The Manhattan Declaration and Conservative Evangelism

Cultural renewal requires organizations dedicated to promoting a properly conservative understanding of society based on a proper understanding of God and man, and dedicated to getting people who have this understanding into positions of leadership.

On November 20, 2009 a group of prominent Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical Christians promulgated the Manhattan Declaration, a manifesto of Christian resistance to the legitimization of homosexuality, to abortion and euthanasia, and to the erosion of religious liberty. Although the Manifesto has drawn understandable fire from the Left, it has also been criticized heavily by many conservative Protestants, a group one would expect to support it. And therein lies a tale.

Two tales, to be precise. For one, many Protestants disagree with the Manifesto's assumption that Christendom is in essential agreement on Christian doctrine, as when it says:

Nowhere does the Declaration admit that Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christians have fundamental disagreements over just what the Gospel is. The explicit positions of the Declaration concern homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia and religious liberty, issues on which all three of the main streams of Christianity essentially agree. But when it implies that Christendom is in agreement on the Gospel, the Declaration strikes a fundamentally dishonest tone.

But we haven't time to tell this tale, important though it be. There is another issue here, not widely known, which must be brought to light. Many protestant critics say that the Declaration misleads by directing Christians to fight a culture war that is actually a waste of time. In their view, evangelism — urging people to repent and have faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins — is sufficient (as well as necessary) for broader cultural renewal and the fighting of the culture war. In their view the Manhattan Declaration is misguided, or even anti-Christian.

But this view is mistaken. Is evangelism necessary for cultural renewal? Certainly. Is it sufficient? Not a chance. And the belief that it is — widespread within Protestantism — is weakening conservatism, as it discourages many protestant conservatives from challenging the Left's control of American culture. Belief in the sufficiency of Christian evangelism must be opposed.

I will not argue here for the necessity of Christian evangelism for the cultural renewal at which conservative activism aims. Most conservatives understand that we need Christianity for America to flourish.¹ My main point is one most leaders of conservative Protestantism don't seem to acknowledge: In order to renew American society it is not enough that many people have saving faith in Jesus Christ. Nor does it suffice for them to have correct views of God, man and society that result from a proper Christian catechism. And it isn't enough even that they vote for the more conservative candidates and ballot propositions. No, cultural renewal requires organization and action for the specific purpose of cultural renewal. And this won't happen spontaneously.

To be sure, many conservative Protestants are gung ho for political activism of the conventional kind such as voting and lobbying congress. But the historic mainstream of Protestantism has generally held a "two kingdoms" view in which the Kingdom of God is not overtly manifest in the political order and therefore the church is not to be directly involved in politics.

(Granted, the church, when doing its job, is indirectly involved in politics: Part of the church's duty is to teach Christian truths about morality, government and the proper ordering of society, all of which are foundational for political theory and practice. But the church — as opposed to individual Christians — is not to be involved in the actual operations of politics.)

And from here it's a relatively small step to the belief that politics isn't important. Consider, for example, the following words from Pyromaniacs, one of the most influential conservative protestant blogs, opposing the Manhattan Declaration:

The author, Phillip R. Johnson (not to be confused with Intelligent-Design guru Phillip E. Johnson), is only one of a very large number of protestant leaders who have stated — or at least strongly implied — that proclaiming the Gospel is sufficient for cultural renewal and therefore that conservative sociopolitical activism is a waste of time and at least somewhat contemptible. And there is accordingly a widespread belief among the (non-liberal) protestant rank and file that the only way properly to renew society is to preach the Gospel of salvation through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. According to this model, social renewal can only occur spontaneously, as Christians come to reject their former false beliefs about how society should be ordered.

To be sure, many protestant leaders have not stated openly that Gospel proclamation is sufficient for cultural renewal. But so many of them have implied it, and so strongly, that this view is widespread within Protestantism. If these leaders have not meant to make this implication, it is their responsibility to make their actual beliefs clear. Until they do so, we are justified in assuming that Gospel sufficiency for social renewal is their position. And since very few thinkers have written about the actual mechanisms that drive cultural transformation and renewal, it is fully understandable that Protestant preachers, who are known to emphasize the sufficiency of Christ for personal salvation, would assume Gospel sufficiency also for cultural renewal.

But proclamation of the Gospel, although necessary, is not sufficient for cultural renewal. To see this, let's understand, at least in broad outlines, what "cultural renewal" means, and why belief in the Gospel is not sufficient to cause this renewal.

Cultural renewal means the renewal of American society's order, the vast complex of her laws, rules, regulations, customs, traditions, habits and so on. And to be renewed, this order would have to be changed so that it is no longer (as it is now) largely based on the false worldview of the Left, but instead reflects a more accurate worldview, one based on Christianity, on the accumulated wisdom of millennia of human experience, and on the unique experiences of the American people.

America's order was once broadly conservative (by contemporary standards), but liberals changed it through a centuries-long struggle that saw them seize control of the schools and universities, the news and entertainment media, the governmental and private bureaucracies and even — God help us! — many churches. Liberals now have near-total control over the institutions that tell Americans what reality is and how man should behave. When Americans tolerate mass immigration, a high illegitimate birthrate, widespread divorce and failure to marry, the legitimization of homosexuality and other sexual sins, the degradation of popular culture, the demonization of whites and Christians, increasing government intrusion into their lives, and the rest of the leftist ills we see all around us, they are not doing so spontaneously. They are doing so because our culture is whatever our rulers say it is, and our rulers mostly teach liberalism. Restoring a properly-ordered American culture will therefore not occur spontaneously. It will require deliberate action by non-liberals to retake control of the schools, the media, the governmental and private bureaucracies, and so on, so that the institutions having authority over society again teach, and rule in accordance with, a worldview that is more conservative, that is, more true.

And proclamation of the Gospel is not enough to bring about such a vast and fundamental transformation, for several reasons.

For one, both the Bible and common sense make clear that most people will not respond with genuine faith to the Gospel invitation. Those who believe will always be a minority. But even among the minority of those who believe, only an even smaller minority will be able to find one of the rare churches that teaches the entire biblical worldview, and therefore also teaches the biblical view of a properly-ordered society, including such elements as opposition to abortion and homosexuality, the importance of protecting marriage and the necessity of having a minimally intrusive government. Liberal churches, of course, teach liberalism. But even many (and probably most) evangelical churches teach mostly religious cliches, and one cannot form a correct view of what constitutes a properly-ordered society from cliches. By failing to teach correct biblical principles of social ordering, most evangelical churches are de facto (if not de jure) supporters of America's liberal order.

[I'm describing Protestantism, but it appears something similar is happening within American Catholicism. A writer whose name I don't recall once quipped that, aside from opposing abortion, the American Catholic bishops are like the Democrat Party leadership in clerical garb.]

And the bad news continues with one final point: Even if the new believer is fortunate enough to find a Bible-teaching church, he and other like-minded people will not spontaneously form themselves into groups or plan and carry out the activities necessary for cultural renewal.

Understand what's at stake: Without cultural renewal, the American people will not continue to possess sufficient personal virtue to sustain self-government, in which case our future will be either balkanization or tyranny. The first stages of these evils, in fact, have already arrived.

Cultural renewal to save our country will require both thinking true thoughts about our social disorder and its causes and taking action to remedy what ails us, and none of the existing conservative institutions delivers this combination. Politicians and political parties cannot afford to alienate voters by challenging our leftist status quo at the deep and decisive intellectual and spiritual levels. Private socio/cultural/political organizations such as Numbers USA or Focus on the Family lack the comprehensive worldview and sociopolitical understanding necessary for cultural change. The schools are dominated by the Left. And the church is not charged with leading a (socio-) political battle.

America's existing cultural order — consisting of all the left-leaning laws, rules, customs, habits and institutions — is not there because of the beliefs of John Q. Public. Most Americans, although they generally go along with our liberal order, are not particularly leftist in thought and deed. America's leftist order is here because leftists have organized themselves and taken effective action to bring it into existence. Our leaders rule in accordance with liberalism and John Q. Public goes along, as he always does. Although Christian evangelism is absolutely necessary as the foundation of a properly-ordered society, America's bad ordering will not go away spontaneously when more people come to faith in Jesus Christ. It will only be replaced when conservatives start doing the work of retaking control of America's ruling institutions. [Or, at the very least, creating parallel, non-liberal institutions that could one day form the basis of a renewed society.]

The conclusion is unmistakable: Cultural renewal requires organizations dedicated to promoting a properly conservative understanding of society based on a proper understanding of God and man, and dedicated to getting people who have this understanding into positions of leadership. America's current leaders mostly believe — and act in accordance with — liberalism, which explains America's decline. Christian evangelism is not enough. We also need culturally conservative evangelism.

1. It must be acknowledged, however, that American society has sunk so low that it would be a social improvement even for her to emulate many pagan societies of the past or present. Pagan societies, for example, generally have much lower instances of feminism, divorce, and the promotion of homosexuality. But America-and the West in general-has been Christian for so long that Christianity is the only realistic hope for American social renewal. Furthermore, Christianity is true and paganism, where it contradicts Christianity, is false.

It occurs to me that culture is “bottom up” in one sense, and “top down” in another. I stand by my statement that ultimately, the culture is what its leaders say it is. This is because the vast majority of people, including a strong majority of the intelligent and highly-educated, form their beliefs on the most basic issues of life not by thinking them through on their own, but by choosing which authorities they respect, and then following those authorities. To put it in the simplest terms, atheists and agnostics choose to follow the scientists and the professors, Christians choose to follow the Bible and the pastors and teachers they respect, and Joe Sixpack follows the popular pundits and the media. In this sense, culture is top down, as I have been maintaining.

But leaders cannot just teach whatever they want. Their followers have a certain worldview, and they will not accept any teaching emanating from those leaders they trust. Once the people in general have been taught and conditioned to go along with liberalism, they will not just follow leaders who suddenly start teaching conservatism. Rick Warren, for example, would lose most of his followers, and therefore most of his power, if he began teaching biblical Christianity: sin, atonement in the blood of Jesus, the need for repentance and true faith, and so on. In this sense, culture is also bottom up, and we can start to undermine the empire of the left by individual persuasion.

The problem with bottom-up reform is that if the leaders do not lose their nerve they can always block reform, if they are sufficiently ruthless. Reforming existing institutions (as opposed to forming independent and parallel institutions) requires inside agents.

Also, the normal functioning of any society, large or small, requires leaders who establish and exert force to maintain the culture. It is naïve to think that persuasion is enough. We also need the institutions of leadership to reinforce proper thought and action.

WorldviewDad, you listed a number of Christian-based organizations equipping Christian to fight the culture war. Good work is being done. But I believe that more is needed. In particular, we need to focus on:
• Opposing the premises of liberalism, not just its concrete projects such as legitimizing abortion and homosexuality. We need to focus on liberal premises, such as that nondiscrimination is the ultimate good, and that God is unknowable
• Opposing liberalism in the arena of public intellectual combat, and not just training Christians to think and act biblically. We need to attack the secularist and leftists in their headquarters (universities and media), showing to one and all that we have a better case.
• Alerting everyone to the fact that liberalism is not just a constant nuisance, it has de facto control of America and all of Western Civilization, and is a mortal threat. We need to show Christians and non Christians that this is not a fight over abstractions, it is a life-and-death matter.

Thank you for your response.

Yes there are “bottom up” and “top down” influences on culture but from your own comments about Rick Warren you show that the “bottom up” might be more powerful. If he, as a leader being followed, needs to stay within the confines of what his followers will listen to...then he is responding to the culture that he helped create...this becomes a “catch 22”.

My point is that we already have the institutions in place to fight this culture war...they are called churches. The problem is that too many of them have decided to follow culture instead of God’s Word. If true Christians could transform their churches to teach all of the Gospel, we would see cultural transformation.

Yes, leaders can exert force to control some areas of culture on the surface but that tends to lead to revolt over time. It is also during the most top down times that the Christian church tends to grow the strongest...when it is being attacked.

I agree that more needs to be done, but the fight needs to be waged correctly. The fight really is not about conservative vs liberal but God vs evil. We could convince or by your idea of “top down” force people to accept conservative ideas but that does not solve the problem...people are still going to need to understand why this is better, where do these ideas come from, etc.

And the most important question...what happens to me when I die...where am I going?

We can talk about the culture war all we want but if in the end we don’t share the Gospel and the people live a conservative life but end up in hell...we accomplished nothing.

God bless

"I stand by my statement that ultimately, the culture is what its leaders say it is. This is because the vast majority of people, including a strong majority of the intelligent and highly-educated, form their beliefs on the most basic issues of life not by thinking them through on their own, but by choosing which authorities they respect, and then following those authorities."

I just don't believe this. Please provide me some evidence of it. "A culture is what its leader say it is" is nothing more than a platitude and incapable of verification either way. It does not comport with my experience. Leaders are who their culture decides to put into leadership positions. Please show me a single cultural movement which was established and integrated purely by social leaders. Your example of the gay movement is the exact opposite of this. The gay movement is generally credited as starting with a riot at the Stonewall bar in NYC back in the sixties. This was a spontaneous uprising. As word of this spread among homosexuals around the rest of the country they began to organize and come out to normalize their self-identity. Individual homosexuals in all walks of society began to push their goal through their art, writings, television, plays, and political behavior. Only after this spontaneous but organized behavior created a greater social acceptance of homosexuality did we see social "leaders" begin to be put in place to promote and normalize homosexuality. A classic bottoms up movement.

Spontaneous does not mean instantaneous and does not preclude organization. The Tea Party is also an example of a spontaneous movement which is also organized, albeit on a decentralized model. Leaders did not promote, encourage or predict the emergence of the Tea Party movement. I believe your entire position is an attempt to deal with spiritual matters (a degraded culture) with worldly solutions. Thus, I believe it is doomed to failure. Leaders mirror their culture not the other way around. And the only way to change the culture is one heart at a time through the power of the Gospel. Pete Townsend of "The Who" was correct in his take on what happens when you try to change culture by changing leaders - "Meet the new boss...same at the old boss."

WorldviwDad, my idea is not forcing people “top down,” because persuasion, not force, is what makes the difference. Think of it: most Americans are constantly surrounded by liberal propaganda emanating from the media, the schools and even often from the churches. If these institutions taught a proper worldview, liberalism would no longer rule.

Circlecity, you gave the homosexualist movement as an example of “bottom-up” activism. Certainly it had some bottom-up features. But what most people fail to acknowledge is that the homosexual-rights movement has only succeeded because our teachers have constantly taught that homosexuality is good, and our government leaders have enacted many laws to that effect. And John Q. Public goes along, even if he senses that there’s something wrong with homosexuality, because our leaders tell him it’s ok. This is “top-down” leadership, and it is the way all societies operate.

You also said

“I believe your entire position is an attempt to deal with spiritual matters (a degraded culture) with worldly solutions.”

Sin is dealt with in different ways. The church deals with it in one way, by proclaiming repentance and forgiveness of sins in Jesus’ name, and by sanctifying believers with God’s Word and the sacraments. The government deals with it in another way, by using the sword to restrain evildoers. The government is currently not doing its job, as it actively encourages many forms of evildoing such as homosexuality, divorce, mass immigration, and so on. Since most Protestants do not give much thought to exactly how the government is to do its job, my call is for us also to look into this area, but without neglecting the proper job of the church.”

The government is currently not doing its job, as it actively encourages many forms of evildoing such as homosexuality, divorce, mass immigration, and so on. Since most Protestants do not give much thought to exactly how the government is to do its job, my call is for us also to look into this area, but without neglecting the proper job of the church.”

This is where we just disagree. I would say show me one single society in the history of the world where there was a moral ordered society as a result of getting the right leaders in place. I've studied history extensively and I don't know of a single one. Political power always has and always will corrupt everyting (and everyone) it touches. There is no political soultion to the evil in society and never has been. Other than when he was chasing moneychangers out of the temple when else did Jesus show genuine anger? When he confronted the political leaders of his society - "Woe to you pharisees". These were the supposedly the Holiest men in the community and were the leaders. Jesus condemned them bitterly as being corrupted as a result of thier power. Relying on your leaders for social change will always just give you a new set of Pharisees. Generation after generation has tried your approach and it has never provided a lasting change.

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new
Under the sun.
Ecc 1:9

Circlecity, you wrote

“…show me one single society in the history of the world where there was a moral ordered society as a result of getting the right leaders in place.”

and

“Relying on your leaders for social change will always just give you a new set of Pharisees. Generation after generation has tried your approach and it has never provided a lasting change”

You act as if having a properly-ordered society impossible. Obviously having a perfectly just society is impossible, but that is not my goal. My goal is something like what existed in America until roughly the 1950’s: the leaders of society (governmental and non-governmental) generally were supportive of proper morality, did not seek—as our leaders currently do—radically disruptive change in the form of leftist crusading, and generally allowed private individuals and institutions to live what we would now call a conservative lifestyle. Not a perfect society, but one that functioned reasonably well. Since this system existed for most of America’s history, it is obviously possible.

The civil government’s job is not to make men righteous. That is the Church’s job. Don’t fault civil government for never doing what it was never intended to do.

So we are actually talking about areas of influence...we need to persuade people. This will happen if Christians would study the Bible and apply it to their lives. This is the area that the church used to fill as I stated earlier. If the church taught and lived out God's Word then people would not want to watch the liberal media or send their children to the liberal public school system, which would then take away the “power” that they currently have over the culture. So again it comes back to this being a spiritual war...

The liberals only have the power they currently do because the church gave up that power...it is theirs to take back.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.