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.

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....

....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.

Alan Roebuck is professor of mathematics at Chaffey College (a community college in Southern California which certainly doesn't share his views) and a theologically reformed (i.e., Calvinistic) Christian.

John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul strongly disagree with Professor Roebuck.

Disagree on what? MacArthur refused to sign the Manhattan Declaration, saying:

...the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian...
....the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith.

Likewise, Sproul refused to sign it, saying:

"The Manhattan Declaration confuses common grace and special grace by combining them. While I would march with the bishop of Rome and an Orthodox prelate to resist the slaughter of innocents in the womb, I could never ground that cobelligerency on the assumption that we share a common faith and a unified understanding of the gospel....how could I sign something that confuses the gospel and obscures the very definition of who is and who is not a Christian? I have made this point again and again since the days of ECT [Evangelicals and Catholics Together]. Though the framers of the Manhattan Declaration declaim any connection to ECT, it appears to me that the Manhattan Declaration is inescapably linked to that initiative, which I have strenuously resisted."

Professor Roebuck agrees with them, making the same point in the article here:

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

It's the answer to the question of "is the personal, i.e. individual response to the Gospel enough to reclaim the culture?" that Roebuck uses as the thesis of his article.

One last statement that I think is pertinent to your comment that "John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul strongly disagree with Professor Roebuck":

Those who did not sign the document believe that it is a lamentable example of the confused sort of ecumenical theology, on display in the ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) statements, and that it implicitly commits its signers to acknowledge a commonality between evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Orthodox on the gospel, who is a true Christian and what is a true church. They rightly point out that the Alliance has always been and remains unanimously critical of the presuppositions and products of ECT.
Those who did sign the document believe that it is a statement of solidarity, not of ecumenism, and that it represents the kind of principled co-belligerency advocated by, for instance, Francis Schaeffer and James Boice. These signers believe that document actually helps clarify their concerns with the whole ECT project, because the Manhattan Declaration only asks evangelicals, Catholics and Orthodox to agree on matters on which we actually agree (marriage and sexuality, the sanctity of life, and religious liberty), rather than purporting an agreement in vital matters on which we do not agree (the Gospel, what is a Christian, what is a true Church).
It should be made clear that those Council members who did not sign the document agree with what the document says about the social issues it addresses. Their concern is that the document implies an agreement between evangelicals and Catholics on the Gospel where there is in fact not an agreement. Conversely, those Council members who signed the document fully understand the agreement on the documents' statement on social issues that they share with those who didn't sign, and also fully appreciate the non-signers' concerns for Gospel clarity and fidelity. However, the Council members who signed do not believe that the document commits them to an agreement with Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox on the nature of the Gospel, the Church or who is a true Christian.
-- from the thread The Manhattan Declaration: A Statement from Ligon Duncan

I would agree that the only way to renew the culture is to renew enough hearts and the Gospel is the tool for the job. The problem is that to much of what is taught in most churches is a watered down version of the Gospel. The desire seems to be to fill the pews with people that will then fund the church so they can fill more pews, etc...As a result the Pastor (most not all) does not want to teach on topics that might cause people to disagree with him so they stay away from politics, ethics, philosophy, biology, psychology, sociology, law, economics, and history...but this is short changing the Gospel.

Romans 12:1-2 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

So...as brethren (followers of Christ) we are not to be like unbelievers but should renew our minds...this takes some education...

Colossians 3:9-10 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.

Again as believers having put off the old man...already accepted salvation...we are told to renew our knowledge. Where does the knowledge come from for this renewal?

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Then what...?

2 Timothy 3:14-17 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Any effort to “save” our culture through any thing other then through Jesus and His Word is pointless.

I would recommend the following resources for further study on this topic...

“The Battle for Truth” by David A. Noebel

“The Ever-Loving Truth” by Voddie Baucham

“No Retreats, No Reserves, No Regrets” by multiple authors, Foreword by Josh McDowell

“The Culture Wars”...DVD by Voddie Baucham

God bless

First, I’m a novice at FR; could anyone tell me how to make a general comment not aimed at anybody in particular?

Many of the comments on this essay continue, here and at other sites, to miss my point: Culture never changes spontaneously, Culture is whatever its leaders say it is, regardless of the convictions of individuals. Culture only changes when people engage in purposeful activity designed to change it. If Christians (not the institutional church, but Christians) do not change the culture, either it will be changed by non-Christians, or it will not change.

Yes, faith in Christ is necessary. I never said it is not necessary. I said that it is not sufficient, which is a different assertion. We need to review our lecture notes from Logic 101. We need both faith in Christ and deliberate action to restore a properly ordered society, or to retake the culture, or however you wish to express it.

Another thing: Most people instinctively think that “attempting to change the culture” means “voting, lobbying government, or giving logistical support to the foregoing.” While these are important, they are not decisive. As I pointed out (perhaps too briefly) in the essay, what is needed is to defeat the rule of liberalism by publicly defeating its fundamental ideas and by placing those who reject liberalism in positions of leadership. That’s what I really mean by “attempting to change the culture,” and, rather than being an un-Christian distraction from the Christian’s real business, it bears a strong resemblance to Christian evangelism and apologetics.

Since most people have never considered the idea that this is how to win the culture war, we must constantly correct their instinctively-held understanding of how culture war is to be fought.

"Many of the comments on this essay continue, here and at other sites, to miss my point: Culture never changes spontaneously, Culture is whatever its leaders say it is, regardless of the convictions of individuals. Culture only changes when people engage in purposeful activity designed to change it. If Christians (not the institutional church, but Christians) do not change the culture, either it will be changed by non-Christians, or it will not change."

I could not disagree more with every single point you make here. Culture ONLY changes spontaneously and such changes are never the result of activity consciously designed to change it. (other than preaching the Gospel). Our leaders and their fruits will always be a reflection of the culture which produced them and never the arbiters thereof. Culture is the face of the spirit which fills the majority of the individual hearts which make up the community. If it is a worldly spirit, you have a coarse and worldly culture. If it is a Godly spirit you have the contrary. In other words, culture is bottom up not top down.

Culture is not reflected by leaders or government or even institutions: a culture is found in the art, philosophy, science, architecture, military, morals and social ethic of a society. Changes in these areas are not designed (at least not by man) but are a spontaneous result of the spirit which spawned them. And we know who the spirit of the world is. We, as Christians, have to remove the spirit of the world from as many hearts as possible and replace it with the Spirit of the Word. This is not done on a macro level. It is done a person at a time by proclaiming the Gospel. Only the Gospel can change a heart like I am discussing. And only with enough hearts so changed can you change the culture. The Gospel is not only sufficient it is exclusive.

You say "what is needed is to defeat the rule of liberalism by publicly defeating its fundamental ideas and by placing those who reject liberalism in positions of leadership." I say "replace" them with what? Unregenerate people who believe in "non-liberalism" (In whatever form that takes). Where does that get you? Ungodly men make ungodly societies no matter what their ideology. And just how are you going to replace those "liberals" when they are only a reflection of the society which chose them in the first place. Trying to change our culture through changing our leaders is like a dog chasing its tail. Just as we saw with the Kingdoms of Israel, although a good leader may pop up occasionally here and there, the trajectory of a society that rejects God is downward. Just as Paul told us in Romans 1.

Give me one hundred missionaries with a heart burning to preach Jesus and I will change the culture of your community more than 1000 politicians could. Give me one thousand missionaries filled with the spirit and I will change your State more than 100,000 "leaders" could. Give me a million missionaries set apart for the gospel of God and you won't need any declarations or petitions. We'll be there already.

First, I want to thank all of the commenters here; you have helped me clarify and sharpen my argument.

Circlecity, you appear to be my brother in Christ. We agree that proclamation of the Gospel is necessary for the culture war to be fought and for American society to be renewed. We agree on my positive point.

Your disagreement is a negative one: no conscious organization for culture war. Gospel proclamation only. Your position is: nothing else is needed.

Before I give reasons why I disagree with you, understand that I certainly don’t hold that all Christians ought to mobilize for culture war. Culture war, like all wars, is fought by those who volunteer, or are drafted, for service. Any Christian who does not have a calling for the specific organization and activity I have called for can stay out of that particular fight.

You said,

“In other words, culture is bottom up not top down.”

But this cannot possibly be true. Consider some concrete examples: When the attitude of the general public about, and the laws concerning, homosexuality and abortion changed from opposition to approval, they did not change spontaneously. They changed because professors and other intellectuals began a campaign of teaching that these things are actually good. They changed because homosexalists, abortionists, and their supporters organized themselves to change the laws. They changed because the artists began portraying these things as good and those who opposed them as wicked.

Our culture’s attitude toward homosexuality and abortion most certainly did not change spontaneously. It was of course necessary that individual liberals changed their hearts and minds about these sins. But their hearts and minds did not change, and laws did not change, without organized effort.

And one could say the same thing about many features of our liberal landscape: general acceptance among non-Christians of Darwinism, the turn toward ugliness and nihilism in art and architecture, the acceptance of massively intrusive government and of mass immigration, and so on. None of these were present one hundred years ago, but they were put in place by deliberate action.

And if the liberals changed the culture by deliberately aiming to change it, so can we. It will be a very difficult battle, but we must at least make the effort.

You also said,

“You say ‘what is needed is to defeat the rule of liberalism by publicly defeating its fundamental ideas and by placing those who reject liberalism in positions of leadership.’ I say ‘replace’ them with what? Unregenerate people who believe in ‘non-liberalism’ (In whatever form that takes). Where does that get you? Ungodly men make ungodly societies no matter what their ideology.”

We should not aim for a society ruled in a Christian manner by Christians. We should only aim for what we had until roughly the 1950’s: A society in which the government generally allowed Christian communities to define themselves and act as they saw fit, and which did not tolerate, or force people to pretend to celebrate, obvious sins such as abortion, homosexuality, public blasphemy, and the deliberate attempt to replace white Americans people with hostile and inassimilable foreigners via mass immigration.

I would agree with you that theonomy, in which the government rules via biblical law, is not worth pursuing. But this is not an all-or-nothing situation. If we ought not have theonomy, it does not follow that Christians should make no effort to influence the government and the culture. Since attempting to make the culture better according to biblical standards (and the standards of the historic American nation) is obviously doing good, and since it is good for Christians to do good, it follows that it is good for Christians to engage in conservative culture war, if they have the calling.

One final point: the actual way we fight culture war is by persuasion. True, a properly-ordered (or at least tolerably-ordered) society will require non-liberals in positions of intellectual, spiritual and governmental leadership. But the foundation is persuasion. And this makes “culture combat” similar to evangelism and apologetics. And since proper principles of social order often come from the Bible, this effort supports, and is supported by, the Christian evangelism that we both say is crucial to the health of our nation.

First, I want to thank you for the original article. It is a topic that most people shy away from.

I also agree that the Gospel must be preached if the culture war is to be fought...all of the Gospel.

You wrote:

“When the attitude of the general public about, and the laws concerning, homosexuality and abortion changed from opposition to approval, they did not change spontaneously. They changed because professors and other intellectuals began a campaign of teaching that these things are actually good.”

This I agree with...people that oppose God worked together to change the heart and MIND of the people, which then caused the laws to change. I would call this “bottom up” change since the attitude had to change and was not “imposed”. I would also argue that most still do not approve of homosexuality and abortion but actually only tolerate it...but that is another discussion.

Our problem is not that we need a new organization since we have plenty. We need the organization that dropped the ball several decades ago to wake up and do the job it was given 2000 years ago. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU:...”

Too many of the modern churches will preach the Gospel and then fails to teach, especially on what might be contrary to the current culture. Scripture is clear that homosexuality is sin, as is any sex outside of marriage, and abortion, and witchcraft, and drunkenness, etc. and yet I have been in “Bible” churches that the leadership have their children reading “Harry Potter” or the discussion at some meetings turn to what kind of beer they prefer, etc. Why do the churches tolerate sin to continue without challenging it...? I can only point to what the Pastor of the church I have experienced has said...”We don't want to upset the people because then they might not come on Sunday and here my sermon, and then they would not here any of scripture”. I left that church shortly after hearing this statement, how are you going to “teaching them to observe all things...” when we refuse to teach?

As I said earlier, there is an on going effort to change this culture for the worse and those people understand that they need to educate the average person to think a certain way...to change their minds...in order to have cultural change (bottom up). They can not force this change from the top down...some tried this with Prohibition and that did not work well.

As examples:

“Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom.” Humanist Manifesto 1933

“The conditions of work, education, devotion, and play should be humanized. Alienating forces should be modified or eradicated...” Humanist Manifesto II 1973

“Give me your four year olds, and in a generation I will build a socialist state.” Vladimir Lenin

“Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?” “Humanism A New Religion” by Charles Francis Potter page 128 published 1930

So what does the church do...90% plus of church kids go to public schools...why? Because in most churches it is taught that public schools are a good thing. I have known a multitude of Pastors over the years and more then half of them have wives that are teachers in the public schools...does this influence the decision not to warn about the dangers of public schools? The result of sending our kids out to the schools...remember the quote above...90% plus of church kids will walk away from the church after high school. Coincidence...?

What does Scripture say...Psalms 1:1-2 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

If a man is not to learn from the ungodly then why would we send our kids to do that same thing...?

I would also point out that we are all in this culture war since we are all in the culture...you can not be neutral. This war is not conservative vs liberal but...a spiritual war. Good against evil, and God decides what is good...we can find this out in Scripture.

So let us agree to fight this fight as God has instructed us...1 Timothy 6:11-12 But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

Ephesians 6:10-12 Finally, my brethren, by strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the whiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

I would add that there are organizations already doing the work of trying to educate the church. Some of them are; Summit Ministries, Answers in Genesis, WallBuilders, Worldview Weekends, Mayflower Institute, Worldview Academy, and the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade...to name a few. And I am sure they would not mind additional help.

God bless and be strong in Him

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.