Won't get fooled again

The persistence of naïve idealists in the church calls for equal persistence on the part of the faithful

Eighteen years ago, National Review magazine posted a list of the “Top 50 Conservative Rock Songs” up to that time. Considering the present ideological state of the genre, I doubt more recent numbers have supplanted any of the titles on the list. Certainly, the song at the very top, “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” the magnum opus rocker by The Who, remains, to this day, the undisputed champion. Commenting on the song’s lyrics, the essay’s writer John J. Miller observed, “The conservative movement is full of disillusioned revolutionaries; this could be their theme song, an oath that swears off naïve idealism once and for all.”

Of course, the “naïve idealism” that is being sworn off in Pete Townshend’s biting lyrics is that of a far more progressive bent. The “disillusioned revolutionaries” who populated “the conservative movement” (a term that nowadays seems quaint) were often former members of the counterculture that dominated the streets and college campuses of the 1960’s. There should be little doubt that a significant portion of the current crop of dissidents and troublemakers presently disrupting our elite educational institutions will, likewise, have a similar epiphany within the next 15-20 years, look back on their younger days as a period of “naïve idealism” that ultimately contributed nothing to the betterment of society (in fact, probably undermined it), and classical conservatism will enjoy a resurgence after our present age of political gerontocracy.

Nevertheless, the persistence of “naïve idealists” is, you might say, one of the consequences of the Fall and, as their constant presence exerts a negative influence not only in the political realm, but also in the ecclesial realm—and it’s when they mix the two together that they become particularly obnoxious.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not big on “separation of church and state.” As my colleague and noted senior ACNA priest Matt Kennedy recently commented, “The [Christian Nationalism] debate baffles me. I’m guessing it’s because I’ve been an Anglican all my life. That the government ought to be a Christian one, protect the Church, and uphold God’s law is enshrined in our [Book of Common Prayer]. We’ve prayed daily for it for centuries.”

Unlike Matt, I have not been an Anglican all my life but, during my last twenty years as a priest under its auspices, I have come to embrace its traditions and customs, not least the firm conviction that the state has an obligation to honor God, protect his people, and have that enshrined in law. It is hard not to argue that the state, certainly in America, but also in numerous supposedly democratic Western nations (most notably Mother England herself), is failing miserably to meet those obligations.

Under this present cultural circumstance, perhaps it is good to have a few who might be dismissed as “naïve idealists” who envision an entirely different society in which God is honored in all aspects of life—the church, the home, the state—and the current fads called by the likes of David French “the blessings of liberty” are exposed for their sheer ridiculousness and, ultimately, put out of existence.

However, as Townshend and company would imply in their famous song, the “naïve idealism” that is generally the most culturally acceptable at any given moment is that of a far more malevolent variety. It seeks not cultural transformation, but cultural destruction. Far too often, their ill intentions are met with equally naïve calls for something called “cultural engagement,” which is really nothing more than a euphemism for cultural surrender, allowing the barbarians to follow their destructive path to its logical conclusion under the guise of “building bridges” and “having a conversation.”

By the way, any similarities between what is going on in the culture at large and what is going on within what I like to call the Churches of the Protestant Realignment (CPR) are hardly coincidental. If there is any place where “naïve idealism” is to be avoided, it is within the burgeoning new ecclesial bodies, including the ACNA, rising from the ashes of the burned-out American mainline churches. As I wrote earlier this week, “Appeasing the wrath of our cultured despisers through virtue signaling is the temptation of the moment” for these new iterations of the Body of Christ. It is an unfortunate development, particularly within the ACNA (although older bodies such as the PCA, LCMS, and even the SBC seem to have a similar problem), that a handful of “naïve idealists” who desire to see the church move in a decidedly more “progressive” (though actually regressive) and social activist direction have begun to exert an outsized influence through their social media presence and coveted platforms in legacy publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Atlantic. A little over two years ago, at the beginning of the Lenten season, I cautioned against putting too much stock in a series of devotionals on “contemplative activism” being published by the ACNA’s Acts 25 Initiative.

“Activism,” be it “contemplative” or otherwise, occupies a very tenuous place in the life and ministry of the church. It is a wholly inadequate substitute for true discipleship. During Lent, in particular, we are reminded that being a disciple of Jesus Christ means denying ourselves, taking up the cross, and following him. The cross reminds us of the burden of our sin that, without atonement, will separate us from God forever. Yet, it is the same cross that frees us from that burden, atones for our sin, and reconciles us to God through the blood of Jesus Christ. On the other side of the cross stands the resurrection, Christ’s ultimate guarantee of a life of joy and peace in the presence of God forever—genuine shalom.

The burden placed upon us by an emphasis on “activism” can be comparable even to the burden of sin. All too often, it leads to the grievous error of immanentizing the eschaton, seeking to bring forth in the here and now what has only been promised in the hereafter. Our utter inability to usher in God’s kingdom by our own efforts, even when bathed in “contemplative” prayer, will inevitably lead to frustration, bitterness, and anger—about as far from shalom as one can get.

The Who’s aforementioned “theme song” for “disillusioned revolutionaries” concludes with the iconic line, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” I am hearing a good deal of discouraged colleagues in the ACNA who fear this is the very direction we are now headed. In this moment of decline, destruction and degeneracy within our culture, this is precisely the wrong attitude to have. Yes, the “naïve idealists” with their wrongheaded concept of a church whose purpose is something other than glorifying God and making disciples for Jesus Christ are persistent in their presence among us. Their persistence must be countered by equal persistence on our part. That persistence, which will require us from time to time to “make provocative statements and take risky actions,” is to be acted out “within the framework of fidelity to one’s calling as a servant of Christ, anchored in the Word of God, empowered by the Spirit of truth.”

In the end, the truth will win out. We have God’s own Word that “the mouths of liars will be stopped” (Psalm 63:11b).