Aaron Renn charts the decline of social and legal acceptance of historic Christianity from the 1960s to the present. He identifies three eras of this decline: a “positive world” in which Christianity was still widely favored (1964-1994), a “neutral world” in which Christianity was one acceptable choice among many (1994-2014), and a “negative world” in which Christian faith and morality is seen as a threat to the common good and from which Christians tend to be excluded (2014-present).

The post-communist period, which might reasonably have been a time when religious freedom was secure and unchallenged, has, at least in the twenty-first century, turned into a time of unprecedented challenge in America and the West generally. It is no longer an aggressive atheism threatening from abroad, but direct threats domestically to religious speech and action in Western societies from various liberationist ideologies, which if consistently imposed would destroy historic Christianity (and could similarly be used against other traditional religions).

Faithful Christians in America now understand that our beliefs and practices may be penalized, yet we cannot accommodate sinful requirements. Writer and podcaster Aaron Renn, speaking from his background in management and technology consulting, very helpfully endeavored to give Evangelicals perspective on living faithfully in his First Things article The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism, in February 2022. Recently, he expanded on this article in a new book Life in the Negative World: Confronting Challenges in an Anti-Christian Culture.

Three Worlds, Three Strategies

Renn charts the decline of social and legal acceptance of historic Christianity from the 1960s to the present. He identifies three eras of this decline: a “positive world” in which Christianity was still widely favored (1964-1994), a “neutral world” in which Christianity was one acceptable choice among many (1994-2014), and a “negative world” in which Christian faith and morality is seen as a threat to the common good and from which Christians tend to be excluded (2014-present).

“Culture war,” “seeker-sensitivity,” and “cultural engagement” are strategies Evangelicals developed for reaching out to the positive and neutral worlds but will not work well in the negative world, Renn maintains. The culture war strategy (which was really a response to hedonistic attacks on Christian culture and morality) was rooted in a heartland, fundamentalist base, and assumed widespread public agreement with Christian morality (as the name “Moral Majority” indicated, which Renn notes was somewhat like its secular counterpart, the Silent Majority). Seeker-sensitivity was pioneered by Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Church near Chicago, focused on suburban America, and sought to remove barriers to active Christian and church life, based on research of the preferences of “unchurched” people. Traditional hymns, church buildings, stain-glass windows, etc., were jettisoned in favor of praise choruses, bands, and perhaps a perambulating preacher in blue jeans. This still assumed a positive view of Christian faith and morals by many non-observant Americans.

Cultural engagement was basically a seeker-sensitive strategy for the urban elite culture that began to advance in the late twentieth century. Cultural engagement was keyed to the neutral world, The point was to gain a hearing for the gospel with people who were likely to be highly educated, professional, and open to many different world views, but willing to consider Christianity. Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City was the most representative figure of this strategy.

For the negative world, Renn proposes a response similar to Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option, emphasizing especially Christian institutional integrity and strength. He maintains that both individuals and institutions must be careful to be faithful to Christian doctrines and precepts to survive in the negative world.

Read More