The Deists’ Guide to the Galaxy
Hunter, James Davison. To change the world: the irony, tragedy, and possibility of Christianity today. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
To Change the World was a well-written text authored by an accomplished sociologist James David Hunter from the University of Virginia. The ironically titled book is a critique of modern Christianity’s assumption that our people and our organizations can “change the world.” The book is balanced, offering criticisms of “world-changers” on the left and the right (and somewhere in between).
The book is neatly divided into three essays. The first essay, “Christianity and World-Changing,” offers a sociological analysis of what it takes to create lasting social change. Here Hunter downplays the idea that Christians can make a significant impact on the culture by exerting their power. He refutes the concept that Christians are not currently changing our society because they “…are just not trying hard enough, acting decisively enough, or believing thoroughly or Christianly enough.” (p. 22).
In this first essay, Hunter gives the reader eleven propositions as “An Alternative View of Culture and Cultural Change.” (p. 32). These propositions paint a picture of cultural change that is the antithesis to the idea that strong individuals can make radical cultural shifts on their own. In the latter part of this essay, Hunter gives examples throughout history that reinforce his claims.
The second essay, “Rethinking Power” is an analysis of Christendom’s current desire to effect political change in the world. He effectively critiques Conservatives, Progressives, and (what he calls) Neo-Anabaptists. There is a lot here that I can agree with. It can be said that, since Constantine, the marriage between church and politics does not produce mature believers.
The final essay by Hunter, “Toward a New Commons: Reflections on a Theology of Faithful Presence” proposed a new model. The model of “Faithful Presence” is the author’s solution. As I read this, I felt like that this concept was nothing new. I was a music business student at Nashville’s Belmont College in the late 1980s. Nashville, Tennessee in the 80s was the apex of the “contemporary Christian music” industry (my classmates included Steven Curtis Chapman and Trisha Yearwood). Some of the biggest discussions had to do with these same concepts. Young Christian musicians debated “should I be in a Christian band? ” “Maybe I should just be a Christian who happens to play in a band.” As you can imagine, U2’s lead singer “Bono” was always brought up (and occasionally Alice Cooper). Many musicians ended up on the side of “faithful presence,” proposing that Christians should be the best artists possible, even if they never mention Jesus in their art.
While I appreciated the book, I was bothered by an irony greater than the title. On page 260, Hunter proposes that Christians who want to influence the world adopt a “faithful presence” which is “the exercise of leadership in all spheres and all levels of life and activity…It is, therefore the opposite of elitism and the domination it implies.” This seems diametrically opposed to his statements on page 41 where he asserts that “the work of world-making and world-changing are, by and large, the work of elites.” As I read these, I thought to myself “Which is it? Is society changed by the elites, or by ordinary Christians living their lives in “faithful presence?” Yet, my biggest issue with To Change the World was not this tension.
Hunter’s work leaves out a personal God. While To Change the World is an objective text written by a sociologist, the obvious factor that is missing is God’s will for society. Could it be that Moses’ key to success was not his status, but his calling? Could it be that Esther’s advocacy for her people was orchestrated by God Himself? I believe that God can choose women and men (both ordinary and elite) to do His will, and to enact cultural change.
One example of this is the dynamic growth of the church in China in the 1970’s and 1980’s under extreme persecution. After Mao’s “cultural revolution,” the Chinese church was assumed to be extinct. There was no outside Christian presence and most Chinese Christian leaders were either killed, imprisoned, or driven underground. Yet, God worked in a way that is counter-intuitive to modern missiology. God rose up Chinese evangelists that led millions to Christ and formed intricate networks of underground churches and secret seminaries. During this time, it was extremely rare for a Christian to actually own a Bible (much less a book on Christian leadership). Over time, the rapid growth of Christianity has caused the government to react, even to compromise.
For me, To Change the World felt like deism. God is off somewhere in the distance watching history play out. Christians should just do their best to live good lives in society. There was no accounting for a personal God, God’s will, or the Holy Spirit.
About the Author
Stu Cocanougher
10 responses to “The Deists’ Guide to the Galaxy”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Stu, really thoughtful post and thanks for bringing up “Hunter’s work leaves out a personal God.”.
Of course Hunter was mostly talking about the last few years in the US, but I felt like all of the people over the years, women and men as you point out, were somehow slighted for their efforts. Did they have the call of God to work in the areas they worked in or not?
Also, I kept wondering, even as I did with the last several books, what’s the matter with more Christian influence if God elects it? Are we automatically stuck living under tyranny or may we change some things democratically if possible? It would be eyeopening for American churchgoers to go live in China or someplace. for awhile.
Stu, Thanks for this post…. You raise an important issue that I didn’t focus on because I was so struck by the other tension that you mention – and your pointing to Moses’ calling, as opposed to his status is a nice synergy of the issues.
Moses was faithful where he was placed by God – and he changed the world…. and that can be true of all of us, even if the ways in which the world is changed are sometimes less noticeable than others, right?
Last week I mentioned Rosa Parks. No, she was not an elite. And, yes, the civil rights movement was multi-faceted and was not dependent on her. But her simple act of defiance on December 1, 1955 was a catalyst that had a massive impact on our society.
great point
Stu, my parents smuggled bibles into China during the 80’s wrapped like Christmas presents. They went with a tour group and the story they tell was harrowing and right out of the movies. When they connected with the underground movement, which was a miracle in itself, they discovered most churches had a page or few pages of a bible per church! Any yet they were willing to risk their lives for just a few bible pages. As a teen-ager, with many bibles, I was reminded of the profound power of God’s word and His spirit that supersedes any government or systems. I’m so excited the Chinese churches are growing and so proud of my parents for taking an enormous risk to bring God’s word to the Chinese. They hold a special place in my heart.
For anyone interested in this time period in China, I recommend this book:
http://a.co/69nrYJd
Stu, you make a great point. “I believe that God can choose women and men (both ordinary and elite) to do His will, and to enact cultural change.” In the times in which we live it’s very easy to miss the bigger picture—in the end, God is in control. It a good thing to remember and so thanks for the reminder Stu. Great post!
Hunter’s work leaves out a personal God. While To Change the World is an objective text written by a sociologist, the obvious factor that is missing is God’s will for society.
You make a very good point, Stu! The God factor really is missing in much of this discussion. While Hunter argues for the need of Christian involvement with institutions and a long-term strategy, and while he argues for the importance of people of influence at the higher ends of the cultural food chain, the Bible says that not many of us are rich, influential, important in the world’s eyes when God calls us.
I think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head with this commentary Stu.
Thanks for the challenging post, but I’m going to push back on the suggestion that Hunter was presenting an impersonal, distant deistic God. His thesis of faithful presence is posited around the incarnation of Jesus, God dwelling among us. That itself is God seeking personal relationships in a particular place and time. Hunter writes, “For the Christian, if there is a possibility for human flourishing in a world such as ours, it begins when God’s word of love becomes flesh in us, is embodied in us…” (241). This embodied love of God in us is the Holy Spirit. Hunter relies on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to form/transform us (“The task of formation…is not an easy task. It requires wisdom, discernment, hard work, and the active guidance of the HS in it all” p237). This is a very personal God, dwelling with us (Jesus) and dwelling in us (Holy Spirit).
Stu you raise some interesting points. I think that is the challenge when understanding what it means to change the world. Hunter sees incarnation as a way to truly impact our world, while others would see that as not having a faithful presence. The difference in understanding is the disheartening reality we face as Christians in American. We need to work towards a unified understanding that can be lived out by believers in their own context and areas of influence.