Quite simply, Christians will continue losing the cultural war as long as we remain "conservatives". To win that war, Christians must become "counterrevolutionaries."

Whittaker Chambers knew well that a chasm of thought and action separated these two political types: the willingness to sacrifice.

"Counterrevolution and Conservatism have little in common. For the struggle against (Communism) cannot be fought, much less won, or even understood, except in terms of total sacrifice. And the conservative is suspicious of sacrifice; he wishes first to conserve, above all what he is and what he has. You cannot fight against revolutions so."

This quotation from his autobiography Witness [2], written fifty years ago, holds as much meaning today as it did during Chambers' heroic struggle against Communism. Near the book's beginning, he states that that the essence of Communism was the "Vision of Man without God", the same revolutionary enemy that is defeating Christians today, though it now comes in the guise of the New World Order.

Chamber's personal enemy was Alger Hiss. Hiss was highly intelligent, highly educated, personable and charming. He was also a Communist spy and fierce revolutionary. In the 1930s, he found numerous positions of favor within the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration, and eventually landed at the State Department. He personally attended the fateful Yalta conference, where FDR sold out Eastern Europe to the Communists. He was also instrumental in the 1946 San Francisco conference establishing the United Nations. Hiss marched in the vanguard of atheism, however and wherever it fought its battles.

Given his talents and charm, Hiss could have led an affluent and comfortable life. But Hiss was a revolutionary, and lived his life like one. He and his wife, also a fierce Communist, rented their homes, and moved often. Their belongings were kept to an ascetic minimum. His automobile was always available for service to "the Party". He had no friends or social life outside the Communist Party. Even these friends were kept at a distance; his fellow Party members knew him only by a pseudonym.

Even though he was one of Christianity's most committed enemies, we must concede that Hiss's personal sacrifices for his beliefs were enormous. They were also ironic, because "sacrifice" comes from the Latin: "to make holy", and Communists are never considered "holy", especially by themselves.

Historically, it has been Christians who were willing to sacrifice, whether they were accepting martyrdom from a pagan empire, risking life and property in the Crusades against Islam, or fighting the World Wars against Nazism or Communism.

But in the struggle against the atheist revolution, Christians have not been willing to sacrifice, "to make holy." This is the essence of the revolutionary, and the counterrevolutionary is a type of revolutionary: the willingness to risk everything to defeat his enemy.

Instead, we have become "conservatives", looking to conserve a nation and a culture that is disappearing before their eyes. Christians are comfortable and content to win the occasional battle. Christians are satisfied to limit the enemy to incremental progress. Christians are unwilling to change their tactics and are therefore doomed to lose the war. Just as Chambers said, we are always looking to conserve - who we are and what we have.

Historically, the purpose of the successful counterrevolutionary has been not to conserve but to destroy. Of Robespierre's strategy to overturn the French Revolution, it was said: "The opposition to the Revolution [...] followed from the beginning therefore a wrecking policy: the worse the excesses into which the revolution fell, they thought, the sooner it would be over."  [3]

The revolutionary often sacrifices his personal life because it would interfere with his political objectives. For example, Vladimir Ilich Ulianov, a/k/a Lenin, had no children and did not even permit himself to listen to music: "I can't listen to music too often. If affects your nerves, makes you want to say stupid nice things [...] while living in this vile hell."

For Lenin the revolutionary "what counted in this "vile hell" was discipline, method, accuracy, precision and infinite patience with detail [...] a revolutionary had to be toujours en vedette, ready to advance when possible and to retreat when necessary [...] Throughout his life, Lenin retained an almost masochistic fierceness. [...] Lenin's code was a remarkable monument to the human will." [4]

But Hiss, Robespierre and Lenin are all pale shadows compared to the most successful revolutionary of all time. He had no family or personal life that we know of. He was disciplined, almost ascetic. Unlike even foxes or birds, He had no home or even a place to lay his head. He was peripatetic, constantly on the move, ready to advance on a moment's notice. He was fiercely opposed to the established religious order and demanded radical change. Above all, He was prepared to sacrifice all that He had, and all that He was, in order to achieve His revolution. His self-sacrifice was successful in bringing about a worldwide conversion and redemption.

How ironic, that Christians are named after the ultimate revolutionary, but continue to cling to a "conservative" strategy, a strategy that has failed Christianity for at least forty years. And how paradoxical, that in order to defeat the enemies of Christ, Christians must learn to imitate the sacrifice of a revolutionary Christ - by becoming counterrevolutionaries.