I can't disagree strongly enough. The only way this would "work" is if the author is talking about a autocratic monarchy imposing their cultural will onto a powerless majority.
I both agree and disagree.
I have thought many times (out loud) that it would greatly benefit conservatives if they owned one of the major broadcast networks.
At the same time, a great revival could spawn such a move by some leader or leadership group.
And we don't have this?
I believe the author is absolutely correct.
The vast majority of people do not have strong, determined opinions. They simply follow along with cultural currents. Those currents are heavily influenced, indeed almost determined, by very small numbers of people who influence those who produce the culture, who in turn influence us all.
Some fight against cultural drift if they think it necessary, and others influence its direction. But most people merely drift with the current.
Isn't that what we have in every country in the world now? In fact, is it not true that there have only been a very few brief moments in world history where that has not been true. This isnt one of them.
Alex, I also cannot disagree more. I observed first hand what happens to a society in which God and faith in Him are systematically undermined, attacked, and eliminated from the population at large by the government during my travels in the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s. When Communism collapsed, multiple generations of people were set adrift. When the law of the state was eliminated, the people became lawless — there was no sense of a higher power beyond the state. When the all powerful government no longer kept the common criminals (as opposed to those with KGB credentials)at bay, it became every man for himself. The prostitution, drunkenness, drug use, extortion, fights and anarchy I observed on the streets of Moscow in July & August of 1992 as social order disintegrated, was wide spread and common. It was a tough, cruel world to view. -— I can contrast that view with what I saw of massive crowds at TEA Party events where freedom loving, well armed, and mostly God-fearing people gathered in an incredibly safe environment with little to no police supervision. No one got robbed, no fights, and they left the streets and parks cleaner than when they got there. This was a group of people largely influenced by Christian faith.
I think Mr. Hillman's point is not advocating autocracy, rather acknowledging the role of leadership--in EVERY society, be it democratic not.
It is well established for example that no more than 1/3 of Americans at the time of the War of Independence supported the Patriot cause. It took a George Washington to win the war, and later...to win the peace, in establishing the Constitution.
Do you disagree with his example of the homosexual rights movement? Have anywhere NEAR a majority favored the changes in law which has taken place? No, of course not--not even in California (though perhaps in cities like San Francisco...). Rather a majority, either don't know what to think, or are not utterly certain in their convictions--i.e. willing to fight. When a very small, but determined, minority pushed and pushed and pushed...things changed--either democratically or (in this case, mostly) through judge-made "law..."
Now of course sodomy is against God's law...and is in a different category, since by definition, it involves behavior...but the same thing happened in desegregation.
Did majorities in the South (or anywhere) favor passing laws to recognize the equality of blacks & Jews? NO. But a determined minority--convinced of the righteousness of their cause--led the way, and eventually, the majority went along--and today, I'm sure, a majority does not want segregation to come back. Were the majority of people 60 years ago evil, rapent racists? No...but neither were they convinced that blacks were equal.
The problem is, using that good model above, the anti-God crowd has convinced certain majorities, but mostly governors and judges--that poor, pitiful homosexuals are a class, a different set of people.... just like blacks, when really homosexuals are just people following degenerate behavior patterns... THAT is a huge difference.
But Mr. Hillman's main point is that should Christians get a foothold in culturally significant places--like Hollywood, or the Academy (where they definitely do NOT have significant places now), as well as in government, we can change society by the influence of leadership--and not worry about whether a majority are real Christians.
Change ALWAYS occurs through leadership--not in a Marx-imagined sense of the rising up of the masses.