Why "Culture War" Language Harms the Gospel

War is a topic with no end to its ability to inflame the human imagination. It is the basis for countless books, movies, plays, songs, and video games. It is even the basis for many biblical metaphors about courage (1 Cor. 16:13), the constancy of death (Eccles. 8:8), spiritual confidence (Ps. 27:1-3), and even faith (1 Tim. 1:18-19).  It figures strongly in modern proverbial language - "All is fair in love and war." (By the way, it's not.)

American war poster from WWI [1]

In recent decades, war has been revived by many Christians as a way of framing the cultural conflict between the historical Judeo-Christian worldview of the United States and the relatively recent encroachment of secularism and scientism. Clinging to an old sense of Manifest Destiny, many fear that God's country is being lost to an axis of evil--communists, socialists, atheists, New Age humanists, liberals, and Muslims.

For many Christians, what might have been characterized as an ever-growing, pluralistic marketplace of ideas in a fallen world has escalated into a full-on "culture war" of us versus them. The problem is that "culture war," like a grenade, is packed with tremendous power. This semantic power, I think, has come to be used thoughtlessly, without the spiritual wisdom with which the Bible's authors wielded the same language. What is needed is a Christian theology of cultural engagement.

The problem with "culture war" language

Overstating the "culture war" leads to a number of un-Christian semantic implications:

First, "culture war" implies that other people are the enemy against whom we must fight. There are certainly individuals who oppose the Kingdom of God (such as the "New Atheists"), but they are not the enemy. As the Apostle Paul writes, "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." [2] (Eph. 6:12, NIV) While fellow human beings might be the earthly face of the opposition, there are ugly spiritual forces that stand behind them--forces that victimize their willing and corrupted souls by turning them against the truth of God.

Secondly, "culture war" fosters a sort of Christian naturalism, which ignores the spiritual reality of the battle. The brutal this-worldliness of the fight blinds us to the invisible, but much more substantial, reality of the spirits that inject bad ideas into human minds, like a deadly virus. (2 Cor. 4:4) Filling the mind with lies was Satan's tactic from the very beginning, with Eve. There is no question that our deceitful and lustful hearts are willing participants, but they are hearts that need healing and rescue, rather than cultural thrashing.

Third, as in any war, the "culture war" fosters a self-righteous us-versus-them mentality. We are the righteous, and they are the enemy. The Scriptures, however, tell us that "there is no one righteous, not even one..." (Romans 3:9-18, NIV) Christians are positionally sanctified before God only by his grace--they are not actually holy yet. It is strictly the imputed righteousness of Christ, laid upon the believer, that makes the believer holy. (Romans 4:5) Ontologically (in our actual being, that is), there is no difference between believers and non-believers. Christians are not holy mercenaries sent on jihad to destroy all that opposes the kingdom of God. Christians are more like special operatives sent into enemy territory to rescue those who are captive to the world. This was Jesus' model.

What did Jesus do?

Standing bloodied, beaten, and accused before Pontius Pilate, Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” (John 18:36, NIV) Even in the face of certain death, Jesus minimized his fightin' words. Why? Because Jesus loved those who threatened to kill him. His mission was not one of war against the evil and perverted enemies, but it was a rescue mission into enemy territory. It is in the enemy territory of this world, with its corrupted philosophies and ideas, that the lost sheep are held captive. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, came to set them free.

Conclusion:

The competition of ideas is not a war against unbelievers; rather, it is a rescue mission in enemy occupied territory, and Christians are the rescuers. We need Christians to penetrate all levels of our culture in order to expose the darkness found there to the light of the Gospel. We need Christian educators, artists, politicians, writers, actors, academics, researchers, engineers, athletes, laborers, caregivers, and philosophers.

Christians should not be motivated to learn for the sake of fighting. They should pursue knowledge and learning for the sake of the lost who are caught in the world's trappings and its false philosophies. "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Cor. 10:3-5, NIV)

Christians must pursue excellence in knowledge and skill as a means of exposing the false and destructive ideologies that hold our neighbors captive. By destroying these "strongholds", Christ may set free those trapped within. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennet (the "New Atheists") are not the enemies; they are sinners just like us who have not yet come to a knowledge of Christ.  Perhaps they never will, but that is between them and God. We must cast the seeds of the Gospel boldly and in whatever language or jargon they can understand. What kind of soil they are is up to the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 13:1-23)

As Jesus said to one of his followers, put down your sword. (Matthew 26:52) [3]

----------------------------------------------------------

[1] This is an American war poster from World War I. A common way of waging war is to convince your own citizens that the enemy is subhuman. In this case, the gorilla represents the German enemy. Interestingly, he wields a club labeled "Kultur".
[2] "Rulers", "authorities", "powers", and "spiritual forces" designate demonic and Satanic forces.
[3] For the record, when it comes to fighting actual wars, I'm not a pacifist. I believe that there may be an occasion in which justice demands an act of war. My commentary is limited to the so called "culture war" of ideas.

Should Candidates Question One Another's Faith?

Recently Republican primary candidate Rick Santorum (a conservative Catholic) has come under fire for making critical remarks concerning President Obama's (liberal Protestant) Christian faith--saying he has "phony theology." [1] I'm not the least bit interested in skipping through a minefield of evaluating whether Obama is or is not a saved Christian. But, I would like to examine what lies behind the criticisms of Santorum for having made such remarks. Should questions of religious faith be off-limits? If so, why?

Rick Santorum (R)

It seems that the broader American culture and especially the mainstream media are offended by even remotely challenging another person's faith. Is it a sin to question one's faith in any respect--no matter what? If so, our Lord Jesus is the chief sinner, having called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers" for their phony, hypocritical religion. (Matt. 12:34) John the Baptist said exactly the same thing. (Matt. 3:7)
 
Why many believe religious criticism is off limits

At some point in the modern period (the Enlightenment), due to the works of thinkers like John Locke (a professing Christian), the West accepted the idea that all knowledge comes from the five senses. This has become known philosophically as empiricism and is the basis of the scientific method, which requires sense observation. The law of gravity is a "law", because we have observed its force over and over and over with absolute consistency. From a Christian perspective, empirical knowledge is a gift from God. The scientific method is a great use of the senses God has given us, and it has done incalculable good for humanity. The problem is not the empirical, but the addition of the suffix -ism. The addition of -ism creates an ideology that claims that knowledge is obtained exclusively through the senses. Therein lies the problem: God is not known by the senses. By definition God stands outside of the realm of the senses; therefore, according to empricism, belief in God does not constitute knowledge.

Barak Obama (D)

If faith is not (and cannot be) knowledge of true facts, what is it? All that remains is opinion. Empiricism pushed religious faith out of the realm of true, hard facts into the realm of opinion. Now, saying "I believe in God" is little more than saying "I like chocolate". One does not believe in God due to any conviction of truth but rather it is a matter of taste or pragmatism. Analogously, Suzy can eat chocolate because she finds it tasty, or she can eat chocolate because it serves some good purpose--good health, maybe. It is either personal preference or pragmatism--neither of which has any claim on truth.

To those who honestly (even if subconsciously) believe that religious faith is simply opinion, criticizing another person's faith is plain old self-righteousness. Rick Santorum might as well have said that Americans should not re-elect President Obama due to his aversion to sweater vests, which Santorum clearly loves. Consequently, if religious faith is merely a matter of personal taste, then the media is perfectly legitimate in its abhorrence of religious criticism. However, if faith is a reasonable truth claim, then the media is wrong to condemn it.

Faith is not opinion

The media is wrong, because faith is not merely an opinion. That is a faulty epistemological assumption. Christians shouldn't believe in the Lord simply because they find it agreeable or useful (like chocolate). Even further, Christians should not believe in God because it will save them. Christians ought to believe in God and the lordship of Jesus Christ, because they believe it to be true. They believe the truth that they are sinners. They believe the truth that Jesus takes away the sins of the Church. They believe that they deserve to go to Hell but are truly amazed by the kind forgiveness of God.

Christian apologists do make good use of empirical knowledge. For instance, there are very strong empirical reasons to believe that Jesus is the Christ, such as the remarkable eye-witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in the Gospels. (See the works of Mike Lacona, Gary Habermas, N.T. Wright, or Craig Blomberg) However, most of the impetus for Christian faith comes from non-empirical sources, namely the internal witness of the Holy Spirit and the revelatory power of the words of the Bible and the preached word. (see Alvin Plantinga's Warrant series) Also Christianity, with all of its associated claims, provides answers to the most basic human questions--a task, which other faiths and secularism fail to accomplish adequately. (See C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Nancy Pearcy, or my post on The Flying Spaghetti Strawman)

If faith is a claim as to what is or is not true, it is a perfectly valid campaign question. Reasonable voters want to know what a candidate believes is true about the world.

Christian faith as a worldview

In the media backlash, Santorum has back-tracked a bit, claiming that he was not questioning the President's faith, but rather his "worldview".  Secular culture doesn't understand this distinction, because worldview studies is a recent phenomenon in the Christian church and intelligentsia. To the uninitiated it comes across as a bit of doublespeak. In reality, it is a valid distinction.

If a candidate believes that Christianity is more than just opinion, then that candidate is implying a whole host of other truth claims about the world: God created the universe. Humans bear the image of God. Jesus is divine. Jesus died on the cross, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven. Humans have a sinful nature. Humans are higher order beings than animals. Satan exists. Christianity, though open to a variety of orthodox interpretations is a whole package, which is not meant to be parted out like an old Chevy. It is all-or-none. The political question is this: Does Christian Candidate X believe faith to be a whole package of truth claims about reality (a full worldview) or merely a religious personal preference (isolated opinion)?

This question matters, because worldview analysis has predictive power. People vote for someone when they are reasonably sure that their candidate will act the same way that they would in a situation. If a voter cannot reasonably predict what a candidate will do in office under situation x, he will not vote for that candidate. If one candidate can illustrate that the other's Christian faith is pragmatic, rather than a commitment to the whole package, it tells the voters something important about the candidate--his "faith" gives them no sense of what that person might do.

So, Santorum's challenge to the religious faith of President Obama is legitimate, I think. It's a two-way street, though; if Santorum is going to dish it out, he better be willing to take it himself. 

-----------------------

Below is an interesting and uncomfortable interview of Franklin Graham on MSNBC, regarding faith and the election process.  (15 min.)

[1] For the fuller context of the "phony theology" comment, look here.

Heaven: Why It's Not as Popular as You'd Think

Heaven is a place of singular beauty and unending joy--a home for those souls who have found refuge in Jesus Christ. Although the exact nature of Heaven has been a topic of much conjecture, all orthodox Christians have believed that it is spectacularly good. Logically, this might lead one to believe that those who reside in Hell would regret their rejection of God and eternally desire the passage to Heaven.

I've heard Heaven compared to Noah's ark, which was sealed up by God when the floods started, leaving those who had rejected Noah's warnings to beat hopelessly on the door to get in. Surely there must be belatedly repentant souls beating on the gates of Heaven, hopelessly begging for a pardon, right?

I suggest not.

As bad as Hell is (and, I do believe in Hell), I'm entirely convinced that its residents would rather be there than in Heaven. For them, Heaven would be an even worse Hell. I have come to this conclusion for a couple of reasons. First, my own acceptance of Reformed theology has lead me to ask difficult questions about the harsh reality of God's judgment, and this resolves some of those questions. Secondly, I have been influenced heavily by C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce and Mere Christianity.


Reformed Theology

It took me 10 years of eroding resistance to finally accept the severe doctrines of Reformed (Calvinist) theology. It is not a theology that one accepts due to its warmth. I was compelled by its truth, rather than it is congeniality. (Of course, my allegiance is to biblical truth as best I can grasp it -- not any particular confession. Reformed theology could be falsified for me.) Due to humanity's radical fallenness, no one deserves God's salvation, and no one even desires it. Our wills are so completely corrupted that our desire can only be for self, rather than for God or others. Therefore, the only way to get saved is for God the Holy Spirit to change our wills by the touch of his grace, which is so magnificent as to make it irresistible. It is so good that everyone who encounters it truly and freely wants it; it is not coerced. Because no one can choose God by his own will, God must choose whom he wants. And, apparently, not everyone is chosen. That's the severe part. But, then again, no one deserves it at all.

To many this sounds mean, but the meanness is only superficial. In reality, those who are not elect, do not want to be, because their wills are radically corrupted. They don't want God, and they don't get God. Those whom God does elect do want God, and they get God. In this theological system, everyone gets what his will wants. Why God doesn't pick everyone is something of a mystery, but it is his prerogative to pick whom he wants. God has mercy on whom he has mercy, and we are in no position to talk back to him. (Romans 9:6-21)

From a Reformed perspective, residents of Hell have no love for God due to their own corrupted desires. But this raises another question, what do they do when they get to Hell? Do they not realize what an awful decision they've made and repent? If they repent, is it benevolent of God to make them live with their decision for all of eternity in unquenching and unconsuming fire? Why must God's grace be cut off at physical death? C.S. Lewis provides a possible theological resolution.

The Great Divorce

The Great Divorce

In The Great Divorce, a bus pulls up in Hell and a number of embittered residents of Hell board. Then, the bus seems to rise up out of Hell, eventually arriving in Heaven. (In reality, the bus is only getting larger, and Hell is smaller than a grain of sand in Heaven.) All of the passengers, who appear as translucent ghosts, are told they can get out. They are even told that they can stay if they want. Shockingly, they all find Heaven to be absolutely intolerable. The rays of light hurt them. The grass, which is soft under the feet of the Heaven-ites, pierces their feet like knives. Rain drops threaten to riddle them with holes like bullets. They are not substantial enough to withstand the "realness" of Heaven. The story is a series of interactions that the Hellions have with one another and with the residents of Heaven, and Lewis reveals the psychology of the experience for each character. Each very plausibly decides to return to Hell, because Heaven is misery for them. Why? How could Heaven be so miserable?

The answer to this lies in Mere Christianity in which Lewis constructs a continuum of the human condition. At one end of the continuum, the human nature is purified and virtuous, most like our Lord Jesus Christ. At this end, we become real and solid like the residents of Heaven. At the other end, the human nature has become totally devoid of any virtue and is hellish and evil. The human spirit becomes empty and unsubstantial, a hollow shell of what it originally was. In this present life, each human action moves that person's central being a little to the hellish side or a little to the virtuous side. Lewis urges his reader to seek out and develop a virtuous life now, because only a virtuous soul can immediately enjoy the perfections of Heaven. Even those of us who are in Christ may find Heaven to be a bit uncomfortable at first, until we develop complete virtuosity.

Bringing It All Together

It is this that made it all click for me. Everyone gets what his will want. But, also, if God were to just forcibly remove everyone from Hell and plunk them down in Heaven, in spite of their perverted wills, they would be absolutely miserable. Forcing Heaven upon the hellishly unvirtuous would be worse than Hell. This is precisely why Hell must exist. It is the only alternative to God's perfection for those whose wills have rejected him. Hell is made necessary by its residents.

Love Wins

This is also why I reject Rob Bell's postmortem universalism. In Love Wins, Bell argues that God's love is so overcoming that no one stays in Hell. Hell is a place where people remain only until God's love "wins" and compels them into faith and repentance. Eventually, Hell, like a vacant slum, is destroyed, because no one lives there anymore. This scheme must be rejected on biblical exegetical grounds, for one, but it also assumes that people are capable of repentance while in Hell. There is no logical or theological reason to think that they are. If Lewis is right, Hell is a place where one's nature continues further and further down the hellish continuum, because there is no work of God to sanctify him back the other direction. They don't get better by contrition; they get worse by pride and hatred.

Heaven is not a place that the damned long to inhabit. They may hate Hell, but there is no reason to believe they'd prefer Heaven.