Written by: gfesadmin on March 14, 2013

I first read James Hunter’s To Change the World in 2010. In my excitement, I read through the book quickly (but thoroughly of course) hoping for some concrete steps on how to change the world. I got to the end of the book and was underwhelmed. Where was this world change? What were the actions steps we could take to fight hunger, poverty and a myriad of other sins? Sure, I believed in Hunter’s notion of ‘faithful presence,’ but I was eager to move past that to action. The world was hurting and the church was too often on the sideline. Furthermore, being a millennial I was skeptical of institutions, even when I worked with and for them.

Fast-forward a couple of years to my second reading of To Change the World and my experience was different.  Whereas before I was disappointed for not having actionable steps, now I find great appreciation and relief in his idea of  ‘faithful presence,’ and I’m becoming more and more connected to institutions and the role they play in influencing culture.  What happened?

My growing appreciation and understanding of the Missio Dei and its implications for my life precipitated this shift. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the end results or actions will change. We don’t throw our hands up in despair and retreat into our holy sanctuaries with exasperation.  Faithful presence might mean doing the same things, but what’s truly different now is the source of those actions.

Before it was about me, it was about my effort in building the Kingdom. It was about doing great stuff for God, whether He was involved or not. It was Maslow’s version of self-actualization. Don’t get me wrong, I still battle with those motivations. But now, I try more and more to allow the actions to be a response to God’s movement, as opposed to my attempts to force the hand of God.  This may sound like a subtle difference, but it’s made a world of difference for my ministry. Before, the emphasis was on my skills, talents and personality and God might or might not be in the picture.  Now, I feel as if the weight of the ‘save the world’ burden has been lifted. It’s not my job to save the world. It’s not my job to find a cure for AIDS.  It’s simply my job to be faithful to God, and if He leads me to those things, then praise God! Being a faithful presence might mean pastoring a church that’s dying, or any number of other seemingly simple or futile tasks. It’s the realization that I’m not called to ‘great things’ first and foremost. I’m called to be faithful to Christ, and He can make even the smallest, weakest efforts great.

What about my growing appreciation for institutions, what happened?  It wasn’t one event or thought that precipitated that change but a variety of smaller experiences and realizations.  It was the realization that institutions can do things individuals couldn’t (like hospitals or colleges). It was the realization that institutions provide stability and can be the glue or thread that connects one generation to the next.  It’s as if institutions are larger than the sum of their parts because they can have such history and ideals associated with them.

Do those positive attributes make all institutions great? No.  There are lots of things that can be wrong with institutions and there are plenty that need to change or shut their doors. But, for me, institutions have an important and vital role in the world and I can no longer simply write them off because it’s the fad of the millennial generation.

I wonder what the third reading of To Change the World will bring?

About the Author

gfesadmin