The Iowa caucuses today will officially begin the end of social conservatism as a force in American politics. But this gives an opportunity for local churches to refocus their energies. There may be surprises in Republican results by the end of the evening. Consensus this week has been that Mike Huckabee has been hurt by Mitt Romney's assaults, and that Romney has retaken the lead. But John McCain once again has a field operation in the state, and he was there for a last burst of campaigning, feeling energized by positive news from New Hampshire. There was buzz about a "late-breaking surge" for Fred Thompson at National Review Online yesterday (here).

For the evangelical project of recovering traditional values through political activism, though, none of this matters. I see three basic reasons why the grass roots social conservatism of the last two decades is done.

First, a generational split has undermined evangelical political unity. Emergents are far more likely to take liberal/progressive stands on the war, the environment, and economic issues. They treat their elders' project of restoring America's Judeo-Christian heritage contemptuously. I've written on this here.

Second, those who live by biblical sexual morality are in the minority in the nation at large -- and there is some question in my mind whether they even command of a majority of evangelicals. The presupposition behind social conservative positions on family policy, gay marriage, abortion, and the role of public education is that monogamous married sex should be normative. The proportion of Americans who accept that presupposition has been shrinking for the better part of three decades.

Few voters are open to social conservative policy positions anymore.

Consider Britain in the 1990s. Prime Minister John Major made family values a significant part of the Conservative Party's message in the years before he faced Tony Blair in a general election. But Major's government was hit with one sex scandal after another. His successor as party leader, William Hague, tried to rehabilitate the party's image in a number of ways. He made his position on morality clear by touring the country with his live-in girlfriend.

There is no political expression of traditional sexual morality in British politics today. Nor will there be. The populace will not tolerate it.

I believe we face a similar dark moment in America now. The sex scandals afflicting Republicans for the past year or more need no repetition. I believe the demise of biblical sexuality in American culture is an unmitigated catastrophe. But its demise is a fact. The outcome in Iowa will do nothing to help restore it. Biblical sexuality is now countercultural.

Thirdly, evangelical conservatives do not have a top tier candidate for the Republican nomination. Rudy Giuliani is not a social conservative in any sense, nor has he made any effort to appease the pro-life part of the Republican base. With Sen. McCain, evangelicals might be able to make peace, but they would remain a small part of his coalition. They would not figure in a McCain administration the way they have in Bush's.

Gov. Huckabee is certainly an evangelical. But even a win in Iowa will not make him a top-tier candidate. He does not have the money, the organization, or, frankly, the depth.

Which leaves Gov. Romney. Too many evangelicals know too much about Mormonism to have any illusions about a spiritual, or even a moral, alliance. They may vote for him. They know well enough that they're not selecting the nation's Sunday school teacher. But he's not their guy.

Without a top-tier candidate, evangelicals are reduced to bargaining for specific policy priorities at a nominating convention they will not control. And they are ill-positioned to do this sort of bargaining because of their own divisions and because of the larger culture's hostility.

Which brings me to what I think is the evangelical opportunity.

Evangelicals have an opportunity to see their role in America clearly. They are no longer mainstream. Their role is to build local churches that are countercultural in every way -- in their devotion to the Bible, in their demonstration of love, and in their vitality from the resurrected Jesus. Building more malls with good clean fun for the whole family is not going to be part of this role. Evangelicals are going to have to build a new, non-conformist way of life.

In order to take this opportunity to be countercultural, evangelicals will have to focus all their energies on the gospel -- the message that people's sin can be forgiven and their souls reborn. In the coming darkness, we will not have political strength. We will only have the Lord Jesus Christ.

Justin Buzzard heard Rob Bell on his "the gods aren't angry tour," and wrote a detailed review (here). He got a reaction. While Justin loved much of what he heard from Bell, Justin came away with a concern. "I began to see that Rob wasn't going to talk about a foundational biblical truth that runs from Genesis 3 straight through to the end of the Bible, the biblical truth which makes the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross both necessary and amazing, the biblical truth that makes the good news of the gospel so good: Sin."

Justin would ask Bell three questions. What does Bell believe the Bible teaches about sin? What exactly does Bell believe about Christ's atonement? What does he believe about salvation, heaven, and hell?

Justin's priorities tell me that he cares about the integrity of preaching, that he is committed to studying and expounding the Bible, and that he does not believe biblical doctrine is expendable. The questions he asks are reasonable - questions that all who teach about Christ are accountable to answer.

But a response to Justin's review came from Mauryn Kkira.

Mauryn's post is lengthy, but I think it's worth reading in full because of the emotional impact of the truth she communicates. She has also heard Bell, and what she took from his presentation was "the message of grace being spoken to a severely fallen world that has been bathed in condemnation from the church for as long as I can remember."

Two things in her sentence caught my attention.

First, Mauryn says the world is "severely fallen." Mauryn believes that God "should be angry" with us: "look at us, we are a mess, and don't seem to be getting better anytime soon." She felt that Bell presupposed sin in his message: Bell "would have to have a clear picture of the sin nature in order to even begin to understand the grace that God offers us." I think Mauryn is operating from a doctrine of depravity in her post; she makes no pretence that human beings are basically good. She may not articulate the sinfulness of sin with theological precision, but she gets it.

The second thing I noticed in Mauryn's quote was that the "severely fallen world" has been "bathed in condemnation from the church for as long as I can remember." A world so fallen needs to hear about grace. "I think Rob's point is that our sinfulness has never been greater than the goodness of God." Mauryn clings to God's goodness for dear life: "I have to say that the thought of a Holy and sinless God who loves me exactly the way I am in spite of my sin ... the thing he hates the most, that catches my attention and keeps it."

Mauryn's priorities tell me that she has experienced the grace of Jesus Christ, and wants other people to know his goodness. She presses the point that preachers need to bring out truth that edifies.

What I hear articulated by these two voices is a pastoral problem of the highest importance. It's one of the problems that frustrate me most. Both Justin and Mauryn believe in sin. Both yearn for the grace of God to be understood and received. But what Justin calls for, a direct confrontation of sin, is the very thing that drives Mauryn to despair. What Mauryn calls for, a proclamation of God's goodness, is the very thing that fills Justin with questions about the proclamation's integrity.

A pastor has to confront sin. He also has to comfort sinners with the promise of forgiveness. Different audiences will need different doses of confrontation and comfort. That's my problem: how do I determine dosage?

A preacher is required to make some determination of his audience's spiritual needs and aptitudes (e.g. John 16.4, 12). If his assessment is that the audience needs to hear more about sin, then he must give them more about sin. But if he believes his audience is already convicted of sin, he would be wiser to talk about grace.

For me, the Rob Bell case boils down to this. If Bell has made the assessment that today's unbelievers are convinced of the sinfulness of sin, and that they need a vision of God's goodness from the scriptures, then he has delivered his message in good conscience. I believe the Lord will bless it, and that the Lord's kindness will lead many to repentance (Romans 2.4). Some will say that Bell is mistaken, and that unbelievers need more teaching about sin. They may be right. But if they are wrong, then they would have us heap more sorrow on the grieving (2 Corinthians 7.10).

By contrast, if Bell thinks that unbelievers will never be convinced of the sinfulness of sin, and merely follows the path of least resistance, then we have another case entirely.

This side of the last trumpet, and lacking any definitive evidence, I choose to believe the former, which means I'm praising God for Bell's impact on Mauryn, sitting beside Justin and waiting to hear more.