<\/p>\n
To Change the World<\/em><\/strong> was a well-written text authored by an accomplished sociologist James David Hunter from the University of Virginia.\u00a0 The ironically titled book is a critique of modern Christianity\u2019s assumption that our people and our organizations can \u201cchange the world.\u201d\u00a0 The book is balanced, offering criticisms of \u201cworld-changers\u201d on the left and the right (and somewhere in between).<\/p>\n The book is neatly divided into three essays.\u00a0 The first essay, \u201cChristianity and World-Changing,\u201d offers a sociological analysis of what it takes to create lasting social change.\u00a0 Here Hunter downplays the idea that Christians can make a significant impact on the culture by exerting their power.\u00a0 He refutes the concept that Christians are not currently changing our society because they \u201c\u2026are just not trying hard enough, acting decisively enough, or believing thoroughly or Christianly enough.\u201d\u00a0 (p. 22).<\/p>\n In this first essay, Hunter gives the reader eleven propositions as \u201cAn Alternative View of Culture and Cultural Change.\u201d\u00a0 (p. 32).\u00a0 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.\u00a0 In the latter part of this essay, Hunter gives examples throughout history that reinforce his claims.<\/p>\n The second essay, \u201cRethinking Power\u201d is an analysis of Christendom\u2019s current desire to effect political change in the world.\u00a0 He effectively critiques Conservatives, Progressives, and (what he calls) Neo-Anabaptists. \u00a0There is a lot here that I can agree with.\u00a0 It can be said that, since Constantine, the marriage between church and politics does not produce mature believers.<\/p>\n The final essay by Hunter, \u201cToward a New Commons: Reflections on a Theology of Faithful Presence\u201d proposed a new model.\u00a0 The model of \u201cFaithful Presence\u201d is the author\u2019s solution.\u00a0\u00a0 As I read this, I felt like that this concept was nothing new.\u00a0 I was a music business student at Nashville\u2019s Belmont College in the late 1980s.\u00a0 Nashville, Tennessee in the 80s was the apex of the “contemporary Christian music\u201d industry (my classmates included Steven Curtis Chapman and Trisha Yearwood).\u00a0 Some of the biggest discussions had to do with these same concepts. \u00a0Young Christian musicians debated \u201cshould I be in a Christian band? ” “Maybe I should just be a Christian who happens to play in a band.\u201d\u00a0 As you can imagine, U2\u2019s lead singer \u201cBono\u201d was always brought up (and occasionally Alice Cooper).\u00a0 Many musicians ended up on the side of \u201cfaithful presence,\u201d proposing that Christians should be the best artists possible, even if they never mention Jesus in their art.<\/p>\n While I appreciated the book, I was bothered by an irony greater than the title.\u00a0 On page 260, Hunter proposes that Christians who want to influence the world adopt a \u201cfaithful presence” which is “the exercise of leadership in all spheres and all levels of life and activity\u2026It is, therefore the opposite of elitism and the domination it implies.\u201d\u00a0 This seems diametrically opposed to his statements on page 41 where he asserts that \u201cthe work of world-making and world-changing are, by and large, the work of elites.\u201d\u00a0 As I read these, I thought to myself \u201cWhich is it?\u00a0 Is society changed by the elites, or by ordinary Christians living their lives in \u201cfaithful presence?\u201d\u00a0 Yet, my biggest issue with To Change the World<\/strong><\/em> was not this tension.<\/p>\n Hunter\u2019s work leaves out a personal God.\u00a0 While\u00a0To Change the World<\/strong><\/em> is an objective\u00a0text written by a sociologist, the obvious factor that is missing is God\u2019s will for society.\u00a0 Could it be that Moses\u2019 key to success was not his status, but his calling?\u00a0 Could it be that Esther\u2019s advocacy for her people was orchestrated by God Himself?\u00a0 I believe that God can choose women and men (both ordinary and elite) to do His will, and to enact cultural change.<\/p>\n One example of this is the dynamic growth of the church in China in the 1970\u2019s and 1980\u2019s under extreme persecution.\u00a0 After Mao\u2019s \u201ccultural revolution,\u201d the Chinese church was assumed to be extinct.\u00a0 There was no outside Christian presence and most Chinese Christian leaders were either killed, imprisoned, or driven underground.\u00a0 Yet, God worked in a way that is counter-intuitive to modern missiology.\u00a0 God rose up Chinese evangelists that led millions to Christ and formed intricate networks of underground churches and secret seminaries.\u00a0 During this time, it was extremely rare for a Christian to actually own a Bible (much less a book on Christian leadership).\u00a0 Over time, the rapid growth of Christianity has caused the government to react, even to compromise.<\/p>\n For me, To Change the World<\/em><\/strong> felt like deism. \u00a0God\u00a0is off somewhere in the distance watching history play out.\u00a0 Christians should just do their best to\u00a0live good lives in society.\u00a0\u00a0There was no accounting for a personal God, God\u2019s will, or the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/dminlgp.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/Quotefancy-1740095-3840x2160.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"