One of the more interesting books published this year was James Davison Hunter’s To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010–not just because of his analysis and prescription for Christian action toward culture change, which are significant but flawed, but also because of the reaction it has caused in the evangelical Christian community.
For the reader’s benefit, I list here the most significant reactions so far: Andy Crouch’s initial review in Books and Culture, Christopher Benson’s post-publication interview with Hunter in Christianity Today, and, in the same journal, Crouch’s response to Hunter’s specific criticisms, Charles Colson’s response to Hunter’s larger argument, and, finally, also in CT, Hunter’s later response to Crouch and Colson.
In my opinion, Colson in his brash way, and Crouch, in his gentler, kinder way, get the best of the exchange, while admitting Hunter’s sociological point: that when it comes to making an impact on culture, Christians need to pay attention to institutions (Crouch agreeing, in principle, Colson in actual practice).
Basically, while appreciating Hunter’s work, both Crouch and Colson try to correct Hunter’s either-or style of thinking about cultural change, agree with his critique of American individualism, and raise legitimate questions about Hunter’s drift toward sectarianism in the latter part of his book.
So in this case, the practitioners turned out to be more profound than the professor theologically, although both could profit from his sociological analysis of culture change, within limits.
In the first part of the book, Hunter criticizes evangelicals for the individualism, idealism, and ineffectiveness in the task of cultural creation. He points out that evangelicals number in the multi-millions in the USA, but are ineffectual in their impact on the larger culture–in contrast, say, to the Jewish and gay/lesbian communities.
So, one might conclude, study how the Jewish and gay/lesbian communities influence the larger culture–and go thou and do likewise.
But Hunter has more on his mind than simple sociological description. He has a bone to pick most of the Christians involved in social action in the USA. They may be divided into “Defensive Against” (Christian Right), “Relevance To” (Christian Left), and “Purity From” (Neo-Anabaptists) parties, they are driven by ressentiment, and they are all after political power understood as the ability to command the coercive might of the state against their presumed enemies.
Here, again, Hunter’s “either-or” style of analysis, and perhaps his desire to isolate a space for his preferred style of “faithful presence,” betrays him. Although the parties he discusses in this section differ in their various emphases, especially in their reactions to the issue of poverty and to the exercise of violence, all of them have positive as well as negative emphases, and each has a vision of purity. James Dobson, Jim Wallis, and Shane Clairborne are all more complex than Hunter’s caricature suggests. I suggest rather that people focus on the genuine differences between these various parties, take seriously their critique of each other, and decide on the Biblical merits of the case.
My main objection to Hunter’s analysis, however, is his truncated view of the political as the realm of legitimate coercion, a view he shares with many other sociologists, and his related view of power as domination.
A favorite theologian of mine defines the political as the constitutive function of a history bearing group, and in this understanding, there may be coercive aspects, but there are many positive aspects as well, including the “vocational identity” of the group. And he defines “power” as the capacity to stand out of non-being. Typically, there may be aspects of domination involved in the capacity of a finite creature to endure and to flourish as a human being, but there are many other capacities as well, including the capacity for language and technology, both of which help the finite creature to be what it can be. Finite, human power, is limited, but God’s power is unlimited.
Or, if one doesn’t like the Platonic style of assimilation, there is the sophistic style of differentiation, and here the political philosopher Hannah Arendt sheds light on the matter.
“Politics,” she asserts, is the capacity of humans to get together and, beyond the necessities of labor and work, to act in concert, and what springs up between persons in this kind of community is “power.” Far from being a realm of coercion, politics as she understands it can only arise when coercion isn’t present. And power is not the legitimate use of violence; rather, it is the utter opposite of violence, even though it is often found together in the same community. Power, she asserts, is its own end, while violence, which typically requires instruments, can never be the end of anything.
The understanding of such basic concepts as “politics” and “power” is proven by their capacity to help us understand otherwise misunderstood phenomena of our our contemporary lives–such as the “power” generated by such movements as Gandhi’s movement in India against the British, or the movement against the Shah in Iran, or the East German uprising against the Communist state toward the end of the Soviet era. In each case, movements of great power were created, without access to the far superior means of violence wielded by the British, the Shah, and the East German Communist state.
And, in the realm of religion, both the theologian and the political philosopher do a better job of understanding the power of the early church, developed entirely apart from any control over the means of violence, and strictly in response to the predicted penetration of the Holy Spirit into the lives of the members of the early church. “And ye shall receive power, after the Holy Spirit has come upon you…” Acts 1:8.
Nevertheless, as Hunter makes his transition beyond sociology into theology, he takes up some important issues. If the inadequacies of his point of view drive us to a deeper understanding of things than his “radical orthodox” community, then his book will have done us all a good service, and it can be affirmed.
