To Change the World?

I just finished reading James Davison Hunter's book To Change the World: The Iron, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World. It proved to be very helpful for my ongoing understanding of "Christianity and culture," a topic I am very interested in. I highly recommend it for anyone who wants greater wisdom with regards to the place and mission of Christians/the Church in the world. Hunter is a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, on of the premier institutions in the nation, and an elder in his Presbyterian (PCA) church. The book is intended to make Christians to rethink the way they engage the world and thus it is a very challenging book, especially for those with very set notions of how the Church should influence culture. From what I have heard, it is a book that no one has agreed entirely with, though overall the reviews I have heard have been positive. My hypothesis is that the book will prove to be endurily popular with younger Christians while disliked by many older Christians. Hunter's book is comprised of three essays. Essay one deals with theories of cultural change. Essay two is relays how contemporary American Christians have endevored to change the contemporary culture and why these efforts are flawed. Finally, in essay three Hunter puts forth a new model for Christian interaction with our pluralistic culture; faithful presence.

In essay one Hunter notes that humans, as creatures made in the image of God, are world-makers, by which he means culture-makers. Human beings, by nature, construct worldviews, religions, art, symbols, literature, folk stories, technologies, and institutions that are meant to give man dominion over the earth and encourage human flourishing. The Fall has marred man's attempt to create culture and the culture he creates is directed at serving his own will instead of God's, but the cultural mandate given to man by God remains in place. The Church is called to create culture in accordance with this command but to do so in a way that glorifies God. However, Christians are faced with the culture of the world which is fallen. Christians have thus attempted to transform the culture of the world in an effort to redeem it. Hunter notes that the way American Christians go about this is thoroughly populist. He cites numerous Christian leaders who proclaim that if Christianity could simply win enough hearts and minds and transform individual's world views then our secular culture could be redeemed for God and then criticizes this approach. Hunter argues that this approach fails to recognize sociological realities. The fact is that the dominant culture is not the accumulation of beliefs and cultural artifacts of a majority of people but is rather the culture that is created by various "gate-keepers." The gate-keepers are individuals and institutions such as elite research universities, law schools, philosophers, elite journals and magazines, authors of literature, musicians, artists, and elite book publishers. These have tremendous cultural power by virtue of the prestige, influence, and resources they possess. The sphere of the gatekeepers is divided into the core and the periphery. The core are those gatekeepers who are particularly influential and are part of a system that is capable of enacting social change. He lists a number of historical examples to prove his point. Though some of his accounts are a bit simplistic, he is right in noting that history supports the claim that cultural gatekeepers are the ones who exert the greatest influence on how cultures change, not the masses (even in literate-democratic societies). However, Hunter then points out that Christians are not well represented among these gatekeepers, at least not among the core. While in recent years there have been many Christians who have been first-rate philosophers, historians, law professors, businessmen, and even artists, these Christians are there more by accident than by intent and they lack resources and support groups. Thus Christianity is, culturally speaking, currently weak.

In essay two Hunter argues that Christian attempts to change culture are not only ineffective but misguided. The most alarming trend amongst would be culture-changers, and this is not limited only to Christians, is an ever-growing reliance on politics to achieve their ends. Transformers of culture increasingly try to gain power in the state to bring about their ends. These efforts are also characterized by what Nietzsche called ressentment, which not only means what our English word resentment means but specifically a resentment that is fuled by a will to power. This makes our culture ever more toxic, divided, and characterized by negation, by which Hunter means an angry cynicism which is characterized by what it is against not what it is for. Moreover, he believes that politics can do little to change culture because there is a different between democracy is the state. Most of the real movers and shakers in the state aren't elected officials but bureaucratic appointees, most of whom outlive most politicians in government service. Moreover, the state itself has proven to be inefficient and has often done more harm, as a result of unintended consequences, than good. Hunter examines the three dominant Christian political movements; Right, Left, and Ne0-Anabaptist. The Religious Right uses the myth of a "Christian America" to push for politically-forced Christian culture. Hunter believes that many on the Religious Right are so committed to the old Christian cultural establishment that they are loathe to give up that old power. So they argue that the secularists are doing irrevocable harm to America and need to be stopped so that Christianity can once again regain its privileges status in America. The Christian left likewise bemoans the loss of Christian influence in America. However, unlike the Right, the Left identifies the enemy not as the secularists but with capitalism, racism, and violence, which they view as destroying God's creation and oppressing God's people. While the Christian Left was previously a halmark of the mainline Protestant denominations, this is no longer the case because those denominations are a shadow of their former selves. Instead, the Emergent Church movement now carries the banner for the Christian left. This is because they fundamentally want Christianity to be revelant to the current culture, i.e. part of the "in" club. The Neo-Anabaptists, unlike the Religious Right and Left, do not have a will to power. Indeed, they believe that the will to power is against the Christian faith and that all forms of politics should be eschewed. Like the Left they oppose capitalism, racism, and violence but at the state and politics to that list as well. Hunter points out that all three of these movements encourage the culture of negation because they are all characterized by their vocal opposition to something rather than standing for something. The Left and Right are also characterized by the other element of ressentment, a will to power, though this is something that the Neo-Anabaptists avoid by virtue of being anti-political. However, the Neo-Anabaptists, ironically, reinforce the politicization of everything by making the chief enemy politics. He argues that all of these movements only worsen the culture because they engage in the worst parts of it.

In contrast to these movements, which Hunter divides into the classes of defense against, relavence to, and purity from, he puts forward the idea of faithful presence. Faithful presence does not seek to dominate the culture through coercion or even transform it. Hunter believes that any attempt to change culture will require Christians to gain and use power, which he believes to be antithetical to the Gospel. Instead Christians should be a witnesses to faith, hope, and love in the midst of our nihilistic culture. This witness is to work for the common good of all people and restore a sense of purpose, meaning, and charity into our culture. He says that this approach is characterized by a dialectic between affirmation and antithesis. Affirmation is where Christians reach out to and embrace the good that is still in the world as part of God's common grace to humanity. Antithesis is where Christians reject and critique the evils that plague our culture. By keeping these two things in balance Christians can work for the common good of the world while maintaining their distinctive Christian quality. Christians are to be in the world but not of the world. This is will Working toward the common good is not to be part of any larger goal, however, but is an end in itself. It is not a ploy to redeem the culture for Christ. Indeed, Hunter believes that "to change the world" is something that Christians are definitely not suppose to do. To achieve this faithful presence Hunter notes that Christians must overcome several obstacles. The first is the problems of difference and dissolution, by which Hunter means the plurality and nihilism or relativism of our culture. He calls the Church to form and disciple its members, which entails a renewed emphasis on the church as an institution. Hunter rejects the idea among many Christians that spirituality and faith can be done on one's own. However, there is a barrier to this formation and this barrier is the second obstacle; disunity. While Hunter acknowledges that denominational and theological differences are important, he pleads for Christians to work together in their common faith in order to achieve a faithful presence.

There is a great deal that I liked in To Change the World. It captures the disillusionment that I and many people my age have with the Religious Right, which is increasingly militant and uncharitable. In the end, it probably will end up doing more harm for Christianity than benefit because of its will to power, which make many outsiders see Christianity as politicized, resentful, and bent on conquest. However, it also criticises the Christian Left and the Neo-Anabaptists, which many young Christians are becoming attracted to. The Left, by looking to politics and the state no less than the Right does to solve many of our cultural ills, only contributes to the politicization of everything, the spirit of negation, and an endlessly will to power that is found in all spheres of cultural life. The Neo-Anabapists fail because, while they may succeed in not being of the world, they fail to be maintain a presence in it. I also liked his emphasis on cultural elites. This is an aspect of culture that Christians all to often fail recognize. Christians have dumped endless amounts of money into pop culture, Christian movies, pop spirituality, and church programs meant to make the church look hip and with it, but the result has been a weak, overly sentimental, and chinsy culture that all to often embraces the worst apsects of American culture (consumerism, banality, an emphasis on the therapeutic). Christians have made few concerted efforts to make a strong and intentional presence in high culture in areas such as art, academia, literature, film, classical music, and law. Christians have often turned their noses at those bastions of "liberal elitism." Unfortunately, it is just those bastions that are the most influential and the church should be training members to have a strong presence in those areas for the good of the Church and for the common good of our culture. I also believe that faithful presence could be a very fruitful approach to cultural engagement and it is an approach that I hope the Church will attempt to implement. Even if some are skeptical that it is the ultimate form of cultural engagement, it is at least a good starting place for a Church that has been impotent in this area for some time.

There are, however, some questions I have about Hunter's theology of faithful presence. First, I feel that he could have made a stronger argument for why Christians should not seek to use any coercion or power. While it is true that Christ did not seek power while on earth, his goal was atone for mankind's sins. In the second advent of Christ, we do indeed see a Christ coming in power. Revelation has Christ as a mounted warrior. Therefore, the old appeal to the fact that Christ did not seek power on earth but rejected it (e.g. when tempted by Satan) to argue that Christians should abhor power seems weak to me. Christ when tempted by Satan did not reject power, but rejected power via the route that Satan offered him (one that avoided the cross). Christ is described as our lord and will have power and dominion in at the end of time. I think that our abhorrence of coercion is really part of the modern emphasis on human autonomy. This emphasis is a product of the Enlightenment and of 19th century thinkers such as Thoreau and Mills and is not part of historic Christianity. Hunter himself admits that power is an natural part of humanity and power cannot be destroyed but only shifted to somebody else. As long as our society is pluralistic, the temptation to culture hegemony is lessened, but pluralism may not be the case in the distant future.That being said, Christians must be very cautious when it comes to power, since we are still sinners and are best only beginning to be cured of our depraved nature. Power does indeed lead to a will to power and therefore we should be wary of it. My second question or reservation is tied to the first. I am altogether uncertain whether I agree with Hunter that Christians should never attempt to transform the culture. Hunter encourages Christians to work for the common good, but what if to work for the common good means that Christians must pursue transformation of culture? For instance, abortion has been one place where Christians have been particularly political and vocal. But often Christians simply want to use the political mechanisms to bring about a culture that they think is more just; one where babies are not sacrificed to the god of convenience. Another case would be the injustice in many third world countries where the Christian population is growing rapidly or is becoming more zealous. I just came back from a mission's trip in Guatemala where Christians indeed are trying to maintaina faithful presence by doing this such as caring for orphans, but these things can only ever be temporary fixes. The common good, it seems, demands a radical culture transformation which would lessen politcal corruption, exploitaton, racism, and the drug trade. Finally, while it is true that our culture contains common grace and there is still a good deal to be affirmed in it and working for the common good is a biblical calling, I think that ultimately Christians must seek to build the church in whatever culture they are in. While non-Christians can share in faith, hope, and love to a degree, they can only truly experience those things in a biblical sense once they surrender to the One who is origin of those blessings.