To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World

In his book, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, & Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World, James Davison Hunter—through a series of three essays—urges Christians toward an alternative understanding of what it means to change the world. The first essay, Christianity and World Changing, sets the stage with the premise of the creation mandate; namely, God created humankind in God’s image, so humankind must reflect this image by engaging with society and changing the world for the better. Although Christians desire to change the world, they are doomed to failure due to a flawed understanding of culture and how it changes. Hunter terms this “flawed view” the common view, which holds that culture is changed through various spiritual (evangelistic), political and social tactics. This common view, sounding in idealism and individualism, posits that if positive cultural change is not achieved it is because the change agent is simply not working hard enough at achieving the change. According to Hunter, the common view will fail because its strategies do not account for the complex nature of culture. For this reason, Hunter espouses an alternative view of culture and cultural change. Hunter’s alternative view sets forth seven propositions about culture: (1) culture is a system of truth claims and moral obligations; (2) culture is a product of history; (3) culture is intrinsically dialectical; (4) culture is a resource and a form of power; (5) cultural production and symbolic capital are stratified in a fairly rigid structure of center and periphery; (6) culture is generated within networks; and (7) culture is neither autonomous nor fully coherent. Further, the alternative view asserts four propositions about cultural change: (1) cultures change from the top down and rarely from the bottom up; (2) change is typically initiated by elites who are outside of the centermost positions of prestige; (3) world-changing is most concentrated when the networks of elites and the institutions they lead overlap; and (4) cultures change, but rarely if ever without a fight. To determine the validity of these eleven propositions, Hunter examines significant cultural changes that occurred throughout human history. Namely, Hunter examines the Christianization of pagan Rome, the Carolingian Renaissance, the Reformation and various successor movements, including the Great Awakening, abolitionism, and even—outside of Christianity—the Enlightenment. In analyzing these propositions, as illustrated throughout history, Hunter concludes that the propositions of the alternative view account for how culture changes. Further, Hunter finds that modern American Christianity, as currently postured, will have doubtful cultural influence due to its adherence to the common view of cultural change and its ineffective strategies. In the second essay, Rethinking Power, Hunter discusses the various perceptions of power in American culture. He examines three distinguishable political theologies—that of the Christian Right, the Christian Left, and the Neo-Anabaptists—and challenges the teachings of each of their leaders, including, for example, James Dobson, Charles Colson, Jim Wallis, John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas. He refers to these theologies as “competing myths” that lead to division among Christians. Additionally, Hunter asserts that many Christians have assimilated to the dominant culture’s understanding of the role of politics in culture and cultural change but concludes that political strategies are not the answer to the world’s problems. Hunter proposes that it is necessary to rethink the Christian understanding of power. Specifically, Christians must detangle the politicization of power and understand it as the social power of Jesus. With an appropriate understanding of the creation mandate, power must be used as God intended and Jesus used it—“to bless, unburden, serve, heal, mend, restore, and liberate” (193). That is, power should not be seen in political and economic terms, as modern Christians tend to view it, but in terms of the culture-changing influence of a life lived faithfully as Christ lived.Finally, in the third essay, Toward a New City Commons: Reflections on a Theology of Faithful Presence, Hunter urges readers toward an alternate way of engaging in culture, using the social power of Jesus, which he terms a theology of faithful presence that “calls believers to yield their will to God and to nurture and cultivate the world where God has placed them” (253). Hunter juxtaposes this calling to faithful presence with living in a pluralistic society and endeavors to address the question of how a Christian should live out faithfulness in such a society. To this end, Hunter examines—and subsequently discounts as inadequate—three paradigms of cultural engagement: (1) defensive against (embraced by conservatives); (2) relevance to (embraced by progressives); and (3) purity from (embraced by neo-Anabaptists). Hunter also finds that political strategies are wholly ineffective in helping Christians effectively engage in society. In advocating for the theology of faithful presence, Hunter states that this theology is a commitment to a new city commons that “calls Christians to enact the shalom of God in the circumstances in which God has placed them and to actively seek it on behalf of others” (278). That is, the creation mandate really is not about changing the world; it is about living in a way that enables others to grow and prosper in their relationship with God. Christians do not practice faithful presence through ineffectual efforts directed publicly toward legal, political or policy matters; rather, this practice of faithful presence must become evident in Christians’ personal and professional lives, manifesting itself in the discipling of others.

James Davison Hunter is a sociologist and political scientist who coined the phrase "culture wars" severaldecades ago. He is a Christian who is familiar with the evangelical community and has a good grasp ofthe Catholic spectrum as well. His influences include Christian Smith, Peter Berger and the classics likeMax Weber. This book dates from the beginning of this decade.To Change The World notes the obvious that American culture is becoming more secular and Christiansappear to be losing influence. The millenials are increasingly becoming "nones", etc. Why? Do we needmore faith? Better adherence to our principles? What is the Christian majority, or once-majority, doingwrong?There is reference to the book Ideas Have Consequences, by Richard Weaver, which was influential withconservatives even before Russell Kirk and William Buckley. It reflects an idealism going back to Plato,but especially prominent in Hegel, where what's most real is thought, not the material world. Huntermodifies the notion to suggest that some ideas have consequences. He also discusses the Great Mantheory of history, which with reference to Christianity and the social gospel notes Wilberforce, MartinLuther King, Dorothy Day, JP2 and others who have implemented the Gospel in different ways.For Hunter, we need not just ideas and strong individuals, but institutions and networks that havesymbolic capital, or prestige, such as Yale and the New York Times. There are plenty of believingChristians, but there are fewer in the most elite institutions and networks, and influencing theseis important. I am reminded of Tom Fleming's comment that editing Chronicles is fine, but it's moreimportant to get a tenth of the truth into Newsweek.Hunter discusses the religious right, a familiar topic with figures like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson,James Dobson, and Gary Bauer. Richard Neuhaus, the Lutheran turned Catholic, was the mostarticulate spokesman for these issues, showing a trajectory from slavery to temperance to civilrights to abortion and the related cultural issues, moving left to right due to the cultural changes.Hunter finds these issues legitimate but too narrow in focus.Then there's the religious left, which focuses on equality and social justice. This is associated withthe mainline Protestants and their social justice committees, which lined up with the left wing ofthe Democratic Party. Some Catholics did as well, although typically not on abortion. The mainspokesman was Jim Wallis and Sojourner's. The left was politicized just like the right, and bothhad the will to impose, and though they didn't know it, they had Nietzsche's will to power withregard to society.Then there are the neo-Anabaptists, like John Howard Yoder, Stan Hauerwas, Richard Haysand my friend Mike Gorman. Their theology varies but they agree on pacifism. The maindifference with the left is a more negative view on the state. The left supports a strongstate to enforce justice and equality. There are different definitions of pacifism, but itis a strong theme throughout, with support for conscientious objectors and a sense thatwe are resident aliens. There are also points of agreement with conservatives such asRod Dreher and the Benedict Option.Hunter describes these three paradigms as defensive against, relevance to, and purity from. Theleft and right are politicized and seek to dominate society, and the neo-Anabaptists, while notseeking hegemony, are still politicized in their understanding of Christian witness. Hunter concludesthat we need a model of faithful presence within. To the virtues of faith, hope and love, he addsjoy in the witness to Christ, which is often lacking and adds to the negative connotations peoplehave of Christians in society. The conclusion has good points but is not earth shattering afterall that. It is certainly worth striving for.

I am always looking out for books that in their own way are intended to help mend our broken world: to make it in any way a better place. This book, suggesting as it does a different way to be Christian in twenty first century America, is such a book and, I think, makes an important contribution.The author starts from the premise that not only is it a Christian obligation to cultivate and safeguard God's creation, to meet our own needs but also importantly to glorify our Creator, Christians simply want to do that anyway, and expend much time and money trying to do so. But why, he reflects, and in spite of the fact that 86-88% of Americans adhere to a faith, mostly Christian, do they live in a secular culture with so many problems whilst many minority groups seem to have a great deal more influence on society. America as a nation, he says, is losing its soul.We are living under a misapprehension. We have a false idea that changing hearts and minds will of itself change a culture; that there is some link between values and hearts and minds and a good society. This logic, he tells us, is flawed. Hearts and minds do matter, but will not in themselves change what he describes as the DNA of a culture. He goes on to carefully explain whyThe basis of the book is an analysis of the three most prominent Christian political theologies in America, the Conservative Right, the Progressive Left, and the Neo-Anabaptists, their modes of thinking further characterised by him as respectively "defensive against," "relevance to," and "purity from," and these he carefully explains. But he also tells us why these paradigms are all in his view flawed, reflecting at the same time upon the paradox of power for a Christian, and the dangers of Christian leadership that is too politicized.His arguments and logic draw him to propose a new paradigm, based on the concept of Faithful Presence, an idea that he tests against history, showing us that it is not without precedents. He then goes on to develop this theme, explaining in practical terms how Christians may pursue Faithful Presence in all aspects of their lives, and he calls upon us all to take this on board from the local parish church outwards into the community, the workplace and into leisure activities, carrying the gospel message of faith and hope and love to those of any faith or none. This is not something that is reserved for Christians; Christ's love speaks to a basic human need in the whole community, and practiced well, such a paradigm should work towards a flourishing of the world all around us. He supplies a few illustrative vignettes for inspiration.I found the critique of where we are now, and the development of this alternative vision for the twenty first century, well reasoned, the logic carefully developed, and the whole well grounded historically and theologically. It was a pleasure to read.Although the book is clearly describing the Christian culture in America, the principle espoused, of Faithful Presence, is not geographically confined and is of relevance for any Christian of any land. The reflections on power, status and elitism, on politics, the challenges of Difference and Dissolution, and his 11 propositions on culture and cultural change from which he goes on to develop his theme, will rest just as well with a UK reader.I am sure there will be those who will find something to criticize in the detail, the theology, or the history. I would say that the idea put forward, practised thoughtfully, can only benefit our society and should be given a chance. We should all be more interested in helping make our world a better place for all, and not stifled by idle pedantry. As Hunter himself says at page 206: "...in the contemporary world we have the capacity to question everything but little ability to affirm anything beyond our own personal whims and possessive interests." Christians cannot, he says, change the world, and as Christians this must not be our primary task, which is to worship God and honour him in all that we do. That is the irony in his title. But "by enacting shalom and seeking it on behalf of all others through the practice of faithful presence, it is possible, just possible, that (Christians) will help to make the world a little bit better."

Well written collation of previously written workRaises more questions than answers so good for creating discussion

An important critical review of how worldly - indeed secular - engagements changed Evangelical Christianity and much else besides.

Great book, well worth the read, excellent author

A definite MUST-READ for every Christian who seeks to change the world and our culture. The book is full of true eye-openers.