“None of this strikes us as having genuine relevance to our situation.”

Given the potential (or at least perceived) obstacles to studying the book of Hebrews (mentioned in the previous blog post), why bother?  Aren’t the other, more comprehensible books of the New Testament likely to be more profitable, both theologically and practically?  One of the most enthusiastic commentators (quoted in that previous post) acknowledges:

“It draws much from Leviticus….  It appeals to the experience of Israel in the wilderness…. It makes reference to the mysterious person of Melchizedek….
None of this strikes us as having genuine relevance to our situation.”^[1]

But he goes on to challenge that impression:

Are there facts about Hebrews that make this book more similar to our situation than we realize?  Are there factors that will enable us to identify ourselves with the writer and his friends, and which will encourage us to read Hebrews with confidence?^[2]

To that question I would answer (along with the commentator) a definite “Yes!”  A cursory consideration of our American culture in 2023 should make that similarity clear.

• An Immediate Need
  • Momentum of Technology
  • Control of Content
  • Reversal of Roles
  • Reminders of History
• A Similar Environment

An Immediate Need

Consider this comment on a culture:

I know no country in which there is so little true independence of mind and freedom of discussion as in America.^[3]

The Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville made that comment in 1831 after touring the country for several months.  He was not describing official oppressive government restrictions.  Brutal, violent physical coercion and cruelty were already tactics of the past.  Tocqueville saw a more powerful influence in the public environment he encountered.  His explanation is worth reading at length and considering in light of our current cultural climate:

In America the majority raises very formidable barriers to the liberty of opinion: within these barriers an author may write whatever he pleases, but he will repent it if he ever step beyond them.^[4]

One twenty-first-century commentator describes Tocqueville’s “barriers” as circles that define acceptable beliefs and attitudes.^[5]  Those barriers or circles are frequently shrinking around culturally acceptable standards, leaving more and more conservative, and particularly Christian, ideas outside.

The consequences of stepping outside the approved circles of opinion can be devastating personally, professionally, and politically:

Not that he is exposed to the terrors of an auto-da-fe^[6], but he is tormented by the slights and persecutions of daily obloquy [censure, criticism, attack – mw]. His political career is closed forever, since he has offended the only authority which is able to promote his success. Every sort of compensation, even that of celebrity, is refused to him.^[7]

There are serious social consequences even among friends and colleagues (including Christians).

Before he published his opinions he imagined that he held them in common with many others; but no sooner has he declared them openly than he is loudly censured by his overbearing opponents, whilst those who think without having the courage to speak, like him, abandon him in silence.^[8]

The frequent final outcome provides a chilling picture.

He yields at length, oppressed by the daily efforts he has been making, and he subsides into silence, as if he was tormented by remorse for having spoken the truth.”^[9]

It took almost two-hundred years to coin the description “cancel culture.”  But Tocqueville described the symptoms precisely.

Momentum of Technology

The limitation on free speech that was evident in Tocqueville’s time has seen significant technological advances.  We have passed a “digital tipping point” what affects “how we think, live, and respond…at breathtaking speed.” ^[10]

That speed and the massive quantity of information create a momentum that precludes the possibility of careful consideration of each new idea.  Instead, a kind of “battlefield triage” ^[11] takes place for our attention.  Instant decisions replace thoughtful evaluation.  That triage forces many people to immediately grasp any reason to reject an idea – “we default to negative selection. It makes our lives as selectors so much easier.”^[12]

As a result, any who express an opinion outside the accepted range experience the censure and abandonment Tocqueville described.  The expedient of unthinking rejection is

one of the reasons why social media’s attitude toward sinners – the unclean, the defiling – is simply to expel them from the community, so they don’t need to be thought about any further. ^[13]

Increasingly, Christian perspectives on identity, sexuality, gender – any aspect of a Biblical world view – are subjected to negative selection and summarily dismissed – “expelled from the community” – without serious consideration.  That dismissal is often affirmed by “Likes” from others who have had the same contemptuous response.  The immediate, reinforcing “pleasure of sharing an attitude one knows is socially approved”^[14] validates the unthinking rejection of a Christian opinion.

How many Christians will face the temptation to “subside into silence” as Tocqueville described? How many will even acquiesce to agreement with un-Biblical attitudes and practices because of the imposed isolation?  How many will be faced (are have been faced) with career-ending choices to follow a Christian conscience?  How many will choose “pleasure of sharing an attitude one knows is socially approved” rather than the superficial community of many churches?

Control of Content

The accelerating rate of information delivery is matched by the ability to control the content of that information (think Tocqueville’s shrinking circles):

[Supreme Court Justice Clarence] Thomas wrote that digital platforms allow an unprecedented amount of speech. “Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties,” he wrote. Social media companies can permanently bar a user, even the president, from the platform.
Big Tech’s power clearly alarms Thomas. He expressed concern about Amazon’s and Google’s ability to harm writers or suppress content through how they organize search results. He mentioned social media platforms, too: “Although both companies are public, one person controls Facebook [CEO Mark Zuckerberg], and just two control Google [Alphabet CEO Larry Page and President Sergey Brin].”^[15]

The direct distribution and concentrated control of content often precludes serious, thoughtful evaluation.  “No sooner is a concept hatched than it is pitched to a world that is always switched on.”^[16]  And our culture “believes that its rapid technological development must be accompanied by like progress in morality and wisdom.”^[17]  So naturally, on the topics of gender, sexuality, abortion or any other issue, the new ideas must be superior to traditional morality.  The circle of acceptable attitudes and legitimate topics for discussion continues to shrink, and those benighted believers left on the outside of the barrier are further expelled from the community.

Reversal of Roles

One author points out that the sudden, dramatic shift in generally accepted values.

Only a few generations ago, Christianity was the good guy, the solution to what was bad. Rather than being on the wrong side of the law, we were the law. Christian morality was assumed and passed mainly unchallenged.^[18]

But now unexpectedly Christians are the “Bad Guys.”

Western secularism and biblical Christianity have diametrically opposed views on many areas of sexual ethics and gender identity. That’s because 21st-century Western culture sees accepting its take on these things as fundamental to human identity, freedom, and flourishing—and so it is the territory in which Christians are most of all seen as the bad guys, where biblical ethics are not seen merely as laughable or outdated or repressed but as shameful, harmful and repressive.^[19]

This perception as the Bad Guys puts Christians clearly beyond the “barriers” of acceptable opinion just as Tocqueville discerned in 1831:

In America the majority raises very formidable barriers to the liberty of opinion: within these barriers an author may write whatever he pleases, but he will repent it if he ever step beyond them.^[20]

The result: “The era when Christians could disagree with the broader convictions of the secular world and yet still find themselves respected as decent members of society at large is coming to an end, if indeed it has not ended already.”^[20.1]

Reminders of History

Generations of being perceived as “The Good Guys” have given most contemporary western Christians an unfortunate sense of entitlement.  We expect to be in the majority and that people who give a question a bit of serious thought will see we are right on the issues.  The intensity and harshness of reactions to Biblical values seem shocking (especially when expressed by those who claim to be Christians).  But that intensity and that harshness shouldn’t shock us.  We are experiencing

a backlash after a remarkable period of religious peace and tolerance for the church in the West puts us back in the shoes of many Christians throughout history, and indeed of many in the current era around the world. The answers to how to live as bad guys are there, simply because the problem of finding ourselves rejected by the world has always been there.^[21]

Adherents to Biblical values are, and increasingly will continue to find themselves, in “the shoes of many Christians throughout history” and clearly outside the acceptable “barriers to the liberty of opinion.”  The emotional and economic impact, the personal and professional consequences are already evident and on the increase.^[22]  Failure to affirm the culturally acceptable attitudes on gender, marriage, or abortion can jeopardize relationships, careers, professional standing.  In the present atmosphere there will likely be additional litmus tests.  The question, “Are you now or have you ever been a born-again Christian?”^[23] may not be so far-fetched.

(Christians are not immune from these reactionary effects.  Circles of acceptable views within Christian communities can result in the same consequences.  As I am preparing notes for this blog post, a Christian leader was fired from his post in a national Christian organization.  His “sin” was a public statement on his personal view of the Covid-19 vaccination.^[24])

To summarize, Christians who advocate and practice Biblical values face the censure of Tocqueville’s “daily obloquy” and personal and professional rejection.  The temptation to compromise or even abandon the faith are real possibilities.  Abandoning Christian community and the easy way of ignoring God in order to “fit in” can be attractive alternatives to costly discipleship.

A Similar Environment

The first-century recipients of Hebrews had similar concerns.

• Public reproach and ridicule (Hebrews 10:33)
• Significant economic losses (10:34).
• Great conflict and sufferings (10:32)
• Possibility of future physical harm (12:4)

That toxic environment raised concerns for what the believers were facing.

• Danger of drifting away (2:1) or falling away (3:12)
• Danger of neglecting salvation (2:3)
• Attentiveness to God dulled by the hostile atmosphere (5:11)
• Hearts hardened (4:7), especially by the surrounding deceitfulness (3:13)
• Lapsing into elementary teaching (5:12)
• Neglect of the fellowship (10:25)
• Direct disobedience (4:6)
• Coming short of God’s promise (4:1)

While Christians, at least in America, may not (for the present) face physical danger, the personal, professional, and political consequences are a serious beginning of maltreatment.  Christians used to lifelong “religious peace and tolerance for the church in the West” may be especially susceptible to the dangers of “drifting away” into disobedience with hardened hearts.  Or as Jesus warned, “because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold” (Matthew 24:12).

It does indeed appear that we are “back in the shoes of many Christians throughout history” and particularly the original audience of the book of Hebrews.  The inspired writer of Hebrews believed that Melchizedek and Leviticus and the Israelite wanderings were particularly relevant to believers struggling with public ridicule (or worse) when the pressures around them threatened to overwhelm their weakening faith.  Hebrews is equally pertinent to our difficulties today.  May a study of that book strengthen our hearts by grace (Hebrews 13:9).

---

[1] William L Lane,. Hebrews:  A Call to Commitment (Vancouver, British Columbia:  Regent College Publishing, 2004), 16-17.

[2] William L Lane,. Hebrews:  A Call to Commitment (Vancouver, British Columbia:  Regent College Publishing, 2004), 16-17.

[3] Alexis De Tocqueville, translated by Henry Reeve, Democracy in America, Volume I and II (Publisher unknown, 2007), Kindle Edition, 214.

[4] Alexis De Tocqueville, translated by Henry Reeve, Democracy in America, Volume I and II (Publisher unknown, 2007), Kindle Edition, 214.

[5] William R. Cook, Tocqueville and the American Experiment:  Lecture Transcript and Course Guidebook (Chantilly, Virginia:  Teaching Company Limited Partnership, 2004), 34-35.

[6] “act of faith”, The execution of a judicial sentence of the Inquisition: esp. the public burning of a heretic.
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2003), 155.

[7] Alexis De Tocqueville, translated by Henry Reeve, Democracy in America, Volume I and II (Publisher unknown, 2007), Kindle Edition, 214.

[8] Alexis De Tocqueville, translated by Henry Reeve, Democracy in America, Volume I and II (Publisher unknown, 2007), Kindle Edition, 214.

[9] Alexis De Tocqueville, translated by Henry Reeve, Democracy in America, Volume I and II (Publisher unknown, 2007), Kindle Edition, 214.

[10] Stephen McAlpine, Being the Bad Guys: How to Live for Jesus in a World That Says You Shouldn’t (Charlotte, North Carolina:  The Good Book Company, 2021), Kindle edition, 11.

[11] Alan Jacobs, Breaking Bread with The Dead:  A Reader’s Guide to a More Tranquil Mind (New York:  Penguin Press, 2020), 13.

[12] Alan Jacobs, Breaking Bread with The Dead:  A Reader’s Guide to a More Tranquil Mind (New York:  Penguin Press, 2020), 50.

[13] Alan Jacobs, Breaking Bread with The Dead:  A Reader’s Guide to a More Tranquil Mind (New York:  Penguin Press, 2020), 15.

[14] Alan Jacobs, How to Think:  A Survival Guide for a World at Odds (New York:  Currency, 2017), 21.

[15] Steve West, “Clarence Thomas sounds alarm over Big Tech power.” World Magazine, April 6, 2021.
https://world.wng.org/content/clarence_thomas_sounds_alarm_over_big_tech_power

[16] Stephen McAlpine, Being the Bad Guys: How to Live for Jesus in a World That Says You Shouldn’t (Charlotte, North Carolina:  The Good Book Company, 2021), Kindle edition, 12.

[17] Alan Jacobs, The Narnian: The Life and Imagination of C. S. Lewis (New York:  HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2005), Kindle Edition, location 3666.

[18] Stephen McAlpine, Being the Bad Guys: How to Live for Jesus in a World That Says You Shouldn’t (Charlotte, North Carolina:  The Good Book Company, 2021), Kindle edition, 3.

[19] Stephen McAlpine, Being the Bad Guys: How to Live for Jesus in a World That Says You Shouldn’t (Charlotte, North Carolina:  The Good Book Company, 2021), Kindle edition, 4-5.

[20] Alexis De Tocqueville, translated by Henry Reeve, Democracy in America, Volume I and II (Publisher unknown, 2007), Kindle Edition, 214.

[20.1] Carl R. Trueman, Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2022). Kindle Edition, location 2114; page 169.

[21] Stephen McAlpine, Being the Bad Guys: How to Live for Jesus in a World That Says You Shouldn’t (Charlotte, North Carolina:  The Good Book Company, 2021), Kindle edition, 5.

[22] For numerous examples, see Rod Dreher, The Benedict Option:  A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation (New York:  Penguin Random House LLC, 2017).

[23] Alan Jacobs, How to Think:  A Survival Guide for a World at Odds (New York:  Currency, 2017), 26.
‘a sly echo of the question posed to hundreds of people by the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s: “Are you now or have you ever been a Communist?”’

[24] Kate Shellnutt, “Daniel Darling Fired from NRB After Pro-Vaccine Remarks,” Christianity Today, August 28, 2021.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/channel/utilities/print.html?type=article&id=189544