Why Evangelicalism Didn’t See Its Moral Collapse Coming
Cameron (00:00)
Hello and welcome to Thinking Out Loud. I'm your co-host, Cameron McAllister.
Nathan (00:05)
And I'm your co-host, Nathan Rittenhouse.
In this episode, Cameron takes us on a deep dive through a recent article that says, is there some comparison between Christians and the ⁓ metaphorical frog in the boiling water? What are the moral ways in which we have rapidly changed as the temperature has been turned up in the culture around us here in the last decade or so? This one steps on toes a little bit, ours included, but we've got to call a spade a spade in order to make progress going forward. If you like this type of content and enjoy it, you can support our work by subscribing, by sharing.
And if you want to do so financially, can do so by visiting www.toltogether.com. Thanks so much.
Cameron (00:07)
Well, 2026 is turbulent as ever. always find precisely, I find it odd sometimes Nathan, when people say, well, gosh, we're already off to a horrible start in 2026 and I was hoping that this would be a better year. I suppose part of me understands the sentiment, but then part of me thinks, what an odd way to say things. It's very 21st century to assume that
Nathan (00:10)
As was 2025 and 2024 and 20.
You
Cameron (00:34)
The natural default or the ideal year is one of ease, comfort and convenience.
Nathan (00:40)
This is the year where there will be something new under the sun.
Cameron (00:44)
I mean, when has that ever really been the case? But yes, these are tumultuous times and we're certainly in North America as agitated and enraged as we've ever been. So that's the context of course, from which we're broadcasting and that's the context in which you find yourself and Nathan, right, yeah, yeah. But Nathan and I often find ourselves in the interesting position of saying, and.
Nathan (01:05)
human.
Cameron (01:14)
The antidote in our late modern hyper individualistic crazed angry agitated moment. The answer to all of this is the good old homely local church. So it seems to be how naive. Yeah. How anticlimactic. So I think we both want to make the case for that in this particular episode. Neither Nathan nor myself are particularly idealistic actually. So.
Nathan (01:27)
How naive, you immediately say.
Cameron (01:43)
I think this, our hope will be that this is a little bit more persuasive to you and that we certainly convince you that we both inhabit the same planet as you do. And we go to the same kind of church as you do, namely a church filled with annoying people, because churches are filled with people. Before we do that, however, a very interesting article came out recently from Tripp Fuller. Some of you will be familiar with Tripp Fuller. He is the host of the
home of homebrewed Christianity. It's a very successful podcast, way more successful than thinking out loud, dog gone it. But anyway, you should check it out. It's always worth a listen. Tripp Fuller is himself also a scholar in his own right. has a PhD, has written books, but he has a sub stack called Process This, also worth your time. But this article in particular really touched a nerve for a lot of people and it's called Bonhoeffer's Warning Unheeded.
the moral collapse of white evangelicalism. It's a long read and encourage you actually to go and read it. It's worth your time. But basically in the article,
Trip Fowler grew up as an evangelical in a Baptist church. he's, the tone of the article is not one of moral superiority or anything like that. He's, it's a sorrowful tone actually. And he says, I cherish so much of what, of what I was, was given from my spiritual heritage, basically of my Baptist upbringing. From it, I got my love of scripture, my deep devotion to a life of
prayer and my relationship with Christ was vitalized there. All of that was real. But he goes on to say, that said, when I look at, so it is the subtitle of the article is after all the moral collapse of white evangelicalism. So you can kind of guess where he's going with this. He says, I look around at the movement that once shaped me and I don't recognize it anymore.
And so he begins with a familiar analogy, which turns out is probably not as scientifically accurate, but it's more sociologically accurate. The story of the frog in the kettle as the kettle is slow is being brought to a slow boil. Now in truth, apparently, and Nathan can say this better with more authority than me, Nathan knows way more about animals than I do, especially chickens. But apparently you perform that experiment and the frog will jump out of the water as it starts to get hot.
Nathan (04:14)
But the idea is there,
that if you throw a frog in boiling water, it'll recognize it's too hot and jump out, but if you slowly change the climate, it will adapt until it's dead. ⁓ So well-known metaphor there, I think.
Cameron (04:20)
Yeah. Yes. Well-known
metaphor. so has, so Trip Fuller is arguing it's sociologically accurate for the white evangelical movement. And he charts that he does quite a lot of, there's quite a bit of history in this, in this piece. Like I said, I don't know how long it is. I would guess it's about 10,000 words or something. So it's a longer article, but he goes back way before 2016. A lot of people will look.
at the election of Donald Trump and they'll see that as a decisive turning point. It definitely was a very important moment, but there were a lot of different factors that led up to 2016 and he does a good job. Now it's not a full, I mean, really this subject, but honestly probably need a book, a full publication. And there have been books devoted to this subject, but he does a lot of work there. He goes back particularly to the Reagan administration where you had
Reagan was running against Jimmy Carter. If you look at exactly a Baptist Sunday school teacher. So if you're going with the character counts principle between these two men, had Ronald Reagan divorced, you know, he was a Hollywood actor. There's that hilarious joke in Back to the Future where he's trying to prove to Doc Brown, he's gone back in time in the 1950s, trying to prove to him that he did indeed come from the future. All right, who was the president, Marty? Ronald Reagan.
Nathan (05:18)
Good ol' Baptist Sunday School teacher.
Cameron (05:44)
The actor and he just he's incredulous.
Nathan (05:47)
Yeah, but we've had ⁓ Schwarzenegger and ⁓ other TV stars become politicians since then,
Cameron (05:54)
Well, we have a former reality TV star right now in the Oval Office. anyway, between these two men, Jimmy Carter would have been the clear choice if you're going down that road. evangelicals overwhelming, well, evangelicals overwhelmingly voted for Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was in many ways a picture of that kind of devotion to a certain vision of cultural change and cultural influence.
Nathan (05:57)
Yeah.
Cameron (06:23)
that has been, yeah, let's pause there for a second. Time out.
Nathan (06:23)
Okay, time out.
cause here's the rub. So some of you might be thinking, why are you guys talking about this? ⁓ Part of it is that I didn't live through Reagan. Most of our listenership didn't. That was ancient history. What I did live through was, and I think this will help you as you're thinking about people, the whole deconstruction, ex-sangelical conversation ⁓ isn't as loud out there.
But it's definitely still happening. It's just with an older millennial group now that I think isn't talking about, they just quit just silently dropping out. And in the transition that happens there is like, let's think back to the Clinton era, Clinton scandals, Lewinsky. And this was an uproar. And of course, post Reagan, you have the rise of the moral majority as a Christian political activist unit. ⁓ And so the polling question
that Tripp is pointing out in this is that ⁓ by 2011, 30 % of white evangelicals would say that somebody's personal life doesn't have a bearing on whether or not they will be an effective ruler and leader. But if you back that up into the Clinton era, very low percentage would have said that it's okay for somebody to be scandalous in their private life and still be respected as a leader. So you have a...
Cameron (07:49)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (07:50)
You have a creep up from the Clinton era to 2011 where the 30 % of white evangelicals say, yeah, it's okay if somebody is kind of shady, creepy and immoral in their private life. They can still be a good leader. However, when you go from 2011 to 2016, that percentage jumps from 30 % to 72%. And then by 24, it's 90. And so,
As the frog boiling analogy is laid out here, he's asking the question, I have the question, how did we go from 2000, from 2011 to 2016, you get a 42 point shift in how that question in four years, no five years. ⁓ that is a rapid head spinning shift where you go from a minority to a majority, significant minority to significant majority, majority changing their, their view on this question.
And that's the element of this that was so mind-warping for a lot of young evangelical white Christians at the time, is they grew up being taught one paradigm and then suddenly saw the people who taught them that paradigm do the exact opposite of that. Now, also I want to put a stake in the sand here and say it wasn't just white evangelicalism that was changing. There are a whole lot of other factors happening and changing in the world simultaneously that I'm sure contributed to that shift. But nonetheless,
the temperature in the water raised by 42 degrees actually, and then all the way up to 90 and nobody jumped saying, I mean, you did have a couple, your Russell Moore's and some others that at certain points that, we can't, we can't do this. But by and large that, that change didn't happen. And so that's where a lot of the confusion has come from for the person who's saying, you know, why is the, the, uh, the person that, you know,
Cameron (09:29)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (09:46)
kid, family member, whatever, kind of got disillusioned with it. ⁓ It's because they suddenly felt like the people who taught them a certain vision of thinking about character and politics and cultural engagement didn't actually believe the thing that they had been teaching their children. And then the children were like, wait a second, there's a massive disparity here. How do we make sense of that? That's where the confusion comes from. That's where the boiling fog comes in here is like, how did things shift so rapidly ⁓ in that time? And I think we'll get to
giving some answers to that, but just wanted to add that layer alongside what Cameron's saying.
Cameron (10:22)
Yeah, and the article is very much a diagnosis. It's not necessarily a recommended cure, but we need diagnoses. So it's still a worthwhile read. Yeah, that rapid shift in public perception concerning private life is really fascinating, but also a significant portion of the article is tracing how we got there. And it was a long road, kind of a death by a thousand cuts to get to a place. But think about also just how that is a basic
That's a basic kind of secular assumption. This divide between your public and your private life. And the notion, well, I don't even want to use the word secular. I want to use the word individualistic. It's a hyper individualistic assumption that you can have the private sphere of your life where you can do what you want so long as you're not overtly necessarily harming anybody, even though that's...
Nathan (11:05)
Mm-hmm.
⁓ No,
hang on but in the individualistic version of this that that calculus gets changed It's as long as you personally aren't hurting anybody because I was listening to a talk I think of somebody as lady who used to work for the Fed or something was giving a talk one of the Hillsdale talks And she said if I said to you, here's a giant button on the podium It's been a while since I listened to this. So this is roughly what she said ⁓ And if you push this red button all sex trafficking in the United States will stop instantly ⁓
Cameron (11:34)
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (11:49)
Also though, if you push this red button, the stock market will drop 5%.
Who wants to come forward and push the button?
And she said in most audiences, there's a, an honesty that people recognize they wouldn't push the button. That's, that's what you get when you start running into saying, what I think is individualistically better for me, trumps what I think is categorically better for more people. There are all sorts of thought experiments that you can run like that, but it's in that tension of the individualism. saying, look, I'm not personally sex trafficking anybody.
Cameron (12:04)
Hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Nathan (12:29)
and my personal retirement account should look like this, I'm going to choose, so I'm okay with immorality as long as it politically and economically benefits me. If you just want to rip the bandaid off and say what the numbers behind the scene actually show, this is the category where we're talking about the water temperature changing and Christians not flinching or just being uncomfortable in the midst of it.
Cameron (12:40)
Mm-hmm.
All right, I'm stepping out of Tripp Fuller's article. So this is, I bear responsibility for what I'm going to say now. But I also think that evangelicalism, particularly North American evangelicalism, its heritage is from, I mean, it was shaped by the fundamentalist movement. So to a significant degree, right. I'm not, that's the, fundamentalism is a bad word for many people these days. It's also a remarkably imprecise word. Many people being, many different.
Nathan (13:16)
And in a good way, I think. Yeah.
Cameron (13:26)
things about fundamentalism. Yeah, my favorite definition is still George Marsden's, a fundamentalist is somebody who doesn't like Billy Graham. I thought that was a serviceable enough definition. he, by the way, if you're looking for a good resource on fundamentalism, George Marsden's fundamentalism in American culture is a very good work of history. It's responsible, well-written work of history.
It's been, it's shaped by the fundamentalist movement, which had some noble aspirations initially and was responding to some major historical challenges. Darwin on the one hand and German higher criticism on the other. These were two major intellectual challenges at the moment. But to the degree that it's shaped by fundamentalism, evangelicalism, particularly in North America, really stresses correct belief. And I'm using my wording very, very deliberately here.
correct belief. So in other words, this is, and I can say this, I grew up in fundamentalist circles. This wasn't so much, this wasn't the characteristic of my home, but it was a characteristic of some of the institutions I went through, particularly the Bible college where I matriculated. But it was very much, no, we have the answers. We have the correct beliefs because we have scripture, we have the correct beliefs of scripture, we have the correct beliefs about God. And if you're not careful,
Nathan (14:23)
Mm-hmm.
Cameron (14:51)
that kind of thinking can mutate into a form of spiritual elitism. And it can change. I'll hang on for a second, but I'm going to keep going.
Nathan (14:56)
hang on. yes,
yes, but the spiritual elitism isn't what we're talking about. It's the transformation into the political elitism. Okay. Let's just make sure you weren't stopping. Carry on.
Cameron (15:07)
No, no, no, I'm getting there. I'm getting there. No, no, no,
no. But that spiritual elitism is what then can license you if you're not careful to saying, I have the right vision. We also ought to control the political vision of the nation because after all, have, I'm just going to speak, I'm not going to qualify anything. I'm just going to say it all and just lay it out there for a little bit, not die the death of thousand qualifications. And then we can unpack this a little bit. that what I say will necessarily be a little bit perhaps unfair, but
It's coming from an honest place. I've heard many arguments along these lines, but basically, we have the correct beliefs. We have the correct understanding of humanity. We know the way the world ought to go. We know the way a healthy culture ought to go. Therefore, because we care and we're responsible citizens, and we need to, this is very much the James Dobson vision too, and many, many others, easy to name him.
Nathan (15:58)
Yeah, but I'm with them so
far. You haven't met up to the there for, I'm still with you.
Cameron (16:03)
Yeah, so therefore we ought to call the shots. Because after all, we got the correct beliefs, we have the correct vision of humanity, we have the correct vision of how culture ought to go, so therefore we're the right people to be in control of culture. Control is not a great word here. We're already, I think control is already a bad word. You can, you can make an argument. But the problem comes, Nathan, and we've talked about this before, but it's time to bring it up again.
Nathan (16:19)
Sure. Well, yeah. So at this point, think you can still say,
Cameron (16:31)
And the Trip Fuller article is an excellent time to do so. The time will come though, if you find yourself in a moment where the culture is deeply unhealthy. And in many ways, the culture operates according to principles that may be technically legal in the nation, but immoral on a Christian level. So here's where that private public thing comes into play. If you want to play the game.
So if you're in a cultural moment like that, where the culture is not in an ideal place, and if you want to play the game and you want to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs. In other words, you've got to, you have to play that game and you have to, you may have to hold your nose. You may have to sacrifice some of your values, but after all, society, civilization, the unborn, it's a matter of life and death. All of that hangs in the bounds. Therefore, we need to do what we need to do.
You see how we're coming to, I'll pause there for a bit, we're moving into ends justifying the means territory now. And there are plenty of you who listening who are saying, so everything you've said is right. Absolutely. You hit a civilizational moment. You got to be realistic. You can't be an idealistic little, you know, kind of naval gazer out there, you know, just saying, oh, it's all peace, love and harmony. But that's actually not what I'm saying. But let's pause here for a second and just kind of drill into this.
Nathan (17:30)
You see.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, because if you do,
you can just say, look what happened to Mike Pence.
Cameron (17:55)
Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah.
Nathan (17:56)
So because because the
the counter arguments are all there too of the people who have tried to play nice Cameron Got got eaten by the machine. And so this is one of those where you have to I think the counter arguments say you have to recognize We're not in Kansas anymore the idea that we could appeal appeal to a moral conscience of or a collective ⁓ vision of a way of life even in a culture that says we're 80 % Christian just doesn't work anymore and it does come down to
to roll power.
Cameron (18:26)
Well, I don't think we should
play nice. that's, I get what you mean, but I'm not arguing for being nice. And I'm also saying, I'm also being more offensive than it seems at first because it's going to get worse here for a second because on the one hand, you can say so far so good, but I already think, no, it's not so good anymore. Because I think we're already off on the wrong foot when we think it's one thing, it's one thing to believe, Hey, I have
Nathan (18:36)
This will get worse. Just hang on.
Cameron (18:55)
I'm following a vision that I believe to be the true vision of the true, the good and the beautiful. I believe Jesus is Lord and I think his way is superior. I do. But it's another thing to say, I have all the correct beliefs and I know everything. Sometimes this comes under the heading of I have the Christian worldview on my side. There's nothing wrong with worldview thinking necessarily, but if it becomes shorthand for
I have a comprehensive understanding of everything about this culture and how everything should work. Therefore, my party or me, we ought to be in charge. I think there, you've, already, there's a fundamental loss of humility there. There's a, because what, what has been underestimated, Nathan, I think this is a huge factor here, is how seductive the culture is here.
Nathan (19:48)
so two parts. so I would put, let me push back a little bit and then agree. So the first part of this is, is that I don't think it's wrong to have a moral vision of the way in which things ought to come about and the way it ought to be. Jesus had that, taught it to his disciples, it's there in the New Testament. And we get a vision of this will all come to fruition through the work of Christ. So having a concept of a worldview and a vision and morality and a ⁓
longing for destiny in which these things will be made manifest. 100 % on board, think that's biblical. The distinction is, what are the tools that we're willing to use in order to get to that outcome? And this is where the seduction kicks in, which is to say, can we use non-Christ-like means in order to bearing about Christian visions of what ought to be? Therein lies the rub. And there is where the seduction is.
Cameron (20:40)
Can you repeat
the question though? Because that's a really important question, Nathan.
Nathan (20:44)
Yeah,
so can we bring about the Christian vision through worldly means?
Cameron (20:50)
Hmm.
Nathan (20:52)
And it seems like...
Cameron (20:54)
think a lot of people would say yes.
Nathan (20:56)
But I'm just going to quote Jesus. So this is where you have to kind of draw the line and say, in this world, you will have trouble.
Cameron (20:57)
Right. Quote him. Yeah. Because I think absolutely not.
No. Full stop.
Nathan (21:06)
But that's where the seduction, because it works so well on the short-term camera.
Cameron (21:11)
Yes, oh, I'm not saying, so we're not saying it won't necessarily, but it will, it depends on what you mean by works.
Nathan (21:16)
Well yeah, in short, in timing, yeah.
Cameron (21:19)
Yeah. So, I mean, on the one hand, I think a better word is, is, is, is it effective, you know? So in other words, can you get the people in office, you, know, who you want, can you secure laws and policies that you, that, that you think are right? Can you secure Supreme court justices? So those things can be done, but if they're done in a way that sacrifice. Yeah. Right.
Nathan (21:43)
undermines the foundation of the moral argument that you're trying to make.
Cameron (21:47)
So in other words, if you sacrifice your Christian convictions on the altar of political expediency, I'm going to argue the cost is too high and I'm going to argue that it's wrong.
Nathan (22:02)
see, that's because you're looking at this with a vision of Christianity that sees suffering as a possible outcome of obedience.
Cameron (22:10)
Yes, because in other words, you read your Bible, you're going to see that too, if you read it closely.
Nathan (22:16)
So, but I think what we're, the idea that we're flirting with is that there is a...
I think most people listening to this Cameron would say to us that the two of us just need to grow up and pull the, pull the scale. Let the, yeah. Let the scales roll from your eyes and see the way that the world really works. Yeah. So put your big boy pants on and get out there and make things happen in these categories and in this way. ⁓ but all the work, what we're arguing basically is that the people who now say that are.
Cameron (22:29)
Problem is now we kind of aren't grown up. Yeah, Yeah, this is reality. This is how it works.
Nathan (22:52)
the same people who taught us as children a different way. And so we have to make an account for the radical transition and transformation that has happened within the home team in a very short amount of time, historically speaking.
Cameron (23:07)
All right. So this has been pretty sobering so far. Let's do something that the article doesn't do. And let's be so bold as to try to recommend an answer here. And... All right.
Nathan (23:20)
All right.
Nobody else has successfully ever done this, but hang tight everybody. Here we go.
Cameron (23:26)
Well,
yeah, and the good news is we don't have to think of it ourselves. But here's where it's funny. come to it. So having said everything that we just said, are we really now going to tell you that the answer is your local church? Yes. So let's drill into this a little bit and say precisely what we mean by that.
In a talk that I recently gave, I talked about how we are formed, the ancient view of human identity and community is that you're formed by the village. I mean, there's a reason why we use the phrase that takes a village to raise a child. So you're formed by the village. If you want to find out who you are, you have to go, you have to go back home, so to speak, or just discover your family and discover how the community that nourished you and made you who you are.
We tend to do the opposite in the West nowadays. We're trying to think, I know you've got to forge out on your own, you have to embark on a journey into the wilderness to discover who you really are. But you're made by a village, by community. So the case that I've tried to make is that the church ought to be your village. And as such, the church is the solution to the problem of
so many of the problems that we've seen, whether they involve political idolatry or whether they involve loneliness or whether they involve issues with identity and community in the late modern world. But if in one manner of speaking, I think we have to say that when it comes to the church, you get out of it what you put into it. So yeah, I'll pause there for a second.
Nathan (25:07)
Okay. Well, so
let me, let me why, so why isn't this working? Like it's, you you're saying, you'll hear it. Here's a cure. you're like, well, there are hundreds of thousands of people who aren't, finding that pill to solve that problem. This is where the seduction part comes into this because the, and I was very up for like 10 years ago on this whole, we're going to change the culture, change the world. I was always asking groups who were saying that, how are you going to influence the culture without it influencing you?
Cameron (25:13)
Yeah, right.
Nathan (25:36)
What are the mechanisms? What are the stop gaps? What are the things you've put in place? And hey, we worked for an organization that by and large that came to be true. So there you go. Here's the issue is that the seduction of a vision of individualism easily slides into the church and our participation in the church. it's what does it do for me? What do I get out of it? What does it and the I would go, I would go a little further, Cameron, in saying that if you look at the biblical language,
Cameron (25:42)
Mm-hmm. Yep.
Nathan (26:05)
There's a lot of referring to God as Father and that the fellow believers are brothers and sisters. So it's not even, goes, the village is a familial language in the Christian, it's a household, it's a people of God who share a common identity, same Father, and growing in the same vision of being conformed to the image of Christ. So it's a pretty... So there's that element, but...
Cameron (26:26)
Just don't say church fam, please, for the love.
Nathan (26:34)
But all of that in its actual instantiation, militates against a form of individualism that's permissible. so there are, so great interview, by the way, Ross Douthat, who's the demographer that he, you can watch it on YouTube. It's called No Young Men Aren't Going Back to Church. And he tells this story where he and his wife are driving down the road and they see, it looks like a warehouse and the name on it is a send. And the guy says to his wife, hey, is that a new church?
Cameron (26:54)
Hmm.
Nathan (27:04)
She's like, let me look it up on my phone. She looks it up. It's a marijuana dispensary. And says so, of course, Ross Douth is going to jump on that back. Yes. And here you have modern evangelicalism where we can't distinguish ⁓ a church plant from a marijuana dispensary. But there's the sense of like, what is this thing and what does it do for me? And what do I get out of it? And how do I participate in it? That is not a Christian frame of mind when you're coming into.
Cameron (27:07)
Mm.
Nathan (27:31)
Because what Cameron and are ultimately saying when we say that your local church is a solution to some of the chaos and the temptations that we see in the world around us is that we're seeing it. And this is where I'm having a deep influence on Cameron theologically, is to say that it becomes a parallel structure, a ⁓ plausibility structure of an alternative way to do life because you have a different vision and different way to go. And there will be times in which that can neatly overlap with the broader structure around you in the political system.
There will be times when you have to be able to say like nope. This isn't safe anymore I kind of think of there used to be I don't know if I ever saw an episode of this maybe a clip like ice truckers It was about guys who drove tractor trailers across lakes that I don't know if it's still a thing or not But what I thought was interesting is you had these guys driving tractor trailers across lakes because hey It's flat and it's a shorter distance when you're delivering stuff in Canada or wherever there but what was interesting is there were points where they were driving and Then there were times where they were driving
Cameron (28:13)
yeah. Yep.
Nathan (28:30)
with one hand on the steering wheel and one hand on the latch of the door. Because when the ice starts cracking, you don't want to be in the truck when it goes through the ice. And so there's a little bit, think in my political visioning of ⁓ the church operates in that way of we work within the culture, but you better keep your hand on the door latch. Because when the ice starts cracking, I mean, you think about this and you're like, is this really that big of deal? You know, there's a fully functional church in China in the year 700.
Cameron (28:38)
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. ⁓
Nathan (29:01)
What happened to that? It's so tightly aligned itself with a political dynasty that when that dynasty collapsed, the church went with it. And that story has repeated itself over and over again throughout history enough that Cameron and I aren't like, not trying to be prophetic here. We're just like, look at history and how this happens. And if you think that your church is the first church in the history of the world, or that you as a Christian are the first one not to be susceptible to getting sucked into a
ideological entanglements that supersede your Christian vision in a way that doesn't necessarily directly flow from your Christian vision.
Individualism has then metastasize itself into you thinking you're the first person who's going to pull that off. Well
Cameron (29:48)
healthy church is involved and cares and invested in the culture, but also transcends the cultural moment in which it finds itself.
Nathan (29:56)
Well, and here's the thing that I think, just put little bit of onus back onto the church part of this then, is that, I read years ago, and I'm sure it's different now, but they said that a church is eight times more efficient with a dollar than the government. So, a church can feed eight times more people, can do XYZ filling, because it's embedded in the local community. But this does mean then that I think one of the, keep thinking of the old Mitch Hedberg quote, I'm opposed to protesting, but I don't know how to show it.
⁓ One of the one of the issues that I think that I haven't solved well for myself here is that the church needs to be very careful about protesting things that it's not modeling a better alternative to and so if you really do want to lean into this vision that Cameron and I talking about as the church becoming the the foundational element of the core way in which you're forming your your thoughts and habits about how you engage culture in the world Then your church does will have to get a little grittier
in modeling this as an actual practical alternative. And hey, by the way, there are a number of ⁓ places in which the church has done this phenomenally well. think abortion, foster, adoption, a lot of stuff for the little people of the world. The church has been an outstanding example of that. And then how do you push into some of the other categories of basic human needs without that being seen as a political
Cameron (31:13)
me.
Nathan (31:25)
category. That's where it gets tricky here because there are elements in which you can be so theologically conservative on your understanding of the applications of the teachings of Jesus that you appear to be politically liberal. So, ⁓ care for the world, care for the earth, literally one of the first tasks that God gave humans in Genesis. Which political party is that aligned with? You know, because the Democrats got back in there and changed Genesis.
to make it suit, no, I don't think so. But I just use that as an example of highlighting this sometimes ridiculous, why do we not push back against the political categories being the things that most clearly define who we are and what we're trying to do? And so you and I came out of an organization, Cameron, that was called RZIM, and way before that thing blew up and went sideways, it was very important for me to say, I work with, not I work for.
because I had a vision of what God was asking me to do in my life. And as that paralleled the vision of that institution organization, all was happy. And the moment when it didn't, my hand was on the door latch and I jumped out. And the same thing has to be true for the church and our political engagement is to say, we are pursuing the kingdom of God. And at the point in which it parallels what else, what, you know, what's happening in the culture around us. So be it, we're happy to throw our time, effort and energy into that. And at the point in which it deviates,
we better have our own foundation and our own set of wheels that we can jump out of that and call a spade a spade when when those things start to deviate. And so if you're listening to this and you're part of our core demographic, which is the under 44 crowd, you are living in that the tension of these things kind of coming apart as no longer being nice, tidy parallels in the sense in which your parents generation probably could think of God and country.
as common pursuit. And now you're like looking at the news in the world around you like, nah, I don't think this is what Christ had in mind. So it's, it's not new, but it is a new experience for a, a certain phase of life together as Americans. And then it creates unique tensions within our Christian fellowship.
Cameron (33:45)
One final word of exhortation here. The other side of the church not working piece involves you and me, involves us. You can't have the church on your own terms. Well, technically you can, but if you're living in the culture in which we are today and you're just trying to have a minimal commitment with your church and not be all in,
then you most certainly will be shaped by the culture around you and the church cannot function as the proper antidote. I've, you know, I know stories of, and this is, these are my temptations too. I don't love going to church. Okay. I just don't. I've always crept reluctantly. Yeah, I don't. I've always crept reluctantly to church. There are times where I like it and they're tight, but most Sundays, you know, it's, kind of like going to the gym or something, you know, it's every now and then inspiration. You just feel like it. I'm motivated. But if you, and you know,
Nathan (34:19)
yeah, we're not. Actually, I do like going to church, but in other categories.
Cameron (34:37)
motivation is only going to take you so far. Eventually it has to become a commitment and a real discipline. So going and not just, and it's easy to make excuses. It's easy to say, well, especially people in our age, you know, age group, if you're married and you have children, well, you know, we're in survival mode right now. It's, it's such a hustle. mean, just getting to church on Sunday morning is hard enough. Okay.
Nathan (34:58)
We can
get to the gym and we can get to work and we can get to the sporting events and we can get to the but you know that 10 o'clock on a Sunday morning that is a crunch point.
Cameron (35:06)
Right. As my, as our friend, Crenn says, we do know we do what we value. says that whenever people tell him, I don't have time to do this. I don't have time to read a book. I don't have time to go to church. We do what we value. Yeah, you do. So it's true. So being, being there and being actually involved. mean, if you're church is a lot like AA, it's a lot like an alcoholics anonymous. You're all, we're all there. We're all recovering centers. So yeah, is it possible if you're part of, of a
Nathan (35:14)
Yeah, you do.
Cameron (35:33)
you know, support group or recovery group. Yeah, it's possible. You may not go. And then you may relapse and you may do, you may do bad things. mean, if, if you don't go to AA, you're not going to go around saying, well, does it work? mean, the very obvious question will be, yeah, but did you actually go to the meetings? Were you involved? Were you actually accountable? Well, no, I mean, I went to maybe one meeting, you know, every now and then when I felt like it, but you know, I just didn't feel like it worked for me. Huh? Well, it sounds like you weren't actually participating in the program.
Nathan (36:02)
Yeah, right.
Cameron (36:02)
The same is true of
church. there to worship the Lord in spirit and truth, but we're also there to serve, to serve one another. And it's a family, as Nathan said. You're church fam. Sorry, no, I did it. There are weird uncles, but there are weird uncles everywhere, but we need the weird uncles. We have to deal with it. mean, that's just the human factor. Churches are filled with people. And so yes, you look at history, you look at, well, you look at present day, and here's what you will face in churches.
Nathan (36:13)
And you have some weird uncles in your family, sure, but...
Compared to
Cameron (36:32)
You will face all the things that sinners face. Yes, they'll involve political idolatry, moral failure among leadership in the laity, cultural capitulation, chasing of trends and fads. It's all going to be there. Now, some people would say that's enough right there to just discredit the whole thing. ⁓ it would be if it were a purely human institution, but the head of the church is Jesus Christ. We confess, and it is an article of faith, we confess.
But it's also, it's not blind faith, it's based on his life, death and resurrection. The sure and the sure promises of our Lord. He has said the gates of hell will not prevail against my church. Doesn't mean that individual churches won't fall occasionally, won't split occasionally, won't capitulate occasionally, won't vanish with dynasties occasionally. Yeah, all of that does happen, but that's an indictment of the fallen human heart, not of the head of the church. It's important to keep that straight. Yeah.
Nathan (37:29)
The
other thing to keep in mind here is if we look at church history, Alan Crider's book, The Patient Firmament of the Early Church is a fascinating read in that his argument is that the primary topic that the church fathers wrote about, so let's take the first 400 years of Christianity and do an analysis of what were they writing about. And this is a time when the church had no political authority or power. I mean, it was a persecuted minority for sure. The main topic that they wrote about is patience.
for 400 years, patience was the main. And then I love that little line, I can't pull off the author. He says that the lanky shepherd from Galilee wrestled Hercules and won.
And so you think about the improbability of looking at an underground church network who's running around taking care of the abandoned babies, bearing the people who didn't have money for a funeral, feeding the sick and the cold and the hungry up against the Roman Empire. And here we are. There was a time in which the saber tooth tiger and the little white clover in your yard were on earth at the same time. And if you had to take a bet on which of those creatures
which of those life forms would exist the longest, everybody would have looked at a saber-toothed tiger and bet on the tiger. And you can go find white clover in your yard. And so there is a weird dynamic, and that's why Crider's ⁓ topic, the ferment, the patient ferment of the early church of that slow, steady, powerful, changing, it's why Jesus said, beware the yeast of the Pharisees. He didn't say, beware of the swords of the Pharisees, because that's obvious. Yeast changes things slowly and internally.
And that's where the danger comes from. And so the work of the church ⁓ is more culturally dynamic and powerful than we recognize it is when we do it with the tools at which we've actually been given. keep that in the back of your mind. And the other part of this is just most of you, not most of you, but statistically, from what we know, a lot of you who listen to this podcast are in church leadership. And I would say if you're listening to this and you're thinking about how do we capture the minds of the young adult, the young working professional.
Cameron (39:13)
you
Nathan (39:43)
It's think about what you're you're up against and you have the tools for this but Cameron and I were discussing when you join a gym. A trainer will come to you and say if you follow this. You come here at 430 every morning and you lift this this and this on this schedule and you radically change your diet and you eat this many grams of this this and this in 15 weeks. This is what the outcome will be. This is the result and so people will suffer through the monotonous because they have a vision of what's trying to be accomplished. Same thing is true in a sports team.
You're going to get up and run twice a day, six o'clock in the morning, three o'clock in the afternoon. You're going to train, you're going to do core exercises, you're going to lift weights, you're going to strategize, you're to have team because this is the outcome that we want to have that three months from now in this event, this is the performance we want to see. so people do a good job of, of sticking with and delighting in the monotony in the routine. If we can see what the vision is, what are we actually trying to do here? People don't show up late to college sports practices.
Why? Because they have clarity on the vision and their role within that vision. And they're not only hurting themselves, but also the team's ability to complete that vision if they're not there. And so I think any church right now that can't say, this is what we're trying to do right now. And these are the structures that we have in place and come and train with us. And this is what we want to see happen in the world around us. And here's your role within it. Is going to struggle because
If you're not articulating that, it is assumed now that the vision of the church is actually political and nothing else, in a partisan political way. And I'm not saying that that is right and that that's the actual analysis, but that by far is the perception at the point in time in which you live. And so a little bit of clarity here ⁓ goes a long way, and I think in being really helpful of saying, if we're going to say, hey, we're not doing this, then we really need to be saying, this is what we're about. This is what we're trying to do.
And if you can't tell me where this is going, then why wouldn't I just go train with another group who does seem to have like they're actually trying to do something for the glory of God and for their neighbor's good in this world. So that's just a random little fight for those of you who have a hand somewhere near the steering wheel of a church structure organization.
Cameron (42:02)
Thanks for sticking with us. You've been listening to Thinking Out Loud, a podcast where we think out loud about current events and Christian hope.