Luke Ford

Any dissident, including any American Orthodox Jew, can resonate with many of these insights.

Everyone living in a porous identity in the first world is living in a negative world.

Aaron M. Renn writes in this 2024 book:

* Cultural engagers are also much more likely to live in urban environments, work in high-paying and prestigious professions, and enjoy the social milieu of the upper middle class (historic architecture, pour-over coffees, farm-to-table restaurants, artisanal goods, luxury gyms, and the like). The environments in which they live and work are majority secular progressive where the negative world culture of secular progressivism is most intense. These are cultural environments where individuals are being canceled—no longer supported, or even fired—because of beliefs and statements that deviate from the acceptable progressive ideology of the negative world.

Those who come from a seeker sensitivity or suburban megachurch environment will feel similar pressures if they’re living and working in more upscale, corporate suburbs. Those who live in the upper-middle-class or elite world are exposed to much greater negative world pressure than those who live and work in environments that still retain elements of the positive or neutral world. They face more risk and a greater social cost when they run afoul of the current secular progressive line. This risk and pressure they’re under is often under-appreciated by more middle-class or blue-collar Christians living in environments like small towns, rural communities, or remnants of the Bible Belt that are still in some ways positive toward Christianity.

To adapt, some of those who live and work in these hostile environments have been turning away from engagement in favor of an evolving synchronization with secular elite culture—particularly on matters such as race, immigration, and the MeToo movement—aligning more closely with progressive cultural and political positions.

At the same time, they’ve further softened their stance and rhetoric on other traditionally evangelical flashpoint social issues. For example, they increasingly talk about being holistically pro-life, emphasizing aid to single mothers or support of immigration as pro-life positions rather than just opposition to abortion. While holding to traditional teachings on sexuality, they tend to speak less about Christianity’s moral prohibitions48 and talk more about how the church should be a welcoming place for “sexual minorities” as well as emphasizing the ways the church has failed to treat them well. This approach has been particularly attractive to upper-middle-class, urban, and highly educated evangelicals.

In short, the cultural engagement strategy, as one of relevance, sometimes with transformational emphases, has had to shift to try to remain relevant. It has also come to see secular movements such as the present emphasis on racial justice as vehicles for cultural transformation. The net result has been a more syncretistic approach.

* For their part, the culture warriors and the Religious Right, who persisted through the neutral world, have evolved toward Trumpist populism in the negative world. They are Trumpist not just because they support Donald Trump politically, but also in that they’ve embraced his key positions on issues like immigration and trade restrictions—and sometimes post-liberal politics as well. They are populist in that they tend to attack elites, including evangelical elites, in the name of the masses. They have also jettisoned some historic Religious Right touchstones, such as a concern for personal morality and character in political leaders in favor of a more realpolitik approach as shown in their embrace of Trump. This is a clear example of deformation and opens them to the charge of hypocrisy. Having denounced Bill Clinton as disqualified for office because of low moral character, with Trump they argued that other factors could trump, as it were, character. It may well be that some of this group felt like no national leaders spoke for them or their concerns, leaving Trump as their only option.

* Think about a common, everyday area like physical fitness. Many websites are devoted to physical fitness, yet few of them are written by people who appear to be Christian, and the advice they dole out is clearly from a non-Christian perspective. This doesn’t mean there’s a need for an “evangelical body builder bro.” Rather, what’s needed are people who can provide truly excellent information about health and fitness while presenting it in a manner informed by a Christian view of life—as part of stewarding our bodies, of being healthy and strong enough to be a blessing to the world, and of not pursuing personal health because of vanity or for the purpose of increasing one’s chances to fornicate or engage in other immoral activity.

This example could be repeated in many other domains as well. With the exception of a few areas like public speaking (for example, preaching) and marketing, where some evangelicals are truly world-class, evangelicals don’t typically value or pursue genuine excellence, nor do they assert institutional or professional leadership. This needs to change. Keller, too, calls for more than simply intellectualism, referencing the development of his longstanding priority of integrating faith and work. He also asks us to imagine “an increasing number of Christian artists—working out both the realism of the Christian worldview about sin and the confident expectation of restorative grace—produce high-quality stories, music, and visual art.”

This lack of excellence and expertise has tremendous implications for the evangelical world. Since the mid-1980s, evangelicals have overwhelmingly identified as politically conservative and voted Republican, and though they are a moral minority in this country today, they arguably remain the largest and most important voting bloc in the Republican Party. Yet evangelicals are almost entirely absent from the senior leadership positions of major conservative think tanks and publications.5 As of 2022, the majority of leaders at these institutions were Catholic or Jewish, with any Protestant leaders being Episcopalian except for one lone evangelical.

* Many people, and some powerful secular entities, don’t want institutions to be mission focused. This is even the case in the corporate world, where one would ordinarily expect profitability and other such goals to predominate. We can see this in the case of the company Coinbase. CEO Brian Armstrong, concerned about how social issues and politics had started to consume his company’s focus, explicitly stated that Coinbase would henceforth be “a mission focused company,” with more effort on areas like building great products and without employee activism for social and political issues on the job.

This caused significant controversy, with the company offering severance packages to those who wanted to voluntarily leave because they didn’t agree with the new direction. Over sixty employees took the offer, about 5 percent of the employee base.11 Within two months, the New York Times published critical pieces about the company, starting with an article accusing Coinbase of racism. Someone then leaked the company’s payroll data to the Times, which ran multiple articles accusing it of underpaying minorities in an analysis that made no adjustments for education or experience levels. It’s likely these articles would not have appeared but for Coinbase’s decision to prohibit activism on the job. Similar problems hit the software company Basecamp after it announced it would no longer allow discussion of social and political issues on the company’s internal chat boards. A third of that company’s employees quit.

This pressure on corporations comes not just from activist employees and the media but also increasingly from investment funds. The so-called Environmental Social and Governance (ESG) goals movement is attempting to shift business toward political priorities in these areas, such as climate change, or diversity, equity, and inclusion. Major institutional money managers like Black Rock, which have large shareholdings in many corporations, are strong promoters of ESG.15 Any significantly sized organization in America that wishes to focus on its mission and not promote secular progressive ideologies can be expected to be subjected to intense pressure, both internal and external, to reorient itself away from mission toward these political objectives. This includes even evangelical churches, schools, and ministries. Obviously, because circumstances change, organizations need to adapt and adjust their missional focus over time.

A church needs to think about how it serves its neighborhood needs to change as the neighborhood changes, such as by adjusting to demographic shifts. But evangelicalism, whose strength comes from its adaptability, is always at risk of chasing fads and being blown here and there by the wind. The biggest threat to missional integrity for religious organizations today, as it was with Coinbase, is linking its religious mission with political or social activism. Undoubtedly—and this was especially true with the culture war churches of the positive world—there was a tight linkage between evangelicalism and conservative politics. And though only a small minority, some churches did promote pro-Trump political rallies during their services. This combination is clearly wrong.

* We also see this happening with the rise of woke politics within evangelical churches, particularly on the topic of race. This woke turn in the evangelical church took place not long after the secular “Great Awokening” circa 2014. Race relations is certainly an appropriate topic for preaching, and there’s sadly a great deal of room for improvement on racial matters in America. Many ministries and figures have long had some type of racial justice or reconciliation as part of their mission.

The long and admirable career of John Perkins is a great example of this. Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove’s Rutba House intentional community in Durham, North Carolina, is another. But what’s notable about today’s evangelical woke turn is the lack of provenance of the focus on race in many of these churches and the fact that many of them have little direct tie to blacks or other minority groups, such as by being located in or near a historically or emerging black neighborhood. This shift, coming in the wake of a similar secular shift and adopting language similar to secular, non-Christian movements, raises legitimate questions about the extent to which this woke turn is truly theological or missionally driven versus simply embracing yet another secular social trend.

Whether the problem is conservative politics linked with the mission of the church, Trumpism, wokeness, or some other matter, every evangelical church and evangelical-related institution needs to review its mission, make sure it is clear and aligned with its identity and purpose, and then seek to remain focused on that mission. Some institutions may have a mission that includes specific focus areas in our world, including political activism. Or it might be an evangelical-owned business, a ministry or nonprofit focused on the environment, a ministry focused on some aspect of racial justice, or a church that wants to reach many different parts of a multicultural neighborhood. In these cases, that specific focus area is integral to the mission. In other cases, however, pressure from the outside world or activists from inside or outside the church or organization seeks to refocus the organization away from its mission toward their own political or social objectives. The lesson of the mainline denominations serves as a powerful object lesson for the danger of giving in to those pressures and how that road leads to institutional and missional death.

* One of the problems evangelicals face in America today is that they exist almost entirely inside space owned by others—legally owned in many cases, but more importantly, socially and culturally owned. This may include the places they work, shop, and dine. Evangelicals who live in urban centers are typically surrounded by people who overwhelmingly embrace secular progressive beliefs and perspectives, and they “own” the culture of that area. Many businesses and residences in these places feature signs or flags that show their support of various causes embraced by secular progressives: pride flags, Black Lives Matter signs, or “In this house . . .” signs.

Anyone who wants to display symbols that might be viewed as contrary to those causes may be made to feel unwelcome. For example, neighbors told a friend who lives near me in the Indianapolis area to take down his Betsy Ross flag. They claimed it was a “white nationalist” symbol. Sometimes merely a refusal to display certain symbols—refusing to “wear the ribbon” as a well-known Seinfeld episode once put it5—can draw the ire of neighbors. A donut shop in my neighborhood was attacked and ultimately run out of business by activists demanding to know why the owners had not publicly supported Black Lives Matter and then launched a campaign to tar them as racists.

Because of the growing challenges and pressures of the negative world environment, Christians will need to put more focus on acquiring ownership over many of the key aspects of our lives. I believe ownership will be increasingly important in three areas: economic, that is, scalable, wealth-generating businesses; social and cultural, especially “third place” gathering spots like coffee shops; and physical, that is to say, real estate.

* Virtually all major corporations in America today have aggressively centered their firms around secular progressive ideologies. This has been accomplished through various means, including the ESG (environmental, social, and governance) movement and the DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) subcategory of ESG. Any publicly traded company—or nonpublic company funded by traditional venture capital or private equity—or one that depends on customers who are or relies on the government as a customer is now forced to adopt these ideologies because of a confluence of institutional pressures.

GROK says: Adapting “Life in the Negative World” to American Orthodox Jews

Aaron Renn’s book provides a framework for evangelicals navigating a post-Christian America, where traditional faith is increasingly viewed negatively. The core concept is the “three worlds” model: a positive world (pre-1994, where faith enhanced social status), a neutral world (1994-2014, where faith was one option among many), and a negative world (post-2014, where faith detracts from status). Renn argues that strategies from earlier eras—like seeker-sensitivity or cultural winsomeness—no longer suffice, and calls for new approaches focused on personal faithfulness, institutional strength, and missional engagement.American Orthodox Jews, who adhere strictly to halacha (Jewish law) and Torah observance, have long operated in what Renn would call a “negative world.” As a small minority (roughly 500,000-600,000 in the U.S., concentrated in enclaves like Brooklyn or Lakewood), they face cultural marginalization, antisemitism, and pressures to assimilate. Unlike evangelicals, who are adjusting to a recent shift, Orthodox Jews draw from millennia of diaspora experience, surviving hostility through community insularity and resilience. However, Renn’s insights can be adapted to refine and modernize these strategies, especially amid rising antisemitism (e.g., post-October 7, 2023, attacks and campus protests). The adaptation replaces Christian-specific elements (e.g., obedience to Christ) with Jewish equivalents (e.g., adherence to mitzvot), while preserving the book’s structure.

Part 1: Welcome to the Negative World

Renn’s framework applies directly, but Orthodox Jews entered the “negative world” earlier—arguably since arriving in America, with peaks during events like the Holocaust aftermath or recent surges in hate crimes. In the positive/neutral eras for Christians, Jews still faced quotas in universities and professions, exclusion from social clubs, and stereotypes. Today, the negative world manifests in workplace conflicts over Shabbat observance, school curricula clashing with Torah values, or public backlash against visible practices like wearing a kippah.Adapted Strategies: Shift from assimilationist approaches (e.g., Reform Judaism’s cultural engagement) to unapologetic observance. Embrace minority status as a badge of faithfulness, drawing from historical models like the Babylonian exile. Focus on building “parallel societies” (e.g., expanding yeshivas and kosher economies) rather than seeking mainstream approval.

Part 2: Living Personally

Renn emphasizes personal development to withstand cultural pressures. Orthodox Jews already prioritize these, but Renn’s call for intentionality can help counter modern distractions like social media or economic instability.Become Obedient: Renn urges obedience to biblical commands, even at personal cost. For Orthodox Jews, this means rigorous adherence to the 613 mitzvot, including daily prayer, kosher dietary laws, and family purity. In a negative world, this might involve sacrificing career advancement to avoid Shabbat work, mirroring Renn’s examples of Christians facing job loss for faith. Emphasize yirat shamayim (fear of heaven) as the foundation, teaching it through daily study to build lives that endure scrutiny or hostility.
Become Excellent: Renn critiques evangelical anti-intellectualism, advocating excellence in vocation and intellect. Orthodox Jews have a strong tradition here—excelling in fields like medicine, law, and finance while prioritizing Torah scholarship. Adapt by encouraging “Torah u’madda” (Torah and secular knowledge), as in Yeshiva University, to develop elite skills without compromising faith. This counters stereotypes and equips individuals to thrive in hostile environments, such as tech or academia, where antisemitism persists.
Become Resilient: Renn stresses antifragility—growing stronger through adversity—and financial independence. Orthodox Jews embody this through historical survival (e.g., enduring pogroms) and large families despite economic challenges. Adapt by promoting “FIRE” (Financial Independence, Retire Early) principles within frum (observant) communities, like communal funds for emergencies or vocational training in resilient trades. Emotional resilience comes from studying texts like Pirkei Avot, preparing for discrimination, and fostering support networks to handle cancel culture or physical threats.

Part 3: Leading Institutionally

Renn calls for robust institutions to protect and sustain believers. Orthodox Jewish institutions (e.g., synagogues, kollels, community organizations) are already strong, but Renn’s insights can address vulnerabilities like reliance on government funding or internal scandals.

Orthodox Jewish ones (e.g., synagogues) are robust but can benefit from Renn’s focus on integrity and ownership.Pursue Institutional Integrity: Maintain halachic standards (e.g., kosher certification) and address internal issues (e.g., abuse scandals) transparently to build trust.
Pursue Community Strength: Strengthen marriages and mental health via chesed (kindness) programs and rabbinic support, adapting Renn’s family focus to Jewish values.
Pursue Ownership: Expand Jewish-owned businesses (e.g., tech startups) to reduce reliance on censoring platforms, aligning with Renn’s economic independence.

Part 4: Engaging Missionally

Renn shifts to subtle witness. Orthodox Jews focus on kiruv (reconnecting secular Jews) rather than proselytizing.Be a Light: Practice kiddush Hashem (sanctifying God’s name) through charity (e.g., Hatzalah) and welcoming spaces (e.g., Chabad), attracting others organically.
Be a Source of Truth: Offer Torah-based perspectives on modern issues (e.g., gender) via online content, as Aish HaTorah does, engaging secular audiences.
Be Prudentially Engaged: Leverage advocacy groups (e.g., Agudath Israel) for religious freedoms, navigating alliances wisely (e.g., on Israel policy).

Conclusion

Renn’s vision of a faithful remnant applies to Orthodox Jews, drawing on galut (exile) resilience. Adaptations modernize traditions—e.g., digital kiruv or economic networks—to sustain Torah observance amid growing hostility, akin to a “Jewish Benedict Option” blending insularity with influence.