jacobs’ treatise is his undermining the idea that an “open mind” is the ideal state for thinking individuals. While he spends multiple chapters encouraging people to carefully consider other positions and to active reevaluate their own, he is also clear in arguing the point in seeing is not to go on seeing through things, but to actually see some things clearly. Channeling Chesterton, Jacobs argues that the only purpose of an open mind is to close on something solid, like a mouth. So, being a person that thinks does not mean being an ideological drifter.

Finally, How to Think is encouraging, even after all the work Jacobs recommends, because it shows that being a thinking person is well worth the effort. Becoming better thinkers is the only way we are going to get out of the mess we are in.

Conclusion

How to Think is a worthwhile book. It is relatively short, concise, but very important. Although I came into the book agreeing with Jacobs—especially about the importance of thinking—there were multiple times where his examples stepped on my toes and made me reconsider the way I argue and respond to arguments.

For those who want to reach others—to really engage and persuade—this is the sort of volume that can help someone break through barriers and, perhaps, lead even hostile voices on the opposite side of the issue change their minds. Or, at worst, even if it doesn’t help us persuade, it can help us understand and therefore reduce the frustration with our ongoing ideological deadlock.

How to Think: A Survival Guide for a World at Odds

By Alan Jacobs

Buy on Amazon

Faith Among the Faithless - A Review

Esther is a book that many Christians seem to think has been exhausted. It’s been made into a major motion picture, a cartoon, and studied and preached for generations. We know all about the heroic Esther who had the courage to go before King Xerxes at the risk of her life with the memorable line, “If I perish, I perish.” That quote, along with Mordecai’s equally famous statement that Esther was raised up “for such a time as this” have a dramatic quality to that makes for good theater. To top it off, the bad guy dies on the gallows of his own construction, and the good guys get to kill their oppressors. This is a classic tale, but somewhat predictable by contemporary standards.

For those who delve into the background of this Old Testament book, the provenance is equally familiar. It was a questioned book because it proposed a new festival (Purim) and does not use the name of God. According to some accounts, it almost didn’t make it into the canon. These debates, too, have become old hat for experienced students. This leads to people taking too little care to enjoy the richness of the story of Esther and its application for us today.

In his recent book, Faith Among the Faithless: Learning from Esther How to Live in a World Gone Mad, Mike Cosper manages to cut through the familiarity to present a traditionally orthodox, but refreshingly contemporary reading of Esther. He does this by combining a retelling of the story with sound background study and parsing out the ways that the context of the story is similar to and different from our own.

A retelling of a biblical narrative is enough to make many Christians raise an eyebrow because it often results in embellishments that either distract from or modify the message of the text. Readers can wonder why the text was not sufficient. Cosper’s retelling is less a novel formulation and more an engaging way to present the historical background behind the story. There are places where Cosper has obviously chosen one interpretation over a competing one from scholarship about the context, but none of these choices are novel inventions. Instead, the intention seems to be to enhance the modern reader’s appreciation for the beauty of Scripture and to point them back to God’s revelation itself.

Aside from his narrative choices in the various scenes of the story, Cosper presents a fair amount of background information throughout the text. Before the reader shudders at the thought of academic information being smuggled into a book for the masses, they should know that Cosper does this fairly selectively and seamlessly. He explains the historical background of the Peloponnesian War so the reader can understand why Xerxes might be struggling with a bruised ego and not want to be humiliated by his wife. He also lets the reader know that Vashti likely resisted Xerxes call because of the probability of her own abuse or humiliation at his hands. These are all elements that are helpful in understanding the contours of the story. Cosper does well to present the helpful bits and avoid excessive excurses about cultural details that might enthrall a scholar studying the Ancient Near East, but do little to illuminate the text for a modern factory worker.

Because of this extensive background work and careful retelling, Cosper is able to present sound application for contemporary readers. We understand some of the obvious differences between the world of Esther and our own, so the challenge is to see how this ancient story becomes more than a dramatic tale. Cosper shows that the heroes of the story—Esther and Mordecai—are compromised people who muddle out their lives of faith in a hostile culture. That alone should be enough to raise the interest of Christians in our era. By retelling the story and unpacking the historical background, Cosper demonstrates that their story is much like our story, which gives us hope for being used dramatically by God even when we don’t anticipate it and certainly don’t deserve it. This is not simply a hero tale, it is a reminder that people like us—sinful, fearful, and hopeless—can play a part in the great workings of God’s history.

Faith Among the Faithless is a good book. Cosper writes well, thinks pastorally, and is faithful to the tradition of orthodox Christianity. His writing offers ways to remain faithful when many believers are abandoning Christian theology for pagan practices to appease the culture. Cosper understands the needs of our day and offers a book that is helpful in meeting those needs.

This is the sort of book that will be useful for group Bible studies or individual reflection. It should not replace actually reading the book of Esther, but it could helpfully complement that reading.

Faith Among the Faithless: Learning from Esther How to Live in a World Gone Mad

By Mike Cosper

Buy on Amazon

NOTE: I received an advance reader copy from the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.

Low Culture with a Purpose

Evangelicalism takes a lot of flack for being hokey. I know this because I’ve dished out a lot of the criticism.

Tim LeHaye’s Left Behind series is the perpetual butt of jokes among conservative and revisionist scholars. It has inspired numerous book titles that play off the franchise’s moniker; those books are almost always critical not only of the theological interpretation of LeHaye, but also the cultural cheesiness.

At one level, the criticism is justified. There are too many conservative Christians the see kitsch culture with a Christian overtone as the high watermark of art. Prairie fiction is a blight on the Christian imagination. Much of the Contemporary Christian Music scene is a sectarian revision of pop hits from a couple of decades ago. Evangelical culture makers need to improve their cultural tastes and stop mimicking popular trends a few years after they were vogue.

However, those who are critical of Evangelical subculture need to ensure we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. This, I fear, is an even more significant danger for us. We can become so critical of the style of some cultural creations that we ignore the value of the content.

The Embarrassment of Christian Cheesiness

When I was in college, one of my fellow English majors revealed how cheesy her homeschool life was. She shared with the class at our secular institution that her mother used to read her C.S. Lewis and point out how Aslan is like Jesus.

The class groaned as she described her mother’s attempts to disciple her using children’s literature. It was so simplistic and moralistic. It was so cheesy.

I now believe that it was perfectly practical and appropriate.

Photo used by CC License. Photo credit: http://ow.ly/MPTj3090a87

I’m glad to see conservative Christians work toward becoming culture makers again. We need people like Andrew Peterson, Phil Keaggy, and others to keep making excellent books, movies, and music.

At the same time, we need to keep making popular level material that puts the cookies on the bottom shelf, as the saying goes.

This hit me as we were listening to a Seeds Family Worship playlist in the van on the way to church. The music is pretty basic. The lyrics recast Scripture to fit the tunes and are often repetitive and simplistic. I went through an inner turmoil one day while the songs rolled on because I wondered if I was somehow cheating my children by exposing them to this kitschy music.

A Better Calculus is Warranted

Then I realized that I was missing the point and my analysis needed to be revised.

I certainly do not want my children to live in a cultural desert. I want them to be exposed to art and music that reflects the unique ability of humans to create, whether the artists are Christian or not. I want them to be familiar with high quality cultural artifacts and conversant with the good, the true, and the beautiful.

More importantly, though, I want my children to grow up being surrounded by some of the great truths of the Christian faith. Sometimes this will come through watching performances of Handel or listening to Tallis. Sometimes this will come by singing doctrinal truths along with a catchy tune that will never win an award for musical excellence.

Christian movies are another example. If you’ve seen the films produced by Sherwood Pictures, you have seen some feel good, moralistic, happy ending on your screen. The gospel is always a key element as someone goes through a crisis of faith.

I’ve dismissed these movies before and heard others mock them mercilessly. Now that I’m a few years later on in life with kids that are a little older, I’m reconsidering.

In no way do I think that Fireproof or Courageous are worthy of an Oscar. The overall production is not polished enough to put it into the same league as most major films. But I’ve reached the point that I’m glad the movies have been made. They are telling simple stories and pointing to an over-optimistically good world, which is more like the world that we want to live in than most of the dystopian films produced by Hollywood.

But aren’t cheesy Christian films and pop music Scripture songs just cheesy knockoffs of culture?

Knockoffs vs. Creative Packaging

As I’ve considered the difference between “Christian” Prairie Fiction and Fireproof, I think a basic principle that separates worthwhile Christian pop culture from the junk.

Many of the Contemporary Christian Music songs (though not all) and most of the Amish Romance/Prairie Fiction genre are simply knockoffs of popular culture with the offensive ideas taken out. These are the “God is my girlfriend” songs, which only gain any Christian content when played in a context that assumes the deep emotional love being expressed is for God and not romantic idol. Your average Amish Romance is just a Harlequin novel with the sex pushed off screen.

In contrast, C. S. Lewis is trying to present a particularly Christian perspective on the world in compelling terms through a well-written story that is symbolically accessible to children. My family’s peppy Scripture songs are trying to disciple by getting simple lyrics stuck in their head. Sherwood Pictures is trying to entertain an audience and get the gospel out there through a story with a happy ending.

There is a difference between making a cheap knockoff and creating healthy, purposeful entertainment. Sometimes simplicity and morality presented through story is the best way to get the medicine down.

Those of us who are critical should step back and remember that using popular culture to disseminate the gospel is not a recent invention. As Karen Swallow Prior notes, Hannah More wrote plays for sophisticated audiences and entertaining tracts with stories that landed on pleas for gospel conversion, which were distributed to the masses. We ought not criticize methods that were effective in reaching the lost. For example, Hudson Taylor was converted to Christianity through a novel that led to a moralistic gospel presentation. The author of that kitschy book will doubtless receive treasure in heaven for his or her efforts.

There is a place for using popular cultural forms in Christian subcultures, but it should be simplicity for the sake of the gospel, not mimicry for the sake of the dollar. That is the real criterion by which we should be judging our art.

Stay Salty, Christians

When I was in the Navy, being salty referred to being experienced. It was an oft joked about phrase because the first few years I was on the USS Jimmy Carter, it was on blocks inside a building. We were concerned about knowing enough and being good enough so that it didn’t look like amateur night when we first went to see in a very expensive new vessel.

In some circles, salty is a term that refers to crassness. One may speak in salty language, which probably comes from sailors, too, who have been known to swear fluently. I can attest that I’ve known a few experienced sailors that could do so quite well, though that skill is far from exclusive to mariners.

Salt Shaker, by Rachel. Used by CC license. http://ow.ly/wFjH306d08S

Both of these uses of the term salt refer to a distinctiveness of the salty person of the salty language.

When the authors of Scripture use the term salt, they are also getting at distinctiveness. In Christian contexts, though, the distinctiveness of saltiness is viewed as a positive contrast to the sin of the world. According to Robert Stein, in the New Testament, "salt" refers to the characteristics of Christians as disciples. He affirms that in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:13-14, that is clearly the meaning of the term.

Christians are to be distinct from the world. We need to look no farther than Paul’s oft quoted command to the Roman church in Romans 12:2, “Do not be conformed to this world.” Being distinct is a good thing.

There is a paradox in being Christian in this world. We are to be in the world, but not of it. We are citizens of our nations, but ultimately owe a higher allegiance to God. We will use the accepted professional techniques in our work, but remain distinctly Christian in our motivation. We are to participate in the work of the world without succumbing to its temptations.

We are to utilize our regular lives to illuminate the distinctiveness of the gospel. This is what salt does. When you add salt to your food it doesn’t become a different sort of food, but it sure tastes better. I once ate with a family in which a member had had significant heart trouble. They cooked and ate without salt in their food. I decided that I liked salt a lot in that moment. But unsalted meatloaf is still nourishing. It may even be healthier.

Salt is useful when it is salty, but when it isn’t salty it is worthless. That’s what Jesus is talking about in the Sermon on the Mount.

As Matthew records, “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is not longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.” (Matt 5:13-14)

Christians risk so much of importance when they lose their distinction from the world. That’s part of the reason I reject the idea of America as a Christian nation. There are certainly strong Judeo-Christian influences in the culture in which our nation was founded, but it never has been a Christian nation. To argue that it has been a Christian nation is to accuse Christianity of the massacre of Native Americans and the sustenance of racially based chattel slavery. These are distinctly anti-Christian practices. Obviously, some Christians got sucked into them and even defended them. However, these violate the very principals of Christianity. They are evidences of occasions that people that claim Christ sacrificed their saltiness for political or material gain.

We are over-proud when we make the assumption that we are not swimming in a cultural sea of temptation to lose our saltiness. Those gross violations of Scripture may be in the past, but we face new errors today.

Faithful Christians must fight to retain their saltiness. We must work to avoid conformity to the incorrect practices of this world. A failure to do so may cost us, and the Church, a great deal more than we should be willing to risk. It may cost us the ability to freely proclaim the gospel. It may result in an environment in which the gospel is so buried with baggage that we have to debunk Christian-created myths before we can ever share the wonder of redemption with someone. We need to fight to be salty.

Danny Akin preached a powerful sermon a few weeks ago in the chapel at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. It expands on this topic and proclaims in light of a call to missions.

Offense and Oversensitivity

Perhaps one of the most dangerous threats to truth, meaningful communication, and human liberty is the increase of calls to regulate people's thoughts and speech. There is a terrible idea floating around that people have a right to avoid encountering ideas they don't like. As this approach to public speech expands from the most militantly postmodern enclaves to the broader culture, it is destroying lives and will eventually contribute to the intellectual crippling of the population.

The Insecurity of Safe Spaces.

One need not look any farther than the so-called Safe Space movement on college campuses. These are areas set aside where students can recover from being exposed to ideas--no matter how genteelly expressed--which conflict with their existing worldview.

One troubling concern with this approach to truth is that trains young people who should be exploring the deep truths of the world that they can live in a bubble of ideas that match their presuppositions. While this sort of thing might help prevent students from being converted to conservative viewpoints or having to go through the admittedly challenging process of figuring out in rational terms why they believe what they do, it seems to be very unhelpful for society in the long term.

Attempts to shield people from competing ideas is exactly what creates bigots (used in the traditional meaning of the word). This is the approach to truth that leads to people who are, in fact, narrow minded and incapable of seeing anyone else's perspective. In present times, the sheltered minds are saved from realizing their status as actual bigots by the convenient redefinition of the term to include people that hold positions that are out of vogue with the folks that edit the online dictionaries.

Of course, the reaction to the bubble forming culture can be (and presently is) just as bad. This is the point a lot of modern discourse has gotten to where prominent political candidates become popular simply because they are willing to say things intentionally to offend people or Twitter mobs swarm anyone who dares raise a point criticizing their dear leader. That sort of reaction is based on the same foundation used by the creators of safe spaces--emotional response instead of dialogical engagement.

Sometimes comedians are the best cultural exegetes. This is not always to say they are right, but that they often see things and are able to point out issues in ways that many of us can see. John Cleese, who is no theological conservative, commented on the dangers of silencing debate and extreme forms of political correctness earlier this year. He frames his concern as a loss of comedy, which is his livelihood, but the same concerns could be applied to the ability to think any thoughts beyond the thought patterns presently approved by society.

Whether it is in the recent attempts to prosecute anyone who funds, talks about, or openly questions the extent of climate destabilization or the rabid pillorying of anyone who disagrees with a novel and popular expression of sexual ethics, attempts to shut down speech by force are not helpful and, in fact, endanger the sort of dialogue that makes democracy possible. It also intellectually cripples those that are never exposed to any challenges to their worldview.

Intellectual Crippling

The complaint that contemporary society is forming people who lack the ability to think critically and engage in meaningful dialogue is not new. It can be found plainly in the pages of C. S. Lewis' essay, "Men Without Chests," and just as clearly in Dorothy L. Sayers' plea for classical education, "The Lost Tools of Learning." Both call for an approach to learning the recognizes emotions, but calls reason to work despite emotions. In other words, it is necessary to move toward something that approximates absolute truth rather than simply something that merely feels good.

Setting aside for a moment the important, but very large question about the nature of truth and whether there actually is any objective truth, let us presume that there is an objective reality that is not merely socially constructed but actually extant. Even accepting the realistic and valid corollary that we biased, finite, and flawed humans can never fully comprehend the totality of objective truth, we can approximate it more or less well. However, in order to consider approaching anything like the objective truth we must be willing to engage with thoughts that we do not already have.

Environmentalists rightly complain about monoculture in the contemporary factory farm. This is the proclivity to plant the same crop year after year on the same fields. The trouble with this approach is that each type of plant draws only certain nutrients in a particular ratio from the soil. To replace those nutrients, scientists have developed various fertilizers in laboratories that help replenish the needed elements in the soil. However, there is evidence that the chemical cocktails are not quite adequate for proper replacement. Eventually, despite the best attempts or replenishment, monoculture has the tendency to deplete the soil. This is analogous to what happens when only a single ideological perspective is made available to people.

Used by CC license. Mere by Natural England. http://ow.ly/iT1K3005ycH

Over time, if children and adults are only exposed to one worldview and all others are either excluded or dismissed without engagement, the soil of the culture will be depleted. Even if the ideas that are popular are right or better than others, the basis on which the ideas are held will be neglected if opposing viewpoints are not considered. The increasingly anemic culture that remains unchallenged can be artificially supported through propaganda, emotivism, or violence. However, sooner or later the crop will fail or a heavy rain will come and wash away the depleted soil, which has been made vulnerable due to its abuse.

The present milieu is one that promotes ideological monoculture through safe spaces and ironic but belligerent accusations of bigotry for deviations from whatever the popular orthodoxy of the day is. There is still resistance to this intellectual abuse, but that resistance is increasingly being legislated against, sued, and assaulted in the public square. It remains to see whether the so-called politically correct monoculture will triumph, but signs point to its growth rather than its diminution. 

What then?

The natural reaction to intellectual violence of the advocates of ideological monoculture is to try to fight fire with fire. If they take words out of context, then it seems fitting to do the same. If they overreact to your words, then you overreact.

If the monoculturists were sufficiently self-aware, then this might help them recognize the irony of their actual attacks on people who dare to express contrary positions in their presence.

In reality, fighting fire with fire threatens to burn the whole place down. 

The answer must be something else. It is likely that in casual interactions, the ideological monoculturalists are unlikely to ever except a contrary view, especially if they are challenged in public.

I don't think there are any quick answers. Things seem to have only gotten worse since Lewis and Sayers wrote, and we're farther from the foundations of classical education. I do think that part of the solution is working toward a society that values critical thinking and reasoned arguments more than cheap shots and cheesy entertainment. In the present climate, I'm just not sure how to get started on the project except by cultivating my own little garden of children at home.

How Do Views of the Environment Develop?

I've spent the last few years studying Christian approaches to environmental ethics. In the coming months (not years) I will write my doctoral dissertation examining how theological perspectives control people's view of the environment.

In the hundreds of books, articles, newsletters, and blogs I've read, not to mention the hours of video and audio I've submerged myself in, there are some consistent themes in both religious and Christian approaches.

When developing perspectives on the environment everyone has to answer four basic questions:

1. What are the sources of authoritative information for my perspective?
2. Why does nature/creation have value?
3. What role do humans have in caring for nature/creation?
4. What is the end goal of nature/creation?

For religious approaches, particularly Christianity, these four questions relate to the doctrines of revelation, creation, anthropology, and eschatology. Non-religious approaches have to answer the same sorts of questions, though they will respond with different vocabulary.

The differing response to these four questions helps to explain how different people with access to the same data can come up with vastly different ethical conclusions. Most of the time we argue about the conclusions, when the deeper issue is how we get to those ethical conclusions.

My understanding of this reality--that these four questions frame environmental ethics--was driven home by my post last week at The Gospel Coalition. The post explained why Christians can and should participate in Earth Day activities.

Some of the comments on the post made it evident that the people so anxious to voice their opinions publicly hadn't bothered to read the post. However, many of their responses demonstrated particular answers to these four questions.

Responding to Four Key Questions

As an evangelical Christian, my governing source of authority is Scripture. This is consistent with sola Scriptura, one of the five central concerns of the Reformers. However, I also take into account relevant scientific data (experience), theological tradition, and reason. These three aspects complete the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. They all help to form my theology, which in the end must be judged by Scripture.

Creation has value because God created it and inasmuch as it is fulfilling its purpose to glorify God. This keeps me from seeing the created order as merely of instrumental value, waiting to be harvested by humans. It also keeps me from  ascribing intrinsic value to creation, which would indicate creation has worth apart from God and may stand in the place of God as worthy of worship. This is more dangerous. Instead, creation has a purpose and should be respected and aided in fulfilling that purpose.

Some environmentalists treat humans as if they are an alien species and a scourge on the earth. This is unbiblical. Instead, we ought to see humans are a unique part of creation with responsibility to steward it. Stewardship implies the responsibility to care for and tend as a gardener, but not to use wantonly. Ultimately God owns creation (as he created it) and we will be held accountable for how we use it.

Finally, my reading of eschatology from Scripture sees a renewal of all creation at the end of time. God will do a mighty work to redeem all of Creation from the curse. This encourages a positive view toward working to preserve creation now, though not in an effort for repristination. This position stands in opposition to some Christian eschatologies that anticipate a cataclysmic annihilation and subsequent recreation of earth. It also opposes an evolutionary worldview that anticipates things will go on as they are now for the foreseeable future.

Summing Up

In the end, despite the mixed response to my post (even among those who seemed to read it), I stand behind my promotion of participation in Earth Day celebrations. I have several reason why:

First, it really is important to rightly steward creation for the theological reasons I listed above. We will be held accountable for how we care for the created order, so we ought to do it well.

Second, participating in Earth Day activities is no more a pagan rite than is going to a football game, singing the national anthem, and madly cheering for your team. Some people at the football game are actually participating in worship of their team or their country. That does not mean that every spectator is. Many of the folks at Earth Day events are secularists who would reject Gaia worship as foolishness, just like a Christian.

Third, some object to environmentalism because many environmental initiatives use centralized government planning and impinge on a free market. This is largely because free market advocates have abandoned the environment. The free market only works when people are internally, morally regulated. Big government is more necessary when people lack self control. This means that free market advocates (as I am) are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy by rejecting environmental concern.

Fourth, events like Earth Day are usually filled with people that need the gospel. This should draw a faithful Christian like a light draws a moth. Seriously: People in community who are working together. If that isn't a great place to start a gospel conversation then there is no such thing.

People should act according to their conscience, illuminated by Scripture. However, I think reason should drive Christians toward more participation in common cause activities like Earth Day instead of fewer.

Jesus Outside the Lines - A Review

There are few things more wearying than the ongoing culture wars. Social media, traditional media formats, office conversations, and familial relationships are continually stretched and stressed by one of the many cultural crises that arises with what seems increasing frequency.

More significant for the Christian, however, is the impact that cultural conflict has on the ability to clearly relate the gospel to the lost. Sometimes the gospel gets upstaged by the latest bill in Congress or the most recent violent crime to hit the news.

Resisting cultural changes made in the name of “progress” that are bad for both the individual and common good is, at times, a necessary thing. I applaud the many men and women at front line organizations whose task it is to make an argument for the common good publicly. However, social media has tended to make every Christian a citizen soldier in the battle, or at least to allow every individual to feel as if they are engaged in the battle by sharing posts, making comments, and having lunchroom debates.

Eventually the flood of information and the urge to see one set of ideas triumph over another tends to bleed over into a desire to see one group of people triumph over another. It makes the division between factions deeper and communication of any ideas––including the gospel––exceedingly difficult.

Summary

Scott Sauls’ recent book, Jesus Outside the Lines: A Way Forward for Those Who are Tired of Taking Sides, is intended to mitigate the trend in polarization and move toward gospel reconciliation. As such, this book represents the beginning of a deep conversation that needs to happen in the gospel community whose ideas are increasingly demonized.

Sauls spends the first four chapters discussing the problem of Christian tribalism. He points out the sharp divide between Republican and Democrat Christians, such that sometimes there is an assumption made by political stickers of ones’ status inside or outside the family of God. Sauls then moves to discuss how differing views on some of the more polarizing issues can be maintained: concern for the unborn vs. concern for the poor; participation in Christian communities vs. personal, individualized faith; and the tendency toward loathing vs. loving money.

This section is challenging and thought provoking. I can’t say that I agree with all of Sauls’s conclusions, though I must say that this is in part because of the strength with which I hold my own positions on these issues. However, Sauls does try to show how someone can believe they are a faithful Christian and stand on either side of some of these issues. The benefit of this section is in driving the reader to consider how others might think, which is a first step toward communication.

The remaining six chapters focus on divisions between Christians and non-Christians. In some ways this is an easier task than accepting the strong differences of opinion between Christians. However, it is by no means simple. Sauls gives his thoughts on several aspects of this division.

Recognizing the power of positive words for building relationships, Sauls commends the practice of affirming points of agreement with non-Christians. This is a good start as there is often more common ground than we acknowledge and beginning with points of critique tends to build walls rather than tear them down. Relating to this, Sauls then touches on the importance of leading with compassion instead of judgment. He is not calling for compromise or ignoring gospel ethics, but realizing that sanctification must follow (not precede) conversion.

Sauls continues the section discussing various apologetic concerns that are commonly raised as accusations against Christianity. For instance, the need to continually progress in sanctification, while resisting the accusations by non-Christians of hypocrisy within in the church that is a sign of the need for growth in godliness not a false belief. Christians must also focus on rightly ordering sexuality rather than merely resisting certain forms of sexual expression. The Christian sexual ethic is focused on purity at all times, not banishing the favorite sins of the day. Similarly, Sauls touches on the reality that Christianity has a valid response for the problem of evil, looking forward to ultimate judgment and restoration in the eschaton. Finally, the need to find self-worth in Christ is addressed, which frees Christians to be properly oriented gospel-people.

The book concludes with some practical instructions for living outside the lines, including a list of ten significant practices for living as a Christian in a post-Christian culture. It has a great deal to do with patient faithfulness and compassion overcoming the urge to declaim and decry.

Analysis

This book is not the final word on any of the topics it discusses. It is, however, an important entry into the discussion.

As an ethicist who has studied arguments on both sides of many of the issues Sauls addresses, I have positions that are on one side or the other. That is unlikely to change, and really, Sauls is not asking for that to change. This is not a call to compromise on right belief.

Instead this is a call to live faithfully in a culture that does not share many of those beliefs and to learn to engage the culture with the gospel. After all, eternity hangs on the truthfulness of the gospel, not the extent the government subsidizes school lunch programs. As the divisions between positions seems to grow more severe, Sauls has some helpful suggestions for learning to be Christian in a changing world.

The potential weakness of the volume is that it does not convey fully the difficulty in living this program out. It requires giving space to bad ideas, some of which are truly harmful. It requires being exceedingly patient with destructive activities and having a willingness to help people through the consequences of their own choices, which are often completely avoidable. These things are relatively easy to consider in print, but are much more difficult to enact in real life. It requires a great deal of mental and spiritual preparation. There is a high cost which must be counted to live as Sauls recommends.

All in all, this is a worthy volume at a time when it is needed. It encourages neither triumphalism nor defeatism, but faithful participation in the world. It seems, however, that something like what Sauls recommends will be necessary if the church is to have an impact in the United States in the coming decades.

Jesus Outside the Lines: A Way Forward for Those Who Are Tired of Taking Sides

$11.69

By Scott Sauls

Buy on Amazon

Note: A gratis copy of this volume was provided by the publisher with no expectation of a positive review.