revisiting 'faithful presence

7/25/2019 Revisiting 'Faithful Presence'

1/105

REVISITING

FAITHFUL

PRESENCE

TO CHANGE the WORLD

FIV E YEARS LATER

E D I T E D B Y C O L L I N H A N S E N


2/105

Revisiting Faithful Presence: o Change the World Five Years Later Te Gospel Coalition

Edited by Collin Hansen

Cover design and typesetting by Ryan Leichty

Published by Te Gospel Coalition

Half Day Road

Deerfield, Illinois


3/105

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction: Cloudy with a

Percent Chance of Storms

COLLIN HANSEN

o Love the World: Te Irony,ragedy, and Possibility ofo

Change the World

GREG FORSTER

Faithful Presence: A Teology for

the renches?

DANIEL STRANGE

Can Christians Change the

World after Obergefell?

HUNTER BAKER

ruth, Powerful and Prevailing

K. A. ELLIS

Slow Discipleship and the End of

Christendom

JOHN JEFFERSON DAVIS

o Change the World?

R. ALBERT MOHLER JR.

Faithful Presence Needs Prophets

VERMON PIERRE


4/105


5/105

CONTRIBUTORS

HUNTER BAKER(, University of Georgia, , Universityof Houston Law Center, , Baylor University) serves asa university fellow for religious liberty at Union University.He is the author of three books on politics and religion, most

recently Te System Has a Soul: Essays on Christianity, Liberty,and Political Life(Christians Library Press, ).

JOHN JEFFERSON DAVIS( Gordon-Conwell TeologicalSeminary, , Duke University) is professor of systematictheology and Christian ethics at Gordon-Conwell Teo-logical Seminary. He has published for many years in both

theological and scientific journals. His most recent book isPracticing Ministry in the Presence of God: Teological Reflec-

tions on Ministry and the Christian Life(Cascade Books, ).

K. A. ELLIS(, Yale University, , Westminster Teolog-ical Seminary) is a doctoral candidate at Oxford Center forMission Studies in Oxford, England. She speaks and writes


6/105

on the theology of human rights, African American culture,understanding Islam, and the persecuted church.

GREG FORSTER

(, Yale University) is the director of theOikonomia Network, a visiting assistant professor of faithand culture at rinity International University, and theauthor of numerous books and articles. His most recent bookisJoy for the World: How Christianity Lost Its Cultural Influenceand Can Begin Rebuilding It (Crossway, ).

COLLIN HANSEN(, rinity Evangelical Divinity School) iseditorial director for Te Gospel Coalition and was previous-ly an associate editor for Christianity oday. His most recentbook is Blind Spots: Becoming a Courageous, Compassionate,and Commissioned Church (Crossway, ).

R. ALBERT MOHLER JR.(, , Te Southern BaptistTeological Seminary) has been president of Te Southern

Baptist Teological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky since. He is the author of numerous books and articles, mostrecently We Cannot Be Silent: Speaking ruth to a CultureRedefining Sex, Marriage, and the Very Meaning of Right and

Wrong (Tomas Nelson ).

VERMON PIERRE(, rinity Evangelical Divinity School)

is the lead pastor for preaching and mission at RooseveltCommunity Church in Phoenix, Arizona. He is the authorof Gospel Shaped Living, the latest installment in the GospelShaped Church curriculum published by Te Good BookCompany and GC.


7/105

DANIEL STRANGE(, Bristol University) is academic viceprincipal and tutor in culture, religion, and public theology atOak Hill College, London. His most recent book is Teir Rock

Is Not Like Our Rock: A Teology of Religions (Zondervan, ).


8/105


9/105

Introduction

CLOUDY WITH A 100

PERCENT CHANCE

OF STORMS

COLLIN HANSEN

years since James Davison Hunterpublished his landmark book o Change the World: Te Irony,ragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern

World.In many ways the book has been influential beyond

James Davison Hunter, o Change the World: Te Irony, ragedy, and

Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World(New York: Oxford,

).


10/105

REVISITING 'FAITHFUL PRESENCE'2

its numerical readership in advocating faithful presence,

warning against ressentiment,

and exploring the particularinfluence of densely networked elites in shaping our sharedculture.Te disproportionate effect of the book on changingthe opinion and action of evangelical professors, pastors, andnon-profit executives supports a key argument from Hunter,the Labrosse-Levinson distinguished professor of religion,culture, and social theory at the University of Virginia andexecutive director of the Institute for Advanced Studies inCulture. Change may come imperceptibly, slowly at first. Buteventually, as the tastemakers of any given culture have theirway, the rest of us barely remember to imagine the world as itwas.

Five years, then, is hardly long enough to reach any firmconclusions about whether events will confirm Huntersthesis. Hunter sharply criticizes popular political voices from

Chuck Colsonto Jim Wallis,but evangelicals have hard-

Only by being fully present to God as a worshiping community and as

adoring followers can we be faithfully present in the world. For more

see Hunter, o Change the World, . [Nietzsches] definition of this French word included what we in the

English-speaking world mean by resentment, but it also involves a com-

bination of anger, envy, hate, rage, and revenge as the motive of political

action. Ressentiment is, then, a form of political psychology. Hunter, o

Change the World, .

See Hunter, o Change the World, .




11/105

CLOUDY WITH A 100 PERCENT CHANCE OF STORMS 3

ly responded to his book by going silent for a seasonas

advised. Evangelicals still seem to prefer populist outrage tolong-term strategic placement and cooperation. Evangelicalscontinue to invest enormous emotional and financial capitalin the political process. In this sense, at least, Hunter hashardly been tried. Hes been found wanting by never beingfound at all.

But in another sense, evangelicals experiences of Amer-ican culture have changed dramatically in five years, partic-ularly in how they relate to government on sexual ethics andreligious freedom. Te context of the later George W. Bushadministration feels quite different from what we expect nowand going forward. Five years ago many evangelicals heardHunter as a call to seek faithful presence in the elite sectorsof society. Now many wonder if they could even gain access.And even when they can, do we believe evangelicals could

remain faithful under such pressure? Would they even be al-lowed to practice their faith according to a biblically formedconscience?

wo evangelicals, then, could look back on the last fiveyears and reach diametrically opposed conclusions aboutHunters book, even though both perspectives can be foundtherein.

It is not likely to happen, but it may be that the healthiest course of action

for Christians, on this count, is to be silent for a season and learn how to enact

their faith in pubic through acts of shalom rather than to try again to repre-

sent it publicly through law, policy, and political mobilization. Tis would

not mean civil privatism but rather a season to learn how to engage

the world in public differently and better. [italics original] Hunter, o

Change the World, .


12/105


() Look at how our culture has deteriorated for Chris-

tians. Tats why we need faithfully present Christians ineducation, in law, and in media to effect cultural change.Christians have neglected the influence of elites to their ownperil.

() Look at how our culture has deteriorated for Chris-tians. I dont see how Christians can be permitted to exercisepublic faith in education, law, and media in good conscience.Plus, the church is being rotted from the inside becauseChristians have allowed those influences to disciple ouryouth. Rather than faithful presence in the world we needstrategic attentiveness to our own house.

Hunters book, then, acts as a litmus test: should we dou-ble-down on the faithful presence strategy in light of howweve seen elites in the numerical minority turn institutionsto their advantage? Or does preoccupation with elite culture

distract us from Pauls foolishness of God example in Corinthians :? o be silent for a season sounds like theworst negligence when you see the federal government givemillions of dollars to aid Planned Parenthoods murderousagenda. And what is a better example of loving our neighborthan saving helpless babies from murder? But to be silentfor a season sounds like the only rational option when you

see Donald rump, even for a limited time, leading the pollsamong evangelical Republicans.

Te world needs the love of Christ and the example ofGods people as urgently as ever. But evangelicals, mired insocial media wars among themselves and plagued by ressenti-menton both Left and Right, do not appear up to the task.


13/105


.

Hunter and I met in his office this fall to talk about theweather. Or, rather, he played the role of cultural climatol-ogist to my meteorologist. He talked about the long-termtrends of Western civilization. I reported on the issues of theday. Tose issues have their origins in decades, even centu-ries of thought and learned behavior. So I sought help fromhim to read the climate based on my readings of our recent

cultural storms. I can see the clouds; he could help me predicttheir long-range potency.

Hunter, , published another seminal work, CultureWars: Te Struggle to Control the Family, Art, Education, Law,

and Politics in America, in . Not until the late s,however, did he begin to understand that in this book he haddescribed a great rupture in world history, the end of one era

and the beginning of the next. We have witnessed the endof Western civilization, which was built on reason (Athens)and revelation (Jerusalem), the work of Plato and Paul. Andwhether we recognize it or not, were seeing the dawn of theage of Nietzschehistory without meaning, the quest forpitiable comfort. We dont realize how pagan weve be-come, Hunter told me.

I asked him to come down from the clouds and help usunderstand. What makes you stay up and worry? I in-quired.

Capitalism is the most global, the most powerful insti-tution in human history, Hunter explained. But marketslike anything else in creation give expression to the fall. Andwithout a moral system markets are only nihilistic.


14/105


Whether or not you agree with Hunter, and Greg Forster

does not in the next chapter of this eBook, we must not missthe significance of September , . In their effort to up-end world order, Islamic terrorists targeted the most visiblesymbols of capitalism. In response the most powerful politi-cal leader in the world urged patriotic Americans to respondby shopping and traveling. Te response tells you what keepsour political leaders up at night, too.

Hunter hardly seemed fazed by the biggest weather de-velopment of our culture since , the Obergefell v. Hodgesdecision earlier this year that legalized same-sex marriageacross the United States. So why didnt the decision registerwith him as significant? Because in his mind the decisionhad been foreordained at least years ago. Te justice whowrote the decision, Anthony Kennedy, might be the mostinfluential public theologian and philosopher for our era.

Hes not an innovator, but he has codified into constitutionallaw on marriage and abortion the momentous cultural shifttoward expressive individualism.And he was appointed byPresident Ronald Reagan, the greatest electoral achievementof the Religious Right. No amount of political strategy andinvestment can overcome a cultural revolution that has sweptaway the old order.

Its easy to think Hunter must be pessimistic about anyChristian efforts to change the world, given the sharp cri-

See Robert Bellah, Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in

American Life(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, ).


15/105


tiques of his book. But hes surprisingly sanguine about

our opportunity as Christians to grow the grass on which abetter civilization might be built as an alternative to the ageof Nietzsche. Te God who is present and faithful to everygeneration gives us eyes to see a more beautiful world. And inChrist he grants us peace that isnt from this world. We dontlive from election cycle to cycle. Were engaged in the work ofa century, at least.

Tis book is not at all about withdrawal, Hunter insists.Its all about engagement. But I dont conflate the publicwith the political.

Te essays of this eBook seek to highlight the mostinsightful aspects of o Change the Worldeven as several ofthe contributors offer substantial critique. Te process hassharpened my own thinking about why the book struck meas so important five years ago. Here I offer one insight for

each year, along with one major concern in my last point.() Courage and conviction are not enough, as Hunt-

er shows in his analysis of historical culture change. Yes,following Jesus necessarily means well be hated, at least bysome (John :).But courage and conviction withoutcooperation and compromise accomplish little in the realmof common grace, where were called to love our neighbors in

word and deed.() Populism doesnt change cultures. And neither does

heroic individualism. Hunter famously cites the example ofJews and gays as minorities that exercise outsized influence

For more on how Jesus prepares Christians for facing enemies of the

gospel, see Collin Hansen, Blind Spots: Becoming a Courageous, Compas-

sionate, and Commissioned Church(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, ).


16/105


on government, media, education, and the arts.What does

change culture, then? Dense networks of people working inoverlapping fields. So dont misunderstand the example ofthe civil rights movement. Heroic individuals like Rosa Parksand Martin Luther King Jr. were assisted by high-placedallies in government and media. Te same is true of themarching masses.

() When evangelicals perceive cultural declension, re-vival becomes a popular topic.But its much less popular torecruit allies to build institutions and structures for the longhaul. And yet history suggests that revivals leave a lastinglegacy on earth when they change social structures and notjust hearts. Such was the case with the work of William Wil-berforce and the revived Clapham Sect when they abolishedslavery in early th-century England.

() Politics trumps all in Christian cultural engagement.

But it shouldnt. Because weve defined our discipleship inrelation to the state, the world knows Christians by ourpolitics. And history shows that churches characterized bypartisan politics fall with the fortunes of their patron parties.However it happened, religious liberty has been recast as aposition of self-interest, rather than a constitutional guar-antee. So Kim Davis in Kentucky reinforces the perception

of Christians as exercising the self-righteous privileges ofdiscrimination. Our neighbors cant connect our principledstand with love for them. Yet our fallen world also provides


For more on how God has worked with unexpected power in the past,

see Collin Hansen and John Woodbridge,A God-Sized Vision: Revival

Stories that Stretch and Stir(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, ).


17/105


opportunities to show the way of grace and forgiveness, as in

the case of the Charleston Nine this year.() All three modes of cultural engagement identified byHunterpurity from, defensive against, and relevant toreflect some biblical truth on their own. But the example ofJesus, rather than the contrast with each other or previousgenerations, must fuel our imaginations. Te more we com-pliment ourselves for not making the mistakes of our fathers,the more likely we are to be judged by our sons and daugh-ters as missing the point of Jesus.

Assessing the ministry of Jesus, o Change the Worldfavors two dimensions of the atonement over all others: hisexample and triumph over the forces of evil. But thats notthe only or even the primary way God is present to us andfaithful to his promises. Without the imputation of Christsrighteousness to believers by faith and the satisfaction of

Gods wrath against sin (Rom. :; Cor. :; John :;:), we remain enemies of God under judgment. Tose wholove God and love their neighbors know how much theyvebeen forgiven (Luke :). Hunters appeal to the commongood would have been stronger with more sustained empha-sis on this dimension of Christs work.

See Hunter,o Change the World, .

Tis is a main point of my book Blind Spots, which was influenced by

Hunter.

For such a case see imothy Keller, Generous Justice: How Gods Grace

Makes Us Just (New York: Dutton, ).


18/105


In so much discussion over Hunters book, his main applica-tion has barely registered: the local church offers Christiansthe faithful presence of God and the means to support theirmission in every sphere of creation. Essays I and II of Hunt-ers book have seven chapters, matching the biblical numberfor completeness. But Essay III has only six chapters. Tatsbecause, Hunter told me, he intended for the church to write

that chapter in her practice. Healthy spiritual formation, asHunter argues in the book, comes in community culture. Asthe pastor of rinity Presbyterian Church in Charlottesville,Greg Tompson earned his PhD under Hunter at the Uni-versity of Virginia. Hes seeking to implement this vision ofmissionary churches for a secular age with the twin goals offorming faithful Christians and unleashing them as creative

institution-builders in all cultural spheres.Even so, many think Hunter is an elitist fixated oninfiltration of high society. Tey miss this key role he assignsto the church. Hes hopeful about churches that see theircommunities as parishes of networked families. Such densecultures learn and love in ways that overflow to their neigh-bors and result in praise to God. At the same time, Hunterinsists his work applies equally well to your local school as itdoes to Washington, D.C. Tese schools change as teacherswork with parents, administrators cooperate with local gov-ernment officials, and religious leaders consult with businessowners. All are elites in their own spheres. All have powerto enact change, but they can accomplish a great deal moretogether than they can separately.


19/105


Hunters book has mostly reached elites during the last

five years. But he challenges all Christians to deploy what-ever status and wealth they have been entrusted by God asthey carry one anothers burdens. He does not offer a path toinfluence so much as the mode of faithfulness in our secularage.

Status is about exclusion, Hunter told me, and thatsrepugnant to the gospel. He continued, Jesus chose a com-mon fisherman, Peter, and he also chose as his chief theolo-gian Paul, one of the greatest minds of all time.

Whether youre more like Peter or Paul, God can workwith each one of us to change our little corner of the world.And maybe even more. Te weather may be cloudy with a percent chance of storms. But the long-range forecasttells us the clouds come with God himself (Rev. :).

Te essays of this eBook reflect diverse approaches toHunters work. Greg Forster offers an extensive overview ofHunters context and contributes substantial critique on twoaspects in particular. Te other essays contribute shorter takeson key aspects of Hunters thesis. None should be regarded as

attempting exhaustive engagement with Hunters mammothanalysis of culture and history. Nevertheless each opens awindow into how thinkers and practitioners of various back-grounds have grappled with their calling since when thebook released.


20/105


21/105

TO LOVE THE WORLD:

THE IRONY, TRAGEDY,

AND POSSIBILITY

OF TO CHANGE

THE WORLD

GREG FORSTER

Davison Hunters o Changethe Worldwith the wrong question in mind. Tis book is notasking the question, What should Christians do about theculture today? It does not tell us what to do next. It puts usin a position to think clearly about what to do next.

Tis book is a unique and astonishing gift to the church.In spite of several tragic flaws that urgently need correc-

tionwell get to those laterthe book as a whole is not just


22/105


brilliant but incredibly timely. It came at just the moment

when the church most needed it.As the secularizing and oppressive political dynamicHunter described has unfolded in the past five years, theAmerican churchs view of its cultural situation has beenrevolutionized. We are beginning to think clearly about oursituation in a way we did not before. Tis revolution hasnot been exclusively due to Hunters o Change the World, ofcourse, but it is hard to think of a book that excels or evenequals its catalytic power.

Te realization we are coming to might be distilled asthis: Christian influence on culture occurs not primarily byhuman design (although human designs are involved) but byGods invisible and supernatural use of the suffering perse-verance of his people in their positions of public stewardshipin all domains of culture. Tis insight is not fully present in

o Change the World, particularly because the book is con-cerned with describing natural sociological forces and doesnot anticipate supernatural activity. But o Change the Worldwas indispensable in our realization of this insight.

Tus, the failure of faithful presence to provide a pathforward for the church does not detract from the booksimportance. Perhaps the most striking sign of Hunters in-

fluence is the pathetic weakness of current attempts to revivethe Christian Right. With historic religion and traditionalmorality both under attack by militant secularizers whoflagrantly twist the law and rig the language game (as PeterEpps puts it), conditions for the emergence of a new MoralMajority would seem to be almost perfect. Not long agoI published a handwringing article predicting exactly this


23/105

TO LOVE THE WORLD 15

development and foreboding the damage it would do before

it finally collapsed.I was mistaken. Te new Christian Right is already col-lapsing even as it launches. It is making an enormous effortto sell its product, but customers arent buying. Apparently,Christian leaders have seen through the advertisements andwill not be taken in by the same hustle again. More than anyother single individual, Hunter deserves thanks.

At this point it is natural to ask, So, what comes next?But the whole point of o Change the World is that we needto resist jumping straight to that question. Tere are severalother questions we must ask first. One of them is, Whatcame before?

Te importance of o Change the Worldwas crystallizedfor me when I heard Stephen Grabill remark that Hunt-er awoke us from our dogmatic slumbers. Tat statementinvokes an important history.

o Change the Worldmust be read in light of a greatworld-historical problem: if the social order does not enforcea faith by law, is it even possible for religion to influence our

way of life? Hunter himself, starting in the subtitle and thevery first paragraph of the book, insists on this historicalcontext for his argument. As he says in his second sentence,the question animating the book is, How is religious faithpossible in the late modern world? We must answer thatbefore we even begin to think about the question, Whatshould Christians do about the culture today?


24/105


Modern anxieties about culture date back to about the

mid-th century, when great minds began to see that theEnlightenments social project was failing. Tough the earlymoderns had not intended it, religious diversity in moderncultural structures permits, and in some ways encourages, adecay of publicly shared commitments to metaphysics andmorals. One of the most devastating diagnoses of the prob-lem came from David Hume, a great skeptic who set out toslay Enlightenment rationalism. His attack on the practicalvalue of reason sent shockwaves through the intelligentsia ofEurope.

But Hume did not slay rationalism. He awoke a sleepinggiant to its defense.

Immanuel Kant wrote that Hume awoke me from mydogmatic slumbers. Hume forced Kant to see the threat tometaphysics and morals that lay at the heart of modernity.

Kant was unwilling to abandon modern commitments likereligious freedom, constitutional democracy, and economicdevelopment. But the pluralism and fragmentation permittedby these structures undermined the very beliefs upon whichthose structures rested. Somehow, a way had to be found tosustain belief in transcendent things without going back tothe injustices of aristocracy and enforced religious orthodoxy.

Kants solution was an ingenious new idea: Trough acombination of public activities, including philosophy, art,politics, science, and more, people of diverse faiths could bebrought to a shared and public commitment to the old mor-als and metaphysicswithout the return of the old injustices.He called this combination of edifying public activities cul-


25/105


ture, and he spent the rest of his career mapping out what it

meant and how he thought it could be done.We have been fighting about culture ever since.

Given the ubiquitous importance of the concept today, it isstriking to realize that nobody ever used the word culturein the sense we now give it before the rise of the modernsocial order. Te Athenians did not talk about defending theirculture when they made Socrates drink poison. Nor did theGenevans talk about defending their culture when they burntServetus alive. Tey talked about their gods.

Te concept of culture emerged to fill the gap betweenreligion and social order in the modern world. Before mo-dernity, from the earliest civilizations right down to the last

dying gasps of the medieval order, every society believed thatthe only way to hold a social order together was through anenforced religious orthodoxy. Tey didnt think it would bepossible to sustain a stable society with a gap between reli-gion and social order; hence they had no concept of cultureto fill that gap.

We modernsall of usare involved in a great and glo-

rious effort, now almost three centuries old, to have our cakeand eat it, too. We want to distinguish religion from socialorder and still have a moral and stable social order. We wantreligious freedom and public morals, democracy andjusticethat transcends popular passions and interests, an entrepre-neurial economy and identity and roots, equal dignity forwomen and stable families.


26/105


Tat is, we want a miracle. We want something that is

naturally impossiblethat human beings should controltheir own behavior voluntarily rather than being controlledfrom without by an enforced religious orthodoxy. Such be-havior can be sustained for a while, sometimes for a surpris-ingly long while, by mere self-restraint. But in the long runit requires something deeper: not self-restraint but death toself.

You will not find the power of death to self in humannature. But you will find it in a source above human nature.

Kant was a rationalist. He believed in God and morality,but he did not have much time for miracles. So it is ironicthat his effort to save the modern world through cultureturns out to require a miracle. Kants methods cant solveKants problem; natural reason does not, by itself, produce asustainable social order. When it is detached from revealed

religion that transcends culture, the ideal of culture leadsfirst to racism and nationalism, then to relativism and nihil-istic despair.

Tat is why Kants heirs have abandoned the project.Secular people today view culture as something that dividesus into radically hostile factions, not something that unitesus and produces a stable social order. Only religious believers

still think culture can provide a mediating space where it ispossible to forge a shared moral order among diverse people.And that is not an accident.

Tat is the answerat least it is my answerto the ques-tion that animates o Change the World. How is a religiousway of life possible in advanced modernity? Only by super-natural power. With man it is not possible, but. . . .


27/105


In o Change the World, Hunter is not our Kant, come toshow us how to build culture. He is our Hume, our skeptic,above all a skeptic of rationalism. He has come to awaken usfrom our dogmatic slumbers.

We have been telling ourselves, in various ways, that allthese sublime paradoxesfreedom and moral order, democ-racy and transcendent justice, and so onare not paradoxical

at all. Tey are the most natural thing in the world. It is oursocietys current problems that are unnatural, abnormal,the result of a previous generations failure of eternal vigi-lance. Tus the train can be put back on its tracks througha straightforward program. By electing politicians who willrestore moral laws, or by expanding the technocratic andredistributionist state, or by creating a counterculture of righ-

teous social life contained within the church, we can correctthe problem and restore the natural order.Tese cheap and easy answers are the dogmatic slumbers

from which we are awakening. Human nature provides notracks for this train. Nothing is more unnatural, more abnor-mal, than to give people freedom and see them use it to buildmoral order; to give people democracy and see them vote forjustice; to give people stewardship over their own propertyand see them create economic flourishing; to permit diverseexpressions of what it means to be masculine or feminine,and nonetheless find men and women realizing they needone another as life partners.

Such things have sometimes happened. But when theyhave happened, they have never been ordinary. Tey aremiracles in our midst.


28/105


We have become too comfortable in the world we are

trying to change. We have lost the sense that a strong andmoral culture is a miracle. In the presence of this miracle, weshould be struck dumb with awe and wonder. In its absence,we should be humble and not demand it as an entitlement,any more than we demand as an entitlement the power towalk on water or raise the dead.

In the first section of the book, Hunter lays out the conven-tional Christian understanding of culture that he has cometo demolish. He summarizes it in three erroneous proposi-tions. First, cultural change is a downstream result of per-sonal change; we work relationally with our neighbors oneon one to cultivate personal transformation, and eventually

culture is transformed as a cumulative result of many individ-ual transformations. Second, cultural change is the result ofour designs and efforts; where the church is losing influencewithin culture we are consistently told that the problem is wearent trying hard enough. Tird, cultural transformation isdemocratic; institutions of power and influence are forced tochange from the bottom up, as the result of widespread one

on one persuasion among the masses.Tese three errors have a single cause: rationalism. We

think culture changes one on one as we use reasoning topersuade people to our worldview, which we think we canreduce to a series of propositional sentences; once peopleassent to this propositional content, culture will change as anatural result. We think culture can be changed by design

and effort because we think culture responds strongly and


29/105


predictably to the power of ideas simply as such. We think

cultural change is democratic because it occurs by reasoning,a process that is in principle open to all regardless of socialstation. (Hunter calls this rationalism Hegelianism becauseHegel is famously associated with the idea that historyes-pecially the history of changes in social orderis the gradualunfolding of an inevitable process of human enlightenmentand discovery.)

Te force of Hunters critique of rationalism becomesclear in one of his most striking examples. Fully percentof Americans believe God created the human race, either byspecial creation or by guiding natural forces. It follows that,on the conventional view of culture, a religious understand-ing of human origins has achieved as close to total victory asmight reasonably be expected. Yet this understanding doesnot in fact dominate our culture; far from it.

Against the conventional view, Hunter offers eleven propo-sitionsseven about what culture is and four about how itchanges. He then draws a rough map of current Christian ef-forts to change culture. Te map shows the inadequacy of our

approaches in light of his revisionist understanding of culture.Hunters eleven propositions defy easy summary, and

anyone who wants to understand o Change the Worldmustread this section with special care. Tat said, the proposi-tions might be summarized thus: Culture is a messy andsomewhat incoherent system of beliefs about what is true andgood that is deeply buried in our way of life (far too deep to

be fully surfaced through rational thought) by a historical


30/105


process of interaction between ideas and networks of individ-

uals and institutions. Tis process involves unequal distribu-tion of cultural power (i.e., the power to embed beliefs aboutwhat is true and good into our way of life) among individualsand institutions. Large-scale changes in culture are producedwhen individuals and institutions relatively high on the scaleof cultural powerbut not at the very top, where conformityis most strongly enforcedform extensively overlapping net-works. If these networks are willing to fight for the changethey seek, they can mobilize their power to force those at thevery top to accommodate it.

Christians (or anyone else) who want to affect culturemust therefore pursue excellence in a wide variety of culturalactivities. We need excellence in order to perform culturaltasks in places that have high levels of cultural power. Andwe need to be active in a wide variety of cultural activities

in order to build dense, overlapping networks across manydomains; only such broad-based networks are capable ofmobilizing cultural power in a way that challenges the statusquo. However, as Hunter shows, Christian leaders are notinvesting available resources in a broad spectrum of cultur-al activities, and Christians are concentrated in lowbrow,grassroots, practical everyday modes of cultural production

on the periphery of cultural power, where the highest levelsof excellence are typically not demanded.

Here, Hunter introduces a new explanation for theinadequacy of existing efforts, in addition to rationalism. Heargues that Christianity is essentially democratic in charac-ter, because it affirms the equal intrinsic dignity of all people,as against the worlds natural elitism. While this is good in

itself, the populism that is inherent to authentic Christian


31/105


witness is often transformed into an oppressive egalitarian-

ism that will suffer no distinctions between higher and loweror better and worse.Tis problem will be familiar to readers of Aristotles Pol-

itics or ocquevilles Democracy in America. Just as aristocraticinstitutions tend to encourage arrogant paternalism in thearistocrats, which ultimately destroys the aristocracy, dem-ocratic institutions tend to encourage resentful envy amongthe populace, which ultimately destroys the democracy. Ar-istocracies can only survive if they teach their snotty youngaristocrats that the common mans plea for justice and mercyis to be taken seriously; democracies can only survive if theyteach their snotty young democrats that the superiority ofexceptional talent and virtue is to be taken seriously.

Hunter makes one critical misstep in this section. Hechooses to treat political and economic systems as distinct

from culture, rather than as parts of culture. Tis is obvi-ously wrong; the way we define and enforce public justiceand exchange our labor and possessions is one of the mostimportant ways in which beliefs about the true and the goodget deeply buried into our way of life. Hunter himself seemsto be aware of this (of course, such distinctions are finallyunsatisfactory), yet he inexplicably makes this false distinc-

tion a central pillar of his analysis. Tis will cause him majorheadaches later on.

Hunter,o Change the World, .



32/105


Te second part of the book, which contains its greatesttriumphs and its worst flaws, is about power. One of the mostalarming phenomena in our world is the slow but steadypoliticization of everything. Nothing seems to stop it. Hunterwas not the first to explain why this is happening; Shake-speare depicts the process and its causes in Te Merchant ofVenice. But Hunter is the first to get the explanation into a lot

of Christians heads today, including mine. Tis is one of themost important contributions of o Change the World.

Religious freedom and the modern institutions associatedwith itespecially constitutional democracy and an entre-preneurial economyare pluralistic. Tey assume societywill be made up of people with diverse religious, metaphysi-cal, and moral views. Te early pioneers of religious freedom

believed that even in such an environment, it would be rela-tively simple to maintain public consensus on the basic moralcommitments necessary for social order.

Tey were mistaken. As modernity has developed, wehave less and less that actually holds us together. At a super-ficial level we do agree on the moral basicsdont kill, dontsteal, keep your promises, help your neighbor. But theseare abstractions. What counts as murder? What counts asstealing?

With less and less spontaneous cultural unity, we relymore upon power to hold society together. And politicalpower is (in the short term) the easiest form of power to usefor this purpose. Hence, especially since the New Deal, wehave seen an increasing tendency for every area of human lifeto come under political control. Law increases as cultural


33/105


consensus decreases.Nothing is public or shared except

the political.

,

If political power is the easiest form of power to use, mobi-lizing ressentimentis the easiest way to get political power.Ressentiment is not merely resentment, but anger, envy, hate,rage, and revenge as the motive of political action.You gainpower by cultivating grievances; everyone proclaims himselfa powerless victim of the powerful, in order to gain power.Identifying enemies who have done us wrong and need to bepunished becomes the political activity.

Hence we are caught in a double bind. Everything publicbecomes political, and everything political becomes a night-mare of hatred and injustice.

Christian attempts to influence culture have been char-acterized by the same trends. Lacking the ability to bringpeople together spontaneously and organicallyindeed,often lacking even the awareness of such an alternativewehave turned to politics as the natural and (effectively) solemethod of changing the world. And we have partaken of themethods of ressentiment to do so.

Hunter analyzes three Christian political movementsthe Christian Right, the Christian Left, and the anti-po-litical neo-Anabaptists. Te Christian Right mobilizesressentiment to take back America from the secular Leftand enact moral laws; the Christian Left mobilizes ressenti-


Hunter, o Change the World, .


34/105


ment to take back America from the Christian Right and

expand the technocratic state; the neo-Anabaptists mobilizeressentiment to take back traditional social order from whatit conceives of as the demonic forces of modernity.

In all three cases, the church has no public witness otherthan its political witness. Nothing is public except the polit-ical. And in all three cases, the church maintains its identityand mission by identifying convenient scapegoat figures anddemonizing them.

Hunter then goes on to advocate two things. One is thatthe church should drop out of politics and stay out until wehave learned to do politics betterjust like we learn to playhockey better by sitting in the penalty box. Dropping out

of politics is in any event impossible, since God has madehuman beings as political creatures; one would think thecollapse of the neo-Anabaptists into ressentimentwould havebeen enough to teach this lesson.

In words that would have brought nods of approval fromMachiavelli, Hobbes, Carl Schmitt, and (especially) Tra-symachus, Hunter declares that politics is invariably about

powernot only power, but finally about power.Tis istheologically, philosophically, and empirically unsustainable.Te prophetic witness against unjust kings and the apostolicdescription of the (pagan!) emperor as Gods minister to youfor your good clearly rule out the Hunter/Trasymachusview. As Plato shows in the Republic, all political action nec-



35/105


essarily presupposes that politics is ultimately about justice

rather than power; that is the only thing that makes it polit-ical action in the first place. Tis is the only reason politicalaction is morally accountable. If politics is ultimately aboutpower, justice simply means the interests of the power-fuland if that were true, we would not even have a conceptof justice, or of politics. As Augustine said, following Cicerowho followed Plato, if justice were not the defining feature ofpolitical action we would make no distinction between kingsand criminals.

Hunters analysis of political action is deeply material-istic. Materialism is the view that there is no reality higherthan that of material objects and forces, and if Christianityis true any materialistic analysis must be false. But becauseHunter has chosen to treat politics as if it were not a part ofculture, his description of it cannot avoid materialism. He

defines politics solely in terms of coercion; justice may comein, but only superficially. His treatment of economics else-where in the book, such as it is, is equally materialistic andtherefore equally false. He thinks economics is about money,and the higher meaning of our stewardship and cooperativelabor is peripheral.

Hunter also tries to justify his position biblically, but he

does not treat the Bible as if it were Gods Word. He doesnot expect the Bible to act constructively by the supernaturalpower of the Holy Spirit. Instead, he goes to the Bible onlyto find support for sociological theories that he constructsand brings to the text. Not surprisingly, he finds that theBible supports his sociology on every point.

His recommendation that the church abstain from pol-

itics is balanced with boilerplate statements that sometimes


36/105


political action is acceptable. But these are hard to square

with his insistence that all political and economic systems aredemonic (the kingdoms of this world referred to in Luke: include politics and economics) and our participation inpolitical systems in particular can never be done in Christsname or as part of the kingdom of God. If so, Christianscannot participate in them, because everything Christiansdo must be done in Christs name and in obedience to thekingdom of God.

Hunter does not want to denounce Martin Luther KingJr. as evil. As the logic of his materialistic political philoso-phy draws him inexorably toward that conclusion, he search-es frantically for an escape hatch, and the results are notimpressive. He says the right things, but he cannot squarethem with his larger philosophy.

Hunter needed to draw on a concept of politics that distin-guishes the basic moral premises of a civil community andits constitution (in our case, the equal dignity of all humanbeings and their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit ofhappiness) from the contest for power among parties and

ideologies. As Ross Douthat has said, the church must bepolitical without being partisan.We must rebuild a vocab-


Ross Douthat and Collin Hansen, How to Be Political But Not

Partisan, podcast audio, Te Gospel Coalition, accessed September ,

, http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-to-be-political-

but-not-partisan.


37/105


ulary that allows us to be political in the sense of speaking

to thepolis, the civil order, and its basic moral commitmentswithout taking sides in partisan disputes. We must affirmmoral commitments that transcend partisan and ideologicaldivisions, and hold political and economic leaders (along witheverybody else) accountable to them.

Hunters ill-considered first proposal has unfortunatelydrawn attention away from his second proposal. He urgesthe church to help our culture decouple the public from thepolitical. Tis is an absolutely critical mission for the churchtoday. As Hunter says, the right functioning of the politicalsphere of life depends on the right functioning of publicactivities that are not political. Hunter is right that thereare no political solutions to the problems most people careabout.

Only through non-political public activities can a bet-

ter way of life be made plausible and legitimate within ourculture. Only such a restoration of the non-political publicsquare can halt the politicization of all life. And workingfor such a restoration is the only way the church can escapecaptivity to ressentiment.

Te church can mobilize to help create profitable busi-nesses in economically distressed areas, creating opportunity

for the image of God in impoverished people to shine forthin the dignity of work and the moral virtue of economicproductivity. (Although doing so will require the church toovercome the economic naivet displayed, for example, in oChange the Worlds description of the auto dealership busi-ness.) Te church can expose the brutality and inhumanity



38/105


practiced in exploitative industries. It can help people rebuild

marriages and recover from addictions, and explain in thepublic square how and why these recoveries are possible. Itcan create cultural products that reflect the good, the true,and the beautiful.

It can do all this while, at the same time, creating newways to engage in politics that prioritize justice over power.

Once we see that cultural power is, and must always be,unequally distributed, and that efforts to use it are so prone totragic abuse and ressentiment, Christians might well respond:In that case, to hell (literally) with culture! Hence we mightnaturally expect the third part of the book to begin plottingwhat solutions to these challenges would look like.

Tis is the key error of most readers of o Change theWorld. Tey read the third section expecting answers andare frustrated at the vagueness of what they find. But thethird section of the book does not primarily offer solutions(although some gestures are made in that direction). Instead,it maps out the more fundamental reasons why we face thesechallengesthe deep problems in social structure that pro-

duce the more openly manifested problems described in thefirst two sections.

One of these deep problems is what Hunter calls dif-ference. Te fact of social pluralism creates a competitionfor power between groups. Where difference underminescultural consensus, conflicts are harder to resolve, and greateropportunities for ressentiment arise. Shylocks famous speech

about the relations between Christians and Jews begins with


39/105


the compassion of a shared human nature: If you prick us,

do we not bleed? But it ends in vicious division: And if youwrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest,we will resemble you in that.

Under the surface of these conflicts is a desire to re-capture the certainty and stable identity that was taken forgranted in earlier social orders. In an environment whereonly one religion is permitted and alternatives are brutallysuppressed, plausibility structures in daily life make thedominant religion seem unshakably certain. We may rightlygive thanks that questions of religious truth are no longersettled by force, and that we no longer take God and faith forgranted as we once did. Yet where there is religious freedom,the confidence borne from beliefs that are taken for grantedtypically gives way to belief plagued by ambivalence and un-certainty. Te uncertainty is not a matter of insufficient will

or deficient commitment but a natural social psychologicalreaction to weakened plausibility structures.In this envi-ronment, the church cannot play its historic role as defenderof social order, and pressures of assimilation to the worldbecome extremely strong.

Te other problem is dissolution. In a pluralistic socialenvironment, no one is sure what words really mean. We

may all agree murder is wrong, but what does that mean?What is justice? What is truth? In the exchange betweenShylock and Portia, Shakespeare provides a terrifyingglimpse of this dissolution in action; an innocent mans muti-lation and death hang in the balance, and they cannot even




40/105


talk to each other. In such an environment, the only thing

that is irrefutable, the only thing left to connect words to theworld, are will and poweras Portia demonstrates in hermerciless resolution of the case. In addition to pluralism andthe breakdown of plausibility structures, Hunter attributesdissolution to nave uses of new communications technology.

Hunter identifies three inadequate responses to theseconditions. Greg Tompson has helpfully described theseapproaches as the domination, fortification, and accommoda-tion paradigms.Te domination paradigm of the ChristianRight thinks the problem is merely secularization; it doesntsee the challenges of pluralism and dissolution, and ends upunintentionally retreating into a frustrated parallel universeof alternative institutions. Te fortification paradigm of theneo-Anabaptists and others also withdraws into this par-allel universe, but intentionally so, dreaming of a utopian

enclave; this project ends in self-referential nullitythechurch has no obligation other than to be itself.Mean-while, the accommodation paradigm of the Christian Leftand also, more broadly, of what used to be called seeker-sen-sitive and emergent churches, can neither sustain the integri-ty of the faith nor offer clarity to a confused culture.


Greg Tompson, Te Church in Our ime: Nurturing Congregations

of Faithful Presence. Accessed September , , http://denverinsti-

tute.org/wp-content/uploads///Te-Church-In-Our-ime-A-

New-City-Commons-White-Paper_.pdf.



41/105


Hunter cannot lay all these challenges on the table and thensay nothing about solutions. However, as he emphasizes re-peatedly, the solutions dont yet exist. Tey will require at leasta generation for the church to develop, and even then onlyas the result of painstaking labor by many people, not all ofwhom will agree about everything. Faithful presence within

the culture is not so much a solution as a placeholder phraseto stand in for the solutions that neither Hunter nor anyoneelse has really developed.

In faithful presence within the culture, note thecritically important word within. Tis is the only wordthat matters. Tere is nothing particularly distinctive aboutcalling Christians to be faithful, or to be culturally present.

All three of the inadequate approaches do the same. WhereHunter suggests something genuinely different is when hecalls upon us to conceive ourselves as within the culture.

All three of the inadequate approaches conceive of thechurch as something that stands upon an Archimedeanpoint, outside the culture, holding a lever with which tomove it. Archimedes said that with a lever long enough hecould move the whole world, if only he could find a placeto stand. But there was no place for him to stand outsidethe world, and there is no place for us to stand outside theculture.

Human beings are cultural creatures. o be human is tobe embedded in a dense web of relationships that (to a greatextent, although not fully) define our identity as individ-uals. God made us that way, made us to be formed by our


42/105


culturesthat is, by our relationships with those around

us. Tus the church is never outside culture, simply becausehuman beings are never outside culture. Te church alwaysexists already within the culture.

While Hunter, like the rest of us, does not have solu-tions at hand, he identifies several elements that a solutionwould need to contain. Te most important of these is moralformation; the church must learn to make disciples, not justmake converts. Such disciples must know how to enact Godsblessings for the world through neighbor-love in all theirvocational tasks, especially by serving the poor and vulner-able, while also maintaining an appropriate state of tensionwith the world around them rather than simply assimilating.Even an appropriate state of tension will be needed withinthe church, as we learn to work together amid our differenc-es. And this program of discipleship will have the greatest

cultural effect when undertaken by those who are in, or ableto enter, positions of cultural power.

In all this, Hunter does little more than reiterate whathas already been said for many years by figures as diverse asDallas Willard and David Wells. Te fact that these basicelements of discipleship are so unfamiliar to most Christianaudiences speaks volumes about the distance we still have to

go in educating our people and reforming the church.

An important idea in this section is the need to maintainwhat Hunter calls affirmation and antithesis toward our


43/105


culture, moving back and forth from one to the other.Affir-

mation is just what it sounds likeaffirming the goodness ofthings in the culture that are genuinely good, and maintain-ing a sense that the activities we undertake within our cultureare meaningful and ought to be a source of profound satis-faction when done rightly. Antithesis is standing against orsubverting what is wrong in the culture, never out of hostilityto the culture as such, but in order to correct what the culturedoes wrong.

Hunter rightly says we must begin with affirmation.Only after we have helped people see the rightness of what isright can we help them see the wrongness of what is wrong.And only after we have identified ourselves as members ofour culture who love it and want to serve it will we havestanding to do so.

Yet, curiously, Hunters description of faithful presence

within the culture involves little affirmation. It seems to bealmost exclusively a campaign of subversion and even of sab-otage. It brings to mind the old story of the Greeks buildinga great cultural artifact and persuading the rojans to takeit inside the walls of their citadel of powerso they can bedestroyed by the Greeks hiding inside.

Tis is another result of Hunters decision to treat polit-

ical and economic systems as non-cultural. He is unable tocreate genuine attachment to the culture. His anxieties aboutpolitical and economic evils may be submerged, but they arenever far below the surface. A church that does not reallyaccept, and proudly preach, the moral goodness (not just thematerial benefits) of political and economic systems will be



44/105


unable to inspire hope or perseverance in its own followers

cultural lives. It will also be unable to convict the world of itssin where the ideals implicit in these systems are violated.First we must say: Constitutional democracy and the

modern, entrepreneurial economy emerged from the be-lief that all people have dignity as stewards of the worldand must work together across all boundaries of race, class,religion, and language to collaborate in enacting justice andneighborly love. Tese systems are morally superior, by far,to the racism, tribalism, paternalism, and oppression thatdefined all previous political and economic systems. Onlyafter we have said this will we have standing to say to theoppressors and scoundrels: So just what do you think youredoing when you cheat and exploit people?

Tis is exactly how Martin Luther King Jr. operated.Read the section of I Have a Dream devoted to the Dec-

laration of Independence, or his comments on the expansionof economic opportunity in What Is Your Lifes Blueprint?King was able to stand strong against Americas injusticesbecause, and only because, he was a patriotic American whoreally saw, and really loved, what was so gloriously right inthe American experiment.

He loved his country enough to fight it. We must do the

same.

Another major challenge arises when we try to think throughwhat this subversion approach to cultural influence would re-quire in practice. Te very rojan Horse that Hunter wants to

use to get inside the walls of the culture has a way of turning


45/105


the Greeks inside into rojans. Hunter himself stresses the

extreme strength of the forces pulling us toward accommoda-tion. Tese forces will be strongest among those seeking andholding positions of cultural power.

If our approach to culture begins with antithesis andfocuses on sneaking our people into the centers of power forthe sake of subversion, its not clear how believers can live asChristians while they are in the process of sneaking in. Faithcompels us not only to orthodoxy but also to orthoprax-is. Tose who conform to the worlds ways in order to getinto centers of cultural power will not have much spiritualintegrity left to use that power rightly when they get there.But those who do not conform will have difficulty (to say theleast) getting into those centers of power.

Hunter says all the right things about the importanceof moral formation and the evils of elitism. However, his

account does not much address the special challenges tomoral formation and the especially strong temptationsto elitism that will be faced by those seeking positions ofcultural power. Te danger of elitism is somewhat mitigatedby Greg Tompsons scalable treatment of cultural power(i.e., instead of separating the sheep who have cultural powerfrom the goats who have none, recognize that all people

have some sphere within which they have cultural power,and some have larger spheres than others). Tompsons TeChurch in Our ime, a correction of Hunters submergedelitist tendencies, is required reading. Even so, the specter ofconformity to the world remains.

One particularly acute problem is sexuality and the fami-ly, a subject about which o Change the World says little. Sex-

ually immoral Christians will always fail as culture-changers


46/105


in the present environment of pagan sexuality. Tere is really

no hope of moral formation without a clear and well-definedunderstanding of right sexuality and disciplined practice inliving it out. A church that doesnt have a transcendent viewof marriage and doesnt know how to help people channeltheir sexual desires either into marriage or into celibacy willbe culturally lost before it begins.

And, as everyone from Plato to ocqueville has recog-nized, you cannot say anything about the family without be-coming deeply implicated in political and economic systems.Te family is the primary mediating structure between indi-viduals and the social order. If you are determined not to sayanything about politics and economics you will quickly findyou can say nothing about the family, and therefore nothingabout sexuality. You have made moral formation impossible.

Another acute problem is elitism and our mission to serve

the poor, the vulnerable and the oppressed. How can we setup young people to get inside centers of cultural power with-out their becoming paternalistic elitists? Nothing will createconflict with the powers at the top of the cultural laddermore quickly than real service to the poor. But if our peoplewait until theyre on the inside before they start serving thoseat the bottom, they will forget the humanity of those at the

bottom. Tey will serve the poor paternalistically, throughdehumanizing systems of control.

Moral formation must be grounded not only in the HolySpirit, Scripture, and the faith community, but also in amoral (not materialistic) affirmation of what is good in cul-ture. Tat is, it must be grounded not only in God but also inGods purposes in the world, his economy of all things. Tis

includes recognizing that God is already at work in the world


47/105


outside the churcheven in democratic and entrepreneurial

systems. At the same time, moral formation cannot be limit-ed to the creation and consummation theological elementsthat we might expect centers of cultural power to welcome; itmust include the fall and redemption theological elementsthat will get us crucified.

We cannot let worldly advancement be too importantto us. We must be willing to die to worldly advancement. Ifnecessary, we must sometimes fight our way into centers ofcultural power by serving the poor and the vulnerableandserving human needs generallybetter than the existingpowers do. Tat is another way to climb the cultural ladder.

o Change the World has an irony at its center. Tis central

irony gives rise to several interdependent flaws of analysis. olearn from this book we must become aware of this irony andthe deficient categories of thought it imposes.

Te irony is that Hunter, the great critic of rationalism,has not fully overcome rationalism. He writes about thenaivet of thinking we can change culture simply by per-suading people to adopt our worldview, a set of rational

propositions. But Hunter himself has a naively hierarchicalview of the forces of cultural change, with thinkers at the topand doers at the bottom. Academics are the generals in hisculture change army, artists are the colonels, and business-people are the buck privates. On this view, Steve Jobs andBill Gates made a disastrous mistake dropping out of college;if they really wanted to change the world, they should have

become sociologists.


48/105


Tere are indeed hierarchies of cultural power, but

intellectuals are not at the top. Tat is the prejudice of naveEnlightenment modernism. Te hierarchies exist withineach field of endeavoracademia, art, business, and so onbut not across them. Scholars and business leaders both haveknowledge, and they must learn from each other.

Te books inadequate approach to Scripture is related toHunters ironic rationalism. Liberal theology overestimatesthe power and importance of our reason. Reason is involvedin validating the authenticity of Scripture as Gods Wordand understanding what it says, but reason must also be re-ceptive to Scripture rather than simply forming proposals tobe affirmed or negated by Scripture. As Gerry Breshears putsit, we must not only interrogate Scripture but allow Scriptureto interrogate us.

Te books inadequate safeguards against conformity and

elitism are related to Hunters ironic rationalism. Te ideathat a highly rational elite class should take control of thelives of the poorfor the poors own good, of courseis atthe heart of the evil world-system the church must challengetoday. And moral formation must begin with an understand-ing that the body is as important to life as the mind; anyapproach to moral formation that does not put sexuality at

the center is simply out of court.Above all, the books false distinction between politics,

economics, and cultureand its consequent materialisticunderstanding of political and economic systemsis relatedto Hunters ironic rationalism. Politics and economics arethe most democratic, and hence the least rationalistic, of allspheres of cultural activity. Tey are the least responsive to

leadership from professional intellectuals; hence the intellec-


49/105


tuals have always been tempted to view them as less morally

and spiritually important than they are.Tese flaws in the book are interlocking. Te inadequatesafeguards against elitism are related to the false distinctionbetween politics, economics, and culture; being the mostdemocratic areas of life, these are also the areas where theequal dignity of all human beings is most obviously affirmed,and hence where the self-understanding of the average ratio-nalist is most challenged. Tis nexus of elitism and anti-po-litical thinking is in turn related to liberal theology; considerthe example of Martin Luther, whose recognition of Scrip-tures divine authority and the sovereignty of the individualconscience put him in direct conflict with both the politicalelites and the rationalistic theologians of his time.

Tis irony could easily lead to tragedy if not corrected. Teseed of great and terrible injustices is contained in one seem-ingly innocent passage where Hunter says that advanced mo-dernity creates the problem of a consumer mentality leakingout from economics, where it belongs, into other spheres oflife such as sexuality; and a leveling spirit of democratiza-

tion leaking out from politics, where it belongs, into otherspheres of life such as philosophy and art.Tis critique ofmodernity has been repeated among Christian intellectualsover and over again for decades, until it has reached the statusof platitude.



50/105


It is false. Ask the slaves and concubines and cult prosti-

tutes of ancient Rome whether commodification of sexuali-ty is a special product of advanced capitalism. Ask Socratesand Aristophanes if the leveling effect of democracy is amodern development. Tere is no need to invent theoriesabout the corrupting influence of modernity to explain theseubiquitous human evils. What really needs explaining is nottheir current return to prominence, but the brief and ex-traordinary historical period we have recently lived throughduring which they were relatively suppressed.

Tis idea is not just false; it is urgently dangerous. Itimplies that the monstrous sins of envy and consumerism areappropriate and even praiseworthy in political and economicsystems. Tey only become a problem if they are practicedelsewhere.

Something Hunter says about the neo-Anabaptists could

often be said about the analysis in o Change the World:Teir identity depends on the State and other powers be-ing corrupt and the more unambiguously corrupt they are,the clearer the identity and mission of the church. . . . Techurch depends on its status as a minority community inopposition to a dominant structure in order to be effective inits criticism of the injustices of democratic capitalism.

Te more we chant Politics is about power! Businessruns on greed! the more our political and economic leadersinternalize that narrative and act accordingly. As ArthurBrooks has said, societies tend to become what they describethemselves as being.We must beware of the deadly illu-


Arthur Brooks, Te Road to Freedom(New York: Basic Books, ).


51/105


sion that it is possible to delegitimize political and economic

systems and not be responsible for what takes place in thosesystems after we have helped remove the basis of their legiti-mization.

Hunters view that politics is about power inadvertent-ly legitimizes injustice; his view that capitalism inevitablydehumanizes workers and consumers inadvertently promotesthe dehumanization of workers and consumers. If politics isabout power, then mobilizing poisonous resentments in orderto dominate enemies is clearly what political leaders are sup-posed to be doing. If capitalism inevitably dehumanizes us,then ruthlessly exploiting customers and employees for profitis clearly what business leaders are supposed to be doing.Tats their job.

Pharisaism is morally paralyzing. You set out to condemneverything, and discover that by doing so, you have lost the

power to condemn anything.Te danger is that the church may become ideological-

ly fortificationist and functionally accommodationist. Tatis, it would tell itself a story that overemphasizes the evilsof political and economic systemsthus helping removemoral guidance from those spheres of activity, while movingthe church toward the self-referential nullity of having no

mission other than to be itselfand then nonetheless sendChristians out into centers of cultural power, having talkedabout moral formation but paid insufficient attention tocritical loci of that formation, such as sexuality and servingthe poor. Te intention of sending Christians into the centersof cultural power would be to subvert those structures, butmore often they would end up simply conforming to them

and serving them. Tus the church would have the worst of


52/105


both worlds, accelerating the corruption of the social order

through a fortification ideology while at the same time pro-ducing loyal servants for that corrupt order.

Nonetheless, Hunter has cleared the way for Christians wholove the world to begin building new ways of showing thatlove to the world. We must stop trying to find a lever longenough to move the world. We are always already withinthe culture, and there is no Archimedean point from whichwe can manipulate it. But if we abandon hope of changingthe world and instead organize with one another to use ourcultural power to love our neighbors, God may invisibly andsupernaturally use our faithful service to change the world.

David Wells has stressed that the church today tends to

emphasize Gods love at the expense of a traumatic encoun-ter with Gods holiness. Tis is true, and a major problem.But Christian intellectual leaders who emphasize the defi-ciencies of the modern social orderAlasdair MacIntyre,Stanley Hauerwas, Wendell Berrygenerally have theopposite problem. Te whole current in which they swim isdeeply tainted with bitter resentment, not love, for the world.

Of course the world is corrupt and falling apart. Tegospel calls us to love it and serve it anyway. We must havewhat om Nelson calls hopeful realismneither closing oureyes to the worlds evil nor forgetting that a higher power,one our eyes cant see, is already at work, all around us andalso within us.

We can and must love the world with a holy love and

convict the world with a loving holiness. But this can only be


53/105


done by those who really possess Gods holy love. Te proud,

the dishonest, the manipulative, and the treacherous cannotimprove culture. We must act with deep humility, transpar-ency, and meekness if we expect the world around us to actu-ally believe we have something it doesnt have, and needs.

We must become the humblest and lowliest people,abandoning pride and power, to improve culture. Tat is notsomething Hunter can do. Neither can you or I. No merelyhuman power can do it. We must be supernaturally trans-formed by the Spirit of Christ through the gospel.

It is only natural for the church to hope that at this crisismoment, a savior would appear and teach us what to do. Tisis the great man theory of history Hunter deconstructs so

ably in the first section of o Change the World.We will onlyknow we have really have learned something from Hunterwhen we stop either expecting him to give us all the answersor blaming him for not having done so.

Hunter has awoken us from our dogmatic slumbers.Building the future is our job.



54/105


55/105

FAITHFUL PRESENCE:

A THEOLOGY FOR

THE TRENCHES?

DANIEL STRANGE

this forum of essays demonstratesthe significance of o Change the World. Even though I teachwithin a British context, there are many profound and helpfulaspects to Hunters analysis, particularly his theses in Essay I

regarding the dynamics of cultural change. In the last fiveyears, I have been thinking through how this analysis mightapply to cultural change in Britain not only at the macro lev-el, but also at the micro level. What does it mean for culturalchange within my particular conservative evangelical constit-uency? What is the symbolic capital and status of my ownseminary within the culture as well as of my constituency, in


56/105


which there are all kinds of peculiarly British subterranean

sociological complexities (such as class) in play?However, for all the many light going on, pennydropping, and Ah yes! moments scattered throughout, myoverall feelings as I finished the book were of being under-whelmed and frustrated at an unsatisfying anti-climax. Tebook has been a set text in my public theology module, andsubsequent readings have only confirmed this take. In fact,a more intense No! has emerged in the process. Of course,one mark of a classic text is not only to inform and educatebut also to test and provoke, and o Change the Worldhas cer-tainly provoked me.

Much of my disquiet revolves around the concept offaithful presence. In one sense, all of us want to lay claimto being faithfully present. None of us wants to be eitherunfaithful or absent, and after Hunters description

(sometimes I think a little crude in the sketching) the alter-native models dont look like attractive propositions.

Te problem is when Hunter begins to unpack whatfaithful presence means. Some critiques I have encoun-tered focus on the fact that apart from his few intentionallylocalized vignettes, the concept is all quite nebulousas weBrits say, airy-fairy. In other words, Hunter needs to fill out

the model. Te focus of my critique, though, is that I thinkHunter does fill out the model, and the lack is the fillingitself. Both theologically and contextually, the model is toopassive and concessionary. I even sensed a slight undertone ofresignation in the sense that were about to run out of ideas.I contend that faithful presence, as Hunter conceives it, lacksthe punch, drive, and vision needed to be in the world but

not of the world in . Let me unpack this argument a little


57/105

FAITHFUL PRESENCE: A THEOLOGY FOR THE TRENCHES? 49

more, recognizing that my few words are going to be a some-

what blunt instrument against Hunters scalpel-like eruditionand nuance.

Since the publication of Hunters book, and maybe part-ly because of it, there has been a flood of material on therelationship between Christianity and culture with modelsand typologies abounding. Within the Reformed evangelicalcamp in which I operate, the choice between a more twokingdoms model as against a more one kingdom (a.k.a.transformationist) model has produced some heat, but alsosome light in that these mutually exclusive modelshelpfullypresent clearly different theological decisions and visions.Ive thrown my own hat into the ring.Where is Hunter to

be placed? Although there are aspects of Hunters expositionthat two-kingdom proponents can applaud, his terminolo-gy and tone do not situate him comfortably in this model.So can Hunters faithful presence be in the one-kingdom/transformationist camp? Conceptually this is a better fit, andthere is promising material on whole-life discipleship andformation, on affirmation and antithesis, on church as polis

and altera civitas and on a new city commons. However, tomy mind this promise remains pregnant and doesnt deliver.With an overall conclusion of possibly, just possibly we can

Contra imothy Keller in Center Church(Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

), ch. .

Daniel Strange, Not Ashamed! Te Sufficiency of Scripture for Public

Teology in Temelios/ (Aug. ), .


58/105


help to make the world a little bit better,this is a low-calo-

rie diet and decaffeinated transformationism. And that is myproblem: its simply too soft and needs significant strength-ening at key doctrinal points.

Lets compare Hunters faithful presence with a versionof faithful presence that might be called, in Hunters words,an old Calvinist formulation.

In terms of creation, Hunter begins the book by speakingabout the creation mandate in contradistinction to a lifeboattheology.Correct. But this cultural mandate is preciselythat, a mandate for Gods image bearers to fill, subdueand have dominion (Gen. :; cf. Ps. :) over the restof creation, and to work (in the sense of cultivate) andtake care of (in the sense of not exploit) the environmentaround them (Gen. :). Culture is a calling, and faithfulpresence recognizes this responsibility. Human beings have a

delegated kingly authority and vice regency to rule over cre-ation, but crucially this authority is under Gods norms andwith a telos: for Gods glory. Hunter may not like the worddominion, but its in the text and associated with a form ofpower and authority that should lead to human and creation-al flourishing. Of course the concept can be misunderstoodand abused. It can become triumphalistic. But potential

abuses do not make the mandate itself invalid.In terms of de-creation, Hunter speaks about the antithe-

sis and the parodic nature of idolatrous culture.However, I

Hunter, o Change the World,.





59/105


dont think he is stark enough in his exposition of the term.

God does providentially restrain sin and enable a certaincivil goodness. Yet Gods first movement post-fall is toplace enmity between the seed of Satan and the seed of thewoman, between death and life, darkness and light, beingin Adam and being in Christ. Tose rooted and build up inChrist are distinct from those captive to hollow and de-ceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition andthe elemental spiritual forces, and not according to Christ(Col. :). In Adam we have lost true dominion. As such,making a home for ourselves after the fall cannot properly becalled culture, because the norms and goals are so radicallydifferent from those established in the original creation. Inother words, however appropriate the language of affirma-tion, flourishing, and shalom, equally appropriate to faithfulpresence is the language of confrontation, fight, battle, and

yeswarfare. Faithful presence can and must incorporategentleness and respect together with deep distress atidolatry and the use of genres like the satirical (cf. Isa. )to deal with and demolish idolatry.

In terms of re-creation, we proclaim the preeminent lord-ship of Jesus Christ over the cosmos and in contrast to anyvision of Christ that either dilutes or delimits his lordship. A

few points follow.First, I want question the appropriateness of incarna-

tion as the theological justification for faithful presence. AsMichael Horton rightly notes:

Jesus is a Savior, not a symbol. His incarnation is uniqueand unrepeatable. It cannot be extended, augmented,

furthered, or realized by us. . . . [Jesus] did not come to


60/105


show us how to incarnate ourselves, but to be our incar-

nate Redeemer. . . . But nowhere, not even in Philippi-ans , are we told to imitate, repeat, or extend Christsincarnation.

A better imitation concept is expressed in the New es-tament in terms of union with Christ (being the body inrelation to him as our head). As those united to Christ(body to head) we inherit his story of relating to culture. Asthe recapitulating second Adam, Jesus Christ is the man ofculturepar excellence, anointed by the Spirit, demonstratinghis perfect dominion over creation (being the fulfillment ofPsalm in Hebrews :). His death deals with divine wrathand curse, his resurrection is the firstfruits of the new cre-ation. Christians are anointed by the Holy Spirit and, in theiradoption as sons, are restored to take up the cultural mandate

originally given to Adam. Our good works that cover everyaspect of our individual, social, and political lives, while neverredeeming, are part of the redemptive kingdom. As done inChrist and by the Spirit, they are Gods way of extending thekingdom in the present. As faithfully present ambassadors ofChrist we actively proclaim his lordship, taking every thoughtcaptive for him in anticipatory foretaste of the final consum-

mation.Second, culture is religion externalized.rue and

lasting cultural change can only come through conversion

Michael Horton, Does Anybody Really Know What ime It Is?

Modern Reformation/ (), .

Henry R. Van il, Te Calvinistic Concept of Culture (Grand Rapids:

Baker, ), .


61/105


where worldview root produces worldview fruit; in other

words, where Christs disciples apply his lordship to all areasof life, including institutional change. As already noted,proclamation of the evangelremains ultimate and urgent.And the exhortation to turn in repentance and faith to JesusChrist means the reemphasized solas of the Reformation, nottheir functional irrelevance.Faithful presence means botha bottom-up and top-down strategy that is cognizant of thedynamics of cultural change, so helpfully described by Hunt-er. But as I have stressed before, our public theology is publicapologetics is public evangelism.

Tird, faithful presence means related but differentcallings for the gathered church and its spiritual leadership,as distinct to Christians in the world. Tis distinction, andto an extent its protection of the former, does not diminishthe cultural task but enables its flourishing. In the words

of Klaas Schilder, the church should not be even in thesmallest direct center of culture, but she mustbe the greatestindirect culturalforce.As I state in a forthcoming article,and where once again Im happy to use militaristic language,on behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ, Christians are engaged ina battle with the world. Te gathered church is the heavenly,anticipatory, eschatological army tent of the Lord. Pastors are

field medics, strengthening the troops, treating their wounds


Klaas Schilder, Christ and Culture(Winnipeg: Premier Printing, ).

Available at http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/cc/christ_and_culture.

pdf, .


62/105


after battle, feeding them with Gods Word and sending

them back out to take every thought captive for Christ.

Fourth, proclaiming the preeminent lordship of JesusChrist means a faithful presence that cannot accept as itstelosthe principled or chartered pluralism that Hunteradvocates in his new city commons. Tis side of Christsreturn, the highest ideals and practices of human flourishing,including non-Christian flourishing, are only going to berealized (imperfectly of course) in a culture that has acceptedChrists lordship and submitted to his rule. Whatever oureschatology, faithful presence commits us to this telos: forChrists sake and for his glory, to change the world.

Hunters book focuses on the contemporary American con-

text in . Te British context was ve

revisiting 'faithful presence

Documents