Hearts and Minds…doesn’t seem to work
James Hunter starts his discussion on changing the world speaking on the Christian desire to change hearts and minds. “The essence of culture is found in the hearts and minds of individuals” [1] When I hear these words the first thing that comes to mind is war.
It brings to mind a quote from Lyndon B. Johnson “We must be ready to fight in Vietnam, but the ultimate victory will depend upon the hearts and the minds of the people who actually live out there.” [2] The problem I find is this puts Christians at war with the culture. I do know we are at war with the evil one, but to put ourselves at war with a culture seems counterproductive. We are not at war with people and culture is nothing if it is not what people believe and how they live that out. If you look at the genesis of this phrase “hearts and minds” it is not something new, in fact John Adams used it in 1818 to describe the Revolutionary War, FDR used it in 1934 when talking about the economy, 1963 sees JFK using it talking about the Cold War, George H. Bush used it in a speech about bringing liberty to the Middle East, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used in in a speech attacking the U.N in 2006, and Barack Obama used it in 2009 speaking on the war on terror.
It seems whenever the goal is to win hearts and minds, the goal is to dominate. With that in mind Hunter goes on to examine just what does it take to change a culture in his book, To Change The World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World. I was concerned when I first started the book because it seemed as if Hunter was using it as a diatribe against the world. In fact, when he uses as part of a larger quote”America as a nation is losing its soul” [3], the tone seems condescending at best. He then quotes James Dobson when he says “you tell them what to believe and you model what you want them to understand and in one generation, you change the whole culture”[4], which, as much as I do like James Dobson, seems very narrow minded. Richard King pulls out an aspect of this when he writes “At the individual or “local” level, Hunter criticizes contemporary Christians for holding an “Hegelian” view of culture, according to which culture is primarily a contest between contending “big” ideas. Not at all: cultural continuity and coherence depend upon the power of institutions: “culture is as much an infrastructure as it is in ideas” [5]. The idea of changing culture is not one that happens overnight.
So when Hunter, in chapter five, begins to dispute the “one generation” theory put forth by Dobson, I was relieved. Throughout this chapter Hunter traces the rise of Christianity as a purveyor of culter. From a small Jewish sect to the religion of the empire was not a one generation thing. There is not a doubt in my mind that Paul spent many years trying to win the “hearts and minds” of those who did not know Christ, but in scripture what we find is Paul spending time pouring into those who are already Christian. The idea of making disciples is at the forefront of most of the epistles of Paul. Hunter goes on to show that it really was not a matter of winning “hearts and minds” that changed the culture of the Roman empire from a pagan to a Christian religion. He shows that it actually was the work of those who were well educated elites. He points out “education was exceptionally important, for much of the spiritual and cultural creativity of the church resided in the establishment and transformation of the schools of that time.” [6] So the argument is not why can Christians not affect the culture like we used to, but the better question would be, why are Christians not part of the elite in politics, the arts, education, etc. Why, when Christians make main stream movies are they always subpar? Why are Christians not writing books on the best seller list? I think these are better questions to be delved into.
In my opinion it goes back to the Scopes Monkey Trial. In 1925 Christian thought on evolution, and really in academics was put to the test, and even though John Scopes lost the trial, Christians lost the battle for the “hearts and minds”. Up until that point, there were many Christians in all of the above mentioned areas, after William Jennings Bryan was made to look the fool by Clarence Darrow, Christians seemed to pull out of all areas of influence, whether by choice or by being forced out, and let those who are not Christ followers set the narrative from that point on.
I do not think this is about winning a war, I think this is about Christians being secure in their faith enough to make inroads into not only politics (which I think is a poor choice any way) into education, the arts and the like. It is not about making the world believe how we believe. It is about living a life as a Christian and being a positive influence without being angry and ugly about it.
[1] Hunter, James Davison. To change the world: the irony, tragedy, and possibility of Christianity today. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010. p6.
[2] http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=26942
[3] Hunter, James Davison. To change the world: the irony, tragedy, and possibility of Christianity today. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010. p 10.
[4]Hunter, James Davison. To change the world: the irony, tragedy, and possibility of Christianity today. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010. p13.
[5] King, Richard. “James Davison Hunter, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World.” Society 48, no. 4 (2011): 359-62.
[6] Hunter, James Davison. To change the world: the irony, tragedy, and possibility of Christianity today. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010. p 51.
About the Author
Jason Turbeville
A pastor, husband and father who loves to be around others. These are the things that describe me. I was a youth minister for 15 years but God changed the calling on my life. I love to travel and see where God takes me in my life.11 responses to “Hearts and Minds…doesn’t seem to work”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Jason,
Praise God you are not blinded like many of the sources in Hunter’s book, and you “know we are at war with the evil one!” Excellent conclusion my friend. It is not about making the world believe how we believe. It is about living an incarnational life, and being obedient and faithful, and doing our part of the Great Commission- going, teaching, baptizing, preaching, and I like to add healing. When I was with Flying Missions in Botswana and Zambia, we used the motto, “Go, Preach, Heal” and it was easy to stay focused on what we as a mission aviation organization were about.
We need simple things like that, that help us focus. What did you think about his “faithful presence” arguments?
Stand firm,
M. Webb
Mike,
To be honest the “faithful presence” ideal appeals to me. I am responsible for living my life for Christ, sharing who He is and what he has done in my life, and loving others as I am loved. I think this is the best strategy for showing the world Christ.
Jason
Hi Jason,
You concluded, “I think this is about Christians being secure in their faith enough to make inroads into not only politics (which I think is a poor choice any way) into education, the arts and the like.” I agree with this conclusion and think Hunter would too.
It occurred to me when reading your post that it takes many generations for culture to evolve. I think this is an interesting thought for us to ponder when considering what is true discipleship. Discipleship doesn’t happen overnight. Nor does culture shaping. I hope this is something Trisha can think about in her research.
Mark,
It certainly did not happen overnight for me, and to be honest it still has not finished (pretty sure it goes till I die). That being said to try to win overnight is a ridiculous strategy in any endeavor much less the goal of Christians. How does this play out in your neck of the woods (a decidedly different p.o.v. than mine)?
Jason
In Canada, we don’t try to win anymore. We just try to survive. 🙂
Hi Jason,
My struggle with this book is the author dissing true Holy Spirit transformation by God, which he sometimes accomplishes thru others. Isn’t that somewhat discipleship is? Still not sure if I agree with all of our so called failures highlighted by the author, but at the least I do appreciate his “faithful presence” arguments. You?
Jason, I think we struggle with methodology because we forget that we deal with the world differently than we deal with the Lord’s church. I, with the shared help of my lovely wife, raised four children. In our home, there were certain practices that were used as a means of discipline and encouragement; sometimes there were punishments and sometimes rewards. However, even though I worked as a youth minister for many years, I had to realize that just because I may spank, ground, or otherwise punish my children, that did not necessarily give me the right to do the same to someone else’s child; even though they were part of the church. Often, we forget that in the church when dealing with outsiders. The reality is that God has expectations for His people, but the rest of the world is NOT His people…yet. We must learn to approach them with the right methods so that they can understand the loving correction of God. It has never made sense wielding the bible as a punishing rod to a people that have not even claimed God as their Father. We must first instill in them the benefits of having God as their Father. Instead, the church seems to view the people of the world as the enemy that they must slay and overcome. We must remember that are fight is with Sin and Evil, not mankind; they are just the causalities in this battle without Christ.
Great post again Jason! I love your analogy about the winning the war and your quote…”I do not think this is about winning a war, I think this is about Christians being secure in their faith enough to make inroads into not only politics (which I think is a poor choice anyway) into education, the arts and the like. It is not about making the world believe how we believe. It is about living a life as a Christian and being a positive influence without being angry and ugly about it.” is on the money. It is about being the church and not just doing church. Good word brother!
Hey Jason,
Thanks for this post! My mind went exactly where yours did. That’s the phrase we have been hearing for so long in the context of war, especially our recent adventures in far-off places. To win over the “hearts and minds.” I wish some of our military folks would read this and consider what he is saying. I tend to be on the side of trying to win over the populace, of treating them well, of getting their hearts and minds on our side. But, as you point out, this is really part of a larger work toward “dominance”. And that’s the part that has to give us pause. It isn’t two peers or equals talking things over, within a relationship of care, it is instead, a “winning over” campaign in which the end goal is clear: my way or the highway. Thanks for this!
I am very impressed with your breadth of knowledge in so many different areas. I did not know this phrase “hearts and minds” had been used so many times by these leaders. And it is interesting the connection you made with using this really as a way to gain power. Though I do not have the answer, I resonated with this: “So the argument is not why can Christians not affect the culture like we used to, but the better question would be, why are Christians not part of the elite in politics, the arts, education, etc. Why, when Christians make main stream movies are they always subpar? Why are Christians not writing books on the best seller list? I think these are better questions to be delved into.”
Hi Chris,
What are your thoughts on Hunter’s desire to keep Christians away from politics? I listened to a great podcast presentation in which he spoke a lot on this…
https://www.ttf.org/podcast/change-world-irony-tragedy-possibility-christianity-late-modern-world-james-davison-hunter