NOTE: Though the author of the book under discussion (James Davison Hunter) shares my last name (Braxton Hunter), there is no relation.
It is common to hear pastors and evangelists champion the culture changing potential of the gospel message. Revivals, evangelistic events, and community prayer gatherings would seem incomplete without the promise of what God can and may do in the modern West. Indeed, God does as he pleases (Psalm 115:3), and nothing is impossible for him (Luke 1:37). No self-respecting theologically conservative evangelical would deny the claim. Nevertheless, the reality of such a potential may be less immediate or dramatic than those pulpiteers envision. This, at the very least, seems to be the suggestion of James Davison Hunter in his book, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, And Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World. In that provocative work, the author provides his analysis of the subject via three essays. The first is an explanation regarding the problems related to the expectation of affecting large-scale cultural change through individual grass-roots endeavors. His second essay involves a critique of the Christian right, the Christian left, and the Neo-Anabaptists toward change. The final essay offers a humble, but conceivable perspective on the subject, that he maintains is in line with New Testament principles. Without question, Hunter’s work was a valuable, albeit unexpected, addition to the ongoing debate. What follows will involve a consideration of each essay. While it is near-certain that not all will agree with the author’s conclusions, perhaps there are suggestions in Hunter’s work that will change the world of the reader in some meaningful way.
The Statement and Problem with the Common View
Hunter begins by stating the familiar, but in a revealing way. As previously mentioned, the popular conservative evangelical message proclaims that national cultural change may be had by impacting the individual. More obliquely put, some describe a sort of “worldview” change. But this is likewise reducible to affecting change in individuals. As the author explains, “Though driven by ideas, worldviews exist primarily in the hearts and minds and imaginations of individuals and take form in choices made by individuals.” Thus, the essence of the grass-roots approach is exposed. However, this exposure is not denied, but recommended by its advocates. Hunter cites Charles Colson as saying, “[I]f our culture is to be transformed, it will happen from the bottom up—from ordinary believers practicing apologetics over the backyard fence or around the barbeque grill.” The author establishes his point with similar sentiments from Carl Anderson, James Dobson, and none less than Thomas Jefferson. It’s documented well, in the book, but few would object to the mere assertion.
With this operation in mind, Hunter expounds on the typical strategy. Evangelism is key. While evangelism qua evangelism should not be criticized, the expectation that it is a reliable instigator of wide-spread cultural change, may. Yet, Hunter doesn’t move on this yet. Pointing to Bill Bright, John Paul II, Billy Graham, Os Guiness, and Mother Teresa, he underscores the presence of the notion throughout Christendom. Once again, the common awareness of this is strong. However, Hunter leaves no confusion about the strategy, or to what it leads.
Unashamedly, Colson and likeminded thinkers explain the importance of Christian political involvement as key to the cultural renewal process. Ensuring conservative administrations, they claim, will result in a more moral society. Similarly, organizations devoted to social reform are believed to be powerful forces as representations of the moral conscience to which the nation must aspire. Again, these elements are reducible to the belief that changing the individual will lead to a collective cultural change. Hunter summarizes, “real change must proceed individually—one by one.” Yet, Hunter raises relevant criticisms of the supposition.
Having articulated the standard view among outspoken conservative Christians, Hunter proceeds to attempt a demonstration that these views exhibit overblown confidence that stands opposed to the facts. He asks the reader why it is the case that the success of the gay agenda, the embrace of biological evolution by public schools, and the legality of abortion, have all become part of the cultural reality if it is the case that change occurs from the bottom up. He concludes, “And so it goes. In example after example, we find evidence that culture is in fact a much more complicated phenomenon than we normally imagine. Indeed, it often seems eerily independent of majority opinion.” Unwittingly, idealism has crept into the thinking of the would-be culture makers, who suspect individual worldview change can change the world so thoroughly, and so swiftly.
The Alternative View of Culture
Transitioning to a more appropriate view of culture, the author lays out a number of propositions. Seven of them, he explains, involve understandings about culture directly, and the remainder relate to cultural change. A brief sampling of these will be helpful.
First, “Culture is a system of truth claims and moral obligations.” Though not worldviews, as such, cultures so permeate individuals’ languages, thinking, and moral expressions that they serve as practical worldviews in a soft sense. Hunter clarifies, “Perhaps the most important thing to realize is that this ‘worldview’ is so deeply embedded in our consciousness, in the habits of our lives, and in our social practices that to question one’s worldview is to question ‘reality’ itself.” This fact makes change very difficult.
Second, “Culture is a product of history.” This makes it quite resistant to the sort of immediate, or rapid change, most of the Christian advocates promote. There is a certain amount of “inertia” built into a given culture because of the past. This history which develops the communal understanding of the way things are, Hunter refers to as “habitus.” The habitus informs the individual’s undergirding fabric of reality.
Third, “Culture is intrinsically dialectical.” Institutions have power, according to the author. Individuals are best understood when, “the institutions that form them and frame all of their activity” are considered. While individuals have a certain amount of power, the power balance is weighted in favor of the institutions. Why this is the case is pressed in Hunter’s fourth proposition.
Hunter’s fourth and fifth propositions somewhat hang together. “Culture is a resource and, as such, a form of power.” Further, “Cultural production and symbolic capital are stratified in a fairly rigid structure of ‘center’ and ‘periphery.’” Symbols, in this context, are outlets of culture, such as media, sayings, general presuppositions, and literature. These symbols have their own values, and within types of the same symbol, vary in value. Hunter explains, “a Ph.D. has more symbolic capital than a car mechanic . . . likewise, whatever else one may think about the New York Times, it has more symbolic capital than the Dallas Morning News.” The same may be said for institutions of higher education, sports teams, film production companies and car manufacturers. This can even be true of individual celebrities, and the credibility they bestow on products such as books by endorsing them.
Sixth, “Culture is generated within networks.” Controversially, Hunter argues that the standard “great-man” understanding of cultural change is misguided. For clarity’s sake, the author’s words should be captured explicitly.
Against this great-man view of history and culture, I would argue (along with many others) that the key actor in history is not individual genius but rather the network and the new institutions that are created out of those networks. And the more “dense” the network—that is, the more active and interactive the network—the more influential it could be. This is where the stuff of culture and cultural change is produced.
Hunter does not mean to imply that there are not specific great individuals who risked most, or articulated institutional goals best. Rather, he wishes to note that such individuals do not exist in vacuums. They are typically situated within networks of sympathetic fellow laborers.
Seventh, “Culture is neither autonomous nor fully coherent.” The various institutions that make up the culture all retain their own organization, language and internal logic. However, the institutions are integrated in complex ways. It is noteworthy that in certain institutions, such as the spheres of science and education, the government is directly involved. For this reason, the government can control, and guide important aspects of cultural output.
Rounding out the section, Hunter offers several conclusions regarding cultural change. Though he articulates them with some verbosity, they are drawn from the aforementioned propositions. “Cultures change from the top down . . . Change is typically initiated by elites who are outside of the centermost positions of prestige . . . World-changing is most concentrated when the networks of elites and the institutions they lead overlap . . . Cultures change, but rarely if ever without a fight.”
Ressentiment
Before moving on to address the specific difficulties Hunter perceives with the Christian right, the Christian left, and the Neo-Anabaptists, he makes a brief excursus into political culture. There is importance in the wording of the previous statement. What the author wishes to convey is a part of the culture of the political realm, but not necessarily all the individuals involved. Much of political motivation runs on what Hunter calls, “ressentiment.” This is a term he borrows from Nietzsche, and it refers to the resentment certain groups feel toward others, typically because of what they perceive as past or current sins. In addition to what springs to mind when the English word “resentment” is spoken, Hunter explains Nietzsche’s adaptation thusly, “it also involves a combination of anger, envy, hate, rage, and revenge as the motive of political action. Ressentiment is, then, a form of political psychology.”
It is not difficult to locate the manifestations of ressentiment in American culture. If one considers the grievances of various groups who feel that their rights have been, are being, or will be violated, one will likely find evidence of the concept. For instance, the LGBTQAI+ community has expressed ressentiment toward those who they believe have been part of oppressive movements to shame, and delegitimize their lifestyles. Some even claim this has impacted their ability to maintain healthy lives. One researcher put it, “LGBTQ individuals are at a significantly increased risk for disparate health outcomes when they reside in states that fail to extend equal protections or that actively deprive equal rights to them.”
In turn, the growing cultural acceptance of such alternative lifestyles has led to ressentiment among some Christian groups who feel their rights have been trampled upon because of claimed moral reservations that impact how the two groups interact.
At this point it is vital to mention that the concept of ressentiment and its abuses by political parties may be problematic, but that does not mean these grievances are fictions. Whatever else may be said about ressentiment, the feelings associated with the idea are thoroughly understandable. While Hunter is direct and academic in much of his explanations, care must be afforded in these rough waters.
However, the impersonal force of political culture takes advantage of ressentiment, harnesses it, and guides it toward an opposing political party. This occurs on all sides of the political battles, though the offended communities will differ. While the motivators of “fear, anger, negation and revenge over perceived wrongs,” are not biblical, the violations are often so deep and emotionally potent that, depending on the issue, few evangelical conservatives will raise an eyebrow.
This ressentiment leads to a perspective of entitlement by the offended party. Hunter captures it as follows:
The entitlement may be to greater respect, greater influence, or perhaps a better lot in life and it may draw from the past or the present; it may be privilege once enjoyed or the belief that present virtue now warrants it. In the end, these benefits have been withheld or taken away or there is a perceived threat that they will be taken away by those now in positions of power.
The manner in which this entitlement is useful to particular parties does not need to be further elucidated. Therefore, the political culture involves ressentiment.
The Christian Right
Hunter begins his assessment of the tactics endorsed by Christian groups spanning the political spectrum, and his analysis deserves a bit of critique. First, however, a brief sketch of his thoughts is in order. Those comprising the Christian right, adhere to a myth about the nation. Hunter refers to this myth as a concern “with the ‘right-ordering’ of society.” They maintain that in some important way, America has always had Christian blood in her veins. As that has changed, America is morally bleeding out. This is evident when one considers current legalities relating to marriage, beginning and end of life matters, and the anti-Christian messages in many public classrooms.
Christian conservative leaders have, therefore, thrown down the gauntlet before the capital and called for likeminded believers to join them. Yet, as the older voices are dying out, new leadership is emerging that is less concerned with politics. As a result, Christian institutions have been established with the goal of impacting culture via the arts, education, family, business, religion, and government. It’s clear that a certain amount of ressentiment fuels this enterprise, to be sure. Nevertheless, the advocates have good intentions.
What Hunter finds problematic about this approach is that despite those good intentions,
the tactics have expanded to include world-view and culture more broadly, the logic at work—that America has been taken over by secularists, causing harm to America and harm to the church, that it is time to “take back the culture” for Christ through a strategy of acquiring and using power is identical to the longstanding approach of the established Christian Right.
The problem he sees plaguing the “longstanding approach” is its focus on power which includes the use of terminology related to war and disillusion.
It is here that I find an odd point of disagreement, minor though it may be. If Hunter’s view is acceptable, it may well be that these approaches are not the most appropriate ways of changing the culture, but do they not remain obviously necessary approaches all the same? Considering his previous assessment of Colson’s admonition that conservative evangelicals should be evangelistic, one may grant Hunter’s point that changing the hearts and minds of individuals may not change the culture in the way revivalists hope. Still, they should remain evangelistic, and Hunter would surely agree. Likewise, should Conservative Christians not vote according to their own convictions, and express those convictions with fervor? When disenfranchised, should they not express dissatisfaction at the state of affairs, and exercise whatever rights they may have to alleviate the situation? Lastly, shouldn’t believers interested in producing cultural expressions through education, the arts, the family, and so forth, without compromising their faith construct such institutions? I would answer yes to each of these questions, even if Hunter is correct. This leads to a second concern.
Perhaps such institutions do not maintain the symbolic power of their secular counterparts. It may well be that Hunter would have Christians focus on their own faithful presence, and some within those secular institutions may affect internal change. Still, the faithful presence concept would seem consistent with such Christian institutions. What power they do maintain could afford them some currency for change, even on Hunter’s model. Nevertheless, the author’s point about the unbiblical items that fall under the banner of ressentiment is taken. Christians should not cave to such a political culture. Perhaps they should act, but the motivation should be pure, and kingdom oriented.
The Christian Left
According to Hunter, the myth of the Christian left has to do with equality. They long for a utopia where the ills brought by money-hungry and dominating powerbrokers are alleviated. This America would not favor the rich. It would focus resources on the poor. Social equality would be had by disenfranchised groups. In short, social justice concerns are at the forefront of the movement and are thought to illustrate the centrality of the gospel. Christian leftists resist and are resisted by the Christian right. They view the Christian right as a group that has distorted the biblical narrative, and they use allusions to Old Testament prophets to cement the point. Hunter finds an eerily similar problem with the Christian left. Like the right, they cannot resist the tendency to point to theocracy as a paradigm for this supposed utopia. They also long for an America made in their own Christian image. They motivate followers to exercise political action toward their goals. Like the right they long for power, and Hunter sees this as another expression of ressentiment.
Here, I find little to criticize. Still, the concerns for the disenfranchised do have biblical precedent (Luke 11:41; James 1:27), and there is certainly no reason a group should be encouraged not to work toward the goals of remedying those problems. Such does express the beauty of Christ’s teachings. However, if Hunter’s hypothesis is correct, it is implausible that their efforts will lead to national change.
The Neo-Anabaptists and the Constantinian Error
Hunter describes the Neo-Anabaptists as having many similarities with the Christian left. Yet, while the Christian right focuses their efforts toward the secularists, and the Christian left aims at the Christian right, the Neo-Anabaptists aim at the institutions of commerce and government directly. They resist what can be described as the constantinian error of confusing God’s plans with the necessity of worldly power struggles. Christianity enjoyed a priviledged existence under Constantine, and what became known as the Constantinian error could be minimally described as simultaneous allegiance to God and some institution or government.
There may exist a separatist flavor to what the Neo-Anabaptists are doing, and there certainly exists a pietism, but Hunter is not convinced. He sees the Neo-Anabaptists as political as well. Ironically, since the community is defined by the institutions they oppose, they have relevance because of those institutions. This makes them indirectly political, and results in a “passive-aggressive ecclesiology.”
Here I find little with which to disagree. Hunter makes a valid point. Yet, despite the inconsistencies that may exist within the Neo-Anabaptist community, the danger of confusing America with the Kingdom seems meaningful. It seems relevant to point out that idolatry does exist in this nation. There is something attractive and biblically consistent about recognizing that our immediate culture is merely that. No matter how ironic or implicitly contradictory the Neo-Anabaptist position may be when it comes to culture change, it would seem there are worthwhile warnings to heed from their outlook.
Pluralism
In a pluralistic culture the church can no longer take it for granted that religiously informed language will be understood in public spaces. This leads to seldom and awkward uses of it except within the community of faith, and without supporting institutions theism itself becomes less obvious. The church no longer has the self-assurance it once had. All of this leaves modern Christians with difficult questions in terms of the move forward.
From my perspective, the question is two-fold. On the one hand, believers should continue with the great commission mandate they always have. The church is to evangelize the world for Christ (Matt. 28:16-20), defend the faith (1 Peter 3:15), and live lives in obedience to God (John 14:15). Whatever may happen with the culture, there should be no compromise with respect to these issues. As for the question of cultural change in a pluralistic age, it would seem that Christians need to find means to contextualize their language and approaches. Tim Keller argues, “We are sensitive to culture rather than choosing to ignore our cultural moment or being oblivious to cultural differences among groups.” The gospel can be communicated in ways that are understandable in a pluralistic culture. This may mean that the church should familiarize itself with the details of surrounding cultures. This will allow them to draw upon cultural artifacts from within those cultures to make gospel points like Paul did with the Altar to an unknown God in Acts Seventeen.
Three Paradigms of Engagement
The author sketches three approaches for engagement with the culture that are in use by groups within the community of faith. Namely, “Defensive against, relevance to, and purity from.” It strikes me that there exists important values in the first two of these three models, and the sentiment of the third is helpful but extreme.
The Christian right illustrates most obviously the approach termed as “defensive against.” If only the church could prevent the cultural rejection of Christianity perhaps all would be well. To this end, political endeavors and the philosophical defenses against secular ideologies are rallied. Whatever one wishes to criticize about this approach, and much of it has been covered above, all orthodox Christians should wish to tear down the arguments of the enemies of the faith (2 Corinthians 10:5). Defense is the proper translation of the Greek word used in 1 Peter 3:15: apologia. William Lane Craig reasons, “It is the broader task of Christian apologetics to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women.” Yet, whether such engagement will change the whole of culture, it seems unavoidable for Christian obedience.
The second approach of “relevance to,” represents the attempt by Christians to appropriate and position their ministries for the culture as it exists. Often it is taken for granted that this model comes prepackaged with the concept of watered-down theology, but it need not be. I would argue that there is nothing immoral or unbiblical about the idea of meeting the needs of unbelievers or communicating to them in an understandable and familiar way. In terms of cultural impact, this seems extremely valuable. While one may rightly decry the most recognizable “seeker” church iteration described by Hunter, the general idea seems helpful.
The “Purity from” method seeks to avoid the culture and maintain purity from its evils. While I see the value in this, and appreciates the sentiment, it dramatically lessens the likelihood of successful evangelistic ministries. This strikes against the aforementioned great commission, and thus should be rejected by the modern Christian church. This does not mean that one cannot recognize the sentiment and seek personal holiness in the midst of a sinful world. It can also remind believers to flee temptation when it is overwhelming.
Faithful Presence
Hunter’s answer is an approach that he refers to as “faithful presence.” It is focused on God’s presence with believers, his identification with believers, the life that he offers, and his love. Yet, it also means that believers are to be present for the good of the community of faith, to those in their immediate communities, and committed to those with whom they have influence. This extends to institutions that may result from them, but the goal is merely obedience to Christ, for overarching power struggles will always result in ends-justify-the-means thinking.
There is little with which to object about Hunter’s approach. The value of it seems to be that rather than articulating something altogether novel, he has articulated what is left when the improper expectations and motivations of other approaches are stripped away. He almost seems to agree, saying, “So what? Is there anything exceptional being said here? After all, few Christians would doubt the foundational reality of God’s presence through the incarnation and through the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit.” Yet, despite his attempt to articulate a provocative position, I remain somewhat unconvinced of the supposed controversy. There will be far more upsetting about the challenges to the three primary groups Hunter criticizes, than the approach he offers. I would alter Hunter’s wording and agree that it will be difficult to attain. That difficulty has been present throughout the history of the church. It is the difficulty of motivating believers to live obedient lives.
In closing, James Davison Hunter has produced a masterful work that challenges the faithful to lives of dedicated faithful presence with the Lord, and in their communities. He generally critiques well the approaches taken by most professing Christians, though some caveats must be, and have been made. Practically valuable was his explanation of the top-down nature of cultural change, and the realistic expectations Christians should retain. In the end, it seems clear that believers should all feel a conviction to pray for their cultures as they practice faithful presence.
Bibliography
Brown, Colin. Christianity and Western Thought, Vol. I: From the Ancient World to the Age of Enlightenment. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.
“Costly Cake.” The Christian Century, no. 22 (2015): 8. Accessed on August 11, 2019. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lutherrice.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsggo&AN=edsgcl.434319301&site=eds-live&scope=site.
Colson, Charles & Pearcey, Nancy. How Now Shall We Live? Wheaton, Ill, Tyndale House, 1999.
Craig, William Lane & Moreland, J.P. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003.
Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith 3rd ed. Wheaton, Il; Crossway, 2008.
Groothuis, Douglas. Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009.
Gushee, David P. The Sacredness of Human Life: Why an Ancient Biblical Vision Is Key to the World's Future. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2013.
Howe, Frederic R. "Comparative Study of the Work of Apologetics and Evangelism." Bibliotheca Sacra 135, no. 540 (1978): 303-313. Accessed October 1, 2017, ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost.
Hunter, James Davison. To Change the World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Keller, Timothy. Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City. Grand Rapids, MI; Zondervan, 2012.
Mohler, Albert. We Cannot be Silent. Nashville, TN, Thomas Nelson, 2015.
Platt, David. Counter Culture. Wheaton, IL; Tyndale House, 2017.
Pomeranz, Jennifer L. “Challenging and Preventing Policies That Prohibit Local Civil Rights Protections for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer People.” American Journal of Public Health 108, no. 1 (January 2018), Accessed August 11, 2019: 67–72. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2017.304116.