The Question That Dictates How Christians Approach Culture and Politics

“Does the primary threat to the church come from within or without?”

By
519

Every now and then it’s worthwhile to take a step back from the news cycle and explore differences in first principles—to discover the deeper reasons why people disagree. How can people look at many of the same facts and come to completely different conclusions about the state of the world or the state of the church? 

The answer often lies in starting presuppositions. For example, years and years ago I was taught that a key distinction between conservatives and progressives could be seen in their different conceptions of human nature. Conservatives were more apt to believe in original sin and man’s fallen nature. Progressives were more apt to believe that man was fundamentally good. 

How did conservatives reckon with the great good that mankind could obviously accomplish? Well, God’s grace elevates us, and so do functioning institutions like healthy families, churches, and communities. 

How did progressives reckon with the great evil that mankind obviously commits? Well, toxic systems oppress and destroy, creating the cultural pathologies that grievously wound the world. Patriarchy, fundamentalism, and nationalism all work their dark magic to twist human souls. 

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
519
By
Comments (519)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Jason Gibson

    Another great reflection David. You’re getting me close to picking up calvins institutes

    Collapse
  2. Dennis Trask

    How do we read the Bible and not see that it is full of sinful people that are redeemed by God and then think that we can "protect" our children and prevent all sin?

    Collapse
  3. Bill Brockman

    To be brief, I must agree with Gilbert K--I am the problem. To elaborate, think what a difference it would make if everyone spent more time identifying their own sinful tendencies and amending their lives than finding fault in everyone else.

    To respond more fully, permit me to note that C. S. Lewis was surely right in saying that the question is not whether one faith or another will make one a better person or whether a particular faith will make a country a better country. Rather, the most basic question to answer in deciding whether and/or what faith to embrace is whether that faith teaches the truth about the nature of man, the nature of God and how we are called to live in the light of those truths. In that vein, permit me to recommend The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 374-421 on the original goodness of man, the effects of original sin and the redemptive effect of Jesus resurrection on man's current nature. These paragraphs provide what I think is a more nuanced and complete statement on these subjects than is contained in this article. Once man's nature is more fully understood, it seems to me that it becomes relatively easy to answer the question of what is the primary threat to "the church."

    That said, permit me also to say that I perceive that one of the most pernicious effects of the "sexual revolution" has been the embrace of moral relativism by more people, both in and out of "the church." It really is, I think, a repeat of the original "original sin." That is, "the revolution" encouraged its adherents to believe that man knew better than God about human sexuality. Once accepted, how could that belief not spread to other aspects of peoples' lives? Now, we have come to the point where a Catholic Supreme Court Justice actually wrote that the very definition of freedom is the ability to define one's own truths! As C. S. Lewis also wrote, once a man bases his life on "a good, solid lie," Wormwood's capture of that human's soul is very nearly assured.

    Perhaps therein lies the greatest threat to the church and to American society. We live in an age in which few things are considered sinful. If there is no sin, there is no need for forgiveness, no need for mercy and, ultimately, no need for God.

    Collapse
  4. David Shannon

    This was so powerful, I just joined the Dispatch in response. Not nearly enough other Christians are saying this, but it’s absolutely true.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    This was an excellent newsletter, David. You hit the nail on the head.

    The story relayed from Rod Dreher’s blog that an anonymous father tells about his daughter is saddening. I’ve had friends who were homeschooled and who homeschool their children. Sometimes incredibly successfully. I’ve also seen it backfire horribly when the children go through a rebellious phase in high school. What strikes me most is the overprotective parent urge. This is our dominant culture today, secular and Christian, homeschooled and public school. And it is incredibly dangerous. You cannot protect your children from the world. Your goal as a parent should not be to shield them. It should be to raise them to be an independent, rational, principled, and faithful adult capable of making their own decisions. The trend in some evangelical circles of trying to metaphorically lock their children away from a sinful culture bothers me. I’ve seen it personally and read articles urging it (at places like the American Mind, which I try not to read because every time I do the quality of writing and analysis severely underwhelms me).

    Collapse
  6. Mike

    David - I appreciate your insights very much, and I am grateful for your faith. You are a light shining in a dark world.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Tim Etherington

    I used this in my sermon on Daniel 1 yesterday. Thank you for summarizing it so well. BTW, there was a small indie film in 2006 that I thought of when I reflected on you "the problem isn't out there" comments. The film was Right at Your Door and the plot was that a chemical weapon is detonated in LA and a man seals himself and others inside his house to protect them. Others try to get in and he fights them off. In the end people come in to search for survivors. It turns out that sealing yourself in with the chemical agent made it potent and lethal. The problem was inside all along.

    Collapse
  8. Tim Johnson

    Is it any wonder that those whose faith consistently blames 'outside' forces for its own sin would turn to a political leader (Trump) who does the same (immigrants, the Chinese, the liberals)?

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Thomas Amidon

    This is one of the best and personally convicting and edifying French pieces I have ever read, amongst many other worthy pieces. It would be improved, however, by clarifying two statements that are true in the broad sense, but not always true. The difference will make some read and dismiss.

    1) The example of the Make Faith Great Again sentiment illustrates something very important about the intrusion of Christian nationalism into the Church. This does not mean, even remotely, that all Christians who evaluated the electoral options based on the information available at that time and decided to vote for Trump are Christian nationalists or Christian hedonists, for instance. I think this point is one that French overlooks because he is not dispassionate when it comes to Trump. Few are!

    2) The example of "disproportionate disregard for the health and well-being of neighbors" needs to have the word "perceived" in front of it. It links to perhaps one of the worst French pieces, which ties vaccine and mask reticence to disregard for neighbors. This of course is a trust issue when it comes to the sources of information, but, as the linked article reluctantly acknowledges, the same people are extremely generous to their saved and unsaved neighbors, as demonstrated in emergencies.

    Collapse
  10. BenT

    When I read David's statement about being rational vs. visceral, I immediately thought about C.S. Lewis' book "The Abolition of Man." In the first chapter ("Men Without Chests"), Lewis writes: "The head rules the belly through the chest ... The Chest-Magnanimity-Sentiment -- these are the indispensable liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal." But Lewis warns that modern educational philosophy (70 years ago!! I wonder what Lewis would say today?) has dismissed this "middle element," i.e. we lack the ability to discern and uphold objective values. And the result is a tragicomic situation: "In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

    Collapse
Load More