The Church Became Flesh and Dwelt Among Us
James Davison Hunter, a faithful Anabaptist, believes that every good idea arises out of friendship. His book, To Change the World, is dedicated to a friendship out of which the book emerged.[1] And friendship, understood as “faithful presence”, is a central component to Hunter’s solution to the Evangelical desire to “change the world.”
The subtitle of the book summarizes the three essays that make up the three main parts of the book: “The irony, tragedy, and possibility of Christianity in the late modern world.”
The “irony” describes “Essay I: Christianity and World Changing.” According to Bebbington, one of the defining characteristics of the Evangelical imagination has always been activism. Evangelicals have always wanted and still do desire to change the world, to make a difference, to influence society “in the Name of Jesus.” The irony, according to Hunter, is that the Church’s attempt to change the world has been limited to evangelism, political engagement, and populist movements and has thus failed to bring the change required of the gospel. The irony is that Christians will purchase this book with zeal to receive “marching orders” for how to change the world, only to be confronted with how this ambition has played out historically. The irony is that Christians are fooling themselves if they do not consider the dynamics of power in their efforts to bring change.
This leads to the “tragedy” that Hunter describes in “Essay II: Rethinking Power.” The tragedy, according to Hunter, is summarized like this: “With the conflation of the history and identity of America with the life and mission of the church (for the Right and the Left), there is a fundamental distortion of theological truth and historical reality. Such a distortion is commonplace in the history of the church and when it occurs, it invariably leads to consequences that are ambivalent at best.” In other words, Hunter believes that the tragedy of the Evangelical failure to “change culture” in the way Hunter described, is the blindness to the truth that “to change the world” requires use of power, and that for Western Evangelicals, “the working theory of power is still influenced by Constantinian tendencies toward conquest and domination.”[2]
The “possibility” that Hunter describes in “Essay III: Toward a New City Commons: Reflections on a Theology of Faithful Presence,” is toward a better and more “Christian” way of thinking and bringing about change. It is not through conquest, and it is not through revivalist attempts to bring back an old American version of Christendom to society. It is not primarily through political engagement or religious conversion. No, in our pluralist society, Hunter believes that the Church must embody a “faithful presence” in all levels of society.
How does the Church do this, according to Hunter? By taking on the imagination of the people of God in exile, and heeding the prophetic Word of God to Jeremiah: “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce…But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jer 29:4-7). The task for the Church in this time and place is to serve the common good; to “incarnate” herself in the communities in which she lives, to work for human flourishing in every way; to be a sign of the “new creation” that is to come. For the people of God in Jeremiah’s time, “faithful presence” meant suffering faithfully without expecting any sense of “homecoming” in their lifetime. It was a call to endure for the sake of their children’s children. The modern American Church has never imagined life in this way.
In the first chapter of his third essay, Hunter proposes two primary challenges to living out his theology of faithful presence: “difference” and “dissolution.” For the purpose of this post, I will comment briefly on Hunter’s discussion on “difference” in an era of pluralism.
Hunter believes that one of the primary tasks of “faithful presence” is to deal with “difference.” One of the three ways (“defensive against,” “relevant to,” and “purity from”) the Church has dealt with “difference” is to take a defense posture over-against culture. He writes: “Within the ‘defensive against’ paradigm, difference is always seen as ‘danger,’ or at least a potential threat. The ‘other’ who embodies that difference is a stranger and is construed as either a potential ally (through conversion) or as an enemy. Pluralism has been massively threatening, and in the face of it the elaborate structure of parallel institutions these Christians created has functioned as a network of plausibility structures that have allowed them to live in a pluralistic world without really participating in it.”[3]
He poses the question of xenophobia for today’s context: “How do we think about and relate to those who are different from us and to a world that is not our world?”[4] Here, Hunter is careful to include the need for awareness about power differential in this conversation of how to encounter the “other.” It’s not only that the Church must learn to relate to the Muslim, the Sikh, the refugee, the “illegal” immigrant, the transgender in our midst. The Church must do this believing that this land is not our land. The New Testament version of this same imagination is Peter’s first epistle. “Faithful presence” means to live, in the words of Stanley Hauerwas and Will Willimon, as “resident aliens” in this nation that the Church used to believe belonged to her.[5]
For Hunter, at the end of the day, “faithful presence” means “friendship” in the Anabaptist sense. When the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1), God communicated to the world that place and presence matter. To be a faithful presence of in a particular time and place, the Church must remember that she was once a stranger in a foreign land, and God was faithful and welcomed her in. Therefore, the Church must learn to welcome the stranger to a “world that is not our world.”[6]
[1] Greg Gilbert, “Book Review: To Change the World, by James Davison Hunter,” 9marks.org, https://www.9marks.org/review/change-world/ (accessed March 15, 2018).
[2] James Davison Hunter, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (New York: Oxford University Press, ©2010), 274.
[3] Ibid., 219.
[4] Ibid., 200.
[5] Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon, Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony, 25th ed. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2014), 1.
[6] Ibid., 240-1.
About the Author
Chris Pritchett
6 responses to “The Church Became Flesh and Dwelt Among Us”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Chris,
Excellent theme by theme summary of Hunter’s work. Well done!
I am interested in your views on Hunter’s pluralism ideas. You say we are to be “resident aliens” and I get the context, but I also point to plenty of “take the land and defend what God gave you” Scriptures from Abraham forward. Regarding Hunter’s pluralism, I think he best describes it as a force of “assimilation.” I think of the Borg cube from Star Trek, flying around the universe, and assimilating cultures and worlds without discrimination. Satan is like that, he does not discriminate, and he always tries to assimilate the lost into his kingdom and assimilate the saved to the point where their testimony destroys the faith of fellow believers and causes the lost to stay lost. Hunter says it is “difficult if not impossible” for the church and congregants to resist, “and even in resisting, the church can assume the character and content of the world around it.” That is a very sobering evaluation of the church.
I chose to believe that God reins, Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit, as a person of the Trinity, lives in me. How bad can it really be?
Stand firm,
M. Webb
Bingo! Great post.
I resonated with your term “suffering faithfully” as one most aligned to the example of Christ. Just as He came into a world that would not recognize or affirm Him, we follow in His steps. We are in exile, as you say. This land is not ours. But the Jesus way is to suffer faithfully and love all.
I believe this is really the gift of postmodernism to the church worldwide. All structures and institutions are being shaken. Like in Habbakuk, all is shaking, so that the Glory will come. But the way forward is not in conquest or retro dreams of Leave it to Beaver. Faithful planting, cultivating, watering, waiting is needed.
Chris,
Wow excellent summary. How do you see this idea playing out in your church. Do you have battles against those who want to scream we have never done it that way, that is a big hurdle in the Southern Baptist tradition and just curious if you fight it as well?
Jason
Chris, I think you hit on a subject that I keep struggling over when it comes up in different readings, as well as in motivations for the church; it is the issue of “Changing the World.” It seems I keep hearing that phrase a lot these days, as though it is an expressed commission for the church to follow…some sort of Holy mandate from Christ. However, I searched through Scriptures, and nowhere…and I mean nowhere do I see Christ ever commanding His people to “Change the World.” He did say in Matthew 5:14, “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.” In Matthew 28:19 He commands, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” but again, no command to “Change the World.” I wonder if our problem is that the church is trying to tackle the impossible by trying to change something that we were not called to change. We are commanded to Shine the Light and lead souls to Christ. We are taught about meeting the basics needs of water, food and clothing. We are even instructed on helping those in need.
My question for you is, “Do you think the church would accomplish more…if we strove to accomplish less?
Chris. Excellent job. I really appreciated reading your post, as I struggled with this weeks reading. This is a really powerful message.
I’m reminded of how many times I’ve preached “marching orders” and sermons about marching order. I’ve preached about ur exodus many times, but never about the Israelites faithfully enduring.
Profound post Chris! I love how you bring things down to the brass tacks and how this applies to the church at home. You said it well with…”The task for the Church in this time and place is to serve the common good; to “incarnate” herself in the communities in which she lives, to work for human flourishing in every way; to be a sign of the “new creation” that is to come.” Being in the community and showing Christ’s love is how they will know we are His disciples. (ironically, Jenn & I just preached on this topic this morning)