To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility Of Christianity in the Late Modern World
by James Davison Hunter
It is impossible to adequately critique the myriad claims that Hunter presents and become points of debate – there are far too many. Instead, I must attempt to point out the most obvious points of contention, and seek to explain those errors as concisely as space permits. This is, after all, a book review, not a book itself!
Throughout Hunter’s book, he rails against the dominant (read: “Evangelical”) tactics of culture changers by stating unequivocally that the tactics they employ are a waste of time. In the end, the question is really, does Hunter offer a more effective alternative than the “dominant” method which he rails against. It’s also valuable to attempt to ascertain just why it is that conservative Christians draw the central focus of his attacks.
His “new” way is not offered as a means of culture change, but simply as a means of living out the Creation Mandate (pg. 4). And, of course, living out the Creation Mandate should not be confused with pursuing a course of action which includes evangelizing as its main
raison d’être.
It is precisely these subtle differences – these nuances in rhetoric – (between “the Creation Mandate” and “the Dominant View”) that the Conservative Christian must pick up on if he is to truly understand what the purpose of the book is. Hunter seems to go to great lengths in masking his explanations in language which is deliberate in what it says without saying.
At one point in his book, he actually decries the present-day practice of highjacking words, only to engage in that very practice. For example, the Great Commission’s (GC) definition morphs into various meanings as his purposes in editing change. In one part of the book, the Creation Mandate (pg.4) morphs into the GC. In another part, the GC is referred to as the Formation (pg 236). In other places, public becomes “secular” and private becomes “religious.” It then becomes clear that the reasons for the recension of definitions are to frame his argument by the utilization of traditional words and phrases that would otherwise convey a more conservative meaning. These words and phrases are then redefined to approximate his own peculiar understanding.
In truth, as you read his book, you would get a distinct sense that he is criticizing the old way of changing the culture in order that he may present a newer, better, way of changing the culture. Even the pseudomorphous title of the book, To Change the World, gives you the feeling that Hunter is interested in doing just that. But, in reality, Hunter views the forces of culture change as largely outside the realm of human control. By the end of the book, it should be clear to any Conservative Christian that Hunter’s main focus is to reduce the influence of the Conservative Christian voice in the public square. It is, after all, repeated ad nauseum throughout the several chapters, that Evangelicals are to be hated for their rhetoric and attempts to influence laws which reflect a historical, Judeo-Christian foundation.
Instead, Hunter’s views regarding cultural change appear to be relegated almost entirely to the whims of secular forces and institutions, with religious persuasions primarily operating at the periphery. He does acknowledge that religious forces do have a part in the Grand Scheme, but that all things being equal, there are greater forces that must coalesce to achieve such changes. At the very least, Hunter maintains that no Movement can, in and of itself, control the direction of cultural change in any specific direction, but that any changes are ultimately greater than any singular ideology such as Conservative Christian philosophy, which would place any possibility of directed change outside of the realm of reasonable plausibility.
Still, Hunter seems to hold out the hope that there is a better way, and he promises that it will be forthcoming in the third essay. But “better” does not translate into “a means to change the culture”, and by the end of the book, it should be abundantly clear that Hunter believes that nothing can achieve cultural change on the order that Christians are attempting. In fact, as you finish reading the third essay, you realize that a Practice of Faithful Presence is not intended to actually induce any cultural change – certainly not on the order of scale that Christians have historically attempted to achieve.
Indeed, Hunter states unequivocally that it is “dubious” to believe “that the world, and thus history, can be controlled and managed.” He even goes so far as to compare Evangelicals (by allusion) to the Crusades when he says that “Indeed, history is filled with the bloody consequences of this logic and the logic is very much present, even if implicit, on all sides and in all factions of the ongoing culture war.” (Are we to believe that the left and the progressives are being compared thusly? Really?)
Conservatives take the greatest brunt of Hunter’s attack (for reasons that should be self-explanatory). He emphatically contends that there is nothing that will ever be accomplished in changing the culture by the means that Conservatives have attempted throughout history. After analyzing Andy Crouch’s approach to culture change, Hunter states that “When all is said and done….[Crouch’s] perspective also falls far short in providing an adequate account…” of how cultures change. He then states that “Once again, we are left with the need for an alternative.”
Such statements may lend themselves as being fully capable and willing to offer an alternative means of how Christians can effect a change in culture in a positive manner with much more significant results. Yet his Practice of Faithful Presence is not intended as an alternative means for culture change – and this should be clearly understood.
Certain significant details are discovered regarding Hunter’s bias, such as his socialistic tendencies, and his other leftward leanings, but ultimately, if you want to know where Hunter stands on any issue, you will be left in the dark. I maintain that this is deliberate (obviously), and is nothing more than typical fanfare for those on the left. Anyone who tries to claim that their position is “non-biased” is not being honest with others or themselves, and it is clear that Hunter falls into this category.
In the end, Hunter’s book details a focused railing against, primarily, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. While Hunter does engage those on the left (liberals, progressives, and the neo-Anabaptists), it is his intense dislike of the practice of those on the right – who engage the culture through politics – that remains as the central focus of his writings. This tactic is not new (to bundle your criticisms against both left and right while having only those on the right as your main target).
For that matter, there is another similar work that came out in the last couple of years which uses the exact same tactic – Lord Save Us From Your Followers, by Dan Merchant – a book and movie. Indeed, I found it interesting that Hunter stated that one of the main reasons that Christians should not engage in politics is because they have the potential to abuse power. He states: “The potential for stupidity, irrationality, cruelty, and harm is just as high today as it has ever been in the past. God save us from Christians who are well-intentioned, but not wise!” Notice that Hunter admonishes us similarly to Dan Merchant: “God save us from Christians who are well-intentioned, but not wise!” “Lord, Save Us From Your Followers!”
Some may criticize me for being too hard on Hunter – that Hunter does indeed present a better way. But I say that his “better way” is really a smokescreen for an ulterior motive. Not to mention that he admits that the Practice of Faithful Presence has been around for many generations – his presentation is not anything new, and he states that “the world enjoys a long tradition” of this working philosophy (pg. 284). Hunter mocks the Evangelical when he facetiously restates what the evangelical mind might say: “If you have the courage and hold to the right values and if you think Christianly with an adequate Christian worldview, you too can change the world.” To which he quickly retorts: “This account is almost wholly mistaken.”
To “prove” that Conservative’s modus operandi is “wholly mistaken”, Hunter cites a few statistics showing how little Christianity has been able to effect any lasting cultural change despite being a significant segment of society. Such an argument is rife with faulty assumptions, not the least of which is that even though America is made up with a majority who believe in God, it is only a minority that actually can be referred to as “Evangelical.” In fact, Evangelicals only make up about 25% of the total population of Americans.
Hunter’s primary focus for explicating the dominant view of culture change is found in his criticism of Chuck Colson’s book, How Now Shall We Live, which he broadly cites. Hunter shows how it is that the dominant (Conservative) view is centered on the operating thesis that all cultural change must be tied to the understanding that cultures can only change by changing people first (bottom-up change). As you change enough people, this in turn will convert the culture of society in the desired direction.
Hunter views this tactic as a huge error (“almost wholly mistaken”). I maintain that the error is in his perspective, and not in anything that Conservative Christians are doing. Hunter’s perspective is a leftist point of view, and as is typical for those on the left, they fail to understand that any true, and lasting, change for any society can only be effected by changing the hearts of the people. That is why Colson maintains that you must start from the bottom and work your way up into the culture.
Colson (as well as all other Conservative writers), perhaps ignorantly, fails to point out in his writings any historical understanding of how Christianity has risen and fallen in significance throughout the ages – as Hunter so artfully details in his first essay. Perhaps because of this lack of detail by Colson, Hunter feels justified in stating that it is ignorance and naïveté on Conservatism’s part for believing that changing individuals could ever hope to change culture in a positive manner.
In reality, it is Hunter who is in error, because he fails to understand that the ideas which Colson defines in his book, and the focus on Colson’s view is on a LASTING change. Sure, you can effect change by other means (perhaps politically) such as what Hunter suggests, but if it is not genuine, and it is not genuinely spread throughout the populace, then any cultural change will be fleeting in nature – and that is the central thrust of Colson’s thesis.
Hunter fails to see (or acknowledge) this distinction (between real and nominal change), and that, coupled with his historical understanding of how cultures have changed in relation to the Christian religion, show him that the dominant view is wrong. But the dominant view is only as wrong as its inability to bring about change to every person possible. The dominant view is also just as right as its ability to bring about change to every person possible.
What this means is that, in spite of any success of the dominant view (or lack of it) to bring about cultural change, the vision for achieving any lasting change remains the same, and fails to lose any truth even if it does not achieve fruition. A failure to effect any large-scale cultural change cannot change the truth that if you change the majority of a population’s perspective on morality, then you can effect a change the direction of their cultural progress.
Hunter then goes on to expand on his offering of a new and better way, by outlining eleven propositions as “an alternative view of culture and cultural change.” This part is masterful and detailed. Hunter presents to us those aspects of power and influence, both within and without Christian circles, which contribute to a change in the culture. Understood properly, each of these 11 propositions must converge and be present in order for change to be seen in a culture.
Certainly, there is much room to debate the details, but it is sufficient for this review to note that his account regarding the historical presentation of cultural change in relationship to Christianity is worthy of respectful consideration, because it is well thought out, and follows closely to common sense and logic.
But, in the end, it is clear that in order for the culture to change directionally by will, that there must be a concerted, and conspiratorial, effort at play. In reality, it would seem much more likely that cultures change in ways that reflect the moral focus of the people. In other words, as the basis for a people’s morality changes, so too does their culture and what they value change. This one correlation can not be denied: as the status of the elite’s moral tenor has changed, so too has the culture’s moral tenor changed.
In the last 40-50 years, there has been a dramatic moral shift to the left. That Hunter glosses over and does not offer any logic to explain how or why this could have happened, shows that he does not truly understand the significance and influence of moral good in society. If we operated under Hunter’s assumptions, we might believe that the Boy Scouts are non-effective, because they can not possibly be an influence for good in this culture. In reality, if we were to remove, weaken, or otherwise deaden the influence of good in American culture, we could expect to see an explosion of immorality. As it is, this has already happened, because Christians do not stand up against the tide of immorality which has literally taken over our culture.
It is important to understand that Hunter’s rant is not against those on the left (despite his inclusion of critiques of them) but against those organizations which dominate in the culture-changing business. That’d be those on the right. Hunter is actually quite explicit in whom he is attacking, and he tells us early on that he is really attacking those who dominate in “ways of thinking about culture.” He then spends a significant amount of ink exposing those on the right as being the holders of such dominant thinking. Andy Crouch, in his review of Hunter’s book, states likewise that “Hunter's greatest interest is clearly Christianity's theologically conservative varieties…”
If you think about it, Hunter presents three dominant views:
• Conservatives/Fundamentalists/Evangelicals
• Liberals/Progressives
• Neo-Anabaptists
Of these three views, only one stands in stark opposition to the worldly system – the first. The other two share many of the same ideals and perspectives as those of the world regarding politics, war, abortion, euthanasia, human rights, social justice, capitalism, environmental issues, etc.
If you were to silence the voices of all three Christian groups, the only one whose ideals would suffer from a failure to present, would be the first group of Conservative/Fundamentalist/Evangelicals. The other two groups would continue to enjoy the propagation of their ideals.
In essence, what we have in this book is another Gramscian attempt at changing Christian culture, whereby he argues for his own “culture war” in which he seeks to give anti-capitalist elements and ideas a front seat, and to thereby gain a dominant voice in the fight for the soul of America’s Christians. Ultimately, this would hopefully result in changes in how Christianity is portrayed not only amongst ourselves, but in mass media, education, and other mass institutions.
As Pat Buchanan stated so eloquently: “Who is in your face here? Who started this? Who is on the offensive? Who is pushing the envelope? The answer is obvious. A radical Left aided by a cultural elite that detests Christianity and finds Christian moral tenets reactionary and repressive is hell-bent on pushing its amoral values and imposing its ideology on our nation. The unwisdom of what the Hollywood and the Left are about should be transparent to all.” (http://www.theamericancause.org/patculturewars.htm)
Reading Hunter’s book reveals Hunter’s own elitism and detestation of Conservative Christianity. It is clear that Hunter finds that Christian moral tenets are reactionary and repressive. What is Hunter’s answer to the barrage of immorality? Silence Christians in the Public arena. Instead, he would relegate our influence to the smallest aggregation of people – the workplace, or local club that we attend. Not the larger community, or the city/town, or the county, or the state level.
Another important point to understand is that, as you read his book, it becomes abundantly clear that Hunter is a skilled rhetorician, and that he (in the words of Andy Crouch) uses “considerable nuance” in framing his arguments. For that matter, nearly the whole book is couched in “considerable nuance.” This is a tactic that individuals utilize to hide their own position and world-view, and present themselves as a non-biased interloper who forays into the battle zone as one who has the answers to bring peace.
Yet Hunter would be hard-pressed to lay out his world-view for all to see, because it would expose him as one who leans far left, and has a biased axe to grind – namely, that Conservative Christians control the moral conversation, and he will change that if he has anything to say about it.
A quick comparison of Hunter’s ideas to those of the biblical history is in order. The basic premise of Christianity, as put forth by Jesus, and later by Paul and the other apostles, is that the preaching of the cross changes lives. When enough lives are changed simultaneously by the preaching of the cross, we have witnessed huge changes in the culture in which those initiations occurred. This is a fact that is undeniable, yet it is one in which Hunter has discounted entirely. He has stated unequivocally that such cultural changes are nigh impossible and that such claims that culture can be changed in this manner are “almost wholly mistaken.”
Yet we know that the Bible proclaims that it is the biblical ideas that make up the Gospel message that have the power to change beliefs; and that if you change beliefs, you change habits; and changed habits contribute to a changed community; and a changed community gives rise to a changed culture. After all, the culture is the summation of its constituent parts, of which humans make up the basic components of the culture that they participate in.
Now, we can argue over the specifics of how culture is directionally changed, which is what Hunter’s book somewhat shows, but it is a bit ridiculous to deny reality and to lay claim that ideation has no part, or certainly no significant part, in transforming cultural mores and habits, or that Christianity does not influence society and culture for the good.
Jonathan Wells' research has uncovered a conspiracy of deliberate deception by those who hold the power strings in science halls.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book (Certainly, I received more pleasure than an evolutionist). The book was meant, IMO, to examine the possibility of life arising purely by chance, as opposed to one guided by an intelligent hand.
My pastor is a "strict" communionist, and so this subject greatly interested me in learning more as I do not share his views on the matter. I wanted to know if I was wrong, or if he had learned and accepted this doctrine uncritically. 
It is impossible to adequately critique the myriad claims that Hunter presents and become points of debate – there are far too many. Instead, I must attempt to point out the most obvious points of contention, and seek to explain those errors as concisely as space permits. This is, after all, a book review, not a book itself!