Rick Santorum said:
I will continue to fight to make sure that the cultural elites don't further undermine the institution [of marriage] that gives the best opportunity for healthy, happy children and a just and prosperous society.
You can't fight cultural elites with political weapons. Film makers, journalists, artists, university professors--these people care little for what a conservative politician says.
Even if you legislate a law against their positions, it will be overturned in a generation (or less) since these elites are the ones who train our youth and future political, cultural and business leaders.
This is why liberalism, despite being a minority position, holds ascendency in our world. Power lies in cultural transformation, and conservatives own little of it.
There's a sense in which we lost the cultural battle generations ago, when the fundamentalists fled the universities and similar cultural institutions and let the secular perspective reign unchecked.
We are just seeing the fruits of that capitulation.
There's hope, but the change will be generational, and will involve sending more Evangelicals to the university. This is also reason to be glad many Evangelical philosophers have made headway into the university setting. There is a very real sense in which philosophy undergirds all cultural pursuits.
It will also entail giving more money to foundations, scholarships, etc., for Christian artists, lawyers, academics, and similar groups--another reason to support sending more Christians into business, since they are the cash cows for serious, lasting cultural efforts.
I appreciate the beachhead being established by Sherwood Baptist Church with their films:
ReplyDeleteFacing the Giants
FireProof
Courageous
Good thoughts Matthew. Though I tend to be a little bit more hopeful than you seem to be here.
ReplyDelete"You can't fight cultural elites with political weapons."
ReplyDeleteAin't that the truth. Make the Government smaller, and let the community, the churches, and the people in America live their lives out with their liberty, and as the Church prays, and shines the Gospel light, as we keep our saltiness in a cursed world, perhaps the Lord will add to the Church daily those who are being quickened and brought into the Body of Christ.
Here's hope; the change will be generational, and will involve sending more Evangelicals to the university. (Changed your original good thought just a bit.)
"This is why liberalism, despite being a minority position, holds ascendency in our world. Power lies in cultural transformation, and conservatives own little of it."
ReplyDeleteThat's kind of understandable, though, isn't it?
The arguments FOR slavery were mostly made by white Christian men like Richard Furman and Thornton Stringfellow who sought to keep the status quo regarding the institution (an institution that was in place for centuries and even deemed morally acceptable by most of the early church fathers).
The arguments against women suffrage and even employment, desegregation in the military as well as interracial marriage were also mostly made by white Christian men who considered themselves conservatives.
Their record on immigration is hardly sensitive.
Eventually, you run out of people to alienate. It might work for a while by insisting that "God demands it" ... but it doesn't work forever. People eventually tire of life under the heel of someone else's boot.
James said:
ReplyDeleteThat's kind of understandable, though, isn't it?
Only if I found the Marxist view of history plausible.
I also find your suggestion a bit difficult to track in light of the position I've offered here and rather confusing on its own terms.
You seem to assume that conservatism is oppressive and liberalism is liberating. However dubious and prejudicial the characterization, for liberalism oppresses as much as any other intrusive political movement, I don't see how that establishes your view of cultural change. The political power of the Third Reich was maintained, at the very least in part, by an educated elite with immense cultural capital. As with many oppressive regimes, it took outside forces to ultimately overturn it. It wasn't about internal revolution, where the oppressors would "run out of people to alienate."
"You seem to assume that conservatism is oppressive and liberalism is liberating. "
ReplyDeleteNot exactly. I overgeneralized a bit.
In reality, ideologues of both political and religious persuasions can become oppressors. For example, liberal universities go overboard in their handling of professors who don't toe the line of political correctness to the point of acting unjustly.
Perhaps "liberal" and "conservative" have become meaningless terms given the inconsistent and even contradictory values both camps have held over the last century or two.
The fight for civil rights was primarily a liberal effort against the established mores of a predominantly Christian society, but how does this square with their support for late-term (and for some, even post-delivery!) abortion? It doesn't.
So, my disparaging of conservatism was not an endorsement of liberalism (at least not what it is today). It was a statement concerning self-professed conservatives who espouse a distinct set of values.
When it comes to the media, I don't buy the notion that the values espoused are predominantly liberal. In a way, Hollywood is almost absurdly conservative in its morality plays. Rarely is there moral ambiguity or shades of gray. There are "goodies" and "baddies" and the baddies get shot with a bazooka and everybody cheers. That doesn't seem to be emanating from the hyper-liberal mindset so often characterized by moral relativism.
My favorite book on the subject of the effects of a secular world-view is Francis Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live?.
ReplyDeleteI always thought he really nailed it.
James said:
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the media, I don't buy the notion that the values espoused are predominantly liberal. In a way, Hollywood is almost absurdly conservative in its morality plays. Rarely is there moral ambiguity or shades of gray. There are "goodies" and "baddies" and the baddies get shot with a bazooka and everybody cheers. That doesn't seem to be emanating from the hyper-liberal mindset so often characterized by moral relativism.
Perhaps we consume different media. I tend to avoid popular movies, the values of which have much more to do with what sells tickets and DVDs than the core beliefs of those who produce them.
However, the values that the makers of such films hold are quite transparent in other media they produce and support, the general causes they fund and their statements outside of film. For example, consider the media and Hollywood elite who attended the George Clooney fundraiser and the kinds of comments that were made and how well they were received.
Also, liberalism does not necessarily entail ambiguity. Liberal culture makers are generally dogmatic about the acceptance, promotion and glamorization of homosexuality, to take one example.