To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World, by James Davison Hunter

The first 2/3 of this book are mostly helpful. The last third is a mixed bag. James Hunter sets out to correct common evangelical approaches to culture, and to offer his own. His theses are as follows: (1) Culture change starts with the elites, not with the grassroots, therefore mere individual evangelism does not result in changing culture. This point has a lot of merit. (2) Changing culture has to do with theories of power. Hunter is very much against anything “Constantinian”, any goals of conquest and domination. He loves the “exiles” paradigm, except when it comes to cases of biblical exile where a pagan ruler is rebuked by prophets or where a they are brought to acknowledge the lordship of the true God. (3) Modern Christians conceive of power as too exclusively/focused on the political. Politicizing everything. “To pass a law is to change culture.” Again, this is a rebuke that needs to be heard. Hunter is at his best in the first parts of the book where he analyzes existing approaches.

“When people participate in common grace operations, they are not, strictly speaking, building the kingdom of God. This side of heaven culture cannot be the kingdom of God.”

Hunter seeks to find a middle ground between neo-anabaptism and superficial dominionism. “Engaging the world means both affirmation and antithesis. Affirmation should be the starting point because God affirmed the good things in the world at creation.(…) [Yet] the world of common grace is not neutral. It is God’s world after all.”

Hunter’s proposal is to abandon talk of “redeeming/reclaiming/transforming the culture,” because “it carries too much weight.” That’s fine as far as it goes. He proposes instead that Christians and churches purse a paradigm of “faithful witness.” Again, fine as far as it goes. But what’s the plan for when that witness grows and gets a hearing? An aspect he should have talked about, and never did, is whether Christians are promised lasting cultural impact in their labors and witness. Perhaps they are not, then faithful witness is a good ad biblical goal. But are they promised failure in that faithful witness? Perhaps failure is not guaranteed either. He emphatically says that common evangelical approaches do not work, but he’s certain that if people follow his path to Christian engagement it “will inevitably permeate elite networks.” Really? Inevitably?

Some of Hunter’s failures come from his deep, unspoken, and unexamined commitment to American pluralism. “Christians should not pursue Christian culture and government.” ““America was never a Christian nation, the West was never a Christian civilization.” On that last point, Hunter contradicts himself. He’s confident we live in a “post-Christian” culture, but how can that be if it was never Christian to begin with?