Why Have Conservatives Been Unable To Stop The Liberal Revolution That Threatens Their Culture?

[one.opinion]

As a conservative myself, I think a lot of the shift in society over the last few decades has been as a result of conservative Christians deciding that there was a "culture war" that needed to be fought and won. People that thought or acted different were categorized as the enemy, and anger, fear, disgust, and hatred were a result. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control were often stifled because they were not fully compatible with the culture war mindset. What we are seeing in pop culture is a completely predictable response to that.

[Alive]

15 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

As a conservative myself, I think a lot of the shift in society over the last few decades has been as a result of conservative Christians deciding that there was a "culture war" that needed to be fought and won. People that thought or acted different were categorized as the enemy, and anger, fear, disgust, and hatred were a result. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control were often stifled because they were not fully compatible with the culture war mindset. What we are seeing in pop culture is a completely predictable response to that.

Yup---not getting into the weeds, but what I have discovered over the years is a need to meet folks where they are and a willingness to do so and get dirty feet.

The opposite pole from the 'cloister' principle or hiding a light under a bushel, if you will.

[Marathoner]

I agree with @one.opinion's view, detached as I am from the concerns of others. 

I suppose the theological conservative best describes how I live. I do not concern myself with politics nor political matters, trusting that the Lord installs whomever He sees fit in power, remembering His decree in Nebuchadnezzar's dream from the 4th chapter of Daniel. Yes, even the basest of men.

In short, the teaching of the apostles is my guide. I have no reason to entertain conspiracies for they are a waste of energy and time, concerning myself only with what the Lord has placed before me. I have studied the history of man and I write this with confidence:

Empires rise and they fall, cultures emerge and then they vanish, the oppressors become the oppressed, and the light of human civilization are those fires which consume what was before.

As the Preacher tells us: vanity! Vanity of vanities, everything is vanity. This is true of men and their fleshly pursuits. History confirms the words of the Lord.

I do not perceive any value in political positions which are conservative or liberal for the conservatives of today were the liberals of yesterday and since no political position embraces Christ, why should I embrace them in kind?

What nation of man proclaims, "love your neighbor as yourself?" Not one at any time. There is no caveat nor condition to burden the royal law, and yet many who profess the name of Christ do that very thing by virtue of their words and deeds. No one can serve two masters.

"But you can't do that on the world stage!" Precisely! A nation of man which embraces the Lord Jesus Christ wouldn't resemble any nation of this earth. I also state this with confidence, that no nation ancient nor modern has done this. Lip service is just that: empty words.

All of the posturing and rhetoric in the world means nothing if we don't love others as He loves us. I find politics and political matters abhorrent, so the Lord who is greater than all can do as He sees fit. He is Almighty after all.

This culture, like flesh, is passing away. That's the story of man under the sun.

[Alive]

4 minutes ago, Josheb said:

My bad. I meant to say I find more conservatives do not understand the basics. I'll wager many have no idea who Pat Buchanon was. 

 

For example, a recent conservative talk show had folks call in to offer their views on whether the local county government should make laws regulating or restricting panhandlers walking the medians at traffic intersections. The truly conservative answer is, "No," and the reason the conservative answer is no is because we're in favor of small government and the rule of law, doing what has already proven itself to work, and suspicious of any government increasing in power. Not a single caller even remotely implied any such core values and when I called in to suggest the existing laws against loitering be enforced..... because cons are for small government, the rule of law, doing what has already proven to work and against government expansion the answer was, 

Oh yeah. Good points 

      

If we can't apply core principles to loitering and panhandling then why should we expect to field the presidency? 

 

My wife went to training yesterday to become a voting monitor for the local Republican Party. She learned that our county had 1200 Dem reps at the last election and less than 500 for the Repubs. Certain local laws say there have to be two witness for certain matters and they are supposed to be one of each party but if one from each party is not available the other party gets a second witness . 

 

Just think about that. 

YA--I read it like that. It happens.

On the other...a combination of not really thinking about stuff and repeating talking points. Almost robotic.

I am one who thinks we ought to be engaged.

:-)

[Marathoner]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

My bad. I meant to say I find more conservatives do not understand the basics. I'll wager many have no idea who Pat Buchanon was. 

 

For example, a recent conservative talk show had folks call in to offer their views on whether the local county government should make laws regulating or restricting panhandlers walking the medians at traffic intersections. The truly conservative answer is, "No," and the reason the conservative answer is no is because we're in favor of small government and the rule of law, doing what has already proven itself to work, and suspicious of any government increasing in power. Not a single caller even remotely implied any such core values and when I called in to suggest the existing laws against loitering be enforced..... because cons are for small government, the rule of law, doing what has already proven to work and against government expansion the answer was, 

Oh yeah. Good points 

      

If we can't apply core principles to loitering and panhandling then why should we expect to field the presidency? 

 

My wife went to training yesterday to become a voting monitor for the local Republican Party. She learned that our county had 1200 Dem reps at the last election and less than 500 for the Repubs. Certain local laws say there have to be two witness for certain matters and they are supposed to be one of each party but if one from each party is not available the other party gets a second witness . 

 

Just think about that. 

You're referring to what I believe is conservatism, an approach which considers both political and legal aspects of governance. Activism is not a feature of conservatism in my view; this is rather the stock and trade of the liberal. 

There, I think I've established myself as old-fashioned. I understand where you're coming from regarding enforcing existing law faithfully. That's a core principle of conservatism: is there actually a need for a new law? What would that accomplish?

I've witnessed the goal posts being shifted rapidly since the 90's so an apolitical stance makes sense to me, all things considered. How many actual conservatives are left?

Here's another "litmus test:" who remembers Barry Goldwater? I was too young to remember his day, but I certainly learned about the fellow. 

One issue I have: radicals in politics. That's the rule of the day or so it seems, another reason why politics today leave a terrible aftertaste. Conservatives aren't radicals... or so I believe anyway. 

[walla299]

Good points in the thread so far, but a something hasn't not been mentioned yet. 

One of those is while the Marxists, Liberals, "fill in the blank" folks were quietly taking over academia, the entertainment industry, school systems, etc. many in the church (USA) seem to have stood by and watched. There were those that fought, but in the end things didn't turn out well. How much of that is prophetic or due to neglect? I have no idea, but I'm sure the Lord saw this coming.

For example: So many, though not all, churches have gotten away from corporate prayer (aka prayer meetings,) preaching the gospel - and training converts - that the current situation was bound to happen at some point. The older believers have been the prayer warriors in many churches I have visited over the years, but many have gone home to the Lord and they seem to have not been replaced in a lot of cases. A lack of prayer leads to a lack of power.

The converted need to be taught what being a Christ follower means, and not everyone can afford or have time for seminary, etc. The culture will not change until people's hearts are changed first - and only Jesus can change a heart! Once the heart changes, thoughts, beliefs, and behavior change. (See Acts 19. The gospel caused a riot in Ephesus because so many lives were changed it impacted the local economy.) It seems the whole "culture war" thing got that backwards to me. Heart change is from the inside out not outside in.

 

[teddyv]

10 minutes ago, walla299 said:

Good points in the thread so far, but a something hasn't not been mentioned yet. 

One of those is while the Marxists, Liberals, "fill in the blank" folks were quietly taking over academia, the entertainment industry, school systems, etc. many in the church (USA) seem to have stood by and watched. There were those that fought, but in the end things didn't turn out well. How much of that is prophetic or due to neglect? I have no idea, but I'm sure the Lord saw this coming.

That's sort of what I was getting at in my post on the first page. As to why it happened? Probably a variety of reasons. As someone in a field of science, for example, I witness regularly right here the suspicion and distrust by evangelicals in particular of that realm of human activity. And I'm not referring to the pandemic, although that certainly highlighted it. And it does seem to be overwhelmingly the evangelical church, as other branches of Christendom are actually very active in academics.

10 minutes ago, walla299 said:

For example: So many, though not all, churches have gotten away from corporate prayer (aka prayer meetings,) preaching the gospel - and training converts - that the current situation was bound to happen at some point. The older believers have been the prayer warriors in many churches I have visited over the years, but many have gone home to the Lord and they seem to have not been replaced in a lot of cases. A lack of prayer leads to a lack of power.

The converted need to be taught what being a Christ follower means, and not everyone can afford or have time for seminary, etc. The culture will not change until people's hearts are changed first - and only Jesus can change a heart! Once the heart changes, thoughts, beliefs, and behavior change. (See Acts 19. The gospel caused a riot in Ephesus because so many lives were changed it impacted the local economy.) It seems the whole "culture war" thing got that backwards to me. Heart change is from the inside out not outside in.

Perhaps a side question could be, why did these prayer warriors not infuse the next generation with their same zeal? I don't want to necessarily blame them as there is personal responsibility of course, but we are tasked to train up our children.

[walla299]

2 minutes ago, teddyv said:

<snip>

Perhaps a side question could be, why did these prayer warriors not infuse the next generation with their same zeal? I don't want to necessarily blame them as there is personal responsibility of course, but we are tasked to train up our children.

Good question. I'm afraid I don't have an answer although it may be related to why so many kids who grow up in church abandon their faith once they are at university. Many of them have little training in the Christian worldview and they just get overwhelmed. I hear that a lot in a couple of recovery groups I'm involved with. We (the church) seem to have a problem with passing things like that on to the next generation.

Another extreme if you will is this: Homeschooled kids raised in church who don't want to deal with the real (outside fallen world) and will happily stay locked in their rooms reading theology all day. I ran into this at a church I recently left. The younger folks were not even willing to talk about going witnessing and most didn't have a clue as to how to share their faith. I've heard this called the "monastery" or "convent" mentality but never ran into it before. I was also told I was in sin for voting in a local election, but that's another story.

 

[Starise]

I don't think "we" will ever stop anything. God moves as He did in times past behind the scenes to do His will.

God is in control. God is always in control.

There are many examples of God using corrupt governments to work His will, both for judgement and for His providence to take place.

If anything, as I see governments becoming more and more tyrannical, more and more prone to insist we think and feel a certain way, more and more divisive,

This all has the effect of bringing the cream to the top. This will make the difference between us and the world more and more apparent. This will be our platform, to tell the world that no matter what government insists morality is or isn't , we will stand until the end on what the Bible tells us. No matter what losses we take over it, the Father promises to restore to us over and above everything we might loose in the process in a stand for our faith. And make no mistake, These things are not far away IMO.

 

[walla299]

24 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Church has been standing by and watching for a long time. Read Schaeffer. He predicted this as long ago as the late-1960s and his trilogy is still very relevant. 

Others have made the same observation, and I do remember reading Schaeffer years ago. He did predict it, and yes, the church has been standing by and doing nothing for many years before Schaeffer wrote.