Most Helpful Customer Reviews
95 of 102 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
An interesting read..., September 3, 2010
This review is from: To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (Hardcover)
I appreciated much of Hunter's project and am intrigued by his assessment of three contemporary Christian styles of cultural engagement, but feel his conclusions are a bit thin. I'll try to explain...
One of his central theses is that "culture" is not usually changed in a populist-pietist-peripheral / bottoms-up manner. In fact, culture is generally most impacted by small networks of elites with central-symbolic power to create and change the institutions we all live within. I wholeheartedly agree with this and think that Christians in America need to wake up to this reality. I almost wish Hunter would have done more to illustrate this point in light of the fact that American Christianity has relegated itself to another populist movement on the peripheral margins - simply another subcultural ghetto among many. If his book would have simply stopped at this point I would have bought about 100 books and given a copy to every Christian I thought would read it.
What follows, however, is somewhat puzzling to me. After critiquing American conservatives, liberals, and Anabaptists, he concludes that each movement is over-politicized because each defines itself almost primarily through its relation to political power. Fair enough. This is a hugely important observation. He moves on to suggest that it might be wise for Christians to pull away from politics for a season to rediscover other ways of engaging the culture. One of the ways he builds this case is by conflating power and authority with "coercion." By doing so, he unwittingly adopts part of the Anabaptist view he was critiquing. Authority and power are not anti-Christian per se - and Hunter pays a certain amount of lip service to this truth. Nevertheless, I would contend that not all coercion is negative either. Coercion has a role to play in God's world. To negatively confuse these concepts with each other and with politics in general is too simplistic and unworthy of Hunter's erudition.
In light of Hunter's belief that Christians are over-politicized in their understanding of cultural engagement, he suggests a posture of "faithful presence." Christians must move beyond mere negation and should positively demonstrate / model the new creation within their vocational and institutional contexts. We must not engage in a shouting match over hot-button issues with a world that won't listen. Instead we should work as relatively quiet servants wherever we find ourselves in God's world, albeit with an eye towards institutions in place of mere pietism.
I am left with a few thoughts as I meditate on Hunter's rather vague conclusions about "faithful presence." First, he is a better sociologist than theologian. Second, he is a better sociologist than philosopher. Third, he is a better sociologist than historian.
As a theologian, his eschatology is either underdeveloped or he is not as self-aware of his convictions as he should be. He is implicitly dismissive of negative dispensationalism (thankfully), but embraces a brand of amillenialism that ends up being dispensationalism's kissing cousin. I won't take the time to exegete his book, but his conception of God's kingdom is largely future - with most of its manifestation only happening at the consummation of time. That is a very popular and valid point-of-view within Christianity, but to uncritically foist this on his thesis is hugely unhelpful, in my opinion. To portray more immanent understandings of the kingdom as "triumphalism" is totally inadequate for a work of this nature - and it certainly does no justice to the struggle the church universal has had for two millenia. His theological weakness hampers his ability to promote his thesis.
Second, at one point he states something along the lines of... the kingdom of God "is not about politics." I find such a statement utterly bewildering. Isn't the very word "kingdom" inherently political? The last time I checked, "polis" and "king" reside in the same conceptual category. Isn't this what makes the American constitutional experiment so interesting in light of history - that our founders would try to divorce the state from any specifically religious moorings or institutional relationships? Isn't it interesting that for most of world history, cultures have assumed that government and religion are absolutely intertwined? Are we so intellectually superior as post-Enlightenment people to assume that such a divorce is a philosophical given? If Hunter wants to get at the root of the conservative / liberal / Anbaptist orientation towards politics, he needed to go deeper into the relationship between church and state philosophically. But alas, he is not a political philosopher.
Finally, his historical treatment of "Constantianism" is just outright... Anabaptist. His handling of Calvin's Geneva and the execution of Servetus is nothing more than a superficial gloss. Even if one were to see this as a low-point in Calvin's Geneva, such an example goes to show that this work is not one of historical depth. At points, it reduces itself to thin rhetoric.
I think my two cups of coffee this morning may be manifesting a little too harshly. I'm thankful for this book. Hunter is a man who needs to be heard. There is some gold to mined here. Nevertheless, it should not be uncritically received. There are deeper issues theologically, philosophically, and historically that are missed and mishandled. The church cannot abandon its prophetic role and cannot assume that politics and the kingdom of God live in separate spheres. Yes, we live in a prescriptively pluralistic world, but it does not therefore follow that this should always be - or will always be the case. The church can confirm a descriptive pluralism that acknowledges and affirms differences without assuming that this is our destiny.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
39 of 45 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
To Change the World: The Good and Bad, August 10, 2010
This review is from: To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (Hardcover)
There is no subject that invokes as much passion in me as that of a Christian's interaction with culture. I was raised to believe that "God is in the universe business" (thank you, dad), and I spend the bulk of my extra-curricular time exploring ways that men and women of the Christian faith may have a more meaningful impact on the culture around them. James Davison Hunter has written some extraordinary material on this subject (Culture Wars particularly comes to mind, along with some privately distributed materials I read several years ago that forced a bit of a paradigm shift in the way I view meaningful impact on society coming about). His latest book, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World, was to be the culmination of a decade's worth of work from Dr. Hunter. I am extremely grateful that I patiently waited for the book, feel that I am a better person for having read it, and believe it contains a plethora of thought that is sorely needed in the community of believers I belong to. Sadly, I also think the book falls short in a number of areas. My objective in this review is to highlight both the strong points and not-so-strong points in Hunter's latest work.
There is a sense in which I believe the initial notion that attracted me to Hunter shines through as the most important part of the book - and that is the idea of cultural change coming from the "top down" - specifically, when elites with a great deal of cultural capital network together in common pursuit of change. Interestingly, Hunter's conclusion (that people merely possessing the right belief system will be inadequate to effect lasting cultural change) is one I wholeheartedly agree with, though I find the major premise by which he gets to that conclusion tragically flawed. Hunter argues that despite the claims of culture warriors like Chuck Colson and James Dobson, a possession of Christian faith has proven inadequate to change the world, evidenced by the 85% of Americans who have "some faith commitment" yet who have only an "intensely materialistic and secular" culture to show for it. I am not familiar with anyone - anyone - in this conversation who believes that a merely nominal and superficial faith is sufficient to effect cultural change. The failure of American Christianity to have produced anything remotely close to the type of culture Hunter and I share a desire to see can better be explained by the modern failure of American Christianity to look, feel, and act like Christianity. Nevertheless, I would agree with Hunter that "the history of the conservative faith tradition over the last 175 years has been one of declining influence", and I am intrigued by much of what Hunter has to offer to counter this trend (and would like to interact more with Hunter on Nancy Pearsey's remarkable book Total Truth, as Hunter seems to find Pearsey's idea that post-enlightement Christians became intellectually incapable of resisting the social revolution of Darwinism to be incomplete). What we do know is that today's body of believers - even those who want to engage the culture - are failing miserably. Hunter seeks to tell us why and provide a counter proposal for what can be done differently.
The strongest portions of the book lay out Hunter's vision for effecting cultural change in the modern context. He views "the dominant actor in history as a network of elites and the institutions that created these networks". Hunter's emphasis on cultural power is an important one and rather contrary to the consensus view, which I believe (at least operationally) is that Christians most try to impact culture by creating substitute sub-cultures. I believe that the Christian church is divided up into three categories: (1) People who do not believe we ought to impact culture (the pietists, the separatists, the tribalists, etc.), (2) Those who believe we ought to impact culture but do no such thing in real life endeavors (the ghettoists who think that the institutions at the center of society should be avoided so that substitute institutions and sub-cultures can be built up on the periphery of society), and then finally, (3) Those who embrace the idea of cultural impact, but see that happening in a multi-generational context in the spheres of society where real cultural capital exists. This last category is a dying breed, and to the extent that Hunter has breathed life into it he has done a remarkable deed. Hunter's notion of "cultural and symbolic capital overlapping with social and economic capital" is valuable work, and ought to be required reading for ministers who claim intellectual ascent to the Kuyperian notion of Jesus as Lord. Chapter 4 is the strongest chapter of the book, and in it one finds a blueprint for cultural change that is incremental, covenantal, multi-generational, sustainable, and structural. It alone made the price of the book well worth it.
I am unable as of the time that I am drafting this review to claim resolution regarding the exclusivity claims Hunter makes, though. Is "top-down" change the only way in which Christians can impact the culture they live in? Does history really provide no examples at all of "bottom-up" change? I find that a little hard to believe, and have yet to understand why this conversation must be an "either-or" versus a "both-and". I do not know if this caveat puts me at total odds with the underlying thesis Hunter is proposing or not, but nothing in his book convinced me that we ought not be excited at bottom-up efforts in society as well. However, if his major point was simply that Christians are not likely to demonstrate a comprehensive model for society without top-down, institutional transformation, then his point is indisputable as far as this reviewer is concerned. Hunter's observation that much of what passes for Christian culture these days is nothing more than "defensive actions by small communities that do not have the resources to go up against the behemoth institutions of modern secular culture" is a haunting one, and painfully true.
The other extremely strong component of Hunter's work is the high value he puts on vocation in discussing a Christian's interaction with culture. Hunter addresses the subject theologically, and does so quite well. My own belief is that if one is looking to an actual "sphere" of society where the most opportunity exists for demonstrating the incarnational truths of the Christian faith, it is in the marketplace. I suspect Hunter agrees ("fidelity to the highest practices of vocation before God is consecrated and itself transformational in its effects"). I do not agree with all Hunter has to say about the ideal of Christians backing off from success in political endeavors, but I certainly agree that politics as a priority is dramatically off track. Should believers find the inspiration to rediscover dignity in their work, to practice their craft with excellence, and to use their vocation as a means of living in "faithful presence", I suspect the foundation would quickly be built for longstanding cultural change. While I do not see it as necessary for believers to withdraw for the civic sphere, I concur with Hunter that political successes will be a result of cultural impact, and not a cause of cultural impact. This distinction is sadly lost on many believers, and while I will not accuse them of a Hegelian Idealism, I will accuse them of pursuing an incomplete strategy. Whether or the not the James Dobson's of the world are merely advocating a certain "division of labor", devoid of a comprehensive understanding of engagement with the world (as I suspect), or they are actually leading the cause astray through a malignant idolatry of politics (as Hunter seems to suggest), we can agree that the Christian Right is not presently engaged in the task of changing the culture. I do not share Hunter's obvious animosity for many of the God-fearing men and women in this camp who perhaps lack the depth and nuance that I wish they would possess, but I do share Hunter's view that their perspective is inadequate. What Hunter promises in the final act of his book is the missing ingredients in this conversation - the proper tactic for a lasting cultural transformation - is where I sadly feel the book comes up most short.
Hunter is a true non-dualist, and the American church needs more non-dualists as much as it needs anything. He operates outside of Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism, so it packs a punch when Hunter says that the "dualism they embrace is cut from the same fabric" (noting that they seem to have merely ecclesiastical differences). I wonder if part of my attraction to Hunter is that he shares the same degree of jaded cynicism towards the institutional church that I do, particularly when it is in the context of effecting cultural change.
Hunter does set the final act up very well rhetorically, as the very title of his "counter proposal" has a nice ring to it: Faithful presence. I have read the last fifty pages of Hunter's 300-page book at least four times, and I continue to feel that a tremendous opportunity was missed. The final section is chalk-full of brilliant rhetorical devices, contains nuggets of extraordinary truth and beauty, and provides a series of individual propositions that I believe are powerful (and in some cases profound). However, I am convinced that it is not just me, but in fact nearly every single person I have discussed this book with, who finds the book's flowery rhetoric regarding "faithful presence" to be at best a sort of "begging the question", and at worst a mixed and confusing bag of ideals and applications that do not seem to provide any real conhesive substance to the subject Hunter is seeking to address. I am firmly convinced that Hunter is right when he says: "The practice of...
Read more ›
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
57 of 75 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Buying the book because of the review..., May 7, 2010
This review is from: To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (Hardcover)
Hunter was interviewed about this book by Christopher Benson in Christianity Today, May 2010, pp.33-36. The quote that sold me on buying the book was at the end of the interview: "Christians need to abandon talk about 'redeeming the culture', 'advancing the kingdom', and 'changing the world'. Such talk carries too much weight, implying conquest and domination. If there is a possibility for human flourishing in our world, it does not begin when we win the culture wars but when God's word of love becomes flesh in us, reaching every sphere of social life. When faithful presence existed in church history, it manifested itself in the creation of hospitals and the flourishing of art, the best scholarship, the most profound and world-changing kind of service and care - again, not only for the household of faith but for everyone. Faithful presence isn't new; it's just something we need to recover [p.36]."
Hunter hopes that "faithful presence" does not get reduced to simple, individual pietism, "Faithful presence is not the work of the individual alone but also the individual in concert with the community [p.35]."
If the title leads the reader to think that this is another treatise on how evangelicals can conquer the world for Christ, Hunter clarifies, "...the title of my book is ironic, because I'm trying to disabuse people of changing the world. We cannot control history - God alone is its author. We're accountable for our actions as individual believers and as a body of believers.... The point is NOT to change the world but to serve faithfully in our relationships, tasks, and spheres of social influence [p.35]."
I am particularly looking forward to the second essay in which Hunter, according to CT reviewer Benson, lumps James Dobson, Jim Wallis and Stanley Hauerwas (!!!) together as "'functional Nietzsheans' insofar as their resentment fuels a will to power, which perpetuates rather than heals 'the dark nihilisms of the modern age'[p.33]."
The CT review was great. I am betting that the book is better.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
