The Evangelical War Footing

If you haven't read this post of mine, please do so before reading further.

A few days ago I did a post called "What are the Weapons of our Warfare," criticizing Focus on the Family's (FotF) e-mail they sent which gave out personal contact information of Michael Moore.

As I mentioned before, one of my friends says that I have become a kind of poster child for "evangelicals who are not in lock step agreement with James Dobson." I fear that this post may further that notion, but I want to re-emphasize my basic respect for Dobson the man, and I want to emphasize that I am critiquing an idea, not a person. I know that Dobson has many enemies out there - some say he has gone to war against America, and others have called him the most dangerous man in America. I don't buy any of that. I have no reason to call his character into question. But there is an idea that is rampant in American evangelicalism of which he is the primary spokesman, and so it will be hard to attack the idea without some thinking I am attacking the man.

So, I offer these preliminary words in hopes that if any friends of Dobson or FotF read them they will understand I am writing as a friend. If any enemies of Dobson or FotF read this I hope you will understand that I am not interested in any kind of character assassination here. And if anyone in the middle of this friends/enemies spectrum read this I hope what I have to you will be able to focus on the ideas discussed, not a particular personality.

My fundamental disagreement with Dobson and Focus on the Family is over their view that Christians should interface with the world on a war footing. Friends and foes who listen to Focus on the Family (I'll use the FotF abbreviation from here on out) can see that readily but let me give just a few quotes to illustrate this. In the March 6, 1995 edition of Christianity Today, John Woodbridge wrote this:

THE DANGERS OF WAR TALK

I regret the haunting title of James Davison Hunter's recent book: Before the Shooting Begins. Such rhetoric may sell books. But such rhetoric does little to foster an ambiance in which those Americans who are alienated from each other can seek reconciliation. Indeed, it reinforces the mindset of people like those extremists who laud the killing of abortion doctors and staff.

The vast majority of other Americans are not hostile toward evangelical Christians and are not ready to shoot anybody. We would be more accurate to portray the bulk of the American public not as belonging to two giant phalanxes of the Right and Left engaged in mortal combat, but as religious centrists, remaining to varying degrees committed to Judeo-Christian values and to First Amendment guarantees regarding freedom of religion. There are theaters of cultural warfare, but millions of Americans are not self-consciously enlisted soldiers in them.

In that article, Woodbridge names Dobson as one of the chief proprieters of "war talk" language.

Dobson didn't take Woodbridge's article sitting down. He replied:

"Let me conclude with a request of those who choose not to help fight the civil war of values. May I ask you to extend a little charity and grace to those of use who feel called to this cause? We are ordinary people trying to deal with incredibly powerful and dangerous institutions. We are often outgunned and undermanned. We don't have all the answers. We, like you, are simply trying to serve the Lord to the best of our ability, and sometimes we do it poorly. Sometimes in our zeal we may fail to show the love of Christ, which is central to everything we believe. You are justified in criticizing us when that occurs. But while you're there on the sidelines, I ask that you not make our task any more difficult than it already is. Please continue to pray for the people who are taking the heat in the arena of public debate. The world of the Christian activist can be a very lonely place. War is always tough on those who are called to fight it." ("Why I Use 'Fighting Words' A Response to John Woodbridge's 'Culture War Casualties,'" Christianity Today, June 19, 1995, p. 30).

I think that for most conservative evangelical Christians the "culture war" metaphor is the dominating metaphor that guides their views of, and interaction with the world around them. We live by our metaphors and this metaphor forms a powerful guiding principle for how we interact with the world around us. And, I think this is a big problem for us.

A few years ago I read an "About Us" page for Andy Stanley's church down in Atlanta. On the page he said something to the effect that "our church is not for everyone." One of the reasons he said that his church is not for everyone is that he and his church view the world outside the church as a mission field, not a battlefield. He was saying that those Christians who wanted to come to his church and use it as a base for battle wouldn't find much support. I think he was saying that his church's ministry was focused on positive engagement with and service to the community outside the church. They weren't going to treat the "outsiders" as enemies, and they weren't going to give off an air of hostility.

In a nutshell, this is the view I would argue for - the world "outside the church" is a mission field, not a battlefield.

If I had to expand the "culture war" metaphor a bit I would say that most Christians think of this world as something akin to Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 or the beaches of Normandy on D-Day. This depends on whether or not you think the Christian church is on the defensive or the offensive. But both are similar, we Christians are walking into a hail of bullets either way. I'll stick with the D-Day imagery for now. If this world is like D-Day, then Christians are under attack.

Christians are the "ordinary people" (the American soldiers), "trying to deal with" (storming the beaches), "incredibly powerful and dangerous institutions (the German army reigning down death and destruction).

In this view, those who criticize Christian culture warriors are almost the equivalent of gutless pacifists who are thwarting or slowing down the war efforts.

In this view the German soldiers had souls and we had no animosity against them individually or personally. Similarly, the "secularists" have souls and we really wish, hope and pray that they will "get saved." This would be preferable in fact. But the fact is that they are reigning down death and destruction on our way of life and we have to stop them to protect ourselves.

We have some generals in this culture war. Dobson and others like him (Falwell? Robertson?) are leading the charge - they are the equivalent of a General Eisenhower in this. Generals don't run flawless campaigns. Their actions are always subject to review. However, in the heat of the battle, it is not the time to be criticizing their decisions ("But while you're there on the sidelines, I ask that you not make our task any more difficult than it already is"). In that comment you can see Dobson's view of Christians - there are those Christians who fight the great battles of the day and those who sit on the sidelines and sometimes make life difficult for the soldiers.

This is all very powerful and motivational stuff. War talk is very inspiring. However, I think it misses the boat completely when used to speak of our interface with the world.

But, you say, "what about all the war talk in the Bible?" This is where I think we get off track. The Bible does use a lot of "war" language but it is far more nuanced than we realize.

In the Old Testament the people of God frequently went to war with surrounding peoples. "Holy War" was often engaged in when the people of God were represented in a nationalistic manner as the nation of Israel. However, in the New Testament, the people of God are represented as an international body - a nation within the nations. We still go to war, but the war is not with nations it is with "principalities and powers." Here are a couple of familiar examples of "war talk" in the New Testament.

Ephesians 6:12 - For 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.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (Eph 6:12). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

II Corinthians 10:3-4 - 3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (2 Co 10:3). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Both of those passages show that we aren't at war with people, we are at war with principalities, powers and ideas. True, ideas are never disembodied, but still, it is the ideas we attack, not people.

What about the antithesis between the church and the world. Again, a familiar passage comes to mind. I John 2:15-17 defines the world, as it stands in conflict to Christianity: 

15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (1 Jn 2:15). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

In this passage "the world" is not people, it is attitudes and desires, intangible things that are in opposition to God. True again, these things are embodied in people, but the people themselves are not who we war against.

It is Satan and his minions, ideas and attitudes, that are the the enemies of the people of God. It is not, and I repeat - not - unbelievers who the enemies of the people of God.

The fact that unbelievers are not treated as enemies can be seen in I Corinthians 5:9-11:

9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (1 Co 5:9). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

In this passage we see a class of people referred to as "people of the world" who are described as "immoral, greedy, swindlers, idolatries." We are not to disassociate from them, rather we are to associate with them. This is a class of people that the culture warriors would be at war against. In fact, as you follow that passage into verses 12-13 you can see that we are not even to judge those peope from "the world":

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (1 Co 5:12). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

We don't judge them, much less go to war with them.

According to Matthew 9:39 Jesus didn't see those "outside the fold" as enemies, He saw them in the following way:

When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (Mt 9:36). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

What about the immorality and degradation of our world? Shouldn't we stand up and fight against it. Yes and no.

Yes, we are against it, but is "fighting" the right metaphor for how we press the case against it? In seeking to "fight" immorality, particularly through legislation, boycotting and other like means I suggest that we are using the world's weapons. God doesn't tell us to borrow weapons from the Canaanites to fight the Canaanites (and, as mentioned before I don't think that "fighting" the Canaanites is the proper paradigm for us now anyway).

In "fighting" and using the world's weapons we are also using very weak "weapons." Romans 8:3-4 says this: 

3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.  And so he condemned sin in sinful man, d 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (Ro 8:3). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

A question that I want to ask some of our "culture warriors" is this: "If the law of God was powerless to restrain sin, why do you think that the law of man will be powerful to restrain sin?"

Still, someone may say that it is self-evident that "the world" is at war with Christendom, whether we like or not. All of the above may be convincing rhetoric to me, but the fact is that whether we are soldiers or tourists, we're still on the beaches of Normandy and the guns are a blazin.

Maybe, maybe not. That is a far too simplistic way of looking at it. Admittedly there are those who are hostile to Christianity but, as Os Guinness has pointed out, very few people are fully, finally and irrevocably closed. Some are, but not many. Further, many of those who are hostile to us are reflecting back hostility they have felt from us. But most importantly, let's say that the culture warriors are correct and "the world" is hostile to us. That's ok - fortunately, we have a script to follow in responding to hostility. Since I posted that script in a prior post I won't repeat it in full here except to say that we are to love our enemies and pray for our persecutors, persecution and loss for Christ's sake is to be received with joy and a sense of being honored as those who have been counted worthy to suffer for Christ's name. When reviled, we do not revile in return, when insulted we never retaliate, and when we suffer we never threaten.

So, again I repeat that, even though I have used some words from James Dobson as a jumping off point here, my intention is not to attack a man but an idea - the idea that the "culture war" is to be the dominating metaphor that guides our engagement with the world.

Now, here comes the part where you say "huh, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth." I am advocating disengaging from the culture wars but I am not advocating disengaging from culture. I think we can and should turn up the volume of our involvement in the cultural spheres and issues of the day, but I don't think we have to do it from a warfare mentality. What's the difference?

Culture warriors tend to think in binary terms. There are two kinds of people - those who fight the culture wars and those who don't. I say there is a third way - influencing the culture from the inside, rather than fighting it from the outside.

Influencing the culture from the inside means that, rather than positioning ourselves as outsiders at war with the culture, we do the hard work necessary to earn a hearing in the "marketplace of ideas." I personally don't believe that we are as shut out of the culture as we think we are. Just as excelllence earned Daniel a place of influence in Babylon, excellence can earn Christians places of influence in our culture. This means we've got to excel in school, this means we've got to right books and articles that thoughtfully engage the issues of the day, rather than screeds which merely denounce. This means we go and sit down and talk to "secularists," "liberals," "atheists," "homosexuals," rather than always talking at them from afar. This means that, instead of merely criticizing the "secular news media" and Hollywood, we become broadcasters and actors and producers ourselves (like Ralph Winter of "The X-Men"). This means that we become politicians who learn the finer points of rhetoric and political science that can somehow enable us to cast a vision that sounds more like a vision for the common good of all, than just a vision to protect our own rights. And yes, just in case anyone really doubts me by now, I do think we need to vote intelligently. I don't know if Hugh Hewitt would agree with anything I have said here, because he does talk like a "culture warrior," but I do think this is the vision he was trying to cast in his book "In But Not Of."

This also means that when do engage the culture we heed the advice of Mr. Roarke of Fantasy Island and "smile, everyone, smile." We quit acting so worried and living with a sense of doom. We follow G. K. Chesterton's model and suffuse all we do with a sense of joy and detached playfulness. When we must criticize, we give good hearted criticism, with the emphasis on "good hearted." And we let all that we do be a beautiful reflection of the savior's voice.

There are several corollaries to the "culture war" metaphor that I haven't dealt with here and I hope to do so within a week or so. One corollary is the sense that something has been taken from us that is rightfully ours. The other issue is the lateness of the hour. Culture warriors live with the sense that we have been robbed, our country has been stolen out from under us. They also live with a sense that we don't have much time. This "influence from the inside" is a nice idea but we don't have time to wait, we've got to act now. And action usually has a very political flavor.

Well, I'll wrap it up now - if you have made it this far then I thank you for your kindness and patience. I will also admit in closing that my terminology here is imprecise. In saying that the world is a mission field not a battlefield there is some overlap - after all don't "soldiers" go on "missions." Yes they do. I am using the term "mission" here to signify a kind of friendly and affirming engagement with the world, as opposed to the hostility and fear I see in so much "war talk." In that respect, I think I could support almost all of the particulars in what Dobson does, if he followed Chesterton's rules of engagement and didn't treat his opponents as enemies. But, we'll talk more about that later - thanks for your patience, you've been great.