Status
Publication
Description
The call to make the world a better place is inherent in the Christian belief and practice. But why have efforts to change the world by Christians so often failed or gone tragically awry? And how might Christians in the 21st century live in ways that have integrity with their traditions andare more truly transformative? In To Change the World, James Davison Hunter offers persuasive--and provocative--answers to these questions.Hunter begins with a penetrating appraisal of the most popular models of world-changing among Christians today, highlighting the ways they are inherently flawed and therefore incapable of generating the change to which they aspire. Because change implies power, all Christian eventually embracestrategies of political engagement. Hunter offers a trenchant critique of the political theologies of the Christian Right and Left and the Neo-Anabaptists, taking on many respected leaders, from Charles Colson to Jim Wallis and Stanley Hauerwas. Hunter argues that all too often these politicaltheologies worsen the very problems they are designed to solve. What is really needed is a different paradigm of Christian engagement with the world, one that Hunter calls "faithful presence" - an ideal of Christian practice that is not only individual but institutional; a model that plays out notonly in all relationships but in our work and all spheres of social life. He offers real-life examples, large and small, of what can be accomplished through the practice of "faithful presence." Such practices will be more fruitful, Hunter argues, more exemplary, and more deeply transfiguring thanany more overtly ambitious attempts can ever be.Written with keen insight, deep faith, and profound historical grasp, To Change the World will forever change the way Christians view and talk about their role in the modern world.… (more)
Media reviews
User reviews
Essay I begins by describing how Christians often view culture and the means by which to change culture, that culture is ultimately an individual thing and that by reforming individuals one
Essay II is a fundamental reconsideration of power. He describes first how Christians have been drawn into the philosophy of power and domination, and then shows how our culture has politicized everything. Over three chapters he describes first the "Christian Right," then the "Christian left," and then what he calls "neo-Anabaptism," the anti-political theologies of Yoder, Hauerwas, et al. The descriptions attempt to show how each group looks at the world and the challenges therein and the myths they propagate to justify their ideology and participation; his descriptions are, on the whole, even-handed, and if he singles out a particular group for more criticism, it is actually the "Christian left".
And then, in what should be required reading for everyone, in Essay II and chapter 6, he demonstrates the fundamental problem:
All three groups have legitimate grievances and concerns. There is merit in the argument each presents. Yet they all bitterly oppose one another. And they all politicize their concerns.
Hunter, on the basis of many modern sociologists, then suggests that there is a distinction between "democracy" and "the state." "Democracy" does involve the politicians and the voters, but the real power is in "the state." "The state" includes the bureaucrats who end up doing most of the real work of governance and regulation, unelected, present regardless of administration, and only accountable in times of crisis, with their goal mostly in terms of efficiency. More indirectly, it would also feature the forces in our society that determine political direction-- think tanks, political committees, and others who may never stand for election but seem to be pulling the strings. Hunter draws out the two implications: first, that the state is not as subject to the electoral will as is often naively assumed (on the basis of idealistic founding documents), and secondly, that politics and government are not sufficient for the task of solving challenges of social ills or deterioration of values. He also shows how Christians are partly responsible for politicizing moral values, emphasize voting over actual responsibility in "political" action like personally helping the needy, caring for elderly, adopting children, etc., and how they ultimately are working to destroy the culture they are trying to save. He concludes the section by lamenting how all three groups are fueled by bitterness, anger, and resentment, and how none of these are really constructive.
Essay II concludes with an analysis of power and the reality that we all have some form of power in life and our goal ought to be proper stewards of such power.
Essay III is an attempt to be more constructive. Hunter speaks of the challenges of difference and dissolution-- how do we handle the fact that people in our world (and our culture) are different, and how do we walk the tightrope between conformity to versus isolation from the world? He then describes the three prevalent attitudes toward culture when it comes to dissolution-- "defensive against," "relevance to," and "purity from," i.e., the attitudes of the Right, the Left, and the "neo-Anabaptists," respectively. He then shows that all three really do not work-- the first leads to what has happened, almost complete irrelevance, the second would go too far the other way, and the third does not respect our need to be the "city on a hill".
Hunter's thesis is that we should instead seek a "faithful presence." We are to be within society and culture as faithful disciples of Christ. He speaks of the imperative of the Great Commission in more terms than merely geographic-- we ought to "go to all nations," meaning not just every nation-state on every continent, but also into every profession, every group, every institution, and live faithful lives to Christ, based on faith in Christ, hope of the resurrection, and love for everyone.
Hunter is a denominationalist and ecumenist, but on the whole, his analysis is spot on. Christians are not impacting culture because they've put all their eggs in the political basket whereas the places where culture is nutured and formed are almost entirely without Christian witness, and therefore, without Christian participation. He instructively cites Jeremiah 29:4-7 and God's calling for Israel in exile as a parallel: we are to make sure that YHWH is Lord, but we are to live our lives in the place of our "exile," seek its welfare and thus our own welfare, and things will be as well as they are going to be.
The book is most certainly worth consideration.
Ultimately his main point
He has no trouble with Christians being involved in politics, they just need to understand that's not the best way to change the world.
Highly Highly Recommended.