The Culture War is Over

TEASER: Yes this is ultimately about the Nashville Statement.

---

Hey everyone: even if you don't want to admit it, the Culture War is over. "We" lost. I write "we" because I was never a foot soldier in the war, but so many people were. And many of them, like Japanese soldiers in Asian jungles who didn't get the news that World War II ended, keep on fighting.

Listen to me: It's over. And it's a good thing. Go home. Go back to preaching the Gospel. We are in the world, but not of the world.

The blasted culture war. We treated the Republican Party like a parachurch organization. So entangled did we become that some of our more famous power-brokers still cannot distance themselves from a President who brags about grabbing female genitals. 

Well done men, well done. You should be very proud.

We had visions of a Christian nation. Theonomy and Dominionism, even if only stated overtly by the most unbiblical of  professing evangelicals (the Rushdoony cult and its mutant progeny) was what we were dabbling in.

Hey Presbyterian theonomists, guess what happens if we have a Christian United States? The Baptists take over. We've outbred you! How long until the Baptist Congress passes a law prohibiting infant baptism? You'll be doing that in secret, won't you? You'll have to worry about informants, won't you? Who is that banging on the door at 3am?

Oh "we" won some early skirmishes in the war. Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, and Pat Robertson were kingmakers. They peacock-strutted into the Oval Office like they bought the place. Oh, right...

But then we started losing. One of the early losses was when we tried to force creationism into the public school science curriculum. That was a very costly loss.

The war has been largely counter-productive. Unbelievers (who can blame them?) do not like us telling them how to live. It offends them. The amount of good-will Christianity has lost to the American general public is incalculable.

Don't get me wrong. We should offend them--but only with the Gospel. We should be quite offensive when it comes to the Gospel. I don't mean in-your-face rudeness, but in our proclamation that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life. That message is inherently offensive. Go for it.

We should care about how we live, and not so much about how they live. We should care more about our eternal citizenship, in the Kingdom of God, than in our fleeting American citizenship. The New Testament, though it had ample opportunity, does not teach us to pass laws mandating behavior for unbelievers. We have the law of Jesus Christ and teachings of the New Testament writers to guide and inform our behavior. Our behavior. That's for us, not for them. 

Which brings us to the recent creed du jour,  the Nashville Statement. The main page asks you to sign. I won't be signing. 

This is a misguided offensive in a war that is lost. Make no mistake about it, the Nashville statement is not theological, it is political and cultural. It is written by a collective that has in mind a really weak god, a god who needs help dealing with the culture.

Why in world is there a Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW)? A Council? Really? The bible, of course, has much to say on manhood and womanhood. We have a solution to how we teach about such issues. It is repeatedly demonstrated in the bible: We teach to the faithful, from the pulpit, not the public square. (At times we do teach in the public square--i.e., we preach the gospel to unbelievers.) So yes, teach biblical manhood and womanhood theology, but teach it from the pulpit. (I'm not sure many of today's Christian "leaders" remember that they are, or rather were, preachers and pastors.) Teach it in Sunday School and in small groups. 

If we are going to have this council, why not also a Council on Biblical Feeding of the Poor? Why not a Council on the Biblical View of Racism? A Council on the Biblical View of The Sabaath? The reason is clear: this is not a theological council at all. It is a safely-behind-the-lines HQ in the lost and unlamented culture war, pretending to be theologically significant. I have known councils. Nicea and Chalcedon. CBMW: you are no Nicea.

I have to admit that the first thing I do not like about the Nashville Statement is the hubris. If the crafters were individuals writing or blogging about their views--I'd have no problem. But they foster an air of spokesmenship  and authority. Here is the truth, as a Baptist: I own more submission to the elders in my church than to all the famous signers of the statement collectively. If they want to contribute to the theology of biblical manhood and womanhood, write books that we can choose to use in Sunday School or as an aid in writing sermons. Don't put out to the world a joint "statement" that looks like a set of PowerPoint slides. (A world that will only mock what you wrote-- if we are to be mocked let us be mocked for the Gospel and our lifestyle failings, not their lifestyle failings) 

So what is the statement? I won't cover it in detail. Go read it and draw your own conclusions.

Broadly speaking it is about marriage (saying nothing you, as a believer, don't already know) and culture war grenades lobbed at same-sex marriage and the  growing discussion of transgender issues. Same-sex marriage is a simple matter: If you are a Christian, don't do it. If you are an unbeliever, it is none of my business. Transgender issues are very complicated--we all are born with one thing in common: we are not as we should be. This issue requires serious study and not a slide with a few words telling us what we affirm and deny. Again, the hubris.

One of the statement's denials reads: 

WE DENY that physical anomalies or psychological conditions nullify the God-appointed link between biological sex and self-conception as male or female.

As a result of the fall, there are hermaphrodites. What is their God appointed link (I missed that in my bible reading) between biological sex and their self-conception as male or female? Issues of gender identification are complex with complicated physical and psychological factors convoluted with theological issues that cannot be untangled and resolved in a platitude.

Another denial reads:

WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.

Let's accept this statement at face value. At least it pretends (it is really just pretending) to be directed only at Christians. Here again is something complicated that should be fleshed out in serious teaching, not grandstanding. What does it mean approve? That is crucial. Suppose I agree that homosexual activity is not acceptable for Christians, but is not of my concern for unbelievers. Does that mean I approve? Should homosexuality and transgenderism be trivially linked together or treated separately? 

Backing up, the preamble to the statement states:

This secular spirit of our age presents a great challenge to the Christian church. 

No, it does not. Not any more than the pagan spirit of Rome presented a great challenge to the Christian Church. How can we forget the promise that He who is in us is stronger than he who is in the world? Are we really afraid of, oh, I don't know... Rachel Maddow? Hilary Clinton? Seriously? How can we forget the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church? Do we actually worry that the gates of hell plus the New York Times just might prevail?

The Church has many issues. Its widespread abrogation of caring for the poor to the secular government (and then complaining when the government raises taxes to do so.) Its mission to spread the gospel. Its poor track record on its own racism and its own mistreatment of abuse victims. But instead a group of puffed-up individuals make a "Council" and issue statements about culture and don't bother to make it clear that they are not spokesmen for Christianity.

Madness.