Posted on 05/28/2013 6:58:35 AM PDT by xzins
For centuries, Christians thought culture would change if we just had a majority of Christians in the culture. That has proven to be a false assumption. Culture is defined by a relatively small number of change agents who operate at the top of cultural spheres or societal mountains. It takes less than 3-5 percent of those operating at the top of a cultural mountain to actually shift the values represented on that mountain.
For example, this is exactly what advocates in the gay rights movement has done through the "mountains" of media and arts and entertainment. They have strategically used these avenues to promote their cause and reframe the argument. They are gradually legitimizing their cause through these two cultural mountains through a small percentage of people in society operating at the top of the media and arts and entertainment mountain.
Mountains are controlled by a small percentage of leaders and networks. James Hunter, in a book entitled How to Change the World, highlights what sociologist Randall Collins says about civilizations in his book The Sociology of Philosophies. According to Collins, civilizations have been defined by a very small percentage of cultural philosophers who influence seven gates and supporting networks since our birth as a civilization.
Hunter summarizes, “Even if we add the minor figures in all of the networks, in all of the civilizations, the total is only 2,700. In sum, between 150 and 3,000 people (a tiny fraction of the roughly 23 billion people living between 600 B.C. and A.D. 1900) framed the major contours of all world civilizations. Clearly, the transformations here were top-down.”
What an amazing piece of information. Imagine that. Culture has been defined since the beginning of time by no more than 3,000 change agents, a tiny fraction of the population.
That is why we must realize that making more converts will not necessarily change culture. It is important to have conversions, but it is more important to have those who are converted operate at the tops of the cultural mountains from a biblical worldview.
Those at the tops of these mountains are expressing their liberal worldview through these cultural spheres. The more godly the change agent at the top, the more righteous the culture will be. The more ungodly, the more liberal we will become. It doesn’t matter if the majority of the culture is made up of Christians. It only matters who has the greatest influence over that cultural mountain.
Our Current Status in Culture
“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when a wicked man rules, the people groan” (Prov. 29:2).
For the last several decades, culture has become increasingly secular and liberal in the United States. But God has always raised up His change agents to represent His interests and agenda on Planet Earth. God is raising up His change agents for such a time as this.
We know that Jesus will return for a bride, that “He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:27). So, despite the trends we may see, I believe we need to operate from a victorious eschatological viewpoint. God’s current activity in the marketplace is part of this.
He is calling us in His church to “love the Lord [our] God with all [our] heart, with all [our] soul, and with all [our] mind” (Matt. 22:37). This means applying God’s mind to the natural order expressed through the cultural mountains of society.
Changing culture rarely happens without the cooperation of other like-minded change agents pooling their resources and influence capital to make change.
William Wilberforce Solves the Slave-Trade Problem
William Wilberforce was a British politician and philanthropist who lived in the late 1700s and was a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade. A native of Hull, Yorkshire, he began his political career in 1780 and became the independent member of Parliament for Yorkshire (1784-1812). He was a close friend of Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger.
In 1785, he underwent a conversion experience and became an evangelical Christian, resulting in changes to his lifestyle and his interest in reform. He was 28 years old at the time and wondered whether he could stay in politics and remain a follower of Jesus Christ. His good friend John Newton, who was a converted slave trader and author of the famous hymn "Amazing Grace," convinced him to stay in politics to model his faith in the public sector. His life was dramatized in a 2007 movie production from Walden Media entitled Amazing Grace.
In 1787, Wilberforce came in contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Lord Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition, and he soon became one of the leading English abolitionists, heading the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade until the eventual passage of the Slave Trade Act in 1807.
The Clapham Group
Wilberforce was part of a small band of influential leaders in England called the Clapham Group. They were a small group of leaders operating in the governmental "mountain" of influence. Its members were chiefly prominent and wealthy evangelical Anglicans who shared common political views concerning the liberation of slaves, the abolition of the slave trade and the reform of the penal system.
The group's name originated from Clapham, then a village south of London (today part of southwest London), where both Wilberforce and Thornton, the sect's two most influential leaders, resided and where many of the group's meetings were held. They were supported by Beilby Porteus, bishop of London, who sympathized with many of their aims.
After many decades of work both in British society and in Parliament, the group saw their efforts rewarded with the final passage of the Slave Trade Act in 1807, banning the trade throughout the British Empire and, after many further years of campaigning, the total emancipation of British slaves with the passing of the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. They also campaigned vigorously for Britain to use its influence to eradicate slavery throughout the world.
It was not a large group. It consisted of less than 20 leaders. However, these leaders were passionate about their faith, their causes and their commitment to those causes.
If we are going to have a positive influence in culture, we must rethink our strategy from "getting more people saved" to "getting more kingdom marketplace leaders operating in the places of influence." Both strategies are important, but cultural change will only happen when a small group of kingdom marketplace leaders operate at the top of these cultural mountains by solving societal problems and bringing a Christian worldview into their leadership.
I see, I guess that post 65 made sense to you then.
There’s no such thing as “your truth” and “my truth”. The minimalist DIY American model is incompatible with the ancient and apostolic faith. If you don’t know this, you don’t know history, or else feel somehow entitled to choose the history you like.
One or the other is wrong, defective, inadequate. Somebody had to say it. Everybody else has to have the courage to submit to the truth. Call it a come-to-Jesus moment.
While having more christians won’t necessarily
change our culture, you can be assured by simple
observation that having more muslims WILL.
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.
“You have to have the desire to change the culture don’t you? What would do that?”
Yes, I don’t think it’s an either/or proposition. It’s a both/and.
Share the gospel, and disciple those believers, each of us taking dominion where we are called. No quarter.
“I believe we have withdrawn from the battlefield. “
Many have. Maybe even most. But not all.
All this article does is show that the amount of saints in America is extremely low.
Those who follow Jesus don’t have cable or go to the cinema. If they feel the need to watch a program they rent a Godly one.
Those who follow Jesus don’t send their children to the anti-Christ government school. They home school them. They don’t send them to anti-Christ Scouting, they find a Godly organization instead.
Those who follow Jesus don’t send their children to anti-Christ college. The only reason for college is for engineering, medical, science, or law, and they either find a school staffed by fellow saints that teach these disciplines, or they use internet schooling.
The most important thing in this world to do, other than accepting Jesus’ sacrifice in your name, is to marry, have a lot of children (13 or more) and to teach them morality. Morality comes solely from the Bible, it is another way of saying, ‘teaching the Bible’. Nothing is more important than teaching them morality and if they learn nothing else, it is still a complete success. There is no civilized society without morality.
People in America don’t want children, and they don’t want to raise the child they have. They tell themselves that the best thing to do is to send their offspring to government school so that they can be socialized in wickedness. These ‘parents’ don’t believe that morals are important enough to teach anyway. The truth is that it is almost impossible to learn morals from any other source but from the example and teachings of one’s parents. If it is not learned there, then a person must spend the rest of their lives studying the Bible and trying to teach themselves.
Those who follow Jesus don’t subscribe to anti-Christ magazines or listen to anti-Christ radio or play anti-Christ games. If they feel the need for these things they partake of Godly sources.
If the anti-Christ government forces a follower of Jesus to perform some action that is against Jesus, they simply sell their business and find another way to make a living. If their money is stolen via taxes to perform anti-Christ activities, they would do everything in their power to avoid these taxes and to change the tax system. They could do subsistence living in a state without property taxes, for example. Or, they could run for government on a fair/flat tax platform (and they won’t change into an anti-Christ when they get to Washington.)
If the majority of people in a society were actually in the Body of Christ, then anti-Christ content sources would quickly go out of business. If these sources are funded by tax money stolen from the saints, they would be doing everything in their power to avoid and change that system, even leaving the country or rebelling.
Ergo, the amount of saints in America is extremely small. What kind of society is it that can’t even imagine not watching the filth on TV? What kind of society is it that makes an article crying that the Body of Christ cannot avoid anti-Christ society? Of course the saints can avoid wicked things.
This article’s purpose is to tell the saints to stop spreading the Good News. To get them to stop all that worthless witnessing and spreading of the Gospel and to instead focus on becoming a TV station owner. What part of the Bible is that teaching from?
Why is TV so important to these people? Is their sexual brokenness so severe that they cannot imagine giving up that source of continual soft porn? Are they so seeped in wickedness that they need to watch crude cartoon characters curse and blaspheme in order to be able to laugh? What kind of society even finds that something to laugh at? An anti-Christ society. A society who’s majority is not in the Body of Christ.
History tells us that members of the Catholic denomination vote pro-abortion/pro-homosexual democrat.
Since the democrats changed the immigration laws in the 1960s we have imported 10s of millions of Catholic immigrants and the left depends on that immigration for it’s survival, it does seem that it makes a difference which denomination Christians belong to as far as the culture is concerned, like the article mentions.
See my post above. It’s not about imposition of the will of an autocracy on the majority—it’s about the importance of leadership, in EVERY society...even democratic ones.
Right, see what I mean about the jokes and the inability to answer anything hard. Same thing over and over.
There’s no lack of whining about the problems, but no one even attempts to answer.
Feel free to answer in your usual way, I’m done responding for today.
What do you mean by no quarter wrt sharing the gospel and discipling those believers?
LOL, we aren’t your daddy, start participating and quit asking everyone to answer your endless questions while you waste everyone’s time.
“What do you mean by no quarter wrt sharing the gospel and discipling those believers?”
I mean to be unashamed and unabashed to take dominion. Tell those who ask for donations to Boy Scouts that they should be ashamed to seek money for an organization that tries to defend buggery. Ask them, why would you want that for young men? Don’t you think young people should be protected from evil?
If your daughter is invited to a Britney Spears concert, don’t let her go. Don’t apologize. Tell her it’s vulgar and cheap and we don’t live like that and that’s not what you want for her.
If your son is in a public school and the have Abortion Education where the young people are taught to put rubbers on cucumbers and encouraged to take his girlfriend to the clinic is she is pregnant, don’t let him go. Complain. Agitate. Put them on the defensive.
Etc. Stand up. Make them stand down. Don’t apologize.
Sorry, had to respond. I see you had to get some little joke thing in their...still can’t answer huh?
Apparently you haven’t the ability to understand that my questions are my participation.
People say we have to do this, we have to do that. I ask how do you propose to do this or that...but no one can answer how.
Ok, go ahead, you got the last word today, I know how much it means to you.
That sort of thing just never comes up in my life. I guess that’s why I didn’t understand your comment.
IMHO, I do believe the progressive rise of certain schools of eschatology (or, at least, their gain in popularity through vehicles of both fiction and new media) has also had an effect here. I've seen first hand multiple times over a willingness to let the culture degrade in the belief that it is merely hastening the Second Advent, giving rise to a "love the citizens, hate the society" sort of mindset.
We have more than enough Christians now to affect necessary changes. The problem is that the Christians are not voting or thinking as Christians, they are thinking as union members or the coattails of union supporting parents, and voting for whomever the DemocRAT’s run for office. Catholics in this country alone could completely change the face of government in one election cycle if they would unite to think and vote with a correctly formed Catholic conscience. The trouble is getting them to listen to reason when they are so steeped in a generational DemocRATic mindset, they simply won’t listen to reason...
Hey, get out there. Storm some gates or something :)
For clarification, see my post #40. Repeating what I wrote there:
If the majority doesn't like what the leadership is doing, they will find a way to get different leadership. To your point, I don't have a strong opinion re which group starts things off first. What I'm saying is that there needs to be a cultural influence coming from both groups, or else the influence of either will be short-lived. It's my view that focusing growing the "majority" should be today's priority. IMO we can't elect and sustain Godly leadership, without having the support of a statistically influential voting base.
Of course I know that. Yours is wrong. I would hope you could someday put your full faith in Christ's sacrifice alone (and not your own worldly tributes to Him) but this is not the proper time to convince you.
The problem that I have is with people going around picking fights over this. There is no need to introduce this intra-Christian mudslinging on a thread that is about Christians vs. the secular world in regard to politics. This is doubly true in light of the graph I posted earlier which doesn't cast a very good light on the political consequences of having more Catholics.
Again, I can deal with the endless stream of Catholic threads on a "conservative" forum. Go ahead and celebrate your religion. I know there are many Catholics here who enjoy it. Just don't start (unprovoked) saying my faith is invalid.
If you want to do that start a new thread specifically debating Christian vs Catholic beliefs and see what happens.
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.