Why Having More Christians Won't Necessarily Change Our Culture

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.

“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.

It depends.

Wilberforce and his group could have a major influence on policy because in his day slavery was largely something that went on overseas.

It took a massive effort to overcome the power of the slave traders and sugar planters, but still, most Britons didn't have an obvious material interest in slavery.

If you want to change things at home, sheer numbers are more important than well-placed minorities. Masses of people resolved to change their lives (if you can get that) count for more in that case than tactics practiced at the elite level.

I am pretty well versed in Catholic bigotry toward Christians. I have seen quite a bit.

I've seen the bigotry go both ways; my cousins and I agreed not to exercise it in adulthood, after growing up with Republican Protestants vs. Democrat Catholics at every family holiday table. We've done pretty well with that. Particular points of Protestant disgust were from the dry protties who thought priests drinking was an outrage, the whole idea of confession to an earthly human being, suspicion that veneration of saints is the same as worshipping saints, and the splendor of Catholic churches when the community is poor. Naturally, Catholics have quite a few well-founded concerns about the heterodoxy and apostasy among non-Catholic Christians, and the downplaying of important education such as the absence of consistent dogman or catechism in many of the prottie/evangelical sects.

I, myself, think that the total freedom of choice and of doctrine in American Christianity has as many downsides as the problems of bureaucracy and periods of corruption in the Catholic church. I'd really like to see a concerted effort of Bible-believing groups to band together at this present time of great challenge. Sadly, the old-line National Council of Churches, World Council of Churches and even the International Red Cross have taken left turns.

“I didn’t read the author saying that. I heard him say that having a majority culture is a good thing, but that without targeting leadership within that culture, you still have ungodly leadership. There is logic to it. The only reason I mentioned TV networks is because they have such a profound impact on both culture and on political campaigns.”

I’m all for a Godly man running for office and governing with God’s wisdom. I’m all for a Godly man buying a media source and producing Godly material for the saints and their children to enjoy. I’m all for Godly men ALSO marrying and having 13 children, raising them all via home schooled teachings of morality, and leading them to marriage and 13 moral children of their own.

And I’m all for having a majority culture of Godly men, but we don’t have this. The vast majority of Americans are immoral. The number of saints is so small as to be almost nonexistent. People today believe they can be good without being moral (i.e. following Jesus’ teachings to the letter), when being good and being moral are the same thing. That’s what the immoral majority doesn’t get, and never will. They truly believe that being moral means whatever they want it to mean, whatever feels good to them to do at the time. What “feels good” and “feels right” is wickedness, because man is inherently wicked and delights in his natural state. This is why children must be disciplined (i.e. taught morality), they must be *taught* to be good, and why America’s society of undisciplined children have grown up to be wicked and have wicked children of their own. One cannot say, “oh I’m good and I’m going to be good and do good”, while at the same time saying, “forget about all that Jesus and God stuff for now. We need to do what’s important.” America’s formerly Godly society will fall.

Only a moral people can have a civilized society, because a civilized society and a Godly society are the same thing. A country that is not made up of saints will be a “third world hell hole”. Again: A country who’s majority is not followers of Jesus and His Father who sent Him, will be a nightmare to live in. But the immoral will never believe it. Jesus’ teachings show how to live in peace, love and joy. Reject them and you get the opposite of those things.

Immoral television and other media only have a profound impact on the immoral. The moral simply don’t have anything to do with it. The moral partake only of moral content. The fact that immoral media has a profound impact in American society only proves that the vast majority of Americans are immoral. Only by the saints having lots of children and raising them morally, or by mass adult conversion to Jesus, will an immoral society become moral. Keep in mind that mass adult conversion usually only comes about by a collapse of society, and huge numbers of saints can just move somewhere and build a new country.

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.

Thanks xzins.

Latinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers... [Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reform]
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said. [Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance]
One day after announcing on his radio show that he is "truly considering" running in 2014 for the U.S. Senate seat now held by New Jersey's Frank Lautenberg, Rivera amped up his message today in a television interview and a column on the Fox News Latino website... a moderate Republican who is fiscally conservative but also supports gay marriage and Roe v. Wade... [Geraldo Rivera declares himself a 'moderate Republican' as he eyes U.S. Senate run]

I beg your pardon for my long posts, they must seem quite boorish. Brevity is the hallmark of a good writer, and sadly I am nothing of the sort.

There is no kind of wickedness a saint cannot understand without partaking in it personally. That would be an excuse to partake in wickedness.

I’m all for Godly media and have nothing against the technology itself.

If a follower of Jesus experiences something, and after comparing it to what is written in the Bible finds it in agreement, then is it unusual that they would like it? If they find it in disagreement, wouldn’t they be ashamed of themselves, want to know why they like it, and how to stop liking it? Wouldn’t they be fearful of God’s wrath if they in any way expose others to it, or speak highly of it in public? If they don’t care, or try to twist Scripture or the meaning of words so that the experience no longer “seems” to contradict the words in the Bible, wouldn’t that mean the experience is an idol?

I ask your forgiveness for speaking in compete ignorance here, as I don’t know anything about the shows you mentioned. Are the characters in the show people you look up to and long to emulate for their Godly character?

I’m not trying to tell you not to eat the meat of idols.

The media has to want to promote an idea to create it, writing an expose itself doesn’t mean much, the media can create public thought, or squelch it and it never spreads or even gets heard of.

The real opinion leader, is the public being saturated with something until it becomes the “opinion”, the public opinion on the recent historical figure and a major American of the 20th century, J. Edgar Hoover is that he wore dresses and was a homosexual, that was created out of thin air and simply implanted in the public brain, like so many other opinions that people think they have.

By and large, the church has continued to faithfully obey its commandment to "spread the word", but unfortunately, to use another biblical analogy, the ground is no longer as fertile. Agriculture is an involved process of which harvesting the crop is only the last if most visible step. Because of various biblical statements, and because its the most personally rewarding step, we tend to concentrate on it. Certainly evangelists are generally highly honored in the Church, whereas the hard grunt work of preparation tends to be overlooked. However, although seeding and harvesting are very important, neither is possible if the ground is hard. Lets be more specific about this. Fifty years ago a preacher could say "you need to wash away your sins in the blood of the lamb" and people would know what he meant. Now most people would react with revulsion, or shock, or mirth. And its not just the imagery they dont connect to. An increasing number of people dont accept that they sin, or if they do, they say "I'm nowhere as bad as that person over there".

In short, I've come to the opinion over the past few years that important though it is, we dont need more evangelists, more spreaders of seeds. What we need are more apologists, people turning the soil over, and watering it. Certainly in the western world anyway.

In general terms, we need more apologists. We need people who can go on the opinion columns of newspapers, the blogs, the opinion forming websites, and argue the Christian case - not specifically evangelism, but creating the conditions whereby evangelism can actually work. We can point out the logical inconsistencies of secularism. We can point out the results of secularist thinking (not pretty). We can, in short, begin to change people’s minds. Standing in a pulpit haranguing people worked two generations ago, it wont work now. We have to embrace new technology and new communications.

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.