Two paradigms for cultural engagement: persuasion v. warfare

In his book Thriving in Babylon Larry Osborne describes two opposing paradigms of cultural engagement: persuasion and warfare. He has chosen Daniel of the Old Testament as the role-model for the persuasive, non-combative approach of Christians to a hostile culture. He describes those in the warfare paradigm as focusing on fighting the spread of sin on all fronts and who envision themselves as “frontline soldiers in a great spiritual battle between the forces of evil and those who uphold biblical values.”[1] Osborne believes that modern evangelicals who see the culture in terms of spiritual warfare have gotten it all wrong and should emulate Daniel.

When the biblical authors speak of spiritual warfare, it’s always framed in the context of our personal spirituality. The warfare model focuses on the wrong enemy. Non-Christians are not the enemy. They’re the victims of the Enemy. Victims need to be rescued, not wiped out.”[2] [emphasis added]

Here we find the great error of Osborne and like-minded culturally pacifist Christians in engaging the culture. Spiritual warfare is not always framed in the context of personal spirituality. The Bible has a great deal to say about spiritual warfare, and Donald Stamps in “The Christian’s Relationship to the World” describes the cultural battlefield where this war is fought.

The term “world’ often refers to the vast system of this age which Satan promotes and exists independent of God…In this age Satan uses the world’s ideas, morality, philosophies, psychology, desires, governments, culture, education, science, art, medicine, music, economic systems, entertainment, mass media, religions, sports, agriculture, etc., to oppose God, His people, His word and His righteous standards… Believers must be aware that behind all human enterprises there is a spirit, force, or power that moves against God and His Word, some to a lesser degree, some to a greater degree. Finally, the “world” also includes all man-made religious systems and all unbiblical, worldly, or lukewarm “Christian” organizations and churches…In the world believers are strangers and pilgrims.[3]

The individual Christian and the Church (body of Christ) must stand in opposition to the world system. When the biblical authors speak of spiritual warfare, they refer not only to personal spiritual preparation but also to being prepared to wage spiritual warfare in the larger culture as described by Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. [Ephesians 6:10-14. KJV]

If not in the culture, where are Christian supposed to war against rulers, authorities, cosmic powers over the present darkness, against spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places? Christians are Christ’s voice and legs in the spiritual battle against a “world” system ruled by Satan. Christians must not see spiritual warfare only in the “context of our personal spirituality” as claimed by Osborne. It is in the culture that we must stand firm in the evil day. The Apostle Paul had much to say about spiritual warfare in the culture, and the following are just three of his admonitions.

For though we live in the world we are not carrying on a worldly war, for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ. [2 Corinthians 10:3-5. RSV] [emphasis added]

Preach the word; be urgent in season and out of season; convince, rebuke and exhort, be unfailing in patience and teaching. [2 Timothy 4:2. RSV] [emphasis added]

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not associate with them…Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is a shame to even speak of the things that they do in secret; but when anything is exposed by the light it becomes visible. [Ephesians 5: 6-7,11-13. RSV] [emphasis added]

The face of spiritual warfare in German culture of the 1930s

Martin Niemöller was a captain of a German U-boat during World War I and was awarded the Iron Cross for Bravery. Although a distinguished pastor in the German Lutheran Church, Niemöller supported the Nazis’ early efforts at restoring Germany’s dignity, ridding the country of communists, and restoring moral order. In a private meeting with Hitler in 1932, Hitler promised Niemöller that he would not interfere with the German churches and would not institute pogroms (persecutions and exterminations) against the Jews.[4]

But as the Nazi regime consolidated its power in early 1933, Niemöller saw the underlying agenda of Hitler. A small minority of pastors, churches, and individual Christians in Germany began opposing Hitler and the apostate German church that had capitulated to his ideas and agenda. The resistance centered within the new “Confessing Church” led by Niemöller, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and a few others. When Hitler heard of a potential church split because of objections to his policies, he summoned several dissenting church leaders including Niemöller to the Reich Chancellery. He lectured the assembled churchmen and said all he wanted was peace between Church and state and blamed them for obstructing his plans. Hitler warned them “…to confine yourself to the Church. I’ll take care of the German people.” Niemöller responded that the Church also had a responsibility toward the German people that was entrusted to them by God and that neither Hitler nor anyone else in the world had power to remove that responsibility. Hitler turned away without comment, but that same evening the Gestapo ransacked Niemöller’s rectory while searching for incriminating material. Within days a homemade bomb exploded in the hall of the rectory.[5]

As Nazi pressure was ratcheted up against the dissenting churchmen, Niemöller and Bonhoeffer were criticized by their fellow churchmen for opposing Hitler and his policies. Eventually over two thousand would choose the route of appeasement and safety and abandoned support of Bonhoeffer and Niemöller’s efforts in resisting the Nazis. “They believed that appeasement was the best strategy; they thought that if they remained silent they could live with Hitler’s intrusion into church affairs and his political policies.”[6] In the late summer of 1933, Niemöller wrote a letter to a friend about his opposition to Hitler.

Although I am working with all my might for the church opposition, it is perfectly clear to me that this opposition is only a very temporary transition to an opposition of a very different kind, and that very few of those engaged in this preliminary skirmish will be part of the next struggle. And I believe that the whole of Christendom should pray with us that it will be a “resistance unto death,” and that the people will be found to suffer it.[7]

In early 1934 from the pulpit of his church in the Berlin suburb of Dahlem, Niemöller spoke of the coming trials that faced the German church.

We have all of us—the whole Church and the whole community—we’ve been thrown into the Tempter’s sieve, and he is shaking and the wind is blowing, and it must now become manifest whether we are wheat or chaff! Verily, a time of sifting has come upon us, and even the most indolent and peaceful person among us must see that the calm of a meditative Christianity is at an end…

It is now springtime for the hopeful and expectant Christian Church—it is testing time, and God is giving Satan a free hand, so he may shake us up and so that it may be seen what manner of men we are!…

Satan swings his sieve and Christianity is thrown hither and thither; and he who is not ready to suffer, he who called himself a Christian only because he thereby hoped to gain something good for his race and his nations is blown away like chaff by the wind of time.[8]

In 1937, Niemöller and more than eight hundred other churchmen were arrested and imprisoned for their opposition to the Nazis. Following release from prison after eight months, Niemöller was immediately arrested again as a “personal prisoner” of the Führer himself and spent the next seven years in Dachau, one the Nazis’ most infamous concentration camps. He was freed by the Allies in 1945.[9]

After the war, in his sorrow for not recognizing and speaking out in the early days of the Nazi rise to power, Niemöller penned this sorrowful message.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.[10]

The face of spiritual warfare in American culture of the twenty-first century

The present course of American culture is much like that of Germany in the early 1930s. Although America’s Godly heritage and the protection of religious freedom built into the Constitution have been powerful deterrents to the agendas of humanism and pagan religions, those deterrents have been substantially weakened over the course of the last three generations as humanistic and pagan philosophies gained ascendance and critical mass in American society. But culturally pacifist Christians like Osborne tell us not to worry. We can thrive in Babylon if we will only have the right perspective and make friends with and serve the powers that be. However, that will require Christians to embrace new definitions of tolerance and perhaps compromise on some of the less important details of their faith.

But it is not a time for “chilling out” or attempting to “thrive” in an increasingly hostile culture. In his commentary on Ephesians 6:11, Donald Stamps paints a much different picture of the Christian’s calling and obligations of spiritual warfare in the culture.

In their warfare of faith, Christians are called upon to endure hardships as good soldiers of Christ, suffer for the gospel, fight the good fight of faith, wage war, be victorious, defend the gospel, strive for the faith, not be alarmed by opponents, put on the full armor of God, stand firm, destroy Satan’s strongholds, take captive every thought, become mighty in war, and contend for the faith.[11]

As it was in Germany of the early 1930s, the America church has been thrown into the Tempter’s sieve, and he is shaking and the wind is blowing, and it must now be revealed whether the church is wheat or chaff. As Niemöller admonished the German church to pray in the late summer of 1933, the American church should now pray that their resistance will also be a “resistance unto death,” and that the people will be found to suffer it.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Larry Osborne, Thriving in Babylon – Why Hope, Humility, and Wisdom matter in a godless culture,” (Colorado Springs, Colorado: David C. Cook, 2015), p. 161.
[2] Ibid., pp.162-163.
[3] “The Christian’s Relationship to the World,” The Full Life Study Bible – King James Version – New Testament, Gen. Ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990, pp. 578-579.
[4] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), p. 177.
[5] Erwin W. Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2010), pp. 19-20.
[6] Ibid., p. 21.
[7] Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, p. 197.
[8] Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, p. 32-32.
[9] Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, pp. 293, 295.
[10] Ibid., p. 192.
[11]Stamps, Commentary on Ephesians 6:11, The Full Life Study Bible – King James Version – New Testament, p. 439.

“If you haven’t noticed, the culture wars are over. We lost.”[1] This was written by Larry Osborne, senior pastor of North Coast Church, a multi-campus megachurch of 11,000 members headquartered in Vista, a city in San Diego County, California. Osborne is one of a growing group of highly influential evangelical leaders and their followers who have abandoned the culture wars. Not only have these evangelical leaders and many of their followers abandoned the culture wars, many are trying to justify their actions by claiming overt resistance to an ungodly culture is non-biblical. Osborne’s book presents several ideas and arguments which ultimately become a pacifistic approach to cultural engagement by Christians. In Part I we shall examine four of these ideas and philosophies.

Some things aren’t worth dying for

Osborne titled Chapter 17 of Thriving in Babylon “Wisdom – Some Things Aren’t Worth Dying For.” In this chapter he states that lack of perspective is a sign of Christian immaturity.

Waiting is not an option. Compromise is a dirty word. Everything is equally important. There are no nuances. Everything is black and white. And immediate consequences are the only consequences that matter.[2]

Basically, Osborne is saying that immature Christians should “chill out” when it comes to many things in culture. Mature Christians must have perspective. To a limited degree Osborne is correct. Christians must pick their cultural battles wisely. They must know the difference between sin and things that are just personally offensive, and they must always keep the big picture in mind. This is good advice for the Christian culture warrior.

Osborne points to Daniel as a biblical example of someone with perspective. Unfortunately, Osborne doesn’t stop there. He called Daniel “a man of great forbearance” which he immediately defines at biblical tolerance. Using Osborne’s chain of reasoning, Christian maturity arises from having perspective which becomes tolerance in the “biblical sense of the word.” Osborne states that tolerance, rightly understood, is “allowing people the right to be wrong.” He also states that tolerance has wrongly come to mean that nobody is wrong.

Those who dare to claim that some behaviors are actually morally wrong are written off as intolerant bigots. And ironically, they become the one group nobody is tolerant of. While many bemoan the intolerance directed toward Bible-believing Christians, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Back when Christianity was the dominant cultural religion, we often used our power to shut down those who advocated opposing agendas.[3]

Humanism’s definition of tolerance begins with the denial of absolutes because no man or group can claim ownership of truth which is often the product of the free give and take of conflicting opinions. The humanist stance towards toleration results in moral relativism which is the antithesis of Christian belief. But the practical outworking in culture of Osborne’s understanding of tolerance effectively silences the presentation of biblical truth by those holding the Christian worldview. The truth claims of pagan religions are left unanswered, and humanism is left unchallenged as the humanistic cultural tsunami spreads across the nation.

Osborne’s stance on tolerance leads to an equally faulty understanding of compromise which he believes isn’t necessarily a dirty word. As with tolerance, Osborne makes some good points with regard to compromise. Yet, he attempts to link compromise with things that have nothing to do with compromise. He states that the wise “know what battles they can win and what battles need to be fought later.”[4] Neither of these statements are indications of compromise. Knowing whether one can win a battle or not is not the deciding factor as to whether that battle ought to be fought. Delaying a battle is not compromise either. These decisions should be determined by prayer and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Christians must remember that God is holy and will not tolerate sin. What passes for tolerance and compromise in many of today’s churches is nothing more than accommodation to the spirit of the world by churches and their leadership. A. W. Tozer described this tendency in Christianity more than sixty years ago.

Christianity is so entangled with the spirit of the world that millions never guess how radically they have missed the New Testament pattern. Compromise is everywhere. The world is whitewashed just enough to pass inspection by blind men posing as believers, and those same believers are everlastingly seeking to gain acceptance with the world. By mutual concessions men who call themselves Christians manage to get on with men who have for the things of God nothing but contempt.[5] [emphasis added]

Christian resistance to worldly leaders – Attempting to impose their will on non-Christians

Osborne likens the evangelical efforts to resist worldly leaders and their humanistic and pagan cultural influences flooding America as imposing Christianity on non-Christians. “We’re no longer trying to impose our will on non-Christians. We’re trying to keep non-Christians from imposing their will on us—and our churches.”[6]

Daniel also had the wisdom to understand that godless people live godless lives. He never forced his righteous lifestyle on others even as he rose to positions of power, he didn’t try to impose his walk with God on those who didn’t know God.[7]

Back when Christianity was the dominant cultural religion, we often used our power to shut down those who advocated opposing agendas…We’d boycott non-Christian companies for making non-Christian decisions…I often wonder what would have happened if we’d had the wisdom of Daniel when we were in control…Whether Daniel was at the bottom of the food chain or near the top, he never tried to force his righteousness on others…and thus earned the right to be heard.[8]

It is apparent that Osborne is substantially ignorant of American history, the nation’s founding, and the role of Christianity in its culture until the mid-twentieth century. The Founders weren’t forcing anyone to accept a righteous lifestyle. The Constitution and laws of the land established boundaries and became a foundation for the nation’s central cultural vision.

From this misunderstanding of religion’s duties and rightful place in public square, Osborne and many other highly influential but pacifistic Christian leaders have generally withdrawn from any significant involvement in politics and government over the last three decades. To challenge this belief, Wayne Gruden published a pamphlet titled, “Why Christians should seek to influence the government for good.” Gruden presents a strong biblical basis for Christian involvement to “significantly influence law, politics, and government …according to God’s moral standards and God’s purposes for government as revealed in the Bible.” At the same time Gruden cautions that Christians “…must simultaneously insist on maintaining freedom of religion for all citizens.”[9] How is this balance achieved?

…the overarching moral suasion (influence or persuasion) of Christian principles under which our nation was founded made possible religious freedom for all faiths. Such moral suasion of Christian principles is not coercive as humanists would have us believe. The moral suasion of Christian principles provided the nation with a central vision and resulted in stability and unity by working through the individual as he voluntarily chooses the manner in which he orders his soul.[10]

Engage the culture by winning friends and influencing people

Osborne attempts to repackage Daniel’s humble nature as “service” to his wicked captors and masters. Therefore, “service” becomes the essential ingredient in constructing the “persuasive” paradigm for engaging culture.

He served his captors and wicked masters so well and loyally that he kept getting promoted. And with every promotion, his influence in Babylon grew greater…Yet I’m afraid that a modern-day Daniel would be harshly criticized. Many Christians would see him as a spiritual compromiser…Instead of avoiding or attacking the godless leaders of our day, we’ll need to begin to engage them in the same way Daniel did, humbly serving whomever God chooses to temporarily place into positions of authority.[11]

Osborne erroneously attempts to define biblical humility as “…simply serving others by putting their needs and interest above our own. It’s treating others the same way we’d treat them if they were someone ‘important’.” But Osborne’s definition of humility is not to be found in the dictionary.

Noah Webster Dictionary of 1828: Humility: In ethics, freedom from pride and arrogance, humbleness of mind, a modest estimate of one’s own worth. In theology, a lowliness of mind, a deep sense of one’s own unworthiness in the sight of God. Self-abasement, penitence for sin, submission to the Divine will.[12]

Merriam-Webster Dictionary of 1963: Humility: Quality or state of being humble. Humble: Not proud or haughty. Spirit of deference, not arrogant or assertive, submission, ranking low in some hierarchy of scale.[13]

Osborne’s definition of biblical humility is manifestly false, but it appears to be the core of much of pacifist Christians’ reasons for avoiding the culture wars. It is the seeker-sensitive model of Church Growth designed to reach the lost but modified for the culture at large. However, the Bible commands Christians to speak truth (with love and true humility) into culture as opposed to attempting to influence it through a fawning ingratiation and toady servitude to gain favor with ungodly leaders in a wicked culture. Christians are supposed to be salt and light to a lost and dying world. Although we are required to show Christian love, charity, and bind up the wounds of the broken, such must not be a weak substitute for truth. Writing over sixty years ago, A. W. Tozer anticipated the end-product of modern but misguided pacifist Christian efforts at an ill-defined and misplaced humility.

The Christian faith, based upon the New Testament, teaches the complete antithesis between the Church and the world…It is no more than a religious platitude to say that the trouble with us today is that we have tried to bridge the gulf between two opposites, the world and the Church, and have performed an illicit marriage for which there is no biblical authority. Actually, there is no real union…When the Church joins up with the world it is the true Church no longer but only a pitiful hybrid thing, an object of smiling contempt to the world and an abomination to the Lord.[14]

The American church of the 1950s was not a “spiritual Camelot”

Osborne believes that much of the perceived cultural deterioration that supposedly motivates today’s Christian culture warriors is a result of their looking at the past through rose-colored glasses.

Consider how many Christians look back at the 1950s and the days of Leave It to Beaver as the golden era of family values and godly culture…While they were indeed good times if you were a white middle-class suburbanite, they were hardly the glory days of family values and godly culture if you were a black family living under the last vestiges of segregation and Jim Crow.[15]

For instance, the glory days of Father Knows Best, family values, and stay-at-home moms weren’t all they were cracked up to be…once again, as in Roman days, a powerful church is not always a faithful church. It draws people for the wrong reason.

Frankly, if those days were really a spiritual Camelot, someone needs to explain to me how they produced a generation of sex-crazed, free-love, dope-smoking hippies who grew up to be self-absorbed boomers.[16]

Much like the humanistic progressives of today, Osborne disparages the American church of the 1950s which he claims were not “the glory days of family values and godly culture.” Rather, he describes it as a powerful church but not a faithful church.

Here we have two classic examples of assumptive language in which it is taken for granted that the results are caused by what precedes the results. In the first example of assumptive language, Osborne claims that the glory days of family values and godly culture couldn’t have existed because there were other segments of society that were suffering. In the second example of Osborne’s assumptive language, the church was culturally powerful; therefore we must assume that it couldn’t have been spiritual. As evidence of the lack of spirituality of the 1950s church, Osborne’s assumptive language points to the rebellious Boomer generation as being caused by the 1950s church. But Osborne lost (or perhaps never had) his much coveted historical perspective as to the reasons for the rise of the Boomer generation.

The history of the 1950s church in America and the cause of the Boomer rebellion have been written about extensively. Those well-documented and authoritative histories emphatically do not support Osborne’s conclusions reflected by his assumptive statements.
______

In Part I we have examined four ideas and philosophies that foster Christian pacifism in the culture wars as championed by Osborne and others. In Part II, we shall glean the essences of the two opposing views of Christian cultural engagement and examine those in comparison to the role of the church in the German culture of the 1930s.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Larry Osborne, Thriving in Babylon – Why Hope, Humility, and Wisdom matter in a godless culture,” (Colorado Springs, Colorado: David C. Cook, 2015), p. 136.
[2] Ibid., p. 169.
[3] Ibid., pp. 174-175.
[4] Ibid., p. 185.
[5] A. W. Tozer, God’s Pursuit of Man, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers), p. 115.
[6] Osborne, Thriving in Babylon, p. 136.
[7] Ibid., p. 173.
[8] Ibid., pp. 175-176.
[9] Wayne Gruden, “Why Christians should seek to influence the government for good.” Booklet adapted from Wayne Gruden, Politics – According to the Bible – A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2010).
[10] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p. 224.
[11] Osborne, Thriving in Babylon, pp. 150-151.
[12] “humility,” Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language 1828, Facsimile Edition, (San Francisco, California: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1967, 1995 by Rosalie J. Slater), p. 12.
[13] “humble, humility,” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers, 1963), pp. 404-405.
[14] A. W. Tozer, God’s Pursuit of Man, pp. 115-116.
[15] Osborne, Thriving in Babylon, p. 36.
[16] Ibid., pp. 195-196.