In recent decades, the culture’s relationship to Evangelicalism has shifted dramatically. Previously, in what Aaron Renn has described as the “positive world” (pre-1994), being a Christian came with social benefits, adding to one’s moral and public status. During this time, Christianity was respected and even privileged in public life. But by the mid-1990s, the West had transitioned into a “neutral world” (1994-2014). In this era, Christianity was seen as neither a benefit nor a liability. People were largely indifferent to it—Christianity was simply one option among many. However, since around 2014, we have entered what Renn calls the “negative world.”
Today, being a Christian—particularly one who holds to historic biblical teachings on marriage, sexuality, gender, and abortion—is a social negative. Particularly in elite circles, such faith is seen as outmoded, harmful, and a barrier to social progress. This puts churches under pressure to adapt or conform to the ever-shifting norms of secular society.
Evangelicals have met this challenge in various ways. While some have fully embraced an “against the world” mentality, others have recalibrated their approach to engage the culture wisely and tactfully while staying true to God’s Word.
Among the most common strategies has been to embrace the notion that “the gospel is neither Right nor Left.” On its face, this is a fine motto, reflecting the fact that the gospel transcends all partisan affiliations and that the kingdom of God does not fit neatly into any political platform. However—and this is a big however—since entering the negative world, this motto has been greatly misapplied. Rather than truly transcending political categories, it has often led to a mere equivocation between political options, rendering all parties equally flawed—and thus equally viable—for the faithful Christian.
This approach made more sense in a culture that shared a basic Christian moral overlay—the kind of consensus that could at least agree, for instance, that abortion is a tragedy and that God made all of us, immutably, male and female. But that is not today’s reality. Honest Christians must acknowledge that while corruption can be found in both political parties, only one has placed itself squarely at odds with God’s Word by crossing multiple moral red lines. Today, it is the Left that seeks to redefine marriage, promotes abortion without limits as a human right, undermines the nuclear family, and encourages the sexualization and bodily mutilation of vulnerable minors. It is also the Left that increasingly threatens religious liberty, free speech, and parental rights, as seen in the rise of laws that could jeopardize parental custody for failing to affirm a child’s claimed “gender identity.”
Rather than accept this new reality, some churches carry on as if it were still the “neutral world.” Some pastors, for instance, hesitate to speak on abortion unless pairing it with a seemingly progressive issue like immigration to avoid appearing partisan. Similarly, while messages on racial reconciliation are often welcomed, discussions on religious freedom or God’s design for marriage and the family are treated with caution, often prefaced with apology. This “neutral world” mindset has led many Christians to duck what they consider to be “culture war” issues—perhaps for fear of being labeled “Christian nationalists”—while embracing other biblical topics as automatically “gospel-centered” and “balanced.”
The result has been a trend, seen across many evangelical pulpits, that Pastor Josh Howerton has described as “coddling Left and punching Right.” This imbalance has caused the church’s witness to become uneven, leaning toward cultural accommodation over biblical clarity. It also robs our society of the deeply prophetic word that it needs to hear in its areas of most obvious rebellion.
The “neutral world” vision often paints the political Right as modern-day Pharisees—rigid, moralistic, and hypocritical. Yet in today’s negative world, the Pharisaical role is occupied by none other than secular progressives. Just as the Pharisees of Jesus’ time enforced strict codes and punished dissent, today’s secular Left demands ideological conformity, policing thought and imposing orthodoxy with religious fervor. To state this is not partisan; it is to describe the world we inhabit every day.
So, who is on the Right in this new context? While the Left represents the new Pharisees, the Right might be seen as those who are lost but still somewhat respectful of “traditional values”—people who, like the “God-fearing Gentiles” in the New Testament, were drawn to the moral teachings of God and upheld traditional ethical standards, yet had not fully come to know or follow the one true God. Though they did not know Jesus Christ, they were generally more aligned with the moral and spiritual truths of Christianity. Yet we know that morality, while good, can never justify a person before God. Only a transforming faith in Jesus Christ, which leads to a renewed heart, Kingdom values, and a new life, can do that. Therefore, the “God-fearers” still desperately need the transformative truth of the gospel, just as much as anyone. Yet given the times, they may be more open to it than others.
When the church coddles secular progressive ideals, it risks diluting the gospel’s transformative power. Instead of boldly proclaiming God’s truth, the church becomes hesitant, carefully navigating cultural landmines to avoid offense. But Jesus didn’t hesitate to confront the Pharisees of His time, and neither should we. Nor did He hesitate to call out the lostness of the God-fearing seekers, and neither should we. The gospel challenges every culture and political ideology because it transcends them both. And while the gospel is “neither Right nor Left,” its faithful application today should look very different from the pattern of “coddling Left and punching Right” that characterizes much of modern Evangelicalism.
We need a new way forward, one that is not defined by seeking cultural approval or trying to appear “moderate,” but by proclaiming truth with clarity and grace. In Acts 4, when the apostles faced opposition, they didn’t retreat or look for a middle ground to avoid conflict. Instead, they got on their knees and prayed for boldness: “Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness” (Acts 4:29). We need that same boldness today.
The church’s mission isn’t to align with any political ideology, but to stand on the whole counsel of God, no matter the cultural climate. This means speaking with conviction about life, marriage, justice, fairness, and ultimately the hope we have in Christ. In a culture that is uniquely bent in one direction, it may well perceive a faithful church as being “on the Right.” But that is their designation, not ours. And we bear witness to a gospel that challenges every political allegiance with the sword of God’s Word. As the Apostle Paul says: “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).
God calls us not to be conformed to the patterns of this world, and instead to be transformed by the renewal of our minds (Romans 12:2). Cultures come and go, but our calling is eternal: to be faithful to Jesus Christ and His gospel in the time in which He placed us. May God raise up in our time a growing chorus of churches who sing from His song sheet, not the world’s.
Ben Palka is a pastor at King’s Church in Washington, DC. He holds a BA in Communication from the State University of New York College at Buffalo State, as well as an MDiv and ThM from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. In addition to his pastoral work, he has professional experience in the defense and national security industry.
Comment by Wilson R. on November 7, 2024 at 10:49 am
I read the first five paragraphs with interest, thinking this piece might be going somewhere thoughtful and productive. Then I came to this and realized it was headed to the same tired destination:
“Honest Christians must acknowledge that while corruption can be found in both political parties, only one has placed itself squarely at odds with God’s Word by crossing multiple moral red lines. Today, it is the Left that seeks to redefine marriage, promotes abortion without limits as a human right, undermines the nuclear family, and encourages the sexualization and bodily mutilation of vulnerable minors.”
In other words, once again (sigh), “being a Christian” is defined strictly in terms of sexual identity and abortion. Both of those, of course, are worth talking about. I am part of the consensus, for example, that agrees that abortion is a tragedy because it stems from either an unwanted new life, a sexual crime in which women are victims or rape or incest, or a biological failure.
But what is striking to me — and, surely, to so many in the “negative world” that this chaplain presumably wants to reach — is the failure to couch any part of Christian identity in what Jesus told the Pharisees were the “weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy.” No mention of caring for the poor, homeless, and marginalized—a Christian duty that, sadly and tellingly, is more likely to shape the politics of secular liberals than of “church people.” No mention of loving the stranger in your land—something Jesus and the Pharisees were in lockstep agreement on—nor any words against the claims embraced by so many evangelicals during this political season that immigrants are vermin and criminals.
Why isn’t caring for the poor also a “moral red line” by which churches and policymakers should be judged? Why isn’t access to healthcare for the sick a moral red line? Why isn’t mass incarceration a moral red line for a church that professes, at least in theory, reconciliation and restoration?
This doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game in which evangelicals cannot define themselves as pro-poor and pro-healthcare if they also define themselves as anti-abortion and view homosexuality as a sin. But when evangelicals are silent on “the weightier matters” while pushing in all their chips on sexual identity and abortion bans, that silence speaks much louder than their voices do. Imagine how much differently it might be if what is called evangelicalism today was identified with love, even as it seeks to “speak the truth in love” about what it sees as sins in the culture.
Instead, the “nones” and secularists (and, increasingly, women) who are running for their lives away from the church in America see what passes for Christianity here more as a religion of hate, like militant Islam, than a religion of love. You may strenuously disagree, but you don’t see yourselves as they do, and from where they sit, they’re not wrong. They don’t see a church that cares about justice and mercy because they never hear you talk about it. All they hear is abortion-blahblahblah-gays-blahblahblah-trans-blahblahblah-hell-blahblahblah. And this is to your shame, not theirs.
Comment by Tim Ware on November 7, 2024 at 11:48 am
WilsonR, what is your definition of justice?
Comment by Wilson R. on November 7, 2024 at 12:16 pm
It’s a good question, and I appreciate your asking. As applied here, I’m using it in the biblical context, not the context of the “justice system.”
In the biblical context, I start with the premise from Genesis 1: All human beings are made in the image and likeness of God. In this way, God laid the moral foundation of the world at the same time as the physical foundations. From my reading of the scriptures, everything about human relationships in the Law, the Prophets, and Jesus’ teaching flows from this premise. Why must we love our neighbor? Because he is made in the likeness of God. Why does true worship involve caring for the poor, the homeless and the sick (see Isaiah 58 and Matthew 25)? Because these are all made in the image of God.
Therefore, I define justice as ensuring that fellow human beings are treated with the dignity, care, respect, and fairness that are their birthright as ones made in the Creator’s image. Anything that fails to live up to this standard is an injustice.
In the Law and the Prophets, it is the responsibility of both individuals and the community to uphold justice; otherwise, the community cannot be considered righteous (right with God). It is striking how often the words justice and righteousness are paired in the OT prophets and the Psalms.
To illustrate this point, I think MLK had an interesting take on the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus affirms that the neighbor to the man who was beaten and left for dead was “the one who showed mercy.” MLK argued that mercy and justice were related but not identical. The Samaritan acted to uphold justice by caring for the injured victim. But justice, King said, was to make the Jericho road safe so others would not meet the same fate.
Comment by Wilson R on November 7, 2024 at 12:52 pm
Upon further reflection, I might add that “justice” involves upholding the moral foundation God designed for the world. This includes loving God as well as loving neighbor. But these two commandments are really one because they cannot be separated. One cannot love God without loving the neighbors created in God’s image.
Comment by Tim Ware on November 7, 2024 at 3:26 pm
Wilson,
Ideally, since you are quoting a particular verse from Jesus as the basis of your argument, it might be good to take as the meaning of justice in that particular context what the word in the Greek manuscripts that is translated as justice connotes. You will not find that by looking in a lexicon, and neither will you find it from what a Christian author or pastor says. Neither will you find it in what MLK or any other favored public figure said.
You will find it by looking at its usage in other Greek literature of the period.
Comment by Wilson R on November 7, 2024 at 3:50 pm
I mentioned Matthew 25. To my knowledge, Jesus does not use the word justice in the story of separating the sheep and the goats. But he does hit a remarkable number of the same notes that Isaiah writes about in chapter 58 in the context (as I mentioned) of what true worship looks like. That sort of brings me back to the original point: Why are none of the things that Isaiah and Jesus mentioned part of what the writer uses to define what “being a Christian” means? Why doesn’t he talk about what Jesus called the “weightier matters of the law?” And why don’t I hear about those things from others who claim the evangelical label?
Comment by Tim Ware on November 7, 2024 at 7:37 pm
Wilson,
My point is that if you are going to use a quotation from Scripture to prove a point, in order for your argument to be taken seriously, you must be sure you know what that Greek word translated into English as “justice” actually connotes. What you think it means is irrelevant. How you interpret it is irrelevant, even if you interpret it by referencing other biblical passages. How the word is translated into English is irrelevant. The meaning that particular word in English has today is irrelevant. What you think it should mean is irrelevant. What someone like MLK or anyone else says it means is irrelevant.
The only thing that matters is the meaning of the Greek word which is translated there as justice. What does that word mean? What does it connote? Not to you, and not to MLK, but to Jesus and the biblical author. Until you know that, you have no argument by using the “justice and mercy” clause. You’re just throwing out abstracts…”what I think it means.”
The only way we have to determine the meaning of that word, since Koine Greek is out of use, is to go to other sources and see how it was used in other writings of the same approximate time period. The only way to do that is to go to to secular sources and see how that word was used in other approximately contemporary writings. If you go to a Christian source, they’re not going to tell you the meaning of the word. They’ll either tell you how that word has been translated into English in the various Bible translations, or they’ll tell you what they think it means. In order to have an idea of the true meaning, we have to bypass Christian sources and go to sources that don’t have a religious agenda.
By saying all this, I’m not in any way implying that I think your argument is totally wrong. I think you make a valid point. I will say, though, that the way you present it, your argument is not very convincing because you’re doing it as an abstract with no precise definition you can point to as to what Jesus actually meant when He used the word that is translated into English as “justice.” Remember, Jesus didn’t speak English, and it is a mistake to just assume that His use of a particular Greek word was meant to connote the same meaning as the left mainline puts on “justice” today.
Comment by John on November 7, 2024 at 11:02 pm
No offense, but you sound like one of those pastors who’s afraid to preach to the choir. Guess what? That’s pretty much all Jesus did. He rebukes his own disciples even more than the Pharisees, and he never even wastes a breath attacking the Romans for their idolatry and extreme sexual depravity. The almost Christian needs a punch every once and while to snap them out of self-righteousness. You can’t punch a pagan very well if they’re not standing near you, can you?
Comment by Joan Wesley on November 8, 2024 at 10:03 am
What the author did say:
We need a new way forward, one that is not defined by seeking cultural approval or trying to appear “moderate,” but by proclaiming truth with clarity and grace.
Comment by John on November 8, 2024 at 10:22 am
Joan,
What he really said, was don’t be bold enough to bite the hand that feeds your coffers every Sunday in church, but feel free to keep attacking the liberals and atheists who will never walk through the door. Hit the easy targets, avoid stirring the pot. It may be a sound PR strategy, but it’s not being Christ-like.
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on November 9, 2024 at 3:14 pm
With all due respect, Renn’s interpretation is so simplistic–which is to say, so false–that it’s annoying and frustrating that so many Christians are taking it seriously and believing it.
For now, I’ll just refute the notion of a positive world. Having grown up in a secular environment in New England before 1994, I can tell you that time and place was not a “positive world”. To me, hostility toward Christianity is nothing new–I came to know it in childhood–in America.
The notion is that in the positive world, “being a Christian came with social benefits”. Really? Yes, *identifying* as a Christian came with social benefits. But actually *being* a Christian, which means *living* as a Christian? That’s *always* been contrary to the world, and it always will be. The world likes and approves of Christian morality–but only ever in part, never in the whole. For example, for most of American history, loving your neighbor as yourself was considered to be good, but it was trumped by white supremacy–even in many churches.
Regarding “coddling Left and punching Right”: Does this explain why so many evangelical pastors are fearful of saying anything that their congregations might interpret as being supportive of Biden or Harris, and of saying anything they might interpret as critical of Trump, other than that he has bad manners or should keep his mouth shut more often?
If we Christians in America want to preserve our witness to the world, we should abandon both parties of the duopoly. (If it would be best for us to associate with a political party, then I suggest we associate with the American Solidarity Party.)
Christians of America: I urge you to abandon the delusion that Trump and the Trump Party are your friends. At best, they are your mercenaries. The church does not need to trust in mercenaries: the church needs to trust in God.
Comment by Chip on November 9, 2024 at 7:17 pm
“Honest Christians must acknowledge that while corruption can be found in both political parties, only one has placed itself squarely at odds with God’s Word by crossing multiple moral red lines. ”
No. Both political parties place themselves squarely at odds with God’s Word by crossing multiple moral lines. The Republican Party is little better than the Democratic one with regard to abortion, given Trump’s recent flips on the issue and gutting of pro-life language from the platform. Trump’s attitude toward immigrants, and the ways he regularly demeans people in general, are also anti-Scripuiral. Only 39 percent of Republicans believe that immigration in general (not just illegal immigration) is a good thing, according to Gallup. Both parties are profoundly unChristian on moral issues now. Christians can support candidates of either party, but doing so involves compromising Christian values in both cases.
Comment by Chip on November 9, 2024 at 8:15 pm
“Rather than accept this new reality, some churches carry on as if it were still the ‘neutral world.'”
This is a common charge these days, but it doesn’t hold water for several reasons. First, the idea that we have moved to a “negative world” is debatable at best. As others have pointed out, the world has always been negative toward Christian values. Go back and listen to conservative Christian talk radio of the ’90s. The talk was regularly about how negative and opposed to Christianity things were, and ways to combat that negativity. Now there *was* still sometimes (not always) an assertion that Christians were a sleeping majority, true. But that wasn’t constant, while the negativity talk was. Clinton’s 1992 election was viewed as a huge loss for conservative Christians and a sign of cultural decadence. But Christians then sought to counter matters by appealing to character issues, and solid character was treated as the most important factor for an elected official (and most especially the president) to possess. That belief is lacking among conservative Christians today. In any case, the world was viewed as negative back then, even if conservative Christians had greater optimism about their ability to turn things around. So for many of us, there really *hasn’t* been a move to a negative world. The amount and/,or degree of negativity arguably has increased (witness the rise of the nones), but the idea that the world is primarily negative toward Christians is old
Second, what this author (and Renn) sees as a capitulation among so-called “neutral world” adherents is actually something quite different. To those of us taking this position, the commands of our lord on these matters never change, regardless of the times. We are always called to be loving toward others as opposed to hostile towards them, no matter what they think of or even do to us. That command to love our enemies never ceases to be applicable. We are also called to work for the betterment of society, to love the immigrants in our land, and to not to seek to harm them. Again, these commands of our lord are not situation-bound.
So the world is not newly negative, and our lord’s commands to love others never cease regardless of our circumstances.
Comment by John on November 9, 2024 at 8:18 pm
Chip,
Not disagreeing with most of what you said, but one point of clarification. Trump never actually “flipped” on abortion. If you listen to his interviews when he was running in 2016, he said then that he believed it should be left to the states to decide and that has pretty much been his position during this recent election as well. This is probably one of the few things he has been consistent on. It’s his fans or rather their expectations that have changed. Either they weren’t paying close attention to his statements before or, because they were living in a world where Roe was still the law of the land, they assumed anything else was better. Now in the post-Roe world it natural that we would see a splintering of the pro-life movement. You’re always more united when you’re in the opposition. That’s why ruling party in Congress can never seem to get anything done.
Comment by Chip on November 9, 2024 at 9:54 pm
Thanks, John, for your thoughts. Roe v Wade indeed was overturned. Well and good. But then Trump gutted the Republican Party platform of its pro-life language; reverted to his former pro-abortion rights stances that he had always held prior to becoming a Republican Party candidate; adopted a pro-IVF stance that includes covering it for free at taxpayer expense, with no religious exemptions as of yet committed (he has only said he will consider it); declared that his administration would be more “pro-reproductive rights” than Harris’s; and had Melania publicly promote this new emphasis. You couldn’t ask for a more about-face on abortion if you tried. He has thrown the pro-life movement under a bus.
Comment by John on November 12, 2024 at 10:38 am
Chip,
I think the fact of the matter is that the pro-life movement was united around overturning Roe, but was always more diverse in its views on abortion otherwise. Some probably agreed with Trump that should be left to states. Some want exceptions on the basis of rape, incest, and the life and well-being of the mother. Some believe abortion should be legal based on the point in pregnancy. Some considered Plan B to be the same as abortion, while others don’t. Some believe it’s okay to persecute someone who leaves the state to get the procedure in a state where it is legal, while others acknowledge that this violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Some have supported deliberately vague laws concerning when a doctor can perform an abortion to protect the woman, which has endangered their health in some states. And as for IVF, I have family members who couldn’t conceive children without IVF. No one is ever going to make me vote against IVF.